Nolan vs Jackson

[vc2002]

I'm changing my vote to Spielberg.

it's funny that your comment on PJ might be also applied on Spielberg. His highs are also better than Nolan's, and his lows are also worse. Edited December 25, 2012 by vc2002

[teardropmina]

even though Nolan's career is still young, I don't think he can be at all compared to Spielberg and the other visionaries from the late 60s to early 70s, Coppola, Scorsese, and Altman. (Lucas was once very promising with a TXH1138, American Graffiti and SW start)this bunch worked from indie to mainstream but never just stayed there. They all have mediocre or plain bad works, but they've explored a wide variety of themes and forms, taking risks at many turns.

[Jessie]

Both are different directors. Jackson has a great eye for visuals and his action flows so smoothly its actually like poetry at time. He also puts a lot of heart into some of his movies, I certainly felt more emotion watching King Kong and the LOTR than I have with any Nolan movie. Nolan lacks much talent in creating actions sequences, especially when it comes down to fighting, the guy can't choreograph a fight scene well at all. On the other hand, Nolan strengths are his ability to deliver a smart movie with twists and turns to keep audiences on their seat. I can't decide which I prefer, but I bet Nolan couldn't have made LOTR as good as Jackson did and I'm sure Jackson couldn't have made a batman trilogy as good as Nolan has.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Jessie

[jb007]

Both are different directors. Jackson has a great eye for visuals and his action flows so smoothly its actually like poetry at time. He also puts a lot of heart into some of his movies, I certainly felt more emotion watching King Kong and the LOTR than I have with any Nolan movie.Nolan lacks much talent in creating actions sequences, especially when it comes down to fighting, the guy can't choreograph a fight scene well at all. On the other hand, Nolan strengths are his ability to deliver a smart movie with twists and turns to keep audiences on their seat.I can't decide which I prefer, but I bet Nolan couldn't have made LOTR as good as Jackson did and I'm sure Jackson couldn't have made a batman trilogy as good as Nolan has.

Excellent post. I agree with 99% of your post but for the part KK being emotional.

[Jessie]

Excellent post. I agree with 99% of your post but for the part KK being emotional.

Haha, I understand I'm very alone on my opinion of KK

[Michael Gary Scott]

Haha, I understand I'm very alone on my opinion of KK

I agree with you about KK

[fishstick]

Both are different directors. Jackson has a great eye for visuals and his action flows so smoothly its actually like poetry at time.

His action is muddled and one can barely see what`s going on unless it`s a copter shot of CGI armies charging at each other. But close up fights are bad and dino stampede was an abomination.Also, while Nolan`s BB action was pure garbage he wastly improved and edited the shit out of Inception van dropping + different dream level action. Jackson can`t edit for shit which is why his movies are meandering and bloated as fuck.

He also puts a lot of heart into some of his movies, I certainly felt more emotion watching King Kong and the LOTR than I have with any Nolan movie.

I`m sorry but milking the big moment until cow`s tit is dry by using devices of emotional manipulation such as slo mo and extreme close-ups of longing faces streaked with CGI tears (notice how his cry babies never have red eyes like people who cry for real?) has nothing to do with putting heart into anything. He`s a good manipulator but that doesn`t come from the script but visual presentation that forces someone to feel sorrow even if the content isn`t particulary good. KK is an awful movie with awful script but KK`s last moments make me sad not because it`s a good scene but because animal cruelty makes me sad.OTOH, I thought that character moments in BB (Bruce and his father, Bruce and Alfred), TDK (Bruce and Alfred, Harvey and Rachel) , Inception (Dom and Mal) , TDKR (anything Bruce and Alfred) were genuinly emotional without a need to have your audience pull their hair and scratch their faces in anguish. You cna keep smotional content moderate and still achieve an impact. Unlike PJ who won`t stop until his audience drowned in an auditorium filled with tears to the rooftop.

I can't decide which I prefer, but I bet Nolan couldn't have made LOTR as good as Jackson did and I'm sure Jackson couldn't have made a batman trilogy as good as Nolan has.

Don`t forget that adapting Batman required more creativty than adapting books and remaking movies. PJ had to choose which scenes to keep and content that he made up was defacto weaker than the one coming from the source. OTOH, Nolan`s adaption didn`t follow a particular given narrative like a book but he had to combine various sources. So tougher job altogether. Edited December 25, 2012 by fishnets

[Jessie]

His action is muddled and one can barely see what`s going on unless it`s a copter shot of CGI armies charging at each other. But close up fights are bad and dino stampede was an abomination.Also, while Nolan`s BB action was pure garbage he wastly improved and edited the shit out of Inception van dropping + different dream level action. Jackson can`t edit for shit which is why his movies are meandering and bloated as fuck.I`m sorry but milking the big moment until cow`s tit is dry by using devices of emotional manipulation such as slo mo and extreme close-ups of longing faces streaked with CGI tears (notice how his cry babies never have red eyes like people who cry for real?) has nothing to do with putting heart into anything. He`s a good manipulator but that doesn`t come from the script but visual presentation that forces someone to feel sorrow even if the content isn`t particulary good. KK is an awful movie with awful script but KK`s last moments make me sad not because it`s a good scene but because animal cruelty makes me sad.OTOH, I thought that character moments in BB (Bruce and his father, Bruce and Alfred), TDK (Bruce and Alfred, Harvey and Rachel) , Inception (Dom and Mal) , TDKR (anything Bruce and Alfred) were genuinly emotional without a need to have your audience pull their hair and scratch their faces in anguish. You cna keep smotional content moderate and still achieve an impact. Unlike PJ who won`t stop until his audience drowned in an auditorium filled with tears to the rooftop.Don`t forget that adapting Batman required more creativty than adapting books and remaking movies. PJ had to choose which scenes to keep and content that he made up was defacto weaker than the one coming from the source. OTOH, Nolan`s adaption didn`t follow a particular given narrative like a book but he had to combine various sources. So tougher job altogether.

Your post has no credibility as you are clearly just a hater. How many best director Oscar nominations has Nolan had btw?

[Jake Gittes]

Nolan is definitely on a higher career point right now (despite my disappointment in TDKR), but LOTR is better than anything he's ever done and after that Heavenly Creatures is on par with Nolan's best movie (Memento). Jackson's best films are more emotionally involving, and he has wider range as evidenced by HC, Braindead and Forgotten Silver - despite how consistently good Nolan is, literally every single film of his is about a troubled, obsessed, brooding white male. In 14 years, he hasn't done anything to prove he can tell stories about even a slightly different type of character. On the other hand, Nolan hasn't yet made anything as bad as The Lovely Bones. I dunno, it's a hard choice. If you only take blockbusters, both have a mediocre one, but then Jackson has 4 strong ones (I love King Kong) and Nolan has three, and like I said, I wouldn't choose any of those three over LOTR. If you take all movies, you have to consider that Jackson started out 11 years earlier and made 3 of his best films during those years. I'll go with Jackson.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Jake Gittes

[fishstick]

Your post has no credibility as you are clearly just a hater. How many best director Oscar nominations has Nolan had btw?

Less than that guy who was nominated for Crash, less than Steven Daldrey. So, yeha, proof of Nolan inferiority indeed.Also,because Nolan is kicking PJ`s lazy ass in this poll, Jacksonites are trying to turn this poll into LOTR vs Batman trilogy to garner more votes for PJ although the poll is about OPUS not trilogies.

Jackson's best films are more emotionally involving, and he has wider range as evidenced by HC, Braindead and Forgotten Silver - despite how consistently good Nolan is, literally every single film of his is about a troubled, obsessed, brooding white male.

I agree with this but the reason why Nolan is getting more votes is that his finish is clearly stronger than PJ`s. Ever since LOTR PJ completely lost range. All his movies, whether they need it or not, are epically long, epically bloated, CGI overwhelms the story, slo-mo is as oversued as anything post-300 Snyder. No range but applying LOTR formula even to a damn family drama such as TLB. There is no improvement but only regress. At least Nolan shows progress in shooting action.

[keysersoze123]

Since I am a nolanite and dont care that much for PJ it is an easy answer. LOTR movies never wowed me and I dir not like king kong at all. But its a worthwhile comparison as these 2 considering their output since the noughties.

[Jessie]

Less than that guy who was nominated for Crash, less than Steven Daldrey. So, yeha, proof of Nolan inferiority indeed.Also,because Nolan is kicking PJ`s lazy ass in this poll, Jacksonites are trying to turn this poll into LOTR vs Batman trilogy to garner more votes for PJ although the poll is about OPUS not trilogies.

I don't think anyone really cares about the results of this poll except the Nolanties. Put Nolan in any poll on this site and chances are he will win. PJ is more well known to the GA and each of his LOTR movies sold more tickets than any Nolan film. He has made different genres of films and mostly succeeded whereas Nolan sticks to the same formula and tone in all of his movies.

I agree with this but the reason why Nolan is getting more votes is that his finish is clearly stronger than PJ`s. Ever since LOTR PJ completely lost range. All his movies, whether they need it or not, are epically long, epically bloated, CGI overwhelms the story, slo-mo is as oversued as anything post-300 Snyder. No range but applying LOTR formula even to a damn family drama such as TLB. There is no improvement but only regress. At least Nolan shows progress in shooting action.

I find it funny how you always bring up TLB. Jackson has made 12 movies, 1 of which was a dud. I'd say that's a pretty good record. Nolan hasn't made a huge misstep because he doesn't take risks. He's only made 8 movies and I'd be willing to bet that he will make a dud before he gets to 12.Also you can't say Jackson overly bloats his movies and not say the same about Nolan, just look at Inception and TDKR...

[fishstick]

IPJ is more well known to the GA

Disagree. They are about equally known hence why WB is pushing his name in MoS promo. That ain`t for geeks only.

and each of his LOTR movies sold more tickets than any Nolan film. He has made different genres of films and mostly succeeded whereas Nolan sticks to the same formula and tone in all of his movies.

More the pity that PJ is now sticking to the same formula and his range has gone to toilet. It`s worse when a rangey guy loses his range than when the one without it never aquire one. LOTR gave PJ exposure but took away his range because he`s scared to make movies differently, even when they obiviously require different approach.

I find it funny how you always bring up TLB.

Because TLB is a prime example of lost range. How the fuck do you tell an intimate family drama as a SFX fest? He bloated the heaven part as if it was LOTR in heaven and that was just completely ridiculous. Worse, his visuals serve him well as long as he shoots NZ scenery but dear God, what a a garrish kitsch nightmare his CGI worlds are! Always that cotton candy puke sky (Rivendell, Skull Island, Heaven) , always 5 freakin waterfalls, always golden lighting, ugh, enough!

[Phil in the Blank]

Nolan has no range, but in his niche he makes some of the best movies of all time of that type.Jackson has some range, but is more inconsistent.Personally Nolan.

[redfirebird2008]

Your post has no credibility as you are clearly just a hater. How many best director Oscar nominations has Nolan had btw?

I wouldn't go down this route if I were you. Academy is political as fuck. Look at their treatment of Scorsese.

[vc2002]

I wouldn't go down this route if I were you. Academy is political as fuck. Look at their treatment of Scorsese.

Not to defend Jessie's opinion, but Scorsese was nominated plenty of times (6?) before he finally won.

[CloneWars]

I actually disliked TDKR. Sue me. It just wasn't good.Both directors have their good films and bad films. PJ hasn't made anything as good as TDK, but LOTR is pretty damn amazing. This is like comparing apples and oragnes.

[redfirebird2008]

Not to defend Jessie's opinion, but Scorsese was nominated plenty of times (6?) before he finally won.

But the fact he didn't win was purely political. Same shit with Spielberg during the early part of his career. Nolan is in a similar boat right now. Going to have to sell out with some Oscar bait like Spielberg did.

[vc2002]

But the fact he didn't win was purely political. Same shit with Spielberg during the early part of his career. Nolan is in a similar boat right now. Going to have to sell out with some Oscar bait like Spielberg did.

Nolan is not in a similar boat. Spierlberg got a few nominations as well before Schindler's List. Scorsese and Spielberg were not ignored. As a director Nolan hasn't even had one nomination yet. Whatever reason the judges ignore him, he IS being ignored. So I dont think that's a similar boat. Actually I would say he's in a similar position where Cameron once was. Cameron's early films are considered as classics, but because the genres(sci-fi, action) were something they think low of, he was ignored. The Dark Knight is widely considered worth an Oscar nom, but because of the so called "low class" genre, it didnt have one. Edited December 26, 2012 by vc2002

[Jessie]

I wouldn't go down this route if I were you. Academy is political as fuck. Look at their treatment of Scorsese.

I know they are, but they also recognise talent when they see it. Nolan has never made a film that's been the best of its year, Jackson has, and that's hard for even the political Acadamy to ignore.