Well, no…neither of them is a one trick pony, Burton especially—besides Ed Wood, he also had Edward Scissorhands and Batman.
Whether one likes the movie or not, it’s hard to understand calling it “fluff”. If a movie about vicious drug lords, corruption, murder, addiction and failed U.S. policies is “fluff”, then what movie isn’t?
I don’t know what happened to George Lucas. American Graffiti was full of life and humor, with great characters and believable dialogue (and practically no special effects). The Phantom Menace filled the screen with special effects but the characters were lifeless. (In fact, if that was the only movie you’d seen Liam Neeson in, would you think he was much of an actor?)
I’m glad someone said this for me in defense of Soderbergh. sex, lies and videotape ain’t too shabby either. And I will second everything said above concerning Out Of Sight.
Immediately Spielberg came to mind.
I prefer a bit more subtlety in movies.
His handprints are all over the movies he directs.
Exceptions? *1941 *and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Right. Which both dealt in the same themes he always deals in, hence the “one-trick pony” label.
I nominated him earlier based on that flaming piece of crap. Hot Wheels may be a good choice for him, since I bet many small children could make better movies with handheld cameras and actual Hot Wheels toys…
I thought McG also directed The Italian Job remake, but that was F. Gary Gray. Has Gray done anything else good? Because The Italian Job was also awful. Ed Norton hit new levels of phoning it in.
Looks like he’s done a lot of music video work.
Yeah, I took a quick look. People in the “disappointing movie” thread are talking about how bad Be Cool was. I guess Friday has its fans…
The Island was like two movies (a big-budget remake of Parts: The Clonus Horror and a generic action movie) spliced together. They might as well have included a title card indicating the moment when Bay’s dose of Ritalin wore off.
My biggest problem with Soderbergh, besides that right from his very first film, which I hated when it came out, forever cementing my dislike for his work, is that the majority of his films are remakes, and further, a bunch of them have different titles than the originals, so that they are easily overlooked by a less discerning audience.
It seems to me that a director who bases most of his career on remakes, would be someone to consider as weak. But is he one of the worst? No, he still has some personal “vision”, like in Kafka or Schizopolis. Lately though even his personal “vision” is limited to clever cinematography, like the monochromatics in his remake of the BBC series Traffic or the extreme blue in his remake of Solaris.
As for Bay, I learned my lesson the hard way with Pearl Harbor. What a great idea – let’s use a historical war backdrop, on which to lay out a mind-numbingly dull love triangle which takes up 2/3 of the film! That way, men, who want to see an action movie, get suckered into watching a mind-numbingly dull romance! And women, who might want to see a romantic movie, don’t go to see a supposed action movie about Pearl Harbor! What a nice way to treat your primary audience of 13-24-year-old males, and old war veterans.
And for Schumacher, we all know his mission statement as a director by now: quantity over quality. It doesn’t matter if you have nothing whatsoever to say as a director as long as you just fill up every inch of the screen at every possible second, and then, no one will have time to notice that you have nothing whatsoever to say until after the movie is over. I’m sure there’s another superhero movie sequel he’s just waiting to get his hands on right at this very moment.
Sorry…Edward Scissorhands and Batman dealt with the SAME THEME??? 
If a director feels that the final version of the film is soooo bad, (It’s all the producer’s fault, really!) the director’s guild allows them to change their name to Alan Smithee. (or Alan Smithee Jr.) There are many famous directors that have chosen this option for one reason or another.
I personally think that after he dies, directors should use the name Joel Smuck-mocker as a tribute to the worst working director.
Yeah, the “dark” “misunderstood” outsider/outcast living in a kiddie-goth comic book/fairy tale world - so one of 'em fights crime and the other cuts hedges. He’s still saying the same thing with the same visual feel, and his “vision” doesn’t seem sufficiently deep to sustain more than a film or two, IMO.
Tim Burton is rather like Terry Gilliam. They pit the lone dreamer against reality. Gilliam does Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Baron Von Muchason, Time Bandits, and The Fisher King.
Burton gives us Batman, Sleepy Hollow, Willy Wonka and Big Fish.
Exactly. I like Gilliam (I think I’m the only person on earth who enjoyed Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, though I haven’t seen The Brothers Grimm), but he seems to do a lot more with the premise than Burton.
What was the point of this pointless snipe at lissener? He’s intelligent and articulate and has very good reasons for his point of view, which he’s presented time and time again, backed up by other intelligent and articulate Dopers, as well as essays by intelligent and articulate film critics. Your desire to “kill” lissener says far more about you than it does about him. I’d think that most of the other Verhoeven supporters haven’t been “killed” but rather think life is far too short to waste dealing with people who refuse to accept that someone has a valid point of view, because they’d rather make moronic jokes that make them look like a 3rd grader. You certainly haven’t “killed” me, because I’ve always refused to join the fray in the first place (see partial reason above). I only enter it this time because your post is the most nasty in the seemingly never-ending attempt to bait lissener (specifically) into an argument, especially since it’s couched as a “just kidding!” joke. Disgraceful. You almost seem disappointed that he refused to rise to the bait in this thread, and therefore decided to get in the last word with a pointless snipe, otherwise what was the point of this pointless snipe at lissener?
Wait, don’t answer that. I already know the answer.
I think the director’s guild also requires the would-be Smithee to show that the final cut is sufficiently different from what the director created. So a director can use this out when the studio takes his finished project and hacks it to pieces, but not when he suddenly realizes that he’s done a piss-poor job all on his own.
Here’s one I started earlier {Let’s be ignoring the Verhoeven bashing, since this thread was a sore point: FTR, I thought Starship Troopers was excellent, but it probably wasn’t geared to an American sensibility}.
Having just been enightened at Wiki, I found nothing saying that the Guild is involved at all. It seems to be a name used when a director refuses to be credited for the film. So the director isn’t even using the name. The producer is.
I also like Starship Troopers. It skewed the usual scifi bugfest and it made you say,“Wait a minute”.