Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Nolan

Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
8,520
Reaction score
1
Points
0
the-dark-knight-rises-christopher-nolan-image.jpg


... grabs the crown from Cameron as king of Hollywood. He's more versatile than Cameron. I'm not saying he's the best... I am saying, he's the king of the hill right now. I measure that by ability to make any film you want, and being loved for the work you are doing.
 
Indeed he is

Indeed he is

Nolan really has redefined action-drama's. He has a way of making things have depth and seem gritty. He orchestrates epic blockbuster movies without making them feel cheesy.
 
I love Nolan's work, particularly The Following, Memento, and The Prestige. But how is Nolan more versatile than the man who brought us Terminator, Aliens, Abyss, T2, True Lies, Titanic, three ocean documentaries (Bismarck, Ghosts of the Abyss, Aliens of the Deep) and counting (Mariana Trench one is coming soon), Avatar... not to mention Rambo First Blood Part II, Strange Days, Dark Angel, and... Piranha 2? He also just made a record dive to the Mariana Trench in a sub he helped design and filmed the entire expedition.
 
More versatility of emotion?
 
Tom Lowe said:
More versatility of emotion?
Click to expand...

That's subjective criteria, but I find Nolan's work a bit cold emotionally. That's not necessarily a criticism either (see Kubrick). He aims for the intellect, and I would say he's more versatile in that department, playing with structure and form. Cameron is more conventional there, but he's attained greater breadth in subject and format (documentaries, TV, even theme park rides) so far.
Has Nolan's work ever made audiences cry? Maybe a little with The Dark Knight Rises. Titanic likely still reigns supreme as the modern granddaddy of tearjerkers. Terminator, Aliens, Abyss, and T2 were all very emotional.
 
This is not to take away from Mr. Cameron's amazing contributions to film!!! Just giving current ranks, as I suspect the public will.
 
Peter Chang said:
That's subjective criteria, but I find Nolan's work a bit cold emotionally. That's not necessarily a criticism either (see Kubrick). He aims for the intellect, and I would say he's more versatile in that department, playing with structure and form. Cameron is more conventional there, but he's attained greater breadth in subject and format (documentaries, TV, even theme paAk rides) so far.
Has Nolan's work ever made audiences cry? Maybe a little with The Dark Knight Rises. Titanic likely still reigns supreme as the modern granddaddy of tearjerkers. Terminator, Aliens, Abyss, and T2 were all very emotional.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better. Nolan the more "intellectual" on his approach, Cameron more "emotional". Both masters and "auteurs", in a class of their own in the Hollywood blockbuster scene.
 
I'm sorry Tom, but you are wrong. James Cameron still wears the crown. Nolan is great, and is a Hollywood Prince. Nolan is without a doubt in line to don the crown. But last time I checked the last two features James Cameron directed have become the top grossing movies of all time. TDKR might not even beat The Avengers at the box office this year.

People still love what James Cameron is doing, it's just been a few years since his last movie. I loved TDKR, but there's a lot of people that didn't. Same with Avatar.
 
I love how Nolan is pushing the intellectual envelope with Hollywood blockbusters, but Cameron made me cry twice (Avatar and Titanic)...no, I'm not a pussy, but you have to give props to a guy who can elicit that kind of emotion out of his audiences.
 
Brad Webb said:
...last time I checked the last two features James Cameron directed have become the top grossing movies of all time. TDKR might not even beat The Avengers at the box office this year.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Box Office Gross is a reasonable comparison to filmmaking ouvre.

Artistic impression isn't a directly correlated to BO. Look at the Star Wars prequels. Universally panned yet in the highest Worldwide grossing films ever.

Nolan, while having a huge exposition problem in my opinion, has a larger, deeper intellectual vision than Cameron in my opinion. Thats not a knock on Cameron but he mostly lately tends toward the bigger larger memes that audiences can grab onto in bulk and digest easily and have an amazing ride. Nolan does that as well but add's these layers of subtext that are a little darker and more satisfying.

Regardless they are both at the top of their game and have clearly earned their places in the pantheon.
 
In the context of today's filmmakers, Nolan is a blessing for those looking for an entertaining film with depth.
In the context of film history, he is not a standout.
 
David Collard said:
In the context of today's filmmakers, Nolan is a blessing for those looking for an entertaining film with depth.
In the context of film history, he is not a standout.
Click to expand...

+ 1
 
Sorry for being slightly OT, but I have a question regarding the picture in the first post.

Does Nolan really operate the camera in his shoots? I had read he doesn't even look at a monitor, preferring to stand by the camera and look directly at the actors' performances. But for this last movie, almost every picture I see of Nolan working has him operating the IMAX camera or looking through its viewfinder. I know he's a very competent director on the technical side, being the DP on his first efforts. Did he do more camerawork in this movie or did the BTS and stills photographers have orders to fire away just any moment he comes near the camera when lining up a shot during rehearsals?

It might be a PR strategy, to show him actively using those big burly IMAX cameras, but I think it misrepresents the work of a director on set and the size and work of his crew to the general public.

What do you think?
 
Nolan is not more versatile than Cameron. Cameron goes from Sci-Fi, to Comedy, to Romance, to Adventure, then back to Sci-Fi and makes a billion dollars on his movies in each of those genres. And in between those fictional narratives, he's busy making multiple deep-dive documentaries of the titanic, going to the bottom of the ocean, and developing new technologies to re-invent cinema (fusion 3D). Nolan has yet to make a comedy, adventure, romance... strictly action/drama (with a hint of sci-fi in Inception). Until he makes a Titanic, a True Lies, and a crazy documentary, his range is objectively limited compared to Cameron's.

But when it comes to depth, yes, Nolan (along with pretty much everyone making movies today) has a better grasp than Cameron.
 
David Collard said:
In the context of today's filmmakers, Nolan is a blessing for those looking for an entertaining film with depth.
In the context of film history, he is not a standout.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with that - I believe MEMENTO, for sure, and possibly THE PRESTIGE will stand the test of time. I just wish he would return to making smaller films. INCEPTION was proof that handing over more money didn't mean a better film. Nolan is cut from a more similar cloth to Aronofsky than he is to Cameron, and in both cases, I think their best work was not the same as their priciest work.
 
Daniel García said:
Sorry for being slightly OT, but I have a question regarding the picture in the first post.

Does Nolan really operate the camera in his shoots? I had read he doesn't even look at a monitor, preferring to stand by the camera and look directly at the actors' performances. But for this last movie, almost every picture I see of Nolan working has him operating the IMAX camera or looking through its viewfinder. I know he's a very competent director on the technical side, being the DP on his first efforts. Did he do more camerawork in this movie or did the BTS and stills photographers have orders to fire away just any moment he comes near the camera when lining up a shot during rehearsals?

It might be a PR strategy, to show him actively using those big burly IMAX cameras, but I think it misrepresents the work of a director on set and the size and work of his crew to the general public.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon for a director to take a run and cam operate at a few choice takes. Look at behind the scenes stuff on most any heavyweight...P.T., Tarantino, Scorsese, they will occasionally hop on the camera. That said, this could just be him checking the frame of the shot, maybe he popped in and popped out to confirm it. Surely 90% of the time Pfister or the camera operator ran the rig. A picture says a 1000 words, and says even 10,000 less. Can't deduce the nature of an entire shoot on one shot.
 
Christopher Nolan to me is a guy who "gets it" plain and simple. He knows how to tell a great story. Not to mention the fact that the combination of Nolan and Pfister has given us some of the most beautiful images of the last decade. Nolan might have to direct a few more films of his usual outstanding quality before the vast majority of movie goers will be ready to crown him king of Hollywood but that should in no way take anything from his accomplishments until now. If Nolan decided to make a film about paint drying on a wall, I for one would stand on line to watch it. As a quick side note, Tom, since you started this thread, I just wanted to take this opportunity and say that I am a big fan of your work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top