C. Nolan's Interstellar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aronofsky for Batman? God no, his take on year one was effin terrible

If you put a leash on him, I think he could do a pretty good job. But I don't particularly want a super dark version for the next Batman. I would like to see something with the tone of Batman: The Animated Series, which had a very nice mix of adventure and darkness. I think Brad Bird as director with Bruce Timm and Paul Dini as producers could yield an awesome result.
 
I pretty much said the matrix is successful whereas inception is not. Then I said when someone like Aronofski get's batman, the truth of all of this will be all more apparent.
In case you didn't get that I was implying that Aron is better

How do you figure that? In terms of what?
 
The Matrix may be a better film, it may be more influential, but to say Inception is not successful on its own terms is freakin absurd. It made an incredible amount of money at the box office, it was nominated for eight Oscars, it is a resounding success anyway one looks at it.

Hell, Inception popularized its own overused technique.

Bullet time = Inception horn
 
Aronofsky for Batman? God no, his take on year one was effin terrible

In al fairness, didn't the script was developed by Frank Miller too? Because it seems that Miller went a little more crazy as years passed.
 
I like Inception better, but The Matrix is more influential certainly.
 
I like Inception better, but The Matrix is more influential certainly.

That is true, although I'm not convinced it was a good influence. The wire-fu action scenes that we've had to put up with for the last 13 years have really worn out their welcome at this point. Best thing about the Matrix is the philosophical stuff. I thought it was cool that WB allowed them to slip those ideas into a big budget movie.
 
Small script like Memento?
I'll give you that though I should have clarified. I said small and to the point. By that that I meant no clever layer of backwards plotting or dream worlds to distract the audience. Sorry but I find Insomnia pretty boring for it's genre. It's almost like that's what happens when Nolan is stripped down. Whereas Bound by the the wachowski's is far from boring...

A movie like that Amour(sp) that is getting all that oscar buzz. Much of Nolans acclaim seems to steam from bells and whistles rather than the substance. Which is all fine and well, but like I said, maybe that's why the academy feels is lacking.


You weren't mocking him? Sure came across that way.
Another assumption.

Aronofsky for Batman? God no, his take on year one was effin terrible
Like Abram's (dumb)script for superman, there was alot of other opinions involved. In this particular case I believe Frank Miller wrote that draft. Miller being a strange one when it comes to film.

I was thinking if Darren was given say, Goyers script. At the very least, the gritty underbelly or realism wouldn't feel so superficial. But we'll never know till it happens.
 
Last edited:
Confused here. In one breath you say they don't like his so called high minded mainstream accessibility(not sure where that comes from), but in the next breath you say that's something he has in common with the berg.

...meaning the academy not only doesn't like the berg, but for this very reason?

Yes. Steven Spielberg starting with Jaws and all the way to Jurassic Park (which includes Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark and its sequels, ET, Empire of the Sun, The Color Purple, etc.) never won an Oscar even though he was making a lot of great films. Most of them are now considered classics and a few to be masterpieces. His movies never won BP though and he never won BD. Why?

Because the Academy looked down on him as a sentimentalist who pandered with sentimentalist shlocky tripe that was low-brow and beneath them. Or in other words, many Academy members were jealous of his outrageous success as a filmmaker who could appeal to both audiences and critics. If they even admitted he was talented, they looked down on him as squandering it on mindless drivel.

He, like Hitchcock before him and Nolan now, was pretty much despised for making mainstream movies and spectacles. Then he made Schindler's List and that all changed. Now he is on the inside. But it took almost twenty years to get to that point. Food for thought.
 
I'll give you that though I should have clarified. I said small and to the point. By that that I meant no clever layer of backwards plotting or dream worlds to distract the audience.
Why though? Let those that can only make small time dramas make them. Not everyone is trusted with the amount of money Nolan gets to make films. He absolutely should use his standing in the industry to make films others can't.

As for Aronofsky, he makes amazing intimate dramas, but can he marry those sensibilities with mainstream Hollywood blockbusters? It's a skill that's taken for granted that very few in Hollywood have. How many artsy directors have turned their hand at popcorn films only to fail miserably?
 
Why though? Let those that can only make small time dramas make them. Not everyone is trusted with the amount of money Nolan gets to make films. He absolutely should use his standing in the industry to make films others can't.

As for Aronofsky, he makes amazing intimate dramas, but can he marry those sensibilities with mainstream Hollywood blockbusters? It's a skill that's taken for granted that very few in Hollywood have. How many artsy directors have turned their hand at popcorn films only to fail miserably?

My point was that Nolan relies on it to be interesting. Not all good directors do.
Imagine if you will a director that had a library of talked about films but each one had a backwards plot in momento fashion. Kudos for keeping it interesting but can you be interesting without the "bells and whistles"?
Again I'm just suggesting this as a critique the academy my have with the man. Though I'm not convinced they have one with him to be honest.

Aronofski is about to go big budget next year.
If only it was Wolverine though.
 
My point was that Nolan relies on it to be interesting. Not all good directors do.
Imagine if you will a director that had a library of talked about films but each one had a backwards plot in momento fashion. Kudos for keeping it interesting but can you be interesting without the "bells and whistles"?
Again I'm just suggesting this as a critique the academy my have with the man. Though I'm not convinced they have one with him to be honest.

Nolan's most acclaimed film is The Dark Knight, which has a straightforward structure. No flashbacks, no backwards storyelling, or anything along those lines. It's funny too because I actually prefer the films where he uses flashbacks and so forth. Memento, Prestige, and Batman Begins are all better than TDK for me.

And I'm not convinced they have an issue with this aspect of his films since they nominated Memento and Inception for the writing. If they had a big problem with him on this particular issue, neither of those scripts would have been anywhere near a nomination.
 
Yes. Steven Spielberg starting with Jaws and all the way to Jurassic Park (which includes Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark and its sequels, ET, Empire of the Sun, The Color Purple, etc.) never won an Oscar even though he was making a lot of great films. Most of them are now considered classics and a few to be masterpieces. His movies never won BP though and he never won BD. Why?

Because the Academy looked down on him as a sentimentalist who pandered with sentimentalist shlocky tripe that was low-brow and beneath them. Or in other words, many Academy members were jealous of his outrageous success as a filmmaker who could appeal to both audiences and critics. If they even admitted he was talented, they looked down on him as squandering it on mindless drivel.

He, like Hitchcock before him and Nolan now, was pretty much despised for making mainstream movies and spectacles. Then he made Schindler's List and that all changed. Now he is on the inside. But it took almost twenty years to get to that point. Food for thought.

I thought you meant something like that to be honest.

In those very years, was the Berg or his films nominated? If so than one can often assume the better picture or film won. For example in a year as stacked as this, one couldn't possible fault the academy not giving nolans ("weakest") bat picture the award. Point being, competition is a factor.

Secondly I'm not sure every one of those films mentioned was all that great when it comes to academy standards anyways. I mean I liked hook and et and JP as much as the next person but post 70's and into the Kubrick era(I think) I'm not too sure they measure up. War of the Worlds and Minority Report are seen as his lesser films I think, how much worse are they really...

The colour purple was a pretty lame compared to it's source material but I'll just chalk that snub up to the inherent racism in hollywood at the time.
He did Amistad as well right? Again there is better stuff out there.

Further more his most acclaimed work, the likes of Munich and Lincoln seem to get just the right amount of due if you ask me.

How you your paradigm explain the likes of James Cameron? Someone in a similar situation by definition.
If you ask me, I say his "better" work ends up getting it's praise.
 
Frank Miller may have co-written the script with Aronofsky but I doubt he'd change his own story to the degree that the B:YO script was.
 
My point was that Nolan relies on it to be interesting. Not all good directors do.
Imagine if you will a director that had a library of talked about films but each one had a backwards plot in momento fashion. Kudos for keeping it interesting but can you be interesting without the "bells and whistles"?
Again I'm just suggesting this as a critique the academy my have with the man. Though I'm not convinced they have one with him to be honest.

Aronofski is about to go big budget next year.
If only it was Wolverine though.

Or he could have just done it because it's the way he felt he could best tell the story, but that's just a crazy notion.

Not to mention in addition to The Dark Knight, Inception, Insomnia and The Dark Knight Rises are mostly straightforward. I don't count having a few flashbacks as being nonlinear.
 
I think The Universe is on Netflix Parker did you find it?
 
No just "The Universe" it's a TV series there should be 6 or 7 seasons.
 
Darn it. Maybe some day it will be, but it has some interesting episodes of worm holes time travel, and of course many other things. Sadly the show dipped for a while because History Channel is obsessed with anything about the world ending, and it gets old. But the earlier stuff and some of the later stuff is filled with good topics.
 
Oh it's History Channel. No wonder it's not on there.

Netflix dropped history channel about a month or two ago.
 
Yeah, I think Netflix got tired of all the useless History Channel shows.
 
Sadly I agree. From the late 90's to 2006 I watched that channel non-stop, as a massive history buff it's all I did. Now it's just become mainly crappy reality shows and speculative ways of the world ending.
 
Aronofsky for Batman? God no, his take on year one was effin terrible

He and Miller were told to take as radical a departure from Batman & Robin as possible. That was their draft designed to see just how far they could go.
 
How do you figure that? In terms of what?
Sorry, I didn't see this.


Well it's difficult to find a place to start to I'll just try to pick one area. Thought provoking and intelligent.

I find the Original Matrix, when stripped down to it's basic story was very engaging. As almost every green lit movie it's a love story. Thematically, it's man vs machine. It's also so connected to it's sci fi element that it just doesn't work without it. Whereas with inception, it's just a heist movie with a clever twist or layer. But that's just the genre, hardly anyone's fault.

The Matrix is imbued with several threads of real life celebrated philosophical ideas. About the cave we may live in and man vs the computer and various others. Inception... Well none I'm smart enough to know of.

I walk out of the matrix and I look up and I don't know what to think about the world I live in. It's the water cooler talk for months. With inception, many of the discussions revolve around an issue that could simply have been resolved had the film rolled for 6 more seconds.
To be fair there were also discussion about whose dreams were whose and how does limbo work.

Lastly, Inception was very much a self contained thing where the story tellers were just making and breaking and making their own rules as they went along. This is no more prevalent than when Dom has to explain to his own crew why they must now go deeper rather than just wake up. The audience is left to just look at each other and agree to play along as the writers starting designing new rules for the game levels.
With the matrix the rules are also self contained and made up(this is the ilk of dream movies) but they are established early on and never broken(till the pay off). Imagine if you will, that three levels down Dom has to re-explain what is now going on and how they are going to do the damn thing...funny enough, that actually happens. I don't find that sort of thing clever, it's very much cheating.
In the matrix, the equivalent to the dom scene I described earlier, would be for example when they are double crossed by the weasel and have get out of the building the hard way. And later when Neo has to find an alternate hardline...etc. no cheating or new rule defining necessary. Very clean.

I also thought the Matrix consistently more cinematic. I mean Inception had it's zero gravity elevator scene and it's folding city sequence(that only happened once) but outside of that I mostly remember scenes and sequences ranging from the typical range to the mundane as seen especially in the winter James bond level. And that's not just the writing's fault either. If the W-siblings had directed Inception I have a feeling I wouldn't have had this problem, but that's an assumption.

As fun as the zero g hall fight was the first time I saw it in inception, the "hall fights" in the matrix were just as engaging if not more but without that layer of distraction. Which I suppose has been my running theme in this thread.

I hope that wasn't too incoherent for anyone here(honestly), I apologize for turning this into an inception discussion. Couldn't be helped.

I don't hate Nolan, he's just yet to really get me on his side. He lost me with his take on Batman. After I read year one, he didn't stand a chance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,357
Messages
22,090,867
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"