Yeah, it should be very interesting to see of this is an epic war movie or a drama set against the backdrop of the war.
Dunkirk General Information/Discussion
Having a WWII film being released in the heart of the summer next to gigantic franchises seems a little risky to me. I know, Saving Private Ryan was released in the summer back in 1998 but it's not faced with the same competition as this one. Which leads me to believe there must be more to it than that.
I totally agree with you.MyCocaine wrote:Having a WWII film being released in the heart of the summer next to gigantic franchises seems a little risky to me. I know, Saving Private Ryan was released in the summer back in 1998 but it's not faced with the same competition as this one. Which leads me to believe there must be more to it than that.
Posts: 45
Joined:
December 2015
I totally disagree with you! Nolan can be and he is a great master of dialogue and especially realistic dialogue. He doesn't show it in Interstellar (because it's hard to do realistic dialogue between people that are very isolated and lonely) and in Inception (where everything is around concepts). But lets remember Memento, DKR. There is a lot cool realistic dialogues!!! Maybe you see dialogues through "Tarantino eyes", where rude words, n words. Nolan is different and realistic too.LelekPL wrote:It all depends... You can make a war movie with a PG-13 rating and sometimes you SHOULD make it rated R. Depends on what sort of war film you intend to tell.
If you want a story of a single, regular company, you probably SHOULD make it R, because of the LANGUAGE (mostly) and also battles.
But if you want to show the intrigue of war, decisions made behind closed doors, it doesn't need to be R.
I can't see Nolan make the first movie, mostly because I can't see him write realistic dialogue for simple soldiers. The second type of film would be more Nolan's style, more cerebral... with possible battles shown on a large scale, not a human scale... So again, no need to make it R.
However, if I could choose, I would like Nolan to TRY to do the first one, try to write different dialogue than so far, do something outside of his comfort zone. It could be a failure but it could also help him grow and try to achieve what Spielberg or Kubrick have so well - variety.
Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?
Fuuuuuuuck... How I hate writing on my phone... the POS touchscreen technology...pashacules wrote:I totally disagree with you! Nolan can be and he is a great master of dialogue and especially realistic dialogue. He doesn't show it in Interstellar (because it's hard to do realistic dialogue between people that are very isolated and lonely) and in Inception (where everything is around concepts). But lets remember Memento, DKR. There is a lot cool realistic dialogues!!! Maybe you see dialogues through "Tarantino eyes", where rude words, n words. Nolan is different and realistic too.LelekPL wrote:It all depends... You can make a war movie with a PG-13 rating and sometimes you SHOULD make it rated R. Depends on what sort of war film you intend to tell.
If you want a story of a single, regular company, you probably SHOULD make it R, because of the LANGUAGE (mostly) and also battles.
But if you want to show the intrigue of war, decisions made behind closed doors, it doesn't need to be R.
I can't see Nolan make the first movie, mostly because I can't see him write realistic dialogue for simple soldiers. The second type of film would be more Nolan's style, more cerebral... with possible battles shown on a large scale, not a human scale... So again, no need to make it R.
However, if I could choose, I would like Nolan to TRY to do the first one, try to write different dialogue than so far, do something outside of his comfort zone. It could be a failure but it could also help him grow and try to achieve what Spielberg or Kubrick have so well - variety.
Ok, so as you might have figured my long messege got erased and I'm not happy... Well let me just make it short this time...
I didn't say he can't write realistic dialogue but rather realistic dialogue for a common soldier. He's really good with educated characters, but a team of regular soldiers would require a harsh language, R rating and I don't know if Nolan can do it.
Also I wanted to say that Tarantino is not my example of realistic dialo. He's great but highly stylized. I'd much rather use sthg like 9th Company as my example of realistic soldier language. Even Fury from recent years.
MyCocaine wrote:Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?
It's my favorite film of all-time but I don't get the "oh, it's so dark". It's more psychological and philosophical than most other superhero films but darker!?MyCocaine wrote:Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?
Plus if there was one issue I had with the film it was actually the rating. When characters get shot I think it would have been more impactful if we actually saw blood and old-school bullet wound effects. Or i the interrogation scene, Joker bleeding and losing teeth... Much like IN THE SCRIPT. It wasn't necessary and the film made so much more money with PG-13... but R would have enhanced certain scenes.
Would you have preferred Gordon's kid getting killed in the end? Is that dark enough for you?LelekPL wrote:It's my favorite film of all-time but I don't get the "oh, it's so dark". It's more psychological and philosophical than most other superhero films but darker!?MyCocaine wrote:Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?
Plus if there was one issue I had with the film it was actually the rating. When characters get shot I think it would have been more impactful if we actually saw blood and old-school bullet wound effects. Or i the interrogation scene, Joker bleeding and losing teeth... Much like IN THE SCRIPT. It wasn't necessary and the film made so much more money with PG-13... but R would have enhanced certain scenes.
Saying The Dark Knight wasn't dark is bullshit. A dude gets a pencil through his eye. You don't need to show the actual impact of the pencil to make it dark. Or what about a father being forced to tell his son, that everything is going to be alright despite knowing his son is about to die. That's fucking dark.
Last edited by MyCocaine on December 27th, 2015, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Did I say anything that it should have been thematically darker!? No! Before you start going into full defensive mode (needlessly might I remind you) let me reiterate: I dont think it's very dark but I also don't think it should have been any darker, both thematically and plot-wise. All I said is that blood could have enhanced certain scenes but it wasn't all that necessary, which ultimately adds up to a very miniscule complaint. Not even a complaint, but rather an observation.MyCocaine wrote:Would you have preferred Gordon's kid getting killed in the end? Is that dark enough for you?LelekPL wrote:It's my favorite film of all-time but I don't get the "oh, it's so dark". It's more psychological and philosophical than most other superhero films but darker!?MyCocaine wrote:Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?
Plus if there was one issue I had with the film it was actually the rating. When characters get shot I think it would have been more impactful if we actually saw blood and old-school bullet wound effects. Or i the interrogation scene, Joker bleeding and losing teeth... Much like IN THE SCRIPT. It wasn't necessary and the film made so much more money with PG-13... but R would have enhanced certain scenes.
