I've never met any lover of film who didn't love at least one (more likely three or more) of his films dearly. The images weaved upon screen have practically shaped big cinema and become ingrained in some of our childhood memories. And i love artistic directors like Robert Altman, and quirky geniuses like David Lynch just the same but Spielberg is damn near the landlord. The man has made some of the most benchmarking and significant movies of every accessible genre, from historical (Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan), through sci-fi (E.T., Close Encounters, A.I.), and period (Empire of The Sun, The Color Purple, Catch Me If You Can), to fantasy and adventure (Jaws, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park), and that's just SOME of his directorial work. I mean, in the last three alone you have some of the most iconic images and characters ever to grace the big screen.

Through his guidance he's partly (perhaps even largely) responsible for some other grade-A work and franchises such as the Back to the Future series, the original Poltergeist (this is a Spielberg flick, Hooper even admitted so), Gremlins, the Goonies, the list goes on. I mean don't get me wrong, he's not perfect so-to-speak but then no director is. And maybe he's not the best auteur (Kubrick?), the most classy (Hitchcock?), most unique (Lynch?), most gangsta (Scorsese), or even the most original (who is, really?) but when u get down to it, no one brings all the elements together like Spielberg.

Hell, personally I think Kubrick is a notch above. But he ain't more GOAT than Spielberg for two reasons which it pains me to admit.

1) His films don't entertain like Spielberg's. Snobs will wince but it's true. And entertaining matters. Bare in mind Kubrick is my #1 but I can clearly see why no one else in my circle of friends has stolen my Kubrick DVD collection yet.

2) Output. While Kubrick's legendary perfectionism is well-appreciated, we could have done with more than one film a decade. I think he could have afforded to do that and still control every aspect just how he wanted. Look at Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni. Granted those guys didn't obtain Kubrick's level of universal celebrity but that's another thread, and has more to do with critical biasness and language, and cultural barriers, not to mention the Western superiority complex, within film making more than anything else.

Anyways back to Spielberg, I honestly want to know if he can be challenged for the crown. Can anyone convincingly claim that another director has surpassed Mr. Spielberg all-time? We're talking acclaim, cinematic accomplishments (artistic AND technical... think about the groundbreaking pyrotechnical work on Jaws, the CGI in E.T. and Jurassic Park, or even the researched authenticity of the Indiana Jones films), and yes box-office (three time Highest-Grossing-Movie-Ever title holder: Jaws, E.T., that dinosaur flick).... For real though let's discuss.

where do you rank him?

and I'm far less likely to experience the impact of Hitchcock's films or bare witness to how his work shaped cinema (i mean we can all read critiques but it's not personal knowledge), and on top of that, aside from his most classic work, some of his films haven't aged too well.

They're very much of their time which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except for when we're assessing who's All-Time. then it's a really detrimental factor. Add to that the fact that Hitchock stayed within his comfort zone far too much (suspense-thriller, suspense-romance, romance-tragedy, suspense-romance-tragedy, suspense-romance-tragedy-with-psycho-birds) and u have an honorable but losing argument for ole Hitch.

Or how do you see it?

Topaz is one of the worst things i've ever switched off halfway through

i don't have much to add. i agree Speilberg's output is incredible, from The Duel to Minority Report or Munich (haven't seen any more recent than that)

hmm. the thing with me is, i don't give the directors as much credit as other people give, to me it's more the screenplay that's the main thing. with that said, Orson Welles, Elia Kazan, and Wayne Wang have all made a few films that have affected me more deeply than anything else, but i don't really think in terms of their overall output

>i don't have much to add. i agree Speilberg's output is
>incredible, from The Duel to Minority Report or Munich
>(haven't seen any more recent than that)

Munich was his last release, Indy 4 is next.

>hmm. the thing with me is, i don't give the directors as much
>credit as other people give, to me it's more the screenplay
>that's the main thing. with that said, Orson Welles, Elia
>Kazan, and Wayne Wang have all made a few films that have
>affected me more deeply than anything else, but i don't really
>think in terms of their overall output

I see. Welles, I can appreciate from a historical standpoint but I didn't like Citizen Kane the first (and only time) i watched it. I will give it another go though. Can't really speak on Kazan and Wang since i'm not familiar with their work, though I have heard Kazan's name numerous times. Hip me to it, I may be in agreeance.

>
>>i don't have much to add. i agree Speilberg's output is
>>incredible, from The Duel to Minority Report or Munich
>>(haven't seen any more recent than that)
>
>Munich was his last release, Indy 4 is next.
>
>>hmm. the thing with me is, i don't give the directors as
>much
>>credit as other people give, to me it's more the screenplay
>>that's the main thing. with that said, Orson Welles, Elia
>>Kazan, and Wayne Wang have all made a few films that have
>>affected me more deeply than anything else, but i don't
>really
>>think in terms of their overall output
>
>I see. Welles, I can appreciate from a historical standpoint
>but I didn't like Citizen Kane the first (and only time) i
>watched it.

hmm, with me it was like 'I can't believe this just lived up to the hype'. but i've met quite a few people or recommended it to quite a few people who didn't like it especially

I will give it another go though. Can't really
>speak on Kazan and Wang since i'm not familiar with their
>work, though I have heard Kazan's name numerous times. Hip me
>to it, I may be in agreeance.

Kazan's masterpiece is 'On The Waterfront', it's also Marlon Brando's masterpiece, and Bud Schulberg (screenwriter). tied with citizen kane for my favourite film ever; but where Citizen Kane is more intellectual, this is more emotional. it is so compelling. Kazan is sometimes criticized for not 'framing shots' especially well, but IMO he's just a different breed - the composition of his shots is all about what's in the middle of them, the way great painters arranged the way people stood etc, rather than what's at the edge of them like more photographic minded people think about. Wild River has brilliant photography/cinematography for instance. Other than OTW, East of Eden and Streetcar Named Desire are his two most famous; there's also one called Splendour in the Grass which is supposed to be amazing but i'm finding difficulty getting hold of it

Wayne Wang directed Smoke and The Joy Luck Club, two of the most beautiful celebrations of the human spirit you're likely to find. Smoke is sort of like Pulp Fiction in structure but it's not about seediness, it's very positive. Joy Luck Club, is also a sprawling story with many characters, but have way through the film it will turn you into an emotional wreck and it doesn't let up lol

I know exactly what u mean about the framing etc. He's kind of like the opposite of a Kubrick in that respects. It's more emotive than perfect. I thought the score was a little too busy at times but that's a minor gripe and plus it's the 50s. Streetcar is also a great work of drama. i don't know why Kazan's name didn't stick with me but I intend to see more of his work. I love that whole period.

Wang sounds interesting, and I'm big on Tarantino so I'll look that up as well.

>and I'm far less likely to experience the impact of
>Hitchcock's films or bare witness to how his work shaped
>cinema (i mean we can all read critiques but it's not personal
>knowledge), and on top of that, aside from his most classic
>work, some of his films haven't aged too well.

and a little bit of context.

learn a thing or two, guy.

"Quienes argumentan que el arte no debe propagar doctrinas, se refieren a doctrinas contrarias a las suyas" - Jorge Luis Borges

u fuck off somewhere. don't got nothing substantial to say? then STFU.

FYI, I've probably seen more Hitch flicks than U know of. And that was before I even knew who he was.

>u fuck off somewhere. don't got nothing substantial to say?
>then STFU.
>
>FYI, I've probably seen more Hitch flicks than U know of. And
>that was before I even knew who he was.

some people learn quicker than others.

"Quienes argumentan que el arte no debe propagar doctrinas, se refieren a doctrinas contrarias a las suyas" - Jorge Luis Borges

LOL

PTPers
smh

if you don't find it hilarious when someone makes a post about "the GREATEST OF ALL TIME" directors and then counters the first answer given with "I'm only in my 20s"... well, you've just got a different sense of humor from me.

why didn't he just say that Spielberg is the "GOMLT"?

at least he was being honest about his POV
and besides, he wasn't admitting to not having SEEN hitchcock's films, he was just trying to allow some leeway for differing perspectives

it's a valid topic with a well thought out post

then i don't think your actual chronological age should even really come into the discussion. either you do the knowledge of history (ie "ALL TIME") or you don't.

by offering up "I am in my 20s" as some kind of valid premis for the post, you have effectively made YOURSELF the subject of the post.

in that case, just be honest and say "my concept of 'ALL TIME' does not extend beyond my own personal lifetime'"

and then i'll know to avoid the post.

ultimately all you're going to be doing is mentioning the qualities and works of various filmmakers, the framing of the overall debate doesn't make that much difference...

this guy didn't make the post with any ill intent but some of the replies are, well, rude

so when dude introduces the wrinkle that any filmmaker i cite must be appreciated from the POV of the aggregate 20-year-old... well, there's really no point going on with it after that, is there?

but laughing at the dude is a bit much; again, he was just being wise and considering there are various factors outwith his control that might make him appreciate Hitchcock less - he also gave solid reasons/arguments on top

>considering there are various factors outwith
>his control that might make him appreciate Hitchcock less - he
>also gave solid reasons/arguments on top

his reasons/arguments were pretty crappy, IMHO


"Hitchcock stayed in his comfort zone"? what does THAT mean?

is yet another parameter that the director who essays the *widest* array of genres is the best?

that's kind of like the moronic argument that thrives in the Lesson and would have you believe that a musician who plays 6 instruments in a medicore fashion is superior to one who concentrates on mastering a single instrument inside out and in fact, expands the vocabulary for that instrument.

the argument that Hitchcock's films are "of their time" is similarly ridiculous.

what ISN'T "of its time"? E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial isn't? Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Amblin? Sugarland Express? Jaws? Schindler's List? Jurassic Park?

they are ALL "of their time"... the poster just doesn't think they are because since many of them occurred in his lifetime, he probably feels he can "relate better" to them.

so essentially, once again it comes down to his own limited experience being a central parameter.

obviously his general statements don't constitute thorough criticism but if you engage someone in conversation, they'll flesh out their arguments.

it's strange that you would think it not worth your time entering the discussion... but worth your time to insult the OP

i'm putting this down to either a bad day at the office or the insidious atmosphere of PTP, lol

>i'm putting this down to either a bad day at the office or the
>insidious atmosphere of PTP, lol

also, i won't deny having a slight hard-on for the poster, who has frequently been quite rude to me in posts

but axes to grind aside, objectively speaking, i do not think that he offers a worthy argument at all. i'm offended enough to hear someone suggest that Spielberg is better than Hitchcock, but opinions are opinions. his justification for his opinion, however, just does not hold water, IMO

he was the one who brought up the fact that he was in his 20s, and hence, could not "feel the impact" of Hitchcock. with that kind of logic, any director who retired or died before the 1980s has no chance!

sure, Spielberg had done plenty of work before the 80s, as had Kubrick, for whom the poster also professed admiration. but the fact that they continued to work through the 80s, 90s and 00s (and in Spielberg's case, still continues to work) he can at least say that they were active during his lifetime, and hence he "felt their impact" in a way that he could not feel Hitchcock, who died in 1980, before he was born.

basically, it's the same kind of logic that rules those MTV, VH1 and BET countdowns of "The Greatest _______ OF ALL TIME!!" where 75% of the lists are always drawn from the past 5 years.

and even if you look past the whole "i wasn't alive to feel the impact" thing, the argument is still lame... talking about Spielberg's technical innovations, but not giving the same regard to Hitchcock's considerable innovations just because he didn't live long enough to create computer-generated dinosaurs.

basically, it's an argument without context and thus, without merit.

http://www.zshare.net/image/7273201ee16544/

u changed your opinion of this post pretty quickly. i wonder if that was before or after u got mad. in any case, look, it was interesting. won't be coming back here so you can have ur little victory. i know u need it badly.

i said the post aroused my curiosity.

didn't say i thought it was a GOOD ARGUMENT, though.

i was curious to see how on earth one would justify saying that Spielberg was the GOAT... and yes, it turned out to be just as tunnel-sighted and silly as i expected it to be.



you should have just accepted the apology when it was offered in good faith instead of acting like a baby, btw. and airing out the inbox i sent you is quite a bitchass move that doesn't aid your position at all.

i've seen u talking down to a lot of ppl and presuming to have some kind of educated voice while drawing out pointless debates over trivial points like u're trying to do right now. truth is i did not bring my age into anything i mentioned it fleetingly while making my main point, that people of my generation, and indeed the generation before would not have FELT the impact of Hitchock's films. Even though u had no reason to, you assumed that to mean that I was admitting to not knowing much film history.

In the first place knowing about Hitchock isn't some sort of standard. You can start anywhere. Secondly i know my Hitchock very well because i'm a fan, not because i want to impress snobs like urself. thirdly, u're no more "experienced" than me since YOU weren't around during Hitch's heyday either. This whole argument is stupid and has nothing to do with the main thread but that's what usually happens whenever u enter a thread and don't feel like u have the commanding voice. you draw attention to urself. no point replying dude, i think i've said everything i need to say.

http://www.websnark.com/archives/snark-thumb.jpg

i honestly didn't come into this post to be an asshole, though... so i'll just let it be.

i started a thread to talk about film, u came in here, waited for some other guy to be an asshole, jumped on the bandwagon, defended ur unprovoked antagonism, i finally responded without insults, and I somehow "sonned" myself? well, okay. Victory to you then. I just wanted to talk about film. not my age.

> i honestly didn't come into this post to be an asshole,
>though... so i'll just let it be.

mmm. yea. tell you what, next time why not TRY to engage in some convo instead of being so insecure. then u won't have to offer a half-hearted apology for being an ass.

for sort of derailing your wack post

but if you want to keep the fire burning, i'd be glad to.

FOH complaining about me talking about your age when YOU brought that shit up!

thought you had set up camp at IMDB...

in fact, check post #57... he zshared the inbox.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Thespian

"Master Thespian was a ruthlessly ambitious egomanaical actor who spoke with a plummy "Shakespearean" English accent and often elicited the sympathy of other characters in the sketch, only to reveal the ruse by declaring his catchphrase, "Acting!"

i guess it went over your heads. nevermind. i was expecting too much from this stuffy place to begin with.

LOL... i didn't want to make an enormous deal about you using the wrong terminology since we all make slips of the tongue once in a while... but the fact that you tried to justify it and claim that your reference went "over the heads" of the people who pointed out your mistake...

well... if that ain't pretentious--and downright stupid--i don't know what is.

maybe you SHOULD go to IMDB. i think you'd be much more comfortable with that lot.

i think u've showed up in like every thread i've ever started in PTP. u must be carrying a grudge of some form. it's kind of funny. how old are you? 35? 40? that's not a good look. there were some responses in here that disagreed with my argument (which i was expecting) without the snark and elitism (we're talking about movies for goodness sakes lol). it's not good to be mad at the world all the time.

>i think u've showed up in like every thread i've ever started
>in PTP.

really?

apart from the Comic of the Week post, i can't even remember the last time i posted in PTP. and i don't even post that much in COTW, either. go ahead... do a search!

so there's really no need to lie in order to make yourself feel better for getting pwned. and not even by me... by yourself.

>u must be carrying a grudge of some form. it's kind of
>funny. how old are you? 35? 40? that's not a good look.

don't try to make this about ME and MY age, m'lad... YOU were the one who made your age an issue, and continues to do so even while trying to backpedal from that laughably weak point.

i already admitted above that i do enjoy pushing your buttons (until you start to cry... and then i feel remorseful) but the bottom line is that your argument in this post sucked. that's why you are getting clowned... not because anybody has beef with you.

your post sucked. it's okay... we all make bad posts once in a while and we get clowned for them. what you do at a time like that is man up, take the ribbing and move on,.

what YOU do is burst into tears and run away from OKP for 9 months.

there
>were some responses in here that disagreed with my argument
>(which i was expecting) without the snark and elitism (we're
>talking about movies for goodness sakes lol). it's not good to
>be mad at the world all the time.

you're very bad at this... you are making it worse for yourself.

i attacked your argument, and you continue to (make flimsy attempts to) attack ME personally. i don't want to unleash on you because i know you can't handle it. despite all the snark and everything, i can honestly say that it is never my intention to hurt someone else's feelings... but if you want to go there, i'll make sure you stay away from the boards for 2 years this time.

i wonder if i should start by publishing the tearful inbox you sent me last time you ran away, just as you chose to air out my inbox...

>i attacked your argument, and you continue to (make flimsy
>attempts to) attack ME personally. i don't want to unleash on
>you because i know you can't handle it. despite all the snark
>and everything, i can honestly say that it is never my
>intention to hurt someone else's feelings... but if you want
>to go there, i'll make sure you stay away from the boards for
>2 years this time.

please do that. i go where i want when i want, dont flatter urself. like i said u must really have it in for me. "unleash" on me.

>i wonder if i should start by publishing the tearful inbox you
>sent me last time you ran away, just as you chose to air out
>my inbox...

ooohh yeah. son me. that time when u apologized was precisely how i knew this "apology" u offered again was just more bs. remember i had no problem with u back then? and u kept on coming at me like i stole ur girl or something. but yeah if it will make u feel big, post the inbox. i have nothing to be embarrassed about.

?

What's more, I'd say if you rank and line up Spielberg's 10 best and Kubrick's 10 best, 7 or 8 of the 10 Spielberg films would be better than the Kubrick films.

Spielberg's body of work is stronger, deeper, and overall just plain better.

>What's more, I'd say if you rank and line up Spielberg's 10
>best and Kubrick's 10 best, 7 or 8 of the 10 Spielberg films
>would be better than the Kubrick films.

true. off the top i think Kubrick made around 12 flicks though lol. it's not much of a contest if we're talking bodies of work.

>Spielberg's body of work is stronger, deeper, and overall just
>plain better.

overall, yes.

edit: Paths Of Glory>Saving Private Ryan

sorry couldn't resist, lol.

>edit: Paths Of Glory>Saving Private Ryan

Wrong (c) Charlie Murphy

Besides, I'm in my 20s, so I haven't seen the impact of Kubrick's films in the same way I'm seeing Spielberg's.

was that snark? or are u being serious?

...then you remember one or maybe two Kubrick films, and Full Metal Jacker would've been in your childhood.

I am also in my 20s, and only vividly remember Eyes Wide Shut, which was a failure. I was too young when FMJ came out.

The point I was snarkily trying to make is that just because you're after the era of a director clearly doesn't mean you don't learn about them or understand their effect. Shit, you put Paths of Glory above Saving Private Ryan, a movie whose impact on filmmaking just from the first scene alone is pretty huge. Yet you still prefer Paths of Glory.

That's why you can still measure up Hitchcock's talent and effect despite coming after his era. By watching the films, and putting two and two together as an intelligent cinephile. That's why posters like Orfeo Negro and myself are giving you a hard time, because you don't need to be in your 60s to appreciate Orson Welles as one of the greatest of all time. Comprende?

We're not trying to bully you, and it is an interesting post. Just don't dismiss your knowledge on something because of your age, when you clearly know a lot about filmmakers who are from before your time.

>We're not trying to bully you, and it is an interesting post.
>Just don't dismiss your knowledge on something because of your
>age, when you clearly know a lot about filmmakers who are from
>before your time.

it wasn't supposed to reflect my knowledge or interest in films before my time. if anything it was a respectful admission KNOWING that you are a few years older than me. I was simply trying to offer you a younger man's perspective. my interest in older films doesn't come from an urge to obtain superior knowledge (like AFKAP for example) and debate furiously over non-issues in attempt to appear smarter, and more seasoned. No. it's because I lover older films, newer films and all the ones inbetween.

I love American films, foreign films, silent films, doesn't matter. i'm fascinated by films that are clearly dated and off their time (and yes Hitch's films are OF THE TIME, that's why the remakes were updated so drastically - with mixed results of course). Those films aren't just entertaining but also educational in that they are snapshots of eras that neither I, or anyone else throwing jabs in this thread, will ever be able to personally experience. They're not films set in 1930s, they ARE films from the 1930s. That does not mean i consider them any less of a classic. Why is it that anytime someone admits to having a certain perspective on a topic, he gets attacked for it? All of you have your own perspectives on this. As passionate as you all may be NONE OF YOU were old enough to have sat in the cinema during Hitch's heyday either so where all this pseudo-lecturing stems from, i don't know. Anyways, i'm done with this place. IMDB may have a crappy layout but it's much less pretentious.

>it wasn't supposed to reflect my knowledge or interest in
>films before my time. if anything it was a respectful
>admission KNOWING that you are a few years older than me. I
>was simply trying to offer you a younger man's perspective. my
>interest in older films doesn't come from an urge to obtain
>superior knowledge (like AFKAP for example) and debate
>furiously over non-issues in attempt to appear smarter, and
>more seasoned. No. it's because I lover older films, newer
>films and all the ones inbetween.

excuses, excuses! like trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube!

>I love American films, foreign films, silent films, doesn't
>matter. i'm fascinated by films that are clearly dated and off
>their time (and yes Hitch's films are OF THE TIME, that's why
>the remakes were updated so drastically -

yeah? Gus Van Sant's Psycho was "updated drastically"?

>Those films aren't just entertaining but also
>educational in that they are snapshots of eras that neither I,
>or anyone else throwing jabs in this thread, will ever be able
>to personally experience.

of course, we can all experience the eras of Schindler's List, The Color Purple, Catch Me If You Can, Indiana Jones and Munich

They're not films set in 1930s, they
>ARE films from the 1930s.

okay, then... and?

so i guess Jaws is kinda weak to you because it's not just a film about the 70s, it IS a film from the 70s!

That does not mean i consider them
>any less of a classic. Why is it that anytime someone admits
>to having a certain perspective on a topic, he gets attacked
>for it?

only when the perspective is stupid.

admitting a particular perspective does not automatically make one invulnerable to criticism, you know.

All of you have your own perspectives on this. As
>passionate as you all may be NONE OF YOU were old enough to
>have sat in the cinema during Hitch's heyday either so where
>all this pseudo-lecturing stems from, i don't know.

i still don't understand what any of this has to do with anything.

is art not eternal?

the fact that i can watch Hitchcock's films years after his death and still appreciate them is actually a TESTAMENT to his greatness, not a DAMPER upon it.

it looks to me like you're interested in discussing which director is "the hottest"... not "the greatest"

Anyways,
>i'm done with this place. IMDB may have a crappy layout but
>it's much less pretentious.

LMAO! about to take another OKP break for a few months, are we, m'lad?

i love how you run away like your diaper's on fire any time someone disagrees with you here. i recommend a small dose of Man-Up, but have fun at IMDB!

you're too far off base for me to continue.

No one's attacking you because of pretentiousness. We're simply saying that you can still understand the full impact of a director's body of work even if you weren't alive during that time.

I'm just confused as to your original point. So is Spielberg the GOAT, or the GOAT of your generation?

BTW, I'm just as young if not younger than you, so I think I understand the point you're trying to make. But you dismissed Hitchcock as only a Top 5, because you weren't there to experience his films... or something.

I guess I just need further clarification of why your age was relevant to the argument you were trying to make against Hitch being the GOAT.

Do yourself a favor & don't see me new film In Burges. I gave it me all but overall it's pretty rubbish.

*Off to the pub*

http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

Lame, but I had to say it.

many of them are really good and probably influenced your boy

And really, worshiping at the alter of Kubrick is pretty sophomoric.

He was an asshole who made asshole movies with expensive bullshit. He's the Pink Floyd of the film industry.

is more off-base than heavy praise for him though

But that was some funny shit.

>He was an asshole who made asshole movies with expensive
>bullshit. He's the Pink Floyd of the film industry.


"Quienes argumentan que el arte no debe propagar doctrinas, se refieren a doctrinas contrarias a las suyas" - Jorge Luis Borges

the Kubrick nutlove struck me as a really predictable gambit to buttress his lame argument by hyping up a "serious auteur" in addition to a "popular entertainer" like Spielberg.

i tend to be VERY suspicious of people who overpraise Kubrick.

And a couple of others that are enjoyable.

But that's about it. No hate-o, it's just reeeeeeeally hard to make lots of classics when you're so emotionally removed from what you're putting on the screen.

>1) His films don't entertain like Spielberg's. Snobs will
>wince but it's true. And entertaining matters. Bare in mind
>Kubrick is my #1 but I can clearly see why no one else in my
>circle of friends has stolen my Kubrick DVD collection yet.

While I like some not all Kubrick, he's entertaining in a different sense. Some people find Persona pleasing for aesthetic or intellectual reasons. Take The Wire. It's unflinching, it's not dominantly titillative action and is entertaining.

>2) Output. While Kubrick's legendary perfectionism is
>well-appreciated, we could have done with more than one film a
>decade. I think he could have afforded to do that and still
>control every aspect just how he wanted.

I don't know what Kubrick's circumstances were and why he wasn't banging out movies left and right.

Small output can be due to not finding $ to make a movie. Critically acclaimed/big name/major directors have struggled and still will unfortunately.

I'd guess many like to get things right before making a movie, don't work if they're not inspired, or just plain work slow.

Admittedly some directors make it hard for themselves to get a movie made whether it's their personality, grudges, and lack of business sense. Some just plain look to alternative avenues of finance and production.

A director w/ more bouts of creative block isn't automatically a lesser director than one who has less bouts of such or none.

Yang, Erice, Davies, Kubrick, etc. aren't lesser directors b/c they haven't made many feature-lengths.

>Anyways back to Spielberg, I honestly want to know if he can
>be challenged for the crown. Can anyone convincingly claim
>that another director has surpassed Mr. Spielberg all-time?
>We're talking acclaim

Acclaim (in terms of # and degree) is largely dependent on whether or not the director's work is screened a lot and in many places which is mostly dependent on ownership, access to the film, $, distribution, and marketing. Not all critics and reviewers spend their time at film archives or festivals.

>cinematic accomplishments (artistic AND
>technical... think about the groundbreaking pyrotechnical work
>on Jaws, the CGI in E.T. and Jurassic Park, or even the
>researched authenticity of the Indiana Jones films)

Cinematic accomplishments, if the term is what I think you mean, should matter much more than acclaim and box-office. However, it shouldn't matter if it's groundbreaking or on the vanguard of emerging technologies.

>box-office (three time Highest-Grossing-Movie-Ever title
>holder: Jaws, E.T., that dinosaur flick)

I disagree w/ this the most. Box-office figures are dependent partly on distribution and marketing $. However, we shouldn't discount the moviegoers' role (a huge one) in this.

Most importantly, large box-office figures are skewed by more theatre screens today than the 80s, 70s, etc.

Don't overlook the size of film industries, too. Pictures backed by the major studios have a ridiculous advantage in getting seen. Hell, foreign countries don't give their own films a chance. American films rule the screens in South Korea today, for example.


To to go by your parameters is honestly hard for me b/c 2 of 'em don't matter to me.

On the other hand, to go by your criteria, off the top, I'd bring up Chaplin and Keaton especially b/c of the box-office/popular element. They were prolific, highly acclaimed, highly accomplished, and extremely popular.

It's important to note that you're excluding lots of masters of cinema b/c of your criteria.

good post.

... world. But do they make the best burgers?



Yeah.
Excuse the metaphor.
I haven't had lunch yet.






http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

i'll pass on responding here though. the level of elitism in this forum is off-putting.

No wait... Brian Robbins!