[klausa]

>I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props.

I'm not a huge Nolan-discourse-insider, but that seems like a pretty bizarre reputation to have for someone who's famous for directing three Batman movies, Inception, Interstellar and Tenet?

Is this reputation just because of Oppenheimer?

I haven't seen Dunkirk (and I'm not a WWII buff so couldn't tell if they used right planes/boats/guns/uniforms/whatever even if I tried), but even a short blurb on Wikipedia talks about a "balance historical accuracy with aesthetics that would favour the film stock".

[protocolture]

>three Batman movies

The first batman movie was a paint by numbers reimplementation of The Shadow (1997). You can find comparisons online, nearly shot by shot and most of the same plot beats. The second and third went sort of back towards a very mechanical batman representation that reminded me of the planned low budget Iron Man movie where he wouldn't have had the ability to fly. Just stomping around punching badguys like a Power Rangers extra. The new Bat Mobile seems to inspire some of this reputation

>Inception

Inceptions pretty flat for a film about dreams.

>Interstellar

Neuro-Diverse level of detail until the bits with space magic at the end.

>Tenet

I couldnt sit through 10 minutes of it. Its like the antifilm. It didnt want me to observe it otherwise it wouldnt have emitted such a piercing screeching noise.

>Dunkirk

He has an old period watch, and he recorded the ticking. He overlays the ticking constantly. Also he tells the story out of sequence for some reason. But theres lots of practical effects if you include the stupid watch.

>Oppenheimer

Between tenet hating me on a physical level, and the perfectly servicable fat man and little boy film from the 70s I just havent seen it to comment.

[SvenL]

Well, interstellar has also some nerd stuff in it. If I remember correctly Kip Thorne did physics consulting on the movie and they even use a simulation running on a cluster to visualize the black hole physically correct.

They could have used some arbitrary CGI…but no, they wanted it accurate according to science.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03808

[klausa]

Maybe we run in different circles, but I feel like “appreciates scientific accuracy” and “appreciates historical accuracy” are pretty disjoint sets?

Not entirely without overlap, but pretty distinct.

[SvenL]

I was referring to this:

>I think that Nolan sells himself (The online worship can hardly all be organic) as an authentic, technical director interested in accurate physical props.

I just wanted to give an example of such accurate physics props, that this is not only due to Oppenheimer.

This was not about the historic accuracy.

[aragilar]

And yet the rest of the movie runs on movie logic, enough so that every physicist I know rolls their eyes at it. It gives me the vibe of the "IFLS" crowd, not anyone who actually understands science.

[protocolture]

Yeah its a bugbear of mine "oh its so accurate" theres like 2 accurate scenes, and most of it (from economics/agriculture to space physics) is completely bonkers.

Sadly its a lot of "Filmbros first serious scifi movie" and thats something you cant disentangle, its love its not rational.