|
Just watched it, I thought people were exaggerating about the audio mixing, but no, it really is that bad. Like it feels like it must be on purpose, but I have no idea what purpose making a bunch of the dialogue inaudible would serve.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
maybe the inaudible dialogue is comprehensible if you listen to it in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
I truly get the intention behind the sound mix - it's meant to be very immersive, so you feel like you're out there racing a boat or doing airport crime. It's just a backwards choice for a movie that relies on exposition and doing said exposition in noisy locations or behind masks. It'd totally be fine for a movie that didn't need as much info dumped. It's like watching The Matrix except all the scenes on the Nebuchadnezzar are drowned out by engine noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
It's all a ploy to drive sales of the book of the script. (It would be funny if the script had lines like "The Protagonist shouts unintelligibly".)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
So, let's say you're a backwards soldier that shoot a forward moving guy. What actually happens, from your perspective? 1. You see the guy being alive and shoot him and he falls down 2. You see the dead guy, he suddenly rises up moments before you shoot him In case 1, anyone in the forwards timeline would see this dead guy lying around for ages until he is suddenly resurrected by a reverse bullet In case 2, you are not actually a soldier because you're resurrecting people and then have to fight them The film only "works" because nothing exists outside the short time the cast exists in a scene - what happens before/after is handwaved away - like that broken car mirror, when did it get broken? Was the bullet in the opera house there when they made the chair?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
ymgve posted:So, let's say you're a backwards soldier that shoot a forward moving guy. What actually happens, from your perspective? This. In the opera scene, Neil is moving forward but his bullets have been reversed. Was there an in-movie reason for this or was it just a cool thing for our benefit? The idea of moving backwards through time while everyone else is moving forwards is a cool one, but I'm not sure what was the point of the reversed weapons. I can sort of wrap my head around the reversed people interacting with the forward people but adding in reversed bullets that the forward people can use backwards is just too much for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Along the same lines, I tried to understand the example earlier of having sex with a backwards person. The backwards perspective can make some sense, you find a person and can grab them, have sex with them, then get up and leave them on a bed. From the forward perspective, I guess you’d start feeling more and more like you just had sex, until you just felt compelled to go lie down on a bed. You have to do it because that’s what the backwards person did. But it’s the same thing the other way, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Mullitt posted:It’s been so long since I’ve seen Memento I can’t really comment on it, and I’ve never seen Insomnia (which is not an original story and also written by a woman and not him or his brother interestingly enough). Name a "cool" non main character in a Nolan film. Thats the part you're missing; his movies are suoer main character centric, and they're often flawed, pained people with tragedy in their past. They always overshadow the support. And heroic? Most of his protagonists suck and are tremendously self destructive people. Your statement about Interstellar is incorrect, too - Murph is suoer important to the film and occupies a large part of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
OldSenileGuy posted:He was in the tent or whatever when the head military guy was explaining the plan for the big final battle. This brought me to look up his imdb page, and it looks like he's actually trying to do some acting stuff. I regret not noticing him at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Darko posted:Name a "cool" non main character in a Nolan film. Thats the part you're missing; his movies are suoer main character centric, and they're often flawed, pained people with tragedy in their past. They always overshadow the support. Inception's secondary cast is all cool. JGL does that sick hallway fight, Tom Hardy has the grenade launcher bit. Watanabe buys an airline. They're doing cool stuff, if for dubious reasons. TDK has Bale completely overshadowed, to the point where it's barely considered his movie. Interstellar has TARS. The point that none of the women are cool holds, however. Rachel Dawes is boring until exploded, Ariadne does nearly nothing and Catwoman does about the same. They're kinda just there. They're motivators, generally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
well why not posted:Inception's secondary cast is all cool. JGL does that sick hallway fight, Tom Hardy has the grenade launcher bit. Watanabe buys an airline. They're doing cool stuff, if for dubious reasons. Ariadne does more, has more agency, and is way better than any of the other side characters. Just even on a script level, she has more lines than any of the rest. JGL has a cool hallway fight that is a standout, yes - but thats pretty much it. Selina serves to represent the have nots in TDKR, and blows up Bane, holds her own in a fight with Batman, and is hypercompetent while working with less. She does more than Robin, Alfred, who leaves for half the movie, Fox, and any other supporting character. Murph literally uses the quantum data Coop sends back to save all of humanity. Baleman did a ton in TDK, and definitely drove the story. Its just that the villain always overshadows everyone because he's The Joker, and the movie purposefully set up a triumvirate to make a story about corruptability. That movie didn't have much female focus at all, true. This is just a weird conversation - the characters mentioned all literally have more agency and effect on the plots (and more lines) than the other supporting characters. But that just gets dismissed due to subjectively feeling that what they arent doing is as "cool" or whatever, which becomes an inarguable statement. For instance, the earlier statement that Catwoman wasn't "sexy." How do you even debate something like that? No, the camera didn't gaze all over her body constantly - but finding a character sexy or not when the camera isn't forcing male gaze is an entirely subjective thing and nothing you can really place a fault for the movie/director at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
Yeah, i see what you mean a bit better now. I think the subjective arguments about coolness are yeah, not fruitful. There's definitely a certain something about how Nolans are putting their characters together which I haven't got a full handle on. Perhaps it's the absolute void where most directors would put romantic, sexual or erotic content standing out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
I think it's really about what you want from a story, and the characters in it. Personally, I don't care about "characters" nearly as much as people do. I'm super plot focused and don't really care about the people enacting said plot, with rare exceptions when it's a super well-written character drama (then the characters are the plot). I think Nolan (the Nolans?) is pretty similar, in that their plots are "this happens, then this, then there's a twist, then we assemble a grand finale, and boom ending" first and "who does this, why do they" comes second and plot dictates what the characters do and not the other way around. I've done some writing myself and talked to other writers, and many describe their process as coming up with characters first, putting them into some situation/world, and then extrapolating how the plot goes based on "what they would do". I cannot even begin to understand how this might work, when I write, I have a clear outline beginning middle end in mind and move characters like action figures along those lines. I get a lot of critique for characters lacking motivation, being shallow etc. from my fellow writers, and this reads pretty much like what's happening to Nolan itt and beyond. I do think Nolan is a more accomplished and also better writer than I am, so please don't take this as saying "I get him because we're equals  ". In fact, I'd say Nolan has mostly solved this problem - if it has to be one - by making interesting people act out his plots, have them do "cool" stuff as some said, and so on. He will, however, never establish an emotional core or a deep romantic connection that does not help the plot along because he doesn't care about that, if I get him enough for that - because I think similarly - he is completely uninterested in the "human element" besides what supports the theme of the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
well why not posted:Yeah, i see what you mean a bit better now. I think the subjective arguments about coolness are yeah, not fruitful. I trend towards asexuality in general and normally don't do relationships at all, and I get a lot of that feeling from Nolan films in that they seem to see the height of attraction as being entirely cerebral and not instinctive - its always about a pursuit of knowledge or attaining a mastery of something and not about base attraction. If people are together, its because they share the same goals and interests and pursuits and not because they feel anything physical for each other (on screen). If you look at all of his relationships when shown on screen in movies, they tend to be centered around shared interests and peer situations and not about attraction. Cobb and his wife shared an obsession about diving deeper into the dream stuff. Catwomans competency got Bruce to get his groove back and they worked together to take down Bane and Talia. The only time I remember someone in his movies looking at someone and just seeming to feel an attraction was Fallon and his future wife. Thats also something that is so good about Prestige; Bale plays the two so subtly different, and one is far more normal and empathetic, while the other is just super-Nolan obsessed protagonist. Edit: I did remember there was one sex scene in a Nolan film; Pacino in Insomnia! Darko fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Dec 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfdRUjhz00U&t=16s
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
I enjoyed the movie but I thought this video was really good and that its idea for the ending was a lot better and explores the problem with TENET compared to other Nolan films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAOqEcJjHOQ I don't normally watch his videos so I'm not sure if his takes are usually good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
I keep remembering things I’m confused about : So if the opera house scene and the Stalsk-12 battle are the same day, how is the “241” in both places? I get that it’s because of inversion creating duplicates kind of fuckery, but we don’t see it get inverted and I csnt figure out exactly what happened there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
gregday posted:I keep remembering things I’m confused about : Is the opera the 241 or is it another bit of the algorithm? Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Dec 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Is the opera the 241 or is it another but of the algorithm? Either way, the entire algorithm is present at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I enjoyed the movie but I thought this video was really good and that its idea for the ending was a lot better and explores the problem with TENET compared to other Nolan films: I recently watched the movie and liked it and I just don't understand why people keep wanting to twist the movie into what they want it to be. Sometimes it feels like people want to dislike it for...reasons? He's going on and on bout emotions like every movie has to follow some generic guide. He compares it to transformers 4 like come on. Why do we need to end at the opera? What does that do? We know what happens? What else do we need to see? The movie is all about self sacrifice for the greater good while he wants it to to be some emotional action movie? It's a spy movie where alot of people are mislead and kept in the dark about what's really going on. Like the final battle is really all just for cover to go and get the algorithm. None of the soliders know that. I don't know what the disconnect is with this movie. RBX fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
gregday posted:I keep remembering things I’m confused about :
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
I loved Interstellar, TDK, and Inception, but turned this one off halfway through. The plot is baffling and from reading the synopsis I did not miss anything or lose out by ending early. Good acting, some fun scenes, some snappy dialogue, cool effects, just absolutely impenetrable plot. Maybe I’m sleep deprived and stupid from having a new infant but I had zero problem with his other “head scratchers”. If I have to go watch a YouTube video where some bearded man explains to me that I need to watch scenes A,J,K,X in reverse and scenes B,F,G,Z are the subplot in forward time but backwards and really the plot makes sense if you follow this graph showing a parallel universe and then if he says the word “paradox” I’m gonna poo poo my pants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 04:19
|
|
|
space uncle posted:I loved Interstellar, TDK, and Inception, but turned this one off halfway through. Absolutely agree with that after the first watch. But watching it through just once more, normally, cleared up nearly everything. I’m absolutely fascinated with the mechanics of the movie, but I’m still not sure if I think it’s a good movie yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
I'm kinda flabbergasted at anything being confusing other than how the ending works. It seemed as straightforward as something like this could be apart from what we discussed earlier in regard to the ending,.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
maybe it's because I only just saw this in close proximity with the extremely dull Mary Shelley's Frankenstein so I'm predisposed to dislike him but Kenneth Branagh sucks so bad in this, the scene where he slowly says "no. one. else. can." was some high school theater level dogshit, goddamn it's fine that the time travel makes no sense as long as it's trashy and fun but the only people having fun in this seem to be Pattinson and Washington, they should've cut the entire Night Manager redux and just had them be cool bros having inverted adventures also should have had all the inverted people say "badbye" when they left a room
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
So is Nolan a genius or an overrated hack?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 07:45
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:So is Nolan a genius or an overrated hack? Both? I’m a fan, but his last two have let me down hard. The more I think about this movie, the less I like it. Interstellar Memento The Dark Knight Batman Begins The Prestige Inception Insomnia Following The Dark Knight Rises Dunkirk Tenet
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:So is Nolan a genius or an overrated hack? He’s obvious singularly talented but is high on his own farts to an alarming level, and has massive blind spots. Most of his movies are clever until exposed to air. But that’s ok, movies aren’t meant to be a thesis. Really I just wish he’d calm down a bit with his “boundary pushing” poo poo and do something a bit more streamlined. Make a movie that doesn’t have people looking at charts afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 08:12
|
|
|
Haven't seen Dunkirk so maybe I'm being wrong and unfair, but it just struck me that Nolan can't do action. I don't mean he can't shoot an eye-popping "here's something you've never seen before" setpiece, like the zero-g hallway in Inception. I mean bread and butter stuff like a gunfight or punch-up. I randomly rewatched Bad Boys on Netflix last night, and even though it's Bay's first movie done on a tight budget, his chases and shootouts have way more energy and excitement than Nolan's equivalents - I'm thinking the "watching someone else play Modern Warfare 2" snow battle from Inception, or the interpretive dance mass brawl from TDKR. They're big and expensive, but... there's nothing visceral about them. They're dispassionate, clinical - all head and no gut, something you observe rather than experience. Nothing I've seen from Tenet so far seems any different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 09:15
|
|
|
space uncle posted:I loved Interstellar, TDK, and Inception, but turned this one off halfway through. The movie is a simple closed loop/grandfather paradox with two competing groups from the future having faith that they can maintain or break the paradox in the padt (the former trying to stop the latter just in case they're wrong). People on YouTube just tend to overexplain stuff for clicks; you can ignore most of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
It seemed like a waste of a good premise. Inverting and temporal pincer movements seem like such rich soil for some absolutely great and imaginative scenes. Both barely appear in the first half of the movie. It's just a pretty straightforward spy film. Then, when we finally get to the film's premise, we only get a car chase and the incredibly dumb final battle. I don't resent Nolan having a lot of expository dialogue (explaining a paradox is pretty bad though) i resent him setting up pretty complex rules and doing nothing interesting with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
It’s been said before in this tread and elsewhere, but it feels like this movie just cannot be enjoyed on first go-round. You are way too busy in your head trying to put bullshit rules and logic together to understand what’s happening on screen, what that means, how it works etc. it’s a really dumb thing to do for a director, and it’s extremely likely he could’ve set the rules clearer, or show the progression of events in a less confusing way so that the mechanics work with the setpeices and action, but instead every scene is, for me an idiot at least, a fast moving puzzle that actively worked against me liking it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
I really don't think it was that complicated. Also chalking up everything to "hurr sure I'm too dumb for this" is a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
meanolmrcloud posted:It’s been said before in this tread and elsewhere, but it feels like this movie just cannot be enjoyed on first go-round. You are way too busy in your head trying to put bullshit rules and logic together to understand what’s happening on screen, what that means, how it works etc. it’s a really dumb thing to do for a director, and it’s extremely likely he could’ve set the rules clearer, or show the progression of events in a less confusing way so that the mechanics work with the setpeices and action, but instead every scene is, for me an idiot at least, a fast moving puzzle that actively worked against me liking it. I didn't like the movie all that much (I didn't feel any emotional empathy with the characters like I normally do in his movies), but it wasn't that hard or obtuse to "get" on the first time. I mean, once you realize things are going backwards, you realize what is happening in the airport fight pretty much immediately, and are just looking at the rest of the movie to see why that was happening in particular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Darko posted:I didn't like the movie all that much (I didn't feel any emotional empathy with the characters like I normally do in his movies), but it wasn't that hard or obtuse to "get" on the first time. I mean, once you realize things are going backwards, you realize what is happening in the airport fight pretty much immediately, and are just looking at the rest of the movie to see why that was happening in particular. I didn’t figure it out, and that’s actually when I turned the movie off during the 2nd airport scene. Why does protagonist have to fight himself? Why are they gurneying the lady around everywhere? Why mention that gravity and friction are backwards and then clearly show that to not be the case. I said out loud “if there’s one more loving shot of that gurney wheeling around in the second viewing of the exact same slow rear end 15 minute scene then I’m gonna flip out” There were like 5 more shots. What if we shot Memento again but instead of a tight premise and a single chronological gimmick we apply the Memento effect to every single character, scene, and plot item at random
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Him fighting himself looked so dumb the first time and even worse the second time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
Darko posted:The movie is a simple closed loop/grandfather paradox with two competing groups from the future having faith that they can maintain or break the paradox in the padt (the former trying to stop the latter just in case they're wrong). so simple
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:so simple There was an episode of kids cartoon Gargoyles that covered the same loose premise, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I'm kinda flabbergasted at anything being confusing other than how the ending works. It seemed as straightforward as something like this could be apart from what we discussed earlier in regard to the ending,. It's a movie that's very easy to follow until the first time you miss something and then catching up becomes arduous. I've watched it with multiple people and they all fell off at different points, but they all fell off eventually. Also, the movie draws attention to its mechanics in a way that forces you to actively think about them in a way that, say, time travel in Bill and Ted doesn't. It asks you to "not think about it, just feel it" but there's not much else to focus on, the characters are empty plot devices with no compelling drama between any of them. And once you start focusing on the mechanics, it's very easy to confuse yourself. I also don't think the movie's editing does it any favors. It's not great at portraying the passage of time (I feel like this has always been an issue with Nolan but it's never been a bigger liability than here), several major things happen while the protagonist is blacked out, and at least one time reversal happens during a cut. Combined with the movie's habit of only saying things once, even with subtitles it's not hard to see where people might get lost, even if the actual plot is fairly simple when it's all laid out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Payndz posted:Haven't seen Dunkirk so maybe I'm being wrong and unfair, but it just struck me that Nolan can't do action. Yeah this nails a lot of my issues with this movies action and the movie in general. They made a huge deal out of crashing a literal plane into a building and not doing CGI for it and how expensive it was blah blah.... ...and is an absolute dud stunt with zero flair, boring composition and absolutely no energy. Its a loving plane smashing into a building for real and he somehow made it boring. Its the like the antithesis to what people say about over use of CGI and VFX. If being overly aware of "unphotorealistic pixels on a computer" sucks the immersion out of an FX shot than this was so overly "real" it felt painfully staged, controlled and sterile because it had to be in order for them to pull it off. To me, this problem in the decision making of this films construction permeates to every other aspect of this film and why its just a clear sign to me that Nolan needs to take a step back and make something smaller because he is getting way too self obsessed with his own abilities and this quest to revive some dead age of big budget high concept cinema is starting to actually ruin his otherwise brilliant and balanced vision. This is the first Nolan film Ive actively disliked and it was quite unfortunate. Even if his other movies have flaws I have always enjoyed them immensely. Theres a good movie in it but its utterly destroyed by its own self awareness. Its like when someone like Tommy Wisseu TRIES to make a bad movie, theres a distinct artifical and inorganic nature to it. Its like Nolan doing the worst impression of himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 00:10
|
|
