First, James Cameron.
Now Ron Howard.
One more, and it’s the Apocalypse.
You realize this, don’t you?
James Cameron deserved it. Even if you don’t like Titanic he isn’t a hack director – if he was he wouldn’t be visibly copied so much. When’s the last time you saw a movie about high tech marines that wasn’t described as an Aliens ripoff?
Alien? 
–
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Hack? Ron Howard is a Hack? James Cameron is a Hack?
Is this one of those gigs where one tries to prove one’s cultural superiority and intellect by being utterly dismissive of those who can create popular works?
Is that what this is?
Or is it just a bunch of hyperbole?
Either way, I think it’s a waste of bandwidth. You might not think they are the best directors out there, and that’s a perfectly defendable position. But you’d be hard-pressed to defend your oh-so-proud declaration that these guys are hacks.
Take it to the pit, little one.
Tell you what, OP…
Rent “Ready to Wear” and “O.C. and Stiggs,” and watch them both… without getting up and without using the fast forward button.
Then rent “Dune” and sit through it in its entirety. Again, no fast forward button.
THEN, only then, will I let you try to convince me that Robert Altman and David Lynch are great artists, while Ron Howard is a “hack.”
Now, I certainly haven’t loved all of Ron Howard’s films (I HATED “The Grinch” and was bored silly by “Backdraft”), but he’s put together a very creditable body of work, in a wide variety of genres. In fact, you’d have to go back to Howard Hawks to find another director who’s done as much good work in so many different genres. I happen to think that counts for something.
I’ll be more worried when movies i want to win finally do, then it is a sign of the apocalypse! (Sorry, Moulin Rouge! Sorry Lord of the Rings!)
One of the things that make Robert Altman and David Lynch better artists than Cameron and Howard is that they’re willing to take chances. Thus they’re more likely to fail. Cameron and Howard always play it safe (speaking artistically, not financially; after all it’s not their money). Robert Altman continues to become a more and more interesting filmmaker, perhaps learning just as much along the way from his failures as from his successes. The same can be said tenfold for David Lynch.
Cameron and Howard are hacks precisely because they take no chances. Ron Howard, especially, produces inoffensive, MOR, unchallenging pablum. That’s why he’s so popular. Cameron produces inoffensive, adrenaline-inducing, unchallenging rollercoaster rides. That’s why he’s so popular. Altman and Lynch produce movies that often force the audience to look at things, or themselves, in a different way. This offends some people, and bores others. But it rarely wins Oscars. (As far as I’m concerned, the Apocalyps happened with Mel Gibson won a best director Oscar.)
While I definitely DO NOT think Howard deserved the Best Director Oscar, and was as angry as the next film fan when he won, it’s not fair to call him a “hack”. He’s a competent director, who most assuredly knows the nuts and bolts of storytelling, and how to assemble a watchable film. It’s true, he does play it safe, and is rather vanilla, but he is a filmmaker who knows story. To me, a hack is someone like Michael Bay, who knows nothing about story, and covers it up with flash.
Orson Welles never won the Best Director Oscar, and I don’t think D.W. Griffiths did either (although he had stopped working before it came out). And if the best directors didn’t win it, it really isn’t a best director award is it?
There weren’t any space marines in Alien.
Is Cameron an arrogant ass? Yes.
Is Cameron a hack? No, not even close.
James Cameron is indeed a great director, albeit one with a tin ear for dialogue.
Ron Howard, on the other hand, is merely competent. A purveyor of dull, bland, relentlessy conventional, “triumph of the human spirit”, oscar bait movies. Yawn.
Altman deserved best director this year but there was no way that was going to happen. He’s an independent old cuss who’s pissed off too many of the Academy members. Maybe he’ll get a lifetime achievement award when he’s on his deathbed and too weak to tell the Academy where they can shove it.
The only reason anyone would call Ron Howard or James Cameron hacks is that they didn’t bother to actually look up a hack director, and just cited some names they recognized usin g the tired old “if it’s popular it must be stupid” bit. Howard and Cameron are GOOD directors. You might not like Opie, but you have to admit that Apollo 13 was a damned good movie.
Now, Chris Columbus is a HACK. Michael Bay is a HACK. James Ivory is a HACK. And those are just well known hacks, FameHacks. REAL hacks are the people who direct Pauly Shore films.
It seems that everyone here is missing the point, which is that the Oscars are not a measure of which movies are good and which movies are not good. Example: Titanic won the Best Picture award not because it was the best picture of the year (a ridiculous idea considering it was up against L.A. Confidential), but because it was released by two studios (I think one had domestic distribution, the other foreign); thus, the members of the Academy from each studio both voted as a bloc to give it best picture, because that way Titanic could be advcrtised as the “Best Picture” and reap more profits accordingly. The Oscars are not a measure of excellence–they are a marketing tool. Period.
Now Kevin Smith, there is a complete hack director (but a very good writer).
Hey! Ron Howard is not a hack. Didn’t you see ‘EdTV’ and ‘Gung Ho’?? You haven’t seen true filmmaking until you’ve seen those masterpieces.
I wouldn’t say Ron Howard is a hack, precisely, but he’s not a great director. When his films work, it’s because of superior writing and acting. When they fail, often as not, it’s because of those same reasons. His directing is adequate, but hardly Oscar-worthy.
James Cameron is a bit different. Ten years ago, I’d have held him up as one of the better directors in Hollywood. But he hasn’t made a decent film since Terminator 2. His early work is certainly influential, but ever since True Lies, he’s been pure crap. Titanic was the work of a hack director, regardless of his earlier successes.
Titanic is hardly hackwork. It was a first-class story, and people put it down simply because the sort of romantic scope it portrayed is out of style. It’s amazing how people refuse to give the movie its due out of fashionable cyncism and the sophomoric attitude that popularity means low quality.
No doubt there are many who hates Titanic because it’s popular, but I don’t think anyone has admitted it yet, so lay off the insults.
Simply put, there are plenty of good reasons to not like the movie other than that. But there’s no need to go into them, because if you care to look you’ll see they’re all over the net.
As for hacks winning the Oscars… well Jeezus… the nature of the award show should be obvious by now. Why be surprised by it?
I hated Titanic because I went to see it. And I didn’t enjoy it. At all. I thought it was stupid. Utterly stupid. If Titanic were a SD post, the only reply it would warrant would be a rolleyes. Hell, The Poseidon Adventure was a better movie than Titanic.
Internet sarcasm should be illegal.
You ARE being sarcastic, right?