Budget

The 2017 World War II thriller about the evacuation of British and Allied troops from Dunkirk beach.
User avatar
Posts: 19024
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
It looks like it cost a whole lot more. Can't say the same for a lot of CGI driven spectacles ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes a WWI set film would be glorious from Nolan.

User avatar
Posts: 2621
Joined: December 2016
It would be quite ironic if a WWII movie that relies on practical effects costs less than a CGI-fest movie (shot digitally too lol).

User avatar
Posts: 19024
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
Well, it does

User avatar
Posts: 1639
Joined: February 2011
Location: Brussels, Belgium
During the award season of Inception, I remember Danny Boyle saying that Nolan can make a 160M movie look like a 320M one.
Also to give perspective, the new Power Rangers movie cost the same as Dunkirk, King Arthur 175M, and the Mummy 125M. :crazy:

User avatar
Posts: 26319
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
CGI still seems confusing expensive to me, especially when much of it ends up looking like shit anyway

so it's like the ROI doesn't match up

User avatar
Posts: 1639
Joined: February 2011
Location: Brussels, Belgium
I think Nolan's efficiency is also because he doesn't use a second unit. He said that it's cheaper to have one unit and a longer shoot than the opposite.
He also trim the script before shooting which means less waste of time and money and also the reason why he's able to present a rough cut pretty early during post.

User avatar
Forum Pro
Posts: 3449
Joined: October 2014
Location: Philly
Cilogy wrote:CGI still seems confusing expensive to me, especially when much of it ends up looking like shit anyway

so it's like the ROI doesn't match up

i don’t think it does

Nolan spews a lot of nonsense about celluloid film quality, but his anecdote on CGI is spot on

he said something about how when films with heavy CGI come out, people gasp and are in awe, but after just a few years, they don’t hold up

note how all of Nolan’s films still hold up - effects based in reality and enhanced with CGI when need be are almost always better than the reverse

User avatar
Posts: 19024
Joined: June 2012
Location: stuck in 2020
Dunkirk's VFX shots were finished in 8K, Interstellar's 5.6K, I don't know about the films before that?

Anyway, I know it's not all about the resolution they're rendered in but it does help. I love that with Dunkirk they've finally reached the point where practical and CG are indistinguishable.

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3567
Joined: May 2012
The only shot that made me go "maybe/possible that's CG...?" was in the wide shot
where you see tiny men on the overturned minesweeper.
Would love for the VFX supervisor to give some interviews.

Any day now...

User avatar
Posts: 1279
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
okungnyo wrote:The only shot that made me go "maybe/possible that's CG...?" was in the wide shot
where you see tiny men on the overturned minesweeper.
Would love for the VFX supervisor to give some interviews.

Any day now...
That's the only one I've questioned so far. That one and...
... the water hit of Collins' plane from Farrier's POV.
Though both of them may be totally real as well.

Post Reply