The Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Nolan Batman Trilogy

[Monsieur Xavier]

Even with prep Batman can't win vs LotR team but he would still kill Boromir ( accidentally ).

 

[Anno_Domini]

Actually he probably could kill most of the team besides Gandalf.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Let's be serious, Batman doesn't kill. Boromir get a pass because he is Boromir AND Sean Bean.

 

[Tequilla]

To all who are declaring that all Peter Jackson has are splatter films and Lord of the Rings (because yeah one of the highest grossing and highly awarded film franchises obviously counts for nothing)

Please for your own sake watch Beautiful Creatures.

Beautiful Creatures is better written, better directed and more emotionally compelling than most of Nolan's films. It even has better dream-like sequences than inception, using mostly practical effects.

Heavenly Creatures , not Beautiful. But i think his splatter films are easily his best ones. Shame he completely ran away from his origins .

 

[milost]

The Lord of the Rings, no question about it.

 

[The Dark Defender]

The Prestige vs. King Kong
Inception vs. The Lovely Bones

I think Jackson easily wins both of those too.

I thought the Prestige was a bore (far more boring than King Kong at half the length or less) that mis-handled its own themes, Inception was nothing special at all either...it's a film so concerned with over-explaining its own mythos that it leaves hardly any time for anything else. They had Tom Hardy in the movie who's a great actor, and when he was cast as Bane I didn't even know who he was in Inception because the material gave him nothing interesting to do.

I liked Insomina, haven't seen Memento since it came out and don't remember it. Overall I think Nolan obviously is talented, but isn't half as good as his reputation makes him out to be.

He's just TDK guy to me in the same sense Jackson is just the LOTR guy to you, because I don't think anything else I've seen from him stands out enough.

 

[DarkMelody]

I think Jackson easily wins both of those too.

I thought the Prestige was a bore (far more boring than King Kong at half the length or less) that mis-handled its own themes, Inception was nothing special at all either...it's a film so concerned with over-explaining its own mythos that it leaves hardly any time for anything else. They had Tom Hardy in the movie who's a great actor, and when he was cast as Bane I didn't even know who he was in Inception because the material gave him nothing interesting to do.

I liked Insomina, haven't seen Memento since it came out and don't remember it. Overall I think Nolan obviously is talented, but isn't half as good as his reputation makes him out to be.

He's just TDK guy to me in the same sense Jackson is just the LOTR guy to you, because I don't think anything else I've seen from him stands out enough.

I find it amusing (and telling) that in the battle between Inception and The Lovely Bones, all you did was mention why you think Inception is overrated. You don't even talk about The Lovely Bones, rather you do what is necessary in most of these PJ vs. Nolan debates, go after the Nolan film (what a bunch of critical sheep those must be who recognize Nolan, how against the grain you are!) as overrated and speak as minimally on the PJ film as possible. Naturally, who in their right mind could actually defend The Lovely Bones? In that scenario all you can do is attack Inception.
It's a pity you don't remember Memento though (and sorta funny if you think about it), I think that's key in discussing Nolan's filmography.

I'll give people Heavenly Creatures but in general you guys are stretching Peter Jackson films as positively as possible while stating all their Nolan counterparts are overrated. To each their own.

 

[Quasimod0]

Lord of the rings easily. And I love the batman trilogy.

 

[Schlosser85]

They had Tom Hardy in the movie who's a great actor, and when he was cast as Bane I didn't even know who he was in Inception because the material gave him nothing interesting to do.

The Dark Knight Rises wasted Hardy a hell of a lot more than Inception.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Completely disagree there, atleast I can remember his character in TDKR.

I find it amusing (and telling) that in the battle between Inception and The Lovely Bones, all you did was mention why you think Inception is overrated. You don't even talk about The Lovely Bones, rather you do what is necessary in most of these PJ vs. Nolan debates, go after the Nolan film (what a bunch of critical sheep those must be who recognize Nolan, how against the grain you are!) as overrated and speak as minimally on the PJ film as possible. Naturally, who in their right mind could actually defend The Lovely Bones? In that scenario all you can do is attack Inception.
It's a pity you don't remember Memento though (and sorta funny if you think about it), I think that's key in discussing Nolan's filmography.

I'll give people Heavenly Creatures but in general you guys are stretching Peter Jackson films as positively as possible while stating all their Nolan counterparts are overrated. To each their own.

The Lovely Bones isn't one of PJ's stronger movies (but certainly nowhere near as bad as you're implying it is), and I don't think Heavenly Creatures is either. I've already discussed why I loved what I feel to be his best work.

I cared more about the characters and was more emotionally invested in the story in Lovely Bones than I ever was in Inception...which wouldn't have taken much. I found it more visually impressive too.

I don't know where you're getting the impression that I "don't recognize Nolan" btw, since I said I thought he was talented. I don't consider him to be quite as great as many make him out to be, but I said he was obviously talented. I just think PJ is far better.

 

[Team Andino]

I'm one of the biggest Nolan Batman nerds you'll find and I still voted for LOTR, while I love each Batman movie and the nice little details laid out to connect them there's the obvious notion that each movie was thought of on it's own with little planning for what's ahead on a larger scale. LOTR obviously knew what they were building to and did incredible layouts to get us there.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I like The Frighteners. I don't think anyone in this thread has even mentioned that movie by name yet. It's not his best movie by any means, but it was fun.

 

[Piper Maru]

Frodo could easily take Batman down. All he would have to do is run and headbutt Batman in the balls and that's the end of your "Dark Knight".

 

[The Dark Defender]

I like The Frighteners. I don't think anyone in this thread has even mentioned that movie by name yet. It's not his best movie by any means, but it was fun.

I was going to mention that as another one I consider one of his weakest, but yeah, still fun.

Frighteners and Heavenly Creatures his weakest films to me.

 

[jmc]

The Frighteners is a guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[DACrowe]

To all who are declaring that all Peter Jackson has are splatter films and Lord of the Rings (because yeah one of the highest grossing and highly awarded film franchises obviously counts for nothing)

Please for your own sake watch Beautiful Creatures.

Beautiful Creatures is better written, better directed and more emotionally compelling than most of Nolan's films. It even has better dream-like sequences than inception, using mostly practical effects.

Heavenly Creatures is a superb film. LOTR are classics. But I will say that Nolan continues to impress and has yet to let the scope or scale of his blockbusters weigh down his intention. I think it is arguable that Memento, The Dark Knight and Inception are better than any of PJ's catalogue. They are certainly better than everything beyond HC and LOTR. I will also take The Prestige and TDKR over King Kong or The Hobbit anyday of the week.

But one should not compare that much. I respect PJ for his massive vision and talent and what he has done. That continues, even if I think in comparison, which completely arbitrary, that Nolan has proven to be more versatile in the long run. Just my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

The Dark Knight Rises wasted Hardy a hell of a lot more than Inception.

I am not trying to be a dick or anything, but if you clearly have such a problem with Bane/TDKR...um, why do you still have a picture of Hardy as Bane as your avy a year later?

A role like Bane simply is not as showy as Joker, Catwoman or, in some ways, Two-Face. Especially when it requires him to cover 2/3 of his face the whole movie. Yet, he manages to leave an impact that audiences still remember and talk about, Internet parody or not, a year later. While I think neither of Nolan's collaborations have utilized Hardy to his fullest, TDKR made him a household name. Pretty impressive for the guy in a mask the whole movie.

 

[bullets]

The Frighteners is a guilty pleasure of mine.

It's cool and reminds me of Ghostbusters. I thought Heavenly Creatures was decent. Michael J. Fox signed on for Frighteners after viewing the film and it also proved at the time Jackson was capable of more.

 

[DarkMelody]

Completely disagree there, atleast I can remember his character in TDKR.



The Lovely Bones isn't one of PJ's stronger movies (but certainly nowhere near as bad as you're implying it is), and I don't think Heavenly Creatures is either. I've already discussed why I loved what I feel to be his best work.

I cared more about the characters and was more emotionally invested in the story in Lovely Bones than I ever was in Inception...which wouldn't have taken much. I found it more visually impressive too.

I don't know where you're getting the impression that I "don't recognize Nolan" btw, since I said I thought he was talented. I don't consider him to be quite as great as many make him out to be, but I said he was obviously talented. I just think PJ is far better.

You are actually arguing the superiority of The Lovely Bones to Inception and King Kong to The Prestige...I know when to retreat at the sight of absolute unflinching fanaticism in an argument, there's no way I'm ever cracking you. Literally the only sort of people on the planet who would ever argue the superiority of The Lovely Bones to Inception would be crazed PJ fans. It's not like I'm a huge Nolan fan or anything, I just know when to run at the sight of insanity. You're totally overrating every single PJ film, some of them films generally accepted as quite mediocre if not straight up bad, and shrugging unimpressed at their Nolan counterparts. I don't have to make as much of a stretch to make my point as you have to stretch to make yours, even totally willing to concede Nolan is overrated and his films aren't as good as people think they are, you're still the one who's trying to bring up mediocre or straight up bad PJ films to match those okay Nolan films that were overrated as "really good" or "good" or whatever. I should have just read your signature and gotten the hint, it's not like I have something in mine going "OH MAN THE NOLAN BATMAN TRILOGY IS THE BEST THING EVER".
I don't even necessarily know where I stand regarding this thread's topic, probably leaning towards LotR, but you're actually arguing the superiority of Peter Jackson to Nolan outside of LotR/Batman. I concede Nolan's overrated, but that doesn't mean you should overrate genuinely bad Peter Jackson films (yes, The Lovely Bones is a bad movie) to being okay and underrate okay Nolan films to being below average.
Your viewpoints on some of Nolan's films practically seem to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, like some highschool kid trying to come off as cool or something by going against the grain. "OH INCEPTION HUH? PSSHHAWWW, YEAH I HEARD OF THAT, NO BIG DEAL, NOTHING LIKE THE EMOTIONAL ROLLERCOASTER THAT WAS...THE LOVELY BONES."

 

[jf300]

LOTR wins this by an absolute mile, though I am a huge fan of both franchises.

Also Jackson vs Nolan is very difficult as they are quite different. Jackson is very over the top whereas Nolan is more subtle. Jackson will always have a special place in my heart because he gave us LOTR and King Kong (love this film and will defend it to my dying day). I am still yet to see The Lovely Bones, but I'm not sure I want to as it might dampen my Jackson love.

In the case of The Hobbit, I stand by the argument that it was my favourite film of 2012...but was it as good as LOTR? No way in hell.

 

[batfreakforever]

I love Both trilogys but I enjoy Nolan's bat-trilogy more because I like Batman more. I own all the normal & extended cuts of the lord of the rings. Enjoy the hell out of them both.

 

[The Dark Defender]

You are actually arguing the superiority of The Lovely Bones to Inception and King Kong to The Prestige...I know when to retreat at the sight of absolute unflinching fanaticism in an argument

If you go back a bit in the thread, I've already stated that I prefer PJ's Kong over the first two LOTR films.
You'll also notice that I never said The Lovely Bones was a great movie (I believe I actually said that it wasn't, I just think it's far better than the garbage you think it is). I don't think PJ's worst movies are better than Nolan's best, but I think PJ's best are far better than Nolan's best, and his worst are far better than Nolan's worst.

And I don't really think Inception or The Prestige are that good at all, hence it doesn't really take an 'unflinching fantacism' for me to find other films superior.

How popular or unpopular my opinions are makes no difference to me one way or the other, if you insist on thinking that's why I have or state the opinions I do, that's up to you, but that's a complete misconception.
Truth is, there's nothing less relevant to me than popularity when discussing the quality of a film.
If I really wanted to go against the grain, something like LOTR certainly wouldn't be my favorite film series.

 

[Sentinel X]

The Dark Defender , but don't you agree that outside of the style of the novel and story , the hobbit is a clear prequel to the style of pj's lotr ? What i dont understand is how some people praised immensity the trilogy and then crap all over the film. I didn't like it exactly for the same reasons i didnt enjoy lotr. You loved both projects. That to me is very normal. I cant grasp why the movie had such a mixed acceptance.




How was i pompous ? I've even said i didn't like the terms of how i addressed the movie , and Jackson's work. Another user put a bunch of rolling laughing gifs because of the comparison made....isn't that pompous too ?

Not liking pj's style and his adaptation of Tolkien's work , is not pompous. Or everyone has to like that drab , inane style he always fills his movies with ?



You see...i accept that. I found it insane. But i accept it with no problems. I would never listen to your advice about what to watch although t:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. There are plenty of films I think are underrated or overrated too. I happen to disagree with you on LOTR. I'm just curious, what exactly is inane about PJ's adaptation? What was wrong with the style?

I think people are just trying to understand where you are coming from. The films are clearly loved, both critically and financially. A lot of filmmakers consider them some of the best and they were without a doubt some of the most difficult films to adapt in cinematic history ( on a technical level ) and yet you said Jackson used simpleton filmmaking. Why?

 

[Tequilla]

I've seen it on both sides of the argument. It's typical on these boards. However you called Peter Jackson's work on the second and third film of the trilogy "simpleton film-making" which suggest people who enjoy those films are simpletons. That's very arrogant. I understand that you may not like LOTR , but that's a bit harsh and unnecessary. There's better ways to say it.

Now i understand why some other user said something in another thread....
Simpleton filmmaking as in , a film not well made. Not well composed , directed , edited , scripted , acted. I love a lot of trashy films , that doesnt say anything about me. I never called anyone simpleton. Just the movie.

Its funny because i remembered this topic yesterday as i was watching a movie (because of how complex the production was , how unparalleled it was , etc). I've watched Bondarchuk adaptation of the Tolstoi novel (War and Peace)...and that movie puts 120 thousand ! extras in a scene (a battle one) , where they gave them real rifles and friggin cannons ! (off course without real gunpowder). As i was watching the movie (400 minutes) , i just thought how incredible the scope was , and how difficult it must have been to do this in...1967 ! Magnificent. This was surely a production of epic proportions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063794/reference

Its actually on a sort of public domain , so its easy to access it , if anyone would like to watch it. I've been discovering a lot of cinema from the soviet bloc that was completely unaccessible to me. That's the power of the Internet. It's mind boggling the scope of some of the productions.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Frodo could easily take Batman down. All he would have to do is run and headbutt Batman in the balls and that's the end of your "Dark Knight".

The balls of the bat are meant to be armored
With bullet resistant material that can be easily pierced by dog bites