Divisive movies that are liked more now

I guess so but I personally have never met someone in real life who doesn’t love The Dark Knight or Pulp Fiction XD

wait, why I never met you fella tdk fan?

that being said I still never met another Nolan fan irl.

I'd be fine with differing interpretations if those were the terms you were using in the first place - it's when you make a more objective declaration like how Lynch films aren't good and anyone who likes them is fooling themselves that you're going to experience some pushback. The same goes for conflating an individual stating their less-than-amazed personal opinion about The Dark Knight with said individual claiming that The Dark Knight is an unpopular film - it's all jumping to conclusions.

'The Crazy Frog' song was popular, doesn't mean it should be held up as a bastion of all that is great.

So, it seems most of your responses to everything I wrote chalks up to "no plot, doesn't make sense, no themes, one dimensional characters"


I see little point in trying to dissuade you from this line of thinking. The plots to any of his films could be found in any brief Wikipedia summary, so you are actively refusing to acknowledge them. And since you don't want even grant his films the possibility that maybe it is you that's wrong in dismissing the obvious stories they tell, I'm definitely not going to bog myself down in trying to explain the purpose of Lynch's style, a considerably more time consuming task. If you can't see his plain as day plots, then you are certainly no audience for my efforts to break down his use of symbolism, cultural references, surrealism and his romantic embrace of the notion of mystery. I'm sure I'd just get a response of 'well, that's just you're opinion, films are subjective, and I'm allowed to have an opinion too". I'm a masochist, but not that big of a masochist.


So, for the sake of argument, let's just assume you are completely right. There is absolutely no plot in a David Lynch film. And there is absolutely no characters to empathize with.



Now, with this point conceded, I'd just like to ask you a question about the art of storytelling and what it means to you. When you watch a movie with a story that really resonates with you, what do you get out of it? Does a gripping plot allow you to engage more with the visuals? Does it help you keep focused on what is happening? And as for character development, does a film that has characters you like allow you to empathize with the events that are happening on screen? If so, isn't a story simply a way to keep your attention and stir your emotions?



If this is the case, and you can reduce the art of storytelling to these two functions (engaging you and getting you to feel for the plight of the characters) I want to ask you a question of how you interpret my response to a David Lynch film. Even if there is no plot or proper character development (as you so firmly state), what do you make of the fact that when I watch one of his films I am engaged from beginning to end, and I am consistently emotionally moved by what I see on screen. His films not only entertain me, but fill me such emotions as a longing for things that are out of my reach, existential dread, even some laughs about our ridiculous human condition. I am engaged by his movies, I'm am emotionally involved in his movies and feel for his character. His movies give me exactly the kinds of responses you get from your more narratively driven films.



So if this is the truth of my reaction to watching Lynch's films, why then is David Lynch a fraud? If he manages to provoke everything one could want out of a film, does he actually need the kind of story telling you keep going on about? How is he possibly lacking compared to a filmmaker you prefer, if at the end of the day, he is fulfilling the exact same needs? Is it simply because he just dares take a different road to get there? And here's another bit of food for though, isn't it possible it's actually even MORE difficult to elicit this kind of emotional entertainment when one forgoes a conventional narrative?



I could easily go the same route as you, and call all your beloved filmmakers frauds too. From my vantage point, they need to rely on narrative beats to manipulate their audiences to make them feel a very specific way. Feels kind of cheap and easy to me. But the reason I don't do that, is because all artists find different avenues to manipulate the feelings of those who consume their work. Just because I might be personally suspicious of the tactics some use, doesn't mean they might not be deeply effective for others. I simply don't see the need in saying that anyone is being 'duped' for falling for one technique over another.



As Ebert once said, cinema is an 'empathy machine'. It tries to find ways to get real people to empathize with shadows on a wall. It's a beautiful trick they play on us, and they should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to reach as many people as possible. And some people simply have different ways of being reached. It's not a case of this artist being a 'fraud'. It's a case of this artist having the exact tools necessary to reach a specific kind of viewer. So turn your empathy machine on, and try and understand the needs and eccentricities of viewers outside of yourself. There is never any harm in a little understanding

agree to disagree here, I don’t have those issues.



No problem but there are some haters, not on this site but one site I know has someone who has a giant hate boner with Nolan to the point he will claim that any single director or movie is better than Nolan stuff.

I don't see how Nolan and Tarantino aren't for everyone, personally. I enjoyed every single one of their movies and own all of them ^^

I like Nolan movies because they entertain me a great deal and I am a huge Batman fan and tend to be a good bit different than what's usually released especially in the blockbuster area since Spielberg has fallen off.*

Not because I think they're flawless, deep or particularly phenomenal as Scorsese's or Kubrick's, but he has done a lot of quality films to be compared with directors such as Fincher and Cameron I guess.

...I don't see how Nolan and Tarantino aren't for everyone, personally. I enjoyed every single one of their movies and own all of them ^^...

For what it's worth, I would submit that Nolan "hate" as opposed to simple Nolan criticism, which is what I usually engage in, is an over-reaction to his popularity and his fairly intense fan-base.
Nolan is a good filmmaker, no doubt. He also has shortcomings, no doubt.
One wonders if his extreme popularity is a reaction to how little quality there is in the blockbuster these days outside of comic-book franchises.
But his skill can't be questioned, I just think he aims for auteur and probably comes pretty close, but is just enough off the mark to cause an overreacting backlash to the idea that he is a one.

I can't stand Tarantino and his cornball movies. So there's one person who doesn't like Tarantino. Nolan I'm indifferent too.

Yeah, everyone has their own opinions here, but I am just speaking off the majority that’s it. I am a big fan of Tarantino but I can see why people find him repetitive.

I don't see how Nolan and Tarantino aren't for everyone, personally. I enjoyed every single one of their movies and own all of them ^^

Tarantino is hugely popular, no doubt about it.

I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.

What, every single person on this planet? Even if you are just talking about movie lovers that's incredibly bold to claim that all movie lovers in the world like Tarantino and Nolan.

My dad is a movie lover, he will not watch Tarantino films as he doesn't like watching violence.

I'm indifferent to both of them. Like most prolific film-makers, they've had great works (Pulp Fiction, Memento) and some real stinkers (The Dark Knight Rises, The Hateful Eight)

If the Joker can get by without a character arc or a definite backstory, then so can Frank Booth.

I see the "the lead character doesn't undergo any character arcs" criticism come up a lot, but I don't agree with it. I don't think a character needs to have a character arc to be memorable. Jay Gatsby was a static character in Fitzgerald's novel, but he's still great. Much has been written about him. A character can still be complex even if they don't undergo any changes.

@Ezrangel: TDK Joker's only goal is to cause chaos and his actions throughout the film, whether towards Batman or the mob or anyone else, is all in service of that goal. That he constantly finds new ways to fulfill that goal is not in itself indicative of inner growth or development (the "scar" stories indicate how meaningless his true backstory since he is a character who only ever seems to exist in the present). He ends the film in very much the same state he began - rather, it is Batman (the protagonist) who is challenged and changed by him as the film progresses. That he is a comic book character with established lore should be irrelevant - I shouldn't have to be familiar with decades of mythology in order to appreciate the singular story unfolding in front of me. Frank's goal is an even simpler form of self-indulgence where he uses intimidation and violence in order to exercise control over his own small but significant criminal empire that effectively allows him to do whatever he wants, yet he doesn't even pretend to believe in something like the Joker does - he also has a challenging relationship with protagonist Jeffrey Beaumont (and how they are ultimately connected via their different but similar relationships to Dorothy Vallens), which mostly amounts to dragging Jeffrey into the dark underbelly of Lumberton that he was once so curious about. Both villains even straight-up tell both heroes how alike they are.

Long story short, a character does not necessarily have to have an arc (simple or complex) to be a compelling one - it's one thing if they are given development or texture, but they do not always need to make a journey from point A to point B. This is especially true of antagonists as they are supposed to be less characters than forces that challenge protagonists so it's fine if they don't change Just a quick glance at your top 10 shows at best four films where the main antagonist has a recognisable arc (and that depends on who you define as antagonists anyway). Does that make the rest bad movies in my estimation? Not necessarily, but it does get at the point raised by myself and others that treating one method as right and an absence of that method as wrong, even under the guise of subjectivity, is an issue.

There is a clear difference between a movie made by Von Trier or Lynch compared to them.