Masters of the Air

I haven't read the book, but I think the TV series would have been much improved if they used the book as inspiration and wrote a new screenplay around that, maybe with the Tuskagee airmen as a parallel story (and a bit of Catch 22 thrown in for black humour). They could have started with the Battle of France and Battle of Britain, with both sides learning that unescorted bombers can't survive in daylight, hence the RAF bombing cities at night because precision bombing wasn't possible. Then go to the training of the B17 crews and forming the 8th Air Force in Britain, then the relearning that bombers can't survive against fighters in daylight. Then the adaptation and use of long-range escort fighters and the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1944 (I read somewhere that Germany was suffering 50% losses per month of its fighter pilots once the P51s started escorting bombers into Germany).  As it was, it just seemed to be a series of fairly unconnected events with a very thin narrative arc to connect it all together. Yes, it showed what happened, but a compelling story needs to show why we should care about what happened.

This thread illustrates the common problem that any film or TV series depicting events in WW2 faces. An 'army' of middle aged men across the land, who have digested every book, film and documentary on the subject! Self taught experts and guardians of the facts, ready to stand in judgement. I am not entirely innocent of this. I think we need to remember though, that these series also have to appeal to people less invested in the minutiae and are primarily entertainment, not 100% historically accurate documentaries.

not 100% historically accurate documentaries.

Yep, fair criticism @blokeuptheroad, but if you look back through the thread, much of the discussion as been around the lack of drama, and the derivativeness of the story telling, and lack of engagement with the characters as well as the accuracy. I think producers set themselves up as a fair target if they say right from the get go that they aimed for as historically accurate as they could be, make a big song and dance about it, and then so very obviously fail at the last hurdle. Compare and contrast with Where Eagles Dare. It makes no claims to be accurate - there's a bloody helicopter in it after all, but the film is still wildly popular as it's exciting, dramatic and twists and turns like a twisty-turney thing. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Personally I found the depictions of the air-war to be some of the best scenes. The sudden change from relative calm to utter death and carnage more or less down to down to chance was some of the most gripping bits. Accurate? Don't really care, it was terrifying and exciting, and made for great telly

This thread illustrates the common problem that any film or TV series depicting events in WW2  any military operational theatre faces.

If nothing else it gives the average joe and insight into a version of what the environment they were operating in was like.

I think that's good enough to keep the memory and interest alive.

I've been digesting my thoughts on the series since watching the final episode on Friday. I can't really escape from the feeling it didn't move or grip me as much as I hoped. I know that's because I can't help holding up BoB as the standard. I have a fair tolerance for the historical stuff, and even though I have a reasonable eye for the details, I do care about the story more than anything. I think the final episode drew things together quite well, and I felt an emotional satisfaction at the end.

I just can't quite decide whether it was the way it was told that is the problem, or whether the focus on that arena of the war, makes in intrinsically difficult to do. But then you look at Catch-22 and Twelve o'clock high, and you know it can work better. I think it is that they have tried to do too much in too little narrative space, and that's why I feel it misses on being excellent. Having read the book, there is so much drama and extraordinary feats, and so many strategic elements, and other moving parts to the story, that it would have been better in 15-20 parts whilst focussing on fewer aspects. It also missed a bit more strategic narration, and I think some more 'Pinetree' action would have helped to frame strategy a bit better.

Back to Twelve o'clock High - there was a fabulous nod to that film as well as being a point of historical accuracy, with the inclusion of the toby jug on the mantlepiece of the officers mess, when Crosby is talking by the fire. Quality touch.

Self taught experts and guardians of the facts

Actual History student here. Any criticism I've made has been mild, and based on my perception of the productions storytelling, not historical accuracy. Its a drama, not a documentary. Besides, I try VERY hard to not be a history bore, even on subjects I'm passionate about, just because it is so ****ing boring and such a stereotype.

Fair comment though, and very true.