Do filmmakers have a style?

[CelticPredator]

My friend doesn't think they do. I spent 2 hours tying to tell him the different styles of some IMO very visual directors, such as Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Zack Snyder, Sam Raimi, Martin Scorsesse...ect..

He doesnt think they do, and all films look the same. He's a music guy, his prefered medium is music, and everything about it.

So in his view, musicans have no style, therefor, filmmakers don't either. Musicans have genres.

Sam Raimi has that signature quick zoom he applies in all his films...yet, he says it's not a style to zoom in fast.

Can anyone prove either one of us wrong? Or what? It was such a long argument, that just frustrated me, because everything I said, was always argued. There was no end until I said enough. So I obviously lost. He couldn't see the visual difference between a Sam Raimi film and a Michael Bay one...

 

[Liam_H]

This feels like such an obvious answer but I will just say I completely disagree with your friend. It's like saying all writing styles are the same. Most artists in any trade would feel insulted if you told them they have no style, its all the same.

 

[CelticPredator]

You'd think that. But I tried, showed, and did everything I could, but it just did not work. Left me all frustrated and sheet.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Did your friend provide any arguments to back his view up or not? If not, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. And he is wrong. Seriously, if he thinks that Spielberg and Leone and Bay all have the same filmmaking style...argh I can't even continue that sentence as it's making me angry.

 

[CelticPredator]

Yes. But his arguments were "zooming in is not a style". And he would apply his point to music. He thinks that music can be compared to anything.

Films dont have as much work put into them as a painting done by one person.

Films dont have as much work put into them as someone who writes music....

I love the kid...but help me here. He's not a movie fan. In any way.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Films dont have as much work put into them as a painting done by one person.

Films dont have as much work put into them as someone who writes music....

He's wrong. Films have WAY MORE work put into them. Seriously, does he think films are made with no effort at all? He doesn't know jack about the production of Star Wars then does he? How can he compare a single production to a group production?

Films have to have music written. They have to have art production and design. They have to have storyboards. They have to have special effects. It sounds to me like he's just generalizing and making terrible arguments. "Zooming in isn't a style"? What kind of a stupid statement is that? Sam Raimi doesn't just zoom in, it's the stylistic way he has the camera nearly attacking the characters.

 

[CelticPredator]

I know. I know he is....but I could not prove it to him. He said I couldn't tell which filmmaker's style was which without a name.

Yeah...that's true...but, I know their name. And even if you dont know the name, you can still see a visual difference between Spielberg, and Zack Snyder....

This whole argument started with his opinion that a Halo movie would flop because, why watch the film, when you can play the game insted?

A Portal film would be better, because the game is different. Unlike Halo, which he doesnt like, is nothing more then the run of the mill shooter.

 

[Secret Fawful]

The best argument I can think of against his point is that, if filmmakers didn't have distinct styles, you could hire any director to do any movie.

That would mean Indiana Jones by Tommy Wiseau and Casablanca by Uwe Boll, but that's just fine I'm sure.

 

[CelticPredator]

He would say yes.

He also argued with me that films dont need stories, as they are a visual medium. If he wanted a story, he'd read a book. That was one of the few days I got really pissed.

 

[Liam_H]

Does he not understand the visuals are used to tell a story. I mean thats what silent and black/white films did back in the day before everything else came along.

The best argument I can come up with is that if you took 10 different directors but gave each one the exact same resources(script/story) right down to the interns that run around doing errands would you get basically the same movie from all 10? I would say absolutely not, you would even get 10 very different films.

 

[terry78]

Most average people can't differentiate between movie styles. They honestly can't. You could say so and so is directing this, and they'll just only care about if the flick looks good and who is starring.

 

[CelticPredator]

^ yep. Why I stopped argueing.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Tell your friend that he's being arrogant, dismissive and completely ridiculous about a medium he clearly knows nothing about.

Making a film is A LOT harder than making a song or making a painting IMO. I could make a song or a painting right now, in my bedroom no probs. But I couldn't make a movie.

And what an insane thing to say about the story. Does he feel the same about theatre? Or is it just snobbery about films?

How dissmissive to the entire field of acting. If a film has no story, and is simply a bunch of moving pictures that are pretty to look at, then acting would not be a TALENT that is recognised by many many award ceremonies.

Also refer him to 'Auteur theory', something that when I took a course in FILM STUDIES, I had to write my final exam on an example of.

'In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory

 

[The Morningstar]

Tell your friend he smells of cheesy cabbage.

 

[CelticPredator]

I brought in plays, and he thinks plays have more work put into them.

He also thinks a painting and stop motion require more work then animating the Transformers.

I'm just saying what he said. He's not a bad guy, he just doesn't know movies. And doesn't like them too much.

I dont like music too much either, outside of movie scores, hence why I dont argue about that.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm sorry, and i'm sure he's not a bad guy.

But I really don't respect people that poo poo other people's hard work like that...

I really don't respect anyone who has a negative opinion on something they know nothing about TBH.

It's just ignorance pure and simple. Arrogant ignorance at that.

It would drive me crazy argueing about this with him.

How can a painting possibly be more work? It is done by ONE person, it is done on ONE canvas, costs only the price of canvas and paints, and can be completed by some artists in a few HOURS.

Generally, a movie is worked on by HUNDREDS of people, is filmed from several different cameras, costs up to millions to make, and takes YEARS to produce.

 

[CelticPredator]

His agrument was one person >>>> Hundreds of people.

I just needed to know if I was right or not. You know when someone exhasts you to the point that you end up believing your point of view might be wrong? Bah. How I felt.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Fair enough, been there.

Well, your right. He's wrong. Period

 

[CelticPredator]

****ing awesome!

 

[November Rain]

i think your friend is intentionally being an idiot to wind you up. I wouldn't get too worked up about it

 

[Still Wynning]

I should have him and my current drama teacher meet each other. It would be a very interesting and heated conversation. t:

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I brought in plays, and he thinks plays have more work put into them.

He also thinks a painting and stop motion require more work then animating the Transformers.

I'm just saying what he said. He's not a bad guy, he just doesn't know movies. And doesn't like them too much.

I dont like music too much either, outside of movie scores, hence why I dont argue about that.

I would say stop motion is such a long painstaking process.That he may be right.Stop Motion can take about hours sometimes days.To do such short amount of animation.Depending on the type of detail there focusing on.
And Paintings while they don't take long.It's not easy to make art.Which could be said about everything
He's wrong about everything else though.

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes, and no.

Yes, all of them do, because they kind of have to. No, because most of them don't have a unique style.

 

[Carnotaur3]

He would say yes.

He also argued with me that films dont need stories, as they are a visual medium. If he wanted a story, he'd read a book. That was one of the few days I got really pissed.

He doesn't understand the art of narrative storytelling. So of course he couldn't understand the simple nature of "style".

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Does he not understand the visuals are used to tell a story. I mean thats what silent and black/white films did back in the day before everything else came along.

The best argument I can come up with is that if you took 10 different directors but gave each one the exact same resources(script/story) right down to the interns that run around doing errands would you get basically the same movie from all 10? I would say absolutely not, you would even get 10 very different films.

I like that. If you want to use an analogy, it could be this:

1 plus 1 equals 2, but 2 plus 1 does not equal the same thing.