News: “Over the graves of the Druids and under the wreck of Rome,
Rudely but surely they bedded the plinth of the days to come.
Behind the feet of the Legions and before the Norseman’s ire
Rudely but greatly begat they the framing of State and Shire
Rudely but deeply they laboured, and their labour stand till now.
If we trace on ancient headlands the twist of their eight-ox plough.”

-Rudyard Kipling
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang  (Read 8724 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Deano

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2011, 23:30:59 »
i would of said.... early to mid seventies

but isn`t some of them prices in old money....

Decimalisation was in 1971 .

Chatham_Girl85

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2011, 23:19:42 »
Wherebouts in Chatham High Street would this be? Anyone?

Parked outside Iceland. Fine Fare is now the Trafalgar Centre.

Thanks Numanfan...

I had a psychic intuition it would be you with the answer :)

Offline numanfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Appreciation 126
    • www.move2medway.co.uk
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2011, 22:36:40 »
Wherebouts in Chatham High Street would this be? Anyone?

Parked outside Iceland. Fine Fare is now the Trafalgar Centre.
www.move2medway.co.uk - take the journey

Offline prb

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Appreciation 3
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2011, 22:19:08 »
Fine fare about til mid seventies they had a depot at Aylesford

Chatham_Girl85

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2011, 22:07:21 »
Nothing much has changed in Chatham still has to let signs up, looks cleaner then then it is now... Wherebouts in Chatham High Street would this be? Anyone?

Offline man-of-kent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Appreciation 6
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2011, 07:10:09 »
This was taken by my Mother on her Kodak Instamatic as a slide. I don't have a date but I'm sure some of you experts can tell by the backround buildings in Chatham High street.
Derek Brice

Deano

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2011, 23:14:14 »
Reproduction or not...
She looks great !!!

now, how do i go about borrowing it for the weekend.....

NCR

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2011, 22:28:31 »
Did any of you spot her in the Hempstead Valley Savacentre today,promoting Win a Ride Competition.


Sadly she's no more genuine than the "007" DB5 that also appeared at Hempstead* Well maybe she is - a bit. At least it's quite possible this one actually appeared in a film.

The "real" fully working "Chitty" went missing almost as soon as the film was completed. There is very strong evidence to support the theory she went up in flames in a warehouse fire in the USA whilst being used a a promotional tool for the film.

A couple of Car Museums in the UK have held dummy cars used in the film (some accounts indicate as many as 8 dummies could have existed but this is doubtful). An engine-less one built for the beach scenes where the tide comes in. The other was constructed to be towed on a trailer whilst the actors performed inside. This car is either from one of those Museums (as some of the Bond cars were) or its "faked", created for the purposes of a promo tool years later.

*The recent DB5 which appeared to be simply a standard DB5 with a respray.

NCR

  • Guest
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2011, 22:09:50 »

I know the film is quite long - 144 minutes - but was that normal in the 60's?



It was kind of normal - for a brief period, and for certain genre. Many people blame Mary Poppins or My Fair Lady for starting it in 1964. These films started a fad for the megabucks, family musical extravaganza. The Sound of Music upped the ante a year later. In rapid succession you get a significant number of these overblown, budget-busting films with other producers jumping on the bandwagon. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dr. Doolittle, Hello Dolly - all had extended running times under the (mistaken) belief that longer is better and that audiences wanted more for their money. Thus a tendancy to let punchy editing go by the way and keeping as much as possible on screen film's length (often these films did go way over budget so you may as well screen it was part of the thinking too!).

I personally think that view only tells one half the story. Yes, the films are a bit tedious and could benefit from cutting down - but it wasn't only musicals. To understand why look at two big changes effecting the cinema in 1964.

Television was continuing to erode audience numbers.
The "death" of the B movie.

So what did the film makers attempt to hit back at TV?. Bigger, longer films with far greater spectacle. It is unfair to attribute this "fashion" as just being limited to musicals. Cleopatra (1963) anyone?. Also a number of big-budget "war" movies in the mid sixties. This answer to the threat of TV was essentially a film with a running time to rival the average time of previous main features and a B feature combined. All with lavish budgets. Lets not forget many people still did not have colour tv and there was no way TV could match a cinema budget.

The problem is with one long film, regardless of spectacle, you have to have a good story worth telling in this extended running time. An audience gets bored, and it's arguable that many of these films could not justify the running times.

Even the Bond producers eventually broke their own self-enforced sub 100 minute rule in 1969 with OHMSS. At least here we had  Editor Peter Hunt making his Directorial debut with a good story, and lots of his own revolutionary (now industry standard) editing tricks successfuly trialed since "Dr No" to inject energy pace into the piece. Even so, in this case, the film was the least successsful to date and this was attributed both to a lack of Connery and to being overlong. Bond producers went back to the trusted formula with "Diamonds" in 1971. Ironically, these days OHMSS is now generally recognised as one of the very best of these films.

Offline LenP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Appreciation 23
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2011, 22:17:39 »
Weren't intermissions caused by most films being on two reels and the projectionist having to change them over?

Offline numanfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Appreciation 126
    • www.move2medway.co.uk
Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2010, 11:30:18 »
Back to the film.
I saw CCBB at the Regent in Chatham when it was originally released. At the point in the film where the car is heading for the edge of the cliff (before we knew it could fly), there was an intermission!
Was the film released in two parts deliberately or was it just the cinema generating more ice-cream sales? :)

I know the film is quite long - 144 minutes - but was that normal in the 60's?

www.move2medway.co.uk - take the journey

Offline grandarog

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Appreciation 103
  • RAF Halton 1957-1960
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2010, 20:02:13 »
Did any of you spot her in the Hempstead Valley Savacentre today,promoting Win a Ride Competition.







 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines