Worst Directors Of All Time

Tools    





Nice post, mate. I'm glad you too realise that Memento is a masterpiece. It saddens me a bit when you say that The Prestige was just "interesting". It's a four star quality film that has a lot more to say than just magic.

The film works as the best metaphor for the differences between auteurs and directors. Showmanship vs genuine gifts, y'know. It's a big filmmakers commentary, to say the least. How about watching it enough time. I just dont' except anybody calling the film interesting.

And I don't see where Nolan making only 6 films doesn't put him up with the big guns...after all, David Fincher AND Quentin Tarantino have made about the same amount in over 15 years of their career, perhaps they shouldn't be up there with the "biggies" too, eh? Nolan has done it in less than 10 years, mate.

Oh, and guess what, mate? THREE of Nolan's 6 films have made it onto the imdb's Top 100 list, namely Memento, The Prestige, and Batman Begins.

You also might want to look at Total Film's (The most reliable film magazine in the UK according to most) Top 100 Directors of all time...the man who "only made 6 feature films" made it to number 32, beating super heavyweights such as:
Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) ,
Roman Polanski (Chinatown),
Francois Truffaut (The 400 Blows),
andDavid Lean (Lawrence Of Arabia).

That is no mean feat, beating these legendary auteurs, and Total Film isn't a joke magazine. They happen to be highly regarded amongst filmmakers, actors and producers. Hell, even the folks at Sight and Sound consider Total Film to be a strong rival, so you have to start taking Christopher Nolan seriously. More importantly, you have to start NOW.

In addition to being the finest director, Nolan happens to be a gifted writer as well. His screenplay for Memento earned him an oscar nomination for Best Screenplay. Now, i'm not a fan of the oscars, but they did well there by acknowledging how beautiful the screenplay to this outstanding film was. But how could it not be acknowledged? Memento is the definition of a five-star film.

Since you have not seen Following, I must say that you are in for a treat. It's a fascinating debut and a great introduction into Nolan's world. As a film by itself, it's actually ***1/2. As a debut, however, it's **** quality. It's somewhat inspired by Hitchcocks earlier works, with a little bit of Taxi Driver thrown into the mix. Interesting movie that works really well. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "do what you know". Go and order it off Amazon NOW, mate.

His filmography speaks for itself:

Following ****

Memento *****

Insomnia ***

Batman Begins ****

The Prestige ****

The Dark Knight - this film has the potential to be four stars, and given the skill of the director...it will be

When we take Nolan out of your posts, i find your threads to be some of the most interesting on the site but your absolute blind love for Nolan has to stop! Don't take this as an attack because i do respect your opinion but your ratings of his films you seem to put across as definitive and not your opinion (even though i'd probably rate his films much the same). Anyway, i've never really thought that much of Total Film, preferred Empire but only really read Sight And Sound. I am totally lost for words on that poll, Polanski, i mean Chinatown beats Memento hands down in terms of everything, formal and analytical. And on the subject, IMDB isn't what i'd call a reliable ranking system, friggin' Episode 3 has 7.9! The things with Fincher and Tarantino is they have a distinct style, both are definitely auteurs, more so than Nolan and they're ranked so highly probably because of their penetration into popular culture and subsequent influence.
__________________




A system of cells interlinked
Yeah, regardless of what some rag says about these directors, Nolan isn't even in the same league as Lean and Polanski. I mean come on, This is Lawrence of Arabia and Chinatown we are talking about here. I can't sit here and compare a film with Alec Guinness, Peter O' Toole, and Claude Reigns to something with Carrie-Anne Moss in it. She is one of the worst actresses ever, and has no range whatsoever. The mirage scene in Lawrence of Arabia is more of an accomplishment than anything Nolan has done, or will ever will do, and that is just a few moments in Lawrence. Lawrence is such an amazing piece of work...the scope, the use of color, and I have to mention the transitions, which are some of the best, if not THE best, transitions in the history of film.

No comparison...
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Keenan Ivory Wayans. He's a repeat offender in my book, with Little Man, White Chicks, and the Scary Movie series. Somebody stop him, please.
haha.. nice choice! I also observed that from him.. How i wish he would come up for a descent movie... hehe



When we take Nolan out of your posts, i find your threads to be some of the most interesting on the site but your absolute blind love for Nolan has to stop! Don't take this as an attack because i do respect your opinion but your ratings of his films you seem to put across as definitive and not your opinion (even though i'd probably rate his films much the same). Anyway, i've never really thought that much of Total Film, preferred Empire but only really read Sight And Sound. I am totally lost for words on that poll, Polanski, i mean Chinatown beats Memento hands down in terms of everything, formal and analytical. And on the subject, IMDB isn't what i'd call a reliable ranking system, friggin' Episode 3 has 7.9! The things with Fincher and Tarantino is they have a distinct style, both are definitely auteurs, more so than Nolan and they're ranked so highly probably because of their penetration into popular culture and subsequent influence.
Appreciate the compliments, mate. Sight and Sound are great and in the same league as Total Film, except they're a lot more formal in their approach to discussing film, which alienates me a bit.

The list is a bit flawed yes, but if I had had it my way, I would have had Nolan in the top 20 for sho. IMDB is unrealible, sure. I only mentioned the site just to illustrate my point a bit more. You see, I find that Greatest Lists of directors, movies, etc...they're nothing but consensus. That Memento keeps topping them means few of us could do without it.

Also, I understand why both Fincher and Tarantino (two directors with, as you mentioned, distinct styles) are mentioned often despite not having a filmography. And I know Nolan isn't as referenced in pop culture. But mate, you've got to remember that Nolan is still quite young for a director and unlike those aforementioned auteurs, he hasn't even reached his prime yet.

When I see a bloke like Tarantino, I see a guy who has a nice style and is clearly heavily influenced by some of the previous generation's greats. That said, I also see a guy who is well past his prime and can't really offer a whole lot more to cinema than he already has done.

This isn't a knock on him, it's just that a guy with his style can only take him so far to the point where he may start to patiche his own signatures (Check out the endless foot shots in Death Proof). There is a bit more hope for Fincher, though. He seems to be taking risks and is genre hopping a bit more nowadays. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button will tell me if he still has it in him.



Yeah, regardless of what some rag says about these directors, Nolan isn't even in the same league as Lean and Polanski. I mean come on, This is Lawrence of Arabia and Chinatown we are talking about here. I can't sit here and compare a film with Alec Guinness, Peter O' Toole, and Claude Reigns to something with Carrie-Anne Moss in it. She is one of the worst actresses ever, and has no range whatsoever. The mirage scene in Lawrence of Arabia is more of an accomplishment than anything Nolan has done, or will ever will do, and that is just a few moments in Lawrence. Lawrence is such an amazing piece of work...the scope, the use of color, and I have to mention the transitions, which are some of the best, if not THE best, transitions in the history of film.

No comparison...
While I always appreciate your opinion and criticism, mate...I have to say that you're being a bit harsh when you say that Carrie-Anne Moss is one of the worst actress ever. What exactly is it you find so appalling about her? I'm not saying she's brilliant, but I do find her very talented. Plus, she has a knack for picking some good roles in great films (The Matrix, Memento) .

Her performance in Memento was suitably understated and ambigious with her going all out only when it was necessary. Personally, I think it's near oscar worthy. Not your typical femme fatale Natalie was.

I know you and countless other mofos love Lawrence Of Arabia. It's a masterpiece, sure, but then I feel the exact same way about Memento. The Lawrence is that it is indeed an epic, which gives it a more scope and freedom than other genres would give it. That's why it would be shocking if a film like that wasn't a masterpiece.

Nice discussion though, lads. I do feel we have digressed a bit, though...



Appreciate the compliments, mate. Sight and Sound are great and in the same league as Total Film, except they're a lot more formal in their approach to discussing film, which alienates me a bit.

The list is a bit flawed yes, but if I had had it my way, I would have had Nolan in the top 20 for sho. IMDB is unrealible, sure. I only mentioned the site just to illustrate my point a bit more. You see, I find that Greatest Lists of directors, movies, etc...they're nothing but consensus. That Memento keeps topping them means few of us could do without it.

Also, I understand why both Fincher and Tarantino (two directors with, as you mentioned, distinct styles) are mentioned often despite not having a filmography. And I know Nolan isn't as referenced in pop culture. But mate, you've got to remember that Nolan is still quite young for a director and unlike those aforementioned auteurs, he hasn't even reached his prime yet.

When I see a bloke like Tarantino, I see a guy who has a nice style and is clearly heavily influenced by some of the previous generation's greats. That said, I also see a guy who is well past his prime and can't really offer a whole lot more to cinema than he already has done.

This isn't a knock on him, it's just that a guy with his style can only take him so far to the point where he may start to patiche his own signatures (Check out the endless foot shots in Death Proof). There is a bit more hope for Fincher, though. He seems to be taking risks and is genre hopping a bit more nowadays. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button will tell me if he still has it in him.
Yeah, i don't rate Tarantino particularly highly but his film's have that undeniable personal style and freedom running through, which is why he's an auteur and Nolan is not, Pulp Fiction is undoubtedly going to be remembered in years to come far more than Memento, which is probably the only film thus far of Nolan's that will be, obviously Batman will be to a degree but that's for different reasons. As a general question, do you think Nolan is perhaps moving down a road of selling out, i mean i highly doubt Warner's are giving him total freedom on such a major franchise as Batman.

As for Sight and Sound being on par with Total Film, i'd initially disagree but haven't read Total Film for a while. I like the formal style and it's actually interesting to read interesting films being critiqued to a greater extent than how big the explosions are. I don't find i gain or learn anything from Total Film that i couldn't from just seeing the films themselves.



Yeah, i don't rate Tarantino particularly highly but his film's have that undeniable personal style and freedom running through, which is why he's an auteur and Nolan is not, Pulp Fiction is undoubtedly going to be remembered in years to come far more than Memento, which is probably the only film thus far of Nolan's that will be, obviously Batman will be to a degree but that's for different reasons. As a general question, do you think Nolan is perhaps moving down a road of selling out, i mean i highly doubt Warner's are giving him total freedom on such a major franchise as Batman.

As for Sight and Sound being on par with Total Film, i'd initially disagree but haven't read Total Film for a while. I like the formal style and it's actually interesting to read interesting films being critiqued to a greater extent than how big the explosions are. I don't find i gain or learn anything from Total Film that i couldn't from just seeing the films themselves.


Whoa, now hold on just a second, mate. Nolan has NOT sold out. Excuse me, but when did Mr Christopher Nolan say he wasn't going to do a big time summer blockbuster movie? You my friend, are mixing your notions of what a respectable director should make and what a director (in this case, Chris Nolan) actually wants to do. Selling out is phrase used loosely. You have to advocate a certain opinion or way of life and then turn against everything you held dear. That is selling out.

Besides, as a blockbuster, Batman Begins is quite a thoughtful and poignant psychodrama, much in the vein of Ang Lee's underrated Hulk. His signatures is still evident in Begins: warped timeshifts, fractured narrative, frequent jump shots; protagonists who have an ability that's as much an advantage to them as it is a disadvantage, a touch of neo noir...See, Nolan's signature style is much more thematic than it is visual, much like with David Cronenberg, mate.

And of course Warner Bros trust Nolan now. He has all the creative freedom in the world right now, which is why he is going all out with The Dark Knight. He was a TINY bit restricted with Begins, but he has all the trust he can get with Warner, and he won't let them or us down. Nolan does what Nolan wants, mate. Just like Tarantino, Lynch, Cronenberg and Scorsese.



Ed Wood and Roger Corman are absolutely the worst--so bad that I'm embarassed for them in watching their films. Ultra-high squirm factor until you run screaming from the theater, vowing never again to watch another movie.

But there are several big name directors who are nearly as bad--one, as someone already mentioned is Quentin Tarantino who has just about run his one-trick pony to death. Another is Oliver Stone, whose view of the world is completely out of sync with that of any normal person. Brian De Palma has never had an original idea in his life, and Roman Polanski puts more time, effort, and imagination in his perversion than in his direction. Kevin Costner is an even worse director than an actor, and that's saying a bunch!

But the worst of the big name directors for my money is Steven Spielberg who shot only one film I ever liked--Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is nothing more than an extended B-grade Saturday afternoon serial as goofy as Gene Autry fighting the underground phantom legion on the Melody Ranch. Spielberg would be a great cartoonist if he could only draw.



Count me in the crowd that would be utterly delighted if Quentin Tarantino never made another film. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call him one of the worst directors of all time, but he certainly deserves a special niche in the pantheon of suckage for his unmatched hype-to-substance ratio, his cynical marketing of plagiarism as 'homage' and for just being an all-around smarmy *******. I hope he gets raped to death by a silverback gorilla. That would be totally awesome.



Before I post, allow me to greet the subscribers of this forum. I am always looking for new forums to discuss motion pictures, good or bad. So I hope this turns out to be a positive experience.

I have read through the majority of the posts & I agree with some of the opinions expressed, but for the most part I am in complete conflict & this is especially true after reading The Prestige's posts. Of course it is obvious to anyone that his opinions on films by Coppola are ridiculous, though I have to agree with Pyro in saying they seem like an attempt to create conflict in order to bring more attention to the thread he has created rather then being an actual critiquing. Never the less, I am going to argue the point after I give my views on all post that came before you flamed Coppola's films.

You first contradiction comes when you list David S. Goyer as one of the worst directors of all time. Before 'The Invisible,' Goyer was forced into the directors chair for 'Blade: Trinity' & 'ZigZag,' due to the directors dropping out of the projects so close to filming that it would cost the producers millions to shut production down to search for a new director & it would cause scheduling conflicts with the actors who had pre-production agreement to other movies in the works. Also, through out this thread you sing the praises of 'Batman Begin,' since it is a Christopher Nolan film, but David S. Goyer had just as much to do in the success of 'Batman Begins,' & you could make a valid argument that he had more to do with the success, then Christopher Nolan since it was Goyer's script from the very beginning while Nolan was only a replacement for Darrin Aronofsky after he left the project. Nolan saw the desperate position Benjamin Melniker was in, so he demanded a writing credit before he would agree to the project.

Here is a brief remark on Kenan Ivory Wayans. Obviously yes, he is a terrible director who plays to the mindless sense of humor that the majority of movie goers share, while educated movie goers find his movies recycled & redundant, so to find the one great movie he directed you have to back to the source of the recycled jokes & redundancy which is a movie called,'I'm Gonna Get You Sucka!' Which is a mock parody of all the blaxloitation movies of the 70's. I haven't met a person who could say they hated it with a straight face & you have to remember he used to write for Eddie Murphy in his prime.

Now in response to the Paul Verhoeven comment, even though he does try to transplant social commentary in his film, he still has a respectable body of work. If you toss out 'Showgirls' from 1987 to 1997 he made some great films including 'Robocop' & 'Starship Troopers.' The worse mistake in his career that will cast a shadow over him until he dies is buying into Joe Eszterhas 'Showgirl' script, but it is understandable due in large part to the success of 'Basic Instinct.' After the release of 'Basic Instinct' you couldn't read, watch, or listen to any kind of news media that didn't sing his praises while proclaiming Eszwerhas as the golden ticket to an Oscar when if fact he was just some douche bag who finally figured out after 18 years, that a man shouldn't try to write a main character who is female in a movie about self discovery. So hopefully the next time a man from Hungary comes to the U.S. wanting citizenship who lists screen writer as his profession, let's hope the immigration officer gives him 20 bucks then ships him back to the village he came from.

As for Michael Bay, he in no way shape or form has pioneered any stylized action sequences, stunts, pyrotechnic efforts, or special effects. I could easily mention Lucas & Star Wars, but in truth I don't have to go back that far at all. T2: Judgement Day & Jurrasic Park were both released years before Michael Bay directed his first hollywood film, 'Bad Boys' & anything he has done since then can't be labeled original technology. Without James Cameron's company Lightstorm CGI, Lucas CGI, & Dreamworks CGI there would be no live action 'Transformers' & as for action sequences.. Jackie Chan & John Woo. Still to speak in defense of Michael Bay, I have never watched a film I hated that had his named attached to it as a director or producer (with the exception of 'Pearl Harbor.) though you will never find one in any of my top ten lists either. He realized early on that the real money was in production so he is more a producer then a director

Ok, on to Coppola. I am not even going to give reasons on why this trilogy of movies are brilliant, there is no point in doing so after Stanley Kubrick labeled 'The Godfather' as the best movie ever made, because no one else has the same level of respect in the film industry as Kubrick, unless Hitchcock is ressurected from his grave & says 'The Godfather' is ****, there isn't another person in this world who has been honored in motion pictures. Anyways, to get back on track... Your most considerable contradiction in this thread comes after your Coppola post, when you do all but plagiarize reviews from several critics to validate your point on Nolan movies, while completely ignoring the overwhelming majority of critics & movie goers alike who believe 'The Godfather I & II' are the best films ever made. If you are going to quote a established critic to boaster your opinion, then you have to be willing to quote their conflicting opinion while making your arguments against their review if you want your opinions to have any merit or standing with true movie buffs.

Now before I make my second point, let me state my view on Coppola & his work. I am not willing to call him the best director of all time, but when it comes adapting a novel to motion picture, there is no one better. So for you to saying that 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' has no depth is preposterous. Coppola takes a book, a terrible book I might add that is written in letters that go back and forth between the characters & turns it to a movie brilliant period piece that works on several metaphoric levels that address love, iniquity, solitude, & redemption in a period of human history where science & superstition clashing in their greatest battle against each other, which is symbolized in his methods of filming. Stunning state of the art visual effects are used in the transmogrification of Dracula represents the change in life & society as the future presses on. While he pays homage to the classic adaptations of the story that paved the way for horror/thrillers by using in camera effects and arcane opticals in order to show death and brutality that represents the golden age of films last breaths that became smothered by CGI that replaced the need thought provoking movies that relied on break writing and the perfection of a master thesbian. Not to mention the hand cranked Lumeire used in several scenes to acknowledge the progressive move toward films carried by special effects. When you factor all this in, along with the minimalist sets this movie takes it's place as the ideal ambrosia of of the vampire genre.

Now, I agree that Christopher Nolan is a promising director, but to label 'Memento' a masterpiece is using the term very loosely. There were plenty of plot holes in the movie that kept me rewinding the movie several times to confirm I hadn't miss a key action or dialogue. It is foolish to speak of Nolan being in the same league as Scorsese, Lynch, Hitchcock, & Kubrick. To this day, he has directed under 10 movies when the directors I just mentioned has a body of work that spans across decades & becomes a testament to there ever evolving skills as a director that earns them the title of 'Legend' so we will have to see if Nolan withstands the test of time and earns access to the upper echelon of directors who changed Hollywood with their work. So you can recite every story or review on Christopher Nolan & his movies, I doesn't change the fact that his movies have yet to change how motion pictures are created or have influenced society as a whole or made anyone think differently about their life or altered their option on humanity & there is no way to get around that argument. (Though I suspect you will conjure influence in an atempt to validate.) There is only one generation X director that could have a shot at meeting the listed criteria & that is, Darrin Aronofsky. Yet, truth be told, 'Requiem for a Dream' & 'Pi' has altered the perspective of those who has seen thenm he has yet to have a movie that has earned critical praise from a vast audience which could lead them to any of his earlier work.

So it will be years from now before we he can compare him to the greats & until that moment comes... He is a talent & promising director.

Also, yes Tarantino is mentioned quite often in discussions on film, but anyone who knows movies wouldn't categorise him with the likes of Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa & if they did it was only a reference to help readers to gauge his talents.



Whoa, now hold on just a second, mate. Nolan has NOT sold out. Excuse me, but when did Mr Christopher Nolan say he wasn't going to do a big time summer blockbuster movie? You my friend, are mixing your notions of what a respectable director should make and what a director (in this case, Chris Nolan) actually wants to do. Selling out is phrase used loosely. You have to advocate a certain opinion or way of life and then turn against everything you held dear. That is selling out.

Besides, as a blockbuster, Batman Begins is quite a thoughtful and poignant psychodrama, much in the vein of Ang Lee's underrated Hulk. His signatures is still evident in Begins: warped timeshifts, fractured narrative, frequent jump shots; protagonists who have an ability that's as much an advantage to them as it is a disadvantage, a touch of neo noir...See, Nolan's signature style is much more thematic than it is visual, much like with David Cronenberg, mate.

And of course Warner Bros trust Nolan now. He has all the creative freedom in the world right now, which is why he is going all out with The Dark Knight. He was a TINY bit restricted with Begins, but he has all the trust he can get with Warner, and he won't let them or us down. Nolan does what Nolan wants, mate. Just like Tarantino, Lynch, Cronenberg and Scorsese.

I never said he HAD sold out, i asked if you thought he was maybe on the path to. But anyway, yes, directors can make blockbusters but in my opinion an auteur HAS to be independent and much of our debate around Nolan involves his status as such. I was using the term 'selling out' in as much as making bigger budget movies, which to a degree is selling out because there's no way i can possibly imagine that Warner's are giving him completely free reign with their money thus looses independent and total creative control. If, like you alarming assure, they are giving him millions without worrying about their investment suggests he doesn't have the individual creativity to worry about making HIS film but merely a capable director good at following orders. But i still don't buy Batman being all Nolan, it's impossible to focus on the director as the one creative force behind a studio film.

I also have to disagree about putting him in the same league as Lynch, look at INLAND EMPIRE compared to Batman Begins one is the epitome of auteur-ship and a truly personal, unique and individual film and the other is a Hollywood studio vehicle. And you can give Nolan all the artistic integrity in the world but Batman will always be a franchise with big money in. Half of his 'trademarks' you mentioned in Batman Begins are inherent functions of the Batman mythos and the remaining trademarks are all formal aspects of filmmaking so your claim to his thematic occupations is off. Now, this is a question (not rhetorical) so remember that means not a statement but did Nolan ask Warner to make Batman or was it vice versa?



Personally, I haven't liked anything John Waters has done, especially if it had Divine in it, but that doesn't make him one of the worst directors, I guess. Still, I won't be spending my money on his projects anytime soon...
I'm only partway through reading this thread, but I feel like I have to respond to a couple of things:

First, John Waters is a love-him-or-hate-him kinda thing. Personally, I love the guy. In fact, you can look here for a moving tribute :sniff:

As far as defending Michael Bay and trashing Francis Ford Coppola...ummm...I really don't know what to say. I don't hate Mr. Bay as much as some people, but he's pretty much a hack director. He's perfect, though, if you're looking for a movie where there are big loud car chases and lots of stuff gets blown up. For the record, I kind of liked Transformers, but I thought he absolutely ruined The Island, which had the makings of a pretty good movie until it hit the part with the interminable car chases and explosions.

And for my money, yes, The Godfather is that good. It's one of my favorite movies, and just brilliant work. Apocalypse Now is also a favorite of mine, although I can see how some other folks might not like it so much.

By the way, the first name that came to mind when I saw this thread was Uwe Boll, who has already been mentioned. He's not a hack; he's an abomination.



Tatanka's Avatar
Certifiably troglodytic.
I know what you mean, mate. Still, that's a tad bit harsh on Mr Tarantino. Yes, he can come across as self-indulgent and a bit arrogant, but he is undeniably talented.

I'm no fan at all. In fact, there are times where I can stand the bloke, but you have to respect his love of cinema. You can tell that he is more than passionate about movies just through his compulsory pop culture references. Yes, some people have suggested that he burrows too much, but so have many other autuers. As a director, he's scarily gifted; as a writer, he's pretty much a genius by using the aforementioned references to sharpen his signature dialogue.

When a bloke says, "Movies are my religion and God is my patron", there is some sort of honour in that kinda phrase. Well, at least if you're a movie lover.
I 'spose I do have to agree with you regarding his vision and heart for his projects and I can hand him that respect. I guess that's just the polarizing nature of the auteur...



You first contradiction comes when you list David S. Goyer as one of the worst directors of all time. Before 'The Invisible,' Goyer was forced into the directors chair for 'Blade: Trinity' & 'ZigZag,' due to the directors dropping out of the projects so close to filming that it would cost the producers millions to shut production down to search for a new director & it would cause scheduling conflicts with the actors who had pre-production agreement to other movies in the works. Also, through out this thread you sing the praises of 'Batman Begin,' since it is a Christopher Nolan film, but David S. Goyer had just as much to do in the success of 'Batman Begins,' & you could make a valid argument that he had more to do with the success, then Christopher Nolan since it was Goyer's script from the very beginning...
First of all, let me unwelcome you to this forum. I was actually respecting and appreciating your post until you started accusing me of plagarism. You're making a serious accusation there, and if you truly believe that then perhaps you should gain some proof before saying such things. Why don't you back up your stupid theories by quoting my moments of plagarism? I'm curious, go on.

I'll get to that later, though. Now, how the blue world is listing David Goyer a contradiction to what I said about Nolan and Batman Begins. What, because he co-scripted Batman Begins? I never even said he was a bad screenwriter, did I? Now, if Goyer had directed or co-directed Batman Begins, then my previous statement on him would definitely have been a contradiction. Sorry, but it came across to me that you used a term you didn't understand the context of. Do you even know what the difference between a director and scripter is?


....while Nolan was only a replacement for Darrin Aronofsky after he left the project. Nolan saw the desperate position Benjamin Melniker was in, so he demanded a writing credit before he would agree to the project.
Wow, I didn't realise that you were a personal consultant of Aronofsky, Melniker and Nolan. Tell me something, did they tell you all this prior to the pre-production stage or during? You can't just state random stuff as facts, son. If you had backed it up, I wouldn't say anything. However, you've stated all this bollocks without ANY evidence whatsoever.

I on the other hand have actually read and listened to both Nolan and Goyer's interviews regarding the Begins production. In the 'Batman Begins: The Screenplay' book there are in-depth interviews with both men. Nolan and Goyer both clearly stated that they were both in on it from the beginning. Nolan had always been a fan of the character, and his passion for the project came at around the same time Warner were hiring. It was HE that went to THEM. It was combined writing process. Goyer had written a draft, showed it to Nolan so he could do the 2nd draft. This went back and forth many times until it resulted in the official script.

In that book, Goyer himself stated that after he finished his last draft he went AWOL and didn't even visit the set much. This is where I find your statement of 'Goyer is more responsible for the film's success than Nolan is' ludicrous. He wrote several drafts, and that was it.
Now please refer me to an article or book where it is stated that Nolan was hired and demanded a writing credit?


Ok, on to Coppola. I am not even going to give reasons on why this trilogy of movies are brilliant, there is no point in doing so after Stanley Kubrick labeled 'The Godfather' as the best movie ever made...
Wait a second, so you knew that I was obviously joking yet you still went out of your way to defend him?



Now, I agree that Christopher Nolan is a promising director, but to label 'Memento' a masterpiece is using the term very loosely. There were plenty of plot holes in the movie that kept me rewinding the movie several times to confirm I hadn't miss a key action or dialogue.
How about talk about these 'plot holes'? What was so difficult for you to comprehend?


It is foolish to speak of Nolan being in the same league as Scorsese, Lynch, Hitchcock, & Kubrick. To this day, he has directed under 10 movies when the directors I just mentioned has a body of work that spans across decades & becomes a testament to there ever evolving skills as a director that earns them the title of 'Legend' so we will have to see if Nolan withstands the test of time and earns access to the upper echelon of directors who changed Hollywood with their work.
Whoa, I never ONCE said that he was up there with them. I did; however, say that he was heavily influenced by greats such as Hitchcock and Kubrick. I have to assume that you are misinterpreting my posts for the sake of an argument. But then that's just stupid because you're suggesting i've said things I quite clearly haven't.


So you can recite every story or review on Christopher Nolan & his movies...
Again I ask you to prove this. I don't think you know quite how serious plagiarism is. You are accusing me of these things, and more importantly, you're doing so without any evidence. I have not plagiarised jack shite, son. I can easily say that you've made up half the stories you have posted. So if I were you, i'd go back and edit your post, man.

Now listen, son, and listen good. Don't you EVER come on my site and chat **** again.
I only gave you a thumbs up because you looked like you were contributing to what is an interesting thread, but then I read on and you accused me of some serious crap.

Think a bit more before you post such rubbish.



Lol, as guilty as i am, got to laugh that another thread as become a Nolan debate, should really just make it's own thread.



First off, I didn't accuse you of 'plagiarism' I said you all but plagiarized reviews. Which means you didn't copy & paste a critic's reviews, but you & I both know that you did not develop the arguments you have posted of your own accord & thought. You locate independent film reviews, film magazines from overseas, & alternative critic reviews (Most likely from Stylus Magazine, Trashionista, Inkpot, Film Threat & Total Film: Yea, I read those as well.) as well as any vague or under the radar critiquing, marry the points they make with your own to fortify your own opinion so it appears that you are more versed in films then you actually are.

As far as, Goyer is concerned. Your contradiction comes when you first, label him as a director without acknowledging he is actually a writer who has directed on occasion, not to mention your attempt to proletarianize his talent in order to completely dismiss his partition in a decent film in order to give Nolan all the credit even though he has stated many times, quote "Goyer had as much to do with the direction of this film as I did if not more. I grew up reading, Batman but Goyer understood Bruce Wayne & he was able to reveal the depth & complexity to Christian & myself." Should I write the quote once more? You can't label someone inept then exalt a creation that they were instrumental in creating, that isn't just a contradiction it is also deceitful. You are so engrossed in your idolatry & deification of Christopher Nolan that you will ensconce any gainsay that is a contrast of your convictions, even if the counter source is Christopher Nolan.

Now before I go on, I have to address the snide & sardonic mode that is escalating with every remark. You don't want to take this thread in that direction, nor do I or anyone involved in this debate. Since you don't know me, I am willing to forgive & let it go. So I can only hope you drop it as well, because I have no interest in engaging in a contest of barbs & epithets, but believe me when I say I am very good at that game & I have a large arsenal of clever insults & quick retorts that are as wanton as they are witty, so lets do everyone a favor and act like adults.

Now, in regards to your sardonic comment about being Aronofsky's personal assistant. No I wasn't his personal assistant, but I was given access to the script long before Christopher Nolan signed on to the project while I was completing my postgraduate studies at S.C.A.D. After David Goyer completed the pitch script of 'Batman Begins' he sent scripts to my professor of sequential arts, Tom Lyle who worked at Marvel as a penciler at the same time, Goyer worked for Marvel & they became good friends. So Goyer held a contest at S.C.A.D rewarding the student with the best story board the chance to create the complete story board of 'Batman Begins' so each student under Lyle was given a copy of the script (including myself. F.Y.I Darren Aronofsky had the director's credit at the time.) to pick and draw 3 scenes of the movie (The winner of the Story Board contest was one of my best friends & roommate at the time, Douglas Ingram.)

At the same time, Darren Aronofsky requested Goyer to send a copy of the script (Allow me to reiterate that Darren Aronofsky was credited as the director.) To my professor of film & television, Winrich Kolbe who Darren Aronofsky considers one of his biggest influences while he studied under Kolbe when he was working towards his M.F.A Degree. Aronofsky always sends one of the first scripts of a project he is working on, to Kolbe due in large part to his respected filmography work as a directer of science fiction.

Now, at the same time screen writer & friend of Darren Aronofsky, Ari Handel created a script with Aronofsky after Aronofsky went to see, 'The Matrix' with Jerod Leto & Leto mused,"What Science Fiction movie is there left to write?" while leaving the theater. Well Darren & Ari decided to answer this rhetorical question & this led to the creation of, 'The Fountain.'

After pitching the movie to Warner Bros. Ari, was given a 70 million dollar budget to develop the movie & initially Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett had agreed to sign on to the movie, but hours before production was set to begin Brad Pitt pulled out of the project & Cate Blanchett followed. This cost Warner Bros. & New Regency Production millions & Ari Handel was buried in debt he couldn't possibly recover from on his own. So, Darren Aronofsky pulled out of the 'Batman Begins' project to rescue his friend, by recasting & filming the movie for half the original budget. So, it blows my mind to read your fabricated points & circumstance when all this has been published & verified by Wiki, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc etc...

Now, to respond to the DVD extras interviews you watched & are using as your source of information to debate the 'published facts' I just presented. It is a common practice & courtesy in Hollywood to say that the person who eventually acts in or directs a project was always the first choice & if you were the movie savant like you say you are, you would know this already. There are exceptions to this courtesy, especially when there are conflicts through out production, but for the most part this is a unspoken rule in hollywood & the most recent example would be 'Kill Bill' where it is a known fact, that Warren Beatty was initially pursued & cast as Bill, until scheduling differences forced him to drop out of the project, so Tarantino offered the role to David Carradine. ( Once again verification is found in Wiki, IMDB, Rotten Tomato, etc etc..) Yet, in every interview both Tarantino & Carradine say that Quentin wrote the roll with him in mind.

Regards to my defense of Coppola, you're god damn right I defended him. He has done enough work of substance that he shouldn''t be used as any kind of instrument for your humorless jokes or attempts to draw attention to yourself.

As far as your comment on the mentioning of plot holes & my lack of comprehension. Are you that blind or in so much denial that you refuse to acknowledge the multitude of websites devoted to pointing out the plot craters throughout, 'Memento'? It is quite obvious you have googled it enough so it would be all but impossible not to come across them. Not to mention there is atleast one link provided with the vast majority of online reviews. Hell, those websites will be the first thing that comes to mind with 90 percent of the people who read your reply long before they read the first line of this counter-response.

I can't believe that you just published quote,"I never once said that he is up there with them." The 16th post of this thread is devoted to placing Nolan in the same level as the legends of the film industry. Actually, it goes even further when you display the audacity to say he trumps all the legends because in your opinion what took legends such as Hitchcock, Kubrick, & Scorsese 20 or 30 movies over two or three decades to do, was done by Christopher Nolan with 6 movies in under a 10 years. There is no other context for the statements made in that post, even if you used a thesaurus & took every verb, noun, & adjective in that post & replaced them with the most vague synonym possible you still couldn't alter the context of that post.

So listen son & listen real good. You can fabricate baseless arguments to fortify the opinions you have constructed by adopting the published reviews & critiques of far more educated men, but it isn't going to change the fact that I have caught you in several down right lies and the forgery of reasoning altered to selfishly fit your pseudo intellectual needs.

So, yeah.. I suggest you wave the white flag and confess your impetuous malfeasance if you don't want me to continue to expose you as the imposter you clearly are. I am all about giving second chances, so I hope you do the right thing....

P.S. Sucks to run into someone ten times smarter then you, huh?



You two are free to spar as long as you like, and there's no rule about being nice to each other. However, I would strongly suggest that the personal remarks be kept to a minimum. Questioning each other's intelligence and cursing (even though it's automatically blocked) is heavily frowned upon here, and I'm sure we can all agree it doesn't ever give anyone's argument additional weight.

There's some interesting discussion here, from both of you, and I'd hate to have to edit any of it because people lost their cool. So, let's try to keep it semi-respectful.



Tyger, Tyger, Burning Bright
OK... Prestige really IS Nolan!!!
and tsellisjr is actually Coppola!!!

I've caught you both... but dang its cool to have you both here!
__________________
The Divide by Zero Foundation - Where the real world ends... and mine begins



You two are free to spar as long as you like, and there's no rule about being nice to each other. However, I would strongly suggest that the personal remarks be kept to a minimum. Questioning each other's intelligence and cursing (even though it's automatically blocked) is heavily frowned upon here, and I'm sure we can all agree it doesn't ever give anyone's argument additional weight.

There's some interesting discussion here, from both of you, and I'd hate to have to edit any of it because people lost their cool. So, let's try to keep it semi-respectful.
Obviously, I just started to visit this forum so I am left to assume from your post that you are the boss, or atleast a emissary of the controlling faction. So let me make my intentions clear, I have no interest in competitive ridicule or slander. I could easily find such matches where I abide & truthfully I could locate it without getting out of my bed, since most of the time it only takes is,"Hello, how are you?" to my fiancee to fire the proverbial starting pistol...



Obviously, I just started to visit this forum so I am left to assume from your post that you are the boss, or atleast a emissary of the controlling faction. So let me make my intentions clear, I have no interest in competitive ridicule or slander. I could easily find such matches where I abide & truthfully I could locate it without getting out of my bed, since most of the time it only takes is,"Hello, how are you?" to my fiancee to fire the proverbial starting pistol...
My apologies for neglecting to make my role clear; yes, I own/administrate the site. There are several other members who have been designated as moderators, as well.

Anyway, as I said, I don't like interfering with discussions, but just wanted to step in long enough to cool things down a notch. In the heat of the moment, I fully expect that one or both or you will inevitably say something harsh; I only wish to encourage whoever's on the receiving end of a given barb to resist one-upping it.

Carry on, guys.