I actually enjoy Nolan's films but I've never been shy about criticizing shit I enjoy or where I get tired of a director's shtick. A lot of director/writers write/direct women like shit or they solve the problem by not (or just barely) having them in their films. Women as window dressing or flat characters isn't just a Nolan thing but it's most certainly a trend with his films that can't be ignored.
Nolan attempting to inject humanity into his films is a riot, as it routinely devolves into tela novella tier melodrama. His male power fantasies even leave desires unmet since his action directing is consistently lukewarm. His catalogue amounts to little more than some riddles and a middling to good fireworks displays, and ya know what, I'm down for that sometimes. I find it funny people casually call him master when receipts say he's actually watered down Spielberg with some pretension and a Rolex fetish.
By Moris Go To PostRetreading the same ground with the same flaws as his other 'don't watch twice for your own sake of enjoyment' filmography, I'd say yes.Alejandro González Iñárritu?
I mean, I agree that Nolan’s characters don’t talk like real humans, but then neither do Mike Leigh characters, or Lanthimos characters. I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. What is more fair is what Moris alludes to, that he wants to have his cake and eat it by having Spielbergian sentimentality alongside mindblowing action, when in reality he isn’t great at either.
I’m a big fan, but I think he’s always a solid 7/8 and has never consistently peaked that. Which is not to call him a hack or a genius. He’s just a good filmmaker and I think it’s a good thing we have someone so singular and who has such trademarks and identity working with such big budgets and who is THE name director right now. When Scorsese is having to take himself to Netflix or Apple because no one else will fund him, then I’m all in for someone wanting to give Nolan 250m every time he has a wet dream about something time related and projects his flawed notion of how humans interact with each other onto it.
I’m a big fan, but I think he’s always a solid 7/8 and has never consistently peaked that. Which is not to call him a hack or a genius. He’s just a good filmmaker and I think it’s a good thing we have someone so singular and who has such trademarks and identity working with such big budgets and who is THE name director right now. When Scorsese is having to take himself to Netflix or Apple because no one else will fund him, then I’m all in for someone wanting to give Nolan 250m every time he has a wet dream about something time related and projects his flawed notion of how humans interact with each other onto it.
nolan's action directing is among the worst, for a man who did 3 batman films he never nailed batman fighting like even Snyder did in that batman warehouse sequence
By sy Go To PostdenisThe true GOAT these days.
villneueve
if we're talking about name directors, then tarantino is at the top, easily.
his films are marketed as "quentin tarantino's [x]th film." with nolan, they'll market it as "from the director of INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT."
tarantino is practically a film brand. nolan isn't.
his films are marketed as "quentin tarantino's [x]th film." with nolan, they'll market it as "from the director of INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT."
tarantino is practically a film brand. nolan isn't.
By bud Go To Postif we're talking about name directors, then tarantino is at the top, easily.id bet anything that it's in Taratino's contract
his films are marketed as "quentin tarantino's [x]th film." with nolan, they'll market it as "from the director of INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT."
tarantino is practically a film brand. nolan isn't.
whether that's true or not, it works. people always look forward to a new tarantino film because it's a new tarantino film.
By bud Go To Postwhether that's true or not, it works. people always look forward to a new tarantino film because it's a new tarantino film.It's the exact same thing as marketing tenet as "from the director of inception" is what I'm getting at.
By n8 dogg Go To PostI mean, I agree that Nolan’s characters don’t talk like real humans, but then neither do Mike Leigh characters, or Lanthimos characters. I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. What is more fair is what Moris alludes to, that he wants to have his cake and eat it by having Spielbergian sentimentality alongside mindblowing action, when in reality he isn’t great at either.
I’m a big fan, but I think he’s always a solid 7/8 and has never consistently peaked that. Which is not to call him a hack or a genius. He’s just a good filmmaker and I think it’s a good thing we have someone so singular and who has such trademarks and identity working with such big budgets and who is THE name director right now. When Scorsese is having to take himself to Netflix or Apple because no one else will fund him, then I’m all in for someone wanting to give Nolan 250m every time he has a wet dream about something time related and projects his flawed notion of how humans interact with each other onto it.
It's worse than they don't talk like real people, some Directors/Writers have a specific or 'unnatural' dialogue style that adds rather than subtracts from their work. My biggest gripe is how mundane, boring and generic Nolan's dialogue is, not so much that it's 'unnatural'.
You can find Nolan's tone and style on any day time soap. He's good for a premise that's fun at first impression and some high production values, there's definitely value in that, a tremendous amount even. I guess I have to point out that my criticisms of his work aren't calls for him not to work again or anything. Despite his flaws he fills the loud summer popcorn movie lane and is typical a level above the schlocky Hollywood action movies that he competes with.
By inky Go To PostNolan is not even top 5 THE name directors atm, come the fuck on. You british lads…
Of course he is. He has a mainstream following that no one else has, coupled with a free license with budget. Tarantino, Anderson, Spielberg, Villenueve, Fincher, Bay, Snyder... none of them have both of those things.
Just because he isn’t the best around doesn’t mean he’s not the biggest around.
By bud Go To Postwhether that's true or not, it works. people always look forward to a new tarantino film because it's a new tarantino film.
He’s the only exception, but Tarantino has never made a film for £250m, nor would he get that if asked for it.
Nolan is a brand. Dunkirk - a WW2 movie - made 550m dollars. Interstellar made 700m. He’s the one person out there with both unlimited budget and uncompromising vision, however flawed or weak that vision may be. That alone makes him interesting.
Of course, I’d trade one Nolan film for five Wes Andersons, or fifty Celine Sciammas.
Tarantino, Spielberg, alone have much more of a mainstream name than him. You don't think they could get any movie they wanted greenlit? Nevermind cultural significance and talent. Whole package.
If budget and box office a name made, Russo bros would be the biggest names working today. They just had the biggest movie in history and a 300m original movie deal with Netflix. And speaking of "biggest", I'd even put Cameron ahead. He's making 4 Avatar movies for 1B ffs.
If budget and box office a name made, Russo bros would be the biggest names working today. They just had the biggest movie in history and a 300m original movie deal with Netflix. And speaking of "biggest", I'd even put Cameron ahead. He's making 4 Avatar movies for 1B ffs.
By inky Go To PostTarantino, Spielberg, alone have much more of a mainstream name than him. You don't think they could get any movie they wanted greenlit? Nevermind cultural significance and talent. Whole package.
If budget and box office a name made, Russo bros would be the biggest names working today. They just had the biggest movie in history and a 300m original movie deal with Netflix. And speaking of "biggest", I'd even put Cameron ahead. He's making 4 Avatar movies for 1B ffs.
There is absolutely no way people would give Tarantino and Spielberg the money they give Nolan. Absolutely no way. I don’t think mainstream filmgoers would flock to a Spielberg movie the way they will for Nolan, whether they know that’s his actual name or whether they just know it’s by the TDK/Inception guy.
Russos getting a deal with Netflix is not exactly the same as Nolan, I think. Netflix spunk money on everything, I don’t think that particularly has the credit of the traditional studios doing so (and, my original point was also that Nolan is a director of singular vision AND gets given this money; the Russos are not that).
Cameron, I’ll grant you is up there as an auteurist/singular dictator given fuckloads of money. But if we’re going to argue Tarantino has more name recognition than Nolan, which I agree he does, then Cameron will be more recognised as ‘the director of Avatar’ than Nolan will ‘the director of TDK’. I guarantee Nolan has more name recognition than Cameron.
I've no idea what inky is arguing by "mainstream name". "The Director of The Dark Knight and INception" carries far more mainstream weight than "The 10th film by Quentin Tarantino"/
By that token, "from The directors of Marvel's 10 billion dollar machine" carries the most mainstream weight ever.
If we are talking about name brand from auteur visionaries spanning decades with cultural significance on top. Tarantino, Spielberg, Cameron are bigger names than Nolan's TDK. Fact.
If we are talking about name brand from auteur visionaries spanning decades with cultural significance on top. Tarantino, Spielberg, Cameron are bigger names than Nolan's TDK. Fact.
^ we’ll see when they actually use that on a film and have box office receipts as empirical data m8
I guess name recognition as an individual, but I think yes you’re right - more people will go see a film with the former than the latter.
Which isn’t a sole arbiter of Nolan’s uniqueness, mind, because of course people will go see Avengers or Transformers over anything else. But a) that’s because of the property name attached to it (we’ll see if people rush to the next Russo project that isn’t Marvel) and b) those movies also don’t have singular auteurist traits like Nolan’s films do, save fucking shaky cam
By sy Go To PostI've no idea what inky is arguing by "mainstream name". "The Director of The Dark Knight and INception" carries far more mainstream weight than "The 10th film by Quentin Tarantino"/
I guess name recognition as an individual, but I think yes you’re right - more people will go see a film with the former than the latter.
Which isn’t a sole arbiter of Nolan’s uniqueness, mind, because of course people will go see Avengers or Transformers over anything else. But a) that’s because of the property name attached to it (we’ll see if people rush to the next Russo project that isn’t Marvel) and b) those movies also don’t have singular auteurist traits like Nolan’s films do, save fucking shaky cam
By inky Go To PostBy that token, "from The directors of Marvel's 10 billion dollar machine" carries the most mainstream weight ever.yes? Which is why the mainstream has always been trash.
By n8 dogg Go To PostThere is absolutely no way people would give Tarantino and Spielberg the money they give Nolan. Absolutely no way.m8, what are you blabbering on about. War of the Worlds, Crystal Skull, Tintin, BFG And Ready Player One all had Nolanesque budgets.
By sy Go To Postyes? Which is why the mainstream has always been trash.But that's not what n9 was arguing in our back and forth.
By DY_nasty Go To PostKristen Wiig doing a Tom Cruise impression at 1:00
looks bad ngl
By FortuneFaded Go To Postm8, what are you blabbering on about. War of the Worlds, Crystal Skull, Tintin, BFG And Ready Player One all had Nolanesque budgets.
a) they are all adaptations, unlike Nolan’s stuff - so it isn’t so much Spielberg being given the money as Spielberg being given the franchise.
b) Crystal Skull at £185m is the only really comparable one, arguably Ready Player One too, but they’re about 50m less than Tenet, which nears £250m. There are huge optics on the production side of things - a film that comes under £200m can be relatively middling performance wise and it still doesn’t have the stigma of something like Solo, which cost pretty much what it made at the box office. Silly as it sounds, these companies see a bigger difference between 180 and 200 than they do 160 and 180.
Again, Nolan is:
a) being given 200-250m to make a movie
b) making original movies not attached to a property or adaptation
c) making movies that are very ‘Christopher Nolan’
d) making 600m+ on films that are original properties
Spielberg isn’t doing that. The Russos aren’t doing that. James Cameron DID do that, but over ten years ago and his next ones are sequels. He’s a special case.
its also because tarantino and spielberg dont make movies that rely on huge spectacles as much as nolan, nolan is all about the big set pieces and getting to those set pieces
By n8 dogg Go To Postwe’ve been arguing so long about this we didnt recognise a masterpiecethere are people that will legitimately say this trailer is a cinematic masterpiece because they synced the action to the song
It looks godawful and, knowing full well that the people who are prepared to love it will do so anyway, I can only hope critic reviews are savage enough to start war on twitter
Suicide squad Semi trailer too
Producer says this not a superhero movie. This is a gritty 70s war movie
Film has polka dot man and king shark
Producer says this not a superhero movie. This is a gritty 70s war movie
Film has polka dot man and king shark
By n8 dogg Go To PostHe’s the only exception, but Tarantino has never made a film for £250m, nor would he get that if asked for it.
Nolan is a brand. Dunkirk - a WW2 movie - made 550m dollars. Interstellar made 700m. He’s the one person out there with both unlimited budget and uncompromising vision, however flawed or weak that vision may be. That alone makes him interesting.
Of course, I’d trade one Nolan film for five Wes Andersons, or fifty Celine Sciammas.
By n8 dogg Go To Posta) they are all adaptations, unlike Nolan’s stuff - so it isn’t so much Spielberg being given the money as Spielberg being given the franchise.
b) Crystal Skull at £185m is the only really comparable one, arguably Ready Player One too, but they’re about 50m less than Tenet, which nears £250m. There are huge optics on the production side of things - a film that comes under £200m can be relatively middling performance wise and it still doesn’t have the stigma of something like Solo, which cost pretty much what it made at the box office. Silly as it sounds, these companies see a bigger difference between 180 and 200 than they do 160 and 180.
Again, Nolan is:
a) being given 200-250m to make a movie
b) making original movies not attached to a property or adaptation
c) making movies that are very ‘Christopher Nolan’
d) making 600m+ on films that are original properties
Spielberg isn’t doing that. The Russos aren’t doing that. James Cameron DID do that, but over ten years ago and his next ones are sequels. He’s a special case.
that isn't a fair comparison.
nolan makes big summer blockbuster movies; tarantino doesn't.
and nolan didn't get big budgets until he started the batman movies (adapted from the comics) which were hugely successful. and he's working with warner bros. who can greenlight much bigger projects than miramax who did most of tarantino's films.
if tarantino were to make the switch to making movies like that, and if he'd work with bigger studios, then, yes, he'd definitely get similar budgets.
By data Go To PostEveryone likes EwanI thought people hated the prequels though?
By DY_nasty Go To PostHaving the Chris Pine character come back just why. Rest of it looks shit but I don't even have time to dwell on Wiig as a stupid ass cheetah woman.
looks bad ngl
Got a c9 with a great deal here a few months ago (685 brexits), so been watching way more movies than I usual do. Really slept on Train to Busan. Great movie. Wish there was more movies with proper good hdr and 4k, I really cant stand all the super hero trash so that is out of the question. Re-watching blade runner and mad max on it too though, oof.
By Wahabipapangus Go To PostGot a c9 with a great deal here a few months ago (685 brexits), so been watching way more movies than I usual do. Really slept on Train to Busan. Great movie. Wish there was more movies with proper good hdr and 4k, I really cant stand all the super hero trash so that is out of the question. Re-watching blade runner and mad max on it too though, oof.
Where, brother Wooden?!!