"Dunkirk" movie - Warner Bros - Christopher Nolan

[BILL THE PATCH]

Thats it !

 

I have had enough ............

 

 

I am in the 15 items or less line even though I have 17 items.

Ha, this thread is more entertaining then the movie. Good one kammo

 

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

 

 

[kammo-man]

Ha, this thread is more entertaining then the movie. Good one kammo

 

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

 

I thank you Bill.

 

 

owen

[Gregory]

 

I completely agree about the armchair critics.

 

This movie was not about the battles but was about the evacuation of British soldiers from Dunkirk. It was not about soldiers shooting at each other but was about a country coming together to help rescue their fellow countrymen from annihilation. This movie showed the RAF helping support the ships both civilian and military travelling to Dunkirk. This movie showed the civilian boats coming to the aid of their military force. This movie showed the sinking of ships carrying evacuated soldiers.

 

If you want to watch a movie with a lot of shooting, explosions, and flying body parts then this movie is not for you. If you want to see a movie that shows man’s ability to rise to the occasion, improvise, and overcome obstacles, then this is the movie for you.

 

The scene with the British officers standing on the dock while the civilian boats drove away was mentioned. Why would the British officers need to ride on the civilian boats? It was mentioned that one stretcher took the place of 7 standing soldiers. Every inch of the boats was needed to evacuate soldiers so a British officer on a civilian boat would only be wasted space. To me that scene was another reminder of the role civilian boats played in helping at Dunkirk.

 

My position is you're wrong. What is written here in this thread has nothing to do with "armchair critics". You treat forumers as little boys fascinated with shooting.

 

Do you see somewhere in this thread that anybody expected in Nolanꞌs Dunkirk "a lot of shooting, explosions, and flying body parts" as you wrote? I do not see such forumers. I do not like such things and never expect them in cinema.

 

I donꞌt care that the Royal Navy officers have wrong uniforms in this movie, soldiers have wrong helmets, the law of universal gravitation does not operate for Farrierꞌs Spitfire etc. The critics writing here write about completely other factors. Do not you see it?

 

What Christopher Nolan did is hijacking two historical terms -- 1940 and Dunkirk. And what he did with these two historical terms is ahistorical load of rubbish.

 

Where there barricades in Dunkirk as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Was Dunkirk an abandoned city as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there street fights in Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there the German U-boots near Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Farrierꞌs behaviour and his decisions -- against all RAF regulations and common sense.

 

Farrierꞌs Spitfire flight without fuel and forced landing -- cabaret against history, flight mechanics, emergency landing procedures and law of universal gravitation.

 

Yak-52 playing the role of Spitfire -- pitiable in view of the fact that in the UK only (not to mention other countries) there are seven two-seat airworthy Spitfires on which camera for aerial filming could be mounted.

 

Etc.

 

Nolanꞌs Dunkirk is a movie in the genre of Fantasy, not History. But people treat this movie as historical. Very funny.

[Thor996]

All the articles I can find about actual Dunkirk vets watching this movie are positive...It seems they liked it despite all the things some find "wrong" or "offensive" about Nolan's movie. Let's remember too that these movies are made for entertainment purposes, and need to draw diverse crowds of people to make money. If it was all about accuracy you'd be watching a documentary, and we know how popular those are with the general public.

 

NOTE: None of these Dunkirk veterans interviewed after watching the film were offended by the portrayal of British troops. I could not find any negative reviews from a Dunkirk vet.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/24/97-year-old-dunkirk-veteran-it-was-just-like-was-there-again.html

 

(This vet actually refers to the other movie referenced on this topic as rubbish)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/dunkirk-veteran-victor-power-on-christopher-nolan-film/8757362

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4694498/Dunkirk-veteran-96-tells-heroic-efforts.html

 

I go to ALL movies like this be they SPR, Fury, whatever with the idea that I'm going to be entertained and when I go home, I'm going to pick up a well written history or biography or autobiography or whatever and then go find the REAL story.

 

I purposely avoided this thread til I saw the movie, yes, I do have some familiarity with the story -THE REAL story, but not enough to nitpick the nuances and sweat the small stuff. All this movie did was make my mind want to know more about the true story.

 

Did my wife and I enjoy the movie? yes, absolutely...but to us it was Saturday afternoon faire. Come on guys, how many of you still enjoy The Great Escape, Kelly's Hero's, Stalag 17. the Guns of Navarrone, Bridge over the River Kwai, and the host of other 'classic' some depicting 'real events' some not-do you seriously sit there and pick apart the guards uniforms in Stalag 17 or do you enjoy the story? Can you watch a classic John Wayne movie suspend believe and collector for an hour and a half and go home and pull a tome out of your library and THEN bask in the REAL history?

 

ALL movie-goers should go into MOVIES expecting the story to be factually flawed and significantly so some times. The positive would be if the younger generations see this and CRAVE the true story..well then that IMO is the beauty of a film like this. Wide appeal and a story that people REALLY need to seek the truth out on their own.

 

Kudos to you for finding these links.

 

dave

[ScottG]

May 29th, 3 Royal Navy destroyers were sunk off the coast of Dunkirk including destroyer "Grafton" by U-62... Real history from a book

 

Over 1000 civilians in Dunkirk were killed by incoming artillery and aerial bombardment, so I guess there was fighting in Dunkirk... again from a book.

 

If Dunkirk were to be viewed historically as a land campaign by the British in France in 1940, then the defense of Lille, the battles at Wytschaete and Poperinge would and are part of said campaign, so to think that there weren't any barriers or roadblocks is ludicrous. How much could Nolan actually show in the allotted time? So, things are condensed for the viewer, liberties are taken in the name of entertainment. I get my history from books, I get entertainment from movies. I don't see any members of this forum calling any Hollywood movie a history lesson. As mentioned by Thor996, it is and can be a catalyst for learning more.

Perhaps Nolan will decide to do a film on the German and Russian invasions of Poland, I am certain that he could get all of that in 2 hours or less

 

US $350.50 million and the weekend isn't over. Scott

[63 RECON]

There is also actual examples of RAF pilots having to land on the beach due to either being shot down mechanical failure.

[RustyCanteen]

Thankfully we can still enjoy the 10 minutes of trailers, feature length seat kickers, and that guy who chose to sit in the middle of the row even though he has to go to the bathroom every 20 minutes.

 

My favorite part is leaving, but second best is the workout from trying to see around the tall guy that invariably sits in front of you. I also love the reasonable prices for a drink and popcorn. Best time ever!

 

 

Downside: 2 hours of screen stuff, which interferes with the party everyone else seems to be having. Thankfully some guy coughs in the back in time with dialog and helps add to the cacophony of chitterchatter not even related to the film.

 

(Since we shouldn't enjoy movies, I thought we could enjoy the time spent trying to watch it)

[63 RECON]

 

My position is you're wrong. What is written here in this thread has nothing to do with "armchair critics". You treat forumers as little boys fascinated with shooting.

 

Do you see somewhere in this thread that anybody expected in Nolanꞌs Dunkirk "a lot of shooting, explosions, and flying body parts" as you wrote? I do not see such forumers. I do not like such things and never expect them in cinema.

 

I donꞌt care that the Royal Navy officers have wrong uniforms in this movie, soldiers have wrong helmets, the law of universal gravitation does not operate for Farrierꞌs Spitfire etc. The critics writing here write about completely other factors. Do not you see it?

 

What Christopher Nolan did is hijacking two historical terms -- 1940 and Dunkirk. And what he did with these two historical terms is ahistorical load of rubbish.

 

Where there barricades in Dunkirk as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Was Dunkirk an abandoned city as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there street fights in Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there the German U-boots near Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Farrierꞌs behaviour and his decisions -- against all RAF regulations and common sense.

 

Farrierꞌs Spitfire flight without fuel and forced landing -- cabaret against history, flight mechanics, emergency landing procedures and law of universal gravitation.

 

Yak-52 playing the role of Spitfire -- pitiable in view of the fact that in the UK only (not to mention other countries) there are seven two-seat airworthy Spitfires on which camera for aerial filming could be mounted.

 

Etc.

 

Nolanꞌs Dunkirk is a movie in the genre of Fantasy, not History. But people treat this movie as historical. Very funny.

 

Whilst I can't comment on RAF tactics in ww2 as I wasn't there. I also thought they had some knowledgable advisors for that stuff. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

I will say I don't believe the character of Farriers decision were bad.

 

Whilst yes he was going to run out of fuel if he went after that other German plane, He had a job to do of protecting his country men. The way it was written to show him putting others safety over his own showed courage and honour in the face of extreme adversity. (That's what I took away from it anyway)

 

I know someone that knows Tom Hardy if you'd like me to ask.

 

I think a good compassion to your statement of calling out a characters bad decisions would be that it's not a marines job to throw him self on a grenade to save his mates but they do it. I don't think they teach that do they?

 

In regards to the gliding thing.....well as I said before it did didnt detract from the other good parts of the movie.

[Gregory]

To have US$150 million and to produce such poor movie as "Dunkirk" is a negative phenomenon in the movie industry history.

 

It is sufficient to compare the "Red Tails" with its US$58 million budget and "Dunkirk" for $150 million. The "Red Tails" in its selected fragments is a historic fresco and it is for one third only of "Dunkirk" budget. From flight mechanics point of view "Red Tails" has three mistakes only of which only one is irritating because P-51 fights like Sea Harrier. In "Dunkirk" the scale of quasi-aviation absurdities is unlimited.

 

Can anybody imagine in "Red Tails" Yak-52 playing the role of P-51? It looks like "Dunkirk" producers do not know what CGI is or their $150 million were spent not for the movie and not for the people related to this movie.

[fstop61]

To have US$150 million and to produce such poor movie as "Dunkirk" is a negative phenomenon in the movie industry history.

 

It is sufficient to compare the "Red Tails" with its US$58 million budget and "Dunkirk" for $150 million. The "Red Tails" in its selected fragments is a historic fresco and it is for one third only of "Dunkirk" budget. From flight mechanics point of view "Red Tails" has three mistakes only of which only one is irritating because P-51 fights like Sea Harrier. In "Dunkirk" the scale of quasi-aviation absurdities is unlimited.

 

Can anybody imagine in "Red Tails" Yak-52 playing the role of P-51? It looks like "Dunkirk" producers do not know what CGI is or their $150 million were spent not for the movie and not for the people related to this movie.

Perhaps you can start a Go Fund Me page to raise the necessary funds so that you can produce a "much better" film?

[63 RECON]

Comparing these two films is like comparing star wars and star trek, yep they have space ships in space but totally different story arcs and story lines.

 

whilst Red Tails is an ........ok film with some ok plane scenes and good repro A2s, it definitely doesn't give the full back story of the tuskegee airmen and or portray the harsh bigotry and prejudices that these men copped.

 

Anyway back to Dunkirk, here is a good link with some comparisons and info.

 

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/dunkirk/

[Dogsbody]

 

My position is you're wrong. What is written here in this thread has nothing to do with "armchair critics". You treat forumers as little boys fascinated with shooting.

 

Do you see somewhere in this thread that anybody expected in Nolanꞌs Dunkirk "a lot of shooting, explosions, and flying body parts" as you wrote? I do not see such forumers. I do not like such things and never expect them in cinema.

 

I donꞌt care that the Royal Navy officers have wrong uniforms in this movie, soldiers have wrong helmets, the law of universal gravitation does not operate for Farrierꞌs Spitfire etc. The critics writing here write about completely other factors. Do not you see it?

 

What Christopher Nolan did is hijacking two historical terms -- 1940 and Dunkirk. And what he did with these two historical terms is ahistorical load of rubbish.

 

Where there barricades in Dunkirk as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Was Dunkirk an abandoned city as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there street fights in Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Were there the German U-boots near Dunkirk in 1940 as in the Nolanꞌs movie?

 

Farrierꞌs behaviour and his decisions -- against all RAF regulations and common sense.

 

Farrierꞌs Spitfire flight without fuel and forced landing -- cabaret against history, flight mechanics, emergency landing procedures and law of universal gravitation.

 

Yak-52 playing the role of Spitfire -- pitiable in view of the fact that in the UK only (not to mention other countries) there are seven two-seat airworthy Spitfires on which camera for aerial filming could be mounted.

 

Etc.

 

Nolanꞌs Dunkirk is a movie in the genre of Fantasy, not History. But people treat this movie as historical. Very funny.

 

First i'd like to state that everybody is entitled to their opinion. The opportunity to expressing one's opinion is a valuable thing. A lot of men and women did die protecting this right.

 

Since you seem to be an expert on Dunkirk why don't you please enlighten me (and others) on the questions you ask. Why, for instance, is it not plausible that there were barricades in Dunkirk? Seems a good thing to do if you have to defend a city.

Are you sure that there weren't any U-boats in the vicinity? If so, can you substantiate your conviction?

 

I'm the first to admit that I'm not an expert (at anything) but I always like to learn. So I hope you can provide a little history lesson here .

 

 

 

 

Rene

[ScottG]

To have US$150 million and to produce such poor movie as "Dunkirk" is a negative phenomenon in the movie industry history.

 

It is sufficient to compare the "Red Tails" with its US$58 million budget and "Dunkirk" for $150 million. The "Red Tails" in its selected fragments is a historic fresco and it is for one third only of "Dunkirk" budget. From flight mechanics point of view "Red Tails" has three mistakes only of which only one is irritating because P-51 fights like Sea Harrier. In "Dunkirk" the scale of quasi-aviation absurdities is unlimited.

 

Can anybody imagine in "Red Tails" Yak-52 playing the role of P-51? It looks like "Dunkirk" producers do not know what CGI is or their $150 million were spent not for the movie and not for the people related to this movie.

 

IMDB shows an estimated budget of $100 million.... Still trying to figure out how a gross of $350 million in under three weeks on a $100 million budget is a "negative phenomena"? Scott

 

[Retired Army Noncom]

That's it!!! I will wait for it on DVD in the $2.99 each discount bin at WallyWorld.

[pararaftanr2]

For what it's worth, I've read that of the handful of two-seater Spitfires still flying, those who own ones in the UK were not interested in having them modified to accommodate the large IMAX cameras used to film this movie. The Yak-52 was a necessary, and practical, substitute.

 

Per Air & Space Magazine:

"For their aerial camera platforms, the production used an Aerostar as well as a more unique aircraft: a Soviet Yak-52, a two-seater that could be made to look enough like a Spitfire to pass in close-up shots of Hardy and Lowden in their cockpits. Dan Sasaki of Panavision devised a custom, periscope-like lens that would allow the bulky IMAX camera to fit in the Yak’s second seat to capture shots that would reflect the pilot’s view looking out through the canopy. Still other close-ups were shot of the actors in a replica Spitfire cockpit mounted on a gimbal and posted on a sea cliff at a U.S. Coast Guard station in Palos Verdes, California."

 

On another note, I think they did a decent job representing the Spitfire pilot's flight gear, something that can't be said for the 1969 epic "Battle of Britain". Their portrayal of the B helmet, Mk-II and Mk-IV goggles (Mk-IV wasn't introduced until June 1940 though), D oxygen mask (with type 19 mic) and 1932 Mae West was pretty accurate. As previously mentioned here, they didn't do too well with the Irvin jacket, but for the flying scenes anyway, only the collar can be seen.

Regards, Paul

 

 

[Gregory]

"Red Tails" production budget $58,000,000

 

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all/801

[vintageproductions]

"Red Tails" production budget $58,000,000

 

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all/801

 

Like a lot of the members keep saying, let us know when your "Big Budget" movie comes out.

[63 RECON]

weren't the only real planes in "red Tails" on the ground? None actually flew.

[Garandomatic]

I refused to watch red tails. The previews looked very shallow, immature, and the cgi ruined any authenticity. Very disappointed in it as theirs is a story that deserves to be told.

[ScottG]

$364 million USD and climbing. I'm pretty sure they aren't regretting too many of their production decisions. Scott

[Garth Thompson]

I paid my $8 for the week day matinee, bought my drink and popcorn, sat back in the plush seats the theater had just up graded to and was entertained for a couple of hours. That is exactly the point of going to the movies. Historical facts I get from books. The armchair experts can go pi$$ off.

[RustyCanteen]

I paid my $8 for the week day matinee, bought my drink and popcorn, sat back in the plush seats the theater had just up graded to and was entertained for a couple of hours. That is exactly the point of going to the movies.

 

 

I used to enjoy going into the theater on a humid summer evening, and just soaking in 2 hours of entertainment.

 

Sadly, this is a major reason we will never see another show the likes of 'Combat!' or 'Hogan's Heroes'. Love them or hate them, just getting them made is a battle in of itself, but when half the audience -who should be most appreciative- is fussing over a stand-in prop, or a small error (whether deliberate or accidental), the guys that make them will stop making them because no one appreciates their efforts.

[BEAST]

I'm going to go a little bit off topic here, but I wonder if it is a generational thing. Those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s were just happy to have a war movie to go to. Of course, we knew that the Germans did not use M48 tanks as shown in Patton, but it was a great film and we just enjoyed the story. Same with Midway, Tora, Tora, Tora and even Battle of the Bulge.

 

Nowadays, its easier to pick apart a film because we are somewhat spoiled having had so many more war movies, mini-series and Military History channels to chose from.

 

I'm in agreement with Garth, I'm going to the film, eating my popcorn and just escaping for a couple of hours.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kids to go chase off my lawn!

[JasonT]

I don't believe it's a generational thing. I think though that with Saving Private Ryan and BoB the bar on war films has been raised so high where too many people try to compare each new film to previous ones. People also incorrectly assume that if a film has a $150 million+ budget then they can afford to have tens of thousands of extras, period equipment, and no mistakes. Sorry, but $150 million for a mainstream war film doesn't buy everything and is considered average or below for big budget movies these days. Studios can spend around $100m now on advertising alone for a film on top of production budget. People need to remember that it's entertainment and the purpose is to show people what it was like being there and remind them of what had happened years ago. Then after watching the movie and gaining an interest in the subject, maybe some will then go and read up on it, watch documentaries or visit a museum to see 100% authentic facts and artifacts.

[Bluehawk]