well, I assure you that I a) have three children with vigorous imaginations who I love bonding with, b) have a father with home I joke and share stories with often, and c) have a vigorous imagination, to which most everyone here will testify to. I'm smart enough and qualified to understand the movie. It just sucked.
At least, that's how I feel about movies where the point boils down to "lying about your past and never admitting the truth is better than trying to overcome the issues between you and your son," and the director does a painfully bad, and obvious, job of trying to manipulate you into "feeling good" so you can ignore the major thematic, plot, and character problems.
It was of the same sub-genre as Second Hand Lions, which was more cohesive, better directed, and more sensical. It also had more engaging stories and had a more satisfying way of looking at story-telling as a tool for relationships.
As for "Nightmare," I'm not sure why you think any of that is a defense for it. If it wasn't "for me" <insert P-A reference> then why should you, burton, or anyone be bothered by the fact that it didn't impress me? And if he did it in a day, then all I can say is that he should have spent several more so it could have been a good movie.
Beetlejuice, on the other hand, I will admit was startling and odd (and Ryder did a much better job than Keeton in that one), but only mildly amusing. I actually listen to Day-O a lot, and had forgotten it was in the flick. I'm more inclined to think of the Muppet Show episode guest starring Harry Belafonte when that comes up (it was, after all, funnier and better directed).
You are constantly condescending about Nolan (calling him an upstart, for example) but what specifically do you have against any of his films? If you have no reasonable criticisms, then how can you argue that it's "ignorant" to say he's a superior director? Note that establishing that Burton has made more films does not make him better. I would say a fair measure is to say that the general quality, taking in all the director's works, is a fair way to judge his quality. Nolan has a solid record, with little to no failure. Burton has an up and down record.
edit: I was told this last paragraph was unclear, I shall attempt to redraft it.
If we say that a few good movies excuses a director from his failures, then George Lucas is the greatest director ever, because he made the first Star Wars flick (not to mention American Graffiti). ANd no one in their right mind would argue he was that good, given the filmmaking he did with epI and EpII. If you HAVE no failures, and a track record, then you are hardly an "upstart" you are a good director. And if you're a good director, then it is hardly poor thinking to argue that he's superior to another good director.
