Overrated directors

[Spicoli]

Just like some musicians, actors and actresses, I like some of their work and some not-so-much. Directors are the same.


How anyone else feels about their body of work....I couldn't care less.

Because someone else likes something I do not, even If I am outnumbered, I really don't care what you think.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

I'm not going to make a list of overrated directors, simply because it's hard for me to think of any overrated directors. In my mind, those directors who have earned praise throughout their career have earned it. Some may have earned it once and have simply fallen by the wayside, and others continue to earn it year after year. You may not feel that their movies are the "best films ever", but it's hard to not see their achievements and their contribution to film to help make it what it is today. I also think a lot of people throw around the term "overrated" not because of anything the director has done, but because of their fanyboy following. I'm not particularly a fan of Terrence Malik films, but it's hard for me to say the man is overrated simply because of the inspiration he has caused in a lot of today's modern filmmakers who churn out new classics.

I agree with your thoughts on the thread. This particular thread is not conducive environment for discussion. Each auteur should be discussed in their own thread, better yet each individual film in their respective thread.

Can we start an underrated thread instead? I'm tired of all the negativity on the site

[T101]

Originally Posted by Visco.

I think what he means is that you should use a better adjective than easy. It doesn't make any sense when you put it that way.

I'll give you/him that. I didn't mean easy as in 'riding a bicycle easy' - I mean on comparison with directing any "proper film" (I'm quoting myself here -- I HATE British gangster films)

I'm into film studies, by the way. I write screenplays (I'm working on a little something called 'Elsie's Way') and would love to direct (which I know I never will..) I just often use unsuitable words and phrases. My bad.

I'm not some internet troll though. I don't criticize things unless I really want to.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by T101

He never got "bad", he just stopped caring.

His movies are not bad, that are just not as good as his older stuff, I feel like he has forgotten what made him so popular to begin with. The "Wow" or "Awe" factor of Steven Spielberg is missing in a lot of his movies, Minority Report or War of the Worlds are good movies, but not great movies.

As for his other stuff since JPII, I find them all boring, dull and very overrated.

[T101]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

His movies are not bad, that are just not as good as his older stuff, I feel like he has forgotten what made him so popular to begin with. The "Wow" or "Awe" factor of Steven Spielberg is missing in a lot of his movies, Minority Report or War of the Worlds are good movies, but not great movies.

As for his other stuff since JPII, I find them all boring, dull and very overrated.

I know he never directed, and this may be off topic but how did you feel about Super 8?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by T101

I know he never directed, and this may be off topic but how did you feel about Super 8?

Super 8 was good, but he didn't direct it.

[blonde_devil]

i think there are a lot of decent directors who end up getting a good script and then they get promoted as this great director when in reality, any decent director would have done the same job. Take Clint Eastwood - like his movies but for a majority of them, he had never done anything revolutionary with them. They look good and are well done but any decent director could have done it. But then you get Unforgiven and suddenly he is this brilliant director but they then use this time after time to promote his other movies(from Clint Eastwood, director of Unforgiven). I think that happens a lot. look at Iron Man - well put together movie but did Faverau do anything in that movie that any other decent director wouldn't have done? no, he got a good script and was smart enough not to screw around with it. i think that happens a lot which is why some directors can have a hit movie but then put out bad movie after bad movie.

I think a most directors are overrated to some extent because people talk about one or two movies and tend to ignore the bad ones. You may have ET but then you also have 1942, you have Star Wars but then you also have Phantom Menace. there are very few who constantly put out fantastic movies.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Take Clint Eastwood - like his movies but for a majority of them, he had never done anything revolutionary with them. They look good and are well done but any decent director could have done it.

The thing about Clint Eastwood vs an ordinary director is that there are certain aspects about his directing (very story oriented, no SPX), production (his own company), production crew (same crew OVER and OVER again), and then when he stars in the movies he uses specific themes that are replayed OVER and OVER again.

People seem to forget, that before there was Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment or James Cameron's Lightstrom....there was Clint Eastwood's production company called The Malpaso Company......Eastwood is a legend not just for the acting part of his resume, but everything that goes on behind it to make it a Clint Eastwood movie.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by T101

I stand by my comment. It's not easy for me, it's not easy for you. For a director, however, a film like Snatch is just plain easy. Why else have there been so many cheap rip-offs?

The fact that none of the cheap rip-offs were any good proves it's not "easy."

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Oh man, forgot about Wes Anderson. After Moonrise Kingdom...what crap. A shame how he has fallen as Rushmore and Royal Tennenbaums are entertaining.

I feel the opposite. I HATE everything he did before Moonrise Kingdom, and REALLY enjoyed MK.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by T101

To the people slating nolan, it may be that you don't like his writing because his directing style is flawless.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

The thing about Clint Eastwood vs an ordinary director is that there are certain aspects about his directing (very story oriented, no SPX), production (his own company), production crew (same crew OVER and OVER again), and then when he stars in the movies he uses specific themes that are replayed OVER and OVER again.

People seem to forget, that before there was Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment or James Cameron's Lightstrom....there was Clint Eastwood's production company called The Malpaso Company......Eastwood is a legend not just for the acting part of his resume, but everything that goes on behind it to make it a Clint Eastwood movie.

fair enough. He is one of those few people in a position to do all that and that makes him a Hollywood legend but not a directing legend. not saying he isn't a good director because he is but for the most part, his directing style is very straight forward with few surprises. He follows in the footsteps of Leone but really doesn't reinvent the genre like Leone did. it is like how i heard John Mellencamp described one time - he is that solid shortstop who does a good job but never does anything to really stand out. for me, that is Eastwood as a director for a lot of his movies. I do think though that when he acts, produces and stars in a movie, he makes a really good movie because he is so invested in it at that point. Again, not bashing Eastwood because i think he has done a solid job as director, just don't see his as one of those "great" directors like an Orson Wells.

[T101]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Super 8 was good, but he didn't direct it.

I know. That's what I said
It's just that.. well.. everyone seems to hate it yet I loved it. I like to hear the opinions of others.

[T101]

Originally Posted by retablo

The fact that none of the cheap rip-offs were any good proves it's not "easy."

That's because the script was probably written by a child

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

fair enough. He is one of those few people in a position to do all that and that makes him a Hollywood legend but not a directing legend. not saying he isn't a good director because he is but for the most part, his directing style is very straight forward with few surprises. He follows in the footsteps of Leone but really doesn't reinvent the genre like Leone did. it is like how i heard John Mellencamp described one time - he is that solid shortstop who does a good job but never does anything to really stand out. for me, that is Eastwood as a director for a lot of his movies. I do think though that when he acts, produces and stars in a movie, he makes a really good movie because he is so invested in it at that point. Again, not bashing Eastwood because i think he has done a solid job as director, just don't see his as one of those "great" directors like an Orson Wells.

That's because Welles was all about Welles. Orson constantly called attention to himself as a director, which is why the auteur movement latched on to him, and Hitchcock also. Eastwood is an actor, came up in industry as an actor, and for him, the camera is a silent window. For him - and many others - directing isn't about pulling a Fincher and passing your camera through the inner workings of a toaster (Panic Room) - it's about communication, and how it is best achieved. Rather than focusing on complicated camera setups and crane shots and dolly sooms, Eastwood's camera observes. If you don't notice the direction - that doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with Coppola's work in The Godfather, or - I submit to you - Spielberg's work in Lincoln.

The world of cinema is vast and diverse, with many modes and genres and styles. I think it is a little limited to think of great direction only in the modes of those who use their cameras in the most overt ways possible. There's more to it than that.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's because Welles was all about Welles. Orson constantly called attention to himself as a director, which is why the auteur movement latched on to him, and Hitchcock also. Eastwood is an actor, came up in industry as an actor, and for him, the camera is a silent window. For him - and many others - directing isn't about pulling a Fincher and passing your camera through the inner workings of a toaster (Panic Room) - it's about communication, and how it is best achieved. Rather than focusing on complicated camera setups and crane shots and dolly sooms, Eastwood's camera observes. If you don't notice the direction - that doesn't mean it isn't there. Same thing with Coppola's work in The Godfather, or - I submit to you - Spielberg's work in Lincoln.

The world of cinema is vast and diverse, with many modes and genres and styles. I think it is a little limited to think of great direction only in the modes of those who use their cameras in the most overt ways possible. There's more to it than that.

maybe Eastwood is a bad example since he directs and produces and it is hard to separate them in his movies - he is the total package in cases like that and personally, i like his movies. sometimes simplicity is the best direction out there - it looks simple but there is a lot of work to it. you won't get any agruement out of me on Eastwood.

[SolidRaider]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I don't think Nolan, Aronofsky and Tarantino are deserving of the 'genius' level that's often thrown at them.

I think they're film geniuses. What they have done is not something that is done yearly, because it's difficult and a lot of research goes into imagining and creating such work.

All three of those directors have managed to suck me into their movies beyond words.

[Ironhorse75]

Originally Posted by metaridley

1. Christopher Nolan
2. Christopher Nolan
3. Christopher Nolan
4. Christopher Nolan
5. Christopher Nolan
6. Christopher Nolan
7. Christopher Nolan
8. Christopher Nolan
9. Christopher Nolan

Is Nolan overrated though?

Lets discredit all of the raving Batman fanboy opinions. I love Batman and Nolan's movies but you know the type. The people that couldn't name a director until The Dark Knight came out. Suddenly they know everything there is to know about movies and Christopher Nolan is the best in the business. The ones that will act as if Memento was their own personal discovery that represents their vast knowledge.

Eliminate all that noise. Are the level headed fans treating him like a God?

[JamesKurtovich]

Christopher Nolan

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse75

Is Nolan overrated though?

Lets discredit all of the raving Batman fanboy opinions. I love Batman and Nolan's movies but you know the type. The people that couldn't name a director until The Dark Knight came out. Suddenly they know everything there is to know about movies and Christopher Nolan is the best in the business. The ones that will act as if Memento was their own personal discovery that represents their vast knowledge.

Eliminate all that noise. Are the level headed fans treating him like a God?

Fair enough. I posted my thoughts about his filmography in the "Christopher Nolan" thread (Hollywood and Celebrities subforum) if you'd care to take a look.

Speaking of his fanboys:

Originally Posted by T101

To the people slating nolan, it may be that you don't like his writing because his directing style is flawless.

No it isn't.