Not that I care about that stuff, and I’m sure he doesn’t either, but if he does Howard Hughes he might get it, but the academy hates him so I’m not sure.

No. If any Hughes film was going to win it would have been The Aviator. Especially since at that point Scorsese had been snubbed for nearly 3 decades. Nolan should have 3 director nominations, 0 wins.

Look, the pawns, man, in the game, they get capped quick. They be out the game early.

The Aviator wasn't that good of a movie except for that very committed performance from Leo. There is still a good Howard Hughes story to be told and Nolan could be the one to tell it.

Oscars are about politics, and giving people who've been snubbed for a very long time awards. The Aviator is a great film IMO, but probably not worthy of best picture. It should have won Scorsese an Oscar for directing because his choice to fake 2 strip technicolor, then switch to a 3-strip look. The pace, costumes, production values, effects, music, and those performances are all near perfect as well. I think Nolan could direct a great Hughes film, but I don't know if he could write one. I haven't seen Nolan capable of writing without big premises, bordering on gimmicks. Nolan likes to have showy themes, and expository dialogue too. Those things don't lend themselves to a biopic.

No, The Aviator looked awful. It just looked like another trashy Baz Luhrman movie. And Nolan has always been a much better writer than Scorsese, certainly a much more ambitious one.

Scorsese doesn't write much, so you're probably right on that. Look up how and why Scorsese and his dp got that look for The Aviator, even if you hate it, it's still a nice touch. Baz Luhrman is a garbage director, next to him, even Nolan is God. I would agree, Nolan is ambitious, at least for a mainstream Hollywood filmmaker, but ambition and quality don't always go hand-in-hand.

Of course Scorsese is a better director than Luhrman you moron, I never said otherwise. I'm saying The Aviator looked horrible in the same way that hack's movies often do. Scorsese usually makes solid looking movies but The Aviator looked garbage.

I got what you were saying, I was just pointing out my hate for Luhrman. I don't see how his films get any acclaim. Moulin Rouge is fücking awful, yet it got best picture, editing, and cinematography nominations.

^Indeed, >>7. And if we are talking about writings Oscars, remember Nolan was nominated twice for Memento and Inception, so wining a writers Oscar has a bigger properly than winning Director, or perhaps he might win both? Again, I’m not sure.

I think if he makes a smaller project than his last few movies then he will be nominated for his next movie/probably win too. But here's the thing, there's a considerable of people including Academy voters who resent Nolan for making blockbusters. They're old hipster fools. In fact his blockbusters have been his most ambitious work. But these retards hate it when an artistically gifted director becomes incredibly successful. They prefer to award cliched boring trash like The Kings Turd.

>>10
Yep, and the worst part utter drivels like Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close were able to win best picture where Interstellar didn’t even get nominated? really? what a bad joke the academy is.
Hopefully Nolan manages to win, but even if he doesn’t that ok, all the greatest directors never won an Oscar, his movies are too good for some lame statues anyway.

Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close were able to win best picture

It was only nominated. That's not comparable anyway, not the same year.

By the way I think The King's Speech is one of the best Oscar winners of the past 10 years.

I had never though about it but you're spot on, it looks like a Luhrman movie. Don't know if it was intentional.

I think Nolan could direct a great Hughes film, but I don't know if he could write one.

But, that makes no sense, seeing he did write one Howard Hughes script. And he said that may be the best thing he's ever written, and we can assume he knows what he's talking about.

I don't think the movies he does indicates he can't write a movie without any gimmicks, on the contrary I think he views himself above that, he wants to aim higher so that naturally leads to using high concepts for his stories (I don't think he consciously thinks "I must think of a gimmick to make this movie interesting), it just comes naturally).

I don't care much for his writing, and he hasn't publicly released anything that showcases his ability to write a film without gimmicks, exposition, or heavy handed themes.

Except what you personally feel about his writing has nothing to do with him wining an Oscar for it or not, which is the main topic of this thread.

True but this particular line of discussion was about which writing would be best for a Hughes biopic.

I don't know maybe the script he wrote is in a very Nolanian style with gimmicks and all. Personally I don't care as long as it's great and it works.

Anyway I will say this : it shouldn't be too hard for any writer to beat Scorsese's screenplay IMO.

Yes, and again, I want to point out its irrelevancy.

Yes, but I'm stating my opinion on why his Hughes film isn't likely to get him an oscar. You Nolan fans think everything you say is fact. You think Nolan can do no wrong? Good for you, but most film fans can enjoy something without claiming it to be an untouchable masterpiece. I can't think of any filmmaker from whom I've seen nearly every feature, except P.T.A. and Malick, who hasn't had at least one mediocre film, or film I didn't like.

Nolan likes to have showy themes, and expository dialogue too.

You could also say Scorsese likes to write dialogue of characters talking in stylised fashion about mainly nothing (or something that could be said in just a line). So is that better ? No it just comes down to what you want your movie to be.

To be fair De Niro is the best actor you could ever imagine to play the guy who beats around the bush for hours trying to seduce people to get them to do what he wants. But it just becomes a bit caricatural at times IMO (I met a guy in England who tried to borrow money for me and it was so funny the way he talked it was obvious he was channeling De Niro). New York, New York is disappointing for that reason, it's just De Niro scene after scene repeating the same thing in a different way and getting angry for no reason.

Can you imagine Nolan doing a character drama? Its not one of his strenghts. If Nolan is gonna win an Oscar, he needs to do his Titanic. A drama that also has tons of focus on the action and the technical aspects of it. Interstellar was kind of like that, but he need to do better.

But how can he do a movie that is better and bigger in scope than Interstellar ?

IMO Interstellar will probably forever remain his masterpiece, but by the end of his career he will have wone one or two BP Oscars for "good but not that good" movies.

To me its one of my least favorite of his, but to each their own. I guess he needs something similar to Interstellar, but less divisive.

Can you imagine Nolan doing a character drama? Its not one of his strenghts.

Yes its, Memento was a character study and so is many of other works

Memento is probably the closest thing to that, but even that is very plot oriented.

The Prestige is a character drama

So you are saying the problem is his film have too much plot, because that’s not the same as not having a great character study.

Oh no not at all. Im just not sure he could do a Howard Hughes biopic.

But seeing he did say ti's the best thing he's ever written he would have to be completely off the mark for the movie to not be good. I don't think there could be such a huge discrepancy between his opinion and the people's opinion, expecially since his tastes generally align with most people, mainstream and film buffs alike.

I said in another post that I dont trust his judgment on his own work. It has nothing to do with him personally, I just believe that the artist himself is the last person who can truly judge his own work. Why? Because its hard to truly look at your creation objectively isnt it? You'll judge it based on how much the subject matters to you, how much heart and time you put on it, and how proud you are of your accomplishment. The way an artist feels about his work, might not come across to the audience.

Yeah I never really understood that theory that he can't do pure drama. Surely if he can do more, then he can do less. The reason he does high concept movies is because he thinks they are better than pure drama movies, it's not because he can't do them.

He can't direct actors well enough to do a character driven film.

Really ? Many mediocre directors do great character driven films (Ron Howard and Frank Darabont are prime examples of that). It's not exactly the hardest genre to tackle. Plus when you're doing that kind of movie you have more time to focus on actors' performance.

Because the strongest aspects of Nolan's movies are usually the technicals like the action, the visuals, the score and so on. In a drama you need great character writing, which Nolan doesnt do as well.

Yeah I never really understood that theory that he can't do pure drama. Surely if he can do more, then he can do less. The reason he does high concept movies is because he thinks they are better than pure drama movies, it's not because he can't do them.

Indeed, of course he can, he didn’t Interstellar when the naysayers said he can’t do emotions, and Interstellar is was very emotional without being over the top sentimental like some Spielberg’s work tend to. Of course he can do a character drama, all his films are about characters anyway, they are the core of his films, his great themes and plot are merely a misdirection and his characters internal emotions and psychology the true thing he focuses on, a lot of people don’t get that.

But that The Aviator didn't win increases the chance of a future Hughes movie to win.

Really? When has a second try ever won a Best Picture Oscar?

This biopic thing is a horrible idea for Nolan. It just doesn't fit him at all

But he says it's the best thing he's ever written. And we could see in Interstellar he can do great period drama.

So he's full of himself, that doesn't mean his script is actually that great. Also, this is a passion project for him, which means he's probably too invested in the material to look at it objectively.

I don't see how saying "best thing I've ever written" is being full of himself. He's comparing it to his own works, not the works of others.

he's probably too invested in the material to look at it objectively.

But the same could be said of most of his movies. And yet he's still saying it's a better screenplay than those.

I really dont trust any filmmaker's judgment of his own work.

we could see in Interstellar he can do great period drama

No we didn't. Especially the 'period' part

I think phoenix is spot on, Interstellar proves he can do HH, it has great drama, it has the classic period to it, yep, it’s enough to make a great HH.

I don't know, but it's not like there have been many remakes (don't know if remake is the right word in that case) in history that were that good.

My point is if The Aviator had won then it would be very unlikely for anything Hughes related to win in the following decades. You know how the Oscars are, they don't always vote for the merit of a movie itself, they wouldn't want two movies about the same thing to win in such a brief period.

Seeing The Aviator didn't win a remake has all its chances to do so if it's great.

Ok that makes sense. Had The Aviator won, then a new biopic would be less likely to win again. But I dont think the voters are gonna think 'we didnt give it to The Aviator, lets give it to this then'.

Is his next film not a documentary?

Correct me if i'm wrong.

The op means his next feature, which hasn't even been announced yet.

oh, i thought i heard something about a documentary. So, it was fake?

It's real. The op doesn't care about the doc. short, he wants a best picture winner by Nolan.

I see. Makes sense.

I think he has a better chance of winning an Oscar for his upcoming short documentary, that would be awesome

I’m not talking abot a documentary, I’m talking about a feature film.

Yeah I know but I don't think he will win an Oscar. Maybe for an original screenplay (finally?), but he's never been nominated for Best Director. His short documentary will generate more buzz to that obscure category so that's why I mentioned it.

No.

Oscar, no. Razzie, probably.

>>56
Go away you imbecile, enough of your trolling already

>>57
I beg your pardon ma'am? What's this "trolling" thing about? Not familiar with it.

Vastly unlikely.

How would you feel if Social Network/Fincher beat Inception/Nolan instead of King's Speech/Hooper?

The Turdeption however was one of the worst movies that year. Terrible intercutting and a horrifically poor Bond homage scene and such a cliched script for fanboy tards to salivate over.

See how that works too?

Terrible intercutting? More like you were too dumb to follow the story. It's OK tard, Hollywood are still making garbage like the Transformers franchise and crappy Jurassic Park movies for you to jerk off to.

I don't think I was being clear. I just copied your post and changed it for kicks. I don't think Inception is crap, and it's exceedingly easy to follow plotwise with the massive amount exposition they gave us. BUT I don't think The King's Speech is crap either. Both are ok but not great movies imo and making silly uncreative snide remarks about either ain't funny :)

I gotta say, Hooper's win did suck.