Nolan's Next Film

Speculation and discussion about Christopher Nolan's possible and confirmed future projects.
Posts: 305
Joined: December 2017
Willem wrote:
July 23rd, 2018, 10:19 am
Nolan isn’t doing a video game adaption.

In fact, we don’t have a clue whatsoever of what his next film will be about. I’m still hoping for a big-budget horror.
We have absolutly NOTHING, and we all know that it will be nothing of all the speculations we've made.

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2018
Infidel wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 1:04 pm
DHOPW42 wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 3:54 am
Infidel wrote:
July 29th, 2018, 3:17 pm
I want something devised for intelligent adults, the last film to be so being Memento. The PG-13 thing he has going on may be fantastic for him and his handlers financially, but artistically they are extremely limited. The Prestige is the closest to breaking free of that burden.
In what way has it been limiting Nolan's work so far? On what basis do you say that Nolan, and what he wanted to achieve with his films, was limited in his creative choices by the PG-13 rating? I'm honestly baffled by this.
Because his ideas cannot be justified without the need for a presentation of violence. Dunkirk was laughable in that sense. As was the dialogue, but that's another burden of his in which he cannot seem to shake. His dialogue peaked with Memento, and then became more insulting to the intelligence of the average man every film onwards.

2001 had nothing in in that would justify blood, or strong language, or violence. Because it treat the audience with respect, and is agreed universally as a masterpiece. Nolan's work, perhaps not. Insomnia is the closest he's come to something brilliant. Memento was the height of his brilliance.
Isn’t it a 15 year old mentality to think dialogue is only adult if it has curse words in it? And isn’t it 14 year old mentality to think movies about space, dreams, and Batman, require blood and gore to make you feel tough?

Asking for a friend

Posts: 33
Joined: July 2018
Location: Danny's Mouth
Frankthetank wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 9:05 pm
Infidel wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 1:04 pm
DHOPW42 wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 3:54 am


In what way has it been limiting Nolan's work so far? On what basis do you say that Nolan, and what he wanted to achieve with his films, was limited in his creative choices by the PG-13 rating? I'm honestly baffled by this.
Because his ideas cannot be justified without the need for a presentation of violence. Dunkirk was laughable in that sense. As was the dialogue, but that's another burden of his in which he cannot seem to shake. His dialogue peaked with Memento, and then became more insulting to the intelligence of the average man every film onwards.

2001 had nothing in in that would justify blood, or strong language, or violence. Because it treat the audience with respect, and is agreed universally as a masterpiece. Nolan's work, perhaps not. Insomnia is the closest he's come to something brilliant. Memento was the height of his brilliance.
Isn’t it a 15 year old mentality to think dialogue is only adult if it has curse words in it? And isn’t it 14 year old mentality to think movies about space, dreams, and Batman, require blood and gore to make you feel tough?

Asking for a friend
You said it, so it must be so.

Posts: 2179
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Infidel wrote:
July 30th, 2018, 1:04 pm
Because his ideas cannot be justified without the need for a presentation of violence. Dunkirk was laughable in that sense. As was the dialogue, but that's another burden of his in which he cannot seem to shake. His dialogue peaked with Memento, and then became more insulting to the intelligence of the average man every film onwards.

2001 had nothing in in that would justify blood, or strong language, or violence. Because it treat the audience with respect, and is agreed universally as a masterpiece. Nolan's work, perhaps not. Insomnia is the closest he's come to something brilliant. Memento was the height of his brilliance.
Okay, but let's take Dunkirk as an example through which I would like to make a point:

To sum it up, and I hope I'm not wrong in my assumption, you're saying that Dunkirk didn't work ("was laughable") because its setting (World War II) bears the need for a presentation of violence. Nolan himself made it clear several times that the violent aspects of World War II were of no interest to him and to Dunkirk, because other WWII movies made that aspect of the war very clear (Saving Private Ryan for example, among others).

So, from a filmmaker's point of view, he felt that there's no point re-iterating the clear-as-day fact that wars are, indeed, violent. Still, for several reasons (one being proud British patriotism, I'm sure) he felt artistic motivation to depict an episode of World War II. As a filmmaker and writer he then looked at this episode of history and thought about the most important emotional aspect of that episode. I guess this is what you do with every story: you take an episode of life, historical or fictional, and try to figure out the most important, basic aspect of it, the one element that drives the whole story. That's the main purpose of any writer and director, I'm pretty sure (talking from a personal point of view as well).

So, after thinking about the story of the Dunkerque evacuation a lot, he must've (on a conscious level or other) made a list of "elements that drive the Dunkerque evacutaion and the people in it". I'm assuming it must've been a list of things such as:
- a fear of violence
- a fear of death
- longing for your home country
- longing for safety
- longing for your loved ones
- etc.

So, of course, violence must've been high up this ladder, but I'm sure as an intelligent person yourself you understand that the fear of death is not exclusively derived from the fear of violence. Or, better yet, even if the two things are, on an evolutionary and psychological level impossible to separate, making a FILM does not mean re-creating every (every) psychological aspect of human emotions.

So, all in all, Nolan, as a writer and filmmaker, felt that the most important aspect of the evacuation (for him, as a writer and filmmaker) was the fear of any sort of loss of life, or the fear of the unknown. He also felt that, while it could be possible to bring violence into the game, still, that way he would only have made another war film where people are fleeing away from violence. And the point of Dunkirk, if you watch it in an intelligent, analytic manner, isn't that violence is bad and that wars are violent. The point is that people are in shit situations and want to get out of there. And if you think that shit situations can only be depicted with the inclusion of violence, then you must be quite a lazy writer.

I know it can seem controversial because you could say: if Nolan really wanted to make a survival film, why was it necessary to set it in World War II, which was, by definition, violent? But that is lazy thinking. I truly believe that, if you think of yourself as a writer, you need to be able to come up with different ways to depict historical episodes of horror. Because, as a writer, you need to believe that there were different levels of human experience throughout these situations and episodes. It wasn't only a reaction to violence.

And also, yet another point, why do you think, or why does anyone think, that depictions of violence can do justice to the REAL horrors of war? I had a Hungarian filmmaker as a professor at our University, who also happened to be Jewish. He honestly believed that no film in the history of film making has ever been able to depict the Holocaust in a way which justifies its horrors. Because it just cannot be done. So that's another point to consider.

And I'm only talking about Dunkirk here, but I wanted to give you a perspective. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree, but you need to consider the perspective of the filmmaker, Nolan himself. He made the conscious choice of making films and writing stories without the need for violent scenes, characters and episodes (also, who would say that the Joker was not violent?). He himself doesn't need them in order to write his films. You can disagree with that, but what gives you the perspective to be able to judge why certain filmmakers and artists work the way they do? Maybe you are looking for your own taste in these films, but these films were made by people who have strikingly different tastes.

If you think that the way Nolan works and creates his stories is laughable, that's fine, but then again, I wonder why you need to deliver your opinion in this de facto, condescending manner, as if what you're saying is an absolute truth. If you really think that what you're saying is an absolute truth, then why do you bother talking to us really?

Posts: 33
Joined: July 2018
Location: Danny's Mouth
What?

Posts: 2179
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Infidel wrote:
August 1st, 2018, 4:36 pm
What?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Posts: 52807
Joined: May 2010
So, what's his next project before Bond 26? 🕷

Posts: 12357
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
m4st4 wrote:
August 6th, 2018, 5:06 am
So, what's his next project before Bond 26? 🕷
Pratham wrote:
July 9th, 2018, 2:51 am
i hope it's gonna be musical biopic about abba starring prince caspian as bjorn and jimmi simpson as benny

Posts: 188
Joined: January 2013
Alright! I just caught up and read all fucking 50 pages of this shit so I wouldn't just repeat the same shit. I've got a few thoughts and questions:

Akira:
Why are we so dismissive of Akira? Or why is it only barely mentioned here? He was supposed to produce it yes? But very little has happened since that was announced. We've got several people here saying they'd love to see him do another sci-fi, or something cyber-punk. Do you just NOT WANT it, given the original is fine? Do we think Nolan isn't that interested?

I'm not sure we need a live action Akira, but I do think Nolan could do great work on the script and building upon the already spectacular visuals of the original film.

Western:
I would love this. Growing up I only enjoyed westerns occasionally. But somehow I've grown to really love modern made westerns, such as True Grit (coens), 3:10 to Yuma, Django/hateful 8, Magnificent Seven, Revenant. This genre can make for pretty big boxoffice receipts, and would allow for some tremendous cinematography. Would love to see Hoyt shoot a western.

Neo-Western
I guess that might be what we call these sorts of films now eh? Talking Wind River, No Country for Old Men, Hell or High Water. Love these! Not particularly profitable as of yes....but some great films! Blends some of the more noir elements that Nolan has worked in with western aesthetics, and....I love em. And we all owe Taylor Sheridan some thanks for his work heh.

Citizen Hughes
Hey! Its been long enough! It keeps coming up and that must be cuz it's good! Jim Carrey or no, I'd love to see this movie. Even if Jonah and emma think it's great, it IS possible Chris isn't currently interested, given his comments about Bruce Wayne satisfying his interest in the subject. Given he just did a period piece drawing from real events, I'd like to see him avoid doing back to back films like that. Spielberg is great, but I've grown a bit tired of his interest in true stories and shit, good movies or not. Ready Player One was such a breath of fresh air for his filmography.

Bioshock
This kept coming up. I want a bioshock movie really bad....or maybe I don't? Maybe they are best as videogames. Ken Levine's games are AMAZING, and deserve to be seen and experienced by more people, and a movie could bring them that attention, but honestly...I love them just the way they are. Additionally, does Chris even like/play video games? Jonah has stated explicitly that Bioshock influenced how he made Westworld. He's already passionate about the property, so maybe we should just hold out for him to do something with it one day? Given his work in television, it makes me think how good Bioshock, original or Infinite, could work as a limited series.


Bond
We'll get one. When the time is right. No rush here. I'm excited for it, but I don't gush over it. I mean didn't Casino Royale feel very much like a Batman Begins inspired James Bond anyway? They grounded the franchise, gave it a more...forgive my word choice, but a more GRITTY feeling, and made it way too long. I seem to recall some years of movies after BB and TDK that were all following in Nolan's footsteps, with varying results.

Batman 4
Lol absolutely not. Except maybe. but not for 5 or 10 more years. But he already kinda did the The Dark Knight Returns batman past his prime comes back cus he's obsessed and the villain is bad enough sort of thing. TDKR has a perfect ending that gave closure but allowed us to believe in something more.

Lowerbudget films
Naw. as addressed, he wants to keep making big movies during the period of his life when studios will allow him to. He knows it won't last forever.



So...all things considered...my money is on a Western. Something big, great cast, and maybe he's even a bit jealous of what Jonah has been 50% working on.

But honeslty I don't GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT IS JUST TELL US SOMETHING GOD DAMNIT NOLAN YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE BREAKS YOU MUST GIVE US MORE WE NEED IT AND THE FORUMS ARE DYING!

josephcq wrote:
August 8th, 2018, 5:40 pm
Akira:
Why are we so dismissive of Akira? Or why is it only barely mentioned here? He was supposed to produce it yes? But very little has happened since that was announced. We've got several people here saying they'd love to see him do another sci-fi, or something cyber-punk. Do you just NOT WANT it, given the original is fine? Do we think Nolan isn't that interested?

I'm not sure we need a live action Akira, but I do think Nolan could do great work on the script and building upon the already spectacular visuals of the original film.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4979&start=110#p1084389

Post Reply