Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Drain Bamage, Feb 2, 2020.
Francis Ford Coppolla
Brian De Palma
The Wachowski Brothers
I was trying to think of anything that I enjoyed from any of this group pf filmmakers recently & the only thing that I came up with is Friedkin's KILLER JOE from 2011 or 2012. As unpleasant as it is, I think Friedkin did a good job with it & there are some great performances in it. In fact, while I'm thinking of it I believe I'll go order the unrated director's cut on Blu-ray.
You goddamn transphobe. It's the Wachowski SISTERS!!!!
Burton. Definitely Burton.
Bug and Killer Joe were good films, not prime Friedkin, but for late entries they are good enough for his name to be taken off the list.
Coppola definitely stands out as someone who became far too bland and commercial in the late 80's and 90's, Dracula did I spose have ambition even if it was a bit uneven but something like Jack? seems hard to believe this was the same man who made The Godfather, Apoc Now, Rumble Fish, etc.
I could see this coming more though, Burton was I think mostly an entertainer right from the start so losing his edge over time wasn't that unexpected.
Ridley Scott is one of the most lamentable ones, not so much that he's become a "bad" director, compared to the above two his latter work is mostly pretty good but Hollywood beat down the man who made The Duelists, Alien and Blade Runner pretty quickly, you still had some spark for Legend but since then I think he's been mostly a very skilled gun for hire.
Had his career started say 5 years earlier I suspect we might have had a couple more classics out of him.
Tim Burton, even if Dumbo has been surprising good
Ridley Scott peaked with The Gladiator, then downward slope
I don't even remember what Spielberg did recently
Ridley Scot still did good with The Martian. That wasn't that long ago.
He's had plenty of "good" films over the past 35 years, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Black Rain, Matchstick Men, etc and honestly even stuff like the Alien prequels were at least well made even if the scripts were crappy. The difference is early Ridley Scott was more than just a competent director for hire he was an auteur on the level of someone like Kubrick and Hollywood crushed that out of him.
I would say George Lucas but he might not have had much touch to start.
Spielberg lost his touch with the blockbusters. He should just permanently pivot to directing dramas.
I'd say Neil Blomkamp, but he is more of a one hit wonder. He might never have actually had "it".
The Farrely Brothers pretty much lost their funny bones. Just fucking trash after trash, after their initial big run.
Duncan Jones is kind of in the same boat as Blomkamp. Came out swinging with "Moon" and "Source Code", and then fell off a cliff.
Nah I dont agree with that. Scott doesnt even write his scripts how can he be an auteur like Kubrick?
I wouldn't say being a writer is essential to being an auteur(Kubrick was generally adapting existing works with co writters) but the earlier version of Scott clearly had a big influence on the writing in his films, Fancher and Peoples were basically working to order when he picked up the script for Blade Runner.
I think when you see the two of them talk about the film they realise that whilst they obviously had a lot of creative input it was basically Scott's film, I would argue it turned into a kind of existential drama as a reaction to his brothers death.
i know he went to Prison, but McTiernan?
Die Hard, Predator, Hunt for Red October, Die Hard w/ a Vengenace, 13th Warrior
and then ended his career w/ Rollerball and Basic?
Kubrick is a true auteur who wrote or co-wrote every feature film he was involved in (except for Spartacus) and was deeply involved in all aspects of the productions, from the cinematography to the music to the editing.
Ridley Scott doesn't have a single writing credit. And Ridley Scott has no signature visual style. He relies on his DP and his huge camera setups (6-12 cameras running simultaneously) to get the coverage needed.
Furthermore, why does every Ridley Scott movie have multiple versions? Nearly every time a Ridley Scott movie comes out, there is an extended version that comes out later, and maybe a 3rd and 4th cut after that. That's not how auteurs work. That's how someone who can't make up their mind works and is trying to please everybody.
Who goes back and re-edits their movie because people complain? Kubrick would tell the complainers to fuck off. Ridley is like "oh well let me re edit that for you!" - a true commercial directors mentality.
It's a stretch to equate these two. Scott has always been a very commercially minded director. He made Prometheus and Alien Covenant specifically to try and appease fans wanting more backstory on Alien. Kubrick wouldn't fuck with these people.
Burton and Spielberg. HEY STEVEN! NO ONE WANTS TO WATCH A MOVIE ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND YOU DON'T EVEN SHOW HIM GETTING SHOT!
Lincoln earned $182,207,973 in North America from 2,293 theaters and $93,085,477 overseas for a total of $275,293,450, well exceeding its $65 million budget.
Lincoln received worldwide critical acclaim. The cast was notably lauded, especially Day-Lewis, Field, and Jones. The film currently holds an 89% approval rating on the review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 274 reviews with an average rating of 7.98/10, with the critical consensus "Daniel Day-Lewis characteristically delivers in this witty, dignified portrait that immerses the audience in its world and entertains even as it informs." On Metacritic, which assigns a rating out of 100 based on reviews from critics, the film has a score of 86 (out of 100) based on 44 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim", thus making it Spielberg's highest rated film on the site since Saving Private Ryan.
If Kubrick was still alive today - his movies wouldn’t get financed.
scorsese said Irishman was rejected by studios for years because they knew it wouldn’t be profitable.
Lol at not getting his sarcasm.
Separate names with a comma.