Oppenheimer | 2024 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture and Best Director

[Ethan Hunt]

I mean I don't care about Sag noms. I never said anything about that. I just think saying Nolan isn't an actor's director is really silly.

[Ethan Hunt]

2 hours ago, Lucas said:

Nolan is definitely not an actors director. He gets good performances, but he always seems muuuch less interested in that than everything else.

I'm not sure how you can tell this

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

6 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I mean I don't care about Sag noms. I never said anything about that. I just think saying Nolan isn't an actor's director is really silly.

You literally said it warrants an Ensemble nomination... which is a SAG nom...

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

You literally said it warrants an Ensemble nomination... which is a SAG nom...

wasn't me that said that lol

[filmlover]

Nolan's clearly established himself more as technical filmmaker than as an actor's one, at least over the past 12 years (even if he's gathered the clout that ensures quality actors will want to work with him for the rest of his career and always has a strong cast in his movies) but this is sounding like his first true attempt at the star-studded period epic. I remember it was pointed out a while back that icons like Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, etc. all haven't made movies set in the "present" since the mid-2000s once social media became a part of everyday life to the point where there was no getting away from it, and between Dunkirk and now this, it feels like Nolan is moving in that direction too. GDT is another also becoming a "period piece" director. Projects that heavily reference or rely upon modern day technology just don't seem to be any of these people's style and that's fine.

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

23 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

wasn't me that said that lol

But you replied to my post and disagreed he isn't considered an actors director. You can tell from this thread alone that your opinion is the minority. It's just true that he isn't perceived that way, not to discredit the performances he's gotten. so I still don't understand why I had such a ridiculous take to you. 

[lorddemaxus]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

Nolan's clearly established himself more as technical filmmaker than as an actor's one, at least over the past 12 years (even if he's gathered the clout that ensures quality actors will want to work with him for the rest of his career and always has a strong cast in his movies) but this is sounding like his first true attempt at the star-studded period epic. I remember it was pointed out a while back that icons like Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, etc. all haven't made movies set in the "present" since the mid-2000s once social media became a part of everyday life to the point where there was no getting away from it, and between Dunkirk and now this, it feels like Nolan is moving in that direction too. GDT is another also becoming a "period piece" director. Projects that heavily reference or rely upon modern day technology just don't seem to be any of these people's style and that's fine.

Highly doubt we won't see another high-concept Nolan film set in the present or future. Just will not include any zoomer tech.

[excel1]

One of the big problems with DUNKIRK was how tiny the scale of the film was relative to the event. The beach had thousands of men on it, but the film shows maybe a few hundred. Hundreds of boats went to rescue them, but the film shows maybe a dozen? The arrival of the civilian ships was all-time rousing underdog win, in the film it is highly anticlimactic. Nolan's unique approach had the neat syntonization bit of the storylines, but the lack of scale felt strange. Had he done DUNKIRK in the same style of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or even PEARL HARBOR and made it more of a traditional crowd pleasing blockbuster, you can probably a few hundred million to its global gross. Speilberg and Bay truly captured the insane scope of D-Day and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Dunkirk felt tiny in comparison when it certainly was not in reality. 

 

Unless this movie is going to have flashbacks or random clips of war, I don't know where the excitement for "epic" scale is going to come from. This sounds like another IMITATION GAME. Other than Josh Hartnett's return to big league movies I am struggling to envision how they're going to market this as a tentpole with mass appeal.

Edited February 24, 2022 by excel1

[WittyUsername]

6 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Highly doubt we won't see another high-concept Nolan film set in the present or future. Just will not include any zoomer tech.

The thought of a Christopher Nolan movie that uses Gen Z slang like the new Texas Chainsaw movie is the funniest thing. 

[lorddemaxus]

3 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Unless this movie is going to have flashbacks or random clips of war, I don't know where the excitement for "epic" scale is going to come from. This sounds like another IMITATION GAME. Other than Josh Hartnett's return to big league movies I am struggling to envision how they're going to market this as a tentpole with mass appeal.

Nah, this won't be a generic biopic like Imitation Game.

[Lucas]

6 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

I'm not sure how you can tell this

You really don't think just having two actors casually stroll in a boring 2-shot where there is nothing going on but expository dialogue in Tenet is highly indicative that the least important thing to him in those scenes are depthful performances? He is always much more interested in his story constructions and concepts than the characters he injects into them. He's not the kinda filmmaker whose first idea for a story is a specific character and everything else spawns from that.

[Paul Verhoeven]

On 2/22/2022 at 2:00 PM, CJohn said:

Nolan saving Han Solo's career.

 

It's his third movie in 6 months.

[EmpireCity]

20 hours ago, excel1 said:

One of the big problems with DUNKIRK was how tiny the scale of the film was relative to the event. The beach had thousands of men on it, but the film shows maybe a few hundred. Hundreds of boats went to rescue them, but the film shows maybe a dozen? The arrival of the civilian ships was all-time rousing underdog win, in the film it is highly anticlimactic. Nolan's unique approach had the neat syntonization bit of the storylines, but the lack of scale felt strange. Had he done DUNKIRK in the same style of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or even PEARL HARBOR and made it more of a traditional crowd pleasing blockbuster, you can probably a few hundred million to its global gross. Speilberg and Bay truly captured the insane scope of D-Day and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Dunkirk felt tiny in comparison when it certainly was not in reality. 

 

Unless this movie is going to have flashbacks or random clips of war, I don't know where the excitement for "epic" scale is going to come from. This sounds like another IMITATION GAME. Other than Josh Hartnett's return to big league movies I am struggling to envision how they're going to market this as a tentpole with mass appeal.

 

I don't think there are any big problems with Dunkirk as it is fantastic.  Second, the scale of the film plays right into what the converging 3 timeline and very character based story was.  It was never, ever meant to be a Michael Bay or even Spielberg spectacle.  Third, they didn't want a bunch of CGI that doing a film of the scale would have required.  

 

As far as marketing Oppenheimer or what the hook is going to be, that is pretty much the exact same thing most said about Dunkirk (including myself) leading up to it's release.  Dunkirk itself wasn't really an "exciting" event.  It mostly was guys waiting on a beach to be rescued with the air attacks thrown in and finally small ships coming to the rescue. 

 

Then you watched it and realized the incredible narrative structure and converging timelines and in my opinion it was fucking thrilling with the sound mix and Zimmer's tick tick tick score.  

 

Much like a bunch here do with Cameron, I'm going to assume that Nolan has a hook for this as well that will surprise people and it isn't going to be anything like a flaccid biopic some think it might be.  

[Barnack]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:43 PM, filmlover said:

, it feels like Nolan is moving in that direction too.

Just saw him once and without thinking about it, but Tenet was quite "present" no ?

[filmlover]

29 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Just saw him once and without thinking about it, but Tenet was quite "present" no ?

Presumably. Outside of maybe the presence of a more modern cell phone or two it was pretty ambiguous as to what year it was supposed to take place.

[Barnack]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:26 PM, Ethan Hunt said:

I'm not sure how you can tell this

 

Sometime there is story about him to work quite fast (i.e. lot of work by $/time) a la Clint Eastwood, with just 1-2 take even if it is a giant setup that costed a fortune to make and could never do reshoot for it, which can be interpreted in not an actor director, versus the people taking take after take and exploring with actors during the shoot, but that would be quite subjective.

[excel1]

6 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

 

I don't think there are any big problems with Dunkirk as it is fantastic.  Second, the scale of the film plays right into what the converging 3 timeline and very character based story was.  It was never, ever meant to be a Michael Bay or even Spielberg spectacle.  Third, they didn't want a bunch of CGI that doing a film of the scale would have required.  

 

As far as marketing Oppenheimer or what the hook is going to be, that is pretty much the exact same thing most said about Dunkirk (including myself) leading up to it's release.  Dunkirk itself wasn't really an "exciting" event.  It mostly was guys waiting on a beach to be rescued with the air attacks thrown in and finally small ships coming to the rescue. 

 

Then you watched it and realized the incredible narrative structure and converging timelines and in my opinion it was fucking thrilling with the sound mix and Zimmer's tick tick tick score.  

 

Much like a bunch here do with Cameron, I'm going to assume that Nolan has a hook for this as well that will surprise people and it isn't going to be anything like a flaccid biopic some think it might be.  

 

Dunkirk could have absolutely been more commercial. Easily. When the project was firs announced, the initial rumors were that Churchill would be a central character and the first half would chronicle the absurdly quick fall of France and there would be a real sense of impending doom falling over the UK while the British troops scrambled to the beaches of Dunkirk. The 2nd half of the film would be similar to what we saw in the film - the rescue from different perspectives while the actual rescue would be a highly rousing moment, the film ending with Churchill's epic "We shall fight them basically everywhere!" speech. Viewers would leave with a true appreciation for the importance of the miracle at Dunkirk in the grander scope fo WW2. 

 

Instead we got...more creativity, but decidedly less commercial and mainstream.

Edited February 25, 2022 by excel1

[cax16]

 

[Eric Duncan]

2 hours ago, cax16 said:

 

I rewatched Dark Knight for the first time since it came out, and I did the Leo meme when I saw his face. I also didn't know until now this was his first film role. What a way to start your career  

[lorddemaxus]

Kinda sad that Nolan went around the world to shoot Tenet scenes on location but decided to shoot the Berkeley scenes of this movie at UCLA.