MovieChat Forums > Fortress (2012) Discussion > B-17s Again?

B-17s Again?

posted 11 years ago by gheilers
6 replies | jump to latest

Once again, we have been presented with a film highlighting the B-17...and once again there were tremendous missed opportunities. Just like in "Red Tails" the B-17 was given too much emphasis - the B-24 was far more common in the North African theater. If a film is going to be made using the CGI route, would it not be nice to see the B-24 portrayed - a plane that has been criminally neglected in film?

In this film, mention is made of older B-17E aircraft being included on a mission. Did any sharp-eyed viewers notice whether or not the CGI/SFX people did actually include some E models in the shots?

[–] dutchusc 11 years ago

The physical outer difference between the -E and the -F models were the nose glass, the -E had the framed nose, while the -F had one piece plexiglass, and guns on both sides of the "cheek" of the plane. And with the CGI in this movie, I could not see the differences. But overall, the looks of the -E and -F were VERY similar, almost identical.

[–] gheilers 11 years ago

I rewatched the DVD, and could not spot any E models, if they were even present.
Watching the "Extras" segment on the CGI and the sets, it seems that the film-makers really were not versed on "B-17's 101" - as they opined that historical references are almost non-existant. (Really? *I* have more in my own personal collection than what they seemed to use.) And they built their set based on balsa flying model plans, scaled up! (So, the ribs and stringers were not based on Boeing reality, but on the balsa plans - with thumbtacks pushed in all over the place, to suggest rivets!)

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey folks,

The B-17 is the iconic American bomber of the war, and I can look at it all day long. However, I have to agree with Gheilers about the importance of the B-24 in the war and the lack of its presence in film.

As far as the complaints about errors in the film, I would have to disagree with you all. Yes, there are folks posting on this board who seem to have more knowledge than the producers of this film, but the fact is the producers of this film actually did produce a good film of a good story, even with its imperfections, and the rest of us did not produce a film in spite of the fact we may have known more about B-17s than they.

As far as the computer graphics used, I can remember many films from the 1940s and later that would have looked a lot better if they had be able to use the computer graphics we have today instead of the simplistic model planes and ships they used then.

Come on folks, it really was a good story with some good acting. It may not have been perfect, but I certainly did enjoy it.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Clintessence 9 years ago

It's hard not to pay homage to the B-17. The Liberator certainly played as important a role in winning the war, but for cinematic purposes the B-24 doesn't hold a candle to the beautiful lines of the B-17. The B-24 was nicknamed the "Flying Boxcar", because that's what it looked like.

I had the opportunity to take a flight two years ago in the B-17 they used in the film "Memphis Belle", and I tell you it was the thrill of a lifetime. We were allowed to roam about the plane in flight, including crawling into the nose bubble. What a thrill.

Best Wishes,
Clintessence

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey Clint,

My cousin and his son went for a flight in one ten or fifteen years ago. Obviously it was a great thrill for them also.

I never flew in a B-17, but my youngest daughter and I crawled all around the Enola Gay B-29 nearly forty years ago. My dad used to work in the aeronautical restoration center of the Smithsonian which was in the Maryland suburbs just outside Washington, DC. They would restore planes for exhibition in the various air museums, and they had warehouses filled with planes waiting to be restored. The Enola Gay was in one of those warehouses with the fuselage in three pieces, and the wings sitting to the side against the warehouse wall.

My dad took a few pictures of me sitting in the pilot's seat along with my daughter looking out the side window. They really do nice work at that restoration center.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

The '24 became predominant after the 15th AF got set up at Foggia. Up to that point it was the 12th AF B17s. But 24s burn too well, if you ask me.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?