Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > 2+2 Communities > The Lounge: Discussion+Review

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-01-2007, 01:42 AM
midnightpulp midnightpulp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 228
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

Funny, most great directors are petulant, control freak tyrants.

I think Ebert once said that nice guy directors don't make great films. Of course he's generalizing, but a lot of the directors responsible for great films are indeed grade-A [censored] on set.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-01-2007, 01:46 AM
clownassassin clownassassin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 27
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

S.S. is IMO over rated. He'll find a way in every movie he makes to inject a "Spielberg" moment. It's the moment he makes a poor decision regarding the direction of the movie and it is cringe worthy.

Other than Jaws and the Indiana Jones movies, he is much better at directing movies that have a historical basis rather than stories of fiction. Schindler's List, SPR, Amistad are good movies. War of the Worlds is horrible.

Finally, his best work are those with a historic basis, in which he is a producer and not a director. Ex. Band of Brothers, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Flags of our Fathers.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-01-2007, 01:50 AM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Your own, personal, Antichrist
Posts: 3,323
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

Artistically speaking no, but as a combination of artist and businessman he ranks right up there. However, in terms of bringing about the modern Blockbuster, he has to share (the blame?) with George Lucas .
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-01-2007, 02:08 AM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Your own, personal, Antichrist
Posts: 3,323
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that he's under rated at all. He's rated right where he should be, which is in the top 5% of directors(as certain things can be very arbitrary after directors like Ford, Hitchcock, Lang, and Bu˝uel) of all time. He's prolific and sometimes caters to the studios a bit too much, but that is usually so that he can do a film that he truly wants to do(like him doing teh two jurassic parks so that he could do schinlders list).

He has always been a general model of consistency, but I don't think that he's hit some of the highs that other influential directors have, inversely though, he hasn't missed as badly as godard has on a few films. At TSPDT he is given an 8+ for a director rating, and I've seen him as high as a 9, that speaks for his respect as there are only 4 or 5 directors that have recieved a ten, and some extremely influential directors taht are at an 8 ( Here is the rating guide for a reference point). Now, I'm not saying that TheyShootPictures is the be all end all, but it's one of the few film sites that I go to that I respect as they bring in as much outside data to make their decisions on ranking so that not everything is based on their own two opinions. I'd really challenge people who watch a lot of film to disagree with where his placement is IRT other directors who are ahead of him. I think he is rated very fairly as he is put in the same range as Altman and Kurosawa (and again, this is where he hasn't hit the heights of either two, but didn't reach the lows considering how prolific he is)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this assessment, although I contend the point about Spielberg making two Jurassic Parks in order to get the funding to do a Schindler's list. The budget for Schindler's list was a mere $25,000,000 which is chump change for him.

Spielberg's current net worth is estimated at 3 Billion dollars. He could easily make 10 huge budget movies out of his own pocket and still be filthy rich. That is why I think it is fair to question his artistic intent and skill. A number of the great directors are known to have died relatively broke from funding their movies (DW Griffith and Jacques Tati come to mind). I think Spielberg lacks this artistic drive, and has only himself to blame for criticism.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-01-2007, 02:33 AM
KDawg KDawg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the nectar of the gods
Posts: 5,305
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that he's under rated at all. He's rated right where he should be, which is in the top 5% of directors(as certain things can be very arbitrary after directors like Ford, Hitchcock, Lang, and Bu˝uel) of all time. He's prolific and sometimes caters to the studios a bit too much, but that is usually so that he can do a film that he truly wants to do(like him doing teh two jurassic parks so that he could do schinlders list).

He has always been a general model of consistency, but I don't think that he's hit some of the highs that other influential directors have, inversely though, he hasn't missed as badly as godard has on a few films. At TSPDT he is given an 8+ for a director rating, and I've seen him as high as a 9, that speaks for his respect as there are only 4 or 5 directors that have recieved a ten, and some extremely influential directors taht are at an 8 ( Here is the rating guide for a reference point). Now, I'm not saying that TheyShootPictures is the be all end all, but it's one of the few film sites that I go to that I respect as they bring in as much outside data to make their decisions on ranking so that not everything is based on their own two opinions. I'd really challenge people who watch a lot of film to disagree with where his placement is IRT other directors who are ahead of him. I think he is rated very fairly as he is put in the same range as Altman and Kurosawa (and again, this is where he hasn't hit the heights of either two, but didn't reach the lows considering how prolific he is)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this assessment, although I contend the point about Spielberg making two Jurassic Parks in order to get the funding to do a Schindler's list. The budget for Schindler's list was a mere $25,000,000 which is chump change for him.

Spielberg's current net worth is estimated at 3 Billion dollars. He could easily make 10 huge budget movies out of his own pocket and still be filthy rich. That is why I think it is fair to question his artistic intent and skill. A number of the great directors are known to have died relatively broke from funding their movies (DW Griffith and Jacques Tati come to mind). I think Spielberg lacks this artistic drive, and has only himself to blame for criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]


spielberg has been very much a product of the modern studio system, so it'd be hard for many directors these days to put up their own money for a film that they want to do. There is less autuerism in america IMO(outside of a few directors like Todd Haynes and the like) and I think it'd be almost insane to put your own money up for a film when you can give into the studio on one hand to make their film if they can give you the one you want. Soderbergh is a perfect case of this system where he makes some films so that he can do his remake of solaris.

Granted, what does it say for the modern film maker in his own right about art over populism. Even kevin smith says that clerks was his only true independant film. Spielberg was just able to reconcile what the impact of Jaws would be and his protege in George Lucas certainly did the same. It's why we see these types of cookie cutter clones of Lucas and Spielberg come out in Robert Zemekis and Edward Zwick who will make very solid films for the most part, but rarely ever make anything truly great.

I think that Spielberg really is the first of the "modern" hollywood director that caters to the studio a lot to make the big blockbusters and he's been able to make a great living off of it. Many imatators have come since, and maybe that's where the under rated tag may go. Let us not forget that Tarantino flat out steals from many french directors(and I love tarantino, but I acknolwedge his faults) and many other modern directors that go the semi indy route pillage from past films.

I think in some ways, Dom may have been reading a bit too much AICN lately or the random crap you'll see at IMDB where every retardt thinks that they know film because they decided to get baked and watch the matrix. It's kind of the problem with the internet in that people often refuse to admit that they may not know jack. Personally, I feel that I know a decent amount about film, but you'll rarely catch me trying to profess about something that I know little about because I watched Pulp Fiction and haven't watched anything before 1989 or haven't watched something a bit further afield. I may just be reaching on what I think that dom is trying to accomplish here, because well, the point may just be to garner some real debate, which is more then fine by me
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-01-2007, 02:54 AM
midnightpulp midnightpulp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 228
Default Re: Ranking Spielberg

"I think in some ways, Dom may have been reading a bit too much AICN lately or the random crap you'll see at IMDB where every retardt thinks that they know film because they decided to get baked and watch the matrix. It's kind of the problem with the internet in that people often refuse to admit that they may not know jack. Personally, I feel that I know a decent amount about film, but you'll rarely catch me trying to profess about something that I know little about because I watched Pulp Fiction and haven't watched anything before 1989 or haven't watched something a bit further afield. I may just be reaching on what I think that dom is trying to accomplish here, because well, the point may just be to garner some real debate, which is more then fine by me"

Lotta truth here.

They watch a few quirky Indie or Foreign films and suddenly think themselves to be the next Pauline Kael. I know, I used to be like that when I first discovered films outside the mainstream. Didn't seek out old movies or give a chance to movies that made money. My rule was that movie had to star Jason Lee, Steve Buscemi, Parker Posey, be directed by Kevin Smith, Tarantino, Linklater, DiCillo - those people were the Indie Gods of my younger years. The Internet was still in its infancy, so you were reduced to feeling all smart and sophisticated by yourself or with those few friends you weren't berating for going to see "The Nutty Professor."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.