I'd rather watch a new Scorsese movie nowadays. Spielberg feels like he's gone soft.
Scorsese is underrated? He's regularly considered the greatest directors of all time, if not most people's greatest director of allt ime.
I used the see Spielberg's name on some clearly shitty movies in commercials when I was a kid. I can't help but think that he's a shit filmmaker despite the list in the OP. At least Scorsese isn't a whore.
Scorcese. Both in terms of early career where both shined, but also recent efforts - Boardwalk Empire and Vinyl for Scorcese, Under The Dome, Extant, Falling Skies (all ewwwwww) for Spielberg. The last decade clearly gives the win to Martin.
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.
Scorsese might have variety but can't beat Spielberg, come on.I meant in terms of variety.
Like there's people here seriously saying Spielberg has a more varied film list.
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.
People who say Scorsese doesn't have much variety probably haven't seen: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, New York, New York, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Age of Innocence, Kundun, Hugo.
Bear in mind they plaster his name on stuff that he only executive produces, like Transformers.
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.
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.
Then he should stop putting his name on them.
Producing =/= directing and this thread isn't about that anyway.
spielberg had a hand in kingdom of the crystal skull. scorsese wins by default. dude hasn't made a bad or even mediocre movie yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Also, unpopular opinion alert, Taxi Driver is the most overrated Scorsese film of all-time. All praise to Marty and De Niro for trying their best to overcome Schrader's obnoxious screenplay thats far too interested in siding with Bickle. There's nothing here about 70s pre-Giuliani New York or the codes and conducts of violent masculinity that Mean Streets didn't already do better. And its ending is awful.
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.
Spielberg's cinematographer for the last decade has been terrible so I'l say Martin.
Which director can go from this
to
this
to
this
A master filmmaker that's who.