1917
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:21 pm    Post subject:

Finally got around to this one as I wrap up my Oscar nomination viewing season.

Every bit as spectacular as it was intensely riveting in its tiny moments.

One of the best movies that has been made.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:47 pm    Post subject:

Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:08 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.


I was worried about the "gimmick", but it wasn't one. What it did was keep you in the moments in a way that traditional cutting wouldn't do. I'm not a huge gamer, so I guess I'm not susceptible to getting drawn into that visual parallel. To the contrary, that follow along "first person" aspect emphasized things rather than distracted from them. At those moments when the editor in me was expecting inserts etc. you are actually there, rather than the detached observer you usually are in a film where you break from your POV to a character's. When lines played on the characters' backs for extended periods, you feel like you're walking with them, not some voyeur who has the ability to move around in the space via a different camera angle. And those spaces of time where a traditional film would have just done a time cut (and obviously there were time cuts, they just played off more organically) really allow you to digest the moments and while anticipating what was to come next.

I didn't see it as beholding to a gimmick at all, and I fully assumed I would. I found it to emphasize the storytelling in a way that Bird Man's attempt at it didn't really achieve.

*to add: Shots like the one at the end where he has met the brother and he walks toward the tree, it's a great shot. But what draws you in is that the great shot visually leads you into his journey to that tree and you are anticipating his arrival and as you arrive there with him, you go around the tree and break off from him to join on the other side. That's so different and refreshing from having the traditional method of playing that wide of him heading to the tree for a beat or two, cutting to a frontal of him walking over, switching to a medium of him arriving etc. . . I found it to be immersive.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25577

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:17 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.

Absolutely this. It's a war movie that has nothing to say about war except that it's stressful. One of the prettiest, emptiest contributions to an overstuffed genre.

Hey, ocho! Coming back to the film thread or did I annoy you away?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25577

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:19 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.


I was worried about the "gimmick", but it wasn't one. What it did was keep you in the moments in a way that traditional cutting wouldn't do. I'm not a huge gamer, so I guess I'm not susceptible to getting drawn into that visual parallel. To the contrary, that follow along "first person" aspect emphasized things rather than distracted from them. At those moments when the editor in me was expecting inserts etc. you are actually there, rather than the detached observer you usually are in a film where you break from your POV to a character's. When lines played on the characters' backs for extended periods, you feel like you're walking with them, not some voyeur who has the ability to move around in the space via a different camera angle. And those spaces of time where a traditional film would have just done a time cut (and obviously there were time cuts, they just played off more organically) really allow you to digest the moments and while anticipating what was to come next.

I didn't see it as beholding to a gimmick at all, and I fully assumed I would. I found it to emphasize the storytelling in a way that Bird Man's attempt at it didn't really achieve.

*to add: Shots like the one at the end where he has met the brother and he walks toward the tree, it's a great shot. But what draws you in is that the great shot visually leads you into his journey to that tree and you are anticipating his arrival and as you arrive there with him, you go around the tree and break off from him to join on the other side. That's so different and refreshing from having the traditional method of playing that wide of him heading to the tree for a beat or two, cutting to a frontal of him walking over, switching to a medium of him arriving etc. . . I found it to be immersive.

Have you seen Son of Saul?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:22 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
ocho wrote:
Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.

Absolutely this. It's a war movie that has nothing to say about war except that it's stressful. One of the prettiest, emptiest contributions to an overstuffed genre.

Hey, ocho! Coming back to the film thread or did I annoy you away?


It wasn't a war movie.

It was a story where the setting happened to be a moment in a war.

If it were a war movie, that moment when he's crossing the destroyed bridge and comes under fire, the 30 plus troops that were sitting there in the trucks would have opened fore to cover him. This was a story about a journey. The moment with the dig fight was another perfect example of that, you just see it play out from a distance as if you were just walking along with the characters.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell


Last edited by DaMuleRules on Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:29 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
I'm not a huge gamer, so I guess I'm not susceptible to getting drawn into that visual parallel.


Often in video games (usually at the beginning) your character walks around in first person (or third) observing. You can control the camera’s movement but you’re usually fixed behind the character and the character is the center of the whole universe. After receiving a task or mission, there’s usually a lot of traveling involved getting from location A to B. Sometimes you encounter a side quest along the way before it’s back to traveling. I’ve just described about 80% of this movie. I think at times in the movie it worked to great effect, oners exist for a reason after all and can be effective, but more often than not we were back in game mode. It was clearly a huge undertaking so props to them for putting in the work but for me it had the opposite effect of being immersive. You’re constantly considering the camera and the gimmick the whole time.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:30 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
ocho wrote:
Didn’t work for me. It has its moments, and probably would have had more of them if it weren’t beholden to the gimmick. It’s quite video gamey for long stretches (because we can’t cut because oner fetishism). They’re able to still generate some great sequences (the bits where they discover the rats and the moment with the mother/baby were great) but it slips back into Call of Duty: 1917 before long. I think it would have benefited from dropping the gimmick but that’s likely the sole reason people are interested in it.

Absolutely this. It's a war movie that has nothing to say about war except that it's stressful. One of the prettiest, emptiest contributions to an overstuffed genre.

Hey, ocho! Coming back to the film thread or did I annoy you away?


Ha I’ll check back in.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:35 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Quote:
I'm not a huge gamer, so I guess I'm not susceptible to getting drawn into that visual parallel.


Often in video games (usually at the beginning) your character walks around in first person (or third) observing. You can control the camera’s movement but you’re usually fixed behind the character and the character is the center of the whole universe. After receiving a task or mission, there’s usually a lot of traveling involved getting from location A to B. Sometimes you encounter a side quest along the way before it’s back to traveling. I’ve just described about 80% of this movie. I think at times in the movie it worked to great effect, oners exist for a reason after all and can be effective, but more often than not we were back in game mode. It was clearly a huge undertaking so props to them for putting in the work but for me it had the opposite effect of being immersive. You’re constantly considering the camera and the gimmick the whole time.


That was my fear going in. I had the absolute exact opposite reaction. Instead of being distracted, it draws one in and keeps you in the moment rather than moving on to the next cut/POV/Establishing etc.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 9431
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:39 pm    Post subject:

It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25577

PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:17 pm    Post subject:

panamaniac wrote:
It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.

They were barely sketched characters, though, and the theme of soldiers as brothers is a well-worn trope that goes back to the silent era.

Have you ever seen Come and See? That's a personal story of experience in war that follows a single character. It's streaming on the Criterion Channel and might be worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:11 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
panamaniac wrote:
It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.

They were barely sketched characters, though, and the theme of soldiers as brothers is a well-worn trope that goes back to the silent era.

Have you ever seen Come and See? That's a personal story of experience in war that follows a single character. It's streaming on the Criterion Channel and might be worth a watch if you haven't seen it.


You understand why that is . . . right?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25577

PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:43 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
panamaniac wrote:
It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.

They were barely sketched characters, though, and the theme of soldiers as brothers is a well-worn trope that goes back to the silent era.

Have you ever seen Come and See? That's a personal story of experience in war that follows a single character. It's streaming on the Criterion Channel and might be worth a watch if you haven't seen it.


You understand why that is . . . right?

Mostly because it's necesitated by the cool gimmick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 9351
Location: LA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:42 am    Post subject:

panamaniac wrote:
It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.


I re-read All Quiet on The Western Front in anticipation for this movie and I highly recommend anyone who has seen 1917 to re/re-read that book now. It will help add context to the movie/war. And even without the pairing of the movie, it's a great (bleeping) book.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nobody
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 5315
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:42 am    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
panamaniac wrote:
It's not a movie about war. It's a tribute and a love letter to the brotherhood that forges from fighting a war. It's not just about the flag, or the cause, but also the people that you're there with, and the ensuing bonds that form. Towards the end you can see the main character is just as motivated to honor his friend's life, as he is to save an entire battalion. That's beautiful stuff. Makes you wonder what you would do in such a position, against such odds. Mendes dedicates the film to his grandfather, who fought in the war, and likely told such stories aplenty. It's obviously a personal tale, and not simply another 'war flick'.


I re-read All Quiet on The Western Front in anticipation for this movie and I highly recommend anyone who has seen 1917 to re/re-read that book now. It will help add context to the movie/war. And even without the pairing of the movie, it's a great (bleeping) book.


Perfect book! And I absolutely enjoyed 1917, gimmick or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 85645
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:22 pm    Post subject:

I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:51 pm    Post subject:

One of the advantages to being appreciative of the craft of moviemaking as opposed to a hipster film aficionado is that you get to enjoy some films for what they are as opposed to being turned off that they weren't what they were never intended to be.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:54 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
One of the advantages to being appreciative of the craft of moviemaking as opposed to a hipster film aficionado is that you get to enjoy some films for what they are as opposed to being turned off that they weren't what they were never intended to be.


I’m glad that you enjoyed it and glad I was able to make my point without insulting or dismissing you.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:56 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:00 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45820

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:07 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 25577

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:09 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.

Blackhawk Down > 1917
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:22 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ocho wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I think the key to enjoying 1917 is to not think of it as a movie trying to convey some deep and complex meaning. Its themes are fairly mainstream, the horror of war, the brotherhood of the men who fight it, and a race against time by a fragile few against all odds to prevent a catastrophe. And it's a period piece (and an unusual one where Vietnam or WW2 are the standard milieus). With a visual gimmick that works perfectly to propel its frantic energy. It's a visual epic, and a really well done one, not some art house meditation on esoteric themes.


I think it’s a failure as an epic, not as an art house film. Do people confuse this for an art house film?


Well . . . some people here clearly presumed it should delve deeply into some themes it wasn't intended to explore.


I think to call it a bit shallow and its themes a bit well-worn is pretty accurate. I agree the film doesn’t aspire to be more than that and I think the team behind it would admit as much. It wants to be an emotional, immersive spectacle and seeks to achieve that through the gimmick for which the whole exercise hinges. It’s there where I believe they were unsuccessful.


And for the reasons I have explained, I think the "gimmick" was very successful in presenting storytelling in a way that doesn't adhere to typical conventions and leaves the viewer digesting things in a manner that they don't typically do so.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 44924
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:23 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:

Blackhawk Down > 1917


Apples>oranges
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 9351
Location: LA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:23 pm    Post subject:

I don't think it's an epic or an arthouse but rather a realistic approach to what a day during WW1 would have been like, and used a basic story as the vehicle to explore that world. I think it's more painting than video game, but it'd be more of a Jackson Pollack than Van Gogh. Okay that's enough metaphors for today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB