What's new

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
The Joker, for the record, has now equated "the inner city person" to someone of low-class tastes.

I'll leave the racial implications of this statement to other posters.
 
What I was saying before i started spreading racist idealism is we all determine a specific value for an artist or a movie. Some people won't appreicate one artist or movie, others will. It's essentially target audiences. You've been targeted... everything around you has been fit to you... you like something because you're supposed to like something... and you don't like something because you're not the intended audience. The most popular things reach the widest audience... and most often the least popular things don't appeal to the smallest audience. Movies don't hold to those "target audience" bands as much, because all people can appreciate all good movies.

God this is so much more fun when I can bring race into it... but I've got the PC police on my ***. Boy aren't lawyers just the utmost moral charchters, f'n hacks
 
nolan wont be wrting or directing superman just producing.

everyon has their own rating system jsut like joker syas for me it works best.
im not a fanboy. i hate twilight, twilight has a huge fangirl following yet it is not on the imdb top 250. or the other 3 star wars movies. . the imdb top 250 works best for me.ith the exception of the grace period.
 
The Joker, for the record, has now equated "the inner city person" to someone of low-class tastes.

I'll leave the racial implications of this statement to other posters.

Urban culture doesn't imply race to everyone ...only if your already a believer of that stereotype.
 
Urban culture doesn't imply race to everyone ...only if your already a believer of that stereotype.

I'll admit.. before kicky goes on one of his rants... that I was implying to black culture in the post I made. I just didn't want to blatantly use those words, because people start to get defensive. I was just saying that movies are for everybody... Do The Right Thing is a movie anyone can enjoy... same for Pride and Prejudice.
 
I'll admit.. before kicky goes on one of his rants... that I was implying to black culture in the post I made. I just didn't want to blatantly use those words, because people start to get defensive. I was just saying that movies are for everybody... Do The Right Thing is a movie anyone can enjoy... same for Pride and Prejudice.

Death by firing squad...kicky, I turn him over to you.
 
Urban culture doesn't imply race to everyone ...only if your already a believer of that stereotype.

I know Joker already deleted the post and fessed up, but trust me when I tell you that if you read the original post it was unmistakable. He didn't code it well.
 
Kicky, whats your stance on RottenTomatoes? I like the fact its not a single critic's opinion on a film, rather the avg. of all the negative vs. positive reviews from every critic across the country...kinda weeds out the one's who are extreme (good or bad). Here is a break down of the directors' films.

Nolan

Inception - 87
Dark Knight - 93
Prestige - 75
Batman Begins - 84
Insomnia - 92
Memento - 93
Following - 80

Avg score - 86.7

Tarantino

Inglorious - 88
Death Proof - 65
Kill Bill 2 - 85
Kill Bill 1 - 85
Jackie Brown - 85
Pulp Fiction - 94
Res. Dogs - 96

Avg. score - 85.4
 
Technically Nolan is being considered to direct the next Superman film.

Jonathan Nolan. (Christopher Nolan's brother).

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=8232

And contrary to DutchRudder's previous statement, write it as well if I'm not mistaken. I read a long piece where Chris stated how his brother came up with a totally original idea for the movie and was essentially in the process of writing it. I think.
 
Kicky, whats your stance on RottenTomatoes?

I agree with Ebert that it's killing film criticism. I almost entirely eschew the tomato-meter in favor of hunting down and reading actual reviews. Film criticism can't be reduced into a crowd-sourced number. To wit: To say Avatar is an 83 is to completely ignore everything there is to say about the film, its director, its accomplishments, and its stunning racism.

Death Proof - 65

That rating is almost surely wrong because of the weird way that Death Proof got released.

Consider this:

Grindhouse: 82% (188 reviews)
Planet Terror: 74% (23 reviews)
Death Proof: 65% (34 reviews)

There's no way to make those numbers make sense so that the ratings for Planet Terror and Death Proof can be said to be rationally related to the original reviews.
 
Kicky, whats your stance on RottenTomatoes? I like the fact its not a single critic's opinion on a film, rather the avg. of all the negative vs. positive reviews from every critic across the country...kinda weeds out the one's who are extreme (good or bad). Here is a break down of the directors' films.

Nolan

Inception - 87
Dark Knight - 93
Prestige - 75
Batman Begins - 84
Insomnia - 92
Memento - 93
Following - 80

Avg score - 86.7

Tarantino

Inglorious - 88
Death Proof - 65
Kill Bill 2 - 85
Kill Bill 1 - 85
Jackie Brown - 85
Pulp Fiction - 94
Res. Dogs - 96

Avg. score - 85.4

hmm nolan barely beating out tarantino.
 
And contrary to DutchRudder's previous statement, write it as well if I'm not mistaken. I read a long piece where Chris stated how his brother came up with a totally original idea for the movie and was essentially in the process of writing it. I think.

well actually i hope the more chris nolan is involved in superman the ahppier i am:D. he has a proven trackrecord
 
hmm nolan barely beating out tarantino.

If you adjust Death Proof (as I demonstrated in an earlier post, the Death Proof rating is wrong which implicates the average), the opposite is true and by almost exactly the same margin.

Three more complaints about RT:

1. It tends to exaggerate small differences in opinion by forcing a"fresh" or "rotten" rating on a picture. In the case of Ebert, for example a film that he rates 2 and a half stars (out of four) is counted as rotten while a film that he rates three stars is counted as fresh. The tomatometer treats that situation no differently than if he gave one film zero stars and the other four. In that sense, RT's "average rating" is profoundly retarded.

2. It's largely based on star-ratings. Star ratings are frequently pretty arbitrary with little to distinguish them at the margins in the first place. I think few critics, if any, would be able to cleanly describe the difference between a one star film and a one-and-a-half star film in a way that all their previous reviews could match up with. Several critics have conceded that they only use star rating systems because their editors force them to.

3. RT, in its present form, is only marginally good at capturing a film's perceived average at a single point in time. The reality is that lots of movies have their reputation alter significantly over time as they either age poorly or grow more influential. In some sense, this makes the tomato-meter a lie. For example it gives 2001: A Space Odyssey a 96% rating presently. That film sharply divided critics when it came out; famously so. Time Magazine ran something like five different reviews of the film over a period of 18 months with each review getting successively getting better. But the Tomato-Meter only captures reviews of the film since 2000, so it doesn't actually capture what critics thought at the time and instead appears to validate critical opinion as having been consistent. This is true for a range of older films and it has shut out entire generations of film critics like Pauline Kael and Bosley Crowther. To grab a more recent example going the other direction, the 25th Hour is a film that has had its reputation increase even since its release in 2002, culminating in its inclusion on several "Best of the Decade" lists at the end of the last year. RT shows it as having a rating in the mid-1970s.

In sum, RT sucks. Read full reviews that actually communicate something other than a number.
 
well actually i hope the more chris nolan is involved in superman the ahppier i am:D. he has a proven trackrecord

This is one movie where I don't think Nolan would be the optimum choice.

Consider that Nolan is great at making movies that have a darker, more brooding texture to them: the Batman films, Inception, Insomnia, Memento, etc. That's not exactly the style that a Superman movie should be written in. More specifically, that's a style that does not befit Superman himself. Superman, in many ways (as all of you are aware I'm sure) represents the wholesome champion, the "truth, justice, and the American way" rhetoric, the warm, kind, and good-hearted soul who yearns for the loves of his life: Lois Lane and saving people. I'm not sure that altering that perception is being fair and true to the Superman franchise.

The majority of main characters in Nolan's films, thus far, have been the stylistic opposite of what Superman represents. I don't want to say that Nolan couldn't do Superman "correctly," but if his past history is any indication, then this upcoming Superman film (tentative titled Superman: Man of Steel, btw) will be darker, heavier, and angstier...none of which represent Superman well.
 
Last edited:
maybe the deatproof/planet terror/grindhouse rating makes sense. note that they where presented as a double header. with fake trailers to machette/ thanksgiving.

Just saying as a standalone movie it might not be so good. but by putting it together with fake trailers/commercial. the 2 get better as a whole.

for me personally i watched grindhouse completely. then i watched the planet terror scratchfree version. i liked that one much better. but i understand if people liked it better with scratches and also if they liked it better as a whole(grindhouse).

thats just what i think about the rating difference.
i dont like deathproof.

so i also dont like grindhouse.
but i love planet terror scratch free.

so i could easiky give themn on a scale (of 1-10)
deathproof a 5
grindhouse a 5
planet terror a 8(those are hypotehtical numbers since i havnt seen it in a long time, just recalling by memory)

does this score make sense? %+8 divided by 2 is a 6.5 should grindhouse be given a 6.5 IMHO not
 
Back
Top