Will history remember him as the greatest director of the twenty-first century
i don't say this lightly, but ben stiller is a better director
>>66908221
Tropic Thunder was pretty good. You could've set the bar lower than that.
Greatest director no, probably the savior of capeshit.
only dcucks
>>66908197
>greatest director of music videos of the twenty-first century
fify
Meh probably
>>66908197
non
The Marvel™ Cinematic Universe™ should be remembered for the films and kinos it brought to cinema
>>66908197
I want to see him make a kill la kill movie with ben affleck writing
>>66908197
Fuck no. But he'll be a well respected one nonetheless.
Possible candidates (IMO):
Steve McQueen
Christopher Nolan
Wes Anderson
He's probably the biggest hack working today next to Inarritu.
Sucker Punch alone is seriously everything wrong you can do when making a film.
He's awful and has no self awareness.
>>66912270
Lol, no.
Sean Baker, Richard Linklater, Lars Von Trier, Jim Jarmusch, Andrew Bujalski, Andrew Haigh, Derek Cianfrance, Harmony Korine, Terrence Malick, and Myroslav Slaboshpytskiy are far more likely to be seen as the best by future cinema critics.
>>66910904
>I don't understand that integrating the aesthetics of music videos into films is actually a good thing
you're so retarded
once you come to the realization that the best music videos always look ridiculously more beautiful than the best films because they don't follow traditional ideas regarding how things should be filmed then you'll start accepting there are places film can advance that most people are too frightened to consider
>>66912442
>no Weerasethakul
>>66912564
I'm not really a fan of his work desu.
I prefer more naturalistic stuff.
>>66912442
Which would be weird cause most of these directors technique behind a camera is to-tier generic at best.
>>66912742
You're joking right?
>>66912691
>no Kiarostami
>>66912827
I didn't list Kiarostami because his best work is from the 20th century.
>>66912848
That didn't stop you from listing Malick, Jarmusch, and von Trier though
>>66912890
To The Wonder and The New World are Malick's best films imo.
Melacholia is by far Von Trier's best film.
Dogville and Antichrist are among his best work as well.
Jarmusch is arguable, but I'd say Coffee and Cigarettes and Only Lovers Left Alive are among his best as well.
Nah, but Terrio will be remembered as the greatest writer
>>66912778
Maybe I'm exaggerating a little but I find there technique a little "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none"... its just I've seen their style of film-making and I've seen it done in better movies.
>>66913101
You're talking out of your ass.
>I've seen their style of film-making and I've seen it done in better movies.
Give me examples.
You are literally lying on the internet.
>>66913101
Uhm what?
Not him, but all of those directors really have their own unique thing going on.
The only one I can think of that isn't too unique yet would be Haigh, but he's only two films in.
You saying that other directors do the same thing better is pretty baffling. Especially when it comes to Malick, Korine, and Slaboshpylskiy.
>>66912442
>Sean Baker
Yeah, he's pretty brilliant.
>Linklater
The only good thing he's made was the Before trilogy
>Von Trier
Interesting director at times (Melancholia) but most of his stuff is just edgy shock value
>Jim Jarmusch
Not talked about enough. Brilliant guy.
>Andrew Bujalski
He makes the comfiest movies ever.
>Andrew Haigh
He has potential, right now he's just another above average Cassavettes influenced filmmaker
>Derek Cianfrance
I just can't get behind him like other people do.
I liked Blue Valentine and TPBTP but they just didn't feel real enough for me.
>Harmony Korine
Kids and Gummo are the only worthwhile things he's done. Everything else is edgy juvenile sock value shit
>Terrence Malick
He can be brilliant, but sometimes he just can't successfully execute his ambition and his good intentions can come across as pretentious
>Myroslav Slaboshpytskiy
He's made one fucking film!
The Tribe was great for what it was (a bit too edgy though) but wait a little bit before you go throwing around accusations that he's one of the best directors of the century.
>>66913210
>>66913286
Hear me out.
I think Linklater's comedic edge is similar to that of Edgar Wright's. But Wright's meta-humor trumps his situation humor.
Triers exposition style is beyond condescending, it's insulting. I think it make be a language barrier thing. In comparison, Park Chan Wook's films give visual exposition and the audience is ambiguous and leaves the audience with a sense of uncomfortable catharsis.
>>66913723
Sorry i should have taken more time to add more points and polish this answer but I felt like I was being put on the spot for my honest opinion...
>>66913809
Elaborate on Baker, Bujalski, Korine, Malick, and Slabosphpytskiy.
>>66908197
Not while BRAVO NOLAN exists
>>66913922
Baker, while a refreshingly great director, I feel if he were given a big budget on a movie, his "slice of life" style would be hindered, as the minimalism of his work would be compromised by use of more complex storytelling (just look Josh Trank). Darren Aronofsky's style of slice of life can be handled on any monetary budget (from Pi to Noah)
>>66913893
Baker, while a refreshingly great director, I feel if he were given a big budget on a movie, his "slice of life" style would be hindered, as the minimalism of his work would be compromised by use of more complex storytelling (just look Josh Trank). Darren Aronofsky's style of slice of life can be handled on any monetary budget (from Pi to Noah)
>>66914744
I dunno, imagine him doing a Mad Max movie.
Could be brilliant.
Also, he's an auteur. He makes his own movies.
Sorry he you don't think he could conform into your studio popularist bubble.
>>66914774
You're just getting into film aren't you?
I know it's important to try and debate this stuff even though you don't quite know what you're talking about. It's part of being able to properly articulate your love of the medium.
With that said though, I'd recommend not talking about things out of your current grasp with such an objective stance.
It's easily noticeable.
Biggest flop of the century
>>66912442
Linklater is a hack.
>>66914996
what a vapid criticism
>>66908197
Not even Wachowski-tier. None of his movies have really been phenomenons, the closest thing is 300. I'm sure future generations will remember him more fondly than we do in a campy sort of way, but he's not good enough to be remembered as one of the greats and not popular enough either.
>>66914774
Don't just shoot down my explanation of why I don't constitute these directors AS BEING POSSIBLE CANDIDATES OF 21ST CENTURY'S BEST DIRECTOR.
Please debate your own defense of these directors.
>>66914996
Don't just shoot down my explanation of why I don't constitute these directors AS BEING POSSIBLE CANDIDATES OF 21ST CENTURY'S BEST DIRECTOR.
Please debate your own defense of these directors.
>>66915206
>Wachowski-tier
Kek. They're one hit wonders. Snyder has a few good movies under his belt and the DC franchise might put him on the map.
>>66915453
I personally think Speed Racer is the only decent thing they've done.
>Snyder has a few good movies under his belt
No, he really doesn't.
Dawn of the Dead is passable.
300 is terrible.
He adapted Watchmen without even understanding the damn point of the comic. The unintentional irony in his adaptation is just baffling.
Never saw the Owl movie.
Sucker Punch is objectively horrible.
Man of Steel is awful.
He's just a low IQ frat boy who got big by catering to low iq easily pandered frat boys and nurds.
>>66915586
It's a shame you feel this way. Snyder is generally good at adapting secondary source material. I agree that Sucker Punch was crap, but I really don't see the internet's hate for Man of Steel.
>>66915932
"what if i gotta tinkle?"
>>66915586
>He adapted Watchmen without even understanding the damn point of the comic. The unintentional irony in his adaptation is just baffling.
explain this to those who are not as astute as yourself
>>66916023
Watchmen isn't about superhero theatrics, in fact it's trying to deconstruct that.
Snyder putting so much emphasis on the action, and even including fights where there was none before makes it seem like he doesn't understand some of what the original graphic novel was trying to poke at.
In general though, it seems like he just adapted the panels to the screen. He's an okay visual director but he goes way overboard with it far too often. He has no restraint.
He also just doesn't have the subtlety or intellect required for something like Watchmen.
The film version of Watchmen is kind of like a 14 year old's perception of reading the graphic novel with just just the intention of reading it as any other comic book.
He just didn't get it and was the worst person to adapt it.
Gilliam's adaptation would have different, but it would have at least been a competent take on the source material.
