For Any IL2 pilots

[EAGLE_01]

In case you have never seen this, check out this man's video.

Absolute work of Art!!:rock: http://www.gamerztheatre.com/content/view/165/82/

His Site is here http://www.aqqm31.dsl.pipex.com/my%20site/page%202%20started%20again.htm
Sign his Guestbook. Let him know what you think!

[EAGLE_01]

Sorry for posting this in the wrong thread....:oops:

[HunterICX]

:up: this is really a piece of art
nice find!

I liked the voice acting a lot it really makes it look like a WW2 movie

[Dowly]

I must be the only one in the world who doesnt really like the vid. I mean, it's VERY well done, but somehow I dont like how the opening attack at the B-17s and the rest of the movie seems like two different vids, not a one solid story. :roll:

[Rilder]

:o That was the best 300 MB I have ever downloaded.

[Chock]

I must be the only one in the world who doesnt really like the vid. I mean, it's VERY well done, but somehow I dont like how the opening attack at the B-17s and the rest of the movie seems like two different vids, not a one solid story.

You are not alone in not liking this video, I thought it was appallingly bad, not well done at all. However I didn't want to post that on the site where it was hosted, as it would merely have rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way with a first post on that site!

In the first place, there are a huge amount of factual errors in the piece and as if that isn't bad enough, the film has a long list of people who apparently 'researched' it in the end credits. I found myself wondering what they had actually 'researched'.

Simple things like the B-17 gunners not wearing gloves while at 25,000 feet, yet still able to fire their guns crop up, with gunners apparently immune to frostbite (guns which also appeared to have endless ammunition too as did the Focke-Wulf 190 in this movie it seems). The standard load for a B-17 gunner was 500 rounds, which a bit of genuine research would have told them. Other more fundamental errors include the aircraft being shown on the bomb run with the bomb doors still closed, knowledge of which requires no research at all, just common sense. Less obvious continuity errors litter the film too, for example, bombers showing contrails (even mentioned in the narration) but many fighters apparently being able to fly at such heights without leaving a contrail at all.

The list of cock ups goes on. My favourite mistake being the end shot of the aircraft parked up at Manston (where the aircraft in the real event returned to) with a mountain in the background! Must remember to visit the mountains of Manston next time I am there. But seriously, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of air combat in WW2 will know that Manston was the airfield attacked most often by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and this is because Eprobungsgruppe 210, who were usually responsible for the attacks, were specialists in precision low level attacks, which is hardly something that happens on an airfield with mountains alongside them. Again, lazy research.

Then we have what is laughably described in the titles as 'Voice Talent', I'm sorry, but the voice actors do not manage to convey any of the excitement or danger of aerial combat in their radio calls at all, in fact they sound entirely bored with the affair. You do not have to be Laurence Olivier to be able to shout a radio call excitedly. As if this isn't bad enough, the same radio call sound files are used repeatedly, for which there is just no excuse, it smacks of laziness and a lack of commitment to the project.

What really makes the film poor though, is the fact that the editing is dry, and it seems that the film maker is relying too much on the 'prettiness' of the graphics and not enough on pace and direction, something which also juxtaposes the theme of the film anyway. The most obvious flaw in the 'prettiness' trap fallen into by the film-maker is that the entire mission (in reality having a duration of several hours) evidently takes place during the world's longest sunset, something 'daylight' bombing B-17s would have studiously avoided.

Those familiar with film-making (and this is apparently one of many films by the same guy) ought to know some simple rules for it, yet this film ignores all the basic principles of action directing: the four-second sequence rule, cutting on the beat, cutting on movement, starting with establishing shots, not crossing the camera line etc, etc - the film-maker disregards (or is unaware of) all of these. Since most of this can be learned by simply studying a few action movies, again there is no excuse for not knowing about -and using - these tried and tested basic film-making techniques.

What is worse however, is that some of this poor film-making results in a muddled storyline, notably with the tale of Flak Dancer - seemingly added as a confused afterthought. This is particularly ironic since Flak Dancer was one of the most famous B-17s in history (note that the film also portrays the wrong version of B-17 too). Flak Dancer was not 'lost' as the film portrays, the aircraft was skillfully force-landed at Laon airfield in France by its pilot Lt Dalton Wheat, where it was subsequently repaired by the Germans and transferred to the famous Luftwaffe evaluation squadron, KG200. Wearing the code A3+CE, the former Flak Dancer was used extensively by the Luftwaffe, including on some combat missions. Again, some simple research would have revealed this to the film-makers.

Finally, the piece is way too long and repeats itself unecessarily, which is a cardinal film-making sin (particularly on the internet, where downloading is often a necessity).

I was surprised how many people were impressed by this movie, and like the pilot of the FW190 portrayed in the film, I suspect that they really ought to aim a little higher. I'm sure many people will disagree with me, and if they like the film, fair enough, but I didn't rate it myself.

:D Chock
ai

[Dowly]

What are you trying to say, Chock. :hmm::p

[Rilder]

I just liked the film. :p

[HunterICX]

@Chock: Its a bloody movie not a historical accurate Documentary :rotfl:

:lol:

[Chock]

@Chock: Its a bloody movie not a historical accurate Documentary :rotfl:

I'm aware of that, but in the other thread where a link was posted to this, and on the host site, it was stated that this movie was 'Historically accurate down to the landing', which it aint. Furthermore, the movie starts with an introduction which trades on the fact that it contains narration from one of the people originally involved as a pointer to its authenticity, then it deviates massively from known facts about events on that day. In my opinion this does the original guys whose story this is, a disservice.

But, even if you disregard all that and view it as purely a movie, my point is that while it looks pretty in places, as a movie intended to unfold a story, and from purely the standpoint of the craft of making movies, it is not very well put together at all. As I said, many will disagree with me and that's their choice, but since it's posted on a forum, I just threw in my two cent's worth, ignore me if you like.

If you want to see a good movie, check this one out and compare it, this one truly is worthy of praise, and this guy really does know what he is doing when it comes to making movies: http://www.gamerztheatre.com/content/view/386/82/

I defy anyone not to be impressed with that one!

:D Chock

[AFRIKAKORPS]

I think part of the problem is that the interior shots of the B-17 was all from Call of Duty: United Offensive which could possibly explain the lack of detail with the gunners and such.

[Oberon]

Nice movie Chock, gotta admit I did prefer it over the first link, although I would imagine the F-15 would have been nailed by some of those close range AAM explosions, the shrapnel surely would have done some damage to the fuselage...but that's probably hard to do in FS2004....oh, and I wouldn't want to be the pilots, ejecting only to land on the outskirts of that fireball....ouch.

But for entertainment and wow factor, that was one awesome vid!! :up:

One of my favourite airsim directors is Glowing_AMRAAM, if you haven't heard of him, then you should immediately educate yourself with the following links, if you have heard of him, then click on them anyway, they never grow old :D

http://www.gamerztheatre.com/content/view/187/193/ (http://www.gamerztheatre.com/content/view/187/193/)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSkzo6GejGY (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSkzo6GejGY)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SsXfo-QCHWY&mode=related&search (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SsXfo-QCHWY&mode=related&search)=

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tO8y3ekpb8I&mode=related&search (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tO8y3ekpb8I&mode=related&search)=

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMcpOtxeyNg&mode=related&search (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMcpOtxeyNg&mode=related&search)=

[Chock]

True, but what was stopping them from using shots from this sim for example (in which, incidentally, the gunners wear gloves!):

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/trojbergtakesahit.jpg

I know that there are limitations in making 'Machinima' movies, as it's an interest of mine, so I don't want to come over as someone who will blindly slate anyone's efforts. But on a site largely dedicated to this burgeoning genre (which the software development companies have been incredibly slow to pick up on incidentally), I just thought it was not a particularly good example. See the link I posted in a previous reply for an example of machinima which is truly something to aspire to.

:D Chock

[AFRIKAKORPS]

Ramasurinen is also a favorite of mine, he has only made three videos so far but they are all excellent. They aren't combat related and are made in Flight Simulator X but are still great nonetheless(with some good music too).

Vantage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNTwCoSqsTA

Lament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTkfxadjdfU&mode=user&search=

Lucid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyekgxOYL9c&mode=user&search=

[Ilpalazzo]

I got linked to this and I agree with Chock. This movie sucks ass in so many ways. I wouldn't even know where to begin so I will leave it at that.

If you want to see a good movie, check this one out and compare it, this one truly is worthy of praise, and this guy really does know what he is doing when it comes to making movies: http://www.gamerztheatre.com/content/view/386/82/

At times it was annoying. I thought to myself, "this is like watching an Aphex Twin song." I laughed pretty hard when I saw the credits. It was an Aphex Twin song lol. Never heard that one, but when I realized that I began to appreciate the annoying fluctuations in the video more. So yeah, awesome work by whoever.

[joea]

The list of cock ups goes on. My favourite mistake being the end shot of the aircraft parked up at Manston (where the aircraft in the real event returned to) with a mountain in the background! Must remember to visit the mountains of Manston next time I am there. But seriously, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of air combat in WW2 will know that Manston was the airfield attacked most often by the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and this is because Eprobungsgruppe 210, who were usually responsible for the attacks, were specialists in precision low level attacks, which is hardly something that happens on an airfield with mountains alongside them. Again, lazy research.


ai
Well many disagree with you, I guess we don't know squat. :shifty: Anyway, you do know Il-2 doesn't have any part of the UK modelled so mission makers have to fake it...though I admit he did have choices in maps without mountains.

[HunterICX]

also the fact that the B17 crew in the movie didnt wear gloves
is that it isnt a B17 interior but a B25 ;) my guess its from CFS3
I cant confirm this as I havent flew in CFS3 for a long time but the squirky Machine gun sounds from the Gunners positions gave it away

[Dowly]

also the fact that the B17 crew in the movie didnt wear gloves
is that it isnt a B17 interior but a B25 ;) my guess its from CFS3
I cant confirm this as I havent flew in CFS3 for a long time but the squirky Machine gun sounds from the Gunners positions gave it away

Nope, it's a B17 alright! From Call of Duty: United Offensive. ;) I think the sounds have been added in post-processing. :up:

[Safe-Keeper]

From what I've seen of pictures from real B-17 bombers, they actually largely got the interior right in United Offensive, did they not?

At times it was annoying. I thought to myself, "this is like watching an Aphex Twin song." I laughed pretty hard when I saw the credits. It was an Aphex Twin song lol.:rotfl:

[HunterICX]

also the fact that the B17 crew in the movie didnt wear gloves
is that it isnt a B17 interior but a B25 ;) my guess its from CFS3
I cant confirm this as I havent flew in CFS3 for a long time but the squirky Machine gun sounds from the Gunners positions gave it away

Nope, it's a B17 alright! From Call of Duty: United Offensive. ;) I think the sounds have been added in post-processing. :up:


Wait...wait...*flashback*

:damn: I had to knew that!!! :damn: it was my favority Mission in COD!:dead: :p

[Safe-Keeper]

Just watched part of the movie and yes, I have to agree with Chock. I did not find the camera that bad, but the voice acting and machine-gun sounds were just terrible. The machine gun sound effects were not synchronized with the firing of the machine guns, and the people talking were utterly unenthusiastic. It was litterally like watching the replay of an FPS with VOIP chatter between players. Maybe the developers though bomber gunners really were this calm after long experience with battle, but I sincerely doubt they really were. Also, after Faith, Hope and Charity, I really thing movie-makers, me included, should work more on bringing different character traits into the movie.

Those familiar with film-making (and this is apparently one of many films by the same guy) ought to know some simple rules for it, yet this film ignores all the basic principles of action directing: the four-second sequence rule, cutting on the beat, cutting on movement, starting with establishing shots, not crossing the camera line etc, etc - the film-maker disregards (or is unaware of) all of these. Since most of this can be learned by simply studying a few action movies, again there is no excuse for not knowing about -and using - these tried and tested basic film-making techniques.I've been making RTS scenarios and movies for a long time, and I've got zero clue as to what you're talking about. Most of us, I imagine, are self-thought from scratch, sans a few tutorials, and use few or none of the techniques used by professionals. The only tools I ever used to make cutscenes and in-game movies in RTS games was a notebook (so that I'd remember what needed changing and adding after test sessions) and a watch (so that I could time things better). While some film-makers, such as the team behind Faith, Hope and Charity, seemed professional, I'd assume most are not. As such, expecting them to know professional terms and techniques is asking too much of them, with all due respect.

I can't speak about the large number of inaccuracies of the movie, and so I'll have to take Chock's word that it takes major liberties. If it does, it clearly clashes with its opening message that it's very accurate.

[Chock]

If anyone is looking for a decent little book that's great for teaching you film techniques, I can certainly recommend this one, which I still occasionally re-read: Directing on Camera, A Checklist of Video & Film Technique, by Harris Watts. (ISBN-0-9507582-2-1)

A little quote on the back cover ought to give you some idea of how good this book is: 'This book should be handed out to all film students and, possibly, to all film directors to keep beside them at all times. It is thorough, concise, well laid out and, surprisingly for a handbook, it's a good read! I wish he had written it when I first started my career' - John Schlesinger. (who of course directed such classics as: Far from the Madding Crowd, Midnight Cowboy, Marathon Man, Yanks, Billy Liar, A Kind of Loving etc etc)

you can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Directing-Camera-Checklist-Video-Technique/dp/0950758221/ref=sr_1_1/104-1822568-3747935?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185314177&sr=8-1


:D Chock

[EAGLE_01]

JEEZ.. I thought it was pretty good. Just thought some other people would like it too. I had no idea Video GAME movies were getting so huge. Maybe there'll be a convention and awards soon? I don't know, I just fly simulators for fun...:roll:

P.S. It was cooler than some of the $#@% I've seen coming from the history channel,
like showing a 190 and calling it a Messerschmit...

[Biggles]

this is a film I like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWBrlHLXTM

I don't think it's intended to tell a true story, but I think it's nicely done.

[AFRIKAKORPS]

JEEZ.. I thought it was pretty good. Just thought some other people would like it too. I had no idea Video GAME movies were getting so huge. Maybe there'll be a convention and awards soon? I don't know, I just fly simulators for fun...:roll:

P.S. It was cooler than some of the $#@% I've seen coming from the history channel,
like showing a 190 and calling it a Messerschmit...

Yeah, I have to admit thats pretty stupid of them. It makes me chringe when they call the FW a Messerschmit, I dont know how they could mix them up.

[EAGLE_01]

Has to be ignorance on the part of the Editors, or the script writers. There is NO resemblence between the two aircraft, and it's been what almost 70 years...it can't be hard to get the designations correct. It's called the HISTORY channel for cryin' loud...and they always want to compare aircraft abilites and why one pilot could do this and that...c'mon..I could do better.:down: Next they'll be calling an RF-8 a Corsair II.:yep: