Absolutely. I would boycott this community only if you all decided that we have to impose such standards that we're guaranteed reach the same general conclusions as all other online communities.
Printable View
Absolutely. I would boycott this community only if you all decided that we have to impose such standards that we're guaranteed reach the same general conclusions as all other online communities.
Precisely. If that were the case, I'd just Google AFI's - or some other similar venue - Top 100 directors list and post them on here and have everyone vote for those. But I wanted folks to nominate the directors they thought were best because it would make for better discussions, better polls, and an all around better tournament. In other words, more fun.
Yeah, the tourney is just for fun. I love lists and tournaments, so I have a lot of fun with this stuff.
Just because somebody wins that I might not agree with, doesn't mean it's right. It's just a fun poll among friends. I'm sure Spielberg will not take offense if he loses to Nolan. :lol:
If Nolan does in fact beat Spielberg, it won't really bother me. I don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.
By the way, I think Nolan is a great director and I hope and pray his best work is ahead of him.
Spielberg got my vote. I would give it to him, as I said before, for Jaws alone. I think he has this superhuman ability as a director for getting the most natural performances out of his cast, it's incredible to watch.
Nolan, well I've yet to see Momento and I'm looking forward to that, but even The Dark Knight was average to me. Maybe it was all the hype but, it didn't stand out from any other film made this decade so far. Heath Ledger's performance was not worthy of the unfortunate lengths he went to to immerse himself in the character, in my opinion.
:nope: While I'd agree that most people are lazy in their viewing habits I'd dispute that it's a statistical fact except in the sense that anything can be a statistical fact. If you're going to use such an expression I want charts and graphs, dammit. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Sure. By that, I mean (in one example) that he's brought the psychological aspect back to films in a society where it's a statistical fact that the average movie-goer doesn't want to sit through a movie and actually think and have their minds prodded. To do that and to do that successfully deserves a large amount of respect. And from me, he's got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlexCan you explain, please Ricky ... breath of fresh air? What has he done that's so counter to everything else we've seen before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
I mean, okay, I think he's got talent, but he can't touch Spielberg .. and if he can ... we haven't seen it yet. IMHO.
Pair that with his directing skills and artistic perspective, and you've got one director who's truly showing us something, not just making films to make them.
Spielberg
I just watched The Color Purple for the first time, and this statement pretty much sums up that movie as far as the performances of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover. Really fantastic. And, prior to my seeing this movie, I would not have said that any of these were very good actors/actresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkthoughts
This was really tough for me, as i grew up with SS films, Jaws, ET, close encounters where some of the best films i saw growing up and still stay with me now. I can still watch them and get a nostalgic feeling. I can sit back and be amused by how they have aged but also feel warm and fuzzy inside.
but.....i love ALL of nolans films, whereas SS did have a couple of clangers
nolan:beat:
This is so tough. I still can't decide :panic: Well at least I have a few more days...
A couple? That is generous. Personally, I can't believe that there's folken singing praises of Minority Report. :rolleyes: Then, every time someone mentions Indiana Jones, the first thought that goes through my mind is that Raiders of the Lost Ark was a fairly good film... and the second is that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was an extremely bad one.Quote:
Originally Posted by candy
somehow, I didn't expect this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice
More Nolan votes, anyone? This is much too close for comfort.
More Spielberg votes needed. :shoot:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeansomehow, I didn't expect this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice
More Nolan votes, anyone? This is much too close for comfort.
Me too.:cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeansomehow, I didn't expect this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice
More Nolan votes, anyone? This is much too close for comfort.
I just think Nolan at his best is far superior to Spielberg at his.
tie at 14... what a night, I come home and see ties everywhere...
Spielberg makes blockbusters, not pieces of artwork. I can understand those who have a preference because they grew up with him, but his movies are no different than a million others on the market. Nolan, on the other hand, pushes the bounds of what it means to "watch a film" and uses his movies to convey levels of emotion that Spielberg has yet to graze. The Prestige, Inception, and Memento may not last in the hearts of Hollywood critics as long as the hard-hitting blockbusters Spielberg makes, but they certainly deserve more praise in my opinion.
To me, this round comes down to a battle of the bands: do you give the award to the band who makes the [basically] generic pop music that everyone is going to love for its modesty and time-tested appeal that lacks no risk, or the prog metal band who can play with your emotions and your mind like a puppet master but takes a chance with music not everyone will love?
I'm a prog musician, and as such Nolan gets my vote.
Also, I believe Ledger did a better job portraying the Joker than anyone gives him credit for; hype included. After I saw The Dark Knight, I got really angry that he died right before the film was released because I knew right then and there that his performance would be trivialized as "nothing but hype". The problem with The Dark Knight is that you have to be a long-time fan of Batman to really understand the character of the Joker. Sure, the inclusion of the Joker was a way to get people who have never watched a Batman movie to come and see it (the Joker is a common knowledge character and attracts fans), but it's also something more -- the Joker is the scariest villain of all time, hands down (sorry, Pennywise). Ledger put his entire soul into that part, and he proved to me that the Joker could exist in real life, and that's something I never thought was possible. I honestly believed I was watching a supervillain, not just a manic serial killer, and that's more than I can say of any other superhero movie I've ever seen. His portrayal of the Joker left me speechless -- it is, quite possibly, the best performance I've ever seen from an actor.
Well spoken, SS. Your entire post sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by SynysterSaint
Honestly, I don't see how these two things have to exclusive.Quote:
Spielberg makes blockbusters, not pieces of artwork.
Saving Private Ryan, Munich, ET, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Schlinders List, Empire of the Sun. Just to name a few. These are works of film art. Just because some of them made a boat-load of dough, who cares?
they don't have to be exclusive, but, alas, in most cases, they are; I have to agree with Synyster that they definitely are in this particular case
As Jean has said, the two [blockbuster and artwork] don't have to be exclusive of one another. Unfortunately, with most films they are. There are some exceptions (I think that Inception could be cited as one), but not films under the guidance of Spielberg.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlex
As I wrote in my "battle of the bands" analogy, Spielberg goes for the mundane and the safe; his films do not push any boundaries, and his direction style can be likened to that of a dozen other directors. Take E.T. or Jurassic Park, for example. They are both phenomenal films, but they would turn out relatively similar stylistically had another director come on board. Not to be overly-harsh toward Spielberg (as I do enjoy his films), but there is nothing special or individual about his film direction.
On the other hand, the three Nolan films I mentioned [The Prestige, Inception, and Memento] could not have been made without his guidance and vision. All three have proven that there are still areas of film that we have yet to fully realize or pursue; that storytelling has not come round full circle. There are always new avenues of direction and adaptation, and there is only one director in this poll who is pursuing them: Nolan.
For that very fact, I have to give my utmost respect to Nolan and his ability as a director. I love Speilberg films, but he just cannot do what Nolan does with finesse and an artist's hand.
I'm going to have to watch more of Nolan's work, because I really didn't get any of that from The Dark Knight.
I've been a Batman comics fan for a long time, so I'm well aware of the Joker's depths as a character. I just...I dunno, I'm not saying I didn't rate Ledger's performance at all and I'm not even saying that I compared it to the hype, what I meant was - it wasn't that radical of a portrayal to me. I even thought Nicholson's Joker was creepier, Nicholson seems insane to me at the best of times and the Joker fit him, even though it was a very spoof like performance. But scenes such as when he was talking about Alicia "falling" out of a window, were excellently psychopathic and insane - I don't think Ledger took it further .
The Dark Knight was a blockbuster in every sense of the word. I don't disagree that Spielberg's film are too, but I feel he gets more out of his characters in terms of natural performance.
1) The Dark Knight certainly doesn't show the "best" of Nolan. Although his direction of the film was great, Nolan didn't push himself to create a mindfuck experience as much as he did with what I'm going to start referring to as the "Big Three" (The Prestige, Memento, Inception). I guarantee you that if you watch all of the Big Three, your opinion of him will change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkthoughts
2) The way that the Joker has been portrayed before and the way Ledger portrayed him are two very different things. I completely agree that Nicholson came across as completely mental and psychopathic. But you see, that's why I preferred Ledger's performance. As I said, Ledger really brought the role to life for me in a way I never thought it could be -- he made the Joker seem like a real person. Nicholson's Joker was obviously fictitious and over-the-top; he was very surreal. Instead, Ledger brought qualities that took the Joker from the big screen and put him into scope as a real human being with real issues; he was very real. That's what makes me think so highly of his performance: he brought a character that has always been shown as too-obscene-to-be-real and made him too-real-to-be-fiction. And yet Ledger was able to retain that feeling of surreal storytelling through the character, even while I sat there mortified believing the Joker could exist.
3) Spielberg has always had a knack for getting very real performances out of his cast (I'm looking at you, Jurassic Park!). I'm by no means degrading Spielberg's ability in that area, I just think that Nolan can do it better.
I voted for Nolan, he's probably my favorite director at the moment, and I agree with everything you said about him, but I strongly disagree with this^. Films like Schindler's List, Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan - especially the latter - are certainly works of art. While the thematic undercurrents of each of these films can be interpreted as either positive or negative, there's no denying the imprint they've left on modern cinema. They're referenced, discussed, and even payed homage to in different mediums, testament to their staying power and level of impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by SynysterSaint
Nicholson in Batman was just playing Nicholson with make-up. Even at the pinnacle of his powers in Batman, in the back of your mind you're still imagining him as simply Nicholson with a coat of paint splashed on. Ledger completely lost himself in his role, there isn't a single trace of him anywhere. If you didn't know before hand that Ledger was cast in the role of the Joker, would you have known it was him in TDK ? He was able to switch from manipulative, to psychotic, to a demented sort of cheerful, with perfect ease and in the blink of eye. It will be a long time before we get a performance of that magnitude from any actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkthoughts
Staying power doesn't imply film as an art form; all it implies is popularity. Titanic is still popular, and it holds little to no real-world meaning or value. And if you're going to talk about the thematic undercurrents of the film, then you have to credit the screenplay writers, not the director. And Spielberg didn't write any of the films you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by feverishparade
I took the discussion to a completely different point in my response, but I very much like you went about it, feev. Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by feverishparade
Certainly not, but when you take into account that the films have also been showered with praise by critics as well as the general audience, and have received countless awards in virtually all facets of film making - technical areas, best actor awards, choreography, cinematography etc.- then it brings into sharper focuses why he's such a highly regarded director.Quote:
Originally Posted by SynysterSaint
No he didn't, but the only film that Nolan wrote by himself is Inception, his latest film , his earlier films have been written largely by other individuals ... does that mean that the success of his earlier films are due mainly to the writing capabilities of other people, and not his own prowess as a director ?Quote:
And if you're going to talk about the thematic undercurrents of the film, then you have to credit the screenplay writers, not the director. And Spielberg didn't write any of the films you mentioned.
Quote:
I took the discussion to a completely different point in my response, but I very much like you went about it, feev. Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by feverishparade
Hey, at least we can agree on this ! :lol: :thumbsup: