chadol4962
New member
It's not difficult, it's just pointless. If a director is widely regarded as mediocre then he's not overrated.
Overrated Directors
- Thread starter diane72112
- Start date
American Graffiti, THX 1138 and Star Wars (ep IV) are the Lucas directed feature films which I believe show off any directing skill whatsoever. His prequels are badly scripted and on the whole, poorly acted, showing in my opinion, that Lucas is not strong on directing actors. Even many of the action set pieces can be attributed to the second unit (wasn't it Speilberg for ROTS)? Throughout the six Star Wars films, he has been lucky in that he has had excellent performers in Guinness, Mcdiarmid and Lee to bring much needed gravitas.
It's not just black (mediocre) or white (highly rated) - there's all shades of grey in between.
No-one would put Ron Howard up at the level of Ford or Kubrick, but equally you wouldn't call him a mediocre director. The issue is whether Ron Howard is overrated in terms of what he has done.
You said it yourself - Guy Ritchie is an OK Director (I agree). But contrary to a previous post he has been nominated for several awarRAB and the UK press always stanRAB to attention whenever there's a new Guy Ritchie movie. In my opinion, it's not warranted - if that's the level of attention and expectation surrounding his work, he's being overrated.
No-one would put Ron Howard up at the level of Ford or Kubrick, but equally you wouldn't call him a mediocre director. The issue is whether Ron Howard is overrated in terms of what he has done.
You said it yourself - Guy Ritchie is an OK Director (I agree). But contrary to a previous post he has been nominated for several awarRAB and the UK press always stanRAB to attention whenever there's a new Guy Ritchie movie. In my opinion, it's not warranted - if that's the level of attention and expectation surrounding his work, he's being overrated.
Guy Ritchie is a famous film director, but he's not famous because he's a film director. He's famous because he was married to a much more famous pop star and consequently became a household name by proxy. The Evening Standard, for example, is more interested in his pub than his films.
That's fair enough. As I previously said I have no axe to grind with Nolan. I'm glad you like and rate his other work and hope other do as well so he can get the credit he deserves if he is a great Director. The only film I've seen of his was Insomina which I really enjoyed. I think I have Momento in my "to be watched" pile.
I don't think that you can use the idea of giving him or a director a few "duff films" before changing your opinion of him or a Director. Not every film is going to be fantastic, amazing or a box office smash.
Hook wasn't up to Spielberg's standard of the time. It's not a bad film, I like it, but it doesn't have tthe magic of the other stuff Steven was doing in the 80's.
I'm not sure that just making two films in 10 years is a bad thing. It's better o make films you believe in rather than just knock a film out every year or two.
I don't see that as being any different to someone like Kate Bush. She will release an album once every few years and only when she is happy with it.
I've not seen Avatar as it just doesn't appeal to me. Titanic I really liked and rate that above Abyss which I always lose interest in and find a slog to watch.
The earlier stuff was during the Cameron's special effects and action movies phase. Maybe you don't like these two as they aren't like those older films?
I've only seen Hellboy. I have Hellboy 2 in my TBW pile. So I can't really comment on Del Toro. Interestingly enough the praise the guy gets puts me off seeing his films in the same way Tarantino's name put's me off his films.
I'm not a fan of LOTR and not particularly interested in The Hobbit either, but as soon as his name was attached to it I became even less interested and I don't know why.
All I can guess at is the hype that follows this guy from his fans.
Tim Burton had it years ago but it's eased off a lot now. I think Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory changed people's opinions of him a lot.
It's interesting how when it was announced he was doing Alice in Wonderland it got an mixed response. If it had been off the back of Batman, Beetlejuice, Edward ScissorhanRAB, Sleepy Hollow and and his earlier stuff it would have been different.
People were expecting a darker Willy Wonka film and didn't get it. A lot of people said he sold out, it's crap etc. When Alice was announced people thought another bright coloured happy film like Wonka. People wanted to be excited, but had got their fingers burned so were reluctant too. As photos started to emerge interest started to build up rapidly. It's dark, it's quirky. From the looks of it Burton is back!
In the next two months two films are anticipated. Iron Man 2 and Alice in Wonderland. I think that shows the strength of Burton as a great Director. Yes he makes mistakes but he is able to make a big enough mark on a film that there is a massive anticipation of the film based on him being the Director combined with a body of work rather than a single film or possibly a connection to a franchise.
It's interesting that there isn't a massive fanfare about Peter Jackson's latest film Lovely Bones. I've seen the trailer for that a few times and it didn't even mention he had directed it. It's going to be interesting over the coming years to see how he is percieved. King Kong didn't get fantastic reviews, but that film comes with baggage anyway.
Crossing the line slipped by unnoticed.
I think Peter Jackson is going to be another one of those people like Jerry Bruckheimer. A name you see as a (executive) producer on a lot of big films and his reputation will be built more on that as an producer than as an actual great Director.
I don't think that you can use the idea of giving him or a director a few "duff films" before changing your opinion of him or a Director. Not every film is going to be fantastic, amazing or a box office smash.
Hook wasn't up to Spielberg's standard of the time. It's not a bad film, I like it, but it doesn't have tthe magic of the other stuff Steven was doing in the 80's.
I'm not sure that just making two films in 10 years is a bad thing. It's better o make films you believe in rather than just knock a film out every year or two.
I don't see that as being any different to someone like Kate Bush. She will release an album once every few years and only when she is happy with it.
I've not seen Avatar as it just doesn't appeal to me. Titanic I really liked and rate that above Abyss which I always lose interest in and find a slog to watch.
The earlier stuff was during the Cameron's special effects and action movies phase. Maybe you don't like these two as they aren't like those older films?
I've only seen Hellboy. I have Hellboy 2 in my TBW pile. So I can't really comment on Del Toro. Interestingly enough the praise the guy gets puts me off seeing his films in the same way Tarantino's name put's me off his films.
I'm not a fan of LOTR and not particularly interested in The Hobbit either, but as soon as his name was attached to it I became even less interested and I don't know why.
All I can guess at is the hype that follows this guy from his fans.
Tim Burton had it years ago but it's eased off a lot now. I think Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory changed people's opinions of him a lot.
It's interesting how when it was announced he was doing Alice in Wonderland it got an mixed response. If it had been off the back of Batman, Beetlejuice, Edward ScissorhanRAB, Sleepy Hollow and and his earlier stuff it would have been different.
People were expecting a darker Willy Wonka film and didn't get it. A lot of people said he sold out, it's crap etc. When Alice was announced people thought another bright coloured happy film like Wonka. People wanted to be excited, but had got their fingers burned so were reluctant too. As photos started to emerge interest started to build up rapidly. It's dark, it's quirky. From the looks of it Burton is back!
In the next two months two films are anticipated. Iron Man 2 and Alice in Wonderland. I think that shows the strength of Burton as a great Director. Yes he makes mistakes but he is able to make a big enough mark on a film that there is a massive anticipation of the film based on him being the Director combined with a body of work rather than a single film or possibly a connection to a franchise.
It's interesting that there isn't a massive fanfare about Peter Jackson's latest film Lovely Bones. I've seen the trailer for that a few times and it didn't even mention he had directed it. It's going to be interesting over the coming years to see how he is percieved. King Kong didn't get fantastic reviews, but that film comes with baggage anyway.
Crossing the line slipped by unnoticed.
I think Peter Jackson is going to be another one of those people like Jerry Bruckheimer. A name you see as a (executive) producer on a lot of big films and his reputation will be built more on that as an producer than as an actual great Director.
I haven't seen Following (it's critically acclaimed), but all the other films he's directed have been really good.
Your point about diversity doesn't stand up either. Firstly, he's only directed 6 films to date so you can't really compare his range to Spielberg's. Secondly, there is clear diversity in his films. Memento is very different to Insomnia, which in turn is markedly different from his Batman films.
McG isn't overrated - he's shit, and everyone knows it.
Your comment about George Lucas suggests that you haven't seen American Graffiti.
Tarrantino has "borrowed" a lot for his films - mostly from obscure Japanese films or grindhouse cinema - but the opening to Jackie Brown is clearly an homage. And it's not just a nod to a classic film, it's an indication how much America has changed since the 60s.
Your point about diversity doesn't stand up either. Firstly, he's only directed 6 films to date so you can't really compare his range to Spielberg's. Secondly, there is clear diversity in his films. Memento is very different to Insomnia, which in turn is markedly different from his Batman films.
McG isn't overrated - he's shit, and everyone knows it.
Your comment about George Lucas suggests that you haven't seen American Graffiti.
Tarrantino has "borrowed" a lot for his films - mostly from obscure Japanese films or grindhouse cinema - but the opening to Jackie Brown is clearly an homage. And it's not just a nod to a classic film, it's an indication how much America has changed since the 60s.
Roberto Viagra
New member
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think it's OK, necessary even, for a director striving for greatness to take risks which sometimes don't pay off. It's also OK to produce a safe box-office success that lacks artistic greatness, in order to fund the more original works. So not every film of a great director has to be great. That's why I think you have to forgive them a few duff films. But after a long run of duff films you have to wonder what they are playing at, and whether they've lost it.
(What seems to happen, in this medium and others, is that a successful artist becomes uneditable. It's what happened to George Lucas, Tarantino, and may have happened to Cameron. Even great directors sometimes need to be told when to kill their darlings.)
It's not, but both were duff films in my opinion.
Both Titanic and Avatar are very heavy on the special effects. Avatar is also an action film. I don't like them because they are both simplistic and lack depth compared to the earlier films. Neither credits the audience with much intelligence.
Cameron seems to have been seduced by technology. His films have always pushed the technology forward, but he used to combine it with great stories. Both Titanic and Avatar have ground-breaking SFX, but now he seems to think he can slap in a formulaic love affair and 2D characters and a plot so mechanical it's predictable. The sad thing is that he's right; he's successful doing it and so has no motive to do more.
(Ironically, although I've seen Titanic it was also so forgettable (SFX aside) that I've largely forgotten it and so can't criticise it with the harsh detail it deserves.)
I guess he's an example of someone who tried to experiment with different things, that ultimately failed (for me), but I still credit him with trying and I look forward to Alice in Wonderland.
Although I do like TLotR as an adaptation, I give a lot of the credit to the co-writers rather than Jackson himself. This is partly because of the DVD commentaries which make it sound like they understood Tolkien so much better than he did. I saw King Kong and thought it was nothing special, and from what I've heard Lovely Bones isn't very good either. Movie-making is a collaborative affair, and I think sometimes directors get more credit than they deserve.
(What seems to happen, in this medium and others, is that a successful artist becomes uneditable. It's what happened to George Lucas, Tarantino, and may have happened to Cameron. Even great directors sometimes need to be told when to kill their darlings.)
It's not, but both were duff films in my opinion.
Both Titanic and Avatar are very heavy on the special effects. Avatar is also an action film. I don't like them because they are both simplistic and lack depth compared to the earlier films. Neither credits the audience with much intelligence.
Cameron seems to have been seduced by technology. His films have always pushed the technology forward, but he used to combine it with great stories. Both Titanic and Avatar have ground-breaking SFX, but now he seems to think he can slap in a formulaic love affair and 2D characters and a plot so mechanical it's predictable. The sad thing is that he's right; he's successful doing it and so has no motive to do more.
(Ironically, although I've seen Titanic it was also so forgettable (SFX aside) that I've largely forgotten it and so can't criticise it with the harsh detail it deserves.)
I guess he's an example of someone who tried to experiment with different things, that ultimately failed (for me), but I still credit him with trying and I look forward to Alice in Wonderland.
Although I do like TLotR as an adaptation, I give a lot of the credit to the co-writers rather than Jackson himself. This is partly because of the DVD commentaries which make it sound like they understood Tolkien so much better than he did. I saw King Kong and thought it was nothing special, and from what I've heard Lovely Bones isn't very good either. Movie-making is a collaborative affair, and I think sometimes directors get more credit than they deserve.
LOL sorry