I like Nolan, but these Kubrick comparisons are always ridiculous. Outside of both directors being considered "cold" and dismissive of the female characters , they are nothing alike. Either the process itself (Kubrick was as rigid as it gets , Nolan is extremely loose in form) or the films , they really don't have a lot in common.
The other similar denominator is that Warner probably funds almost everything he'll make in the future like they did with Kubrick (well not everything). But that's kinda it.