Christopher Nolan Vs. Darren Aronofsky

...So what does that prove? I'm not making the argument the film is super complex, most of the people who don't like it are.

You can say that about Cassavetes as well. Doesn't make it not worth discussing the philosophy. Preferences are different than stupid claims that can be applied anywhere. So other films have more difficult characters. Does that mean only good movies have that? The Fountain may be just a love story to you but I'm not the only one coming up with other things to talk about regarding it, so it doesn't really matter that the characters aren't Richard Forst and Jeannie Rapp. That would take away from things a lot. Why do so many people assign elements to films when they're not even relevant?

By this logic it's pretty impossible to enjoy any non-realism art at all. Enjoy that I guess.

Yeah, gotta marvel at his contempt. As if his dislike means squat.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Well the novel and poem actually sound like they could be more interesting than what was presented in the film. I would like the clarify that I don't necessarily find the whole premise of trees floating through space ridiculous in itself. I am more than willing to suspend my disbelief. I mean, hey, I have been champion films in which people invade dreams, but I just felt that the execution was weak. Aronofsky expected people to get to contemplate a bunch of these images and be like 'whoa dude, isn't that from that based on mythology or whatever?'

More points later. Really this time. Got to shower.

Before you go further, remember, even the Death Star was contained within an invisible force field!

Also, I don't think at any point in making The Fountain did Aronofsky think "wouldn't it be nice if people watching my film went 'whoa dude, isn't that from that based on mythology or whatever?'" I'm thinking he simply took ideas and themes and tied them into his film about mortality and human connection. Plus, I'm going to assume he hasn't read anything by Dan Simmons, though he has clearly heard of Yggdrasil, IMO.

__________________

Right, I referenced this earlier even. He isn't making films "so people can see how ultra brilliant I am," I don't get why that's a main assumption and a root of the dislike.

Alright, maybe he doesn't think that he is all that and a bag of chips when it comes to filmmaking, but the end result certainly suggests that. This is a film that seems like it supposed to be ultra emotionally engaging, yet it does not make sense. At least not to me. That reeks of arrogance, whether Aronofsky is aware of it or not. Fact is, if going to tackle the metaphysical, you've got to come up with a way for it to make sense. And while I appreciate the arguments you guys have made, I am still baffled by the whole thing.

Also, thinking about it now, the 'links' between the three stories are far too shallow.


I get that it's all done for love and all that stuff, but you've just highlighted another reason why these parallel scenes don't work. It's too repetitive. We get that all these Jackman incarnations have a hard time accepting death....and? If he is going to take on all these stories at least go some way into differentiating them in a way that's not shallow.

Calling Kielowski Mr Abstract is fairly lazy labelling considering his films have a somewhat coherent narrative structures and rely on powerful performances. At least you can say that about the Three Colours Trilogy. Besides, there is no law that says you can't be experimental and not develop your characters.


You guys obviously get a lot more out of it than I did or could ever hope to, and that's cool. But the fact is, you'd have to know a bit more about..the stuff that you guys know in order to gain some amount of pleasure out of it.

No, I'm not saying that. My comment was in response to being called "clueless", which I retorted that there's nothing to be clueless about. It's not a deep piece of work; it's simple and loaded with half-baked Eastern philosophies.

I appreciate that there seems to be such love for The Fountain. In fact, I respect that a lot. There were beautiful moments in the film. They just weren't enough to overshadow--for me, anyway--the bloated nature of the work.

And that isn't necessarily true. Much of the abstract art world isn't geared towards in-your-face symbolism. It's more expressionistic (not the style, mind you), and that's all that matters. I'm not a high art connoisseur, but I know enough to know what I like.

I would go that far to say that Darren Aronofsky is new Stanley Kubrick...

Oh, come on. His films aren't that dull.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I only admired his Batman Films. The rest of his films is not ''cool'' to me.

Darren's films to me..I just dislike them very much. Darren is nothing like Stanley Kubrick or even blood lover Quentin Tarantino.

__________________
no one else is dealing with your demons friend - tyler joseph.

I think the reason for the bubbles would be the theory of multiverses. I see the parallels with Norsk mythology but the contemporary interpretation goes along the lines of the believe in many universes, each represented as a bubble. Now why a bubble you may ask? Stephen Hawking and other astrophysicists such as Michio Kaku have explained how free-floating universes (each governed by their own set of rules) give birth to new ones, symbolized by the splitting of the bubble. Look up the "Multiverse Bubble Theory".

Christopher Nolan makes intelligent summer blockbusters which appeal to the general public, while Aronofsky makes dark,bleak films that are emotionally resonant and visually stimulating. I think Aronofsky is extremely talented, as Requiem for A Dream and Black Swan are amazing films.

Darren Aronofsky

For me it's a no brainer. The wirst Nolan movie I've seen is better than the best Aranofsky I've seen. So easy Nolan (I haven't seen insomnia, but so far he only made great films)

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

+1

The Fountain is much more powerful than anything Nolan did.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Aronofsky, simply because I cannot stand some of the Nolan fanboys who claim he's a genius and one of the greatest directors of all time, which he isn't.

Nolan. Not because of some fanboy loving of Nolan, but simply because I enjoy his films more than Aronofsky's.

I've always found Aronofsky's films pretty tedious.
The Wrestler, which was revered by many, I found pretentious and boring. Black Swan was just plain boring.
He was Exec Producer of The Fighter too... which I found pretty unoriginal and Marky Mark and his confused eyebrows were just the final nail in the coffin.
Pi was just a chore to get though.

Nolan tends to go with imaginative stories and concepts... he also has The Dark Knight Trilogy which I love.
Insomnia, The Prestige... solid films and interesting too.
He does have a couple of downs, I wasn't keen on Inception or Memento, partly down to having DiCaprio, Guy Pierce and Carrie-Ann Moss in them but they were still kinda bland even though they had half decent concepts.

__________________