Who do you think is the best director of all time?

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Knowing very few Directors, I'm going to pick Ron Clements and John Musker: The Director Duo that brought us Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, The Great Mouse Detective, Hercules, Treasure Planet, The Princess and the Frog and most recently Moana.

Even they were forced to adopt CG? I'm sad now. Fuck you, Disney.

You would prefer they're not creating anything at all and instead turned their noses up at new opportunities due to a misguided act of snobbery in protest against 3D animation? If Disney had steadfastly refused to accept the 3D animation stage, then Pixar might have been owned by Universal, or hell, stood on their own and become such a powerhouse that discussions of Disney Animation past 2004 may have all been in past tense and the closing entry to their legacy could have been the abysmal 'Home on the Range'. Think about that next time you decide to slag off Pixar for saving Disney from themselves.

The Princess and the Frog was successful and only costed two thirds as much to make as Moana. It doesn't even have a very appealing premise and features a black princess, which little kids are probably not used to. People still want 2D animations, and Disney would know it if they didn't end with so many halfhearted efforts that weren't so well reviewed, like Treasure Planet, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Home on the Range. They competed against Shrek and Ice Age at the time. It didn't mean people no longer wanted 2D animations, it meant Disney wasn't doing a good enough job.

Figures from Box Office Mojo:

Princess and the Frog total gross: $267,045,765
Production Budget: $105 million

So Production minus Budget equals 162,045,765 but Disney don't see all of those pennies since the cinemas have to take a cut as well, and that formula is rather arcane and will vary from chain to chain and country to country. Fact is, Princess and the Frog did okay but it was not a grand slam but then Tangled made massive bank and Winnie the Pooh was a fucking disaster. Disney sat, and looked at the way the wind was blowing and their choice was a clear 'adapt or die' and they wisely chose to adapt and kept creating great things in a new style: between them and Pixar it took a long time for DreamWorks to even remotely catch up, with only their Dragons and Kung Fu Panda series being worthy of being in the same room as even Disney's most mediocre efforts.

I wouldn't despair since these things are cyclical so with all the money being brought in by Frozen and Zootopia they can look at restarting 2D in a decade or so with some new blood guided by old hands.

 

[Fox12]

Knowing very few Directors, I'm going to pick Ron Clements and John Musker: The Director Duo that brought us Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, The Great Mouse Detective, Hercules, Treasure Planet, The Princess and the Frog and most recently Moana.

Even they were forced to adopt CG? I'm sad now. Fuck you, Disney.

You would prefer they're not creating anything at all and instead turned their noses up at new opportunities due to a misguided act of snobbery in protest against 3D animation? If Disney had steadfastly refused to accept the 3D animation stage, then Pixar might have been owned by Universal, or hell, stood on their own and become such a powerhouse that discussions of Disney Animation past 2004 may have all been in past tense and the closing entry to their legacy could have been the abysmal 'Home on the Range'. Think about that next time you decide to slag off Pixar for saving Disney from themselves.

The Princess and the Frog was successful and only costed two thirds as much to make as Moana. It doesn't even have a very appealing premise and features a black princess, which little kids are probably not used to. People still want 2D animations, and Disney would know it if they didn't end with so many halfhearted efforts that weren't so well reviewed, like Treasure Planet, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Home on the Range. They competed against Shrek and Ice Age at the time. It didn't mean people no longer wanted 2D animations, it meant Disney wasn't doing a good enough job.

Figures from Box Office Mojo:

Princess and the Frog total gross: $267,045,765
Production Budget: $105 million

So Production minus Budget equals 162,045,765 but Disney don't see all of those pennies since the cinemas have to take a cut as well, and that formula is rather arcane and will vary from chain to chain and country to country. Fact is, Princess and the Frog did okay but it was not a grand slam but then Tangled made massive bank and Winnie the Pooh was a fucking disaster. Disney sat, and looked at the way the wind was blowing and their choice was a clear 'adapt or die' and they wisely chose to adapt and kept creating great things in a new style: between them and Pixar it took a long time for DreamWorks to even remotely catch up, with only their Dragons and Kung Fu Panda series being worthy of being in the same room as even Disney's most mediocre efforts.

I wouldn't despair since these things are cyclical so with all the money being brought in by Frozen and Zootopia they can look at restarting 2D in a decade or so with some new blood guided by old hands.

That's not fair. Do you know hoe many trailers I saw for Winnie the Pooh? Zilch. Zippo. Nadda. I didn't even know that film existed until after it was out of theaters. Disney left that film to die, and then used its failure as confirmation that 2d films were a thing of the past. What was supposed to happen? And, furthermore, of all the IP's one could utilize to test 2d animation, they chose Winnie the Pooh? A series generally aimed at preschoolers? The idea that 2d films can't succeed with a popular audience simply isn't true. Disney would surely know this if they had made even a meager effort to see how things progressed.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Knowing very few Directors, I'm going to pick Ron Clements and John Musker: The Director Duo that brought us Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, The Great Mouse Detective, Hercules, Treasure Planet, The Princess and the Frog and most recently Moana.

Even they were forced to adopt CG? I'm sad now. Fuck you, Disney.

You would prefer they're not creating anything at all and instead turned their noses up at new opportunities due to a misguided act of snobbery in protest against 3D animation? If Disney had steadfastly refused to accept the 3D animation stage, then Pixar might have been owned by Universal, or hell, stood on their own and become such a powerhouse that discussions of Disney Animation past 2004 may have all been in past tense and the closing entry to their legacy could have been the abysmal 'Home on the Range'. Think about that next time you decide to slag off Pixar for saving Disney from themselves.

The Princess and the Frog was successful and only costed two thirds as much to make as Moana. It doesn't even have a very appealing premise and features a black princess, which little kids are probably not used to. People still want 2D animations, and Disney would know it if they didn't end with so many halfhearted efforts that weren't so well reviewed, like Treasure Planet, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Home on the Range. They competed against Shrek and Ice Age at the time. It didn't mean people no longer wanted 2D animations, it meant Disney wasn't doing a good enough job.

Figures from Box Office Mojo:

Princess and the Frog total gross: $267,045,765
Production Budget: $105 million

So Production minus Budget equals 162,045,765 but Disney don't see all of those pennies since the cinemas have to take a cut as well, and that formula is rather arcane and will vary from chain to chain and country to country. Fact is, Princess and the Frog did okay but it was not a grand slam but then Tangled made massive bank and Winnie the Pooh was a fucking disaster. Disney sat, and looked at the way the wind was blowing and their choice was a clear 'adapt or die' and they wisely chose to adapt and kept creating great things in a new style: between them and Pixar it took a long time for DreamWorks to even remotely catch up, with only their Dragons and Kung Fu Panda series being worthy of being in the same room as even Disney's most mediocre efforts.

I wouldn't despair since these things are cyclical so with all the money being brought in by Frozen and Zootopia they can look at restarting 2D in a decade or so with some new blood guided by old hands.

That's not fair. Do you know hoe many trailers I saw for Winnie the Pooh? Zilch. Zippo. Nadda. I didn't even know that film existed until after it was out of theaters. Disney left that film to die, and then used its failure as confirmation that 2d films were a thing of the past. What was supposed to happen? And, furthermore, of all the IP's one could utilize to test 2d animation, they chose Winnie the Pooh? A series generally aimed at preschoolers? The idea that 2d films can't succeed with a popular audience simply isn't true. Disney would surely know this if they had made even a meager effort to see how things progressed.

I'm working with what Disney did: they chose to try their luck after Princess and the Frog with Winnie the Pooh, out of everything else that could have been used and they blew it. They fucking blew it, which honestly I don't find shocking since the mighty Walt Disney Corporation couldn't successfully market John Carter of Mars.

 

[Jute88]

Definitely Kurosawa and Kubrick, though I haven't seen all their movies. From Kurosawa I liked Rashomon (and parts of Ran).
From Kubrick I like A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita (parts of it) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (only because of the visual style).

Kubrick is one of the best, with 2001 at the top. FMJ, Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangelove and Paths of Glory are pretty great too, and the rest range from quite good to just good. I've never fully seen Spartacus and I don't know if I will ever give it another try.

Now, this is just my opinion, but Spartacus didn't really feel like a Kubrick film. It felt like every other massive Hollywood spectacle of its time. Not necessarely a bad movie, but I think even Kubrick was disappointed with the final product. Then again, the guy was a perfectionist.

 

[Hawki]

between them and Pixar it took a long time for DreamWorks to even remotely catch up, with only their Dragons and Kung Fu Panda series being worthy of being in the same room as even Disney's most mediocre efforts.

I think that's a bit harsh. DreamWorks's output is generally a bit more hit or miss than Disney or Pixar, but their best (Dragons, Panda, Shrek, AntZ, Prince of Egypt, Over the Hedge, etc.) easily overshadows Disney's worst (e.g. Dinosaur).

They fucking blew it, which honestly I don't find shocking since the mighty Walt Disney Corporation couldn't successfully market John Carter of Mars.

Never seen it, but could anyone market that successfully? You have a film based on an obscure series of books, set on a Mars that only existed in speculative fiction at the time, to the extent that the story fits into the niche science fantasy (not science fiction, science fantasy) genre.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

between them and Pixar it took a long time for DreamWorks to even remotely catch up, with only their Dragons and Kung Fu Panda series being worthy of being in the same room as even Disney's most mediocre efforts.

I think that's a bit harsh. DreamWorks's output is generally a bit more hit or miss than Disney or Pixar, but their best (Dragons, Panda, Shrek, AntZ, Prince of Egypt, Over the Hedge, etc.) easily overshadows Disney's worst (e.g. Dinosaur).

I disagree: Shrek is way too meme-tastic to watch now, plus given how badly Disney generally kick their arse all the jabs they make at Disney through Lord Farquaad just seem like them throwing a tantrum. Over the Hedge looks like some direct to video fare and Antz is an anomaly in that it's better than A Bug's Life by a massive margin but still didn't quite make it. Prince of Egypt was lightning in a bottle which is a shame because it's one of the most beautiful tellings of Exodus I've ever seen but they just couldn't follow through. Dragons I feel was DreamWorks first unqualified masterpiece, then Kung Fu Panda 2 shattered my expectations of that franchise and Dragons 2 was just incredible.

That's the thing with DreamWorks, when they're good they're fucking amazing, but when they shit the bed they do it hard.

 

[Hawki]

I disagree: Shrek is way too meme-tastic to watch now, plus given how badly Disney generally kick their arse all the jabs they make at Disney through Lord Farquaad just seem like them throwing a tantrum.

If Shrek's meme-tastic, it's because the memes it pokes fun at have existed for centuries. I didn't notice any references to Disney until well after the film was released, but taking the first two Shrek films on their own, they're far more a subversion/parody of fairy tale tropes than anything Disney specific.

Over the Hedge looks like some direct to video fare

I personally quite like it. It's fun, enjoyable, characters are pleasant - it's not "great," but still "good."

and Antz is an anomaly in that it's better than A Bug's Life by a massive margin

I personally consider A Bug's Life superior. Antz is a bit more complex in its themes, but I find the Bug's Life characters to be more memorable, and the aesthetic/design far more appealing.

Prince of Egypt was lightning in a bottle which is a shame because it's one of the most beautiful tellings of Exodus I've ever seen but they just couldn't follow through.

As highly as I regard Prince of Egypt, I feel the films that came after it weren't slouches. Road to El Dorado was pretty good (fun, at least), Chicken Run is good, Shrek is...well, we may have to agree to disagree on that.

Dragons I feel was DreamWorks first unqualified masterpiece

Replace "first" with "a" and I do agree. Well, maybe "first." It is, IMO, DreamWorks's best film, but I haven't seen the sequel or KFP2 (only KFP1/3).

That's the thing with DreamWorks, when they're good they're fucking amazing, but when they shit the bed they do it hard.

Eh...I'm a bit more forgiving. So far I've talked about the good/great films DreamWorks has done. At the other end of the scale there's the likes of Shrek the Fourth, Monsters vs. Aliens, and Shark Tale. But apart from Shrek, I wouldn't say these are cases of "shitting the bed," just bland, forgettable films.

Like I said, I don't think DreamWorks is in the same caliber as Pixar or Disney, but their output, for me, has ranged from "meh," to "good," and in some cases, "great." (Shrek 2, Prince, Dragons). That's a spectrum that I can live with and put above some other sources of output.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

What do you think of the works of Paul Thomas Anderson:

There Will Be Blood was a very good, solid movie. If I cared about the Oscars, I'd say it should have won over No Country for Old Men.

Definitely Kurosawa and Kubrick, though I haven't seen all their movies. From Kurosawa I liked Rashomon (and parts of Ran).
From Kubrick I like A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita (parts of it) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (only because of the visual style).

Kubrick is one of the best, with 2001 at the top. FMJ, Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangelove and Paths of Glory are pretty great too, and the rest range from quite good to just good. I've never fully seen Spartacus and I don't know if I will ever give it another try.

Now, this is just my opinion, but Spartacus didn't really feel like a Kubrick film. It felt like every other massive Hollywood spectacle of its time. Not necessarely a bad movie, but I think even Kubrick was disappointed with the final product. Then again, the guy was a perfectionist.

Yeah, that's probably why it bored me. I gave up after an hour or an hour and a half.

At least we can say thank goodness No Country for Old Men won over....Juno

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

At least we can say thank goodness No Country for Old Men won over....Juno

I liked Juno...

Lets just say I was never a 15 year old Teenager in the states, so I find this "Rural American" life style of the White American Teenage Girl...unbearable to watch.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

For me there's no question: Kurosawa's the greatest that's been, or will likely ever be. In particular, his run from around '50 to '65 was just incredible. Few directors have ever knocked out one masterpiece, but he churned 'em out.

And whilst his latter period wasn't as productive, he still crafted some interesting films, and then, of course, the colossal Ran in '85.

For those who don't like formal/classical styles, sure, I can see why they'd look to other directors. But for me, his style is practically the perfected form of traditional filmmaking (anyone could learn how to direct if they studied his angles, cam movement, reframing, and editing). I also love that he was a true populist creator, yet still had some provocative or imposing works spread throughout his career (though most weighted to the mid/latter point), and his mainstream work was always incredibly intelligent and layered.

...of course this is all subjective bias, so none of it's really worth a damn. But yeah, AK's been my pick of 'greatest evah' since my teens, and he'll always be that. Loved his humanism, too, and his autobiography's a wonderful read.

Lets just say I was never a 15 year old Teenager in the states, so I find this "Rural American" life style of the White American Teenage Girl...unbearable to watch.

Riiiight... So I presume you only watch films that reflect your gender, age, and cultural background? You must not watch many films, read many books, or play many games. then...

I loved Juno, btw, but given its style I can certainly see why some would take against it.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

For me there's no question: Kurosawa's the greatest that's been, or will likely ever be. In particular, his run from around '50 to '65 was just incredible. Few directors have ever knocked out one masterpiece, but he churned 'em out.

And whilst his latter period wasn't as productive, he still crafted some interesting films, and then, of course, the colossal Ran in '85.

For those who don't like formal/classical styles, sure, I can see why they'd look to other directors. But for me, his style is practically the perfected form of traditional filmmaking (anyone could learn how to direct if they studied his angles, cam movement, reframing, and editing). I also love that he was a true populist creator, yet still had some provocative or imposing works spread throughout his career (though most weighted to the mid/latter point), and his mainstream work was always incredibly intelligent and layered.

...of course this is all subjective bias, so none of it's really worth a damn. But yeah, AK's been my pick of 'greatest evah' since my teens, and he'll always be that. Loved his humanism, too, and his autobiography's a wonderful read.

Lets just say I was never a 15 year old Teenager in the states, so I find this "Rural American" life style of the White American Teenage Girl...unbearable to watch.

Riiiight... So I presume you only watch films that reflect your gender, age, and cultural background? You must not watch many films, read many books, or play many games. then...

I loved Juno, btw, but given its style I can certainly see why some would take against it.

Must I explain the amount of things I am into? That I have watched Many Films and Played Many Games?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Must I explain the amount of things I am into? That I have watched Many Films and Played Many Games?

(c'mon, edit down a quoted post for the benefit of everyone using the forums... quote what's pertinent, which was just three lines)

You gave your reason for not liking Juno as essentially you not being female, teenage, or American... So I responded to exactly what you wrote.

Yeah, I was going to say... Juno doesn't relate to my life either, but so what? Do you like all those gangster movies because that's what you do for a living?

Yeah, surely a huge point of art/entertainment is to show us perspectives we can't immediately relate to, in order to--- well, connect to or be curious about people other than ourselves.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Lets just say I was never a 15 year old Teenager in the states, so I find this "Rural American" life style of the White American Teenage Girl...unbearable to watch.

Riiiight... So I presume you only watch films that reflect your gender, age, and cultural background? You must not watch many films, read many books, or play many games. then...

I loved Juno, btw, but given its style I can certainly see why some would take against it.

Yeah, I was going to say... Juno doesn't relate to my life either, but so what? Do you like all those gangster movies because that's what you do for a living?

I like things like Medieval Times stuff, Crime movies, Animation like Old School Disney and Looney Tunes (And CGI movies like Beowulf), Heavy Metal, Classical Music, and alot of different kinds of games.

 

[Chanticoblues]

For me there's no question: Kurosawa's the greatest that's been, or will likely ever be. In particular, his run from around '50 to '65 was just incredible. Few directors have ever knocked out one masterpiece, but he churned 'em out.

Not too big on Scandal, The Idiot, and The Lower Depths, but it's still a pretty absurd run. You could even scoop back a couple years to include Drunken Angel and Stray Dog, which I think are two of his best films.

Tough to think of other ones as good, at least from filmmakers that were prolific. Renoir from '31 to '45, Ozu from '49 to '62, Hong from '98 to current year?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Not too big on Scandal, The Idiot, and The Lower Depths, but it's still a pretty absurd run. You could even scoop back a couple years to include Drunken Angel and Stray Dog, which I think are two of his best films.

Never seen Scandal, and the others - save those I mentioned - were seen too long ago to be usefully fresh in my mind. My phrasing was generous, though... i.e. not including every single film in that period. And I think Red Beard's a phenomenal work (essential for any fan of AK), but it arguably marks the end of his best era - there's a little humanism lost in the didacticism of Red Beard, so if someone's praising him primarily as a humanist great, that's the cut off point.

Still haven't seen his last three films completely, but I know he at least found a sentimentalism to replace that rather cold, almost cynical edge.

Tough to think of other ones as good, at least from filmmakers that were prolific. Renoir from '31 to '45, Ozu from '49 to '62, Hong from '98 to current year?

Heh, as established before your cineliterate credentials are much better than mine, so I couldn't comment worth a damn, other than through reputation, particularly of Ozu. I think it'd be fair to say - putting aside his sheer craftsmanship - Ozu's range was more limited than Kurosawa's, though personal cultural bias may come into that (i.e. AK was a distinctly universal director, whereas Ozu was surely more meticulously, intricately native, so to speak).

 

[McElroy]

Darren Aronofsky is probably my favorite director. Also despite generally hating anime, Hayao Miyazaki has directed a couple of my favourite Chinese cartoons films. Of all time is tougher to nail down - obviously the masters of today have studied old works rigorously - but I could go with Kubrick. I've never seen any of Kurosawa's stuff.

 

[Chanticoblues]

...I couldn't comment worth a damn, other than through reputation, particularly of Ozu. I think it'd be fair to say - putting aside his sheer craftsmanship - Ozu's range was more limited than Kurosawa's, though personal cultural bias may come into that (i.e. AK was a distinctly universal director, whereas Ozu was surely more meticulously, intricately native, so to speak).

You're right, Kurosawa is definitely the more versatile filmmaker, so I can see that fact appealing to more people if that's something that factors into their image of greatness. Ozu is famously narrow in his subject matter, even recycling entire plots more than once; but his movies are so deliberate and zen-like that them blending together and working off one another becomes its own fascination. Kinda like a Monet series or something.

But it might be more of a generational thing. Ozu, Naruse, Shimizu, and Mizoguchi stuck to familiar themes and settings quite a bit, and they all came to prominence before the war. Mizoguchi might have been the most adventurous, making even amounts of jidai-geki and gendai-geki but even then his fascinations with tragic women and societal misgivings are really prevalent. Kurosawa's contemporaries, people like Ichikawa and Kobayashi played around with a lot of different material and were clearly more influenced by American and European cinema.