Vader182 wrote:

okungnyo wrote:

Vader182 wrote:Okay, fine. I'm wrong. Fury Road is a familiar action movie. Totes generic. What's one example of an unfamiliar action movie?


-Vader

I can't think of any.

But still, doesn't change my point.

What does generic mean?


-Vader

It would mean that it follows the standard action movie beats, which I explained above.

I never called the film generic, by the way. Another user did.

I was simply using comment as a springboard to speculate that although Dunkirk may be going for the same thing as Mad Max: Fury Road, it may not be similarly acclaimed because it's not packaged in the familiar action movie structure as Mad Max: Fury Road was.

okungnyo wrote:

Vader182 wrote:Okay, fine. I'm wrong. Fury Road is a familiar action movie. Totes generic. What's one example of an unfamiliar action movie?


-Vader

I can't think of any.

But still, doesn't change my point.

never leave us

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:

okungnyo wrote:

Vader182 wrote:Okay, fine. I'm wrong. Fury Road is a familiar action movie. Totes generic. What's one example of an unfamiliar action movie?


-Vader

I can't think of any.

But still, doesn't change my point.

never leave us

I can freely admit when I don't know something.
What's wrong with that?

And as I already said, it doesn't change my point.

Off the top of your head, can you name a computer that doesn't have plastic components?
You probably can't.

But does that mean you're not allowed to point out that most computers you've interacted with so far in your life have plastic components?
No, no, it doesn't.

85% to 95%. The movie looks too safe and soft, just what critics like nowadays. It won't be a formulaic pile of horseshit like most Hollywood films which might be a detriment to the final score but hey it won't have the intellectual ambition of Inception or Interstellar which is always a BIG plus!

okungnyo wrote: Mad Max: Fury Road follows some pretty standard beats:
Badass tough action hero leads to root for.
Villain that does villainy things for you to hate so you cheer when he finally is defeated.
The plucky group of heroes taking on a much larger faceless army of villains and overcoming insurmountable odds to somehow emerge victorious.

Now compare that to Dunkirk:
Not your standard action movie lead.
No villain character.
The good guys aren't taking on anything; in fact, they're running away from the enemy.

You might have seen these things in other types of movies, but not in an action movie, which is the point that I'm trying to make (or rather, that other user is).

the thin red line

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:

okungnyo wrote: Mad Max: Fury Road follows some pretty standard beats:
Badass tough action hero leads to root for.
Villain that does villainy things for you to hate so you cheer when he finally is defeated.
The plucky group of heroes taking on a much larger faceless army of villains and overcoming insurmountable odds to somehow emerge victorious.

Now compare that to Dunkirk:
Not your standard action movie lead.
No villain character.
The good guys aren't taking on anything; in fact, they're running away from the enemy.

You might have seen these things in other types of movies, but not in an action movie, which is the point that I'm trying to make (or rather, that other user is).

the thin red line

"You might have seen these things in other types of movies, but not in an action movie, which is the point that I'm trying to make (or rather, that other user is)."

they're both war movies with lotsa splosions, brochacho

okungnyo wrote: Mad Max: Fury Road follows some pretty standard beats:
Badass tough action hero leads to root for.

Why aren't the leads in Dunkirk "badass tough action hero leads"? They're brave, focused, trained. What's the difference?

okungnyo wrote: Villain that does villainy things for you to hate so you cheer when he finally is defeated.

What about Germany conquering like, the world. That's pretty "villainy" wouldn't you say? Oh my god, are you a Nazi?

okungnyo wrote: The plucky group of heroes taking on a much larger faceless army of villains and overcoming insurmountable odds to somehow emerge victorious.

this is literally what happened in the evacuation of Dunkirk

okungnyo wrote: Now compare that to Dunkirk:
Not your standard action movie lead.

Can anyone clue me in to what this means? What's a standard action movie lead? I mean... no, Tom Cruise isn't in this movie.... Well do you mean fame? Since lots of movies cast unknowns.......including this really obscure war movie Saving Private Ryan. Do you mean show heroic characteristics? Since they're going to.

okungnyo wrote: No villain character.

okungnyo wrote: The good guys aren't taking on anything; in fact, they're running away from the enemy.

THEY. ARE. FIGHTING. GERMANS.

This movie covers land, air, and sea. Two out of three storylines in Dunkirk show characters in relative safety rushing into danger to execute a complex evacuation. They're not.... running away.

okungnyo wrote: You might have seen these things in other types of movies, but not in an action movie, which is the point that I'm trying to make (or rather, that other user is).

Dunkirk isn't an action movie. Mission Impossible 5 is an action movie. Transformers is an action movie.

Nolan is essentially combining the WWII genre with the suspense genre via Hitchcock and Clouzot (The Wages of Fear). In the case of the former, there are actually a million WWII movies where evacuations are a major event. There are also a million WWII movies with unknowns in the leads roles. BOTH of these apply to one of the most recent WWII movie... Letters from Iwo fits these bizarre parameters you've set for yourself.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:Why aren't the leads in Dunkirk "badass tough action hero leads"? They're brave, focused, trained. What's the difference?

The difference is that Dunkirk's lead is a young, inexperienced soldier, while Mad Max: Fury Road's two leads are tough, fully grown adults who are hardened survivors of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

What about Germany conquering like, the world. That's pretty "villainy" wouldn't you say? Oh my god, are you a Nazi?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I'm talking about a singular villain character that audiences can put a face to and hate, which is what action movies usually do.

And I'm talking about the film, not about history.
The scope of the film is the evacuation, not a battle in which good old Allied soldiers show the evil Nazis what's what.

If I recall properly, no German soldiers were cast in the film.
That means you don't see any German soldiers' faces.

Hard for there to be a villain for the audience to hate when they're never shown.

Vader182 wrote:this is literally what happened in the evacuation of Dunkirk

I don't think you understand what "victorious" and "literally" mean...

The film isn't about the battle around the perimeter of Dunkirk, it's about the evacuation on the beaches.
The soldiers on the beach didn't take on anything; they ran away from it.

The heroism at Dunkirk didn't come from an outnumbered Allied soldiers defeating a larger Axis force, it came from civilians going out into an active war zone in their small boats, and avoiding bombs and torpedoes to come rescue their boys.

It wasn't a victory, it was a "colossal military disaster". "Wars are not won by evacuations."

Vader182 wrote:Can anyone clue me in to what this means? What's a standard action movie lead? I mean... no, Tom Cruise isn't in this movie.... Well do you mean fame? Since lots of movies cast unknowns.......including this really obscure war movie Saving Private Ryan. Do you mean show heroic characteristics? Since they're going to.

Already explained above.

Vader182 wrote:http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynam ... 753400.jpg

I said "villain character".
An entire nation whose soldiers you don't even see, is not that.

And already addressed above.

Vader182 wrote:THEY. ARE. FIGHTING. GERMANS.

This movie covers land, air, and sea. Two out of three storylines in Dunkirk show characters in relative safety rushing into danger to execute a complex evacuation. They're not.... running away.

Already addressed above.

Vader182 wrote:Dunkirk isn't an action movie. Mission Impossible 5 is an action movie. Transformers is an action movie.

Nolan is essentially combining the WWII genre with the suspense genre via Hitchcock and Clouzot (The Wages of Fear).

It's an action thriller, the marketing has shown it as such, and the runtime reflects that.

Mr. Nolan has stressed it in interviews as well, and said that he's not trying to make a war drama like Saving Private Ryan.

Vader182 wrote:In the case of the former, there are actually a million WWII movies where evacuations are a major event.

I'd like to hear some.

Vader182 wrote:There are also a million WWII movies with unknowns in the leads roles.

Never said there weren't.

Vader182 wrote:BOTH of these apply to one of the most recent WWII movie... Letters from Iwo fits these bizarre parameters you've set for yourself.

Not bizarre parameters, because I was speculating on whether or not critics would like what Dunkirk is trying to do in a wartime setting, and not a larger-than-life, detached, comfortable setting of your usual action movies.

Letters from Iwo Jima is a war drama, not a high-octane action thriller.

Not only that, but it's as standard as war movies go, with soldiers heroically fighting a losing battle until the end, with the leading general, who may as well be a mythical samurai, personally leading a final suicidal charge against the enemy.

How many times have we seen that. Off the top of my head, I can name Saving Private Ryan and Fury.

Now compare that with Dunkirk, which is about the Allies running away from the Axis.
Not a heroic last stand, but full-on retreat.

That's pretty incredibly unique, and definitely something we don't see often in war films.
Because what country would ever want to make a movie about the time they got their butts kicked by the Nazis and had to be ejected from an entire continent?

But Mr. Nolan's doing it.

Vader182 wrote:-Vader

-okungnyo