|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 19, 2020 19:43:12 GMT
Oliver Stone (from 1986 to 1995).
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566 
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Aug 19, 2020 20:05:45 GMT
John Ford
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 21, 2020 23:23:02 GMT
Probably Spielberg. He is very influential. He aimed big and helped the film industry immensely with Jaws/Indiana Jones/ Jurassic Park.
On a side note, I am still baffled how he pulled off both Schindler's List AND Jurassic Park in the same year. That is insane to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 22, 2020 1:15:45 GMT
I get how naive it sounds to say Spielberg - after all, if the most popular filmmaker of all-time also happens to be the most talented, then what the hell is even the point in an arthouse*? Still, I can't pick a filmmaker who I find more capable of using the medium to explore and accomplish exactly what he means.
*I suppose similar arguments could be levied at Hitchcock and Chaplin in their own days, although the former has the edge of crafting a whole genre out of inherently darker subject matter (suspense thrillers vs. spectacular blockbusters) and the latter is a prized relic of a form that no longer exists (silent). In either case, both are at a further remove than Spielberg, who not only is still pumping out films but whose immediate impact on the industry is still being fully felt.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 22, 2020 1:29:18 GMT
I get how naive it sounds to say Spielberg - after all, if the most popular filmmaker of all-time also happens to be the most talented, then what the hell is even the point in an arthouse*? Still, I can't pick a filmmaker who I find more capable of using the medium to explore and accomplish exactly what he means. *I suppose similar arguments could be levied at Hitchcock and Chaplin in their own days, although the former has the edge of crafting a whole genre out of inherently darker subject matter (suspense thrillers vs. spectacular blockbusters) and the latter is a prized relic of a form that no longer exists (silent). In either case, both are at a further remove than Spielberg, who not only is still pumping out films but whose immediate impact on the industry is still being fully felt. I think Spielberg's influence, while substantial, is also overstated. Because it goes hand in hand with George Lucas, who really took the modern blockbuster and franchise paradigm to the next level with Star Wars. Now Lucas isn't really in greatest director discussions, because he quickly became more of a producer and idea man, but I feel like he was the bigger game changer. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 22, 2020 1:38:29 GMT
Spielberg is clearly a great, but Hitchcock is just better.
He made more great films, and his best films are stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 22, 2020 1:40:18 GMT
I get how naive it sounds to say Spielberg - after all, if the most popular filmmaker of all-time also happens to be the most talented, then what the hell is even the point in an arthouse*? Still, I can't pick a filmmaker who I find more capable of using the medium to explore and accomplish exactly what he means. *I suppose similar arguments could be levied at Hitchcock and Chaplin in their own days, although the former has the edge of crafting a whole genre out of inherently darker subject matter (suspense thrillers vs. spectacular blockbusters) and the latter is a prized relic of a form that no longer exists (silent). In either case, both are at a further remove than Spielberg, who not only is still pumping out films but whose immediate impact on the industry is still being fully felt. I think Spielberg's influence, while substantial, is also overstated. Because it goes hand in hand with George Lucas, who really took the modern blockbuster and franchise paradigm to the next level with Star Wars. Now Lucas isn't really in greatest director discussions, because he quickly became more of a producer and idea man, but I feel like he was the bigger game changer. I'd agree that Star Wars was the bigger game changer, but would still say Spielberg has greater overall influence as far as blockbusters go given not just Jaws but also the Indiana Jones franchise (which Lucas originated but Spielberg carried to the finish line), E.T., and particularly Jurassic Park. Saving Private Ryan ushered in an entirely new aesthetic to large-scale action and war that was still being cribbed as recently as Dunkirk and Game of Thrones. That's not to get into his reach as a producer as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Aug 22, 2020 11:46:33 GMT
Akira Kurosawa
If Sergio Leone had made more films he would probably have been the one.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Aug 22, 2020 12:13:05 GMT
Bergman
Ozu
Varda
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Aug 23, 2020 11:32:10 GMT
I get how naive it sounds to say Spielberg - after all, if the most popular filmmaker of all-time also happens to be the most talented, then what the hell is even the point in an arthouse*? Still, I can't pick a filmmaker who I find more capable of using the medium to explore and accomplish exactly what he means. *I suppose similar arguments could be levied at Hitchcock and Chaplin in their own days, although the former has the edge of crafting a whole genre out of inherently darker subject matter (suspense thrillers vs. spectacular blockbusters) and the latter is a prized relic of a form that no longer exists (silent). In either case, both are at a further remove than Spielberg, who not only is still pumping out films but whose immediate impact on the industry is still being fully felt. It doesn't sound naive at all. He's definitely up there. And most of his movies are amazingly well made in an artistic point of view and he uses his gifts to tell interesting stories as well. |
|
