cryptic name
No Limits
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 1,874
- Points
- 103
SolidSnakeMGS said:Well, I think the guy had good intentions but definitely bad ideas about what made a movie good. I think he tried, and had a true love for the art, he just had radically different ideas about how to go about it.
I'd say the worst director is Michael Bay. He doesn't seem to care for movies more than he cares to want to impress people with his explosions and over the top action sequences. I don't see a love for the art there, just a desire to get the paycheck.
He also represents the worst of Hollywood; overindulgent high concept films that cater to the lowest common denominator of audience and require as much brain power to understand as it does to flush a toilet (which coincidently both deal with crap).
Actually, I change my mind. Uwe Boll is worse than Bay. Unlike Bay who may have one redeeming quality, Boll has a negative amount of redeeming qualities. Take what I said about Bay and multiply it by 19090225 and you'll get my assessment on Herr Boll.
the difference here is that bay, whether we like to admit it or not, has the undeniable technical ability to make a movie. boll's movies, while garbage, also are at least competantly shot and edited.
wood, on the other hand, could not make a movie to save his life. he sure as hell had the spirit, in fact if he had any of bay's cinematic sense, he might be remembered as one of the best directors. he simply payed little attention to actual filmmaking and just wanted to BE a director.