Attention. Whore.

He also said he worked on the set of the Blade Runner sequel lmao fuck this nigga

antovolk wrote:I know I know most of you think the guy is a clown but anyway I'll just drop this here.

Very depressed over the interweb's by and large negative reaction to the DUNKIRK trailer. The first of Chris' trailers in over ten years, hell maybe ever to receive comments like, " I only watched half because it was boring." Half of a two minute trailer?! And, "it was confusing, I couldn't tell what was going on."
Then there is the always charming, " THAT SUCKED!"
I can't help but feel responsible since I was asked to design this bit of marketing. The holidays always get me down but today I'm in blackness and all alone.
At least I have my own micro-budget film I'm working on and that gives me hope.
"Hope can be a weapon."
I thought that was a good logline.
I don't know, I just don't know anything anymore.

https://www.facebook.com/will.mccrabb

Apparently he was asked by Nolan to conceptualise the trailer and supervise the edit and final mixing on his behalf (and he's also working on BTS stuff for the film? Guess we'll know for sure when the Blu comes out)

Don't feed the troll.

I think it could be a Nolan Fans member running that persona. He probably even browses these forums to laugh at the reactions to his trolling.

Not to veer too off topic but does this mean all the LA based film bloggers who trust him are dumb?

I like to take pictures of videos playing on a monitor and pretend I have access to BTS stuff.

antovolk wrote:Not to veer too off topic but does this mean all the LA based film bloggers who trust him are dumb?

Most LA based film bloggers are dumb as shit by default, so yes.

You can call it whining or whatever, but this is a movie which is based on real events where people fought, died and suffered tremendous lost. Even if the filmmakers pretend to accentuate the themes of bravery, heroism and whatever, in these sort of cases there is a bit more responsibility than that. Beyond the act of showing gore there is a duty to represent facts as they happened. If there is a single instance where Chris Nolan had to be known for the "realism" in his craft it had to be this and I sadly believe (from what I've seen) that it simply won't happen.

If any of you have ever talked with a war veteran I think you'd actually understand the level of disrespect that is to simply say something like "oh there is nothing a good filmmaker can't cheat using the old tricks, it doesn't need to be Rated R, etc". I think by using your "old tricks" to hide and diverge instead of using images and sounds to represent and epitomize you are making a "war" film that is made for entertainment proposes only, which is a tremendous mistake. I simply imagine that if a living survivor of this event were to see a film where the reality of their experience is hidden behind block-buster tricks it would end up being quite an artificial, meaningless and hollow experience.

Sure, the trailer was particularly awful but it wasn't until I saw the IMAX prologue that I really started worrying. Where in the past Nolan teasers at least served to introduce antagonists and told us something about the films, this one did nothing but tease the fact that this film is going to be more about set pieces and PG-13 action than characters, there was absolutely nothing interesting there beyond the scope of the cinematography. Right now, I think even fanboys who think Nolan can do no wrong have to admit people are interested in this film for all the reasons except the one that matters. A Christopher Nolan summer movie, the director of TDK, Inception and Interstellar with Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, music by Hans Zimmer, watch it in stupendous IMAX!

Come on... Go see the youtube comments and tell me people are finding interest in what they are ACTUALLY seeing. Something's wrong here friends.

OVERMAN wrote:You can call it whining or whatever, but this is a movie which is based on real events where people fought, died and suffered tremendous lost. Even if the filmmakers pretend to accentuate the themes of bravery, heroism and whatever, in these sort of cases there is a bit more responsibility than that. Beyond the act of showing gore there is a duty to represent facts as they happened. If there is a single instance where Chris Nolan had to be known for the "realism" in his craft it had to be this and I sadly believe (from what I've seen) that it simply won't happen.

If any of you have ever talked with a war veteran I think you'd actually understand the level of disrespect that is to simply say something like "oh there is nothing a good filmmaker can't cheat using the old tricks, it doesn't need to be Rated R, etc". I think by using your "old tricks" to hide and diverge instead of using images and sounds to represent and epitomize you are making a "war" film that is made for entertainment proposes only, which is a tremendous mistake. I simply imagine that if a living survivor of this event were to see a film where the reality of their experience is hidden behind block-buster tricks it would end up being quite an artificial, meaningless and hollow experience.

Sure, the trailer was particularly awful but it wasn't until I saw the IMAX prologue that I really started worrying. Where in the past Nolan teasers at least served to introduce antagonists and told us something about the films, this one did nothing but tease the fact that this film is going to be more about set pieces and PG-13 action than characters, there was absolutely nothing interesting there beyond the scope of the cinematography. Right now, I think even fanboys who think Nolan can do no wrong have to admit people are interested in this film for all the reasons except the one that matters. A Christopher Nolan summer movie, the director of TDK, Inception and Interstellar with Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, music by Hans Zimmer, watch it in stupendous IMAX!

Come on... Go see the youtube comments and tell me people are finding interest in what they are ACTUALLY seeing. Something's wrong here friends.

OVERMAN wrote:You can call it whining or whatever, but this is a movie which is based on real events where people fought, died and suffered tremendous lost. Even if the filmmakers pretend to accentuate the themes of bravery, heroism and whatever, in these sort of cases there is a bit more responsibility than that. Beyond the act of showing gore there is a duty to represent facts as they happened. If there is a single instance where Chris Nolan had to be known for the "realism" in his craft it had to be this and I sadly believe (from what I've seen) that it simply won't happen.

If any of you have ever talked with a war veteran I think you'd actually understand the level of disrespect that is to simply say something like "oh there is nothing a good filmmaker can't cheat using the old tricks, it doesn't need to be Rated R, etc". I think by using your "old tricks" to hide and diverge instead of using images and sounds to represent and epitomize you are making a "war" film that is made for entertainment proposes only, which is a tremendous mistake. I simply imagine that if a living survivor of this event were to see a film where the reality of their experience is hidden behind block-buster tricks it would end up being quite an artificial, meaningless and hollow experience.

Sure, the trailer was particularly awful but it wasn't until I saw the IMAX prologue that I really started worrying. Where in the past Nolan teasers at least served to introduce antagonists and told us something about the films, this one did nothing but tease the fact that this film is going to be more about set pieces and PG-13 action than characters, there was absolutely nothing interesting there beyond the scope of the cinematography. Right now, I think even fanboys who think Nolan can do no wrong have to admit people are interested in this film for all the reasons except the one that matters. A Christopher Nolan summer movie, the director of TDK, Inception and Interstellar with Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, music by Hans Zimmer, watch it in stupendous IMAX!

Come on... Go see the youtube comments and tell me people are finding interest in what they are ACTUALLY seeing. Something's wrong here friends.

there are so many different things wrong with this post i don't even know where to begin

OVERMAN wrote:You can call it whining or whatever, but this is a movie which is based on real events where people fought, died and suffered tremendous lost. Even if the filmmakers pretend to accentuate the themes of bravery, heroism and whatever, in these sort of cases there is a bit more responsibility than that. Beyond the act of showing gore there is a duty to represent facts as they happened. If there is a single instance where Chris Nolan had to be known for the "realism" in his craft it had to be this and I sadly believe (from what I've seen) that it simply won't happen.

If any of you have ever talked with a war veteran I think you'd actually understand the level of disrespect that is to simply say something like "oh there is nothing a good filmmaker can't cheat using the old tricks, it doesn't need to be Rated R, etc". I think by using your "old tricks" to hide and diverge instead of using images and sounds to represent and epitomize you are making a "war" film that is made for entertainment proposes only, which is a tremendous mistake. I simply imagine that if a living survivor of this event were to see a film where the reality of their experience is hidden behind block-buster tricks it would end up being quite an artificial, meaningless and hollow experience.

Sure, the trailer was particularly awful but it wasn't until I saw the IMAX prologue that I really started worrying. Where in the past Nolan teasers at least served to introduce antagonists and told us something about the films, this one did nothing but tease the fact that this film is going to be more about set pieces and PG-13 action than characters, there was absolutely nothing interesting there beyond the scope of the cinematography. Right now, I think even fanboys who think Nolan can do no wrong have to admit people are interested in this film for all the reasons except the one that matters. A Christopher Nolan summer movie, the director of TDK, Inception and Interstellar with Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, music by Hans Zimmer, watch it in stupendous IMAX!

Come on... Go see the youtube comments and tell me people are finding interest in what they are ACTUALLY seeing. Something's wrong here friends.

Oh boy, here we go again with the "I can't accept a war movie without blood because I lack imagination and need everything spelled out for me" argument.

Who wants to take this?