Wings vs. Hell's Angels

Bump

I just watched Scorsese's The Aviator and I was going to ask the same question. Does Hell's Angels outdo Wings?

I've seen Wings, but not Hell's Angels.




My short films: http://www.youtube.com/user/jthix2554/videos?flow=grid&view=0

Hell's Angels was originally done as a silent and then redone as a talkie as the technology was developed during the shooting. It was released as a talkie; I don't know if it was released as a silent.

I think Hell's Angels is the superior film, especially in the flying sequences. They used several vintage (even for the time) Great War fighter aircraft. Most of them were Nieuport 28's, with several current (1928 - 1930) biplanes to fill up the sky. All of the airplanes in Wings appear to be Curtiss P-1 to P-5 Hawks. They are obviously different from anything that flew in the Great War.

Hell's Angels also included a Zeppelin segment that was well done.

I think the plots with the love triangle were similar. That seems to be the standard dramatic overlay to the war story.

Wings can lay claim to some innovative shots and camera angles. The overhead shot of the "Gotha" bomber (actually a Handley Page O/400) taking off flanked by Curtiss Hawks is impressive, more so if you understand what's involved in obtaining the shot. It also has pride of place, beating Hell's Angels into theaters by three years at a time when motion picture technology and skill must have been developing as fast as airplane technology had been developing during the Great War.