hahaHorrorBiz wrote:Feeling needlessly defensive today?Imaginatio wrote:Sorry, not buying that spiel from Rylance.
Just think for a moment, would Nolan REALLY allow Rylance to so casually give away the tone and structure of the film? Of course not.
Also Rylance's info contradicts the facts we have so far about the film itself. WB classifies it as an "action thriller".
"simple, pure war film" as Rylance calls puts it, that would be an action drama film. All simple and pure war films are action dramas, not action thrillers.
Also Nolan has never done a "simple" feature-length film. Ever. Starting from Memento, all the way to Interstellar, every single one of his films had some sort of twists and turns. This one won't be different.
The only thing "simple" I expect in Dunkirk will be the historical war-time setting.
Especially consider the fact that Rylance mentions the film will throw us "straight into the middle of a desperate situation". Nolan will not make a roughly 150 minute or longer film only about the actual evacuation of the beach at Dunkirk. To compare, Saving Private Ryan's long length was not solely devoted to D-Day. D-Day itself was only a small part of the film.
For sure there will have to be more to Dunkirk than purely the physical evacuation of the beach.
Anyway, I always figured this film would be structured like Black Hawk Down, which is about 20 minutes of basic set-up followed by a two hour battle sequence.
Dunkirk General Information/Discussion
Posts: 4193
Joined:
June 2010
Posts: 361
Joined:
July 2016
Harry Styles as an evil German spy !ChristNolan wrote:This is what reaching looks like, folks. What exactly are you expecting from this film that would be full of twists and turns?Sorry, not buying that spiel from Rylance.
Just think for a moment, would Nolan REALLY allow Rylance to so casually give away the tone and structure of the film? Of course not.
Also Rylance's info contradicts the facts we have so far about the film itself. WB classifies it as an "action thriller".
"simple, pure war film" as Rylance calls puts it, that would be an action drama film. All simple and pure war films are action dramas, not action thrillers.
Also Nolan has never done a "simple" feature-length film. Ever. Starting from Memento, all the way to Interstellar, every single one of his films had some sort of twists and turns. This one won't be different.
The only thing "simple" I expect in Dunkirk will be the historical war-time setting.
Especially consider the fact that Rylance mentions the film will throw us "straight into the middle of a desperate situation". Nolan will not make a roughly 150 minute or longer film only about the actual evacuation of the beach at Dunkirk. To compare, Saving Private Ryan's long length was not solely devoted to D-Day. D-Day itself was only a small part of the film.
For sure there will have to be more to Dunkirk than purely the physical evacuation of the beach.
Last edited by YFR3 on July 25th, 2016, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
antovolk wrote:Enough said.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/dunkirk-filmtrailer
Posts: 185
Joined:
August 2011
No, just puzzled by Rylance's comments is all.HorrorBiz wrote: Feeling needlessly defensive today?
Anyway, I always figured this film would be structured like Black Hawk Down, which is about 20 minutes of basic set-up followed by a two hour battle sequence.
Black Hawk Down is a great movie. Thing is, last time I checked, Black Hawk Down was a war drama, not an action thriller.
WB is the one that has classified Dunkirk as an action thriller. So that's why I'm puzzled. Unless WB lied of course; and Nolan breaks his career streak and makes a simple film with zero twists and turns. Then my comments in hindsight would be way off.
I always regret coming to this subforum.
-Vader
-Vader
Vader182 wrote:I always regret coming to this subforum.
They were "around" let's sayShady1 wrote:Are you saying Lowden, Murphy and Styles were together in the same scene? or are you saying you did a scene with each of them?Reaveybeach wrote:Yesterday was my last day as an extra on Dunkirk. It was preeeety awesome. I did scenes with Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles and Jack Lowden. Did a scene with the Director of Photography filming with the IMAX camera inches away from me (and he's dutch as well so I was able to have some surprisingly long talks with him). And even did a scene with Nolan directing me. Then there's all the big setpieces with us running through WWII ships with explosions going off, stuntmen in the water, propane tanks creating 5m long flames and close chopper flybys. Shit was nuts. The enthusiasm and excitement of everyone involved is so so cool. Talking to FX guys who just got off Rogue One and Doctor Strange, girls from the make-up department who worked on Thrones and Harry Potter. Time well spent! And I also made some money I guess.
Also, Congrats on a job well done (or I'm assuming it was well done ). I hope you had a great time with the whole experience!
Yes, it *was* a job well done. Chris and co were very happy with us. They enjoyed their time in Urk a lot more than in France apparently.
Explain?Reaveybeach wrote:Yes, it *was* a job well done. Chris and co were very happy with us. They enjoyed their time in Urk a lot more than in France apparently.
Posts: 106
Joined:
June 2016
YES EXPLAIN
The weather and shooting conditions were probably nicer, and having a lot less extras to manage was likely much easier.
We probably talked with the same FX and make up people. The FX team worked on Ex Machina and many other things. Our small group of wounded did something really cool with them.
One of the make up lady worked on Doctor Strange lately doing prosthetics.
Were you covered in oil ?
The weather and shooting conditions were probably nicer, and having a lot less extras to manage was likely much easier.
We probably talked with the same FX and make up people. The FX team worked on Ex Machina and many other things. Our small group of wounded did something really cool with them.
One of the make up lady worked on Doctor Strange lately doing prosthetics.
Were you covered in oil ?