• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • Valentine's Day

    Happy Valentine's Day, Guest!

Christopher Nolan vs Quentin Tarantino ( Kill/Save)

Nolan vs Tarantino

  • Nolan

  • Tarantino


Results are only viewable after voting.
What is deep and ground-breaking about Nolan in contrast to what Tarantino has done? Because to me Nolan's movies have very little substance.
What is deep, where is that substance? Well, watch Memento, The Prestige, TDK or Interstellar again... Pay attention to themes in those films, to dialogues and monologues, to ways how protagonists react to and reflect situations around them.

Pay attention to intentions of characters, how they put their ideas into action, what they sacrifice to get what they want, look at consequences of their actions. Heed the obsessive behaviour of Leonard, Angeir, Borden, Wayne... Those films are full of psychological and philosophical ideas you can think about for the whole rest of your life.
3.gif


IMO those films are ground-breaking, I've never seen things like that put together in such manner. Entertaining yet so clever, sophisticated, emotional and original. To me they are amongst the best artistic endeavours I've ever experienced. Maybe because I'm psychologically flawed in very similar ways the protagonists of Nolan's films are. His films speak right to my core. I can understand those obsessive somewhat self-destructive idealists... I can understand them and I feel their struggle.

Baffled Leonard, going for revenge again and again, unable to tell what's real, what's some reflection, what's illusion of his mind. Angeir and Borden, giving everything dear in their lives and their lives themselves to achieve their, for other people incomprehensible, goals. Wayne's obsessive adherence to rules and ideas over pragmatism and self-preservation. Cooper's standpoint between the species or the individual. Etc., etc.

On the formalistic side, pay attention to structure of Memento or The Prestige, because their structures reflect the main perspectives of those films, i.e. loss of short-term memory and three parts of any proper magic trick. And watch how multi-layered their narration is. How sophisticated scripts for those films are. It's just mind-boggling. The amount of detail and complexity. I think scripts for TDK and Interstellar are just brilliant (it's like the borderline of human script-writing capabilities
3.gif
).

I have to see Inception again to take some standpoint.

I would love to discuss your observations from watching those films, there is so much to talk about. So if you want, just write here where's the subtance missing and we can look at that in detail. :woot:
And if you know some similar artists, please recommend. :yay:
 
How can you possibly Compare tjese completly different directors and styles. Tarantino is responsible for some of the greatest dialogue driven movies in history and nolan for the greatest comicbook
Dramas in history.
 
How can you possibly Compare tjese completly different directors and styles. Tarantino is responsible for some of the greatest dialogue driven movies in history and nolan for the greatest comicbook
Dramas in history.

The thing is, I find dialogues between Joker and Batman, Leonard and Teddy or Angier, Borden and Cutter much more engaging and interesting, which doesn't mean Tarantino writes bad dialogs, or that I don't like his films, in a fact I like some of his work very much, but I don't find his dialogues intellectual enough to prefer them over the Nolan's stuff. That's just my point of view, of course.

And the second point. TDK is the greatest comicbook drama in history, no doubt (YMMV...I know :woot:), but then you have things like The Prestige, Memento or Interstellar, so you cannot reduce Nolan's stuff just to comicbook dramas.
 
I find a lot of Nolan's dialogue unnatural and stilted really. It's like characters are just monologing AT each other instead of speaking TO each other. And characters seem to talk about the themes of his movies a lot. It's all just so on the nose, like that are not real people living in his worlds, but actors reading out lines from a script. The "show, don't tell" rule is broken a lot.

Don't get me wrong it's not always a bad thing. Some of his dialogue is really poetic and effective.

But give me two dudes bsing about a Royal with cheese over some of the melodramtic tripe Nolan serves up sometimes. Tarantino's irreverent dialogue tells me just as much, if not more about his characters AS PEOPLE than Nolan's on the nose and unnatural monologues that literally explain everything.
 
Yeah, Nolan's exposition/dialogue is beyond apparent. Michael Bay has his explosions, JJ Abrams has his lens flares, and Nolan has his exposition.
 
What is deep, where is that substance? Well, watch Memento, The Prestige, TDK or Interstellar again... Pay attention to themes in those films, to dialogues and monologues, to ways how protagonists react to and reflect situations around them.

Pay attention to intentions of characters, how they put their ideas into action, what they sacrifice to get what they want, look at consequences of their actions. Heed the obsessive behaviour of Leonard, Angeir, Borden, Wayne... Those films are full of psychological and philosophical ideas you can think about for the whole rest of your life.
3.gif


IMO those films are ground-breaking, I've never seen things like that put together in such manner. Entertaining yet so clever, sophisticated, emotional and original. To me they are amongst the best artistic endeavours I've ever experienced. Maybe because I'm psychologically flawed in very similar ways the protagonists of Nolan's films are. His films speak right to my core. I can understand those obsessive somewhat self-destructive idealists... I can understand them and I feel their struggle.

Baffled Leonard, going for revenge again and again, unable to tell what's real, what's some reflection, what's illusion of his mind. Angeir and Borden, giving everything dear in their lives and their lives themselves to achieve their, for other people incomprehensible, goals. Wayne's obsessive adherence to rules and ideas over pragmatism and self-preservation. Cooper's standpoint between the species or the individual. Etc., etc.

On the formalistic side, pay attention to structure of Memento or The Prestige, because their structures reflect the main perspectives of those films, i.e. loss of short-term memory and three parts of any proper magic trick. And watch how multi-layered their narration is. How sophisticated scripts for those films are. It's just mind-boggling. The amount of detail and complexity. I think scripts for TDK and Interstellar are just brilliant (it's like the borderline of human script-writing capabilities
3.gif
).

I have to see Inception again to take some standpoint.

I would love to discuss your observations from watching those films, there is so much to talk about. So if you want, just write here where's the subtance missing and we can look at that in detail. :woot:
And if you know some similar artists, please recommend. :yay:

I like how you articulated this. Very awesome! You described why fanboys love Nolan to an Insane degree!! Most folks don't understand, He touches on the human condition.
 
Never hearing of one of the most acclaimed and influential directors of the last 25 years isn't a badge of honor. It's an admission of ignorance.

It's not like we're talking about an obscure art house director either. Tarantino movies regularly gross over $100 million and are nominated for Oscars.

In this case "I never Heard of him" is the equivalent of saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about. "

Even though I love Q Mr. Nolan films are guaranteed a bill= 1 billion dollars give or take everytime he drops! He eats up Q it's not even close!!
 
It was close. Nolan won by 1 vote. How many times did you vote?
 
The poll is closed so I cant vote now but my vote would have gone to Tarantino. I love Nolan too though.
 
I would save Nolan and it isn't even close. Although I would miss Django. Really would love to see a Nolan Western.

Consona said it very well, btw. Nolan's films all speak to me in ways and layers that no other filmmaker ever has. Quentin is always an enjoyable watch, usually surprising and clever, but nowhere near the same level of sophistication and artistry (in my opinion, obviously).
 
Tarantino makes perfect movies, Nolan's movies have too many things that can be changed
 
What does a 'perfect movie' mean?

I wouldnt call Quentin's movies perfect, but they definitely have more impressive acting, dialogue, cinematography, editing, and music than Nolan's movies IMO.
 
They're perfect for what he's aiming to do, Nolan's aren't always so.
 
Chris Nolan much better director and his movies a lot better than Tarantino's. Nolan's are closer to perfect than Tarantino's I think.
 
Chris Nolan much better director and his movies a lot better than Tarantino's. Nolan's are closer to perfect than Tarantino's I think.

How so? Nolan keeps aiming at a type of realism he hasn't been able to completely perfect, his films deal with dreams and weird different worlds, yet don't diverge from day to day stuff when it comes to the look and visuals, and as whole, Tarantino has been able to analyse more themes that mainstream films rarely talk about. Take Django for example, in the end, the big bad that caused the biggest problems wasn't simply Candy, it was Stephen, who symbolises internal racism. Corrupton of a city and fear are interesting themes, and Nolan aproached them very well, but they're very common to see explored in the mainstream.

Tarantino's also much better with dialogue.

They're both amazing Directors, i love Nolan too, and i think it's hard to compare both due to how different their styles are, but i would say that Tarantino is the better film Director of the two.
 
Last edited:
How so? Nolan keeps aiming at a type of realism he hasn't been able to completely perfect, his films deal with dreams and weird different worlds, yet don't diverge from day to day stuff when it comes to the look and visuals, and as whole, Tarantino has been able to analyse more themes that mainstream films rarely talk about. Take Django for example, in the end, the big bad that caused the biggest problems wasn't simply Candy, it was Stephen, who symbolises internal racism.

Tarantino's also much better with dialogue.

They're both amazing Directors, i love Nolan too, and i think it's hard to compare both due to how different their styles are, but i would say that Tarantino is the better film Director of the two.

Disagreed Nolan not keep aiming at type of realism, he just aim for a maturity that he has perfected. That why his movies always so successful because he succeed in what he aim for. His visuals and cinematography are so brilliant I think better than Tarantino's. Tarantino's movies get too silly violent and lots of his characters like in Kill Bill are very cartoony to me. Racism is theme explored a lot in other movies too but I don't think Tarantino do it as well as others.

Tarantino is good but Nolan is a lot better.
 
How so? Nolan keeps aiming at a type of realism he hasn't been able to completely perfect, his films deal with dreams and weird different worlds, yet don't diverge from day to day stuff when it comes to the look and visuals, and as whole, Tarantino has been able to analyse more themes that mainstream films rarely talk about. Take Django for example, in the end, the big bad that caused the biggest problems wasn't simply Candy, it was Stephen, who symbolises internal racism.

Tarantino's also much better with dialogue.

They're both amazing Directors, i love Nolan too, and i think it's hard to compare both due to how different their styles are, but i would say that Tarantino is the better film Director of the two.
I mean, their styles are wholy different. Nolan works really well because his ideas are more far-reaching and complex, yet are presented in a very relatable way, which amplifies its internal effect. Tarantino usually has very simple themes explored simply, but through interesting stories and characters, and are told through over the top imagery and actions.

It's apples and oranges. Personally I tend to find Tarantino's works pretty hollow (as compared to Nolan) - you rarely gain more appreciation the more you watch because it's almost all on the surface in terms of the deeper elements. With nolan, the more you watch, the more layers you uncover, and the more you realize that the 'stilted dialog' is always serving multiple purposes, both in terms of exploring the characters and their interactions with the world and the many themes throughout.

I would say Tarantino is better at writing dialog and playing with structural and cinematic conventions, but Nolan is the better writer in terms of crafting complicated, engaging and unique stories that only become more impressive and layered the more you watch them, and to me personally, are always much more relatable as a person. When I walk out of a Tarantino movie, my reaction is, "Damn, that was fun." But I quickly forget about the movie, beyond that I enjoyed it. When i walk out of a Nolan movie my reaction is, "Holy ****, I've never experienced that before." And the movie's themes and characters continue to churn in my brain for the next couple of months.

Having said that - they're both incredible filmmakers who bridge entertainment and the intellectual better than almost any other filmmaker working today. I would love to be able to save them both - and luckily, in real life, I still can appreciate them both without it aversely affecting the other. :yay:
 
Last edited:
For my tastes, easily Nolan. Tarantino's a good director, but not my thing personally. I just tend to not be particularly engaged by his writing. There are exceptions, of course, but speaking broadly.
 
Last edited:
Disagreed Nolan not keep aiming at type of realism, he just aim for a maturity that he has perfected. That why his movies always so successful because he succeed in what he aim for. His visuals and cinematography are so brilliant I think better than Tarantino's. Tarantino's movies get too silly violent and lots of his characters like in Kill Bill are very cartoony to me. Racism is theme explored a lot in other movies too but I don't think Tarantino do it as well as others.

Tarantino is good but Nolan is a lot better.


What Tarantino does is embrace the fun of film with the violence, while at the same time still getting his points across. And regarding his characters being cartoonish, they're all very three-dimensional and relatable, it feels like they are real characters stuck in exploitation film worlds, which is why the Bride's final confrontation with Bill is so personal and barely has any action, it's the reason we have gangsters discussing day-to-day stuff in Pulp Fiction, why the ending of Reservoir Dogs was as sad as it was funny, etc.

Regarding Cinematography, Nolan's films are gorgeous to look at for the most part (aside from Following), but they also display something i'm getting tired of to see in most modern films, which is the greyish filter that makes all the scenes look darker and the general feel "edgier".

Tarantino on the other hand is very colorful and varied, his scenes look gorgeous, these are just some examples (a i'm not even sure these images are of high quality):

Pulp-Fiction-uma-thurman-5876880-1280-800.jpg

pulp.png

This video has some good examples too:

https://vimeo.com/122335428

Once again, a fan of both cinematographies, it depends one what you're after, Nolan's usualy more urban centered, while Tarantino's usualy more colorful.
 
I find a lot of Nolan's dialogue unnatural and stilted really. It's like characters are just monologing AT each other instead of speaking TO each other. And characters seem to talk about the themes of his movies a lot. It's all just so on the nose, like that are not real people living in his worlds, but actors reading out lines from a script. The "show, don't tell" rule is broken a lot.

The worst for me is the last scene of TDK. Gordon talking to his kid is soooo cheesy. I keep seeing people list it as a favourite movie ending, but c'mon, nobody talks like that.
 
I would save Nolan and it isn't even close. Although I would miss Django. Really would love to see a Nolan Western.

Consona said it very well, btw. Nolan's films all speak to me in ways and layers that no other filmmaker ever has. Quentin is always an enjoyable watch, usually surprising and clever, but nowhere near the same level of sophistication and artistry (in my opinion, obviously).

He's getting ready to do a Japanese style anime Akira which will take up some of Q's market share on that type of film. EVen though the fanbay's will say Q doesn't do anime. He does do oriental type stuff all the time Q fanboys.
 
The worst for me is the last scene of TDK. Gordon talking to his kid is soooo cheesy. I keep seeing people list it as a favourite movie ending, but c'mon, nobody talks like that.
This comes down to personal taste. Nolan is a classic storyteller and imo, the best when it comes to exposition and cinematic use of words. I know people complain about that, but what he does is masterful. I never feel it in the same way you do in that it's contrived or forced. He has talked about how he's very particular about how he needs this information to feel warranted, fluid and true to the characters.

It's pretty interesting to see how people react to things, but the end of TDK is amazing in my opinion. The combination of elements creates an amazing crescendo of thematic importance, hopefulness and the darkness we know is coming, that define both Gordon and Batman and their relationship. It's a trifecta of emotions that's incredibly rare and difficult to achieve.

Is how Gordon is talking/the way it's edited 'natural' in the sense that that's how he would explain this to his child? Not really. But it works perfectly to use cinematic language to become something more than just somebody talking. And the words he says are completely in character and in Gordon's line of thinking. So to me, what Nolan did really transcends the modern idea of things having to be very natural, and using the medium to achieve the magic of movies, combined with all the intellectual reasons that make those moments mean so much more than just words.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"