Commercial one vs "auteur" one - what would you pick?

Tools    





Just a fun comparison like the last one, to see which type of films do you prefer.

Spielberg vs Lynch

Carpenter vs Cronenberg

Cameron vs Villenueve

Fincher vs Ridley Scott

Bonus:

Halloween vs Videodrome

Jaws vs Mulholland Drive

The Terminator vs Blade Runner 2049



Just a fun comparison like the last one, to see which type of films do you prefer.

Spielberg vs Lynch

Carpenter vs Cronenberg

Cameron vs Villenueve

Fincher vs Ridley Scott

Bonus:

Halloween vs Videodrome

Jaws vs Mulholland Drive

The Terminator vs Blade Runner 2049

Lynch. 100 per cent.

Cronenberg. Hate Carpenter. Know The Thing is a masterpiece but canít stand the man.

Villeneuve. Bonus points for spelling his name correctly.

Fincher.

Videodrome. Love that thing. Throw Network and all that into the mix.

Mulholland Drive.

Blade Runner 2049. Original also qualifies.



I'll play along...


Spielberg
vs Lynch....Both, but if I have to choose then it's Spielberg as he's made a ton of great films and defined an era.

Carpenter vs Cronenberg....Cronenberg made better stuff and I've never been a fan of Carpenter except The Thing.

Cameron vs Villenueve...Cameron has all those damn Avatar films to his un-credit, but on the other had he did direct some awesome films: Titanic, Aliens, The Terminator, Terminator 2. I haven't loved anything from Villenueve, including Arrival, most of his films go over the top in the third act.

Fincher vs Ridley Scott....Ridley Scott has had some misfires but nobody does world building like him. Fincher? You mean the music video director...pffft.



Since Spielberg hasn't released anything essential in probably twenty years, Lynch, who only gets better as he goes along.


Cronenberg's filmography is too good not to choose him. But I probably prefer a couple of Carpenter's (Halloween, The Thing) over anything Cronenberg has done. Prime Carpenter is close to as good as genre filmmaking gets for me.



The only Cameron movie I completely love is The Abyss, So Villeneuve, even though I've only seen a couple of his.


Fincher over Scott, easily. Scott's filmography is pretty terrible if you take Alien and Blade Runner out of it.


Halloween is an efficient beast of a movie, filled with nostalgia for me. That's not to undermine Videodrome though, which is a beast.


I'd probably pick Jaws over Mulholland Drive, but it's basically a toss up for me.


Never saw the new Blade Runner. Terminator has never been a favourite but its good. Can't judge.


Also, just to be clear by contrarianism is alive and well, both Spielberg and Carpenter are definitely auteurs. And a strong case could probably be made for Cameron and Fincher as well.



Registered User
Spielberg - Love him or hate him, he set the bar.

Carpenter - Carpenter really started to suck after They Live, but I wouldn't want to live in a world without the movies he made before it.

Cameron - Kind of a hack, but he's made some fun films.

Ridley Scott - Blade Runner, Duelists, Aliens. Those three films give him a massive amount of store credit.

Halloween - Halloween is played out now and Videodrome is the overlooked cult movie, but WHY did Halloween get played out? It was better.

Jaws - Come on, man. The Indy Speech alone gets the win.

The Terminator - Easily.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Just a fun comparison like the last one, to see which type of films do you prefer.

Spielberg vs Lynch

Carpenter vs Cronenberg

Cameron vs Villenueve

Fincher vs Ridley Scott

Bonus:

Halloween vs Videodrome

Jaws vs Mulholland Drive

The Terminator vs Blade Runner 2049
Spielberg

Tie between Carpenter and Cronenberg

Cameron

Tie between Fincher and Scott

Halloween

Mulholland Drive

The Terminator, but close call.



Can't a commercially successful director also be an auteur at the same time, though?



Just a fun comparison like the last one, to see which type of films do you prefer.

Spielberg vs Lynch

Carpenter vs Cronenberg

Cameron vs Villenueve

Fincher vs Ridley Scott

Bonus:

Halloween vs Videodrome

Jaws vs Mulholland Drive

The Terminator vs Blade Runner 2049
Ridley Scott made Alien and Blade Runner. So I'm not sure he's not just as big an auteur as Fincher, he just also makes commercial movies.

Villeneuve easily over Cameron though Cameron made Terminator.

I'm not sure I feel the distinction between Carpenter and Cronenberg. Cronenberg's probably a little better director but I'd probably call them both low-budget auteurs.

I'll take practically anybody over Spielberg.

In the bonus round I'll take both Halloween and Videodrome, Jaws, and The Terminator.



Prime Carpenter is close to as good as genre filmmaking gets for me...
Halloween is an efficient beast of a movie, filled with nostalgia for me. That's not to undermine Videodrome though, which is a beast.
crumbs knows



Just a fun comparison like the last one, to see which type of films do you prefer.

Spielberg vs Lynch

Carpenter vs Cronenberg

Cameron vs Villenueve

Fincher vs Ridley Scott

Bonus:

Halloween vs Videodrome

Jaws vs Mulholland Drive

The Terminator vs Blade Runner 2049

What are some movies carpenter has done? I think cronenburg is very interesting overall but the only work of film of his i like is...


*DUN DUN DUN*


That movie where video-cassettes are shoved into the protagonist's abdomen!



Technically, all directors are auteurs, regardless of what genre of film they specialize in or how talented they are.

I think there is an opening to consider a lot more directors for 'auteurship' than get granted it. But I wouldn't give a blanket pass to everyone. An auteur, by any proper definition, should have a discernable style, either thematically or stylistically. Directors for hire, or hacks like Tom Hooper, should probably not qualify, for the good of humankind. I agree with you though that I don't think talent should be a necessity. I don't think there is any question that Ed Wood or Neil Breen are auteurs, and by every standard, they are completely incompetent and delusional in their work.



What are some movies carpenter has done? I think cronenburg is very interesting overall but the only work of film of his i like is...


*DUN DUN DUN*


That movie where video-cassettes are shoved into the protagonist's abdomen!
https://m.imdb.com/list/ls069456793/

Here are his directing credits.



dead rings and the fly are also really good, i forgot about those...



I think there is an opening to consider a lot more directors for 'auteurship' than get granted it. But I wouldn't give a blanket pass to everyone. An auteur, by any proper definition, should have a discernable style, either thematically or stylistically. Directors for hire, or hacks like Tom Hooper, should probably not qualify, for the good of humankind. I agree with you though that I don't think talent should be a necessity. I don't think there is any question that Ed Wood or Neil Breen are auteurs, and by every standard, they are completely incompetent and delusional in their work.
For the most part, I agree that hacks aren't auteurs.

I'm not sure I agree with you on Tom Hooper though. To be fair, I think the only one of his films I saw was Les Miserables, but I thought that film had a pretty unique style which I don't believe I've seen in any other musicals, for better or for worse. For example, the singing was recorded live as the film was shot, there were occasional fish eye lenses, there were close-ups which were often delivered by frenetic camerawork...I think the film had a unique over-the-top style and if I were to see these elements used in another musical, this would remind me a lot of it. Of course, this isn't to imply it's a good film (I haven't seen it in a while, tbh, so I can't speak to that), but I think the style is pretty recognizable. Also, I haven't seen Cats, but I think the cat costumes are pretty unique in and of themselves. I can't think of another film which did anything like that. Again, that's not to say it's good, but I think that's a super recognizable trait. My opinion of him might change if I watch more of his films, but from what I know of him so far, I don't agree.



CATS is as pure an act of auteurism as SHOWGIRLS. Check yourself, crummy.



CATS is as pure an act of auteurism as SHOWGIRLS. Check yourself, crummy.

So in his bid to prove his films have some kind of discernable identity, Tom Hooper is an auteur because he suddenly is over compensating with the worst kinds of gaudiness? It's like inviting some guy with zero personality to your party because he bought a funny hat. He still sucks and your friends still wont like him, no matter how much you point at his headwear.