Apache said:
The tweet literally says "he's arguably the most successful filmmaker of all time" which is comparing him to other DIRECTORS not ACTORS.
However success is measured (monetarily, cultural impact, memorable movies) it ain't true. And to say his name on a film=1 billion dollars isn't true either.
Context.
His entire point stems from / is if framed around his initial
box office reporting, which is immediately followed by his actor point.
In other words...
Quote:
THE ODYSSEY has surpassed JURASSIC WORLD to become Universal Pictures' biggest film of all time. There's an argument to be had that Christopher Nolan is a bigger name than any actor currently working. [To that end] He's arguably the most successful filmmaker of all time. [in the sense that he's currently bigger than any working actor.]
Spielberg, Scorsese, Cameron, etc, came up in a time when MOVIE STARS were the biggest draw. Yes, audiences obviously showed up for Steven Spielberg movies in and of themselves. But his draw/name/fame alone didn't eclipse that of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Eddie Murphy, Julia Roberts, etc in terms of bringing general audiences to theaters. It goes doubly for the era prior, when names like Marylin Monroe, John Wayne, Cary Grant, Paul Newman, Elizabeth Taylor, Audrey Hepburn, etc FAR outweighed the names of the directors of the day.
Dan is simply making the point that, because this is the first time in history when a director's name puts more butts in seats than any given movie star, Christopher Nolan is
arguably the most successful filmmaker of all time
relatively speaking. That's it.
