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

This is topic Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006546

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2011, 04:48 PM:

Clint Eastwood vs. Steven Spielberg

I have been wondering about this for a while now, I wanted to ask the board this question on who will go down as the greater director in the history of cinema. While it is very easy to conclude that Steven Spielberg is the more influential persona, just using box office grosses and simply “name brand” influence does not tell the whole story.

For one, while Steven Spielberg movies completely out-gross Clint Eastwood movies, Clint Eastwood movies tend to cost less, and are not tent pole “summer” type blockbuster style films such as Eastwood’s more character/story centered films. It should also be mentioned that Eastwood has almost no interest in producing films that he does not star or direct in so Spielberg’s non achievements should be factored out, just like Eastwood’s non directed acting achievements.

So I was looking at the numbers.

Both started directing in the early 70’s, Eastwood has directed 31 films vs. Spielberg who has directed 24 films

Both have earned the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award
Eastwood won four Oscars vs Spielberg who 3 Oscars

Both have worked directed some of the biggest stars

Both own their own production companies

There is no doubt of Steven Spielberg’s wealth compared to Eastwood

Eastwood almost always uses the same crew while Spielberg does as well

Both have a signature style in the way the they make their films

It is argued that later Eastwood work is better than later Spielberg work, while it is clear that early Spielberg work is better than early Eastwood work.

So what does everyone on the board think?

I am not asking who is more influential in Hollywood (it is clear that Spielberg is), I am asking who is the better director seeing that both started around the same time and continued to direct.

Who will go down as the greater director once these two stop directing movies?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-08-2011, 05:39 PM:

All I can tell you is that I will happily go see anything that Eastwood comes out with. On the other hand, I've developed such a distaste for Spielberg and his stylistic tropes that I don't even go to things that he executive produces anymore, much less directs. I don't even watch the TV shows he's involved in. Falling Skies, Terra Nova, it's all the same damned cookie-cutter nonsense.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2011, 05:39 PM:

I think Eastwood will be best remembered as an actor. He deserves more respect than he gets (from the public) as a director. I think if you were to poll 1000 people and ask them what Clint Eastwood does for a living, at least 80% of them would say "actor" and not even know that he's a director as well.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-08-2011, 05:55 PM:

...a bit of an unfair comparison since Eastwood started out in TV episodes, then moved on to big screen to continue his acting career.

Thus, Eastwood is an actor who turned director (and still acts .. "Gran Torino" to remember..), whereas Spielberg never acted - just always been behind the camera.

Thus, your call on this one since there is really no absolute answer since each man has their own traits and qualities - unfair to compare.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-08-2011, 05:57 PM:

Generally I will watch anything by either director without knowing anything more about the movie.

In general, Eastwood's pictures tend to be small in scope and depend on story and character. He's famous for being an actor's director. One of the interesting points I've heard on this is he starts a shot by saying "when you're ready" rather than "Action".

Spielberg's movies tend to be a mixed bag of epic stories and entertaining popcorn films. When he's at his best, Spielberg's movies are among the greatest ever made.

With Spielberg the issue goes beyond his directing and producing credits. Spielberg's legacy is tied to his technical contributions to the industry as much as his artistic contributions. Along with George Lucas, Spielberg has been one of the driving forced behind technical innovations for more than 30 years.

From a preference standpoint, I probably prefer Eastwood's movies.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-08-2011, 07:31 PM:

When they both worked together (Spielberg producing and Eastwood directing), we got Hereafter, which in my opinion was an absolute piece of garbage.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-08-2011, 10:25 PM:

Eastwood.

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 11-08-2011, 11:34 PM:

I think the overall public would pick Speilberg because of the big budget films he made, while the "cinephiles" would go for Eastwood. If I was stuck on a desert island and could have all the films of one director to view for the rest of my life, I would pick Eastwood hands down. "Saving Private Ryan" was the best thing Speilberg ever made and I would hate to no longer see it, but I can do without all the repetition of themes and style we have seen from him most of the time.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 11-09-2011, 09:44 AM:

I have to agree with Monte. It's not really a fair comparison. Both directors have their respective good and bad qualities, but the types of movies they make, for the most, are different types of movies. I think because of this one can't really compare them.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-09-2011, 03:12 PM:

quote: Matthew McBride
Both directors have their respective good and bad qualities, but the types of movies they make, for the most, are different types of movies. I think because of this one can't really compare them.

I think that you can compare them, the type of movie does not really matter. Matthew, overall who do you think will be remembered as the better director?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-09-2011, 04:19 PM:

...that question will have to wait until they are long gone.. like, C.B. DeMille, H. Hawks, John Ford, John Huston, et.al., to give out that final answer.

Right now, they're in a dead heat with great movies under their belt - some more to one than the other, but both aren't dead yet.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 11-09-2011, 04:34 PM:

Monte, you stole the words right out of my mouth, or in this case the text right off my keyboard. [Smile]

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 11-09-2011, 05:09 PM:

IMHO...apples and oranges

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-09-2011, 05:47 PM:

And pears, grapes, bananas.

Monte mentions some very good names. Here's more. Carol Reed, Orson Welles, Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, etc, just to mention English language films.

All made great films and some so so films.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-09-2011, 09:02 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
Billy Wilder

Sam- Would you consider Clint Eastwood in the same league, above, or below?

quote: Monte L Fullmer
...a bit of an unfair comparison since Eastwood started out in TV episodes, then moved on to big screen to continue his acting career.

Spielberg started directing for TV movies (at least that is what IMDB states), so I guess it balances out.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Right now, they're in a dead heat with great movies under their belt

Would agree that late Eastwood directed movies are better than later Spielberg directed movies? There is no question that Eastwood directed films fail to compare to early Spielberg work.

I think its befitting that Eastwood presented the Oscar to Spielberg a year after he won for Unforgiven.

Spielberg Oscar

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 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.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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.

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 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.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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? [Smile]

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? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-10-2011, 10:54 AM:

Ed beat me to it [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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?

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 11-10-2011, 06:52 PM:

Just no more Indiana Jones if they are going to be anything like the last one. Please.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-10-2011, 08:48 PM:

[Roll Eyes]

agree about Charles "Charlie" Chaplin .. he had some noise in starting a studio called "United Artists"

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 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.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 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...

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 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

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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 !!!!

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 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.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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"?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 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?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-22-2011, 09:41 PM:

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

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 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

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 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.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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.)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-23-2011, 10:37 PM:

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

Woody Allen's films have made over a half billion dollars combined over the life of his career. His movies don't cost all that much to make. His movies don't open on a lot screens so the cost of distributing is very low. Over time the film expands with many prints moving around. He has to my knowledge only opened one film in his career on more than 1000 screens on opening day.

Allen's movies do make profit, not all but a lot of them do.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-24-2011, 02:42 PM:

That's besides the point.

You're claiming that people who make movies do them for no reason other than to make a profit. Even a person who makes a movie because they think it'll make money could also do it because they like the story/director/other actors/etc.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-28-2011, 01:02 PM:

Tom I would disagree that Eastwood films are "not that great". I usually like them a great deal. That is laying any political message to the side that may or may not be in them. He gets a lot of his actors. No they are not action packed films but entertainment doesn't have to be about explosions.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-28-2011, 11:01 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Tom I would disagree that Eastwood films are "not that great".

I said the films of late such as J. Egar, Invictus, Herafter....are not as good as his older stuff he starred in.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-28-2011, 11:18 PM:

Didn't you also say that Hereafter was amazing and deserved 4-stars? I'm pretty sure I remember that.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-28-2011, 11:35 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Didn't you also say that Hereafter was amazing and deserved 4-stars? I'm pretty sure I remember that.

Yes, but that was because I was "hyped" at the time, since then I tried to watch it on DVD and had to turn it off.