Sorry, I know I'm making myself look like an annoying filmsnob and a dick, but this stuff annoys me too.
If a director is only really good in one genre, he's probably not worthy of the discussion. I'm being a bit of a hypocrite now, as I did include David Lynch in my earlier posts, and he's pretty much a one-trick pony, so I'll voluntarily eliminate him from my list.
To me, the greats, like Kubrick, Coppola, Scorcese, Polanski, the Coens, etc. strive to reinvent themselves, to explore new territory with each new project. Guys like Tim Burton and Guillermo Del Toro just can't be in the discussion.
^ Yeah, I think I need to move on as I've probably offended just about everyone in this thread.
I'm sorry if I offended people with my strong opinions. I don't mean to say other's opinions are wrong, just trying to point out what I perceive as flaws in some arguments for certain filmmakers. My whole point about the directors who seem to be stuck in a particular genre wasn't that they aren't talented and very good at what they do (it probably didn't come across that way) but that I simply didn't see how they could be called "best director today" as they don't seem to challenge themselves with different genres, like Danny Boyle or the Coen Brothers, for instance, but then again, few do these days, sadly.
I think I got ticked off by the comment about me not understanding the topic and got into a defensive/attack mode. Sorry everyone.
See ya guys around the campfire.
I understand that your just trying to get across your opinion, and that's fine. The weird thing is, if you weren't on such a genre based forum, you'd be in the majority.
This is precisely why some directors are never recognised at the Oscars, why their films are shoved aside because they are 'genre' films.
Well first of all, I think people should reconsider what 'Genre' is.
Drama, is a Genre. But you wouldn't hear someone saying 'Oh, all they make are Dramas, they aren't really that good.'
It's only because people have this weird compulsion to ignore anything fantasy/sci-fi. To refuse to recognise it for the talented work that it is. If someone can fly, if it's set in an imaginary kingdom, if animals can talk then it doesn't count.
Well I kinda think it's utterly ridiculous.
Why should you have to make some kind of dull intellectual tragedy with serious actors in, in order to be in the running for best director?
I'd put it to you that, the DIRECTION of the movie has little to do with the storyline anyway.
When I am recognising a director as an auteur, It's not because all his movies are fantasy. That'd be mad. It's a style of direction that actual has it's own unique signiture... regardless of the genre.
Someone like Del Toro, has a great style. And if you took all the fantasy elements out of his story, it'd still have that great style. Same with Burton. Same with Whedon. Same with any great director who loves the fantasy genre.
So they count.
