Confuses complexity for depth: The Filmmaker

>Confuses complexity for depth: The Filmmaker

Someone get this man a copy of Moby Dick so he can learn what depth is. The story of Moby Dick can take place anywhere and it can be told and retold in 1000 different ways. It speaks to the human condition in a way that transcends cultures & time. It is also a very simple story (A man hunts a whale) imbued with the weight of DEPTH which makes it so remarkable and enduring.

Nolan is the OPPOSITE of Melville. He tries to substitute his lack of insight and profundity with convolution and narrative tricks. He tries to disguise his shallowness with EPIC SCALE. There isn't a single Nolan picture with a character that has an appreciable amount of depth. Not one that speaks to its audience on a human level.

Christopher Nolan might be the biggest hack in all of Hollywood.

Did you actually read Moby Dick? This shit is mostly about whaling business while some idiot named Ahab screams in a background

Ah, I understand why that copypasta seemed too on point to come from Sup Forums.
Once again Sup Forums shows it's the best at coming up with memes and things that can be repeated ad nauseaum

Fucking this
>6000 pages about whale sperm

Did you?

There isn't a single sentence unnecessary sentence in all of Moby Dick.

I think OP confuses depth with length, something that wouldn't happen if he had any kind of sex life at all.

>America's most celebrated writer is the guy who considered himself to be a bad writer
Fucking lel

At least Nolan's films are entertaining to watch

I respectfully disagree.
While it's true that stuff like Batman and even Inception lack on the emotion department and The prestige relies solely on the twist at the end for it's effect i think that Interstellar actually achieves a complex story with emotional value and depth.

This is not to say Nolan's films doesn't have problems since most times complexity leads to exposition and overthinking which oppose emotion.

Still on Interstellar there is some sort of balance between those.

>nolan
>entertaining

plebbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

The Prestige and Memento were the only ones I cared about because the narrative and twists were used well and exploited properly together.

Interstellar is wank just so he could shit out a "sci-fi" movie. I don't think the premise or even the idea behind it is bad, but Nolan was the absolute worst guy to tell it. Had it been Spielberg like originallly intended, the emotional parts would've landed a lot better. The kid would've been a lot more annoying though.

This is all true
For a long time I've said there is an easy to get a nolan film:
>take a typical oscar-bait film
>remove all character development, complex themes and depth (but keep the allusions to all of them in the script) cutting it down from 2 and a half hours to one and a half
>add in half an hour of explosions and shittily-choreographed action sequences
>add in ten minutes of one-liners that sound completely unnatural outside of a trailer
>add in 20 minutes of pure exposition
>film some of it in IMAX
>redditors will now mistake it for something more than transformers

seriously what does this actually mean?

are you implying that because Melville thought he wasn't good that means that it's funny he's considered good?

because that makes you sound retarded

Its hard for me to hate Nolan since he made TDKR

>Did you actually read Moby Dick? This shit is mostly about whaling business while some idiot named Ahab screams in a background

No, each chapter, if not story-driven, compares whaling to life, in great, intelligent ways.

I wrote my thesis on it. Melville was fucking good. Dick isn't a regular novel, in that much of it isn't a story, but I love it for that too.

Melville considered himself a genius and expected to be one of the greats after his death. He says so in a letter to Nathaniel Hawthorne.

You're a moron.

Call me daddy.

Moby Dick is "entertaining" to read. What the fuck is wrong with you? It's one of the most fun books to read.

>bromance with savage guy, top homo keks for 1851

>every chapter is short and powerful, like your dicklet

>There isn't a single Nolan picture with a character that has an appreciable amount of depth. Not one that speaks to its audience on a human level.
This is where you erred, my friend. Bill Wilson has the most depth of any film character I've seen in the past twenty-five years.

>I wrote my thesis on it.
lol

>ill Wilson has the most depth of any film character I've seen in the past twenty-five years.
This is objectively true. But this was more due to Aidan Gillen's acting and the improv that he and Tom Hardy came up with on-set
If you read the original script, all the allusions to God and the Devil are missing and Ittin's not even in it

True, it is hard to watch a book.

I wish I still had the book from HS so I could prove you wrong as fuck

Nolan is the biggest hack fraud in Hollywood.

It's true, you cunt.

> In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnaeus declares, "I hereby separate the whales from the fish." But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnaeus's express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan.

>The grounds upon which Linnaeus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: "On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their movable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem," and finally, "ex lege naturae jure meritoque." I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug.

we all agree it's a powerful piece of literature but its economy is objectively poor.

>but its economy is objectively poor.

What do you even mean, faggot?

Nothing is unnecessary here. Besides, I think you took this from notes about the novel. Because Ishmael doesn't talk with whale experts.

Not well played, faggot.

>libcuck major
Wew lad

I think you took this from notes about the novel.

No, I took it from Chapter 32. Thank you for proving you've never read the unabridged book, you will get no more responses from me troll.

>No, I took it from Chapter 32.

No you didnt.