New Midway movie in 3D coming out!!!!!!!!!

@Imperious:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/08/warner-bros-plots-3d-battle-of-midway-pic-with-the-pacifics-bruce-c-mckenna/

Is this still going to happen, because the date on the link is 2010 and the latest one I have seen was in 2012?

Just curios!

Would love to see this on the big screen. I imagine WB would love to make this but maybe they’re having a hard time finding the right development team. Plus big studios are pumping money into superhero flicks, this one would cost a ton without the benefit of instant branding that comic book movies bring.

Considering that the linked article appeared four years ago and that it says “pitch” and “I’m told” twice each, I’m not holding my breath for this one.  As far as I can tell, the Internet Movie Database lists no such in-production project either under the title Midway or under the name of Bruce C. McKenna, from whom Warner supposedly purchased the idea.

@CWO:

Considering that the linked article appeared four years ago and that it says “pitch” and “I’m told” twice each, I’m not holding my breath for this one.  As far as I can tell, the Internet Movie Database lists no such in-production project either under the title Midway or under the name of Bruce C. McKenna, from whom Warner supposedly purchased the idea.

Yes, that is what I saw. That is too bad, because I would love to see it. :-(

I have wondered when they would remake the Charlton Heston Midway or just make another movie about the battle…

I am always excited for a historical WWII film, but I am extremely skeptical too. While being made in the vein of Saving Private Ryan, as the article says, is a good sign, that it is/was being purpose-made for 3D is not.

3D is an entertainment gimmick that distracts from quality in film making… in my not so humble opinion. It just becomes an excuse for them to turn the movie into a bunch of Star Wars-esque maneuvers and sensationalized dogfights that may have never been realistic. Air warfare movies (of recent cinema) have been hampered by the use of digital technology… by fostering implausible action and cheapening the visual result. Older films had to rely on models, actual footage and the real aircraft. Using the real aircraft may be very difficult today, but I am sure it is still possible. Bay and Bruckheimer used real aircraft in Pearl Harbor, even if some were manufactured copies, which was a credit to their authenticity. But then they ruined the action of the movie by adding in a bunch of nonsensical fighting and crazy camera moves. (Compare movies like Flyboys, Redtails, Pearl Harbor and Battleship to Battle of Britain, Midway and Top Gun. I would argue that all of the latter are infinitely better)

In terms of plot, I think they could re-use the basic form that Midway (1976) did. At least, the aired on TV version, which is the one I have always watched. Start the story at the Battle of the Coral Sea to get people introduced to the situation and foster some initial momentum. (Means we get to see the Lexington too!) Then build up to Midway, accentuating the underdog nature of the US position.

The question is how they would frame the story. From whose point of view, that is? Midway had an ensemble cast of great actors and had major focus on officers on both Enterprise and Yorktown (and Lexington) and also Nimitz and Co. in Honolulu… plus a number of different Japanese officers on different ships. Although Charleton Heston (Yorktown) and his son were the main characters. With the style of scripts these days, I don’t think that is a realistic model to expect for the new film, if it ever happens. People would complain about not being able to follow what was happening. They need the story spoon-fed to them.

The real issue would be finding a suitable aircraft carrier for filming purposes. There are no aircraft carriers of certainly Yorktown class, or Essex class, in the world (to my knowledge) that exist in a 1940s form. The Essex museum ships have been radically refitted. I wonder how they would tackle this issue since there would certainly be extended shooting on such a ship. (They shot some Hornet deck scenes in Pearl Harbor, but I don’t remember how much of the ship they actually showed in the movie.) Damn the government for scrapping Enterprise… what a colossally BAD decision. She deserved to be a museum ship more than any other ship in our history, except maybe the Constitution.

.

@LHoffman:

Damn the government for scrapping Enterprise… what a colossally BAD decision. She deserved to be a museum ship more than any other ship in our history, except maybe the Constitution.

?
What forces prevailed to allow such a great ship to get scrapped?

I just hope they make that film

@ABWorsham:

What forces prevailed to allow such a great ship to get scrapped?

Sadly, the forces of economics.  Preserving a warship as a museum vessel or memorial is enormously expensive (both initially and on an ongoing basis), especially if the ship is a large one.

@LHoffman:

In terms of plot, I think they could re-use the basic form that Midway (1976) did. At least, the aired on TV version, which is the one I have always watched. Start the story at the Battle of the Coral Sea to get people introduced to the situation and foster some initial momentum. (Means we get to see the Lexington too!) Then build up to Midway, accentuating the underdog nature of the US position.

The question is how they would frame the story. From whose point of view, that is? Midway had an ensemble cast of great actors and had major focus on officers on both Enterprise and Yorktown (and Lexington) and also Nimitz and Co. in Honolulu… plus a number of different Japanese officers on different ships. Although Charleton Heston (Yorktown) and his son were the main characters. With the style of scripts these days, I don’t think that is a realistic model to expect for the new film, if it ever happens. People would complain about not being able to follow what was happening. They need the story spoon-fed to them.

The real issue would be finding a suitable aircraft carrier for filming purposes. There are no aircraft carriers of certainly Yorktown class, or Essex class, in the world (to my knowledge) that exist in a 1940s form. The Essex museum ships have been radically refitted. I wonder how they would tackle this issue since there would certainly be extended shooting on such a ship.

The 1970s Midway movie with Charlton Heston is one of my all-time favourites.  It’s got some problematic aspects (primarily, in my opinion, the completely fictitious Math Garth / Tom Garth plot line), but it’s highly watchable (I’ve seen it dozens of times), it gives a good overview of what happened at Midway, and it has neat map tables with miniature ship and airplane markers (which I’ve always loved, and which explain why I was so happy when I discovered the Axis and Allies game line).  Although it might not work from a current film-marketing point of view, my preference would be for a new Midway movie to be written and shot in the style of Tora, Tora, Tora, as a historical reconstruction without fictitious characters.  Sadly, Tora, Tora, Tora wasn’t a huge success with the general viewing public, though it seems to have done well with history junkies like me.

As you say, one major problem would be how to depict realistically the scenes on the carrier flight decks.  The low point in cinema history in this regard has to be the cheaply-budgeted 1952 movie Flat Top (produced, ironically, by Midway’s Walter Mirisch), which opens with groan-inducing shots of Stirling Hayden standing in front of a rear-projection view of carrier deck stock footage with a prop railing as the only physically real set element.  Perhaps the best approach today would be to use CGI, with a focus on creating a very realistic depiction of the relatively simple carriers that existed in WWII (rather than, by contrast, depiciting super-complicated Transformers hardware, which looks spectacular but fake on screen.)

Guys,

@ABWorsham:

@LHoffman:

Damn the government for scrapping Enterprise… what a colossally BAD decision. She deserved to be a museum ship more than any other ship in our history, except maybe the Constitution.

?
What forces prevailed to allow such a great ship to get scrapped?

––The voice in the back of my head is reminding me that the bridge of the “Big E” was preserved and resides at the Naval Academy. At least there is something left of the Enterprise to inspire our future naval generations.

Tall Paul

@CWO:

The 1970s Midway movie with Charlton Heston is one of my all-time favourites.  It’s got some problematic aspects (primarily, in my opinion, the completely fictitious Math Garth / Tom Garth plot line), but it’s highly watchable (I’ve seen it dozens of times), it gives a good overview of what happened at Midway, and it has neat map tables with miniature ship and airplane markers (which I’ve always loved, and which explain why I was so happy when I discovered the Axis and Allies game line).  Although it might not work from a current film-marketing point of view, my preference would be for a new Midway movie to be written and shot in the style of Tora, Tora, Tora, as a historical reconstruction without fictitious characters.  Sadly, Tora, Tora, Tora wasn’t a huge success with the general viewing public, though it seems to have done well with history junkies like me.

I like Tora, Tora, Tora also, particularly because it feels very realistic and sweeping. However, it is long and not very well constructed in terms of an involving narrative. For those reasons, I don’t think making another epic war film (in the style of the 60s and 70s) will happen anytime soon. Saving Private Ryan and the other Playtone/HBO series are the closest thing to that in our time, but even they have very involved personal stories which were mostly absent in the classic films.

@CWO:

As you say, one major problem would be how to depict realistically the scenes on the carrier flight decks.  The low point in cinema history in this regard has to be the cheaply-budgeted 1952 movie Flat Top (produced, ironically, by Midway’s Walter Mirisch), which opens with groan-inducing shots of Stirling Hayden standing in front of a rear-projection view of carrier deck stock footage with a prop railing as the only physically real set element.  Perhaps the best approach today would be to use CGI, with a focus on creating a very realistic depiction of the relatively simple carriers that existed in WWII (rather than, by contrast, depiciting super-complicated Transformers hardware, which looks spectacular but fake on screen.)

Unless they want to build a gigantic mock-up of a Yorktown-class ship, or flight + bridge at least, then I guess the only solution is digital. The problem is that digital still looks fake, as you pointed out Marc, particularly in extended shots. (Watch the shots of the naval armadas in Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of our Fathers, two recent examples from good war films) Given the types of sets that movie companies have financed in the past, constructing a 830 ft flight deck and island out of wood and steel seems like a reasonably cheap method.

I don’t want to lump Midway into this category but The Lord of the Rings had multiple, mind-blowing, real sets that were all hand built… way more complicated than building an aircraft carrier flight deck. Ben-Hur had extreme sets too (chariot race). Granted these are two of the most successful films of all time, but I am just saying that it can be done. The vast majority of newer, individual blockbuster films are CGI based and cost way more than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy did (even if it was made 15 years ago).

Quality over convenience… but sadly I have no say in that.

@Tall:

Guys,
––The voice in the back of my head is reminding me that the bridge of the “Big E” was preserved and resides at the Naval Academy. At least there is something left of the Enterprise to inspire our future naval generations.

Tall Paul

I do not believe that is the case. It was intended for the ship’s tripod mast to reside there, but it never happened.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CV-6)#The_end_of_the_.22Big_E.22

All that is left is the ship’s stern nameplate, ship’s bell and miscellaneous other artifacts.

That’s a good point.  A WWII-era carrier flight deck is, except for the island, basically just a very large flat surface, so building a physical replica would be much less complicated than, let’s say, doing the same thing for a battleship superstructure.  You’d need to have at least one functional aircraft elevator platform, and for the sake of realism it would be good to build the structure on a small island mostly out of sight of land so that you could shoot the deck from different angles to show that it’s surrounded by real water (rather than digital water).  Both of those things are quite do-able.  A problem, however, would arise in connection with the aircraft.  Static shots could be handled by tightly framing a small number of reconstructed aircraft, but the launching and landing sequences would require the use of surviving operational vintage planes (of which I don’t imagine there are many left) or CGI planes (which would look fake compared with the real flight deck).

By the way I once visited the Washington Navy Yard, where one of the Enterprise’s anchors is on display.  That was a real treat to see.

@CWO:

That’s a good point.  A WWII-era carrier flight deck is, except for the island, basically just a very large flat surface, so building a physical replica would be much less complicated than, let’s say, doing the same thing for a battleship superstructure.  You’d need to have at least one functional aircraft elevator platform, and for the sake of realism it would be good to build the structure on a small island mostly out of sight of land so that you could shoot the deck from different angles to show that it’s surrounded by real water (rather than digital water).  Both of those things are quite do-able.

I was thinking that they could float the flight deck/island on some sort of barge or even graft it to a seaworthy vessel, in order to get authentic ocean shots. I am pretty certain that they did something similar when getting exterior shots for the movie K-19: The Widowmaker. Although a submarine is much smaller and simpler than an aircraft carrier.

@CWO:

A problem, however, would arise in connection with the aircraft.  Static shots could be handled by tightly framing a small number of reconstructed aircraft, but the launching and landing sequences would require the use of surviving operational vintage planes (of which I don’t imagine there are many left) or CGI planes (which would look fake compared with the real flight deck).

Yes, this part is highly problematic. I think we are talking about multiple issues that have to be overcome including safety, insurance of antique aircraft and even technical do-ability. I would think that you would be able to pull together a few ex or current naval aviators to actually land the planes on the set if such a thing was ever considered. A problem therein is how many of them would be experienced in carrier landing a WWII era prop driven aircraft? Probably none. I wonder when the last time such a plane was landed on a carrier… Vietnam? not only that, but carrier landings are inherently dangerous, even by professionals, so I doubt it would fly from a movie studio’s perspective.

I almost forgot to even consider structural needs for this “set” and if there were aircraft to actually land or launch from it, catapults and functional arrestor systems would be necessary… I don’t know that this is practical from a safety or technical perspective.

A more likely possibility is constructing a second, perhaps less complete deck set on an airfield and digitally matching that footage with some of the ‘carrier’ on the water. Takes the safety, insurance and practicality concerns out of the equation. And it is also a combination of all natural elements, rather than straight CGI. It has been a very long time since I watched Pearl Harbor, but I know they had a launching scene from a Japanese carrier. I don’t know how they did it and I don’t remember what all was on film.

We really haven’t even discussed the similar but perhaps more complicated issues with replicating this process for the Japanese aircraft carrier(s).

@CWO:

By the way I once visited the Washington Navy Yard, where one of the Enterprise’s anchors is on display.  That was a real treat to see.

I was in Seattle last year and looked out onto the Sound and knew that the navy yard was just a few miles across the way. Wish I could have gotten over there.

@LHoffman:

@CWO:

By the way I once visited the Washington Navy Yard, where one of the Enterprise’s anchors is on display.  That was a real treat to see.

I was in Seattle last year and looked out onto the Sound and knew that the navy yard was just a few miles across the way. Wish I could have gotten over there.

Um, I was referring to Washington D.C.  I’d love to visit the naval facilities in the Puget Sound area, but the only place on the West Coast where I’ve been is San Diego – which I was lucky enough to visit at the day when the USS Midway crossed over to the pier where she became a museum ship.  I still have the CV-41 baseball cap I picked up as a souvenir.

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

@CWO:

By the way I once visited the Washington Navy Yard, where one of the Enterprise’s anchors is on display. � That was a real treat to see.

I was in Seattle last year and looked out onto the Sound and knew that the navy yard was just a few miles across the way. Wish I could have gotten over there.

Um, I was referring to Washington D.C.  I’d love to visit the naval facilities in the Puget Sound area, but the only place on the West Coast where I’ve been is San Diego – which I was lucky enough to visit at the day when the USS Midway crossed over to the pier where she became a museum ship.  I still have the CV-41 baseball cap I picked up as a souvenir.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about Bremerton, WA. I didn’t know that DC had a navy yard, being on a river and all.