The website for TV network Reelz reports that George Lucas spent over 2 decades trying to bring the World War II adventure Red Tails to the big screen.
The movie tells the story of the African American pilots of the Tuskegee Airmen training program, who fought for their country over the skies of Europe. And still, over the course of 23 years, Lucas could not find a single one of the Hollywood studios that would be interested in the project. Did the studio gatekeepers deem the material not “marketable” enough? Lucas certainly seems to think the studios saw the African American cast as a liability.
Ultimately, the Wizard of Skywalker Ranch had to put his money where his mouth is, which – of course – he has done before. But even after making the movie with his own cash, he still encountered studio rejection as he sought a studio partner that would help him bring the film to audiences:
I financed the movie myself and went to the studios to distribute it and nobody wanted it…They just didn’t feel there was enough of an audience out there for it… I said “Okay, put in more money and let’s do it ourselves.”
Hopefully the big studios don’t think that depicting African American men fighting against European fascism in World War II simply makes for something incomprehensible.
Red Tails opens January 20. It stars Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard; and was directed by Anthony Hemingway.
UPDATE: This post seems to have aroused some controversy. Some clarification is required: I don’t think Lucas was alluding to racism at the studios. And I’m not either. Seems to me Lucas sincerely believes the studios think investing in a big budget movie with an African American cast is not worth it, because such a movie would be harder for them to market and sell effectively.
The international appeal of a movie like this may actually be very small (which Lucas spells out in his interview with Jon Stewart, linked above). And it’s a fact most studio product today makes most of its money overseas. There are no major stars in it, after all, which makes the marketing and selling that much harder – in any territory.
And when I use the term “not ‘marketable’ enough” – the way I do above – racism certainly has nothing to do with it, either. You need to click the link to find out what I actually mean. It leads to my blog, where I in turn link to an excellent essay I found on GQ almost a year ago. The essay is – in part – about a studio marketing department prejudice that is adversely affecting the quality of studio movies: the belief that you cannot make money on a film unless it’s based on some product or character that is pre-sold (which has led to so many remakes, sequels, and adaptations being released.)
Maybe the movie is just plain awful (a tad too Lucasy, perhaps? He didn’t write it, which is to the project’s overall advantage); and that’s why Lucas was turned down. But when was the last time a studio didn’t greenlight an awful movie? And for those who believe studios passed because the story had already been told in an earlier movie, that’s usually not an issue – not at all – nor indicative of a bad movie, necessarily, either. But that still doesn’t make me think ‘racism’. It makes me think that Hollywood hates war movies, unless the antagonists are American.
Controversy aside, if you’d like to help the National WWII Museum in New Orleans finish its Red Tail project, you can donate here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Related thoughts on Lucas, race, and culture from Ed Driscoll.
It’s already been done once:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/
It was made by HBO, and Cuba Gooding Jr. was in that one, too.
I knew about the HBO flick on the same topic. I vaguely remember it. Never saw it; but I know we covered it at one of my old newsmagazine jobs, back in the 90′s.
On a related note, the fact that a particular topic or storyline has been done before has never stopped Hollywood studios from making their own version. Armageddon/Deep Impact, Volcano/Dante’s Peak, Tombstone/Wyatt Earp, Babe/Gordy, A Bug’s Life/Ants, Happy Feet/Surf’s Up, The Illusionist/The Prestige, and Observe & Report/Paul Blart all opened within months of each other.
Each pair listed above deals with basically the same topic – with each movie in each pair being released by a different studio.
Exactly. When I saw the trailers for this I thought: “Oh, they’re remaking The Tuskegee Airmen“
SDB, are you that Steven Den Beste? Are you again sallying forth into the world of commentary … at least a little? I hope so. I understand and appreciate your reasons for withdrawing, but you have been *sorely* missed.
I thought the Tuskagee Airmen movie was pretty good. Maybe this remake is better, maybe not. For example I thought the original Tora Tora Tora was much better than its remake Pearl Harbor, although neither one did that well at the box office.
Perhaps they saw the prequels. Or Howard the Duck. Or Willow. Or The Radioland Murders.
Let’s face it… would you invest money in a George Lucas project that didn’t have ‘Star Wars’ in the title?
Yes…if it had “Indiana Jones” in the title:
“The Indiana Jones franchise is an entertainment franchise, based on the historical adventures of Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, a fictional archaeologist. It began in 1981 with the film Raiders of the Lost Ark. A prequel, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, followed in 1984 and the sequel Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in 1989. In 1992, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles began airing on television. A fourth film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, was released in 2008. The series was created by George Lucas; the films star Harrison Ford and were directed by Steven Spielberg.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_(franchise)
One word: B-17′s. The Redtails escorted B-24′s. And look where the god d*mned escorts are: right in among the bombers. And the CGI stinks. I don’t know why Lucas couldn’t get financing, but my impression after watching the trailer was that the movie totally sucks.
It’s not a documentary but a drama. Let’s have no talk of the improper insignia having any effect on 99% of the audience’s enjoyment of the film. They could be flying Hawker Hurricanes with Japanese “Meatball” insignia and few would notice.
B-17vs B-24 is not an issue Of the wrong insignia. They’re entirely different aircraft. Attention to detail is one thing, but that’s just a stupid, glaring error. But then, jar jar binks. . .
The Tuskegee Airman did in fact escort B-17s and so then it comes to well the Red Tails only escorted B-24s and that’s “glaring?” No one in an audience would pick up on that and then it get’s worse with “Oh but the checkerboard tailed fighters only did this and than” and before you know it all the fun is sucked right out of the film because of misplaced pedantry.
It’s not a documentary.
Well said.
For most people the B-17 was THE heavy bomber of WW2. Sure anyone with an historical interest would be aware of the B-24′s, Lancasters, etc. By the same token most people think P-51 when they think of WW2 fighters. Most forget about the Thunderbolt and Lightning. I’m willing to overlook some technical innacurcy if they generally get the period and the story right.
Well… maybe… But, it’s now just as easy to get these things correct. With CGI, no need to dress up AT-6′s as Zeros or M48 Patton’s as Tigers, right?
Chuck has called it right, IMO. Movie goers are knowledgable enough and lord knows that this type of info is readily found on the internet, that it does degrade my interest in the movie.
With that said, I am interested in seeing how they treat combat against the ME-262! How fun!
Well then I must be a 1%er because those are exactly the things I noticed in the trailer. At least Speilberg tries to get it right and the results are entertaining as well.
Man! I saw the clip the other day and thought, “Are those battle scenes supposed to look realistic?” Hollywood’s relying on CGI for way too much, and it’s all rather cartoonish.
You’re partially correct. The Tuskeegee Airmen escorted the 15th Air Force. At the time, the 15th had 21 heavy bombardment groups. Five of those groups flew B-17s and the rest flew B-24s.
http://www.frankambrose.com/pages/groups.html
Apparently you’ve never noticed that CGI always and without exception looks like crap on a videoscreen of any kind…
Did the studio gatekeepers deem the material not “marketable” enough?
Maybe it wasn’t. How many all black movies do you want to see? Movies like this are generally made with the underlying subtext being that whites are oppressors, where all the white cast members are depicted as weak or evil. How does alienating 70% of your audience not translate into the film not being marketable?
The implication of this post is that the gatekeepers are racist, but what you’ve brought forth doesn’t do that. The reality, though is the those gatekeepers are businessmen, unwilling to spend money on a money losing venture. Not wanting to lose money in Hollywood doesn’t make the gatekeepers racist anymore than not wanting to lose money providing mortgages to low income blacks makes the executives at BOA racist.
It’s the weakest kind of race baiting. It’s the type of race baiting the left did to the Tea Party.
How many money losing anti-war movies did Hollywood churn out when Bush was in office? If the movie is indeed a race baiting, all white people are evil PC hatefest, it would fit right in with current Hollywood standards and morals. That’s why I don’t believe Lucas. An all black, anti-military, anti-white movie is exactly the kind of project they’d JUMP at.
“Movies like this are generally made with the underlying subtext being that whites are oppressors, where all the white cast members are depicted as weak or evil.”……”That’s why I don’t believe Lucas. An all black, anti-military, anti-white movie is exactly the kind of project they’d JUMP at.”
What movie are you two talking about? This particular one is about the Tuskegee Airmen escorting bombers during world war II. You know what color the airmen were? Black. You know what the military enviroment was for a black guy in WWII? Not good. You know how many white crewed bombers wanted them to fly cover for them? Not many, until they noticed how successful those fighter pilots were. So if he made a straight historical movie then its going to BY HISTORICAL ACCURACY, fall into your definitions. Which are stupid as it relates to this movie.
That success ratio and “by request” myth is just that, a myth. Look it up before you start repeating myths yourself.
“until they noticed how successful those fighter pilots were”
Actually, they weren’t. The 332nd was pretty much an average Group. Although in a Darwin environmeny of Air to Air combat, it can be argued that average IS successful.
Then again success would be different for a Fighter group With the 8th Air Force, running sweeps and escort, then a 9th Air Force Group doing close support missions.
The 15th Air Force did some of both. Plus the aircraft had a lot to do with it.
Maybe I’m being too critical, but looking at facts and figures the 332 Group was exceptional only in that it was a mostly black unit. That sent the bigots right up the wall.
The 332nd proved that black men had the mental ability to solve complex 4 dimensional problems while involved in strenuous physical activity.
I never claimed they weren’t idiot leftists. The list of failures you point out is indicative of this. What I’m saying is that the argument presented above as evidence of racism is weak.
Racism is not what I mean by non-”marketable”, Ken. And I don’t think Lucas was alluding to racism, either. I in fact meant a movie that studio marketers don’t know how to sell. But I put it in quotes because I think “marketable” in Hollywood has come to mean a sequel or a movie based on some other well-known property. But there’s no way you or anyone else could know that unless you clicked on the relevant link.
Gatekeepers in Hollywood are indeed businessmen, but they used to be businessmen who knew what would make a good movie. Maybe Lucas’s movie sucks, but I am not sure that’s the whole story.
Sorry but George Lucas should realize by now that Hollywood isn’t interested in a reality other than which ever alternate one they can create. I won’t go into a movie house, however, if you’ll tell me where, I’ll send Mr. Lucas’ studio ten bucks to cover my share of viewing and wait til the movie is on TV.
Well, sure… but Hollywood hasn’t been adverse to an all black cast for a long time. “Carmen Jones” appeared back in 1954. Just might be that Lucas’ problem with distribution had more to do with the quality of the film than the cast.
This is the first “Lucas project” I’ve looked forward to in a long time… since when use of The Force became less of a mystical, supernatural act and more the by-product of a symbiotic infestation.
HBO’s Tuskegee Airmen seemed to be well received by TV audiences. I cannot
estimate how well that might suggest Lucas’ movie will do in theaters.
Lucas is likely full of it; if the studios did actually turn him down, it was probably because they saw no need to re-make the Laurence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr. HBO flick “Tuskegee Airmen” from the mid-late 90′s.
Since when has Hollywood been against remakes?
Yeah that. The one thing Hollywood doesn’t seem to be afraid of is doing the same story over and over again. This one has the virtue of having been done only once, and then only on television.
While I liked the HBO movie, the story really deserves the big screen treatment. It has everything; very human sized stories about the battle at home, and big epic battles in the sky. In both cases, the good guys(eventually)win.
Right, that’s probably it. More likely their looking for the next big screen starstky and hutch or brady bunch or dukes of hazard. You know, something original. Not something that’s already been done by HBO 20 years ago. Because Hollywood is nothing if not original.
I saw TinTin last week and of the 30 minutes of movie trailers beforehand this was the only one that looked worthwhile…and it looked very good. I hope it works out as well for George as The Passion worked for Mel.
I am a little confused. All the publicity for Red Tails makes is sound like this is the first movie ever made about the Tuskegee Airman. However, in 1995, the subject was briefly mentioned in a movie called “The Tuskegee Airman”.
So, Lucas had trouble getting funding for a movie that had already been made?
While it’s a good story, it has been told before (including a movie with Cuba Gooding Jr. in it who also stars in this) and it’s from George Lucas. It’s starting to look like the original Star Wars trilogy was blind squirrel produced – everything else he’s had a role in has been just awful.
Trailer looks interesting. The question is, has George Lucas ever learned how to write a decent script yet?
Good news: He didn’t write the script.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485985/fullcredits#writers
Maybe they just thought it had been done: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/.
The producer of the Wanda Sykes show, and a Huffington Post (and Morning Joe contributor)
Since there’s already been a movie about the Tuskegee Airmen (called, not surprisingly, “The Tuskegee Airmen), I would first look to the quality of Spielberg’s script for an explanation.
…Brings up an interesting “Chicken and Egg” question regarding his African American girlfriend, former mutual fund CFO Melody Hobson. I wonder if Lt. Col. Allen West could be CGI’d into a cameo at this late stage.
If The Great Flanneled One can make something out of Red Tails I will forgive him for the prequel trilogy. Sadly I think what bothers institutional Hollywood is not that the heroes are all [insert current PC terminology for black dudes] but that they’re not portrayed as victims in need of white rescuers, which is the reality of the Civil Rights narrative.
On the other hand if Red Tails does well let’s hope that this will spark a new volume of WWII epic stories that are now possible with the CGI technology.
In 1995, HBO broadcast its own movie about the Red Tails, “The Tuskegee Airmen,” starring Laurence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr., John Lithgow, and Malcolm Jamal Warner., making Lucas’ project the second one about the fabled unit that Gooding, Jr. has worked on.
It was a splendid movie that resides in my collection. Regardless of the historic or cinematic merits of Lucas’s movie, the HBO release is a must-see. (My impressions from the previews of “Red Tails” is that it is over-computerized and will be seen to emphasize special effects over story – but with John Ridley as the screenwriter, maybe not.)
Been there…
Done it…
Seen it…
Called “Tuskeegee Airmmen,”
Better name than “Red Tails,”
That sounds like a bad porn movie…
Even had Cuba Gooding in the original…
Just another excuse for Lucas to show off fancy new CGI…
Create a new video game…
Make a few million more…
“When the pilots of the 332nd Fighter Group painted the tails of their P-47′s red, the nickname “Red Tails” was coined.”
Seems a fitting title.
Before “Star Wars”, Lucas did a little flick called “American Graffitti”. I seem to recall that was an “okay” film. Sorta became iconic , if memory serves….
I’m interested in the movie to see if it portrays the Tuskegee trained pilots as the heros that history has shown them to be, sort of like the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.
The National World War Two Museum in New Orleans is just beginning a Red Tail project. We have purchased a P-51 Mustang, and are rehabbing it for display.
Unfortunately, these things cost money. We desperately need people to donate to the museum to bring this project alive.
Well, its nice to see something about blacks dog fighting that doesn’t involve Michael Vic.
Hollywood libs are all racists? Or they don’t think the market for war movies that guilt ridden liberals want to see is going to be a big seller.
Well, hell, maybe Lucas should have juxtaposed a story line between the Red Tails heroics and the banal progressive Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on blacks for the sake of medical science? Think of it as, say, a black version of Forest Gump flying the friendly skies while stabbed in the back on the ground by the men in white. That probably would have sold, no problem, especially in an era when good and bad is so, well defined. Apparently we can shoot the Taliban, just don’t piss on the bodies.
If His Flannelness does a decent job keeping even half of the history right (not thinking so from the trailer), then this could bea decent movie
Cuba Gooding, Jr. was in the ’95 “Tuskeegee Airmen” which seemingly had no trouble being produced for HBO. I liked the movie and like the story.
However I am burnt out by political correctness which way too often now shows us what happened behind the curtains and what was ignored and etc., etc. and on and on and it is also too often based on race. It’s no surprise that American culture now values failure and having some moral sheen to it and considers success as almost evil.
If everyone wants to pretend they would’ve deserted Cortes and gone over to the Aztecs or they would be John Dunbar or that the coolest people are the most ignored well then knock yourself out. Been there, done that and it’s 2012 and enough with the New Jim Crow and acting like they only stopped unloading slave ships in New York yesterday.
And would it kill someone in the black elite and Democratic Party to knock of the nonsense where Confederates fought to preserve slavery but the Yankees didn’t do the opposite? 350,000 dead to successfully end slavery. Try that for a movie. Oh, too up front and center I guess. Noble is as noble does. That’s a lot of noble.
Ted Turner, “Gettysburg.”
And I thought that was a great movie. It’s hard for me to understand the relative dearth of Civil War films from the ’30s to the 50s especially and even beyond considering the war’s importance in our history.
For those that want to keep saying:
“maybe they didn’t do it because it was done before”
You need to find a better excuse then that.
The film you keep pointing to (Tuskegee Airmen) was nothing more then a film made for TV. Far as I know there has never been a Big Screen film on the topic. However lets say you are correct that is the reason Hollywood didn’t do the film. I guess that means there was never a:
Hulk film out in 2008 because there was one in 2003. Actually there couldn’t have been that 2003 film either since CBS had a “Hulk” series on TV in the 70′s. That topic was “already done”
There couldn’t have been a film called “Pearl Harbor” in 2001 since that topic was already covered by a film called “Tora! Tora! Tora!” in 1970.
There couldn’t have been those Spiderman films, those Batman films and many more because those topics were already covered.
Come on people that is all Hollywood has been pushing out for the last decade is remakes of old films and TV shows.
For those that want to keep saying:
“maybe they didn’t do it because it was done before”
Some of use don’t “keep saying it”. The comments were backlogged or a while. Several of those went in before any of them appeared. Can’t blame us of not being able to read each other’s minds.
And while Hollywood DOES do it, that does not mean that they SHOULD! Personally, i am not a fan of reguritating classic movies (the new Sabrina made me ILL), and even then, I am not sure that 15 years is really THAT long ago that some needs to be redone yet.
Yeah, looks like another Pearl Harbor – a movie about a war that somewhat resembles WWII. Too many planes, way too close together. I caught the B-17 gaffe right off as well but had to check to see if the Tuskegee Airmen ever faced 262s, and they did. But will I see it in the theatre? Probably.
Lucas said he’s tried for 23 years to get it made.
That means he started pitching it in 1988/89,a few yrs before the HBO movie.(And how likel;y is it his pitching a feature film yrs before encouraged HBO to do theirs?0
So, when the studios say that there isn’t enough international interest to make Red Tails profitable, are they in essence saying that the glorious “International Community” isn’t interested in black-oriented stories?
No, the “International Community” doesn’t like to be reminded that Americans saved their arrogant European asses twice in the first half of the 20th century.
I hope the film does well. What they did was pretty amazing. Never lost a bomber to enemy arcraft action.
I think the real story is attitude behind what Lucas said about the film in his interview with Jon Stewart.
“[Red Tails] is not “Glory” where you have a lot of white officers running these guys into cannon fodder. It’s like a real, they were real heroes.”
And there you have the political correctness I’m tired of. The real hero was the P-51 and since white guys made it I’m afraid their baleful presence is still to be felt. Probably they flew them in a “jazzy” way though that made all the difference. Like when black folks “invented” jazz with instruments they didn’t invent and couldn’t make, thereby squeezing “soul” out of them while we stood by in dumbfounded amazement.
When you read my sarcasm like that, it shows up Lucas as buying into the fantasy of an apologetic SFiction world he can make some day where there are only black people but with all the things only white people can make, an idea close to Cornel West’s and the black elite’s heart and a perfect example of why liberalism’s view of the world is in fact closer to fiction than reality due to the monstrous politeness that is PC.
“The real hero was the P-51 and since white guys made it I’m afraid their baleful presence is still to be felt. Probably they flew them in a “jazzy” way though that made all the difference.”
Oh, Jesus Christ. Are you remotely aware of the history of this squadron and its success rate compared to other squadrons? Even though others also flew the P-51? And “white guys made it”? Why do you suppose in the 1940′s, white guys made that plane? Well, hell lets extend that stupidity to other movies as well. The men in The Alamo? The Alamo was the real hero. Sgt York? Real hero was the rifle. Superman? Real hero was the costume. Cause in every single example, if you picked someone up on the street and dropped them in The Alamo, or handed them York’s rifle, or dressed them in Superman’s costume, it would be EXACTLY the same outcome.
That is a myth:
TABLE VII: COMPARISON OF FIFTEENTH AIR FORCE P-51 FIGHTER
GROUPS
Fighter Group Predominant race Victories per aircraft lost in combat
31
st White 2.49
52
nd White 2.08
325
th White 2.22
332nd Black 0.66
http://www.tuskegee.edu/sites/www/Uploads/files/About%20US/Airmen/Nine_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf
You know something, if these guys took P-39 Airacobras and went to town you might have a point. This did not happen. People do not fly planes better because they are black; they fly planes better because of superior training, use of tactics, understanding tactical limitations, no grandstanding, etc. It is as stupid to ask men to stand on a pedestal by race as it is to ask them to stand in a ditch.
Racism is a language and a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. That’s why some people here are leery of people being lauded by race. The issue of political correctness fogs the accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen because of the dubious reasons for which it is presented. Political correctness has unfortunately tainted the presentation of films such as “Red Tails” which is why you have sarcastic comments about people flying P-51s with a jazzy and soulful approach. Comments from the black community that too often include the term “my people” or posit nonsense about jazz being a black legacy as if it is handed down by DNA and white racism too actually is a racist argument and not an anti-racist one.
If such arguments have merits then it should be okay to wax poetic about the planes “my people” built and talk about the effortless ingenuity of white people but it’s not okay. That’s okay with me since I don’t think like that but when people come at me with a certain argument that is a double standard I enjoy shoving it right back at them in a return serve for a winner well inside the line. Huzzah?
“The real hero was the P-51″
It must have had a hell of an autopilot
There is also this Red Tail Project by the Commemorative Air Force, with a restored P-51C and a traveling exhibit:
http://www.redtail.org/
The CGI stinks. It’s indistinguishable from what I get with the Jane’s World War II flight simulator on my personal computer at home.
Lucas is making up excuses for failing to sell a lame film.
I saw the preview last weekend on a big-screen pavilion-seating theater, one of the nicest in Houston.
It looked like an excuse for WW2 sfx, but that’s okay with me: The star of the film might end up being the North American P-51 Mustangs flown by the Tuskegee Airmen (although in the previews it looked like they were using the more familiar bubble-canopy P-51D than the P-51Cs which I understand the Tuskegee Airmen actually flew). The Mustang was the premier fighter of the era, and it’s as beautiful an aircraft as has ever flown, so I’d pretty much buy a big-screen ticket for any movie that features it.
As far as the plot, casting, acting — everything BUT the airplanes — the preview suggested something utterly predictable. Again, I can forgive that: The true story of the Tuskegee Airmen is worth multiple tellings.
They almost lost me at the end, though, when they had the P-51s destroying a Nazi Kriegsmarine ship. I walked out of the theater thinking that was completely unrealistic and ahistorical. And I history buff who had this reaction to that scene. Shame on me, however:
“Another unique accomplishment for the [Tuskegee Airmen of the 332nd Fighter Group] occurred in June, 1944, when pilots of the 332nd sank a German destroyer in the Gulf of Venezia. That was the only time during the war when fighters using only machine guns sank a major naval target….”
Bah. That should have read “I was not the only history buff ….” Sorry for the confusion.
Heh. And the 442 regimental combat team captured a mini submarine, or so one of its veterans told me at a Christmas party several years ago.
They did not sink that torpedo boat according to those familiar with mission reports and the other candidate as sunk, the torpedo boat Giuseppi Missori, was heavily damaged but survived and was decommissioned and scuttled months later.
http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/local/military/blog/Ten_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf
First, I’m queasy at the hypocrisy of the creator of JarJar Binks hinting that he finds the rest of Hollywood racist.
Second,although one writer on the script, John Ridley, is talented and gifted, the second writer, Aaron Magruder, writes the racist Boondocks comic and cartoon, which seems to be all about bashing whites and casual misogyny.
That it’s being released in January, not black history month, indicates this is a turd.
It may not be technically accurate, however, I welcome any movie that emulates the true heroes these men were. The trick will be to get young people to see the Movie. You will not find “pants on the ground” or a “grill” in this one. True role models are needed and these gentlemen fill the bill.
This will be a far cry from “Soul Plane” with Snoop Dog.
Remember that unfortunate fly by in NYC of Air Force One just after Obama took office? There was a Red Tail escorting it. Coincidence? Or is it possible Obama did Lucas a solid in greenlighting it?
Imagine as the movie ends, fast forward to the future, emotional shot of Air Force One being escorted by a Red Tail. I’ll bet they don’t use the footage that they got from it.
libs hate winning wars
libs need the black vote
patriotic film about a successful unit may encourage young black kids (and other kids who “wannabe black,”) to join military and may, as a result, tamper with the lifeline of leftist existence
George Lucas: Poor little rich boy. The latest celeb stats peg Lucas net worth at $3.25 Billion. And he simply cannot figure out how to get his earth-shattering film in front of an audience. At least he got free publicity with his silly outburst. That’s a start….
I won’t let the technical gaffes get in the way of the story. I’m taking all my grandsons. As a private pilot I see some impossible maneuvers in the trailer. But I don’t care. At some level any attempt to tell history is going to have inaccuracies. It depends on how anal you want to be about it.
Another reason that Hollyweird would not like a story about the Tuskegee Airmen is that there was a documentary made about them during World War II, narrated by an actor who later became somewhat important in politics, named Ronald Reagan. If there is any mention of this, it would fail to cast Reagan in the white oppressor category.
The fact is that Hollyweird is not that interested in historical films that don’t fit the white oppressor/black victim model. I am still amazed that Glory was made. Now, if I could only interest someone in my screenplay about the Oberlin Rescue and trial….
I am reminded of the reply boxing great Joe Louis gave a reporter who asked him how he could serve in the segregated army of a country that treated him as a second-class citizen. (No, the baby boom generation did not discover the evils of racism and discrimination.)
Louis replied, “America ain’t got no problems Hitler can solve.”
It is good to see someone finally doing a movie about some aspect of WWII, since there has been so little produced about that conflict. I am also glad to see Hollywood continuing to ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, since no one in this generation has done anything valorous.
May not be much recently, but there’s a lot out there. One of the very best ways is to fork up $120 or so and get a multi-region DVD player, then begin buying from Amazon.UK.
Some of the great British war movies are available in NTSC (In Which We Serve, The Gift Horse ….) but many are not (Appointment in London, Bomber Harris ….)
Study the comments on Amazon UK. It’ll help separate the chaff.
Oh! There’s another, set in Africa in the early 60s but a classic — Guns at Batasi, arguably Richard Attenborough’s finest performance.
There is a great deal of fractured thinking hereabouts.
Movies are not mass entertainment any more-TV assumed that role for about 2 (50-75 or so) decades, then when you get to cable fractionation of the audience begins in earnest. Since “JAWS” & Star Wars 4 –Hollywood has mistakenly concluded they have to hit a home run 2 out of three time, three out of three is best.
So its money deals and star appeal which drives the “Tinseltown” business model. (that has never changed) The fact that even (so it appears) at the 11th hour FOX picked up the distribution precludes “Racism” from being even a slight possibility.
The folks that run the studios (My RANT!) are MBA’s or money men, they may not sit in the biggest chair but they have almost iron control on what gets “Green lighted”. They have a hugh blind spot a gaping hole in their collective organizational charts and they dam well have no intention of fixing it-
The folks running the studios today are not!! repeat not!! “STORY TELLERS”. they have no inclination toward or about storytelling. Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, Scot, Lee, Eastwood (to name just a few) –all have exceptional track records and are proven story tellers producers etc. Even they with their stirling records and they are all stirling from my point of view-have to bend to these MBA Nitwits! at certain times.
Maybe Jack warner was a bastard, maybe Harry Cohn was a prick, Maybe Sam Goldwyn was abusive – but they and their compatriots were story tellers of the first magnitude and they knew stories and they new writers like Joe Mamkiewicz or Sidney Buchman and there are dozens more. No the reason Lucas had some problems this time out is these Arrogant MBA asses couldn’t find a good story with both hands, a seeing eye dog or radar. You heavenly to look at the trash Lionsgate regularly releases to se their world! and its ugly.
Check “6″
If the film with a primarily black cast told a slave narrative or civil rights struggle, then it might draw audience attention. That’s because Americans are conditioned to perceive or understand struggle for equality and minority achievement almost exclusively within those contexts. A snot nosed third grader knows who MLK and Rosa Parks were. Meanwhile American culture relegates the Tuskegee air men, George Washington Carver, and Zora Neal Hurston into “obscure prominent black figures you might learn about in specialized college courses” status.
The fact is, films that depict milestone accomplishments and breaking of racial barriers tend to be boring, overly sentimental, or preachy. And non black minorities won’t be interested in spending money to see films that celebrate another culture.
M night Shamalayan thought he could appease Asians angered by the “Whitewashing” of Avatar by pointing out to the racially diverse cast. That certainly didn’t fly with Asians. He should have admitted that employing an obscure all Asian cast for a film that appeals to the Nickolodeon audience is a risk.
I have to say this as a filmmaker that does faith-based films. You cannot go to a movie and watch it with your history book open on your lap any more than a Christian can go to the movies with their Bible open on their laps. If they do that, then their whole motivation for going to the movies is undermined by a ‘religious” zealotry that is not conducive to the “willing suspension of disbelief” that is REQUIRED when one is “entertained.”
So, for the record. LEAVE YOUR HISTORY BOOK CLOSED OR DO NOT GO AND SEE THE MOVIE. There…I said it. And one other thing. This movie may very well, not be bad. It is rated PG13 and it is most likely, fairly accurate enough, to teach a high school course on the Tuskegee Airmen. And wouldn’t that be great to get this overfed, electronically coma induced younger generation interested in something other than “Call of Duty?”
And the other thing…yes, the whole idea that people other than AfAms will not go and see this movie is a racist thought that is not lost on the publicity departments of major studios. Will Smith and Denzel Washington can open a film and the studio will back it but that is just about it. Ask Don Cheadle about that. Okay…Maybe something that says “Tyler Perry” in it might have a chance, but I think you understand what I am saying. Publicity Departments have no clue what they are doing anymore anyway but that is a different discussion altogether.
It the first movie in quite some time that I’ll actually pay to see in the theater. I only hope they do justice to the subject. The Tuskeegee Airmen were a remarkable group of men. They had an excellent combat record, served our country with honor and pride, and set an example that was one of the motivating factors for Harry Truman to desegregate the US military a few years after the war. I’ve had the good fortune to meet a few of those men. It was a humbling experience.
I’ve studied aviation history for 40 years, am a private pilot, and grew up in Alabama. Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. However, when it’s so easy to get it right and Hollywood gets it wrong, I have to question their integrity or their intelligence.
I agree: historical movies shouldn’t be judged on historical merits since they don’t even pretend to academia. Films engage in artistic license and are meant as a certain take on what may be a historical event. Since they are not meant to propagandize or distort, generally speaking, take them as they are.
If anything a film about an historical event may lead one to learn more and if truths and context are revealed then that’s good. Historical films don’t exist in a vacuum and any attempts to lead astray are usually ferreted out in short order. It drove me nuts to read a blogger’s very long post about hand signals and insignia in the film “Saving Private Ryan” which he evidently sent to the film’s producers – who gives a flying squat?. Pedants never know they’re are pedants.