All-Encompassing Christopher Nolan Discussion Thread

[weezerspider]

I'm not sure if it's a problem that a movie is less fun on repeat viewings.

I think it's telling how deep a film is based on what you get out of it on repeated viewings. 8 1/2 for example, seems to get better every time because I always learn something new it seems each viewing. Same with, say, Raging Bull. If you get everything more or less on the first view, the film's not that deep. Raiders of The Lost Arc, for example. Now, that doesn't mean its a bad film by any means, but it's definitely not a Raging Bull or Taxi Driver. Certain aspects of Inception were enhanced on multiple viewings for me and certain, like the exposition, were not.

 

[Kane52630]

Too bad I can't post it on the hype but you guys should check out this video on youtube. You'll really enjoy it.

The Movies of Christopher Nolan by ivanovstas

 

[mclay18]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who wants Nolan to go back to his roots -- stripped down, economical and frugal filmmaking like Following and The Prestige? I don't mind him doing big tentpole films, since he can do what he wants, but I find there's more creativity in them.

 

[Schlosser85]

Inception was a big blockbuster film, and also pretty inventive, IMO.

 

[DA_Champion]

Interstellar looks real inventive.

 

[slumcat]

But TDKR sucks because we haven't seen how Bruce was able to enter Gotham!

That is an absolutely fatal flaw I think.

I don't mind ellipsis. But not something over this. I think exposition can be in ellipsis, not major story events. They spent an emphatically extended amount of time telling us that Gotham was absolutely and completely shut down. Not even the US military or Navy Seals - who can go undetected into a nuclear powered country, kill the most wanted guy in the history of mankind, and take his body and fly out - could enter.

The biggest military might in the world could not enter Gotham and Batman could???

Two things

1) Something as significant as this - Batman breaking the biggest defense in the world which even had the military defeated HAD to be shown on screen. Absolutely had to be.

2) If it was so easy for Batman to just enter Gotham, he was the biggest idiot in the world to not tell the way to the US military so that they could also enter Gotham and put a end to the siege nonsense.

TDKR was a bigger fantasy and more implausible than even a Harry Potter movie with flying and magic and spells. TDKR makes no logical sense in the slightest.

 

[The Endless]

I agree. Batman's had waved return to Gotham was poor story telling. And him suddenly forgiving Selina for no real reason after she led him into Bane's trap and left him for dead was also baffling.

Rises had some great moments. But it had too many WTF moments for it to be considered a good movie in my eyes. It has just as many problems as Bay's Transformer sequels to me. It's just draped in a curtain of sophistication and quality due to the acting performances so it doesn't get so much vitriolic hate thrown at it.

 

[slumcat]

I think it's telling how deep a film is based on what you get out of it on repeated viewings. 8 1/2 for example, seems to get better every time because I always learn something new it seems each viewing. Same with, say, Raging Bull. If you get everything more or less on the first view, the film's not that deep. Raiders of The Lost Arc, for example. Now, that doesn't mean its a bad film by any means, but it's definitely not a Raging Bull or Taxi Driver. Certain aspects of Inception were enhanced on multiple viewings for me and certain, like the exposition, were not.

Allow me to propose another manner of looking at films. 8 1/2 is nothing if not a mind-bogglingly dazzlingly display of mis-en-scene brilliance, of spell-binding movement in the frame, of a imaginative use of the camera and editing, basically just plain direction.

Many great films have interest purely because of how they are directed - the cornerstone of auteur theory.

Raiders of the Lost Arc is dazzlingly directed - and is always engaging because of that. You will notice a previously unidentified brilliant shot or a previously unrealized clever editing choice on repeat viewings. That will make the repeat viewings rewarding.

It is the film-making which makes this movies as interesting they are. Citizen Kane is awe-inspiring because of how it is directed. Direction is almost abstract in a way, but once you start noticing it, movies take on a whole other dimension. It is incredibly pleasurable to see a well directed sequence.

Great movies have that of interest too.

Unfortunately there are few movies today which when I watch make me go - wow that was some truly exemplary direction.

 

[DA_Champion]

The biggest military might in the world could enter Gotham and Batman could???

That was part of the point. It was a commentary on Afghanistan, etc.

The US military had no problem entering Gotham, they got in just fine, we saw those three seals get into Gotham, just like the most powerful military in the world can get into Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. They were just in over their heads once they entered that new territory (to them), and were quickly dispatched.

Batman knew the terrain, he knew Gotham, and thus once he was inside he knew how to get around and be effective. He identified some of the right people and made progress.

Navy Seals - who can go undetected into a nuclear powered country, kill the most wanted guy in the history of mankind, and take his body and fly out - could enter.

It took a decade to get Bin Ladin, so bad example, they failed many times before they succeeded. Meanwhile, the US has suffered numerous military setbacks in recent times, most notably Iraq and Afghanistan where they've failed to achieve their aims.

 

[BatLobster]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who wants Nolan to go back to his roots -- stripped down, economical and frugal filmmaking like Following and The Prestige? I don't mind him doing big tentpole films, since he can do what he wants, but I find there's more creativity in them.

Some day, but not now. Like Nolan himself said, right now he has the opportunity to do big, ambitious projects and he needs to capitalize on that and not take anything for granted, because he may not always have such freedom.

 

[kvz5]

Anyone else think Nolan signing an exclusive deal with Disney is inevitable? He mentioned that he wanted to do more family friendly films, Alan Horn is there, WB is clearly more in love with him than he is with them, etc.

 

[mclay18]

Inception was a big blockbuster film, and also pretty inventive, IMO.

I meant creativity on a smaller budget. Not dissing Inception...

 

[Zantera]

Following is the only movie of his that I haven't seen, maybe I should? I would consider him in my top3 directors for sure. I hold Memento as his best, with Prestige and Inception close behind. After the Batman movies and Inception, I would love something more plot/character driven than an action movie. It feels like his movies are getting bigger and louder, and I would love to get another movie like Memento, smaller, but amazing.

 

[Anita18]

Following is the only movie of his that I haven't seen, maybe I should? I would consider him in my top3 directors for sure. I hold Memento as his best, with Prestige and Inception close behind. After the Batman movies and Inception, I would love something more plot/character driven than an action movie. It feels like his movies are getting bigger and louder, and I would love to get another movie like Memento, smaller, but amazing.

If you love Memento, you'll like Following. I consider it a baby Memento.

 

[georgec]

If you love Memento, you'll like Following. I consider it a baby Memento.

Following is a really fun movie - highly recommended.

 

[jmc]

I agree. Batman's had waved return to Gotham was poor story telling. And him suddenly forgiving Selina for no real reason after she led him into Bane's trap and left him for dead was also baffling.

Rises had some great moments. But it had too many WTF moments for it to be considered a good movie in my eyes. It has just as many problems as Bay's Transformer sequels to me. It's just draped in a curtain of sophistication and quality due to the acting performances so it doesn't get so much vitriolic hate thrown at it.

I've always thought Rises was very much a dressed up version of a dumb action film. I really disliked it when I first saw it, mostly because I could see how much better the film could have been had it not tried to be so convoluted. I think a big issue also is that it being linked to Begins more than TDK is really off putting to me, because it makes TDK feel like the bastard son of the series.

 

[Rocketman]

That is an absolutely fatal flaw I think.

I don't mind ellipsis. But not something over this. I think exposition can be in ellipsis, not major story events. They spent an emphatically extended amount of time telling us that Gotham was absolutely and completely shut down. Not even the US military or Navy Seals - who can go undetected into a nuclear powered country, kill the most wanted guy in the history of mankind, and take his body and fly out - could enter.

The biggest military might in the world could not enter Gotham and Batman could???

Two things

1) Something as significant as this - Batman breaking the biggest defense in the world which even had the military defeated HAD to be shown on screen. Absolutely had to be.

2) If it was so easy for Batman to just enter Gotham, he was the biggest idiot in the world to not tell the way to the US military so that they could also enter Gotham and put a end to the siege nonsense.

TDKR was a bigger fantasy and more implausible than even a Harry Potter movie with flying and magic and spells. TDKR makes no logical sense in the slightest.

The fail was already strong in this post, but the last part was even more delirious, haha.

Why can't Batman just be Batman? He's got resources. It's an entire city. Nobody has the slightest clue when he came back, how he came back, how long it took... He's just back. It doesn't matter. That's the mystique of the character. He's the world's greatest detective. Why do you want to waste a half-hour watching him sneak his way back into Gotham? It's such a lame complaint.

The dude utilized un-used technology to hack every cell phone in the city. He just has things that no one else has, and has methods no one else does. Deal with it, bro.

A general rule of movies: Just because someone didn't hold your hand and explain something, doesn't mean it is therefore impossible. The thing I love about Nolan is that almost all of his films have other movies "hiding" in between the scenes.

 

[Rocketman]

I've always thought Rises was very much a dressed up version of a dumb action film. I really disliked it when I first saw it, mostly because I could see how much better the film could have been had it not tried to be so convoluted. I think a big issue also is that it being linked to Begins more than TDK is really off putting to me, because it makes TDK feel like the bastard son of the series.

My only problem with TDKR is that it relied too heavily on BB and TDK without being its own film. If you watch BB and TDK, they literally have nothing to do with each other. TDK is easily its own film, and you're not even required to watch BB beforehand to know everything you need to know. It didn't refer to Ra's Al Ghul or the Narrows, or Richard Earle, hardly even Falcone, or anything.

TDKR asks the audience to know things from two movies ago, and if you didn't do a BB/TDK marathon before going to the theater, you would've easily been a little confused. All of a sudden Liam Neeson is just showing up out of nowhere but he's a hallucination. The movie should've been its own movie, and was too much of a sequel. TDK wasn't a sequel at all.

The problem lies somewhere in the fact that BB and TDK have nothing to do with each other, yet TDKR basically smooshed BB and TDK together into one film and called it "TDKR". TDKR relies on Harvey Dent's story AND Ra's Al Ghul's story simultaneously, and neither character were connected in any way. BB and TDK have completely different themes and approaches - one is more fantasy-based and more Sci-Fi based, while TDK is an urban crime drama. The problem isn't that they dropped the ball with TDKR, the problem is that the two previous films didn't give it a good foundation to build off of. They should've just ignored BB and TDK all together, like TDK did with BB.

They had a problem with Heath Ledger dying in real life and The Joker living in film, and Aaron Eckhart living in real life and dying on film. They had the complete opposites of what they needed for a sequel. So the clever solution was to jump forward 8 years, and doing that would've been perfect if they didn't refer to anything 8 years ago. Instead, they relied on everything from 8 years ago AND everything from two movies ago that meant nothing in TDK, WHILE completely ignoring The Joker. It just doesn't compute. If you're going to rely on everything that came before, there's no reason to make it 8 years. It could've been 6 months. 8 years is a good time to say "Okay, we're past all that from before." THAT'S how you solve the Ledger problem.

 

[BatLobster]

See, rather than making TDK a "bastard son", I thought having BB and TDKR as bookends only served to highlight TDK as the crown jewel and centerpiece of the saga even more. It's a good thing. TDK was such a singular movie, Joker such a singular character. They could've never tried to recreate that nor should they have. Would've cheapened what TDK was. I think TDKR found the perfect balance of allowing the events of TDK to have weight, while also following up on aspects of BB that TDK didn't. Also, if TDKR tried to be more of a followup to TDK, wouldn't that make BB the bastard child of the series? But yes, TDKR was the least stand alone of the three. I think it needed to be though...BB and TDK were so different, it needed something that took elements from both to fuse it all together into a coherent ending. That was what I was saying I wanted it to do long before I even knew what the movie was about.

And I agree about Nolan's films having what I like to call a life beyond the frame.

Also, we saw how special forces were able to enter the city with relative ease. What is Batman if not a glorified special forces guy? On top of that, it's HIS city and he knows it inside and out.

Le sigh, why must a Rises debate always rear its ugly head?

As for Nolan signing with Disney...I have no idea. I know Alan Horn is his buddy, but he really that unhappy at WB currently?

 

[jmc]

My only problem with TDKR is that it relied too heavily on BB and TDK without being its own film. If you watch BB and TDK, they literally have nothing to do with each other. TDK is easily its own film, and you're not even required to watch BB beforehand to know everything you need to know. It didn't refer to Ra's Al Ghul or the Narrows, or Richard Earle, hardly even Falcone, or anything.

TDKR asks the audience to know things from two movies ago, and if you didn't do a BB/TDK marathon before going to the theater, you would've easily been a little confused. All of a sudden Liam Neeson is just showing up out of nowhere but he's a hallucination. The movie should've been its own movie, and was too much of a sequel. TDK wasn't a sequel at all.

This is what I love about the four movies from 1989-1997: each of them stands alone as its own thing. That's how it should be.

I too had that issue. I'm tempted to sit down today to watch all 3 films in a row for the first time as it's a public holiday down here. Just wanna see how that affects things.

 

[BatLobster]

I think once you hit a third film, you have to call a spade a spade: it's a sequel to a sequel. What's the point in pretending that it's not? Why not draw from the rich backstory you've been establishing with the previous movies and build off of that? I don't think it's unfair to expect that the audience has watched the previous two films by the time you reach a third film. And Nolan is such a slave to classic storytelling, so of course Act 1 was going to have to play a role and have some payoffs in Act 3. I always expected some aspect of the LoS storyline to return. It was too much a part of Bruce's formation to be ignored.

I think it's also being a bit too literal to say just because Dent and Ra's didn't have anything to do with each other in the previous films means those thematic threads can't or shouldn't intertwine. Thematically I'd say it makes perfect sense- Ra's believed Gotham was beyond saving, and a false idol like Dent being a band-aid on an inherently broken society highlights this idea that Bruce was fighting an unwinnable fight and could only achieve some semblance of a victory with a massive lie...which dream Ra's points out to Bruce. I see all three movies as building off one another thematically each time even though they have differences in style, genre and focus...to me the thematic throughline through all three is strong and that's the main thing I care about when it comes to movie sequels, particularly when it comes to hero's journey stories like superheroes, Star Wars, etc.

Though flimsy, barely existent continuity was one of my biggest gripes with the 89-97 series.

 

[terry78]

I would be interested to see what Nolan would do with a PG limitation. It might still be cerebral, but hey. Something in the vein of Black Hole.

 

[Deserana]

The thing with Batman just waltzing into Gotham is an argument I get. I understand the "he's Batman" and "Do we have to see everything?" issues and in most cases I would be on board with it but not when the issue is directly contradicting a plot point. In this case it does. Like someone else said it was made clear that Bane had locked down the City. It doesn't drag the film down for me at all that they dont show it but when he does come back you are like "what the hell?".

IMO they should have showed it, yes we can fill in the gaps but when it's an actual plot point that the City is locked down just show his way of sneaking in. It would have been cool to see. In fact they didn't even need to show it, when Bruce walks up to Selina just have him disguised as a Mercenary. All is told in one shot.

 

[redhawk23]

That is an absolutely fatal flaw I think.

I don't mind ellipsis. But not something over this. I think exposition can be in ellipsis, not major story events. They spent an emphatically extended amount of time telling us that Gotham was absolutely and completely shut down. Not even the US military or Navy Seals - who can go undetected into a nuclear powered country, kill the most wanted guy in the history of mankind, and take his body and fly out - could enter.

The biggest military might in the world could not enter Gotham and Batman could???

Two things

1) Something as significant as this - Batman breaking the biggest defense in the world which even had the military defeated HAD to be shown on screen. Absolutely had to be.

2) If it was so easy for Batman to just enter Gotham, he was the biggest idiot in the world to not tell the way to the US military so that they could also enter Gotham and put a end to the siege nonsense.

TDKR was a bigger fantasy and more implausible than even a Harry Potter movie with flying and magic and spells. TDKR makes no logical sense in the slightest.

He borrowed Bruce Banner's motorcycle.

 

[redhawk23]

The fail was already strong in this post, but the last part was even more delirious, haha.

Why can't Batman just be Batman? He's got resources. It's an entire city. Nobody has the slightest clue when he came back, how he came back, how long it took... He's just back. It doesn't matter. That's the mystique of the character. He's the world's greatest detective. Why do you want to waste a half-hour watching him sneak his way back into Gotham? It's such a lame complaint.

The dude utilized un-used technology to hack every cell phone in the city. He just has things that no one else has, and has methods no one else does. Deal with it, bro.

A general rule of movies: Just because someone didn't hold your hand and explain something, doesn't mean it is therefore impossible. The thing I love about Nolan is that almost all of his films have other movies "hiding" in between the scenes.

Did you miss the entire first half of the film when he lost all of his resources, was beaten and abandoned on the literal other side of the world? Never was this iteration of Batman really established as being particularly intelligent, so he had neither the money nor the wits traditionally used to explain how Batman does the things he does.