unbillievable Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) The RAF did it. They flew Vic formations in combat well in to 1941. The spacing was about 50-100 yards, largely to facilitate communication with hand signals (even though Hurricanes and Spits had radios, it's how they were still trained) and because the close formation was more effective against massed bombers. Stupid? Very. The Germans called them "idiot rows." There are a lot of common sense things to us (because we saw them in movies) that were not in use in WWI & II, like using suppressing fire to advance. I remember someone complaining about soldiers lining up in rows for a civil war movie... how it was unrealistic. Although, the criticism now is that Dunkirk doesn't have enough black people. Edited July 28, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 28, 2017 Author Share Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) I criticize war movies as unrealistic because I have unrealistically high standards for war movies. Most of my Dunkirk criticisms are extremely nitpicky ("Why does JG3 have Schlagater Geschwader colors?")...the more general criticisms I've seen (like "Spitfires with unlimited fuel and ammo") are pretty thoroughly idiotic. I'm interested to know what criticisms did you have for the war movie "Fury". Edited July 28, 2017 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 The RAF did it. They flew Vic formations in combat well in to 1941. The spacing was about 50-100 yards, largely to facilitate communication with hand signals (even though Hurricanes and Spits had radios, it's how they were still trained) and because the close formation was more effective against massed bombers. Stupid? Very. The Germans called them "idiot rows." 50-100 yards does not support hand signals. 30 feet max. Still, that isn't what I'm referring to. There are scenes when they are flying extremely close, what we used to call welded wing. It's crazy, but they do it in all movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I'm interested to know what criticisms did you have for the war movie "Fury". The biggest one is still the spacing of the tanks on the march. You don't drive bumper-to-bumper on a road march. There are a lot of common sense things to us (because we saw them in movies) that were not in use in WWI & II, like using suppressing fire to advance. Yeah, sure. Although, the criticism now is that Dunkirk doesn't have enough black people. I heard that criticism. I countered with "there weren't enough whites in Amistad, either." !@#$ing morons, complaining that history is historically accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 28, 2017 Author Share Posted July 28, 2017 There are a lot of common sense things to us (because we saw them in movies) that were not in use in WWI & II, like using suppressing fire to advance. I remember someone complaining about soldiers lining up in rows for a civil war movie... how it was unrealistic. Although, the criticism now is that Dunkirk doesn't have enough black people. Oh brother. Who has been saying that about Dunkirk? The biggest one is still the spacing of the tanks on the march. You don't drive bumper-to-bumper on a road march. Yeah, sure. I heard that criticism. I countered with "there weren't enough whites in Amistad, either." !@#$ing morons, complaining that history is historically accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Oh brother. Who has been saying that about Dunkirk? Sadly, I've heard it from executives in town. Which I took as them joking (at first)... until they explained why it's "setting the progress hollywood's made backwards" (because they were expecting Dunkirk to sweep the award circuit - and thus everyone will complain about the Oscars being too white again). I'm all for diversity in TV and film behind and in front of the camera, 100%. I've fought for it and given up jobs to support that cause. But we've now entered into the classic "over-correction" phase in the studio parts of the business. Some execs and producers are more afraid of twitter vitriol than they are about the quality of their product. "Looking right" is now more important than "getting it right". Which is why I said in one of the TV threads that I was stunned to see the creators of GOT launch an alt-history with a slavery focus as their next project. That's bold and frankly stunning to me that they got that made. But it is HBO and it is the creators of GOT. Anyone else gets laughed out of the room even if it's an amazing pilot script. For example, I sat in on a pitch yesterday (for an episode of an existing TV show, a free lance writer was pitching his idea for an episode), the writer wanted to do a story about the Apollo missions (this is an educational program). It was a good pitch, right up my alley but beyond that it was good work. Got rejected by the execs because of "the lack of diversity among the astronauts." One asked if we could do a "hamilton" and just re-cast the Apollo astronauts "with minorities." ... Because that wouldn't generate a massive backlash either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Sadly, I've heard it from executives in town. Which I took as them joking (at first)... until they explained why it's "setting the progress hollywood's made backwards" (because they were expecting Dunkirk to sweep the award circuit - and thus everyone will complain about the Oscars being too white again). I'm all for diversity in TV and film behind and in front of the camera, 100%. I've fought for it and given up jobs to support that cause. But we've now entered into the classic "over-correction" phase in the studio parts of the business. Some execs and producers are more afraid of twitter vitriol than they are about the quality of their product. "Looking right" is now more important than "getting it right". Which is why I said in one of the TV threads that I was stunned to see the creators of GOT launch an alt-history with a slavery focus as their next project. That's bold and frankly stunning to me that they got that made. But it is HBO and it is the creators of GOT. Anyone else gets laughed out of the room even if it's an amazing pilot script. For example, I sat in on a pitch yesterday (for an episode of an existing TV show, a free lance writer was pitching his idea for an episode), the writer wanted to do a story about the Apollo missions (this is an educational program). It was a good pitch, right up my alley but beyond that it was good work. Got rejected by the execs because of "the lack of diversity among the astronauts." One asked if we could do a "hamilton" and just re-cast the Apollo astronauts "with minorities." ... Because that wouldn't generate a massive backlash either. I'm guessing the execs were all white men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I'm guessing the execs were all white men? Two women, one guy, all white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 28, 2017 Author Share Posted July 28, 2017 Sadly, I've heard it from executives in town. Which I took as them joking (at first)... until they explained why it's "setting the progress hollywood's made backwards" (because they were expecting Dunkirk to sweep the award circuit - and thus everyone will complain about the Oscars being too white again). I'm all for diversity in TV and film behind and in front of the camera, 100%. I've fought for it and given up jobs to support that cause. But we've now entered into the classic "over-correction" phase in the studio parts of the business. Some execs and producers are more afraid of twitter vitriol than they are about the quality of their product. "Looking right" is now more important than "getting it right". Which is why I said in one of the TV threads that I was stunned to see the creators of GOT launch an alt-history with a slavery focus as their next project. That's bold and frankly stunning to me that they got that made. But it is HBO and it is the creators of GOT. Anyone else gets laughed out of the room even if it's an amazing pilot script. For example, I sat in on a pitch yesterday (for an episode of an existing TV show, a free lance writer was pitching his idea for an episode), the writer wanted to do a story about the Apollo missions (this is an educational program). It was a good pitch, right up my alley but beyond that it was good work. Got rejected by the execs because of "the lack of diversity among the astronauts." One asked if we could do a "hamilton" and just re-cast the Apollo astronauts "with minorities." ... Because that wouldn't generate a massive backlash either. My God! That is just pathetic, not to mention insulting. What's next? When "Battle of the Sexes" is released are people going to complain that Emma Stone should look more like Venus Williams instead of Billie Jean King? I can only imagine what will be said about "Darkest Hour" and "Goodbye Christopher Robin". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 My God! That is just pathetic, not to mention insulting. What's next? When "Battle of the Sexes" is released are people going to complain that Emma Stone should look more like Venus Williams instead of Billie Jean King? I can only imagine what will be said about "Darkest Hour" and "Goodbye Christopher Robin". On the other hand, this is the perfect opportunity for us to pitch a remake of Braveheart with Michelle Yeoh as William Wallace and Idris Elba as Richard the First... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 28, 2017 Author Share Posted July 28, 2017 Here are a few Independent Films for this month. Casey Affleck & Rooney Mara star in, "A Ghost Story". In this singular exploration of legacy, love, loss, and the enormity of existence, a recently deceased, white-sheeted ghost returns to his suburban home to try to reconnect with his bereft wife. In "Lady Macbeth", Set in 19th century rural England, a young bride who has been sold into marriage to a middle-aged man discovers an unstoppable desire within herself as she enters into an affair with a worker on her estate. Starring Florence Pugh, Cosmo Jarvis & Paul Hilton. Finally in "Brigsby Bear", After being freed from the kidnappers he thought were his parents, a man sets out to make a movie of the only TV show he has ever known. Starring Mark Hamill, Claire Danes, Kyle Mooney & Greg Kinnear. Calendar with Trailers. These dates are for exclusive or limited release. These films may appear in your area at a later date. 7/7 "A Ghost Story": https://a24films.com/films/a-ghost-story 7/14 "Lady Macbeth": http://roadsideattractions.com/filmography/lady-macbeth/ 7/28 "Brigsby Bear": http://sonyclassics.com/brigsbybear/ That's all for now.....Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Here are a few Independent Films for this month. Casey Affleck & Rooney Mara star in, "A Ghost Story". In this singular exploration of legacy, love, loss, and the enormity of existence, a recently deceased, white-sheeted ghost returns to his suburban home to try to reconnect with his bereft wife. In "Lady Macbeth", Set in 19th century rural England, a young bride who has been sold into marriage to a middle-aged man discovers an unstoppable desire within herself as she enters into an affair with a worker on her estate. Starring Florence Pugh, Cosmo Jarvis & Paul Hilton. Finally in "Brigsby Bear", After being freed from the kidnappers he thought were his parents, a man sets out to make a movie of the only TV show he has ever known. Starring Mark Hamill, Claire Danes, Kyle Mooney & Greg Kinnear. Calendar with Trailers. These dates are for exclusive or limited release. These films may appear in your area at a later date. 7/7 "A Ghost Story": https://a24films.com/films/a-ghost-story 7/14 "Lady Macbeth": http://roadsideattractions.com/filmography/lady-macbeth/ 7/28 "Brigsby Bear": http://sonyclassics.com/brigsbybear/ That's all for now.....Enjoy! Well, at least Lady Macbeth inaccurately displays the ethnic diversity that wasn't evident in 19th century rural England. Brigsby Bear, though...insufficiently diverse. Needs more anteaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 29, 2017 Author Share Posted July 29, 2017 Well, at least Lady Macbeth inaccurately displays the ethnic diversity that wasn't evident in 19th century rural England. Brigsby Bear, though...insufficiently diverse. Needs more anteaters. That ghost in "A Ghost Story" is too white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GETTOTHE50 Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 (edited) dunkirk was awesome an edit. some folks are talking about the timeline of the movie, this and that. i didnt even care. i loved how the film was cut, the cinematography, the sound effects of war, the lack of dialogue/character development. it was all great. i watched the movie scene by scene, second by second. didnt over think it, and loved it. Edited July 29, 2017 by GETTOTHE50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 30, 2017 Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 dunkirk was awesome an edit. some folks are talking about the timeline of the movie, this and that. i didnt even care. i loved how the film was cut, the cinematography, the sound effects of war, the lack of dialogue/character development. it was all great. i watched the movie scene by scene, second by second. didnt over think it, and loved it. One of Christopher Nolan's techniques has been to jump from scene to scene during highly dramatic or intense moments. The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception & Interstellar are examples of this. However, he has never done this throughout an entire movie, like he did with Dunkirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted August 1, 2017 Author Share Posted August 1, 2017 Finishing a deadline this weekend (I hope) and treating myself to showings of Dunkirk, Spidey, and Apes if I can swing all three. Gotta catch up! Apes later today So, what did you both think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 So, what did you both think? My deadline got pushed back so I'm going Wed and Thur now and will report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 It was really good. I'm with Tom on the whole thing about how Serkis needs to get some awards for what he has done throughout this series. One of my favorite characters from movies in recent years and one that I find myself pulling for more than most... and it's a CGI ape (Maurice has been a great sidekick too). I find that stuff distracting most of the time with how cartoony it feels, but that thought never once crossed my mind with these movies. They're a great example of how good these graphics can be when used properly and not to excess. On a side note, I haven't seen the original in ages and I was never really much of a fan. Still, I'm amazed how many of the references to that series that I caught from this movie and the earlier ones. I couldn't tell you much of anything beyond the basic plot of Planet of the Apes, yet I immediately recognize certain names when they're dropped. I have no idea why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 My deadline got pushed back I could have called that. Bet it gets pushed back more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) Just got back from watching "Dunkirk". Great movie. A harrowing watch it is. You're immersed into what is happening from the get go. A lot of the characters are non-descript, to the point that we never learn their names. The tension is high, and there are several claustrophobic moments. The basis of this movie is, survival. Christopher Nolan does a great job in keeping the audience involved with these characters, as you keep wondering what will happen to them. Fantastic cinematography, and nice performances by Tom Hardy & Cillian Murphy. Well done. I saw it in IMAX and thoroughly recommend it. Historical inaccuracy aside it was an excellent movie and I thought it did a good job of capturing the overall spirit of the event without trying to encompass the entire thing which would have become a 4 hour "The Longest Day" in reverse. You follow a couple groups of people through their intertwining experiences in a snippet of time in a snippet of geography in what was an extremely large event. It's not dialogue driven though you see some evolution of characters over the course of the film. I really only found 2 "are you serious with this?" moments in the film, one was relatively excusable the other was blatant. I won't spoil. You should be aware that the film does not flow from point A to point B in time, it jumps back and forth and you will see the same events from different perspectives several times so don't get all bent out of shape if there seems to be continuity problems, There aren't. It's supposed to be that way. Also, I feel the IMAX really added something to the film. I know it was shot on 70mm film unlike most modern movies so I don't know if that was part of it or not but it seemed like it belonged on the huge screen as opposed to some films where it's added on and it becomes difficult to see everything. One of Christopher Nolan's techniques has been to jump from scene to scene during highly dramatic or intense moments. The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception & Interstellar are examples of this. However, he has never done this throughout an entire movie, like he did with Dunkirk. It was great and I think the moving through time added to the sense of dread, despair, desperation, and foreboding when you see the characters in a struggle which you already know won't end well for them. Nobody watched Valerian? I'm waiting on Dunkirk to be on Netflix. Just don't feel up to being depressed for 2hrs. Didn't find it to be depressing at all. Edited August 1, 2017 by That's No Moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts