Depicting history in movies

Is it just me, or do modern historical movies somehow look less "convincing" and sterile compared to history as depicted in older movies?

I think it's the combination of HD with the prohibition on onscreen smoking

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2VygxHAeKpE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's the fact they all use that shitty blue filter

Modern movies have also forgotten how things work.

At Dunkirk, the soldiers would not have laid down flat on the ground during the bombing run. That's just asking for the shock waves to rupture all your organs. What they should have done was squat down and curl up.

Dunkirk is shit because it's revisionist garbage, but yeah modern movies in general go over the board with the blue filter and "everyting is grimdark" thing

Medieval movies from the 70s/80s were very colorful, but nowdays it's all darkey

>tfw a movie like Waterloo will never come again

(Today's)Hollywood is a disgusting industry directed by rich narcissitic snobs sniffing cocaine out of an ass wiping it with dollar bills, the actors are mentally ill, feel entitled to be cunts, have bad characters or are generally uninteresting human beeings, who got successful through superficial attributes. This became more and more obvious over the years.

Mainstream shit is insufferable trash with no deepness, meaning and effort going into it other than money for effects, camera, stunts and actors.
Profit and publicity are the only goals and the poor, sloppy directive ruins every quality and butchers the subjects of movies like old cattle so that it never can properly be reused. They ever use a common and boring Topic or milk money out of an existing idea. Style and look are shit.

This applied, to something that is supposed to depict some historical Events, makes it straight go down the toilett after it planted the Cancer into my eyes.

It's a mere Insult to all People who interest in history, to all People who lived at that time and this movie is unrealistic,unappealing and intentionally badly made to the bone.

>Look there are Brits
>Yeah they really had a bad time with the Germans 'n stuff there
>Oh my god this movie took so long but I am glad that after all the heartbeat-raising moments everyone got saved and everything and everyone is safe, except for some poor unknown souls
>Oh god the main characters were such heroes
>Well made, such a fight between good and evil
>Let's return home, the movie is over, celebrate our Normie expiriences
Why even?

Personally, the movie did make me reflect in a new way on how surreally terrifying war would be and how lucky I am to not be in one. It wouldn't say I thought it was a great movie or anything.

blue or sepia/brown tones.

it's because we are in a culture gulch. the corrupt Hollywood system cares more about money than the high quality art.

>That Scots Greys charge

Pure kino

>revisionist
Huh?
not even enough happened in the movie to revise history. what did they revise?

>older movies were convincing
You're gonna have to be more specific. Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Patton, none of them are accurate. The most accurate depiction of an actual war in a film is probably Jarhead.

We live in a time where basically everything is owned by 3 or 4 big companies

to make a thoughtful filme is to risk being misunderstood or even choosing a wrong believe to some and even support something that goes against new norms being established

The marxist view is the dominant one in the media, most films won´t support them because they know a large part of population does not like them, and they won´t fight their ideias either because they are a very loud minority(almost all actors and a lot of fields in humans are like that, they have the mic)

So it is better to make dumb down movies which normies, right wingers and left wingers will support.

Really good directors nowadays are able to make good movies which the big companies will want to make, and still tell a good story out of it.

Just make nazies were lunatics without any reason or logic and allies all good guys.

If you make an movie with an different perspective it would not even pass on the big screens

and left wing movies get a pass because they control the narrative always, so if they show something incorrect they can distort to a different meaning

I liked the movie

Fuck you, I thought Dunkirk was pretty good. Not necessarily accurate, but entertaining enough

>brit standing in queue: the movie
>brits like it

how shocking

I'm not a Bong, though

War isn't just heroism and bravery in the face of pure evil, that's the whole point of the film (Dunkirk).

As for historical inaccuracies sure, they made the Little Ships seem far more important than they actually were and some of Tom Hardy's Spitfire stuff was a little far-fetched (the final scene) but it's absurd to say that Nolan went full Michael Bay on the film.

You're right, Michael Bay wouldn't destroy a vintage aircraft for his egoism

dunkirk was possible because the heroism of the french, not a single bong would have escaped if the frogs just joined the seashore sightseeing the bongs were attending

He's probably going to autistically screech that it doesn't show the French enough or some other shit that will prove he's never actually seen it.

imagine believing that there were only French soldiers fighting in the rearguard. Not to mention the 200+ Allied (largely British) naval vessels that were sunk, or the 145 RAF aircraft shot down covering those on the shore. Or even the fact that over 100k French troops did indeed join the 'seashore sightseeing' and were evacuated as well (around 3,000 of these decided to continue the fight from Britain, whilst the rest voluntarily returned home).

And that Is shown in the film.

>retarded color filters
>slow motion of every arrow
>everyone wearing grimdark black leather, no bright colors whatsoever because everything must be edgy and grim
>anachronisms out the ass
>generic romance plotlines inserted for no reason
>dubstep, industrial and other dogshit as soundtrack
>token STRONG WYMAN characters, usually kicking men's ass
>modern sociopolitical parallels nobody gives a shit about
>"message" is more important than accuracy
>blacks playing historically white or Middle Eastern characters
>CGI in place of proper sets or models, generally poor design

Not him, but I'm a leaf and I loved it. Mostly for the sound effects desu.

for a minute till we get to the queuing

So, except maybe the blue colour filter, nothing of the sort happens in Dunkirk.

This.
youtube.com/watch?v=2VygxHAeKpE

Implying that the average British grunt knew what the fuck shock waves were and what they could do

Sounds like you haven't watched it

What vintage aircraft did Nolan destroy?

>Oh god the main characters were such heroes
Are you retarded?

This is what I mean by "other shit that will prove he's never actually seen it".

I never mentioned Dunkirk, was talking about modern history cinema in general.
Dunkirk, I didn't get why there were only men on that beach and no tanks or vehicles. And Germans basically don't physically exist aside from a few screeching Stukas.

>no tanks or vehicles
The Brits were forced to leave pretty much all their heavy equipment behind.
>And Germans basically don't physically exist aside from a few screeching Stukas.
That's because they hadn't advanced to the beach and were still fighting allied troops around Dunkirk. You really think Operation Dynamo would've been a success if the Panzers were already rolling on the beach?

Not what I neant. In the entire film you don't see a single German face, not even the pilots.

It's almost like that was the whole point and the focus was on the British, with the Germans as some vague force on the edge of the beach.

>This movie was popular and made by Hollywood therefore I get to be autistic about it for no reason

Makes them more menacing

That was the whole fucking point. War is this harrowing thing, looming over these soldiers who have no power or control over their own fate. If we saw the German soldiers, it would undermine the whole message of the movie.