Nolan is a mediocre director that doesn't fully utilize his potential and caters to the masses that think he makes movies for "smart" people, even though they're crammed with exposition lurking in almost every other scene. Not to mention that his style of directing is bland as Lisa Ann's plastic tits dripping with cum.
What's the appeal? Why do people praise him so highly? Ville is essentially a better Nolan than Nolan himself, ffs.
I hate Nolan and always will, fuck him and his fans.
What you just said but this time for Denis "doesn't get more reddit than this" Villeneuve
Agreed, The Prestige is one of the worst movies I've ever seen
Denis is a solid director, but overrated of sorts, too. Haven't seen Arrival yet, but I liked Sicario and Enemy, even Prisoners was a solid one.
He directs big 200M movies what u expect more, i havent even seen a great movie done with this much budget but he does a good job and plenty of indie movies get acclaim but look like ass so he's legitimately among the best hollywod directors working today.
he could pull a Spielberg and make his "schindler's list" someday and become a "great director". Or even make something like Lawrence of Arabia.
Dennis Villenueve could become better than Nolan in the future, it all depends on their next film releases. Nolan did help paving the way for more thinking big movies. I mean this surely wasn't even a thing before The Dark Knight
> Villenueve is better than Nolan
I've only seen Prisinors and Arrival and he does the exact same thing as Nolan. He substitutes deep thematic questions with emotional manipulation. Just look at Arrival. He turned a 10/10 short story into a 4/10 movie.
Ville already is better than Nolan, Enemy is better than any film that hack has in his opus.
>he could pull a Spielberg and make his "schindler's list" someday and become a "great director". Or even make something like Lawrence of Arabia.
Highly doubt it, since Nolan didn't do much to make me actually believe he has it in him. His best film is TDK and even that isn't something great. Saulnier made Blue Ruin by a mere budget of a million dollars and it's still a much more competent film than most of Nolan's work.
Watch Sicario and Enemy, those are his better films. And yes, he mostly does the same thing Nolan does, but he's better at it.
is this the /plebgeneral/ where we discuss our favorite directors: Nolan, Villeneuve, and Tarantino? and claim we hate them
Villeneuve is an excellent director on a technical level. He just lacks any artistic vision.
Title says it all, this isn't a The Wire thread in which you shitpost to actually discuss it.
Nolan's movies have great story telling and world building. It's essentially what you said, he makes people feel smart, because it's like reading a book. Inception has some visual style, maybe prestige too. It's a miracle how TDK came out so good, since it's at least 50% acting and Nolan is known give no shit about how a scene comes out (unless it has his effects). Having said that, I find Nolans' writing good, I just think Nolan doesn't take advantage of the full potential a camera and actors give him over a pen and a paper.
I don't really hate Bong Joon-ho, I liked MoM, just liked it, and found Snowpiercer mediocre, I just don't get the high praise about him. I dislike his style
>What's the appeal? Why do people praise him so highly?
Because it makes plebs feel like they're intelligent.
No, genuinely. The whole "thinking man's director" meme is barely a meme, it's how people used to describe him.
Plebs want to watch Transformers and Taken, full of action and explosions without making them think too hard. But they also have a self-image of being really smart and enjoying the finer things. Nolan makes simple action films that occasionally mention challenging concepts (though he never actually explores these concepts with any depth), and he puts a Hans Zimmer score over the top so people get goosebumps when the non-stop exposition is being communicated.
He's literally the definition of an entry-level filmmaker
Inarritu did The Revanant for $100m
Cuaron did Gravity for $100m
Both are indescribably better than anything Nolan has done in the last decade
And let's be honest, Gravity was mediocre
The Revenant wasn't that good either, but the visuals were orgasmic.
Is Nolan an auteur, Sup Forums?
I think most posters in threads like these actually have an extreme love-hate relationship with the director that they supposedly "hate".
Nolan is the best example.
Most of you actually love his ideas, his artistic integrity and the execution of grand set pieces, but the hamfisted exposition and clunky dialogue/blocking keep his films from being truly "great" films.
You do not hate him like most people hate Uwe Boll, but you hate him because you see the potential of him making great films while keeps making the same flaws over and over again.
Not one of his films is below average in quality, but you must call it "complete utter dogshit" to balance out the general opinion of him.
You know exactly what is "the appeal", you just think he is capable of much more.
He's quite autistic, yes
No, I genuinely put Nolan on a similar level to Boll
Everything good in a Nolan film is the result of someone else
>cinematography - Nolan uses the best in the business and has very little consistent style of his own
>Music- He just keeps hiring Zimmerman
>The Joker - Leger locked himself in a hotel and went full on method and kept surprising him
Everything Nolan's actually responsible for, he fucks up
Nolan is a hack.
I don't see how that correllates with him being on the same level of Boll.
And I would say Memento is pretty much a "Nolan" film without much reliance on the standalone artistic ability of other filmmaking departments.
>Memento
Literally 17 years ago now and entirely reliant on a gimmick
Lol who even thinks that? Bay outside Transformers and taken movies generally earn less in BO. I think anyone born after the 90s has seen a Nolan movie, regardless of interest in cinema.
Closest comparison I can think of is Cameron, but i tend to think Nolan's movies have more character drama (confirmed by Interstellar).
Obviously, if people still compare him to Malick and best picture award movies then he must be really damn good.
What does that have to do with my post?
I was proving that Nolan himself can make a movie which is "not shit" without much reliance on other filmmaking departments.
>MOOBIE OLD ME NO LIKE OLDE MOOBIE
Stop. The gimmick is the only thing you have to bring to the table
>his best film is TDK
Only if you're a pleb. Memento and Insomnia are obviously his best
>tfw you're movies are too smart for Sup Forums
Nolan is a hack, I can tell he's a hack because he uses the same god damn fucking actors in every single movie. Doesn't even think about who's the right choice for the roll just goes with the same guy as last time.
To*
The Menagerie is a great episode and I don't care to see it tarnished with memes.
>Bay outside Transformers and taken movies generally earn less in BO
Taken - $226m
Taken 2 - $376m
Tak3n - $326m
Interstellar - $675m
Avatar - $2.7bn
Yeah, Interstellar's definitely closer to Avatar than Taken
you best be trolling, I can't even tell anymore. if not, you're a dumbfuck
Yeah but he hasn't done it in 17 years, and that film was heavily reliant on a stupid gimmick
Having one above-average film in you doesn't make you a good director
So Hitchcock is a hack?
Which of his films are below average and why?
Nolan is indeed awful. His dour, self important films convince viewers there is substance. There isnt. It's clunky, sloppy, derivative. He can set a chic, cold scene or set piece. that's it.
Villeneuve is actually talented.
Not because of that, but yeah
As a matter of fact, Nolan is the contemporary Hitchcock.
Both are loved by plebs because they make "smart movies", have the same gimmicks and actors over and over again, are ridiculously overexpositive, write terrible dialogue, and will be dated in not too long.
All of them post The Dark Knight
They're all full of exposition instead pf character-development or natural dialogue. They have shit editing, appalling choreography and frequently bad acting. The story is always full of plot holes (which Nolan himself even admits)
And literally none of them are at all "clever" in the slightest
>Nolan is the contemporary Hitchcock.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Confirmed for not actually being familiar with Hitchcock you fucking poseur.
quoted for fucking truth
>Gravity better than anything
I don't like Inaritu.
But you are looking just at the flaws, even "average" movies have most of those flaws you mentioned but they don't have top notch cinematography from Hoytema, the best technical team in the industry able to pull of the biggest most grand set pieces and a score by Zimmer which carries the whole movie.
I agree that most of his films after TDK are not that great, but it's quite absurd to call them below average.
>even "average" movies have most of those flaws you mentioned
no they don't
and you shouldn't be defending a director by saying that his shit isn't worse than other people's shit
you're upset at the phrase "below average"? okay, his entire filmography post TDK is appallingly bad
this is an objective fact
>the menagerie is a great episode
It's not really though.
fuck this thread. edgy children trying to stress how special they are on an anonymous image board. You're all cancer.
this to be truthful
This, it's like, why not enjoy all directors even if you think there not so great like why shit on Nolan some of us really like him who cares.
>why shit on Nolan some of us really like him who cares
>/r/eddit
No, seriously. Fuck off back to your circle-jerk hugboxes where you gush about how his films really make you think
Confirmed for not seeing Enemy.
Sorry to go somewhat off topic but I thought I'd ask since people are discussing Nolan. Is Memento worth watching if you're aware of spoilers?
dumb phoneposter
DUDE RANDOM LMAO
>if you're aware of spoilers?
no
not at all
the film's only worth watching to try and figure out what happened and follow the twists
there's nothing else worthwhile