Is Martin Scorsese the greatest director ever?

[koolbarbone]

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of thematter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion whenhe's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at thistime. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure,throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Originally Posted by theprocessofbelief

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

lol@naming eyes wide shut.....

full metal jacket and clockwork orange %#%* on any other directors entire catalouge

I agree with both those films. Great movies... but you are really thinking that those two stand up to James Cameron (just an example)?

I am not saying Kubrick is a bad director... just not on this pedestal everyone seems to put him on.

Yes. Kubrick is that good. You are mixing entertainment with quality of films. There are a lot of directors who can make entertaining movies, but most of them are completely vapid. James Cameron is a perfect example of this. Great at special effects, great at blockbusters, but that's it.

Also, a lot of people are forgetting some great directors from Hollywood's classic era: John Ford, Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, etc. These guys pioneered the techniques seen today.

Thank you, someone who understands the difference between great film-making and 'one-trick pony' film-making.

 

[jerryjones]

nah i think you gotta give it to Spielberg

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by Th3RealF0lkBlu3s

Stanley Kubrick is.

wow I was shocked many of you said kubrick. I'm in agreement. The "not even close" stuff needs to stop. I've seen 2001 5-6 timesand it's far from boring.

arinofsky will be in the discussion in 15 years. jonez might.

 

[epidemik the great]

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion when he's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at this time. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure, throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

Tarantino is one of the most influental filmmakers of all times. Out of all the directors listed in this thread he's the only one that writes his ownmaterial, so of course he doesnt have as extensive of a filmography as someone who can produce work every other year. That doesnt mean he shouldn't beincluded. He's had more than enough films and they all speak volumes. In your arguement Sergio Leone shouldn't be included because he doesnt have adeep filmography either.

 

[his diabolical majesty]

I enjoy Kubrick but not nearly as much as I enjoy Scorsese's work.

 

[friendliest ghost]

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion when he's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at this time. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure, throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

I would disagree with you there. His arrogance is off the charts.

 

[antonlavey]

Quentin Tarantino is my personal favorite.

Kill Bill 1
Kill Bill 2
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Inglorious Basterds (still haven't seen it but i heard its piff)
Jackie Brown

 

[airmaxpenny1]

Spielberg makes Hollywood blockbusters, dude isn't even in the discussion. Spielberg doesn't make films that are true pieces of art imo.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

Spielberg makes Hollywood blockbusters, dude isn't even in the discussion. Spielberg doesn't make films that are true pieces of art imo.

Shindlers List (One of my favorite movies of all time)

Saving Private Ryan
Munich
Amistad
Catch me if you can
Color Purple
Close encounters of the third kind

You can't fault someone for being successful......he has had some artistic masterpieces.

 

[laced up jordans]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

Spielberg makes Hollywood blockbusters, dude isn't even in the discussion. Spielberg doesn't make films that are true pieces of art imo.

Now you sound just like an elitist.

Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan were masterpieces

 

[incredibleev]

spielberg has made some films that can be looked at as more arty (Schindlers List, AI - which was actually started by Kubrick, Close Encounters) but i alsothink theres something to be said for making truly great big budget films. Not many can do it as consistently as Spielberg and for that i think he deserves tobe in the discussion for best all time. Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park...these are some of the greatest films ever.

the more im thinking about this the more i do think its Scorsese. He just gives me everything I'm looking for in movies. Kubrick and Scorsese are verysimilar in how many levels and layers there are to their films, in terms of story as well as pure surface aesthetic.

theres so many different ways to talk about who the greatest director is its hard to find an overall #1

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I personally don't like Schindler's list, I think he kind of misconstrues the Holocaust completely. I actually do like saving Private Ryan, butSpielberg's movies are very formulaic. They always end on a good note, and they don't really question things itself.

 

[frostythepoptart]

clockwork orange dude made full metal jacket... crazy. movies are amazing.

 

[koolbarbone]

Originally Posted by Epidemik The Great

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion when he's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at this time. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure, throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

Tarantino is one of the most influental filmmakers of all times. Out of all the directors listed in this thread he's the only one that writes his own material, so of course he doesnt have as extensive of a filmography as someone who can produce work every other year. That doesnt mean he shouldn't be included. He's had more than enough films and they all speak volumes. In your arguement Sergio Leone shouldn't be included because he doesnt have a deep filmography either.

I'm not taking anything away from Taratino because I'm a huge fan of him but I still think it's too early for him to be in thediscussion. And you're right, Leone doesn't have a huge body of work either and I think that does affect him in the overall scheme of things. His filmswere certainly influential but when you are talking about the best, I would have a hard time championing him when you consider other directors with more workto consider. But that's just me. Let's face it, there's a huge distinction when you talk about favorite directors and best directors.

As far as writing goes, Taratino has a great resume to consider as an auteur (if you agree with this theory). But that's another debate altogether. Thefact that he writes his own movies certainly lends him a huge deal of cache, but it isn't something I would consider in a directorial discussion. Am Igoing to rank Wes Anderson higher than Hitchcock because he writes and directs his own movies? Absolutely not. Besides, the Hollywood system operated verydifferently in the classical era, which skews this discussion simply because most directors did not have the chance to write their own movies.

Ultimately though, it really depends what is "the discussion." Is it the top 100 directors that one considers? 25? 10? Each case obviously expandsthe amount of directors considered. My criteria for greatest ever though would really only involve something like 10 directors and Scorsese is definitely oneof them.

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

I personally don't like Schindler's list, I think he kind of misconstrues the Holocaust completely. I actually do like saving Private Ryan, but Spielberg's movies are very formulaic. They always end on a good note, and they don't really question things itself.

care to elaborate? what did he misconstrue?

and saving private ryan isn't exactly a happy ending. I feel like @!!# after watching that movie. The whole damn movie is sad as hell. plus the mission wasquestioned numerous times throughout the movie.

tarintino steals too much. woops I mean "pays homage" too much for my taste. But i love 90% of his movies.

also polanski should be in the discussion off the strength of chinatown, rosemary's baby, the pianist, the tennant. plus he wrote and was waaay ahead ofhis time

 

[miketysonthekiller]

How I wish I could chip in the conversation with all of the movies I watch.

I need to start paying attention to the directors.

 

[eff ecks]

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Originally Posted by Epidemik The Great

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion when he's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at this time. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure, throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

Tarantino is one of the most influental filmmakers of all times. Out of all the directors listed in this thread he's the only one that writes his own material, so of course he doesnt have as extensive of a filmography as someone who can produce work every other year. That doesnt mean he shouldn't be included. He's had more than enough films and they all speak volumes. In your arguement Sergio Leone shouldn't be included because he doesnt have a deep filmography either.

I'm not taking anything away from Taratino because I'm a huge fan of him but I still think it's too early for him to be in the discussion. And you're right, Leone doesn't have a huge body of work either and I think that does affect him in the overall scheme of things. His films were certainly influential but when you are talking about the best, I would have a hard time championing him when you consider other directors with more work to consider. But that's just me. Let's face it, there's a huge distinction when you talk about favorite directors and best directors.

As far as writing goes, Taratino has a great resume to consider as an auteur (if you agree with this theory). But that's another debate altogether. The fact that he writes his own movies certainly lends him a huge deal of cache, but it isn't something I would consider in a directorial discussion. Am I going to rank Wes Anderson higher than Hitchcock because he writes and directs his own movies? Absolutely not. Besides, the Hollywood system operated very differently in the classical era, which skews this discussion simply because most directors did not have the chance to write their own movies.

Ultimately though, it really depends what is "the discussion." Is it the top 100 directors that one considers? 25? 10? Each case obviously expands the amount of directors considered. My criteria for greatest ever though would really only involve something like 10 directors and Scorsese is definitely one of them.

I stopped reading right there. . . .

 

[aztec06jr]

Originally Posted by Eff Ecks

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Originally Posted by Epidemik The Great

Originally Posted by koolbarbone

Whether or not people actually can prove they are knowledgeable in French New Wave or Italian Neorealism or Remodelist film is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Godard and Truffaut are far more esteemed than a lot of the names listed. I don't know how you can even put Taratino in the discussion when he's directed less than ten films in a 17-year period. I'm sure even he would agree that he doesn't belong in a discussion with John Ford at this time. The same goes for James Cameron and Spike Jones. They don't even have the body of work to be considered. If you want to talk generations, then sure, throw those names in the bunch. But on a list of greatest of all time? That's extremely short-sighted.

Tarantino is one of the most influental filmmakers of all times. Out of all the directors listed in this thread he's the only one that writes his own material, so of course he doesnt have as extensive of a filmography as someone who can produce work every other year. That doesnt mean he shouldn't be included. He's had more than enough films and they all speak volumes. In your arguement Sergio Leone shouldn't be included because he doesnt have a deep filmography either.

I'm not taking anything away from Taratino because I'm a huge fan of him but I still think it's too early for him to be in the discussion. And you're right, Leone doesn't have a huge body of work either and I think that does affect him in the overall scheme of things. His films were certainly influential but when you are talking about the best, I would have a hard time championing him when you consider other directors with more work to consider. But that's just me. Let's face it, there's a huge distinction when you talk about favorite directors and best directors.

As far as writing goes, Taratino has a great resume to consider as an auteur (if you agree with this theory). But that's another debate altogether. The fact that he writes his own movies certainly lends him a huge deal of cache, but it isn't something I would consider in a directorial discussion. Am I going to rank Wes Anderson higher than Hitchcock because he writes and directs his own movies? Absolutely not. Besides, the Hollywood system operated very differently in the classical era, which skews this discussion simply because most directors did not have the chance to write their own movies.

Ultimately though, it really depends what is "the discussion." Is it the top 100 directors that one considers? 25? 10? Each case obviously expands the amount of directors considered. My criteria for greatest ever though would really only involve something like 10 directors and Scorsese is definitely one of them.

I stopped reading right there. . . .

In film criticism, the 1950s-era Auteur theory holds that adirector's films reflect that director's personal creative vision, as if he/she were the primary "Auteur" (the French word for "author"). In some cases, film producers are considered to have a similar "Auteur" role for films thatthey have produced.

 

[epidemik the great]

when I bought up Tarantino writing his own movies I didn't mean for it to reflect on this discussion on directors. I was just simply stating that it wouldbe impossible for him to have as large a body of work in a 17 year period as somebody else could, because he actually takes the time to create his films fromscratch instead of just being able to direct somebody elses script. And writing a script is a %@%$@. I've been trying for a couple of years, so I know thatreaching into the depths of your creativity and trying to come up with something amazing is an either bigger %@%$@. And I know I'm sounding like aTarantino fanboy, but out of all the directors listed he's (along with Leone, maybe) the only one with a perfect or near perfect filmography. Everybodyelse has many critical flops under there belt, but I'll be damned if somebody tried to convince me Tarantinos made a less than 4 star flick Quality >Quantity

 

[unkleluke]

Tarantino is an auteur

 

[bohrdom]

scorsese is one of the greatest.

my fav 5:

1.spielberg
2.kurosawa
3.hitchcock
4.kubrick
5.scorsese

edit: btw, the reason why spielberg is considered goat is because he's the only filmmaker i know who makes movies like schindler's list and jurassicpark back to back and releases them in the same year.

 

[infamousod]