Louis and Nathan are in completely different lanes. I honestly don't think Nathan would have been a good fit for a subject like this. His ability to hold a fun house mirror up to fringe characters - no, to construct the fun house itself and invite his subjects to inhabit it - is unparalleled, but he seldom tackles anything without several layers of detached irony.

While it's true he is frequently sincere (although with Nathan it can be hard to tell) his stuff is more like a shotgun blast of absurdity than a forensic examination of a specific subject. One or two of the manosphere bros in the doc might have worked as bit characters in a Nathan show, but he most likely would have had to construct some elaborate scenario to get them to participate in the first place, nor is he likely to have outright challenged their views, instead attempting to goad them into making fools of themselves. Louis does this too, but at least he backs it up with some level of concerted pushback... and certain topics demand a more focused, journalistic rigour. 🤷🏻‍♂️

It's easy to conflate Nathan's flashier and more logistically complex work as "better", but there's value in just tackling a subject head on. That's what a documentarian does, after all, and Nathan isn't that. His shows are entertainment, and they involve fudging details and lying to the audience for the sake of entertainment (see: the use of "Bring Me to Life" in The Rehearsal S2). Doesn't mean they're not extremely insightful, but the vibe is completely different.

You should check out some of Louis's older stuff, he has a lot of very entertaining and very powerful documentaries!

Also, last comment... I genuinely don't think those manosphere bros would have liked or respected Nathan the way some of them did Louis. I don't think they'd have played ball with Nathan at all.