Happy Face 29 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Seen few of them, enjoyed even less. I would have thought Francis Ford Coppola or Scorsese would be better bets for third place. Coppola can't get a sandwich made tbh. his heydey is long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22007 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Seen few of them, enjoyed even less. I would have thought Francis Ford Coppola or Scorsese would be better bets for third place. Coppola can't get a sandwich made tbh. his heydey is long gone. Suppose so. Lost in translation was canny though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBass 2723 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Nah, that accolade goes to Kevin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBass 2723 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. I assume that was said tongue-in-cheek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. That has been a v recent and postive move I agree. But they are essentially indi directors with poorly distributed work with small profit margins. But yes more power to their elbow especially Paul-Thomas ad Woody. Edited January 19, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. I regard Ritchie as an Auteur... Also Nick Love, but i guess thats UK , To be honest though the last 5 years of mainstream hollywood films have been Producer lead and thats obvious in the product Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Name me even 3 directors who's involvement alone can green light a movie? Spielberg Tarantino Soderbergh I'd only agree with the top one. Howay man Parky, Tarantino just has to be mates with someone making a film for it to get the green light. Only if it has a miniscule budget. What about Peter Jackson and James Cameron then? Or George Lucas? Or Clint Eastwood? Anyway, what's your point? Yes Lucas!!! Took yer time. And of course Eastwood deserves to have everything he wants to make green lighted. You'll notice the above are all part of or have been franchise driven dear. Not Eastwood. My point is that there is a paucity of auteurship in Hollywood and unlike upto the 70's the Dir has much less power and movies are basically producer or franchise (studio) driven. Directors aren't really important for Directing unless they have a/the franchise in tow. 90% of the time they are an afterthought (a safe pair of hands etc...) Soderbergh and Tarrantino are/were basically small budget/Independant directors, but both have crossed over in terms of accessible film language for a mass audience. Not an easy thing to do Lynch is the only true auteur working within/without Hollywood, but you know he gets a lot of his money from Europe when he does get money that is. Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson just to name the A's. Studio's are opening production houses to cater exclusively for more arthouse fare that can only be funded by the bankable directors above. I regard Ritchie as an Auteur... Also Nick Love, but i guess thats UK , To be honest though the last 5 years of mainstream hollywood films have been Producer lead and thats obvious in the product I'd say the last 10 years, but yes I agree wholly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 They're working for a pay cheque not artistic merit, Plus the producer can use they're name as a unique selling point, But also to be fair the shit they're churning out now doesnt really need to be even remotely tinged by any form of art because it sells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 They're working for a pay cheque not artistic merit, Plus the producer can use they're name as a unique selling point, But also to be fair the shit they're churning out now doesnt really need to be even remotely tinged by any form of art because it sells Yes...Yes and Yes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythetoon 0 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh If you haven't been to at least one indi film festival you shouldn't really be allowed to post on this thread love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythetoon 0 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Or a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. It was a dig at HTT's football knowledge tttt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. It was a dig at HTT's football knowledge tttt. tbf tttt...tttt..tt.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. It was a dig at HTT's football knowledge tttt. tbf tttt...tttt..tt.. FYI YCFRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythetoon 0 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Why though? Can you not judge him based purely on his films and not what others make of him or don't make of him? What others say or think should be irrelevant. Why is there even a need to discuss whether he's overrated or not, who cares - THEY ARE JUST FILMS MAN! Edited January 19, 2007 by Howaythetoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta. The Squid and the Whale was good. Btw Parkster, did you ever check out 'Lovers of the Arctic Circle' (mentioned it on N-O ages ago). Pure class and reet up your street I reckon. Plus, it gets extra points for being dead obscure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Why though? Can you not judge him based purely on his films and not what others make of him or don't make of him? What others say or think should be irrelevant. Why is there even a need to discuss whether he's overrated or not, who cares. Virign to film threads alert! .....cause I display the same fawning of my fav films/dir as the geeks that irritate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 He might be IS overrated but the fact is he's the most important Hollywood director of his generation. Directors aren't important in Hollywood. Fuck Off man, Hollywood churns out some very good films by directors with their own stamp. Tarantino is overrated like the Beatles are. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome. Look I don't want to crucify his work, for the most part it is highly enjoyable. What I won't stand for is crime scene investigation with film theory books and geeky dribbling. In the cannon of modern cinema he has sealed a position and I like the way he made it from his video store job and I respect him for that. But at the end of the day I don't really find much in his work I can take away. Post your 100 favourite films again mate, I fancy a laugh. You'll get your chance to rape me when I put up me fav films of 2006 rasta. The Squid and the Whale was good. Btw Parkster, did you ever check out 'Lovers of the Arctic Circle' (mentioned it on N-O ages ago). Pure class and reet up your street I reckon. Plus, it gets extra points for being dead obscure That is in 'your' file along with John Fante. Thanks for reminding me......Need to order 15 or 20 dvd's v soon if I am to get through the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythetoon 0 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 If a film entertains in whatever context that comes in, then that's all that matters, surely. Generally Tarantino films entertain so he gets a thumbs up from me. Too many film geeks in this thread tbh Aye, I hate it when people post an opinion on a subject that is straight out of book Ergo the crux of my argument against tinsle boy. If people just said they really found his work entertaining I'd go along with it. But it is all this adding of film theory and the magnifyied of his importance that irritates me. Why though? Can you not judge him based purely on his films and not what others make of him or don't make of him? What others say or think should be irrelevant. Why is there even a need to discuss whether he's overrated or not, who cares. Virign to film threads alert! .....cause I display the same fawning of my fav films/dir as the geeks that irritate me. I love my films, all kinds of films, but they are just films, you watch them, and that's it. Good to while away two hours or so. Anyway I prefer more productive things to TV and DVD, like posting on message boards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now