Why Nolan??

[Cain]

Wow I think people really have trouble comprehending how difficult adaptation is (Insomnia doesn't count as it is a remake of a Russian film, albeit Nolan's did have noticable differences) but I mean if you've read The Prestige, he did not just shoot that book word ofr word. And....

Oh why bother? People think they are above him no matter what. He's a populist filmmaker who is overpraised by his fans so internet forum "critics" have to come and say he has no style or basic camera work.

His entire movies are based on style, misdirection and simplistic storytelling for complex narratives (BB not withstanding) so he can take genre pieces and makese the audience look one way while he uses the camera to pull them another. He is a manipulative filmmaker who makes very smart movies...just movies meant for basic entertainment.

If that makes him a hack so is almost every filmmaker whose name we remember in American cinema.

I think you're overanalyzing some of the criticisms against him. I haven't seen anybody not credit him for his technical skills in here, I could be wrong but I definitely haven't seen it. Yes adaptation is a difficult process retaining the spirit and tone for a piece of work while translating it to film is not easy. Even some of the most skileld directors have botched adaptations royally. It's a balance of not falling for literal translation but not straying too far from making the material recognizable either. In that respect Nolan is very good at that.

However what is the problem with people wanting to see him expand his repertouire? really spread his wings as a filmmaker by not pigeonholing himself into Mr. "I make adaptations and use the same structure more than once". It limits him as a director I would like to see him strive for a bit more balance he's talented enough to deserve or more richer career. As I said earlier his career is still young so we'll see where he takes it. I think Scorsese is king only because he's one of the few modern filmmakers who managed to pull off this balancing act greatly.

 

[terry78]

^I'd go with Coppola as far as that comparison goes. He's done some good work, he's done some bad work. But he doesn't limit himself.

 

[logansoldcigar]

^ What does Equilbrium have to do with anything?

Nolan didn't direct that overrated fanboy wetdream...

Blimey. I thought I were the only person on this site that didnt cream his pants at the mere mention of equilibrium (a bog standard future distopia as utopia story,containing a ridiculous premise with the gun kata, that only EVER worked in a believable fashion once)

 

[Damiean Dark]

Yeah that films terrible made to cash in the Matrix hype of those years. Bale is again on grim "im a troubled soul" duty.

 

[bullets]

hey no one broods like christian bale

 

[블라스]

Equilibrium is a fun movie.
I've had it with people saying it's good and dorks answering with the usual "YOUR A FANBOY!!!1 LOL!!!1" comments as if that's gonna make them look cool or whatever.
Seriously, it's not, so you might as well stop it.
It's not the best movie in the world by any means, but it was fun and the "ridiculous" gun kata fits that world and looks fun and interesting, we KNOW it doesn't work in real life.
Jesus Christ.

 

[bullets]

nolan rules

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Equilibrum enchanced its cult status from the failure of the Matrix Sequels. Before the Matrix sequels came out, everyone was like "Its a Matrix rip off", now I hear people act like its how the sequels should have been, whatever that means.

 

[Fenrir]

^ complete apples to oranges comparison because Spielberg has at least made personal and original films (Ie: Close Encounters, E.T., JAWS, Raiders) and his original work is highly regarded as his best. Everything Nolan has touched outside of Following has been an adaptations, his upcoming projects The Dark Knight,The Prisoner, and The Exec? also adaptations. I really want to see a completely original work again from Nolan one day. He's a great technical filmmaker I'm sure he could put his imagination to come up with something real good.

Of course, Spielberg also has had a career that spans more than two decades, while Nolan is still fairly new in comparison. Nevertheless, my point is that people who jump on filmmakers' resume for not having anything original are simply complaining for the sake of complaining. One can choose not to make completely original works and still be a great storyteller regardless. That's still a talent many people underrate. I really want to see these very people jump on Cameron's resume because of his acquired reputation as the "sequel king" in his prime.

What ultimately matters is basing one's judgment on the basis of HOW good a director is at his craft rather than what kind of films he makes.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Peopel seem to forget that the narrative structure is not Nolan's ide,a it's in the screenplay, Jonathon Nolan deserves the credit as he writes all the stuff. Chris merely puts it on screen in a basic fashion.

 

[Cinemaman]

I was hoping for an analysis of his work perhaps.

Whilst we don't often agree, I do consider you a freind and value what you have to say, even if I disagree most of the time

Analysis of his work? Alright, here you go:

1) He reveals characters of his films perfectly. Their motivations, points of view, actions, faces, expectations and etc. are all shown right. He respects their stereotypes, while he never says no to unusual ideas. I mean he does everything he wants with them, but at the same time he makes them staying true to their personalities. And he doesn't throw supporting characters leaving only protagonist and antagonist alone. In his movies everyone has his own influence on story development, which reminds some kind of whole system or tangled web of events, which have no connection between each other. So his movies usually don't have the standart chronology. But then he draws a very thin line betwen all of them, which units them and makes the concept looking even greater than it's first approach is.

2) He has a really good eye, as he knows where and when to place scenes from his movies. And I haven't seen any mistake made by actors playing in his projects (except for Holmes, which was WB's choice to rise the potential of Batman Begins). Every disalogue, every beat and every piece of what we see on screen looks just like it should be done.

3) He doesn' need CGI to make action scenes. He doesn't need to obey any rule of the genre of his film. And finally, he doesn't a clear direction of what happens, because he wants to show everything from eye-witness' POV.

What I mean is that some people thinks he's overrated only because he is one of those new directors, who hasn't made any bad film yet. They think he's not so good director, only because they're sick and tired hearing or reading how great he is in not just choosing the right stories, but also making quality films, what is actually rare nowadays. I don't think he's perfect, but I am sure he's an amazing director and he will never stop surprising his audience.

P.S. don't forget that we shouldn't always agree with each other, even if we are friends. Everybody has his own opinion, but this doesn't hurt friendship

 

[Cyrusbales]

1) How exactly? This is more due to the writing.

2)The sequence of scenes is in the screenplay, I've got the Memento and Following screen plays and they are in the same order as the film.

3)The prestige does have effcts, but generally he does not use CGI(although liquid effects in insomnia etc) BUT, what he is doing does not really call for it.

 

[Cinemaman]

Peopel seem to forget that the narrative structure is not Nolan's ide,a it's in the screenplay, Jonathon Nolan deserves the credit as he writes all the stuff. Chris merely puts it on screen in a basic fashion.

Agreed, he's brother is an awesome screenwriter and I really respect his work. But isn't Chris the one who always changes the original concept of his brother. Didn't Jonathan say that every time he finishes his new screenplay, Chris comes in and creates the whole web of events destroying the chronology and adding new stuff to fill the structre. Even if The Prestige is adaptation, it had nothing to do with the book except for characters. I read the book and I can say the film is only 20% true to the original source. The film has a new vision at what Christoper Priest did, it's adaptation only in name I'd say.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

He may not be big box office but he has such a cool style and look to his movies. He does dark sytle well in a film like Shamylan does.

 

[echostation]

he may not be the best director but he's certainly a pretty damn consistent solid one... much more talented than the hack ****heads that plague hollywood throughout so I'm glad if we get more people like him in hollywood

 

[Cyrusbales]

Agreed, he's brother is an awesome screenwriter and I really respect his work. But isn't Chris the one who always changes the original concept of his brother. Didn't Jonathan say that every time he finishes his new screenplay, Chris comes in and creates the whole web of events destroying the chronology and adding new stuff to fill the structre. Even if The Prestige is adaptation, it had nothing to do with the book except for characters. I read the book and I can say the film is only 20% true to the original source. The film has a new vision at what Christoper Priest did, it's adaptation only in name I'd say.

Jonathon's writting is only slightly altered, mainly in ways which make it slightly easier to film etc.

 

[Cyrusbales]

he may not be the best director but he's certainly a pretty damn consistent solid one... much more talented than the hack ****heads that plague hollywood throughout so I'm glad if we get more people like him in hollywood

But Hollywood is only a fraction of the world's cinema, on the worldwide scale, he's mediocre.

 

[Cinemaman]

1) How exactly? This is more due to the writing.

2)The sequence of scenes is in the screenplay, I've got the Memento and Following screen plays and they are in the same order as the film.

3)The prestige does have effcts, but generally he does not use CGI(although liquid effects in insomnia etc) BUT, what he is doing does not really call for it.

1-2) Again, not only Jonathan, but also Christopher create the whole concept. Besides internet offers only shooting scripts or late drafts, which are usually very different from the first version. It's very hard to get spec script.

3) I didn't mean only CGI. I meant the way how he breaks the rules of his movie's type.

Anyway, we won't stop arguing untill the next week comes, cause we both know that we won't change each other's opinion, so it's pointless. If you really want, I can continue our talk, but will it make sense, if it never ends?

 

[Cyrusbales]

I got the spec scripts on my comp, but we'll keep that one hush hush. lol.

 

[Cinemaman]

I got the spec scripts on my comp, but we'll keep that one hush hush. lol.

Was Memento one of them?

 

[Cyrusbales]

Was Memento one of them?

No... shhhh

 

[Cain]

Of course, Spielberg also has had a career that spans more than two decades, while Nolan is still fairly new in comparison.

Yeah, and? out of Spielberg's first 6 movies 4 of them were completely original (Close Encounters, 1941, E.T. & Raiders) he followed them with a sequel, his first adaptation since JAWS and Empire of the Sun an original piece. The point? he proved his skills as a creator and not just a director by coming up with completely original material more than twice very early into his directing career.

Now let's review Nolan out of his first 6 movies only 1 was completely original (Following). He's folliwing them up with a sequel to an adaptation and 2 more adpatations. You see where the malfunction may be in that comparison yet?

Nevertheless, my point is that people who jump on filmmakers' resume for not having anything original are simply complaining for the sake of complaining.

Or perhaps they're complaining because they know the director is capable of more.

One can choose not to make completely original works and still be a great storyteller regardless.

Yes they can but they smartly don't because they don't want to fall into repetition and choose to take risks by challenging themselves by not limiting themselves to strictly bringing other people's works to life. Name me one other director in modern film history who early in his career made 7 back to back adaptations. I can't think of one at the moment. It's becoming a little redundant it doesn't make me not appreciate his skills as a director but it's a bit dissapointing at the same time especially since I was familiar with a few of these things (Ie: Batman, Prestige and The Prisoner) long before he ever adapted them. But like I said we'll see what happens as his career goes on.

That's still a talent many people underrate. I really want to see these very people jump on Cameron's resume because of his acquired reputation as the "sequel king" in his prime.

Another bad comparison. Cameron was called such only because he made 2 sequels that expanded on and in the eyes of many surpassed their originals. It's not like he spent his entire career making sequel after sequel that's why nobody got on him. On the contrary early in his career like Spielberg he also proved he could flex his muscles by coming up with original material (Ie: The Terminator, The Abyss, True Lies).

What ultimately matters is basing one's judgment on the basis of HOW good a director is at his craft rather than what kind of films he makes.

I believe in both because a great director could still make a ton of crappy films even though he's got great directing skills. When you balance out how good you are in your craft with creating all different kinds of quality films then you have a right to be mentioned with the big dogs, the fully complete filmmakers. Nolan is not yet there but I believe that he may be on his way. His films are of high quality (though as I said to me they have no major replay value) he just needs much more variety is all, right now he's just too one sided IMO.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Wow, if that's your criteria then Spielberg's resume in your eyes isn't very impressive either, because:

Lincoln
Munich
War of the Worlds
Catch Me If You Can
Schindler's List
Jurassic Park
The Lost World
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Amistad
Empire of The Sun

...well, all of those films are either adaptations of novels or based on real-life events, which also puts him in the category of "unoriginal" filmmakers.

Don't be ignorant. Or maybe you lack comprehension skills. Let me re-post EXACTLY what I said.

I love adaptations, but a resume that's nothing but adaptations of books, comics, and novellas isn't a very strong one IMO.

Spielberg has done several original films as well as adaptations. He's not afraid to adapt a book or real life event into a film nor is he afraid to bring his own stories to screen.

^ complete apples to oranges comparison because Spielberg has at least made personal and original films (Ie: Close Encounters, E.T., JAWS, Raiders) and his original work is highly regarded as his best. Everything Nolan has touched outside of Following has been an adaptations, his upcoming projects The Dark Knight,The Prisoner, and The Exec? also adaptations. I really want to see a completely original work again from Nolan one day. He's a great technical filmmaker I'm sure he could put his imagination to come up with something real good.



I concurr good sir, you put it more eloquently than I did in my first post in this thread.

Good post. Thank you

 

[Cyrusbales]

Thats'a list of speilberg's worst films IMO also.

JAws and Duel are what defines the man, shame he's way off base now.

 

[Fenrir]

Peopel seem to forget that the narrative structure is not Nolan's ide,a it's in the screenplay, Jonathon Nolan deserves the credit as he writes all the stuff. Chris merely puts it on screen in a basic fashion.

Jesus f**king Christ...Jonathan Nolan wrote the short story Memento, whereas Chris Nolan adapted it into a screenplay. Let me say it again to get it through your thick skull - Chris Nolan wrote the goddamn screenplay, so criticizing him for not deviating from his own work is more than a little ******ed, wouldn't you say?