Topic: Worst film directors.
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG started this discussion 15 years ago #8,573
1) Uwe Boll
2) Michael Bay
3) Roland Emmerich
also >mfw google 'worst directors' returns Uwe Boll as the 4th result.
2) Michael Bay
3) Roland Emmerich
also >mfw google 'worst directors' returns Uwe Boll as the 4th result.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #150,376
Wim Wenders!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,377
Michael Bay is very successful. Not liking someone's films doesn't mean they are a bad director.
He knows his audience. He tailors his films to his audience. What's hard to understand about that?
M Night Shyamalanalakanabingbang isn't even on your list, which makes it invalid.
He knows his audience. He tailors his films to his audience. What's hard to understand about that?
M Night Shyamalanalakanabingbang isn't even on your list, which makes it invalid.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,378
2/3 WERE GERMAN. The one that didn't suck is American!
LOLOLOLOLOL
also wat. Micheal Bay is a nice director. Transformers made BIG MONIEZ.
LOLOLOLOLOL
also wat. Micheal Bay is a nice director. Transformers made BIG MONIEZ.
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,379
so hotFuchs !!4KU9PSdLG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,380
@150,377 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
I really just wanted to bitch about Uwe Boll because I just finished one of his films and it was bad. Just because it's successful doesn't mean it is tasteful anyway. He overuses explosions, special effects, and helicopters flying in the sunset too often.
@150,378 (D)
Doesn't mean much. Boll receives about 50% back of his funding from the German government because he has a tax shelter investment. The German press doesn't care for him much either.
I really just wanted to bitch about Uwe Boll because I just finished one of his films and it was bad. Just because it's successful doesn't mean it is tasteful anyway. He overuses explosions, special effects, and helicopters flying in the sunset too often.
@150,378 (D)
Doesn't mean much. Boll receives about 50% back of his funding from the German government because he has a tax shelter investment. The German press doesn't care for him much either.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,381
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,382
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,383
@150,380 (Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG)
Success is something we can directly measure in this case.
Michael Bay makes massive amounts of money on his films. He would have very little trouble getting investors.
He is a good director, but he doesnt make films you like. Dont confuse your opinion with fact.
Success is something we can directly measure in this case.
Michael Bay makes massive amounts of money on his films. He would have very little trouble getting investors.
He is a good director, but he doesnt make films you like. Dont confuse your opinion with fact.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,384
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #150,385
@150,383 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Then I am stating an opinion. Apologies for being ambiguous in the OP. I just feel like he appeals to the lowest common denominator because it draws on American audiences.
Then I am stating an opinion. Apologies for being ambiguous in the OP. I just feel like he appeals to the lowest common denominator because it draws on American audiences.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,540
@150,383 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Just because something can be measured, that doesn't necessarily make it a determining factor. If gross profit is the sole determining factor, then McDonald's is a good restaurant, Budweiser is a good beer, etc. The topic "Worst Film Directors" would seem to imply that there is some subjective determination being made. If the topic were "Least Profitable Film Directors", then I suppose you would have a point.
Just because something can be measured, that doesn't necessarily make it a determining factor. If gross profit is the sole determining factor, then McDonald's is a good restaurant, Budweiser is a good beer, etc. The topic "Worst Film Directors" would seem to imply that there is some subjective determination being made. If the topic were "Least Profitable Film Directors", then I suppose you would have a point.
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,544
@previous (E)
@150,384 (B)
Michael Bay, like McDonalds, makes a particular product.
Michael Bay is extremely good at what he does. He packs theaters. He puts together HUGE films with gigantic budgets.
Look at transformers. Most of that is computer animation acting with real world objects and people.
Michael Bay is an amazing director. You can't even comprehend everything that goes into one of those movies.
You want to judge Michael Bays films on standards it wasn't made to. Transformers isn't an art house film. I believed the robots were hanging out with that short dude and slutface.
@150,384 (B)
Michael Bay, like McDonalds, makes a particular product.
Michael Bay is extremely good at what he does. He packs theaters. He puts together HUGE films with gigantic budgets.
Look at transformers. Most of that is computer animation acting with real world objects and people.
Michael Bay is an amazing director. You can't even comprehend everything that goes into one of those movies.
You want to judge Michael Bays films on standards it wasn't made to. Transformers isn't an art house film. I believed the robots were hanging out with that short dude and slutface.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,547
@previous (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Well, I'm just going to express an opinion here, but I think his movies are shit. That, in my book, makes him a bad director.
Well, I'm just going to express an opinion here, but I think his movies are shit. That, in my book, makes him a bad director.
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,548
!JuMPb0dbaE double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,549
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,574
There's a difference between being good and being talented.
If you have the talent, you can sell Twilight-level fanfiction no problemo, otherwise you'll have to use actual skill.
If you have the talent, you can sell Twilight-level fanfiction no problemo, otherwise you'll have to use actual skill.
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,580
@previous (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Twilight was neither talent or skill. It was luck. Pure luck. Its terrible. Its unreadable. Chicks just want to pretend they are the chick who cant choose between a wolf or a faggot vampire hybrid.
It also exposed Dakota Fanning as a terrible actress. Im telling myself its the writing, but Kristen Stewart and vampire dude don't come off as terrible actors in it, and they have loads more lines that reach a level of terrible the human mind can barely comprehend. She chose the right combination of female fantasies that young girls and pathetic older women absolutely fucking love.
Twilight was neither talent or skill. It was luck. Pure luck. Its terrible. Its unreadable. Chicks just want to pretend they are the chick who cant choose between a wolf or a faggot vampire hybrid.
It also exposed Dakota Fanning as a terrible actress. Im telling myself its the writing, but Kristen Stewart and vampire dude don't come off as terrible actors in it, and they have loads more lines that reach a level of terrible the human mind can barely comprehend. She chose the right combination of female fantasies that young girls and pathetic older women absolutely fucking love.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #150,634
wes anderson