Today...who is the best director?

[hopefuldreamer]

Wanna add Matthew Vaughn, Danny Boyle and David Fincher.

 

[Mister H.]

I see names like Spielberg, De Palma, and Coppola, but they are not the best..today. They where in the 80's and 90's, but the thread is talking about today's (new) directors. The best for me are: P.T.Anderson, Cristopher Nolan, Guillermo del Toro (only for Fentasy/horror genre), J.J Abrams (only for Sci Fi genre), Peter Jackson, and more...

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.

 

[Mister H.]

I wanna add Danny Boyle to my list, for Trainspotting, The Beach, 28 days later, Sunshine and Slumdog.

Co-signed. How did I forget Danny Boyle?

I've got to mention Mel Gibson. He may not be a very nice guy, but the guys is a very talented filmmaker. I don't think he's a very good actor, but Braveheart, The Passion, and Apocalypto are three films I admire very much as incredible epics. Don't know if he's worthy of "Best Director" but does deserve mentioning.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Back on topic, Cuaron gets props from me too. I find his work can occasionally falter, but when he gets it right he gets it right.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Back on topic, Cuaron gets props from me too. I find his work can occasionally falter, but when he gets it right he gets it right.

Well A Little Princess is one of my favourite movies. It's just so beatifully done. That black balloon popping right when she's told her dad is dead has always stuck in my head as one of my favourite cinematic devices.

Also loved Children of Men.

 

[Infinity9999x]

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.

I find this logic flawed. If a man is a master in painting surrealistic paintings, is he suddenly no longer a master because he's not a great cubist? Shaq was a great basketball player, but would you say he's not great because he can't play point guard? Sure there are those rare individuals who seem to excel at nearly everything they do, but don't downplay one artist simply because they found their niche and stick with it. If their great in their respective areas, they're still great.

 

[Mister H.]

^ 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.

 

[Infinity9999x]

^ 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.

Don't worry man, happens to everyone.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Ditto, I know what it's like to just want to get a point across. My original statement is retracted

 

[spider-neil]

I find this logic flawed. If a man is a master in painting surrealistic paintings, is he suddenly no longer a master because he's not a great cubist? Shaq was a great basketball player, but would you say he's not great because he can't play point guard? Sure there are those rare individuals who seem to excel at nearly everything they do, but don't downplay one artist simply because they found their niche and stick with it. If their great in their respective areas, they're still great.

which again ties into my point that if you like baseketball you are going to have more of an appreciation for jordan than you'll have for babe ruth (only baseball player I can hink of) even you'll freely acknowledge the babe was a master of his craft.

and before someone says michael bay is a master of the action genre, he isn't as he doesn't know how to tell a good story with complex characters which is 'THE' most important aspect with regards to making movies.

 

[Mister H.]

which again ties into my point that if you like baseketball you are going to have more of an appreciation for jordan than you'll have for babe ruth (only baseball player I can hink of) even you'll freely acknowledge the babe was a master of his craft.

and before someone says michael bay is a master of the action genre, he isn't as he doesn't know how to tell a good story with complex characters which is 'THE' most important aspect with regards to making movies.

There's something we can agree on.

 

[Octoberist]

My list The great list ever.

Edgar Wright
Christopher Nolan
Joon-ho Bong (The Host, Memories of Murder)
Paul Thomas Anderson
Gurellimo Del Toro
Alfonso Cuaron

&

David Fincher

You also have the old schools who are still relevant:

The Coen Brothers
David Cronenberg

These guys are still active, and they try to challenge the system (the convention) in their own way.

I hesitate to put down Michel Gondry, despite me loving 'Eternal Sunshine'. He just hasn't made a film that good since then.

 

[Laderlappen]

Backing up my reasoning isn't being defensive. I called your response nonsensical because I believe it was. It was meant to elicit a response and was put in such a way that it was discrediting my entire post because you had a problem with my spending the last paragraph praising Coppola. Sorry I felt it necessary to give props to one of the three greatest filmmakers to ever walk the surface of earth. I figure many of these posters had never heard of the guy, so just wanted to throw his name in the ring.

Please enlighten me on what I misunderstood. There's not a single director I mentioned that hasn't put out a film in the last three years, so I really have no idea where you are coming from. Are you saying that if a director hasn't put out a work in the last year he isn't eligible for the discussion?

Coppola's daughter is a better director now, huh? When did Lost In Translation come out? 2003? 2004? By your logic, she's not eligible for this conversation either.

Again, you keep bringing up this Coppola thing. Any comments on the dozen or so other directors I mentioned that consistently put out better work than Cameron, Nolan, Del Toro, Ron Howard, Peter Jackson, the Wachowskis, Zack Snyder, Neil Blomkamp, etc., etc.?

No comments on Eastwood, Lynch, Scorcese, Lynch, Polanski, the Coens, Tarantino, Cuaron, Innaritu?

By the way, I agree with your Ang Lee suggestion. Great filmmaker and can't believe I omitted him earlier.

If you do find these directors the and best now, then fine. Maybe you werent defensive, but you really do sound like you are.

 

[Heretic]

Not a "best director" candidate...but someone that nerds like us should watch out for...

Neil Marshall has only done a few films, Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Centurion...and apparently the one he's doing now is a western horror. He's done some interesting stuff...so hopefully he'll only get better.

 

[spider-neil]

Not a "best director" candidate...but someone that nerds like us should watch out for...

Neil Marshall has only done a few films, Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Centurion...and apparently the one he's doing now is a western horror. He's done some interesting stuff...so hopefully he'll only get better.

dog soldiers and descent were amazing movies

 

[Passdom]

and before someone says michael bay is a master of the action genre, he isn't as he doesn't know how to tell a good story with complex characters which is 'THE' most important aspect with regards to making movies.

Obviously it isn't. Inception features paper thin characters (if even that) and is currently #3 on the IMDB top 250 list!

Not every film requires complex characters and story. There are countless types of films made for countless types of reasons for countless types of audiences. Theres no such thing as something being THE most important aspect to making movies as far as I am concerned.

 

[spider-neil]

Obviously it isn't. Inception features paper thin characters (if even that) and is currently #3 on the IMDB top 250 list!

Not every film requires complex characters and story. There are countless types of films made for countless types of reasons for countless types of audiences. Theres no such thing as something being THE most important aspect to making movies as far as I am concerned.

maybe that's the reason I didn't like inception.

since people could write down stories or tell tales round a camp fire stories have been about character who goes on a journey (literal or metaphorical) where they start in one place and end in another, or are completely changed by the end of the movie. if there is no character developement then what is the point of the story you are telling?

 

[Passdom]

maybe that's the reason I didn't like inception.

since people could write down stories or tell tales round a camp fire stories have been about character who goes on a journey (literal or metaphorical) where they start in one place and end in another, or are completely changed by the end of the movie. if there is no character developement then what is the point of the story you are telling?

Sure. Story for the sake of story. What does that mean? Its one of my problems with Inception. Sure its complex, but for what reason? Its complex just for the sake of it, and not in a way that matters. There arent complex characters, or themes, or ideas. Its simply complex in the way the film is structured and due to how dopey the exposition is. Its all very cynical and empty I think.

But what I mean is, in the end, films can stand as a whole, rather than the sum of their parts. As an example, I find fascination in the moods and atmosphere created in a film, there are films that build an entire character out of their mood, and with it, overcome their shortnesses in other areas. But I didn't infer you don't need stories. You always need a framework for your movie. I just dont like the narrow minded opinion that every story needs to be "this" or "that." Any and all kinds of story are valid. And if one director wants to use his story to prioritize the mood of his film, or perhaps the visual experience, or prioritize the characters above all else, then all of that is just as valid as any other story as far as I am concerned. Thats what I meant.

 

[Harry_Lime02]

This sounds cheesy because his movie just came out, but I think Edgar Wright should be mentioned because he can handle action, comedy, and even drama (Shaun) with such style where it doesn't seem contrived or pretentious. Everything that he does feels effortlessly and I can't image how he does it, especially his comedic timing.

I can't fault you for including Ed Wright. He is great.

I haven't even seen Scott Pilgrim yet, but Shaun Of The Dead is one of those films I can watch over and over and not get bored. It's so perfectly constructed. Not a single line or frame is wasted. Every time I watch I notice something new, because of the pain-staking attention to detail.

 

[Electrofarce]

Alfonso Cauron & Chris Nolan are my top 2.

I like Peter Jackson too. I feel that after D-9, Neill Blomkamp has a ton of potential as well to be a great modern film maker.

 

[Electrofarce]

Obviously it isn't. Inception features paper thin characters (if even that) and is currently #3 on the IMDB top 250 list!

Not every film requires complex characters and story. There are countless types of films made for countless types of reasons for countless types of audiences. Theres no such thing as something being THE most important aspect to making movies as far as I am concerned.

Inception DID NOT have paper thin characters they were all extremely well developed. Some of the best ever in any fim IMO

 

[Carnotaur3]

Also, not to jump into the Cameron or Nolan debate here, but whereas The Thing, Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens are all very dear to my heart...

Cameron didn't direct The Thing. That was Carpenter.

I think people are still getting confused about the title of BEST director of TODAY.

My vote is Nolan.

maybe that's the reason I didn't like inception.

since people could write down stories or tell tales round a camp fire stories have been about character who goes on a journey (literal or metaphorical) where they start in one place and end in another, or are completely changed by the end of the movie. if there is no character developement then what is the point of the story you are telling?

Cobb had an arc too, and he was changed at the end of the film. You're saying this wasn't in Inception? Did you see the same movie? The whole film was his arc.

Sure. Story for the sake of story. What does that mean? Its one of my problems with Inception. Sure its complex, but for what reason? Its complex just for the sake of it, and not in a way that matters. There arent complex characters, or themes, or ideas. Its simply complex in the way the film is structured and due to how dopey the exposition is. Its all very cynical and empty I think.

The themes presented in the film were pretty original. The film is saying that there is no difference in having catharsis in dreams or reality. Nolan is making the case that emotionally connecting with stories as if they were real is just as valid as real life. There is symbolism all through out Inception that speaks to the idea of the team being comprised of filmmakers, Cobb symbolising the director, etc. You can't really ingore these things. It's all pretty clear. Fischer's story mirrors us as audience members. We are the ones being manipulated in believing in a lie (a fictional story, a film) and becoming emotionally connected (invested) with it.

 

[Electrofarce]

Cameron didn't direct The Thing. That was Carpenter.


I think people are still getting confused about the title of BEST director of TODAY.

My vote is Nolan.

All in all I agree 100%

 

[dark_b]

i am between Fincher and Nolan.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Obviously it isn't. Inception features paper thin characters (if even that) and is currently #3 on the IMDB top 250 list!

Not every film requires complex characters and story. There are countless types of films made for countless types of reasons for countless types of audiences. Theres no such thing as something being THE most important aspect to making movies as far as I am concerned.

I wouldn't say all the characters are paper thin. Cobb is very well developed and complex. And Inception is really his story, his journey. As it should be.