No, when you see Nolan cancel WB big batman project because a writing strike hits(ignoring the fact that he's partially responsible for scripting of course

). Then you will have your comparison. At that time TDK Nolan simply wasn't that dude quite yet so I don't see him pulling rank no. But I get it, some people don't feel strong without a solid piece of writing backing them up. When you're making drama's that's the safe bet.
Well you're fundamental difference is ill informed. Apparently Bay has put numerous passion projects on the back burner one in particular during this whole successful TF ordeal. He might even be doing it for one more TF picture simple to get studio backing. I mean if that's your measure of cred than so be it.
Moreover the budget for Inception is a little wild as far as passion projects go nowadays but that's relative I suppose. Bays "passion project" is actually pretty cheap reports claim.
Either way, the two film directors have a lot in common as much dismay as that may bring to film fans.
I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like you're understanding me, so it still feels like we're at cross purposes here. Plus which, you know, thank you for: (1) taking "dream projects" and running with it and completely ignoring/dismissing the point I was making with bringing up
Inception; and (2) the unprovoked jab at my being ill-informed when I had provided an original caveat of "to my understanding." As ever, that is extraordinarily conducive toward productive conversation.
I stand by my original assertion: Nolan is first and foremost a storyteller who uses film as the medium through which he tells the story, so even his technical mastery -- his dedication to IMAX, for instance -- is filtered through that lens. His focus (or vision, if you will) is inextricably tied to the script; that is what I mean when I say that I believe Nolan would never make a film without a script he believes in. That his films accomplish whatever accolades people throw at him -- that he is
thought-provoking,
entertaining, audacious, what-the-hell-ever -- I think it's important to keep in mind the fact that Nolan approaches film-making from a very clear perspective:
how will this serve the story I'm trying to tell? And people respond to that: at the core of a good film, there is a good story.
That is not Michael Bay's approach. I think if Nolan can be called a storyteller, then Bay can probably be called an entertainer, because his films are enjoyable on a level that doesn't necessarily have much to do with the story at all. Film-making is a complicated process, and the primary brunt of his focus is clearly on aspects that are not necessarily the script -- which, yes, means that he's
really good at directing action scenes, but there's the feeling that these big spectacular set pieces are for their own sake and not intended to necessarily serve the story in an integral way. And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, that it makes him a bad director, that it's ~insulting~ to mention Bay and Nolan in the same sentence -- I'm saying that they're very, very different directors. Both being able to deliver spectacle on the big screen doesn't make them similar, if they arrive at that result from entirely different points of departure.
(And you know what, all right, full disclosure: I'm not in the demographic that a Bay film targets. I get that. I think he's probably a misogynistic ******* but I have no qualms against his works, because it's not a crime to make films that don't cater to my tastes.)