If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   "Where are the great movies?" asks the director of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 186
    More: Ironic, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Steven Spielberg  
•       •       •

3942 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Nov 2011 at 4:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-28 11:50:55 PM

velvet_fog: "Where are the great movies?" asks the director of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 1941, Always, Temple of Doom, Hook, The Lost World, Munich, War of the Worlds, The Terminal.

He's made great movies, but he's been responsible for his fair share of schlock. Like almost every director (even many great ones).


Munich is schlock?
 
2011-11-29 12:10:34 AM

Leader O'Cola: rocky_howard: farking KUBRICK, Hitchcock, Kurosawa and Bergman are unknown?

lol. sad, isn't it ?


I know. If it was the aforementioned Harmony Korine, I'd understand. Even a Wes Anderson. But the motherfarking four columns of cinema as an artform? Yeah, that guy is trolling or ignorantly pretentious.

kanesays: rocky_howard:

Also go watch Kieslowski's Color Trilogy, you'll learn a thing or two about cinema.

Kieslowski's 'Red' is a superb film. Highly recommended.


Yup, that's my favorite of the three.

I need to see Blind Chance from him, but haven't got the time to track it down. Got interested after learning that it was where Run, Lola, Run got its structure from.
 
2011-11-29 12:32:45 AM

mitchcumstein1: Yes, Steven Spielberg has never made a good movie.


He has made some good movies, but I don't think he has made movies as good as, say, the best Coen Brothers films or the best David Lynch films or the best films of the directors of the 80s/90s/00s that he is bashing
 
2011-11-29 12:38:57 AM

The Lone Talbot: Spielberg as a director in theaters, ratings from Rotten Tomatoes
100 - Jaws (1975)
98 - E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
97 - Schindler's List (1993)
96 - Catch Me If You Can (2002)
95 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
94 - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
93 - Saving Private Ryan (1998)
92 - The Sugarland Express (1974)
92 - Minority Report (2002)
89 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
89 - Jurassic Park (1993)
88 - The Color Purple (1985)
86 - The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
85 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
81 - Empire of the Sun (1987)
78 - Munich (2005)
77 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
76 - Amistad (1997)
74 - War of the Worlds (2005)
73 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
61 - Always (1989)
60 - The Terminal (2004)
52 - The Lost World - Jurassic Park (1997)
33 - 1941 (1979)
29 - Hook (1991)

Suck it, haters. He has obviously made some crap, but the great far, far, outweighs it.


I don't hate spielburg, but....

a) The old films before RT archived things, like Jaws, dont' have real scores.

b) does anyone really think Catch me if You Can is a farking amazing film? or " Minority Report"? Or most of the other ones up there?

Spielberg is a good, even great, mainstream popcorn blockbuster filmmaker. Nothing special artistically really... which is why it is weird to see him say these comments. He is the one who helped transform hollywood into this big budget, no heart or soul or innovatinon, industry.
 
2011-11-29 12:44:39 AM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: crashdavis18: Raiders of the Lost Ark is below Catch Me if You Can? There is indeed no accounting for taste.

I didn't even notice.

Yeah, that ain't right.


That list doesn't accuont for taste. It barely even accounts for critical opinion. Sorry, but i hate RT meter. The Metacritic average score is much better. That shows actual critical opinion. In the RT thing a movie that 50 people loved but 50 people thought was kinda "meh" would get the same score as a film that 100 people thought was only okay.

Here are his best films by metacritic:

94
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (re-release) Mar 22, 2002 Director / Producer 7.9
93
Schindler's List Dec 15, 1993 Director / Producer 8.7
90
Raiders of the Lost Ark Jun 12, 1981 Director 8.9
90
Saving Private Ryan Jul 24, 1998 Director / Producer 8.7
86
The Adventures of Tintin Dec 21, 2011 Director / Producer tbd
80
Minority Report Jun 21, 2002 Director 7.5
79
Jaws Jun 20, 1975 Director
76
Catch Me If You Can Dec 25, 2002 Director / Producer 7.8
74
Munich Dec 23, 2005 Director / Producer


That seems much more accurate, doesn't it?
 
2011-11-29 12:56:27 AM

Leader O'Cola: Jim from Saint Paul: Can I have 2 or 3 people you consider better so I can understand where you're coming from then?


Lang
Hitchcock
Kurosawa
Clouzot
Bergman
Leone
Kubrick
Tarkovsy
Scorsese
.... to name a few


I'll Play!

Kurosawa
Bunuel
Fassbinder
Herzog
Kieszlowski
Truffaut
Eisenstein
Tarkovsky
Peckinpah
Fellini
Godard
Lean
Ford

etc.
etc.
 
2011-11-29 01:01:56 AM

beelzebubba76: Leader O'Cola: Jim from Saint Paul: Can I have 2 or 3 people you consider better so I can understand where you're coming from then?


Lang
Hitchcock
Kurosawa
Clouzot
Bergman
Leone
Kubrick
Tarkovsy
Scorsese
.... to name a few

I'll Play!

Kurosawa
Bunuel
Fassbinder
Herzog
Kieszlowski
Truffaut
Eisenstein
Tarkovsky
Peckinpah
Fellini
Godard
Lean
Ford

etc.
etc.


Judd Apatow
 
2011-11-29 01:12:41 AM
Audiences have changed the demographic is skewing younger. Jaws was seen by EVERYBODY young and old and across the socio-economic spectrum. It was largely middle aged folks who made "The Godfather", "The Way We Were" and the "Amityville Horror" successes. Now audiences are almost entirely teenagers. Teens generally don't want subtlety. They want "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" Even Speilberg is dumbing down his movies. "The Crystal Skull" and "War of the Worlds" were designed to appeal to teenagers. Entire families went to see "Jaws" and "Star Wars" that almost never happens any more.

ANY medium will start to suck when it caters to only one demographic.
 
2011-11-29 01:16:06 AM

Bill Frist: That list doesn't accuont for taste. It barely even accounts for critical opinion. Sorry, but i hate RT meter. The Metacritic average score is much better. That shows actual critical opinion. In the RT thing a movie that 50 people loved but 50 people thought was kinda "meh" would get the same score as a film that 100 people thought was only okay.


Yeah I was about to mention that, but honestly? It's not the fault of Rotten Tomatoes.

The % thing is so you can know at a glance if the movie is likable or not.

The % is just the percentage of people who liked it, nothing more.

They put an actual score in the files.

And some movies tend to be divisive, so the % will be skewed. For example: Melancholia. It's a love it or hate it affair heh.

Going by the actual Rotten Tomatoes score, we have:

Raiders with an Average Rating: 8.9/10

Catch Me with an Average Rating: 7.9/10

That's 10 points ahead.
 
2011-11-29 01:44:12 AM
"There Will Be Blood" and "The Social Network"

Watch them, Spielberg
 
2011-11-29 02:36:15 AM

mitchcumstein1: James Cameron has made some damn good movies.


His 80s flicks just lame sci-fi horror. The bad guy has to come back at the end three times, that kind of crap.

Alien was a great flick. The sequel was just dull, and didnt have much in common except for the creature and weaver.

Yeah yeah, shedloads of money, finger on the pulse, whatever. His early hits were crappy and his later ones were pablum.
 
2011-11-29 02:42:08 AM
All in all I think he's a great filmmaker, just on his body of work.

You can watch 6 random movies by Spielberg and not say "typical Spielberg" like you might if you watched Woody Allen or the abominable PT Anderson. Would you think the same guy directed Saving Private Ryan and Munich also did Jurassic Park and The Terminal?
 
2011-11-29 02:47:23 AM

Delawheredad: Audiences have changed the demographic is skewing younger. Jaws was seen by EVERYBODY young and old and across the socio-economic spectrum. It was largely middle aged folks who made "The Godfather", "The Way We Were" and the "Amityville Horror" successes. Now audiences are almost entirely teenagers. Teens generally don't want subtlety. They want "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" Even Speilberg is dumbing down his movies. "The Crystal Skull" and "War of the Worlds" were designed to appeal to teenagers. Entire families went to see "Jaws" and "Star Wars" that almost never happens any more.

ANY medium will start to suck when it caters to only one demographic.



Film execs have been saying this for 30 years and it's horseshiat.
 
2011-11-29 03:10:12 AM

moothemagiccow: All in all I think he's a great filmmaker, just on his body of work.

You can watch 6 random movies by Spielberg and not say "typical Spielberg" like you might if you watched Woody Allen or the abominable PT Anderson. Would you think the same guy directed Saving Private Ryan and Munich also did Jurassic Park and The Terminal?


You're not helping your case...

Anyway, so having a style is bad now? WTF...

I do commend Spielberg's ability to direct anything under the sun though (funny he directed the adaptation of Chrichton's biggest hit, a guy who could write about anything under the sun).

That tells you more about Spielberg's producing ability, as someone said before. He may falter here and there as a director, but the man is a superb producer. And not the lameass Joel Silver/Jerry Bruckheimer/Richard Donner kind of armchair producer.

Plus we wouldn't have a DCAnimated Universe, no BTAS, no JLU if not for him. So apart from thanking him for Indiana Jones, I'll always be endebted for propping up Warner's animation department in the late 80s/early 90s.
 
2011-11-29 04:23:20 AM

mitchcumstein1: DamnYankees: That's cool - I liked that movie a lot when I was a kid also. But its objectively not a very good movie

No, it's not a great film, but it is entertaining to the people it was made for, which is more than can be said for most recent Woody Allen movies.


If you knew someone like the 'know it all' guy from Midnight in Paris, you would've found those scenes highly entertaining. My buddy and I just about died laughing because of how perfectly it portrayed those assholes and the positions they find themselves in.
 
2011-11-29 05:12:40 AM

Delawheredad: Audiences have changed the demographic is skewing younger. Jaws was seen by EVERYBODY young and old and across the socio-economic spectrum. It was largely middle aged folks who made "The Godfather", "The Way We Were" and the "Amityville Horror" successes. Now audiences are almost entirely teenagers. Teens generally don't want subtlety. They want "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" Even Speilberg is dumbing down his movies. "The Crystal Skull" and "War of the Worlds" were designed to appeal to teenagers. Entire families went to see "Jaws" and "Star Wars" that almost never happens any more.

ANY medium will start to suck when it caters to only one demographic.



The big films of the 60s & 70s weren't aimed at a middle-age audience. They were aimed at a YOUNG audience. Just because Al Pacino & Streisand are now old doesn't mean they were always old. Lucas, Coppola, et al were young guns who revolutionized the way movies were made & their stories told.

"Amityville" was a horror movie. Those always have a specific audience, just like kid flicks.

"The Godfather" was aimed at adults. Believe it or not, there was a time when 24-year-olds were considered adults with real jobs and responsibilities and not simply older adolescents. Young adults, but adults. Middle-aged people went to musicals and Disney films.

"Jaws" and "Star Wars" were like "Ben-Hur" in that they became event movies. Until "Jaws" no one really thought of summer blockbusters; they thought of summer as a trash dump for biker & dumb beach flicks. "Star Wars" was the first true space opera since the 50s, and its success caught everyone by surprise. ("2001" was a stoner's dream film.)
 
2011-11-29 05:23:40 AM
There are tons of movies from the last twenty years that could be called classics, and stand the test of time.

Here are a few that I think will still be watched in 50 years time.

Fargo
Trainspotting
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Children of Men
The Lives of Others
The Bourne... (any of them)
Slumdog Millionaire
The Dark Knight
The Pianist
Amelie
Wall-E
Up
Elizabeth
Pulp Fiction
Something the Lord Made
Dogma
Avatar
Dave
Thirteen Days
Shawshank Redemption
Unforgiven
Four Lions

And a whole bunch more. I wonder if Spielberg whined about the quality of movies during the 70's and 80's too.
 
2011-11-29 06:00:27 AM
beelzebubba76 :

Leader O'Cola: Jim from Saint Paul: Can I have 2 or 3 people you consider better so I can understand where you're coming from then?


Lang
Hitchcock
Kurosawa
Clouzot
Bergman
Leone
Kubrick
Tarkovsy
Scorsese
.... to name a few

I'll Play!

Kurosawa
Bunuel
Fassbinder
Herzog
Kieszlowski
Truffaut
Eisenstein
Tarkovsky
Peckinpah
Fellini
Godard
Lean
Ford

etc.
etc.


Coleman Francis!
 
2011-11-29 06:23:28 AM
thisdistractedglobe.com
 
2011-11-29 08:20:44 AM
Arnold's been busy in government of Caleefornia.
 
2011-11-29 08:57:23 AM

Camus' Ghost: beelzebubba76 :

Leader O'Cola: Jim from Saint Paul: Can I have 2 or 3 people you consider better so I can understand where you're coming from then?


Lang
Hitchcock
Kurosawa
Clouzot
Bergman
Leone
Kubrick
Tarkovsy
Scorsese
.... to name a few

I'll Play!

Kurosawa
Bunuel
Fassbinder
Herzog
Kieszlowski
Truffaut
Eisenstein
Tarkovsky
Peckinpah
Fellini
Godard
Lean
Ford

etc.
etc.

Coleman Francis!


Malick
Lynch
Coen Brothers
Morris
Miyakazi
 
2011-11-29 09:38:59 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

/not sure if serious
//seriously, how in the hell did this manage to get put up (and stay) on Netflix?
 
2011-11-29 10:16:47 AM
I wonder how many of the opinions in here are educated.
 
2011-11-29 10:28:54 AM
Subby here.

I confess that I always love a good Spielberg argument and that was the reason I went with a trollish headline. That said, I'm certainly of the opinion that the man's good output far outweighs his bad output (Jaws and Raiders alone allow for at least two dozen horrible films). It's unfair to blame the success of those films (along with E.T. and Close Encounters) for what happened to the industry afterwards. He may have helped create the concept of the modern blockbuster, but it's not his fault that the studios went full-tilt retard with the idea.

But there's one thing in the article that I have to admit I thought sure someone would have latched onto as an interesting, somewhat hypocritical bit:

Attacking the prevalence of film franchises - movies based on toys, or video games, that are intended to sell a product as much as they are to entertain - Spielberg said: "I think producers are more interested in backing concepts than directors and writers."

...says the executive producer of Transformers 1-3.
 
2011-11-29 10:29:14 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: mitchcumstein1: DamnYankees: That's cool - I liked that movie a lot when I was a kid also. But its objectively not a very good movie

No, it's not a great film, but it is entertaining to the people it was made for, which is more than can be said for most recent Woody Allen movies.

If you knew someone like the 'know it all' guy from Midnight in Paris, you would've found those scenes highly entertaining. My buddy and I just about died laughing because of how perfectly it portrayed those assholes and the positions they find themselves in.


I saw the movie last friday and I was thinking about how smarmy that guy was, but ultimately he (1) managed to fark Rachel McAdams and (2) was right about nostalgic people and the Golden Age syndrome he talked about when they were at Versailles.

He was an asshole, but still managed to bone the dude's girlfriend and ultimately he was in the right :(

It's so poignant.

BTW, isn't uncanny how much Owen Wilson looks/channeled Woody in the movie? :O
It's obvious this was supposed to be him, just that he's too old to be believable now.
 
2011-11-29 10:42:19 AM
My favortie Scorsese film:

image.xyface.com
 
2011-11-29 10:52:19 AM

Mulchpuppy: But there's one thing in the article that I have to admit I thought sure someone would have latched onto as an interesting, somewhat hypocritical bit:

Attacking the prevalence of film franchises - movies based on toys, or video games, that are intended to sell a product as much as they are to entertain - Spielberg said: "I think producers are more interested in backing concepts than directors and writers."

...says the executive producer of Transformers 1-3.


It certainly comes across as hypocritical, but the comments about toys and film franchies is not part of his actual quote. Did he really attack merchandising during that interview? Or is that just the author of TFA embellishing?

Based on the quotes alone, Spielberg is coming off as your typical "they don't make 'em like they used to", which is pretty much what everybody his age is saying and what everybody his age has always said. People here are overreacting like always.
 
2011-11-29 11:50:29 AM

moothemagiccow: mitchcumstein1: James Cameron has made some damn good movies.

His 80s flicks just lame sci-fi horror. The bad guy has to come back at the end three times, that kind of crap.

Alien was a great flick. The sequel was just dull, and didnt have much in common except for the creature and weaver.

Yeah yeah, shedloads of money, finger on the pulse, whatever. His early hits were crappy and his later ones were pablum.


Wait, so now James Cameron and Steven Speilberg, both responsible for some of the most famous and iconic scenes ever put on film, are shiat?

DeathByGeekSquad: If you knew someone like the 'know it all' guy from Midnight in Paris, you would've found those scenes highly entertaining. My buddy and I just about died laughing because of how perfectly it portrayed those assholes and the positions they find themselves in.


This thread is filled with them.
 
2011-11-29 12:01:44 PM

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: I don;t know what to say. The movie itself is not amazing, but the craftsmanship really is. Spielberg knows how to tell stories.

Yeah, "craftsmanship." As in, "Hey, wouldn't it be AWESOME if we had a scene where the aliens attacked a ferry boat full of cars and people and the boat started tipping over and the cars were all rolling around and smashing up people and stuff? And people DROWNING in the cars! Yeah, I know it doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense to have a ferry boat full of cars that don't work. I mean, why wouldn't all the people just push the dead cars off of the ferry boat and then an extra thousand people would be able to be loaded onto the ferry boat every trip? If we were to write this sensibly, then we wouldn't have that AWESOME SCENE where the cars go flying into the water and shiat!"

"Craftsmanship." Otherwise known as "eye candy."


I won't say that War of the Worlds was a great movie but the issue of the cars does make sense if you think for a moment that the van Tom Cruise and his kids were driving around after his friend (that got vaporized after Tom stole the car) spent about 5 minutes fixing it (he put in a new battery or starter or something). Don't you think that a few other people had the same idea or maybe some cars were far away enough from the attacks that they still worked? And that having working cars would be pretty important and would be worth saving the space on the ferry? Oooooor...are you one of those people who like to point out movie goofs that only appear to be goofs because you expect every detail of a movie to be presented in a 2 hour movie and you can't think for yourself? Or as I like to refer to your kind, a Derpity Derp.
 
2011-11-29 12:13:50 PM
Obviously he's yet to see this cinematic masterpiece

www.milehighcinema.com
 
2011-11-29 12:16:18 PM

dopeydwarf: FWIW though, this is one of my favorite war movies ever:

[www.moviegoods.com image 580x824]

Take that as you will.


Agreed. Casualties of War is amazing.

/shook me up
 
2011-11-29 12:32:31 PM

gunga galunga: Based on the quotes alone, Spielberg is coming off as your typical "they don't make 'em like they used to", which is pretty much what everybody his age is saying and what everybody his age has always said. People here are overreacting like always.


And that is an excellent point you make there. But I have to believe that there must have been something that led into that snippet. It's entirely possible that the initial question wasn't as leading, though, and I probably shouldn't have played the hypocrite card so easily.

But then again, this is Fark.
 
2011-11-29 02:39:30 PM

mitchcumstein1: Wait, so now James Cameron and Steven Speilberg, both responsible for some of the most famous and iconic scenes ever put on film, are shiat?


Just Cameron.
 
2011-11-29 04:04:55 PM

DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: There was that War of the Worlds remake that was...oh, yeah, that sucked donkey balls. Who was the director of that one again? That guy should have been fired.

That was an excellent, excellent movie with one fatal flaw (the stupid son thing). But otherwise, brilliantly made movie.


I especially love the fact that the first extermination tri-pod comes from beneath a CHURCH. Awesome!
 
2011-11-29 09:49:35 PM
dopeydwarf: There have been great movies made over the past couple decades, it's just that Spielberg hasn't made one in a while so he thinks they don't exist. Stevey, watch a good Woody Allen movie and see how it's done. I really love Match Point. Midnight in Paris was pretty damn good too and both were made within the last decade.

To be fair Spielberg hasn't really "directed" much. He's been producer / executive producer on quite a few stinkers, but then again I usually run away when something gets slapped with that.

Since 2001 he's only directed or co-directed about 9 movies, Tin-Tin and war Horse included . IMDB has him in about 35-40 productions since then.
 
2011-11-29 09:55:05 PM
Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: I don;t know what to say. The movie itself is not amazing, but the craftsmanship really is. Spielberg knows how to tell stories.

Yeah, "craftsmanship." As in, "Hey, wouldn't it be AWESOME if we had a scene where the aliens attacked a ferry boat full of cars and people and the boat started tipping over and the cars were all rolling around and smashing up people and stuff? And people DROWNING in the cars! Yeah, I know it doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense to have a ferry boat full of cars that don't work. I mean, why wouldn't all the people just push the dead cars off of the ferry boat and then an extra thousand people would be able to be loaded onto the ferry boat every trip? If we were to write this sensibly, then we wouldn't have that AWESOME SCENE where the cars go flying into the water and shiat!"

"Craftsmanship." Otherwise known as "eye candy."


You mean like a gigantic battle station, a death star if you will, that is impenetrable but for one convenient exhaust port? I mean, you think that thing would be buried under several decks, wound around like a snake, and diffused out smaller openings with a blow back valve.

News flash, movies sometimes forgo realistic for the cinematic.
 
Displayed 36 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report