When they release a Film you get excited!

[Mr Trick]

You must live on a different planet than me lol. Literally my parents and my one sister saw it that I know and that's it lol

You can only comment on people you know. Like I said its possible that it was more widely seen in the UK and some European Countries. It did get in the Box office top ten over here and shown at the London film Festival. Maybe a harder sell to Americans I don't know.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

You must live on a different planet than me lol.

You also didnt think anyone would know Hillcoat so that really comes as no surprise.

 

[sk]

I've seen The Road.
It might have been some mention on this board that peaked my interested though. Can't really remember.

Regarding the original question...
Clint Eastwood
Quentin Tarantino
James Cameron

Perhaps Joss Whedon too. But I mostly get news about him from this board.

/SK

 

[Mr Trick]

I've seen The Road.
It might have been some mention on this board that peaked my interested though. Can't really remember.

Regarding the original question...
Clint Eastwood
Quentin Tarantino
James Cameron

Perhaps Joss Whedon too. But I mostly get news about him from this board.

/SK

It doesn't matter where you hear about it just whether you get exciting about it when he releases a film or moreover I guess if a film of his you will go out and see.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I think I probably should have also said Edgar Wright.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I think I probably should have also said Edgar Wright.

I would have loved to have seen HIS Ant-Man... it might have actually been worthwhile as it was not filled with racist stereotypes.

 

[Mr Trick]

I would have loved to have seen HIS Ant-Man... it might have actually been worthwhile as it was not filled with racist stereotypes.

But maybe we did see his Ant-Man?😉

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But maybe we did see his Ant-Man?😉

The fact that Wright had Michael Douglass as a 'hero' and Reed turned him, for all intensive purposes into a villain, suggests we did not. The fact that Reed, as per the studios request, turned Lang's gang into comic relief sidekicks, suggests we did not. The fact that it had the whole Hope backstory suggests we did not. The fact we had a Falcon cameo, suggests we did not. There were alot of changes from the Wright version to the Reed version and the entire tone of the movie was changed.

 

[Mr Trick]

The fact that Wright had Michael Douglass as a 'hero' and Reed turned him, for all intensive purposes into a villain, suggests we did not. The fact that Reed, as per the studios request, turned Lang's gang into comic relief sidekicks, suggests we did not. The fact that it had the whole Hope backstory suggests we did not. The fact we had a Falcon cameo, suggests we did not. There were alot of changes from the Wright version to the Reed version and the entire tone of the movie was changed.

Yeah but all that is contraction none of us know for certain than all that was really going to happen. And making I think the role they gave Douglas was worked better than making him a hero so I have no problem with that. I speak as someone who likes the Ant-Man we got. I like Edgar Wright too, but on the other hand Scott Pilgrim was a totally mess, I'd rather watch Ant-Man another five times than sit through that again.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I don't follow any specific director, they are just as capable at making films I don't like. It is safe to know certain directors might make a certain standard of film, usually. Certain actors do good work but if the casting agent is not up to par the film won't get the acclaim it probably deserves.
When a director only makes one type of film then there is a likelyhood the end result might be good.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

When a director only makes one type of film then there is a likelyhood the end result might be good.

Good point! Uwe Boll only makes one type of film: bad.

 

[Mr Trick]

I don't follow any specific director, they are just as capable at making films I don't like. It is safe to know certain directors might make a certain standard of film, usually. Certain actors do good work but if the casting agent is not up to par the film won't get the acclaim it probably deserves.
When a director only makes one type of film then there is a likelyhood the end result might be good.

It is true that a big part of a great performance is the casting and the direction they get. There is only so much even the best actors can do in duff parts or films. The actor is the most important part of a film for sure.

Your last point is interesting. Why do you think that? Is it because it is better to be strong in one area and perfect it, than to approach many different genres with mix results? I see that point, but on the other hand if you do one thing for too long then your work tends to get stale.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I never look to see who gets best actor or director or film at the Academy Awards. I am interested in a film that gets best original or adapted screenplay. Screenwriters never get the credit they should have, probably due to the fact that they are not there during filming (although some stay around to do rewrites). This arose from the first three decades of movies that were silent and the writers were called "scenario writers". This is not to say that actors or directors are interchangeable. But if you have a good screenplay, you are three quarters of the way to a good movie.

The best scripts are excellent literature, the equivalent of any Shakespeare play. Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage" is a 181-minute movie that I would consider among the great literature of our age.

 

[Mr Trick]

I never look to see who gets best actor or director or film at the Academy Awards. I am interested in a film that gets best original or adapted screenplay. Screenwriters never get the credit they should have, probably due to the fact that they are not there during filming (although some stay around to do rewrites). This arose from the first three decades of movies that were silent and the writers were called "scenario writers". This is not to say that actors or directors are interchangeable. But if you have a good screenplay, you are three quarters of the way to a good movie.

The best scripts are excellent literature, the equivalent of any Shakespeare play. Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage" is a 181-minute movie that I would consider among the great literature of our age.

I think it depends on the genre. In something like comedy then you could argue for the script being just as important as the direction. But as a visual media then I would still argue as the director being the most important factor. Scenes From a Marriage is an interesting one, its does feel very literature, almost like a play on film. But don't forget that Bergman still would have been working closely with the actors giving them directions or little hints at what to bring to the roles. He sets up the shots ,and when directing he has to keep the pace of the script.