|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 22, 2021 2:51:46 GMT
After what he said about their plans for HBO Max, I guess that's not surprising.
TEXT:
After spending years as a top Warner Bros. director, Christopher Nolan, who wrote and directed last year’s “Tenet,” is unlikely to return to the studio with his next project, in part because he was disappointed with the studio’s hybrid distribution strategy for 2021, according to people familiar with the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jan 22, 2021 3:15:01 GMT
Nolan’s next project funded by The Asylum.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 22, 2021 4:16:21 GMT
Not surprising since he felt betrayed by the studio he's been loyal to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 11:37:38 GMT
That’s for the best.
WB was basically handcuffed by his demands. Over bloated films, too convoluted and each subsequent film after Inception has been less and less popular.
- Interstellar
- Dunkirk
- Tenet
He could have been the next Spielberg, but he is a pseudo intelligent science fiction writer who thinks he’s making films with a Stephen Hawking grasp of science... but instead, he takes his films way too seriously, and people in the real science community look at a Nolan film like a general audience member looks at a Transformer film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jan 22, 2021 11:51:28 GMT
Linking back to the other thread about him I’d say this is why he should scale back on his budgets. I liked Interstellar and Dunkirk (haven’t watched Tenet yet) but the studios are reacting the way they are because they want to survive enough for the bosses to keep their bloated lifestyle (and hopefully they also want the lower paid workers to keep their homes).
I’d say cinemas are the real victims even though they charge way too much for popcorn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Jan 22, 2021 14:23:41 GMT
Hes got a lot of money. Why does he need a studio to fund his movies when he can finance them himself and keep 100% profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 22, 2021 15:44:38 GMT
Not really shocking.
It’ll be interesting to see where he lands and if they are as nice to him.
I think Interstellar was Paramount.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 22, 2021 15:47:54 GMT
Maybe he'll go to MGM and make a musical.
|
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Jan 22, 2021 16:15:52 GMT
Sony Pictures has been a free agent of sorts. Their only long term agreement with any service has been the Starz network for first-run rights. And most their 2020 lineup of theatrical movies were withheld from release. If going independent isn't an option, Sony is the best choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 22, 2021 16:30:02 GMT
Maybe he'll go to MGM and make a musical. Sure, he could adapt Starlight Express. 
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Jan 22, 2021 17:42:35 GMT
Hes got a lot of money. Why does he need a studio to fund his movies when he can finance them himself and keep 100% profits. As wealthy as Nolan undoubtedly is, he will never -- never -- pony up $200+ million to finance his own film, which he completely controls with no strings attached. And that, Chris, is why the studio gets a say in things. The real "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. You'd think an accomplished, veteran filmmaker would have come to understand that by now. Nolan could, however, self-finance a number of small, low budget films he could completely control, and get A-List actors to appear in them (for smaller paychecks) merely for the opportunity to work with him. ... And those "small" films would very probably end up premiering on a streaming service.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 22, 2021 19:04:03 GMT
He's a rare director right now who can do whatever movie he wants. He won't be without a studio for long. Plenty of studios will make offers to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Downey on Jan 22, 2021 19:20:18 GMT
Hes got a lot of money. Why does he need a studio to fund his movies when he can finance them himself and keep 100% profits. As wealthy as Nolan undoubtedly is, he will never -- never -- pony up $200+ million to finance his own film, which he completely controls with no strings attached. And that, Chris, is why the studio gets a say in things. The real "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. You'd think an accomplished, veteran filmmaker would have come to understand that by now. Nolan could, however, self-finance a number of small, low budget films he could completely control, and get A-List actors to appear in them (for smaller paychecks) merely for the opportunity to work with him. ... And those "small" films would very probably end up premiering on a streaming service. Is that because Nolan can't pony up the $200 million or won't? |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 22, 2021 19:30:18 GMT
As wealthy as Nolan undoubtedly is, he will never -- never -- pony up $200+ million to finance his own film, which he completely controls with no strings attached. And that, Chris, is why the studio gets a say in things. The real "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. You'd think an accomplished, veteran filmmaker would have come to understand that by now. Nolan could, however, self-finance a number of small, low budget films he could completely control, and get A-List actors to appear in them (for smaller paychecks) merely for the opportunity to work with him. ... And those "small" films would very probably end up premiering on a streaming service. Is that because Nolan can't pony up the $200 million or won't? How many big budget movies are financed, marketed, and distributed exclusively by one person, rather than a studio? Even back when George Lucas owned Star Wars, he still had Fox distribute the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 22, 2021 19:35:03 GMT
He's a rare director right now who can do whatever movie he wants. He won't be without a studio for long. Plenty of studios will make offers to him. I kind of want Disney to hire him to direct an animated movie now. Maybe Bluebeard? Ya know, a family picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 22, 2021 19:47:24 GMT
Is that because Nolan can't pony up the $200 million or won't? How many big budget movies are financed, marketed, and distributed exclusively by one person, rather than a studio? Even back when George Lucas owned Star Wars, he still had Fox distribute the movies. I think I remember reading Apocalypse Now was largely funded by Francis Ford Coppola even though it was released by Paramount.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 22, 2021 19:49:43 GMT
Hes got a lot of money. Why does he need a studio to fund his movies when he can finance them himself and keep 100% profits. As wealthy as Nolan undoubtedly is, he will never -- never -- pony up $200+ million to finance his own film, which he completely controls with no strings attached. And that, Chris, is why the studio gets a say in things. The real "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. You'd think an accomplished, veteran filmmaker would have come to understand that by now. Nolan could, however, self-finance a number of small, low budget films he could completely control, and get A-List actors to appear in them (for smaller paychecks) merely for the opportunity to work with him. ... And those "small" films would very probably end up premiering on a streaming service. He's never going to bypass streaming rights although he could control simultaneous release which studios don't really want anyway. He gets whatever he wants from Warner now sop the best he can hope for is someone matching what Warner gives him. He's protesting something that doesn't apply to him. He can just sit back and make a film when COVID is over/controlled and Warner will give him the money for it. He's still going to be one of my favorite directors but I think his tantrum over this is a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 22, 2021 19:53:55 GMT
As wealthy as Nolan undoubtedly is, he will never -- never -- pony up $200+ million to finance his own film, which he completely controls with no strings attached. And that, Chris, is why the studio gets a say in things. The real "Golden Rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. You'd think an accomplished, veteran filmmaker would have come to understand that by now. Nolan could, however, self-finance a number of small, low budget films he could completely control, and get A-List actors to appear in them (for smaller paychecks) merely for the opportunity to work with him. ... And those "small" films would very probably end up premiering on a streaming service. Is that because Nolan can't pony up the $200 million or won't? Why would anyone pony up money when they don't have to? Most directors don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Downey on Jan 22, 2021 20:23:48 GMT
Is that because Nolan can't pony up the $200 million or won't? Why would anyone pony up money when they don't have to? Most directors don't. Ask the person I replied to that question. |
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Jan 22, 2021 21:12:08 GMT
He could have been the next Spielberg, but he is a pseudo intelligent science fiction writer who thinks he’s making films with a Stephen Hawking grasp of science... but instead, he takes his films way too seriously, and people in the real science community look at a Nolan film like a general audience member looks at a Transformer film. Weird comparison. Spielberg tends to make sentimental sci-fi fantasy tales, Nolan likes to build the plot upon scientific theories. No one watches Moon to nitpick the plausibility of lunar mining and say movies like The Fifth Element are much better.
|
|
