Why haven't they...

[beloitpiper]

...made a movie about Mad Jack Churchill yet?

Really, there's no need to invent a fictional character when there's a perfectly good story that needs to be told. They wouldn't even have to embellish it, it's already pretty amazing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

There have been a couple of attempts to make a film about "Mad Jack" (and "Mad Mitch" and the Argylls), but generally the studios shy away from glamorizing real war heroes. This is, partly, due to cost (a big budget war film these days will knock the spots off $150 million) and partly due to the fact that the motion picture industry is two or three generations removed from WWII. To your average 30-something studio executive WWII is about as remote as the War Between the States, and they just don't "get it".

Look for Fast and Furious 4 hitting the silver screen before we see a big bux war flick about "Mad Jack Churchill".

[thanmuwa]

There have been a couple of attempts to make a film about "Mad Jack" (and "Mad Mitch" and the Argylls), but generally the studios shy away from glamorizing real war heroes. This is, partly, due to cost (a big budget war film these days will knock the spots off $150 million) and partly due to the fact that the motion picture industry is two or three generations removed from WWII. To your average 30-something studio executive WWII is about as remote as the War Between the States, and they just don't "get it".

Look for Fast and Furious 4 hitting the silver screen before we see a big bux war flick about "Mad Jack Churchill".

On the other hand, Saving Private Ryan wasn't made that long ago, and if they don't get WWII, how did anyone manage to convince the studios to make the likes of Braveheart, an era long before WWII? I am sure the right screenplay to the right director would soon have it as a film.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

On the other hand, Saving Private Ryan wasn't made that long ago, and if they don't get WWII, how did anyone manage to convince the studios to make the likes of Braveheart, an era long before WWII? I am sure the right screenplay to the right director would soon have it as a film.

Anything is possible in Hollywood, but in the scenario you've described who is going to play Mad Jack? Forget the script for a moment and concentrate on the lead actor. You need a Scot (or at least a Brit who can play a Scot) who can open a non-franchise move world wide. Right now there doesn't seem to be a British actor who has the box office draw of a Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise (and Cruise's WWII yawner Valkyre didn't exactly set box offices on fire).

And the Script. Mad Jack had a multi-decade career-- what are you going to focus on? What is the subplot? Where is Gweneth Paltrow in all of this?

Everyone can pick holes in Braveheart because to tell the story Randy Wallace played fast and loose with history. That the picture got made at all is down to Wallace's ability to get his script into the hands of the one guy who could afford to produce it-- actor, director, producer, Mel Gibson.

When it comes down to it, unless you have a franchise, like Fast and Furious or Star Trek studios don't like to take chances on pictures costing more than $100,000,000.00.

After all, they aren't the Federal Government.

[McClef]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

[Dan R Porter]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

And the recent WWII epic, Valkerie, though I have not seen it. I would hope they would not choose Mel Gibson for this particuler role, but they probalbly will. I would almost bet gibson has this on his desk, we have seen...

Braveheart,
Patriot,
we were soldiers
apocolypto
etc etc.

[beloitpiper]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

To play the Devil's Advocate, Hollywood is a business, and their main audience in Americans. Most Americans want to see American triumph in WWII films. And look what happens when the Brits decide to make a WWII film--they make it about Russian snipers (Enemy at the Gates)!!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

That's because 16.5 million Americans served in the military during WWII, as opposed to 3.5 million Britons. In terms of sheer box office numbers (never mind defeating fascism in Europe and crushing Japanese Imperialism in the Far East) Hollywood perceives the American involvement in WW II to have greater audience interest.

[macwilkin]

Anything is possible in Hollywood, but in the scenario you've described who is going to play Mad Jack? Forget the script for a moment and concentrate on the lead actor. You need a Scot (or at least a Brit who can play a Scot) who can open a non-franchise move world wide. Right now there doesn't seem to be a British actor who has the box office draw of a Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise (and Cruise's WWII yawner Valkyre didn't exactly set box offices on fire).

And the Script. Mad Jack had a multi-decade career-- what are you going to focus on? What is the subplot? Where is Gweneth Paltrow in all of this?

Everyone can pick holes in Braveheart because to tell the story Randy Wallace played fast and loose with history. That the picture got made at all is down to Wallace's ability to get his script into the hands of the one guy who could afford to produce it-- actor, director, producer, Mel Gibson.

When it comes down to it, unless you have a franchise, like Fast and Furious or Star Trek studios don't like to take chances on pictures costing more than $100,000,000.00.

After all, they aren't the Federal Government.

Spot on, Rathdown. As much as I'd love to see a movie about Mad Jack (who was born in Hong Kong to English parents), I just don't see it happening -- now a documentary I can see. Give the History Channel enough time, and they might just pick up on it. I'd much rather see a well done docuementary then a poorly made feature film anyday.

Of course, we can give Hollywood credit for a very good movie such The Great Raid, which was about 80-90% accurate, and did look to historians who had researched and written books about the subject as advisers.

Regards,

Todd

[macwilkin]

Speaking of Hollywood's portrayal of historical personas, one of the most slanderous portrayals was that of Col. Nicholson in The Bridge on the River Kwai. Nicholson's real-life counterpart, Col. Phillip Toosey, was nothing like the fictional character played by Sir Alec Guiness:

http://www.juliesummers.co.uk/colonel.php

The History Channel produced a very good docuementary about the real story of the Bridge on the River Kwai (the bridge was bombed by the USAAF, and then rebuilt).

Regards,

Todd