Steven Spielberg's Bridge of Spies (2015) (Tom Hanks)

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by spectre08

Some directors are artists who make movies. Some directors are executives who can manage the movie making process really well. Spielberg is a great executive who can manage one hell of a production into existence. But he's not an artist, not by any measure or any stretch of the imagination.

Your clear bias is making this an impossible conversation; clearly, nothing can change your mind.

Again: Munich. Saving Private Ryan. Schindler's List. Watch these and then tell me Spielberg "isn't an artist." You don't think he's Fellini or Kurosawa, fine, but stop acting as if he's Michael Bay.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by spectre08

Some directors are artists who make movies. Some directors are executives who can manage the movie making process really well. Spielberg is a great executive who can manage one hell of a production into existence. But he's not an artist, not by any measure or any stretch of the imagination.

You keep getting swept up in these pseudo-poetic monologues about auteurs and artists. If you don't think Spielberg is an artist, fine. But making blanket statements without acknowledging that some of his filmography does not fall under this commercial blanket you are putting him under is only sending this discussion in circles.

[MrBlonde]

Leave Bay alone! There is for sure an artistry to Bay-hem.

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by spectre08

If you put a dozen random movies from Spielberg, Cameron, and Ridley Scott in front of somebody with no knowledge of the directors or their films there's no possible way that they could group them by the director.

None of them could make a film half as original, memorable, and engaging as Ex Machina if you gave them 20 years and a billion dollars to try.

cmon man... I liked it too, but it was just a mystery/thriller with some philosophical debates to sound smart/fill runtime

had nothing endearing like other sci-fi classics

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Leave Bay alone! There is for sure an artistry to Bay-hem.

I was actually going to say this. Michael Bay is more of an artist than James Cameron could ever hope to be, but that's part of why his movies are so polarizing. Unfortunately the last 3 Transformers movies were very much an example of Bay slipping into the comfortable "executive director" chair that Cameron and Spielberg are keeping warm.

[MrBlonde]

Originally Posted by spectre08

I was actually going to say this. Michael Bay is more of an artist than James Cameron could ever hope to be, but that's part of why his movies are so polarizing. Unfortunately the last 3 Transformers movies were very much an example of Bay slipping into the comfortable "executive director" chair that Cameron and Spielberg are keeping warm.

I wouldn't go that far (sorry, I love Cameron), but the hate for Bay is way overblown (explosion pun 100% intended). He deserves it for a few films like ROTF and Trans4mers, but I like his filmography as a whole.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

You seem to be under the impression that commercial success can't co-exist with artistic merit, which just isn't true.

Jaws was the biggest movie at the time. Same for E.T. and Jurassic Park. It's unfair to say those movies have no artistic value just because they were huge successes and had a plastic lunchbox or a t-shirt.

I don't need to knock a Tarantino film to praise a Spielberg one; you don't need to knock Spielberg or Cameron to up a Tarantino or an Anderson one. There's more "artistic value" in one frame of Jaws than there is in the entirety of Kill Bill. See how easy that is? Is it true? Doesn't matter. I personally feel there is more art and value to most of Spielberg's works than Tarantino's blood/violence-porn movies... but that wouldn't necessarily make me correct or lend any validity to my opinion that a lot of Tarantino's works are lacking in artistic value.

A fact, though, is that Spielberg is one of the most influential filmmakers of all time, and it's impossible to achieve that if your films have no artistic merit or value. You talk about Spielberg as if he's a straight-to-DVD director. You don't have to like him or his films, but give credit where credit is due.

where have I made any such assertion that artistry and commercial success can't go hand in hand?

I never said Spielberg wasn't an artist BECAUSE he was commercially successful. I think it's easier to be commercially successful when your films are safe and appeal to a mass market.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

You keep getting swept up in these pseudo-poetic monologues about auteurs and artists. If you don't think Spielberg is an artist, fine. But making blanket statements without acknowledging that some of his filmography does not fall under this commercial blanket you are putting him under is only sending this discussion in circles.

The fact is is that someone who isn't an artist could never make a movie like Schindler's List. That is, easily, the best movie of the 90s, and I'd say one of the finest of all time. Only a true artist could have made that movie the way that it is.

The Spielberg hate, even to this day, is truly amusing. I guess people are still shocked that the Indiana Jones guy is the same guy who made a masterpiece like Schindler's List.

I guess Django Unchained wasn't a commercial outing? Or Hugo? Grand Budapest Hotel made a lot of money, when most of Wes Anderson's films were small earners (if they made money at all); guess that movie has no artistic merit. If a movie makes money, it has no artistic value. Funny; I didn't know most of Tarantino's filmography was composed of flops...

Oh, well. Schindler's List made a ton of money, so I guess I'm wrong about it being a masterpiece. Excuse me; I just spilled a drink out of my Schindler's List© mug. It got all over my Schindler's List© branded t-shirt. Thankfully, none of the liquid got on my Oskar Schindler© action figure or my Schindler's List© pajama pants. Good thing I have a Schindler's List© beach towel to clean this mess up.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by spectre08

where have I made any such assertion that artistry and commercial success can't go hand in hand?

I never said Spielberg wasn't an artist BECAUSE he was commercially successful. I think it's easier to be commercially successful when your films are safe and appeal to a mass market.

Okay, then - so something like Ex Machina is inherently more "artistic" because it will have more of a niche audience? Is that right? Why would something like Jaws lack artistic value or merit just because it's "safe" and "appeals to a mass market"? Forget the money angle, then. A movie can't be safe and appeal to mass markets while also being artistic? Those Tarantino movies you praise are pretty safe and appeal to mass markets too, you know. Just because he has a lot of blood and swearing doesn't make it any less "safe."

Your arguments are more fitting of those guys who make those crappy parody movies, not Spielberg. There wouldn't be books and entire film courses dedicated to his filmography if there were no artistic merit to his films. It's just an absurd argument that the most successful director of all time isn't an artist. His movies would never have become so beloved if they weren't well made.

[spectre08]

and you keep repeating the same things that I didn't say.

In fact, I have said several times that his movies ARE well made. They're very well made.

If I were to rank the executive directors I would still probably put Spielberg at the top. Definitely over James Cameron and Ridley Scott. He has made a few movies that are more artistic than his others, like Schindler's List and The Color Purple.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by spectre08

and you keep repeating the same things that I didn't say.

In fact, I have said several times that his movies ARE well made. They're very well made.

If I were to rank the executive directors I would still probably put Spielberg at the top. Definitely over James Cameron and Ridley Scott. He has made a few movies that are more artistic than his others, like Schindler's List and The Color Purple.

You've said they're well made... but then you downplay it by equating their success to "big marketing budgets, endless licensing agreements, and nostalgic fanbois jamming them down our throats 24/7."

I just don't see how you concede that he makes good movies and in the same breath say he's "not an artist." You called him an "executive." Sorry, but an "executive" couldn't make Schindler's List. An artist could.

Executives make movies like Transformers 2, 3, and 4. They don't make masterpieces like Schindler's List.

[Himmel]

[imsounoriginal]

Can't wait for this, one of my five most anticipated movies of the year.

[Foggy]

That's an abysmal poster.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Foggy

That's an abysmal poster.

yeah, it is pretty terrible

[Blu Ian]

TRAILORER´RIRIERIERIERIERIER

LOOKS AMAZING AS WLATAA

Bridge of Spies Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Tom Hanks Cold War Thriller HD - YouTube

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by spectre08

and you keep repeating the same things that I didn't say.

In fact, I have said several times that his movies ARE well made. They're very well made.

If I were to rank the executive directors I would still probably put Spielberg at the top. Definitely over James Cameron and Ridley Scott. He has made a few movies that are more artistic than his others, like Schindler's List and The Color Purple.

Your argument doesn't even follow an internal argument... What the heck is "artistic" to you then? How can you make some films that are artistic, but not be an artist?

[jabbercash]

Looks like it might be decent.

[jabbercash]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Those Tarantino movies you praise are pretty safe and appeal to mass markets too, you know. Just because he has a lot of blood and swearing doesn't make it any less "safe."

Well, let's be honest here, Tarantino is not safe. Look at Django, a western film (they've always been risky since Heaven's Gate) surrounding slavery (most mainstream audience don't like slavery movies since they consider them "depressing") with extremely dark humor (laughing at somebody in agonizing pain when shot in the testicles) and excessive racial slurs (the n word is used 102 times) doesn't seem that "safe" to me. Pretty damn risky. What about Death Proof? A whole movie which is a homage to exploitation movies from the 70's? Starring an irrelevant actor as the lead, and a no name supporting cast? You can't say Tarantino doesn't take risk. What about Inglourious Basterds for **** sake? 90% is subtitled. However, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument. Even though I'm not huge on Spielberg, he's an incredible filmmaker and one of the best. Spectre08 is just a hipster who likes to be in the minority. Everyone likes to hate Michael Bay! I LOVE HIM! Everyone loves and respects Spielberg! He's not a true artist! I like indie movies better! That's where the true art is at!

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Foggy

That's an abysmal poster.

It looks like an action / spy thriller in the same vein as The Hunt For Red October or Harrison Ford's Patriot Games.