[quote=“G”]
We aren’t saying Spielberg’s movies isn’t “fun”, we are saying he is just in it for the $$$$$$$. Tarantino on the other hand lives film, every second, and wants to make as many films (without pulling a Woody Allen) before he reaches the age limit that he wants to cut off from.
[/quote]
It bothers me how many people have divorced fun from good when it comes to movies. Transformers doesn’t have to be Schindler’s List to be good and vice a verse. Jaws is a fun movies and all be damned if it ain’t an insanely well crafted flick. I say hold movies to a standard, a movie can be fun, explosions, babes and the like, but why not it be good as well?
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
Spielberg actually did a cool thing for Bette Davis. The Oscar she got for “Dangerous” was on sale, and Spielberg bought it and gave it back to the Academy Award people. Now the Oscar is safe and is there for display. Odd life ain’t it? You get all the stuff in the world you want, but when you die, it goes back from where you got it from.
Spielberg’s cool in my book. Respect. Respect.
[/quote]
Why is it cool that he buys two oscars then donates them? If you got your hands on either of those in your lifetime would you really just give it back? It’s not like such a fan would let it gather dust in an attic.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
It bothers me how many people have divorced fun from good when it comes to movies. Transformers doesn’t have to be Schindler’s List to be good and vice a verse. Jaws is a fun movies and all be damned if it ain’t an insanely well crafted flick. I say hold movies to a standard, a movie can be fun, explosions, babes and the like, but why not it be good as well?
[/quote]
That is what I was trying to say. Thanks. Spielberg’s films like Close Encounters, Jaws, Indiana Jones’ movies, etc are fun. But do I like the guy and what he stands for, fuck no. The guy is held by alot of people as the best director ever to live, so that is why we are attacking. Why is he the best? He makes money, sure, but his films don’t mean shit to me outside of pleasing people who wants to see bright color things in movies.
[quote=“G”]
That is what I was trying to say. Thanks. Spielberg’s films like Close Encounters, Jaws, Indiana Jones’ movies, etc are fun. But do I like the guy and what he stands for, fuck no. The guy is held by alot of people as the best director ever to live, so that is why we are attacking. Why is he the best? He makes money, sure, but his films don’t mean shit to me outside of pleasing people who wants to see bright color things in movies.
[/quote]
What does he stand for, exactly? To make money by doing something he loves doing? What a scandal!
Newsflash: Every director graves for his movies to be successful financially. Yes, even Tarantino. He was extremely disappointed when Grindhouse flopped actually. He didn’t say “I made the movie for my fans, so I don’t give a shit”. You talk like Spielberg directs his movies only to make money without giving a shit about the finished product. Excuse me, but that’s a lot of bull.
[quote=“Scarface”]
What does he stand for, exactly? To make money by doing something he loves doing? What a scandal!
Newsflash: Every director graves for his movies to be successful financially. Yes, even Tarantino. He was extremely disappointed when Grindhouse flopped actually. He didn’t say “I made the movie for my fans, so I don’t give a shit”. You talk like Spielberg directs his movies only to make money without giving a shit about the finished product. Excuse me, but that’s a lot of bull.
[/quote]
I think your misunderstanding what I am saying. People hold Spielberg as a god among directors, for what? That is what I want to know. His movies has aliens, big fake killer sharks, tear jerking scenes with Tom Hanks. Good for him. His movies make money, that is what I’m saying. They do. No denying it. I am asking why is all these people think Spielberg is the bst ever? He makes money. So, that must mean he is the best? I don’t think so.
Also, of course directors want there movies to make money. But they all don’t try to make firework brainless films to make money. They make great films. If QT really cared about money, he would of made Pulp Fiction 2.
[quote=“G”]
I think your misunderstanding what I am saying. People hold Spielberg as a god among directors, for what? That is what I want to know. His movies has aliens, big fake killer sharks, tear jerking scenes with Tom Hanks. Good for him. His movies make money, that is what I’m saying. They do. No denying it. I am asking why is all these people think Spielberg is the bst ever? He makes money. So, that must mean he is the best? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Because he’s great at making suspense movies (Duel, Jaws), great at making adventure movies (Indiana Jones), great at making kids’ films (ET), great at making historical drama (Schindler’s List). He may not be a “god” among directors, but he sure is one of the most versatile filmmakers around.
But I know directors want their films to make money. But not every director stoops to the level Spielberg does. Like I said, if QT wants to make movies just for money, he would of made Pulp Fiction 2.
Also, of course directors want there movies to make money. But they all don’t try to make firework brainless films to make money. They make great films. If QT really cared about money, he would of made Pulp Fiction 2.
[/quote]
Which are these “firework brainless films” you’re talking about? Munich? Schindler’s List? Saving Private Ryan? Jaws? Duel?
[quote=“Scarface”]
Which are these “firework brainless films” you’re talking about? Munich? Schindler’s List? Saving Private Ryan? Jaws? Duel?
[/quote]
Indiana Jones, Jaws, E.T., etc.
Also Schindler’s List isn’t all that either. It is a Hollywood version of what happened.
I like Duel, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, but I also know that this doesn’t make him everything Hollywood puts into the mainstream for the zombie population to worship.
I am not stupid, I know directors wants money. The need money. But like F.W. said, Spielberg is a business man first, director second. That is why he is different from Tarantino. Tarantino doesn’t give a shit about what people think of his movies, he makes what he likes, and it’s not “let’s make a summer blockbuster $ movie” type of film either.
I think every form of art that brings money in for their respective creator are subject to some bitching that isn’t necessarily justified. Reading that discussion got me watching the all time box office ranks, that chocked me a bit haha, Up is already 36 on that, while I couldn’t find Wall-E, isn’t that odd? A bit of topic here but will Pixar’s wankery ever stop? I’m tired of hearing people say how deep these movies are -_-
I’m in Scar’s side here, every director wanna generate cash with their movie, it’s their work after all.
But doing a movie and then hope it’s gonna work and make a movie and advertise it like it’s going to be the shit while it actually sucks giant lamas ass, getting to growth 100,000,000$ are completely different things. I’m never gonna complain enough on the fact that most people tend to watch movies they hear about, and think that the more they hear about them, the better they are. Didn’t people learn it wasn’t a good way of thinking after watching, hmmm, dunno…the Spidermans? Or American Pie 4 among many, many examples :>
Sometimes, a movie can be shit and still be liked by the majority of the public only because it got a lot of attention and lots of people went to see it. Like the Harry Potter movies for example, you can like the books, that’s fine, but the movie I’ve seen were kinda rubbish :o
[quote=“G”]
I think your misunderstanding what I am saying. People hold Spielberg as a god among directors, for what?
[/quote]
But people don’t, mate. Spielberg is a household name among the masses because his films endure. He’s no “God” in the eyes of critics. In fact, the ones defending Spielberg here seem to be in the minority.
Hollywood films appeal to the emotions. Art films appeal to the mind. I like to cry, to laugh, to rage, to think, to analyse. It’s all the same. All that matters is if it is good, not what it represents or where it came from.
For the record though, Spielberg represents nothing that wasn’t already there in Hollywood. What about Capra? It’s A Wonderful Life. It’s a Hollywood film. But it’s a good Hollywood film. That’s all that matters. It makes me cry and laugh every time I watch it.
But I don’t see critics daily when I’m out somewhere. I see people. People who say Spielberg is the bee’s knees. I am still saying Spielberg movies don’t suck. They are fun to watch. But I just hate when people don’t understand that there are directors out there who make straight forward films, when Spielberg is making fun movies to please people for $. Like I said, everybody on the planet Earth wants money, but not every director will throw their hands up and makes what is best for them $-wise.
[quote=“G”]
But I don’t see critics daily when I’m out somewhere. I see people. People who say Spielberg is the bee’s knees. I am still saying Spielberg movies don’t suck. They are fun to watch. But I just hate when people don’t understand that there are directors out there who make straight forward films, when Spielberg is making fun movies to please people for $. Like I said, everybody on the planet Earth wants money, but not every director will throw their hands up and makes what is best for them $-wise.
[/quote]
People don’t know many other filmmakers. Can you name the most talented embroidery artists of the last ten years? Or the most gifted sushi chefs?
We all love film and that’s what we know. I don’t expect the majority of people to know any better. Do I roll my eyes at other people’s movie suggestions? Yeah, I often do. But I don’t belittle Spielberg because the majority of people grew up watching his films.
Besides, you think it’s easy making money? You can’t predict box office. To make films that endure for as long and across as many repeated viewings as Spielberg’s, is an art in itself. And frankly, I won’t even settle for “Spielberg is a fun little detour on the road of serious cinema”.
Question, do you like Spielberg, or do you just like his movies? That is prob how we differ on this subject. I don’t like Spielberg for reasons I won’t get into, but I do like SOME of his movies as FUN things to watch. Also I respect what he has done, and the impact he has had on American Cinema.
Now, I am not a Spielberg fan. Just like people don’t like red or blue. Opinions.
Also I am not going to be dumb, and try to act like he isn’t one of, if not the most discussed, famed director ever. He is Spielberg.
We are just discussing 2 different opinions of a director, about a subject which is hard to discuss. So I will try to end this, because I don’t want to upset anybody on this forum, because I like everyone here, just needed to get that out of my system. I undrstand many people love Spielberg, and that is great, for them. I just have my opinion of the man, and the way he works.
[quote=“G”]
Question, do you like Spielberg, or do you just like his movies? That is prob how we differ on this subject.
[/quote]
I like his films and I like him, but neither to a great extent. I can’t say I watch his films often. I used to put Jurassic Park and ET on at the video store where I worked, but never found the time to watch them much at home. But his films haven’t gotten worse or less enjoyable over time.
[quote=“G”]
Also I respect what he has done, and the impact he has had on American Cinema.
[/quote]
This is actually where we differ. I don’t like separating respect and appreciation from enjoyment. When I don’t enjoy a director or a film, I do not respect or appreciate him/it.
[quote=“G”]
We are just discussing 2 different opinions of a director, about a subject which is hard to discuss. So I will try to end this, because I don’t want to upset anybody on this forum, because I like everyone here, just needed to get that out of my system. I undrstand many people love Spielberg, and that is great, for them. I just have my opinion of the man, and the way he works.
[/quote]
Don’t worry about upsetting people. This is nothing like the fucking angry festivals of rage that used to be on this forum.
You just seem to be holding onto this belief that making films for money necessarily affects the quality of the final product. You can want to make a good film and make money at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
There are plenty of people on this forum who are better suited to defending Hollywood’s motives than I. But as in the past, I feel like I have to play the Devil’s Advocate in topics like this.
Hollywood films are entirely dominated by theme and structure. The French New Wave, Italian Neo-realism; movements like this make it fine to place the camera wherever, dialogue can be about the most unimportant minutiae. I like it that way, but the whole system in Hollywood is built on meticulous planning of every shot and detail with the overall theme in mind. In particular, Spielberg’s strength lies in his reveal. His blocking. That I can appreciate. By bringing money into the equation like you do, you simplify it into a process of:
Place camera in front of car.
Action!
Explosion!
Cut! Next shot!
It’s not that simple. (Keep in mind, I am talking about Spielberg and directors of his ilk, not Bay or Boll or Ratner, etc).
I understand what your saying. Though I hold Spielberg to a higher regard of holding him to much more than a “what Hollywood and the people wants” director, because he is a “oscar” winning director, unlike a Michael Bay, where you can bash him and no one would care. If you say something about Spielberg, it has to be meaningful. He is regarded not in the same boat as a Michael Bay, but a Stanley Kubrick group of directors.
This is a reason why not to hate Spielberg, but to hate what his likes stand for:
*French New Wave giant Jean-Luc Godard famously and publicly criticised Spielberg at the premiere of his film In Praise of Love. Godard, who has continuously complained about the commercial nature of modern cinema, holds Spielberg partly responsible for the lack of artistic merit in mainstream cinema. Godard accused Spielberg of using his film Schindler’s List to make a profit of tragedy while Schindler’s wife lived in poverty in Argentina. In Spielberg’s defense, critic Roger Ebert argues that Spielberg is very talented and has also said, "Has Godard or any other director living or dead done more than Spielberg, with his Holocaust Project, to honor and preserve the memories of the survivors?"
Now also his once friend, Kubrick said, "The Holocaust was about 6 million Jews who died. Schindler’s List is about 6 hundred who lived."
Now which one is Right & Wrong? One side you have Kubrick (his friend), and Godard, and on the other Hollywood’s fav critic Ebert. This is a main reason I hold something towards Spielberg and Hollywood in general.
[quote=“G”]
*French New Wave giant Jean-Luc Godard famously and publicly criticised Spielberg at the premiere of his film In Praise of Love. Godard, who has continuously complained about the commercial nature of modern cinema, holds Spielberg partly responsible for the lack of artistic merit in mainstream cinema. Godard accused Spielberg of using his film Schindler’s List to make a profit of tragedy while Schindler’s wife lived in poverty in Argentina. In Spielberg’s defense, critic Roger Ebert argues that Spielberg is very talented and has also said, “Has Godard or any other director living or dead done more than Spielberg, with his Holocaust Project, to honor and preserve the memories of the survivors?”
[/quote]
When Godard came to the forefront of French cinema it was amidst great criticism of the current French cinema (like how Bardem felt about Spanish cinema when he emerged). But at the same time, he endlessly praised directors from Hollywood such as Hitchcock. Hitchcock was a commercial filmmaker. There’s no doubt about it. He made money and people went in droves to his films. His name and image was like a brand. He appeared in his film’s trailers for Christ’s sake.
But as I said before, I am really just playing the devil’s advocate here. If I was going to name the most significant and talented directors working within Hollywood at the moment I’d mention Michael Mann and Christopher Nolan and David Fincher. I probably wouldn’t mention Spielberg to be honest. My real issue is just with the ferocity with which people were attacking Spielberg in this topic, in my opinion based on this image of Hollywood as the cinematic anti-Christ. Cinema is not in any danger of being destroyed because of garbage movies. Hollywood has been making commercial trash for decades. Amidst the trash are some gems. The bad films outnumber the good ones, but that’s how it has always been.
Since the beginning, cinema has always had two sides. Art and business. And basically, I don’t really think Spielberg and those of his ilk really stand for anything. It’s just business. And I respect that to an extent, because its very presence indirectly fuels the films that I do want to see. I think fashion is an artform. I think cooking is an artform. Hell, I even think gardening is an artform. But they all have practical purposes. For some people it’s just clothes, just food and just their backyard.
Anyway, enough of me ranting. I think we’ve met on some common ground now. What was the original topic again?
