Nolan To Tackle Hughes Biopic After Batman 3

[SGrace]

Yeah I think Howard Hughes in the Aviator was the best performance of Leo's career.

[Idioteque...]

Yeah I think Howard Hughes in the Aviator was the best performance of Leo's career.

I prefer his Departed performance a bit more but he really solidified himself as an actor with this movie. Before he was written off a pretty boy like Robert Parkinson or Taylor Shitner.

[twonunpackmule]

the man was an aviator, engineer, industrialist, film producer and director who was involved with the CIA and U.S. government on various matters as well as other notes like a Richard Nixon scandal. he also suffered from OCD which drove him to the brink of insanity.

Already known about and explored. To me, it's treading ground that's already been covered. Not too mention, we already know what to expect from the film as Nolan is playing it safe. Hughes is like every other character he's already portrayed. The problem is, I doubt he'll be able to apply the same level of humanity to him that Scorsese can. Nolan makes very cold films. Sometimes it works - The Dark Knight, Memento - sometimes it doesn't - Insomnia, The Prestige.

There's a world out there of subjects untapped. Hughes well is dry. I also feel it's too soon. If the film Aviator wasn't so high profile, you might argue that "10 years is a long time." I don't feel that way. Especially, when it's really about a person that I don't feel warrants multiple Bio Pics. Largely uninteresting. There's pretty much one side to all his doings. There isn't some underlining level of "consequence" or "turmoil" that affects others for centuries. Hughes in the grand scheme of "public figures" is only noteworthy because of his Aviation breakthroughs - which The Aviator covers - and the fact that he was bat shit crazy - which is covered without being exploitative in the Aviator.

Now, take a subject that affected the very outcome of society, both North and South, Black and White...then I can understand the repeated interest. That's a big deal. That subject is worthy of multiple viewpoints. The problem is, we don't get multiple viewpoints...we get the same one.

---

Secondly, I left my thought and acknowledgment there because I tend to write that way. I prefer the existence of free flowing thought, it gives a level of humanity/window into the thought process. Why be perfect?

[Dennis M.]

I prefer his Departed performance a bit more but he really solidified himself as an actor with this movie. Before he was written off a pretty boy like Robert Parkinson or Taylor Shitner.

Well, not really. He may have had a huge teenage girl fanbase but he had already starred in some very good films. And say what you will about Titanic, it was no Twilight.

On topic, I'm not really interested in this biopic, it feels redundant. Nolan's considerable talent could find better uses.

[BostonMA]

Already known about and explored.

not the Nixon scandal, which is clouded in mystery, or the times that are covered in the article (those all happened AFTER The Aviator's time line ended [after 1947]).

To me, it's treading ground that's already been covered. Not too mention, we already know what to expect from the film as Nolan is playing it safe. Hughes is like every other character he's already portrayed. The problem is, I doubt he'll be able to apply the same level of humanity to him that Scorsese can. Nolan makes very cold films. Sometimes it works - The Dark Knight, Memento - sometimes it doesn't - Insomnia, The Prestige.

well, if you go the "ending was reality" route in Inception, you'd notice the vast amounts of humanity there. like i've been noting, the article hints at the Citizen Kane-like adaptation, and if that turns out to be true, then it would work completely, since Welles didn't humanize Kane in his film and we all know the
outcome that produced.

There's a world out there of subjects untapped. Hughes well is dry. I also feel it's too soon. If the film Aviator wasn't so high profile, you might argue that "10 years is a long time." I don't feel that way. Especially, when it's really about a person that I don't feel warrants multiple Bio Pics. Largely uninteresting. There's pretty much one side to all his doings.

when it comes to the FIGURE ITSELF (that being Howard Hughes and Howard Hughes alone), the well is certainly not dry, as evidenced by the events of the tycoon's life occurring after 1947 (what i already stated and what's more in depth in various articles on the web that exceed the length of the amount of effort i'm willing to put forth in this conversation), especially when compared to Lincoln, whose legend is more based on the external happenings of his life, like the Civil War and slavery.

There isn't some underlining level of "consequence" or "turmoil" that affects others for centuries. Hughes in the grand scheme of "public figures" is only noteworthy because of his Aviation breakthroughs - which The Aviator covers - and the fact that he was bat shit crazy - which is covered without being exploitative in the Aviator.

Now, take a subject that affected the very outcome of society, both North and South, Black and White...then I can understand the repeated interest. That's a big deal. That subject is worthy of multiple viewpoints. The problem is, we don't get multiple viewpoints...we get the same one.

a biopic need not be about the events surrounding the figure's life, like Scorsese's The Aviator exhibited. another Scorsese biopic is Raging Bull, which focuses ONLY on the very personal life of the character, and Nolan can easily take his film to that area and if he succeeds as well as Scorsese did with Jake LaMotta well, it would have the potential to be the best film of its decade.



however, i can sense your next post as stating that there still seems to be no reason for this next film, that it will be redundant, and yawnful. so i'll close with saying that Nolan is no joke and certainly no time waster. the man has more power than any filmmaker in the business today, and if he chooses to make a second Howard Hughes biopic his next feature, you better believe it won't be un-worth it.

---

Secondly, I left my thought and acknowledgment there because I tend to write that way. I prefer the existence of free flowing thought, it gives a level of humanity/window into the thought process. Why be perfect?

i've always considered my thought process to be an internal matter, and to keep the finished product as "perfect" as possible. i know how the creation of ideas and thoughts work for myself and believe that my finished products should display as much flawlessness as possible.

people who write the way you have in this example tend to make there posts extremely messy and sloppily written, to the point where i feel like they're not worth reading. this is not the case with your post, but i did feel like i wasted my time reading that specific area of your writing because it didn't have any relation with the argument/conversation we're carrying on so that's why i raised the question.