2015 Directors roundtable: Ridley Scott, Quentin Tarantino, Inarritu, Boyle, O Russel, Hooper discuss filmmaking and current cinema
Tarantino talks about his favorite Jackie Chan action scene, a couple of interesting Kubrick anecdotes from Scott and Boyle, Inarritu namedrops Tarkovsky
when Ridley mentions sequels, QT says he was excited for prometheus, then I think O'RUssell jokes about Blade Runner 2 but Ridley doesn't say anything
The actors Franco/Eisenberg/Duvall will forever be the best
>even the youtube thumbnail knows
>five minutes in
>Tarantino's glass is almost empty
I know,Did anyone else think Ridley Scott is a douche? He's like 'I did commercials, I already know everything' 'everything on the martian went perfectly, no problems whatsoever'. Nigga is insanely arrogant
Anybody have a youtube link to the final action sequence from "Police Story 3: Super Cop"?
I probably rented it on VHS in the early 90's, but now I have to know what the fuck QT is on about.
Do any of European or American directors really like/appreciate/ Tarkovsky? It seems like he pretty much has no visible legacy? I mean even Inarritu basically namedropped him like a pseudo-patrcian..
how big was he when he was alive?
>QT says he was excited for prometheus
Can you give a tl;dr, I don't want to watch it
His commentaries on his films are absolutely amazing. He talks slow and gravelly and it's comfy as fuck
This desu. Dude is nearly 80 and BTFO out of man children like Cuckiltino
>Imagining Max Landis in a room with actual filmmakers who were directors at the time that his father killed several people
I'd pay the full price of an IMAX admission ticket just to see that in HD.
Iñarritu has the funniest fucking mexican accent ever, he sounds like that mexican guy from Tim and Eric Awesome Show.
Amy Schumer is actually fine in the writers one. I only know her from the memes but she's really humble and knows she doesn't deserve to be there and just lets the writers talk and tries to learn. It's Sorkin who is the most obnoxious cunt in history. The nigga acts exactly like the worst of his characters and smugly soapboxes about the internet and newspapers and the death of America and his show getting cancelled and those damn kids on his lawn etc. etc. I had literally had to skip ahead until he shut up at parts. The Brooklyn and Room writers are both fine and total vets and the Inside Out writer is is pretty awesome and exactly like the Pohler character.
Dude has clearly got short-man syndrome. Imagine knowing (although he's probably delusional) that your'e the weakest filmmaker at the table?
3 Kings was pretty good, he has literally never made anything good ever sine.
They talk about why newsroom got cancelled for 5 fucking minutes anon. You can like Sorkin's work if you want but if you're not there just to see him talk there's no way he's not an obnoxious cunt in this discussion, he dominates every discussion and talks about his politics as much as he does writing.
Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Basically they five their experiences. I think Dunham twice made me sick. She is sickening to watch. She talked about that they didn't replace David Letterman with someone diverse. She told a story how she eavesdropped on someone talking shit about her show, when the other yantas asked who she said she would mention after the show. Schumer talked about her standup. The black woman mentioned how she has a hard time finding work.
>His commentaries on his films are absolutely amazing. He talks slow and gravelly and it's comfy as fuck
I wish more were on jewtube but thanks for the heads up. Listening to him and Crowe doing the Gladiator commentary for now and it is quite good, and the Joaquin tidbits are hilarious.
He's the best American director right now. Certainly better than all those other faggots at the table for this year's movies. Steve Jobs was an abysmal failure, transex oscar bait is just a seat warmer, Revenent is 3hrs of expository anguish, the Martian was literally reddit, H8 was a dull pastiche of other Tarantino flicks. Joy was the film of 2015. They could've kicked some of these has-beens for McKay and Coogler.
Hooper sucks and so does this panel. I'd have loved to have Coogler in the room with Tarantino to give him shit about the N-bombs, Miller in the room to give Inarittu a chuckle about his hardships making The Revenant.
>Directors arranged from left to right in order of quality
Affleck isn't a hack. His 3 films are all decent thrillers.
Hooper is bland but sounds sincere in the films he makes.
Lee is definitely not a hack. Not quite a great director, but firmly above the average.
Scorsese is such a pleasure to listen to when he's going on about films he loves. Some of the interviews he recorded for AFI are on youtube and his enthusiasm for stuff from The Archers is really contagious.
Things I got out of the interview
1. These questions are shit and they seem to be the same every year
2. Tarantinos passion is commendable. He's like a child at heart. Even though his movies are hit or miss I enjoy hearing his autistic ramblings about film
3. Ridley Scott is the most based person there. The Martian sucked but at least he knows what the business is all about.
4. David O'Russell looks just as bored to be there as we are of his Bradley Cooper and JLaw films
5. Danny Boyle didn't say much. Maybe that's because his movie just put him in debt
6. Hooper is a faggot. I'm glad when he started talking most of the time someone cut him off.
7. Innaritu strikes me as the same personality type as Tarantino. He loves films not really for what they mean but what they make him feel and what kind of stimulation they give him. He's like a little kid at the table. Slightly less autistic than Tarantula tho.
8. I really wish someone like Villenueve was there instead of Boyle or Hooper. Hell I would've preferred to see JJ Abrams in that room if only for his defense of big budget and sequel films killing the industry
>this is the extent of current modern american film makers.
His whole filmography is above standard.
I don't see why that would be a reason not to have him on a roundtable. To hear him talk about and compare his process to others. what got him into making movies? why does he focus so much on the small details and why so many takes? is it autism? would he ever consider writing and if not why? i remember one interview where tarantino said fincher was one of the best directors working right now and one of the few where he is interested in what he will make next, yet he is at a different level because he is not a writer-director. it would be interesting to see a conversation between the two, especially with finchers use of digital
Welles would destroy everyone there. QT is a manchild, Kubrick was an antisocial hermit, Wes would blubber some hipster shit Ebro) every now and then to remind everyone of his existence, Scorsese would be under the table sucking Orson's feet.
Fucking love Danny Boyle. His films are a bit hit or miss but I always enjoy hearing him talk about his films and cinema. Plus he was spearheading digital with 28 Days Later... and even if the quality isn't THAT good these days the film is still great.
Shit, Danny Boyle has the best filmograpy there. Tarantino has some fucking embarrasing flicks, and Ridley Scott gave up after Blade Runner, Iñarritu made the same film three or four times before whoring himself to jews with Birdman. Other two are irrelevant.
>tarantino has some fucking embarrasing flicks
Haven't seen Hateful 8 yet, but Django and Jackie Brown are the only two that don't really hold up. I still wouldn't call them "embarrassing" though.
It's one thing to call Kubrick overrated, but as soon as you start listing other director and saying they'd shit all over him it becomes clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, no. I never once heard Goddard mention Kubrick, or Bergman, or Ozu or Naruse.
He is simply an over glorified cameraman.
The modern contribution for American cinema has been very stale. What did Kubrick do but make nice sets? Not one of the stories he directed had anything to do with him but are simple bastardizations of others works.
He can't create a story worth a dam. He is no way near the top when it comes to directors. Like people imply he is.
>implying the japanese golden age of cinema isn't the greatest that ever was.
>inb4 French new wave
Every single one of Kubricks works is an adaptation of another story.
Whereas true directors, such as Bergman and Naruse created not only original stories which they then put on film, they sometimes created whole genres and camera techniques, which are still being used today.
You know you could use examples to back up your point, plebian.
>People who get mad that none of Kubrick's films are "faithful adaptations" are the lowest of the low.
Actual great directors create their own stories. It's got nothing to do with adaptation quality.
if you'd know what you're talking about you'd know story is unimportant in cimena as it is foremost a visual medium
going 'muh story' just shows how you ignorant you are
>Bergman and Naruse
>namedropping to seem smart
just kill yourself
Ridley Scott is talking from the perspective of a director. As a director, Scott really does seem to know everything he needs to know to turn out a good film.
His problem has always been one of story. Scott has always had problems knowing which screenplays are worth turning into films and which ones are worth avoiding. And when he gets a bad screenplay, he doesn't have the writers' chops to fix it up and make it good.
Team Scott up with an excellent screenwriter, good actors, and producers who don't get in the way and you'll get a doggone good film.
>Team Scott up with an excellent screenwriter, good actors, and producers who don't get in the way and you'll get a doggone good film.
Shame this hasn't happened for over 30 years.
You to, are missing the point.
You're also a proper fucking idiot. Why don't you just watch slide shows, of nice looking countries and vistas?
Movies are not a fucking visual medium, that's literal capeshit logic. It's a huge component yes, but like theater, like music, like any form of art, it's a story an artist is trying to tell.
All that ad hom without making any actual points backed up with reasoning.
And you called me a pleb, heh.
Are you really disregarding all the works of literally all the greatest directors of all time, simply because they are story focused?
Hitchcock? Felini? Goddard? Naruse?
You're a fucking pleb.
My point is it's not meant to be a discussion, it's meant to be a shit fling of who fucked over the Japanese.
Jesus. I actually had to spoon feed you a joke which is outright explained.
>Team Scott up with an excellent screenwriter, good actors, and producers who don't get in the way and you'll get a doggone good film.
Wow that means he's unique! No other director could make a good movie under all those conditions
>didn't actually respond to points raised
>thinks he is doing anything but proving how much of a retard he really is
Things usually are not funny when they have to be explained.
>the only actual great directors are also 100% original screenwriters
Kubrick elevated virtually everything he adapted into something completely his own, and everybody is aware that at a certain point he pretty much said "fuck you" to the original source material.
He consulted with Clarke on the screenplay for 2001, but at a certain point just cut him off, and the overturned car in The Shining was obviously him saying that this wasn't just King's book put on film.
>movies are not a fucking visual medium
>that's literal capeshit logic
Not sure if retarded or trolling.
Of course movies are a visual medium, and virtually all capeshit is either tedious or headache inducing to look at.
How can people miss the point this badly?
No where have I said Kubrick himself is a shit director.
I have said, which no one is yet to refute, he isn't a great director like everyone says, as he is a simple camera man.
Great directors infuse all techniques available to them to create something of their own. Again, it's got nothing to do with adaptation, his stories, his themes are not his own.
A great director like Ozu had a unique camera technique only used by Ozu, he created stories coupled with this technique and you can tell Ozu's style from a fucking mile away. Kubrick on the other hand, made simple schlock, which looked nice.
You need look no further than Steven Spielberg, who's lost it in his old age.
For starters, "A.I.", the film that Kubrick might have worked on next after "Eyes Wide Shut" had he not died. Personally, I hated "A.I." and thought it was utter crap. I've never had those opinions of any of Kubrick's films.
Secondly, "Minority Report." Oh, boy! A film based off a story by Philip K. Dick! That's gotta be good! I loved "Blade Runner" and "Total Recall."
Nope. "Minority Report" wasn't terrible but I was tremendously disappointed. Quite honestly, I think Ridley Scott would have done a better job.
A director is not a writer. Yes, he will have some control over the actors but Scott has done a good job of that over his career. I've never had a complaint about the actors Scott uses.
But, as I said, my problem with Scott is that, for whatever reason, some of the stories he picks to base movies on just aren't very good. They're either uninteresting or they have really bad plot holes. *cough*Prometheus*cough*
But Scott is capable of turning out a good movie and I usually seriously considering any film he directs.
Contrast this with someone like Michael Bay.
Kubrick is the fuckin' master of film directing. Among American directors, I can think of few that have had a greater impact on film.
Many of the visual effects in his films were designed by him. The camera angles, the lighting, and the endless takes to get the appropriate reaction from the actors are the mark of a great director.
Consider George C. Scott's performance in Dr. Strangelove. It was Kubrick who tricked Scott into kind of overacting the part. Scott was initially quite upset with the takes that Kubrick ended up using in the film, thinking that Kubrick was asking for those goofy takes to warm Scott up.
It sounds like you need to learn how to formulate whatever point you're trying to make before posting it, because you're not being as clear as you think you are.
>kubrick made simple schlock which looked nice
That's really the only thing you've consistently been saying.
>Many of the visual effects in his films were designed by him.
Funny, because one of the reasons 2001 was done in Britain was to escape the US patents on effects, including the slitscan technique.
And tricking actors into giving you material is LITERALLY a director's job. Coppola tricked a guy into getting in bed with a fucking horse head.
That's literally my point, see >>64537363
>The camera angles
>and the endless takes to get the appropriate reaction from the actors are the mark of a great director.
Holy cow, if a director is not able to get the performane he wants form his actors, he is a shit director. Someone who is able to get a desired performance isn't somehow a great director, he is simply competent.
This is the one of the only things which he did well, and even then it was not original as you imply it was.
>that's arguably as genuine as creating his own.
Not even in the slightest.
>That's really the only thing you've consistently been saying.
Because that's literally my point. Well the other point. Sounds like I am being pretty clear.
>sounds like I am being pretty clear
It honestly sounds like you're just parroting a contrarian opinion you've seen posted multiple times on /tv/ because you it it makes you sound "patrician".
Movies are a visual medium, this is by no means 'capeshit logic'. You have MOTION PICTURE.
Story, narrative, character are all tier below in importance for movie. The most important part by far is the directing.
>Greater impact on film.
and that's why Kubrick annoys me. Generations of DOPs and directors who think plastering movie with pretty pictures full of hack symbolism means good directing and worthwhile cinematography.
Take any Nolan or Villeneuve garbage bin movie, it's just pretty photography even when you are dealing with fucking bodies of drug war.
>literally a side project for the staging of both the moon landing and the bigfoot footage
>a fucking star wars movie
It's still the greatest space film, and one of the most ambitious science fiction films every attempted.
The movie gets its main narrative point across in just about 8-12 minutes from what I recall. On top of that it has some dumb and rushed point about failures in the space program which happens early in the movie too. And it has nothjing else to tell.
So why is the movie so fucking long? It could be at least 2 hours shorter movie for fuck sake.
It's pretty bad dude.
>All these grasping-at-straws fags
Ah, that famous /tv/ wit.
It's a simple piece about man versus nature. It's not supposed to be some intricate diorama of the human condition. Simplicity is not inherently bad just as novelty isn't inherently good.
If you weren't unnerved when he recorded his log next to his makeshift duct tape door, then there's something wrong with you.
So yes, it is now a proven fact that the highest caliber director whose work youare familier with is Kubrick.
God forbid anyone else have a higher knowledge of cinema than you and anyone saying anything which is slighty disagreeable is just diregarded.
Try Lynch next, start with Eraserhead, he is right up your guy's alley.
It's no fucking Cast Away, the gimmick of talking to a computer screen (sure, DA MODERN COMMENTARY) is much less gripping than Hanks talking to the football. All the tech gimmicks and how it was filmed just felt like that, gimmick and advertisement as opposed to something *honest*, it doesn't help Matt Damon isn't convincing in his role and a fucking person that's flying a goddamn space station or some Hermes shit literally asks 'can I have that in English' when someone gives him tech speech about OS.
It's grating as fuck movie/experience, at least for me. I also hated how slack jawed their apology about failed missions were - look it was the people who rushed to decisions and made faults *shows cargo load blowing up and nobody getting hurt*
it was such a fucking.. baby thing. Should've blown up the fucking Hermes space ship or the original crew when they're going, that would been more respectable.
>gets called out for basically spouting how kubrick is an overrated meme director
>somehow interprets that to mean that everyone calling him retarded has only ever heard of kubrick and not his super obscure bergman
>recommends lynch as though that's the next logical step for all the plebs telling him he's an idiot
Lost Highway is my favorite film, btw.
LH and Mullholland Dr. both feel like 'yeah lads we had TV show script but now we dont have TV show so I hacked up together a movie for fun'
Silencio is the only good scene in those two movies.
OK the lesbo shit in Mulholland Dr. is p. good Lynch directing porn when?
See the pic posted >>64537749
Spouting nonsense means literally nothing.
Where did I imply Bergman was obscure? My point was actually the opposite, since you know, Bergman is pretty entry level but an actual great director, unlike Kubrick.
Where did anyone actually refute my points? (ad hom doesn't refute anything)
Lynch is the next logical step for people who get fooled by pleb bait.
>Lost Highway is my favorite film, btw.
How am I not suprised :^)
Nobody knows anything about you, so stop typing "ad hom, ad hom!" in every post.
You do sound like a bitter Swede though, who probably learned English and has nothing better to do with it other than to shitpost anti-america troll crap on 4chan, though.
That's not what we were shitposting about.
>Alone in the space.
Find me a better film than Alien for that.
Pic obv. not related but Prometheus looked great.
Attacking the argument and not refuting the points is a form of ad hom.
You are still not refuting anything, you know?
If what I am saying is so outlandish and so completley untrue, it should be pretty dam easy to refute what I am saying, no?
The only thing anyone has said is
>he got the performances he wanted, therefore he is great
Come now, use your big boy words and shut down my points with irrefutable evidence and or logic.
I shall be waiting.
>Picking up the Anti-American Card
Holy shit I am not even the Swede you are arguing with but you are pathetic.
>Don't like Shitbrick
It was a joke, directed at a troll whose done nothing but call American directors, Kubrick in particular, overrated, spam Bergman as somehow far superior, and respond to any argument with "ad hom".
This thread can't hit auto-sage soon enough.
>literally the best thread on /tv/
Thanks for conceeding to the point that the only reason Kubrick is regarded as good is because he is American.
You've made your bed, have fun laying in it.
You're still only posting ad hom. Actually the refute the points.
>>literally the best thread on /tv/
You know, he is actually trying to have a discussion with you.
That being why Kubrick is over rated. It is you who refuses to actually discuss the topic, but still putting your voice out there.
Just saying. Go post in the Star Wars threads.
That's literally a subjective opinion (wrong to this part at least, no one It's better at telling engrossing intelligent stories).
Here I thought we were having an actual discussion on the objective quality of film.
Not his. Literally been the major point of this whole argument. Bastardizations of others works =/= his.
>how they look
There is better. And this is entirley subjective.
List other directors you have seen, I don't even care if you lie, all I care is that you have been posed the question.
He is pleb bait. He cannot be even remotley considered great, on an objective level. He would get laughed out of a room filled with actual great directors. The like of whom I have listed many times in this thread.
Mate, you're a clown. Good thing that once this thread ends you will be able to drop your bait argument and pretend this pathetic display never happened.
Alternatively, there's always the good ol' "kill yourself".
Books are not films. If you make a film based off the plot of a book the story telling is still the director's which is a mix of content (words and plot from the book which are still picked out and changed by the director) and visual storytelling (acting, setting, camera techniques and style).
>Picking up the Anti-American Card
Aside from saying that Kubrick only adapts other people's stories with pretty camera work (which was contested in multiple posts), all you've said is that people only think he's a great director because he's American, which you never even tried to explain the reasoning behind.
Not to mention that Kubrick made most of his best films as an Expat in England, whereas Hitchcock, for example, made most of his best films in the US.
Well obviously, but the core of the book i.e. the themes are not the directors. He has created nothing except simply adapting books to film, that's not what a great director does. A great director creates his own story, his own vision and then put's it on film.
That's an oversimplification. So just because he doesn't write his own scripts means he's a bad director? A director's job is to direct, period. Hitchcock didn't write many of the movies he directed either
You understand I was referring to aesthetics?
>an objective criticism?
In this discussion, well when referring to any director I would say the objective quality which make a director great would be the culmination of all his efforts as related to the end result.
Kubrick adapted, he made things look nice.
Great directors created everything about their work.
Jesus Christ could they have found a bigger group of past their prime and awful directors? Remember when Haneke was on this and he called Spielberg a fucking fraud who used the Holocaust to push his own fraud agenda? Apparently that type of honesty isn't welcome so lets get the beaner director of The faggot from Titanic shot in poorly framed closeups in the woods for three hours, an actual autist that is in love with feet and big black dicks, and that guy that directed two decent movies thirty years ago instead.
That's a dumb description of a great director. I don't agree with out but kubrick only misses out on having an original story for just some of his films. What about the ones not based off a book? For a director to be great all his films must be original?
That's not me, he even said so. WTF is wrong with you?
>because he's American, which you never even tried to explain the reasoning behind.
See this thread. Holds very true since the only peopl trying to refute me only post ad hom and cannot differentiate between the objective and subjective quality of film.
>Not to mention that Kubrick made most of his best films as an Expat in England
This doesn't mean anything.
That's an actual worthy director of praise, but you are yet to tell me why Kubrick isn't only regarded as good becasue he is American.
Keep in mind, nowhere have I said Kubrick is bad. Quite the opposite, I like Clockwork. I am saying he is over rated as hell, mainly because he is American and the majority of people who view movies are American.
>just some of his films
Try all of his critically acclaimed films.
>What about the ones not based off a book
Go on, list them.
EWS - Based on book
Clockwork - Based on book
FMJ - Based on book
2001 - Based on book, at least written by actual writer.
Barry Lyndon - Based on Book
Dr Strange Love - Based on book
Lolita - Based on book
Paths of Glory - Based on a book
The Shining - Based on a book
The Killing - Based on book
Of course you can't.
>i am saying he is over rated as hell, mainly because he is american and the majority of people who view movies are american
So your argument is that any critically acclaimed director whose films have been viewed by a large audience, and aren't sufficiently obscure, according to you, are overrated?
No.... Just Kubrick and Lynch. What is with people putting words in my mouth? Where did I meantion any other director except Kubrick and Lynch?
Jesus just how flustered are you in not being able to come up with anything? You don't have to reply I don't care what you have to say, all I want is meaningfull discourse which could potentially change my views. Not matter how cancerous you think I am being I am still taking shit away from this argument.
It's simply proving my point.
That doesn't mean anything though. Ozu, for example, wasn't famous for his scripts. He was famous for how he shot his films. Hitchcock didn't write Rope, or Notorious, or Dial M for Murder, or Vertigo, or Psycho, or North By Northwest either.
>Ozu, for example, wasn't famous for his scripts
Ozu and Naruse were very famous for their story telling. They created a genre.
Hitchcock is famous and acclaimed for pretty much the creation of suspense. Not for his movies, persay.
No, but it certainly doesn't mean he is a good director. When actual good directors do create their stories, their own themes.
What is a movie but playing out important themes to the individual? All he did was take other's themes and turn them into his own.
He is one of the most over rated directors. And you are all yet to prove me wrong.
Great directors are, that's my god dam point. See >>64539123
There's no proving you wrong, you child. Your stupid assumptions can only lead to even worse arguments.
>le director has to write le screenplay
>le kubrick is overrated because burger people
Hahahaha. So because I say Kubrick is over rated and give exact reason as to why he is over rated. That means I am saying every single director of the same heritage as he is over rated, because thats how college logic works?
You were asked to explain your fuzzy logic, which you didn't even try to do.
>So your argument is that any critically acclaimed director whose films have been viewed by a large audience, and aren't sufficiently obscure, according to you, are overrated?
What do you consider Bergman? Wait, it doesn't matter what you consider Bergman, it's how the world considers him.
If Bergman is a great director, Kubrick simply can not be. Bergman has done everything Kubrick did, and more.
Keep in mind, I barely like Bergman on a subjective level, he is just the only example I am willing to use.
Also this will be my last reply, rejoice in your plebdom. I am done.
I have not conceeding, I am simply leaving to cook my dinner.
Have fun, plebs. I will make sure to check the archives of all your replies though.
Yeah, and their mothers are all whores tss tss
>Great directors are, that's my god dam point.
I can't say I agree with you there. That like saying a conductor of a symphony can only be great if he composes his own great music.
I've not studied film or worked in the film industry but it's my understanding that the job title of director does not include writing duties. A directors job is to translate an interpretation of a written work (novel, screenplay,etc.) to a visual and audio medium.
I think Bergman and Kubrick create two different types of films.
Bergman's films are more arty and, quite honestly, difficult for people to watch, understand, and enjoy. Perhaps it's a cultural thing and not being Swedish or understanding Swedish causes me to miss some of the fine nuances of Bergman's films. However, while I find his films intriguing, they don't fully engage me.
Kubrick's films are more accessible. There's definite craft in Kubrick's films and it's of the highest caliber. I don't think anyone can deny that. That's why I think Kubrick is great. However, it's clear that Kubrick's film are not as arty as Bergman's.