Has Nolan earned himself a seat on the table of the greats, along with Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick and Ford?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Has Nolan earned himself a seat on the table of the greats, along with Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick and Ford?
He doesn't even have a movie half as good as Taxi Driver
factually wrong. Prestige or Memento easily blows anything Scorcese has done that isn't Goodfellas or Raging Bull (RB is kino)
>Prestige or Memento easily blows anything Scorcese has done that isn't Goodfellas or Raging Bull (RB is kino)
topKEK
Le filtrado
We're living in a dark age. Reminds me of the poets during the twilight of the Roman Empire. Those poets were praised in their time, and hailed as equals to their golden age poets (like Virgil and Ovid). Centuries later, without being blinded by the clouds of recency, we're able to discern the truth that those poets were painfully mediocre, they're even largely forgotten.
Sad, but true. We are living in an artistic dark age.
I'll see your pessimism and raise you even more pessimism.
We're not just in an artistic dark age. We're witnessing the death throes of every major artistic medium.
I don't quite agree with your assessment, because in those ages the great writers weren't poets, they transitioned into platonic/religious philosophers. It's less that there are no good poets, it's more that the talented thinkers/writers go into something else depending on the age.
I don't agree, I think in reaction to AI we'll see artists settle into more works of great complexity - ala charles dickens and victor hugo
>I don't agree, I think in reaction to AI we'll see artists settle into more works of great complexity - ala charles dickens and victor hugo
You are the first person I've seen saying this, and I agree. A.I. is not going to just match cinema but take it way farther than ever before. It's going to send us to a creative golden age. Just imagine everyone on the planet can make films now, the number of geniuses will be 100x more than Hollywood ever produced.
thanks. and yes, there's only a limit to what AI can do on its own. when it comes to cinema, AI will bust down the financial demands of traditional hollywood. literature will react with some sort of neo-modernist movement. really, the only problem with AI is that it might kill us somehow, I'm not worried about the arts.
>I don't agree, I think in reaction to AI we'll see artists settle into more works of great complexity
I'm sure AI will spice things up a bit, but it'll be short-lived.
How many times can you repackage the same concepts, metaphors, stories and themes before it all becomes tiresome?
what does AI have to do with any of that? humanity has been writing about love as a main theme since man could write something down. thematic repetition is not a new problem.
>what does AI have to do with any of that?
I misread what you said. I actually think AI is going to directly improve art for a little while.
>humanity has been writing about love as a main theme since man could write something down.
Yes, and it finally seems to be reaching its expiration date.
>Thematic repetition is not a new problem.
Didn't suggest it was, poncho
>reaching its experation date
you're the one with a curious view of the arts, not me. again, there are an infinite number of ways to re-arrange a singular theme, that's not a problem for artists - and never has been.
>you're the one with a curious view of the arts, not me
Ok
>there are an infinite number of ways to re-arrange a singular theme
This isn't saying much. Go ahead and rearrange the Odyssey for the millionth time, but it's probably not going to be very interesting.
>and never has been
Perhaps until the 21st century.
I'm not even sure what your point is anymore, I think you just don't like being disagreed with.
NTA but ur losing this one, his point is very obvious ur just an AIgay who thinks he's criticizing "muh heckin AI!!!!"
AI will be good for art but it has to be used as a tool btw, similar to cgi
>NTA but ur losing this one, his point is very obvious ur just an AIgay who thinks he's criticizing "muh heckin AI!!!!"
both wrong, I don't personally like AI in art.
art is not dying. the idea that thematic repetition is the death of art is just idiotic. mankind has been writing love poetry since the sumerians, and that has yet to go out of fashion. I don't think you even really understand art, it's not about the theme, it's how the artist handles the theme.
>the idea that thematic repetition is the death of art is just idiotic.
Art has always relied on innovation to stay relevant, and we're reaching a point where the possibilities are rapidly drying up.
>mankind has been writing love poetry since the sumerians
How many people read poetry?
Have fun writing your little love poems, bro, but I promise you that no one will give a shit about them.
>I don't think you even really understand art, it's not about the theme, it's how the artist handles the theme
I just think you don't like being disagreed with tbqhwy.
>Art has always relied on innovation to stay relevant, and we're reaching a point where the possibilities are rapidly drying up.
Innovation of the individual artist, it has nothing to do with technology. People have not stopped writing plays after reading Shakespeare.
>How many people read poetry?
does not matter, art is still art no matter how little people appreciate it. it's an artist thing - you wouldn't get it 🙂
>I just think you don't like being disagreed with tbqhwy.
I don't have all night, so I'll just leave you with a question: what makes Rimbaud, Van Gogh, and David Lynch unique in their mediums? If you can answer that correctly, you'll see why AI doesn't "kill" art.
>Innovation of the individual artist, it has nothing to do with technology
Make a b&w silent film and see how many people wanna watch it lol.
>People have not stopped writing plays after reading Shakespeare
I think you're missing my point.
I'm sure people will be writing plays until we go extinct, but plays have become less and less relevant throughout history, and it's gonna get to the point where hardly anyone will care about them due to the coming advancements of AI.
>does not matter, art is still art no matter how little people appreciate it.
Again, missing my point.
>it's an artist thing - you wouldn't get it 🙂
Cringe. I hope you're not a writer.
>what makes Rimbaud, Van Gogh, and David Lynch unique in their mediums?
Innovation
Can't you see that painting is already dead? As for film, I don't think it has much longer.
lets see
>infinite budget
>no cost
>literally anything is possible
>no time restrictions
no it is not just a tool, it is about to usher cinema to the next stage.
its wack and you're a talentless idiott
My point is not complicated: art is dying.
There will always be people writing "new" stories, songs, films, etc, but there's really not much you can do to push any artistic medium forward anymore. I expect AI to change that for a little while until it leads to our destruction.
>It's less that there are no good poets, it's more that the talented thinkers/writers go into something else depending on the age.
Wrong, Black person. You're thinking about the Roman Silver Age. I'm talking about the actual wasteland of 400-500 AD.
saint augustine was a great writer, buddy
True. It wasn't the time but the meanness of their own souls that made the late antique Romans lavish empty praise on their epigones
The dismissal of late roman culture was the product of antichristian sentiment during the enlightenment.
Show me the Tacitus and Horace of those times. 🙂
Who in the heck is Ford?
Sup zoomie
oh he's just some cowboyslop boomer guy
Henry Ford
He is a good business man, but a mediocre director. Memento was his only good film, and TDK due its scope. He is lousy at mise-en-scene however. All the pleasure of watching films doesn't exist in his stuff. It is all just plot plot plot, soulless dialogue. It is perfect for western viewers, but it's why he is not really a great filmmaker. Like Spielberg, for instance, he doesn't hold a candle to.
Only Batman Begins is good. TDK and Rises are terrible
>Batman Begins
= slop.
After reading Year One, it is painfully mid. Bale remains a terrible Batman and the villains are pathetic.
>i liek comic magazines therefor movie good
Shut the frick up moron. TDK is a better movie than Begins doesnt matter how much a better comic book batman story is begins, because guess what? its a fricking movie
learn english, subhuman
>He is lousy at mise-en-scene however
Jesus, midwits like you need to stop learning cinema from youtubers. have a nice day.
You and Chris Nolan don't know what mise en scene is
>Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick and Ford
(love how you left out Spielberg, an actual top ten director in the history of cinema)
To be fair though no director who came up in gen x, gen y, or zoom, can match those filmmakers because it is not just about the film but about the state of technology (CGIshit) and the zeitgeist itself
>more slop!
yeah he really needed yet anudda israelite director on his list youre right.
Dunkirk is unironically his only good film. Great visuals, nice runtime and doesn't rely on his shit dialogue.
Momento was good
Yeah dunkirk is his best by far. Which is funny because I always thought Nolan was highly mediocre, but then I watched that and "oh wow, he is actually good" but next movie he comes back to dumb shit for dumb people who believe they are smart and le wacky science/time gimmick.
Dunkirk was probably a fluke.
This, it's just a thrilling action flick that allowed him to play with his favorite toys and gimmicks without any pretenses to deeper substance.
Fricking YES. I'm tired of Cinemaphile pretending that Nolan is "Reddit" or for "normies." He's made several fricking BRILLIANT movies and, unlike Wes Anderson (who is quite good himself mind you), Nolan actually branches out in genre. Interstellar is probably one of the few perfect movies ever made.
You write like a redditor.
>fricking YES
>I'm tired of...
>BRILLIANT
>(...)
frick off back to your shithole
agree
Nolan never plagiarised Kon. Weeb delusion is something else. Kon certainly plagiarised Terry Gilliam though.
Hey may or may not have plagiarized him, but Kon was a far better filmmaker. Does anything from Nolan (or hacks like Villeneuve) approach Millennium Actress?
He's better homosexual
His movies completely fall apart on a second viewing. I'd say he makes some of the most nonsensical, hamfisted movies today.
His worst trait is that sometimes he makes strange writing decisions to justify spectacle. In DKR, why did the cops charge criminals with guns and not just get mowed down? In TENET, why is Priya in the car at the end at all? In Interstellar, why does Coop's daughter just discover the concept of anti-gravity from morse code in a fricking watch. I understand Coop is sending the code but any rational human would just be like "Damn, the internal gears must be messed up". He just has no way to explain some things in his stories so he makes the most insane asspulls to justify it.
>why does Coop's daughter just discover the concept of anti-gravity from morse code in a fricking watch. I understand Coop is sending the code but any rational human would just be like "Damn, the internal gears must be messed up
Love. She instinctively knows its her father.
He's James Cameron/Riddly Scott tier
maybe a better screenwriter but not as good of a filmmaker as either of them
no way. Cameron is a goat screenwriter when it comes to blockbusters. Has Scott ever written a screenplay?
those are his biggest influences
He's in a different circle. Oppenheimer and Interstellar show promise for something genuinely great in his future.
homie what, he is on the way down. directors peak at 40, then have ten decent years, then make trash till the end.
I thought that when the Dark Knight and Inception came out, he's in his 50s now and just getting worse though. Every film he just gets more stubborn about his Nolanisms.
jonathan nolan wrote interstellar
instellar was the most hit and miss film i'd seen in awhile, that black hole ending was beyond moronic. They peaked with Inception.
inception sucked
jonathon wrote memento, the prestige, the dark knight, TDKR, and interstellar
filtered, all those movies were mid, Inception was his peak, and it was a 9/10 film. He'll never be one of the greats. I dont care which pseud brother wrote what.
naw, all his best films were written by his brother. inception was his peak but it sucked cause jonathan didnt write it.
Tenet suffered far more from Jonathan's absence than Inception. I'm still mad about it.
>best film is a 7/10 and the rest are 5 or lower
No???
>Has Nolan earned himself a seat on the table of the greats, along with Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick and Ford?
That's Sir Christopher Nolan to you.
Yes, he's getting knighted. If you thought he was put on an pedestal before, it's only going to get worse.
This is Nolan's "emperor has no clothes" moment. He needs someone to call him out on his bullshit.
its fine, you zoomies want it like CoD or something
The explosion in Tianjin was more intense
>this historic accident looked more impressive than a movie stunt
Probably one of the most brainless things I've seen people say multiple times about that movie.
If an explosion many times less powerful looks more intense, I would say that's a major problem.
A major problem with your head maybe.
To be fair there are shots that aren't COMPLETE shit, but they were interspersed with close ups where you can see the pyrotechnic sparks, which really ruins the scale. The first shot in picrel with the shockwave looks to be CGI, and it actually looks pretty good.
The explosion crawling up the IMAX 70mm screen in silence after the pulsating score during the countdown was just breathtaking.
Most people hate his best movie because Anne Hathaway talking about love was an insane trigger for them. So no, I don't think he will.
Yes.
>Scorsese, Coppola
He does belong with those hacks
Nolan is for fricking homosexuals, not evan knighthood is gonna change that fact
No
Nolan turned to shit once he could not plagiarize from Satoshi Kon any more since Kon died.
Not to me. He has way more average-to-shit movies than great ones. And none of his movies are a 10/10. He has a few 9/10s, but no utter masterpieces, let alone several, like the legacy directors. He is essentially the king of contemporary slop for psueds -- nothing more.
He's like a poor man's James Cameron
this moron has got it ass backwards. James Cameron would be the poor man's Nolan you dumbfrick. Even the Nolan haters would admit to that. JC is the king of slop. Nolan is a tryhard homosexual with an elite Georgetown education who makes slop slightly above JC's level but still the same.
People really expose themselves when talking about Nolan imo. He is a far more substantial filmmaker than Spielberg(and some of the comments here are really telling on themselves by overrating the latter).
I would even go as far as to say that much of the hate against him comes from gatekeepers who are upset at the fact that a film with interesting ideas and themes doesn't have to be a boring slop enjoyed by film studies students. Thoughtful, "smart' cinema can be mainstream and this implication scares the pseuds who take great pride in thinking the "normies" can't sit through a Tarkovsky flick because they don't appreciate its intellect.
>He is a far more substantial filmmaker than Spielberg
lol what the frick. not even close
There's a reason Spielberg became boring and forgettable the minute he started pumping out "serious, thought provoking cinema". When was the last time you've seen people discuss The Fablemans or Lincoln?
It is true Munich is his last good film, which is now 20 years ago, however the dude is also like 85
i wanna throw you into a black hole so you can examine all the cringy posts you've written in your life.
I wanna throw you back into plebbit because this is the kind of "wit" you'd expect from a redditor.
took you 15minutes to both unpack and figure out that line, then recover and respond to that burn huh? talk about smooth brain kek.
>He is a far more substantial filmmaker than Spielberg
>film with interesting ideas and themes
>Ideas, themes, plotplotplotplotplot
Plotslop for midwits like you.
I dont precisely like Spielberg but you watch Indiana Jones 1 and its a movie 20 years ahead of its time. If you take out the ark goofy scene, might as well be a 2010-2020 action comedy movie. Thats how innovative was the action, editing, direction and cinematography of that movie. Id say it does better than many modern blockbusters that try to make the action comedy skit and fail at it badly.
Nolan does nothing that other hacks like Villaneuve cant do.
> Plotslop for midwits like you.
Stop projecting moron. Midwit is being generous to your ilk. Hilarious that you try to associate themes and ideas with plot. You're a lemming with 0 original thought and it's obvious where you get your ideas.
Your favourite youtuber probably told you that because some ideas obsess too much over "plot", le heckin smart cinephiles like you should focus on the visuals and you go to the other extreme instead
>If you take out the ark goofy scene, might as well be a 2010-2020 action comedy movie.
Lol, it's a great indicment of Spielberg that his successors are fricking marvel flicks and you know zilch about action. You vastly overrate the shit Spielberg supposedly innovated in terms of "action, choreopgraphy and cinematography". What are the stuff he did that wasn't present in say Lawrence of Arabia, The contemporary Bond flicks or dozen other action? Go ahead be specific
> Villeneuve
HAHAHAHAHA. You're a literal bugman if you think Nolan and Villeneuve are anything alike.
>What are the stuff he did that wasn't present in say Lawrence of Arabia, The contemporary Bond flicks or dozen other action? Go ahead be specific
Lawrence of Arabia wasnt an action movie, moron. Indiana Jones camera use, action and editing is 20 years ahead of any contemporary James Bond movie. In fact, its a great comparisson to James Bond movies because you can easily see how far above they were them. The car chase scene is Indiana Jones is practically Craig era tier.
Here you have a car chase from the Bond movie of that same year
?feature=shared&t=138
Now Indiana Jones
?feature=shared&t=256
It literally looks 20 years ahead.
>HAHAHAHAHA. You're a literal bugman if you think Nolan and Villeneuve are anything alike.
They, are. Hacks that make -le deep- sci fi thrillers for midwits.
>They, are. Hacks that make -le deep- sci fi thrillers for midwits.
come on anon, give Villeneuve SOME credit, he nailed bladerunner 2049, except for the villain, that was some cringe shit, the villain should have been the world itself and how it functions.
>Lawrence of Arabia wasnt an action movie, moron.
A movie that is not primarily action can have great action you dimwitted cretin. The French Connection has one of the greatest car chase scenes of all time and it's not an action.
.> Here you have a car chase from the Bond movie of that same year
> Now Indiana Jones
You duplicitous little fricking homosexual. You linked a chase scene for Bond and linked a risky stunt involving trucks for Indy.
Here's an actual generic car chase from Indy 2.
?si=ukyhgt0xuZJlD0c_
Omg so innovative. Bullit had a better car chase sequences two decades back.
Why not compare it to the plane stunt from Octopussy.
?si=HDgORsXjxxsGwOGr
You haven't actually said anything about "muh direction or cinnabontopography" btw and I know it's because you're a complete fricking dilletante who knows zilch about them. You just throw those words around to sound like an expert but I know you can't actually articulate anything substantial about them.
> Hacks that make -le deep- sci fi thrillers for midwits.
That's a great way to describe Spielberg's slop like Minority report and War of the worlds.
he only made 2 good films, why? inception and the dark knight. Most overrated psuedo-intellectual that isnt a klke in hollywood.
he's michael bay with a nicer coat of paint
Martin Scorsese actually fricking sucks tired of this boomer meme that pretends hes made a good film in the last 20 years
1. Kubrick
2. Cameron
3. Spielberg
The rest is irrelevant based on personal preference but this is the objective undeniable tv approved top 3