my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-09-2011 09:19 PM                     I don't understand why one has to be considered "better" than the other. Antonioni isn't better than Fellini, and Fellini isn't better than Antonioni. Welles isn't better than Curtiz, and Curtiz isn't better than Welles. Hitchcock isn't better than Wilder, and Wilder isn't better than Hitchcock. They'll all damn good, for very different reasons, and we are better people for having them in our lives.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 11-09-2011 09:31 PM                    quote: Edward Havens I don't understand why one has to be considered "better" than the other. I can't think of an actor turned director who has starred in his own self direceted movies and controlled his image and still stood the test of time like Eastwood. As for Spielberg, there is nobody who has come close to having the influence as a director/producer such as Spielberg. I think its a good question of who is better and a very tough one to answer.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-09-2011 09:51 PM                       What Edward said for sure. They are all capable of great and occasionally mediocre films. Very few directors set out to be hacks and none of the ones we are talking about here are in that category. Eastwood's directorial work has a lot of heart. He makes smaller and more personal dramas that Speilberg. His acting range on the other hand, is somewhat limited but he's so likeable we all let it pass. This is why we all love this business. We eagerly watch their offerings every week and never know when we are viewing a future classic.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 11-09-2011 09:55 PM                    quote: Sam D. Chavez never know when we are viewing a future classic. I think that is an important distinction of what you just said...I am eager to see J. Edgar and I wondering if it will be a great as his past greast films.  |  IP: Logged David M. Leugers Film Handler Posts: 43 From: Fairfield, Ohio, united States of America Registered: Jan 2005 posted 11-10-2011 12:55 AM                     I wasn't voting on who was "better" but rather on who I would prefer if I had to pick. I like them both and go see their pictures, nuff said.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-10-2011 10:12 AM                     quote: I can't think of an actor turned director who has starred in his own self direceted [sic] movies and controlled his image and still stood the test of time like Eastwood. You couldn't think of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton? quote: Tom Petrov As for Spielberg, there is nobody who has come close to having the influence as a director/producer such as Spielberg. You couldn't think of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton?  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-10-2011 10:54 AM                        Ed beat me to it  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 11-10-2011 04:46 PM                    quote: You couldn't think of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton? [Smile] I don't think you can compare Chaplin's short films to Eastwood's feature length movies, Eastwood has been directing feature. length films for 40+ years I would put Chaplin in the Woody Allen category as Chaplin like Allen wrote a lot of his movies. It also should be mentioned that Chaplin did not direct all that much past the age of 60, Clint Eastwood had become a great director in his later years.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-10-2011 04:53 PM                        Tom, the point was that Chaplin and Keaton had just as much influence on their time as Spielberg and Eastwood have had on the modern era. Whether the body of work is directly comparable is a different question because motion pictures have evolved (not always for the better). The tools and techniques used today are completely different from those used 80+ years ago.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 11-10-2011 05:08 PM                    Justin- I am talking about Eastwood as a actor turned director, so if Chaplin was influential as a actor turned director...please tell me why?  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 11-10-2011 06:52 PM                     Just no more Indiana Jones if they are going to be anything like the last one. Please.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-10-2011 08:45 PM                     Uh...Chaplin started out as an actor (stage and screen) and THEN turned into a director...and a very influential one at that.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-10-2011 08:48 PM                     agree about Charles "Charlie" Chaplin .. he had some noise in starting a studio called "United Artists"  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-11-2011 04:01 AM                     Tom is either the most ignorant "film fan" on the planet or the biggest troll on these boards. Either way, he's a lost cause, and I will no longer acknowledge his existence.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-11-2011 08:40 AM                        Let's not overlook the sheer beauty and brilliance of Buster Keaton's feature work that still shines today. He was practically the definition of Independent filmmaker before alcoholism and MGM got to him. Keeping with the nature of this thread: Keaton vs Chaplin My vote is Keaton.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.