Slashdot Mirror
Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix (marketwatch.com)
There's nothing quite like filming a movie on film, according to the director Christopher Nolan. His new WWII film, Dunkirk, was shot entirely on epic 65mm, as opposed to digital. And it's receiving the widest release of that film format in recent history. But Nolan's views on doing things the way "they're meant to be done," isn't limited to just making a film. He also wants you watch the movie in the theatre, and not on streaming service Netflix, which he says he rarely uses. From a report: "Dunkirk," director Christopher Nolan's big budget war epic, is a filmmaker's film and a movie buff's dream with its wide, high-resolution 70mm format. It's like an expressionist painting, said ComScore media analyst Paul Dergarabedian. The Hollywood Reporter even said "Dunkirk" could launch a 70mm film renaissance. "I would always prefer and really recommend that everyone see it on Imax 70mm," Dergarabedian said. "People talk about 'they don't make movies like that anymore.' Well, this is that movie." Dunkirk, which opens across the U.S. this weekend, is a film that everyone will tell you has to be seen on the big screen. And that has rekindled the debate about the pros and cons of films opening in a theater versus being streamed by Netflix. In an interview with Indiewire ahead of the film's premiere, Nolan criticized Netflix for its "bizarre aversion to supporting theatrical films." Netflix, despite doubling down on its film business and looking to make inroads in the industry, has continued its controversial stance against Hollywood's theatrical window model. To the film industry's dismay, Netflix is still adopting a day and date release model -- dropping a movie on the streaming service the same day it hits theaters. Hollywood relies on the money moviegoers spend at the box office, and the industry is reluctant to give up the exclusive window of time that films are only in theaters, fearing it would cripple that income stream. "Dunkirk" is an impressive $150 million argument on behalf of cinema.
In an interview, Nolan said he will not work with Netflix because their film strategy is "pointless." He said, "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they're not even getting in the game, and I think they're missing a huge opportunity. [...] You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake," he said. "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."
Critics have found Dunkirk one of the best movies -- and perhaps the best war movie -- ever made. The Guardian said it's the best Nolan movie, while the New York Times found it "both sweeping and intimate."
In an interview, Nolan said he will not work with Netflix because their film strategy is "pointless." He said, "They have this mindless policy of everything having to be simultaneously streamed and released, which is obviously an untenable model for theatrical presentation. So they're not even getting in the game, and I think they're missing a huge opportunity. [...] You can see that Amazon is very clearly happy to not make that same mistake," he said. "The theaters have a 90-day window. It's a perfectly usable model. It's terrific."
Critics have found Dunkirk one of the best movies -- and perhaps the best war movie -- ever made. The Guardian said it's the best Nolan movie, while the New York Times found it "both sweeping and intimate."
Wait, there are movies that hit Netflix the same day as theaters? Inconceivable!
It's really that simple for most people seeing films in theaters is too costly. Most are not "must see" immediately good anyway.
The Hateful Eight was shot in 70 mm. So if there is a 70mm film renaissance it may have already been started by Quentin Tarantino and cinematographer Robert Richardson in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Which would you rather have:
1. A nice, relaxing watch on your own time, own schedule, with the people of your choosing, with affordable snacks and great seats
2. A dingy, overpriced, cramped, uncomfortable, smelly struggle to enjoy a film played on poorly maintained projectors in a theater rocking with the sounds of cellphones and conversation, while the usher stands idly by and fails to enforce any order, while you munch stale $20 popcorn.
Option 1 will cost you a Netflix subscription. #2 will cost you $30 a head for one viewing. Little surprise I, like thousands of others, never go to a theater!
If Hollywood wants to defend their vision of how films "should" be seen, they have to regulate themselves and beat the alternative options. So far, all they really want to do is whine about it.
I'll be sure to watch it on an airplane in-seat system out of spite.
And there's not going to be a film renaissance, for the same reason there isn't going to be a vinyl renaissance. That's hipster territory.
Hey guess what? We can walk AND chew gum
In one way they are right: there are some movies which really are better to watch on a big scren. Even the 52" in my living room does not do them justice.
So the watching experience could be better in the theater... but it's not! It's not because:
* There are anymore 15 or 20 commercials and previews before the main film. This can take in excess of 30 minutes, sometimes 40. It has become ridiculous.
* The audio is played so loud I need earplugs to avoid pain.
You want me to attend showings in the theater? Fine. I would be inclined to do just that, if you didn't make the experience so bloody terrible. As it stands, you drove me back into my living room. You had choices to make. You made them in a way inconsistent with retaining me as a customer.
If you ever revisit those choices, i will revisit my choice to avoid your theater.
> From a report: "Dunkirk," director Christopher Nolan's big budget war epic, is a filmmaker's film and a movie buff's dream with its wide, high-resolution 70mm format."
Why? No, really, what's so special about having 1/2 of the screen black?
It's terrific indeed. Wait for the movie release in theaters, wait 90 days then stream at home without having to bother with the sub-par theatre quality of overpaying for the ticket, the snacks and drinks, the sticky floors, the crappy and probably dirty seats, having to endure idiots around you pushing on your seat, talking, using their damn phones with the brightness at maximum, watching a blurry image and enduring extreme audio loudness with so much bass that you don't even hear anything else.
He's right when he says streaming is a perfectly usable model, all you have to do is wait 90 days!
tl;dr Hollywood does not control the theater experience and it's expensive. When we watch at home we control our viewing experience and the price is low.
#DeleteFacebook
The hype and BS is strong in this one. Of course they say it is the bestest movie ever. The bestest! Of course they say it *just has* to be watched on the big screen and you *just have* to suffer though the theater experience to see it. Of course that will change the instant it is released on disk or streaming services.
can you get dolby atmos or dts-x on 70MM or is it still DTS 5.1 only with 70MM?
First world problems: it has to be made and you really HAVE to see this in the most luxurious way possible, because of the art of, well, watching people kill each other violently, which cannot be appreciated otherwise. The people who died there must have been delighted had they known in advance that much later their deaths were to be used in decadent discussions by decadent movie makers, who attach silly "personal interest" substories, all with the goal of just making a lot of money.
Long IMAX (flim) movies have no ad's
Perhaps 70mm film is a bit like 3D: it only adds something when it's done right,
The only thing 3D adds is a few dollars to the ticket price and a migraine after an hour of watching it. All I can see film adding is the occasional speck of dust or scratch to the picture. If that's so important I'm sure there is some digital algorithm which can add similar imperfections. This sort of thing strikes me as nothing more than audiophiles becoming videophiles.
morons.
Stop saying, "no one", "we", and "us".
You don't speak for anyone but yourself, especially because you are a fucking imbecile.
If my choices are to go to a noisy theatre playing a movie on someone else's schedule and pay over $20 to sit in uncomfortable seats while the speakers try to ruin my hearing, vs watching the movie whenever I want in the quiet comfort of my own home for a fraction of the cost where I can pause the movie and control the colume, I think the choice is pretty clear.
Nolan is a great director, but a movie would have to be revolutionary to get me into the cinema.
Things disappear when those who support them die. That is what will happen to film, within two decades or so. As for Nolan, I enjoyed Interstellar enormously, but I am going to miss Dunkirk - not only am I a bit fed up with pretentious war movies but, in addition, I do not want to contribute to supporting this pompous ass and his old-fashioned ways.
Anti consumer thinking of the old generation unwilling to adapt to newer technology as usual.
Look at the genius here who knows everything about movie production.
Did you know that the average quality of photography dropped significantly with digital imagers? Do you know why? Did you know that a similar thing happens shooting movies with digital? Yes, when you embrace the art as the director, you lead your team to embrace the art. It does make a difference. Oh, and you clearly haven't seen the digital filter artifacts, have you. They're different, not better or worse.
The Germans lose the war.
You are welcome on my lawn.
1 - Home theaters cost less and less every day. 4K resolutions dwarf many local theaters, and you can bring any food you want, with any friends you want.
2 - Film vs digital has nothing to do with home vs theater.
3 - Netflix and YouTube allows independent content you'd never see in a theater. Google 4K drone, or 4K outdoors (you can even get 6 and 8K already IIRC on YouTube.) At an age when Hollywood produces the same shit every year, theaters are already a boring medium.
4 - DVD, BluRay, and Netflix prove that people don't care about the "benefits" touted in this article. People's recreational spending habits don't lie. People just want to relax with their familes and friends... not have to stand in line to watch, and stand in line to piss, and pay $8 for a fuckin soda.
fear/mayhem/violence addiction MANufactured as well,, sheesh i mean phewww,, cease fire stand down in all formats in all venues.. that's the spirit.. thanks again
and black-and-white and soundless (think of the job opportunities the need for live music during the showing will bring!). We certainly should also install gas-lights and the cost savings for ripping out the A/C will be enormous (and green)!
I am guessing that movie makers don't get out to the public theaters that often and may not realize what the entire "movie going" experience is like these days: 30 minutes of adds, the garbage food that was there 30 years ago (and sometime in the same bag), overblown sound system, Sometimes swept out, in new theaters the seating is good (but not always), people in the theater who don't understand basic etiquette.
Maybe have the movie makers watch a couple of films in public theaters each year so they remember why there is conflict on this subject.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
I wish I had +1 for you sir.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
If Hollywood wasn't losing badly, you wouldn't see articles like this. Hollywood will still be around, but they're transitioning into being a minor player.
http://www.independent.co.uk/a...
So another whitewashed US/brit-centric movie pretending to be historically accurate. I wonder if it is as bad as that stupid American Sniper movie.
These movies are garbage recorded on high def film, and are still not worth my time.
The problem is the movie theaters. Nobody wants to go pay for over priced tickets and eye-gouging food and drink prices, just to sit in a snot covered seat with a bunch of annoying mouth breathers. If you are lucky, you might not get stabbed in the parking lot on your way home or attacked by a mass murderer spraying bullets in random directions.
The theater going experience sucks and it doesn't appear to be changing in the audience's favor anytime soon. I appreciate that Nolan made a beautiful film, but I'm still not going. Lamenting about "the true movie-going experience" is forgetting that the ideal Nolan strives for was a blip in history to start with. Storytelling is a constantly changing beast with no "right" way of doing it. I don't go to see "films." I go to be told a story. The medium is only part of that experience.
I like to watch movies on my home theatre setup because I can
* Pause the movie
* Go to the bathroom
* Raid the fridge for snacks instead of over-paying for snacks
* Turn on/off CC
* Adjust the volume to MY liking
* Don't have to listen to any idiots beside me constantly talking / snoring throughout the entire movie.
Hollywood is completely out of touch with reality these days.
i.e. How many fucking re-cashgrabs of Robin Hood do we need? Eleven?!?!?!
Nolan's Cinematic Vision in 'Dunkirk' is Hollywood's Best Defense Against Netflix
Just because he wants this particular film viewed in a certain way, doesn't mean there's something wrong about Netflix.
Netflix can just as easily argue that Stranger Things is best viewed on a nice, fairly big TV in your living room.
There's nothing fundamentally, objectively, "better" about going to a cinema and watching something projected through real film.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There's one that I know of about 15 miles from me. Everything else has gone digital. Or shut down.
I didn't mind the theater release first model. In fact, reviews of movies that have bombed on the big screen have saved me from putting them in my Netflix queue. On the other hand, delay the official streaming release for more than a few weeks and the studio might as well hand a copy to the torrent sites.
Have gnu, will travel.
None of the comments I've seen so far address the cost of making big movies (almost any movie these days) and the mechanism for recuperating those costs. The only model that supports those budgets, so far, is going to the theater. I see someone posted that they'd be happy paying the same amount as a movie ticket to stream it in HD at home, and that sounds like it would work, but that's not Netflix's current model.
Releasing it same day into the $9/month subscription crowd won't pay the bills. If that becomes the dominant model, it is clear that movie budgets will have to go down, and the quality of those movies will have to suffer, which is clearly the start of a death spiral.
Noisy assholes who disturb the theater have been around since the invention of theater. If you want to blame anyone for making it worse, blame the inventors of the cell phone and the cell phone screen backlight.
entertainment. Mr. Nolan is a little bit full of himself.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
It's full of quirks like lense flares and red lines that we associate with movies because we grew up with them and expect them. If the next gen grows up without those quirks they'll find them strange and off-putting. Film's only an advantage for old folks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Over the all 3D shit that James Cameron's Avatar is responsible for.
It's really sad because if this movie flops with audiences, some will claim that it's because it wasn't seen on the right format, when the real problem is that it's just a weak movie.
I saw this on a standard screen in Seattle, but one I'd normally consider as good as digital gets. I know my history, so the overall story is not new to me.
The movie itself is dry with very little character development. It's all about sweeping shots, but you don't care about any of the boys being killed on the beach.
It's constantly switching between day and night, with virtually no continuity, so you can't tell if the fighter scenes are during the first day or the last day.
Given the constant rise of right-wing extremism, neo-nazism, holocaust-denialism, and other forms of attempted history rewriting, I'd say we haven't seen nearly enough.
What would an audio format have anything to do with a video format? You can't capture audio on film, bruh
-dk
See also The Master (2012), Samsara (2011), Hamlet (1996):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films
Nolan used IMAX with The Dark Knight (2008), though not for every scene, and there have been other movies that have "unconverted" to IMAX starting in 2002:
[Dark Night was] First mainstream feature to be partially shot with IMAX cameras, with 28 minutes of footage. First DMR film to surpass 150 minutes.***
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films
Every 65mm or 70mm analog film I have ever seen was in terms of resolution and signal/noise ratio _way_ below the quality of modern digital cameras, even below the decade old "3.4k" Arri cameras.
I wonder what others pretend to have seen, but movies like "The hateful eight", if anything, proved that analog film is outdated and bad. The whole indoor lighting they had to apply in "the hateful eight" to make the analog film catch a usable picture was terrible, it looked completely unrealistic (I mean seriously: A dark hut in a snow-storm, and magically bright lights shine from the ceiling all the time... WTF?!?)
I do not know whether "Dunkirk" is a movie worth watching, but I am absolutely sure if it is, it is certainly not because of image quality. And sure as hell it will hardly stretch the limits of a Bluray disc in terms of quality - certainly no reason to buy an UHD Bluray of it.
It's especially better when you spend $59,999 on Monster(tm) brand Dust Filters to cleanse the air prior to the showing, because the microscopic motes cause serious issues for true movie connoisseurs.
SF is looking into safe injection sites for addicts. Maybe they can get together with the theater owners for mutual benefit?
Movie theaters are an antiquated, expensive relic of the past that are beyond sub optimal for watching movies today. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for the movie industry. The movie theater used to be the only way to watch moving pictures, but then came TV, but TV sets were small for decades (20" was standard, 32" was a major luxury and the aspect ratio was wrong for watching movies). This is no longer the case. Then sound systems (Dolby Surround, DTS) were better in theaters, but that too faded. "But you can watch with your friends; its an experience." they argue. However, my living room couches seat 5 with fold down arm rests and reclining seats.
So in summary, the benefits of movie theaters used to be:
1. Bigger screen (Now my 65" 4k $900 flat screen from 10' away is a much better and immersive viewing experience).
2. Better sound (My 7.1 system sounds just as good, with added benefit that I can avoid ruptured eardrums and hearing damage).
3. More immersive (at home I don't have to put up with all the jackholes texting and receiving phone calls or just talking to the person next to them in the middle of the movie, plus I can pause the movie to use the bathroom).
4. Cost (This was never better with the theater, but clearly even worse these days. Taking the family to the theater sets me back $70 just for the tickets for a family of 4, then add drinks, candy and popcorn and you are over $150, or my entire home theater cost me about $1600 once and I can buy the UHD multi-format for $30. That pays for it'self in less than 20 movies)...
Every single reason to go to the movie theater is gone, except for their exclusivity window prior to disc release. As far as I can tell, the only reason that movie theaters exist is people with poor self control that can't wait for the Bluray release and teenagers who want a place away from their parents to make out. If you take away the first category and the theaters close, the teens will just go back to parking at make-out point...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Witness BitZtream getting pwned... twice!
I think Nolan does make good films but i wonder if Memento his first mainstream film would get a cinema distribution deal if he was starting now.
Nolan might not make standard Hollywood films but they are very different in idea to your average cinema goer these days gets.
It costs $15.95 to see an Imax movie in my city.
That x 4 for the family, after tax and convenience fees, is over $70.
That's over 7 months of Netflix. I also don't have to deal with the ex-con-looking individuals next to me deciding to talk during the whole movie.
If they didn't charge so much for movies, more people would go. I remember back in the late 90s when movies were $4.75 for an evening showing, and $2.75 for a matinee. That's $4 and $7 in 2017 dollars.
HOLY FUCK! another EPIC PWN!
Bill Bryson, NOT a big lover of gadgetry or cinema, brings pretty much an "average guy" sensibility to his travel writing, gushed for two pages after seeing a demo-show of what 70mm looked like at high frame rates.
HFR was recently tried a few times, but only in conjunction with 3D, which was likely a big negative to it. The killer app may be the combination of 70mm and 48fps. (And some say, 60 fps...)
With few exceptions, the movie theater is just too sub-par to be worth going. Dunkirk may very well be one of those exceptions. But the fact is, that unless the movie involves Jedi Knights, the USS Enterprise, or Kaiju, home TVs and sound systems are fine for the vast majority of films. Nolan claim otherwise reeks of stuck-up pretentiousness.
And it's mostly the theater chains' faults. The ticket price is ever-increasing with no corresponding improvement in value. $20 for a soda and bag of semi-stale popcorn is just absurd. They don't keep the theaters clean. And they do nothing about asses who talk during the movie, use their cellphones, get up and wander around in front of you, or bring their shrieking babies.
The exception, of course, is the Alamo Drafthouse. Ever since they opened up a theater here, I've seen more movies in the theater than I had in, I'd guess, nearly a decade before. They actually make it worth it by providing a much nicer theater, good food & drinks (ZOMG, their boozy milkshakes are the bomb.), expelling the talkers and cell-phone crowd, and disallowing the shrieking babies in the first place. It's definitely now: Alamo, or I don't go.
Imagine all the people...
to save the day in this one?
Get back to me when I'm not sitting through literally half an hour of ads before the movie starts. Or when a ticket is under $10, or when the food is affordable.
The entire movie experience is shit. I have better things to do.
It is more than 100 miles to the nearest IMAX for me. Thanks, but I'll just wait for it to come out on Blu-Ray. This Luddite garbage coming from Hollywood is laughable at best. They LOVE them some technology until they don't.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
If cinemas would do something about other people talking during movies then we'd go again. But they won't, so now we never go. The last 3 or 4 films we saw, we had to walk out partway through and get a refund. So we just don't bother anymore.
I prefer watching at my own pace. I have health issues. I can't sit and watch the whole thing in one sitting. I have to take (time out/break)s to stretch, move, (pe/urinat)e, etc. Also, I like to be in the control!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
If people really wanted to see movies in theaters, theaters would have no problem competing when movies are released simultaneously on streaming and in theaters. If this is an untenable model for theaters, and the only way they can survive is by prohibiting competition for 90 days, then he's admitting that theaters are obsolete and should be allowed to wither and die. The problem is the theaters, not Netflix.
Anyhow, I stream Netflix to my projector which throws the image onto a 150" screen. It's a 1080p projector right now, but as soon as 4k projector prices come down it's being upgraded. Sound is a mid-high end 7.1 speaker system played through a Yamaha DTS receiver whose sound field I've calibrated with the included microphone placed in the middle of the seating area. I play the chariot race scene from Ben Hur on it as a demo (very few people alive who got to see that in theaters), and people are just blown away by the visuals and sound. And the lack of screaming kids and annoying hecklers and sticky floors.
Audio for movies is actually stored as barcode type data on each frame of the film. This saved the hassle factor of having to synchronize two reels of film and audio - it was enough grief and aggro trying to synchronize two separate reels of the same movie. The size of the film frame dictates the size of the amount of audio information that can be stored. They actually use a laser and CCD sensor to read the audio tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Every decade of movies has a characteristic style. For this decade it's pathetic overly dramatic angsty people. It's non-stop intense drama that all doesn't amount to anything if you take a second to catch your breath. It's overly emotional acting that makes soap operas look emotionless by comparison.
Everything is so cynical and negative. Instead of Star Trek, we get aliens are out to destroy the Earth and all we have to defend ourselves is incompetent dysfunctional fools who can't put their personal drama aside long enough to save the world.
Compare the recent ghostbusters fiasco to the original, all you can do is cry for the death of hollywood's ability to make a decent movie. Same for the recent day the earth stood still, planet of the apes, and everything else.
This is slashdot...anyone actually interested in watching the new matrix non-reboot when it comes out? I'm sure not.
Film is expensive. With digital, you never stop shooting. Of course the average quality will drop, you'll throw away a much higher %.
Plus everybody has a point and shoot on their phone. 99% of photographs are taken with a tiny lens, everything on auto. It's amazing they're as good as they are.
But compare to a kodak 110 instant, not a 10k$ medium format, to be fair to the 70s. Things are better at the low end.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We are just one generation away from theaters going out of business, and it canâ(TM)t come soon enough. I just saw Spider-Man Homecoming in a theater a week after it came out because I could not longer avoid enough spoilers to enjoy the movie if I waited any longer. Every other part of the experience other than the release date was sub-par to just waiting and watching it at home. The food, the ticket price, the seats, the crowds, the volume (loud != immersive), and the inability to pause and hit the restroom when my kid had to go make theaters a worse experience in every sense. At the beginning of Homecoming, Tom Holland did a little intro thanking the audience for watching the movie in the theater and I couldnâ(TM)t help but feel sorry for him for missing the boat, like the rest of Hollywood. Sorry Chris Nolan, youâ(TM)re movies are good but I canâ(TM)t agree with you on the theater being better in any way your audiences care about.
If you're resorting to grammar and spelling attacks, it's quite clear you had nothing to offer in opposition to the message itself. Your reading comprehension is good, right? Try using it.
The more observant among us (which obviously excludes you) would make sure not to make an ass of themselves before calling someone else an asshole.
It really takes something special to get me into a theater these days, since nearly every movie theater in the NYC region exposes you to a good chance of bringing bedbugs home with you. When the little critters reach Broadway I'm home viewing for good.
There are already enough WWII movies. Thanks, but I'll skip it.
It's bitztream-the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating Slashdot troll!
I would have seen it locally if it had a non-digital screening in my city. We even have a small (Lie)MAX screen here, and they've shown some 70mm footage before, but no joy with this movie. That means the best presentation available to me is once again the 4K projector at the Warren Theater. Keep in mind: 4K is basically 35mm. In fact it's not quite as good as 35mm. That means my 4K theater isn't some kind of revelation; it just happens to be better than paying 15 bucks to watch something in literally bluray quality.
You want me to spend money on a movie just because it looks pretty? Make the theaters pony up.
"We think movies are best seen in theaters, but unfortunately some viewers disagree. That's why we need an exclusive period to compel them to go to the theater anyway. We can't take the risk that some ignorant customers will choose to watch it the way they prefer instead of the way we want them to."
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Yeah, but with the possible exception of that latest movie by Mel Gibson ( full of Australian actors pretending to be American ) there hasn't been any decent WW2 movies that weren't full of BS Hollywood propoganda. Fury was shit....Saving Private Ryan was shit, Pearl Harbour was shit...etc etc.
I fucking hope Dunkirk doesn't have Americans in it.......
Well, the real Dunkirk (26 May – 4 June 1940) did not have Americans in it since the US had yet to enter the war (7 December 1941) unless there just happened to be a band of American tourists that got lost. :-)
I was hoping that the part of the story dedicated to the common sailors helping by will be about Lightoller with his family boat saving 130 soldiers under the endless attacks from above. " Don't worry" - one of the soldiers remarks - " the skipper of this boat survived Titanic, he can pull this one out".
In some way I agree with the director - he is a man that does not go for gimmicks [3D]. The Dark Knight for instance was real pleasure to watch on IMAX.
However, as so many /.-ers remarked the whole cinema experience is spoiled. After Episode 7 I banned cinema from my life.....expensive, 30 minutes ads, unbearably loud sound and rampant Facebook addicts....
I just got back from seeing it. It is epic, tense...and has a certain quality that I haven't seen in a long time. Go see it.
Yeah, but with the possible exception of that latest movie by Mel Gibson ( full of Australian actors pretending to be American ) there hasn't been any decent WW2 movies that weren't full of BS Hollywood propoganda. Fury was shit....Saving Private Ryan was shit, Pearl Harbour was shit...etc etc.
I fucking hope Dunkirk doesn't have Americans in it.......
Yeah, yeah, I get it. You hate Americans. Be honest about it.
Msmash says it's 65mm, but the director is quoted as saying it was shot on 70mm.
I'd be tempted to believe the director rather than some stupid slashdot submitter.
Besides, I've never heard of 65mm film.
"Man wants everybody to do the same as him because it helps his bottom line" - not quite as good a headline is it? Contains 100% more truthiness, though.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yes, you can capture audio on film. And for most of the history of film it's been the standard way of doing it. Most film without digital sound uses an analog optical soundtrack alongside the images. That eliminated the problems of early systems like Vitaphone that used records that were synchronized with the film; playback didn't always stay in sync, especially if the film was damaged and needed to be repaired.
There are three different brands of digital sound on film, one of which (SDDS) is now discontinued. Dolby and SDDS store the audio data on the film itself; Dolby uses the area between the sprocket holes and SDDS uses the area outside the holes. Datasat (formerly known as DTS) uses a time code that is next to the analog sound track and stores the actual audio on separate CD-ROMs.
70mm film (except for the short lived Fox Grandeur system) uses magnetic sound, not optical. The most common configuration is a 6 channel system with five main tracks and an LFE (bass) track, but there have been many variations over the years and Dolby noise reduction was added along the way. 70mm can also have a DTS time code and use the standard DTS system for film which is a 5 channel system; no separate LFE track is recorded though the low frequencies are separated out by the processor so they can be routed to the subwoofers in the theater.
I have not seen any information anywhere about implementation of more advanced DTS formats for 70mm film. It would be technically feasible, but it would require distributing the audio in a form with more capacity than the CD-ROMs that are used for standard DTS. So far as I know, none of the digital Dolby formats has ever been used with 70mm film.
IMAX never used on-film sound. The first version used a separate six channel magnetic film that was synchronized to the IMAX film. That was later replaced with a DTS digital soundtrack distributed on CD-ROMs, just like the version for 35mm and 70mm sound, and still later by a system using a hard drive with six uncompressed audio channels.
The Wikipeda article on SDDS (the articles on the other digital sound formats also contain the same picture) has a picture that shows the location of all the possible sound tracks on film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nolan is going to be the Metallica for the Legacy Studios?
and we have been one generation away for over 50 years.