Talk:Flyboys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Random bits

Can we at least get a "were you looking for Flyboys: A True Story of Courage" or whatever that thing is link? I don't know how to do it, and if you don't have the capitalization exactly correct, it doesn't work. Psycho Medic 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! =D Jumping cheese Contact 06:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Why the hell do they have some Black guy in this movie?? Its revisionist I tell you, and really when you get down to it, I think most Blacks resent being just token people in films surrounded by white people and that white people fell its revisionist and a waste anyway. So why oh why do they put a Black guy in this movie??????? -That's because it is based on "historical" fact. It is best to consider some basic research before jumping to such conclusions.


Did you read the linked entry for the Lafayette Escadrille, the air group featured in the movie? "It can also be noted that the world's first black military aviator, Eugene Bullard, flew with the Lafayette Flying Corps." I obviously haven't seen the film, so who knows what sort of role he plays, but his presence is not revisionist. Protoclown11 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


It's not revisionist in the sense that the Lafayette Flying Corps (though not the Lafayette Escadrille) had a black pilot. The character in the film has the last name of Skinner, so it's obviously just historical fiction. That's not a major fault in the film. There are, however, lots of things to fault the film over. For one thing, it seems to be set in some nebulous time in early to mid 1916, yet they mention "Sopwiths" (presumably a camel, though they are coy about that) and "S.E.5a's". The S.E.5a and the Sopwith Camel were both introduced in June of 1917.

The thing is that typically German aircraft were quite colourful compared to the Allies anyway. For instance, the colourful splinter camouflage shown on the Gotha bomber was common, especially among Albatross Staffels. Even Richtofen's flying circus had colourful aircraft, though not all of them were red. Either Goerings or Lothar Von Richtofen flew an aircraft that was partially red, either the fueselage or wings, but the other parts were a different colour. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'Sopwith's' referred to could be intrepreted as Sopwith Strutter 2-seaters, or even the Sopwith Pup; both of which were around at roughly the time the film is set (unlike the Fokker Triplanes which inevitably Hollywood uses as the main German fighter advisary!) Harryurz 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


This is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. There are a number of historical gaffs, though as a film it suffers from being cliche and not spending enough time on the aerial sequences. The Skinner/Bullard character is one of the few things I didn't mind about the film. Agoodall 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


I remember reading somewhere that the filmmakers were aware that the Fokker Triplane was out of its correct timeframe, but wanted audiences to be able to instantly distinguish between French and German aircraft. Again, painting them red wasn't historically accurate, but is one of those cases where "Real Life is unrealistic" because people are so used to seeing red triplanes in the movies that they think all of them were red. If anyone can find some source for that (interviews/commentary on the DVD?) that's suitable for the Wiki, it might be worth adding.Brickie (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten Tomatoes rating

I added the rating from the Rotten Tomatoes web site to the Reaction section. The only reaction, so far, was a positive one. Rotten Tomatoes has a wider range of opinions. Agoodall 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This page is for discussion about the actual article, not the topic (see What is a talk page used for?). Colonel Marksman 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Most of the discussion appears to be about the article. Unspecific complaints aren't too helpful either. --Fandyllic 2:18 PM PDT 29 Sep 2006

[edit] Other WW I flying films

Just love this one: "However, Flyboys is the first movie to fully explore the nature of World War I aerial combat." Apparently, this writer has never heard of Wings (film), which in addtion to being about this period also happens to be the first winner for the Academy Award for Best Picture ever. Ah, youth.... Perhaps someone can come up with a complete list of WW I flying movies. RoyBatty42 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

There's also the famous WW1 movie BLUEMAX , a great movie made in the sixties , staring George Peppard

Or, Howard Hughes' Hells Angels. In fact, some of the trailer reminded me of colorized versions of parts of Hells Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.94.206 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hell's Angels, good comparison. If you're interested in (some of) the back story on that movie see Scorsese's The Aviator. The most expensive ever made at the time, costing approximately USD$5,000,000, at least $500 million in 2008 dollars.
As for RoyBatty42's suggestiong of a list of WWI flying movies, an effort should be made to include German and French movies as well as English and American.
PainMan (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention Aces High (film) Douglasnicol (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeppelin

Is the burning of the Zeppelin realistic? Was there a man operating a gun on top of bombing Zeppelins? --84.20.17.84 11:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes to the first part. No to the second. No Zeppelins mounted machine guns on the top.Nf utvol 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Er... see this page Zeppelin L30. Specifically the first photo and the last photo - sure looks like a whole bunch of machine guns to me. Dr Faustus AU 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Excellent find, Dr. Faustus. I assume you speak German? Know of any equivalent site(s) in English? There's always Alta Vista or Google's translation pages, but we all know what a stop-gap they are for large passages or entire pages.
PainMan (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EDITED: Filming Errors

I've corrected several things in the article and fixed several spelling errors. I've also removed a sentence which was more towards hostility towards the film, violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I've also included several points made by Tony Bill and Phil Sears in the two-disk edition that were not mentioned in the original article.

VonV (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed two sections

I removed two sections that seemed to me to be editor speculation. Absent confirmation by the filmmakers, I don't see either of these can remain in the article.

(although it is possible this scene was meant to demonstrate the large amounts of inaccurate "scuttlebutt" that was passed along during the war)

and

However, the film might have used it to demonstrate the style of transport ships during the war.

The first statement also seems rather cliched. All wars (even today, with the 'Net and the 24 hour news cycle, some would argue that the latter have made rumor-mongering even worse ) are rife with rumor; particularly in the Great War and WWII, disinformation and/or propaganda helped to contribute to the constant buzz of inaccuracy swirling amongst servicemembers. PainMan (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)