Allstar understands less about movies than my dad.

My dad hates movies.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:Allstar understands less about movies than my dad.

My dad hates movies.


-Vader

I guess Armand does too, because I know he agrees with everything I said just here.

Allstar wrote:So let's not turn this observation into the typical mudslinging shit because I am so past this lol.

i'm honestly not trying to - i think i may be just misunderstanding your point

like, my understanding is that your argument here is that Edwards and Nolan are taking similar approaches

but, you back it up with this:

Allstar wrote:But that's it and they purposely leave a lot of the rest of the backstory vague and you moreso make observations or assumptions on their behaviors in the piece (Gilroy actually does this a lot in the Bourne series, looks at Straitairn's character, yet so captivating). I was more so referring to the other main characters and people complained about that approach constantly. It ultimately is about an event going down and the people who drive it. It's a nearly identical approach to do a "war movie". Dirty Dozen is similar in that regard.

leaving character's stories within the film is a vital part to good story telling, because the characters aren't real - unless a character's story before the events of the film are vital to the plot, which they are in Rogue One, it shouldn't be told, because the character doesn't exist in real life - the character exists to push forward the narrative

Edwards gives backstory on Jyn and her father, because it's vital to how the plot works - without the context, the film wouldn't make sense

from these interviews, Nolan seems to be handling the story in Dunkirk differently; his characters are a vessel through which we, the audience, are going to view the film - not only would backstory be unnecessary, it would be a direct contradiction to what the the film is trying to accomplish

i just don't think the comparison works is all i'm saying

Michaelf2225 wrote:Edwards gives backstory on Jyn and her father, because it's vital to how the plot works - without the context, the film wouldn't make sense

from these interviews, Nolan seems to be handling the story in Dunkirk differently; his characters are a vessel through which we, the audience, are going to view the film - not only would backstory be unnecessary, it would be a direct contradiction to what the the film is trying to accomplish

i just don't think the comparison works is all i'm saying

Yes, we get exposition for certain plot elements because that is how science fiction has to work to understand the plot in comparison to a real life event. But Edwards very much stated in many interviews he was trying to make a more naturalistic war movie set in the Star Wars universe and I do think the characters are indeed vessels in how we view the story of the rebels stealing the Death Star plans. Nolan still said we would still get some information on the characters, just not a lot. Both seem to be mainly about an event/situation first and foremost, it just is one is real and one is fake.

Whatever, I am just an utter moron anyway who doesn't know anything about movies. You responded cool, I just wish people like Vader did not have to be such utter assholes when I make a post even if you think my observation was dead wrong (which this was just an assumption because one is an unseen movie). A lot of my thoughts I posted were in conversations with Armand and Virgo and we both agreed on these aspects but Armand/Virgo wouldn't get lambasted because they don't have a beef with them. I know I don't get my observation across as elegantly as him but still...

i'll concede a bit, because i think you're right that Edwards may have been trying to do something along the lines of what Nolan's doing

but whether because of reshoots, added character moments, or just wrongheaded writing/directing, i don't think it ended up that way

the finished product of Rogue One feels more like an action/drama than a war movie, and while we now know Nolan himself doesn't view Dunkirk as a war movie strictly speaking, everything shown so far points to a more controlled and pointed narrative in a war setting than Edward's film

if that makes sense

Yeah, but I think outside of the prologue which is before the opening title, I kind of feel the movie immediately kicks into the "event" or "situation" if you will, yes you get nuggets and observations about the characters, some just through their actions.. and I think Dunkirk will still provide that. Nolan's movie the event starts immediately and seems to be non-stop action..so quite different in that regard, not to mention Nolan is avoiding the political aspect. Again very different movies seemingly but it sounds like a similar approach of putting the event/situation above traditional characterization (excluding the prologue). So they definitely tried with Jyn and it was effective for me, but my initial comment was more in reference to Cassian and the support characters. Perhaps we learn the most about Fionn in Dunkirk since he seems to be the lead...

Ruth wrote:

dormouse7 wrote:Re Dunkirk - I do wonder if people will care about the main characters. I certainly hope so. Wanting to survive is a well-understood motive people can empathize with.

i already care about the cute ones

jk i'm not THAT terrible

Allstar wrote:I just wish people like Vader did not have to be such utter assholes when I make a post even if you think my observation was dead wrong (which this was just an assumption because one is an unseen movie).

Allstar wrote:Interesting to see how the detractors of Rogue One on here react to this because quite frankly this is a very similar approach to what Gareth was doing on Rogue One with many of its characters, and they took great issue with this specific approach.

"Don't play stupid."

If you did not constantly frame your observations from the snide perspective of "you people had a problem with [movie] I strongly supported, can't wait for you hypocrites to deal with this now," you wouldn't get nearly as much mierda whether you are flat out wrong or not. People who behave in this manner in real life are shunned and rightfully so. You could just make the observation about the two films and not make it about other people.

Allstar wrote:Yeah, but I think outside of the prologue which is before the opening title, I kind of feel the movie immediately kicks into the "event" or "situation" if you will, yes you get nuggets and observations about the characters, some just through their actions.. and I think Dunkirk will still provide that. Nolan's movie the event starts immediately and seems to be non-stop action..so quite different in that regard, not to mention Nolan is avoiding the political aspect. Again very different movies seemingly but it sounds like a similar approach of putting the event/situation above traditional characterization (excluding the prologue).

I brought up a similar point a few pages back, on whether reviewers would ding Dunkirk for the same reasons that Rogue One was criticized.

And I agree with you. Aside from the prologue bit with young Ms. Erso, Rogue One and Dunkirk look to be pretty similar: foregoing character backstories or development in order to stay in the present and focus on the main characters' survival.

But there are two important differences in Dunkirk's favor.

The first difference is that Star Wars is fiction, and no matter how gritty and realistic Rogue One tries to be, you never once think to yourself "Oh, the horror! That could be me on that beach at Scarif!".

And that's a big problem because when you're not immersed, you're less likely to forgive the movie for its flaws, like weak characters.

So why do other war movies get a pass for having weak characters? Well, because generally speaking, other war movies are about real wars, and we know that real people died in them.

Dunkirk actually happened. Knowing that you're watching is a real event, combined with the IMAX cameras which will provide stunningly visceral footage, will be enough to offset the lack of character development.

The second difference is that Star Wars has certain expectations, while Dunkirk doesn't.

For some, Star Wars is unalterably about great characters.

Even when Rogue One basically says, "Hey, we're a spin-off. We're going for a war movie feel, so we're not going to be focusing on the characters like the main trilogies do."

People will still say, "Yeah, but you're still a Star Wars movie, so I expect great characters."

Dunkirk doesn't have those pre-existing expectations. In fact, I'd say that it's almost an expectation that a war movie have generic characters who then die in violent ways to showcase the horrors of war, because seeming a human being trying to survive in a war that actually happened is motivation enough for the audience with which to empathize.

So I hope reviewers don't ding it for that.

Rogue One is a self evident example of character-motivated storytelling. Ridiculous to state otherwise. Galaxy literally dies if Jyn doesn't overcome her daddy issues. What's clever about this premise is that our beloved OT wouldn't exist if Jyn doesn't see her dad's hologram. Also: during that scene classical Shakespearean dramaturgy takes over the story with an exploding planet to emphasize her internal catharsis. Vader wouldn't be chasing Leia if Jyn didn't come out of her shell of pain and cynicism; no droids would find Luke and Obi-Wan if she doesn't learn to trust and love her companions to the point of noble sacrifice and save the rebellion. This is the standard model of "epic" storytelling... the external conflict relies on the resolution of the protagonist's internal conflict. Such is the structure of all the Star Wars Movies...Lord of the Rings... Harry Potter... etc.

As it stands by reasonable speculation, Dunkirk doesn't care who we are. We all die just the same. Suspense comes from analyzing their behavior under a hyper-focused microscope where one false move turns a man into nothing. Interiority doesn't play much into it. The narrative isn't character-motivated. You feel suspense not out of emotional investment in a character's harsh upbringing and shattered relationship with her father. You feel suspense because you too want to live and live long and survive. This universal fear is triggered as it was beautifully by Hitchcock and Clouzot. This is a total reversal of the model described above that powers the engine of Rogue One's storytelling.

Quick example through a kind of existential thought experiment: -Vader