Poll
Question:
Which director from the Alien series is the best overall as a filmmaker?
Option 1: Ridley Scott
Option 2: James Cameron
Option 3: David Fincher
Option 4: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
I'm not talking about the Alien films. I'm talking about the directors attached to the series through their work.
Out of all the directors and all the films they've directed which talented director from the Alien series has delivered the most impressive filmography?
Out of all the directors I personally think David Fincher has made the most interesting films. From Se7en, Fight Club to the Social Network, Zodiac and Gone Girl Fincher has got it all as far as a good track record goes in Hollywood.
For you guys personally which director from the Alien franchise has made the most impactful and influential films?
I like all three, but I would have to say Ridley Scott.
Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven DC, American Gangster, etc. are just too good.
As a major geek and nutcase fanboy of The Terminator, Terminator 2, Alien, Aliens and Alien 3, so as these movies form my top 5 ever , or rather top 1, Im going with the emotional and kinetic style which is Jim. And theres only one movie I really dislike which is True Lies. Ridley's first movies are brilliant, but then hes a hit or miss for me. For example, I loved Hannibal, but disliked Robin Hood. I loved The Martian, but disliked Exodus. I liked GI Jane by the way, which everyone seems to hate. Anyway, Fincher I love as well, watched all of his movies and I only dislike Gone Girl. Terrific style
James Cameron for me I love most of his films I think they are very well made
Cameron, no doubt
James Cameron, without a doubt, though David Fincher is a close second. In my opinion, neither filmmakers have made a bad film. Ridley Scott, on the other hand, has made 2 awful films just within the last 5 years.
Fincher made my favourite ever film (Se7en), but overall I'd probably have to go with Cameron...
Jeunet.
Its not an easy question but i have to go with Cameron. I have a pure love for Aliens, The Abyss, The Terminator and T2.
Sir Ridley Scott is the best between them. By Far. No competition.
James Cameron is the most Overrated here and in the real world.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 25, 2017, 09:01:08 PM
Sir Ridley Scott is the best between them. By Far. No competition.
James Cameron is the most Overrated here and in the real world.
I totally agree. I like Cameron's films, he's bloody brilliant, but way too much of a perfectionist. He is way to slow of a film maker. But like I said he is more quality over quantity, but damn 10 or more years to make a film is utterly ridiculous to me. Ridley puts out a film a year and honestly he has more films that I like then Cameron does, but only by a little. Honestly they are pretty neck in neck though, here some stats.
Ridley Scott Lifetime Gross $1.6 Billion, 23 films, average $71 million.
James Cameron Lifetime Gross 1.9 Billion, 9 films, average 219 million.
Ridley still my fav though. ;D
How is James Cameron's lifetime gross less than the earnings of one of his films ... ?
Quote from: SiL on Jun 26, 2017, 09:53:16 AM
How is James Cameron's lifetime gross less than the earnings of one of his films ... ?
He uses the stats ONLY of the USA.
The Worldwide stats are different for BOTH Directors.
Quote from: bleau on Jun 26, 2017, 09:00:09 AM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 25, 2017, 09:01:08 PM
Sir Ridley Scott is the best between them. By Far. No competition.
James Cameron is the most Overrated here and in the real world.
I totally agree. I like Cameron's films, he's bloody brilliant, but way too much of a perfectionist. He is way to slow of a film maker. But like I said he is more quality over quantity, but damn 10 or more years to make a film is utterly ridiculous to me. Ridley puts out a film a year and honestly he has more films that I like then Cameron does, but only by a little. Honestly they are pretty neck in neck though, here some stats.
Ridley Scott Lifetime Gross $1.6 Billion, 23 films, average $71 million.
James Cameron Lifetime Gross 1.9 Billion, 9 films, average 219 million.
Ridley still my fav though. ;D
I agree 100%.
Actually, I hate the fact that James Cameron made 2 mediocre movies in the last 20 years: titanic(1997) and avatar(2009).
I prefer hard and fast working Legends like Sir Ridley Scott, Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg.
Titanic mediocre?
Did IQs just drop suddenly?
Avatar...sci-fi re-telling of Dances with Wolves...I get it but damn it wow'd everyone that saw it in IMAX and 3D
Is there an objective measure that would judge Cameron's last to two flicks as mediocre?
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 26, 2017, 09:16:44 PM
Titanic mediocre?
Did IQs just drop suddenly?
Avatar...sci-fi re-telling of Dances with Wolves...I get it but damn it wow'd everyone that saw it in IMAX and 3D
To each their own.
I find Titanic to be a very mediocre movie.
Voted Ridley because the Alien franchise trumps everything else, but James Cameron is very good too. I don't care for Pocahontas in space (one of the most overrated movies ever if you ask me), but Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss are all good films.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jun 26, 2017, 11:23:03 PM
Voted Ridley because the Alien franchise trumps everything else, but James Cameron is very good too. I don't care for Pocahontas in space (one of the most overrated movies ever if you ask me), but Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss are all good films.
I voted Ridley Scott because I love 7 of his films.
I love only 3 James Cameron films.
You forgot genius auteur Paul WS Anderson...
Quote from: Scorpio on Jun 25, 2017, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 25, 2017, 12:33:50 AM
Jeunet.
Jeunet has never made a bad film.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Folzlb8E.jpg&hash=ab03a2bdcdb8fecbdd5de7d41b3f3cd2a37eceb1)
Quote from: Russ on Jun 27, 2017, 08:59:13 AM
You forgot genius auteur Paul WS Anderson...
Paul W.S. Anderson is BETTER than the Strause Brothers.
Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.
Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.
#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.
Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.
#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.
#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.
Quote from: Laz on Jun 27, 2017, 06:25:02 PM
Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.
Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.
#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.
Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.
#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.
#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.
I disagree 100%.
James Cameron peaked 31 years ago. His finests still are THE TERMINATOR(1984) and ALIENS(1986). TERMINATOR 2 is a family friendly version of his greatest film ever.
Sir Ridley Scott got better with age. Actors and actresses said it. The perfect performances in ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER were lucky because he almost never talked to the actors and actresses. I prefer his later work. I love THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE MARTIAN, AMERICAN GANGSTER, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT, PROMETHEUS, THE COUNSELOR and ALIEN: COVENANT.
The two films that will define him, Alien and Blade Runner, were made when he sucked at dealing with actors.
Ridley Scott by a mile. I genuinely love several of his movies: The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Prometheus, The Counselor, and The Martian. All of his films have admirable qualities, imho. I watch his movies over and over and always find new things about them to appreciate. People who think he peaked early need to give his post-1990 resume another look.
Jean-Pierre Jeunet is second.
Fincher and Cameron are great craftsman but I don't resonate with their work. Fincher's Zodiac is the only undeniable masterpiece between the two of them, imho.
I am severely surprised over the lack of appreciated and admiration for Fincher. A majoirty of his film are masterpieces of cinema.
James Cameron? Really? Titanic? Avatar? Terminator, besides that what else does the guy have going for him???
Championing new technologies, good reviews and obscenely large box office receipts?
Quote from: SM on Jun 28, 2017, 02:56:20 AM
Championing new technologies, good reviews and obscenely large box office receipts?
:D Ok, that is true.
Quote from: Laz on Jun 27, 2017, 06:25:02 PM
#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.
But Resident Evil is a billion dollar franchise. Death Race has gone on to spawn two sequels (which are pretty good). AvP is a good movie. It's not a great movie, but its a good movie and I'd defend Anderson if anyone tries to say he doesn't love the Alien-verse (you only have to look at Event Horizon). As I was saying in another thread (or maybe even this one) I'm not sure that it was the movie the he actually wanted to make but rather - like the Bros - it was the movie that the studio wanted him to make. That's purely speculation on my part regarding Anderson.
He's a decent director who makes entertaining movies for the masses. That he screws with his own continuity is annoying, but it hasn't seemed to have affected the Resident Evil juggernaut (see what I did there). That he ignored the Alien lifecycle is really annoying, especially given his level of fandom - but, reasons. They had to get the story moving - or at least the story he was telling. AvP was never going to be a slow burning, tension building horror movie. It's got "vs" in the title for a start. It had Aliens fighting Predators - that's what people wanted to see - that's what they got. I read more and more on the forum here even that the film is getting a lot more love in later years than it did on the time.
As I say - its got holes - but on the whole, AvP works. It's certainly better than AvPR which is appalling on almost every level. Lately, I'm coming off like a Strause Bros apologist: I do have some sympathy for them in that they were landed with an outline that they had no intention of making. That they screwed up - totally - a beloved franchise. However, if you listen to their commentary, the sympathy starts to dissipate - for me, they actually had little respect for the job (or maybe even the franchise itself - dunno about that, but the comments about the fans of one of the creatures - I forget which, but basically they were saying "Well, we prefer the Predator so fck you Xeno fans" or some such)... that the darkness (lighting wise, not tonally ) was a choice...
No, there's no way these two are above Anderson. He's competent, he continually makes movies that I - and apparently legions of other people - enjoy. And he's still working in a directorial / writing which our friends the Bros are (sadly - I don't wish ill on any film-maker because no one really sets out to make a bad film) not (they've gone back to VFX - good work if you can get it).
Musketeers was shit, though.
'ken oath is was shit.
I've really tried watching the RE films, thinking maybe they're a bit of brainless fun. Turns out it was just the former.
Death Race was pretty ace though. I bought it on VCD in Singapore yonks ago, then watched it again on cable and boy did they cut a tonne of violence off that VCD.
Quote from: SM on Jun 28, 2017, 10:07:38 AM
I've really tried watching the RE films, thinking maybe they're a bit of brainless fun. Turns out it was just the former.
Guessing you're not an Underworld fan either *lol*
I dunno, I think they're great. I'm just waiting to get my hands on the blu-ray of the new one so I can have a marathon. That and Underworld. The agony of choice...
I cannot answer that question. I like all of them. Each one of them got's his unique style.
Quote from: SM on Jun 28, 2017, 10:07:38 AM
'ken oath is was shit.
I've really tried watching the RE films, thinking maybe they're a bit of brainless fun. Turns out it was just the former.
Death Race was pretty ace though. I bought it on VCD in Singapore yonks ago, then watched it again on cable and boy did they cut a tonne of violence off that VCD.
You can't dispute that the first Resident Evil Film was AWESOME! Yeah the sequels were Meh but that first Resident Evil to me is a cult classic.
Yeah I can. It was dull as. Even the cool laser grid scene looked really fake. Which is what mars most of Anderson's stuff. It generally has this look of fakeness about it. Musketeers was peak fake. I'll exclude parts of Death Race and AvP and most of Event Horizon.
I thought Resident Evil was mediocre at best. The rest of the films were even worse than that.
The first Resident Evil was the closest I've ever come to walking out of the cinema...
Quote from: Rankles75 on Jun 29, 2017, 01:07:14 AM
The first Resident Evil was the closest I've ever come to walking out of the cinema...
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jun 28, 2017, 11:45:22 PM
I thought Resident Evil was mediocre at best. The rest of the films were even worse than that.
:'( :'( haah, ah man. I was hoping you would of liked the first RE film 426Buddy. :)
I would of if it was more like the game. Which it should of been. And it easily could of.
Quite.
...of.
Quote from: Vermillion on Jun 26, 2017, 09:16:44 PM
Titanic mediocre?
Did IQs just drop suddenly?
Avatar...sci-fi re-telling of Dances with Wolves...I get it but damn it wow'd everyone that saw it in IMAX and 3D
People are still saying this? lol
Maybe they should look up what Spaihts has said about mythic resonance.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 28, 2017, 01:54:24 AM
Ridley Scott by a mile. I genuinely love several of his movies: The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Prometheus, The Counselor, and The Martian. All of his films have admirable qualities, imho. I watch his movies over and over and always find new things about them to appreciate. People who think he peaked early need to give his post-1990 resume another look.
Jean-Pierre Jeunet is second.
Fincher and Cameron are great craftsman but I don't resonate with their work. Fincher's Zodiac is the only undeniable masterpiece between the two of them, imho.
I forgot David Fincher. I love 4 of his films. So, my list is:
1.- Sir Ridley Scott.
2.- David Fincher
3.- Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
4.- James Cameron.
5.- Paul W.S. Anderson.
6.- The Awful Brothers.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jun 29, 2017, 04:08:18 AM
I would of if it was more like the game. Which it should of been. And it easily could of.
Why? I have over a billion reasons why that line of logic is flawed. "People" don't give a shit about the games. They just want to be - by and large - entertained. And ALL the Resi movie are entertaining (to the vast majority of people).
Honestly - I've never played Resident Evil in my life (then again, I rate A:CM so it shows you how many games I
have played).
Gamers give a shit about games. And, by and large, gamers are never - ever - happy with an adaptation. All the way from Uwe's cheap as chips "House of the Dead", through WS's bigger and bigger budget Ressies, past Angie's Tomb Raiders and on to the gazillion dollar "Assassin's Creed" with super-star Fass in the lead role.
Romero wrote a Resident script that was "just like the games." Honest: "Yet despite adhering to the game's mythology, Sony and Capcom ultimately passed on Romero's draft. Capcom producer Yoshiki Okamoto bluntly stated at the time: "Romero's script wasn't good, so Romero was fired."
http://variety.com/2016/film/spotlight/resident-evil-george-romero-failed-1201942677/
is the skinny. (There's a great line there about "you'd be forgiven for thinking that Anderson thought he was adapting "Call of Duty.").
But here we are, fifteen years later and only now has the Resi movie cycle ended. They've rebooted Spider-Man three times in that period, haven't they? Something like that, anyway. Superman twice... WSedient Evil had legs, man. People love that shit. I don't even know why myself, to be honest. They're just glorious in their camp, action-packed, zombie-slaying bollocks. (The first one was a really tight little movie though. The third one is my favourite - not directed by WS interestingly!).
I was reading this this morning (coincidentally): https://thescriptlab.com/features/main/7152-7152/ which makes for an interesting read.
There are plans afoot for a reboot that IS true to the games: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/resident-evil-reboot-cannes-film-festival-1202439086/ so maybe that will deliver?
Maybe I should just start a thread called "Russ defends Anderson, Wiseman and Boll" and everyone can throw stuff at me there instead.
The original RE is one of my go-to mindless movies. It rocks along, has a nice soundtrack, and Michelle Rodriguez chewing scenery.
Quote from: Russ on Jun 29, 2017, 09:10:36 AM
"People" don't give a shit about the games. They just want to be - by and large - entertained. And ALL the Resi movie are entertaining (to the vast majority of people).
"People" were playing the games before the movies and new ones are still being produced even now that the movie series has ended.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/resident-evil-7-biohazard (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/resident-evil-7-biohazard)
How does this add up to "should have been more like the games." I'm not seeing your point, I'm sorry. Could you elaborate?
I get that hard core game fans were butt-hurt the movies weren't like games in the same way that some Aliens fans are butt-hurt that Hicks and Newt died and we're not getting our ret-con (me for instance).
But five theatrical sequels and over a billion dollars says to me that basing the movie on the game plot was unnecessary. Perhaps even a better way to go, given that this is the most successful game-to-film adaption (loose as it is) as far as I'm aware? (stand to be corrected on that, though)
Is the branding is the key thing? Like "film a guy taking a piss, call it Alien and it'll make money." Stick resident evil on it, invent a new backstory and go for it? Clearly this is what CapCom thought given the Variety story above.
All that said, in every single commentary by Anderson, he's at pains to point out the loads of stuff "from the games" that are in the movie (well, except the plot I guess).
Quote from: Russ on Jun 29, 2017, 02:49:13 PM
How does this add up to "should have been more like the games."
Because it
hurt my butt, dammit. It made me feel like an altar boy.
I actually liked the first movie because I thought it could co-exist with the games. Then the movieverse veered off course with the sequels and spoiled that for me.
It's weird people here prefer AVP:R over AVP.
AVP is better than AVP:R by far.
AVP:R is THE WORST MOVIE EVER of 2 Franchises by far.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jun 29, 2017, 03:51:01 PM
Because it hurt my butt, dammit. It made me feel like an altar boy.
Hahahaha. Fair enough. I can't argue with that, man *lol*
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jun 29, 2017, 03:51:01 PM
I actually liked the first movie because I thought it could co-exist with the games. Then the movieverse veered off course with the sequels and spoiled that for me.
I reckon that was probably idea. It was always the case that Alice would serve as the "non-initiated" eyes into the 'verse (Anderson says this on the commentary) but then when it was a smash, it all got a bit cray-az.
Don't fret though - there will be reboot for sure and even if they wanted to, they couldn't do the same thing as Anderson so it
will be in the authentic game world.
They'd have some balls to make it moody horror piece though (I believe that's what the first game is?). We'll see...
And meanwhile, back on the topic... For me, I don't think you can really get past Cameron in terms of attention to detail, respect for lore and and expanding the universe into something much bigger - but retaining a tight, focused plot. At least tight for the 80s - you'd never get away with 40 minutes of f-all happening these days... but man... its such a great film.
I couldn't put up a strong counter argument
against Ridley Scott though - he's a genius too. As people have said in other threads, A:C got a "meh" from most originally, but reading some of the stuff on here (especially the religious allegory thing - that stacks up too well to be accidental), its a many layered movie that I reckon will be seen as a classic along side "Alien."
Fincher - well... The fact that he even made a movie is amazing. I don't like A3 much, but I can't say that's not a good movie. I can't even say it doesn't fit in the universe. I just don't like the way they took the story. One of the things levelled against it is the "unrecognisable bald Brits." That's not too much of a problem if you're from Great Britain... Hell, they even had Little John from Robin of Sherwood and Moxie from Aufweidersien Pet.
We don't talk about Resurrection in these parts. Everything I say about Cameron's respect for lore and all that stuff, Jeunet just pissed all over with his French whimsy black comedy rubbish. Honestly, if I was on a desert island and had to pick between this and AvP:R, I'd be the third Strausse Bro.
I voted JPJ.
Essentially spoiling your ballot ;D
Nah he's just got a better strike rate. The more you make the more chance you have of making something a bit meh. I don't think JPJ's done that yet (though I haven't seen his last flick yet).
I can't have it, mate. I really loathe that movie - but, it's all about opinions. Aliens will always be my favourite. Add T1 and T2 to that... I love them as well, so as all around win, its Cameron for me. Then again, I loved Gladiator too.
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:42:50 AM
I voted JPJ.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--N3XFBac7--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/csyyqoofz2n1v031ubc0.gif)
Fincher for me, his batting average in terms of quality makes him one of the best directors today.
Jeunet. Alien Resurrection is a GREAT movie, but The City of Lost Children is a masterpiece. Right up there with Blade Runner.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jul 02, 2017, 12:38:44 AM
Jeunet. Alien Resurrection is a GREAT movie, but The City of Lost Children is a masterpiece. Right up there with Blade Runner.
Quote from: hfeldhaus on Jul 01, 2017, 11:37:39 PM
Fincher for me, his batting average in terms of quality makes him one of the best directors today.
Thats freakin awesome you guys chose those two directors! I chose Fincher :)
Not trying to be mean or anything but its quite a shame nearly 20 people encounting are choosing James Cameron JUST because of his wider reputation. Not to knock his filmmaking abilities but Fincher and Jeunet are MUCH more aesthetically talented and have a wide variety of exclaimed films. I wish people would enlarge their cinematic tastes.
Cameron Scott and Fincher are all tied for me
Aliens Alien and The Social Network are all time top 20 favorites.
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 03:25:31 AM
Not trying to be mean or anything but its quite a shame nearly 20 people encounting are choosing James Cameron JUST because of his wider reputation.
Heaven forbid people actually think he makes good movies and is good at what he does; no sir, that can't be it!
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 04:55:57 AM
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 03:25:31 AM
Not trying to be mean or anything but its quite a shame nearly 20 people encounting are choosing James Cameron JUST because of his wider reputation.
Heaven forbid people actually think he makes good movies and is good at what he does; no sir, that can't be it!
Ok, SIL. Really? That still doesn't remove the fact that Fincher and Jeunet have made some REMARKABLE films. Cameron is indeed a very good filmmaker but don't idolize him and make him the GOD of movies.
Aren't we only allowed to make one choice?
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2017, 05:03:36 AM
Aren't we only allowed to make one choice?
Yeah, But that response was for SIL.
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:02:17 AM
Ok, SIL. Really? That still doesn't remove the fact that Fincher and Jeunet have made some REMARKABLE films.
So has Cameron. He's made some of the most influential movies ever made. He's consistently raised the bar for filmmaking technologies and broken new ground in how stories can be told cinematically. That people might actually enjoy his films -- yes, more than the others -- is hardly remarkable.
QuoteCameron is indeed a very good filmmaker but don't idolize him and make him the GOD of movies.
How did you get idolatry and deification out of me saying he's good at what he does and that people enjoy his films ???
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:06:31 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2017, 05:03:36 AM
Aren't we only allowed to make one choice?
Yeah, But that response was for SIL.
I voted for Jeunet...
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 05:07:51 AM
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:02:17 AM
Ok, SIL. Really? That still doesn't remove the fact that Fincher and Jeunet have made some REMARKABLE films.
So has Cameron. He's made some of the most influential movies ever made. He's consistently raised the bar for filmmaking technologies and broken new ground in how stories can be told cinematically. That people might actually enjoy his films -- yes, more than the others -- is hardly remarkable.
QuoteCameron is indeed a very good filmmaker but don't idolize him and make him the GOD of movies.
How did you get idolatry and deification out of me saying he's good at what he does and that people enjoy his films ???
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:06:31 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2017, 05:03:36 AM
Aren't we only allowed to make one choice?
Yeah, But that response was for SIL.
I voted for Jeunet...
Well, how was I suppose to know you voted for Jeunet? Plus, from your response up top you SURE sounded like a true Cameron voter..no offense and I don't need any little funny little quips or side remarks that make you feel or look better. You really are well respected and well enough of a nice guy not to do that stuff. I'm just saying, Cameron collectively voted all too often.
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:13:12 AM
Well, how was I suppose to know you voted for Jeunet?
I said it on the first page. And if that was too far back you could have asked, instead of making an assumption and then, bizarrely, accusing me of idolizing or making Cameron a "GOD" of filmmaking just because I said people might actually just enjoy his stuff, not his reputation.
QuoteI'm just saying, Cameron collectively voted all too often.
By people who genuinely enjoy his films. He's literally made two of the highest grossing movies of all time, it's safe to say there might be a lot of people who think he's a good filmmaker.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 05:29:13 AM
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:13:12 AM
Well, how was I suppose to know you voted for Jeunet?
I said it on the first page. And if that was too far back you could have asked, instead of making an assumption and then, bizarrely, accusing me of idolizing or making Cameron a "GOD" of filmmaking just because I said people might actually just enjoy his stuff, not his reputation.
QuoteI'm just saying, Cameron collectively voted all too often.
By people who genuinely enjoy his films. He's literally made two of the highest grossing movies of all time, it's safe to say there might be a lot of people who think he's a good filmmaker.
Ok, I realize that and you have made a good point. I apologize for reacting the way I did. I should of saw your Jeunet post earlier on page 1. My fault :-\
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 05:29:13 AM
Quote from: Chronicle on Jul 02, 2017, 05:13:12 AM
Well, how was I suppose to know you voted for Jeunet?
I said it on the first page. And if that was too far back you could have asked, instead of making an assumption and then, bizarrely, accusing me of idolizing or making Cameron a "GOD" of filmmaking just because I said people might actually just enjoy his stuff, not his reputation.
QuoteI'm just saying, Cameron collectively voted all too often.
By people who genuinely enjoy his films. He's literally made two of the highest grossing movies of all time, it's safe to say there might be a lot of people who think he's a good filmmaker.
So may I ask you than SIL, what drew you to vote for Jeunet? Good choice by the way.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 25, 2017, 09:01:08 PM
Sir Ridley Scott is the best between them. By Far. No competition.
James Cameron is the most Overrated here and in the real world.
Agree.
Scott has made enough great films in many genres to be considered the best film maker out of the ALIEN series.
Fincher has made a few classics, I'd place him second probably.
Then Jeunet, Resurrection aside can't fault much of his output.
Cameron's made a couple of classics and a whole bunch of awful rubbish. I'll actually happily watch Piranha 2 Flying Killers over most of what he's done - it's a fun cheapo that probably works because it is what it is and it's not overblown like practically everything else he's made since. Terrible dialogue of course, but it fits with the tone being practically a parody, unfortunately the quality of the dialogue in his later films hasn't improved whist the budgets have soared. Terminator 2 is his most competent film - but, technicalities aside, it's all down hill from there.
He didn't write Piranha 2 and directed all of one or two shots of the finished film.
I voted James Cameron because he made The Terminator. The greatest film of ALL TIME.
I don't think of the others as anything less though. I endlessly love Alien, and Ridley Scott's films always fascinate me. Fincher's are consistently great and intriguing and his movie, The Game, will always be my favourite of his.
JPJ is the only one I don't know much about, sorry. But maybe I should check some of his work out at some point.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 10:12:21 AM
He didn't write Piranha 2 and directed all of one or two shots of the finished film.
Oh well, there you go, that's why it's his best then. Somebody else made it.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 10:12:21 AM
He didn't write Piranha 2 and directed all of one or two shots of the finished film.
Is that all? I thought he directed pretty much the whole thing then they took it off him during post.
Nah, he was kicked off before they even finished and the producer did the rest, which was apparently his MO (something to do with securing financing incentives). Cameron had to sneak into the editing to see that they were at least using some of what he'd done, as their rationale for firing him was that his material 'wasn't working', which made him doubt himself as a director.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 28, 2017, 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: Laz on Jun 27, 2017, 06:25:02 PM
Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.
Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.
#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.
Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.
#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.
#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.
I disagree 100%.
James Cameron peaked 31 years ago. His finests still are THE TERMINATOR(1984) and ALIENS(1986). TERMINATOR 2 is a family friendly version of his greatest film ever.
Sir Ridley Scott got better with age. Actors and actresses said it. The perfect performances in ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER were lucky because he almost never talked to the actors and actresses. I prefer his later work. I love THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE MARTIAN, AMERICAN GANGSTER, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT, PROMETHEUS, THE COUNSELOR and ALIEN: COVENANT.
But did you liked 1492, White Squall, GI Jane, Hannibal, Matchstick Men, A Good Year, Body Of Lies, Robin Hood ? Because they weren't that good... And there is a fair amount of them...
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2017, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2017, 10:12:21 AM
He didn't write Piranha 2 and directed all of one or two shots of the finished film.
Is that all? I thought he directed pretty much the whole thing then they took it off him during post.
Yep, he only shot the morgue scene and one more on the water during the day. The rest was directed by the producer. Cameron was already a second director on this very film who got the same deal - hired, then immediately fired (first one was Miller Drake). They just needed an american sounding name to distribute it in US
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Jul 02, 2017, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 28, 2017, 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: Laz on Jun 27, 2017, 06:25:02 PM
Cameron by a landslide for me. I only recently (within the last year or two) caught Xenogenesis, his debut short, and the level of talent on display even then was remarkable. When I think of what I want out of a movie - enjoyment, spectacle, heart, cohesive storytelling - he's the one that shows the greatest amount of ability in each category. Not only this, but looking at his filmography (as director alone) reveals not only three of my favorite films (the first two Terminators and Aliens), but also significant works for film as a whole.
Fincher is second but there's a considerable gap. Alien 3 turned out as good as it did through his vision but its faults, though not on Fincher's shoulders, are still there. Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are my favorites of his, but stuff like Zodiac, Gone Girl, and Social Network either bore or aggravate me. His is a very distinct visual style, too, but that has its benefits and its drawbacks.
#3 is Scott. I have no problem saying he peaked early with Alien and Blade Runner, and even less saying I don't enjoy much of his work at all. Black Hawk Down feels like Ridley trying to do a "mature" take on the technique du jour (quick cuts, drain the color in post, focus on the situation and not characters), Robin Hood is an embarrassment, Gladiator is overrated, White Squall and 1492 are subpar even compared to Lloyd Kaufman's output...but hey, at least Alien and Blade Runner are legitimately great.
Just missing the medals is Jeunet, and that's only because City of Lost Children is amazing.
#5 is the Brothers Strause, with an even wider gap than between Cameron and Fincher. Say what you will about AVPR or Skyline, but at least there feels like a true attempt at doing something somewhat original within genre tropes. Plus? They do some solid VFX work.
#6, worst of the bunch, is clearly Paul WS Anderson. Forget about AVP for a second and remember that his only decent movies were either based on a popular video game with limited lore (Mortal Kombat) or a blend of iconic horror themes of yesteryear (Event Horizon). The RE series is garbage, his Death Race remake was mediocre and bland compared to the outrageous camp of the Corman original, his Three Musketeers is one of the worst takes on the story...just homogeneous crap all around designed to appease the lowest common denominator and make sure his wife keeps a steady paycheck.
I disagree 100%.
James Cameron peaked 31 years ago. His finests still are THE TERMINATOR(1984) and ALIENS(1986). TERMINATOR 2 is a family friendly version of his greatest film ever.
Sir Ridley Scott got better with age. Actors and actresses said it. The perfect performances in ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER were lucky because he almost never talked to the actors and actresses. I prefer his later work. I love THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THE MARTIAN, AMERICAN GANGSTER, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT, PROMETHEUS, THE COUNSELOR and ALIEN: COVENANT.
But did you liked 1492, White Squall, GI Jane, Hannibal, Matchstick Men, A Good Year, Body Of Lies, Robin Hood ? Because they weren't that good... And there is a fair amount of them...
I love almost all of them.
I only dislike ROBIN HOOD and G.I. JANE. Those 2 are his worst films ever.
I adore HANNIBAL. Very Underrated. I love 1492, WHITE SQUALL, MATCHSTICK MEN, A GOOD YEAR and BODY OF LIES. 1492 has Perfect Cinematography.
Purely coincidentally, I saw this on DoG today:
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/james-cameron/256781/aliens-and-terminator-2-how-james-cameron-crafts-perfect-sequels
Quote from: Russ on Jul 04, 2017, 11:15:44 AM
Purely coincidentally, I saw this on DoG today:
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/james-cameron/256781/aliens-and-terminator-2-how-james-cameron-crafts-perfect-sequels
Thats cool but Ive seen better, more detailed articles on the sbject. Plus Cameron didnt write Rambo 2, only two scenes made it from his script despite the credit, and he hates the movie with passion since its release
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jul 04, 2017, 04:33:15 PM
Quote from: Russ on Jul 04, 2017, 11:15:44 AM
Purely coincidentally, I saw this on DoG today:
http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/james-cameron/256781/aliens-and-terminator-2-how-james-cameron-crafts-perfect-sequels
Thats cool but Ive seen better, more detailed articles on the sbject. Plus Cameron didnt write Rambo 2, only two scenes made it from his script despite the credit, and he hates the movie with passion since its release
Yesterday, I saw the trailer for T2 3D before my movie.
I'm NOT interested but the people at my theater cheered it.
This was a bit difficult for me as Ridley and David have both proven themselves as filmmakers and have made brilliant movies, however, I personally believe Cameron is a bit more consistent in his streak than at least Ridley.
Quality over quantity is much better, I would rather wait five or even ten years for really good Alien or Terminator movie than watch some weaker version that comes out every year like a COD game and with just as much depth.
Cameron has his flaws however and one of them interestingly enough is that like Sil said, he
does raise the bar. Which means sequels will have a had time matching his film's success and will seem at worst, bad or mediocre in comparison to what Cameron did.. Alien3 has many issues but I think it coming after a film like Aliens did not help one bit.
Concerning Anderson, I think his heart is in the right place and he does have sound ideas but his execution of them is flawed, AVP could have been much better given just more character development, being more lore friendly, better creature designs and maybe not having the film as a pg 13.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jun 29, 2017, 10:36:46 PM
It's weird people here prefer AVP:R over AVP.
AVP is better than AVP:R by far.
AVP:R is THE WORST MOVIE EVER of 2 Franchises by far.
Not sure if you are being serious or trolling but I assure you that the majority on the site (well presumably anyway) prefer AVP to Requiem anyday, there is even a vs thread about it.
I'd probably go for Cameron, just because I've really enjoyed every movie he's made, whereas the others I can pick at least a few that I didn't.
I voted Cameron, as I've been highly entertained by all of his films, except Titanic which I haven't seen yet. And I'm not exactly hyped for 15 Avatar sequels. But T1, Aliens, Abyss, and T2 are enough to win out for me.
Fincher would be my second, since he's had a couple of films that don't work for me, but Seven and Fight Club are among my all time favorites, and he's done plenty of solid work aside.
Ridley would be third. He's done plenty of great work, but he's made two of the most f**k awful bad films I've sat through in the theater. "But the greed is a symptom of the evil is a symptom of the corruption in the fabric of the universe..." grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :laugh:
I can't really speak for Jeunet, as I've only seen Rez and Lost Children, both of which left me kind of befuddled. Like, that weird Santa scene in the latter... WTF? :laugh:
They generally do very well in various genres. Any problems in the Alien films that they made probably had to do with the story.
For me Scott > Fincher > = Jeunet > Cameron, I think. I really enjoyed Terminator 1 and 2 as well as Aliens and I even think Abyss had great potential, but the rest of his filmography isn't so stellar, plus I don't regard any of his films as an absolute masterpiece, so there it goes. I prefer quirky and idiosyncratic, unique Delicatessen and City of Lost Children over whatever Cameron had ever done, any day.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:19:27 AM
For me Scott > Fincher > = Jeunet > Cameron, I think. I really enjoyed Terminator 1 and 2 as well as Aliens and I even think Abyss had great potential, but the rest of his filmography isn't so stellar, plus I don't regard any of his films as an absolute masterpiece, so there it goes. I prefer quirky and idiosyncratic, unique Delicatessen and City of Lost Children over whatever Cameron had ever done, any day.
You put the words I wanted. I like almost all james cameron movies BUT his style is too comercial, too safe, too predictable and too easy.
I adore riskier Directors like Ridley Scott and David Fincher.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:19:27 AM
For me Scott > Fincher > = Jeunet > Cameron, I think. I really enjoyed Terminator 1 and 2 as well as Aliens and I even think Abyss had great potential, but the rest of his filmography isn't so stellar, plus I don't regard any of his films as an absolute masterpiece, so there it goes. I prefer quirky and idiosyncratic, unique Delicatessen and City of Lost Children over whatever Cameron had ever done, any day.
You put the words I wanted. I like almost all james cameron movies BUT his style is too commercial, too safe, too predictable and too easy.
I adore riskier Directors like Ridley Scott and David Fincher.
And you've summed up my feelings about Cameron too. I get nothing from his stuff, no food for thought, nothing to get the grey matter working. It's fast food cinema. Films that gamers reference as the high watermark in cinema. Perhaps his films satisfy the masses simply because every plot beat is so obvious. The spectacle carries it - but that's not enough for me. I'm actually delighted he's limited himself to Avatar because it's a franchise I have no interest in, so he can't screw up another historical event or badly remake Fantastic Voyage.
Scott perhaps had a lean time during the 90s, his output then was unremarkable generally, but far from him having lost it or being senile or whatever ageist drivel is moronically spouted about his status now, I think all of his films of the last 5 years have given me much to mull over thematically or just to simply enjoy the mastery of.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 10:05:33 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:59:07 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:19:27 AM
For me Scott > Fincher > = Jeunet > Cameron, I think. I really enjoyed Terminator 1 and 2 as well as Aliens and I even think Abyss had great potential, but the rest of his filmography isn't so stellar, plus I don't regard any of his films as an absolute masterpiece, so there it goes. I prefer quirky and idiosyncratic, unique Delicatessen and City of Lost Children over whatever Cameron had ever done, any day.
You put the words I wanted. I like almost all james cameron movies BUT his style is too commercial, too safe, too predictable and too easy.
I adore riskier Directors like Ridley Scott and David Fincher.
And you've summed up my feelings about Cameron too. I get nothing from his stuff, no food for thought, nothing to get the grey matter working. It's fast food cinema. Films that gamers reference as the high watermark in cinema. Perhaps his films satisfy the masses simply because every plot beat is so obvious. The spectacle carries it - but that's not enough for me. I'm actually delighted he's limited himself to Avatar because it's a franchise I have no interest in, so he can't screw up another historical event or badly remake Fantastic Voyage.
Scott perhaps had a lean time during the 90s, his output then was unremarkable generally, but far from him having lost it or being senile or whatever ageist drivel is moronically spouted about his status now, I think all of his films of the last 5 years have given me much to mull over thematically or just to simply enjoy the mastery of.
I agree. The plots of his movies are so obvious. In that aspect, Christopher Nolan is the new James Cameron. All FXs, no substance.
The career of Ridley Scott is so weird. That's beautiful. With his highs and lows.
I think THE COUNSELOR is so underrated. The same with HANNIBAL and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT is one of the greatest films of all time.
The Counselor is about as obvious as they come. Once you peel away the obnoxious purple prose, it basically amounts to about 99% of the cast lecturing Fassbender about how greed is bad, 'mkay? :laugh:
I wouldn't say the Counselor was obvious, I'm still mulling over the motivations and maneuvering of Diaz's character - easily her best film.
Of course the IMDB crowd think she's too old and ugly to be playing a character in any film, yet alone one with weird and wild sexual predilections, such is the depth of their analysis.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jul 24, 2017, 03:50:29 AM
The Counselor is about as obvious as they come. Once you peel away the obnoxious purple prose, it basically amounts to about 99% of the cast lecturing Fassbender about how greed is bad, 'mkay? :laugh:
It's a very, very realistic film.
Guillermo Del Toro adores THE COUNSELOR. He even wrote an article about it. GDT was kidnapped 2 times by Mexican Cartels in real life and he said THE COUNSELOR is the most realistic Hollywood film of all time.