There are 12 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    I came into the film without preconceptions; that is, no one told me that it was a “stunt” film.  (To avoid spoilers, I tend not to read about films I already intend to see.)

    I was aware of the stunt only in the looong scenes of running through the trenches, where it occurred to me that this would be more fun to watch in 3D.

    Elsewhere, I describe the movie as “worthy but dull”.

    The continuous shot stunt guarantees that the texture will be flabby, because of all the footage the camera has to shoot as it is shifted between scenes and locations.  This kind of transitional material is precisely what is left on the editing room floor in a conventionally cut movie.

    The film also struck me as low budget.  Unknown stars, no big battle scenes, I’m guessing about a hundred extras.

    It’s amusing to imagine the soldiers in the trenches jumping up as soon as the camera has passed and running around out of sight to get into the trenches ahead of the camera so they can be filmed again.

    The point somebody tries to make about dilettante British officers is a major boner.  He forgets this is, well, 1917:  by this time, the “dilettante”officers will have had three years of experience in the trenches.

    • #1
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Lighting a beacon to draw the allies?  That sounds a lot like what the Klingons were doing in Star Trek: Discovery.

    • #2
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Monty Python – Ypres 1914

    • #3
  4. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Lighting a beacon to draw the allies? That sounds a lot like what the Klingons were doing in Star Trek: Discovery.

    Oh god, don’t even remind me of that utter nonsense.

    • #4
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Lighting a beacon to draw the allies? That sounds a lot like what the Klingons were doing in Star Trek: Discovery.

    Oh god, don’t even remind me of that utter nonsense.

    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    The Enterprise series did some of that too.  In the episode “The Andorian Incident” we’re told that the monastery on that planet has existed for almost 3,000 years, which would mean it existed for about 1,200 years before Surak.  The Vulcans had interstellar flight 1,200 years before Surak?  Baloney.  Heck, the monastery was preserving the secrets of Surak etc, 1,200 years before Surak even lived?  Ultra-baloney.

    • #5
  6. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Lighting a beacon to draw the allies? That sounds a lot like what the Klingons were doing in Star Trek: Discovery.

    Oh god, don’t even remind me of that utter nonsense.

    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    The Enterprise series did some of that too. In the episode “The Andorian Incident” we’re told that the monastery on that planet has existed for almost 3,000 years, which would mean it existed for about 1,200 years before Surak. The Vulcans had interstellar flight 1,200 years before Surak? Baloney. Heck, the monastery was preserving the secrets of Surak etc, 1,200 years before Surak even lived? Ultra-baloney.

    Time travel explains all!

    • #6
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Lighting a beacon to draw the allies? That sounds a lot like what the Klingons were doing in Star Trek: Discovery.

    Oh god, don’t even remind me of that utter nonsense.

    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    The Enterprise series did some of that too. In the episode “The Andorian Incident” we’re told that the monastery on that planet has existed for almost 3,000 years, which would mean it existed for about 1,200 years before Surak. The Vulcans had interstellar flight 1,200 years before Surak? Baloney. Heck, the monastery was preserving the secrets of Surak etc, 1,200 years before Surak even lived? Ultra-baloney.

    Time travel explains all!

    What do we want?

    Time travel!

    When do we want it?

    It’s irrelevant!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0qDy0T5WXM

    • #7
  8. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    kedavis (View Comment):
    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    Not sure what you’re referring to. I’m referring to a beacon of light being seen instantaneously across the galaxy. As opposed to, I dunno, travelling at the speed of light.

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    Not sure what you’re referring to. I’m referring to a beacon of light being seen instantaneously across the galaxy. As opposed to, I dunno, travelling at the speed of light.

    Oh yeah, there’s that too.  If the “signal” location is even just the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri, it would take FOUR YEARS to be seen “back home.”  Possibly longer if other planets are involved too.

    But in some ways I thought it was a bigger problem that this sacred place has supposedly existed, in a distant part of space/another star system, since before the Klingons even had space flight.

    • #9
  10. Archibald Campbell Member
    Archibald Campbell
    @ArchieCampbell

    Fantastic.

    Man, was it ever delicious to hear JVL reduced to sputtering, wordless fury over Sonny’s rather mild trolling of him, and *then* to hear him be wrong about one of his big assertions about the film.  Ever since that Scorsese troll I’ve been waiting for Sonny’s response, and he barely had to try in melting JVL’s brain. So satisfying.

    That said, I haven’t seen “1917.” I can’t imagine it wouldn’t be disappointing after “They Shall Not Grow Old.” Also, the story sounds like a rehash of “Gallipoli.” For anyone who’s seen both “1917” and “Gallipoli”, what are the big differences (other than the theater of war) plot-wise?

    • #10
  11. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    Not sure what you’re referring to. I’m referring to a beacon of light being seen instantaneously across the galaxy. As opposed to, I dunno, travelling at the speed of light.

    Oh yeah, there’s that too. If the “signal” location is even just the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri, it would take FOUR YEARS to be seen “back home.” Possibly longer if other planets are involved too.

    But in some ways I thought it was a bigger problem that this sacred place has supposedly existed, in a distant part of space/another star system, since before the Klingons even had space flight.

    If the Star Trek writers had been a little more knowledgeable, scientifically speaking, they would simply have added the word “tachyon” before “beacon”.

    • #11
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    You mean stuff like the Klingons supposedly going to another star long before they had space flight?

    Not sure what you’re referring to. I’m referring to a beacon of light being seen instantaneously across the galaxy. As opposed to, I dunno, travelling at the speed of light.

    Oh yeah, there’s that too. If the “signal” location is even just the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri, it would take FOUR YEARS to be seen “back home.” Possibly longer if other planets are involved too.

    But in some ways I thought it was a bigger problem that this sacred place has supposedly existed, in a distant part of space/another star system, since before the Klingons even had space flight.

    If the Star Trek writers had been a little more knowledgeable, scientifically speaking, they would simply have added the word “tachyon” before “beacon”.

    But that still wouldn’t explain how the Klingons got there to set it up, maybe centuries before they had space flight/warp drive.

    Also I got the feeling that it was supposed to be a “star of Bethlehem” type of signal, that you don’t need special instruments to detect.  So the main problem is, how do “Joseph and Mary” ride their donkey to a distant star system to set it up?

    • #12
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.