-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Martin Scorsese vs Steven Spielberg - who has the best filmography?
- Thread starter Fevaweva
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, if we're talking just the last 10 years it's absolutely Scorsese because, like you said, Spielberg's gone soft.
I meant in terms of variety.
Like there's people here seriously saying Spielberg has a more varied film list.
Bear in mind they plaster his name on stuff that he only executive produces, like Transformers.
Space Avocat
Member
Both are incredible but I'm giving my vote to Spielberg. So many iconic scenes and songs that give him the edge over Marty for me. When I think of the pure joy that films can be, I think of Elliot and ET's flying bicycle, the Jaws theme, the jurassic park theme, the Indiana jones theme.
Ahh this thread makes me want to go back and rewatch so many movies.
Ahh this thread makes me want to go back and rewatch so many movies.
I really don't think it's fair to blame Spielberg for any of those as he was just an executive producer on those as a result of them coming out of his production studio. I don't think he ever had any kind of creative output on them.
They're probably about tied, but I'd give Marty the edge for Taxi Driver alone, which is one of the best films of all time.
Then he should stop putting his name on them.
Then he should stop putting his name on them.
Scorsese might have variety but can't beat Spielberg, come on.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
As long as we are talking breadth-- Ang Lee is up there. Wedding Banquet, Hulk, Sense and Sensibility, Life of Pi, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain.
None of those films is remotely like another.
None of those films is remotely like another.
Nobody is saying Scorsese doesn't have variety, but Spielberg is on an entirely different level in terms of variety. Spielberg has delivered multiple movies that would easily be in the running for the GOAT for that genre. Spielberg's range as a director is ridiculous.
Yeah, I learned that recently. The damage is done though. His name is nothing to me.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Kind of like asking who would win in a fight between Prime Mike Tyson vs. Jennifer Lawrence.
teruterubozu
Member
Nope, seen them all and I still say Spielberg. Heck, even The Last Temptation of Christ is Jesus of Wize Guyz Brooklyn Accents.
Martin scorsese's filmography by a country mile. I find the characters in his films more engaging and the themes resonate with me more. While I enjoy some Speilberg films(Indiana Jones, minority report) , a lot of his films are so mawkishly sentimental that I find them hard to stomach. ET is on my list of my most disliked films I've ever seen. I really really cannot stand that film.
The Lamonster
Member
Speilberg, easily.
Let's not throw the "they" there like he's totally being used by other people. This is hardly the case. He himself does PR for Transformers, he does get involved in script meetings and production approvals, and he openly speaks highly of Michael Bay's work on the films and makes it clear he is very happy with it. He may be shilling for the films, but he's 100% personally involved in the shilling, it's not just other people from the production using his name.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Variety?
Who gives a damn about variety if the man never even learned to tell stories without resorting to cliche and lowest common denominator sentimentality? I'll certainly grant Spielberg his successes (Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, arguably Jurassic Park), but his failures are just toweringly bad.
Scorsese's movies are among the best dramas yet made in the art of filmmaking. For depth and richness, he has Spielberg beat by a few light years.
Who gives a damn about variety if the man never even learned to tell stories without resorting to cliche and lowest common denominator sentimentality? I'll certainly grant Spielberg his successes (Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, arguably Jurassic Park), but his failures are just toweringly bad.
Scorsese's movies are among the best dramas yet made in the art of filmmaking. For depth and richness, he has Spielberg beat by a few light years.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Well, one of them made Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, so I have to go with that guy. And this is no slight on Spielberg at all; he is obviously master class as well.
Producing =/= directing and this thread isn't about that anyway.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
As an aside, that new Spielberg Cold War flick with Tom Hanks had a terrible trailer. I'll still see it but man was that just bad.
I don't think he could even if he wanted to; it's his production company.
I wasn't the one that brought it up; I'm just responding to someone who thinks we should hold those shows against Spielberg.
How is this even a question. Spielberg by a country mile. There are very few directors who can dabble in so many genre's and do this well. The guy has done it all. Sci fi, comedy, monster movies, drama, animation etc etc.. This is not even a close competition.
Wolf of Wallstreet sucks and Hugo is first order trash.
Wolf of Wallstreet sucks and Hugo is first order trash.
Failures are in many ways far more valuable than successes. Spielberg is praise for his variety because, while his lows are lower and highs aren't as high as Scorsese's, his contribution to filmmaking is greater because he tries a lot of different things, starts new trends, uncovers and pushes forward old ones and so on.
Scorsese is the better storyteller, but I think Spielberg is easily the greater innovator and that balances them out.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I didn't like Wolf of Wall Street that much but I'll defend Hugo to my dying breath.
It was an American-made European-style art house movie, and it was brilliant.
And the only variety Scorsese doesn't have is the Action-Adventure that makes up half of Speileberg's films. They're great for what they are, but in the grand scheme they're just romps.
It was an American-made European-style art house movie, and it was brilliant.
And the only variety Scorsese doesn't have is the Action-Adventure that makes up half of Speileberg's films. They're great for what they are, but in the grand scheme they're just romps.
I would argue against the bolded. What makes Taxi Driver more important to cinema or a bigger high than for example Raiders? Spielberg helped define pulp adventure in movies.
Also not sure why Scorsese is the better story teller as well. No one can spin a yarn like Berg.
or Sci fi, or Animated movies , or monster flicks etc etc..
Schindler, Munich, Empire of the Sun just romps?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
There are plenty of other Marty films I'd knock for being bad/mediocre before I get to Wolf of Wall Street. Cape Fear, Boxcar Bertha, The Aviator, Gangs of New York, New York New York, Shutter Island, The Last Temptation of Christ...
Chainsawkitten
Member
I don't have much experience with either, but so far I've seen some movies from Scorsese I liked and some I didn't. For Spielberg I've only seen movies I didn't like. That could change, though.
He may have re-popularised and perfected it but the qualities you find in Raiders existed long before in Hollywood. What makes Taxi Driver more important? Well importance is a bit difficult to judge but it certainly has been very influential amongst actors/directors/critics going by the latest Sight and Sound polls and others like it, more so than Raiders. Your personal preferences may differ of course but that is irrelevant to judging 'importance' (though I'm not sure if polls are the best way either).
I'd say Scorsese is the better storyteller because he devotes much more time and attention to his character than Spielberg, who takes an interesting concept and builds a story around it without really ever delving into the characters as much. That's not to say that either can't or haven't done it the other way, but that's the usual affair.
edit; I didn't answer the first part of your post, my bad.
I think Scorsese's highs are higher and lows aren't as lows because most of his films are critical darlings considered better than most of Spielberg's best offerings.
This.
There are people who rewatch Hugo? Lol I watched it to see its contribution to 3D. No one will ever remember this drab movie years from now.
Fair enough but I think Spielberg gets the essence of the character across in his movies with minimal time.
I think Scorsese gets more out of his actors -- a lot more. And I enjoy most of his movies, whereas I don't really enjoy all of Spielberg's movies. That said, Scorsese seems to lack some of that range. I'm not sure what a Martin Scorsese's "Jaws" would look like, and maybe it'd be awesome, but for some reason I kind of doubt it. Or rather it would just never, ever happen.
Tough choice OP. Gonna give the tilt to Scorsese, but I don't think anyone would be out of their mind to pick Spielberg on this one.
Tough choice OP. Gonna give the tilt to Scorsese, but I don't think anyone would be out of their mind to pick Spielberg on this one.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Chapman's cinematography/Herrmann's score for Taxi Driver are great too, forgot to mention that. Lot of excellent craftsmanship across the board, but the core is rotten.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Uh, Raiders is, like Star Wars, a throwback to pulpy work that already existed as an established genre. You can argue it's more polished (I'd argue less imaginative, as well), but its import to cinema is mainly just that it was popular at the time a bunch of people were kids.
Taxi Driver is a thorough look at a kind of mind that the latter half of the 20th Century produced in droves, and a deep, probing look at the nature and ravages of loneliness. It takes some of the stylistic and narrative tropes of film noir, then unravels and reweaves them into a stylistic melange all its own.
Edit: VJC, that's an absolutely ridiculous characterization of Taxi Driver. It's little different than the people who say that Manhattan glorifies ephebophilic relationships, when Woody simply trusted his audience to identify that the character he was playing was kind of a shithead without rubbing it in their face. Whatever Schrader's actual motivations, Taxi Driver trusts its audience to identify that Bickle is kind of a piece of shit, and moves on from there, because ultimately, he's not the biggest piece of shit we see in the movie. The absolutely stellar acting, characterization, dialogue, cinematography, editing, and music is what makes it great, not whether or not you agree with it politically, dude. "The codes and conduct of violent masculinity" also isn't what the movie is about, but that's another discussion, entirely.
By what reasonable standard?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Scorsese. Without a doubt.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
What director can go from one of the worst Hollywood dramas of all-time, to an overrated movie about dinosaurs, to a movie whose core story was penned by Stanley Kubrick, one of the best writers in all of cinema?
I dunno.
I dunno.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
How is this even close? Scorsese shits on Spielberg.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Spielberg Has never made films better than Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.
William Wyler, Frank Capra, Don Siegel and others (but few match Spielberg in Sci-fi).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked