Angus wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 5:42 pm

AhmadAli95 wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 3:57 pm

It just got to me: How many movies out there that are completely original that are written and director by one person with huge budgets? Like it's so crazy. I really hope it's a completely new script written by him alone.

Oh, Nolan is definitely the only person in his position.

In terms lower budgets though, the only other people I can think of are Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright, M. Night Shyamalan, and Guillermo Del Toro.

Shyamalan is really underrated in my opinion. He's one of my favorite filmmakers. And Nolan is a fan of him. He's had some horrific misfires in his career, but the fact that he puts out so many original films and takes huge swings (even if missing) is super respectable and rare. The dude is an original storyteller.

Along the same thought; it's crazy to me how Nolan hasn't made a terrible movie. He hasn't made a movie that bombed critically or financially. That's statistically impossible. No other director in history can say that, not Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick, etc. It's unheard of. Like, Shyamalan is in GOOD company, lol. He's treated way unfairly.

Insomniac wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 2:31 pm

How hard can it really be to figure out something that's both grand and somewhat uncharted territory? I really feel that's key.

Michaelf2225 wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 6:02 pm

Angus wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 5:42 pm

AhmadAli95 wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 3:57 pm

It just got to me: How many movies out there that are completely original that are written and director by one person with huge budgets? Like it's so crazy. I really hope it's a completely new script written by him alone.

Oh, Nolan is definitely the only person in his position.

In terms lower budgets though, the only other people I can think of are Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright, M. Night Shyamalan, and Guillermo Del Toro.

Shyamalan is really underrated in my opinion. He's one of my favorite filmmakers. And Nolan is a fan of him. He's had some horrific misfires in his career, but the fact that he puts out so many original films and takes huge swings (even if missing) is super respectable and rare. The dude is an original storyteller.

Along the same thought; it's crazy to me how Nolan hasn't made a terrible movie. He hasn't made a movie that bombed critically or financially. That's statistically impossible. No other director in history can say that, not Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick, etc. It's unheard of. Like, Shyamalan is in GOOD company, lol. He's treated way unfairly.

http://www.mnightfans.com/forums/

Angus wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 5:42 pm

Shyamalan is really underrated in my opinion. He's one of my favorite filmmakers. And Nolan is a fan of him. He's had some horrific misfires in his career, but the fact that he puts out so many original films and takes huge swings (even if missing) is super respectable and rare. The dude is an original storyteller.

dafox wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 1:42 pm

Whatever it is it better have a dead wife. My least favorite films of his i.e. Following, Insomnia, and Dunkirk, don't have dead wives (relax, I adore every single line of dialogue, every note, every frame of film that this guy is responsible for).

Angus wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 5:42 pm

Along the same thought; it's crazy to me how Nolan hasn't made a terrible movie. He hasn't made a movie that bombed critically or financially.

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 28th, 2019, 7:58 pm

It did underperform theatrically, but thanks to a reasonably high domestic gross and an excellent home market performance, it justified a sequel. Apparently it sold 167M worth of DVD just in the first year of release. Add to that the TV right money, HD-DVD sales, later release on Blu-ray, getting a boost in sales after The Dark Knight's release, and I believe it ultimately qualifies as a profitable film in Nolan's career.£

No, we definitely thought that this was going to be the one that killed us. This seemed like such an unlikely thing. It’s interesting because if you look at any of the movies that are nominees this year, until they succeed, they don’t look like obvious films to make, necessarily. Once you know that they’ve succeeded at the box office or critically, you sort of forget how risky they were, potentially, in the first place.

I certainly know that Sue Kroll and Blair Rich were looking at marketing the film when we first pitched it to them. I think that they, more than anyone, were shaking in their boots because it’s a hard film.


It’s interesting. I get very nervous. I guess Chris probably does, too, but I definitely feel the pressure of the streak. It has been an incredible run, and as I said, we thought this one was going to be the one that broke it. But it didn’t, so now the pressure’s really on. But I think that what we both feel very strongly is that when you have an opportunity, you have to take it.

Certainly I would feel a lot less worried about how the next one is going to do if we would’ve taken the safe bet instead of doing something we’ve done before.

I don’t know where we’ll go from here, but I’m getting a little nervous.

Yes, we’ve had an incredible arrangement with Warner Bros. every year. We don’t actually have a deal with them, so it’s not like we have to take projects to them, but we think they’ve really believed in us, and really backed us. These films have not been obvious films to make at all, and they’re not small films. But they really have always stepped up and believed in us, and allowed Chris an enormous amount of freedom creatively. That’s an incredible thing, and we’ve been incredibly lucky, but with that definitely does come a sense that because we don’t have a deal with them, we’re only as good as the last film that we’ve made. We don’t want to lose anybody money because we do want to keep making films. We don’t want to go to movie jail, and that entails a certain amount of responsibility and making choices that aren’t completely reckless. Risky, but not reckless. I think that’s the motto.