Nolan

[Brad Webb]

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.

I completely agree that BO has nothing to do with a movie being good. If it did Jack and Jill would have made negative $300 Billion. I also agree that Nolan's movies are more intellectual and more satisfying. Nolan is able to take complex ideas and package them in an entertaining movie that the masses can enjoy. Cameron comes up with "unobtainium."

But I'm going off of Tom's original post where he says

"... 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."

When you say King of Hollywood, Box Office comes into play. And when Box Office comes into play nobody can touch James Cameron. Nolan is hot right now, but part of that is because his movie just opened. The only way Cameron can be dethroned is if you knock his movies out of first place or his next movie bombs.
Nolan only got to make Inception because WB knew he was going to make TDKR. Nolan is in rare air right now. He's in Stephen Spielberg territory right now. These three can make any movie they want because studios know they'll make a ton of money with them. Cameron gets the crown because he doesn't just make movies, he makes movies that destroy the box office.

 

[Peter Chang]

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

Artistic impression isn't a directly correlated to BO.

Not always, but the "kings" are the ones who bring in the riches, no?

Adjusted for inflation, Titanic is the only film in the last 30 years (since ET) to crack the top 10 (domestic):
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

That adjusted for inflation list is a bit better in terms of "artistic impression", I think, compared to the worldwide list which is cluttered with sequels and prequels: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
(Tom, it looks like Thunderball is the highest grossing Bond film of all time, adjusted for inflation)

Combined, Avatar and Titanic have made $4.968 billion to date and are the only two films in the worldwide top 10 that are not prequels/sequels.

Titanic had a record 15 consecutive weekends at #1 and yet only $40 million was spent on marketing. Compare to the average $100+ million in marketing costs for the average blockbuster (Avengers, Amazing Spider-man, Prometheus, TDKR, etc)

 

[Tom Lowe]

In terms of who is the King of Hollywood right now, part of this is also how the public perceives a filmmaker. Nolan has always been a class act. He reflects well on the film industry, and in this sense, has become an increasingly important ambassador for the film industry.

Meanwhile...

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Tom -you put a picture of one of Cameron's more obnoxious moments (apparently there are a few!)...but one also has to remember he was besieged by media reports that Titanic was going to be the biggest box office disaster in history. Then it went on to earn more than $2 Billion and earn all those Oscars (uh, 11 I think). In the moment Cameron felt vindicated. Was it classy? Argumentative, but he knows his shit better than any other auteur filmmaker so far.

I also love the fact he will take the camera and put his own ass on the line to get a shot. That's what he's willing to do every film he makes. Ballsy.

I like Nolan...but if anyone ever gave me the choice to shadow either one I'd pick Cameron.

 

[Keegan O'Brien]

Well, public perception certainly favors Nolan. At least amongst my community of film-lovers as well as general friends and family, they all rank Nolan as one of their favorite film-makers. Granted, they all know who Cameron is, and they all went and saw AVATAR but if I were to compare the two in front of them they would nearly unanimously claim Nolan is superior. What he has done in The Dark Knight Trilogy as well as with Inception makes him arguably one of the most loved film-makers of this upcoming generation.

As for my opinion, I don't see the two as comparable. Nolan's level of story-telling and his ability to bring some of the greatest big-budget performances of all time out of his actors, coupled with Wally's cinematography, make his films events. Although I respect Cameron tremendously AVATAR is weak narratively and only captures my attention on a visual level. Similarly, Titanic ​only captures my attention on an emotional level. Nolan manages to do both, and more, in nearly all of his films.

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Tough to compare directors based on dissimilar material.

I've always thought it would be a cool experiment (albeit an expensive one) to give top filmmakers the exact same script and budget. They can then cast it, crew it, shoot it, and post it to the best of their creative ability. Then we throw them up on the screen and see what's what. Now that's a shoot-out I'd line up to see.

Best:
Joel

 

[PatrickW]

It is an interesting, perhaps flawed, comparison.

I certainly hope that Nolan is able to achieve the type of career Cameron has experienced.

 

[Cid J Salcido Uyarra]

haha this is a good one.

Nolan is very consistent, Cameron got Lucas syndrome and went off to be an explorer which is cool i totally support it but Cameron hasn't played on the court as much.

In todays world my favorite consistent directors are Nolan and R.Scott.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Nolan ... 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.

Hard to argue with that. Even when Nolan makes films I don't necessarily like (including The Prestige), I have to admit, they're expertly made films with beautiful images and compelling characters. His body of work is really amazing.

But Cameron is no slouch, either. Both have a very definitive style, both are extremely hands-on filmmakers, both understand technique and story-telling very well. I wouldn't put one up against the other; they're different kinds of artists, each capable of doing remarkable work.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Lets not forget Cameron directed my favorite Roger Corman film "Battle Beyond the Stars"
Titanic by far my least favorite - The abyss takes the title as best Cameron film for me

Nolan is definitely creating some box office gold but Fincher seems to be the closest thing
to an indie filmmaker with a budget with by far more diverse films than either Cameron
Or Nolan

 

[Kyle Prohaska]

They all do great work from time to time in their own way using their own particular set of skills. I think Nolan can craft a good movie but he's praised far too much for the cerebral quality that his movies tend to have. I think it's more the facade of something smart then something truly smart, but enjoyable regardless. TDKR for me is his worst effort as a story with various holes and lazy writing. It has its moments, but it's hardly worthy of the spot it currently sits at on IMDB's all-time list. In case nobody has looked it currently sits at #9 above classics like The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders, Casablanca, etc. I'm sorry to say it but that's bull, and a direct result of a new generation of more tech-savvy and more online vote-happy film fans who haven't truly soaked themselves in past cinematic greatness.

An example of the impulsive rabid fan base would be at RottenTomatoes.com who had to shut down the comment section on TDKR's review page, since critics with even remotely negative comments were being beat up by fans who had yet to see the movie...even death threats.

Cameron makes technically superb spectacle with an often cheesy and 1 dimensional core. Nolan makes spectacle with a bit more smarts then the average bear, and his films are very entertaining and enjoyable, but I think the increasing popularity he's achieved has more to do with the amount of big movies he's made and how quickly, not necessarily how AMAZING those movies were. A great filmmaker...my favorite? Not by far.

Fincher will never get the BO numbers some of these other guys get, because his tastes and the kinds of movies he makes don't tend to be attractive to as many people. That's my personal opinion of course. The fact his movies are R most of the time ensures lower performance from the get go. Fincher is solid though and probably one of the more meticulous filmmakers around where every single little thing is debated and crafted. Few people appreciate that, and I appreciate it even in the films of his I don't like.

I agree with the comment a while back who said Spielberg will likely wear that crown until he's dead and buried. All great movies? Nah, but a lot amazing achievements and great movies where even the good ones and OK ones have followings and solid BO performance. I'll admit his work has soured in the last 10 years, but there's still a lot to be determined.

Nolan at the top of the heap at the moment? Maybe, but I don't think it's because he's the best filmmaker around.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm not sure how Spielberg can be hailed as the current reigning King of Hollywood when he hasn't had a huge, beloved, box-office-smashing blockbuster in... what... decades? You have to go back to the early 1990s to see Spielberg in top form, with big box office, and even then, the numbers are nowhere near Mr. Cameron or Mr. Nolan's. Meanwhile Cameron and Nolan are churning out HUGE movies with astronomical box office....and in the case of Nolan, widespread love from fans and the public.

Who is "on top" is as much about perception as it is about reality.

 

[Brad Webb]

There was a time when Spielberg was the unquestioned king of Hollywood. However, his last big box office draw was Crystal Skull, and well.. yeah.

In my opinion Cameron is #1. Just below him is Spielberg, Nolan, Peter Jackson, and maybe Michael Bay (obviously he's more flash than substance but he's a big time Hollywood player). Next in line is Del Toro, Fincher, JJ Abrams, and Brad Bird.

Personally I think Fincher is the best, and he might be the king of Hollywood if he made PG-13 movies.

 

[Kyle Prohaska]

Who is "on top" is as much about perception as it is about reality.

Definitely a Nolan fan

I was talking about Spielberg being the overall king...not really the current. I think it's sorta pointless to compare to see who's on top currently when that's constantly changing and very much based on what's hot. We'll see who contributes more to the age of cinema by the time both Spielberg and a lot of the current generation of "on top" directors are dead. I see Spielberg sitting on top even still or at least close, but that's just my opinion. Spielberg as a Director is one thing too, Producing is a whole different ballgame.

Cameron has Terminator 1 and 2, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, and Titanic to his name. All solid in their own way and Avatar reaching the top spot globally due to the marketing campaign and the "you gotta experience this" aspect of it. The bump in ticket price for 3D definitely helped and Titanic has been released how many times now? He definitely has a fan base but I don't think he crafts movies anywhere near as good as the rest. Dollars aren't everything. Your profile Tom says "somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick" who is also someone with a rabid fan base with very little BO performance to show for it. What constitutes success? What makes someone "on top?" Who gets to decide that?

If we're going to talk about big grossing movies I think the list to look at is this one: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not looking to get into some sort of meaningless argument here, just saying this is all very subjective. I look forward to what Nolan does in the future! Maybe when he's 80 he'll have an insane resume to his name unlike anyone has ever had. Who knows...

Peace,
K

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Nolan's films are undeniably very popular in North America. While Cameron may sell more tickets, if we were to guess an 'appreciation quotient', Nolan would probably highest on the list, currently.

However, Cameron simply reaches a much wider audience worldwide. Particularly in Asia - where 60% people of the planet live - Cameron is the universal ambassador for Hollywood. Nolan, on the other hand, is only known to regular film watchers and the youth. The International (i.e. outside of NA) box office figures also speak volumes as well, Avatar made four times as much money as The Dark Knight or Inception.

It is easy to understand why, Cameron basically reworks very primitive and timeless narratives in epic scale (e.g. Romeo and Juliet-on-a-Ship or Pocahontas-in-Space) which would appeal to most people regardless of demographic. Nolan experiments with narrative far more and is perhaps the only director who could raise $200+ million for screenplays that do not strictly adhere to classic three-act structures. His films are simply not as universal or familiar, or in other words, as safe.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, I'm sure you have a point, Subhadip. Cameron is known widely in the world. In places like China, he probably does not suffer in reputation for his Oscar antics or any of that. I guess when I say King of Hollywood, I mean mostly how Americans perceive it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Lets not forget Cameron directed my favorite Roger Corman film "Battle Beyond the Stars" ...

Nope, he did miniature work, some second-unit cinematography, and art direction. Not directing per se. But that was his foot in the door.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Fincher has crept into the convo a couple of times...and he has been one of my faves for a long time (in large part due to Seven & Fight Club). But I was not impressed with GWTDT. For whatever reason I preferred the original. It felt like he took a nice paid vacation...technically Fincher's was superior but overall aesthetics I liked Oplev's.

 

[Dominik Muench]

Not that I think directors can really be compared like that. I'd take one Nolan over two Camerons any day. Nolans work just seems more stylish and complex.....anyone who can take a (simple) comic book idea like batman, which has been done several times before in the past (still kudos to Burton, michael keaton still rocks as batman) and make it into something so dark, stylish and at the same time retain a level of intellectual standard that appeals to such a broad demographic is a winner in my book. I never understood the fuzz about avatar...yes from a technical production point of view it was impressive...but the storyline and acting was flatter than my chest...and I haven't been to the gym in months.

I'd love to see a project written&produced by Nolan, directed by Fincher and shot by Wally Pfister....or Darius Khondji ^^

 

[Mark Toia]

I think as all time consistant box office success (s) Spielberg is way way on top if you look at IMDB... Even though I rate Nolan as the best director at the moment, but when you look at the most box office hits over X ammount of years, Speilberg is miles ahead of anyone.
Noland is going to have to keep the winners coming for some time yet to knock Spielberg off... and he's probably the man to do the job.

But I must say, how the hell did Nolan let that dying scene of Myranda's get through... It must be the worst acted dying scene I have ever seen. It was the conversation of the night when we left the theatre.... Other than that, it's GOLD !