Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (2017)
Reply to Topic
Big Nolan guy but I was honestly not really looking forward to this like I usually do with Nolan flicks. Until the reactions started coming out. Silly me. Always trust Nolan. Excited to see it now.
Off topic but I really do think Nolan is going do a Bond soon. I know Craig is returning for one more. So I think Nolan does another movie then after that he gets his hands on the Bond series. He has expressed interest in doing one and I'm sure the Bond producers would back a dump truck of money up to his door step. I actually think he uses the Bond franchise the same way he used Batman. Think he will do a trilogy and use the good will and money from the studio he generates off Bond to have the autonomy to create more original blockbusters. Like he got Prestige, Inception and Interstellar made from batman good will.
Off topic but I really do think Nolan is going do a Bond soon. I know Craig is returning for one more. So I think Nolan does another movie then after that he gets his hands on the Bond series. He has expressed interest in doing one and I'm sure the Bond producers would back a dump truck of money up to his door step. I actually think he uses the Bond franchise the same way he used Batman. Think he will do a trilogy and use the good will and money from the studio he generates off Bond to have the autonomy to create more original blockbusters. Like he got Prestige, Inception and Interstellar made from batman good will.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
I wouldn't call the 50's a 'recent decade' so that might not be an incorrect statement unless there's others more recently.
__________________
You are vile.
"Why isn't this movie a completely different movie?" strikes me as an inherently unreasonable complaint.
But I would find it much better to focus resources on what is truly interesting and doesn't depend on plain ethnocentrism/chauvinism for it's enjoyment but that's obviously beyond the understanding of most people here.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What makes you think it's an inherently unreasonable to complaint about the massive resources dedicated in making a film focusing on a small detail of a much wider historical event that has little relevance for the wider historical event? The reason is clearly ethnocentric: it's because the British care about it.
2) Why do you think being a "wider historical event" automatically makes for a better story? There's no reason to think this at all, let alone treat it as self-evident.
3) Are you seriously unable to conjure up a reason other than "ethnocentrism" that people might not be keen on watching a film about how brilliant a Nazi general was?
Have you seen the film, by the way?
Much better to focus resources on what is truly interesting and doesn't depend on ethnocentrism but that's obviously beyond the understanding of most people here.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Stop nit-picking.
X
Favorite Movies
3) Are you seriously unable to conjure up a reason other than "ethnocentrism" that people might not be keen on watching a film about how brilliant a Nazi general was?
Of course, the movie going public today is too stupid to be able to enjoy a war movie where some of the main characters are not in the Allied side. Because they are unable to see the other side as human.
Back in the days of All Quiet in the Western Front or in Cross of Iron Hollywood was able to do a movie not set in the Allied side. And that represented Germans as people.
Today it appears Hollywood is only capable of portraying the historical Germans as some kind of simplistic (western) comic book villains and so if you do a movie about 1940 today it has too be a movie about the Allied retreat when they saved 5% of their force.
Insisting that what you find interesting is what's "truly interesting" may not be ethnocentrism, but it sure is egocentrism. And invoking ethnicity as a catch-all for so many different disagreements is both intellectually lazy, and demonstrates a clear lack of general empathy.
Clearly, Hollywood, by obsessing over the "glorious retrieval" of 5% of the men they had on the European continent, is being obviously ethnocentric and chauvinistic.
I am clearly wasting my time talking to you, I guess it's my obsession to respond on the internet to anything.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Because all Germans were Nazis? That's your bigotry speaking..
He said that Manstein was a nazi, what's the logic behind that? It's because he was a German.
And then he complains about "lack of empathy" if I criticize Hollywood for dehumanizing the Germans...
And then he complains about "lack of empathy" if I criticize Hollywood for dehumanizing the Germans...
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
He said that Mainstein was a nazi, what's the logic behind that? It's because he was a German.
And then he complains about "lack of empathy" if I criticize Hollywood for dehumanizing the Germans...
And then he complains about "lack of empathy" if I criticize Hollywood for dehumanizing the Germans...
If someone says he is a Nazi because he was a German, that person is implying that all Germans were Nazis.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If someone says he is a Nazi because he was a German, that person is implying that all Germans were Nazis.
It's called LOGIC. By stating that a person must be a Nazi because that person was a German in 1940 implies in attributing the quality "Nazi" to all Germans in 1940.
Why do you find that hard to understand?
Why do you find that hard to understand?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Because all Germans were Nazis? That's your bigotry speaking.
so if you do a movie about 1940 today it has too be a movie about the Allied retreat when they saved 5% of their force.
"Why do you think being a 'wider historical event' automatically makes for a better story? There's no reason to think this at all, let alone treat it as self-evident."The dramatic impact of a story does not have a linear correlation to the number of people involved. If anything, the relationship is inverse.
No. You just do not understand me nor you attempt to. I am clearly wasting my time talking to you.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's not logic at all, and I'm not deaf so no need to yell. You're blowing hot air. If you can show me any comment he made in this thread that is bigotry against germans I will give you one million doll hairs.
Perhaps it's simply inspired by a civilian navy of sorts, choosing to cross the English Channel to rescue soldiers. We are VERY removed from war today. It's on the news for a lot of us, but that's as close as it ever gets.
Audio Interview top left of page.
Audio Interview top left of page.
X
Favorite Movies
For instance, in this case he is doing a movie about the Allied retreat in 1940. Why, if he wanted to be artistically challenging not do a movie about a much more historically important event than the retreat of a few hundred thousand allied soldiers (out of the 4 million that were captured by the Germans).
How about a movie focused on the 1940 German victory in the Battle of France from the German's own perspective? It was among the most impressive military achievement in world history, certainly the most impressive in the 20th century. Doing a movie that does justice to Manstein's brilliant strategic plan and how they had to manipulate Hitler to make Hitler not screw things up and meanwhile Hitler himself managed to convince himself that he was the author of the strategic plan, would be pretty cool. I am not aware of any movie about the Mainstein's plan even though it's perhaps the most important military event of the last century.
And such a movie will certainly feel more serious since it's not this obviously ethnocentric take on a historical event (how a movie can be more ethnocentric than this?), instead being very morally ambiguous since it shows a great victory by an evil regime. Which would make it more profound.
Instead of making a (almost propaganda) roller coaster movie about the "adventurous" retreat of a few hundred thousand soldiers that didn't have any substantial impact on the war? And why this Hollywood obsession with the British perspective (basically, it's the only country that cares about that retreat)? Sure they colonized the US about 400 years ago but why does the US's movie industry has to obsess so much with the UK?
How about a movie focused on the 1940 German victory in the Battle of France from the German's own perspective? It was among the most impressive military achievement in world history, certainly the most impressive in the 20th century. Doing a movie that does justice to Manstein's brilliant strategic plan and how they had to manipulate Hitler to make Hitler not screw things up and meanwhile Hitler himself managed to convince himself that he was the author of the strategic plan, would be pretty cool. I am not aware of any movie about the Mainstein's plan even though it's perhaps the most important military event of the last century.
And such a movie will certainly feel more serious since it's not this obviously ethnocentric take on a historical event (how a movie can be more ethnocentric than this?), instead being very morally ambiguous since it shows a great victory by an evil regime. Which would make it more profound.
Instead of making a (almost propaganda) roller coaster movie about the "adventurous" retreat of a few hundred thousand soldiers that didn't have any substantial impact on the war? And why this Hollywood obsession with the British perspective (basically, it's the only country that cares about that retreat)? Sure they colonized the US about 400 years ago but why does the US's movie industry has to obsess so much with the UK?
Your argument that "Nolan should have made a film on X rather than Y" is as futile as it is self-defeating.
A film-maker is going to make a film on a subject matter that he/she feels a passion for, which may not necessarily align with what the audience wants/ find interesting. Nolan found this project interesting enough to dedicate 2-3 years of his life on it whereas we just spend a couple of hours in the cinema enjoying the end product.
X
Favorite Movies
Instead of making a (almost propaganda) roller coaster movie about the "adventurous" retreat of a few hundred thousand soldiers that didn't have any substantial impact on the war?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
Even framing the issue in those terms is bizarre. Narrative impact has very little to do with the number of human beings something affects. One person's personal struggle to compensate for a physical disability has less consequence than giant alien robots fighting over the fate of the universe, but that doesn't mean Transformers is a better movie than My Left Foot.
X
Favorite Movies
X
