Xixax Film Forum

Ok, so Insomnia sucked bad!  But what about Memento?

I was less than impressed with Insomnia. It was average. I really liked following. The more and more I think about it, the less spectacular Memento is to me. At first it was mind blowing, but now I am realizing that it was a little gimicky in its narative, but still a great movie. Very cool. I think its too early for me to pass judgment on Christopher Nolan, you think he is a genius in what sense? Writing or directing? I have only seen 2 films he wrote.

Well writing really.  To make that script without forgeting things and never leaving things unanswered.  Its true that the more i see it, the less impressed i am. But, i believe it is the first impression of an audience that really counts.  A movie could be great the first time you watch it, but upon closer inspection, have many flaws.  That's just my opinion anyways.  I think Nolan should def be on this board as a topic.

Wait, didnt his brother write Memento, and since it had not been published yet, it was considered an original screen play?

Quote from: Duck SauceWait, didnt his brother write Memento, and since it had not been published yet, it was considered an original screen play?

his brother wrote the short story, which chris then adapted into a screenplay.  you're right on the original screenplay fact, though.

I know that his brother wrote the story.  However, i dont belive it was his brother who wrote it backwards.  That was Nolan's work.  He did it so that the audience could feel what Lenny was feeling (being thrown into a situtation w/o knowing what has just happend or why)

From watching Memento and Insomnia, he is just good at what he does. I didn't even like Memento on first viewing at all because it was so gimmicky and nothing more and my feelings for it decrease even more after time. Insomnia is good but never really tries to distinguish itself from the original so I wondered what the point was to even make it. Also, its never the first impression that is most important when looking at a film, for me, it is actually the contrary because the idea of first impression relates to the things you see on the surface more than anything else. When a movie is deeper analyzed, the better it holds up or actually starts to grow deeper in meaning is when it becomes a great film because the ratio of time when a movie has seen its first year of release and all the years after it is basically stacked as the latter having an endless amount over the first so it really makes no sense that the importance of a film can be for first impression.

~rougerum

Does a remake EVER try to distinguish itself from the original?...that's what i find as being so pointless about remakes..I agree that "Following" and "Memento" are terrifically wonderful films and they did infact give me a lot of enthusiasm for Christopher Nolan, as a director...i have, however, set him aside with the other sell outs like Bryan Singer and Ridley Scott....it's an endless list and a mind-boggling thing with these sell outs....and it's a crying shame when a director, like Nolan, does it so early on in his career by remaking an original film simply because America is illiterate enough for such a thing. Remakes are dumb and pointless..shame on anyone who does it.

I wouldnt call him a sell out, unless you know his circumstances, but the original Insomnia is much better than Nolans, but still, I didnt think it was a strong enough film to warrant a remake.

So many people are so quick to use the term "sell-out", I don't think anyone really has any idea what it means any more.

well i'll explain to you my use of the term & then maybe you can tell me if i'm wrong.....i'm calling christopher nolan a sell out in how i feel he once had great ambition in being an artist..& then money was waved around in his face and he "sold out to hollywood"...i think there's a fine line between art & entertaiment..Hollywood produces entertainment....another thing to consider is stardom...maybe Nolan latched onto, not only money, but the stardom he'd feel in making "insomnia"...i dont kno why they do it...why did ridley make "gladiator" and "blackhawk down"?...i thought those were god awful movies and non other than patriotic american pleasers. (No, just because a movie is set in another country in a different time does not mean it is uneligible to be an american patriotic pleaser)...and it seems without such things tempting Nolan he would never do such a film or even consider to remake a movie that there is no other purpose to remake, other than "americans dont read subtitles." this is where i come up with the term "sell out"..

Quote from: Bill Maplewoodwell i'll explain to you my use of the term & then maybe you can tell me if i'm wrong.....i'm calling christopher nolan a sell out in how i feel he once had great ambition in being an artist..& then money was waved around in his face and he "sold out to hollywood"...i think there's a fine line between art & entertaiment..Hollywood produces entertainment....another thing to consider is stardom...maybe Nolan latched onto, not only money, but the stardom he'd feel in making "insomnia"...i dont kno why they do it...why did ridley make "gladiator" and "blackhawk down"?...i thought those were god awful movies and non other than patriotic american pleasers. (No, just because a movie is set in another country in a different time does not mean it is uneligible to be an american patriotic pleaser)...and it seems without such things tempting Nolan he would never do such a film or even consider to remake a movie that there is no other purpose to remake, other than "americans dont read subtitles." this is where i come up with the term "sell out"..

Selling out is when you sell what you believe in for money.  Now, if Nolan had said "I will never make a remake, I don't believe in them" then when offered enough money, did it anyway, that would be like selling out.

In this case, he took a job.  That's what directors do when they're starting out.  They take jobs so they can get established enough so they can do more of what they want to do.

People like Soderbergh and Guermo Del Toro make mainstream films so they can be able to do more projects that they feel closer to.  Is that selling out?  Probably not.

Fincher made Alien 3.  That movie sucked... but he made it so he could be that much closer to making films he wanted to make.

My point is that people assume that just because directors are paid for making films that when they don't turn out well, they were doing it just for the money and are obviously sell outs.  It's just an extremely over used term.

Quote from: RegularKarateSelling out is when you sell what you believe in for money.  Now, if Nolan had said "I will never make a remake, I don't believe in them" then when offered enough money, did it anyway, that would be like selling out.

i would think that as being a hypocrite rather than a sell out.

Quote from: RegularKarateIn this case, he took a job.  That's what directors do when they're starting out.  They take jobs so they can get established enough so they can do more of what they want to do.

People like Soderbergh and Guermo Del Toro make mainstream films so they can be able to do more projects that they feel closer to.  Is that selling out?  Probably not.

Fincher made Alien 3.  That movie sucked... but he made it so he could be that much closer to making films he wanted to make.

My point is that people assume that just because directors are paid for making films that when they don't turn out well, they were doing it just for the money and are obviously sell outs.  It's just an extremely over used term.

I understand what you are saying and I have a term for it...it's called "prostituting yourself"...there's nothing wrong with it...hell, even Kubrick did it-however, he only did it for ONE film....what is Ridley Scott doing?!...he has already established himself as a director and is now busy doing patriotic pleasers....i think it's fine to prostitute for one film, but after a while it makes you lose hope in the director..

Quote from: Bill Maplewood"prostituting yourself"...there's nothing wrong with it...hell, even Kubrick did it-however, he only did it for ONE film

I doubt Kubrick had the intention of prostituting himself. Spartacus was just a mistake, and he had too much faith in Kirk Douglas, and was tied down for that movie.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

I understand what you are saying and I have a term for it...it's called "prostituting yourself"...there's nothing wrong with it...hell, even Kubrick did it-however, he only did it for ONE film....what is Ridley Scott doing?!...he has already established himself as a director and is now busy doing patriotic pleasers....i think it's fine to prostitute for one film, but after a while it makes you lose hope in the director..

Well, I liked neither Gladiator nor BHD, but I really think Ridley Scott LIKES those films.  I don't think he's really trying to make patriotic fare to attract american attention, I think he just likes that shit.

I get at what you mean by "prostituting yourself", but it's a little harsh.  Seriously, where do you work?  By your terms, you're prostituting yourself for them.

I think that calling him a sell out is unfair. Isnt it possible that Nolan really believed in this movie? Maybe he had always wanted to remake it. I just think its unfair for for you to label him as a complete sell out for making a remake. So, is Soderbergh a sell out for making Solaris? And about Spartacus, didn't it have an original director who was fired and Douglas asked Kubrick to come in and do it? Is doing a favor selling out?

Nolan's choice to direct Insomnia was in no ways him selling out at all because the major success that Memento was proved that he could make any movie he wanted to. It's just that Insomnia was his decision, if a good one or not.

It's hard to determine selling out in movies. The basic reason a lot of movies have been made on terms not agreeable to a director have been for financial reasons that are good ones, the forwarding of projects that they want to make. Spartacus was a financial decision and proved successful because every film Kubrick ever made was officially given director's cut to him. And then there are directors who just make more commercial movies and are fine with it because it is their thing. Michael Bay obviously belongs to this where he is out to make films for entertainment reasons only or mainly. That's fine, so its hard to say if someone is selling out when you really would have to go into their head and ask them what drives their motives in making movies, what they want to show or do, or just the money?

~rougerum

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI doubt Kubrick had the intention of prostituting himself. Spartacus was just a mistake, and he had too much faith in Kirk Douglas, and was tied down for that movie.

yeah, he very well could have been just too optimistic about the opportunity...i'm sure, but in the end that's the way it worked out....after doing Sparticus "he was able to do a film he had a crush on"..by moving to England....damn good.

Quote from: RegularKarateWell, I liked neither Gladiator nor BHD, but I really think Ridley Scott LIKES those films.  I don't think he's really trying to make patriotic fare to attract american attention, I think he just likes that shit.

Do you not find that mind boggling?...the man who once did BLADE RUNNER & ALIEN?!...those are some of the best films ever made!...i can't imagine what has possessed Ridley Scotts body.

Quote from: RegularKarate
I get at what you mean by "prostituting yourself", but it's a little harsh.  Seriously, where do you work?  By your terms, you're prostituting yourself for them.

I work at a local independent theater...it's just for money though man, i have no actual care beyond that...if i had the money ridley or nolan must have by now i'd be in another country making films.

Quote from: Duck SauceI think that calling him a sell out is unfair. Isnt it possible that Nolan really believed in this movie? Maybe he had always wanted to remake it. I just think its unfair for for you to label him as a complete sell out for making a remake. So, is Soderbergh a sell out for making Solaris? And about Spartacus, didn't it have an original director who was fired and Douglas asked Kubrick to come in and do it? Is doing a favor selling out?

I'd have even less respect for Nolan if he truly wanted to remake "insomnia"....i think it's desrespectful to the original....can you imagine someone trying to repaint the mona lisa?...lets give her some nikes and a few suburban homes in the background so the females of today can connect with her...it's pointless and disrespectful..no matter what the film.....I don't have a problem with Soderberg making Solaris, though...Solaris is a book and it did not originate as a film.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood
I'd have even less respect for Nolan if he truly wanted to remake "insomnia"....i think it's desrespectful to the original....can you imagine someone trying to repaint the mona lisa?...lets give her some nikes and a few suburban homes in the background so the females of today can connect with her...it's pointless and disrespectful..no matter what the film.....I don't have a problem with Soderberg making Solaris, though...Solaris is a book and it did not originate as a film.

So that makes him disrespectful, not a sell out. The original Insomnia was less than a masterpiece, maybe Nolan felt he could do better. Your analogies are out of line.

Quote from: Duck SauceSo that makes him disrespectful, not a sell out. The original Insomnia was less than a masterpiece, maybe Nolan felt he could do better. Your analogies are out of line.

Well i guess he's a disrespectful sell out then, isnt he....i thought the original insomnia was pretty fucking amazing...maybe not a masterpiece, but a film earning the title "masterpiece" is saying quite a lot...nevertheless, it did not call for a remake...and if Nolan felt it did he could have atleast added a bit more originality to it than he did......Rather than "adding on" he "took out"...the Nolan version was more of a watered down version of the film-having taken out the scene where a dog in a alley is shot as well as the scene when Stellan Skarsgård feels up the school girl. i cant help but feel the Nolan version was served on a platter for a conservative, illiterate, star-seeking audience.

my analogies are out of line? please explain how they are "out of line".

Because you are comparing the original Insomnia to the Mona Lisa. What about Nolan's Insomnia is proportional to adding Nikes and suburban homes in the background of arguably the most famous painting in the world? Nolan may have felt he added to it, that is subjective to the viewer. I agree the original Insomnia was much better, but Nolan must have thought he could/wanted to make the film better or different. Also, he was trying to bring an interesting story to a audience that would otherwise never see it. Just because you think you are better than the general public who watch movies does not mean they should be forced to see the original Insomnia.

Quote from: Duck SauceBecause you are comparing the original Insomnia to the Mona Lisa. What about Nolan's Insomnia is proportional to adding Nikes and suburban homes in the background of arguably the most famous painting in the world?

I'm not comparing insomnia to the mona lisa...i'm comparing the idea of remaking a film to the idea of remaking a painting...i think it's the same thing, and the idea was that it would help people to understand how rediculous it is to do such a thing.

Quote from: Duck SauceNolan may have felt he added to it, that is subjective to the viewer. I agree the original Insomnia was much better, but Nolan must have thought he could/wanted to make the film better or different. Also, he was trying to bring an interesting story to a audience that would otherwise never see it. Just because you think you are better than the general public who watch movies does not mean they should be forced to see the original Insomnia.

I don't think i'm "better" than anyone...i do, however, think i'm more open minded than the audience Nolan's version of "insomnia" was trying to not offend...i don't particularly care for such people that carry the attitude "if i wanted to read subtitles i'd read a book instead"....i think there's a sickening lazyness and arrogance that such an audience carries & i think it's there responsibility to get around that rather than Hollywood spending millions of dollars for them to not have to read subtitles.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood
I'm not comparing insomnia to the mona lisa...i'm comparing the idea of remaking a film to the idea of remaking a painting...i think it's the same thing, and the idea was that it would help people to understand how rediculous it is to do such a thing.

But a painting is a sole image not accompanied by sound or dialouge. It can be viewed by all who have eyes and are not blind, a movie is different, foreign films like Insomnia would have never been seen by most Americans had it not been remade. I am with you on how it shouldnt had been remade, but some people like it. If you want to continue this, PM me so we dont ruin this board.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

Do you not find that mind boggling?...the man who once did BLADE RUNNER & ALIEN?!...those are some of the best films ever made!...i can't imagine what has possessed Ridley Scotts body.

Why does everyone think that Scott is all of a sudden a great director gone bad?  

You want to know what I caught part of last night?  Legend.

Man, I dig RK's way with words!

Quote from: RegularKarateWhy does everyone think that Scott is all of a sudden a great director gone bad?  

You want to know what I caught part of last night?  Legend.

i've only seen like the first 30 minutes of LEGEND, but i found it to be quite intriguing from what i saw...besides that i think BLADE RUNNER is one of the best sci-fi films of all time.. no doubt

Quote from: Bill Maplewoodbesides that i think BLADE RUNNER is one of the best sci-fi films of all time.. no doubt

I don't know... I have mixed feelings about Blade Runner. He did essentially have to sell out and add the noir-ish voiceover and the tacky ending, but yeah, visually a very nice movie.

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

i've only seen like the first 30 minutes of LEGEND, but i found it to be quite intriguing from what i saw...

Congrats on making it that far... no doubt it was the fruity medieval dialogue and unicorns that whett your appetite for more.

Again, people speaking like Black Hawk Down is a universally condemmned film. *Wonders what he put as the best film of 2001*

Also, Soderbergh's Solaris is very much in the same vein of Nolan's Insomnia. Yes, Solaris originated as a book but didn't meet fame until Tarkovsky did it as a movie in 1972. And the thing about Tarkovskys', is that it is a great film where Soderbergh condenses that movie in a children's version of interpretation in the hope of telling the audience more what to feel where the original went for more and is, in the end,  the greater film.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAgain, people speaking like Black Hawk Down is a universally condemmned film. *Wonders what he put as the best film of 2001*

Also, Soderbergh's Solaris is very much in the same vein of Nolan's Insomnia. Yes, Solaris originated as a book but didn't meet fame until Tarkovsky did it as a movie in 1972. And the thing about Tarkovskys', is that it is a great film where Soderbergh condenses that movie in a children's version of interpretation in the hope of telling the audience more what to feel where the original went for more and is, in the end,  the greater film.

~rougerum

A childrens version?

I think you seem to think that just because it was Tarkovsky, it must have been good, but a LOT of Tarkovsky fans (myself included) see Solaris as his worst film.  It was over done and too long for what it was going for.

Soderberg's Solaris was just another way of adapting the book.

BHD... don't really want to go into it, but yes, there are a lot of people that do regard it as great cinema, my point was just that Scott isn't a great filmmaker, he's just made a couple of really good films.

Not at all RK. I say children's version with the distinct though that Soderbergh made his Solaris to be entirely easy understood. His edits in the film and shots were so purposely focused that it seemed to be without a lot of the edge for different interpretation brought up in the Tarkovsky film. I don't say that because it is Tarkovsky at all, I say it because I believe it. All I could think through watching Soderbergh's version is how easily understandable it was set up to be while for me, there was such an atmosphere in Tarkovsky's movie that overlong periods of nothing happening, gave for a feeling very much to the tune of 2001, that of being removed from just watching a movie and being brought into the character's world. My experience.

I never really cared for Scott's career either as being notice that he is a great filmmaker. Black Hawk Down, though, is a great film.

~rougerum

QuoteBlack Hawk Down, though, is a great film.

I agree.  In most cases, i enjoy anything produced by Bruckheimer....(spelling?)

QuoteI think after "Thelma & Louise" (Spec. Ed. DVD out next week, btw), it has become hard to distinguish between him and brother Tony. Their styles were so distinct, but now they feel overlapping.

Exactly what I was thinking. It really made me mad to see Tony Scott's version of True Romance, even though I hadn't read the script, I could tell it would have been much better Tarantino's way.

Quote from: XeditorBruckheimer....(spelling?)

S-a-t-a-n.

Chris Nolan to Revive WB's Batman Franchise

According to Variety, Warner Bros. has signed Memento and Insomnia director Chris Nolan to revive its Batman franchise. It is unclear whether he will write the script as well.

"All I can say is that I grew up with Batman, I've been fascinated by him and I'm excited to contribute to the lore surrounding the character," Nolan told the trade. "He is the most credible and realistic of the superheroes, and has the most complex human psychology. His superhero qualities come from within. He's not a magical character."

The trade adds that it is not known how the new Nolan project will impact any of the other Bat-films, Batman Vs. Superman, Batman: Year One and Catwoman.

As far as Solaris goes, I will be posting a great great fucking review out of this month's issue of Sights and Sound. Just picked a copy of it up, had never heard of it before (PTA's name is on the cover).
The reviews focus more on the director rather than the actors, and reading some of them are more fun than the actual movies.
I can't find them on the web so I will have to type them, it will take me a while, will post later today. Look for Solaris, Punch-Drunk Love and Gangs of New York reviews later on.

What thread should I post them under?

I'm curious to know why these directors even want to make the Batman films at all. Yea, they say he is the most realistic of superheroes with pyschological problems but still, you are forced to tell a story that panders to the cliches of action movies with little room for freedom to do anything. And if Nolan is successful with this, he will only have to do more and become the director of the Batman series.

~rougerum

I like the idea of Nolan doing Batman (not as much as Aaronofski), but I think he's shown that he could do a pretty decent Batman film.

Quote from: MacGuffin
"All I can say is that I grew up with Batman, I've been fascinated by him and I'm excited to contribute to the lore surrounding the character"

Everybody says that about (insert comic book superhero) when they become attached to it. Does Aronofsky have anything to do now? Think hes free to come by later and trim my lawn

I heard from an uncredible source that Guy Pierce is being tagged as to play Batman in Nolan's version. Should I deem this as a credible rumor at all?

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI heard from an uncredible source that Guy Pierce is being tagged as to play Batman in Nolan's version. Should I deem this as a credible rumor at all?

~rougerum

Variety reports that the ''Insomnia'' and ''Memento'' filmmaker will direct the next Caped Crusader movie. He did not say whether or not he would also write the screenplay or what the plot would entail, though the trade paper suggested that he might consider ''Memento'' star Guy Pearce for the role of Bruce Wayne.

I am a Nolan fan.  Memento was good for more than just its narrative structure.  The only reason that structure worked was because it was pulled off well by a good filmmaker.

Insomnia was solid, nothing spectacular or memorable...but solid. I did find it a little anti-climatic.

I would much, much, much rather see Nolan do the newest Batman rather than Aronofsky.  Batman, no matter what, should remain a blockbuster film.  I don't think Aronofsky has the ability to pull of a blockbuster film (something everyone can enjoy).  I do think Nolan can do that and still make the blockbuster good.

Nothing against Aronofsky, but I don't think bigger budget means better film for him.

Quote from: SHAFTRI don't think Aronofsky has the ability to pull of a blockbuster film (something everyone can enjoy).  

Why not?

Quote from: SHAFTR
Nothing against Aronofsky, but I don't think bigger budget means better film for him.

Why not? He has never worked with a large budget before so how can you say that? Im not saying its true or not, but I dont think we will know till it happens.

Quote from: SHAFTRI would much, much, much rather see Nolan do the newest Batman rather than Aronofsky.  Batman, no matter what, should remain a blockbuster film.  

That's where you're wrong, friend.  Batman is dark and grim and the world that Batman: Year One takes place in is set up for someone with an edge like Aaronofsky has.  Batman isn't really supposed to be the silly action genre it's become.

SUPERMAN, now that's what will need to stay Blockbuster material.  (though it would be interesting to see it done otherwise)

Quote from: SHAFTR
I don't think Aronofsky has the ability to pull of a blockbuster film (something everyone can enjoy).

I think you're wrong.

I agree that Batman is darker.  It still needs to be a film that everyone can love, a film for the masses.  It is fuckin' Batman.  Aronfsky films aren't necessarily accesible to everyone.  

I think Nolan could do better at making a dark Batman and making it so everyone can enjoy it.

Quote from: SHAFTRI agree that Batman is darker.  It still needs to be a film that everyone can love, a film for the masses.  It is fuckin' Batman.  Aronfsky films aren't necessarily accesible to everyone.

Not to attack you, but I think that is a pretty ignorant thing to say considering he has only made two movies. Are you saying Aronofsky is not capable of making a movie that is accessible to everybody? Give him time before you make such strict judgments.

Quote from: SHAFTR
I think Nolan could do better at making a dark Batman and making it so everyone can enjoy it.

Why?

Well, no matter what either of us say...we are both basing it off of 2 movies.

They are just opinions.  Aronofsky wouldn't even release Requiem of a Dream with an R rated cut.  I highly doubt a studio would give him full control of Batman.

i cant believe i missed this, but anyway... i know im 4 pages late but whatever:

i agree with both bill and rk.

but bill, you dont have to be so harsh: there are different degrees of selling out.

Quote from: SHAFTRWell, no matter what either of us say...we are both basing it off of 2 movies.

I am not saying anything, what you say may or may not be true, only time will tell. I think it is unfair to label him as something after only 2 movies. Thats like Kubrick would have only been capable of doing documentaries... well kinda. I just want to know the reasoning behind these statements. Why do you think he isnt capable of doing something?

Quote from: SHAFTR
They are just opinions.  Aronofsky wouldn't even release Requiem of a Dream with an R rated cut.  I highly doubt a studio would give him full control of Batman.

True, but he made Requiem for a Dream to be what it was (unrated cut), its a totally different movie than what Batman would probably be, I think he would know that.

I do think Batman by Aronofsky would be good...
I doubt that the mass would think that.

I think Batman should be a film that the masses love.  Think Batman during the summer of 89.  Batman should be an event.

I don't think Aronofsky could do that.

Quote from: SHAFTRI do think Batman by Aronofsky would be good...
I doubt that the mass would think that.

Thats what they said about Burton

Quote from: SHAFTR
I think Batman should be a film that the masses love.  Think Batman during the summer of 89.  Batman should be an event.

I don't think Aronofsky could do that.

Again, what makes you think that Aronofksy cant make mainstream movie? You say you dont think he can do that, well why not? All I want is reasoning and examples that support your opinion.

I thought about the Tim Burton thing as well.   I agree, he did pull it off.

I don't think the short takes, massive editing...would bode well for a Batman film.

Quote from: SHAFTR
I don't think the short takes, massive editing...would bode well for a Batman film.

Assuming he uses them. Even still, if that is going to be his trademark, I think it would be cool for Batman.... might get old in every movie he does though. We most likely will never know (Aronofsky and Batman)

Quote from: Duck SauceThats what they said about Burton

Who said that about Burton? I really don't think that in 1989 people knew or cared about who was making Batman, the only eyebrow-raiser was the casting of Keaton as Batman. Slightly off-topic, why is it that a studio<cough, Warner Bros., cough>has to fuck-up franchises like Superman and Batman, and realizing that they suck in their current state, have to re-invent them? Why can't they learn and stick with quality in the first place? A producer should be put in place to keep a close watch and shepherd the franchises, like Albert Broccoli in the James Bond series. Not the best example, but still going strong after 20 films.

Quote from: SHAFTRI think Batman should be a film that the masses love.

No one loved Batman & Robin.

Quote from: DerekI really don't think that in 1989 people knew or cared about who was making Batman

Why not?

I remember hearing that Batman was a very buzzed about film back in 1989. From the casting of more known funny guy Michael Keaton yes, but also to who was directing the film in Tim Burton. I also remember the great scope of the set itself in England was much talked about as being something bigger than any super hero movie before it. I remember seeing an old ABC news special where they went to the set and talked of all the talk on what was going on with the movie and you had Tim Burton giving half answers but always shying away from the main points and kind of in awe of the set himself. And also, there were advertisements before the movie like mad, from Coca Cola to WB advertising with Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, a bunch of different Batman merchandise. I think a lot of people were curious because as young as I was then, I remember everyone considered it the shit even upon release.

~rougerum

Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: DerekI really don't think that in 1989 people knew or cared about who was making Batman

Why not?

Because there was no internet and a lot less widespread discussion about movies.

Quote from: Derek

Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: DerekI really don't think that in 1989 people knew or cared about who was making Batman

Why not?

Because there was no internet and a lot less widespread discussion about movies.

You may have forgotten there were other means of communication before the internet. And because there were less widespread discussions doesnt mean people cant disapprove of a director.

Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: Derek

Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: DerekI really don't think that in 1989 people knew or cared about who was making Batman

Why not?

Because there was no internet and a lot less widespread discussion about movies.

You may have forgotten there were other means of communication before the internet. And because there were less widespread discussions doesnt mean people cant disapprove of a director.

Yes, thank God for the Pony Express. And, how old were you, three, when Batman came out?

02/21/03
Ready for yet another Batman casting rumor? This one is way out of left field: Patrick Warburton may play the Caped Crusader. You may know Warburton as TV's The Tick or from his recurring role on Seinfeld as Puddy. (The Howard Stern Show)

LOL, this just gets better and better. "Feels like an Arby's night Alfred..."

Superhero Hype reports that Warners has purchased both BatmanTheFrightening.com and BatmanTheFrightening.net domain names, whilst an apparent review of the script has appeared online: "The fact that things are happening in his [Bruce Wayne's] head at the same time the story is actually taking place is done very well, and i really enjoyed the scenes when he is locked in Arkham and sees The Joker again.... it gave a good insight into Bruce's emotions as well when he thinks he has failed, and I love when he knows he is dying so he goes after The Scarecrow in more of a suicide mission. I liked the batsuit, and how it was almost a character in itself, and the Batmobile had a decent chase scene. I liked the quick little intro of Barbara Gordon. It fits Nolan's directing style like a black winged, leather glove".

Read for yourself:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme3/parallax/batman.txt

Nolan should have his own category without a doubt, I mean if that pussy Cameron Crowe does. He gets one post a month. Some dork who talks about Fast Times or a chick who really likes the Elton John sign along in Almost Famous.

Quote from: Adam0199...that pussy Cameron Crowe...Some dork who talks about Fast Times or a chick who really likes the Elton John sign along in Almost Famous.

I don't like the fact that there is a category for him either.  But are you serious about what you just said?  I guess you're new.  Seriously though if you keep expressing opinions by calling people "pussies" well...you are defenitely going to have some problems with many on this board.  Anyway, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just some advice.

When do I get an upgrade from this "film editor" thing?

Quote from: Adam0199Nolan should have his own category without a doubt, I mean if that pussy Cameron Crowe does. He gets one post a month. Some dork who talks about Fast Times or a chick who really likes the Elton John sign along in Almost Famous.

Nolan and Crowe should be without categories in my opinion, but at least Crowe has more movies than Nolan so there is more to talk about. What do you mean by "that pussy" Cemeron Crowe? That was some stupid shit to say.

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
When do I get an upgrade from this "film editor" thing?

patience, patience

or when you hit 200 posts and become a screenwriter

Chris Nolan Takes a Position of Prestige

Memento helmer will direct The Prestige, an adaptation of the Christopher Priest novel at Newmarket. Variety reports that Disney and Warner Bros. are in negotiations to split distribution rights.

The script was written by Jonathan Nolan, Chris' brother who wrote the story that formed the basis for Memento. The story begins in 1878, as a seance hatches a bitter rivalry between two young stage magicians. Jude Law is rumored to be a frontrunner for one of the roles.

Nolan is expected to next direct Batman, a franchise he is in the process of resurrecting at WB with screenwriter David Goyer. The scripting has begun, but "Prestige" may be filmed first.

No, you're not the only one who thinks Chris Nolan is a wonderful filmmaker.  And Insmonia was fantastic aswell as Memento, I thought.

I don't think Insomnia was that bad...it was a good story and idf you put yourself in the Dorman characters shoes, you might have developed insomnia the way he did.  But Memento was fucking incredible.  Whats next for Chris Nolan?

Quote from: TenseAndSoberWhats next for Chris Nolan?

Umm...go back three spaces than go to page three for the Batman announcement.

yes memento and tha following were genius, but insomnia was embarringly stupid, and i think until he can show he's not a 2 hit wonder hes not a genius.

I enjoyed both Memento and Insomnia for what they were, but I wouldn't call Nolan a "genius."

I haven't seen The Following.

ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING...

According to E! Online it seems that not only is Ashton Kutchner a candidate for the role of Batman, he is in fact the ONLY candidate. Seems that "when now out director Brett Ratner got close to casting Superman this year, he tested and retested Kutcher, who apparently did well. The "known mostly as a comic actor and that's even a stretch" Kutcher seemed to want Bats over Supes (who wouldn't?) and is now close to being announced as the lead in the flick to be directed by Christopher Nolan". This rumour was backed up by a report from DH insider 'Turncoat' who elaborates a bit more on the situation - "Christopher Nolan wants Guy Pearce. I think that's about the extent of it. Essentially, the studio has had another 'Ratner' situation on their hands, because the director wants someone, and the studio wants someone else. That someone the studio wants is Ashton Kutcher. Thankfully, it's not as big a deal as the whole Superman thing [which has been madness], because in this place everyone gets along - and from what I hear Kutcher is the new Batman. Done deal".

I don't have a problem with Kutcher trying to expand his career with more serious roles, but he's way too small and young

I'm assuming this next Batman movie is about the beginnings of Bruce Wayne and why he became Batman, etc...

So, I think his age and physique will fit.

i don't get this whole ashton kutchner phenomenon. all of a sudden he's this superstar. when did this happen? before i went to europe he was the dude where's my car punk, now he's like all big and stuff. i mean i guess he's a good lookin guy, i dunno. i guess im just jealous b/c he's tappin ass with-

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ba.cnr.it%2F%7Eirsaal02%2Fdemi.jpg&hash=2f06802a1546e401a4c09cb60fab5d529fb2fe17)

lucky fuck.

Batman: Christopher Nolan, the helmer behind "Memento" and "Insomnia" is finding his early low-budget film "Following" scoing a DVD release in the UK and during an interview with Metro he briefly touched upon Batman. Whilst there was no new revelations sadly, his comments will give some reassurance to fans worrying of the film going in the direction of the last one. Firstly, how is the film coming along? "Fantastic. I'm having the time of my life. [We're at] very early stages, which is where it's tremendous fun. I'm getting to watch my vision of the world of Batman. To do that and get paid for it is brilliant". He was also asked about the classic Stanley Kubrick film "2001" and in his response said "It's such a wonderful spectacle and as a kid you don't worry about whether you get it or not, you just enjoy it for what it is, in a more impressionistic way. You enjoy the experience, and then you enjoy arguing with your friends about what it was all about. I think there is a tendency, particularly in Hollywood, to underestimate kids and the way in which they respond to narratives. I think that if you show something incredible and take them to a different world, you don't necessarily have to be telling them the clearest or most obvious story."

Warner Bros. & Chris Nolan Zeroing in on Batman Actor
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

In the next three days Warner Bros. and director Christopher Nolan will be testing several young actors for the title role of the next Batman movie, which is scheduled to start shooting in February.

The list of potential thesps include Jake Gyllenhaal, Christian Bale, Joshua Jackson, Cillian Murphy, Henry Cavill and Eion Bailey.

Hugh Dancy, who is currently filming Disney's King Arthur, may also test if his schedule permits and he is able to shave the beard his "Arthur" character, Galahad, is sporting.

Christian Bale

Bale, Gyllenhaal, or Murphy

Eion Bailey  :yabbse-thumbup:

I know a lot of people aren't familiar with him, but I think he'd be the best choice. He's got the look and the acting chops.

Noteable filmography includes:
A Better Place
Fight Club
Center Stage
Almost Famous
Band of Brothers

im a fan of eion too

As much as I do like Eion Bailey for it, I like Cillian Murphy's chances.

..Murphy wouldn't work imo ..he's good but ..doesn't look the part

Christian Bale looks bruce wayne .....

I think Bailey would work best, but I like Murphy's chances hot off the heels of 28 Days Later. But who knows.. I really don't think Bale fits the part. Even Cavill seems better for Batman than Bale.

More info on the Batman project from Latinoreview.

Here is what they have about the new film to be directed by Chris Nolan in regards to the title, shooting and who's producing.

1- The title is 'Intimidation Game'.
2- Emma Thomas (Insomnia, Memento) is the producer.
3- Now in full pre-production at Shepperton studios.
4- Shooting starts shooting at the end of February 2004.
5- Shooting in Shepperton studios and on location in the U.K.

It's hard to believe there's going to be new Batman film that goes where they haven't before with the potential to be a quality movie.

I'm excited.

i didn't really want to read all of the replies, so i'll just go ahead and say this even if someone has already said it: i thought insomnia was good.  i only saw it once, so my opinion could be off, but i liked it.  maybe it's just that i love robin williams as a creepy bad guy.
see also: one hour photo (williams and brilliant cinematography.)

Quote from: Fernando

1- The title is 'Intimidation Game'.

oh my....... :? ..what a cheesy title..sounds like the sequel to war games

Whatever happened to Batman: Year One with Darren Aronofsky?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/BatmanYearOne-10000366/preview.php

Quote from: GloriaWhatever happened to Batman: Year One with Darren Aronofsky?

"gone"

http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=238&postdays=0&postorder=asc

Chris Nolan Adapting Comic Book The Exec
Source: Variety

Warner Bros. will turn the Doug Miers cult comic book The Exec into a dramatic vehicle for Christopher Nolan to direct. Nolan's brother Jonathan will write the script.

The comic is a slightly futuristic look at a society where corporations govern and business is waged like warfare. Jonathan Nolan will begin scripting immediately as Christopher works on prepping Batman: Intimidation Game at Warner Bros. with Christian Bale in the starring role.

"It has the elements of the tension Chris created in 'Memento' and 'Insomnia,' but it is also a major-sized film, and it will be useful for Chris and Emma to apply the lessons they are learning in mounting the Batman film," producer David Heyman (the "Harry Potter" films) said.

Wouldn't it be more comforting to hear them say that Chris and Emma will apply the lessons they are learning in mounting The Exec to the a future Batman film?

Quote from: MacGuffinThe comic is a slightly futuristic look at a society where corporations govern and business is waged like warfare.

Jeez, can you find a more heavier storyline symbolism wise? This is getting pathetic. Let's hope the final work isn't as popcorn in high art.

~rougerum

Between this and Ed Norton's "The Illusionist", 2006 should be a banner year for movies about magicians.

Quote from: MacGuffin"I can't really talk about it other than to say that we are talking about doing a sequel right now," he says. "David [Goyer] and I have been talking about where we're taking the characters. ... We know what we're doing and we're pretty excited about it, but it's still very early. I'm actually making another film first that I'm just in preproduction on, so it's a bit of a ways off."

christopher nolan, learn to speak.

Nolan Near Deal to Direct The Prisoner
Source: Variety

Universal Pictures is near a deal for Christopher Nolan to direct a feature version of TV series classic The Prisoner, reports Variety. Janet and David Peoples are set to write the script. Scott Stuber, Mary Parent, Barry Mendel and Emma Thomas will produce.

The series lasted only 17 episodes in 1967. Patrick McGoohan played a government agent who resigns, is kidnapped and placed on an isolated island known as the Village. He's given a new identity -- Number Six -- and interacts with an island staff trying to get him to reveal why he resigned.

The trade says the plan is for Nolan to direct a contemporized transformation after he completes The Dark Knight, the Batman Begins sequel that begins production early next year at Warner Bros.

Janet and David Peoples wrote Twelve Monkeys together, and David Peoples co-wrote Blade Runner. Nolan's next film is The Prestige, opening in October.

ADMIN EDIT: Merged from superfluous thread

I don't know if this should be in the dvd section but whatever.

I can buy Chris Nolan's first feature "Following" for $5.99 (cdn) without any features or anything and I was wondering if it's any good. For the synopsis on the back of the case it just went on and on about how good Memento is so I don't really know what it's about other than it's about a guy who follows people but has a set of rules o go along with that.

What are your thoughts on the film? Would you recomend buying it even though it comes with no features? etc. etc.

BTW- I'm really suprised there are no threads about Chris Nolan on here. Either that or my eyes are decieving me.

Quote from: OrHowILearnedTo on August 30, 2006, 02:39:29 PM
BTW- I'm really suprised there are no threads about Chris Nolan on here. Either that or my eyes are decieving me.

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=189.0

Also, please introduce yourself here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.0).

Christopher Nolan inks 'Inception'
Sets up original screenplay at Warner Bros.
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Christopher Nolan has set up his next project with Warner Bros., an original screenplay he wrote called "Inception." The "Dark Knight" director hopes to shoot the sci-fi action film in the summer for a release during summer 2010.

Nolan will produce with partner Emma Thomas, who served as a producer on "The Dark Knight."

"Chris Nolan is a visionary filmmaker who continually raises the bar with each movie he makes," Warner Bros. Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov said. "We are thrilled to be collaborating again with him and Emma on this exciting new motion picture."

Given the billion-dollar bonanza Nolan delivered with "Knight," one would suppose a treatment based on some poems he wrote in his fifth-grade journal would have gotten the green light. The writer-director-producer has done well by the studio, with "Insomnia," "Batman Begins" and "The Prestige" bringing in close to half a billion in additional theatrical revenue.

"Inception" is described as "a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind."

This pushes back any potential filming on a new Batman film, but three years -- and "The Prestige" -- passed between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." Nolan has also long been attached to direct a big-screen adaptation of the British TV series "The Prisoner" for producer Scott Stuber at Universal.

The CAA-repped Nolan wrote the screenplays for "Memento," based on a short story written by his brother, Jonathan, and "Following," his debut feature in 1998. The only directing project he hasn't written is "Insomnia," his 2002 remake of the Norwegian thriller.

He and Jonathan (with story credit) earned Golden Globe and Oscar nominations for their "Memento" script, which won an Independent Spirit Award for best screenplay and the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at Sundance in 2001. Their "Dark Knight" screenplay earned a WGA Award nomination this year for best adapted screenplay (with David S. Goyer).

Leo DiCaprio to star in 'Inception'
Christopher Nolan to direct sci-fi film for WB
Source: Variety

Leonardo DiCaprio will star in "Inception," the science-fiction film that Christopher Nolan ("The Dark Knight") wrote and will direct as his next pic at Warner Bros.

The project shoots this year and is slated to be released in summer 2010, with Nolan and Emma Thomas producing. DiCaprio's deal is in final negotiations.

Script has been kept under wraps but the studio calls it a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind.

DiCaprio, coming off "Revolutionary Road" and "Body of Lies," will next be seen starring in the Martin Scorsese-directed "Shutter Island" at Paramount.

Knowing this, it could be 81% decent.

Three circle Nolan's 'Inception'
Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy in talks
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Warner Bros. is in talks with Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard and Cillian Murphy to join the cast of "Inception," Christopher Nolan's latest project which stars Leonardo DiCaprio.

In keeping with most things associated with Nolan's project, a veil of secrecy exists over loglines, althought it is described as a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within "the architecture of the mind."

However, as the casting process progresses, details are beginning to leak out. DiCaprio's character is mentioned as a CEO-type, while Cotillard would play his wife. Page is a young college grad student and DiCaprio's sidekick.

James Franco was in talks to join the project but had to bow out due to a scheduling conflict with Universal's comedy "Your Highness." Nolan and the studio are aiming for a summer shoot ahead of a 2010 release

Nolan and Emma Thomas are producing via their Warners-based Syncopy Films shingle.

Oscar winner Cotillard, repped by CAA, appears in this summer's Michael Mann movie "Public Enemies" and later this year in Rob Marshall's "Nine."

Page, repped by Endeavor and Via Entertainment, next stars in Drew Barrymore's directorial debut, "Whip It!"

Murphy worked with Nolan in both of the director's Batman movies, portraying the villain Scarecrow.

Yes.....exciting.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt joins 'Inception'
Christopher Nolan's thriller stars Leonardo DiCaprio
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is coming on board Christopher Nolan's "Inception," the filmmaker's thriller for Warner Bros. that stars Leonardo DiCaprio.

A veil of secrecy exists over loglines, though the project, which Nolan also wrote, is described as a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within "the architecture of the mind."

It is known that Gordon-Levitt is taking the role to have been played by James Franco, who bowed out over scheduling issues. He would play an associate of DiCaprio's character, a CEO-type.

Marion Cotillard is already on board as DiCaprio's wife, while Ellen Page is playing a grad student and DiCaprio's sidekick. Cillian Murphy is also in the cast.

Nolan and the studio are aiming for a summer shoot ahead of a 2010 release.

Nolan and Emma Thomas are producing through their Warners-based Syncopy Films shingle.

Gordon-Levitt, repped by CAA, has a big summer lined up: He stars in "500 Days of Summer," the romantic comedy that earned much buzz in Sundance and is now set for a July 17 release by Fox Searchlight, and plays the villainous Cobra Commander in Paramount tentpole "G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra," which opens Aug. 7.

Two join Nolan's 'Inception'
Ken Watanabe, Tom Hardy set for sci-fi action feature
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Ken Watanabe and Tom Hardy are boarding Christopher Nolan's "Inception" for Warner Bros.

The story, which Nolan wrote, is a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind, with Leonardo DiCaprio as a CEO type. Watanabe will play the film's villain, a man who is blackmailing DiCaprio. Hardy is a member of DiCaprio's team.

The duo join a cast that includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard.

Watanabe's deal reunites him with Nolan, with whom he collaborated on 2005's "Batman Begins."

Nolan and the studio are aiming for a summer shoot ahead of a 2010 release. Nolan and Emma Thomas are producing through their Warners-based Syncopy Films shingle.

Watanabe next appears in the Weinstein Co.'s September release "Shanghai" with John Cusack, Chow Yun-Fat and Gong Li. He is repped by Endeavor and ROAR.

Hardy, who is in negotiations for his role, next appears in "Bronson," playing a criminal who spent 30 years in solitary confinement.

It's A Bird! It's A Plane! It's Chris Nolan! He'll Mentor Superman 3.0 And Prep 3rd Batman
By NIKKI FINKE AND MIKE FLEMING; Deadline Hollywood
   
EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros is trying to ready its DC Comics stalwart Superman to soar again on the Big Screen, and the studio has turned to Chris Nolan to mentor development of the movie. Our insiders say that the brains behind rebooted Batman has been asked to play a "godfather" role and ensure The Man Of Steel gets off the ground after a 3 1/2-year hiatus. Nolan's leadership of the project can set it in the right direction with the critics and the fans, not to mention at the box office. Besides, Nolan is considered something of a god at Warner Bros and has a strong relationship with the studio after the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Though he wasn't obligated to do so, he gave the studio first crack at his spec script Inception, and Warner Bros was able to buy it before other studios even got a sniff. While Nolan completes that Leonardo DiCaprio-starrer for a July 16th release, he's also hatched an idea for Warner Bros' third Batman installment. Now his brother and frequent collaborator Jonah Nolan, and David Goyer who co-wrote Batman Begins and penned the story for The Dark Knight, are off scripting it. (See 'FlashForward' Showrunner Exits For Features).

Let us emphasize that Superman 3.0 is in the early stages of development. And we doubt Nolan would direct. This wouldn't be a sequel to Superman Returns but a completely fresh franchise. As one of our insiders reassures: "It would definitely not be a followup to Superman Returns." Nolan coming on board follows a hiatus period for Superman after that 2006 reboot as the studio tried to figure out whether or not to make a sequel to that version starring Brandon Routh directed by Bryan Singer. As recently as this summer, Warner Bros was still contemplating how to proceed. We were told that "Bryan or Brandon are not completely out of it yet. But Warner Bros doesn't have a handle yet on it, either. [Producer] Jon Peters is trying to make something happen since he stands to benefit financially. But they [the studio] need to hear a great story that makes sense." Another insider explained to us, "We know what we don't want to do. But we don't know what we want to do. We learned a lot from the last movie, and we want to get it right this time."

Fans have long been yearning for Superman to finally get the big screen Nolan-ized treatment this classic superhero deserves. Warner Bros clearly has learned from its attempt to follow the mediocre 1978-1985 quartet of movies starring Christopher Reeve and produced by Ilya and Alexander Salkind, with 2006's underwhelming Superman Returns. That inbetween period was plagued by long delays and budget troubles and script misses. In 1997, original Batman director Tim Burton tried to make a Superman movie starring Nicolas Cage. Around 2004, J.J. Abrams wrote a film that was the first leg of a trilogy. Abrams wanted to direct, but had only directed episodes of his TV series (and wouldn't make his feature directing debut until 2006's Mission:Impossible III. McG and Brett Ratner separately were attached to that film. Ratner got closest, but Warner Bros was wary of a budget that swelled to $250 million, and which seemed risky after established star Josh Hartnett turned down the 3-picture deal that could have brought him $100 million in salary. After that, Warner Bros bosses didn't embrace Ratner's s choice of soap opera actor Matt Bomer to star.

Other prominent filmmakers were reportedly in the loop, but Warner Bros never pulled the trigger on the picture until Bryan Singer's involvement. Singer's Superman Returns was respectably reviewed for the genre. But it turned in only $52 million opening weekend, and $391 million worldwide gross. Problem was it cost too much (the budget was reportedly $270 million), and the promotion was lousy (Joel Silver was brought in at the last minute to inject macho into the marketing campaign). Worse, it left diehard fans only "meh" about a sequel starring Routh. Singer fared better, but it seems doubtful he'll be asked for an encore now. After all, Singer is now developing the spinoff X-Men: First Class for 20th Century Fox whose bosses were furious when he took on The Man Of Steel reboot instead of helming X-Men 3. But Singer and the studio subsequently made peace and he's back in the Fox fold and on board.

The restructuring of Warner Bros' business with DC Comics became Warner Bros Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov's first priority since having his contract reupped by Time Warner last summer. Problems have plagued the DC Comics-Warner Bros relationship for more than a decade. But the biggest failure has been to leave the most valuable DC Comics characters in movie development limbo by chaotically starting and stopping development on the high profile live action pics. Most recently, Warner Bros and DC Comics are finally getting their act together as evidenced by the progress on Green Lantern.

Superman 3.0 would test Warner Bros veteran executive Diane Nelson, the head of DC Entertainment Inc, that new company founded to fully realize and integrate the power and value of the DC Comics brand and characters across all media and platforms into Warner Bros Entertainment's content and distribution businesses. Nelson especially was charged with suping up Superman again because it's way too valuable to leave dormant like this. Besides, the clock is ticking.

Attorney Marc Toberoff, who keeps suing Warner Bros on behalf of creative rightsholders, warns that, in 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire original copyright to Superman -- "and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters". He's also pointed out that, if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Superman sequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators' heirs or estates.

At first, Warner Bros felt no pressure to rush out another Superman pic. As Warner Bros chairman Alan Horn told a court hearing about rights to Superman, he hoped to make another Superman movie but no film was in development, no script had been written, and the earliest he foresaw another Superman film released would be 2012. He told the judge: "We had hopes to keep the character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us."

So Warner Bros is now bringing in Batman's saviour. What Nolan would do with the Superman character and story is intriguing to say the least. And he has the experience necessary of prepping and pepping a played-out franchise. The 2005 Batman Begins grossed $373 million worldwide on a reported $150 million budget. And of course 2008's The Dark Knight crossed the $1 billion worldwide gross mark on a reported $185 million budget (and Heath Ledger posthumously won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor).

But Batman has always been The Dark Knight. But there's a big difference between Superman's cinematic incarnation and comic-book version. Warner Brothers and DC Comics for a long time weren't sure which version they liked better. The cinematic version has been squeaky clean, occasionally campy, and has more-or-less unlimited power except when confronted with Kryptonite. The comic book version has some limits on his powers, can be darker, and fights aliens a lot more. Shortly after Dark Knight hit it big, fans assumed that Superman would be taken to the "dark" side as well. That's because Warner Bros mogul Jeff Robinov stressed post-Dark Knight that "we have to look at how to make these movies edgier". One of our insiders interpreted this to say: "He meant more sophisticated."

A more comic-accurate Superman seems like the way to go. No need to worry: Chris Nolan knows what he's doing.

Yep, this is the best news.  The Batman part is best, the Superman part is nice too.

ya i'm more into the batman news. meh who cares about superman, it's an overrated franchise to begin with.

i'm kinda getting sick of comic book shit too. even if it's really good, it feels so limited by the genre. we all need a break from it so it can feel fresh again.

Christopher Nolan takes flight with Superman: 'We have a fantastic story'
Source: Los Angeles Times

The topic at the Batcave on Monday night was the future of that other superhero — you, know, the one from Metropolis. "It's very exciting, we have a fantastic story," Christopher Nolan said while sipping tea in the sleek editing suite that fills the converted garage adjacent to his Hollywood home. "And we feel we can do it right. We know the milieu, if you will, we know the genre and how to get it done right."

Nolan was standing next to his wife, producer Emma Thomas, his partner in all of his films — including "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight," the grim franchise that pulled in more than $1.3 billion at theaters worldwide — and he was explaining their plan to take on a challenge that has frustrated Hollywood for two decades: Getting another Superman film franchise off the ground.

Nolan, speaking about the Superman project for the first time, is pleased with the excitement stirred but, like the magicians in his 2006  film "The Prestige," sees no value in revealing all of his tricks before the curtain goes up. Still, he wanted to answer some of the early questions about his plans for Superman — as well as his third visit to Gotham City.

There was a spasm of fan excitement when word leaked last month that Nolan, who is now viewed as the Hitchcock of superhero cinema after his two Batman films, would be the "godfather" for a reboot of the Man of Steel, acting as producer and mentor to an as-yet-unnamed-director who will be making a movie based on a story by Nolan and frequent collaborator David S. Goyer.

The Internet flurry that included reports that, according to Thomas, might be better described as fan fiction. The dispatches revealing that the film will be called "Man of Steel" ? and feature Lex Luthor and Brainiac? Or the one about it being a period piece with something like a low-fi version of the hero?

"I don't know where this stuff comes from," Thomas said with a chuckle, although, as with any good poker player, it's hard to say where the bluff starts and ends.

This much is certain: The couple are completely focused on the movie-of-the-moment, which is "Inception," which opens July 19 and stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a dream thief of sorts in what may be Hollywood's first metaphysical heist film. The movie is the most complicated undertaking of Nolan's career — it was shot in six countries and tells a tale that flips between reality and three levels of dream-time — and, well, all things considered, he'd rather Superman stay in his Fortress of Solitude and off the front page for a while longer since that project is a matter for 2012 or 2013 at best.

But, of course, Superman, first superhero of them all, is an American pop culture icon on par with Mickey Mouse and Elvis. But after the close of the Christopher Reeve era with "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" in 1987, the property became one of the most frustrating in Hollywood. A dozen different reboots were started through the years with names attached such as Nicolas Cage, Kevin Smith, J.J. Abrams, McG and Brett Ratner and plans were trotted out to kill Superman, strip him of his powers or pit him in battle against Batman.

Finally, director Bryan Singer, who had earned credibility with comic book fans with his two "X-Men" films for Fox, delivered with "Superman Returns" in 2006 starring Brandon Routh. But the finished product was viewed as oddly lifeless by many critics. The $200-million film finished its theatrical run with a respectable $391 million worldwide but it wasn't heroic enough to earn a sequel.

Nolan said that he admired Singer's film, especially the way it connected in to director Richard Donner's version of Superman and the first two movies starring Reeve. Nolan added, though, that this new movie will stand on its own.

"A lot of people have approached Superman in a lot of different ways. I only know the way that has worked for us that's what I know how to do," Nolan said, emphasizing the idea that Batman exists in a world where he is the only superhero and a similar approach to the Man of Steel would assure the integrity needed for the film. "Each serves to the internal logic of the story. They have nothing to do with each other."

Still, it was a frustrating moment in the Batman franchise that led to this new Superman revival. Nolan and Goyer, a key collaborator on both Batman films, were at a story impasse on the third Batman film (which is now picking up steam as well) when, as a distraction, Goyer gave the filmmaker a daydream version of how he would tackle a story about the last son of Krypton.

"He basically told me, 'I have this thought about how you would approach Superman,'" Nolan recalled. "I immediately got it, loved it and thought: That is a way of approaching the story I've never seen before that makes it incredibly exciting. I wanted to get Emma and I involved in shepherding the project right away and getting it to the studio and getting it going in an exciting way."

Goyer is now writing the screenplay and Nolan is keeping it close to the vest.

It's interesting where inspirations originate. Nolan put together an especially deep cast for his Batman films — the first one, for instance, featured Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman and Tom Wilkinson in supporting roles. That, he said, was an idea imported from Metropolis.

"I went to the studio with the analogy of 'I want to cast the way they did in 1978 with "Superman,"' where they had Brando and Glenn Ford and Ned Beatty and all these fantastic actors in even small parts, which was an exotic idea for a superhero movie at the time. It really paid off, too., As a kid watching 'Superman' it seemed enormous and I realized later by looking at it that a lot of that was actually the casting, just having these incredibly talented people and these characterizations. And Marlon Brando is the first guy up playing Superman's dad. It's incredible."

Superman, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, was an instant success when he arrived on the publishing scene in June 1938 and he more or less created the American comic book and its signature concept, the superhero. Superman made the leap to radio in 1940 and then to the silver screen in 1948 when Kirk Alyn became the first of many actors to wear the cape. George Reeves was the face of Superman on television for 104 episodes in the 1950s while Reeve and his work in the 1970s and 1980s may be the definitive version of the hero for most fans. But the youngest fans have a view of the hero shaped more by the award-winning animated series in recent years and "Smallville," the CW series that just got re-upped for a tenth season, making star Tom Welling the Clark Kent with the longest tenure.

Nolan, for the record, also won't confirm that he is actually directing the third Batman film but, well, or course he is, but "Inception" isn't in the can yet and it's against his code. He can't be easily tricked, either. Asked if Superman as a franchise has to overcome a deficiency of truly great villains, unlike, say, Spider-Man and Batman, he won't bite. "That's a very sly way of asking a question I'm not going to answer."

Nolan says he has no idea who will direct the Superman film (there has been conjecture that it may be his brother and frequent collaborator, Jonathan Nolan) but his role appears to be comparable Peter Jackson with "District 9," which was directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp but benefited greatly from imprimatur of the "The Lord of the Rings" auteur. Jackson is also stepping into a similar role in Middle-earth as Guillermo del Toro takes over as director for "The Hobbit" films.

Nolan established himself as a bold and cerebral filmmaker in 2000 with "Memento," has made a specialty of rooting stories of the fantastic in a gritty reality with psychological undertones and emphasis on using practical effects and stunt work as opposed to the magical painting brushes of CG era. All of that made him an ideal filmmaker for fight-time in the brutal gutters of Gotham but it doesn't make the filmmaker the first obvious choice for flight-time amid the gleaming citadels of Metropolis. Warner Bros executives seem confident that he is -- and they need him to be the right man with the "Harry Potter" franchise -- and perhaps Batman -- nearing an expiration date.

Sitting in his edit bay, which is decorated with posters of Ledger as the Joker and has a skylight that rolls shut with mechanical screeching that adds to the Batcave ambiance, Nolan said he knows about storytelling and it's difficult to dissect his work beyond that.

"We're approaching it in a not dissimilar way in terms of trying to find an incredible story in a way that audiences can engage with it the way they engage with contemporary action films," Nolan continued. "I think David's approach is a very good way of doing just that."

And that third Batman film? Jonathan Nolan is "now doing the hard work" of writing the script based on the story by his sibling Goyer. "My brother is writing a script for me and we'll wait to see how it turns out...he's struggling to put it together into the epic story that you want it to be."

"Batman Begins" was the origin and back story of the hero, while "The Dark Knight" found the hero reeling as his Manichean, good vs. evil world view was  upended by a new villain, the Joker, who was a wild-card agent of chaos going up against order, be it a police department or the mob. The second film ends, literally, with Batman on the run, a fugitive.

So what happens next?

"Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story," he said. "And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

Nolan said the key characters from the two first films and the actors who play them will be back. "We have a great ensemble, that's one of the attractions of doing another film, since we've been having a great time for years."

Perhaps. But the great challenge is to find a villain (or villains) who that can not only match up with the Caped Crusader but also with Heath Ledger's Academy Award-winning portrayal of the scabby, demented Joker. Fans have churned up the rumor mill for months now (Johnny Depp as the Riddler? Angelina Jolie as Catwoman? Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin? Ben Kingsley as Hugo Strange?). But Nolan, no fan of letting cats out of the bag, declined to play along.

His villain choices to date have steered clear of strongly supernatural or super-science characters (no Man-Bat, Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, for instance) but he shook his head when asked if that was trajectory he would continue. He did however concede one tidbit: "It won't be," he said, "Mr. Freeze."

Batman has been throwing punches in the pages of DC Comics since 1939 and as the decades passed, much of the core of the character stayed the same even as Bruce Wayne's sideburns or the profile of the Batmobile changed. Not so with film.

"I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," Nolan said."My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff. Unlike the comics, these thing don't go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That's what we do."

"I'm often quoted in the press talking about visual effects like an actress talks about her use of botox... I know visual effects people pride themselves on doing the impossible. I'd just like to encourage you to say no to the unreasonable..." Chris Nolan receiving the inaugural Visual Effects Society's Visionary Awardat last night. (via Deadline)

The Traditionalist

Christopher Nolan prefers film to digital, shoots with one camera, and doesn't believe in 3-D. The director who resurrected Batman, made time go backward in Memento, and deconstructed dreams in Inception speaks his mind.

BY JEFFREY RESSNER

The movie-obsessed son of an English ad man and an American flight attendant, director Christopher Nolan burst upon the scene in 2000 with the film noir Memento. The $4 million independent film delivered the usual crime thriller tropes but with a meta twist—the hero's recurring short-term memory loss was illustrated by using an intertwined pair of narratives, one moving forward in time while the other told the story backward.

With its non-linear narrative, a device Nolan would also use in later films, Memento introduced a new talent who respected hard-boiled tradition while breaking cinematic rules. After capably handling Warner Bros.' 2002 psychological drama Insomnia, the studio entrusted him to resurrect its dormant Batman franchise. Nolan's 2005 Batman Begins, along with its even more spectacular 2008 follow-up, The Dark Knight, brought brooding sophistication and near-Shakespearean gravitas to the familiar comic book character.

In between visits to Gotham, Nolan scaled down and directed The Prestige (2006), a period piece about rival magicians in late 19th-century London. And in 2010, he made the visually daring, labyrinthine caper film Inception, about a team of dream invaders. But behind the wild imagination that unleashed the anarchistic Joker, folded the streets of Paris like so much origami, and played out an entire story line in reverse, is a traditionalist who eschews special effects and shoots as much as he can with a single camera.

We met up with the 41-year-old Nolan as he was editing his third and final Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, working with associates out of a comfortable house a few miles below the Hollywood sign. Despite an intense deadline to pull all the myriad pieces together and complete his director's cut, Nolan was the picture of Zen-like calm, speaking softly and deliberately about his work.

JEFFREY RESSNER: When did you realize that directing was your life's calling?

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN: To be honest, I've always made films and I never really stopped, starting with little stop-motion experiments using my dad's Super 8 camera. In my mind, it's all one big continuum of filmmaking and I've never changed. I used to noodle around with the camera but I didn't go to film school. I studied English literature at college and pursued a straight academic qualification, all the while making my own films and wanting to make more. I paid for my first feature, Following, myself and made it with friends. We were all working full-time jobs, so we'd get together on weekends for a year, shooting about 15 minutes of raw stock every Saturday, one or two takes of everything, and getting maybe five minutes of finished film out of that. We went to the San Francisco Film Festival with it [in 1998] and Zeitgeist Films picked up distribution, which really helped me get Memento going. I got paid to direct it, I had millions of dollars in trucks and hundreds of people and everything, and I haven't looked back since.

Q: What benefits were there in being self-taught rather than going to film school?

A: A very organic approach to understanding all the different bits of the craft. I'm interested in every different bit of filmmaking because I had to do every bit of it myself—from sound recording and ADR to editing and music. I feel very lucky to be a member of probably the last generation who cut film on a Steenbeck flatbed, physically taping it together and dropping out shots. It gave me a really good grounding in knowing overall what has to go into a film technically that was very valuable. And it meant that absolutely everything I did was simply because I was passionate and wanted to try stuff. You're never going to learn something as profoundly as when it's purely out of curiosity.

Q: You're a longtime fan of detective novels, which often employ flashbacks and other time-shifting devices. Is that where your fascination for non-linear storytelling comes from?

A: Well, I had a couple of big influences. When I was 16 I read a Graham Swift novel, Waterland, that did incredible things with parallel timelines, and told a story in different dimensions that was extremely coherent. Around the same time, I remember Alan Parker's The Wall on television, which does a very similar thing purely with imagery, using memories and dreams crossing over to other dreams and so forth. Nicolas Roeg's The Man Who Fell to Earth and Performance were also influential. Those stuck in my head, as did a lot of crime fiction—James Ellroy, Jim Thompson—and film noirs like Jacques Tourneur's Out of the Past, which was just staggering. Then, somehow, I got hold of a script to Pulp Fiction before the film came out and was fascinated with what Tarantino had done.

Q: You've often said that your favorite film is Blade Runner. What special significance does it hold for you?

A: As a kid watching films, you go through a gradual realization of what's behind them. You start off like everyone else, thinking that actors make up the words and create the film themselves. So when I was young and looking at Alien and Blade Runner, I was going, OK, they're different stories, different settings, really different actors, everything's different—but there's a very strong connection between those two films, and that is the director, Ridley Scott. I remember being struck by that, and thinking that's the job I want.

The atmosphere of Blade Runner was also important, that feeling that there was this whole world outside the frame of the scene. You really felt there were things going on outside of those rooms where you've seen the film take place. That's something I've always tried to carry with me. Every film should have its own world, a logic and feel to it that expands beyond the exact image that the audience is seeing.

Q: In your early films you wrote, shot, edited, even designed sets—the only thing you didn't do was act. What process do you use working with actors?

A: What I try to do is give them whatever process they need. It may not be what they think they need, and indeed it may be counter to that, but I really try to be different [and adapt] for every actor, I try to make them comfortable, I try to get the best out of them. You hear stories of directors deliberately making actors uncomfortable, but I always make the actor feel that they have what they need to explore a scene. My uncle [John Nolan] is an actor and he's been in several of my films. When I came to make Following, he was teaching acting so I asked him what I would need to know. He gave me a couple of Stanislavski books—An Actor Prepares was one—and said they would give me the basics. He also talked me through a few things and gave me an understanding of the craft.

Q: What did you pick up from working with actors on your early films?

A: I learned lots of things on Memento, but one thing I've always adhered to since then is letting actors perform as many takes as they want. I've come to realize that the lighting and camera setups, the technical things, take all the time, but running another take generally only adds a couple of minutes. I was shooting a very important scene with Guy Pearce in which his character is extremely upset, and it's the lead-in to where Carrie-Anne Moss' character takes Pearce's shirt off and sees all the tattoos on his chest. That day, the financier of the film just happened to be visiting the set and was literally standing right behind me. We did a take that I thought was very good, and I knew we were out of time. So I asked Guy if he felt he'd gotten it, and he said, 'No, we should do it again.' I remember having a 'What do I do?' moment. Do I let him do it and risk running over? Or do I insist that we move on, which Guy would have done, because he's flexible and professional? But I let him do another take, and that's the one used in the film. It was very special, beyond what he had done previously, and way beyond what I had imagined was even possible for the scene. I've carried that with me ever since: If an actor tells me they can do something more with a scene, I give them the chance, because it's not going to cost that much time. It can't all be about the technical issues.

Q: How do you accommodate actors in the same film who may have different styles of working?

A: With Insomnia, Al Pacino liked to rehearse very, very carefully, block things out, and do a lot of takes. His first take would be perfect, but he really wanted to talk about things, whereas Hilary Swank didn't want to rehearse too much. She wanted to save it, then do what she was going to do in one or two takes and no more. As a director, you have to figure out how to balance those things, because you want them both to feel that they're being given the floor in the way they need for what they're doing. What I love about great actors is that you then get them in a two-shot where you think their differences will be difficult, but it isn't, because they accommodate each other's process, they feel each other out and listen to each other.

Q: What was it like moving from the $45 million budget for Insomnia to three times that for Batman Begins? How daunting was that leap?

A:I don't know if other people's experiences mirror my own, but for me, the difference between shooting Following with a group of friends wearing our own clothes and my mum making sandwiches to spending $4 million of somebody else's money on Memento and having a crew of a hundred people is, to this day, by far the biggest leap I've ever made. It was a bit like learning to swim once you're out of your depth: It doesn't make any difference if it's 2 feet or 100 feet down to the bottom—you're either going to drown, or not.

The difference from Insomnia to Batman Begins, I would say, is we had very large-scale sets. But I had found a production designer on Insomnia, Nathan Crowley, who'd done a lot of art directing on big, big builds, so he came on board and we figured it out together. Those sorts of logistics are quite challenging and it was the first time I'd done a major visual effects movie. But for me, the process itself has always been fundamentally the same: You stand there and look at what the scene is going to be and then everything else falls away, or it should if you're concentrating correctly.

Q: You don't like to shoot many takes, you only storyboard action scenes, you avoid shot lists, and you just use one camera for dramatic sequences. So how do you make directorial choices in the editing room given that you don't seem to have a lot of coverage options?

A: Well, generally with the projects I'm working on, the script is based on some form of parallel action or shifting points of view, even when the story is linear. If you look at the last couple of reels on the Batman films, for example, they're all crosscut parallel action. What that means is, even though you shoot very specifically and efficiently, you have unlimited choices in the editing suite because you don't have to shoot complete continuity for a particular action scene. You can jump timelines or locations, so you have an enormous number of variables anyway. I'm not looking to make that process even more complicated.

Q: Does that mean you can edit more quickly?

A: On a film like Memento, I had a couple of days to edit each day's shoot—which probably came out to a half-hour of dailies. On The Dark Knight Rises, to make that 10-week director's cut I've basically got one day to cut three days of shooting—which comes to an hour or an hour and a half of footage. Just to sit there and watch it all is almost impossible, and I have massive, massive choices, even shooting in a pretty tight, efficient way. To make that more complicated—well, I might give myself more options, but I'm going to limit my editing time just to get a handle on it. I have a fantastic editor, Lee Smith, and he's assembling as we shoot. You want to be able to sit back from the shoot and then really explore the materials. So you want to have the time to do that.

Q: Why do you prefer shooting with one camera?

A: I use multi-camera for stunts; for all the dramatic action, I use single-camera. Shooting single-camera means I've already seen every frame as it's gone through the gate because my attention isn't divided to multi-cameras. So I see it all and I watch dailies every night. If you're always shooting multi-camera, you shoot an enormous amount of footage, and then you have to go in and start from scratch, which is tricky time-wise.

Q: Without shot lists or storyboards, how do you keep track of everything?

A: In my head. I've always been able to visualize what I want mentally, and I can lie there at night and cut the film in my head, one shot at a time, all the way through the whole thing. Watching dailies, which everybody used to have to do but now seems to be much more of an option, is an important process for memorizing the material. After memorizing it, you can then cut it in your head as you proceed, and when you get into the edit suite you know exactly where to find things. I can say to my editor, 'You know, we shot a different angle on this' or whatever, and tell him where to find it.

Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that's moved to digital. What's your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it's the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That's the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there's a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet.

Q: Have you ever thought about communicating your feelings to the industry and other directors?

A: I've kept my mouth shut about this for a long time and it's fine that everyone has a choice, but for me the choice is in real danger of disappearing. So right before Christmas I brought some filmmakers together and showed them the prologue for The Dark Knight Rises that we shot on IMAX film, then cut from the original negative and printed. I wanted to give them a chance to see the potential, because I think IMAX is the best film format that was ever invented. It's the gold standard and what any other technology has to match up to, but none have, in my opinion. The message I wanted to put out there was that no one is taking anyone's digital cameras away. But if we want film to continue as an option, and someone is working on a big studio movie with the resources and the power to insist [on] film, they should say so. I felt as if I didn't say anything, and then we started to lose that option, it would be a shame. When I look at a digitally acquired and projected image, it looks inferior against an original negative anamorphic print or an IMAX one.

Q: What does IMAX give you that you don't get from anamorphic 35 mm or 65 mm?

A: We shot 5-perf 65 mm for a few scenes in Inception and I liked the results a lot, plus you can use sound with it. But IMAX has three times the negative area of that format. It's such a leap up in terms of quality that if you're working on a film that's such a large-scale production you can embrace the more cumbersome technology, and allow for it and build it into your production process, then what you get in terms of quality when you're shooting is pretty extraordinary. For The Dark Knight Rises we were on Wall Street with a thousand extras, and you can see everybody's face in the frame. In some ways, I feel it takes me back almost to the silent film era, when they had those huge cameras. Trying to do things in more of a tableau fashion, it changes the way I direct a film, it changes the way I block the camera movement because of the size of the thing. The resulting image has so much power that you don't need to cut in the same way, you can frame the shot slightly differently, you wind up with a slightly different feel.

Q: Have you shot all of your big-budget films on IMAX?

A: We didn't shoot IMAX for Inception because we were trying to portray the reality of dreams rather than their extraordinary nature, so we used a handheld camera and shot it in a more spontaneous way. Whereas the operatic quality of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises felt very well suited to IMAX's larger canvas. So it's different depending on what film you want to do. But, in each case, as a filmmaker who's been given sizable budgets with which to work, I feel a responsibility to the audience to be shooting with the absolute highest quality technology that I can and make the film in a way that I want.

Q: Because of the kind of films you make, people might assume you use lots of computer-generated imagery, but you actually prefer models, mattes, and in-camera effects. When do you like to use CGI?

A: The thing with computer-generated imagery is that it's an incredibly powerful tool for making better visual effects. But I believe in an absolute difference between animation and photography. However sophisticated your computer-generated imagery is, if it's been created from no physical elements and you haven't shot anything, it's going to feel like animation. There are usually two different goals in a visual effects movie. One is to fool the audience into seeing something seamless, and that's how I try to use it. The other is to impress the audience with the amount of money spent on the spectacle of the visual effect, and that, I have no interest in. We try to enhance our stunt work and floor effects with extraordinary CGI tools like wire and rig removals. If you put a lot of time and effort into matching your original film elements, the kind of enhancements you can put into the frames can really trick the eye, offering results far beyond what was possible 20 years ago. The problem for me is if you don't first shoot something with the camera on which to base the shot, the visual effect is going to stick out if the film you're making has a realistic style or patina. I prefer films that feel more like real life, so any CGI has to be very carefully handled to fit into that.

Q: Perhaps the most famous effects scene in any of your films is the tumbling hallway sequence in Inception, which you did without green screens or computers but used an actual tumbling hallway. Why did you decide to go old school for that?

A: I grew up as a huge fan of Kubrick's 2001, and was fascinated by the way in which he built that centrifugal set so that the astronauts could jog all around and upside down. I found his illusions completely convincing and mind-blowing. It was one of those rare instances that, when you find out how the trick is done, it's even more impressive. So I've always wanted to do something like that, and with Inception I had the opportunity and resources to do it within an action context. To take that trick and push it in a different direction fulfilled one of my childhood ambitions. So many techniques change in filmmaking over the years, and many of the things you grew up admiring you will never get the opportunity to do. But that large-scale physical effect was still the best way to do the sequence, and it was really fun.

Q: Speaking of technical changes, was there any pressure to do The Dark Knight Rises in 3-D?

A: Warner Bros. would have been very happy, but I said to the guys there that I wanted it to be stylistically consistent with the first two films and we were really going to push the IMAX thing to create a very high-quality image. I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. 3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it's three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It's well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you're looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we've tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you. So the effect of it, and the relationship of the image to the audience, has to be very carefully considered. And I feel that in the initial wave to embrace it, that wasn't considered in the slightest.
DGA Quarterly Interview Chris Nolan The Dark Knight

Q: In terms of imagery and style, would you say there are any constants running through all your films?

A: An absolute concern with point of view. Whether in the pure camera blocking or even the writing, it's all about point of view. I can't cut a scene if I haven't already figured out whose point of view I'm looking at, and I can't shoot the scene in a neutral way. I've tried to use more objective camera techniques—a longer lens, flattening things out, using multi-camera—but they don't work. It's funny, you were asking about 3-D and one of the things that happened when the craze came back was various aspects of conversion. The way I shoot film is actually very conducive to converting to 3-D because I'm always thinking of the camera as a participant. I don't use zoom lenses, for example, so I don't reframe using the zoom. Instead, we always move the camera physically closer and put a different focal length on. Stylistically, something that runs through my films is the shot that walks into a room behind a character, because to me, that takes me inside the way that the character enters. I think those point-of-view issues are very important.

Q:You've worked with the same directorial team—1st AD Nilo Otero, 2nd AD Richard Graysmark, and 2nd 2nd Greg Pawlik—on several of your films. What do you expect from them?

A: I'm looking to the ADs to bring everything to set in a timely fashion, and make sure all the different pieces of the puzzle work. I almost never get to leave the set. I have to go pee sometimes, of course, but otherwise I'm there by the camera the whole time, and so I really rely on the AD to wheel in all the different elements. Because I also like to work very fast and work single-camera, I have to keep things moving very smoothly. I rely on Nilo to keep a quiet set with no cell phones, and hopefully without making things too tense. He does a good job making people feel at ease, while also making it clear that we're going to be extremely focused on the work that's going on.

Q: Another thing that's unique about your style, especially for such big films, is that you choose to work without a second unit. Why is that?

A: Let me put it this way: If I don't need to be directing the shots that go in the movie, why do I need to be there at all? The screen is the same size for every shot. The little shot of, say, a watch on someone's wrist, will occupy the same screen size as the shot of a thousand people running down the street. Everything is equally weighted and needs to be considered with equal care, I really do believe that. I don't understand the criteria for parceling things off. Many action films embrace a second unit taking on all of the action. For me, that's odd because then why did you want to do an action film? Having said that, there are fantastic filmmakers who use second and third units successfully. So it all comes back to the question of defining what a director does. Each of us works in different ways. It's really helped me keep more of my personality in these big films. There's a danger with big-action fare that the presence of the filmmaker is watered down, it can become very neutral, so I've tried to keep my point of view in every aspect of these films.

Q: You're known for getting down to business quickly on the set. Roughly how many setups do you like to do in a day?

A: A very large number, given the single-camera approach. On Memento I remember a day when we did 53 setups with one camera. That was born out of necessity, but it was also very inspiring, very invigorating to be able to do a lot of different bits of storytelling in one day. I do like moving fast, and I can be quite impatient in that way, but I think the energy helps the project. I don't like days on set where you don't have enough to do. It happens very rarely. Generally, you never have enough time.

Q: You also don't do re-shoots for your films. How do you avoid that?

A: I've never done a re-shoot, knock on wood. It all comes down to editing, just craft, just hammering it with my editor every day, trying radical cuts, pulling things out, abandoning bits of exposition, saying, 'OK, does the audience really need to understand this? What if they don't?' I always overwrite the exposition in my scripts so that I've got multiple ways to get a point across. If you tell the audience something three times they won't understand it, but if you tell them only once, they will. It's an odd thing. So a lot of cutting for time is, for me, cutting for clarity. It's finding where you can just pull dialogue out that you have overwritten, so you can find that one simple way an audience can get the right point.

Q: What are the issues in the industry you're concerned about?

A: Copyright theft is a very important issue. While studios have been a bit late to realize that, I'm pleased the Guild has taken a real lead. I think it's very important that both filmmakers and studios understand the importance of protecting their copyrights. I've worked at both ends of the spectrum and, yes, you can get a group of friends together and make a movie without spending lots of money. But if you're going to be paid and make a living, and if you employ talented craftspeople who need to make a living, it's always going to be an expensive form. The only way to ever get paid for it is by controlling the sale and distribution of the copyrighted material. Anyone who profits through theft, and certainly anyone getting advertising revenue off of somebody else's copyrights, should be prosecuted, shut down, and held accountable. A lot of the laws are already in place, so it's just a question of enforcing them. Judges and juries must understand what copyright theft really is.

Q: You joined the DGA after Memento. What would you tell a young director who is considering joining the Guild?

A: I got a DGA nomination for Memento, and I remember being impressed with the confidence and the values of the Guild, in that it didn't matter to them if I wasn't a member when I made that film. I joined for Insomnia, which was my first studio project. I think the protections afforded by the Guild are very important, particularly because directors are in a tricky creative relationship whenever they make a studio film. Ultimately, studios have all the power since they're financing the picture. But having that 10-week director's cut in which you're able to work in private, without interference, and say, 'Let me put this together in such a way so you can see what's shot and how it was intended to be seen,' is incredibly important. That alone is one of the key reasons to be part of the brotherhood.

Q: One last thing: I've noticed that while many of your peers wear casual clothing and baseball caps to work, it's not unusual for you to sport a dark suit or a white linen jacket on the set. Why get so dressed up?

A: [laughs] I went to a boarding school where we had to wear a uniform, and I got used to using all the pockets in my jacket. It's just what I'm comfortable in. I don't like to think about what to wear, so I just wear the same thing every day. When I first started shooting with a crew on Memento I remember trying to pick up a sandbag and everyone was shouting at me that I wasn't allowed to do that because there were specific people for that job. As much as I'd like to be able to get my hands dirty, I don't usually get to do so. So I dress the way I would for a day at the office. It's just easier that way.

Source (http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhVkztwYqA Interstellar new trailer!

so wait what. christopher nolans armageddon? wtf is going on here. looks very awesome though.

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9057.msg333512#msg333512

Christopher Nolan on Future of Film: 'It's Unthinkable That Extraordinary New Work Won't Emerge'

From Variety, Dave McNary

With four months to go before Christopher Nolan's sci-fi drama "Interstellar" comes to theaters, the director has peered hopefully into the future of cinema.

He forecasts major bumps along the way, but also plenty of opportunity for filmmakers because of the basic appeal of the medium in a column for the Wall Street Journal.

"We moan about intrusive moviegoers, but most of us feel a pang of disappointment when we find ourselves in an empty theater," he notes.

The article's titled "Christopher Nolan: Films of the Future Will Still Draw People to Theaters" with the subtitle "When Movies Can Look or Sound Like Anything, Says the 'Dark Knight' Director, Extraordinary Work Will Emerge."

One of Nolan's key points is that movies are heading for a future in which they become  essentially channels on a dial — those with the biggest "ratings" will be given more screenings and those that don't will be ditched quickly.

"The distributor or theater owner (depending on the vital question of who controls the remote) would be able to change the content being played, instantly," he wrote. "A movie's Friday matinees would determine whether it even gets an evening screening, or whether the projector switches back to last week's blockbuster. This process could even be automated based on ticket sales in the interests of 'fairness.'"

That would mean that smaller, more unusual films would be shut out for awhile.

"Innovation would shift entirely to home-based entertainment, with the remaining theaters serving exclusively as gathering places for fan-based or branded-event titles," he added.

"This bleak future is the direction the industry is pointed in, but even if it arrives it will not last," Nolan said. "Once movies can no longer be defined by technology, you unmask powerful fundamentals—the timelessness, the otherworldliness, the shared experience of these narratives."

And Nolan believes the film business will respond to the changing circumstances.

"The public will lay down their money to those studios, theaters and filmmakers who value the theatrical experience and create a new distinction from home entertainment that will enthrall—just as movies fought back with widescreen and multitrack sound when television first nipped at its heels," he asserted.

The theaters of the future will be bigger and more beautiful than ever before, Nolan added.

"They will employ expensive presentation formats that cannot be accessed or reproduced in the home (such as, ironically, film prints)," he added. "And they will still enjoy exclusivity, as studios relearn the tremendous economic value of the staggered release of their products."

Nolan also predicted that new voices will emerge amid the despair that there is nothing left to be discovered.

"As in the early '90s, when years of bad multiplexing had soured the public on movies, and a young director named Quentin Tarantino ripped through theaters with a profound sense of cinema's past and an instinct for reclaiming cinema's rightful place at the head of popular culture," he added.

And Nolan noted that the absence of formal standards offers tremendous opportunities.

"Whether photochemical or video-based, a film can now look or sound like anything," he said. "It's unthinkable that extraordinary new work won't emerge from such an open structure. That's the part I can't wait for."

In this interview, Nolan explains his key to success and ends up revealing many of the DIY filmmaking techniques he used to make Following.

Christopher Nolan Teaming With Zeitgeist For Blu-ray Releases Of Films By Andrey Zvyagintsev, Quay Brothers, More
via The Playlist

Christopher Nolan, in addition to being perhaps the most cerebral director of blockbuster action flicks currently working, clearly cares a lot about the culture of preserving and appreciating film. He's one of the most vocal advocates of for Kodak Film, along with his chums Quentin Tarantino and J.J. Abrams, and he's recently branched out into yet another previously uncharted realm, if you'll forgive the vaguely galactic pun. Variety has recently reported that Syncopy – the production company co-owned by Nolan and his wife Emma Thomas – is planning a joint venture with New York-based independent film distributor Zeitgeist Films whereby the two companies will oversee and curate Blu-Ray releases for Zeitgeist's prestige titles. And Nolan has good reason to trust Zeitgeist: they handled the release of his assured debut "Following," a moody, minimal thriller about obsession and paranoia that led to the funding and release of his breakout picture, "Memento."

The company's first planned release from the partnership is "Elena," from "Leviathan" director Andrey Zvyagintsev, which took home the coveted Un Certain Regard Special Jury Prize at Cannes in 2011. "Elena" is a modern noir set in the atmospheric corridors of a Moscow apartment complex. Seeing how the film can now boast some cred via Zvyagintsev's involvement – his "Leviathan" was one of 2014's most well-reviewed films - as well as a purportedly "Hitchcockian" music soundtrack by the great Philip Glass, it's a fitting first title for the joint company excursion.

"Elena" will get a Blu Ray release on August 4th of this year. In the meantime, Zeitgeist and Syncopy are working on a compilation of animated short films from the Quay brothers that will see a release sometime towards the end of the year.

New Christopher Nolan Directed Short Film 'Quay' To Premiere In August
via The Playlist

Earlier this year, we learned that blockbuster filmmaker Christopher Nolan was teaming with arthouse minded distributor Zeitgeist Films to oversee and curate Blu-Ray releases. "Leviathan" director Andrey Zvyagintsev's "Elena" was among first announced titles, along with a compilation of shorts helmed by famed animation directors, the Quay Brothers. But first, the duo are not only getting a big screen revival, but they are the focus of a new short film helmed by Nolan.

As part of Film Forum's series "The Brothers Quay On 35mm (http://filmforum.org/film/quay-brothers-on-35mm-film)," Nolan will unveil his simply titled "Quay" on August 19th, a documentary about Stephen and Timothy Quay. The subjects of the short will be on hand for the screening and will participate in a Q&A with Nolan as well. And yes, tickets are on sale (http://filmforum.org/film/quay-brothers-on-35mm-film). And while there's no word on any further screenings of "Quay," it's probably safe to assume it'll be an extra feature on that brewing Zeitgeist release.

i think i just ejaculated.

Quote from: wilder on July 27, 2015, 08:45:36 PM
New Christopher Nolan Directed Short Film 'Quay' To Premiere In August
via The Playlist

Earlier this year, we learned that blockbuster filmmaker Christopher Nolan was teaming with arthouse minded distributor Zeitgeist Films to oversee and curate Blu-Ray releases. "Leviathan" director Andrey Zvyagintsev's "Elena" was among first announced titles, along with a compilation of shorts helmed by famed animation directors, the Quay Brothers. But first, the duo are not only getting a big screen revival, but they are the focus of a new short film helmed by Nolan.

As part of Film Forum's series "The Brothers Quay On 35mm (http://filmforum.org/film/quay-brothers-on-35mm-film)," Nolan will unveil his simply titled "Quay" on August 19th, a documentary about Stephen and Timothy Quay. The subjects of the short will be on hand for the screening and will participate in a Q&A with Nolan as well. And yes, tickets are on sale (http://filmforum.org/film/quay-brothers-on-35mm-film). And while there's no word on any further screenings of "Quay," it's probably safe to assume it'll be an extra feature on that brewing Zeitgeist release.

The Quay Brothers: Collected Short Films on blu-ray from Zeitgeist on October 20, 2015

(https://i.imgur.com/cAn1mBb.jpg)

Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, And Mark Rylance To Star In Christopher Nolan's 65mm Shot 'Dunkirk'
via The Playlist

Over the weekend, word surfaced that Christopher Nolan's next film might be a WWII picture about the evacuation from Dunkirk. And indeed, not only is that the case, but the first cast members have been revealed.

THR reports that Nolan will reteam with pal Tom Hardy ("Inception," "The Dark Knight Rises") and newcomers to his world Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance for the simply titled, "Dunkirk." But there's a twist — they'll be co-starring, with unknown actors taking the lead ensemble roles. Of course, exact plot details aren't being revealed for the Nolan penned project, but the movie is said to be inspired by Operation Dynamo, the near-miraculous evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied troops from the French seaport of Dunkirk which took place from May-June in 1940.

True to his passion for celluloid, "Dunkirk" will be shot on 65mm and IMAX 65mm, with cameras rolling in May. [...] release date of July 21, 2017

sounds interesting.

Rylance in Bridge of Spies was outstanding.

Christopher Nolan has restored and re-released a 70mm print of 2001. A lot of you got to see it and I'm soo jealous! I work in an IMAX omnitheater (domed screen) and have always dreamed of showing that film here above any other. However, the omnitheater print is constructed differently from standard 70mm. The image runs horizontally as opposed to vertically and is a bit larger in size. So, I've been wondering if there's any way I could potentially reach out to Christopher Nolan's team to inquire if they are going to attempt an omnitheater print of 2001. Now that the restoration process has been done, they would only need to strike a print in this larger format ( I think ). How might I possibly contact Chris Nolan and Warner Bros to ask about this? I have never dealt with big time movie folks in any platform beyond twitter.

I've wondered about this as well, since the omnitheater IMAX is what I've always considered to be the only "authentic", "true" IMAX process.


In my experience, tho, aren't these omnitheater screens generally fairly "square" in their aspect ratio?  (I'm relying on memory here.)  If so, I'm not sure they could accommodate 2001's 2.21:1 or 2.59:1 original ratios (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/brown1.html)?     I think we have some knowledgeable folks here that can, uh, shed more light on this issue...?

I saw IMAX films in two of the original legit IMAX theaters back in the day (at the Minnesota Zoo and Valley Fair amusement park). I went to the Valley Fair IMAX theater probably 5-10 times every summer while it was there. These were not domed omnitheaters, but floor-to-ceiling rectangular screens that were curved. I don't recall the aspect ratio, but I would wager it was more square than 16:9, because the screen literally did stretch from the floor to the ceiling. I haven't had a similar experience since in any official IMAX theaters, which are great but just not the same. But yeah, someone who knows more should weigh in.

It was like this:

Yeah, that's my memory of the local IMAX here in L.A. (in Exposition Park, near USC).  They built a new one on the opposite side of the Science Museum, but I remember it's floor-to-ceiling, mostly-square screen at both places.  I can't help but think there would be a lot of black at the top & bottom of the screen if it was projected in it's true ratio.