>Give me a director to make a movie that makes stupid 16 year old white boys feel smarter than they actually are.
>Say no more
interstellar and inception succed
>Give me a director to make great entertainment movie everyone can appreciate but also makes 16 year old anime forum browsing white boys butthurt
>Say no more
>>68667444
trips of truth
the babbys on this board grew up w him though and he blew their youthful little minds with his trash
>>68668077
GREAT ENTERTAINMENT MOVIE
Hollywood literal HATES
NC-17 movies.
so yeah, 16 year olds is the perfect age.
that's called rated r.
>>68667444
16 = R rating
>>68667444
Also shaymalalan and the guy who made butterfly effect
>>68668256
And?
>>68668264
Nobody thinks Shyamalan is deep, certainly not since Signs.
Richard Kelly, on the other hand...
>>68667444
>give me a director who can make a scene that smart people can talk about for 16 years
>say no more
>>68668332
News papers are written for 11 year olds.
The age that something is made for is not the same as the demographic the content is made for.
>>68668407
I know. Nolans films are mostly pg 13, but 16 year old pseudos are his main fanbase
>>68668377
His kids are approx 10/8 in the beginning of the film. And his mother, their grand mother has sole custody of the children. So at the end of the film, the grandmother magically disappears into thin air and the kids are 5 years old instead of 10. Regardless of the change of cloths we are simply being shown a memory in time when he had first left them... Sorry but it seems everyone missed that huge tell. But all these idiotic fan theories fails to pick up this intentional calculated clue Mr. Nolan left in.
>>68668377
>Muh open-ended conclusion
Very smart indeed
>>68668517
>>68668589
I was thinking of the plane crash scene but this works too.
How hyped are you for Dunkirk
>>68668697
>PG-13 War movie
>>68668467
Well I dunno how dumb you were at 16 too, so yeah, maybe. I was reading Stephen Hawkings at 11 so Interstellar would have appealed to me at 16.
i mean memento and inception were pretty simple narrative lines too if you're well versed in literary narratives too...
so yeah... probably...
>>68668683
that scene was almost done verbatim from the comic...
>>68668840
>I was reading Stephen Hawkings at 11 so Interstellar would have appealed to me at 16.
Interstellar would appeal to any 16 year old
>>68668366
Not quite, it was Lady in the Water that bombed him. The Village is a decent movie.
>>68668517
Except Michael Caine said all of the scenes with him in them are in the real world.
>>68668963
Why not, it's a movie that's made to recruit kids to higher education of astrophysics.
It's not some movie that inspires people to fantasize about dragons or super powers. It's a Neil DeGrasse Tyson movie.
>>68668118
Nobody claimed he blew our minds but Nolan changed cinema, take comic books films for instance, before Nolan they were cheesy as fuck but now they're all serious, I like films that are realistic and serious, so it was good for me.
Nolan made cinema better, I enjoy realism in my films no matter how abstract the concept of the film is.
>>68668999
Which brings up this intersting idea that the real world is just a shared conciousness, which it is, even though we call this reality REAL WORLD it's still just like a dream state except we can share it, and sharing dreams in the movie is really what changes the preception of what a dream is.
the real inception is the movie to the viewer. it's deep without being pottery.
but yeah, BvS might be good if we can see a full length movie.
>>68669075
Umm, you can thank Snyder for that.
>>68668840
I guess you were 11 a long time ago because you forgot how to spell Hawking since then
>>68668971
Nobody thought he was "deep," though, except for Sixth Sense and maybe Unbreakable
>>68669075
Comic book movies are still cheesy as fuck and still utter shit. If that's Nolan's biggest contribution to film then he deserves to be forgotten
inception is a great movie and it's not deep at all, nobody who truly appreciates it believes that, please stop arguing that this is the reason people like it
>>68667444
>>Give me a director to make a movie that makes stupid 16 year old white boys feel smarter than they actually are.
Quentin Tarantino
Stanley Kubrick
Tarantino
>>68669902
>>68670008
+1 for cuckbrick and hackantino
>>68668840
Found the 16 year old
>>68669902
>>68670008
Tarantino would be described as "cult" but no 16 y/o pseudo think he's "deep" the way they think flittermouseman is a "comment" on society and socialism or something.
>>68669152
yeah, it was 20 years ago.
>>68670731
double it...
>Give me a director to make a movie that makes stupid 16 year old black boys feel smarter than they actually are.
>Got you fám
>>68667444
Literally me when memento came out
>>68669075
>>68669075
>take comic books films for instance, before Nolan they were cheesy as fuck but now they're all serious
Now they are dark and gritty.
But dark and gritty isn't the same as realistic or deep.
>give me a director to make a soulless cashgrab reboot
>Say no more
>>68671503
This retard couldn't be trying any harder to be Spielberg unless he literally changed his last name and remade E.T.
>>68669026
>Love conquers all
>astrophysics
>>68671503
I thought Star Trek were superior to any of the other Star Trek movies...
I mean... have you seen the Star Trek movies?
HAVE YOU SEEN MOVIES?
>>68671791
It's funny, because that's literally the one flaw of the movie. You could try to name something else, but at that point you're grasping.
I mean you could mention the family life back home was the weak part of the movie, except that's the tie to the REASON they're going out there in the first place.
No the bigger issue you could greentext me is
>deciding to fly humanity away
>then fixing the planet
>>68672175
You thought wrong
