Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan film
Discussion
nicanary said:
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'...
Allegedly. (Four wheels, olive green, tent for a roof, close enough innit?)
;-)
yellowjack said:
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'...
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'...
Hat doffed nicanary said:
Probably a "Tilly" of some sort. Loads and loads of them made by different companies.
That'll be "Car, Light Utility 4 x 2" to you sir. Now if you'd like to requisition one, please fill in this form in triplicate, and come back on Monday to fill in another form to requisition the petrol...
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'...
But to me for historical movies it isn't small details about whether Jeeps were around at the time the movie is set, or indeed whether a burning model of a spitfire has an engine inside, it is how a movie feels. In particular do the characters feel of their time and does the action meet my own expectations of the period.
For me there is Band of Brothers and then the rest, included within the rest is Saving Private Ryan. Most Hollywood movies present the fighting as some sort of call of duty live demo. In reality artillery and mortar fire accounted for roughly two thirds of combat casualties on the western front in WW2.
One infantry officer said his job was to protect the artillery observers as they advanced toward Germany.
I doubt many of the later contributors to this thread saw Dunkirk at the cinema, it was a completely different experience to watching it on a TV no matter how big the screen is
I'd been looking forward to it since it was first announced and I wasn't disappointed, I saw it a few times as I have a limitless membership , didn't notice the inaccuracies because I wasn't looking for them(no pausing to spot a wheel track or a modern TV aerial)apart from the burning spitfire with no engine in it , I can't believe they let that shot get into the final cut
I was interested in the film , the story, the desperation of the men involved, trying anything to get off the beach, not checking the lamp post almanac to see if the street lights were period correct.
I'd been looking forward to it since it was first announced and I wasn't disappointed, I saw it a few times as I have a limitless membership , didn't notice the inaccuracies because I wasn't looking for them(no pausing to spot a wheel track or a modern TV aerial)apart from the burning spitfire with no engine in it , I can't believe they let that shot get into the final cut
I was interested in the film , the story, the desperation of the men involved, trying anything to get off the beach, not checking the lamp post almanac to see if the street lights were period correct.
Edited by wack on Wednesday 3rd January 20:21
Edited by wack on Wednesday 3rd January 20:22
[quote=wack]I doubt many of the later contributors to this thread saw Dunkirk at the cinema, it was a completely different experience to watching it on a TV no matter how big the screen is
I'd been looking forward to it since it was first announced and I wasn't disappointed, I saw it a few times as I have a limitless membership , didn't notice the inaccuracies because I wasn't looking for them(no pausing to spot a wheel track or a modern TV aerial)apart from the burning spitfire with no engine in it , I can't believe they let that shot get into the final cut
I was interested in the film , the story, the desperation of the men involved, trying anything to get off the beach, not checking the lamp post almanac to see if the street lights were period correct.
It was far worse than that!
I'd been looking forward to it since it was first announced and I wasn't disappointed, I saw it a few times as I have a limitless membership , didn't notice the inaccuracies because I wasn't looking for them(no pausing to spot a wheel track or a modern TV aerial)apart from the burning spitfire with no engine in it , I can't believe they let that shot get into the final cut
I was interested in the film , the story, the desperation of the men involved, trying anything to get off the beach, not checking the lamp post almanac to see if the street lights were period correct.
Edited by wack on Wednesday 3rd January 20:21
Edited by wack on Wednesday 3rd January 20:22
[/quoteIt was far worse than that!
Watched it for the second time today, enjoyed it just as much. If you're expecting a documentary style film such as Tora Tora Tora or The Longest Day you'll be disappointed, but as a character piece it's excellent. The soundtrack is superb as well, which is something I rarely notice when watching something. Yes it does have a few logic gaps in it, but what film doesn't?
vxr8mate said:
I watched it on TV last night and thought it was very enjoyable.
Yes, the characters lacked depth as there was no backstory involving them, but I felt the film was about those few days leading to Dunkirk, rather than the characters that contributed.
Overall a healthy 7/10.
Just watched it with my 14 year old daughter, for the second time after the cinema. Yes, the characters lacked depth as there was no backstory involving them, but I felt the film was about those few days leading to Dunkirk, rather than the characters that contributed.
Overall a healthy 7/10.
Still a superb film for me and the impact it's had on some of the younger generation is great. My daughter now wants to watch Band of Brothers.
LHRFlightman said:
Just watched it with my 14 year old daughter, for the second time after the cinema.
Still a superb film for me and the impact it's had on some of the younger generation is great. My daughter now wants to watch Band of Brothers.
A couple of others in a slightly different vein are 'The Gathering Storm', 'Into the storm', 'Conspiracy', and if the taste for war needs quelling, try the original 'All Quiet on the Western Front'.Still a superb film for me and the impact it's had on some of the younger generation is great. My daughter now wants to watch Band of Brothers.
Whilst watching I found myself quite enjoying it but as it went on the amount of large and small annoyances built up.
On reflection quite honestly the only bits I really enjoyed were the Spitfire porn (and even that had its problems) and the sound design (sounded really good on our home theatre setup).
If you are going to make a film on one of the most chaotic (but brief) periods of WW2 then surely you have to actually represent chaos and the scale of that chaos and from the opening scene it utterly failed to do so.
Very arrogant of Christopher Nolan who I believe started with the premise of “I’m not using CGI” and then bent every other single aspect of the film around that totem, in the end to a ridiculous degree (quiet French seaside town on a Sunday afternoon)
Quite frankly we should expect more and better, Band of Brothers is now 17 years old (scary) and yet in every single episode nails the scale and scope of what it was trying to portray (from the vast like D-Day to intimate such as the woods outside of Bastogne) using whatever physical and virtual tricks were available to do so. It put the story it was trying to tell first.
Nolan stuck dogmatically to a decision that made the filmmaking process more important than telling the story.
I have faith in the “Mighty Eighth” though and I don’t think Spielberg and Hanks will let the audience or the story down…..
Regards Mike
On reflection quite honestly the only bits I really enjoyed were the Spitfire porn (and even that had its problems) and the sound design (sounded really good on our home theatre setup).
If you are going to make a film on one of the most chaotic (but brief) periods of WW2 then surely you have to actually represent chaos and the scale of that chaos and from the opening scene it utterly failed to do so.
Very arrogant of Christopher Nolan who I believe started with the premise of “I’m not using CGI” and then bent every other single aspect of the film around that totem, in the end to a ridiculous degree (quiet French seaside town on a Sunday afternoon)
Quite frankly we should expect more and better, Band of Brothers is now 17 years old (scary) and yet in every single episode nails the scale and scope of what it was trying to portray (from the vast like D-Day to intimate such as the woods outside of Bastogne) using whatever physical and virtual tricks were available to do so. It put the story it was trying to tell first.
Nolan stuck dogmatically to a decision that made the filmmaking process more important than telling the story.
I have faith in the “Mighty Eighth” though and I don’t think Spielberg and Hanks will let the audience or the story down…..
Regards Mike
blackmme said:
Whilst watching I found myself quite enjoying it but as it went on the amount of large and small annoyances built up.
On reflection quite honestly the only bits I really enjoyed were the Spitfire porn (and even that had its problems) and the sound design (sounded really good on our home theatre setup).
If you are going to make a film on one of the most chaotic (but brief) periods of WW2 then surely you have to actually represent chaos and the scale of that chaos and from the opening scene it utterly failed to do so.
Very arrogant of Christopher Nolan who I believe started with the premise of “I’m not using CGI” and then bent every other single aspect of the film around that totem, in the end to a ridiculous degree (quiet French seaside town on a Sunday afternoon)
Quite frankly we should expect more and better, Band of Brothers is now 17 years old (scary) and yet in every single episode nails the scale and scope of what it was trying to portray (from the vast like D-Day to intimate such as the woods outside of Bastogne) using whatever physical and virtual tricks were available to do so. It put the story it was trying to tell first.
Nolan stuck dogmatically to a decision that made the filmmaking process more important than telling the story.
I have faith in the “Mighty Eighth” though and I don’t think Spielberg and Hanks will let the audience or the story down…..
Regards Mike
The "Mighty Eighth" has been so long in the planning and making I'd actually forgotten all about it. Any news from anyone?On reflection quite honestly the only bits I really enjoyed were the Spitfire porn (and even that had its problems) and the sound design (sounded really good on our home theatre setup).
If you are going to make a film on one of the most chaotic (but brief) periods of WW2 then surely you have to actually represent chaos and the scale of that chaos and from the opening scene it utterly failed to do so.
Very arrogant of Christopher Nolan who I believe started with the premise of “I’m not using CGI” and then bent every other single aspect of the film around that totem, in the end to a ridiculous degree (quiet French seaside town on a Sunday afternoon)
Quite frankly we should expect more and better, Band of Brothers is now 17 years old (scary) and yet in every single episode nails the scale and scope of what it was trying to portray (from the vast like D-Day to intimate such as the woods outside of Bastogne) using whatever physical and virtual tricks were available to do so. It put the story it was trying to tell first.
Nolan stuck dogmatically to a decision that made the filmmaking process more important than telling the story.
I have faith in the “Mighty Eighth” though and I don’t think Spielberg and Hanks will let the audience or the story down…..
Regards Mike
Eric Mc said:
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.
As others mentioned, it too was riddled with inaccuracies and suchlike.
The most glaring one was among the "real life newsreel" type footage they stitched into the movie scenes. Early on, what purported to be the Wehrmacht rolling through France, Belgium, and the Netherlands showed a Tiger tank among the vehicles rolling past the camera. The Tiger I wasn't even a design requirement until Barbarossa in 1941, and prototypes didn't appear until April 1942.
Other obvious issues (as with a lot of war movies in that period) were with post-war allied vehicles appearing in place of German equipment, and the stitching together of stock newsreel footage of a variety of different aeroplane types during a single air attack scene. There was also "on camera" evidence of pyrotechnic charge bases below the sand, etc, etc, and the jarring appearance of a concrete and glass building on the dockside at "Sheerness".
Obviously the 1958 movie benefited from being a black & white production in so far as it was a lot easier to stitch in newsreel pictures for Stuka attacks, instead of model work. But then a lot of the sets felt too "studio-based" rather than location shoots.
It's a great movie, and relies on following a small group of stragglers split up from their unit, and some key characters among the 'Little Ships' owners to tell the story, rather than trying to tell the whole tale in any detail.
I suppose the point is that I'd remembered it through the rose-tinted mists of time, and given it far more credit for being realistic than I was prepared to give the Nolan version. Clearly now, having re-watched it, this was an error. So with regard to the new film? I imagine that when I've had a chance to sit through it, and get all the (obvious) inaccuracies out of my system, I'll be able to at least look back on it with a "not a bad effort" view, rather than repeatedly sitting through it picking holes in it frame-by-frame...
mikal83 said:
How you can compare a film from then to now is beyond me.
Nolan just couldn't be arsed from what I can see. Don't films get shown to private audiences etc b4 gen release. Was no ex Mil people onboard as advisories.
It was a clusterf*ck of a film
Some liked it.Nolan just couldn't be arsed from what I can see. Don't films get shown to private audiences etc b4 gen release. Was no ex Mil people onboard as advisories.
It was a clusterf*ck of a film
Some didn't like it.
Nothing else to say really.
mikal83 said:
How you can compare a film from then to now is beyond me.
Nolan just couldn't be arsed from what I can see. Don't films get shown to private audiences etc b4 gen release. Was no ex Mil people onboard as advisories.
It was a clusterf*ck of a film
Because it shows anachronisms aren't a new thing. Yes a lot of it can be excused due to restrictions in filmmaking techniques, but using newsreel footage of a Tiger is just plain lazy. Nolan just couldn't be arsed from what I can see. Don't films get shown to private audiences etc b4 gen release. Was no ex Mil people onboard as advisories.
It was a clusterf*ck of a film
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff