speilberg doesnt avoid risks. he has vision. he knows what works and what doesnt. thats all. if your going to make a movie that you know isnt going to entertain anyone thats not called being main stream. its being smart and keeping true to his perspective. he takes risks such as schindlers list. he wants to make a statement but be true to his style of movie making.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
ok so you say, but his movies speak his brilliance as a great. everyone to come will tell you the same as well, speilberg is inspration and a plataue to reach all in its own.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Gender: Unspecified Location: In a cave full of treasure!
Account Restricted
Someone touched on this earlier, about Speils and sticking to movies that will appeal to the entire family. I think he has adopted a sort of Disney feel to his films or more specifically, a scene that can be considered the Disney scene or story line, like Jeff Goldbloom's daughter stowing away in "jurassic park two" I mean, come on?!!!
yeah im so glad happy to because vaugness has been the brunt of a circualr argument all night long, and in the end we all have our opinions. there are movies that are pure sH*t being pumped out into the cinmeas today, and it will last for years to come. a few wil come along to claim, a few mainstream hits. then the'yll dissapear and play it safe so they can be remebered. However the only true directors on the horizon that will take on any risks at all and set marks in movie making history such as spielberg will be aronofsky, tarentino, shymalan, and raimi, with maybe a hint of singer. other than that. crap will continue to be made with a hint of great ness when spielberg makes some here and there.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
aronofsky is far more promising then spielberg ever has been. He is already done more things then spielberg has ever done, and he's only done 2 movies. Being unique in this day and age is practically impossible, but aronofsky is doing it.
Kubrick will in no way be surpassed by Quentin Tarrantino.........my god that could never happen. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were both great and creative.............then be get Jackie Brown, a 70s blacksploitation film knock off (Quentin's own words)........now we get Kill Bill, a seventies kung fu movie knock off...............
Shymalan.........give me a break. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were both good movies in my opinion.......but lack entertainment value. They both build up to a twist ending and that's it. Signs......now that movie was just retarded.
Instead of bickering about which directors are great and which aren't.....or which is better, why don't we all just judge each on a movie by movie basis.
Spielberg for example.......Jaws, great.....Close Encounters, great , Indiana Jones, great..........A.I., turd.......Saving Privat Ryan, not so great
every director has the capacity to make a great film........or a shitty film...........most have done both. It makes no sense to hold a director in such high reguard to label him as being better than all others unless he has never made a movie that was less than spectacular.....which has never been done. Hitcock would probably some closer than anybody else..........
Gender: Unspecified Location: In a cave full of treasure!
Account Restricted
I sort of agree, but at the same time I don't because if we didn't bicker and judge movies, then what are we doing here on KMC Forums in the first place? I think if it weren't for Kubrik, all these newer directors wouldn't even exist. Shamaylan will never surpass Kubrik. It's physically impossible, but these new directors will still leave their mark, only to be quoted on all their influences who were equally or more great since they are responsible for marking their territory in the film industry.
I really enjoyed eyes wide shut, i agree that it was one of his weaker works, but still great i thought. But given that most people do consider it a bad movie...that is only 1 bad film out of his whole career. All other directors have several.
Gender: Unspecified Location: In a cave full of treasure!
Account Restricted
I honestly loved watching eyes wide shut because it showed Nicole Kidman naked many times. It was also the only movie Kubrick lighted himself. I heard a very dirty rumor about that movie, though. It made me really wonder.
All I'm saying BF is that it's possible for ANY director to make a good movie.....or make a bad movie......some are less likely but the possibility is always there.
"I sort of agree, but at the same time I don't because if we didn't bicker and judge movies"
no, no, no Hiker........you misunderstood........I think we should argue and judge movies........that's what I meant on "movie by movie basis"......I said we should judge the works, not the directors because any director can make a good or bad movie so there's no need in arguing over which director is better than all others........whereas movies are easily debated because they don't change (unless Lucas gets ahold of them).......they are on film forever.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 4th, 2003 07:02 AM
