What would you say is the message behind his films?
Other urls found in this thread:
gamasutra.com
twitter.com
Capitalism is bad.
her pussy looks aight here
Any more pics of Hathaway in that suit? Something about the way her chest looks in it really gets me.
I hated her visor. Overall she was super hot in this movie
There was not enough of her in the suit desu.
I can't decide if Nolan's iconic hairdo is cool or not
does nolan have a latex fetish?
Its not the size of the guy that matters, but the loyalty of his guns
hairlets do not have much choice though
love
The message behind his films is that if you put enough forward then people will find their own meanings without you having to come up with anything yourself.
Is that Diogenes?
Style is more important than substance
The scene where he tells those guys trying to help that he isn't wearing hockey pads really cemented it.
Differs depending on the film, but they're hardly subtle. Inception's ending is obviously that Leo no longer cares if it's reality or not, a fake can be just as good or better than the original.
omg so deep
Honestly, I don't think you know what deep means. You probably misuse the word pretentious, too.
I know what pretentious means but deep doesn't really have as definitive a meaning. In general I am just expressing my disdain for Nolan's films because I think they are boring and of little substance.
>deep doesn't really have as definitive a meaning
That's deep.
It does. When we talk about something having depth, it means that there's a lot to explore when analyzing and discussing it. Its themes are apparent throughout its scenes and its conclusion merits debate. Nolan's films don't have the most depth, since he's appealing to a very broad demographic, but they're certainly not as shallow as most blockbusters.
Depends on the film. I think the dark Knight was a movie about terrorism and how it's handled, raising the question of whether what is being done to stop it is right or wrong and portraying the extensive power that the government has in their hands.
I thought it was about a billionaire taking time out of his day to beat up a clown.
At least there was that one really good shot of her ass on the cycle.
Thanks, Mr. Reductionist. Your comments are always so insightful.
Did Nolan switch opinions between it and TDKR? Dark Knight is very post-9/11 while Rises is distinctly post-post-9/11
>they're certainly not as shallow as most blockbusters.
"Yeah it's a drive through but this greasy shitty burger is just better than McDonalds, so therefore let's talk about how it measures up next to Michelin restaurant food".
>there will never be a Nolan thread on Sup Forums ever again without it descending into Baneposting.
Sup Forumss greatest achievement .. the destruction of this hacks credibility.
Raz and Bane are in the right.
Batman is a useful idiot and doesn't even know it.
Nah, it's more like comparing an Outback Steakhouse to a drive thru. They're both corporate chains, and neither is fine art, but one is definitely better than the other.
I dare you to tell me that Kong's lack of depth is even in the same league as The Dark Knight.
Post something sarcastic at me again and I'll get a bazooka and blow you up. Don't test me.
I'm agreeing with you bro. Just like how Citizen Kane is just about a billionaire who misses his sled.
Clearly flustered he continued, "no you don't see, this greasy shitty burger isn't just better than McDonalds, it's a whole step over shitty steak! While it's not haute cuisine, this greasy shitty burger is miles ahead of the McDonalds people usually get."
"There's nuance!", he insisted, as the pustulant sauce dripped from the sides of his mouth into his neckbeard.
You could have spent that effort formulating an argument
Why are Nolan haters so childish? Another thread, another episode of sperging
Well, I think the whole of it was a mockery to the stupid character and idea of Batman and the not muh comic book faggots.
In BB, Batman is introduced, he is a hero, pretty comic book heroic.
In TDK, Batman is shown as a Bush/nsa like antiterror freak. Showing that the whole concept of Batman as superhero is retarded, and that the same people who complain about Bush would clap and cheer for someone doing exactly the same thing if he wears a stupid cape and is called Batman.
The third movie goes even beyond that, not only showing that Batman fans are hypocrites but also denouncing the whole Batman character as useless and retarded. Fans get mad if batman kills, but never get mad if batman becomes a bush like character. But they also hate Bush!
So after 3 movies of having that batfaggot crying about no guns and no killing, the city is saved...by killing Bane shooting him with a gun.
Snyder, understood the satire of Nolan and decided to take it to the extreme. Batman not killing is retarded when he does much worse. So Batman will kill, and do even worse stuff.
Burton understood it, Nolan understood it, Snyder understood it. Why dont you?
Snyder just thinks killing is cool. He's a massive pleb of a director who made his name on special effects and action sequences.
Agreed, but I would even take it a step further, say Gotham represents the country:
In order to get rid of the deep (state) seeded corruption, the only real solution is to bring it all down (drain the swamp). Hence my original comment here
gamasutra.com
40-50% of Wii U's were returned