Talk:Christopher Nolan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Themes

So I've removed the themes stuff because it should be on a page about the film, not a page about the person. If you read a page about Chris Nolan, you want to know who he is, and what he does, which involves a sense of how he got jobs and what sort of thing he likes making. Themes was too much, so I've taken it off unless someone objects, in which case revert! I'll try and work the themes thing into the Memento page, although that needs a lot of work itself... Personaljesus 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Batman sequels

Do we have concrete information about whether he's doing the Batman sequels? From somewhere other than the tabloids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.130.194 (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

As far as Batman sequels go here's what is known. and it's not much. Several actors have said that they are excited about doing another one, so I guess this means it's a go. on IMDB, it shows that Chris Nolan, and a few other actors are attached to "Untitled Batman Project." All of this says that there will be one, however, this is still circumstantial at best. Chris Nolan has stated publicly, that he will not do another one, unless the plot advances the story in a meaningful way. He also said that until he has finished with Inception, he's not giving it any thought, he prefers to give one project his undevided attention.

Would Warner Bros go ahead without him? Most certainly yes. Batman is far too big of a cash cow to stop milking now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.196.169 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Batman film in 2011

Is there any confirmation of this as a release date? Where it would make sense given the three year difference between the release of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, has this in fact been mentioned by any reliable source? 24.24.90.148 03:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2011 would seem a little fast considering that he will be working on Inception well into 2010. There is nothing official yet. to the best of my understanding, another sequel is greenlit, but still in the very early pre-production stages. Personally, I'd be very surprised if there was a script, or even a plot outline, but that is my personal belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.196.169 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

The "conspiracy theory" regarding Nolan's complicity in Ledger's recent death is absolute hornswoggle. Whoever posted it linked to a Michael Keaton interview that has, obviously, no such information regarding such whatsoever. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and arrest Christopher Nolan for criminal charges before you callously slander him on Wikipedia. Alex Weitzman (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For whoever reverted the revertal - thank you. For the original reverter - lack of counter-sources? The original source is bunk. Check the link. You don't need a counter-source to argue against a source that doesn't exist in the first place. Alex Weitzman (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recurring actors

I removed a table displaying recurring actors because I do not believe that it is critical to lay out the performances in this way. There are only two actors who have done more than two major roles under Nolan (Bale and Caine), and I feel that this is worth noting in prose instead. The others are not worth noting; for example, Jeremy Theobald appeared in Batman Begins in so small a capacity that in the development of that film article, there was no coverage I can recollect mentioning him. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially since two of Bale and Caine's appearances are for films in the same series (there's a continuity thing there), and not 3 different films that Nolan has directed. Looking at some of the others, it seems that they only have bit roles. I think putting them in a table gives a false impression that they had some major role in all of these movies when they didn't. I think prose would be better, because you could better explain exactly what capacity they have (and preferably, get some comments from them or Nolan about why they show up "frequently" in his films).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. It seems too much of a stretch to say he has a habit of frequently casting the same cadre of actors, especially when three of the films are part of a series. If you count the three Batman films as one project, this is what the chart would look like:

Actor	Following (1998)	Memento (2000)	Insomnia (2002)	Batman Franchise (-)	The Prestige (2006)	Inception (2010)
Christian Bale				N	N
Michael Caine				N	N	N
Russ Fega		N			N	N
Morgan Freeman				N
Larry Holden		N	N	N
Mark Boone Junior		N		N
Nicky Katt			N
Colin McFarlane				N
Cillian Murphy				N		N
John Nolan	N			N
Gary Oldman				N
Andrew Pleavin				N		N
Lucy Russel	N			N
Jeremy Theobald	N			N
Ken Watanabe				N		N

As you may see, there isn't a real pattern (Freedman, Oldman, McFarlane and Pleavin no longer count at all), and only three actors have appeared in more than three of Nolan's films. What the original chart really shows is that many who had a part in the first Batman film had a recurring (maybe small) part in another film. Any thoughts? ArdClose (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The dates/content under professional career need to be changed. If one says Nolan said a quote following the date of the premier of The Prestige, but said it prior to that (as the date indicates), then it must be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.109.129 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Nolan has not used the individual talents of the following actors in a recurring fashion (Guy Pearce, Hugh Jackmon and The Joker) - a noticable recurring pattern by Nolan is that he has selected Australian talent for lead roles. jackieant@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.3.107 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If we end up using a table instead of prose, I strongly agree with ArdClose that the Batman films should be merged into one column. —C Teng^(talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The table is still in the article, and it makes no sense. There is no significant pattern of recurring actors. Knowledge Junkie (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be pretty clear consensus here that this table at best contains too many entries (counting the Batman films as "separate" films) and at worst is completely pointless. Yet my edits to cut it down have been reverted. Unless a good reason to include all these entries is given, I will cut it down again.

And Dark Knight Rises hasn't even started filming yet, so including it in the table is just plain silly. Castings can change at any time. So it's good to see that these particular have been removed whenever they are made. GDallimore (Talk) 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the table because it causes too much controversy and it is trivial. There's no reason why this information can't be put into text format, some of which it already is.-5- (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the table has been re-added anyway. Shall we remove? —Will^(B) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much to the article. I support the removal. Span (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't even see the need to discuss this. Consensus was firmly established for its removal, it has been re-added despite that consensus, and there has been no attempt to explain why it should be present. All of the arguments against its existence still stand. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-did this table.. Now that Interstellar is out, there are a few more actors and other crew members he has collaborated with. In case anyone wants to take a look: New table. Tell me what you think, should I add it? --Rayukk (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I combined all of the Batman films into one role. Appearing in sequels does not make them recurring collaborators. Since outside of the Batman franchise only 2 actors appear in more than 2 of his films, I'm actually okay with it being removed all together. However, if it is going to stay, it's better this way. JDDJS (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Inception"

I removed the link for 'Inception' because it was linking to the wrong Inception. As of yet there is no wikipedia artice for the Inception film.Prince.timotheus (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Is it just a coincidence that the year after the internationally recognised writer Christopher Nolan dies (the poet who published Dam Burst of Dreams book as a child) the writer Christopher Nolan directs the movie theme about dreams? jackieant@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.3.107 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why does this section must necessarily be expanded? The entry lists what the reader would want to know, on the basis of notability. The tag about expanding it should be removed. -The Gnome (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he have 3 or 4 children? His wife's article says they have 3 children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.115.6 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dark Knight sequel

Considering it's fairly easy to find sources on the filming of the sequel, I'd say it should be mentioned in his filmography. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because of the sources which corroborate its production. DC T•C 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be mentioned on the page, which it is, but it doesn't need to be listed in his filmography because there's no guarantee that it will ever come out. When it starts filming we'll have a good idea that it is coming out.-5- (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. DC T•C 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Following premiere

According to Following (film) and 1998 Toronto International Film Festival Following was premiered on Toronto Film Festival, but there is written San Francisco Film Festival. Is it mistake?--Tokoko (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Insomnia

… was not shot in Alaska. It is set in Alaska. It was largely shot in Squamish, British Columbia, with some exteriors done in North Vancouver. If anyone can provide a legit source for its being shot in Alaska, they should add it. Otherwise I will change the article sometime in the next week. Theonemacduff (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Change His Nationality

christopher nolan is British-American He Has An American Citizenship And For The Last Ten Years He Has Been Staying In Los Angeles USA Then Why he is Listed As english filmmaker when he is a 100% british-American I Request To Admins To Please Do Something About This,Please ,christopher nolan himself said that he is english-American here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YNwbDraJnSAJ:www.guardian.co.uk/film/2002/aug/27/features+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.228.220 (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the LA Times source used to justify calling him English (which should be more correctly British, since that's his citizenship) actually supports use of British-American. The article on his brother uses British-American as well. --Drmargi (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps consider adding Nationality: British, Citizenship: American to the bio section (under photo)? Heuh0 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Future Projects

Only Man of Steel should be listed in the 'Future Projects' section. The rest is just speculation. He has stated that his Howard Hughes bio is dead here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/christopher-nolan-says-his-howard-hughes-film-is-dead-but-hed-still-like-to-do-a-bond-film-at-some-point-20120604 and the James Bond thing is just silly. He said he'd like to do it down the line, but he hasn't decided what's next for him. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Influences

If no verifiable citations are added to the 'Influences' section of the infobox, I will be deleting it shortly. Per WP:VERIFY. LiamNolan24 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Political views

Noticed the controversy on the political views implied by the latest Batman and tried to do some research. Didn't find much, but according to http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=emp_or_occ&occ=SELF+EMPLOYED%2FDIRECTOR Nolan donated $2400 to Democratic Senator Leahy in 2010.

Not sure if this is worth adding to the page yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Make it better?

What does the article lack? Is there more I can do? I would love submit this as a 'good article', when its ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.198.142 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should note that this was written by me. Just forgot to log inn (I do that too often). Is there something the bio lacks, or some annoying typing errors? please edit away.

(I've written a lot of the text, and English is not my first language, so I'm sure there is plenty of stuff we can fix)

Sammyjankis88 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)SammyJankis88Sammyjankis88 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Shouldn't it be "British director that holds American citenzship" He's not really American, just because he has citenship, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.144.223 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

He has (I believe) an American mother. One of his parents is American anyway. Personally I don't think nationalism is particularly relevant, nor should it be. He's still an amazing director either way. Why bother quibbling over something so trivial? (86.18.147.49 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC))

Filmography

Some things I have problems with 1. The studio section of the filmography is wrong/short on information. Momentum Pictures was never involved with Memento etc. Many of the films have several studios and distributors behind them, and if added, it will make the scheme look disarranged. 2. With so few films in his filmography, more than one box is superfluous and unnecessary. A complete filmography in one box is preferable on all accounts, and looking through other pages on wikipedia (ref; Aronofsky - same filmography length), almost all have their films listed in the same box. 3. The way it is now, its difficult explain tidbits/notes (films being unreleased, type of writing and producing credits etc). What about the story credit on Man of Steel? The way "Other" is now, its very difficult to add information. Looking ahead, its completely necessary with a "Notes" section. 4. The worldwide gross is already written in the text. May come across as showing off the numbers, having them mentioned multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Ok. Fixed some problems with the studio section. At least removing the short films, since only one (3min long) of the three has been released. There is some information about each one in the prose. Any argument/contradiction against that decision?

Edit Pt2: There is zero information on how the short films (Tarantella and Larceny) is be to be credited. We only assume Nolan produced them, and we can't say for sure if he wrote Tarantella. I know that it was made in a collaboration with Roko Belic, and that it was first conceived as a full-length feature film, but there is no other information. I propose to remove the scheme, any arguments against?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't I see the green GA status???

The same question as the person above... I really would be interested to submit it... The Wikimon (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, good sir, Go ahead and submit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.240.72 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There you go. SammyJankis88

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christopher Nolan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail of GA Review

Unfortunately, this article fails multiple criteria for potential consideration of GA status as listed at WP:WIAGA:

1. Well-written - Fails here. The prose is in need of copyedit, I'd suggest in the interim before another GA Review, posting a request for copyedit from the folks at WP:GOCE and also to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to hopefully solicit copyedits from experienced editors previously uninvolved with this article.
2. Verifiable with no original research - Fails here. Unfortunately the article is not stable and includes recent edits by IPs adding in sourced information to unreliable sources, or at the very least questionable sources, or at the very least there could be sources of a higher caliber than Contactmusic.com.
3. Broad in its coverage - Passes here. However that coverage needs to be copyedited and looked over in depth for better sourcing standards, as noted above.
4. Neutral - Fails here. The table Recurring collaborators is not needed and borders on unencyclopedic. It appears this table has itself been the source of recent edit-wars. There are unsourced paragraphs and sentences in several of the latter subsections that at the very least need to be sourced properly, and at best need to be copyedited by previously uninvolved editors with a view towards NPOV.
5. Stable - Fails here. The article has been the subject of recent edit wars. These edit wars appear to have taken place involving multiple IP address edits, without talk page discussion to work out these issues or any attempts at WP:Dispute resolution on the talk page.
6. Images - Fails here. File:Kennedy salute.gif image is used in this article with zero fair use rationale on its image page arguing for such usage as fair use.

— Cirt (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!

Will do my best fixing the problems in the coming weeks.

Thanks for reviewing it anyway, Sammy J, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, good luck to you in your quality improvement efforts! — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Filmography section

Bartallen2; If you are insisting on the old filmography scheme, then surely you must fix the "Studio" section. Example; The studio behind Following isn't Momentum Pictures, they're only distributing with Zeitgeist Films. Memento is made by Newmarket Films, not Momentum Pictures. In fact the scheme will look like garbage if you include ALL the correct information. If look into it, some of the films have more than one studio/company behind them! And besides, why do we need studio information? No other filmmaker has that included in their filmography on wiki. More importantly, we need a 'notes section', as some information can be very useful for readers. For example the first two short films haven't been released and Nolan's screenwriting credit on Man of Steel is only story. Also, why not have a complete filmography in one box? So scheme size or not (and you are thoroughly exaggerating the size issue. Why is that so important?), correct and useful information comes first! (Also, the boxoffice numbers aren't correct in your version either.)

Fix it or leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Your reply: "Well the past scheme was agreed upon to avoid something superfluous and cumbersome, which yours is. Also there doesn't need to be a notes section given the 'others' section and the studio part is to do with the main distributors of the film"

Where and when was that agreed upon? and the 'others' section is severely lacking compared to the notes section. Fix the story credit for Man of Steel in your scheme. That is useful information regarding his work on that film. Also, superfluous and cumbersome? What are you talking about? The old scheme has studio/distributor information! Not only is it wrong, which you constantly ignores, but THAT my friend is superfluous.

Anyone else disagree or have arguments? I will revert the filmography section in the coming days if not. - SammyJ

Should we keep the "Unrealized projects" section?

Is the "Unrealized projects" section necessary? Filmmakers are attached to projects they eventually drop all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.240.72 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Some new edits and a suggestion

I just finished doing a light editing job on the opening section, Early life, Early career, 1990s, and the subsection on Memento. I corrected errors in punctuation and placement of modifiers and also rewrote a few sentences to improve clarity. May I suggest that the text be pared down? I realize that the creator of the article wants it to be as complete as possible, and I applaud that goal and the amount of work that has gone into the article, but I feel that it very much needs tightening to improve readability. Since I'm a new editor, I'll leave the question of the advisability of significant cutting to those with more experience. --Ailemadrah (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've written a lot of it and have trimmed down the text substantially in the last couple of days. If you want to slim it down further, then feel free to do so. If anyone feel like doing a rewrite, a rearrange, or whatever, then go nuts.

Sammyjankis88 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christopher Nolan/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "creative force" might be a bit too strong I think, even if true. "The creator of several of the 21st century's most successful films" would be good enough in my opinion.

 Done

• Chronologically I'd place The Dark Knight trilogy (2005–2012) and Inception (2010) in that order rather than the other way around.

 Done

• I think you should state which films won Academy Awards in the lead, there's currently no mention of them at all.

Early life

• Split with Chicago? Why was this? I gather it was because of his mother's family but if you could find anything else about it, like what school he attended there or whatever that would be good.
  • Indeed. I will look around, but I don't think there is much written about his time in Chicago. He spent most of his youth in London.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• "UCL's best recent shorts" -I wouldn't consider 1996 to be recent!

 Done

• Perhaps mention that Following was also produced with Emma and Jeremy Theobald?

 Done

Memento, Insomnia and Batman Begins

• Given that it was considered one of the best films of the year, I'd like to see one or two quotes from critics for Memento.

 Done

• Not sure why you need to say "human" Batman film, it's not like all previous films had been cartoons. I'd probably write it as "In early 2003, Nolan approached Warner Bros. with the idea to make a Batman film grounded in a "relatable" world more reminiscent of a classical drama than a comic-book fantasy."

 Done

• "Daniel Etherington of Film4 described it as "a blockbuster with more intelligence than most."" I think that should go below the cast where you mention highest grossing.

 Done

The Prestige and The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight definitely needs at least two quotes from critics I think given its status. I'd prefer to read about the themes and concepts in that part of the article but I see you've written a themes section mentioning the basics which is OK.

 Done

I'm not too happy with the wording of "Before its release, several reports suggested that the film was too complex to appeal to a broad audience and would struggle at the box office.[61] In an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal, industry executives noted that the commercial prospects of Inception could influence the industry as a whole.[62] Veteran producer John Davis said, "I can promise you that heads of studios are already going into production meetings saying we need fresh ideas for summer movies, we want original concepts like Inception that are big and bold enough to carry themselves"." -to me it appears a little convoluted with a bit too much weight placed on it. I think you can say the same thing in rather less words.

 Done

• $1-billion -is a hyphen needed, I'm not sure?
  • Neither am I. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• For Man of Steel it needs the year in brackets and I think you should also elaborate more on the "mixed reception" with a few quotes and also mention the cast.

 Done

Film making

• Link monochrome unless it's been linked already?

 Done

• "His films draw heavily on film noir, with Nolan noting that he identifies all his films with that genre" - a little awkward, perhaps reword as "Nolan has noted that all of his films are heavily influenced by film noir".

 Done

• ""When you think of a visual style, when you think of the visual language of a film, there tends to be a natural separation of the visual style and the narrative elements. But with the greats, whether it's Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick or Hitchcock, what you're seeing is an inseparable, a vital relationship between the image and the story it's telling"." -attribute quote.

 Done

• I feel that this section could use a few quotes or analysis from commentators on his works rather than just quoting Nolan, it might provide more depth to it, just a suggestion. "If I don't need to be directing the shots that go in the movie, why do I need to be there at all? The screen is the same size for every shot. The little shot of, say, a watch on someone's wrist, will occupy the same screen size as the shot of a thousand people running down the street. Everything is equally weighted and needs to be considered with equal care, I really do believe that. I don't understand the criteria for parceling things off. Many action films embrace a second unit taking on all of the action. For me, that's odd because then why did you want to do an action film?" is a huge quote, too long in my opinion which I think affects the quality of prose.
  • Trimmed the quote to quite a bit. This will probably take some time, and I'm not sure I will get around finding great stuff from reliable sources in such a short window. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Again with "Alec Price and M. Dawson of Left Field Cinema, noted that the "existential crises of conflicted male figures struggling with the slippery nature of identity" is a prevalent theme in Nolan's work. "For this director the only thing in this world that is real is what we decide to accept into our conscience. Actuality is far less important than the way in which we absorb, interpolate and remember, and it is this "created reality" that truly matters ... it is solely in the mind and the heart where any sense of permanency or equilibrium can ever be found."" I think the layout affects the flow, I'd paraphrase in part. Same with the Todd McGowan quote below, not a fan of the long placed quotes without words leading to them.

• With the themes section I'd merge some of the short paragraphs and try to improve the flow with paraphrasing the quotes as suggested above into something more readable and less rough around the edges.

 Done

Collaborators

• Some over linking of actors there but it is OK to link again for convenience. Up to you of course.

Awards and honors

• Not a fan of bullet points, please convert to prose and merge some of them.

Refs

• What makes ref 56 a RS?
  • replaced with a New York Times article
• Ref 68-71, 95-6, 110, 174 publishers?
• Ref 85, Capitalize Variety
• Ref 91, appears to be a blog, aren't there more reputable sources?
  • Hehe, that blog is written by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, arguably the two most respected film academics alive.

I see, a pity they can't extend their film expertise to sprucing up their site more then!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 93 Rope of Silicon a RS?
  • I think so. It's not academic, but its one of the bigger sites featuring film news, analysis and reviews outside the trades. Also been online since 2003.
• More dodgy looking sources at 126-8 like flickeringmyth.com, Firstshowing.net. joblo.com, indielondon.co.uk, backstage.com
• Ref 142 - It should have full info and presented as The Hollywood Reporter in italics, ref 147 needs italics too
• There's quite a few inconsistencies in italicizing publications and writing the websites in lower casing. bbcamerica.com for example I'd expect and prefer to be written as BBC America. Huffington Post is also inconsistent, huffingtonpost.co.uk vs Huffington Post. I'd prefer you to write the name rather than the web address as often as possible, please do go through all of the sources and try to ensure that they're consistent and in publishing name as much as possible.

I've got my hands on some literature, and I plan to replace sources when I have read through the stuff. However, I don't really have the time to do that in coming weeks. I must admit I considered that work for a potential FA nomination in future. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall the main problem for me is your use of quotes which affects the prose quality at present and not enough critical insight into the films. It's a little rough to read, particularly in the lower sections. I think you should paraphrase a few quotes from a wider range of critics in the career section and try to diminish the bulk of Nolan's quotes. Some of them are useful but some of them are a bit superfluous. I'd like so see a bit more analysis of his work from professional commentators given than he is one of the top directors under analysis; most of the quotes in the lower sections are from Nolan and I think it would improve the quality by balancing them out more. Quite a lot of problems with the selection of sources used, for somebody like Nolan I'd really expect useage of those lower end websites at a minimum. Please do try to replace as many of them as possible with more reputable news outlets and perhaps introduce more book sources if you can. Other than this the article looks to have the basics necessary for GA but as I feel it needs quite a lot of work until it is ready, I'll place on hold until the improvements are made.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Doc, thanks again for taking on the review for Sammy. I don't consider myself a co-nominator, but am keeping an eye on proceedings. You raised many good points above, but I just wanted to point out this essay, which states that bulleted lists don't need to be removed for GA status, and that sources don't need to be formatted correctly. I agree that these changes would be ideal, and they can be fixed further down the line, but if we only focus on the GA criteria (which actually aren't too demanding) I think the article may be okay as it stands? Your call of course, but I just wanted to point those things out to you in case you weren't aware - cheers! --Loeba (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but if Sammy and yourself want to go further with it eventually then it's probably best that the changes are done now as I'm sure somebody else would bring it up at FAC. It's starting to look better, I'll give it a read over the weekend but if you could edit Loeba when you have time and perhaps address some of the points too in terms of the prose and quote balance and try to polish it a little I think it would be a more comfortable pass. Obviously I'm prepared to pass it as I wouldn't have put in on hold. There's no rush, but do let me know if you think you've really both addressed it to the best you can and I'll take another look at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sammy has said that he plans to make use of book sources but will need more time, so I don't think FAC is on the cards for a while (and as you say, along with the need for more thorough research it needs a fair bit of polish before that can be considered). I just thought it was probably decent enough for GA so recommended that he nominate it - it's nice to get that recognition in the meantime. I can take a look over it at the weekend if you definitely think it's necessary. --Loeba (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Already looking much improved. Prose is now up to an acceptable standard in my opinion. Sammy can you find the retrieved date for ref 113 and 119 and fill out ref 187? Also make sure names are consistently formatted with surname first, refs 59-61 for instance aren't, and remove the first names from the book sources like Jesser, Pourroy. Jesser will do. Sammy I think this is passable as it is, but it might be more constructive if I continue to make suggestions and we see further improvements first to hold it in good stead should you decide to nom for FA in the future. Offhand I'd suggest doing a google book search for Christopher Nolan and any one of his films and seeing if you can pick up info in google books, quotes or angles on any of his films which could be added to improve the depth of coverage in his career section. I found a quote earlier about Insomnia film noir and Nolan inventing his own genre which I really think is valuable. Xlibris isn't an ideal book publisher, but I think the quote is too valuable to ignore, and I'm sure there's other ones you'll pick up from other books which might add a bit more depth. I also found an interesting comparison here exploring Memento which I briefly noted. I think if you can add a little flesh to some of the films from books like this it will end up a considerably stronger article. In my opinion too the big table in awards would look better in his awards article and it would be better to write a high quality prose piece on his Academy Awards and others and polish up what is already written. I'm also not keen on the diagrams, I think they look amateurish and you'd be better off adding photographs indirectly related to him like his collaborators, or requesting some images of him on set etc from flickr or whatever. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass it as it is I think, but I do hope you'll continue to work on it as I suggested. Kudos to you and Loeba!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I really don't deserve any of the praise, but I'm pleased the see the article pass - congrats Sammy! --Loeba (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The minor quibbles above and suggestions aside, I'm very pleased with how this has progressed and now reads much better than it did a few weeks ago. I think it's now a clear pass. However, I feel it still needs a lot of work to really do a director such as Nolan justice, particularly in improving the quality of what is written about each film in the career section which I think can be further improved by extensive research into books and journals. What about analysis into his cinematic devices like lighting, music etc? I hope you'll continue to improve this as suggested and look forward to seeing it at FAC eventually. Congratulations, it got here at last!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for passing, Dr. Blofeld, and for taking your time writing a thorough review with constructive criticism. Will continue to work on it and look into the issues already raised. It's been a busy few weeks, but I hope I can get back to it soon. Also a huge thanks to the always wonderful Loeba (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

There has been a bit of edit warring over the last few days over Nolan's nationality - "British" or "British-American". It appears to me that it would be accurate to use the latter, since he has one parent from each and duel citizenship (and spent his childhood in both countries). Is there a reason for calling him only "British"? Has Nolan said that he only identifies as such? --Loeba (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

British-American seems to be correct.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It has to be stable before I can pass it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well unless someone can provide a source I think we should stick to "British-American", since that's definitely the logical choice. --Loeba (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is fine as long as it doesn't turn into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_American Sue De Nimes (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Some advice please

I added a line to Filmmaking>Style about his private and protective way of filming, and quoted Christian Bale's attempt (which he mentioned in a GQ magazine interview): http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2011-04/26/gq-film-christian-bale-interview/page/2 Here are the lines, as he spoke: "Chris is a very private director and there's certainly no way he'd be letting me into the editing suite. I tried once, I got a very polite, "F*** off." " Is this OK, for a person's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairmayukh (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the wiki policy, but I would not include a swear word unless it's a very important/iconic quote. Personally don't care, but the less "controversial" material the better. In this case I suggest a re-write; try to find out if he has a history of "guarding" his editing suites, and more importantly, why he prefers cutting in privacy. Without the "why" bit stuff tends get superfluous and insignificant. Also, information regarding process should go under "method". Certainly interesting stuff though, I hope to read more from you around here. (Remember to back it up with the strongest sources you can find.)Sammyjankis88 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

I have again reverted the filmography section to correct the inaccurate information. An "Executive Producer" is different than a "Producer" and a "Writer" is not the same as a "Screenplay author" or a "Story creator". A Writer creates both the story and the screenplay. Nolan is not a "writer" for all the films he shares part of the writer tasks, nor is he a producer just because he has "Executive Producer" in his credits. Thus we are keeping the Green color of the yes, but distinguishing the execptions when his role was not the complete role in the heading. It is cleaner than adding additional columns for all the roles, but remains accurate in this way. If we only want YES answers, I think we should include the extra columns. But I prefer the way it is with the exceptions noted to maintain the accuracy of the information. AbramTerger (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@198.228.216.17:Please don't create inaccuracies in the table. Writing means story and screenplay. In some films he is credited as "Writer" in others he is only credited with the story and others still only the screenplay. This is similar for Producer and Executive Producer, they are 2 different roles.AbramTerger (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the accurate table with the screenplay notes keeps being reverted, I have added a column differentiating the story from the screenplay credit, to keep the information in the table accurate.AbramTerger (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@198.228.216.17:Please do not edit to create an inaccurate table. If you continue, your vandalism will be reported and you may lose editing privileges.AbramTerger (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sammyjankis88:An editor does not need a consensus to correct inaccurate information. I am opposed to the inaccurate table with just a YES to a writer. A writer contributes to both the story and the screenplay. I can live with the version with a comment under the writer if only the story and/or screenplay is done (as I just changed to), or 2 separate columns. The separate columns were added as a compromise, since there seemed to be an edit war brewing over indicating that only the screenplay was credited, but that he did not get story credit.AbramTerger (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@198.228.216.17:I again corrected the inaccurate information. For some films Nolan did not write the story only the screenplay, so hs is NOT "credited as Writer". If you don't like having the note, the compromises I see are to have separate columns for screenplay and story (as I had done earlier), change the heading to "credited with" and change to Directing, Producing, and Screenplay, and ignore the film he just wrote the story and was not credited with writing the screenplay. What other compromises do you offer, that satisfies whatever issues you have with it, but keep the information accurate?AbramTerger (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I again corrected the inaccuracies in the table. Nolan was only been credited as writer for 3 films: Following, Inception, and Interstellar. He has been credited with the screenplay for 5 films: Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. He has been credited with the story for 3 films: The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and Man of Steel. [Since he has credit for both screenplay and story in The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises, he essentially can be called a "writer" for those films. Thus there needs to be notes for the 3 films he has only written screenplays of and the film he has only story credit, to maintain accuracy. A more accurate table, since most of his credits are separated for screenplay or story, would be to separate those as 2 distinct columns [putting YES in both for when he has the writer credit.] Just putting YES in writer for films he has only screenplay is inaccurate.AbramTerger (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have again reverted the inaccurate information. I recommend again, separating the screenplay and story credits, to eliminate the notes which seem to be an issue with 1 editor. Removing the story credits and changing Writer to Screenplay I can also live with, though would not be as happy with that.AbramTerger (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@166.137.210.41: As you can see from this discussion, which you did not seem to have read before joining in the editing, Writing refers to both screenplay and story. Nolan is credited as Writer in only 3 films. I have compromised by explicitly making is Screenwriting and removing the only Story reference to keep the table accurate. I prefer including both credits (adding a Story column ot the table, or what we had before with a comment on the ones he only wrote the screenplay) but I can live with this compromise. I don't think we should change it to an inaccurate table as made it into.AbramTerger (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Made another compromise that maintains accuracy. Notes when credited as Exec Producer and writer as opposed to screenplay / Story. I would be happy with YES in Story and Screenplay instead of the dual column Writing if okay since writing = Story+Screenplay. But as mentioned some movies he is credited separately for the 2 functions, other films he gets the writing credit.AbramTerger (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

He is not credited in three movies as a writer, he's credited in all the movies he written. Plus, every director that has a filmography page like that ( like Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese). So stop doing those edits they're inaccurate, see his movies because in the end credits they list him as writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.34 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your statements are not accurate as I have indicated before, which is why I have recreated the table to reflect the actual film credits. You need to re-examine the source material. In only 3 films in the list is Nolan "credited as writer":

• Following "Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan"
• Inception "Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan"
• Interstellar "Written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan"

But in the 3 films (the ones in the table with "as Writer", I was making accurate with a note that indicated "Screenplay"), he is NOT "Credited as Writer", only with the Screenplay, the source story has come from elsewhere:

• Memento "Screenplay by Christopher Nolan, Based on the Short Story by Jonathan Nolan"
• Batman Begins "Screenplay by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, Story by David S. Goyer"
• The Prestige "Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, Based on the Novel by Christopher Priest"

There are 2 films which he can also be called "Writer" since he is credited with both the screenplay and with the Story:

• The Dark Knight "Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, Story by Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer"
• The Dark Knight Rises "Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, Story by Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer"

And the other note was a film that he is not credited "as Writer" or even with the screenplay", but only the story:

• Man of Steel "Story by David S. Goyer & Christopher Nolan, Screenplay by David S. Goyer"

So please lets keep the table accurate and reflect the actual credits given in the film, stop reverting without getting your facts straight. I can live with this version which seems to be the most precise, since it best represents the credits in the film. I can also live with removing the story column and only listing ones A "Screenwriter" where he is credited with the screenplay or written by, or the original edit, which listed "as writer" and made a note for Screenplay when he is not credited with the story. But the version you have been reverting to is inaccurate.AbramTerger (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What????? Okay, writing means screenplay okay. When is credited as a screenplay that's just another way of saying he wrote the movie. STOP, reverting it please you're the one who's putting inaccurate information. You just don't get it because clearly you can't tell the difference between writing a movie and screenwriting a movie which are both the exact same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.18 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No writing is not the same as screenplay. Writing is both screenplay and story (See Template:Infobox film). As a compromise since you seem only interested in the "screenwriting" aspect, I have explicitly used the term screenwriter and removed the story credit as not being a "screenwriter". Can you live with this change?AbramTerger (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed Story credit, as this is not screenwriting. The conmpromise is only to list the screenwrting, since you did not want to list screenplay and story separately.AbramTerger (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I put in an alternative that includes the storywriter credit if desired to have both the screenwriter and storywriter credits listed.AbramTerger (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try and offer a compromise. What do you find wrong with this version. It accurately reflects what Nolan is credited with. The version last reverted to was inaccurate, not differentiating the different writer roles.AbramTerger (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The important part is making the information/table easy to understand for as many readers as possible, and I think this alternative (multiple columns) is somewhat confusing. For obvious reasons we have to separate producer from executive producer and show that Nolan only co-authored the story for Man of Steel. Thus I see no reason why we shouldn't separate screenplay/writer. Both titles can go under the banner "writer", but when singling out the story-credit for MOS, I think going all the way and dividing screenwriter/writer is okay. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sammyjankis88: I can live with your version. It is accurate in that it reflects the 2 aspects of writing (story and screenplay) and differentiates the different credits Nolan has gotten in his films. It also does not suggest he deserves story credit when he has not gotten it (in the films where he only has screenplay). The multiple columns was offered as a compromise since to one editor Writing = Screenwriting instead of the more standard view of Writing = Story+Screenplay. I had even offered the compromise where I changed "Writer" to "Screenwriter", and had just the YES, the editor wanted, but he/she did not like that it lost the Story credit for Man of Steel, so I made the more explicit version of separate columns.AbramTerger (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@166.137.210.28: I have reverted your edits. There is a local consensus that already exists that was preferred over your particular version. Please discuss alternate versions before editing to gain consensus on any changes you want to see. Thank you.AbramTerger (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@166.137.210.23: I have reverted your edits. There is a local consensus that already exists that was preferred over your particular version. If you find the local consensus "too confusing", please offer a compromise that you do not find confusing but maintains the accuracy of distnguishing the various writiong cases: Neither screenplay, nor story. Both Screenplay and story, Screenplay and no story credit, Story credit but not screenplay. The option you keep reverting too does not do that. ADDED ON: Could you explain what you find confusing in this table? A blank means he is not credited with screenplay or story. "Yes" means he wrote the screenstory AND screenplay. "Screenplay" means he wrote the screenplay but is not credited with the story. "Story" means he is credited with the story but not the screenplay.AbramTerger (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@166.137.8.31: Please discuss proposed changes and get a consensus before making them when there has been discussion and a local consensus on the topic.AbramTerger (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@166.137.8.31: Again, please discuss changes and get a consensus. There is already a local consensus to have this representation as compact and accurate.AbramTerger (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography Box Office

I have rounded the Box Office values per MOS:LARGENUM for the films where the source information indicates that the values are approximate. I suggest that all the values be rounded to keep a consistent style for all of them. I don't see a need for the values to the dollar, though I can live with some shown as approximate and some looking more precise (though I don't see how these are truly any more precise than the others).AbramTerger (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Francis Nolan

In 2009, Nolan's older brother, Matthew Francis, was arrested in connection with a contract killing, in which an American financier was beaten to death in Costa Rica. He was acquitted due to lack of evidence. However, he pleaded guilty to preparing an escape from Chicago's Metropolitan Correctional Center, where the prison guards had discovered "a 31ft-long 'rope' made up of bed sheets, and a harness, razor and clip designed to unlock handcuffs". According to the guards it was "the best rope they had ever seen made."

Should we add this information to the personal life section? 84.211.102.4 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A reference has been added to Matthew Nolan, but it is not (and is not supposed to be) too extensive. Quis separabit? 23:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

References

An Advocate of Sincerity

When asked about his approach in settling on a project, "particularly to direct", Christopher Nolan has answered that he bases his decision of choice on his "big belief" in sincerity about his passion for something. Thus, he is an agent, or an advocate, for, or of, sincerity. Sincerity is the foundation of his process. This, I think, should be acknowledged in the article. Most fittingly, perhaps, in Method, the first paragraph next to the text talking about his "deep" intuition.

Sources:

i. Major) Christopher Nolan expresses his belief in sincerity; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtH6kiPbMBw (19:40)

ii. Secondary) Christopher Nolan speaks of how and why he decides to work on a project, reflecting a honest and sincere approach based on his feelings and desires; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MF3iPmSgGE (19:55) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforRight (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christopher Nolan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513200348/http://www.christophernolan.net/following_making.php to http://www.christophernolan.net/following_making.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105194451/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D85089250F8C40E42B36D0F921E3F7860?curTime=1295947194337 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D85089250F8C40E42B36D0F921E3F7860?curTime=1295947194337
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126160313/http://www.christophernolan.net/biography.php to http://www.christophernolan.net/biography.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129110639/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10195.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10195.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Nolan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208152024/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/08/19/nolan-vs-nolan/ to http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/08/19/nolan-vs-nolan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Nolan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606203226/http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_194.php to http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_Articles/News_194.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Nolan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610064221/http://www.criticschoice.com/search?s=man+of+steel to http://www.criticschoice.com/search?s=man+of+steel
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.leftfieldcinema.com/analysis-the-films-of-christopher-nolan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111101336/http://www.24lps.net/directorsrecommend/nolan.html to http://www.24lps.net/directorsrecommend/nolan.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-hollywood-loves-interstellar-director-christopher-nolan-1414677657%7C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Christopher Nolan Filmography

Nearly all of this article is already in the Christopher Nolan article, apart from the Documentaries - no need for this separate article. Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the filmography on his bio page should first and foremost present his directorial work. The films he's know for and that is his work. By separating out all the documentary appearances (that, I'm sure, will only grow in the coming years), the short films (two of which are unreleased - why have a table for that?) and producing efforts (the executive producer credits will likely grow exponentially in years to come), the article becomes more straightforward and digestible. This way the filmography section is not only complete (which it wasn't before), but also not overly long and trivial. I do think it's important to further distinguish his work. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the merger proposal, because the material which was here has now been moved to the Filmography article. So there is no longer the problem with that article being mostly a duplication of this one.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We should create a new page for his filmography and make own schemes for box office results, critical reception and so on. No its so many numbers. I've done it before so I leave it to someone else this time around. (Again, why was this merged back again?) Sammyjankis88 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting additional information on Career section, and perhaps Recognition, or method/Filmmaking.

So, I have two suggestions about new information to add to this good article.

First, Christopher Nolan has highly praised Heath Ledger as a collaborator. "I've never felt as old as I did watching Heath explore his talants," Nolan has written, further claiming amazment of the actor's character development (for The Dark Knight, of course), and praising Ledger as "very professional". I think, and this is my suggestion, that it should be mentioned in Career/The Dark Knight that Nolan accepted the Critics Choice Award on the actor's behalf, adding the simple but important words from his acceptance speech; "I know that I speak for all of us (who has been lucky enough to work with him) when I say that working with him was one of the greatest experiences any of us ever had or probably ever will have." Heavy words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNPGAu5HtY http://www.celebuzz.com/2009-01-09/vh1-critics-choice-awards-anne-hathaway-vs-angelina-jolie/

Secondly, and I'm getting quite near the end of this... analysis... of this page, secondly, Kip Thorne compared what he calls Christopher Nolan's "deep intuition" to the intuition "that Eistein had" (about 4 minutes and 30 sec. in). Again, heavy words. My suggestion: this could be mentioned perhaps in Recognition, if not in method or something like that, as these are the words from one of the worlds leading theoretical physicists who abviously knows his field and thus knows what he is talking about. It is interesting information for both artists and scientists, as it is "so important to see it in a scientist and so wonderful to see it in the artist." http://time.com/3602525/christopher-nolan-physics-interstellar-kip-thorne/

Stay cool!

I've added the quote from Kip Thorne in the Method section. The source (Thorne) is strong enough for it to be here. The Heath Ledger thing should probably go in The Dark Knight article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C150:D9D1:2196:4717:8FE9:8AAD (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

His name

His middle name seems to be Edward, not Jonathan James.

Some sources here (you can find more by a simple google search): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/who-we-are/honorary-fellows (His school) http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/s/m/i/Paul-Stevenson-Smith/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0218.html

His house and stuff is also registered under Christopher Edward Nolan (not posting that out of ethical reasons).

There you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C150:D9D1:452F:EAAA:2BB0:C2BE (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The source which is quoted in Nolan's Wikipedia page don't make sense because the date of birth is for september but Nolan is born in july. (Sorry for my bad English) Faridmeinbruder (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this Christopher Nolan any relation to Chris Nolan the documentary film maker mentioned on Watchdog Media (http://www.watchdogmediainstitute.com/)? Santamoly (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still attributed as his middle name on various print books although they are almanacs [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre writing

The whole section for personal life is written kind of questionably.

"Professionally, he commonly dresses in a clubbable but also muted ensemble, often wearing a dark and narrow-lapeled jacket over a blue dress shirt. In colder weather, he is observed as carrying a herringbone waistcoat (with the bottom button left open)."

Does this matter? It seems strange to me.CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed it a while ago, but others found it encyclopedic. For me it's 100% superfluous trivia. 185.176.244.88 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to cut it again, I'm here to support the decision. It's trivial, it's worded poorly, and it's just odd. It seems both pretentious and fawning. Sure, it's referenced and cited, but that doesn't mean it fits or is relevant. CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Interview on Desert Island Discs

As Nolan rarely talks about his private life, this interview might be of interest for this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09rwygm

Added some information about his love of the James Bond series in the "influences" section.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

date of birth incorrect?

Imdb and rt give 30 July but here it's 31 July so which is it? Laurent (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

I think the title CBE will award to him by the Royals in 2019. The event in 2018 was just an announcement. So the CBE in the head after his name should be removed till the title is awarded to him.--TiiN (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Am I wrong with my opinion? I'm no first language english speaking guy, maybe I don't understand the news correctly. But I think this was only an announcement and the title will awarded in this year.--TiiN (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything clarified. :) --TiiN (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone find sources for Christopher Nolan being red-green color blind?

It was on the Simple English Wikipedia article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Nolan and it interested me. However, I can't seem to find any good sources or references on this. Just "he's red-green color blind." I think this is important and relevant, and would add it to this article, but I can't find any good sources so I can add it to the article. Can someone confirm or deny with some sources and references whether or not he is red-green color blind?2601:340:4201:A8F1:442C:9A1F:F73:C03A (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The statement has been removed in simple:Special:Diff/6426490. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

About "among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time"

See the RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I have previously stated, "among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time" is a very bold statement. Receiving multiple awards and accolades does not automatically make a director "among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time". In fact when I googled best director today, I did not see Nolan on any professional critic's "best director today" list. The only few lists I saw that include Nolan were lists created by IMDb users, which are of course not reliable sources.

These directors deserve the title of "among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers" more than Nolan does, and quite a few of them are still active in the film industry.

This sentence seems to be an original research.

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MingFW, hi Sammyjankis88, nice to meet you. I came here as a result of a third-opinion request via IRC.

As WP:BLP states,

any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The edit Special:Diff/882080454 challenges the material according to this policy, and per Wikipedia's verifiability policy,

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

While the statement may be true, it may only be restored together with a good citation.

Regarding the edit summary of Special:Diff/882250111, I'd also like to note that "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and that this word is not applicable here – not even "borderline". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is probably 50 strong sources (critics, peers, actors, academics, noted publications) in the "Recognition" and "Awards and honors" alone. Not to mention in the body of the article and other links from this article. I'd say this is one of the better sourced director bios on wikipedia; when credible sources from the likes of LA Times and Wall Street Journal is challenged as "original research" one starts to wonder. For fun, on my very first google search I found this: https://www.slashfilm.com/christopher-nolan-was-the-most-influential-filmmaker-of-00s/ - "Why Christopher Nolan Was the Quintessential Filmmaker of the 2000s" and this: "Christopher Nolan is a multi-award-winning director, writer and producer whose varied filmography includes some of the most innovative and successful motion pictures of the early 21st century. " - from Cannes Film Festival (source: https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/festival/event/rendez-vous-with-christopher-nolan) Anyways, here is another one from TSPDT: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury.htm "The 21st Century’s Most Acclaimed Films is an annually updated compendium of end-of-year, end-of-decade, all-time and miscellaneous lists and ballots relating specifically to films released from 2000 onwards. It contains, based on TSPDT's calculations, the 1,000 leading films (critically-speaking) from 2000 to 2017. It has been compiled from the multiple lists/ballots of 3,176 critics/sources." Nolan is tied with Linklater and Coens with most films included (8). Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC%27s_100_Greatest_Films_of_the_21st_Century - I will again note that it is "among the most" and not "the most". Also, it is "of his time" and not "of all time". Nor is the sentence in quotation marks (important). Here is more: "Christopher Nolan is responsible for many of the most critically and/or commercially successful films of the 21st century:" - The Hollywood Reporter (source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/christopher-nolan-interstellar-critics-making-760897). "Christopher Nolan is one of the most influential, revered and successful directors of his time" - (https://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-director-problems-hollywood/). I can go on and on.. : Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88, I would like to restate that the sentence is an original research, a synthesis of the sources you cited, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - Here your argument falls as it clearly is, many times over. Also, an article can't be all direct quotes, a lead must summarize the important points made in body of the article. As long as every statment(s) is sourced (and it is in this case) it is not original research. If every sentence or statement/description is to be 100% identical to something in an article, we can cite 99.9% of wikipedia as original research. For example: "Christopher Nolan is responsible for many of the most critically and/or commercially successful films of the 21st century" shouldn't HAVE to be directly quoted in a lead. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88, I do not think you read the rules I listed carefully enough. "Original research" includes not only statements with no reliable, published sources, but also analysis of reliable sources. In the example you give, what you should write would be "Christopher Nolan is descried by Hollywood Reporter as the filmmaker of many of the most critically and/or commercially successful films of the 21st century", instead of "he is among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time", which is quite a big jump from the original sentence. Also, I would like that repeat that

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

ToBeFree Sorry to brother you again, but I just want to confirm that my statements are correct. Thanks, MingFW (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." But they do, just not in that exact sentence. For example, one source used here from The New York Times: "Certainly, the movies that this 39-year-old director has made, from his breakthrough noir “Memento” to his billion-dollar Batman sequel “The Dark Knight”, have been some of the most influential and popular films of the last decade." And a descriptions courtesy of The Criterion Collection and The Film Society of Lincoln Center states: "one of today’s most acclaimed filmmakers.".Sammyjankis88 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88 Then as per Wikipedia rule, please provide an inline citation from The Film Society of Lincoln Center that states that Nolan is "one of today’s most acclaimed filmmakers." Thanks, MingFW (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is one of the numerous inline citations found across the whole article. "among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time" just summarizes the content cited. If we have to go with a direct quote, I could choose one from Sir Michael Caine here, deeming Nolan "one of cinema's greatest directors" , but then again that would seem both selective and even a bit hyperbole. A lead should summarize the main points in a short and clear form without exaggeration, or as we discuss here, "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'. - which is not true here. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88 Just realized that The Film Society of Lincoln Center is a film presentation organization, therefore not a reliable source. In addition, I am pretty certain that the rule I cited requires inline citation for any material being challenged, including the summary. (In general, academic papers requires multiple citations in the abstract section. I believe this is also true for Wikipedia). Thanks, MingFW (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I could add more sources here but I see that won't help. Anyways, regarding your rules: "Wikipedia has no firm rules / Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."Sammyjankis88 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88 That a guideline may have exceptions does not mean that exceptions can be made at will. Anyways, let's just wait till other users to decide. MingFW (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus decides :)Sammyjankis88 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest attributing any such praise and confining it to the appropriate section, not in the lead where it would smack of puffery even if attributed. Better instead to be factual (stating awards) and further down people can air their views of how great he is. If this was Beethoven or Shakespeare sor some other long-dead figure, and books had been written describing their lives, it would be justifiable to state "greatest musician" etc. But we don't do that with living people with active careers as a general rulem as it comes across as promotional and POV. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I respect consensus and removed the sentence. However, to state that "That kind of statement is never said in Wikipedia's voice" is just flat out wrong, so many biographies here do. Also, one commenter didn't even get the sentence right; it was "Of his time", not "Of all time" - that is quite a different statement. I also oppose the argument that it's not supported by sources, but if its perceived as "puffery" by other editors I support removing it from the lead.

Just for fun, another quick google search to find other sources from around the world (not that it should need more, but whatever):

• The Hollywood Reporter: "Christopher Nolan is responsible for many of the most critically and/or commercially successful films of the 21st century" - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/christopher-nolan-interstellar-critics-making-760897

• New Musical Express "Nolan, who is considered to be one of the most influential filmmakers of the 21st century, receives a CBE for his contributions to film." - https://www.nme.com/news/film/christopher-nolan-michael-palin-and-pink-floyds-nick-mason-lead-queens-new-year-honours-2425244

• Hindustan Times - "Nolan is regarded as one of the most influential filmmakers of the 21st century" - https://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/from-enjoying-local-food-to-meeting-shah-rukh-khan-what-christopher-nolan-has-been-up-to-in-india/story-yCAMlmlOTNkxuhX1Un4l4N.html

• The Irish Examiner - "Christopher Nolan is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of the 21st century and among the highest grossing directors of all-time." - https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/dunkirk-and-dark-knight-director-christopher-nolan-honoured-894503.html

• The Daily Telegraph - "British director Nolan is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers working today" - https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/new-chris-nolan-flick-set-for-2020-release/news-story/b0f9030e122d9e2e0e3d5cb913f3e03a

• ScreenRant - "Christopher Nolan is one of the most influential, revered and successful directors of his time, creating a seemingly endless run of expectation-defying movies" - https://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-director-problems-hollywood/

• Digital Spy - "Christopher Nolan is widely accepted as one of the greatest directors of his generation " - https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a833148/christopher-nolan-not-doing-bond/

• Huffington Post - "Christopher Nolan, arguably one of the most successful filmmakers in the world" - https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/04/01/christopher-nolan-on-the-romance-of-celluloid-avoiding-social-media-and-making-films-in-trump-era_a_23400324/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=tTbt9uPPmthNXFixN2CJag

• The Mercury - "British director Nolan is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers working today" - https://www.themercury.com.au/news/breaking-news/new-chris-nolan-flick-set-for-2020-release/news-story/b0f9030e122d9e2e0e3d5cb913f3e03a

Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I searched around; There are actually quite a few articles from reliable sources stating that Christoper Nolan is overrated. MingFW (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So you googled "Nolan is overrated", and links to that (only) in an argument on Wikipedia ... You can do this with any person of note, try Spielberg, Shakespeare or Kubrick and you'll find equally "reliable sources" (like these, mostly from reddit, blogs, whatculture and so forth). The usage of 'overrated' is a low bar indeed. But I'll hit you up with a real one: "Nolan has earned a reputation as "one of the premier filmmakers of the modern era — a director whose intellect and tireless commitment to craft have yielded some of the most audacious, compelling blockbusters of all time." - James Cameron, from his book "Story of Science Fiction". Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The google search results I linked include articles from ScreenRant, Huffington Post, Mic, ScoopWhoop, and The Guardian, not random reddit post. In fact you used both ScreenRant and Huffington Post in your own citation. MingFW (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They don't. For example, The Guardian article does not say Nolan is overrated, it's an opinion piece on The Dark Knight. ScoopWhoop is not a reliable source. From your ScreenRrant article (clickbait top 5 list): "It's fair to say that Christopher Nolan has been one of the most influential directors of the new millennium. From his indie cult-hit Memento in 2000, to his mid-2000s re-imagining of Batman with the Dark Knight trilogy, to original sci-fi works like Inception and his latest release, Interstellar, Nolan's films have been almost as much of a cultural talking point as the enigmatic director himself." They also just published this: https://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-movies-mind-process/ - "Inside The Brilliant Mind Of Christopher Nolan". I'm not wasting any more time arguing with someone throwing out links (poor sources) about someone being "overrated" (not encyclopedic). Wast of time. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Scoop Whoop is a reliable source, at least more reliable than some of the sources you used. Also "influential" is not synonymous with "great". Stalin is one of the most influential leaders in the last century, but is he one of the greatest? And yes, let's stop this topic. MingFW (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you even skim through these articles that you cite? (not that descriptions such as "overrated" should be used anyway) I just pointed out what one of these actually stated, but you want to argue about that as well? Jikes. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is that this article should not say in the lead that Christopher Nolan is among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time.

Cunard (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article say in the lead that Christopher Nolan is among the most acclaimed and influential filmmakers of his time? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. (Summoned by bot) Sheer puffery. That kind of statement is never said in Wikipedia's voice. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No seems to be a bit of WP:OR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - Especially not in the lead. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - That phrase is more appropriate at the "Recognition" section, where it's already well placed. And the lead already gives that notion just with facts, by the numerous prizes and nominations, without needing to rely on a 3rd party interpretation. Frlara (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing the volume of sourcing using this wording before making a call as to this. While I appreciate that the RfC prompt is neutral, concise and direct (it's not always the case with regard to any of those three factors). it's helpful to provide some context of the foregoing debate and relevant sources in a case like this, rather than expecting respondents to go digging through the talk page and reversion history or otherwise fire from the hip with their first impressions. With respect to the editors who have already responded above, sometimes we very much do use even glowing superlatives in our in-wikivoice descriptions if they are such an archtetypical description of the subject so as to be WP:DUE even as a matter of saying them without in-line attribution (cites should still be provided in this case, of course) and we do sometimes include such descriptions in the lead, where it is reflective of the sources employed in the main body of the article.

With regard to Nolan, I can very easily believe that such a WP:WEIGHT burden, high as it would be, could be met here such that describing him as "one of the most acclaimed and influential directors of all time" would be a perfectly neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic description. However, I'd need a clearer picture of the corpus of sources that exist for this assertion, and I don't have time at the moment to comb the article and talk history to find them, so I can't !vote one way or another on the matter until either I do find the time, or someone here already involved in the dispute arranges them--hopefully in a reasonably neutral fashion. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• No Summoned by a bot. Per WP:PEACOCK I don't think it's needed. Comatmebro (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• No It's excessively puffy, and in the discussion above I am seeing quite a bit of SYNTH being used to try to make the sources justify the sentence. By all means, describe him as 'an influential director', but to phrase it as 'one of the most... ...of all time' doesn't appear to be supportable, and it's plain unnecessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not read the whole article. However, if enough notable positive critics and receptions are explicitly present in the main body, I don't see a problem including it per WP:WEIGHT with reliable sources. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

filmography article

Started working on a separate filmography article. Any opinions or objections?

A reason for moving this to a separate article is the size of his biography. Multiple schemes is messy and cumbersome for this long article, and I think a list of his directorial features is more than enough. Especially since we have the "Reception" section as well. This would be a complete filmography (including appearances in documentaries) with proper sourcing. I would also add that a further breaking up of his filmography makes it easier to grasp and better presented for the "every-man", not knowing the difference between producer and executive producer - information that can be added there.

What you guys think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Nolan_filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.88 (talk • contribs)

@Sammyjankis88: Only move/delete the content once the draft actually exists as an article, not before, else you've just deleted all this content with no guarantee that it will exist. Also see the comment on the draft page as to why it was previously declined. -- Alex^TW 11:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It had been moved to article. Added the link. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the original formatting of this article wasn't too long, I feel it's redundant to split his article up. Plus, isn't it odd to have an article on a filmmaker not actually mention his filmmaking? Little Jimmy (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is first and foremost his biography, so when the article is either too long or bogged down in details about his filmmaking, important or not (this was 180k, Wikipedia recommends splitting over 140k), it is more organized for the average reader if the text is divided into seperate (and interlinked) articles. This has been done for readability and structure. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Is it really correct to refer to Christopher Nolan as just an English director? He holds dual citizenship in both the UK and US, and spent parts of his childhood living in both countries. BarqSimpson 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I thinks its incorrect to just refer him as English. His mother is American and he grew up mostly in Chicago. He lives in Los Angeles. How can you not? Not being offense or anything but I think that should really be changed, he's English-American. Jordancelticsfan 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He is without a doubt British-American by any definition and this article should not just say British.

67.249.240.96 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess but the man was educated at Haileybury College; it doesn't get any more English than that. I just hope people get that far down the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.107.40 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

English/British-American, is far more appropriate if he actually has dual citizenship. I will go ahead and change this. ArdClose (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a citation here saying that he has American citizenship? If there is then maybe he can be referred to as British-American/American-British, and it should be placed in the intro after this claim, but without he should explicitly be referred to as English or British. Zarcadia (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC) The source for his nationality is a little bit tenious. I have one here stating that he is just British. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12363563 Neither should really be used unless they have a direct quote. Sue De Nimes (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The BBC described him as a 'British' director http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18883585 08:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erzan (talk • contribs)

I have updated the citations, all legitimate citations describe him as 'British', Warner Brothers arranged his US citizenship to enable him to continue his work in Hollywood; however, he considers himself British. In closing, to ask editors to prove a negative in order to correct a fundamental mistake is ludicrous and against best wiki practice. We MUST stop wikipedia from trying to make all things American thereby giving wikipedia detractors ammunition; to date there were hundreds of wiki articles that have had to be edited because American editors tried to suggest that all the best inventions and most talented people come from the USA. Twobells (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In the last couple of years it has been: "is an English film director, screenwriter, and producer who holds both British and American citizenship." As there's a distinction between nationality and citizenship, it shouldn't be necessary, but this has been stable and the argument for the extra sentence is to end the endless back and forth between "English" - English-American", "British-American" and so forth. In that way there should be no confusion. For a similar case, see: Alfred Hitchcock. (also a dual citizen). Sammyjankis88 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed to English-American. Not only was he born a dual citizen (American mother from Ohio, English father from London), he has lived in LA since 97 and spent some of his childhood in Evanston, Illinois. He is the definition of an English-American. The statment above saying "Warner Brothers arranged his US citizenship to enable him to continue his work in Hollywood" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.176.244.91 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A follow-up: According to an interview with Jonathan Nolan they have Irish blood in their family, so British-American seems good. The surname "Nolan" is also of Irish origin, from "Ó Nualláin". Sammyjankis88 (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sammyjankis88: Irish is not British, but in any case, English is not a nationality,so if you're talking about citizenship, it should be British. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That is true. :) Sammyjankis88 (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Quay (film) into Christopher Nolan

There's barely anything in this article Quay (film), it doesn't seem to be very notable or pass WP:NFF. It can easily be merged into Nolan's biography at least until it has more coverage. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adressing, I've added more content to the article.185.176.244.95 (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, I removed the stub tag, as it is expanded enough. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Crtisicms - film inaudible and mumbles

Shouldn't there be a criticism section here where he got pretty well hammered for making an unintelligible film, and then he said he did it on purpose? That was a big deal. He took a LOT of heat for making a crazy-expensive Interstellar full of mumbles and inaudible scenes, and blamed everyone and then said he meant to do it that way. I'd like to include a criticism section where some of the professional movie reviewers' statements could be entered into the article, which to me reads just like a promo-bio. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is already covered in his aesthetics section, feel free to add more there. Consider due and undue weight. You can also find critical quotes about the soundmixing in the respective articles of both Interstellar (Oscar nominated for Best Achievement in Sound Mixing..) and Tenet. 51.175.240.186 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Middle name removal?!

Why did y'all remove his middle name? And the only citation for it is a court document? What are y'all doing?! 😅 Raania tahseen2000 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this was removed two months ago. Do you have a source that says his middle name is Edward? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

About this reversion

I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me because no reason has been given. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)