Tell that to the critics and everyone else who thinks Nolan makes the most intricate (or convoluted) films. The exposition is too heavily criticized but I agree Nolan's films aren't hard to understand as long as you don't check your brain at the door. There's a number of professionals who have implied otherwise though, that wish Nolan would dumb it down more Nolan's makes "the thinking man's blockbuster" but no, contrary to thoughts of some you don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow.
Last edited by lcbaseball22 on December 11th, 2014, 7:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Also, considering his most respected/critically acclaimed material is the batman trilogy, I wouldn't say being known as the director of those films hurts his reputation.
Hell, the only time any of his films won an important award was through that trilogy.
Murphy528 wrote:
To me, Nolan is the Kubrick of our time. Memento, The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar are four masterpieces that ANY legitimate or serious film organization would recognize as exceptional material.
Yeah, the Dark Knight trilogy are quality blockbuster/superhero films, but I most admire Nolan for the four films that you mention and I'm pretty confident that they will go down in history as classics
lcbaseball22 wrote:Tell that to the critics and everyone else who thinks Nolan makes the most intricate or convoluted films. The exposition is too heavily criticized but I agree Nolan's films aren't hard to understand as long as you don't check your brain at the door. There's a number of professionals who have implied otherwise though, that wish Nolan would dumb it down more Nolan's makes "the thinking man's blockbuster" but no, contrary to the thoughts of some you don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow along.
In my opinion, his only convoluted film is TDKR, which has some incredibly clear plot problems which have been discussed to death obviously. But yeah, I remember Inception getting alot of hate at the time too with all these "plot hole" problems that really were just questionable at best. Interstellar is getting that same treatment, except this time the film is protected by actual scientific theories, so most of these "plot holes" that were pointed out earlier have been discredited already by big scientist personalities like NDT.
Apocalypse wrote:Also, considering his most respected/critically acclaimed material is the batman trilogy, I wouldn't say being known as the director of those films hurts his reputation.
Hell, the only time any of his films won an important award was through that trilogy.
Yes, but that's kind of his problem. Nobody really knows where to group him. He's the Superhero director AND the Legitimate Let's-Make-Important-Films director. He's like if Michael Bay suddenly made The Social Network. Critics and Awards groups would be like, "Uhhh, what?"
There's really nobody like Nolan (today). That's basically the problem. Spielberg would be the closest, because he goes from Jurassic Park to Schindler's List.
Apocalypse wrote:In my opinion, his only convoluted film is TDKR, which has some incredibly clear plot problems which have been discussed to death obviously. But yeah, I remember Inception getting alot of hate at the time too with all these "plot hole" problems that really were just questionable at best. Interstellar is getting that same treatment, except this time the film is protected by actual scientific theories, so most of these "plot holes" that were pointed out earlier have been discredited already by big scientist personalities like NDT.
The only semi-arguable problem is "How did Bruce get back to Gotham?", and I have NO problem with that plot "hole" at all. It isn't a problem in the narrative of the story. He's Batman. He's Bruce Wayne. He just got into Gotham. He got back. It doesn't matter how.
Apocalypse wrote:
Hell, the only time any of his films won an important award was through that trilogy.
The Oscars aren't the end all be all A number of the most acclaimed films and/or directors never won afterall. I typically put more stock in the individual guilds than the limited size branches who nominate. That being said 8 Oscar nominations for Inception isn't too shabby (neither is the AFI Film of the Year Award or being the critic's consensus for 2nd best of the year) and I bet in an expanded Best PIc field at least a few of Nolan's other films would have been among the ranks, such as Memento which received screenplay and editing. And that was really Nolan's first feature film even. He was an unknown then.
Apocalypse wrote:Also, considering his most respected/critically acclaimed material is the batman trilogy, I wouldn't say being known as the director of those films hurts his reputation.
Hell, the only time any of his films won an important award was through that trilogy.
Yes, but that's kind of his problem. Nobody really knows where to group him. He's the Superhero director AND the Legitimate Let's-Make-Important-Films director. He's like if Michael Bay suddenly made The Social Network. Critics and Awards groups would be like, "Uhhh, what?"
There's really nobody like Nolan (today). That's basically the problem. Spielberg would be the closest, because he goes from Jurassic Park to Schindler's List.
It is moreso the fact that the Batman films have given Nolan a shit reputation in the eyes of critics/Academy voters because of the hypebeast fanbase he gained through those films. Interstellar and Inception share many similarities to the Batman films tbh, so I wouldn't say that the Bay/TSN comparison fits him. It is moreso strange to see Fincher go from a film like Se7en to Benjamin Button, however the Academy eats up movies like BB so of course BB will get all those nominations even though it is a pretty weak film compared to Se7en.
I would love to see Nolan do a low budget movie again though. Something like a horror film perhaps.
Apocalypse wrote:In my opinion, his only convoluted film is TDKR, which has some incredibly clear plot problems which have been discussed to death obviously. But yeah, I remember Inception getting alot of hate at the time too with all these "plot hole" problems that really were just questionable at best. Interstellar is getting that same treatment, except this time the film is protected by actual scientific theories, so most of these "plot holes" that were pointed out earlier have been discredited already by big scientist personalities like NDT.
The only semi-arguable problem is "How did Bruce get back to Gotham?", and I have NO problem with that plot "hole" at all. It isn't a problem in the narrative of the story. He's Batman. He's Bruce Wayne. He just got into Gotham. He got back. It doesn't matter how.
Not just that though.
How about the fact he had the time to make that unnecessary batman sign in the midst of the city being nuked or that Lucius didn't just trigger the defense system in that lower level area during the part when Bane was forcing him to activate that bomb.
The worst thing about the film is how terrible that twist was that basically made Bane out to be a henchman and this underdeveloped nobody to be the main villain. I also found it quite hilarious that Ras Al Ghul's daughter was willing to sleep with the man who murdered her father. Felt like something Nolan just jammed into the third act to be edgy.
Nolan's makes "the thinking man's blockbuster" but no, contrary to thoughts of some you don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow. 
