Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
Oakey said:
I've not seen the actual film yet, but just from that Youtube edit, why (at 7:10) is the squadron code seen back-to-front, and then (at 7:15) it's right-way-round again?If some of the movie's errors are as glaringly obvious as that, then I fear I'm not going to like it very much at all.
Like other people have mentioned, some "war" movies can't be ruined by inaccuracies because they aren't really war movies. Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, Kelly's Heroes, The Dirty Dozen, etc. Comic book stories, dressed up as war films.
Some inaccuracies are forced on producers, where tanks and aircraft of the correct period and type are not available at all, or too valuable to use for filming.
Some inaccuracies are deliberate, to increase the visual impact of a film. Poor tactics, yellow flames and black smoke from military grade explosives, excessive rates of fire and comedy ammunition capacities.
Many of these things, either in isolation, or because the rest of the movie distracts attention and reduces the impact of the inaccuracies, can be forgiven. But the very fact that this particular movie seems to have generated so much debate on the issue suggests to me that many of these inaccuracies are in fact errors, more to do with poor attention to detail during the filming and post production, than being 'essential liberties' taken by (or forced upon) the production from the outset.
I'm going to watch this Nolan movie anyway, at some point, so I'll judge for myself. In the meantime I've got the 1958 Dunkirk (John Mills) film recorded to watch on the digital box at home. "I've never kicked a man lying down before, but this may be the moment to start - now get to your feet, we're movin'!" I'm not entirely sure, but they may have made that film without CGI too...
Oakey said:
Brilliant !yellowjack said:
I've not seen the actual film yet, but just from that Youtube edit, why (at 7:10) is the squadron code seen back-to-front, and then (at 7:15) it's right-way-round again?
A) Nolan deliberately included this detail so that challenged individuals who enjoy pointing out small mistakes would not feel short-changed.B) Because it is seen from the perspective of someone looking at the scene reflected in a mirror, indicating that the pilot's bravery is, in a way, a reflection on all of us.
yellowjack said:
I've not seen the actual film yet, but just from that Youtube edit, why (at 7:10) is the squadron code seen back-to-front, and then (at 7:15) it's right-way-round again?
If some of the movie's errors are as glaringly obvious as that, then I fear I'm not going to like it very much at all.
Like other people have mentioned, some "war" movies can't be ruined by inaccuracies because they aren't really war movies. Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, Kelly's Heroes, The Dirty Dozen, etc. Comic book stories, dressed up as war films.
Some inaccuracies are forced on producers, where tanks and aircraft of the correct period and type are not available at all, or too valuable to use for filming.
Some inaccuracies are deliberate, to increase the visual impact of a film. Poor tactics, yellow flames and black smoke from military grade explosives, excessive rates of fire and comedy ammunition capacities.
Many of these things, either in isolation, or because the rest of the movie distracts attention and reduces the impact of the inaccuracies, can be forgiven. But the very fact that this particular movie seems to have generated so much debate on the issue suggests to me that many of these inaccuracies are in fact errors, more to do with poor attention to detail during the filming and post production, than being 'essential liberties' taken by (or forced upon) the production from the outset.
I'm going to watch this Nolan movie anyway, at some point, so I'll judge for myself. In the meantime I've got the 1958 Dunkirk (John Mills) film recorded to watch on the digital box at home. "I've never kicked a man lying down before, but this may be the moment to start - now get to your feet, we're movin'!" I'm not entirely sure, but they may have made that film without CGI too...
In 1958 it was all cardboard and wood special effects. And they didn't have to worry about colour inaccuracies either.If some of the movie's errors are as glaringly obvious as that, then I fear I'm not going to like it very much at all.
Like other people have mentioned, some "war" movies can't be ruined by inaccuracies because they aren't really war movies. Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, Kelly's Heroes, The Dirty Dozen, etc. Comic book stories, dressed up as war films.
Some inaccuracies are forced on producers, where tanks and aircraft of the correct period and type are not available at all, or too valuable to use for filming.
Some inaccuracies are deliberate, to increase the visual impact of a film. Poor tactics, yellow flames and black smoke from military grade explosives, excessive rates of fire and comedy ammunition capacities.
Many of these things, either in isolation, or because the rest of the movie distracts attention and reduces the impact of the inaccuracies, can be forgiven. But the very fact that this particular movie seems to have generated so much debate on the issue suggests to me that many of these inaccuracies are in fact errors, more to do with poor attention to detail during the filming and post production, than being 'essential liberties' taken by (or forced upon) the production from the outset.
I'm going to watch this Nolan movie anyway, at some point, so I'll judge for myself. In the meantime I've got the 1958 Dunkirk (John Mills) film recorded to watch on the digital box at home. "I've never kicked a man lying down before, but this may be the moment to start - now get to your feet, we're movin'!" I'm not entirely sure, but they may have made that film without CGI too...
"Aeroplane Monthly" ran a good article on the use of aircraft in the "new" Dunkirk movie back in the summer.
Lots of mixed opinions on this one.
I get where people are coming from when they say little details ruin it for them. I have been the same with other historical films. Watching it for the first time however the only things that were a bit glaring for me was how close the defence line was to the beach, the lack of numbers on the beach and the train at the end. Not enough really to take me out of the movie.
I am a Nolan fan but felt this wasn't as interesting as many of his other films.
A good movie for me but not great on first viewing.
As a side note Saving Private Ryan was only great for its first twenty minutes with the landing. After that it became steadily more clichéd.
A further side note is that most of the war wasn't like the landings on Omaha beach. Even most of the other landings that day weren't like that and vehicles were being unloaded on many of those beaches while the fighting went on at Omaha.
I get where people are coming from when they say little details ruin it for them. I have been the same with other historical films. Watching it for the first time however the only things that were a bit glaring for me was how close the defence line was to the beach, the lack of numbers on the beach and the train at the end. Not enough really to take me out of the movie.
I am a Nolan fan but felt this wasn't as interesting as many of his other films.
A good movie for me but not great on first viewing.
As a side note Saving Private Ryan was only great for its first twenty minutes with the landing. After that it became steadily more clichéd.
A further side note is that most of the war wasn't like the landings on Omaha beach. Even most of the other landings that day weren't like that and vehicles were being unloaded on many of those beaches while the fighting went on at Omaha.
Discussed this movie with my Dad and discovered my grandad on his side of the family was one of the ones who came off the beach. He had served in the army and left in 1937 and was called up in the reserves. In the retreat he and a bunch of lads stole a jeep which an officer had left outside a bar and made for the coast.
JagLover said:
Discussed this movie with my Dad and discovered my grandad on his side of the family was one of the ones who came off the beach. He had served in the army and left in 1937 and was called up in the reserves. In the retreat he and a bunch of lads stole a jeep which an officer had left outside a bar and made for the coast.
Aha!Another error!
[strokes beard, warms up adenoidal voice]
Operation Dynamo took place between late May and early June 1940. A whole month before the US Army had even formalized it's set of requirements for what became the 'Jeep'. Three companies bid for the contract, and the first prototype wasn't delivered until September 1940. The 'Jeep' wasn't standardised in production in it's well known form until July 1941.
So whilst your grandad might have stolen something British which was Jeep-like in construction and role, he most definitely didn't steel a 'Jeep'...
yellowjack said:
JagLover said:
Discussed this movie with my Dad and discovered my grandad on his side of the family was one of the ones who came off the beach. He had served in the army and left in 1937 and was called up in the reserves. In the retreat he and a bunch of lads stole a jeep which an officer had left outside a bar and made for the coast.
Aha!Another error!
[strokes beard, warms up adenoidal voice]
Operation Dynamo took place between late May and early June 1940. A whole month before the US Army had even formalized it's set of requirements for what became the 'Jeep'. Three companies bid for the contract, and the first prototype wasn't delivered until September 1940. The 'Jeep' wasn't standardised in production in it's well known form until July 1941.
So whilst your grandad might have stolen something British which was Jeep-like in construction and role, he most definitely didn't steel a 'Jeep'...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff