Jump to content
crocodile

The Official Christopher Nolan Church Thread

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

The most interesting thing about Nolan and his movies is their continued success and popularity.

 

Lol this is sort of true. The fervor is weirdly fascinating.

 

I'm not really a devotee but I always gotta give it up for directors with a global fanbase that will follow them anywhere. It doesn't happen that often, he's doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 of his films are listed on IMDb's "Top 250", with The Dark Knight at #4, just behind The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, and The Godfather Part II.

 

Having just one film in the IMDb top 250 is pretty special but to have 8 listed is remarkable. He may very well be the most popular director alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

 

Lol this is sort of true. The fervor is weirdly fascinating.

 

I'm not really a devotee but I always gotta give it up for directors with a global fanbase that will follow them anywhere. It doesn't happen that often, he's doing something right.

 

That's not what I meant lol. I wouldn't say popularity and success are signs or merit. They are just interesting on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John said:

8 of his films are listed on IMDb's "Top 250", with The Dark Knight at #4, just behind The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, and The Godfather Part II.

 

Having just one film in the IMDb top 250 is pretty special but to have 8 listed is remarkable. He may very well be the most popular director alive.

 

The Dark Knight Rises has no business being on that list (along with a few other films) but I can’t argue with the inclusion of his films of seen. I’d definitely put Dunkirk ahead of TDKR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t but I am trying to make my way through the list and see films I haven’t already seen. It’s a good exercise as I have an awful habit of rewatching films I’ve seen a thousand times rather than watching old films that I haven’t seen yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

The church is crowded these days. Reverend crocs and Monsignor TGP will be delighted!

 

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

People are lost! The DC Cinematic Universe is failing. They look for guidance.

tumblr_p34m2rtlGp1rlheeoo2_r1_540.gif

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

People are lost! The DC Cinematic Universe is failing. They look for guidance.

 

But ... Civil War is breaking all records. It looks like the people are contented ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crocodile said:

If by "restoration" you mean "digital restoration" then no. I'm looking forward to seeing it later this year.

 

Karol

 

It is not a restoration, that is actually the whole point of it. It's a print copied of the original camera negative that has been left otherwise untouched.

 

I don't what what the point is of that, but I do know that that's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you mean. But then, I don't really know what the film is supposed ti look like. I've only seen it on DVD and Blu-ray which, I believe, were on the 1990's restoration. Who knows how accurate that one was. It's all black nagic anyway, if you ask ne. In either case, I'll see Nolan's version in September and for that opportunity I'm very thankful.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kubrick oversaw the '90s restoration, and this new edition doesn't take into account and correct any possible degradation or decolouring as far as I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holko said:

Kubrick oversaw the '90s restoration, and this new edition doesn't take into account and correct any possible degradation or decolouring as far as I understand.

 

Exactly!

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

It wasn't restored back then either. Merely digitally remastered.

 

Under Kubrick's supervision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Under Kubrick's supervision!

That doesn't really mean much. If Kubrick had his way, he would have changed the stargate sequence as he felt it felt dated by the late 1990's. But he died and it never happened. It's probably best to keep director's as far as possible from improving their work!

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, crocodile said:

And all the Kubrick masterpieces will be now urine-yellow as originally intended. ;)

 

Nolan pissed on Kubrick's camera negative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

 

Exactly!

 

Under Kubrick's supervision!

 

Was it really? It could have been an old-time collaborator ... what's his name ...

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

So is Kubrick now part of the Nolan gospel?! 

 

+

 

47 minutes ago, crocodile said:

 

I'm about to start this book today, by the way:

 

IMG_20180610_153421113.jpg

 

 

I guess this answers my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, crocodile said:

That doesn't really mean much. If Kubrick had his way, he would have changed the stargate sequence as he felt it felt dated by the late 1990's. But he died and it never happened. It's probably best to keep director's as far as possible from improving their work!

 

Karol

 

The technology wasn't yet advanced enough to create what he imagined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Was it really? It could have been an old-time collaborator ... what's his name ...

 

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

I guess this answers my question.

 

Try FILMING THE FUTURE, by Piers Bizony.

 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, Stefancos said:

"My God—it's full of stars!"

 

It's odd that Bowman never said that, in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. For the second Clarke took some aspects from Kubrick's film rather than his own novel. (For example Saturn being charged to Jupiter). 

 

The film 2010 feels like it draws from both. Visually from Kubrick, but the characters from Clarke. (Scheider's Heywood Floyd being a totally different character than then the bureaucrat in the 60's film).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

The film 2010 feels like it draws from both. Visually from Kubrick, but the characters from Clarke. 

 

It looked more like Scott's Alien (1979) than anything else. 

 

968full-2010_-the-year-we-make-contact-s

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian ship? Yes.

 

2010 doesn't really work as a sequel to Kubrick's film. I suppose it's better as a sequel to Clarke's book.

 

Anyway, Scheider is good in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×