Discuss Dunkirk

I saw the trailer at the cinema and it looked extremely boring. I don't think many people know the story of Dunkirk and the trailer doesn't do anything to help explain. I hope moviegoers do not expect a war movie.

15 replies (on page 1 of 1)

Jump to last post

Well... I don't expect it to be a big hit... Forget it competing with any of the comic book movies, or even get the kind of viewers that Inception got... It would be very lucky to get even two thirds of the audience that Interstellar did...

I do think it will be a good movie. I think it'll be interesting to see how he handles the genre... I hope it's successful enough that it won't hurt his ability to make other films in the future...

There is no mainstream audience for movies set in war time... I can't think of one that was "popular" in recent years...

I think it's going to be really intense. Intense like Jaws and Alien, but in this case the shark/alien is the German army.

The cinematography looks amazing. I've seen photos of the whole film crew and Nolan chest-deep in water to film a burning shipwreck. I saw a photo where Hoytema w/ IMAX and Nolan right behind him were practically in the explosion of the mole (pier) and Nolan was just wearing a raincoat, safety glasses and an old WWII helmet for protection. I saw photos where Nolan had the IMAX attached to a metal scaffold on the wing of a vintage plane and the plane was flown like that, with the IMAX on its wing, looking into the cockpit. At other times an IMAX was bolted into the cockpit w/ the lens over the pilot's shoulder.

I think it will be a experience, not just a film.

@dormouse7 Why do you care so much about how much money the movie makes.

Let me tell you how much money a movie makes is not a testament to the quality of the movie.

Jurassic World is the top grossing movie...

I'm really looking forward to it... have successfully avoided any media or trailers...

@Geff said:

@dormouse7 Why do you care so much about how much money the movie makes.

Let me tell you how much money a movie makes is not a testament to the quality of the movie.

Jurassic World is the top grossing movie...

The more this film makes, the more creativity Nolan is allowed to spark from WB.

Imagine if this film flopped. What makes you think WB will allow him to do his own project again without having to sell out to them for one of their properties?

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

The more this film makes, the more creativity Nolan is allowed to spark from WB.

Imagine if this film flopped. What makes you think WB will allow him to do his own project again without having to sell out to them for one of their properties?

Okay, but you are talking about future movies and Nolan's career. What will the amount of money this movie makes say about this movie.

@Geff said:

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

The more this film makes, the more creativity Nolan is allowed to spark from WB.

Imagine if this film flopped. What makes you think WB will allow him to do his own project again without having to sell out to them for one of their properties?

Okay, but you are talking about future movies and Nolan's career. What will the amount of money this movie makes say about this movie.

Nothing, though I'd like to say that the more money this film makes is due to great reviews and word of mouth. Back when IMDb was active I predicted $400 million for several reasons, but I'd love to be wrong.

Basically, I think this film's intake will be a result of how good it is, unlike that of Jurassic World (which I liked, by the way). If this gets a 40% RT score and people don't find it very intense, I just don't think it will make that much.

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

Nothing, though I'd like to say that the more money this film makes is due to great reviews and word of mouth. Back when IMDb was active I predicted $400 million for several reasons, but I'd love to be wrong.

Basically, I think this film's intake will be a result of how good it is, unlike that of Jurassic World (which I liked, by the way). If this gets a 40% RT score and people don't find it very intense, I just don't think it will make that much.

You are conflating two different things. The score on IMDB/RT definitely has more validity than revenue number. That is to say that atypically low scores might indicate poor quality, I don't deny this.

There are lots of movies that have had incredible RT/IMDB ratings and low box office results. There is no correlation between revenue number and rating scores simply because some movies are targetted to a smaller audience.

I'll give an example:

Take the following two movies: John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017), and Flame & Citron (2008).

Both movies are about assassins, so there is some degree of similarity. One is based on real life events, it takes a certain storytelling style, while the other takes a completely different style. I think it's a fair assessment to say that one is meant for a wider range of audience than the other.

I enjoyed both movies, but not equally. In my mind, Flame & Citron (2008) is a cinematic masterpiece, while John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) is an above average voyeuristic action flick with good characterization. One pursues some complex themes while the other one doesn't.

John Wick: Chapter 2 has a higher IMDB/RT score than Flame and Citron (granted it's slight). This is partly because they are being rated on different scales by the sheer fact that they are designed for different audiences. You don't expect the same things from John Wick: Chapter 2 that you do from a movie like Flame & Citron. By regular action flick standards John Wick is very good. You are not going to measure a film like Flame & Citron based on regular blockbuster action movie standards. There are completely different standards.

Furthermore, if you look at revenue generated by each film you will see the real picture about the validity of box office numbers. John Wick: Chapter 2 made 166 mil worldwide while Flame & Citron made 10 mil... Please note that if the IMDB/RT score were strongly correlated with box office number then the disparity in revenue generated wouldn't be nearly as much. That is why I say that there is no correlation between IMDB/RT score and revenue.

Now I encourage you to watch Flame & Citron, because I'm sure a lot of you haven't seen it, and tell me if the revenue numbers are a valid indicator of quality.

@wread said:

From what I can tell by the trailer, this movie has everything Christopher Nolan films have ever had, in terms of cinematography, style, sound, editing & all the boring things that make a great movie. And judging by how well Wonder Woman's doing, this is hardly an underdog. Doesn't have any style and genre competition miles away. I'm thinking $450m+ worldwide. The one to bomb is more likely to be Valerian.

I think it is amazing that this movie has been made, I can't wait to see it, I just hope the average moviegoer will want to see it.

@Geff said:

@dormouse7 Why do you care so much about how much money the movie makes.

Let me tell you how much money a movie makes is not a testament to the quality of the movie.

Jurassic World is the top grossing movie...

What? Where did I say I care about how much money this movie makes?

I care that it is a critical success and an enduring classic. Hopefully it will make enough money for Nolan to continue to make huge-scale films but other than that I don't care how much money it makes.

@Geff said:

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

Nothing, though I'd like to say that the more money this film makes is due to great reviews and word of mouth. Back when IMDb was active I predicted $400 million for several reasons, but I'd love to be wrong.

Basically, I think this film's intake will be a result of how good it is, unlike that of Jurassic World (which I liked, by the way). If this gets a 40% RT score and people don't find it very intense, I just don't think it will make that much.

You are conflating two different things. The score on IMDB/RT definitely has more validity than revenue number. That is to say that atypically low scores might indicate poor quality, I don't deny this.

There are lots of movies that have had incredible RT/IMDB ratings and low box office results. There is no correlation between revenue number and rating scores simply because some movies are targetted to a smaller audience.

I'll give an example:

Take the following two movies: John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017), and Flame & Citron (2008).

Both movies are about assassins, so there is some degree of similarity. One is based on real life events, it takes a certain storytelling style, while the other takes a completely different style. I think it's a fair assessment to say that one is meant for a wider range of audience than the other.

I enjoyed both movies, but not equally. In my mind, Flame & Citron (2008) is a cinematic masterpiece, while John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) is an above average voyeuristic action flick with good characterization. One pursues some complex themes while the other one doesn't.

John Wick: Chapter 2 has a higher IMDB/RT score than Flame and Citron (granted it's slight). This is partly because they are being rated on different scales by the sheer fact that they are designed for different audiences. You don't expect the same things from John Wick: Chapter 2 that you do from a movie like Flame & Citron. By regular action flick standards John Wick is very good. You are not going to measure a film like Flame & Citron based on regular blockbuster action movie standards. There are completely different standards.

Furthermore, if you look at revenue generated by each film you will see the real picture about the validity of box office numbers. John Wick: Chapter 2 made 166 mil worldwide while Flame & Citron made 10 mil... Please note that if the IMDB/RT score were strongly correlated with box office number then the disparity in revenue generated wouldn't be nearly as much. That is why I say that there is no correlation between IMDB/RT score and revenue.

Now I encourage you to watch Flame & Citron, because I'm sure a lot of you haven't seen it, and tell me if the revenue numbers are a valid indicator of quality.

Sorry, you're missing what I said:

  • If high ratings then good box office numbers

Its converse:

  • If good box office numbers then high ratings

Is not what I'm looking at. I'm stating specifically for Dunkirk, anyway. I wouldn't have made that statement for any ol' movie, because it wouldn't need to be said.

Yes, there are plenty of great movies that did terribly at the box office, and there are terrible movies that do tremendously at the box office. I was simply stating that for Dunkirk, we can very easily point to reasons as to why it may flop (and not [i]actually[/i] flop, but get $300 million instead of $800 million)... but the reasons we might find it succeed may have everything to do with great ratings and word-of-mouth.

It is sandwiched between a superhero film (Spider-Man) and the third film of a critically-acclaimed franchise (Apes) whose protagonists aren't of any large market like U.S. or China. People need a reason to see this film not named Christopher Nolan or Harry Styles... and a way I think we can count on that is if it is [i]really damn good[/i]. Not every movie can say this.

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

  • If good box office numbers then high ratings

This is also not true:

Trasnsformers: Age of Extinction

IMDB score: 5.7

RT score: 19%

Box office: 1.1 billion

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

Yes, there are plenty of great movies that did terribly at the box office, and there are terrible movies that do tremendously at the box office. I was simply stating that for Dunkirk, we can very easily point to reasons as to why it may flop (and not actually flop, but get $300 million instead of $800 million)... but the reasons we might find it succeed may have everything to do with great ratings and word-of-mouth.

I understand. And my argument is: if anyone looks at box office numbers as an indicator of film quality, or if they are attempting to predict box office numbers based on film quality (either perceived or rating-wise), then they will fail.

I repeat, there is no correlation between box office numbers and film quality (whether perceived or shown in rating).

No correlation implies no relationship, regardless of causal direction.

War movies are tough to sell nowadays... i think favourable reviews would help... hopefully Nolan will make a good film that is successful as well...

@Geff said:

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

  • If good box office numbers then high ratings

This is also not true:

Trasnsformers: Age of Extinction

IMDB score: 5.7

RT score: 19%

Box office: 1.1 billion

@MuffinMcFluffin said:

Yes, there are plenty of great movies that did terribly at the box office, and there are terrible movies that do tremendously at the box office. I was simply stating that for Dunkirk, we can very easily point to reasons as to why it may flop (and not actually flop, but get $300 million instead of $800 million)... but the reasons we might find it succeed may have everything to do with great ratings and word-of-mouth.

I understand. And my argument is: if anyone looks at box office numbers as an indicator of film quality, or if they are attempting to predict box office numbers based on film quality (either perceived or rating-wise), then they will fail.

I repeat, there is no correlation between box office numbers and film quality (whether perceived or shown in rating).

No correlation implies no relationship, regardless of causal direction.

You really don't read my posts, so I'm done talking about this now.

I'll leave you with this, though: I'm talking about [b]Dunkirk only[/b]. I seriously hope you don't think I'm that bat-shit stupid to not realize that good box office numbers means it was well received for every film.

Renovatio is on the same page with what I'm trying to say.

Okay, you are looking at the exemplar, or a single instance of a film. That's fine, I'm okay with that. But, my problem with your reasoning is that you are trying to apply to the exemplar a rule in nature that simply isn't a rule in nature.

First you must prove that the rule exists before applying the rule to your exemplar. Otherwise you can't use the rule as a deductive predictor.

Dunkirk might be a terrible movie and it might do incredibly well at the box office, or it might be an amazing movie and do incredibly poorly. There is no box office number based rule that you can apply to the exemplar.

Now, you might make the hypothesis that: "Box office numbers are a predictor or indicator of something, but only as long as it is a historical war movie". In which case, support your hypothesis.

Or, you can say that Dunkirk will not conform to any pre-existing pattern. In which case, there is no point in having this discussion because the exemplar will behave completely randomly.

Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page

Settings

Want to rate or add this item to a list?

Login