Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

pixelburp · 18-07-2017 11:01AM

flangemeistro wrote: »

Looks like a lot of unnecessary people got a fat paycheck for doing absolutely nothing.

No CGI me hole. I suppose he still doesn't use a mobile phone either does he?
He contacts prospective actors by raven.

Nobody said 'No CGI', just that he downplays its importance or tries not to use it if he can. Nolan tends to lean towards the use of extras, physical props, miniatures etc. - the proof is all his previous work there on-screen. Even crazy stunts like the airplane hijack in DKR started with actual stuntmen climbing around the outside of a plane IIRC.

Of COURSE he uses CGI, if for no other reason how else are you supposed to hide stunt wires, lighting rigs etc. etc. but Dunkirk looks to be no different & used as many extras as he could - presumably those who'd be in range of the HD cameras and needed more human reactions. Plenty of 'Visual Effects' doesn't require the use of a computer.

flangemeistro · 18-07-2017 11:14AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Nobody said 'No CGI', just that he downplays its importance or tries not to use it if he can. Nolan tends to lean towards the use of extras, physical props, miniatures etc. - the proof is all his previous work there on-screen. Even crazy stunts like the airplane hijack in DKR started with actual stuntmen climbing around the outside of a plane IIRC.

Of COURSE he uses CGI, if for no other reason how else are you supposed to hide stunt wires, lighting rigs etc. etc. but Dunkirk looks to be no different & used as many extras as he could - presumably those who'd be in range of the HD cameras and needed more human reactions. Plenty of 'Visual Effects' doesn't require the use of a computer.

http://bfy.tw/CtaD

pixelburp · 18-07-2017 11:23AM

flangemeistro wrote: »

http://bfy.tw/CtaD

Ok. Well, how hilariously glib of you, but doesn't really negate anything I've just said about Nolan's preferred approach towards CGI, so .... *shrug*

Nolan uses a mixture of real FX, usually accentuated or brushed with CGI. No different to George Miller & Mad Max: Fury Road starting with real cars and embellishing with FX.

Sad Professor · 18-07-2017 11:28AM

Some on-set pics here showing the approximately 1500 extras Nolan used for the film. He used cardboard cutouts of soldiers and trucks to fill in the backgrounds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3616395/Christopher-Nolan-marshals-army-1-500-extras-recreates-World-War-II-evacuation-330-000-soldiers-Dunkirk-young-actor-Fionn-Whitehead-shoots-scenes.html

pixelburp · 18-07-2017 11:36AM

Yikes, I knew he was using a sizeable number all right (at least by modern standards), but didn't realise it was as many as 1,500. How on earth does he manage to swing that in an era where every second studio defaults to CGI for the smallest embellishments.

Falthyron · 18-07-2017 11:47AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Yikes, I knew he was using a sizeable number all right (at least by modern standards), but didn't realise it was as many as 1,500. How on earth does he manage to swing that in an era where every second studio defaults to CGI for the smallest embellishments.

Harry Styles presence in the movie will cover the cost of the 1,500 extras.

Ben Gadot · 18-07-2017 01:20PM

Great to see such positive reviews......one in particular said it's one of Zimmer's best in recent memory so really looking forward to the experience in general.

Technocentral · 18-07-2017 01:34PM

pixelburp wrote:

Of COURSE he uses CGI, if for no other reason how else are you supposed to hide stunt wires, lighting rigs etc. etc. but Dunkirk looks to be no different & used as many extras as he could - presumably those who'd be in range of the HD cameras and needed more human reactions. Plenty of 'Visual Effects' doesn't require the use of a computer.

Was shot on film not video, no HD cameras.

pixelburp · 18-07-2017 01:41PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Was shot on film not video, no HD cameras.

I didn't mean literally: 'HD' in the sense that set-dressers, costume departments etc. have their work cut out these days because the final product audiences see is of higher definition than before, requiring more fidelity and accuracy further back into the shots. Obviously in many cases the original footage always was high definition film to begin with, but I always find it funny how 'scruffy' HD transfers can end up looking, I always suspect because it was assumed the moviegoers wouldn't see half the stuff in the background.

Cantona's Collars · 19-07-2017 01:42AM

houlihand wrote: »

Early reviews are raving about it! Oscar worthy apparently..

Scoring 97 on Metacritic.

flangemeistro · 19-07-2017 12:16PM

zerks wrote: »

Scoring 97 on Metacritic.

I think BvS was up around the same pre release.

Falthyron · 19-07-2017 12:22PM

flangemeistro wrote: »

I think BvS was up around the same pre release.

In which dimension? :pac:

Effects · 19-07-2017 12:32PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

has anyone pointed out to Snickers Man that Dunkirk the film has been in the planning, prep and making for about 5 years?

Just like Brexit has! I think Nolan is probably behind both.

Effects · 19-07-2017 12:38PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Was shot on film not video, no HD cameras.

I think 70mm is still high definition!

Effects · 19-07-2017 12:41PM

pixelburp wrote: »

I always find it funny how 'scruffy' HD transfers can end up looking, I always suspect because it was assumed the moviegoers wouldn't see half the stuff in the background.

It's still down to budget and time restrictions on set. No point making something better than it needs to be for the intending technology.

Mark_23 · 19-07-2017 08:36PM

Seeing as 70mm Imax is the most preferable to watch this in and seeing as we've only access to Cineworld Imax and IFI 70mm, which of the two would be the best?

johnny_ultimate · 19-07-2017 08:43PM

IFI by a significant margin, even allowing for the fact screen one is a wee bit uncomfortable when packed. Cineworld 'IMAX' is just a branded digital screen and nothing whatsoever like the real deal.

Effects · 19-07-2017 11:14PM

BFI Imax in London would be best but not easy for everyone to get to!

Falthyron · 20-07-2017 02:48AM

Effects wrote: »

BFI Imax in London would be best but not easy for everyone to get to!

An excellent venue. I have been lucky to see a few IMAX films in there. Also did a LOTR trilogy all nighter! :pac:

Effects · 20-07-2017 08:34AM

I've seen The Dark Knight over there. It was incredible.

killbillvol2 · 20-07-2017 04:24PM

Saw this earlier in an IMAX. It lives up to the hype I think. See it on a big screen if you can. Zimmer's score is incredible.

tok9 · 21-07-2017 07:35AM

Just curious, I see Dunkirk in Omni Maxx (cinemascope). Anyone know what's the difference between that and Maxx screenings?

ancapailldorcha · 21-07-2017 12:37PM

Effects wrote: »

BFI Imax in London would be best but not easy for everyone to get to!

Falthyron wrote: »

An excellent venue. I have been lucky to see a few IMAX films in there. Also did a LOTR trilogy all nighter! :pac:

Tony EH · 21-07-2017 05:19PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

Quite impressed with the level of detail attempted on the Spitfire Mk1 there. Correct underside colours and topside markings, plus the correct number of outlets for the exhaust. I'm presuming it's a modified Mk5. Or a fantastic restoration. Fingers crossed they can come up with a realistic BF109E as well. More than likely it's be a Buchon. The Spanish post war version that's been relatively successful at masquerading as the Emil for decades now.

Might head and see this tomorrow night in the IFI.

The Black Oil · 21-07-2017 05:29PM

A little difficult to sum this up, gut reaction as follows. It begins with thunderous gunfire, followed shortly thereafter by the beach sequence. It is pretty incredible filmmaking, on the whole and will likely have you locked into your seat from the off. Claustrophobic, unrelenting and anti-jingoistic with unmerciful violence that the weapons of war can deliver, yet with more suffering than actual blood shown. The bit made me go 'oh Jesus' in my head featured

fuel/oil catching fire.

Nolan knows well enough not to make any one actor the 'star' of this. That said, I particularly liked how Tom Hardy's character had to be aeronautically sharp (mathematically too), whilst also requiring enormous powers of concentration. Rylance was of course a safe hand at the tiller in getting the job done.

To a pick negative, like Busi said, there are those pockets of near incomprehensible dialogue due to the score.

I found it pretty draining. It is scarcely fathomable to imagine what it was like to be there.

seiphil · 21-07-2017 05:29PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Sad Professor wrote: »

Quite impressed with the level of detail attempted on the Spitfire Mk1 there. Correct underside colours and topside markings, plus the correct number of outlets for the exhaust. I'm presuming it's a modified Mk5. Or a fantastic restoration. Fingers crossed they can come up with a realistic BF109E as well. More than likely it's be a Buchon. The Spanish post war version that's been relatively successful at masquerading as the Emil for decades now.

Might head and see this tomorrow night in the IFI.

It's actually a real spitfire.

MilesMorales1 · 21-07-2017 05:42PM

I loved it. Feels like Nolans best, but I'll have to see it again.

Dyr · 21-07-2017 05:48PM

There's a few airworthy 109s in the UK plus you have the modern replicas so I doubt they used buchons

Tony EH · 21-07-2017 06:14PM

seiphil wrote: »

It's actually a real spitfire.

Well, I know it's a real spitfire. Just unsure if it's a modified MKV or a restored MKI.

Tony EH · 21-07-2017 06:17PM

Bambi wrote: »

There's a few airworthy 109s in the UK plus you have the modern replicas so I doubt they used buchons

There's only one BF109E-3 variant in flyable condition though. If they're using that, then that'll make me happier than seeing the Spitfire on the screen.

Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017)

Comments