Kubrick is way better than Nolan

Cracker Funk said:
A lot of different people, from many different walks of life, from different places the world over seem to really like what James Cameron does. That doesn't mean everyone likes it. But the kind of people that like his movies are diverse -- young, old, rich, poor, white, black, dude, chick. I can't think of anyone who's movie's have had shuch broad appeal since Spielberg's early days.

Personally, I think there's value in that.
Click to expand...

Again the idea that financial success is an indicator for quality.
In my opinion the term "mass appeal" shows already a really uncritical attitude towards products of the culture industry, as it suggests that the success of Hollywood movies is somehow democratically legitimated, and that's imho not true.
It's also not true that those kinds of films are the only films people want to see, it's also the other way round; culture not only mirrors but also shapes society.

"The standardised forms, it is claimed, were originally derived from the needs of the consumers: that is why they are accepted with so little resistance. In reality, a cycle of manipulation and retroactive need is unifying the system ever more tightly"

Looking at culture as a means to make profit is something I find highly questionable, as it naturally loses its autonomous and educational quality.
That doesn't mean that such films are of no value, mind you, but they're not more than consumer goods.
 
financial success is not exactly indicator for quality. The Phantom Menace is one of the highest grossing film of all time and alot of poor children at the time (including myself) was brainwatched by cgi and thought it was really awesome. but is there a single soul on this forum that can even mention it was a good movie? don't think so. nor does anyone seem to have mr lucas as their favourite director anymore.

and sorry mr cracker, I dunt want to ramble about avatar again. =p you like it, i hate.. let's just fk that disscusion again, like you mentioned.
 
bhikkhu said:
Again the idea that financial success is an indicator for quality.
Click to expand...

I made absolutely no mention of financial success. I'm just thinking about people I talk to. I don't know about you guys, but since I'm a movie nerd (and I talk about movies all the time) people who know me -- friends, aqcuaintances, co-workers, they come to me, specifically, to share their thoughts on movies. I'm guessing many people on this forum probably have similar experiences? Anyway, my comment has nothing to do with money -- I'm just talking about people I've personally talked to who like Cameron's movies.

By the way, don't tell any of your theories on "mass appeal" to fans of The Beatles.
 
eraserhead_in_time said:
"As for James Cameron... whoever said he knows how to tell a good story is way off the mark. James Cameron couldn't spot a good story if it slapped him in the face."
Yes. Terminator was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". But sure it has no story.
Aliens? pschhh... BORING!!

"James Cameron is not a visionary. The people who came up with the technology, who actually built the science, they're visionarys."
Ahem..He *developed* the Fusion Camera System during his underwater adventures like aliens of the deep.

"All Cameron did was say i have a vague idea of a plot (but which isn't in any way a good idea) and a vague idea of how it might be ground breaking, now give me a heck load of cash and get the boffins to work! "
My god you got it exactly right! That's how it happened!!
Click to expand...

You're offering me sarcasm rather than corrections, which is rather taking for granted that you're right.

There are plenty of not very good films on the National Film Registry list, i don't think that that seal of approval qualifies anything as a great film. Especially as part of the pro-Avatar argument is to dismiss film making honours like the Oscars.

I think that 'developed' is a euphemism for 'had the idea for'. He dropped out of Physics in College, I hardly think that he has the scientific knowledge to actually produce any of that technology. Saying that you have and idea for something, and saying how it could be done, is not the same as actually building a practical model. James Cameron doesn't hold the patents on any of those innovations as a creator. Yet he seems to get all the credit that should go to the people who actually did it.
 
NuclearHamster said:
financial success is not exactly indicator for quality. The Phantom Menace is one of the highest grossing film of all time and alot of poor children at the time (including myself) was brainwatched by cgi and thought it was really awesome. but is there a single soul on this forum that can even mention it was a good movie? don't think so. nor does anyone seem to have mr lucas as their favourite director anymore.

and sorry mr cracker, I dunt want to ramble about avatar again. =p you like it, i hate.. let's just fk that disscusion again, like you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think "Phantom Menace" is pretty sweet, for sheer spectacle alone. Everybody loves to label "Avatar" as merely "eye-candy", and I will argue that point until I'm blue in the face (no pun intended), but I will say upfront that I actually enjoy "Phantom Menace" just for being eye-candy.

Lucas may not be very good at directing actors, and his dialogue makes Cameron look like David Mamet, by comparison, but when it comes to orchestrating an epic massive battle-sequence, he's in a league of his own. "Phantom Menace" is worth the price of admission for the climactic finale, on it's own. So AWESOME.

Speaking of orchestration, the music in "Phantom Menace" is phenomenal. William's best work, in my opinion, and that makes the movie ever so much better.
 
NickClapper said:
Especially as part of the pro-Avatar argument is to dismiss film making honours like the Oscars.
Click to expand...

It's not part of our argument. On this thread, Adeimantus took a playfull jab at Cameron, and I responded. You're making too much out of it to call it part our "pro-Avatar argument".
 
Here is where i think the sides will split on technical grounds.

I think the ability to direct actors is fundamental to filmmaking. If the actors aren't brilliant, (in my opinion) the film can't be brilliant. I can't think what was the last film to win the Oscar for Best Film without at least one acting nom. (Actually i can't, Return of the King, but that was a three part spectacle that was a feat of story telling.)

If you can get over that hump and think that a movie is 'great' just for the 'eye candy' then good for you, but for people like me who can't, Avatar will never be a great movie.
 
Cracker Funk said:
It's not part of our argument. On this thread, Adeimantus took a playfull jab at Cameron, and I responded. You're making too much out of it to call it part our "pro-Avatar argument".
Click to expand...

All i'm saying is that we may as well dismiss the National Board of Film registry (or whatever) if we're going to dismiss the Oscars.

If we're not, then: The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker.

(NB: Actually i'm not such a huge fan of the Hurt Locker either.)
 
NickClapper said:
Here is where i think the sides will split on technical grounds.

I think the ability to direct actors is fundamental to filmmaking. If the actors aren't brilliant, (in my opinion) the film can't be brilliant. I can't think what was the last film to win the Oscar for Best Film without at least one acting nom. (Actually i can't, Return of the King, but that was a three part spectacle that was a feat of story telling.)

If you can get over that hump and think that a movie is 'great' just for the 'eye candy' then good for you, but for people like me who can't, Avatar will never be a great movie.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which of my comments you're responding to. I just said that "Phantom Menace" is pretty much just "eye-candy", and openly admitted to liking it, for that reason alone (although, you have to admit that it's also "ear-candy"). But that doesn't mean I think it's a "great" movie.

"Avatar", on the other hand, I have never, and will never call mere "eye-candy", and if you want my thoughts on it, do some searching, and you'll find one of the most insane threads this forum has ever seen. We've had this conversation, I'm not gonna have it again.
 
NickClapper said:
All i'm saying is that we may as well dismiss the National Board of Film registry (or whatever) if we're going to dismiss the Oscars.

If we're not, then: The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker, The Hurt Locker.

(NB: Actually i'm not such a huge fan of the Hurt Locker either.)
Click to expand...

Mmm, I dunno. I mean literally -- I don't know enough about the National Board of Film registry to fairly respond to your comment. My intuition, however, tells me that it's not even slightly similar to the Oscars. The Oscars are highly politicized, and there's a whole lot of money involved, with behind-the-scenes scheming and promotion. Call me crazy, but I kind of just imagine that the people who select films for the National Board of Film registry are just a bunch of nerds sitting in an office, without any media attention at all. I don't really see the comparison between the two.
 
I think all that this shows is how polarising a figure James Cameron is.

This thread was meant to be about Kubrick and Nolan, so, back on track...
 
Cracker Funk said:
Actually, I think "Phantom Menace" is pretty sweet, for sheer spectacle alone. Everybody loves to label "Avatar" as merely "eye-candy", and I will argue that point until I'm blue in the face (no pun intended), but I will say upfront that I actually enjoy "Phantom Menace" just for being eye-candy.

Lucas may not be very good at directing actors, and his dialogue makes Cameron look like David Mamet, by comparison, but when it comes to orchestrating an epic massive battle-sequence, he's in a league of his own. "Phantom Menace" is worth the price of admission for the climactic finale, on it's own. So AWESOME.

Speaking of orchestration, the music in "Phantom Menace" is phenomenal. William's best work, in my opinion, and that makes the movie ever so much better.
Click to expand...
okay I can agree with you on that one :)
 
What is "better"?

Are we talking box office? adjusted dollars?

Critical acclaim? Oscars?

Define "quality"?


There is no such thing as an objective "better" director. These conversations are exercises in futility. All you can do is argue semantics and personal preferences.

They are both great directors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top