Why Nolan??

[Cyrusbales]

He wrote it with his brother, and my problem with him is that he doesn't add to any screenplays, my comment it on him as a director.

 

[Fenrir]

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

And what is your source on this when Jonathan Nolan himself stated that his brother often makes drastic changes to the final screenplay. And of course, the credit for the jumbled narrative structure of The Prestige also goes to Chris, as Jonah had already said that it wasn't present in his draft of the script. Why don't you just stop Cyrus? It's clear you don't like the man and I respect that, but you're really putting a poor show with your flimsy arguments.

 

[Cinemaman]

No... shhhh

*shuts his mouth*

 

[Mr. Socko]

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.

The narrative structure of non-linear storytelling is most definitely Nolan's idea. This is proven with Batman Begins, a film Jonathan Nolan's name is not attached too. Jon is co-writer of most of his films, and I agree that he probably is credit for the structure but I'm sure it's partially Nolan's idea as well. Or else that's like telling me, it was Goyer's idea of making Batman Begins non-linear and not Nolan's.

And speaking of it, the narrative structure and small plot twist work well but I think they're limiting him too. He shouldn't have a list of things that every film of his "must contain," unless he wants limitations.
I personally have no interest in seeing The Dark Knight being told in non-linear order, it doesn't need several flashbacks and out of order storytelling. I hope it's in a normal structure order.

 

[Fenrir]

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?

Even so, since when is making adaptations and sequels a bad thing as long as you do it well? Just because he hasn't done an original film is in no way whatsoever a shortcoming on his part as a director, but merely the choice of films and scripts he gravitates more towards.

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

I don't see how that is a complaint, really. I think most of us agree he has tremendous potential. In fact, I see it more as a compliment.

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.

I think you're missing the point. Just because he has done adaptations does not mean hasn't done different kinds of films. THAT, to me speaks of his strengths as a director.

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).

I think you need to study a bit more about Cameron's film history about why exactly was he called the "sequel king" before replying to that part of my post. I could elaborate a bit more, but I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I'll probably explain in the next post if you can't figure it out.

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.

Well then that's your opinion. I think the exact opposite - both Memento and The Prestige have tremendous replay value, moreso than most films I recall at the moment.

 

[Fenrir]

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.

I think you need to stop being so defensive here - my post is about refuting your point that a resume that is full of adaptations is a weak one. A weak resume is one which doesn't have many good films. Just look at Sergio Leone who made nothing but Westerns for two whole decades before finally making a gangster film with Once Upon a Time in America. But if you call his filmography a weak one simply on the basis of not having enough variety, then you have a poor argument. At least Nolan has tackled and mixed different genres and done so successfully.

 

[Cain]

Even so, since when is making adaptations and sequels a bad thing as long as you do it well? Just because he hasn't done an original film is in no way whatsoever a shortcoming on his part as a director, but merely the choice of films and scripts he gravitates more towards.

Never said it was a bad thing. However it makes me question him just a bit as a complete filmmaker and not a director. I mean was Following a fluke? is he not as well rounded as most of his peers like Del Toro, Cuaron, Aronofsky or Soderbergh? one begins to wonder as not one not 2 but all of the projects he gravitates towards are already established and just need reworking. Maybe it's just a coincidence, only time will tell.

I think you're missing the point. Just because he has done adaptations does not mean hasn't done different kinds of films. THAT, to me speaks of his strengths as a director.

As I said I'm not questioning his strengths as a director, not on a technical level. I question him as a filmmaker. Is he only limited to working off other people's material all the time or could he still come up with something original completely on his own or even with a writing partner?

Again only time will tell.

I think you need to study a bit more about Cameron's film history about why exactly was he called the "sequel king" before replying to that part of my post. I could elaborate a bit more, but I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I'll probably explain in the next post if you can't figure it out.

Yeah elaborate on this then, cause if that's not it then I honestly don't know. I know Cameron like I know my other favorite filmmakers, through their films not their bios or other things of that nature.

Well then that's your opinion. I think the exact opposite - both Memento and The Prestige have tremendous replay value, moreso than most films I recall at the moment.

I think a huge part of it has to do with me being familiar with most of the things he has adapted before hand. With BB I did it to myself by reading the leaked draft a year before the movie even dropped so I wasn't wowed like others were but that was on me. However I read Priest's The Prestige back in 8th grade and so the secret of Tesla's machine and Angrier's trick as well as Borden's completely did not wow me like it would someone with fresh eyes towards that material. Same thing with Insomnia the cop's situation with his partner and how that affects him along with the daylight did absolutely nothing for me cause I saw the Norweigan one years earlier when it was praised as a modern noir classic by a lot of critics and know it alls.

Following was cool but nothing particularly memorable it was bold for such a small film though. In the case of Memento after a few viewings the movie just doesn't do it for me. It's greatest charm when it first hooked me was the twist it was very unexpected. Rewatching it I begin to question the validity of the twist & overanalyze it and it ruins the movie for me. So I just leave it alone not to ruin it for myself cause I used to really love it and it's still a good film. But it's cool that people like you get find a lot to revisit in his work outside of Memento I wish I could say the same for myself. It should change with TDK as I'm staying spoiler free this time.

 

[Cyrusbales]

People go on about his plot twist and non-linear style etc, but no one actually comments on the bulk DIRECTION. His use of camera for example, ever watch what the camera does in memento? Not a lot for a while, which is what you'd expect, his life goes nowhere, neither does the camera, then he spoiles this with too much camera moving, makign you think he wasn't trying to even make that point in the first place.

Framing? There is 8 sequences in following where framing is used to hint and comment on either the characters state of mind, the sitaution or the hidden nuances that the audience are aware of, however I have yet to see him return to this form in ANY of his other movies in terms of framing.

Editing, yet again, following was precisely edited at times, to bring extra meaning to certain moments, the choice of cutting from one sequence to another at the exact frames, showing through extra purpose, the combatant of past and present in an almost sardonic twist of prophetic irony. This is not captured anywhere else in his other works.

The more fame he gets, the less he actually focuses on the details and finesse of his work.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I think you need to stop being so defensive here - my post is about refuting your point that a resume that is full of adaptations is a weak one. A weak resume is one which doesn't have many good films. Just look at Sergio Leone who made nothing but Westerns for two whole decades before finally making a gangster film with Once Upon a Time in America. But if you call his filmography a weak one simply on the basis of not having enough variety, then you have a poor argument. At least Nolan has tackled and mixed different genres and done so successfully.

No one refutes my points and gets away with it.

 

[echostation]

the eternal question... is Chris Nolan a better director than Bryan Singer? lol

 

[StrainedEyes]

I think Nolan is a great director. I could give a **** that he has only done adaptions. Most of the greatest american movies of all time are adaptions.

 

[CConn]

I think Nolan is a great director. I could give a **** that he has only done adaptions. Most of the greatest american movies of all time are adaptions.

It's not that he's only done adaptations that makes him suck.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Whatever you say. I like watching his movies. I have ever since Memento. And I'll continue to like them and him as a director.

 

[CConn]

I like watching his movies too.

But that doesn't mean he's a great director.

See, this is where things get muddle. With some people (like yourself), if you even minutely like something, it's automatically great and fantastic and 10 other different hyperboles. You have no medium. You have no ability to gauge anything. It's either love or hate. All or nothing. And it's worthless.

 

[Mr. Socko]

the eternal question... is Chris Nolan a better director than Bryan Singer? lol

Yes.

No


Maybe so.

 

[Warhammer]

the eternal question... is Chris Nolan a better director than Bryan Singer? lol

Bryan Singer (stupidly) still gets alot of flack for Superman Returns (especially on this message board).

 

[Mr. Socko]

Bryan Singer (stupidly) still gets alot of flack for Superman Returns (especially on this message board).

So...does that make him bettah or worse than old man Nolan?

 

[Warhammer]

Mmmm...I guess I'd say Nolan.
Overall, his films are better.

I browse through this thread, and it amazes me. I'm not going to get technical, and say stuff like, "The camera work sucks!" etc, because I couldn't care less about that.

 

[CConn]

Oddly, I'd actually say SR was by far Singer's best directorial effort.

It - unlike every other movie he's ever done - actually had a sliver of art direction. Good art direction at that. Aside from that, he also chose some simply beautiful shots and angles and soforth. Something I never saw him do in any of his other films. Superman Returns was honestly probably more technically sound than any of his other films...except for Usual Suspects, of course. That script was pure gold.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I like watching his movies too.

But that doesn't mean he's a great director.

See, this is where things get muddle. With some people (like yourself), if you even minutely like something, it's automatically great and fantastic and 10 other different hyperboles. You have no medium. You have no ability to gauge anything. It's either love or hate. All or nothing. And it's worthless.

Yeah, Buddy? I know what I like and don't like and how to gauge. Don't inject your opinion onto others. I hold Nolan above alot of directors. His movies are consistently good and consistently enjoyable. He helps/writes damn fine scripts, and knows how to bring them to the screen.

Who gives a **** if he 'doesn't add anything that isn't on the page.' what the hell does that even mean? The page only goes so far. He's good at composition, balance of colors, visual pacing, eye movement, and most importantly he knows how to tell a story. He is a good director. He is really just kicking off his career and I am sure will only get better and more experimental with time.

 

[CConn]

Yeah, Buddy? I know what I like and don't like and how to gauge Don't inject your opinion onto others. I hold Nolan above alot of directors. His movies are consistently good and consistently enjoyable. He helps/writes damn fine scripts, and knows how to bring them to the screen.

And what's "great" about making "good" movies? How does making "good" movies make you "great"? You obviously do not know the meaning of the two words.

Who gives a **** if he 'doesn't add anything that isn't on the page.'

Why are you asking me? That's never even been a part of my argument.

what the hell does that even mean?

Anyone who knows a lick about directing knows what that means. The fact you obviously don't have a clue worries me greatly.

The page only goes so far. He's good at composition, balance of colors, visual pacing, eye movement, and most importantly he knows how to tell a story.

His balance of colors is horrible, his visual pacing has consistently declined in terms of quality over his past few films, and I have no clue what you mean by "eye movement".

And let's not forget the editing in Batman Begins was utterly atrocious.

He is a good director.

Bolding thee word good really makes that argument convincing.

He is really just kicking off his career and I am sure will only get better and more experimental with time.

Actually, if you actually watch his movies, he's become steady more sloppy and less experimental as time goes on. Following was 10 times more original and more intriguing from a directing standpoint than The Prestige or Batman Begins ever were.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Those are all your opinions. Good for you, I'm not saying your wrong, so stop trying to prove that I am. I like him, I think he is a great director. You think he is a shoddy director. Leave it at that.

 

[CConn]

Those are all your opinions. Good for you, I'm not saying your wrong, so stop trying to prove that I am. I like him, I think he is a great director. You think he is a shoddy director. Leave it at that.

No, because you have failed to even accurately express your opinion. So far, all I can tell is that you think any director that makes a movie you like is a great one.

I liked Transformers, Michael Bay must be a genius.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I don't even know what to say in a thread like this, that's why ive avoided it, I mean it seemed Nolan was the IT guy and that was that for a bit and now with a number of his TDK decisions the tables are turning, he strikes me as a someone yet to really nail the visual side of the medium, still Paul Greengrass is the latest fanboy circle jerk director of choice and i don't like his "Visual style" at all so what's better, telling a good story well or having your own style that makes me want to rip my eyes out ? i dunno.....

 

[CConn]

I don't even know what to say in a thread like this, that's why ive avoided it, I mean it seemed Nolan was the IT guy and that was that for a bit and now with a number of his TDK decisions the tables are turning, he strikes me as a someone yet to really nail the visual side of the medium, still Paul Greengrass is the latest fanboy circle jerk director of choice and i don't like his "Visual style" at all so what's better, telling a good story well or having your own style that makes me want to rip my eyes out ? i dunno.....

Wonderfully said.

For me, it doesn't always has to be about visual style. As long as you have something interesting and new to do. And, at first, Nolan did. Following, Memento, they worked. But then with his continuation of doing little more than telling chronologically-scattered stories...you need something more than that. IMO, at least.