digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at flickr.com

'Dark Knight' Director Speaks His Mind at Industry Screening

flickr.com — I was fortunate enough to be invited to an advance industry screening of 'The Dark Knight' filled with the powerful men and women of Hollywood who make things happen behind the scenes.I'm sure none of them expected director Chris Nolan to stand up in front of them and say, for lack of better words, the seriously gangster ***** he had on his mind.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sesstreets, on 07/14/2008, -1/+45I wish more people would be like him.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4They cant, Christopher Nolan walked into that room owning those bitches... he has allot more capital in hollywood then any of those fat cats, and he knows it.other directors would have lost their careers.
  • krypton70, on 07/14/2008, -0/+57I think that's great but what's not brought up in that is no matter how good you shoot it or how many great special effects there are you still need to tell a story. Chris Nolan is a good story teller or he knows a good story when he sees one. You can reign in some of these budgets and still make great movies. The problem is that most of these studios hire people just out of business school or law school or marketing school and they think they know more about story than the writers and directors. Most of these movies are destroyed in the development phase. Then you get some actors that are great actors but not storytellers who want to change things to "suit their character" more and you end up with a pile of dung. The studios then just start throwing money at it until they've got $300 million dollar budgets. Step one to making a great movie - story. Just ask Pixar.
    • punkcat, on 07/15/2008, -0/+9yep, an imax camera will never save a story.
    • mikebrowne, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6You're bang on about your assessment of studio execs being bean counters. I was told by a producer once that he didn't give a ***** whether the film was good or not, just that it came in on budget, on time and made it's budget back with minimal effort. The marketing budget is sometimes more than the cost to get the product in the can. That's something to ponder.

      The movie business is all about bums in seats and selling sugar not about telling a provocative story that makes people think.
      • LLLSecretChimp, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1W/o their butts in the theater seats, people won't see that movie telling a provocative story that makes them think. Movies first must be entertaining if they're to do anything else.
  • hollywoodphony, on 07/14/2008, -1/+59I couldn't agree more with the point he was making, but the truth is, for every "Love Guru" there's 100 other equally crappy movies that clean up. The movie-going public is just as much to blame. It's like that South Park episode where Cartman just keeps plugging Adam Sandler into different scenarios for movies and the studios eat them up. The problem arises when people act as stupidly as they are expected to.
    • Dested, on 07/14/2008, -0/+15lol, Rob Schneider*


      Rob Schneider derp de derp.
    • johanm, on 07/14/2008, -0/+16Rob Schneider is.. the stapler!
    • punkcat, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6don't blame me, i didnt go see Love Guru, Semi Pro or Meet Dave
    • tenspeedogbb, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Case and point: Meet the Spartans being tops at the box office. What the *****, people? If you're that curious to watch a cinematic trainwreck, download the torrent.
  • diggboss, on 07/14/2008, -7/+43"He must have carried his balls into the theatre in a wheelbarrow" - quoted from image
  • BuzzDiggity, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13This is just an f-ing quality submission. Well-written paraphrasing or a well-spoken dude. Chrissy Nolan would be proud.
  • GeorgeCarlin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+23there was a top digger at an industry screening of the dark knight? should have brought business cards and asked to handle the viral marketing for batman 3 in exchange for a cameo.
    • badwithcomputer, on 07/14/2008, -5/+11I was introduced to some very important people who probably dismissed me as a random scruffy looking kid who was underdressed. If they only knew...Actually, they still most likely wouldn't care.
  • TalSiach, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9My Dad always says for quality you have to pay! he would agree with him.
  • Oasisma, on 07/14/2008, -7/+2Do the directors really have that much say?
  • notzak, on 07/14/2008, -2/+16Dugg for being on a sticky
  • halfdirt, on 07/14/2008, -9/+2A speech about how movies need to have extreme levels of detail, eh?

    And I'm going to watch the Dark Knight on an LCD monitor or moderate sized TV. Am I going to hell?
    • mediaspree, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3No, but waiting beyond July 18th to see this film is pretty much hell on earth. oooooh you're going to pirate it, then yeah hell for you. sorry!
      • halfdirt, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1How about waiting for it to come out on DVD? How about waiting beyond July 18th to see the film? Gosh.

        I think it's a valid opinion to absolutely hate the movie theaters. 10 bucks for a ticket. Insanely expensive concessions. And as far as being a social activity, I've found going to the theater with friends is about the least social way to spend two hours that is possible since you shouldn't talk or interact during the movie.
  • Stanks, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Dugg for kicking ass. Every Dark Knight story is better than the last. This movie...ahem, FILM.... will turn your brains into *****.
    • urbandistrict, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1If we see it, will we ***** bricks?
  • brohken, on 07/14/2008, -5/+19Very nicely put, but why is the text in an image?
  • pgraf1, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9He hits the nail right on the head, the new Indiana Jones movie sucked because the visuals looked cheap, i mean come on in the original a guys face melted and it was scary, but no this one we gotta have aliens((sweet) not really) i have high hopes for this film ever since the first trailer and the jokers laugh at the end of it(chills down my spine)
    • bleutuna, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Indiana Jones cost a crap-ton of money. More than the first one. By far.
  • Dested, on 07/14/2008, -0/+20This is a great idea, im going to do all my blog posts as a single unselectable-text image.
  • antoniuk, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1I guess I'm just too jaded but that sounded awefully arcastic to me and not really a writeup applauding Nolan. Too many digg replies I guess :/
  • Nutmegan, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1The average movie--note, not good movies like the Dark Knight, but the average movie--costs over $106 million to make. It's not enough? I work all day for that!
  • heatmiser, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13"seriously gangster *****" ??

    oh brother...
  • batmanz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+28Please let George Lucas have been in that theater. Please...
    • jojo77, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2And how do you suppose Lucas should have made the last 3 Star Wars without CGI?
      • RobotCitizen, on 07/15/2008, -0/+13He could build a real Death Star with the money between his sofa cushions.
      • ricker2005, on 07/15/2008, -0/+19The point wasn't to skip CGI entirely. It was to use the effects properly, to supplement the film and not to be the film itself. There are scenes in the last three Star Wars that have CGI thrown in for the hell of it, just because Lucas could.

        On a related note, CGI shouldn't stand out. It should blend in with the real stuff and Lucas doesn't understand that. Special effects are supposed to fit into the movie's style and look. Has anybody seen Jurassic Park lately? That movie is over a decade old and the effects hold up amazingly well still. The effects people knew how to blend things in with the real characters and locations. Lucas once knew how to do that too. The old Star Wars movies are testament to that. The prequel Star Wars movies have CGI scenes that don't hold up well NOW. Hell, they weren't good for their time in the theater.
      • heyblue, on 07/15/2008, -0/+8Similarly to how he made the first 3.
      • SenorCardgage74, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1A proper mix of practical and CGI.
        Just get Peter Jackson on the phone and ask how they handled LOTR so brilliantly.
    • urbandistrict, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Peter Jackson says: "Look guys, it's done like this."
  • TheLogic, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9So does this mean Troma has to upgrade to video cameras made in the 1990s?
    • minorgods, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1hehe I can imagine seeing the detail in the plexiglass watching Tromeo & Juliet.
  • bwinsor, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5dunananananananana batman!
    • gravityboard, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4You're seven "na's" short

      OK yes, I counted. *****, if I had something important to do I wouldn't be on digg...
  • Krystof82, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Perhaps the greatest director of current times. No other director puts so much emotion, detail, and love in movies like Nolan does. He has yet to make a bad movie. He is a perfectionist and one of the most under-rated directors today.

    And working with Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard for film score? Come on, this team is untouchable in regards to movie production.
  • Thestormo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4If they make a movie worth seeing in the theatres, even the people downloading will go to the theatres. If the graphics and sound were so amazing that the movie isn't done justice on a cam from the movie, people have to go see the movie for the experience.

    Don't make ***** movies with ***** cameras and I won't watch them on my ***** computer.

    I plan on seeing Dark Knight in the theatres just like Iron Man because they require a theatre to convey the epicness that they are.
  • mickeyknoxxx, on 07/14/2008, -3/+14That's the problem with this country.

    Everybody wants quality but nobody wants to pay for it.

    The people that make these movies are no different then you consumers. All of you bitch about the qulity of music and movies these days but your the first to go steal the ***** via bittorrent or limewire.

    None of you want to pay for *****. You all want to justify why you shouldn't have to pay for music and why you shouldn't have to pay for movies. Then you cry like babies when the product turns out to be *****.

    Of course bands and movie film companies don't want to spend high budgets on quality. Not when millions of you internet low lifes are just going to jack the *****. It's you internet thieves that robbed entertainment of it's quality. You and awful marketing departments.

    So don't get mad at them. They want quality without paying for it just like you. You are the same kind of person they are.

    P>S> I pay for my *****.
    • Tyrghast, on 07/15/2008, -3/+6Corrected: "I pay for *****."

      Im not going to pay for an album without first pirating it and listening to it for several weeks to decide whether I like it. Even then, I shouldn't have to pay for an album in the first place. There was a time when you had to be an excellent showman and be able to deliver a great performance in order to be an 'artist' in film or music. Now, anyone can digitally record whatever they shat out that morning and hock it for money.
      • kds405, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Still, why shouldn't you have to pay for something that someone is selling? Nobody owes you anything.
    • mchisari, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5
      "None of you want to pay for *****. "

      I plan on seeing Dark Knight at least three times in the theater. I saw Batman Begins twice in the theater, and bought the DVD. I may torrent and trade stuff occasionally, but I pay for the stuff that's worth paying for.

      Do you really think anybody is going to skip the theater in order to watch a ***** cam of this movie on some streaming site somewhere?
      • EricSchC1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4"Do you really think anybody is going to skip the theater in order to watch a ***** cam of this movie on some streaming site somewhere?"

        In this world??? Abso-*****-lutely...you think there's people NOT that retarded?
    • SHondo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1You can't put the blame entirely on the pirates. Hollywood has been making crappy movies from the get. Every now and then something comes out cool... and then everyone pirates the crap out of it. IMAX is Hollywood's best defense against pirates. I don't care how good your home theater is - IMAX is going to kick its ass.
    • RoccoMcTaco, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1I think that's partly *****, mostly from an age perspective. Younger spoiled kids who spend most of their lives on the computer may download anything they can get their hands on, but a lot of the older people got over the "neat" factor of downloading without paying to support those who put out quality media. The entertainment industry provides a HUGE amount of work for people and we understand how much work goes into it and we need to eat.

      I'd say prices are pretty reasonable to legally download content online (like games) that unless you're a poor ass mofo you're being a prick.

      I think you're underestimating how many people have enough morals to even download something to check it out first and then pay for it if they like it. Industry is catching on to that.

      I would feel evil (a word I barely use) downloading this movie before seeing it in the theater. Probably even after, unless they don't release the DVD for a long time.

      Not so much for Indiana Jones, I knew Lucas was going to ***** it up with CGI and not bother spending time on character and emotion. He can shove his gophers up his ass.

      Maybe you only see people bitching and whining because you only go to places where there's nothing but spoiled kids pirating.

      I could be wrong, but like attracts like.

  • floppyparty, on 07/14/2008, -3/+1This shouldn't be labeled a profound exhibition of bravery. What does he have to fear? He's such a Hollywood stud with his golden touch that he has leverage and the security to say what's on his mind.
  • damian7, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3***** YEAH, NOLAN
  • SilentSpyder, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9Stickies?
  • Atom, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5This plea is going to fall on deaf ears. With the current state of the economy, and decline in ticket sales this important message will be laughed off. By the time Hollywood realizes what theyve done to themselves it will be far to late to turn things around.
    • Thestormo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1What decline in ticket sales? Decline for bad movies maybe.

      Iron Man: 311Million (As of June 8th) 100+ Opening weekend

      People are predicting 130 million+ opening weekend for Batman.

      Make a good film and people go see it.
      • RoccoMcTaco, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1I agree. It's been a kick ass time for games and movies lately. There's always going to be *****.
        Seems to me we've gotten out of the ticket slump for at least over a year.
        Is the entertainment business not booming?
  • sovietninja, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I have a question, will I see a difference on a standard movie screen or will I have to go see it in IMAX? Is there just more resolution in the source material that will get lost in the transfer to 35mm standard? I do not know what I am talking about. I remeber there was a digital scene in SW:TPM and i only noticed it becuase it was off colour compared to the rest of the movie. Will IMAX do the same thing? Is this like watching Matrix on IMAX? Because that looked like ***** IMO.
    • keithnoir, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1You will tell what is shoot with IMAX, but they say 35mm still looks find on the IMAX screen. It won't be jarring, if it was people would be panning the IMAX version.
    • srujanlive, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4This is not like Matrix because this was shot on IMAX cameras. There will be quality loss while transferring to a 35mm standard. I believe we ought to see this on the IMAX screen for the best experience. Unlike Matrix that was like ***** on IMAX
    • badwithcomputer, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7You'll see some difference in the shots that were done on IMAX cameras, but the breathtaking experience of seeing these MASSIVE shots fill the entire IMAX screen is something you really shouldn't deprive yourself of.
    • dmark77, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4IMAX has an aspect ratio of 1.43:1 - allowing you to see more top and bottom when viewing IMAX footage in an IMAX theater. The rest of the film that was shot 2.40:1 - will have to have its sides chopped off to accommodate the 1.43:1 AR of IMAX.

      If your viewing the 35mm version.... the 1.43:1 IMAX frames will be chopped to 2:40:1 on the top & bottom.

      The idea is that if you see the IMAX version you'll see more top & bottom for IMAX footage, but less left & right for 35mm footage. If you see the 35mm version you'll see more left & right for the 35mm footage, and less top & bottom for the IMAX footage.
      • sovietninja, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1So I will have to see it side by side, and the IMAX cameras were probably used on the parts that would make a difference, and 35 being cropped would not *NUKE the release then?
      • dmark77, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Correct. The outdoor/skyscraper shots, bank robbery, final battle, and numerous other shots were done with IMAX cameras.

        The IMAX and 35mm prints were both put through Digital Intermediate - which allows you to adjust the frame as you see fit. For chopped 35mm shots, Christopher Nolan can re-frame for IMAX and focus on the information he wants us to see. Same for when he goes from IMAX to 35mm framing.

        A good example is the trailer footage of Batman landing on the luxury car which you can find on the internet in both IMAX & 35mm framing. It offers a good comparison of what differences there will be between both prints.

        I look forward to both :)
      • sovietninja, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Thanks Dmark, what your saying reminds me of what Pixar did with a Bug's life for the DVD and VHS releases. I actually still own all my Disney movies up till then on VHS but I can't play them... I added you as a friend, comrade.
  • mildewmedia, on 07/14/2008, -0/+17Why is this on flickr?
    • badwithcomputer, on 07/15/2008, -1/+15I don't have a blog and don't want to register one just so I have to put viewers through ads. I know it's not conventional, but just writing my thoughts in stickies, screenshotting and uploading seems like the best route when I have something I wan to share with the web.
  • keithnoir, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I am 100% behind what he is saying. Even if i enjoy indie flicks, with action movies the same old way of shooting and making movies gets old. He is known for only using digital effects if 100% needed, and I respect that a lot.
    He has a vision of how films should be, and its a good one.
  • keithnoir, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2I am 100% behind what he is saying. Even if i enjoy indie flicks, with action movies the same old way of shooting and making movies gets old. He is known for only using digital effects if 100% needed, and I respect that a lot.
    He has a vision of how films should be, and its a good one.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5More reasons to love Mr. Nolan and The Dark Knight! Indeed, the wheelbarrow needs to carry his balls had to have been immense.
  • nobodyman, on 07/15/2008, -3/+7Well, I do think Christopher Nolan is an awesome director and I'm really looking forward to The Dark Knight, but I think he has is facts wrong about why you don't see more IMAX feature films. He says that filmmakers have always had the ability to do feature films in IMAX for 40 years now but they have been to cheap to do so. I don't think that's accurate. Up until recently (within the last 10 years or so), you rarely say an IMAX film larger than 40 minutes, not specifically because of the expense to shoot a film (though it is expensive), but rather the logistics of distributing and projecting IMAX film that is two hours long.

    I worked in a movie theater in high school. Our projectors were standard acadamy 35mm format (21.95mm x 18.6mm). If you've never seen one of those, it might surprise you how freakishly huge these projector reels are, so large that the reels are placed on their side... easily 5 feet in diameter. When we received new films, they would show up in several large canasters and we would need to splice them together and put them on the reel. Now, if this were IMAX film (which is 70mm x 48.5mm), the physical size and weight of a feature film would make it prohibitively expensive to transport, and in fact many IMAX projectors back in the day could not handle runtimes that long-- the film simply wouldn't fit on a projector reel.

    I think that movie budgets and improvements in film stock technology (today's IMAX film stock is lighter/thinner than back in the day), have made it so that it's actually feasible to do a feature film in IMAX.
    • BforBusiness, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2well said, i don't know why you're getting dugg down.


      but, if the movie studios are going to spend money on *****, then they should spend money to give the right filmmaker i should say the chance to shoot a feature on imax.
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You and your damn facts.
  • stucktildekey, on 07/15/2008, -6/+0I'm sorry, but what innovation is he claiming, here? The scenes shot in IMAX account for no more than 30 minutes of the film; all of which could not be distinguished by the average movie-goer... on an IMAX screen or 35mm stock print. Had it been shot in RealD, his statement might've carried some validity.

    All technical aspects aside, the true reason for seeing a movie in IMAX is that you're surrounded by people who came to see the movie -- not dumb people who decide to drag their infant to a show.
    • ABadPerson, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Can you distinguish white colored water from milk?
    • BforBusiness, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1have you ever seen a film shot on an imax camera? it's like comparing sd to hd. that ***** is CLEAR.
  • Averness, on 07/15/2008, -6/+2Why text-to-image? I mean seriously, WTF? And we are supposed to believe this whacko who thinks 'Hmm..I want to post an article on the internet, whats the best way? Post it as an image on flickr of course! So people can print it and frame it and put it on the wall!'. No, that's retarded.
  • Kohaxx, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2It's so true though, real movie fans want movies so good that they want to go to the theater more than once to marvel at how friggin awesome the movie was. Instead studios waste the technology to pour out cheap brainless comedies like Meet Dave and garbage films without emphasis on the stories or cinematography.

    People like Michael Bay just use the technology as a vehicle for explosions and pretty effects and then forget the substance. How many superhero movies could have lived up to the genre if we had people like Christopher Nolan directing them?

    We could have avoided the Spiderman 3's, the X-Men 3's and all the other underwhelming poorly thought out movies if studios took the time in making a quality product as opposed to regretting what they could have done after it's out.
  • judicar, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3i heart stickies
  • bro2baseball, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1This is true for big-budget films. However, I hope that this doesn't become so much the norm that smaller-budget films are dumped because they can't afford the IMAX technology.
    • skaughtm, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1i totally agree. anything beyond something like the dark knight or whatever summer tent-pole does not need tech like IMAX, its pointless. regress back further and further in camera and film technology and you will still discover and fall in love with countless stories and characters. screw imax and 3D.
  • Rapter09, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Eh. I don't know. I mean its news, its interesting news, but its Industry news, it's not relevant directly to us as viewers, because - and let's be perfectly honest here and not pretend we're all movie and film savants - we just don't notice the difference. Don't kid yourself. You don't. And this isn't even relevant to us because it's not the quality of the film that I have a problem with: It's the damned ***** scripts and terrible movies they're trying to pass off. Yeah sure, Dark Knight is on the horizon, everybody loves it, blah blah blah, but for every Dark Knight there's 100 Meet the Spartans. Sorry Chris, but i'm more concerned about improving the quality of the movies, not the quality of the picture. I don't think I can personally say - or anyone else on Digg who's not directly in the movie industry - can honestly and seriously come out and tell me "I'm very displeased with the PICTURE quality of these films." I honestly wouldn't believe you. Yeah sure, you can tell the difference when somebody does a bad compositing job, or the color is off in some scenes, but that's post production's problem, not the camera or the guy holding it.

    Too bad you couldn't of gotten up in front of a bunch of suits and said something like "Make better movies, you useless sacks of flesh." Maybe i'd be tempted to go the movies more than once every three years, but hey that's me.
  • badwithcomputer, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4wait...wtf? i submitted this as a news story. did digg admin move it to the images section? just because the text is in an image form doesn't make it an image. i submitted it as news. what gives? i like it when people can see the description paragraph under a news story for something like this. significantly less important for an image.
    • Averness, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0Quote: wait...wtf? i submitted this as a news story. did digg admin move it to the images section? just because the text is in an image form doesn't make it an image.

      Yes, a picture of an article posted as an image is AN IMAGE.

      FYI articles are posted as text, pictures as images. How can you not know that?
      • gamebittk, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1His point was more like 'when did the admins start modifying submissions and switching submission types?' or 'why is this not where I submitted it?'
  • bleutuna, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I love Nolan. I love Batman. I want money to make movies. I'm excited for this film.

    But is he crazy? Movies cost more than ever. And it's not spectacle that makes it work, it's not using great, super-high resolution 70mm(65mm) film.

    It's finding a character and discovering the "why" of who they are, and then watching that motivate their actions. When you care about who's on screen, what they're doing, and what the ultimate stakes will be. That doesn't cost a lot of money. And as Nolan will prove with Batman (as all the reviews have continued to pour in) that you can do it with a lot of money as well.

    Batman (and Iron Man and Wall*E) demonstrates that big movies can make big money *IF* the story, the actors, and the spirit of the characters is present. Maybe Nolan's just so good at it, he doesn't realize how hard it is for some filmmakers to capture so perfectly.

    As long as we can believe what's happening on the screen, and have sympathy, we'll pay and return time and again.
  • GRMcKinney, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0I think he was dead on and correct in saying what he did. unfortunately, however, Hollywood only talks in terms of money (which is what he basically was saying). But for his message to hold merit in this fickle enterprise, The Dark Knight Needs to be a Box Office steam-roller and gross the most money all year and hopefully hold records. Whoever agrees with his statements toward Hollywood should support him by seeing the movie this opening weekend. I've got my midnight ticket to show Hollywood that I believe in what Mr. Nolan says!
  • monolith0, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Is is very refreshing to hear Nolan speak out and represent high-quality film-making. Hollywood will always find a way to cheapen art, cheapen cinema, and in return... exploit the audiences, raise theater costs, and put the blame on piracy. It seems like Hollywood never wants to take responsibility for their own losses and lackluster products.

    It is nice to see that I am not the only one who gets tiresome of all the films being shot in CG.
  • MillionsLivio, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1As an aspiring director, Nolan's words really do give me hope for the movie industry's future, I have even more respect for him now.
  • kds405, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1He just knocked me out of movie related slumber. Movies should be better? Who would've thought? And a director asking for more money to play with bigger, better Batmobiles and Imax toys? He certainly is cavalier.
  • hermmermferm, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1shouldn't this go in the crazy fanboy section of digg?
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Which section of digg doesn't have crazy fanboys?
  • BedPost, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Wait wait wait... Nolan directed Memento?! Someone's a notch higher in my book.
  • Splimola, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Only 6 sequences were shot using IMAX cameras, not the entire movie.
  • skaughtm, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1i'm sure plenty of people still enjoy the ***** out of chaplin and they can't even hear him let alone see him 10 stories tall.
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Chaplin could speak, and he was only four and a half stories tall. Get your facts straight.
  • IbraAlYahud, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1BS. The only problem with the American movie industry today is that no movie can make it into and through the Hollywood process with a budget below $70 million anymore. It's becoming so exhorbantly expensive to make a movie profitable (all the big movies now cost $200+ million) that no Hollywood studio is willing to take the kinds of chances they took in the 70's.


    The problem is the viewers - that's why any Will Smith movie makes $250 million in the box office and There Will Be Blood and No Country barely break even. Nolan is a BS director if he thinks he needs a bigger budget to make a good movie. The movie 12 Angry Men was filmed entirely in one room (in 1957), and is one of the best movies to have ever come out of the American movie industry.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.