Steven Spielberg vs. James Cameron

[kellogs4toniee]

Which director do you think has impacted the way of movie-making more?

Which director do you think has made better movies?

I've always wondered. Personally I think Spielberg's movies are overall better, but people get more excited over a Cameron opening even though they are far in between.

That's just my opinion, wanted to know what you other blu-ray forum members thought

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by kellogs4toniee

Which director do you think has impacted the way of movie-making more?

Which director do you think has made better movies?

And which one annoys us endlessly about his kids, and which one has a misogynist preoccupation with gun-toting babes and catgirls?

[BluPat]

They have both made some amazing films. But, overall, if I just HAD to choose one, I would choose Steven Spielberg. I'm partial I guess for growing up on his movies and tv shows (Amazing Stories).

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by BluPat

They have both made some amazing films. But, overall, if I just HAD to choose one, I would choose Steven Spielberg. I'm partial I guess for growing up on his movies and tv shows (Amazing Stories).

Same here. Cameron has only directed a handful of films and the only ones I want to own on Blu properly from his filmography are from THE TERMINATOR to TRUE LIES. ALIENS is already off that list. Cameron really needs to make another TRUE LIES or THE ABYSS. Why not his GUNM/Battle Angel Alita film?
But with Steven Spielberg, I want to own ALL of his films on Blu-ray. Including the very select few which I've been procrastinating too damn much to get around to watching. I blind bought 1941 on DVD and it remains of my most watched DVDs with several others. It was the score and sheer fun of it. Pity I wasn't old enough when it was released to have seen it in theaters. I was literally a baby the year of its release! Goes for many other titles released in 1979.
Now if it was a Spielberg versus Ridley Scott, hell, I'd choose both but Rid has only made one film which I've seen that I didn't care for. Was Proof of Life which I didn't get into. One of my all-time favourites from Rid is of course BLADE RUNNER along with ALIEN.
Well shit, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Ridley Scott (-1), Steven Spielberg, Fincher (possibly not The Social Network but half-assed), John Woo, Besson, Guy Ritchie (-1), Terry Gilliam, John Carpenter, Peter Jackson and several other director's I'm vying to own all their Directorial filmography on Blu-ray.

[octagon]

Neither has really impacted filmmaking (at least not yet, anyway). They can both be very good at what they do but what they do doesn't tend to be all that original. In fact, it's pretty ordinary.

Sure, Jaws is credited with creating the summer blockbuster but that had nothing to do with how films are made and everything to do with how they are marketed.

Should 3D turn out to have a lasting impact on how films are made then Cameron would probably be in line for a good deal of the credit (or blame, depending on who you ask) but at this point it's way too early to tell.

As for whose movies are better, Spielberg by a pretty decent margin.

Cameron has made some pretty good movies but most of them are pretty similar to one another and their similarities are only compounded by their relatively small numbers. While Spielberg's films may not be all that original they do tend to be very well made, have a decent amount of depth (when he decides to go that way) and he has a much wider range.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Spielberg.

[Bluyoda]

While not one of my favorite directors, I prefer him to J.Cameron any day.

E.T. is the best children's film ever made.

J.Cameron is a pretentious a$$. Aliens was his best film, and that wasn't an original. He is a terrible, terrible writer.

Just watched Terminator 2 again the other day, and it hardly deserves 3,5/5 IMO.
Sarah: He is naked without me!

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by kellogs4toniee

Which director do you think has impacted the way of movie-making more?

Cameron, largely from the technical/business side of making movies though. It was his Titanic which ushered in this modern era of special-effects heavy, multiple-platform in-your-face marketing, mega tentpoles that the major studios have been trying to replicate ever since. Yes Jurassic Park came out a few years before and it too made a lot of money. But it was a genre film, never a serious awards contender. Titanic was a blockbuster epic with awards appeal AND the first film since Star Wars (Return of the Jedi) that was in that same order of moneymaking. Every major studio was looking for the next Titanic, swinging and missing until...

...Avatar. And like it or not, he's the spearhead behind the 3D craze, which has the studios now looking for the next 'Avatar'.

Which director do you think has made better movies?

Speaking for me it's a wash. I'm not particularly crazy about either's work as you can see from my collection, though their both masters and have made movies that I enjoy. I just enjoy several other filmmakers much more. They're both pretty similar directors, though Spielberg has more output and a little more breadth (in Cameron's defense though, his last two films are the two highest grossing [undajusted for inflation] films of all time...there's no need to rush there].

[MorgolKing]

Spielberg. Not even close.

[Al_The_Strange]

I believe both have impacted filmmaking in their own ways. Spielburg (and Lucas) helped usher in the era of the modern blockbuster with the earlier films. Cameron catalyzed some of the biggest high-tech advances in the last twenty years (CGI effects, 3-D, and now this 60 fps thing). Cameron's contributions are more on the technical side, while Spielberg focuses on the storytelling and composition.

I'll acknowledge that Spielberg has made better quality films; most of them show exceptional photography, acting, writing, high production value, lots of heart and insight, etc. But I favor Cameron's films more; they've all been highly entertaining to me, with what I believe is the perfect balance between entertainment and storytelling. Some of Spielberg's work can be a little too artsy or melodramatic for me, but Cameron hasn't dissapointed me yet.

Between the two, Cameron remains my top favorite. I enjoy all of the films in his filmography. Spielberg's good, but I probably only like half of his work.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I believe both have impacted filmmaking in their own ways...Cameron's contributions are more on the technical side, while Spielberg focuses on the storytelling and composition.

I'll hold to Cameron having a little more impact on moviemaking right now because of his technical approach, but this is actually a great way to slice it and they've both had tremendous success and influence.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I'll acknowledge that Spielberg has made better quality films; most of them show exceptional photography, acting, writing, high production value, lots of heart and insight, etc. But I favor Cameron's films more; they've all been highly entertaining to me, with what I believe is the perfect balance between entertainment and storytelling. Some of Spielberg's work can be a little too artsy or melodramatic for me, but Cameron hasn't dissapointed me yet.

I wasn't aware that Spielberg made artsy films.

Care to mention a few?

I like A.I., Minority Report and the like. I wouldn't consider those artsy though.

[haphilli]

Spielberg takes it. His resume is much more impressive than Camerons. The only movie I liked by Cameron is the original Terminator, everything else he has done feels too bloated and overdone. In my opinion Cameron is in the same league as Michael Bay, not saying thats a bad thing.

[HockeySlasher]

Originally Posted by haphilli

Spielberg takes it. His resume is much more impressive than Camerons. The only movie I liked by Cameron is the original Terminator, everything else he has done feels too bloated and overdone. In my opinion Cameron is in the same league as Michael Bay, not saying thats a bad thing.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Cameron is the sizzle while Spielberg is the steak.

Spielberg's movies, for the most part, tell a great story. I think he is one of the better storytellers of this generation. He also can pretty much do it all. From Jurassic Park to Schindler's List to ET. It is hard to pigeon hole Spielberg.

Cameron is like Lucas circa 1980. (Big on tech, nothing on story)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

I wasn't aware that Spielberg made artsy films.

Care to mention a few?

I like A.I., Minority Report and the like. I wouldn't consider those artsy though.

I was thinking about films like "Munich" and "Schindler's List." "AI" might be a little artsy, especially since it was originally Kubrick's idea. I suppose "artsy" is not the right word for them, but these films seem to focus much less on action/entertainment and more on drama, emotions, ideas, etc.

[KrugStillo]

Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
E.T.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Jurassic Park
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
The Color Purple
etc.

I think that list speaks for itself against:

The Terminator
True Lies
Titanic
Avatar
Aliens

Spielberg's style has been imitated to no end, how many times have you seen the Jaws zoom out push in shot used in popular culture and when it's used you know it. There is a definite style to a Spielberg film where if I didn't know them I wouldn't be able to tell that True Lies and The Terminator were made by the same filmmaker. Spielberg is an artist, allbeit a commercial one an artist all the same. Cameron has a hard on for tech and that's about it. I love Titanic but also find it ridiculous that while the ship is sinking the film turns into a shoot em up action film between Leonardo and Zane, come one that didn't need to be there. Spielberg takes his subject matter seriously. Cameron is an action sci-fi guy that has made some good films but there really is no comparison with his body of work. Yeah he spearheaded the new 3D but 3D is hardly new, just improved. I appreciate both but Spielberg is planted firmly in our film culture with the greats like Scorcese, Coppola and DePalma while Cameron just makes cool action films. No comparison.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by octagon

Neither has really impacted filmmaking (at least not yet, anyway). They can both be very good at what they do but what they do doesn't tend to be all that original. In fact, it's pretty ordinary.

Sure, Jaws is credited with creating the summer blockbuster but that had nothing to do with how films are made and everything to do with how they are marketed.

Should 3D turn out to have a lasting impact on how films are made then Cameron would probably be in line for a good deal of the credit (or blame, depending on who you ask) but at this point it's way too early to tell.

As for whose movies are better, Spielberg by a pretty decent margin.

Cameron has made some pretty good movies but most of them are pretty similar to one another and their similarities are only compounded by their relatively small numbers. While Spielberg's films may not be all that original they do tend to be very well made, have a decent amount of depth (when he decides to go that way) and he has a much wider range.

I agree somewhat but one thing Spielberg was always great at was letting us get to know the characters & families that are central to his films. With Jaws, you met and felt like you knew the Brodys. With Close Encounters, you felt like you knew Roy & his gang. We always felt connected to Indiana Jones. Same with E.T. Too many action movies dont bother to do this so all that action and shaky-cam has NO context from which we can base any emotion on. Its just explosions and chases. Boring.

Cameron also does this a little but not as good as Spielberg does it. I think thats why Spielbergs films are so popular - he lets us into the lives of the people involved in the films. Its not epic character development or anything like that, its just a good way to get the audience interested in whats going on. And, very often, the people portrayed in his films are "just like us" for the most part so there is a further connection.

As for whos better? Each have some great films and each have some I dont like. Thats true for any director though. I dont feel either one really "pioneered" any filming concepts though. David Lean is arguably the first to do a real massive epic with a huge budget(Lawrence of Arabia). Kubrick made the first serious Sci-Fi film(2001) without cheesey effects and dorky sets.

Too hard to say. They both make stuff I like so thats all that matters to me.

[menaceuk]

Spielberg with Ease IMO.

Cameron has only done a handful of movies I consider worth watching. Spielberg has done dozens.

[punkguy03]

Spielberg, they are both stuck up of course, but I would pick him. I tried listening to the commentary on transformers and dang james cameron is arrogant, I usually love commentary too.

[Orange Green Tea]

Originally Posted by kellogs4toniee

Which director do you think has impacted the way of movie-making more?

Which director do you think has made better movies?

I've always wondered. Personally I think Spielberg's movies are overall better, but people get more excited over a Cameron opening even though they are far in between.

That's just my opinion, wanted to know what you other blu-ray forum members thought

One word, JAWS.