Support NeoGAF

[near]

This sort of question will always be subject to opinion that is mostly reflected by genre interest. Both directors are exceptionally good at what they do, and as a lover of cinema I tip my hat to both of them. But if I had to shoot one of them to preserve the other, it'd be Scorsese I'd sacrifice. Spielberg has always been on he's own level, he's style is unique to him you cannot compare the two.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I wish there was a parallel universe where The King of Comedy was praised as justifiably as Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Not as extraordinarily well-made as Taxi Driver, but a far superior movie regardless.

I'm personally on-board the "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore is the best 70s Scorsese film" bandwagon. You're all allowed to hop on, one day history will see us right.

 

[Blader]

I would argue against the bolded. What makes Taxi Driver more important to cinema or a bigger high than for example Raiders?

Probably by being the better film, for one.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Probably by being the better film, for one.

Yep.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

or Sci fi, or Animated movies , or monster flicks etc etc..

Spielbergs's animated movies and monster flicks *are* action adventure movies.

I'll give you sci-fi though.

Schindler, Munich, Empire of the Sun just romps?

Reading comprehension fail. I said half his catalog, not all of it.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Scorsese. He's film always have more developed/interesting characters, stories and better cinematography.

 

[Game4life]

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.

How is it more over rated than schlock like Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo, Aviator, the crappy cape fear remake, a remake of a superior film in departed ....

 

[Big_Al]

Overall I prefer Scorsese as a filmmaker BUT Spielberg has made one of my favourite films of all time in Raiders Of The Lost Ark. That for me is near enough a perfect film for what it is. Great performances, great scripts, perfectly paced and not a wasted scene. It may be a hollywood blockbuster but it's as perfect as you can get IMO.

 

[Blader]

How is it more over rated than schlock like Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo, Aviator, the crappy cape fear remake, a remake of a superior film in departed ....

Infernal Affairs is cheesy as fuck and undermines its own drama with ridiculous slow-mo and song choices. I'll give it the better ending (edit: actually, I like The Departed's ending just fine; Infernal Affairs' was interesting though), but 99% of The Departed runs circles around that movie.

 

[Bluekaveli]

Marty was in the Sopranos so

 

[flozuki]

My vote goes to Spielberg. He delivered more iconic scenes for me and also reached far more people with his movies.

 

[tearsintherain]

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.

Spielberg is very involved in Falling Skies and the showrunners have said multiple times he has suggested storylines and approved every seasons major arcs.

In season 3 there was a really stupid arc about a hybrid baby and apparently it all came down from Spielberg, who insisted the show must put in a blonde alien hybrid into the show because thats what people want to see.

He just doesn't strike me as the hands off kind of guy, and again all the sci fi shows under his EP watch have been absolute turds.

 

[Abounder]

My vote goes to Spielberg. He delivered more iconic scenes for me and also reached far more people with his movies.

This is definitely true. Scorsese is more of an American darling whereas Spielberg ruled the world

 

[Foggy]

Variety just comes across as an arbitrary metric. It's not like there's much discussion as to what "quality in variety" means in regards to a director's worth. Hell, people could probably make the same comparison when it comes to Spielberg vs Hitchcock. Or Spielberg vs Ford. Or Spielberg vs Kubrick...

 

[ViewtifulJC]

speaking of parallel universes, the best thing about the Departed is watching the universe where Jack Nicholson's performance exists intermingle with the universe where the rest of the movie is. I'm not sure how Scorsese allowed such a campy, intense, scenery chewing imbalance in his movie, but its here and its frightening. Its the biggest goddamn JACK NICHOLSON performance in the world, it shades it unintentional comedy frequently. Maybe Marty tried to stop him, but considering Jack also brought a fuckin' loaded gun on set, maybe he just had no power on the man.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Departed does suck though. It's like a Scorsese parody. Ugh

Can't stand it.

 

[stupei]

Scorsese by a landslide.

Even his student films were better than some of Spielberg's features.

But obviously, I'd prefer not to choose. I still love some of Spielberg's work. (Though he hasn't really hit it out of the park in a while for me.)

 

[Seesaw15]

By what reasonable standard?

Nothing against Janusz Kaminski, he's a world class cinematographer, but ever since Munich all Steven's films have had a washed out, grainy, bloom-filled look to them.

 

[Saladinoo]

Scorsese all the way to the theatre.

 

[Kill3r7]

Which director can go from this

to

this

to

this

A master filmmaker that's who.

He could...

to this

and this

followed by this

before giving us this

and finally this

and 4 other amazing movies.

 

[Game4life]

He could...

Your pictures are not loading but I am assuming you are talking about Kubrick in which case I am not even in disagreement. The thread was about Scorcese and Berg.

Variety just comes across as an arbitrary metric. It's not like there's much discussion as to what "quality in variety" means in regards to a director's worth. Hell, people could probably make the same comparison when it comes to Spielberg vs Hitchcock. Or Spielberg vs Ford. Or Spielberg vs Kubrick...

This is not citing variety for variety sake though. The guy has not just explored different genre's. He has made a stamp on them.

This is definitely true. Scorsese is more of an American darling whereas Spielberg ruled the world

This is true. Speilberg's movies resonate across borders. They are films that can be universally appreciated. There is a certain magical quality to his movies.

 

[DeathyBoy]

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.

Well, let's go through the list.

Horror film? Cape Fear.
Psychological thriller? Shutter Island.
Gangster films? Goodfellas/Casino/Mean Street (all wildly different films tonally.)
Euro art-house fare/Kids film? Hugo.
Sport Films? Colour of Money/Raging Bull (again, wildly different tones.)
Cop Film? The Departed.
Biopics? The Aviator/Wolf of Wall Street
Musical? New York, New York.
Period Drama? The Age of Innocence.
Religious Epic? Last Temptation of Christ.
Historical Epic? Gangs of New York.

But I guess 'LOL, BROOKLYN ACCENTS' is the problem here.

 

[Courage]

Your pictures are not loading but I am assuming you are talking about Kubrick in which case I am not even in disagreement. The thread was about Scorcese and Berg.

Your post made it seem as if Spielberg is unique in the way he tackles all these different premises. A premise is nothing if the film is wack.

 

[Game4life]

Your post made it seem as if Spielberg is unique in the way he tackles all these different premises. A premise is nothing if the film is wack.

No my post simply indicated that you need to be a master filmaker to tackle so many genre's and make a stamp on them. To have so many critically acclaimed movies across genre's is not a simple feat. Scorcese does not belong on that list imo.

Edit Ignatz I get what you are saying but Hugo and Cinema Paradiso in the same sentence

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Hugo isn't exactly a kid's film. Like I said, it's Euro art-house fare, something like Cinema Paradiso.

It's appropriate for kids, but it's not really aimed at them.

 

[DeathyBoy]

Your post made it seem as if Spielberg is unique in the way he tackles all these different premises. A premise is nothing if the film is wack.

And Kubrick would destroy both these guys in a filmography thread. But God doesn't need validation from the Gaf.

EDITED - changed genre of Hugo for above list. Cheers Ignatz

 

[Ridley327]

Spielberg is very involved in Falling Skies and the showrunners have said multiple times he has suggested storylines and approved every seasons major arcs.

In season 3 there was a really stupid arc about a hybrid baby and apparently it all came down from Spielberg, who insisted the show must put in a blonde alien hybrid into the show because thats what people want to see.

He just doesn't strike me as the hands off kind of guy, and again all the sci fi shows under his EP watch have been absolute turds.

I don't know how involved he was with other shows, but Spielberg has never had much luck on TV once he became a big-time producer. I think that you could definitively put ER and the various 90s Warner Bros. cartoons in the win column and, uh, everything else in the loser's column.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Thanks. I hated the reception Hugo got (particularly for its horrible trailer) when it's such a beautiful film.

 

[DeathyBoy]

Thanks. I hated the reception Hugo got (particularly for its horrible trailer) when it's such a beautiful film.

My list doesn't take into account the fact that most of the films go above and beyond the genre. Cape Fear's filed with religious iconography and moral ambiguity for example, and Shutter Island is both an adaptation of a book and a homage to Hitchcock without it being a parody or a deconstruction - it merely is.

 

[Courage]

No my post simply indicated that you need to be a master filmaker to tackle so many genre's and make a stamp on them. To have so many critically acclaimed movies across genre's is not a simple feat. Scorcese does not belong on that list imo.

If that's the metric you want to use to compare them, sure, although Scorsese is no slouch in terms of variety either. I'm basing it on personal enjoyment alone, disregarding their influence and importance in the medium. The thread is about their body of work after all.

 

[Solo]

I love them both, but Spielberg made Hook, so therefore: Scorsese wins.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

I love them both, but Spielberg made Hook, so therefore: Scorsese wins.

Surely the film to shift the weight.

 

[Ridley327]

I love them both, but Spielberg made Hook, so therefore: Scorsese wins.

Honestly, I'd rather watch Hook than 1941 ever again.

 

[Solo]

Also the last Spielberg I loved was in 2002, whereas Marty had a film I loved just 2 years ago.

 

[KidJr]

I find it strange that people rank Goodfellas higher than Casino.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Honestly, I'd rather watch Hook than 1941 ever again.

I think I'd watch either one over Boxcar Bertha or New York, New York's endless, repellent 163 minutes

 

[Ridley327]

I think I'd watch either one over Boxcar Bertha or New York, New York's endless, repellent 163 minutes

I've always been somewhat morbidly curious about the idea of a Martin Scorsese musical starring someone not exactly known for their musical prowess, but not so curious as to actually risk death.

 

[Haribi]

Think Spielberg is severely overrated to be honest

 

[TheKaeptain]

After Hours is better than any of Spielbergs non-Hook films. So Marty wins.

 

[double jump]

Steven Spielberg and it's not even close.
Pretty much had a hand in half my favorite movies.

If I can be honest Scorsese gives me a racist vibe.
No proof, just a feeling. Wolf and taxi still dope though.

 

[Frog-fu]

These "not even close" posts are annoying. We're talking about two of the most well known and highly regarded directors of all time. It's going to be pretty close.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

These "not even close" posts are annoying. We're talking about two of the most well known and highly regarded directors of all time. It's going to be pretty close.

Spielberg is the most overrated director in the history of the medium, a favorer of lowest common denominator emotional pandering over real drama and characterization. He has a great mind for capturing a sort of childlike perspective on things, which is what makes his best work (Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders) - which could easily be described as "young adult", in the non-pejorative sense of that term - so good, and a mind that is great at designing setpieces and "moments", which is why something like the opening to Saving Private Ryan, or the opening to "Schindler's List" where Schindler woos the Nazis while barely even appearing on camera. And his cinematography in his most productive era (1970s-1990s) is largely quite good, as he has a real eye. But for every good quality or moment, there are 10-20 moments of shallow, cliche-ridden saccharine, poorly-written and -acted crap.

So no, it's not particularly close. Scorsese's movies in the past decade have been vastly overrated and would not have attracted much attention without his name on them, but his best work (Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, After Hours, King of Comedy, Goodfellas, Casino, and a few more) is some of the best-wrought, deepest cinematic artistry one can find, particularly in America.

 

[boredofcanada]

Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan, so he wins. But Scorcese made Goodfellas, so he wins. But Spielberg made E.T, so he, but Scorcese made Taxi Driver, so he...........

Great thread.

 

[Courage]

Spielberg is the most overrated director in the history of the medium, a favorer of lowest common denominator emotional pandering over real drama and characterization. He has a great mind for capturing a sort of childlike perspective on things, which is what makes his best work (Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders) so good, and a mind that is great at designing setpieces and "moments", which is why something like the opening to Saving Private Ryan, or the opening to "Schindler's List" where Schindler woos the Nazis while barely even appearing on camera. And his cinematography in his most productive era (1970s-1990s) is largely quite good, as he has a real eye. But for every good quality or moment, there are 10-20 moments of shallow, cliche-ridden saccharine, poorly-written and -acted crap.

So no, it's not particularly close. Scorsese's movies in the past decade have been vastly overrated and would not have attracted much attention without his name on them, but his best work (Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, After Hours, King of Comedy, Goodfellas, Casino, and a few more) is some of the best-wrought, deepest cinematic artistry one can find, particularly in America.

Good post, I agree with this.

 

[WedgeX]

Both have really solid filmographies. Both are really defining directors of American cinema. I refuse to choose.

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

Marty. It's not even close.

One of these men directed Hook, the other did not.

That's one weird way to justify why Scorsese is better.

 

[boredofcanada]

Tough question with no definitive answer

 

[massoluk]

Spielberg has been attached to a shit tons more projects than Martin Scorsese though.

Going Spielberg for Schindler's List.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Spielberg makes entertaining movies...Scorsese makes well done movies

 

[Into]

Only movie i love from Scorsese is Goodfellas, the rest are extremely well made, but not movies i want to re watch, and in the last 10 years, Marty has made better movies than Spielberg.

But Spielberg's best is better than Marty's.