Reply With Quote
what's funny is shakespeare was for the common folk in its day - marlowe was the highbrow stuff.
Arguing that George Lucas is a great director of performances is like arguing cinematography is the preeminent factor in whether a film is good.
Lucas is a fantastic director of set pieces, of broad stroke storytelling, but his capability when it comes to developing nuances in storylines and characters is not up to par.
If you are going to argue that you can't communicate personality without emotion I would point you towards Leonard Nimoy's Spock.
what's funny is shakespeare was for the common folk in its day - marlowe was the highbrow stuff.
And I'm quite saddened that Eastwood has more votes than Altman. I know he fell off the last few years, but honestly, the man took 5 years to die that's gotta impact the quality of his filmmaking.
George Lucas, while a good moviemaker, is often a horrible director.
But I see you've already been thoroughly owned on that subject.
Another guy who hasn't done much lately, but has many very impressive credentials: Mike Nichols.
LOL Dirty Work was a great movie.
I think Spielberg will get alot of votes because his movies are well known and he also had a ton of blackbusters, but I think he is overrated. His movies don't have near the intellect that those of Kubrick and even Scorsese's do. Spielberg just made movies about what he knew people would like: Dinosaurs, Aliens,the future...blah blah blah
I voted for Martin
That's sort of the idea.
I was having a conversation with a friend just a while ago about this. I told her that the jedi are supposed to be dull. They are forbidden to have any emotion at all. They are supposed to be all business.
I think Lucas was looking to the English on this. You know . . . the never show your emotions, keep a stiff upper lip, be proper type of stuff.
I sure the "woodden" performances were intentional.
Shakespeare often made fun of the highbrow society, wich is why the common folk loved him.
Having an understanding of Shakespeare's contemporary society will help with his comedic works, for those that don't fully understand them.
So the whole Vader is Lukes father and Lea is his twin was a ty developement in the SW storyline?
Wow.
it wasn't exactly a nuanced development.
Why don't you try explaining what you meant?
What is so unnuanced (not sure if it's a word, but what the ) about the Star Wars storyline?
Where did I say ty? Indicate that for me.
I'm saying that he's a broad strokes story teller who doesn't waste time with developing nuances in characterizations and stories. That, the Vader is the father twist, is a broad story development; it's something that is a MAJOR device to move the plot along. Again, that is what he deals in, BROAD AND MAJOR PLOT devices. You do know what nuances are right? Nuances are what you find in movies such as Alien. Where small, seemingly innocuous events, asides or pieces of dialogue create some level of humanity to the story.
Again, Lucas is not so concerned with developing his characters as recreating mythologically based story arcs on screen. It's not as much as a critique as you seem to take it; more of description of his directoral style. The Star Wars movies, by his own admission, are space operas.
I sort of see where you're comming from, but I don't totally agree. I mean, he even broke down the orgin of the force to medichlorians for gods sake!!
I can see your point on the broad strokes, but I just don't think you can apply it to the entire saga (both OT and NT).
My vote is for Woody Allen. I didn't expect him to do well in this poll, but I certainly didn't expect to be the only one to vote for him.
Agree to disagree on this one. Lucas created what likely was the finest epics in cinematic history; and nothing came along that could touch it until Peter Jackson's LOTR. I just can't put him on the same level of all-around directors as some of the ones in the list.
Lucas though, is a finer producer than director. Arguably, the best movie on either Spielbergs or Lucas' resume is Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I agree with the last part (although I think Empire is the best movie on Lucas' resume), and I'll agree to disagree on the rest.
Peter Jackson is the second coming of George Lucas.
vader bad, now vader your father after he chop your arm off. development? yes, great plot twist? yes - subtle, nuanced development? no.
i would say that the more money jackson gets, the more his movies suffer. i really liked the two towers, but wasn't terribly impressed with return of the king or king kong. they were very nice looking movies though. i happen to prefer bad taste to either.
i would say that the leia as sister was better developed though. i was speaking about that particular incident (vader is your father) previously.
Actually Lucus only directed A new Hope, Irvin Kershner directed Empire and some other guy directed Return. Nobody has a more impressive body of work than Spielberg.
Read well before you post.
We were talking about Lucas' and Spilebergs resumes.
Lucas produced Empire, thus it is in his resume.
Read, make sure you read.
LOL, I knew you'd throw out the producing angle. Funny.
I thoroughly agree with this statement, though I bet I mean it differently than you do.
kubrick's is far more impressive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
