Director A or Director B - who's better? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


matty_b -> Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 1:27:04 PM)

Hopefully this will give some insight into how people rate directors against one another.

So, we have Director A. He's directed around a dozen films, and two of them are two of the best films to be found in their particular genre or of their particular decade. However, the rest of his output is patchy - a couple of decent films, some mediocre stuff and some out-and-out terrible films.

Then we have Director B. He's directed about the same number of films as Director A, but has never made anything as good as him. However, he is much more consistent in general - he's made some really good films and has rarely done anything mediocre.

So, who's better?




Bloke from Oz -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 1:38:13 PM)

This sounds very much like a Versus thread, and we ALL know what the Mods think of those.....




matty_b -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 1:41:35 PM)

It would be a versus thread if we were actually comparing named people.

We're not, it's more about how you weigh up the value of one director's output against another.




elab49 -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 1:59:34 PM)

FFS - posting fail [>:]

General, it's not a v's thread although it's not far off the how many bombs till you stop being first in queue on opening day discussion.

I think directors are generally judged on their best work. If there are only one or two that stands out you might then think that the successes were less down to him and more a fortunate confluence of other talents which he managed to manage - and the lesser works him by himself. Or perhaps a director that gets lazy and doesn't care. I'd tend to think the former though.




Scruffybobby -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 2:17:02 PM)

I'd tend to go with the more consistent director as being the better one overall. I think I'd rather be known for a career's worth of good quality rather than one or two examples of greatness that I couldn't match.  I suppose it just depends how you'd want to be seen. Maybe having one or two great moments might be better




rich -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 9:24:27 PM)

Someone who made something that was revered will always be referred to as the director of awesome Movie B. Someone who made a lot of mediocre films will probably just be forgotten.




Spaldron -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 9:29:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

Hopefully this will give some insight into how people rate directors against one another.

So, we have Director A. He's directed around a dozen films, and two of them are two of the best films to be found in their particular genre or of their particular decade. However, the rest of his output is patchy - a couple of decent films, some mediocre stuff and some out-and-out terrible films.

Then we have Director B. He's directed about the same number of films as Director A, but has never made anything as good as him. However, he is much more consistent in general - he's made some really good films and has rarely done anything mediocre.

So, who's better?



Are you saying its Ridley vs Tony then?




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (21/7/2012 10:09:12 PM)

I think this is a very difficult debate without actually using names or examples and with such an arbitrary number of films to their credit. You generally have directors with a large output which includes some brilliant work and some mediocrity (Scorsese, Lynch, Spielberg, Cronenberg, Soderburgh etc) or directors whom are consistent with moments of sublime brilliance that might be comparable but who haven't the body of work to be deserving of comparison yet (Winding Refn for instance). I can't think of any directors who have shot a relatively small amount of movies (compared to the big guns) who have been absolutely consistent. Coen, Fincher, Gus Van Sant, Von Trier, Linklater, etc all have plenty of mediocre films on their CVs as well as moments of brilliance. There are the likes of Alexander Payne, David O Russell etc who are the first who come to mind who are relatively consistent, but anyone who thinks they are the better directors are patently insane!




homersimpson_esq -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 12:55:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

Hopefully this will give some insight into how people rate directors against one another.

So, we have Director A. He's directed around a dozen films, and two of them are two of the best films to be found in their particular genre or of their particular decade. However, the rest of his output is patchy - a couple of decent films, some mediocre stuff and some out-and-out terrible films.

Then we have Director B. He's directed about the same number of films as Director A, but has never made anything as good as him. However, he is much more consistent in general - he's made some really good films and has rarely done anything mediocre.

So, who's better?



Are you saying its Ridley vs Tony then?


That's what I assumed.




Spaldron -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 1:58:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

Hopefully this will give some insight into how people rate directors against one another.

So, we have Director A. He's directed around a dozen films, and two of them are two of the best films to be found in their particular genre or of their particular decade. However, the rest of his output is patchy - a couple of decent films, some mediocre stuff and some out-and-out terrible films.

Then we have Director B. He's directed about the same number of films as Director A, but has never made anything as good as him. However, he is much more consistent in general - he's made some really good films and has rarely done anything mediocre.

So, who's better?



Are you saying its Ridley vs Tony then?


That's what I assumed.



Then its the Ridley's of this world. I'd rather have a director who gave us one or two great films (even though Ridley has given us at least five great films) than a director who has made a dozen average films.

Put it this way, who do you respect more as a filmmaker, Bruce Robinson or Brett Ratner?




homersimpson_esq -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 7:14:07 AM)

That's not a fair comparison because the Director B's traits are that they have rarely done anything mediocre. Since the entirety of Ratner's output is mediocre at the very best, he's clearly not a contender for Director B.

I think someone like ... actually, I was just looking through my DVDs for inspiration for someone who fits the bill of Director B and I'm struggling. Most directors have done one or two great, great films to discount them from that category. Although the fact I'm looking through my DVDs doesn't help: obviously there are going to be lots of films I consider to be really, really great, on account of having bought them.

Maybe most would consider someone like Ang Lee, though I reckon he has made a few great films.




UTB -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 8:14:46 AM)

Director B all the way.

I appreciate A has given us some genre defining classics but I'm more appreciative that a good director like B is consistent and reliable, and whilst they might not be genre defining, are always entertaining.





thedrin -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 8:20:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

That's not a fair comparison because the Director B's traits are that they have rarely done anything mediocre. Since the entirety of Ratner's output is mediocre at the very best, he's clearly not a contender for Director B.

I think someone like ... actually, I was just looking through my DVDs for inspiration for someone who fits the bill of Director B and I'm struggling. Most directors have done one or two great, great films to discount them from that category. Although the fact I'm looking through my DVDs doesn't help: obviously there are going to be lots of films I consider to be really, really great, on account of having bought them.

Maybe most would consider someone like Ang Lee, though I reckon he has made a few great films.



Ron Howard was my first thought. Consistently good but never great. Bryan Singer would be another.




Timbzy -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 8:28:18 AM)

Bryan Singer? There wasn't a Director C (One good movie followed by junk). Ron Howard? There wasn't a Director D (A few okay films, a few mediocre and a few bad).




vader100 -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 9:00:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timbzy

Bryan Singer? There wasn't a Director C (One good movie followed by junk). Ron Howard? There wasn't a Director D (A few okay films, a few mediocre and a few bad).


Guess that shows how subjective it can be. Singer did The Usual Suspects and X men 2 which for me puts him in Director A bracket.




DancingClown -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 9:37:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thedrin


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

That's not a fair comparison because the Director B's traits are that they have rarely done anything mediocre. Since the entirety of Ratner's output is mediocre at the very best, he's clearly not a contender for Director B.

I think someone like ... actually, I was just looking through my DVDs for inspiration for someone who fits the bill of Director B and I'm struggling. Most directors have done one or two great, great films to discount them from that category. Although the fact I'm looking through my DVDs doesn't help: obviously there are going to be lots of films I consider to be really, really great, on account of having bought them.

Maybe most would consider someone like Ang Lee, though I reckon he has made a few great films.



Ron Howard was my first thought. Consistently good but never great.


I have to disagree. Apollo 13's a bloody great film, arguably his best. I also personally love Willow and The Paper, the latter in particular being vastly underrated.

But as people have pointed out it's all somewhat subjective.




matty_b -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (22/7/2012 10:41:55 AM)

I didn't have any directors in mind for these categories.

Honest. [:D]




great_badir -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (23/7/2012 12:57:09 PM)

Tricky one to answer - if we were to assume that Director A was Ridley Scott and Director B was any one of dozens of relatively consistent but not amazing directors (hell, for the craic, let's go with Tony, even if I don't think he's that consistent), then Director A every time.

But if one were to make George Lucas or Wes Craven Director A...




andrewmicky -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (27/7/2012 6:39:27 AM)

director a is better




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (30/7/2012 2:17:56 AM)

It's got to be Director A - a classic is a classic, and I'd be happy having made just one, never mind two!




Hood_Man -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (30/7/2012 2:30:44 AM)

We all make mistakes in life, but when I'm an old man I want to be able to look back on at least one moment in my life where I achieved something truly special, rather than being mostly pleased but at the same time wishing that, just once, I'd gone that little bit further.

Director A.




mclane1 -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (1/8/2012 7:21:40 PM)

tim burton is a prime example of A, couple of classics, the rest shite but yet he is still worshipped and cash thrown at him.





chewbacasnapsak -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (2/8/2012 2:01:25 PM)

I have Landis and Carpenter scoring pretty high on this, i can live with that.




rick_7 -> RE: Director A or Director B - who's better? (2/8/2012 2:12:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mclane1

tim burton is a prime example of A, couple of classics, the rest shite but yet he is still worshipped and cash thrown at him.

Couldn't agree more.

And 'A'.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125