Vader182 wrote:I hate new users.


-Vader

What do you think this is? Fight Club? You're the Tyler Durden?

I think movies are cool. Thoughts?

I find it fascinating that Nolan has not released any scenes from the film. Even in Jessica Chastain's Letterman interview there was no scene.

Remember this? It gives us an idea of the science lingo we can expect to see and hear.

lcbaseball22 wrote:

jethrojulian wrote:The point is, yes 'A Clockwork Orange' is a memorable, unique, daring movie and a classic but so is Inception. Why is it so important to have a Nolan v Kubrick war?

Because everyone gets their panties in a wad anytime that someone dares try to knock a 'legend' from the mantle/pedestal...Or even suggest someone of current time period should be placed alongside

As opposed to Nolan's biggest supporters who can't come to grips with the fact that maybe there is honest criticism going on with Interstellar right now. Maybe those critics don't have an agenda. Maybe the guy we all admire still has a lot of room for improvement.

CoRohr wrote:I think movies are cool. Thoughts?

No, you're wrong and you should go to hell.

redfirebird2008 wrote:

lcbaseball22 wrote: Also, as I already pointed out, Kubrick sometimes have the opposite faults as Nolan, as in his films are too abstract with not enough exposition.

That is not a flaw. "Show, don't tell" is the #1 rule of screenwriting and Nolan repeatedly breaks that rule while Kubrick showed complete mastery of it. Films are not books. You know what a lot of people loved about Inception? The ambiguity of the ending. Definitely not the hour of exposition at the beginning of the film.

Apples and oranges, buddy. Kubrick doesn't make blockbusters and Inception is not an arthouse film. It's a whole different animal. Inception is an incredibly technical commercial action film. The "hour of exposition" is explaining the rules... the rules the circumstances of the film are bounded by. He also used exposition as a mystery; a device to keep people invested in the film. Yes, it's very talky. Could there have been better ways to deliver this information? Maybe. Point is, it was justified. Set ups avoid confusion later. It's why movies like THE MATRIX work and why movies like THE CELL and SUCKER PUNCH become confused little train wrecks.

And like I said before, we're dealing with movies like Heat, Die Hard, Jaws, or Lord of the Rings. Not interpretative cinema like Wild Strawberries, or Vivre Sa Vie.

redfirebird2008 wrote:

lcbaseball22 wrote:

jethrojulian wrote:The point is, yes 'A Clockwork Orange' is a memorable, unique, daring movie and a classic but so is Inception. Why is it so important to have a Nolan v Kubrick war?

Because everyone gets their panties in a wad anytime that someone dares try to knock a 'legend' from the mantle/pedestal...Or even suggest someone of current time period should be placed alongside

As opposed to Nolan's biggest supporters who can't come to grips with the fact that maybe there is honest criticism going on with Interstellar right now. Maybe those critics don't have an agenda. Maybe the guy we all admire still has a lot of room for improvement.

Maybe...I think the reason some of us are uptight is because if Nolan has knocked another of the park then maybe we can actually start talking about Nolan in conversation with likes of Hitchcock, Kubrick, etc without being ridiculed. I know some may disagree but if Interstellar is a 'masterpiece' that would be his 3rd. Not throwing that word around lightly, Hitchcock had 4 masterpieces in the opinion of most (Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, and North By Northwest) Nolan so far has Memento and Inception (many would probably throw in The Dark Knight as well) with Interstellar now as a wait and see...

sooo.....do we have any pizza here

Mulholland-Jr wrote:

redfirebird2008 wrote:

lcbaseball22 wrote: Also, as I already pointed out, Kubrick sometimes have the opposite faults as Nolan, as in his films are too abstract with not enough exposition.

That is not a flaw. "Show, don't tell" is the #1 rule of screenwriting and Nolan repeatedly breaks that rule while Kubrick showed complete mastery of it. Films are not books. You know what a lot of people loved about Inception? The ambiguity of the ending. Definitely not the hour of exposition at the beginning of the film.

Apples and oranges, buddy. Kubrick doesn't make blockbusters and Inception is not an arthouse film. It's a whole different animal. Inception is an incredibly technical commercial action film. The "hour of exposition" is explaining the rules... the rules the circumstances of the film are bounded by. He also used exposition as a mystery; a device to keep people invested in the film. Yes, it's very talky. Could there have been better ways to deliver this information? Maybe. Point is, it was justified. Set ups avoid confusion later. It's why movies like THE MATRIX work and why movies like THE CELL and SUCKER PUNCH become confused little train wrecks.

And like I said before, we're dealing with movies like Heat, Die Hard, Jaws, or Lord of the Rings. Not interpretative cinema like Wild Strawberries, or Vivre Sa Vie.

I must say this is a pretty great response. I enjoyed reading this.

Mulholland-Jr wrote: And like I said before, we're dealing with movies like Heat, Die Hard, Jaws, or Lord of the Rings. Not interpretative cinema like Wild Strawberries, or Vivre Sa Vie.

Oh God, I've seen Wild Strawberries as well as The Seventh Seal. I am somewhat interested in watching Bergman's other supposed 'masterpiece' Persona as well, but I'm not sure what the hell or how the hell I'm supposed to interpret with Bergman lol.

"Interpretive cinema", that's a good one, I like that. Kinda like "interpretive dance" lol whatever the hell that's supposed to be. (I'm a Swing, Latin, and Ballroom dancer) I'm also an engineer so I like things that are logical, concrete, and structured. All of which 2001, A Space Odyssey is not...