RIFA wrote:I wish Nolan would make a movie in Kubrick's style. Really grand and detailed...

TDK had a lot of that, I thought. Much longer cuts, tension and atmosphere built by absorbing the image and what's being shown on screen.

-Vader

Still far from being a Kubrick. TDKR looked more like a Ridley Scott/Michael Mann film more than anything. Kubrick is still a far land for Nolan.

RIFA wrote:Still far from being a Kubrick. TDKR looked more like a Ridley Scott/Michael Mann film more than anything. Kubrick is still a far land for Nolan.

I disagree. Michael Mann obviously, but I don't see Scott much in TDK. It's beyond words really, but when I watch TDK I get a very.. 2001 feel. A lot of panning, a lot of wide's, a lot of longer cuts, the main thing is that Kubrick famously lets his shots really breathe, you absorb the image, and that sets the mood, tone, everything. Nolan did the same with TDK.

This isn't coming out well since obviously all director's use the image to get mood across, but this is so much more specific and.. I dunno. Kinda get what I'm saying?

-Vader

TDK does have something scottish in itself yeah. Even if that's just Zimmer's rehashed Hannibal score.

Vader182 wrote:

RIFA wrote:Still far from being a Kubrick. TDKR looked more like a Ridley Scott/Michael Mann film more than anything. Kubrick is still a far land for Nolan.

I disagree. Michael Mann obviously, but I don't see Scott much in TDK. It's beyond words really, but when I watch TDK I get a very.. 2001 feel. A lot of panning, a lot of wide's, a lot of longer cuts, the main thing is that Kubrick famously lets his shots really breathe, you absorb the image, and that sets the mood, tone, everything. Nolan did the same with TDK.

This isn't coming out well since obviously all director's use the image to get mood across, but this is so much more specific and.. I dunno. Kinda get what I'm saying?

-Vader

Those longer shots look more like Scott's long shots than Kubrick's. Kubrick doesn't have long shots. He has the LONGEST. I can't really see that much of Kubrick in Nolan. It doesn't really matter if the shots are long if the decors and setups are not on the same level. That's why I think it's more of a Scott feel than Kubrick.

RIFA wrote:

Vader182 wrote:
I disagree. Michael Mann obviously, but I don't see Scott much in TDK. It's beyond words really, but when I watch TDK I get a very.. 2001 feel. A lot of panning, a lot of wide's, a lot of longer cuts, the main thing is that Kubrick famously lets his shots really breathe, you absorb the image, and that sets the mood, tone, everything. Nolan did the same with TDK.

This isn't coming out well since obviously all director's use the image to get mood across, but this is so much more specific and.. I dunno. Kinda get what I'm saying?

-Vader

Those longer shots look more like Scott's long shots than Kubrick's. Kubrick doesn't have long shots. He has the LONGEST. I can't really see that much of Kubrick in Nolan. It doesn't really matter if the shots are long if the decors and setups are not on the same level. That's why I think it's more of a Scott feel than Kubrick.

Yeah but they're being used how Kubrick used his.

-Vader

RIFA wrote:Still far from being a Kubrick. TDKR looked more like a Ridley Scott/Michael Mann film more than anything. Kubrick is still a far land for Nolan.

Personally, I've always preferred Mann and Scott's style to Kubrick's style. More than anything else, I think the influence of Blade Runner/Heat suits his stories.

Whenever Nolan sets out to re-imagine The Black Hole (Just a wish I have), I hope he will lean towards the Kubrick way of shooting and editing.

I would like to see him continuing to shoot and edit in his own specific style, which is what he's been doing for the last decade and has become famous for. Call me crazy.

Vader182 wrote:

RIFA wrote:Still far from being a Kubrick. TDKR looked more like a Ridley Scott/Michael Mann film more than anything. Kubrick is still a far land for Nolan.

I disagree. Michael Mann obviously, but I don't see Scott much in TDK. It's beyond words really, but when I watch TDK I get a very.. 2001 feel. A lot of panning, a lot of wide's, a lot of longer cuts, the main thing is that Kubrick famously lets his shots really breathe, you absorb the image, and that sets the mood, tone, everything. Nolan did the same with TDK.

This isn't coming out well since obviously all director's use the image to get mood across, but this is so much more specific and.. I dunno. Kinda get what I'm saying?

-Vader

The shots in TDK were going at 300 mph, they had little chance to breathe. But Nolan and Pfister did a great job of making absorbing yet swift photography.
From what I've seen in years past and what I've learned in the past few weeks, Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the closest thing right now to the next Kubrick- the time isn't fully right yet but I think it will happen. Interesting, as people once touted him as the new Scorsese. But in any case, I like to think of filmmakers as their own entity.