This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Anyone know the actual location of the emergency undergroudn control room, apparently housed behind a shoe shop?
Dave
It at RAF Uxbridge in North London you can visit it but it is still an RAF base so you have to book ahead. It wasn't the emergency control room it was the control room all the time. I don't think it was under a shoe shop it certainly isn't any more; it is very unobtrusive above ground though.--Shimbo 08:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Luftwaffe official stating that:
"Die Engländer können nicht sowohl im Norden als auch im Süden zur gleichen Zeit sein."
Did one actully say that or was it made up for the film?
Probably a 'composite' statement for dramatic effect. The RAF could indeed be in the North and the South at the same time, because units were held in the the north of the country and not all 'thrown at' the main centre of activity in the South-East. Don't forget that Germany is to the East of Britain-not the South, and (in addition to the German assaults on South-East airfields and London) a lot of German bombing activity at the time was on comparatively Northern targets. ChrisRed 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is probably a composite quote, but it reflects the German belief that they had inflicted severe loses on the RAF, forcing Dowding to draw in squadrons from the North, leaving that part of the country undefended.
German bombers attacking the UK came mainly either from France, to the southeast, or Norway, to the northeast, rather than Germany itself.
"German bombers attacking the UK came mainly either from France, to the southeast, or Norway, to the northeast, rather than Germany itself". True. We know this now, and in the case of fighter escorts, they could only come from occupied France or the low countries, but a quick look at the range of a He111 means that bombers could easily have been sent from any point of the compass between SW and NE that Uncle Hermann chose, including fairly deep within Germany itself.ChrisRed 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the overall concept related above is accurate. The Germans were convinced that the only reason the RAF could put up that many fighters against their raids in the south was because they had pulled them all from the north. An attack on the north, then, should be almost unopposed. However the entire concept was based on faulty logic; the reason they had so many planes is because the Germans weren't shooting down as many as they believed and increased production was making up for them. Both north and south were well enough supplied. Maury 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay would be good for the citation concerning the unorthodox view of the Germans switching targets to London. (Bungay argues that Kesselring had a considerable influence on the switch to London bombing.)
Buchons masqueraing as Hurricanes
the most distant "Hurricane"s from the camera were actually Buchons marked as Hurricanes as there were not enough flyable ones to make up the formation.
Were they definitely Buchons and not Spitfires? Man with two legs 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't use me as a source, but I'm looking at that scene right now - it's about 93:00 into the film - and they're Buchons. There are three Hurricanes in the foreground, and three Buchons in the background. The Buchon's chin scoop is very distinctive. They appear a couple of times and then break off to shoot down some Heinkels. The RAF aircraft are supposed to be part of "T5", which is described as a training squadron. Judging by this link, which could be nonsense, the film might not have been strictly accurate with regards to squadron numbers. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk)
The 'T5' is not the qsquadron number but the actual plot number allocated in the control room, in this case to the flight of Polish-flown Hurricanes led by Barry Foster's character. This reference number was for tracking only as each plot on the table was given a letter prefix and number suffix by the Sector contollers. I assume 'T' is for training, and '5' as the number of aircraft involved. I seem to recall 'H' was for hostiles, and 'X' for unidentified plots.Thanks Harryurz (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the original statement and did as Ashley has done, checked frame-by-frame to confirm that the aircraft were indeed Buchons but due to the distance involved, they are a bit hard to make out but clearly are Buchons. There were only a limited number of flyable Hurricanes available for filming. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
Actually, I wrote the original statement pointing out the masquerading Buchons... Mark Sublette (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle moviep.jpg
Image:Battle moviep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg
Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of britain.jpg
Image:Battle of britain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The nickname "Mark Haddie" is a wellknown and well documented story from the making of this movie. But doesn't the sentence "These modified aircraft are known today within the classic warbird scene as "Mark Haddies", in a play on Grp. Capt. Mahaddie's last name." give the impression that these aircraft were kept in that configuration up to this day, as in "today"? The reference dates back to 1968. As far as I know, they were all returned into original shape and versions after the movie was finished. --Towpilot (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a tortured piece of writing that could be a lot clearer, but it's not necessarily a contradiction; even if the aeroplanes had subsequently been scrapped or modified, their 1968 configuration would still be known as "Mark Haddie". I have rewritten this to say "became known" instead of "are known today". I assume that Mark in this context is a pun on e.g. model, rather than a real person called Mark. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The making of the film - Spitfire numbers
There's a sentence in the above section that's a bit odd and not really very clear:- "In the late 1960s there were few restoration projects for classic aircraft and through Mahaddie's efforts, the film company located 109 Spitfires in the UK with 27 Spitfires (12 flyable) as well as six Hawker Hurricanes (three flyable) available for filming.". Is there any particular significance in mentioning that Mahaddie located 109 Spitfires in the UK when only 27 of them were used in the film? Mighty Antar (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the film, there was little understanding of the scope of the British warbird community. The film producers had made a request to fly a veritable armada of authentic period aircraft with the belief that these examples would be readily available. Yet when experts were consulted, the first thing that was established was that there were very few aircraft of any type available and a comprehensive survey had to be undertaken to research each individual aircraft in terms of its availability for the film production. Many of the 109 Spitfires were unsuitable as they were either static displays such as those mounted on pylons as "gate guardians" or in various states of disrepair to render them unflyable. The reason for the inclusion of the details of Mahaddie's search was that due to the efforts of the Battle of Britain film crews, many of the existing airframes were "discovered" and the resultant publicity was responsible for the eventual recovery and saving of numerous Spitfires. Although other factors were involved, a concerted effort to remove aircraft used as gate guardians in the United Kingdom and replace them with full-scale fibreglas models was undertaken in the wake of the film production crews identifying bonafide examples that were suitable for restoration. Like the film Catch 22, the Battle of Britain film played a significant role in saving warbirds. Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC).
spacing
Can you tell me please what effect it has on your version of Firefox, because on mine it does exactly what it does on Internet Explorer, provides a little breathing space between the lede and the Table of Contents, and between the bottom of the article (usually the external links) and the navigation boxes. What, exactly, are you seeing that these extra spaces do? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And, no, the formatting of Wiki does not take care of this. Wiki jams the ToC right up against the bottom of the lede, and the bottom of the article right up against the navboxes. I find it ugly, and it makes the text considerably more difficult to read. Any graphic designer will tel you that when and where to have a little bit of visual breathing room is an important consideration is laying out any text for publication, and that's certainly the case here, one that the Wikipedia formatters seem to have overlooked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, there is no "breathing space" required; there is a format that WP:Aviation uses that provides for this. Your additional spacing leaves gaps in white space in the format. Check your display preferences or settings, Wiki does give provision for this. Trust me and after thousands of articles, I have the conventions of layout down pat. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
Bzuk, sorry, I really cannot take this on faith, you're going to have to give me some specifics. There are no settings that I'm aware of which can make the kind of difference you're talking about, so if the exist, you have to tell me so that I can see them. If I don't see them, then I'm going to continue to add those space whenever and wherever I can, because on my installations of both Internet Explorer and Firefox, they make a difference. On that, you have to believe me -- I don't add those spaces for the hell of it, to be ornery, or because I enjoy pissing people off, I add them because it makes the page look better.
So, if you are in possession of some magic formula cooked up by the wizards of aviation, could you please pass it along to me? I'd appreciate it. Thaks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, if you're talking about making a change in the presentation of the page on my screen that would not be seen by the normal everyday person who pops on to Wikipedia to find something out, then that's not particularly interesting or useful to me. I want the article to look as good as possible to the ordinary user, not to people who are hep enough to flick the right switches to make everything look nice. Wikipedia exists for the users, not for the editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
NO big deal, sometimes you have to introduce spaces because of the use of templates, infoboxes and the like. Change it when it makes sense. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC).
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle moviep.jpg
Image:Battle moviep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg
Image:Battle of Britain DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Battle of britain.jpg
Image:Battle of britain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This article has attracted some editors intent on removing all images. Can other editors involved in its development, please comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC).
Origin of this paragraph, please
"Although my stepfather, Lord Dowding, was born in the school founded by his father, St. Ninian's, Moffat, Dumfriesshire, his family came from the West Country. Hugh Dowding, his two yonder brothers and sister did not have any trace of a Scottish accent, and were all very English. (It is most annoying that some people write inaccurately about a person they did not know.) Sir Laurence was well aware of the Dowding family history, and I was present on one of his visits to our home in Tunbridge Wells to speak with Dad to perfect the image he was to play. Larry's difficulty was that he was much shorter that Dowding who was over six feet tall, and the uniform used in the film was specially cut to give him an appearance of being taller. Sir Aleck Guinness was the first choice to play Dowding, and he came to our house for lunch, but in letters to my mother, he does not say why he declined to take the part. A new biography of Lord Dowding's life is to be publishes 30 September 2008 by Vincent Orange, "DOWDING OF FIGHTER COMMAND: Victor of the Battle of Britain. Jack Dixon's account of Dowding and his retirement from the RAF is to be publishes in November 2008, DOWDING AND CHURCHILL: The Dark Side of the Battle of Britain."
Clearly very personal, and certainly most interesting, but written for WP or dropped in from elsewhere? 86.139.66.188 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Al (UK)
I've just removed this from the article and was about to paste it here! Very interesting, might be good for the Dowding article. If it's true (and should be reference-able from the books at the end of this month) maybe remove the paragraph detailing Dowdings accent? Or maybe remove it anyway as its un-referenced! Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Memorable quotes
I'm not supporting the stupid comments and editing about quotes made anonymously by user:86.164.17.94, but the person have without even knowing it a point. Shouldn't this section be moved to Wikiquote with only a link here like in most other articles about movies? --Towpilot (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
They are already there, I placed them there as a precaution. The statement that no other film article has quotes is specious; many article included memorable quotes if the film is significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
Wikiquote is a sufficient enough place for it. "Memorable quotes" is misleading; to whom are these quotes memorable? It's not common knowledge to know whether or not any of this particular film's quotes are memorable. I support the transwiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the quotes and none of the are particularly memorable! none of them have entered the language as some other film and television programme quotes have. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Give this "string" a bit more time to run its course before changes (or non-changes) will be instituted; the first major revision in this section came with the contention that no quote sections are ever present in film articles and then came a series of deletions that were unexplained. As to memorable? It's a matter of opinion as to how much of an impact the film has made on the great unwashed?! If you check the article history, the quotes did stir up a lot of interest as various authors tried to put down their favourites. In full disclosure, I have no horse in the race, as I have already created a WikiQuotes section based on the film, I was merely loathe to loose them outright in what looked to be vandals at work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain
The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See: Battle of Britain (film) edit comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
Not sure that the term is shortened in the RAF, I can only remember the full term being used. I would suggest best to avoid using it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to be a more recent practice in assigning a "personality" to inanimate objects as I have seen numerous examples of the "Museum", "Company", and "Event" capitalized after the first mention. One other individual indicated that it appears to be a modern trend in publications to assign some propriety to objects. FWiW, see this example of the "Battle" here, Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
I agree with Bill. "Battle" is a forshortened alternative to the "Battle of Britain" title and IMHO deserves to be capitalised. It also helps differentiate between this particular campaign and a single action (or battle). In addition to the example given from the RAF site, the capitalised form is used by both the Battle of Britain Historical Society and the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust – that's good enough for me! --RedSunset 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Running time for "UK original version"
Does anyone really have a reliable source that this movie was 151 minutes at the British premier? And no, IMDb is NOT a reliable source at all so don't even bother! According to Robert J Rudhall's excellent and meticulous researched book "Battle of Britain The Movie" about the making of this movie, it was in fact 133 minutes at the premier in UK, like everywhere else! Virtually all movies have a so called "rough cut", before the final cut is done before the premier, but 151 minutes actually seems like a short rough cut for a movie that ends up only 20 minutes shorter. And even if 151 minutes is refering to a possible rough cut here, that is not the same as an "original UK version" since rough cuts never are screened to a paying audience! If no one can explain the 151 minutes "original UK version", I will remove it from the box! --Towpilot (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The IMDb has accepted that the running time of 151 minutes was probably just a typo. It was never released with such a long running time. But now a lot of other sites have copied that 151 minute running time from the IMDb or from here (when it was shown here) and so the stories about a longer version continue -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Continuity errors
Every film has minor continuity errors, the latest edits adding an inconsequential detail about Hitler's office falls into that category. Is it needed, was it noteworthy or memorable? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
Squadron of Spitfires comment
I very much disagree with the deletion of my clarification of Falke`s comment about "a squadron of Spitfite`s". This is one of the most commonly repeated myths about Spitfires/Me109s and I suspect that this scene in the film is one of the main reasons for it !
The original comments are insufficiently accurate and I would suggest anyone doubting this reads Galland`s book. If they did they would be in no doubt that the scene is misleading. Many people quote this Spitfires comment so as to prove that the German commander(s) would rather have had Spitfires than their own Me109s. Galland specifically rejects this. What is the point in making any comment on the scene at all if it`s not correct ?
I would suggest if these comments are deleted you may as well delete all comments on this famous/infamous comment, in fact delete the whole section ! --JustinSmith (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Upon reflection, my addition could be edited if people feel strongly enough about it ( ! ) but I think it most important that Gallands comment (fundamentally I preferred our Me109) is kept in. --JustinSmith (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, would those comments be more relevant (or as relevant) in the section on Historical Accuracy ? --JustinSmith (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It is already mentioned and is not an essential part of the film and is dealt with in the making of the film citation already given. This is not the place for this comment, use the Adolf Galland page for it. I will make a slight revision but I believe that the incident is quite well documented and Galland spoke about it at the time of the film production as he was involved as a technical advisor and chose to leave the scene in. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC).
How come the Spitfire comment isn`t mentioned in "Historical Accuracy" ?
I feel very strongly that it should be, because there will be millions of people who`ve seen the film who will have an inaccurate view of events, in fact I`ve had that statement recounted to me by more than one person before. It was only when I read Galland`s book that a light went on above my head !
I don`t propose to add it (to "Historical Accuracy") myself because I don`t want to get into a revision confrontation, lifes too short..... I`ll console myself that the facts are on this talk page ! Whilst on the subject of Historical Accuracy, how come the fact the Royal Navy was far more powerful than the German Navy (and many argue this was just as important as the B of B in preventing an invasion) isn`t mentioned ? ! ? --JustinSmith (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Read the historical accuracy section more carefully. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC).
Ah, jolly good. I thought that`d been deleted, I didn`t realise it`d been moved ! That`s actually where it should be. --JustinSmith (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Polish pilot dialogue
My parents took my brother and me to see this film in 1969.
My mother translated the Polish dialogue a little for me. She said that when the Poles first spot the enemy, they say, "There's the Germans. Let's go get 'em."
Polish was Mum's second language, not her first. Perhaps someone else can provide a fuller translation of the Polish dialogue.
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I translated the initial Polish as "Nazis, Nazis, below." The rest is very indistinct and hard to make out, the closed caption does not provide a Polish equivalent. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
'Dowding' - 'Park' conversation regarding the Poles and the Czechs.
The Dowding character says to 'Park' that the foreign squadrons are a danger to us and themselves. I believe this to not be an accurate reflection of either the official RAF position or the private attitude of Dowding himself to these undoubtedly brave, experienced and determined fighters. References London Gazette 11 Sept 1946 Dowding's own words:- "164. I must confess that I had been a little doubtful of the effect which their experience in their -own countries and in France might have had upon the Polish and Czech pilots, but my doubts were soon laid to rest, because all three Squadrons swung in the fight with a dash and enthusiasm which is beyond praise. They were inspired by a burning hatred for the Germans which made them very deadly opponents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.247.33 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, and all a matter of record, the conversation and the attitude were accurate reflections of the pre-Battle RAF stance. All the initial group of Polish fighter pilots were initially slotted into Fairey Battle squadrons despite their unfamiliarity with bombers and their previous combat experiences and training. The Polish were also not even allowed to participate in postwar Battle celebrations, even though their contributions were timely and significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
The Poles and Czechs were kept back from doing more because many had a poor command of English and much of the vectoring by radar was by speech instructions from the ground. It wasn't that they weren't wanted, it was because they were thought to be a danger to themselves as well as to everyone else. Many just didn't understand English. At the time many had only been in England a few weeks and many spoke only a few basic English phrases. You can't have people flying around in armed aeroplanes who don't know what they are being told to do, especially when a reported 'bogey' may not turn out to be a 'bandit' after all but still risks getting shot down in error. And you can't have ground controllers speaking Polish or Czech because then the other English-speaking squadrons cannot understand either, as the relatively few radio channels available were shared by all.
The whole point of the very expensive (and at the time very secret) British Chain Home and GCI system was that the interceptors were controlled by verbal radio communication from the ground - so the pilots needed to understand spoken English. The Battles, being bombers, were operated differently and so having a few squadron using a different language was not such a problem. For aircrew from the Commonwealth of course, this was not a problem as most had English as a first language, and many from countries such as Holland, Norway, Belgium, etc, had a smattering of English taught to them at school. So the Czechs and the Poles were rather a 'special case' in their limited exposure to English compared to the others. It is also possible that due to being from 'suspect' (i.e., occupied) countries initially, they would not have been made aware of the British GCI method of interceptions for some time, and the resulting importance of possessing usable English. So the delays in introducing them into the air fighting may have seemed puzzling, if not incomprehensible, to them, at the time.
... so it wasn't that the Poles and Czechs in Fighter Command were not wanted - on the contrary, they were - but until they could learn to speak (or rather, understand) English reasonably well, they couldn't be used properly unless they just happened to be in the right place at the right time to make an interception. That's why they originally had a British officer leading them when they finally did 'enter the fray'. Because he was the only one who knew where the enemy were - the GCI ground controllers told him. In English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
All of the above is undoubtedly very interesting, I must confess I hadn`t thought about the overwhelming importance of them speaking English (or not) before [it wasn`t made clear in the film], but nobody has made the obvious point that this page is just a summary of the film, not the BofB itself !
Having said that I`d like to ask the question (somewhat inconsistently I must admit ! ), if the RAF were so very short of pilots, why weren`t (only) those foreign pilots with an adequate grasp of English used ? --JustinSmith (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Because in the other Commands radio communication was only important at certain stages of flight, e.g., pre-flight briefing, landing, etc. A Polish or Czech bomber pilot only needed to use the radio on take-off and landing, and the briefings before take-off could be translated on the ground for pilots who did not speak English. For a bomber crew it was possible to brief them on the operation beforehand in their native language. In addition, it was possible to include English-speaking crew members who weren't necessary the pilot of the aeroplane, e.g. wireless operator, etc.
Fighter Command was different because the fighters were mostly single-seat (except for types such as the Defiant) and the aircraft were guided by radio instructions from the ground. So the fight was fast-paced and needed a reasonable understanding of English in real-time. Aircrew within the other Commands could all be briefed on the forthcoming flights while on the ground. So non-English speaking pilots tended to be allocated to the multi-engine types such as bombers or reconnaissance, as lack of English was less of a problem and could be to some extent compensated-for.
Another problem the Poles and Czechs faced was that they actually use a different spelling and pronunciation rules to most of Western Europe, so reading British maps of the areas over which they were operating was much more difficult, as locations of enemy aircraft formations were usually given over the radio by the ground controllers as something like 'Hostiles, 120-plus, Angels One-Two, over Maidstone', 'approaching Dartford', etc., so the poor Poles and Czechs couldn't even find recognisable names on their British maps. Hence the wartime cartoon of a Polish pilot at an RAF eye test, and the optician responds to the pilot's first attempt to read the eye chart with; "Just one letter at a time please Mr Baranowski, there's no need to pronounce the whole card".
With single-seat fighters the lack of English made a pilot almost unusable (at least as perceived by those in the know at the time - remember the GCI system was secret and the Polish and Czech pilots themselves would almost certainly not have been made aware of it) with the GCI system around-which the whole ADGB was based.
Being unable to understand the radio instructions effectively nullified the whole GCI system, so the pilots would have needed to have been used for old-fashioned standing patrols (flying aircraft constantly on the off-chance that the enemy would come over), and the UK at the time didn't have the petrol to spare - it all had to come in by sea in tankers, many of-which which were being sunk by U-boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The mention of Ken Adam was recently made. AFAIK, he did not fight in the Battle of Britain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
I think it can be deleted as far as I know he only finished his flying training in October 1943. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Radar
The word radar is used in the early scenes of the movie, yet the term was unknown during the Battle. I suppose its use may have been dictated by dramatic considerations, as "Chain Home" and "Radio Direction Finding" (or "RDF") would not be immediately recognized by younger or non-UK viewers of the film. Userboy87 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly you are right. Most men or women in the street would have never have heard of the original term "RDF", a cover name intended to mislead - the system was NOT a Radio Direction Finding one so the term was fine to use anywhere. Calling it RAdio Direction And Ranging however, rather gave the true purpose away, thus defeating the purpose of having a misleading cover name. But by then it probably didn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Poor continuity 1960s bell push
When More leaves Yorks house there is a shot outside the house of the front door. Clearly the plastic door bell button is of 1960s vintage as most probably is the outside light fitting on the garage some 2 seconds later. Spoils the film for me.PeterPEarl (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Mr Warwick/Warrick?
Discussion coped from my talk page
Silly me ... I assumed the 'uk' in your handle indicated you were a Brit ... and I couldn't understand how you did not know how to spell Warwick. I see now that you are from across the pond and things become clear. Checkout Warwick and see how it is pronounced - and it sounds as though your Americanised version of the DVD has a spelling error on it. I just checked out the end credits of my Region 2 DVD of the film (just to make sure he wasn't bizarrely named Warrick or even Worrick) and it is definitely Warrant Officer Warwick. "Two nations divided by a common language" eh? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I watched the film again and put on the closed captions which confirmed that the character's name is "Warrick" and is pronounced that way by both Susannah York and Kenneth More and is written that way in the captions. The credits at the end and beginning of the film, do not give the character's names, just actor's names. I have two different DVDs, a collectors edition and the standard play, actually three different versions when I looked back at the VHS copy, and all agree with the same spelling. I have posted this before on the same article and have not found any other versions with a different spelling of the character's name. FWiW, IMDb is notoriously inaccurate regarding the character names in a film and this is just another example of that tendency. Bzuk (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
That is the American closed captions we are talking about here is it? If they spelt it correctly as Warwick an American would try and pronounce it something like 'Wore wick' instead of the correct 'Worrik'. Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Check the spelling in the rest of that dialogue section that has stood stable and unchanged for a very long time ... you now have it spelt as Warwick twice and Warrick once. I see you have also changed forever back to for ever again as well, any particular reason? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I listened again and again, and Susannah York pronounces it quite distinctly as Mr. Warrick as the camera is on her in a full closeup. I will make sure that changes are consistent, as the rest of the changes are a bit of mess; I haven't gotten back to it yet. The captions are written by the British studio and there are no credits for the character's names. You should go back and listen carefully to your version of the film and turn on the closed captions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Oh, I am very aware of how it is said ... but that is how we Brits pronounce Warwick. Try Googling 'Battle of Britain Mr Warrick" and you will find that your spelling is outnumbered about six to one by Warwick. Change the article if you have a burning desire to do so, I will not edit war with you ... but you are just plain wrong. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I have to call that improbable at best, as the captions are quite clear, the dialogue is easy to hear and, unless you can find some corroborating evidence, and I have now seen a British screen print on the Internet and again, there are no end credits as you claim your version contains. The article is now changed and unless you can find something other than your suppositions as to pronunciation, I will consider the matter closed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I could say this is mostly OR as the DVD, VHS and Internet copies of the film attest to the same spelling and so-called pronunciation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
As another fan of the film I'd like to chip in if I may. Pronunciation (sadly) makes little difference to spelling, and Greenstuff's point about the "Americanization" of names for subtitles makes sense: there must be other examples where it's spelt "more phonetically". As to his comment:
"I just checked out the end credits of my Region 2 DVD of the film (just to make sure he wasn't bizarrely named Warrick or even Worrick) and it is definitely Warrant Officer Warwick."
I'll check my own PAL DVD when I get back home (the British version and spellings should naturally take precedent on an article about a primarily British film set in (and over) Britain), but in the meantime if you could take a screenshot of the credits to corroborate your statement that would be helpful. I imagine no one wants either a stagnant article or an "edit war" here. --xensyriaT 18:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I can post that for a short time, but it will have to be a temporary image as only main page images are permitted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
I suspect this may be US/UK problem as Michael Bates is credited as Warrant Officer Warwick on IMDB[1] I can understand the problem for non-British english speakers as Warwick when spoken in England sounds like Warrick, I suspect the DVD caption was done by somebody in American who didnt understand the accent. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Utter nonsense, pretending that it's a you're just a dumb Yank argument. I can post the screen images for a short time, but it will have to be a temporary image as only main page images are permitted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
Understand, I am a fan as well, but there are no end credits on any versions I have seen including British, US and "world" editions. The captions are written by the British studio not at all an "american" version. You can easily distinguish the pronunciation and it always comes out the same. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)File:Susannah York.jpgscreenshot of Susannah York; File:Mr. Warrick.jpgthat's Mr. Warrick (Michael Bates) on the left with Kenneth More
IMDb is also written by "fans" and there are numerous instances of errors in screen character names as I can attest being a Film Coordinator for the WikiFilm Project Group where IMDb references are now routinely ineligible for use because of the errors inherent on the site. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
I have now checked five different versions of the Battle of Britain as to screen credits and there aren't any character-actor credits given at the end of the film on any version I can locate including Internet screen copies. After the title screen, all the main characters including Michael Bates are listed by name only. FWiW, this is entirely a "tempest in a teapot" issue. Bzuk (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
Thank for the Bzuk - so in summary:
People who watch in the UK think they hear Warwick
People who watch in the US think they hear Warrick
Whoever created the recent DVD caption heard it as Warrick
IMDB think it is Warwick
The film credits dont mention the name
So bottom line is that we have no reliable references what the character was called, all are dubious or original research. Can I suggest that we just annotate whatever name is in the article with a note to explain that it could be either, just needs explaining it doesnt matter what name is used in the article. (Just note about the retort dumb Yank argument not really true most people have difficulties with accents they are not use to hearing, not just those in the US so it was a possible reason for the difference not a slur on anybody) MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you watched/listened to the film? I will defer to anyone that has actually taken the time as I have to listen and judge the pronunciation. Countering the suppositions, do people in UK actually hear anything different? I have heard the so-called "British" version and it is exactly the same pronunciation? Do people hear differently from country to country; is someone in Canada actually hearing a difference? I have Region I DVD copies (two versions, theatre and collector's edition), a VHS copy and a DVD dub off-air, I have also watched the "British" version on the Internet; all are the same in terms of format, length and features. AFAIK, there are no end or character credits for the film. IMDb is not a good source for names in the film as it is fan-created and prone to errors; however, TCM, a moderator controlled, peer-reviewed site, lists Michael Bates as Warrant Officer Warrick. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
I knew I had a source and I can finally put this argument to bed once and for all. Leonard Mosley who wrote the first book on the making of the film, quotes directly from the film script on p. 181: (Screen note: "We see that it is an R.A.F. warrant officer, WARRICK. He is in charge of a party of AIRMEN towing away wreckage." MAGGIE: Don't you yell at me! Mister Warrick!" (Verbatim and exact quoting is used throughout.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
OK good find but I still think you need to add a footnote that it is often quoted as Warwick (because it sounds the same) MilborneOne (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the point, it doesn't sound the same; not at all, there is a scene where the camera tracks directly to a head-and-shoulders shot of Susannah York and there is no doubt, that it is "Warrick" that she says, slowly and emphatically, to make a point. He had just shouted at her to put out her cigarette as "the mains had blown." She had just drawn a cigarette after viewing a lineup of dead women covered in blankets but reacts blindly to his admonition. Startled, he turns at her mention of his name, does a sort of double take, shakes it off and leaves her alone. Earlier in the preceding sequence, Warrant Officer Warrick is being reamed out by Group Captain Barker (Kenneth More), Station Commander at RAF Duxford. Again, I screened this scene over and over and tried to make an audio recording but nonetheless, More also enunciates "warrick", not "Wah-ick" or "Wor-wick". I will make a note that there is a ongoing error embedded in many sources that lists the character's name incorrectly, not because it sounds the same as "Warwick." FWiW, TCM, the Turner Classic Movie Network has recently aired the film in North America and gave the cast credits in their website profile including listing a Warrant Officer Warrick played by Michael Bates. TCM maintains a moderator controlled, peer-reviewed site and is written by film historians rather than other sites such as IMDb where I believe the error originated, run as a "fan" site, written by fans that is rarely updated or corrected. At the Film Projects Group where I served as a Film Coordinator, a decision was finally made not to accept IMDb as a verifiable reference source for just this reason. I recently wrote an article on "Pilot No. 5" and found that the IMDB cast listing was woefully inadequate. I only refer to the site as a last resort. Bzuk (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Last comment as I dont want to prolong this but I know for some reason you dont accept that we say Warwick it sounds like Warrick but just as an aside the Warwick article has Warwick (English pronunciation:/ˈwɒrɪk/WORR-ik with a silent w in the middle). MilborneOne (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, it sounds exactly the same, was just about to post the same sound file. I live 20 miles from that town and it has been misspelt as 'Warwick' as long as I can remember! Pretty strange choice of surname by the crew, don't think I've ever come across that variation in real life. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I know I am coming across as a prig, only because it isn't so. Go watch/listen to the film and then tell me that the lead actors, York and More mispronounce the name of Warrick. He is listed that way in the film credits and in the scene as attested by a source who had access to the original script and script notes, and is captioned that way by the British production house. By the bye, the credits of the film also do not list character names. see the screenshot. File:Screenshot Credits 14.jpgBattle of Britain secondary characters screen credit FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
Unbelievable! It really doesn't matter very much, but the two are variant spellings which are pronounced exactly the same! More precisely, they are two alternative transcriptions of the same name. --xensyriaT 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
...and more unbelievable that the script lists only "Warrick" not any other spelling variation? and please listen to the film, if the producers had wanted to call the character "Warwick" but had lead actors pronounce his name in a dialect variation, sounding like "war-rick", then they would have listed the character as Warwick, they did not. FWiW, see Mosley 1969, p. 181, that quotes script notes, script lines and character names directly from the set where the author had been able to work closely with the production, the exact same way that they appear in the film, DVD and Internet copies. Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The book does seem to be a reliable source so I agree that the name should stand as Warrick in the article, but an accurate note should be included; this isn't a case of dialect or accent – that's simply how Warwick is pronounced the world over. Very few people have ever read the script, and by far the majority refer to the character as Mr Warwick: compare a Google search for battle of britain + "Mr Warwick" (615 hits) to "Mr Warrick" (165) also see WP:Common usage: while it may be a mistake it's still the most common spelling. Please don't assume this to be a personal attack as it isn't intended to be. --xensyriaT 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You aren't seriously proposing that google search comparisons are a valid reason for a change?! IMDb is likely the reason for this error, and it has been propagated that way ever since, as it often happens that errors in an initial source are repeated ad nauseum by later tertiary sources. Other more reliable sources such as TCM, the original script and Moseley's behind-the-scene book have the correct spelling, but regardless, the character's name is "Warrick"; the actors do not make an error (just listen to the film, without the canard of they are mispronouncing Warwick as a predetermined premise). There is a also very conspicuous other pronunciation of "War-wick" that flies in the face of the "could they be pronouncing Warwick as "war-ick" argument." The production house that has captioned all the video and DVD copies also have the correct spelling. For the sake of accuracy, I have attached a note to the article, and due to the influence of Wikipedia, just wait and see what those precocious google search comparisons will look like in a few years. Meanwhile, a person could simply try to report the error to IMDb and hope they will eventually correct their original mistake. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
LOL! - it's spelt Warwick but pronounced 'Worrick' - it has been for the last millenium or-so. As is this one Vickers Warwick and this one Dionne Warwick - if you don't believe me, ask her. They all come from the name of the English town/county. Presumably someone unfamiliar with the spelling/pronunciation spelt the name phonetically in the titles on the US release.
... having written the above, it is always possible that the character's name was spelt 'Warrick' in the script - but 'Warwick' is the more usual spelling. The surnames all originate from that town in Warwickshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Just realised that I hadn't ever posted the PAL subtitles I said I would. The U.K. Definitive Edition DVD uses "Mr. Warwick"; once in brackets before he tells Susannah York's character to put her cigarette out, and again in her reply. I wonder if the U.K. version of the book also has this spelling, and it was changed in the U.S. along with the subtitles to a more phonetic spelling. Not that it makes any difference here any more, since Warwick/Warrick was removed from the article. --xensyriaT 12:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Repeating ad nauseum, I have seen the British screen copy and again, the spelling is "Warrick", the same as it is in the captions on the worldwide tele, VHS, DVD and Blue Ray releases, as well as more tellingly, in the script, on TCM Reviews and the contemporary behind-the-scenes account written by Leonard Mosley. That it was spelled differently on one UK version is likely attributed to an error that I can almost trace back to the one place where the spelling is consistently "Warwick" and that is, IMDb. FWiW, all people have to do is to listen to the dialogue on screen and make their own conclusions. Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
LOL! - calm down Young Bill - just think of your blood-pressure! - LOL" - Ian (wink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm a little late to this, but I have taken your advice, listened to the dialogue and Susannah York clearly enunciates 'Warwick'. So one turns subtitles on and, voilà, there it is in white on RAF blue: 'Don't you yell at me, Mr. Warwick!' Wally Wiglet (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I wonder why other versions and the script list it as "Warrick", and as to the enuciation, calling BS here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
Probably because the original transcribers were American and, like you, clueless about British spelling and pronunciation. Unlike you, the makers of the BlueRay disc have recognized the mistake and corrected it. A number of people have patiently attempted to explain to you that, in Britain, the name Warwick is pronounced WORR-ick, exactly as enunciated in the Received Pronunciation of Susannah York in the scene in question. It has become painfully evident that, for some reason, you simply will not listen. I shall, therefore, not waste my breath. It is, however, fortunate that no-one in the film is named Menzies, Berkeley, Strachan, Home, Dalziel or Marjoribanks (to name just a few) and that no mention is made of Norwich, Beaulieu, Cholomondley, Leicester, Hawick, Southwell, Bicester or Worcester (to name a few more), otherwise we would be here all year having the spelling of British namesexplained to us. Wally Wiglet (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Remember to be civil, FYI, Canadians do know about British inflections, pronounciations and spelling. The original VHS, DVD and script, plus a number of other sources identify "Warrick" as well, the Leonard Mosley "behind-the-scenes" book, actually reproduces a number of pages of the script and lists the spelling as given in the film script. LOL: be sure to take care getting off your high horse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
"Calling BS here" is civil? Similarly "LOL: be sure to take care getting off your high horse"? Pot, kettle, black. It is also worth noting that you have changed your argument from "all people have to do is to listen to the dialogue on screen and make their own conclusions" (which, I must say, does not support your claim of familiarity with British pronunciation) to "It's there in black and white." Nonetheless, the question remains What is the man's name? I, like all the other Britons here, would contend it is Warwick because that is how the word spoken by Susannah York is spelled in Britain and this is, after all, a film set in Britain, about British events and with a (mainly) British cast (happily, Mssrs Spielberg and Ambrose were not involved in its production). Whence, then, Warrick? We do not have to look far: this is the American spelling of the name and, certainly, Americans were involved in the film's production. There would seem to be two possibilities. First, that the documents to which you refer are derived from the soundtrack, from which an American transcriber made the same mistake you do when listening to Susannah York, and this became perpetuated. Second, I suppose it is faintly possible that the name was butchered in the original production so that American personnel would know what Susannah York was saying. Either way, would a real Second World War RAF Warrant Officer (at least, one with Michael Bates's accent) have had an American name? I really don't think so, any more than Hurricanes had tailplane struts. Wally Wiglet (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"Musical score"
This section is riddled with POV statements, written as if by a Ron Goodwin fan. We need to substantiate any statements about the relative qualities of the Walton and Goodwin scores with citations to published sources - value judgements can't be made in Wikipedia's voice. Alfietucker (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I've now gone some way to amending this by removing POV statements, and replacing them with solidly cited information. That is not to say there is no other information - e.g. more favourable to Ron Goodwin - which might be found in published sources, only I personally haven't got/found any. Alfietucker (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
A British film - not "UK/US"
At "Country", the infobox claims that Battle of Britain is a "UK/US" film , although all recognised sources claim that it is solely British, such as IMDb, BFI. TCM, Allmovie and the very meticulously maintained database at the Swedish Film Institute. It's not listed at all by AFI, which means that AFI doesn't regard it an American film.
The official production company was Spitfire Productions Ltd (a British company specifically formed for this film and later dissolved), and the copyright is held by Harry Saltzman's company Stevens S.A. (which also holds the copyright to The Ipcress File). Yes, United Artists handled the distribution of the film in a number of countries, and undoubtedly supplied much of the financing in order to get the distribution, and also apparently had some sway over the choice of music. However, United Artists didn't request production credit nor supplied any executive producers, which is normal for any company heavily involved in the financing of the film. Consequently, the film is registered as British only.
I attempted to correct this earlier today, but my change was immediately reverted by a user who stated that he found it "doubtful" that it was a British only film, because of the conflict over the music. However, according to the template documentation for Template:Infobox film, "Country" should list the production countries as stated in reliable databases such as BFI and AFI - and those who state it, all say that the film is British. As I don't want an edit war over this issue, I leave it to someone else to decide what to do. Cheers! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
How much money overall did the "Battle Of Britain" make (or lose)
In the article it`s stated that on it`s release at cinemas the film lost money. However, since then it must have made significant amounts in repeated viewings on the TV, video/DVD sales and use of the footage in various documentaries. It seems these days you can`t view any programme about the B of B without seeing excerpts of the film ! The lastest example I`ve seen being "Fighting the Blue". Does anyone know if, overall counting everything in, the film still made a loss ?--JustinSmith (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I think adding clarity to this point would improve the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Engines in the mock ups
here it mentiones that motorcycle engines were sued adn yet on the DVD's it's said that they were lawn mower engines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
