|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 14, 2021 16:06:34 GMT
Surprised Netflix didn't just offer him $400m for this.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 14, 2021 16:10:39 GMT
Surprised Netflix didn't just offer him $400m for this. They probably offered more and then Nolan was like nope, not gonna even entertain the idea.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 14, 2021 17:41:04 GMT
Dear WB,
Love, Christopher
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 14, 2021 18:29:58 GMT
might be a fun watch if you get to take a shot every time there's awkward expositional dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Sept 14, 2021 18:33:10 GMT
funniest shit I've seen all week.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 14, 2021 18:55:36 GMT
funniest shit I've seen all week. I would like to see the photo of the person who told Nolan, sorry, we can't do that. LMAO.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 14, 2021 18:57:46 GMT
I would love it if it were called Trinity. Never knew this before, but apparently Oppenheimer said the codename Trinity came from one of John Donne's Holy Sonnets, and (according to the historian Gregg Herken), this could have been an allusion to Jean Tatlock, a former girlfriend who had committed suicide and who had introduced Oppenheimer to Donne's work in the 1930s.... I really wonder if Trinity could be the title since 1. it's a literary allusion that I can see Nolan appreciating, and 2. it's connected to a dead girlfriend..... Either that or J. Oppenheimer or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Bomb
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 14, 2021 19:01:42 GMT
I really wonder if Trinity could be the title since 1. it's a literary allusion that I can see Nolan appreciating, and 2. it's connected to a dead girlfriend..... Fuck. This is Nolan all over.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Sept 14, 2021 19:26:57 GMT
How did it take me a couple days to see this? *unzips pants*
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 14, 2021 19:27:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 14, 2021 19:31:50 GMT
Hold up, you mean he ain't gonna set off a real atomic bomb for the filming?
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Sept 14, 2021 19:58:12 GMT
Big loss for WB but I'm happy that a new Nolan film production starts soon. Can expect a late 2023 release.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 14, 2021 20:05:50 GMT
Hold up, you mean he ain't gonna set off a real atomic bomb for the filming? The Universal Executives after Nolan tells them he plans on setting off a real atomic bomb. Wait for it....
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Sept 15, 2021 15:49:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 15, 2021 16:18:53 GMT
Few people on the comments are shocked by these huge demands, lool, so i'll say this to those people.
When you are the guy who did Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk, and Tenet, you understand your actual value and you know you are allowed to do whatever the fuck you want.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 15, 2021 18:40:48 GMT
Few people on the comments are shocked by these huge demands, lool, so i'll say this to those people. When you are the guy who did Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk, and Tenet, you kinda begin to understand your actual value and you know you are allowed do whatever the fuck you want. His demands are justified.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Sept 16, 2021 5:51:19 GMT
He has become too commercial. I hope he goes back to his roots and makes a small/mid budget films for once.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 16, 2021 12:21:21 GMT
He has become too commercial. I hope he goes back to his roots and makes a small/mid budget films for once. Why would he? Are other directions that command huge budgets deciding to work with small ones for no reason?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 16, 2021 12:32:11 GMT
He has become too commercial. I hope he goes back to his roots and makes a small/mid budget films for once. Why would he? Are other directions that command huge budgets deciding to work with small ones for no reason? Yeah, I'm never on board with these complaints that some directors who started off small should go back to their humble beginnings. Why would they? I understand that some people may prefer their earlier, smaller work, and that's fine, but why on earth would a filmmaker who obviously has enormously ambitious ideas in mind and a unique position of having studios back those ideas go back to something small? You often see those complaints about folks like Nolan and Villeneuve but it's fairly clear to me that they started small in order to walk tall when the chance presented itself. But I guess it all comes down to what type of movie you prefer. I fucking love that Nolan and Villeneuve have gone so big and are giving me these big deal projects that feel like they're truly meant to impress the moviegoer and not just have him/her have a decent time and then go on about their day. Of course you can do that on a smaller scale too but they're just striking while the iron is hot and I absolutely support that. But I understand that some folks simply may prefer the earlier works.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 16, 2021 12:42:05 GMT
Why would he? Are other directions that command huge budgets deciding to work with small ones for no reason? Yeah, I'm never on board with these complaints that some directors who started off small should go back to their humble beginnings. Why would they? I understand that some people may prefer their earlier, smaller work, and that's fine, but why on earth would a filmmaker who obviously has enormously ambitious ideas in mind and a unique position of having studios back those ideas go back to something small? You often see those complaints about folks like Nolan and Villeneuve but it's fairly clear to me that they started small in order to walk tall when the chance presented itself. But I guess it all comes down to what type of movie you prefer. I fucking love that Nolan and Villeneuve have gone so big and are giving me these big deal projects that feel like they're truly meant to impress the moviegoer and not just have him/her have a decent time and then go on about their day. Of course you can do that on a smaller scale too but they're just striking while the iron is hot and I absolutely support that. But I understand that some folks simply may prefer the earlier works. I'm mostly in agreement with this, but I do think that a lot of the big blockbuster filmmakers should, at times, go back to the well of smaller and more intimate films to stretch their legs a bit. It's one thing for someone like James Cameron to focus on a singular film/franchise for decades, but I feel like a filmmaker should dust the cobwebs off a bit and make something small, low-budget and quick to keep the juices flowing. I don't blame them if they don't want to leave the big sandbox, but I think it certainly helps.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 16, 2021 12:52:40 GMT
Why would he? Are other directions that command huge budgets deciding to work with small ones for no reason? Yeah, I'm never on board with these complaints that some directors who started off small should go back to their humble beginnings. Why would they? I understand that some people may prefer their earlier, smaller work, and that's fine, but why on earth would a filmmaker who obviously has enormously ambitious ideas in mind and a unique position of having studios back those ideas go back to something small? You often see those complaints about folks like Nolan and Villeneuve but it's fairly clear to me that they started small in order to walk tall when the chance presented itself. But I guess it all comes down to what type of movie you prefer. Yeah I'm more of the mindset that his playing with bigger budget is a sign of infantilism on his part like he went from being a realist to a fantasist (mostly)..........I know this board goes apeshit for Chris Nolan - and I've never "disliked" any of his movies but I like the first 3 more ........the board is not rationale when it comes to him: Everybody was like "you go Queen, you make those demands on Universal because he can, bitches!"..........I read those demands and was like - I'd tell him not to let the door hit 'em on the way out and to fnck off tbh ........yeah, I know, I just don't like money I guess..........I get it ..... As for PG's question in bold Coppola........Kubrick........I mean maybe not now because we live in a (disgusting) culture of success but it's happened throughout film history - there is a natural and logical reason for not chasing the biggest success......and chasing another artistic goal...........
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 16, 2021 12:59:18 GMT
Yeah, I'm never on board with these complaints that some directors who started off small should go back to their humble beginnings. Why would they? I understand that some people may prefer their earlier, smaller work, and that's fine, but why on earth would a filmmaker who obviously has enormously ambitious ideas in mind and a unique position of having studios back those ideas go back to something small? You often see those complaints about folks like Nolan and Villeneuve but it's fairly clear to me that they started small in order to walk tall when the chance presented itself. But I guess it all comes down to what type of movie you prefer. Yeah I'm more of the mindset that his playing with bigger budget is a sign of infantilism of his part like he went from being a realist to a fantasist (mostly)..........I know this board goes apeshit for Chris Nolan - and I've never "disliked" any of his movies but I like the first 3 more ........the board is not rationale when it comes to him: Everybody was like "you go Queen, you make those demands on Universal because he can, bitches!"..........I read those demands and was like - I'd tell him not to let the door hit 'em on the way out and to fnck off tbh ........yeah, I know, I just don't like money I guess..........I get it ..... As for PG's question in bold Coppola........Kubrick........I mean maybe not now because we live in a (disgusting) culture of success but it's happened throughout film history - there is a natural and logical reason for not chasing the biggest success......and chasing another artistic goal........... Well this project sounds like it’s more personal and artistic rather than high concept sci-fi. Nolan commands a budget like this probably for the production design and practical effects alone, similar to Scorsese or Tarantino.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 16, 2021 13:04:04 GMT
Yeah, I'm never on board with these complaints that some directors who started off small should go back to their humble beginnings. Why would they? I understand that some people may prefer their earlier, smaller work, and that's fine, but why on earth would a filmmaker who obviously has enormously ambitious ideas in mind and a unique position of having studios back those ideas go back to something small? You often see those complaints about folks like Nolan and Villeneuve but it's fairly clear to me that they started small in order to walk tall when the chance presented itself. But I guess it all comes down to what type of movie you prefer. Yeah I'm more of the mindset that his playing with bigger budget is a sign of infantilism of his part like he went from being a realist to a fantasist (mostly)..........I know this board goes apeshit for Chris Nolan - and I've never "disliked" any of his movies but I like the first 3 more ........the board is not rationale when it comes to him: Everybody was like "you go Queen, you make those demands on Universal because he can, bitches!"..........I read those demands and was like - I'd tell him not to let the door hit 'em on the way out and to fnck off tbh ........yeah, I know, I just don't like money I guess..........I get it ..... As for PG's question in bold Coppola........Kubrick........I mean maybe not now because we live in a (disgusting) culture of success but it's happened throughout film history - there is a natural and logical reason for not chasing the biggest success......and chasing another artistic goal........... It all comes down to every case and every director being different. Coppola had his opportunity to work with big budgets and used it but then had to pay for it by making paycheck movies for a while so it's understandable that he went to doing smaller maverick projects after that - he always wanted to make personal movies and his career situation itself kinda led him to doing that. But even he is now looking to do a huge piece with Megalopolis. I really don't know why it's infantile on Nolan's part to think and work bigger. He knows he has this unique opportunity to make his most ambitious cinematic visions come true and he uses it. That's just being smart. Again, he's clearly a director who thinks big. Some remain rooted in smaller fare like Linklater but some obviously carry big visions in their brains and are smart to use all their chances to bring those visions to life. Is Scorsese being infantile too? He's done small movies but he hasn't been back to them for a long time now and his budgets have drastically increased since the 2000s. He asks for almost 200$ million budgets for projects that would never make any of that money back had they been released theatrically. He also clearly (at least to me) feels that he's at a point in his career when there's no time for small change. And that shot is not to be missed. I can only support that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 16, 2021 13:17:38 GMT
Yeah I'm more of the mindset that his playing with bigger budget is a sign of infantilism of his part like he went from being a realist to a fantasist (mostly)..........I know this board goes apeshit for Chris Nolan - and I've never "disliked" any of his movies but I like the first 3 more ........the board is not rationale when it comes to him: Everybody was like "you go Queen, you make those demands on Universal because he can, bitches!"..........I read those demands and was like - I'd tell him not to let the door hit 'em on the way out and to fnck off tbh ........yeah, I know, I just don't like money I guess..........I get it ..... As for PG's question in bold Coppola........Kubrick........I mean maybe not now because we live in a (disgusting) culture of success but it's happened throughout film history - there is a natural and logical reason for not chasing the biggest success......and chasing another artistic goal........... It all comes down to every case and every director being different. Coppola had his opportunity to work with big budgets and used it but then had to pay for it by making paycheck movies for a while so it's understandable that he went to doing smaller maverick projects after that - he always wanted to make personal movies and his career situation itself kinda led him to doing that. But even he is now looking to do a huge piece with Megalopolis. I really don't know why it's infantile on Nolan's part to think and work bigger. Well Coppola made the biggest movie of all time and then made The Conversation next so in that way he's different too.........no one is saying Nolan can't go big most of the time just slip in something small as a changeup- I mean Soderbergh is the king of this stuff although he's not playing at that level......as for QT & Scorsese - I have given 1 QT film a thumbs up since Pulp Fiction so I'm the wrong guy to ask and Scorsese is approaching 80 in this era - he had a Bringing Out The Dead from time to time earlier too...... I think it's infantile because his movies have become less human imo and more presentaional - I don't mean it to sound particularly venomous - I mean he's indulged his sense of childlike playfulness and sense of wonder at the expense of other sides of film-making that I like more and used to like in him ..........I'll see anything he does anyway........just the free pass he gets on all sides of every issue is a bit annoying to me anyway.....
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 16, 2021 13:54:48 GMT
The risk for any director who commands giant budgets to go back to something smaller is if their small work doesn't pan out financially, it could damage their reputation and hurt their chances of going back to larger films. Especially now where studios are looking more and more to only release bigger products in theaters and treat smaller fare as fodder for their streaming content (the last thing Nolan would want to do), it's essential for filmmakers to demand what they can now because they're playing with house money. Nolan knows if one of his huge projects bombs that he can make something smaller, but he doesn't know for sure if he makes something smaller that people don't see whether he'd be able to go back to making something big. He probably could because Christopher Nolan as a brand name feels to me like it's well-established and relevant enough for him to get that treatment, but why take the chance?
|
|