Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: The Enemy Below
Posted by:
J.T. McDaniel
()
Date: December 08, 2001 04:49PM
<HTML>The authenticity was mostly saved for the American vessel, where they had the advantage of being able to shoot aboard a genuine DE. It was also interesting to note that, when the Germans looked up their enemy, they reported the propulsion system correctly. Those ships did, indeed, have turbines driving generators and electric motors turning the screws.
I suspect the U-boat interiors were put together based on budget, which meant using existing pieces anywhere it was practical. For the overwhelming majority of cinema patrons, then and now, a bulkhead hatch is a bulkhead hatch, and they really have no idea it should be round. (Anyway, if you think these sets looked bad, go take a look at Destination Tokyo and see what was supposed to be passing for a US Fleet boat in that epic. A boat like that would have been considered primitive in WWI.)
We might remember, too, that "The Enemy Below" wasn't a major release. It was a "B" movie -- more or less what they'd make for TV today, with all the budget limitations that implies. (The "B" stands for "budget," by the way, indicating it had to be made cheap. These were the films that paid for the better stuff.) So you built sets from pieces of other sets, simplified everything, and pulled the costumes from wardrobe stock with an alteration here and a mocked-up badge there.
Besides, things don't always get better. You can get someone like Mostow being obsessive about having every dial and label correct and still wind up with a really bad film.
J.T. McDaniel
(Who would love to see his own work filmed, but also cringes at what would probably happen if it was.)</HTML>
I suspect the U-boat interiors were put together based on budget, which meant using existing pieces anywhere it was practical. For the overwhelming majority of cinema patrons, then and now, a bulkhead hatch is a bulkhead hatch, and they really have no idea it should be round. (Anyway, if you think these sets looked bad, go take a look at Destination Tokyo and see what was supposed to be passing for a US Fleet boat in that epic. A boat like that would have been considered primitive in WWI.)
We might remember, too, that "The Enemy Below" wasn't a major release. It was a "B" movie -- more or less what they'd make for TV today, with all the budget limitations that implies. (The "B" stands for "budget," by the way, indicating it had to be made cheap. These were the films that paid for the better stuff.) So you built sets from pieces of other sets, simplified everything, and pulled the costumes from wardrobe stock with an alteration here and a mocked-up badge there.
Besides, things don't always get better. You can get someone like Mostow being obsessive about having every dial and label correct and still wind up with a really bad film.
J.T. McDaniel
(Who would love to see his own work filmed, but also cringes at what would probably happen if it was.)</HTML>
Subject | Written By | Posted |
---|---|---|
The Enemy Below | Oldkemosh | 12/08/2001 02:47AM |
Re: The Enemy Below | walter M | 12/08/2001 08:00AM |
Re: The Enemy Below | Daryl Carpenter | 12/08/2001 01:05PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | J.T. McDaniel | 12/08/2001 04:49PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | J.T. McDaniel | 12/11/2001 02:46AM |
Re: The Enemy Below | kosta | 12/21/2001 05:03PM |
The Enemy Below "defiance song" | walter M | 12/21/2001 08:46PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | ROBERT M. | 06/04/2003 11:43PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | walter M | 12/08/2001 09:13PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | fritz | 12/09/2001 05:40PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | fritz | 12/09/2001 05:40PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | Scott persons | 12/21/2001 01:49PM |
Re: The Enemy Below | Les Hubert | 01/10/2002 08:08PM |