Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.

[Mango Chimes]

I was under the impression Nolan had agreed to do his next film after interstellar on digital as some kind of compromise though?

The compromise was that he'd shoot it on film, but then digitise every frame put it through the teal and orange shittifier on maximum settings, in order that people will go, "What the holy fuck is the point of shooting on hallowed film when you're going to fucking do THAT to it?! Let's burn all surviving Kodak stock, it's evidently fucking worthless!"  Tarantino's in on the same pact.

EDIT: New page cunteal and orange cunt.

[surreal]

This just reminded me of the apparently true story from World War 2 where the Germans spent ages building a fake wooden decoy airfield, only for the RAF to fly over and drop a wooden bomb on it...

[Bad Ambassador]

I was under the impression Nolan had agreed to do his next film after interstellar on digital as some kind of compromise though?

Didn't he do some documentary in between? GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE Yes, an 8-minute short about the Quay Brothers, but shot on 35mm.

[hewantstolurkatad]

I definitely remember him making some agreement to shoot on digital that tied into either the shooting of interstellar or its release

...but since then film has had a bit of a rebirth so I can see whoever it is he works with going back on it to preserve his marketing integrity.

[hewantstolurkatad]

Fuck me, Dunkirk is only 107 minutes?! That's very promising to me.

[mobias]

Choose life. Choose your aspect ratio.

[Wet Blanket]

I remember when everything was projected on 35mm, and thinking that digital projection, when it surfaced, was a massive improvement: brighter and clearer. (though I still think films shot on film look nicer).

[hewantstolurkatad]

Were you in an area that was doing 4K from the get go? 2K looks fairly shit (especially if you sit front row, like I tend to do)

[Wet Blanket]

I dunno. It was certainly a place where prints could be underlit, dirty and blurry.

On the other side of the coin I went to a screening not long ago where the film was being openly projected from the commercial blu-ray. And that did look bobbins. (not to mention feeling like a rip-off)

[Glebe]

Getting numerous 5-star reviews, folks saying it's Nolan's best movie and that... Cinemablend only give it 3/5, and complain about lack of plot/filled out characters, which, from what I gather from other reviews (a couple saying it could almost be a silent movie), seems to be misunderstanding the kind of film it is.

[hewantstolurkatad]

I dunno. It was certainly a place where prints could be underlit, dirty and blurry.

On the other side of the coin I went to a screening not long ago where the film was being openly projected from the commercial blu-ray. And that did look bobbins. (not to mention feeling like a rip-off)

That would've been 2K, most likely. Although it's possible you've since gotten used to 4K, the drop back down is always more noticeable.


Still though, you've not experienced a cinema rip off until you've paid to see a DVD projected.

[Glebe]

...Times critic Kevin Maher gives it a mere 2/5... don't have a subscription myself, so can't read the full review.

[surreal]

Most negative reviews seem to complain about lack of characterisation, which is missing the point that Nolan has said he's trying to make - this is not about one or two people, it's about the experience of people as a whole

[Twit 2]

The Rylance bits in the trailer are cheesy as fuck. I don't doubt it'll look the tits, but I reckon Nolan won't have lost his ear for wooden dialogue.

[Mr Brightside]

So what's this about, then?

[Dex Sawash]

^it's all explained in the tags

[Noodle Lizard]

A nice contrast from the latest Transformers which, according to the Mayo and Kermode show, didn't bother to film with non-Imax cameras* so in normal 2D screenings the ratio jumps around mid film.




*not sure if that's how it works actually, but it's something like that

That's the same with most films when you see them in IMAX, though.  The Dark Knight, for instance, had a few bits shot on IMAX but not the rest, so it'd go from filling the screen to the usual letterbox style.  Not particularly jarring unless it's cutting between the two formats constantly.  I don't know why the aspect ratio would jump around in a non-IMAX (or non-3D) screening, though.

I'd imagine it's less to do with "not bothering" to film big action set-pieces twice, but more that it's not at all financially or logistically viable.  I'd have to hear what they said, because none of that sounds right to me.

[buzby]

That's the same with most films when you see them in IMAX, though.  The Dark Knight, for instance, had a few bits shot on IMAX but not the rest, so it'd go from filling the screen to the usual letterbox style.  Not particularly jarring unless it's cutting between the two formats constantly.  I don't know why the aspect ratio would jump around in a non-IMAX (or non-3D) screening, though.

I'd imagine it's less to do with "not bothering" to film big action set-pieces twice, but more that it's not at all financially or logistically viable.  I'd have to hear what they said, because none of that sounds right to me.

I think the standard practice that the director and DP use when filming with Imax cameras where a standard aspect print/DCP is required is to block the scenes so that most of the action can be matted into the standard aspect ratio frame (see the examples in the Dunkirk infrographic posed above). Even if the whole film isn't shot on Imax, most directors will shoot entire scenes in Imax so the aspect ratio switches are confined to the cuts between scenes, rather than during a scene.

It looks like Bay didn't bother with this, and despite the press blurb for the film boasting it was 98% shot on Imax there are a baffling number of different aspect ratios in the final cut (seemingly a different one for each camera he was using) so you get constant switching between aspect ratios during a scene (See this scene for example). The 2D/non-Imax DCPs for The Last Knight had the multiple aspect ratio changes intact, letterboxed into the standard aspect ratio frame. Paramount even sent a note out with the DCPs telling projectionists to set the projectors to 1.85 Flat and that the constant aspect ratio changes were a stylistic choice of the director.

[hewantstolurkatad]

(See this scene for example)

I'm all for playing around with aspect ratios but that's fairly nuts.

That being said, I can absolutely buy Bay thinking it might add something somehow though (or rather, not negatively impact anything), I can also imagine him using the Transformers film as a means to test it out because it is a franchise he has less than no interest in doing and keeps being gave huge sums of money to continue with.

[MoonDust]

My one gripe with Dunkirk is the tagline "Survival is victory".

Not really, mate. It was a retreat/humiliating defeat. Granted the effort put in to get as many soldiers home who were surrounded was admirable, but it wasn't a victory.

Now call me a pedant and what not but it's pretty black and white: Dunkirk was a Nazi victory. They stopped the British invading mainland Europe until 1944 and consolidated their power in northern France.

Other than that it looks good, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. More curious now I've found out there's not much dialogue. Sounds a bit more experimental by Nolan's standards.

[marquis_de_sad]

I think the tagline is supposed to mean "victory" in the sense of survival being the only positive for the Brits (as Dunkirk was as you say a defeat). Still, not a great tagline, and one that Churchill would have disagreed with ("we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory").

[MoonDust]

I think the tagline is supposed to mean "victory" in the sense of survival being the only positive for the Brits (as Dunkirk was as you say a defeat). Still, not a great tagline, and one that Churchill would have disagreed with ("we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory").

Yeah. I agree that's what "victory" was meant to mean in this tagline. But you're right, it's not great, as it is a bit misleading. Especially to those who might not know much about Dunkirk at all.

[finnquark]

First day of summer holidays, thought fuck it lets go see Dunkirk at the 11am showing. £5, brought a flask of coffee and a couple of bits of fruit. Cinema was packed full of olds, with a smattering of 1D fans for the boy Styles. Enjoyed it, pretty amazing fighter sequences with Hardy, and some good turns from the old hams Branagh and Rylance. Four bags of popcorn - docking it one for bottling it and having little to say about Franco-British relations during the evacuation.

[MoonDust]

Watching one of the trailers it shows Tom Hardy as a German Luftwaffe pilot. Cuts scenes from the RAF pilot saying "He's on me" to Tom Hardy saying "I'm on him." Now in the trailer that line's said in English.

Does he speak German in the film? If not I might have to preemptively dock a point off it, as I do find it a tad irritating in films when foreign characters speak English to each other, particularly for a film I understand doesn't have much dialogue anyway. Just feels less authentic. It couldn't have been that hard to teach Tom Hardy the line "Ich bin auf ihm."

[worldsgreatestsinner]

Tom Hardy plays a RAF pilot in the film, not Luftwaffe.

[Bad Ambassador]

Apparently, German characters are only seen very briefly at the end of the film.

[MoonDust]

Tom Hardy plays a RAF pilot in the film, not Luftwaffe.

Ah fair. The trailer makes it look like he's Luftwaffe.

[Lord Mandrake]

Ah fair. The trailer makes it look like he's Luftwaffe.

Honestly puzzled as to what gave you that impression?

[Paaaaul]

I thought it was excellent+.
I've disliked the last couple of Nolan's films, but this is a great piece of visual storytelling. The dialogue clanks a little, but thankfully there isn't that much talking, and the ending is a little too light for my taste.The soundtrack is extraordinary, seemingly influenced by Mica Levi's Under The Skin. It's one of a very few war films that has given me a strong sense of understanding how life is during wartime.

[Custard]

Saw it tonight too.

Solid, tense, emotional, and very beautifully shot. Felt like a real "event" film. Certainly one to see on the biggest screen you can

Audience were really into it, especially the (excellent) final act. Though there were a few titters when Harry Styles first appeared, cos people are knobs isn't it

4 buns