1917 Trailer

>Lots of WWI media the past few years. What's with that?

It's been over 100 years since WWI started and ended!!!FACT!!!

it's too clean to be about WW1

So it's Dunkirk 2: Electric Trenchaloo.
They even used a tension building ticking sound.

battlefield 1

>Lots of WWI media the past few years. What's with that?
Yeah, what could be the reason

how are they going to make a WW1 movie? it was just dudes sitting around in trenches because the military tactics hadn't caught up to the firepower

There was a rumour that the whole film is shot one take i wonder whether that's true.

Sorry, 1 video game too.

WW1 kino is back on the menu boys.

>Sam Mendes

Mendes is only ever as good as his collaborators but he's working with Deakins again on this so should be kino.

Retarded American take on WW1 who literally knows nothing about the war except 1915-1916 Western Front

It's literally just Dunkirk in WWI with the same color palette, wide screen long take visual style, tense verge of onslaught tone, faceless enemies, etc. They literally have the fucking ticking clock sound in the trailer.

I wonder if this film will also pretend WWI had nazis in it.

My thoughts exactly. It looks so gosh darn clean and sterile even though people were living in mud and dust utterly traumatised by constant fear. That's an aspect I'd like to see in a war movie instead of shitty, unimmersive, cliche'd hero's journey story. I bet it'll have a forced love plot as well.

Shan't watch / 5

Why is Nolan such a taste maker? Makes capeshit popular, makes BRRRMMM style trailers popular with inception, and now this - almost complete ripoff of Dunkirk trailer.

100 years dumb dumb.

It's a one take movie, btw
worldofreel.com/blog/2019/4/sam-mendes-wwi-film-1917-will-reportedly-be-comprised-of-one-long-take

>However, even more striking, is that fact that[viaIndieWire] as confirmed at CinemaCon yesterday, Mendes is attempting to film “1917” as one long shot, a laAlejandro Iñárritu’s“Birdman.” No other details we’re revealed.

Attached: 80f.jpg (1200x757, 67K)

PTA says it all:

>You look at what Christopher Nolan did with Batman, that’s like the meeting of the highest level of artistic skill & a kind of commerciality and appeal to a wide range of people which is what anybody would want,” Anderson said. “It’s kind of unparalleled actually, and they don’t come to me with those.

>it' s a gimmick movie

Attached: pepe cringe.jpg (641x530, 41K)

>DUDE WW1 BUT GERMANS ARE BAD AND EVIL M'KAY?

Attached: 1534229549759.png (548x670, 250K)

I liked it.

Attached: they shall not grow old-2.webm (768x432, 2.94M)

Well, it has the same editor as Dunkirk and a bunch of other Nolan movies, Lee Smith

Looks like kino is based on le ebin menu

Why is there lush, freshly cut green grass between trenches that would get shelled day and night in real life?

Attached: 1540837515097.jpg (500x500, 42K)

Because Deakins likes his colors.

>BOO HOO muh feet are wet
>BOO HOO muh Christmas away from home
>BOO HOO muh poetry
white men are so fucking pathetic

Well, yeah, wasting lives of youngest and bravest Germany has to offer by making them attack their neighboring European countries is quite bad.

>WWI
Who cares? I'm not watching it unless its about WWII and those atrocious crimes that Hitler did.

>Another film where the British have to avoid a military disaster

from the films about the British military you'd almost forget they were the dominant world power for well over a century. Any Brits can explain why you don't make war films about your triumphs? I remember watching a documentary on a raid during ww2 where the commandos crashed a ship into a dock to disable it. would make the most epic film. I believe it was called the st nazeire raid.

Niggers and Asians were also in WW1
Which makes me think you’re a woman, who just like at the time, had no respect for the men fighting.
Women’s Suffrage was a mistake

it looks too clean, meh

There aren’t a lot of British victories worth celebrating in WW1 except maybe Arras.

i think they actually did make a film about that in the 50s. there isn't the market for flag-waving material like US war films so brit equivalents tend to be more introspective.

They really just can't nail down the bleakness of WW1

My name is Corporal Benedict _______

Attached: FD60370D-F391-4B54-93EE-728FC1B649EA.jpg (1404x848, 467K)

Good. Dunkirk was a fine movie

why did you feel the need to say it's been directed by a directer that hasn't directed a good movie once in his life

Commonwealthbutcher

Attached: they shall not grow old tank-.webm (1280x720, 2.91M)

after coming out of ww2 essentially empty handed after getting duped and cucked by the americans, they had to switch the traditional glorious victory narrative to one focusing on britain essentially sacrificing their empire for the greater good of humanity. from the largest empire in the world they got turned into a bunch of tiny shitty islands. that's why the focus is on these stories about how they turned defeats into victories against all odds. brave little england holding back the tide, just disregard the billions of colonial serfs for a moment.

also Verdun

Because Skyfall made over a billion dollarydoos and Spectre came close to that too, so they're riding off that success.

Kimkwunderkwant

Cumplumber

Posting WWI kino

Attached: Gallipoli01.jpg (830x1200, 120K)

was looking for serious answers

ahh im gonna look it up, never heard of a film based on it. thanks.

Britain has lasted for quite a long time, extremely rich history of military triumphs should be more than enough material there to make a great war film. Master & commander and Zulu come to mind as a couple of great British war films.

I guess it's just strange to me as my grandfather was English so i'd love to see great British war movies in the style that we have in the US.

seething leaf

PG13

>Roger Deakins

Attached: soy-boy-png-4.png (640x600, 131K)

I still am astounded by the otherworldliness of the Great War's terrain. Something about the artillery pounded little lines stretching as far as the eye can see in two parallel lines with the barren hellish landscape all around. I wonder what the men felt, the boys only seventeen, plucked from a simple agrarian life in Somerset and transported by wonders of the Brass age to such an indescribable world of unstoppable mud and grime. Knowing only that the men who live and die in these trenches were fighting not only against men in their exact predicament on the other side, but also against the very nature of this afterthought of an imperial war machine.
Terror

oh boy another long take meme movie

you'd have to go full horror with people being chewed on by rats and swallowed up by mud

Where are we going to get German ww1 kino

>1917
>three quarters of the western front is manned by the French army, with the British and Belgians as minority partners
>whole of eastern front manned by Russians or the remnants of the Romanian army
Hollywood producer: omg make a movie about the British in WWI, again :)

Attached: 1562593600562.jpg (622x621, 54K)

>long takes

DUDE IM DIRECTING LMAO

Only way to get the Americans to watch it
Personally I’d love an Eastern Front movie

How badly burgers fucked over Brits is a forgotten part of history

IB4

>muh diversity
>muh old white men
>black trans womyn saves the day in a Zeppelin

Attached: dontsoyfacemebro.jpg (480x360, 47K)

After Ypres and Cambrai battles, frontlines started changing faster.
Dunno where or when this movie is set, tho.

An eastern front with either Cossacks or austrohungarians would be great

INKY DINKY
PARLEZ VOUS

Austro-Hungarians against Russians in the Brusilov Offensive would be my first choice for peak kino.

what's his name again?

Attached: file.png (879x667, 441K)

Honestly, you have 1917 as the year you set your movie in and yet choose to stage it on a bland British offensive.

1917 is the year of:
>February revolution
>height of unrestricted submarine warfare
>entry of the Americans into the war
>height of the peace offensives of the French and Germans (French approach Austrians for a peace through Painlevé, and Germans approach British for a peace through Balfour)
>Nivelle offensive
>restoration of order in the French army through the successful offensives at Verdun and Malmaison
>the last breathe of the Russian empire in their summer offensives
>October revolution
>intrigues against Rasputin
Etc...

Good

Bananaham Cucumbersnatcher

Yeah
But tanks

all the seething eurofags. Its about the British army because more people understand English. I dont want to watch some subtitled bullshit.

based they shall not grow old poster

Attached: 1542046733025.webm (1920x1080, 2.5M)

>no 1917 February/October Revolutions movie
Fucking sucks

>The director of Skyfall
D R O P P E D

looks like shit

You do know they made the French soldiers speak English in "Paths of Glory"?
This is such a drivel argument.

Well Skyfall was already what a Bond film directed by Nolan would be (except with much better choreography). So I guess Sam Mendes is just a less famous Nolan who's slightly better at directing action scenes

>No blacks
nice

Why are you seething over English-speaking movie industries making films based on English-speaking people. Start seething over your own industry not making the kind of films you want to see.

Everyone always whines about wanting a great ww1 movie so hollywood makes this wank.
Meanwhile, Journey's End came out a couple of years ago and was kino incarnate and no one saw it. Even The Lost City of Z had a brilliant ww1 section.

PTA has a notoriously inexplicable pleb taste in cinema. His two best friends are Nolan and Tarantino and last time he commented on his favourite films of the year, he said he hadn't seen that many (due to working on Phantom Thread) but then listed a bunch of capeshit blockbusters he enjoyed.
It's pretty apparent that he wouldn't watch/enjoy his own films if he didn't make them

>whines about the great ww1 movie
They already made All Quiet in the Western Front 80 years ago

Because Mendes is just as much of a hack as Nolan

War films pre-ww2 aren't seen as very marketable after the Waterloo film bombed decades ago. They seem to be experimenting with ww1 lately, but it will be a while before we get a film about Trafalgar or even the Tudor wars

Attached: Marwen3.webm (550x412, 2.35M)

Real life looks better than the movie. Wow

oops, wrong webm

Attached: Marwen4.webm (550x412, 496K)

We get decent movies sometimes but nobody else sees them, and hence people might forget that France won WWI for the Entente, with valuable aid from Britain.

>youtu.be/Bf70OPKUyYU
This one was decent enough.

Sam Mendes is like a soulful version of Nolan but this looks like trying too hard to be his copycat

>>youtu.be/Bf70OPKUyYU

Where the fuck are the British soldiers in this French film? I am shaking with rage.

The fuck?

Insider here and prequels are getting hot again

Ignore him, he’s American

It's set in 1915 so statistically, only one soldier in ten in the western front would've been British. It's easy to explain why they aren't there.

Also the Shawn Mendes flick is american.

Their strength was never in the army, but in the navy and commerce. They hated to commit their own troops simply due to the fact that their army was never that large. It's the benefit of being an island nation. In India the sepoys did most of the heavy lifting. At Waterloo there was as almost as many Dutch as British, apart from the Prussian army who had twice the amount. WW1 was a disaster for them. It's why Churchill did everything he could to postpone the Normandy invasion. He hated the thought of committing the British army against the German they same way they did in WW1.

This

Well Nolan insists on handling every part of the movie without a second unit team. If Nolan would just learn how to make good fight choreography from professionals, he could improve greatly. It seems he tries to learn it by trial and error.

Because the frontlines of WWI being nothing but mud-filled shitholes is a meme.

Attached: Attack of the Ulster Division 1st Day of the Somme.jpg (1280x682, 361K)

This

>1917 was 100 years ago

Attached: 1499075667105.jpg (541x362, 45K)

You're right, they ought to have instead allowed France and Russia to tear the country apart and claim their land instead.

this, ernst junger even explains in his memoir that the birds mostly ignored the conflict and kept singing as if nothing was happening. the earth isnt terribly bothered by our petty wars.

Attached: 1563992651629.png (917x845, 1.6M)

Pumpkinpatch

>Any Brits can explain why you don't make war films about your triumphs?
The age of the Anglo is over, finally time to make way for Israel triumph kino. Sayeret Matkal, their Delta Force, is based. Fun fact they even took the British mantra, "Who dares, wins" as their own. And Mossad is now widely considered craftier than the CIA. Chris Evans stars as a Mossad agent in his first post-Cap kino about the legendary Operation Entebbe, and numerous big budget war and spy movies are being planned by Keshet, Israel's buzzing co-US production house.

>How can they possibly create a drama out of a series of events where humans lived in squalor and filth day after day, heroically risking their lives for comrade and country, all the while being pounded by artillery fire for days on end as they try to write home their last goodbyes
What a boring war.

>one long take
>different times of day in trailer
Is the movie 48 hours long?

On his list of priorities to fix in his films, I think it goes
>story
>dialogue
>editing
>choreography
>wardrobe
>Set design

Good post, but the Rothschilds' City of London never fully lost its sway, while America was anointed the military superpower for the new world order.

Ah yes, I too remember when Birdman took place all over a single 2 hour period in the middle of the day

Russia was in a such shitty condition prior to WWI that I really doubt anybody saw them as a treat.

>scene of a young infantrymen heroically rescuing his comrades from no man's land
>he sets one down in the trench and discovers they are already dead
>until now, we couldn't see the heroes face, but he looks up in to the sky as the sun peaks out through the smoke of the shelling
>he has a little familiar mustache
>a tear rolls down his face as he whispers, barely audible, "das juden"
>then he roars, almost to be heard over the explosions all around, "DAS JUUUUUUUUUDEN"
>he rips his uniform open superman style, revealing a large swastika t-shirt underneath
>the film abruptly ends, and white words over black appear on the screen: NEXT SUMMER, 1917 2: THE RISE OF EVIL

I'm impressed. Never thought I'd ever see another movie with white people in it ever again.

Terrible cgi

>explosions go off
>people just fall to the ground
>no one missing limbs

Got it.

>not about the Russian revolution
Why?

The reason why Germany declared war on them was precisely because they knew that Russia would become a superpower.
Fast forward to end of WW2 and look what happened.

Hesitant to carry out a Jew count on the IMDb casting lost, but pretty sure there's a good boy who reads the Talmud, like in Generation Kill.

At least in Saving Private Ryan the bloodshed was realistic.

Only reason they became a superpower is because Germans gave a ton of money to commies and said, here you go, do some industry.

The entire point of attacking France, and going through neutral Belgium, was to knock them out of the war before they had to commit fully to stopping Russia. The only thing they counted on was that it would take Russia significantly longer to mobilize than it did. Germany certainly didn't take Russia lightly.

>Teresa Mahoney..........Mother
what kind of mother is this?

Attached: mum.jpg (640x960, 37K)

Nolan btfo

>current hollywood
>caring about characterization or mise en scene in any shape or form
lmao most movies set in the present look like they're all shot in the same cali apartment

>No horror film where a lovecraftian yes, yes, meme awaycreature stalks them in the trenches

Attached: 1563279790936.jpg (1040x951, 105K)

Video gays don't count as "media" A medium implies it has artistic potential.

there are blacks in the movie, just not many of them

>2 seconds into the proper part of the trailer and I could tell it was shot by based Roger Deakins. (The silhouette), it makes sense since he shot Skyfall with Mendes and it's the best best Bond. The 2020s are shaping up to be great. 1917, Tenet and Dune.

>one take
>already at least 6 cuts during one conversation in the trailer

Redpill me on what the burgers did to the bongs. Didn't they essentially pillage their scientific and intellectual resources as they did with Germany?

Good post, britbong here and even I know that the commonwealth nations did a massive amount in the world wars, you just don’t hear about it because winning world war 2 is all this shithole country has left to boast about.

They made an agreement with the Soviet Union to dismantle to British empire. They slowly tore apart the commonwealth as a single political entity and destroyed all of the colonies

Russia was vast but its military at the time was shit and not at all ready for a war

This looks pretty cool, but goddamn is that trailer fucking generic.

Its 1917, use an orchestra or something, give it some fucking soul or something, it looks like someone just watched the dunkirk trailer and decided to go with that.

If he's busy as hell makes sense he'd only watch the most popular and easily accessible films that are right there in front of him instead of taking time to do digging and turning up non-English language kino and obscure stuff.

>1st day of the Somme
Nice. That place looked like a hellscape after 2 days and the battle was fought over 4 months

Studios always add shit in trailers to make what the movie is about more clear. Just last night I watched Arctic starring Mads Mikkelsen on Amazon Prime Video™ and there was almost no dialogue in it, and then I watched the trailer after I finished and found out they had Mads doing a bunch of exposition exclusively for the trailer to get across the plot of the movie.

FUCK! feels like 5 years ago

i am going to rape u with my willy

Hopefully they'll have good representation of women and minorities who fought in that time

That conversation is pretty clearly heavily abridged.

what is deathwatch?

the film i'm watching tonight.
thanks, based boy x

Attached: 1564091592736.jpg (640x640, 79K)

Lads... which is the better premise for a film, WWI or WWII?

Attached: WWI Vs WWII.jpg (1920x1600, 255K)

Saw this with my dad in a completely packed showing. Good stuff.

imagine some guy taking your lunch money at school so you hire a bigger guy to beat him up and then afterwards the bigger guy tells you to give him all of your lunch money and your life's savings as well or he'll kick your shit in too.

TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK TICK

NOT EVEN A SINGLE TOCK

WTF IS WRONG WITH HOLLYWOOD? SATISFY MY CLOCK CRAVINGS.

Pre-WWI is a much comfier setting. Hell, we still inhabit that comfier world during the war and it does have a more fantastical element to it being that the world was still dominated by monarchies and vast colonial empires. I also find the build up more enjoyable, and we can start tracing the build up, if you really want to get simplistic, to 1815. Again, reads more like a great fiction considering it was nigh on a century after Napoleon was defeated when Europe exploded again.

reddit comment

im going to rape u with my stiffy willy for this comment u bitch

>no mention of the french at all despite playing a crucial role in the allied forces.
what, its too hard to have some french actors speaking english?
we only ever get the american or the british perspective. not to mention this movie should be rated R because its fucking WORLD WAR I

Attached: 1489716008083.jpg (480x480, 31K)

>a 2 minute trailer with 10 lines of dialogue doesn't specifically mention a french person
cope

Literal Dunkerque ripoff.

when the fuck do they ever show the french in war movies? hardly ever. its always just americans + british vs germans and japanese.
i'm not even french i just think its retarded.

nice desu ne

why did they have to fake tiles coming off?
look absolutely horrendous

Nolan is a visionary

looks like kino is back on the menu bois

>18th-19th century period war drama never again
>ywn see an epic about battles like Borodino or Austerlitz on the big screen

Attached: 1544039488557.jpg (680x1020, 121K)

>Journey's End
Fucking A

I liked Dunkirk because it had zero sentimentality gimmicks. No cheesy le campfire scene where the soldiers talk about their sweethearts at home, no shoved side love stories, no quips, no scenes of civilians at home crying, no angry generals yelling at a map etc, just pure primal survival of the men on that beach.

I hope this film goes the same way and pic related is only a rare occurrence.

Attached: pls no spielberg gimmick shit.jpg (1434x635, 86K)

spielberg actually edited out a lot of stuff that humanized the nazis in the saving private ryan script. for example, a nazi sending away his dog when he realizes they are going to lose and a bag filled with dolls and other shit next to a dead nazi, a gift he was intending to give to his daughter.

>I liked Dunkirk
Opinion discarded

>another PG13 war movie
Lmao, what's even the point?

Cringe

Dunkirk should be impossible to dislike. At the very least it’s average, which puts it head and shoulders above 95% of worldwide movie releases in a given year.

>average
>above 95% of movies
That's not what the word average means

>Dunkirk should be impossible to dislike
unless you're a woman

Listen, Jew, and I’ll spell it out for you. Average when taking into account every film ever made i.e. average by the standards of cinema. When looking at just one year of post 2000 cinema, an average movie by these standards is better than 95% of other releases in that given year. It’s simple.

Duh, but their opinions on art don’t matter.

FUCKING FINALLY

I watched this last week, oh my fucking god what a kino, i swear to god it was more than just great.

I did not see one shwooogie, i am feeling the hype growing.

Its like it was written by the real Michael Scott

Dunkirk is terrible

>Alejandro Iñárritu’s“Birdman.”
That trash's the goto reference to one take for these fucking plebs. Why not Russian Ark or Rope?

looks far too clean to be WWI

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

>comfier setting
vimeo.com/312289470
Nigga, it was a horrible era with a lot of things with involuntarily satanic aesthetics.

Attached: this is not cool man.png (586x484, 446K)

i wonder why WW2 gets more atention mmmmh

Attached: 1558310769615.gif (333x358, 1.83M)

Rope isn't a one take movie - it doesn't even try to hide the cuts in the final act, and the average person has never heard of Russian Ark.

Birdman won a Best Picture Oscar. Literally everyone knows about it.

>Rope isn't a one take movie
But it is--as much a one take movie as you could make with film.
And if Rope isn't a one take movie, than neither Birdman, which is stitched by computers. What a work of hack that is, fuck it.

>t. fag that doesn't actually know anything about Dunkirk
>"Oh look, there must have been only 3 planes in the battle because that's all Nolan could use for his movie"!

That'd be downright spooky if done right. A mix between The Thing and like Joyeux Noel or something. No man's land constraining how much investigating they do. Eventually they team up at the end.

>Dunkirk: The Prequel

If you paid any attention at all you would notice that the air narrative represents only a single hour of that entire week. And it's safe to say that during an hour time which the air narrative takes place in that only 3 or 4 Spitfires were in air, there was never a point in the entire Dunkirk battle where there were 50 Spitfires vs 50 Stukas or anything like that.

>However, at the end of 20 minutes (two magazines of film make one reel of film on the projector in the movie theater), the projectionist—when the film was shown in theaters—had to change reels. On these changeovers, Hitchcock cuts to a new camera setup, deliberately not disguising the cut.

WWI was a rather stranded shitstorm that barely had any tanks, planes or progress in all fronts (only interesting shit was the use of gas weapons)

WWII was packed to the brim with new technology, tanks, planes and also fast movement in mostly all fronts, and on top of all the shit that toppled WWI in action and drama, you had a literal comic supervillain as the cause of all that mess

people dig more on that i guess

My nigga, its why

Tora Tora Tora > Pearl Harbor

>The fighting around Dunkirk had a sobering effect on the German military. The Luftwaffe in particular met a formidable foe for the first time in the war. They lost 240 aircraft in the 9 days of the evacuation; 30 percent of their aircraft were forced out of action between the opening of the invasion in early May and the armistice in late July.
>May 29, 1940: The Wehrmacht High Command announced: “On May 28, enemy air losses totalled 24 aircraft, 16 of which were shot down in aerial combat, 8 by Flak. Three German aircraft are missing. [German air ace] Captain Molders has won his 20th air victory.’
>May 31, 1940: In the air over Dunkirk the RAF looses 28 fighters, and claims 28 German fighters.
>June 1, 1940: The RAF sorties 8 large patrols over Dunkirk. British decide that the air battles are becoming too dangerous for continued evacuation operations during daylight hours.
>June 3, 1940 – The last day of Operation Dynamo sees the RAF carry out 171 reconnaissances, 651 bombing and 2,739 fighter sorties. During the previous nine days, the RAF has lost 177 aircraft, including 106 fighters and the attrition is such that the first-line strength of Fighter Command stands at 331 Hurricanes and Spitfires with only 36 fighters in reserve. German aircraft also carry out the first attacks against Paris.

>'3' planes
>'three'

Or not a pleb

>Dunkirk should be impossible to dislike

Attached: dunkirk guy casually standing around as a bomb goes off.gif (600x334, 1.52M)

So basically you liked Dunkirk because you're an autistic robot like Nolan, who is notorious for being a soulless autistic robot

Pearl Harbor was complete gutter trash. It tricked me into watching a shitty chick flick with the promise of a war movie.

Same here. Was a great feeling. We both love history so it was really nice.

Three planes during 1 (one) hour you dumb fuck. All these numbers say that about 25 or so planes were shot down per day, that's even less than three planes per hour.

>there will never be a big budget movie about Von Letow trolling britcucks all over Africa

they were objectively the bad guys in WW1 though

haha yeah this so much, the barely 18 underfed physically and emotionally empty soldiers who were buttfucked by germans for a month straight and then Stuka raided on that beach and torpedoed were actually lively little lads throwing mad quips and jokes all around while talking how they buttfucked Marge back at home while they are literally drowning haha am I rite

There were well than more than 3 planes in the air at any given time during Dunkirk, you'd know this if you actually read about the subject or knew anything about history.

The reason there aren't large numbers of aircraft in the movie is because Nolan used real aircraft and he only had a few available for him. That doesn't mean that's how it was in real life you fucking idiot.

Unironically Nolan could have made the movie more realistic had he used CGI aircraft and broadened the scale of the war so brainlets like you could have had a better sense of what happened.

the Soviets were against colonialism so it made the Americans look like hypocrites to be allied to France and Britain while the latter two still owned half the world. America gradually applied pressure to Britain and their other European allies until they had no more colonies

Have you even seen the film? There are far more than just 3 planes in the film you mental midget, I was talking that there were only 3 Spitfires in air during that single hour that went to Dunkirk.

>"Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle. Its centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, surrounded by a love story of stunning banality. The film has been directed without grace, vision, or originality, and although you may walk out quoting lines of dialog, it will not be because you admire them.

-Roger Ebert

>i think world war 2 just started!

>lively little lads throwing mad quips and jokes all around while talking how they buttfucked Marge back at home while they are literally drowning
By soul I didn't mean turning it into a fucking marvel movie you idiot and you'd know this if you weren't autistic

1. The film "Dunkirk" doesn't take place over a single hour.

2. Flights of Spitfires consisted of more than 3 planes.

3. Stop thinking what you saw in a movie is exactly how it was in real life

>On 28 May 1940, 12 patrols were flown at an average strength of two squadrons, with 321 sorties being carried out. Some squadrons were only able to put up less than the full squadron strength of 12 aircraft and the RAF twice clashed with very large formations of German aircraft.

>On 29 May, because of the size of the enemy formations met on the previous day, the patrols were adjusted again to try to have four squadrons in the vicinity of Dunkirk at any one time. But this meant an absence of fighter cover for periods of up to an hour and a half.

The RAF maximized the amount of aircraft they had at all times, willing to have no aircraft in the air rather than sending in 1, 2, or 3 only to be vastly outnumbered by German fighters....

What you saw in Nolan's film is wrong.

dunkirk mixed with spr set in a different war. ugh. did they really have to use the ticking clock thing? come the fuck on really

i fucking hate realism fags

Strange.

>1. The film "Dunkirk" doesn't take place over a single hour.
The air narrative does, literally. It is directly said by on-screen text in the film.
>2. Flights of Spitfires consisted of more than 3 planes.
The ones that went to Dunkirk absolutely not.

Do you think Nolan made the brit soldiers hate and spit on the absence of RAF for no reason at all? There's even a book by one of the Spitfire aces who flew during WW2 with an entire chapter dedicated to 'Where was the RAF at Dunkirk?'. tl;dr they were busy elsewhere and you're an ignorant wikifag

I wonder if we're going to have the state mandated diversity here.

>Do you think Nolan made the brit soldiers hate and spit on the absence of RAF for no reason at all? There's even a book by one of the Spitfire aces who flew during WW2 with an entire chapter dedicated to 'Where was the RAF at Dunkirk?'. tl;dr they were busy elsewhere and you're an ignorant wikifag

Imagine being this ass blasted that you dont even fully read the post you responded to. Dumb kid.

So, to reiterate

>On 28 May 1940, 12 patrols were flown at an average strength of two squadrons, with 321 sorties being carried out. Some squadrons were only able to put up less than the full squadron strength of 12 aircraft and the RAF twice clashed with very large formations of German aircraft.

>On 29 May, because of the size of the enemy formations met on the previous day, the patrols were adjusted again to try to have four squadrons in the vicinity of Dunkirk at any one time. But this meant an absence of fighter cover for periods of up to an hour and a half.

>The RAF maximized the amount of aircraft they had at all times, willing to have no aircraft in the air rather than sending in 1, 2, or 3 only to be vastly outnumbered by German fighters....

>What you saw in Nolan's film is wrong.

TO DUNKIRK you dumb fuck, yes a lot more dogfights happened on the perimeter which is exactly why RAF wasn't seen a lot on the beach itself. What you see in the film are the ones fhat did

That documentary was fucking amazing.

I am so pissed that getting it on bluray has been impossible.

I'm in.

Are you reading disabled? The RAF restrained from sending in fighters unless they could be flown at maximum force....... to Dunkirk. I.e. what you see in the film is wrong.

We have always celibrated glorious defeats, its a culteral thing.we like to display ourselves as the underdog.

And they rarely ever got to Dunkirk, with the troops barely seeing them at all.
Literally every depiction of Dunkirk has a scene of the soldiers asking where the fuck is the RAF for a reason

The french have loads of ww1 films about them retard. Also most of the front saw fuck all fighting for most of the war, it was only really active in the north where it was a mix of french, commonwealth and Belgian forces.

1914-1915 I believe that only 90k troops of the BEF were actually deployed to the Western Front, with more arriving in the later years of the war due to conscription. You have to remember that the British Army at the time was small and only really tasked with colonial matters. Saying that the BEF were hardy soldiers that had seen action in the Zulu War's and the Boer War.

Retard alert.
Russia was seen as an extremely powerful nation (great power) same as Germany before WW1.
Hell the French and English fought the Crimean War because they thought Russia was upsetting the balance of power

No retard they gave communists support to destabilize the Russian Empire

Cuminsnatch

Nazi Germany was fending off the communist threat from taking over Europe. Jews were the primary proponent of that communism that had infiltrated Russia. Judea had already declared war on Germany before a single country was invaded by Germany.

It was 40,000 on the first day of Somme (which was a huge offensive). 1600 sounds about right for a smaller assault - that's about two battalions' worth of troops given WW1 organisation.

Note they're advancing over a grassy field in one scene. This kinds of tells us it's a sideshow that's not taking place in the mud-filled shellhole-pocked battlefields elsewhere.

Seen a lot of people saying "1600 is too low" - this sounds like the Dunkirk troops-onna-beach thing again. Laypeople not understanding why they weren't packed like sardines on the beaches while photographs taken at the time show that Nolan and co. got it right with the evacuation beach density.

Attached: in the trenches.jpg (1076x1070, 296K)

oh, it's trash

>Corporal
When he's clearly got 2nd Lt. pips on his collar.

USA are like the dude in the 4 player RTS game who just sits behind his sim city while the others all wreck each other's shit then comes in to steamroll at the end when everyone else is gassed.

I don't know, but the last good one was done by Kubrick. Bunch of fucking garbage.

Please, enlighten us about how different WW1 was

Attached: shyamalan.jpg (780x585, 44K)

Uhhh everyone in this movie is white? Wtf. I'm pretty certain there were a lot of black soldiers in WWI, England got rid of slavery way before America did. I don't get why they wouldn't at least have some black extras in the background for realism.

Attached: 1562099565127.jpg (226x223, 7K)

Reading comprehension. Are you fucking retarded?

Read motherfucker, and stop using what you saw in some movie to be fact because 70 years later the director could only use 3 Spitfires during filming

weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/09/17/operation-dynamo-air-operations-at-dunkirk-1940/

>Lots of WWI media the past few years. What's with that?

Great question

Attached: image-561717-galleryV9-eqmk-561717.jpg (850x569, 81K)

Post other WW1 kino:
youtube.com/watch?v=0q66NuZrB2E