KEM wrote: ↑

October 30th, 2020, 3:28 pm

Bale Fan wrote: ↑

October 30th, 2020, 10:59 am

Question regarding the third act?

I wasn’t quite sure who/what the army were fighting at the end? Cuz it seems to me there wasn’t anyone or anything there to fight. The third act went by kinda fast and it was hard for me to catch up with the dialogues.

Sator’s men, they’re wearing white uniforms

Oh yeah watching the movie the second time I realized they camouflaged really well with the damn background lol

Also according to tweets, apparently CNN played Tenet commercials during the elections? Why is that so funny

16 seconds of pure bliss:



The scale, the practical effects (real crowds), the music (esp, the blaring horns), the ticking clock, the hero in an anonymous mask that blurs the sense of identity, racing to save innocent lives in direct, immediate visible danger

I love it

Oku wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 10:52 am

16 seconds of pure bliss:



The scale, the practical effects (real crowds), the music (esp, the blaring horns), the ticking clock, the hero in an anonymous mask that blurs the sense of identity, racing to save innocent lives in direct, immediate visible danger

I love it

Nah, their greatest protection is the invisible bullet-proof PG-13 cloak that is laid over them. Even the screenplay kills some unconscious crowd members, but the movie never dare does such a thing. The only thing put out to pasture is a cello.

Just kidding. I love the scene.

best nolan prologue yet

I have a theory that needs some work but I think I’m on to something. I think Christopher Nolan’s films gets worse the bigger budget he gets from the studio.

• ⁠Dark Knight Rises - $250 million
• ⁠Tenet - $225 million

These two are the worst or his career.

Let’s look at his other high budget movies:

• ⁠Dunkirk - $100 million
• ⁠Inception - $180 million
• ⁠Interstellar - $165 million
• ⁠Dark Knight - $180 million

Moral of the story is that Nolan works best inside the $100 - $180 million range. A studio giving him a blank check is a mistake and we as fans will lose at the of the day because no one in Nolan’s circle will criticize him because he has become too big of a figure in Hollywood so the restrain has to be the budget.

Retskrad wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 1:12 pm

I have a theory that needs some work but I think I’m on to something. I think Christopher Nolan’s films gets worse the bigger budget he gets from the studio.

• ⁠Dark Knight Rises - $250 million
• ⁠Tenet - $225 million

These two are the worst or his career.

Let’s look at his other high budget movies:

• ⁠Dunkirk - $100 million
• ⁠Inception - $180 million
• ⁠Interstellar - $165 million
• ⁠Dark Knight - $180 million

Moral of the story is that Nolan works best inside the $100 - $180 million range. A studio giving him a blank check is a mistake and we as fans will lose at the of the day because no one in Nolan’s circle will criticize him because he has become too big of a figure in Hollywood so the restrain has to be the budget.

Considering you just posted this same thing two weeks ago, it's not exactly a newly-developed theory of yours.

Now that's not to say that your theory isn't somewhat validated by other films serving as anecdotes to the notion. Big blockbuster CGI movies tend to get away with possibly not having great stories or strong acting because of their spectacle. Producers are aware of this, and are understanding that the movie's purpose is for that spectacle in and of itself.

However, Nolan has conceived this plan since before Batman Begins, and before the time that he would have ever conceived such massive budgets. For him, it's not so much about spectacle sacrificing story. Sadly I sometimes believe this less and less when his own dialogue is drowned out for his want of ambiance (and I believe that if he had a chance to cut footage to fit it all into 167 IMAX minutes he would), but this story occurs whether or not he has the budget IMO.

And many here (not necessarily myself) might put Tenet and TDKR above the other aforementioned films. Personally, it behooves me watching Dunkirk then Tenet that one costs twice as much as the other, but I wonder how much was spent on just closing a highway or crashing a plane.

All this being said, I do want to see the next story he comes up with that does not necessitate high-budgeted action moments.

Personally, it behooves me watching Dunkirk then Tenet that one costs twice as much as the other, but I wonder how much was spent on just closing a highway or crashing a plane.

Dunkirk is the perfect example. The Dunkirk we all saw in the theater is an amalgamation of the most restraint he’s had of his career in terms of budget and resources (Memento) and the high budget look and feel of Inception and Interstellar. I think Nolan’s work in the future will be even better if the studio only gave him $100million now that COVID has changed the game. Nolan has shown us that he can put out some of the best work of his career with lower budgets like The Prestige, Memento and Dunkirk. I think budget restrains led to these great movies.

Retskrad wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 1:50 pm

Personally, it behooves me watching Dunkirk then Tenet that one costs twice as much as the other, but I wonder how much was spent on just closing a highway or crashing a plane.

Dunkirk is the perfect example. The Dunkirk we all saw in the theater is an amalgamation of the most restraint he’s had of his career in terms of budget and resources (Memento) and the high budget look and feel of Inception and Interstellar. I think Nolan’s work in the future will be even better if the studio only gave him $100million now that COVID has changed the game. Nolan has shown us that he can put out some of the best work of his career with lower budgets like The Prestige, Memento and Dunkirk. I think budget restrains led to these great movies.

I think he’s mentioned that they were able to make it at that budget because they didn’t have to pay American actors who’s pay retainers are much higher than young English actors who don’t even have an agent yet. So It’s a bit of a unique situation. Not what will normally happen for a movie of that scale

Retskrad wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 1:12 pm

I have a theory that needs some work but I think I’m on to something. I think Christopher Nolan’s films gets worse the bigger budget he gets from the studio.

• ⁠Dark Knight Rises - $250 million
• ⁠Tenet - $225 million

These two are the worst or his career.

Let’s look at his other high budget movies:

• ⁠Dunkirk - $100 million
• ⁠Inception - $180 million
• ⁠Interstellar - $165 million
• ⁠Dark Knight - $180 million

Moral of the story is that Nolan works best inside the $100 - $180 million range. A studio giving him a blank check is a mistake and we as fans will lose at the of the day because no one in Nolan’s circle will criticize him because he has become too big of a figure in Hollywood so the restrain has to be the budget.

This only makes sense if you don't calculate inflation. TDK, for example, would cost 217 million in today's dollars. Inception's budget would be 190 million in today's dollars.


-Vader

Oku wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 10:52 am

16 seconds of pure bliss:



The scale, the practical effects (real crowds), the music (esp, the blaring horns), the ticking clock, the hero in an anonymous mask that blurs the sense of identity, racing to save innocent lives in direct, immediate visible danger

I love it

Makes me want to see this again, right now!