I just had a huge debate on Nolan's potential fan base and box office power and people were like, nah, Cameron and Tarantino can also deliver consistent box office.
Okay, but Home Alone is a little different from the major theme of the movies on that list of action driven movie, hero vs villain battles.
This sounds kinky tbh.
You're right in a sense.
I guess you beat me to this discussion, I'm in full agreement with you there.
In terms of pull within the studio, a lot of directors have it and that's difficult to gauge since we don't know their payout, exact budgets, script or idea approvals/rejections etc.
Nolan has tried his hands at a lot of different genres so you will be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't like atleast like one of his movie.
I bet Spielberg can't get a 400M budget approved from a studio without putting some of his IPs on the line. Of course he could finance it himself if he wanted to but thats not the question here.
Last I read he was developing a super secret project that he was mulling for years.
Yeah, Spielberg can stretch the money further than most. He's a wizard that way.
That'd be giving up a lot of IOUs there. Cameron doesn't even need to do that with his track record.
You don't make sequel to a bomb.
Which one is more sad
Why must you rub salt in my wounds
I think either one is indicative of the other
And thus Slayven's Law was born.
Why does he want to do RPO, anyways? I'm indifferent to the source material since I didn't read the book. But I'm curious.
Actually Close Encounters and 1941 both had budget concerns and he made Raiders in a much more controlled way to show he could stick to budget.