Nolan Calls Marvel-Bashing Quote "Inaccurate" - Update

[Fox12]

Out of curiosity, have you seen paprika? It's the film that gave Nolan the original idea for inception. You may enjoy it, though its got a different style of mind bending, and it can be a little bit more surrealist. It's a very colorful, funny film, and you may recognize some of the homages that Nolan made to it if you liked inception.

Nope; Nolan had actually been writing the script for close to a decade, long before the anime adaptation of Paprika was even conceptualized. He was more influenced by stuff like The Matrix and Dark City. Nolan hadn't even SEEN the movie before Inception began filming

Really? I'm tempted to call shenanigans on that, but, my former joke aside, the films are quite different. I don't really have a reason to think Nolan is lying, and even if he was, he did an original spin on the concept. Still, the shot by shot similarities are astounding. It may be coincidence, but it's a strange one.

Either way, their both great films.

 

[elvor0]

Ugh, tell me about, I like dark and gritty, but Noalns movies are so dark and depressing even the sodding Joker can't crack a joke.

I'm a little behind in the conversation... but in the looong history of the Joker, isn't the end of "Killing Joke" the only time he's ever actually told a joke?

Well that was wrongly worded. "be silly" would perhaps be more apt to what I wanted to say.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

That was quite a leap in logic there Bob. I cannot disagree strongly enough.

I can only be satisfied in the fact that you are not a journalist because that is the most click bait weasel words headline I have seen in ages. I only clicked on it to see if it was as tabloid as I suspected.

I think I will stick to entertainment news sites from now on.

The Escapist probably changed the title, they have done that for other articles on The Escapist. If you look at the main article its url generally will show the real title. Shamus Young had something similar happen to one of his pieces of Shadow of Mordor.

"138406-christopher-nolan-says-marvel-style-post-credit-stingers-not-real-movies-in-guardian-profile" Is what I believe MovieBob had for his original title.

Funny you mention that. I saw that article after reading this one. Interesting to see that the terrible click bait titles are not the responsibility of the writer. It explains an awful lot. To be honest though, the tone of the article was a bit wrong-headed IMO

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Marvel movies are just a manufactured product. The McDouble of the movie industry.

Pretty much this. I have no great love for the artificial, production line, anti art nature of modern cinema. It's emberasing, and frankly, I can't blame someone for taking umbridge with modern Hollywood. These movies are getting old.

Nolan knows what he's talking about. Real directors don't add post credit scenes. Real directors rip off satoshi kon and win tons of academy awards. Just ask aronofsky.

....

Ok, so maybe Nolan isn't the best person to make this criticism.

If by "artificial, production line, anti art nature of modern cinema" you mean, incredibly awesome because they are a build up of a comic universe into a movie universe that stays as true as possible, close to 100%, to the comics that they are being based on(which is what comic fans want to see), then yeah, they are that and I'm all for it.

End credit scenes are great, and a great way to get in a last joke and link that movie to what is coming next, without having to arbitrarily shove it into the plot in the middle of the movie.

I for one would love to see Hollywood take less of an artistic license when it comes to doing movies based on established and popular works. I can't stand it when word comes out that some popular book or other media I and many others like is getting a movie, and they hype it up that it is based on the book/media, that fans should be excited, blah blah blah, but then when it comes out, it turns out that some bullshit director and writers thought it would be good to change tons of stuff, stories, and characters, because by their vision, to them it works better. Forever pissing off the people they should have been making the movie for, and the ones that their advertising was targeting. For such movies, it would have been more appropriate if the advertisements went like this:

"For the people that didn't read it. For the people that just don't care about faithful movie adaptions that stay true to the story/work and doesn't change stuff around. For people that just go to movies to see a new movie. It's "title of popular book/comic/show" the movie."

The only people that I see that don't like the Marvel films, are people aren't fans of Marvel(DC fans that are mad that DC is crap when it comes to making faithful and well made DC property movies, people that aren't into comics and don't get why the Marvel movies work so well and are expertly crafted with care.

If anything, I'd call Marvels movies more artistic than movies by makers that try to put their own vision onto a property, because it takes real skill to stick with what is important to the franchise and craft a movie universe that matches the universe that it is based on.

Fans of books and comics want to see pure and faithful movies. Their bane are the people that stupidly say, "well if you wanted it to be like the book/comic, then you should read the book/comic again." The people that say such a thing miss the point entirely. We've already read it, so what we want to see is exactly what we read, but movie form, because it gives us another media to enjoy the exact same thing.

I'd actually call a movie adaption where the director and writers took horrible artistic liberties with it(changing things), manufactured and production line, because most of the time they do it because they have it in their heads that, "Well the average movie goer that doesn't know the original work would like this better and it will make the movie more popular than if I stayed near 100% true to the original work".

The reason Marvel movies are so popular is that they are catering to what the fans want, which is staying true to the source material, and not changing things because, "the average movie goer wouldn't understand it." Basically, the way they stay true to the source material is so well done that the good average movie goer likes it because it is so well made.

The Marvel fans love the end credits scenes, and they stay after the credits specifically for them, so that is one of the reasons Marvel keeps doing them. The sign of a real director is that of one that does things that makes the fans of the property happy.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Sorry but it really gets stale if you do it all the time. Why is THAT so hard to grasp?

Here in lies the problem with what you said. To Marvel Fans, the people that know and/or have read comics, it doesn't get stale. We want to know what Marvel is planning next and even what they have planned after that, and after that, and after that.

We love all the stingers in the end credits that give hits at the plot of the next movie, or even at things that hint at things that won't come down the line until several movies later.

It is done in comics and it is how comic books work. It is the reason Marvel comic book movies work so damn well and are so successful. They listen and know what the fans want, and they give it to them.

 

[RavingSturm]

Sorry but it really gets stale if you do it all the time. Why is THAT so hard to grasp?

Here in lies the problem with what you said. To Marvel Fans, the people that know and/or have read comics, it doesn't get stale. We want to know what Marvel is planning next and even what they have planned after that, and after that, and after that.

We love all the stingers in the end credits that give hits at the plot of the next movie, or even at things that hint at things that won't come down the line until several movies later.

It is done in comics and it is how comic books work. It is the reason Marvel comic book movies work so damn well and are so successful. They listen and know what the fans want, and they give it to them.

Dont one-fit size and generalize. I read comic books and I find what Marvel has been doing in the movies to be annoying.

 

[Fox12]

Marvel movies are just a manufactured product. The McDouble of the movie industry.

Pretty much this. I have no great love for the artificial, production line, anti art nature of modern cinema. It's emberasing, and frankly, I can't blame someone for taking umbridge with modern Hollywood. These movies are getting old.

Nolan knows what he's talking about. Real directors don't add post credit scenes. Real directors rip off satoshi kon and win tons of academy awards. Just ask aronofsky.

....

Ok, so maybe Nolan isn't the best person to make this criticism.

If by "artificial, production line, anti art nature of modern cinema" you mean, incredibly awesome because they are a build up of a comic universe into a movie universe that stays as true as possible, close to 100%, to the comics that they are being based on(which is what comic fans want to see), then yeah, they are that and I'm all for it.

End credit scenes are great, and a great way to get in a last joke and link that movie to what is coming next, without having to arbitrarily shove it into the plot in the middle of the movie.

My problem with modern cinema is the corporate nature of film production, which, incidentally, is the same problem I have with the comic book industry. There's no room for creativity. Storytellers are heavily monitored, and have few creative liberties. Film makers are told what stories they're allowed to tell. The characters aren't allowed to grow, develop, or change. Iron man will never get married and have a family. He'll never really grow as a person. None Of the characters will ever experiance an end to their story. Furthermore, there are no stakes. Iron man can't die. He has four more movies in production. Neither can anyone else. They'll continue until the actors move on, then the company will find someone else. If a character does die, they'll just bring them back in two weeks. Evuwntually people will tire of superheroes, and they'll stop making as many movies. The universe will come to an unceremonious end.

There's no arc to these stories. There's no beginning, middle, or end. There's always just another one, and another one, until the audience loses interest. This isn't just marvel, or superheroes. This is all of Hollywood. All I want are more films with substance. I want more films like Forest Gump, of The Godfather. Why do you think the original watchmen was a big deal? It had depth, and it had intelligence, and it had consequences. We need more stories like that, in comics and in film.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

"The quote is inaccurate," the Interstellar filmmaker reportedly told BuzzFeed, after clarifying that "I would never say someone else's film isn't 'a real film.'"

Dude, hate to break it to you, but it's pretty disingenuous of you to claim you would "never say that" when you just said EXACTLY that. We have the quote right there: "A real movie wouldn't do that." That's like randomly punching someone in the face then when asked why you did it saying "What are you talking about? I'd NEVER randomly punch someone in the face!"

Respect for Nolan: -50 points

 

[Signa]

I can understand where the original comment came from. As a director, tacking on extra footage after the credits is rather out of place. It has separated itself from the rest of the story, and even production by being after the point where the projectors should be shutting down in the theater. It's in direct opposition of at least one interpretation of the art of film, and I see no problem to be against its practice.

That said, as an audience member, I usually like them. Either they do something cool, left out, or advertise what's coming up for this universe's timeline. It's also a bit of a reward for sitting through the boring credits.

 

[Hawki]

If by "artificial, production line, anti art nature of modern cinema" you mean, incredibly awesome because they are a build up of a comic universe into a movie universe that stays as true as possible, close to 100%, to the comics that they are being based on(which is what comic fans want to see), then yeah, they are that and I'm all for it.

End credit scenes are great, and a great way to get in a last joke and link that movie to what is coming next, without having to arbitrarily shove it into the plot in the middle of the movie.

I for one would love to see Hollywood take less of an artistic license when it comes to doing movies based on established and popular works. I can't stand it when word comes out that some popular book or other media I and many others like is getting a movie, and they hype it up that it is based on the book/media, that fans should be excited, blah blah blah, but then when it comes out, it turns out that some bullshit director and writers thought it would be good to change tons of stuff, stories, and characters, because by their vision, to them it works better. Forever pissing off the people they should have been making the movie for, and the ones that their advertising was targeting. For such movies, it would have been more appropriate if the advertisements went like this:

"For the people that didn't read it. For the people that just don't care about faithful movie adaptions that stay true to the story/work and doesn't change stuff around. For people that just go to movies to see a new movie. It's "title of popular book/comic/show" the movie."

The only people that I see that don't like the Marvel films, are people aren't fans of Marvel(DC fans that are mad that DC is crap when it comes to making faithful and well made DC property movies, people that aren't into comics and don't get why the Marvel movies work so well and are expertly crafted with care.

If anything, I'd call Marvels movies more artistic than movies by makers that try to put their own vision onto a property, because it takes real skill to stick with what is important to the franchise and craft a movie universe that matches the universe that it is based on.

Fans of books and comics want to see pure and faithful movies. Their bane are the people that stupidly say, "well if you wanted it to be like the book/comic, then you should read the book/comic again." The people that say such a thing miss the point entirely. We've already read it, so what we want to see is exactly what we read, but movie form, because it gives us another media to enjoy the exact same thing.

I'd actually call a movie adaption where the director and writers took horrible artistic liberties with it(changing things), manufactured and production line, because most of the time they do it because they have it in their heads that, "Well the average movie goer that doesn't know the original work would like this better and it will make the movie more popular than if I stayed near 100% true to the original work".

The reason Marvel movies are so popular is that they are catering to what the fans want, which is staying true to the source material, and not changing things because, "the average movie goer wouldn't understand it." Basically, the way they stay true to the source material is so well done that the good average movie goer likes it because it is so well made.

The Marvel fans love the end credits scenes, and they stay after the credits specifically for them, so that is one of the reasons Marvel keeps doing them. The sign of a real director is that of one that does things that makes the fans of the property happy.

Okay, I have to disagree with most of what you said.

-When it comes to adapting a work, I'd rather the adaptation place precedence on actually being good than aping the original work to a T. Off the top of my head, Jackson's LotR trilogy and Starship Troopers are example. Both, especially the latter, take many liberties/leave stuff out from the original work. But they manage to be good films in their own right. Imagine if LotR (the film) followed the books to the letter - songs about nothing, even more walking around, etc. As much as I like the LotR books as well, they'd be terrible on film if followed exactly. Game of Thrones is another example. The show's the show, the books are the books. I enjoy both. But I would never hold it to the show to follow the books exactly.

So no, I can't call Marvel's movies "artistic." Not if their stated goal is trying to follow a different medium and replicate it. And if they are, why are they marketing these films to the general public? There are plenty of comics I've enjoyed, and while superhero genres aren't among them, I'd never insist that the filmakers bow down to what I want. What I'd expect them to do is make the movie they want to make, and let me decide. To use an example, I like the Tintin books. I saw Secret of the Unicorn. The movie took liberties with the source material, and compressed more than one Tintin book into the same work. Did that annoy me? No. Because the movie was still a good one. It was true to the spirit of the original work, but succeeded on its own terms. I could recommend that film to anyone based on the premise of it being a good film, able to say that they don't need to be familiar with the source material to enjoy it. I cannot say that for any MCU movie. I can't comment on faith to the source work/lack of it, but I can say that "no, I can't recommend you these films, because I don't think they're particuarly good." And if the producers are placing conformity to the original work bar actually making a film, then I suppose that's one reason why. That, and the production line schedule.

-And one more thing...don't say "comic book fans want this." I'm not that big of a comic reader, but I've read quite a few. I've managed to enjoy some superhero films on the basis of them being good films, not tie-ins for whatever universe they may or may not be part of. Believe it or not, there are many comics outside the superhero genre, and comics not created by Marvel or DC. You mention that the sign of a real director is one that makes the fans of the property happy. To which I can only say, "no." The sign of a real director is one who has the balls to stick to their own vision, work within that vision, and try and deliver a good movie. I do not want to be kow-towled to when seeing an adaptation. I want to see a movie. Hopefully a good movie. But I will decide for myself whether it's a good movie or not based on the quality of the work itself.

 

[endtherapture]

To be honest, I get Nolan's point. A movie should be a stand alone movie, not a franchise. The most talked about parts of the Marvel movies are the stuff after the credits.

You should be able to go into a movie and enjoy it from minute 1 to the last minute with no prior knowledge of the character or the mythos of the story, they should be stand alone experiences. Nearly ever single one of Nolan's movies (exception maybe to TDKR) do it.

The Dark Knight had an amazing ending, miles above any marvel one so far, and it didn't have to tease a sequel before, that movie stood on its own, and as much as people here hate Man of Steel, so did that film. A sequel could never be made and it is still a great experience. ame can't be said of the Marvel films because of all the teasing they do.