3 ms·

Different strokes for different folks. I think they are just used to the common trope of people immediately telling them because one aspect of a movie/film/play

Different strokes for different folks. I think they are just used to the common trope of people immediately telling them because one aspect of a movie/film/play is unrealistic they shouldn't care if the entire thing is nonsense. Vice versa though, nobody should mind others enjoy or make such content, beyond these kinds of statements that it's not for them. I also more often enjoy films which sit between "100% realistic/accurate" and "anything goes" than either extreme itself. 100% realistic/accurate and it tends to already be known unless it's relatively bland. 100% anything goes and it can still be good but there is a high risk it ends up feeling like every other "anything goes" movie of the same topic. In between you can often get the best of both worlds - something new, but still unique.

protocolture 5mo ago
>I also more often enjoy films which sit between "100% realistic/accurate" and "anything goes" than either extreme itself. 100% realistic/accurate and it tends to already be known unless it's relatively bland. 100% anything goes and it can still be good but there is a high risk it ends up feeling like every other "anything goes" movie of the same topic. In between you can often get the best of both worlds - something new, but still unique. I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. When mostly what he does is potter about and destroy sound design. I agree no one is going to be 100% accurate and accuracy isnt always desirable. But an attempt? When thats the guys reputation? Doesnt feel like too much to ask for.
- klausa 5mo ago
  >I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. I'm not a huge Nolan-discourse-insider, but that seems like a pretty bizarre reputation to have for someone who's famous for directing three Batman movies, Inception, Interstellar and Tenet? Is this reputation just because of Oppenheimer? I haven't seen Dunkirk (and I'm not a WWII buff so couldn't tell if they used right planes/boats/guns/uniforms/whatever even if I tried), but even a short blurb on Wikipedia talks about a "balance historical accuracy with aesthetics that would favour the film stock".
  - SvenL 5mo ago
    Well, interstellar has also some nerd stuff in it. If I remember correctly Kip Thorne did physics consulting on the movie and they even use a simulation running on a cluster to visualize the black hole physically correct. They could have used some arbitrary CGI…but no, they wanted it accurate according to science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03808 https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03808
    - aragilar 5mo ago
      And yet the rest of the movie runs on movie logic, enough so that every physicist I know rolls their eyes at it. It gives me the vibe of the "IFLS" crowd, not anyone who actually understands science.
      - protocolture 5mo ago
        Yeah its a bugbear of mine "oh its so accurate" theres like 2 accurate scenes, and most of it (from economics/agriculture to space physics) is completely bonkers. Sadly its a lot of "Filmbros first serious scifi movie" and thats something you cant disentangle, its love its not rational.
    - klausa 5mo ago
      Maybe we run in different circles, but I feel like “appreciates scientific accuracy” and “appreciates historical accuracy” are pretty disjoint sets? Not entirely without overlap, but pretty distinct.
      - SvenL 5mo ago
        I was referring to this: >I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. I just wanted to give an example of such accurate physics props, that this is not only due to Oppenheimer. This was not about the historic accuracy.
  - protocolture 5mo ago
- prawn 5mo ago
  Your sound design comment reminds me of seeing Inception in the cinema sitting next to a friend who works in sound (Frozen, John Wick films, etc). Early in the film, I offered him some of my popcorn, and he politely declined. I spent a good portion of the film partially distracted by the idea that maybe he didn't want to be crunching away on popcorn because he was keenly focused on thinking about the sound experience, and the cinema speakers and the like. I ate my popcorn even more quietly than usual. After the film, I asked if he'd turned down the popcorn for professional reasons. He said, "No, I just didn't feel like popcorn."

protocolture 5mo ago

>I also more often enjoy films which sit between "100% realistic/accurate" and "anything goes" than either extreme itself. 100% realistic/accurate and it tends to already be known unless it's relatively bland. 100% anything goes and it can still be good but there is a high risk it ends up feeling like every other "anything goes" movie of the same topic. In between you can often get the best of both worlds - something new, but still unique. I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. When mostly what he does is potter about and destroy sound design. I agree no one is going to be 100% accurate and accuracy isnt always desirable. But an attempt? When thats the guys reputation? Doesnt feel like too much to ask for.

klausa 5mo ago
>I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. I'm not a huge Nolan-discourse-insider, but that seems like a pretty bizarre reputation to have for someone who's famous for directing three Batman movies, Inception, Interstellar and Tenet? Is this reputation just because of Oppenheimer? I haven't seen Dunkirk (and I'm not a WWII buff so couldn't tell if they used right planes/boats/guns/uniforms/whatever even if I tried), but even a short blurb on Wikipedia talks about a "balance historical accuracy with aesthetics that would favour the film stock".
- SvenL 5mo ago
  Well, interstellar has also some nerd stuff in it. If I remember correctly Kip Thorne did physics consulting on the movie and they even use a simulation running on a cluster to visualize the black hole physically correct. They could have used some arbitrary CGI…but no, they wanted it accurate according to science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03808 https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03808
  - aragilar 5mo ago
    And yet the rest of the movie runs on movie logic, enough so that every physicist I know rolls their eyes at it. It gives me the vibe of the "IFLS" crowd, not anyone who actually understands science.
    - protocolture 5mo ago
      Yeah its a bugbear of mine "oh its so accurate" theres like 2 accurate scenes, and most of it (from economics/agriculture to space physics) is completely bonkers. Sadly its a lot of "Filmbros first serious scifi movie" and thats something you cant disentangle, its love its not rational.
  - klausa 5mo ago
    Maybe we run in different circles, but I feel like “appreciates scientific accuracy” and “appreciates historical accuracy” are pretty disjoint sets? Not entirely without overlap, but pretty distinct.
    - SvenL 5mo ago
      I was referring to this: >I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props. I just wanted to give an example of such accurate physics props, that this is not only due to Oppenheimer. This was not about the historic accuracy.
- protocolture 5mo ago
prawn 5mo ago
Your sound design comment reminds me of seeing Inception in the cinema sitting next to a friend who works in sound (Frozen, John Wick films, etc). Early in the film, I offered him some of my popcorn, and he politely declined. I spent a good portion of the film partially distracted by the idea that maybe he didn't want to be crunching away on popcorn because he was keenly focused on thinking about the sound experience, and the cinema speakers and the like. I ate my popcorn even more quietly than usual. After the film, I asked if he'd turned down the popcorn for professional reasons. He said, "No, I just didn't feel like popcorn."