Ten-Years-Later Match Cut Consensus - 2010

[baby doll]

PTA excels at dialogue. Lacks ambition/entertainment in other areas of filmmaking.
Malick slays cinematography. Lacks ambition/entertainment in other areas of filmmaking.

Anderson and Malick definitely do not lack for ambition.

[Skitch]

Anderson and Malick definitely do not lack for ambition.

I didnt say they do. They have loads of ambition. But I see lots of reviews (not pointing at MC) that shit in Nolans mouth but give those guys a pass because their ambition is enough to overlook their shortcomings.

[baby doll]

I didnt say they do. They have loads of ambition. But I see lots of reviews (not pointing at MC) that shit in Nolans mouth but give those guys a pass because their ambition is enough to overlook their shortcomings.

I'm not sure how useful it is compare these three filmmakers, given how different their ambitions are and the diverse ways in which they fall short of them. In fact, I think Malick's films after the '70s suffer from the exact opposite problem as Nolan's films: Malick's later films are shapeless as narratives and lack vivid characterizations but individual scenes and sequences are often stunning in their emotional impact due to Malick's mastery of montage and his juxtapositions of sound and image, whereas Nolan makes tightly plotted movies that are emotionally dead and visually monotonous.

[Skitch]

I'm not sure how useful it is compare these three filmmakers, given how different their ambitions are and the diverse ways in which they fall short of them.

I think its fair enough when the overall theme is roughly "filmmakers that are awesome at some stuff and not others and should still get forgiveness"

In fact, I think Malick's films after the '70s suffer from the exact opposite problem as Nolan's films: Malick's later films are shapeless as narratives and lack vivid characterizations but individual scenes and sequences are often stunning in their emotional impact due to Malick's mastery of montage and his juxtapositions of sound and image

I feel thats a quantifiably accurate statement.

whereas Nolan makes tightly plotted movies that are emotionally dead and visually monotonous.

...and thats an opinion.

PTA is 20 times the director Nolan is. His cinematography, plotting, dialogue, and work with actors are all vastly superior.

I feel thats an opinion. If you feel that way, okie-dokie. Not being condescending, I just wouldn't engage it.

Nolan has better commercial instincts.

That I would call a fact.

PTA has never directed an action scene, Nolan has directed several terrible ones and several competent ones, so lets call that a tie.

I guess mathematically 0=-3+3, but never trying shouldn't equal trying and failing and trying and succeeding. (again this part is opinion again)

[Skitch]

Look, I'm not some big Nolan defender around here, I just think its annoying how his haters act like hes one of the worst directors working.

Its fine to dislike his work. But my god if you think hes the worst you need to see more movies.

Edit: and I would say the same (and I HAVE) to anyone saying that of any of the three directors we've been discussing.

[baby doll]

I think its fair enough when the overall theme is roughly "filmmakers that are awesome at some stuff and not others and should still get forgiveness"

Not all flaws are equally forgivable. In Malick's case, I'm willing to cut him some slack on narrative construction and characterization because I find his films engaging and singular on a moment-by-moment basis, whereas I'm less forgiving of Nolan because I don't find his films fun to watch: They're all scaffolding and no building. That's not to say he's the worst filmmaker in the world; I just don't find his films interesting, which is why I stopped watching them.

[Skitch]

Not all flaws are equally forgivable. In Malick's case, I'm willing to cut him some slack on narrative construction and characterization because I find his films engaging and singular on a moment-by-moment basis, whereas I'm less forgiving of Nolan because I don't find his films fun to watch: They're all scaffolding and no building. That's not to say he's the worst filmmaker in the world; I just don't find his films interesting, which is why I stopped watching them.

Thats totally fair and I have no problem with anything in that quote. NONE.

[transmogrifier]

I didnt say they do. They have loads of ambition. But I see lots of reviews (not pointing at MC) that shit in Nolans mouth but give those guys a pass because their ambition is enough to overlook their shortcomings.

PTA is 20 times the director Nolan is. His cinematography, plotting, dialogue, and work with actors are all vastly superior. Nolan has better commercial instincts. PTA has never directed an action scene, Nolan has directed several terrible ones and several competent ones, so lets call that a tie.