I can’t get over how Spielberg completely ruined the Indiana Jones series… Crystal Skull was a crime… And then there’s Peter Jackson, who we all admire for realizing this dense epic trilogy called Lord of the Rings, but King Kong?
LOTR is kind of garbage too, though. I can only take so many sweeping helicopter shots with little people walking through them.
Peter Jackson’s King Kong was the first film that came to my mind. The film is an example of a situation where a bigger budget is actually a bad thing. Jackson’s Frighteners also suffers from a lack of focus and excess. I think the extended LOTR are excessive, not because of the “helicopter shot,” but because there are just too many scenes (especially the third film) and too much use of cgi.
All of the 90s “video brats.” i don’t hate them like a lot of people around here, but Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Rob Zombie, Kevin Smith, et al; maybe I’ll except Richard Linklater. I think they think they’re sylish quirks may matter more than substance.
Laika,
With Lucas I think he got hung up on the possibilities that the current fx/cgi afforded him—that is he neglected the story and characters. (I think this was especially true for the second prequel.) There may have been too much pandering to children and commercial considerations (i.e. marketing toys) as well.
Laika,
With Lucas I think he got hung up on the possibilities that the current fx/cgi afforded him—that is he neglected the story and characters. (I think this was especially true for the second prequel.) There may have been too much pandering to children and commercial considerations (i.e. marketing toys) as well.
I second Robert Rodriguez
Steven Soderberg
4 films in 1 year, nearly all bad, with a musical about Cleopatra in 3-D as project for next year.Simply disgusting.
What Laika? You mean you didn’t like seeing Hayden Christensen at the end of Return of the Jedi?
I’m not saying I like George Lucas, but I’d prefer that more directors had less self-control. There’s plenty of room for “excess” in cinema. Not everything has to be “necessary.”
I think that here the subject of Producer and Director might be introduced. I am of the school the thinks a film is ultimately made by a director AND a producer (and writers, and DoP, designers, actors and crew, etc. but I digress). A great producer can handle an “excessive” talent and reign in the picture when necessary.
Bolo: the OP isn’t asking for a philosophical debate. She is asking for examples of peoples’ perception of their experience as it relates to excess production values.
“Steven Soderberg
4 films in 1 year, nearly all bad, with a musical about Cleopatra in 3-D as project for next year.Simply disgusting.”
fully agreed..
Peabody: the OP isn’t asking for a philosophical debate.
Oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that questioning the foundational assumptions of a post was off-limits on these forums. I’ll try not to be so “philosophical” in the future.
Peabody: “She is asking…” You just referred to me using a feminine pronoun? How dare you ;)
Bolo Tie: Your philosophical questions are welcome, even though I don’t really agree. Perhaps there’s room in film for a little “excessiveness”, but too many directors reach a point where the film becomes weighed down by it.
It?
My only other option is the masculine pronoun…..
Bolo Tie: Oh, I’m sorry.
Come on, you’re not sorry in the least
Tarantino
Peabody: I was just joking, but the masculine pronoun would be he.
Bolo and Peabody: You guys don’t need to argue, c’mon.
I’ll second King Kong, but LOTR? I thought Peter Jackson managed to strike a pretty good balance between effects and plot/story/characters. But then again I havn’t seen the fancy extended versions with all the added stuff.
The key word in the thread title is “absolutely”.
The inclusion of that word implies someone who has never shown the ability to restrain themselves. Every single director listed here has shown that ability at one time or another. When I think of someone that would be considered reckless and a danger to both themselves and those around them, I think of Fritz Lang. Here was a man who could never see the forest for the trees. He was always throwing some type of crazy maniacal tantrum and alienating everyone around him – even those, like Sylvia Sydney, who tried to help him. He managed to make fascinating films throughout his career, but I think he could have been almost unbeatable had he showed some restraint now and then. If he had chosen his battles more carefully, and if he’d not treated his actors like dirt, he might have gained some allies and friends. He might have found people to back him up when he needed it most. But, he pushed everyone away, and suffered for it.
Funny that no one’s managed to mention a real direcor yet. From Lucas to Linklater, I’ve got no respect for anyone mentioned here so far, (except for maybe Tarantino and Spielberg for the odd film here-and-there—and Jackson, for anything outside of “Kong”).
For real directors who lost their sense of proportion and discretion, I’d have to list Godard as a main offender for much of his post “Vivre sa vie” output, flipsiding his ratio of enjoyability/obtuse posturing. Copola’s generally infamous for having made four or five features of absolute artistry, and then losing it altogether, becoming nigh-clueless in every respect from casting to narrative. Von Trier might qualify as well, but he’s so “out there” by nature, how could anyone really tell?
Still, to make even one great film is a pretty astounding feat—especially for anyone working within the constraints of the commercial mainstream. But I’ve got to say, any serious mention of Rob Zombie on this website is a real chuckle to see.
No TH, Yes I was expecting those people to be named also. I however disagree with these claims, but they are so common I’m surprised people have stuck with fairly mediocre directors.
Bela Tarr. Enough with the peripatetic tracking shots already. Absolutely unbearable.
Yup and Bertolucci should clothe his actors, Lynch should learn how to tell a clear cut story, and Antonioni should learn how to edit.
Moderated
Undergoing root canal is less excruciating than those tracking shots.
\“Lynch should learn how to tell a clear cut story\”
Need I remind you of The Straight Story and The Elephant Man?
Oh, Fast, I don’t know how long you’ve been on this site, but you’re slaughtering a sacred cow. For some people around here liking Bela Tarr is equated with intelligence. Whatever.
So I\‘ve noticed. And they\’re rude. Come on, Edwin, there\’s no need to say such things just because I disagree with you about Tarr. Sheesh.
Tobin.
This thread is for directors who don’t know their limits. They always go way over the top and put unnecessary crap in their films for no reason except for the fact that they’re able to. Two examples spring immediately to mind:
George Lucas:
Not only did he make three heinous Star Wars prequels with an excessive amount of distracting effects, he actually “recut” the old Star Wars by adding new cgi effects and characters, and in effect completely butchering some of the best sci-fi created. Par exemple, he added a scene at Jabba’s involving computer animated alien people yelling and singing and sticking their faces into the camera. It adds absolutely nothing to the film, in fact, it severely detracts from it since it’s so irritating. At another point, he added some weird dinosaur thing literally walking in front of the camera when obi-wan and luke are talking. So was their any point to this? No. George just thought he would add it for the hell of it, it’s the whole “I’ll just do it because I can” mentality.
Tim Burton:
I like his older films but his newer ones just seem so… overdone. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was good up until Charlie actually went into the chocolate factory. At the point, Tim Burton seemed to go crazy and add as much stuff as possible. The oompa loompas were creepy, and all of it felt weighed down by it’s own excessive-ness. Looking at the trailer for Alice in Wonderland, I have a ominous feeling that it’s going to be the same. Special effects are fine but they’re excessiveness shouldn’t detract from the film as a whole.
Anyway I hope that makes sense. Can anyone else think of some other directors who like excessiveness…