When his name was mentioned (can't remember if it was pre-production)..But that's who they were thinking about at one point before they miraculously decided to to go for Villeneuve.
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the guy and maybe he would've done an equally good job. (afterall, he directed Inception)... But i have to admit, after seeing Interstellar, i'm glad he didn't.
Ps: and no, i don't think Interstellar was garbage, but it had the potential to be way better than it was..
I'm with you senpai
From what i understand..Interstellar's script was originally written with Spielberg in mind. Sadly, it showed in some parts...I don't parts..I don't know why they kept it as it was but...Oh well.
Nolan is a top tier director who badly needs a good script writer to make a good movie, otherwise you end up with gorgeous but retarded shit like Interstellar or TDKR.
I agree, but Interstellar was garbage.
>gorgeous
>interstellar
>the dark knight rises
????
TDKR also had some great visuals, as long as there werent more than 5 people on screen.
Nolan is dogshit at shooting crowds
I honestly think Nolan could have done a good job with BR2049 if he used the same script. He is bad at dialog and exposition, but the dialog in 2049 is nothing special anyway and there already is a lot of exposition.
He would probably want to rewrite the script himself with his brother though, and the movie would suck
Nolan failed us. I didn't even watch Dunkirk because I heard the bad reviews.
Degeneracy = Villenueve
But Dunkirk has extremely good reviews all around?
It's the first Nolan film where the usual Nolan flaws are practically non-existant (no constant shoved exposition, no overwritten dialogue, no too complex storyline, no poor close quarter choreography) and focused on visual storytelling entirely.
Be aware that you missed out on one of the best cinema experiences of recent times.
Yeah, Nolan is too high profile to be directing a sequel to someone else's movie. I don't see it ever happening.
The final fight scene was very Nolanesque, dragged out just like Inception with the car diving in the water.
I think that was Denis giving a nod to Nolan.
I'll grab the torrent to see for myself, but I don't read mainstream reviews, they're just studio propaganda
>Interstellar's script was originally written with Spielberg in mind. Sadly, it showed in some parts
yeah, it has that spielberg schmaltz all over it
Inception is a shitshow.
Nolan didn't write interstellar it was old as fuck script Spielberg was supposed to direct in 2007 or something.
>"I hate Nolan so much and..."
>*stamps foot*
>"I. Won't. Give. An. Inch!"
>implying this thread isn't Sony propaganda
Jesus, Sup Forums is turning into reddit, even the way people write in here is simillar from what i've been seeing.
no user you are turning into reddit get the fuck back there
The film is 50% about sound alone, please don't watch it on your laptop/integrated TV speakers.
I'm not the one who's discussing fucking Nolan or Superheroe movies in every fucking thread, im busy actually watching good stuff.
The Naval captain and Infantry officer guys literally only exist to talk to each other in exposition and explain whats going on, because if the audience doesn't know about dunkirk they might be wondering why the Germans are just chilling
how the fuck does love transcend time and space?
I'm not even sure what transcending time and space even means
Well in the movie his love for his daughter forms a connection and he uses that information to pass vital information to her while they're separated by time and space
That's like 3 minutes of exposition max, compared to a shitshow like Inception which is non stop exposition.
I liked the movie, but it felt really unnecessary to skip back and forward through timelines when changing scenes from the air, the mole and the sea. At times it was even a little confusing, and i've had friends back me up on this. It certainly doesn't add to the movie in any positive ways, so it ends up feeling lazy to me.
If Nolan directed Blade Runner 2049 we'd get no shots of Ana de Armis' gorgeous tits and ass, since that would violate his beloved PG-13 rating.
It's crucial for it to be non linear because by seeing those moments again you get a bigger picture of the situation which is told extremely subjectively from every perspective and to form a coherent interconnected story with those moments, also even more tension bulilding (that Spitfire pilot crash landing on water, looks like he's giving a thumbs up that he's okay to Hardy - cut later - he's actually struggling to get out of the Spitfire so he doesn't drown and the cockpit is stuck because of the hard impact on water)
The air narrative takes place in one hour, the sea narrative in one day and the land narrative in one week, how else would you do it?
If you had a linear representation of that whole week then you would have Tom Hardy sitting in an airbase somewhere sipping tea and wanking off to pictures of dear old Marge, and Dunkirk wasn't about that fake empathy/sentimentality, it was about being thrown into the event itself.
>and i've had friends back me up on this
wow if your friends said so then it certainly must be true, amazing argument forming user
Well if you put it that way. Gonna need to watch it again, got a feeling my brain will get a better grasp upon rewatching.