How might we establish the GOAT director? What qualities and accomplishments should we consider?

[Guestx]

Clearly Michael Bay is your man then. Keeps it simple so that any retard can follow what's going on.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

Here's an example: The Shining closes out on a photo with Jack dated 1921.

The movie puts the photo on the screen but gives no clear indication on what it actually means. Fans of the film have been debating the photo for decades, but have arrived at no decisive answer. I'm pretty sure I even remember people who were involved with the film saying they don't know what the photo means.

But there it is, Jack's in a photo from 1921, even though there's no logical way that he could be.

Not only can no retard follow that, but no Mensa member can figure that one out either.

 

[Guestx]

I don't think you need to come up with more so much as define the criteria for each criterion. So people know what you're looking for and how best to accommodate responses.

Well I feel like most of those are pretty self-explanatory, but as I said in the OP, I am just as interested in what YOU think the criteria should be.

 

[minute bull]

Well I feel like most of those are pretty self-explanatory....

Annnnnnnnd good luck with the thread.

 

[Guestx]

80s-90s Oliver Stone. He’s made garbage post 2000 but his earlier stuff is great.

I thought Snowden was pretty good. If you haven't seen that one you should check it out.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I would agree that making classics helps. Though I feel like Spielberg's range is exactly one reason why he's an awesome as he is.

Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Indiana Jones
E.T.
Jurassic Park
Schindler's List
Munich
Catch Me If You Can
Lincoln

Those are all very different films that span a pretty wide range in terms of genre.

Not sure those are such a wide range. I see horror, sci-fi, adventure, sci-fi, adventure, historical, historical, historical, historical. And those last three are hardly classics. More like the honorable mention types.

As for Kubrick's lack of volume, I think that's to his credit. He certainly wasn't throwing shit against the wall hoping it'd stick. So p4p it's hard to argue against him, and I think he did have enough output to qualify. I think SS fucked up AI and it would have been a great movie had Kubrick finished it. These aren't all that hot either.

Empire of the Sun
Amistad
Always
War of the Worlds
Hook

And while I haven't seen these, I don't see the names pop up.

The Post
Bridge of Spies
The BFG
Warhourse
Adventures of Tintin

 

[Johnson]

Yeah, i like snowden as well. Even W. was a decent film. I just have a hard time believing he made savages. It’s so bad.

 

[Guestx]

Not sure those are such a wide range. I see horror, sci-fi, adventure, sci-fi, adventure, historical, historical, historical, historical. And those last three are hardly classics. More like the honorable mention types.

C'mon, "historical" is not really a genre. Lincoln and Catch Me If You Can are not very simillar to each other. One is a relatively stark, serious drama, the other is a family-friendly crowd pleaser.

Also, I'd take Catch Me If You Can or Munich over Spartacus or Dr. Strangelove any day of the week.

As for Kubrick's lack of volume, I think that's to his credit. He certainly wasn't throwing shit against the wall hoping it'd stick. So p4p it's hard to argue against him, and I think he did have enough output to qualify. I think SS fucked up AI and it would have been a great movie had Kubrick finished it. These aren't all that hot either.

Empire of the Sun
Amistad
Always
War of the Worlds
Hook

They haven't all been winners, though from that list I do like Hook. Haven't seen Empire or Amistad yet, but I've heard good things about both.

And while I haven't seen these, I don't see the names pop up.

The Post
Bridge of Spies
The BFG
Warhourse
Adventures of Tintin

Those are lesser Spielberg films, but I would recommend The Post, The BFG and, if you enjoy movies set during WWI, Warhorse.

Also worth noting that all of these films were made at a time when Kubrick wasn't making any movies at all.

 

[cmw43]

Well, as I mentioned in the OP, here are some qualities that I think should at least be considered:

• Quality of the director's best work (how good are his BEST films?)
• Reliability (how consistent has the quality been across the director's career?)
  
• Profitability
• Popularity
• Longevity
• Industry power

I could maybe come up with other criteria if I thought about it more but I think that's a good starting point.

What about being able to make great films in multiple genres, I think that should be a key factor.

If all you're doing is knocking it out the park with crime films everytime then I'm gonna give Spielberg more points for making classic films in many genres.

 

[Guestx]

What about being able to make great films in multiple genres, I think that should be a key factor.

If all you're doing is knocking it out the park with crime films everytime then I'm gonna give Spielberg more points for making classic films in many genres.

Yeah, I agree with that.

What do we want to call that factor? Range?

 

[CO68]

Kurosawa is GOAT. I'd go by the quality of their movies. My top 10 would probably be (not exactly sure of the order):

Kurosawa
Hitchcock
Kubrick
Scorsese
Chaplin
Bergman
Ford
Spielbergo
Huston

for the 10th I'm thinking Fellini, Lang, or Wilder

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

Tough lol

just have imo

Me its martin Scorsese as i like gangster films and was a master

Casino and goodfellas my fav films and Probably first i watched as a teenager

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

C'mon, "historical" is not really a genre. Lincoln and Catch Me If You Can are not very simillar to each other. One is a relatively stark, serious drama, the other is a family-friendly crowd pleaser.

Also, I'd take Catch Me If You Can or Munich over Spartacus or Dr. Strangelove any day of the week.



They haven't all been winners, though from that list I do like Hook. Haven't seen Empire or Amistad yet, but I've heard good things about both.



Those are lesser Spielberg films, but I would recommend The Post, The BFG and, if you enjoy movies set during WWI, Warhorse.

Also worth noting that all of these films were made at a time when Kubrick wasn't making any movies at all.

Would you prefer "dramatic reenactments"? lol. Yeah, I hear you. And CMIYC is more of a crime story so I'll give him that.

Some people like Hook and I figured I'd get pushback there.

Well the dude did die 20 years ago at a ripe old age.

Let me ask you, is there another candidate here or does it come down to these two?

 

[thetruth2709]

So what do you guys think? How exactly should we determine the GOAT director? What factors should we consider? And if you'd like to toss out a name, who do you think is the greatest director of all time and why?

I dont think anybody should speak in absolutes to begin with.... you are right if you are going to judge by profitability and weight in Hollywood nobody can touch Spielberg... and that would be fine, if YOU....YOU think thats what makes the greatest director, well you dont have to change your point of view because of me

Personally I believe movies are...or could be/should be....pieces of art... so as art VISION is WAY WAY more important than profitability in my view... if we go by vision I think Kubrick is simply in another field altogether than Spielberg.... I think Kubrick films have made a much stronger impact in humanity altogether than Spielberg films...but then again ... thats MY POINT OF VIEW... and Im not going to change it for you and you dont have to change it for me

So Movies are art, art is not to be judged, some connect to it, some dont...and thats fine.... humans dont have to think the same way....so sorry I dont agree with the premise of your question to begin with.... I think Spielberg is a great director, I like more Kubrick or Scorcese but Im not going to say who is the greatest...sorry I dont think anybody should establish such title to begin with

 

[Guestx]

Let me ask you, is there another candidate here or does it come down to these two?

I can think of several who should at least be part of the discussion. Just a few that come to mind:

James Cameron, because the dude knocks it out of the park every time, and because of the financial returns on his films. He is far less prolific than someone like Spielberg, but he helps to make up for that in other ways.

Hitchcock, because of the sheer volume of his catalogue, because of how many of his films are regarded as classics, and because of his influence on other filmmakers. The biggest problem for Hitch though is that his range is extremely narrow.

Martin Scorsese, because of a lot of the same reasons as Spielberg. He has more range that he's often given credit for, I think, though he does fall back a little too much on the crime genre.

I'm sure someone could come along and make a case for more of the classic directors, but that's best left to guys like @europe1 and @jeicex.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time, and its like the one movie that director ever made, so I go with Orson Welles.

 

[Guestx]

Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time, and its like the one movie that director ever made, so I go with Orson Welles.

Well actually. . .

People usually cite Citizen Kane because for the longest time it topped the Sight & Sound poll. But a few years ago it was toppled by Vertigo.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Well actually. . .

People usually cite Citizen Kane because for the longest time it topped the Sight & Sound poll. But a few years ago it was toppled by Vertigo.

So Hitchcock it is then.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I can think of several who should at least be part of the discussion. Just a few that come to mind:

James Cameron, because the dude knocks it out of the park every time, and because of the financial returns on his films. He is far less prolific than someone like Spielberg, but he helps to make up for that in other ways.

Hitchcock, because of the sheer volume of his catalogue, because of how many of his films are regarded as classics, and because of his influence on other filmmakers. The biggest problem for Hitch though is that his range is extremely narrow.

Martin Scorsese, because of a lot of the same reasons as Spielberg. He has more range that he's often given credit for, I think, though he does fall back a little too much on the crime genre.

I'm sure someone could come along and make a case for more of the classic directors, but that's best left to guys like @europe1 and @jeicex.

Those guys are all more one-trick ponies in terms of making a mark in various genres. I'd say Cameron is GOAT for sci-fi adventure. Scorsese is up there for crime drama, and Hitchcock horror. Will give credit to Martin for some variety, but not too many classics in various genres.

 

[Hidden_Hand]

I think this is impossible to answer because no one director can do all genres and do them amazing.

If you love gangster films it's Scorcese.
Horror you have Craven, James Wan etc.

But some directors just don't make bad films like Nolan and Tarantino

They all have their own styles aswell, like I personally love Snyders dark style while other hate it.

Spielberg is amazing though but gone to shit the past ten years.

For me personally, I can watch every Tarantino film and love it, the guy just knows how to make an amazing story and put it on camera.

But this question really has no answer.

 

[Zer]

Tarkovsky has always been my GOAT. I don't really factor box office and shit like that into it tbh. Just body of work

I guess my top 5 would be

1. Tarkovsky
2. Melville
3. Kurosawa
4. Wong Kar-Wai
5. Herzog