- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/5/17 at 6:25 pm to OMLandshark
Just ignore Mizzou. Before he had even seen the movie, he hated it. Had typed up 5-6 paragraph posts in threads about how much it sucked as a whole and why millinials have short attention spans - all before he had even seen the movie.
Posted on 8/5/17 at 6:45 pm to Sun God
No. That sounds stupid. If you had mafioso doing stuff they never would have done such as warn Don Corleone before they hit him or, God forbid, also left the cannoli then you could point out that doesn't ring true.
But the biggest reason your statement is stupid is The Godfather was a completely fictional story. Dunkirk was not.
I know you wanted to trot out a polysyllabic word like pedantic to give yourself the appearance of intellectual superiority but it just ended up making you look like a poser. Try harder.
But the biggest reason your statement is stupid is The Godfather was a completely fictional story. Dunkirk was not.
I know you wanted to trot out a polysyllabic word like pedantic to give yourself the appearance of intellectual superiority but it just ended up making you look like a poser. Try harder.
This post was edited on 8/5/17 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 8/5/17 at 6:57 pm to SoFla Tideroller
That last paragraph is hilarious
Posted on 8/5/17 at 7:55 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:How Christopher Nolan shot those amazing aerial 'Dunkirk' dogfights
How about the much more plausible explanation that most of those interior shots were in a static cockpit mockup with CGI background dressed in later? Or a two seater aircraft duded up to look like a Spitfire for live shots at extremely passive flight regimes?
quote:
Shooting the furious flying action with real planes, often over the location of the pivotal Battle of Dunkirk, was challenging enough without computer effects or green-screen technology.
quote:They were in the plane, like I said. I never said that were flying it, which is absurd anyways. But they were feeling those Gs that you referenced.
He incorporated a lookalike Yak-52, a two-seater Soviet-era aircraft, for added shooting space in the cramped cockpit, dressing it to look like a one-seat Spitfire.
"The Yak had an open two-person cockpit. So we could put the camera right over the (actor's) shoulder and got up in the air with these guys," Nolan says.
quote:Just imagine you could have taken two seconds to Google this, rather than waste the time writing a bunch of paragraphs and looking foolishly ignore.
So you're assertion of, "Well, the exertion level of the actors is what it is because they were actually in the aircraft" is pretty much bull shite
And by the way: how are you capable of italicizing a quote but aren't using the quote function?
Posted on 8/5/17 at 11:01 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
So, in those wide shots of the beach, please point out those tall mountains these Germans were shooting from. All I saw were the dunes. You know, the ones the Germans came over to take Tom Hardy prisoner?
Have you ever been to the beach? A two story building 100 yards in land from the wet sand could easily be looking down at a 30 degree, or more, angle at a beard vessel like that. And the Germans getting from that kind of position to the beach to take Hardy prisoner wouldn't take any more effort than my kids did running down from the second floor balcony of the hotel we stayed at last time we went to the beach.
Your reasoning is just stupid and every time someone presents a valid explanation for the flaws you think you've found you come back with even worse statements like a little kid flailing his arms around hoping to score a lucky hit.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 1:31 am to theducks
I love Christopher Nolan films and was extremely pumped to see this one.
I left the theater highly disappointed. No real emotional connection at all. Not even in the same conversation as Inception and Interstellar etc
I left the theater highly disappointed. No real emotional connection at all. Not even in the same conversation as Inception and Interstellar etc
Posted on 8/6/17 at 6:45 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX on Friday night, wanted to take some time to process it before posting.
My only gripe was with some of the dialogue audio I couldn't understand the Brits even with no background noise.
Some people have complained about the scale not being correct but everything falls back to the perspective of 3 individuals. Would there have been more planes in the sky? Probably. But for Hardy, he only interacted with a few. Same with the soldier and the boat captain.
It's almost like the story is told through what they would have remembered. Not all the people but the ones they interacted with. Not all the bullets or bombs or corpses, just the ones that came close to them.
As for the beached boat, the soldiers had been on the beach for nearly a week. No food, barely any water, being bombed every 30 minutes. None of them were thinking clearly.
The sound effects and music were top notch. I almost cried on the first strafing/bombing run. I don't remember feeling that sense of hopelessness since SPR. Twice the bullets from the plane nearly made me jump out of my seat.
The cinematography was awesome too. There are some scenes that are just haunting. Like the sea foam creeping slowly up the sand as they carry the stretcher towards the ship.
My only gripe was with some of the dialogue audio I couldn't understand the Brits even with no background noise.
Some people have complained about the scale not being correct but everything falls back to the perspective of 3 individuals. Would there have been more planes in the sky? Probably. But for Hardy, he only interacted with a few. Same with the soldier and the boat captain.
It's almost like the story is told through what they would have remembered. Not all the people but the ones they interacted with. Not all the bullets or bombs or corpses, just the ones that came close to them.
As for the beached boat, the soldiers had been on the beach for nearly a week. No food, barely any water, being bombed every 30 minutes. None of them were thinking clearly.
The sound effects and music were top notch. I almost cried on the first strafing/bombing run. I don't remember feeling that sense of hopelessness since SPR. Twice the bullets from the plane nearly made me jump out of my seat.
The cinematography was awesome too. There are some scenes that are just haunting. Like the sea foam creeping slowly up the sand as they carry the stretcher towards the ship.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 6:26 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
I didn't care for it and wouldn't recommend it. It's a big budget movie with a small budget. It just needed more.
Plus I'm not really familiar with the story but I came away with the impression that the English abandoned the French in a desperate situation and then had the audacity to mock the French as cowards.
Plus I'm not really familiar with the story but I came away with the impression that the English abandoned the French in a desperate situation and then had the audacity to mock the French as cowards.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 7:08 pm to Easy
quote:So the scene where Naval Commander saying he will stay back for the French evacuation didn't give you any impression.
Plus I'm not really familiar with the story but I came away with the impression that the English abandoned the French in a desperate situation
quote:Where did they call the French cowards in the film? And if you're basing that off of something outside the film why didn't you also consider what actually happened outside of the plot in the film too?
and then had the audacity to mock the French as cowards.
Dunkirk Evacuation
quote:
An additional 75,000 French troops were retrieved over the nights of 2–4 June, before the operation finally ended.
The remainder of the rearguard—40,000 French troops—surrendered on 4 June
Posted on 8/6/17 at 7:32 pm to buckeye_vol
So 1 or 2 people out of 35,000 stayed? Was that even true? Seemed too Hollywood.
I can't recall the exact scene but yeah they definitely mocked the French soldiers. It was very ironic alll things considered.
I can't recall the exact scene but yeah they definitely mocked the French soldiers. It was very ironic alll things considered.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 7:40 pm to Easy
quote:
So 1 or 2 people out of 35,000 stayed? Was that even true? Seemed too Hollywood.
The French
Posted on 8/6/17 at 7:42 pm to OMLandshark
The French were the 400,000 the English heroically left behind. 
Posted on 8/6/17 at 7:45 pm to buckeye_vol
This has also been discussed, but I have just watched this today. Very good movie, and will win many technical awards.
But, so far, I have not read anyone mention Zimmer's use of Elgar's theme during the small boat fleet scene & the ending.
That I loved. This was after all, a British war movie. Elgar's variation theme is like a national hymn for them. Well done Zimmer.
Afterwards, I could not help but be reminded of the episode of Top Gear honoring all of the vehicles manufactured in Britain through the years. That also featured Elgar and puts a smile on my face every time.
Top Gear Tribute British Manufacturing
Elgar starts at 3:32
But, so far, I have not read anyone mention Zimmer's use of Elgar's theme during the small boat fleet scene & the ending.
That I loved. This was after all, a British war movie. Elgar's variation theme is like a national hymn for them. Well done Zimmer.
Afterwards, I could not help but be reminded of the episode of Top Gear honoring all of the vehicles manufactured in Britain through the years. That also featured Elgar and puts a smile on my face every time.
Top Gear Tribute British Manufacturing
Elgar starts at 3:32
Posted on 8/6/17 at 8:42 pm to Easy
quote:
It's a big budget movie with a small budget. It just needed more.
Small budget? What else more did you need? If someone wants to complain about no character development then I get that. But what else did you want budget wise? A bunch of crappy CGI?
And I never got the feeling of them mocking the French in the movie
This post was edited on 8/6/17 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 8/6/17 at 8:54 pm to theducks
quote:
Just ignore Mizzou. Before he had even seen the movie, he hated it.
WTF are you talking about? How can anyone hate a movie before even seeing it?
(I mean, this wasn't Ghostbusters) And do you know when and where I saw the movie?
I saw it...and before I saw it...all I posted before was reservations about the limited story - but I saw it...if I hated it so much, why would I go see it?
...and so my opinion is about the movie not about
reservations...and I gave an opinion...
...you take offense because it doesn't jive with your opinion and it's old school message board...if you don't like what I saw then ignore it. I figured you were more mature to understand opposing views - hence posting on a message board to hear opposing views - If everybody just wants to hear only their views supported, what's the point?
The movie may be a hot topic now but I don't believe it will stand the test of time like Sands of Iwo Jima, Das Boot, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory, Saving Private Ryan, etc. (the movie has no legs but for how it was filmed)
Posted on 8/6/17 at 9:41 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:Look here is a post from MARCH, when you were already criticizing the movie because a "FILM IS ABOUT PEOPLE."
WTF are you talking about? How can anyone hate a movie before even seeing it?
Your 03/10 Post, with more of your posts in the thread
quote:Here is your post on 07/20 where you take ONE British review, and decide that is representative of ALL BRITs. It was almost universally acclaimed by British reviewers, but you found the ONE to make a long post about a movie you had yet to see.
Isn't that a problem in film making?
People care about people and their story...not just bodies.
Your 07/20 Post
quote:Then here was your response to a WSJ criticism about "dumbing it down" on 07/30. Again before you saw it.
The Brits don't seem too impressed...Two stars.
And this is their movie Saving Private Ryan made just for them.
Criminally under-represented in the annals of movie history, the wartime evacuation of Dunkirk has been crying out for a classic film interpretation to rank alongside genre leaders The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far and Saving Private Ryan.
Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, alas, just isn’t it. What it is, essentially, is 106 clamorous minutes of big-screen bombast that’s so concerned with its own spectacle and scale (shot on huge IMAX and 65mm cameras, for big frames and big action) that it neglects to deliver the most crucial element — drama...characters...drama, drama, drama.
- Times London
So the Brits are saying Nolan took a pivotal moment in their history and reduced those families and soldiers to comic-book characters...or worse...comic-book characters get a backstory...Nolan has taken this event and reduced it to a video-game. That's pissing on the memories of those who died and history just to appease teenagers and fanboys and shirk his duty as a film-maker.
Your 07/30 Post
quote:THEN FINALLY, we get your review on 07/31. And look, your criticisms conveniently match the criticisms made before you ever saw the movie, EVEN GOING BACK TO MARCH.
That's a damning article about how Nolan feels about the intellectual aptitude of his target audience.
"His audience is 90% fanboys who will have no clue about Churchill if he wasn't wearing a superhero mask."
Without history, why do we care? Without character development, why do we care? Without context, why do we care?
Without none of that - it's just CGI video game on film. I've never understood why people find that interesting...to take an important moment of the 20th century and reduce it to less of a story than Pacific Rim.
Your 07/31 Post--After you just got back from seeing it
quote:You already had your mind made up months ago. Just confirms that your hackery isn't exclusive to the MSB and PT board. Good to know.
Just saw it, suspicions confirmed.
First off, are people deaf these days?
Movie was absurdly loud like front row concert. The bullet FX was like a knife piercing your ear drum. Jesus we aren't 85 years old.
Second, beautifully filmed, great choreography, pretty good editing with the 3 stories.
But who cares? Movies are about people. The boat family is about the only part of the story I remotely cared about. Beyond pretty cool filmmaking.
It's story telling 101 from Homer to Harper Lee - you have to be made and in some instances be forced by the narrative to care about the characters beyond the general...death or war or whatever is bad.
You have to make it personal like Jaws or Das Boot, we got to know them and learn them and hope for them. It wasn't just some faceless unknowns who went out there to kill a shark or people who didn't say a word in Das Boot.
This is arcade mixed with great cinematography but I don't know if I like it. Great filmmaking might be sadly losing the human touch even in historical movies that aren't battle for L.A. or Batman.
This post was edited on 8/6/17 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 8/6/17 at 9:42 pm to jg8623
By the time of the scenes in the movie, it was day 3 of the evacuation. Around 75k had already been rescued. Those men remaining were lined up on over 2 miles of beach. Nolan was focusing on one area of men closest to the East Mole Jetty. Many other concentrations of men were extended up to 2 miles south of the jetty. I think his focus was on a particular time and place of the evacuation as opposed to the overall operation that lasted 7 days.
At the end of Operation Dynamo, the British had lost 6 destroyers and more than 240 other Marine vessels; almost 64,000 vehicles including 445 tanks and over 900 aircraft. The RAF and Hitler himself saved the Allies from complete defeat that would have ended the war then and there had the Army not successfully evacuated and lived to fight another day.
The RAF, while losing over 900 aircraft, were able to keep the Luftwaffe at bay enough for the plan to succeed. The Germans lost 432 planes by their own admission and probably more.
Hitler because he issued a halt order on May 24th that directed all German forces to suspend fighting for 3 days because the Panzer divisions were way out ahead of the supporting Infantry. He was afraid that the Allies forces might drive a wedge between the two. They thought they had time because a massive evacuation from Dunkirk seemed inconceivable to anyone in the German High Command.
At the end of Operation Dynamo, the British had lost 6 destroyers and more than 240 other Marine vessels; almost 64,000 vehicles including 445 tanks and over 900 aircraft. The RAF and Hitler himself saved the Allies from complete defeat that would have ended the war then and there had the Army not successfully evacuated and lived to fight another day.
The RAF, while losing over 900 aircraft, were able to keep the Luftwaffe at bay enough for the plan to succeed. The Germans lost 432 planes by their own admission and probably more.
Hitler because he issued a halt order on May 24th that directed all German forces to suspend fighting for 3 days because the Panzer divisions were way out ahead of the supporting Infantry. He was afraid that the Allies forces might drive a wedge between the two. They thought they had time because a massive evacuation from Dunkirk seemed inconceivable to anyone in the German High Command.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 9:45 pm to buckeye_vol
Excellent post against what is arguably the worst poster on this entire site.
Posted on 8/6/17 at 9:57 pm to monkeybutt
Tried to see Dunkirk but it was sold out.
Wife insisted we go see Atomic Blonde instead. Was sort of worth it for the lesbo scene.
Wife insisted we go see Atomic Blonde instead. Was sort of worth it for the lesbo scene.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News