what a stupid fucking retarded thing to ask

>>67948477
Yes. Arguably not if you need fancy graphics, but those could be added later.

All theatrical plays are basically one take.

Yes, and in 60fps and first person view with user controlled outcomes too

>>67949493
>adding FX
That has to make shit even harder, because it's not like you get to do reshoots if the actors react wrong or the FX needs a re-touch.

If you have an interesting story to tell that's enhanced by the technique, do it. But really the general public is not interested enough in the "how" of filmmaking to even really notice or care.

>>67948477
All Nolan movies are shot in one take

Not if it's simply for the sake of it (i.e a gimmick)

>>67949573
having seen all of Nolan's films i can't recall a single long take in any of them, when will he step up?

comfy film

>>67949493
>All theatrical plays are basically one take.
wtf have you ever seen a play?

>>67949493
I agree with the last bit, the film basically felt like a theater play to me. The real feeling of time was also nice, but of course it is really challenging to do, and comes at of certain aspects like cinematography for example.

Also the 2nd half of this movie kinda sucked, thats what dissapointed me the most.

>>67949628
Long takes are at their worst when they call attention to themselves.

>>67948477
tfw every time you watch a movie you are constantly aware of every cut and every movie feels disjointed if it's not well edited or a string of long takes

>67948477
Yes, it makes easier to discern the easily impressed savvy fedora "movie-buff" crowd from actual intellectual and mature cinema appreciators.