Directors who put Style over Substance.

[Coenskubrick]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

The thing with Malick is that he starts out with a good script, but then he makes an incoherent mess of it in the editing room. I wonder what would happen when someone would edit his movies following the script...

Have to get the actors to act out the script first, rather than just ask them to improv.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know how involved Baz Luhrmann was in the editing process of Moulin Rouge, but what's the point of singing and dancing routines if they're all quick cut Michael Bay style to the point where you have no sense of any of it?

There are SOOO many stories around the industry about M.R and the disaster it was for pretty much everyone involved, it isn't funny.

Fox hated it and I mean HATED it and it was re-edited and had reshoots many many times.

I guess in the end they thought if they made it all so fast that you couldn't notice how terrible it was that might save it.

The BD is worth getting simply for the extras as all the original dance sequences are in there and are edited properly so you can actually see them and the massive amount of work that went into them.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

The thing with Malick is that he starts out with a good script, but then he makes an incoherent mess of it in the editing room. I wonder what would happen when someone would edit his movies following the script...

I don't find his films incoherent in the least.

[Just Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Yungheat

Tarintino how did you guys forget

because you are sadly mistaken...there's always one of you QT haters in one of these director posts. Have you even watched any of his films or are you just confused by the subject of the thread?

My picks are:
Hal Hartley & Terry Gilliam

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

I loved it. But I wish Snyder could have found a more efficient way to use the budget, so we could have seen much more of what he really wanted it to be. As is, it is unfinished, and the "Director's Cut" isn't really that anyway...

Originally Posted by warrian

Sure, and don't take my arguments against it as trying to convince you not to like it. Too much of that around here.

For me it was just fantasy upon fantasy upon fantasy, which ultimately robbed me of any emotional impact. And without being emotionally involved, it became a slog. I wouldn't even care if I didn't actually like the central idea in the first place.

This resonated with me. Maybe because I suffered some abuse as a child, and I related to Baby Doll's struggle. Not what happened to her, but abuse. Layer upon layer of this movie just works so well for me. Would love to see Snyder's complete vision/version. Probably never going to happen...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

I loved it. But I wish Snyder could have found a more efficient way to use the budget, so we could have seen much more of what he really wanted it to be. As is, it is unfinished, and the "Director's Cut" isn't really that anyway...

Now this last part I'll definitely agree with. I think he let it get away from him. It's too bad. But it is what it is.

[Rich H]

For me the answer is easy: Tony Scott.

Going back to the early eighties, I was a big Ridley Scott fan but Ridley was inconsistent - always stylish, sometimes poor on substance. But Tony Scott seemed to take style-over-substance to the next level: an even more slick, commercial style, and horribly empty of substance or anything resembling believable, deep characters. Ridley's style was forefront, but incredibly rich - "world building" stuff. His brother's style was that of a guy who couldn't think beyond the idea like he was filming another slick commercial. Watching his stuff was like watching 2-hour beer advertisements. Never saw a long lens and a golden filter he didn't love.

Can't bear his stuff.

(I know, I know, everyone will be itching to shout: True Romance! For me the fact it was even watchable was likely Tarantino's involvement).

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Rich H

For me the answer is easy: Tony Scott.

Going back to the early eighties, I was a big Ridley Scott fan but Ridley was inconsistent - always stylish, sometimes poor on substance. But Tony Scott seemed to take style-over-substance to the next level: an even more slick, commercial style, and horribly empty of substance or anything resembling believable, deep characters. Ridley's style was forefront, but incredibly rich - "world building" stuff. His brother's style was that of a guy who couldn't think beyond the idea like he was filming another slick commercial. Watching his stuff was like watching 2-hour beer advertisements. Never saw a long lens and a golden filter he didn't love.

Can't bear his stuff.

(I know, I know, everyone will be itching to shout: True Romance! For me the fact it was even watchable was likely Tarantino's involvement).

You and I can never be friends.

[Falaskan]

Some of the Marvel movies fall into this category.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I heard 13 Hours was actually a pretty good film, a very good film when you take into consideration that Bay made it.

13 Hours was one of the most painfully dull movies I've seen in a long time. So much so that I decided to just stop watching it all together. His movies, although dumb, are usually at least entertaining. 13 Hours was not.

[zorbonaut]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I heard 13 Hours was actually a pretty good film, a very good film when you take into consideration that Bay made it.

Just got around to catching 13 hours on my flight back from the Dominican and it actually was decent and didn't have as much as the typical Michael Bay "Style over Substance" that many believe he is known for. I'm not a Bay fan at all but this was one of his best films and I thought I would never like a Bay film again.

[Monkey]

"Tarsem Singh is another director who has been accused of this in the past with movies like The Fall and The Cell."

For me these both excelled on both levels, love the style and really enjoyed the stories. True, he used similar styles on both, I think even used some of the same sets (probably same costume designers as well) for both despite being completely different types of stories.

Tony Scott's movies for me have always been highly entertaining pop corn movies. As cheesy as Unbreakable is it is great

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Michael Bay.

Didn't think it would take many posts before he was mentioned in this thread!

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Rich H

For me the answer is easy: Tony Scott.

Going back to the early eighties, I was a big Ridley Scott fan but Ridley was inconsistent - always stylish, sometimes poor on substance. But Tony Scott seemed to take style-over-substance to the next level: an even more slick, commercial style, and horribly empty of substance or anything resembling believable, deep characters. Ridley's style was forefront, but incredibly rich - "world building" stuff. His brother's style was that of a guy who couldn't think beyond the idea like he was filming another slick commercial. Watching his stuff was like watching 2-hour beer advertisements. Never saw a long lens and a golden filter he didn't love.

Can't bear his stuff.

(I know, I know, everyone will be itching to shout: True Romance! For me the fact it was even watchable was likely Tarantino's involvement).

So much no, so much wrong.

Look up what Taraintino thinks of Romance for one, and Scott in general

[BobbyMcGee]

I believe that all film can be interpreted as possessing some substance, however shallow it may be to some. With that said, I also believe that there are filmmakers who put, or value, style over substance, to such a degree that their work appears nearly devoid of any meaning or meaning of importance.

IMO, generally speaking, If it contains narrative, then someone can derive some substance (or meaning) from a film.

Only filmmakers that come to mind where I question substance (meaning), are highly abstract works of film or those that were simply exploring the form of film-making itself (which I guess, therein supplies its meaning). Within these works of film, I am typically forced to ask or research what exactly the filmmaker was attempting to say (if anything at all) in order to personally understand it. I am pretty bad at intuiting these things alone.

One filmmaker that I believe values style as much as substance is Wong Kar-Wai. But then I guess you would also need to add his legendary cinematographer, Christopher Doyle, into the conversation as well when discussing the style of Wong Kar Wai's films. As much as I love substance, I adore Wong Kar Wai's films due in part to their style. Just beautiful films.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Michael Bay
Zach Snyder
Ryûhei Kitamura

[spectre08]

Why do we have to pretend that all movies need to have both style and substance?

there are plenty of great movies with lots of substance but no style, and plenty with lots of style and no substance, and lots where the style is the substance.

Is a movie trying to be entertaining, informative, or persuasive? How effectively does it achieve that goal?

[dvdmike]

Why is it a bad thing?
It can be, and that is and that is why Stephen Summers is not working anymore

[Rodney-2187]

Who is guilty of style over substance?
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=341405

[Member-682067]

I don't really believe in the so called concept of 'style over substance' being used as a pejorative term for certain directors. Film is, after all, a visual medium and art form and any so called 'substance' is typically derived from the eye of the beholder.

I couldn't go without some movies that are mainly visual achievements just as I couldn't go without some that put more emphasis on it's story and characterizations.