[Nicky91]

Scorsese is up there for me with Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Ridley Scott

and to some extent also Quentin Tarantino

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

Scorsese is up there for me with Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Ridley Scott

and to some extent also Quentin Tarantino

Cameron and Scott are great, but a league below Scorsese and Spielberg.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Alf

Cameron and Scott are great, but a league below Scorsese and Spielberg.

Ridley did some marvelous things though with Alien, setting up that franchise

Cameron put himself on the map with pure class like Titanic, and more recent with Avatar, which he has plenty more sequels of in the next upcoming years, also has built a Avatar forest here in our province flevoland which he himself had opened

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Well, that's his opinion and I respect that. But I disagree. There are plenty of excellent comic book movies. Like Batman for example. That's pure cinema.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

Ridley did some marvelous things though with Alien, setting up that franchise

Cameron put himself on the map with pure class like Titanic, and more recent with Avatar, which he has plenty more sequels of in the next upcoming years, also has built a Avatar forest here in our province flevoland which he himself had opened

Cameron put himself on the map with The Terminator, 13 years before Titanic. He then did Aliens, the sequel to Ridley's Alien, and then Terminator 2. So he was already on the map by the time he did Titanic.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Cameron and Scott are great, but a league below Scorsese and Spielberg.

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

[Tony Montana]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

Whatever he thinks of them he'll keep it to himself since they're friends.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

Whatever he thinks of them he'll keep it to himself since they're friends.

Someone should ask him about Ready Player One... a very recent, massively CGI heavy Spielberg action film that salutes dozens of other fun, light-hearted, action and effects heavy movies .

To be fair though I doubt it has anything to do with the money the films make, Scorsese has a 9-figure personal net worth, it's purely misplaced intellectual snobbery.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

I'm sure Scorsese has respect for Spielberg. Although not many other directors do. I know Terry Gillam is always critical of Spielberg.

Spielberg is versatile, he doesn't have his own style like Scorsese. Spielberg will just adapt to whatever script he has. The likes of Kubrick. Scorsese, Hitchcock, Tarantino and I'd say Nolan definitely have their own certain style, recognisable as their work.

But Spielberg definitely does deserve the respect he doesn't always get, he has an impressive catalogue of work himself and was the major player in the blockbuster era.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

I'm sure Scorsese has respect for Spielberg. Although not many other directors do. I know Terry Gillam is always critical of Spielberg.

Spielberg is versatile, he doesn't have his own style like Scorsese. Spielberg will just adapt to whatever script he has. The likes of Kubrick. Scorsese, Hitchcock, Tarantino and I'd say Nolan definitely have their own certain style, recognisable as their work.

But Spielberg definitely does deserve the respect he doesn't always get, he has an impressive catalogue of work himself and was the major player in the blockbuster era.

Spielberg has a certain "flair", if not style. The Brachiosaurus reveal in Jurassic Park, and the rise of the Tripods in War of the Worlds are both pure Spielberg.