General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rich46yo on July 20, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Title: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 20, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Anybody go to see it yet? I'm going to go to an Imax tomorrow, "despite the volume".
The airplane CG looks amazing in the preview. Were at a point where any WW2 flight story can be recreated on computers and look totally real. http://www.dunkirkmovie.com/ (http://www.dunkirkmovie.com/)
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Nefarious on July 20, 2017, 07:52:20 PM
I'm planning on going on Sunday.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Devil 505 on July 20, 2017, 07:52:33 PM
Most of the aircraft footage was obtained using actual planes and large R/C models.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 20, 2017, 08:25:55 PM
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 21, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Saw an early screening last night. Excellent movie.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Karnak on July 21, 2017, 03:50:47 PM
Seems to have gotten at least some Harry Styles fans to learn about history and even get involved. This is a good thing and should be remembered by those inclined to mock such fans.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: hgtonyvi on July 21, 2017, 05:47:22 PM
I wish they can make a ww2 movie strictly about the missions and air combats between the Russians, Germans, Britain, Italian, Japanese and Americans. Would be great to see the battles from all sides while the war was going on. It would probably be a 3 hours movie but it will be well worth it. What you guys think?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: bortas1 on July 21, 2017, 06:06:26 PM
:salute just got back from seeing Dunkirk my son says it was alright not much was said. I thought wow your right the brits always talk a lot without saying anything. also thought they may hold signs telling the germans its teatime and such. but overall its a decent movie telling the horrors of the event without the gore. chap I best shut up don't want to spoil it from this point on. :salute :cheers:
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Kanth on July 21, 2017, 06:26:12 PM
I agree, I think that'd be great to see. I don't know how much regular market there is for it. But I'd enjoy it. :cheers:
I wish they can make a ww2 movie strictly about the missions and air combats between the Russians, Germans, Britain, Italian, Japanese and Americans. Would be great to see the battles from all sides while the war was going on. It would probably be a 3 hours movie but it will be well worth it. What you guys think?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: DaddyAce on July 21, 2017, 07:16:45 PM
I wish they can make a ww2 movie strictly about the missions and air combats between the Russians, Germans, Britain, Italian, Japanese and Americans. Would be great to see the battles from all sides while the war was going on. It would probably be a 3 hours movie but it will be well worth it. What you guys think?
Heck they could make a whole series on this, I for one would eat it up.....got any pull with film producers Rude? :cheers:
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Devil 505 on July 21, 2017, 07:26:42 PM
I wish they can make a ww2 movie strictly about the missions and air combats between the Russians, Germans, Britain, Italian, Japanese and Americans. Would be great to see the battles from all sides while the war was going on. It would probably be a 3 hours movie but it will be well worth it. What you guys think?
One single movie covering all of this? that would actually be terrible.
You need to spend time setting the stage, building the characters, and informing the audience as to what's at stake in victory or defeat.
What we need a concerted effort to make a film representing one battle or campaign and to tell it unbiased from both sides - ala "Tora, Tora, Tora!" - only with more personality shown in the characterization of the historical figures.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: donna43 on July 22, 2017, 12:23:25 AM
I saw it Thursday 20th thought it was good and I must say that the HE 111 looked "real". There are three plots to the movie the 1st The Beach, 2. The Air and 3. The Boats which kinda goes back and forth.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Muzzy on July 22, 2017, 09:16:18 AM
First off...it's not a movie about grand sweeping battles...it's a quiet film that lets the actors' expressions and the visual images convey the emotion. This isn't an action movie at all...when the action comes, it's oddly claustrophobic. As for the air combat...best ACM since Battle of Britain.
Also, you know you play too much AH when you watch this movie and you find yourself muttering "there's the shot...there's the shot! Take it! Take the shot!" during the Spitfire sequences.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Kanth on July 22, 2017, 12:10:18 PM
"He's not leading him enough!!!"
And I thought, I wonder how many of us have more time in SIM than those pilots had hours of training.
I don't know how many hours they had or what their percentage of newbs was.
Really enjoyed the movie.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: DaveBB on July 22, 2017, 12:32:44 PM
My high school history teacher was an officer in the Army, Vietnam Vet and M-60 tank commander. Super cool dude. He taught us some of the stuff he learned while studying in the army, such as the turning point of World War II wasn't D-Day (mind you, this was the mid-90s and everyone thought D-Day was the turning point), and what really happened at Dunkirk. Maybe more evidence has come to light since then, but he taught us two things led to the successful evacation of Dunkirk. (1) Goering wanted to impress how powerful the Luftwaffe was and how air power could win battles. So the German tanks and troops were held in reserve while bombers were solely used to attack the British. And (2) 50,000 troops were left as fodder to fight off the Germans while the remainder of the British Expeditionary Force could be evacuated. All of these troops would be captured or killed.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: tmetal on July 22, 2017, 01:09:29 PM
My only real complaint is that every time the movie jumps between the 3 plot lines it either moves forward in time or backward in time without any real indication until minutes into the new plot line. IMHO this facet of the movie could have and should have been done better; for me it was jarring enough to pull me out of the immersion.
I have seen video of German made Bf109's flying at airshows. Is it really that hard to get some air to air footage of one of these genuine Bf109's for a movie instead of ALWAYS using those gawd-awful ugly Spanish 109's? I know the % of the population who this would matter to is ridiculously small but this movie seemed to go out of its way to try and do the air to air scenes well.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Hajo on July 22, 2017, 01:49:05 PM
My favorite WWII Air Combat Movie is The Battle of Britain filmed in 1969. Along with Tora Tora Tora I think they are the closest to the historical event.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: sonic23 on July 22, 2017, 01:49:21 PM
This movie was mediocre at best i would not go recommending it to anyone. The air combat was probably the most well done shots of the movie and i was still thoroughly underwhelmed there was a part where he goes through the clouds comes out and is still right on his 6 i wanted to see more of a back and forth i guess with who was winning the fight. Also every time a plane gets shot down it just starts smoking until it goes into the water very lame no parts ever getting shot off no variety of any sort.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 22, 2017, 04:22:12 PM
Warning SPOILER DONT READ ANYMORE if you havnt seen the movie.
I just came back from the I-max version. First off dont pay $15 a ticket for I-max. The thing is so loud I have a head ache.
I went cause theres not a lot of WW2 flight movies and the battle of Dunkirk was first and foremost a flight battle. There was always 16 RAF squadrons assigned and 32 different squadrons participated as the squadrons rotated to rest and get new aircraft. The Luftwaffe had two Air Corp assigned and ended up Losing 240 aircraft during the air component of Operation dynamo. The RAF flew 171 recce sorties in those 9 days, 651 bombing sorties, 2,739 fighter sorties, and lost 106 aircraft. There were also a few French squadrons operating out of England. Almost 340,000 troops were saved at Dunkirk during 7 days of evacuation. Thats the size of a good size city.
So this was no little thing. What really disappointed me about the movie the most was the scale of it, which was really Low rent. How many shots of the same 3 Spits, the same 1 HE 111, the same 2 109s, the same 2 model Stuka's, the same 1 Destroyer, and the same 1,000 extra's on the beach in British army uniforms can you show? And they spent 150 m on this movie?
A few of the model scenes were laughable. They had one Stuka crashing into the beach that looked worse then the BOB crash scene when they were bombing the radar station. A few Stuka scenes didnt look to bad but again, only 2 ? At the end they put a Spit in front of a green screen and showed it gliding over the beach and the scene was just awful looking. There was very little CG used and there are just very few real aircraft available nowdays to pull it off.
The time line of the movie was disjointed and it was confusing. There wasn't even any blood and while I'm not a fan of blood and guts that what war is and people get blown to bits when bombs are dropped on them.
I give the movie 1 star. Really I feel like I was robbed.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: shotgunneeley on July 22, 2017, 07:59:19 PM
I gave it an 8/10. Best war movie ever? Hardly.
Like it has been said here: 1) didn't like the non-linear plot line shifting between points of view. Was confusing keeping up with the order of events. The labels at the beginning (e.g. the mole - one week) were so ambiguous I had no idea what they were referring to. All those points of view kept scrambling around and I kept wondering how many times we were going to see the same mine sweeper sink. 2) In real life there were hundreds of private boats coming to the rescue over a weeks worth of time. What did we see in the movie, some 15 to 20 little boats coming in and saving everyone in the course of an hour? 3) I like some dialogue in movies. Staring around at each other and mumbling doesn't keep me interested. 4) I didn't much care for the soldier's (Tommy) side of the story. I might have misinterpretted this part, but I inferred the two running to get the wounded man on the stretcher to the boat as a means to bipass everyone else and get their own ticket to England (not for the interest of saving the wounded man). I may be harsh for speaking without being in that situation, but I didn't feel like rooting for them afterwards. 5) haha I didn't think Tom Hardy would make the cut in AH by waiting until a distance of what seemed to be 50 feet just to miss so far behind the target. Only when he managed to get a kill while gliding dead stick for the last half of the movie did I believe he had some AH talent.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Gman on July 23, 2017, 02:32:04 AM
Local Royal Navy vet that survived Dunkirk came out to see the film at 97.
G I dont believe anything I read in the papers. I doubt ANY man would belittle a movie about a battle where he lost buddies. Besides the film DOES capture the hero'ism of those guys and that nation it just does it on way to small a scale and in a convoluted story line. Kenneth Branagh is an excellent actor but if I had to watch him pace up and down the same pier with the same ship tied to it one more time I was going to scream. Over 700 little pleasure boats were used to get those guys off the beaches not 12. Over 230 RN ships were used not 2. I'd bet between the RAF and Luftwaffe there were over 10,000 aircraft sorties flown in 7 days, does the film give you that "feel".
Also there was still a war going on in the streets of Dunkirk where Brit and French forces fought to the last man to get those guys off the beaches. Every day there were running gun battles in the streets. There were thousands of bodies on the beaches, many blown to pieces. 1,000 Dunkirk civilians alone were killed during the battle. And the artillery? There were thousands of artillery rounds aimed at those beaches by the Germans, and the ships, and the movie didn't show one, let alone return fire from the RN.
I found some German footage of the battle. At the 12:00 mark there is footage of what it looked like after the battle and it sure wasn't what I saw in the film. Not even close. I would have rather seen this movie in 70mm Panavision, it was actually shot with real film. The transfer to digital doesnt look good, it usually never does, and always looks to dark with its color washed out.
Typical Hollywood. They spend a fortune to shoot all digital, and force the Theater owners to do the same with projection, and now are going back to 70mm film to get people back in the theaters cause the digital movies look just as good on widescreen TV with surround sound systems. So now the theaters have to buy film equipment again so their customers dont just wait a few weeks to watch the pixels on their TVs at home without buying $10 popcorn and $7 cokes.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Nefarious on July 23, 2017, 12:06:35 PM
I thought it was a great film. I was able to put the pieces together pretty easy. I thought the assembly of the plot lines was done well and not confusing at all.
I will probably buy it on blu-ray or DVD.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Toad on July 23, 2017, 12:06:52 PM
Thanks for the film clip Rich.
Quote
(1) Goering wanted to impress how powerful the Luftwaffe was and how air power could win battles. So the German tanks and troops were held in reserve while bombers were solely used to attack the British.
...What exactly had happened on the battlefields in Belgium and France?
After days of disorganized retreat the BEF had surprised the Germans on May 21 by staging a counterattack, using tanks and infantry, at the edge of the northern French city of Arras.
That counterattack seems to have unnerved a man who was to become perhaps the most proficient leader of panzer divisions, General Erwin Rommel. Rommel complained to the German commanding general, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, that his 7th Panzer Division had been attacked by “hundreds of enemy tanks.” In fact, the British had deployed 74 tanks of which only 16 were the latest generation and able to outfight Rommel’s armor.
But the psychological effect of the unexpected resistance was more powerful than the British tanks. Von Rundstedt, with the support of Hitler, stopped the panzers driving toward Dunkirk and ordered that, first, the resistance at Arras should be dealt with.
Then, at 8pm on May 23, another German commander warned von Rundstedt that other panzer divisions were moving so fast through Belgium and France that their infantry was falling behind the tanks and recommended that the tanks should be halted until the infantry had time to catch up. Von Rundstedt, again with Hitler’s consent, approved a pause of 36 hours, until May 25.
It was this second halt order that saved the BEF. It allowed the British time to establish new lines of defense between the port and beaches of Dunkirk and the German advance.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Gman on July 23, 2017, 02:00:24 PM
Quote
G I dont believe anything I read in the papers. I doubt ANY man would belittle a movie about a battle where he lost buddies.
So, because a 97 year old vet disparages a film, you're now saying he's guilty of stolen valor? By the way, he's a well known vet of note at the local legion, whose war service record can be researched with Veterans Affairs and a phone call. He also landed at Sword beach in 44 when he was attached to the 41st Royal Marines as a Petty Officer in the RN. You can Google his name, he's been in various RESEARCHED books. Or again, just call VA, if you're so certain he's guilty of lying. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlplltP7WdY)
I suppose he stole his Dunkirk decoration, and all the others, as well?
A retraction/apology is in order, at the very least.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 23, 2017, 02:08:59 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 23, 2017, 02:12:12 PM
I'm fairly certain half the vets here could give any fighter pilot in the world a run for their money.
And related to that, if things ever get serious in a war, I wonder just how much of the ACM expertise is stored away in people like us.
It depends. if we are talking video games the gamers would win, if it is real WW2 fighters the gamers would die Before they left the ground. No amount of time in AH would prepare you for a real fighter.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Serenity on July 24, 2017, 07:58:06 AM
I wonder how many of us have more time in SIM than those pilots had hours of training.
Well, training nowadays is MUCH better than during WWII, and more conclusive, and I promise most of you here have more Sim time than I do flights and sims combined lol.
It depends. if we are talking video games the gamers would win, if it is real WW2 fighters the gamers would die Before they left the ground. No amount of time in AH would prepare you for a real fighter.
Personally, I agree on both fronts. Anyone who has fought me in game knows it's basically a guaranteed kill for you, lol.
As for the movie, I REALLY REALLY liked it. I think it did an AMAZING job of actually letting the audience experience the struggle. This wasn't a movie about the battle for Dunkirk. This wasn't a grand film about the overarching campaign. This wasn't a film about being a pilot, the glory of air power, or the strategic development of either side during WWII. It wasn't intended to be. This was a film about human experience, and I don't think I've ever seen a movie capture that aspect so well.
It was loud. I mean, RIDICULOUSLY loud, almost as loud as gunfire really is. They did a fantastic job of capturing the jarring effect of gunfire. It was emotional. You felt the anxiety, the misery, the sense of dread. I spent the entire movie in anxious anticipation, waiting to see what happened next. Yes, we know how the overall campaign ended, but again, this was about the individual. A lot of you wanted to see Battle of Britain remade here, but that was never the point of the movie. There are a lot of complaints about not ENOUGH aircraft, and not ENOUGH troops on the beach, but were we honestly expecting to see 50 v 50 aerial battles? 400,000 actual people on a beach? Honestly, I think that may have taken away from effect of the film if they had gone farther.
If you're looking for a remake to Battle of Britain, stay home. If you're looking to watch a film about the German push into france, stay home. If you're looking for large scale action flick, stay home. But if you want to feel like you're really there, in the shoes of an 18 year old British soldier, desperate to find safety, and doubtful you'll ever see home again, this is an AMAZING movie.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Nefarious on July 24, 2017, 08:09:56 AM
As for the movie, I REALLY REALLY liked it. I think it did an AMAZING job of actually letting the audience experience the struggle. This wasn't a movie about the battle for Dunkirk. This wasn't a grand film about the overarching campaign. This wasn't a film about being a pilot, the glory of air power, or the strategic development of either side during WWII. It wasn't intended to be. This was a film about human experience, and I don't think I've ever seen a movie capture that aspect so well.
It was loud. I mean, RIDICULOUSLY loud, almost as loud as gunfire really is. They did a fantastic job of capturing the jarring effect of gunfire. It was emotional. You felt the anxiety, the misery, the sense of dread. I spent the entire movie in anxious anticipation, waiting to see what happened next. Yes, we know how the overall campaign ended, but again, this was about the individual. A lot of you wanted to see Battle of Britain remade here, but that was never the point of the movie. There are a lot of complaints about not ENOUGH aircraft, and not ENOUGH troops on the beach, but were we honestly expecting to see 50 v 50 aerial battles? 400,000 actual people on a beach? Honestly, I think that may have taken away from effect of the film if they had gone farther.
If you're looking for a remake to Battle of Britain, stay home. If you're looking to watch a film about the German push into france, stay home. If you're looking for large scale action flick, stay home. But if you want to feel like you're really there, in the shoes of an 18 year old British soldier, desperate to find safety, and doubtful you'll ever see home again, this is an AMAZING movie.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Rich46yo on July 24, 2017, 10:09:41 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: icepac on July 24, 2017, 10:22:24 AM
My dad noticed that there were almost no markings to identify "the enemy" planes as german.
He also noticed that they called the axis military "the enemy" instead of "the germans".
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: FBKampfer on July 24, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
It depends. if we are talking video games the gamers would win, if it is real WW2 fighters the gamers would die Before they left the ground. No amount of time in AH would prepare you for a real fighter.
Of course assuming we were given time to learn how to actually fly a damn plane. Hardly fair if one person isn't able to operate his weapon.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Hungry on July 24, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
You have to factor in the physical demands of flying a real fighter under intense conditions, they wern't exactly sitting in their favorite computer chair sipping alcohol, taking breaks when ever they wanted, I think its ridiculous to compare us to the real war pilot
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Zimme83 on July 24, 2017, 12:29:34 PM
Of course assuming we were given time to learn how to actually fly a damn plane. Hardly fair if one person isn't able to operate his weapon.
Well, it we also where trained to be fighter pilots then it would be different. But i still dont think the game would do that much difference, you are not going to be able to rope anyone irl.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Toad on July 24, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
My dad noticed that there were almost no markings to identify "the enemy" planes as german.
He also noticed that they called the axis military "the enemy" instead of "the germans".
Yes, I've heard both of those comments from friends who have seen it. (I haven't as yet)
The general take was that this was more Politically Correct movie making. Not fair to point out which nation were the "bad guys". In short, more moral relativism.
A few said though that this wasn't more PC, it was an attempt just to (as others have said here) show the human experience of war. The decision making process and how things play out despite good intentions or what seemed to be a good idea at the time.
I did see Hacksaw Ridge last night. I would have to say that is one of the most striking movies in terms of showing the gruesome horror of battle. It certainly removes any idea of glory or dulce et decorum est. The hilltop battle segment should be required viewing for anyone with the authority to declare war and send men off to fight. (Looking at you, Congress/President. You folks should have to watch that part 4 or 5 times.)
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Serenity on July 24, 2017, 03:51:54 PM
Yes, I've heard both of those comments from friends who have seen it. (I haven't as yet)
Honestly, I didn't notice any attempt to take the focus off the Germans. That being said, other than the aircraft, you don't really see ANY Germans for most of the movie. I DID think the He-111 looked to have Romanian markings, but that may have just been a funny angle.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Gman on July 24, 2017, 05:07:03 PM
Great review Serenity, I'm going to see it tonight.
A better article written in the local Herald paper about Ken Sturdy's opinion on the film and his recollections of the Dunkirk evacuation. He's one of the few vets that was a part of both the Dunkirk evac (his unit was called up by Adm Bertram Ramsay along with many other to assist with whatever boats they could), as well as hit the beach on the 1st day of the DDay operation on Sword (corrected) beach, attached as a Royal Navy Signalman with the 41 Royal Marines.
I spoke to Ken for the first time in about a year a couple days ago. His phone has been busy, but he's familiar with how many people are interested in both WW2 history and the film, and said he'd welcome any calls with questions about Dunkirk or Dday from anyone interested in speaking with him. If anyone wants to speak to one of the few remaining Vets of both Dunkirk and Dday, PM me for his phone number.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: ToeTag on July 24, 2017, 05:35:18 PM
Heck with the talent here I'll bet a buck it could be done and generate a lot of interest for the game. Just saying.
I wish they can make a ww2 movie strictly about the missions and air combats between the Russians, Germans, Britain, Italian, Japanese and Americans. Would be great to see the battles from all sides while the war was going on. It would probably be a 3 hours movie but it will be well worth it. What you guys think?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: guncrasher on July 24, 2017, 05:35:39 PM
Movie sucks, acting is pretty bad, specially the airplane fighting scene at the beginning. 45 minutes into the movie I left. Water of money.
Semp
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: MiloMorai on July 24, 2017, 05:51:14 PM
41 Royal Marine Commando landed on Sword, not Sabre beach.
Sword consisted of Oboe, Peter, Queen and Roger sectors.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Gman on July 24, 2017, 06:03:02 PM
Correction, Sword beach. 41 Commando probably was close to Oboe, as they were tasked with landing sort of in the area between Juno and Sword, and Oboe was the most Western sector. Ken did an interview as well with the BBC back in 2014 regarding his DDay landing that's on YT if you search for it, as well was written about in the book WW2: The Last War Heroes from DDay to Berlin. You can tell from the BBC interview to his most recent, that his speech has declined rapidly. He's still pretty sharp though, and again, if anyone is writing, reading, researching, or just interested in Dunkirk/DDay operations, as well as the Atlantic convoy missions, Ken is enthusiastic about speaking to anyone about his experiences still.
It won't be long before all we'll have is what is recorded and written down from our WW2 vets.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Becinhu on July 24, 2017, 09:24:05 PM
I enjoyed the movie. It was a more "family friendly" war film. Kinda hard to introduce a youngster to history with a gore fest even though it's more accurate. I did find that the spitfire pilots can't pull lead at all and the 109 pilots didn't negative g stick stir....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: stealth on July 25, 2017, 04:12:23 AM
I won't spoil anything but the last 2 scenes of the movie brought a tear to my a little bit lol. Was definitely worth the extra cost at the IMAX theater but that's just me.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: MiloMorai on July 25, 2017, 06:55:44 AM
British 41 RM Commando landed Sword-Queen-White at Hermanville-sur-Mer and then moved west to Lion-sur-Mer.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Gman on July 25, 2017, 01:52:12 PM
Much of 41 missed their landing on the West side of Oboe, yes, but not all. The official records say they mislanded near Queen RED, not White, as per the UK.gov national archives. Wikipedia is the only source I've read that says White, but several books and the UK.gov site all say it was Queen red. Who knows, it's possible they were in both, so many units missed their landings.
They then moved West towards their objective on the West side of Oboe, and slogged through heavy fighting where 3 AVREs that were attached to 41 were taken out by the anti tank gun the Germans had in Trout, which is in the Oboe sector, or on the West edge of it at least.
Saw Dunkirk at last. It was loud. Different than what I expected, but worth seeing. I think I need to see it again, maybe a couple times.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Mister Fork on July 25, 2017, 01:59:32 PM
Much of 41 missed their landing on the West side of Oboe, yes, but not all. They mislanded near Queen RED, not White, as per the UK.gov national archives. They then moved West towards their objective on the West side of Oboe, and slogged through heavy fighting where 3 AVREs that were attached to 41 were taken out by the anti tank gun the Germans had in Trout, which is in the Oboe sector, or on the West edge of it at least.
Saw Dunkirk at last. It was loud. Different than what I expected, but worth seeing. I think I need to see it again, maybe a couple times.
It was loud indeed Gman. It was a great movie - lots to see. And the shifting timelines caught me off guard and I struggled to understand the progression of events. Some sad parts, some butt-clenching action scenes, and mostly, it was done very well. The lack of dialogue was done on purpose as there was soooo much going on in the film and background. Overall, one of my favourite films ever.
I took my dad and my oldest son to this movie - my son enjoyed it immensely...a little too scary for my 9 year old - maybe when he's a little older. Will be a movie I 'own' for sure.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Bruv119 on July 25, 2017, 05:00:01 PM
took my dad to cinema for the first time in years he enjoyed it even if the sound effects were LOUD!
I give it 8/10, Your right about the sloppy flying and shooting it was almost like flying WITHOUT a rudder!! :D
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Saurdaukar on July 25, 2017, 08:59:12 PM
Rather curiously, I find myself wondering if those who did not care for the film went into the correct theater.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: perdue3 on July 25, 2017, 10:28:44 PM
Well, it we also where trained to be fighter pilots then it would be different. But i still dont think the game would do that much difference, you are not going to be able to rope anyone irl.
True, but there are people here with deep and intimate knowledge of ACM and aerial combat theory. I'm not saying we could just jump into an F-15 and start kicking ass.
My point being that from my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, the experts here have quite a leg up in the theoretical field. And putting theory into practice is just a matter of practice, not learning and trying to incorporate new information into already learned and reinforced behavior.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Zimme83 on July 26, 2017, 04:29:43 AM
The step from the cartoon world to the real is bigger than you think. A few in here would probably make it, but thats most likely those that already are real life pilots. As I said, what we do here does not automatically corresponds to the real world. I doubt that more than a few of us even have the physical strength to withstand more than a few minutes of combat. Flying like we do in the game is impossible unless you physical status is on an elite level.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Lusche on July 26, 2017, 05:10:54 AM
I can guarantee I would not be one of them. Couldn't fit into the seat, my fitness level is pathetic, some acrophobia and can't keep attention long enough to learn all those fancy buttons. One barrel roll and I'll puke for the rest of the day. :rolleyes: That's why I love the cartoon world, where even me can be a hero! :banana:
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Zoney on July 26, 2017, 11:36:02 AM
True, but there are people here with deep and intimate knowledge of ACM and aerial combat theory. I'm not saying we could just jump into an F-15 and start kicking ass.
My point being that from my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, the experts here have quite a leg up in the theoretical field. And putting theory into practice is just a matter of practice, not learning and trying to incorporate new information into already learned and reinforced behavior.
It is my contention that we would not do very well at all. We do not fly with the stress of actually living or dying, nor do we have to deal with the effects high G's place upon the human body. While we are flying this simulation, our clarity of though is unhampered with these stresses.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Saurdaukar on July 26, 2017, 12:01:20 PM
Cart before the horse behind.
While fun to debate what may or may not happen in the air, we'd probably be safe in assuming that no one here is familiar with the engine start sequence in a Spitfire and, even if the process were taught, most of us would jam the prop into the dirt immediately after rolling a foot onto one of the wheel brakes on taxi.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: morfiend on July 26, 2017, 01:02:55 PM
While fun to debate what may or may not happen in the air, we'd probably be safe in assuming that no one here is familiar with the engine start sequence in a Spitfire and, even if the process were taught, most of us would jam the prop into the dirt immediately after rolling a foot onto one of the wheel brakes on taxi.
Look who the cat dragged in!!!! Longtime no see!
:salute
PS: Looks like we could both launch the new F1 cars,antistall is your friend!!!! :devil
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: icepac on July 26, 2017, 01:19:21 PM
Can't be any harder than the start sequence for a super constellation.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Mister Fork on July 26, 2017, 01:26:35 PM
One thing that surprised me is how noisy the inside of the cockpit of the Spitfire was - a whole lotta rattling and shaking. I'm also assuming they're Spitfire I's... either way, throw in the heat and cold issues you have, wind leaks and the noise it creates, fumes that leak in from the engine, cramped quarters of a Spitfire cockpit (it's REAL tiny), and throw in regular life issues for 20 year olds - being hung over, constant constipation from flying G-turns, head colds, terrible uniforms for flying, gloves, dirty glasses, humidity in the cockpit, mechanical issues from mass production...
flying any WWII early war aircraft took more courage and then skill to overcome all the minute harrassments you face as a pilot and then put the stress that "SOME IS SHOOTING AT YOU TO KILL" in another airplane. Or - you just saw your best mate die in a flaming wreck, and you still have to press on with your mission. Or - you downed a He-111 and saw the boys in her trying to bail out and some got out and others got killed...kind of things on your mind as a pilot.
Does any of that sound like a fun activity?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Oldman731 on July 26, 2017, 01:33:39 PM
throw in the heat and cold issues you have, wind leaks and the noise it creates, fumes that leak in from the engine, cramped quarters of a Spitfire cockpit (it's REAL tiny), and throw in regular life issues for 20 year olds
I remember reading a P-51 pilot's account of an extended turn fight he had with a German plane. He was getting sick and ready to vomit, the G forces were pulling his oxygen mask down off his face, and his arms and legs were getting quivery from constant pushing on the stick and rudder pedals. We face none of these real-life forces.
That said, we do learn useful things with these games. When I flew Air Combat USA I was able to keep the pseudo-enemy plane in sight, which the real pilot found remarkable and which I would not have been able to do before HR taught me how, back in AW.
- oldman (OTOH, I was beginning to feel a bit queasy myself)
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Saurdaukar on July 26, 2017, 09:47:42 PM
I'll blow a blood vessel discussing what's wrong with F1; the sole exception being that Kimi still has a seat with the Scuderia.
Hmmm why did I think that was the responce would get! Couldnt agree more,now id Verstappen could keep a car running that atleast would be fun to see... :devil
Glad to see you around! :aok
:salute
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Dichotomy on July 27, 2017, 07:10:34 PM
Hmmm why did I think that was the responce would get! Couldnt agree more,now id Verstappen could keep a car running that atleast would be fun to see... :devil
Glad to see you around! :aok
:salute
MORPH!!! Hiya
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Oldman731 on July 27, 2017, 08:56:16 PM
This is like one of those movies where all the disappeared heroes come back to get together. Most excellent.
- oldman
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: morfiend on July 28, 2017, 11:26:58 AM
Heya Dicho :aok
:salute
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Pollock on July 28, 2017, 10:40:03 PM
If you are lucky enough to this imax 70mm DO NOT MISS IT! There are lots of digital imax theaters but only like 30 actual 70mm film (not digital) projectors left in the US. The colors and clarity were stunning, compared to the digital version there are significant differences in scope as well. Seeing this movie put you into the movie, similar if you got to see avatar in 3d imax. Christopher Nolan pulled it off with old school film and no 3d.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Devil 505 on July 30, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
If you are lucky enough to this imax 70mm DO NOT MISS IT! There are lots of digital imax theaters but only like 30 actual 70mm film (not digital) projectors left in the US. The colors and clarity were stunning, compared to the digital version there are significant differences in scope as well. Seeing this movie put you into the movie, similar if you got to see avatar in 3d imax. Christopher Nolan pulled it off with old school film and no 3d.
Agree. I just saw it in Imax 4K lazer - one of the few formats that can support the full 70mm image. The experience is incredible.
Well worth the extra couple of bucks.
Another bonus is that there is more aircraft action that I expected. :aok
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Lusche on July 30, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
Agree. I just saw it in Imax 4K lazer - one of the few formats that can support the full 70mm image. The experience is incredible.
That made me look it up, and there's actually one cinema in my region showing Dunkirk on 70mm (the last time they did show a movie on 70mm was two years ago). No imax though, I think there are only two of them left here in Germany.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Serenity on July 30, 2017, 07:58:18 PM
Out of curiosity, there was a lot of hubub about an actual warbird being destroyed to film this movie. Did that actually happen?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Lusche on July 30, 2017, 08:02:39 PM
If you are lucky enough to this imax 70mm DO NOT MISS IT! There are lots of digital imax theaters but only like 30 actual 70mm film (not digital) projectors left in the US. The colors and clarity were stunning, compared to the digital version there are significant differences in scope as well. Seeing this movie put you into the movie, similar if you got to see avatar in 3d imax. Christopher Nolan pulled it off with old school film and no 3d.
Rubbish. Do you think films still get edited in an analog format?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: pembquist on July 31, 2017, 11:53:36 AM
Rubbish. Do you think films still get edited in an analog format?
Do you have expertise in this are?
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Golfer on August 02, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
Saw it yesterday and didn't care for it. 20 boats, a regiment of extras and half a dozen airplanes to tell the story of 400,000 allied soldiers, sailors and airmen.
To paraphrase Captain Nemo in 20,000 leaves, "your (film) is brilliant, but it lacks scope."
The scale wasn't captured. The enormity. The end product and the budget don't jive with me.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: DubiousKB on August 02, 2017, 03:30:48 PM
If you are lucky enough to this imax 70mm DO NOT MISS IT! There are lots of digital imax theaters but only like 30 actual 70mm film (not digital) projectors left in the US. The colors and clarity were stunning, compared to the digital version there are significant differences in scope as well. Seeing this movie put you into the movie, similar if you got to see avatar in 3d imax. Christopher Nolan pulled it off with old school film and no 3d.
Regina, SK, Canada has one of the VERY true 70mm few across the great white north. . . I REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS IN IT'S ORIGINAL FORMAT!!!
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: bortas1 on August 05, 2017, 02:41:46 PM
:salute just got back from seeing Dunkirk my son says it was alright not much was said. I thought wow your right the brits always talk a lot without saying anything. also thought they may hold signs telling the germans its teatime and such. but overall its a decent movie telling the horrors of the event without the gore. chap I best shut up don't want to spoil it from this point on. :salute :cheers:
:salute ok after some time the movie has been out and some study of the event. frankly the movie did not do justice to the retreat.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Brooke on August 07, 2017, 12:22:21 AM
Also, you know you play too much AH when you watch this movie and you find yourself muttering "there's the shot...there's the shot! Take it! Take the shot!" during the Spitfire sequences. [/quote]
Just saw it today and thats exactly it. :aok
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Vulcan on August 14, 2017, 08:47:57 PM
Good! I read about this stuff and it makes me curious. So your saying that this film for instance was shot on superduper big frame film and then is digitized for editing and then printed on superduper big frame film to project right?
So if that is a given do you feel that there is no difference between printing on super duper vs projecting with whatever the standard digital projection in theaters give you? Or is it the other way around that projecting with the superduper film is still a class above from projecting with standard digital?
Is the hype about OMNIMAX really not accurate and the experience is different due to the stadium seating wrap around projection and not the mode of projection?
I assume most people are like me in terms of their perception and I can see crappy digital projection, (like a blueray at a small second run theater,) but I really don't think I could tell between top of the line equipment unless someone pointed it out, and the differences might not make one better than the other. Does this seem likely?
For film shot on film does 70mm or Omnimax capture more information per frame than digital? Despite reading various sources I still can't say for sure.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: EagleDNY on August 29, 2017, 08:28:39 PM
It was an OK movie - I'm glad I saw it but won't be buying it. The gliding Spitfire getting a kill was the final nail in the coffin of being able to suspend disbelief.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: pembquist on August 30, 2017, 10:42:26 AM
Just saw it, 70mm non OMNIMAX. I was impressed. A couple clangers, the stuka getting shot by the spit at the end, the little boats all showing up tears in the eyes of Branaugh, those two did wreck my suspension of disbelief.
Otherwise I was very impressed, the handling of the non linear timeline was excellent, if you liked it even a little I recommend you watch Memento, I think it was his first movie.
The music score and sound I thought was really good, I understood about 10% of the dialog but the ticking and the dread of the score were quite effective and had an almost subliminal effect.
I can't imagine how much work it was to make without much CG, shooting on the water like this has got to be a real challenge, and the use of real boats and pushing an ancient French destroyer around with tugs....that all took real skill and hard work.
The flying scenes I thought were hands down the best I have ever seen. I saw an interview where Nolan said that they had a ton more of really good stuff but you can only use a little, they ought to cut together a short for spitfire geeks.
Like somebody else said I kept wanting to yell "shoot" when there was enough lead, (little trouble with the suspension of disbelief there, but I blame AH.)
Overall for you guys that didn't like it or felt Meh I'm genuinely sorry you didn't have the same experience that I did. I felt very emotional during the flying scenes, something about the fusion of flying which is so beautiful and hatred, (I really wanted the people in those 109s and Heinkels to die,) got me choked up.
As for historical inaccuracies in the gear, I didn't know enough for it to matter.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: YUCCA on August 30, 2017, 01:39:48 PM
Seen it in theaters seen credit for "yak pilot." Looks like one of the spits was actually a yak to make room for the big camera.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: oboe on August 30, 2017, 03:36:49 PM
...The music score and sound I thought was really good, I understood about 10% of the dialog but the ticking and the dread of the score were quite effective and had an almost subliminal effect...
Agreed. Excellent, effective score. Here someone took a bit from Zimmer's score and set it to battle scenes from the 1969 movie "Battle of Britain":
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Devil 505 on August 30, 2017, 08:17:27 PM
There's a shot of the Yak in this video at :31 that shows the spitfire cockpit mock-up in the forward position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yivl41NgXs
Also has some other cool shots of the real planes and models used in the film.
When folks are asking "How did this movie cost THIS much?!"
This video explains it lol.
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Old Sport on August 31, 2017, 11:06:50 AM
I kept expecting one of the lads on the small boat to ask, "Dad, aren't you worried about what will happen at Dunkirk?" To which Mark Rylance would widen his eyes and reply, "Would it help?!"
And when the Spit flew by I was thinking Rylance should have pointed and said, "Stoiki Mujzeek."
Sort of like in the film, Allied, where the Zemekis music started and I kept waiting for someone to shout, "Wilson!?!"
Anyway, the biggest "downer" in Dunkirk for me was at the end, when the Spit, OUT OF GAS, went up in major flames, and that Rolls Merlin engine was . . . a pole. :O
Title: Re: Dunkirk
Post by: Brooke on September 01, 2017, 12:15:35 AM