It has a terrible title. Why would anyone care about what happened in 1917?

@MongoLloyd said:

It has a terrible title. Why would anyone care about what happened in 1917?

Wow, are you really that ignorant are faking the funk? WW1 was the not only the first ever world war but reshaped the global landscape..and even led to WWII

Truth is most people couldn't tell you a thing about WWI, or 1917, or add up the numbers 1,9,1, and 7. Now if it was retitled 1916 they could play the Motorhead song 1916.

As for the one take style Sure they could have tried to do the entire thing in one actual take with the proper digital resources. Would have to do many takes till one has no errors. But what would be the point of that. It's the illusion that it is a single shot that matters.

Most film rarely if ever use single takes for individual shots no matter how long the shots are. It's a "single take" film. That's the gimmick. Plus since it's dealing with drama then each each section with a dramatic moment matters.

I haven't seen it yet but I expect I would be waiting for the hidden cuts and be distracted by the gimmick I am not sure is necessary. Same way I felt watching Dunkirk last year with it's timeline shifting.

1916 - Motorhead

@jorgito2001 said:

@MongoLloyd said:

It has a terrible title. Why would anyone care about what happened in 1917?

Wow, are you really that ignorant are faking the funk? WW1 was the not only the first ever world war but reshaped the global landscape..and even led to WWII

Has nothing to do with what you or I think. The title is not compelling whatsoever, and it leads people to think that the subject matter is similarly not compelling. Box office is already down 32% from a week ago, so it seems I'm not wrong.