What's new
By:

Tarantino or Nolan?

so who is it

  • tarantino?

    Votes: 17 45.9%

  • Nolan.

    Votes: 15 40.5%

  • M night shamamamamalayanan

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Total voters
    37
It's not close. But this will probably extend my rage against fanboys again and push my ability to see Inception out until mid-August.
 
Tarantino is good but the use of violence gets old, Nolan atleast makes you think and his movies are much more visually spectacular.
 
Nolan films are more cerebral, imo. Tarantino's more artistic. I give Nolan the edge due to consistent quality. Tarantino has some very high points, but overall, some of his work tends to dip a little further then Nolan's. Tarantino is also less likely to branch out of his norm or comfort zone, he tends to make stories fit him rather then altering his approach too much. Im a big fan of both of these guys.
 
I get excited for new QT films. Nolan films are good, but I didn't even realize he directed "Memento" until about a year ago. QT films pretty much stand on their own. Nolan has used Batman or star power (Leo D.) to get interest in his films, but they are damn good films (I haven't seen "Inception" yet). QT is the star power. Same with the Coen Bros.
 
Sirkickyass said:
?!?

Are you aware of Nolan's entire filmography, or do you believe he's only directed Memento, the Batman movies, and Inception?
Fantastic.
Click to expand...

...I'm gonna go with "entire filmography" for $500. I'm also taking into consideration Insomnia and Prestige (which I thought was immensely better then Norton's film).

In fact, with the possible exception of the Batman films, I'm not sure its possible to watch one of his films and grasp all that's there in one viewing.
 
KM32MVP said:
...I'm gonna go with "entire filmography" for $500. I'm also taking into consideration Insomnia and Prestige (which I thought was immensely better then Norton's film).

In fact, with the possible exception of the Batman films, I'm not sure its possible to watch one of his films and grasp all that's there in one viewing.
Click to expand...

That the Prestige was better than "The Illusionist" doesn't make it a good movie. I mean, "Jackie Brown" was immensely better than the same-time period's "Original Gangstas" but that doesn't change the fact that it's generally considered to be Tarantino's weakest work.

"The Prestige" falls into the mid-line of Nolan's career. It's bracketed on the bottom end in terms of quality by stuff like Following and Insomnia.

If you've seen Following and Insomnia I simply have no idea how you could make the consistent quality claim in favor of Nolan. Tarantino is a director where you can plausibly make a case that Resevoir Dogs is a lower-than-average quality film.

Tarantino is certainly more divisive because he does more transgressive things. He uses a lot of violence, a lot of profanity, and is almost undeniably a foot fetishist. In that sense, Nolan has a bigger broad-commercial appeal.

This is sort of like the classic Kubrick/Spielberg or Hitchcock/Minelli debates. It's another one that's not close, but the public would probably back the wrong side. Time tends to resolve these lopsidedly.
 
Sirkickyass said:
That the Prestige was better than "The Illusionist" doesn't make it a good movie. I mean, "Jackie Brown" was immensely better than the same-time period's "Original Gangstas" but that doesn't change the fact that it's generally considered to be Tarantino's weakest work.

"The Prestige" falls into the mid-line of Nolan's career. It's bracketed on the bottom end in terms of quality by stuff like Following and Insomnia.

If you've seen Following and Insomnia I simply have no idea how you could make the consistent quality claim in favor of Nolan. Tarantino is a director where you can plausibly make a case that Resevoir Dogs is a lower-than-average quality film.

Tarantino is certainly more divisive because he does more transgressive things. He uses a lot of violence, a lot of profanity, and is almost undeniably a foot fetishist. In that sense, Nolan has a bigger broad-commercial appeal.

This is sort of like the classic Kubrick/Spielberg or Hitchcock/Minelli debates. It's another one that's not close, but the public would probably back the wrong side. Time tends to resolve these lopsidedly.
Click to expand...

Tarantino is hardly void commercial appeal...he's been living on it for quite sometime. Not to say the work couldn't stand on its own merit. In fact, commercially speaking, Nolan (aside from the Batman films) has a slightly higher hill to climb. I would concur that Nolan's spectrum for appeal is more broad... and maybe that's all you meant. I wanted to say that regardless as other readers may read that into your comment.

I think you sell Insomnia short, Id put it on equal footing, maybe a notch above Prestige. It might not be as grand, but the layers given to Pacino and Williams' characters surpass most work by other directors. Nolan's stories always tend to include a study of the human psyche, esp. concerning his main characters. Its rare for today's directors to put as much emphasis on character development (and when it happens is usually hand-in-hand with a deficiency in the aesthetics of the film) Nolan never sacrifices one for the other. While its a rare film that accomplishes this, his always come to play in every category. The imperfections of his characters though have very strong and real parallels with the people we meet and see every day...even in the mirror in some cases.

Tarantino is generally delving into the psyche of the ghosts of movie history. He takes incarnations of characters we've seen time and time again and gives them a new depth and new perspective, but one is often hard pressed to apply it outside of the fantastical realm of Taratino-fiction.
 
Tarantino (as of now) kind of follows the stigma of... I can get away with this because I'm a famous director. Such as is the case of Inglorious ********.

Nolan: follows the stigma of... what can I show the public that totally astounds them and makes them think about life and themselves in a way they never have. Such as is the case of The Prestige, Memento, Inception. And batman even showed glimpses of the psyche with the most complex/human villians/hero's I think we've seen yet in a movie... had Watchmen been done well it probably could have challenged Batman.

Imagine if Watchmen had been directed by Nolan.

Tarantion is good at what he does.
Nolan is good at what he does.
But end result... the effect of Nolan on the viewer (at least as far as I've seen) seems to surpass that of Tarantino.
 
None of Nolan's films have had the effect that "Pulp Fiction" had on me. Not even close. Hell, I'm not sure they've had the effect that "Kill Bill, V.1" had on me. I loved "Memento", "The Prestige", and the two Batman films. Never saw or intend to see "Insomnia" and haven't seen "Inception".
 
Nolan and tarentino have very different styles. I don't think it's fair to compare apples and oranges. Can't they both be appreciated for their unique styles?
 
I really like both actually. I chose QT because I like all of his movies. Nolan has a couple I don't like (Mostly Insomnia).

However WTF is shamalayaman doing on a poll with 2 great movie maker's. I'll give him that he has a done a few really good movies. But a lot of his stuff is just garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top