Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 11-11-2011 10:30 AM

My vote is also Keaton, thanks largely to The General where he plays a Confederate train engineer in the Civil War.
Then there is The Projectionist...

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 11-11-2011 12:23 PM

Chaplin vs. Keaton? Can't do it. They both brought so much to cinema.

I hope you all had the chance to watch TCM last month, when they ran practically the entire Keaton repertory, from his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle to his masterful full-length features. I guess we owe Arbuckle a great deal of debt, for giving Keaton the actor all those opportunities to hone his craft before moving on to becoming one of silent cinema's greatest icons.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-11-2011 12:55 PM

Looks like all directors - famous and forgotten - are all winners in their game.

Like comparing motor oil for your car: still lubes the motor no matter what brand.

....personal preference with no one set product to use.

Aren't we lucky to have that "freedom to choose?"

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-20-2011 11:13 PM

Speilberg new TinTin movie has made $123 mil worldwide without being released in the US.

J Edgar fell 47% as has now been forgotten. I guess Speilberg takes the reign over Eastwood.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-22-2011 06:05 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
Speilberg new TinTin movie has made $123 mil worldwide without being released in the US.

J Edgar fell 47% as has now been forgotten. I guess Speilberg takes the reign over Eastwood.

Yes, and by that reckoning Michael Bay is way better than Eastwood too as his films make WAY more money than Clint's. [Roll Eyes]

Oh, and...

IT'S S P I E L B E R G !!!!

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 11-22-2011 06:17 PM

The difference between Spielberg and Eastwood, in my estimation is this.

Spielberg directs the way he learned in Film school, he chooses projects from a criteria of his interest assuming that it looks like the film will make money (there are exceptions to the make money part)

Eastwood is an actor with little formal training but great natural ability. He became an actor who directs actors the way he would like to be directed (A variation of the golden rule) actors love working with him because of that and give him great performances. Eastwood chooses directing work from films or subjects that not only interest him as a director but from his actor roots. There are no week roles in an Eastwood film they all have meat to dig into for the actor.

Which is better well I don't know Spielberg's early years had some wonderful movies but there have been a lot of week ones over the last 18 years or so. Eastwood directed movies I don't see one I don't think is a top film box office be damned!

I don't think that $$$'s are a fair judge of the value of a film. It is only one ranking after according to the American Film Institute the best motion picture every made was a flop Citizen Kane did dreadful at the box office. I am not as enamored with Citizen Kane as others but still Eastwood movies are wonderful weather the general public goes to them or not.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-22-2011 07:01 PM

Ron- well said Ron, well said. Thanks for the response.

quote: Ron Funderburg
don't think that $$$'s are a fair judge of the value of a film

I do not agree with you here. Money is a very important aspect of the value of a film and why make a movie otherwise?. Making money is the whole reason why you make the movie.

Ron- Would you agree the latest Eastwood stuff is not that "great"?

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 11-22-2011 09:15 PM

I'm not saying I want a movie to lose it's ass due to poor box office, but gro$$es does not make a movie good.
Wait...I take that back. There are some movies that lost it's ass due to bad box office and richly deserved it.
HOWEVER, a movie which I want to watch must have a good story to tell. That is the soul and essence of a movie: The story.
Spielberg knows this.
Eastwood knows this.
Most of the others, they "understand the concept" but don't practice it.
Will Tin Tin beat J Edgar in box office receipts? Probably.
Are either movie invalidated as a movie due to it's box office receipts? No.
I wonder if we should drag in Martin Scorsese into this...Hugo opens tomorrow. Is Scorsese a better director than Eastwood? Better than Spielberg?
Is any of this going to matter in 100 years?

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-22-2011 09:26 PM

quote: James Westbrook
Will Tin Tin beat J Edgar in box office receipts? Probably.

Tin has already beat J Edgar based on worldwide gross.

quote: James Westbrook

I wonder if we should drag in Martin Scorsese into this...Hugo opens tomorrow. Is Scorsese a better director than Eastwood? Better than Spielberg?

I have no problem if you want to add Scorsese to the dicussion. Hugo looks really good and got **** from Ebert

Scorsese's earlier work (like Spielberg) was far superior than early Eastwood

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 11-22-2011 09:41 PM

I forgot about Tin Tin already being out world-wide.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-22-2011 09:47 PM

James- the one think Scorsese and Spielberg have done is adopt 3-D. Can't see Eastwood doing one but he is rumored to be making a musical

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-23-2011 03:21 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
Making money is the whole reason why you make the movie.

Only a person who absolutely resents their job does it solely because of the amount of money involved.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 11-23-2011 06:31 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
I do not agree with you here. Money is a very important aspect of the value of a film and why make a movie otherwise?. Making money is the whole reason why you make the movie.

This is where I make the distinction between a movie and a film.

A movie is a business venture designed to entertain and make money. While artistic values may be involved, they are secondary to the goal of selling tickets.

A film is an artistic endeavor which is more about the story telling and the art of making movies than about making money. Films are made because of a love of the medium (motion pictures, not necessarily physical film) or because one has a compelling story to tell.

While it is possible for a motion picture to accomplish both goals at the same time (i.e. Avatar, Inception, etc), it's usually coincidence.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 11-23-2011 10:46 AM

One slight problem with Ron's hypothesis... Spielberg never went to film school. He went to Long Beach State, which in the 1960s did not have a film program, after being rejected by USC's film school... twice. (The latter eventually gave him an honorary degree.)

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-23-2011 11:12 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
Making money is the whole reason why you make the movie.

If that were true, the majority of Woody Allen's movies would never have been made.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.