through out history though, the greatest artists have nearly no correlation with the most fiscally successful during their lifetime.

I have some friends that are movie snobs. These are the ones that think every movie should be on the level of 'Citizen Kane', and if it's not, it's not worth their time. They saw 'Transformers 2' and hated it, calling it a waste of time, and two hours of Megan Fox's cleavage and legs with explosions. I saw it on Friday (had Friday off...yay!) and I enjoyed it. I didn't go in thinking it would be the movie of the decade, I just went in expecting a movie based on the 'Transfomers' franchise, which is exactly what I got.

'Transfomers 2' would have been better if the twins would have remained the ice cream truck instead of getting their new forms early on, and also, if their screen time would have been less and their scenes after the first battle would have been replaced with Arcee (she needed more screen time).

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Tarantino as a great director? I would be hard-pressed to agree with that.

The Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson, on the other hand...

Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson.... Tarrence Malik, Scorsese, Errol Morris... even Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Cronenberg, Spike Jonze...

There are tons of interesting american film directors. Far more than any other country.

Bill Frist: Errol Morris

Yes, good call.

Bill Frist: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Tarantino as a great director? I would be hard-pressed to agree with that.

The Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson, on the other hand...

Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson.... Tarrence Malik, Scorsese, Errol Morris... even Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Cronenberg, Spike Jonze...

There are tons of interesting american film directors. Far more than any other country.

maybe more, but Jean-Pierre Jeanut (Amelie, Delicatessen, The Very Long Engagement, City of Lost Children), and Michel Gondry are SUCH good directors, I could watch ONLY their stuff until I die, and I would be satisfied.

Their movies are great at displaying the innocence of childhood while also being fiendishly nightmarish.

I was all on board for the JJ Abrams hate until Star Trek.

Fantasic movie, can't wait to see where he goes from there. He may have needed more warm up time than others, but if that was any indication of what Abrams has ahead of him, he will be up there with the best.

/ Hitch is still the best driector the world has seen. Watched "Rope" a few nights ago, mind boggling, 90 min, 9 cuts. That's talent that can't be reproduced.

NeuroticRocker: Bill Frist: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Tarantino as a great director? I would be hard-pressed to agree with that.

The Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson, on the other hand...

Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson.... Tarrence Malik, Scorsese, Errol Morris... even Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Cronenberg, Spike Jonze...

There are tons of interesting american film directors. Far more than any other country.

maybe more, but Jean-Pierre Jeanut (Amelie, Delicatessen, The Very Long Engagement, City of Lost Children), and Michel Gondry are SUCH good directors, I could watch ONLY their stuff until I die, and I would be satisfied.

Their movies are great at displaying the innocence of childhood while also being fiendishly nightmarish.

oh and while on French directors, i CANNOT forget Luc Besson

NeuroticRocker: maybe more, but Jean-Pierre Jeanut (Amelie, Delicatessen, The Very Long Engagement, City of Lost Children), and Michel Gondry are SUCH good directors, I could watch ONLY their stuff until I die, and I would be satisfied.

France is number 2 for sure.

epocalypse: through out history though, the greatest artists have nearly no correlation with the most fiscally successful during their lifetime.

I'm not sure I buy your premise. A lot of history had patronage of the arts, and those artists we know (especially from the renaissance) and think of as "great" are only known, and only "great" because they had a wealthy patron to allow them to create work.

There would be no Leonardo of Michaelangelo without the Medicis, no Shakespeare without Queen Elizabeth. The idea of the "starving artist" is, I think, a rather new one.

But as to the main point. I think Chris Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, and the Coen Brothers can sell tickets on their names, so I don't think there is a dearth of famous (relatively) young directors.

Get off your farking high horses, you losers.

Just because the "blockbuster" attempts were created by hacks this summer doesn't mean decent directors aren't out there. I think some of last year's summer movies are a good point. But this year we have been inundated with extraordinarily poor films.

Gavin Hood. Mc G, Michael Bay and Brad Silberling all should be kicked out of the director's chair.

Meanwhile. Sam Raimi puts out a great little horror/comedy film and the studios completely blow the marketing, which dragged the movie itself into hell.

It's a sad time in movies, but I know the art of movies isn't dead yet.

Cromar: Nice thread full of people who didn't even attempt to RTFA. Honestly, you could get the thesis from the first paragraph.

Simple idea: think of a director who can sell a movie successfully on name alone. M Night Whatever had this status for a very short time, but after two bad and one absolutely horrendous movie the public is done with him. Spielberg is a household name but he doesn't sell movies that way anymore: the movies are sold on major stars, big budget special effects, or known franchises. Abrams is a new big name on the scene but so far his movies are sold on special effects and major franchises. Kevin Smith is great but nobody (outside of Fark posters) sees his movies in theaters. Michael Bay, who is awful but immensely successful, gets that success with, again, major stars and special effects. I would be that most of the drooling fans of his work don't even know who he is.

The article tries to argue that QT can sell a movie on name alone but his movies aren't huge successes either, so I'm not sure he should be on the list with Apatow. He is a great director, though.

I don't know. I have to somewhat disagree. I still think Spielberg can still sell a movie on his name alone. I agree, it's not like the old days when it was a complete and utter event to have a Spielberg movie out. But I still think he has enough clout to fill the seats. At least in the first few days of opening. That's enough to make it a hit. However, whether it's a smash, record breaking blockbuster is up to who is in it, special effects and what not. On that point I agree with you.

Personally, the problem I see is that there are way too many movies coming out at any given time. It used to be a single movie would open every week or every other week. And that movie would play in the theaters for several weeks to months. People would watch it and become familiar with the director's style. These days, there seems to be no less than three movies opening every week. If a movie doesn't make any money within the first few days of opening, there is a good chance of the movie disappearing by the end of the second week from the theaters altogether.

From there you would have to wait for the DVD but that market is even worse. Not only does that poor movie have to compete with other American movies for the market but they are also up against Straight to DVD videos (usually sequels to such things as Disney movies), American and Non-American television series and a whole glut of Independent and Foreign movies that never made it past the art house theaters but someone how have a cult following thanks to the internet. A movie can become easily lost in this ocean of entertainment and never allow a director to gain enough of a popularity to have any clout in this business.

And while it has never been easier to become a director these days, the bad to side to that is, it has never been easier to become a director. Good luck making a name for yourself because every schmo with a camera thinks he can be the next Spielberg, Wes Anderson and/or Tarantino as well.

ugh this is a played out argument, there are many great films that have been produced, venture out and you will find it.

peachpicker: No way! Alright, this is my good deed for the week. Enjoy. And like I said, every episode is brilliant.

You're a good mammajamma, Charlie Brown.

Thank you very much!


epocalypse: CHRIS NOLAN IS BRITISH!

mekki: Wait. Nolan's American? Because the article is about American directors.

He was born in London, but has dual citizenship in the UK and US. That may be why some people are counting him as an American filmmaker.


Bill Frist: Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson.... Tarrence Malik, Scorsese, Errol Morris... even Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Cronenberg, Spike Jonze...

There are tons of interesting american film directors.

Amen to that.


At the same time, I can't get over the wealth of great foreign talent, too.

They may not have names as well-known or established as Spielberg or Scorsese, but their films certainly merit a look.

mekki: Personally, the problem I see is that there are way too many movies coming out at any given time. It used to be a single movie would open every week or every other week. And that movie would play in the theaters for several weeks to months. People would watch it and become familiar with the director's style. These days, there seems to be no less than three movies opening every week. If a movie doesn't make any money within the first few days of opening, there is a good chance of the movie disappearing by the end of the second week from the theaters altogether.

That almost never happens, though. And if it does it's usually because the movie truly sucks. Most films are successful at the box office if they're good, and they also benefit from word-of-mouth, which is a lot more of a factor today with the Internet.

Hey guyz! You forgot about me!

Good directors are very much alive and well, and they're still making great films.

Unfortunately, no one is seeing them because they are all going to the movies instead.

i said it once in this thread, but i will say it again in case you missed it.

CHARLIE KAUFMAN

he wrote: Being John Malkovitch, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine, Human Nature and Confessions of A Dangerous Mind

but his most recent work was not only written by him, but it was his directorial debut. and i think it will CATAPULT him into Wes Anderson territory. the movie was a FARKING MASTERPIECE.

if you are a fan of wes and of spike, even if you have already seen it...watch this trailer:

Link (new window)

i even made a 7 min youtube review.

I thought the best directed movie I've seen in the past few years was "Brick"

so I'll give a shout-out to director Rian Johnson...

Haven't seen his new movie though

AuralArgument: Joel Schumacher

Just don't give him a budget, and don't let him near the lighting or costume people.

So... don't give him any money, turn out the lights, and hope he and his crew just gives up and goes home without shooting a single frame of film? Yeah, I could see how that might improve his work.

austerity101: Good directors are very much alive and well, and they're still making great films.

Unfortunately, no one is seeing them because they are all going to the movies instead.

i have a theory that everyone is, or can be a fan of wes, lynch, spike, etc.

its just that they havent been exposed to them. put them in a college classroom, or put them in a room with free beer and hipsters and i guarantee you, you can find a GOOD movie they will like.

i was talking to a girl i just met on AIM. we were talking about movies and we really have almost nothing in common.

she doesn't like "indie" movies. and she just saw Transformers 2 and she farking loved it.

shes one of those dimwits who "doesnt like to think too much"

but she likes horror movies. I can show her some Dario Argento. for every dimwit, there is a sophisticated movie they will love. there still is hope yet.

she also loves action movies. so i can show her The Professional.

but i cant really stand her. her taste in music sucks too.

/not that im so smug, i think im better than her
//just my artistic preferences are

Population of great American film directors has been reduced

C'mon. There are still plenty of directors making angst-ridden trophy hunts set in New York City or L.A. It's actually most of all movies made, so there is plenty of crap to pick from.

WillyShwonka: Show me a cookie cutter film that Tarantino has directed? Show me an unoriginal plot.

Kill Bill 2.

hetheeme: I was all on board for the JJ Abrams hate until Star Trek.

Fantasic movie, can't wait to see where he goes from there. He may have needed more warm up time than others, but if that was any indication of what Abrams has ahead of him, he will be up there with the best.


"JJ" has an awesome ability of setting movies/t.v. shows up, but then he falls flat on his face and can't finish them. Lost, Fringe, Alias, any of his movies all suffer from his inability to carry the idea to completion.

Oh, and tell me again what was the plot of the new Star Trek Movie?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

NeuroticRocker: its just that they havent been exposed to them. put them in a college classroom, or put them in a room with free beer and hipsters and i guarantee you, you can find a GOOD movie they will like.

Actually, I think having people in groups makes it worse. Individually, people will come out of themselves a bit more. As a group, no one wants to step out and be nerdy and uncool. Being stupid is cool in our society, especially among the youth.

If someone told me he/she "didn't like to think too much," that would be the last conversation we had. That's not even worth putting time or effort into.

I do agree, though, that underexposure and reluctance pay a big part in keeping good films from larger audiences.

Everything Tarantino does is an homage. So, it's not like he is Mr. Original.

I enjoyed the first two just like many people did, but he has gotten worse every movie since Pulp Fiction. He's the Pearl Jam of movie direction.

AuralArgument: I know I'll get flamed for this one

Joel Schumacher

Just don't give him a budget, and don't let him near the lighting or costume people.

Link (new window)

eddyatwork: If movies today suck so much why are people watching them?

Because people are stupid, there is no way people with a half a brain can say that films like national treasure, transformers 1/2, or any spiderman are actually good films.

You know what the problem with Hollywood is? They make shiat. Unbelievable, unremarkable shiat.

From another shiatty unbelievable hollywood film, is that the definition of irony?

barneyfifesbullet: Everything Tarantino does is an hommage.

LFPV.

/Nazi d'orthographe
//et de grammaire

epocalypse: Brad Bird

Great call.

Waaa, I hate entertaining movies!'



/maybe you're not smoking enough dope

Your_Huckleberry: Ugh...I seriously dissagree with the notion that Tarantino is a great director.

Once again mistaking personal taste for objective judgement of quality...

Brown Sauce: Waaa, I hate entertaining movies!'

/maybe you're not smoking enough dope

Sorry if people with half a brain dont find robots fighting to be entertaining.

austerity101: NeuroticRocker: its just that they havent been exposed to them. put them in a college classroom, or put them in a room with free beer and hipsters and i guarantee you, you can find a GOOD movie they will like.

Actually, I think having people in groups makes it worse. Individually, people will come out of themselves a bit more. As a group, no one wants to step out and be nerdy and uncool. Being stupid is cool in our society, especially among the youth.

If someone told me he/she "didn't like to think too much," that would be the last conversation we had. That's not even worth putting time or effort into.

I do agree, though, that underexposure and reluctance pay a big part in keeping good films from larger audiences.

my friend texted me two days ago to tell me he got into a fist fight with this guy we used to work with. i was so happy. the guy he hit was a horrible douchebag. he (the guy who deserved to have his lights knocked out) was one of those turdknuckles who would say "well i read Billboard charts, and if they ain't on there, then they ain't good."

he REFUSED to believe (and we argued about this alot) that there are artists who are not just in it for the money. he has said "if you own a guitar, then you are an entertainer. why WOULD you own a guitar if you arent trying to become famous?"

and he said all that matters is how much money you make.

and he was no troll. he actually believed this.

i cant talk about him much more bc im getting angry thinking about him, but yeah, that girl and i dont speak anymore....well...i got talking to her because she has alot of tattoos, and i just got my first one, which is a full color one that takes up just about ALL of the inside of my forearm, and the healing process is weirder than i expected, and so she is my go to gal for tattoo questions. she seems really cool, just not compatible.

Please talk to my fists. I've nicknamed them Joel and Ethan.

NeuroticRocker: austerity101: NeuroticRocker: its just that they havent been exposed to them. put them in a college classroom, or put them in a room with free beer and hipsters and i guarantee you, you can find a GOOD movie they will like.

Actually, I think having people in groups makes it worse. Individually, people will come out of themselves a bit more. As a group, no one wants to step out and be nerdy and uncool. Being stupid is cool in our society, especially among the youth.

If someone told me he/she "didn't like to think too much," that would be the last conversation we had. That's not even worth putting time or effort into.

I do agree, though, that underexposure and reluctance pay a big part in keeping good films from larger audiences.

my friend texted me two days ago to tell me he got into a fist fight with this guy we used to work with. i was so happy. the guy he hit was a horrible douchebag. he (the guy who deserved to have his lights knocked out) was one of those turdknuckles who would say "well i read Billboard charts, and if they ain't on there, then they ain't good."

he REFUSED to believe (and we argued about this alot) that there are artists who are not just in it for the money. he has said "if you own a guitar, then you are an entertainer. why WOULD you own a guitar if you arent trying to become famous?"

and he said all that matters is how much money you make.

and he was no troll. he actually believed this.

i cant talk about him much more bc im getting angry thinking about him, but yeah, that girl and i dont speak anymore....well...i got talking to her because she has alot of tattoos, and i just got my first one, which is a full color one that takes up just about ALL of the inside of my forearm, and the healing process is weirder than i expected, and so she is my go to gal for tattoo questions. she seems really cool, just not compatible.

also, the guy my friend beat up said that any artist who cant or wont sell out a football stadium must really suck because who wouldnt want that?

i tried to show him music like Bon Iver and such that is inappropriate for a stadium and that modesty is one of the finest virtues one can possess, and he doenst farking get it

shes like one of those i think

/she likes slipknot too

SO much fail in this thread - lol! I think most of you missed the point of the article, for starters. The article didn't argue that there weren't great auteurs directing movies any more, it argued - very successfully - that directors don't sell movies to the public any more. Back in the day, you'd go see something called "Peggy Sue Got Married" just because it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Nowadays, Michael Mann has to cast Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp to make sure you go to his movies. Not that such actors wouldn't have necessarily been his first choice anyway, but there was a time when big-shot directors would give no-names a chance to star in a big production, and we're just not seeing that as much these days.

Sure, Christopher Nolan is a great young director, probably the best of his generation along with Brad Bird. So, who goes to see their movies just because they directed it, huh? Sure, I do and some of you Farkers do, but realize the rarified geek place that we occupy. The vast majority of the public wouldn't be able to tell you 2 films that Brad Bird has directed, in spite of the fact that his last two films are instant animated classics. I have friends who are huge Batman fans that think the two recent Batman movies are all Christopher Nolan has ever done. I popped in "The Prestige" for them, assuring them it was one of the best movies of the last 10 years, and they were disappointed because "it was confusing and didn't have enough action". lol...what can you say to that?

So instead of arguing about who is a great director and who isn't, think about the point the author of the article was making. It was a good one, whether you think Tarantino is worth a shiat or not. Fact is, his name sells a film - and he's one of the only directors left whose name does that.

Ishtar killed the auteur.

jake3988

Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg... yes.

You have name precisely one American.

Someone mentioned Kevin Smith and Tarantino as directors that can pull an audience based on their names. BZZZT. I like Smith, but popular and mainstream are two things he's not.

Tarantino generates buzz, but not an audience. Tarantino does not pull in big numbers. See Grindhouse, Kill Bill, etc.

He is like Whedon in that he generates internet buzz, but that doesn't translate to dollars.

I think Pixar fits this mold even though they're not one director. The trailers for their movies never mention their voice actors. Instead they say "From the makers of Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo" etc. And all of their films gross more than $150 million even though their stories are completely original.

Weigard: Ishtar killed the auteur.

jake3988

Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg... yes.

You have name precisely one American.


WRONG. There are two Americans there - Spielberg, and Nolan is a dual citizen of the UK and the U.S. -- his mother is American.

And in the poster's defense, it's easy to be thrown off by the whole LIVING HERE and MAKING MOVIES HERE part of their bios.

I haven't seen a bad Christopher Nolan movie yet, and Clint is still terrific.

Mateorocks: Clint is still terrific.

That he is.

Out of his latter-day directorial efforts, only Changeling strikes me as a mild disappointment.

Mateorocks: I haven't seen a bad Christopher Nolan movie yet, and Clint is still terrific.

have you seen Following?

Heres Doodlebug...its a bizzare 3 minute short he did:

Link (new window)

TribeFan695: I think Pixar fits this mold even though they're not one director. The trailers for their movies never mention their voice actors. Instead they say "From the makers of Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo" etc. And all of their films gross more than $150 million even though their stories are completely original.

Their stories aren't original, just well executed. Toy Story is based on concepts from a lot of children's stories, Cars is Doc Hollywood, and The Incredibles is Watchmen Lite. That doesn't mean they aren't good movies (except I really didn't care for Cars) but they are far from original.

/don't feel like going over the other
// Nemo and Monsters Inc. were my favorites
// Still haven't seen Up.

ODDwhun: Their stories aren't original, just well executed. Toy Story is based on concepts from a lot of children's stories, Cars is Doc Hollywood, and The Incredibles is Watchmen Lite. That doesn't mean they aren't good movies (except I really didn't care for Cars) but they are far from original.

I'm not going to get into the whole "seven basic plots" debate, but you know what I meant. The films aren't obvious adaptations or remakes of past works. Their prime selling point is their brand name.

Rian Johnson, Richard Linklater, Wes Anderson, Neil Labute, Woody Allen, Steven Soderbergh, Ramin Bahrani, and Tony Gilroy disagree.

There are more.

How the hell does Spike Jonze keep getting on this lists? He's only directed one movie fercrissakes. The rest of his list is all music videos, how does that qualify as a top film director? Come back with that when he has a decent body of work and we'll talk.

Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein of Gelderland: How the hell does Spike Jonze keep getting on this lists? He's only directed one movie fercrissakes. The rest of his list is all music videos, how does that qualify as a top film director? Come back with that when he has a decent body of work and we'll talk.

You forgot Poland.

/and Adaptation
//and Where the Wild Things Are looks like it will be great

Never understood the lack of love for Michael Mann, either as producer or director.

Manhunter
Heat
The Insider
Last of the Mohicans
Collateral

All really good movies, The Insider being one of my personal favorites.

/yes, Miami Vice was his turd blossom