|
Post by tombitd on Jan 24, 2010 22:13:01 GMT -5
Please give us your suggestions for future Director's Court subjects below.
|
|
Kelen
Full Member
Apprentice To The Master Of Sinanju
The Non-Writer
Posts: 110
|
Post by Kelen on Jan 25, 2010 0:47:18 GMT -5
John Singleton! Oh wait... ;D
|
|
|
Post by geekarino on Jan 25, 2010 11:06:19 GMT -5
David Cronenberg would be awesome!
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2010 11:36:32 GMT -5
Given how great Cronenberg's last three films (Spider, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises) have been, I don't know if he needs to be put on trial. (A retrospective episode, on the other hand, would be neat).
What about John Carpenter?
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jan 25, 2010 21:11:15 GMT -5
What about John Carpenter? Heh...Carpenter is definitely on the docket, and has been since we first conceived of the Director's Court episodes. Expect him to be either next up, or the one immediately after.
|
|
|
Post by morbiousfod on Mar 29, 2010 21:55:30 GMT -5
I gotta go with the man I both love and hate...George "The Maker" Lucas.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Mar 29, 2010 23:22:16 GMT -5
I gotta go with the man I both love and hate...George "The Maker" Lucas. I rule out nothing, but given my all-abiding hatred for all things Star Wars, and the fact that I'm taking one for the team by consenting to the two-part Star Trek episode (I had ST equally as much as I hate Lucas' monstrosity--literally the only thing that makes one pull ahead of the other is my mood at any one time)....well, let's just say it's doubtful. After all, we want the DCs to generate discussion, not reduce me to the drooling, ranting madman I am working very hard to dissasociate myself from...
|
|
|
Post by morbiousfod on Mar 30, 2010 0:00:50 GMT -5
LOL! Good point. Personally I like to hear you turn into a drooling ranting madman, it shows that you have a real passion for the subject that you are ranting about for ill or good. If you just talked dispassionately about a subject that you dislike then it's gonna sound a bit contrived, or the opposite side of un-objectively slobbering all over something you really love, then its going to be much less interesting. I figured it was doubtful knowing you position on Star Wars/Trek, and will be interested to see how the Star Trek shows go, while I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, I have the ability to accept that others have a different point of view of that which I happen to love. I don't take it personally, and love to hear the opinions from the other side, especially rare points of view like yours where you just can't stand these two franchises. You have to admit that you are a rare bird on that one.
BTW I guarantee that if you devolved into a drooling, ranting, madman over Star Wars there would be much discussion, not much love, but plenty of discussion. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Mar 30, 2010 18:44:06 GMT -5
So far it's kind of been Writer-Directors Court. I'd like to see jobbing directors accessed, rather than just autuers. One of my favorite BITDs was the Dennis Quaid show were you made the case for the remarkable breadth of his career. Even someone like me who's seen his regard for DQ kind of diminish over the years, came away with a newfound estimation of him when viewing him in this context. I'd like to hear your takes drawing connections across films and styles for a journeyman helmer.
With that said, I have two related (literally) suggestions. One is Tony Scott, who's flashy over-the-top style doesn't get almost any consideration. He can pivot from serving up gritty (ugly?), almost hysterically nihilistic fare like MAN ON FIRE, but also deliver one of my favorite recent films: the cool, elegant and very smart SPY GAME. (As well as lame mainstream programmers like the unnecessary PELHAM 1,2,3 remake...)
And then there's Ridley. (Who granted, is a star in his own right and gets things made in a way that most guys who show up for the paycheck can't.) I'd love to get him sworn in and sat down in the docket and try and get to the bottom of one simple question: "If I like so many Ridley Scott movies, why don't I like Ridley Scott more?" To me he combines Spielbergian, bravura filmmaking with the austerity of a Sidney Lumet. It can be very exciting, but you come away cold.
And not to wind up Tom, but I'd love to hear the arguments against Michael Bay when one really looks across his whole canon. I'm not a fan, but we keeping hearing he's Satan, he's so critically reviled. Would you guys get a conviction?
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Mar 31, 2010 0:30:40 GMT -5
I think it's safe to say that both of the Scott brothers will be getting some spotlight time in some form or another...I just don't know if DC is the proper place for them...
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Apr 3, 2010 23:03:54 GMT -5
I'll try to not sound haughty here, but how about looking at a higher class of director that still fits into the structure of the show? Some of the masters that transcend the genre picture, but have delved into horror, sci-fi, etc.
Ideas:
Kubrick Hitchcock Hawks Frankenhiemer
(I'd add Wales, Browning, Arnold and Freund, all favorites, but I know that you already intend on covering Universal Horror pictures indepth).
If being alive is a requirement, disregard my list.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Apr 4, 2010 16:12:33 GMT -5
Ideas: Kubrick Hitchcock Hawks Frankenhiemer (I'd add Wales, Browning, Arnold and Freund, all favorites, but I know that you already intend on covering Universal Horror pictures indepth). Derrick and I have already planned out a potpourri episode focusing on Stanley Kubrick, and we have been intending to do an episode on Frankenheimer--one of my favorite directors-since the very beginning....
|
|
|
Post by stacyd on Apr 12, 2010 22:07:09 GMT -5
M. Night. Shyamalan. Throw the book at him(okay, maybe not for Unbreakable, but c'mon. You guys know what I mean). Oh, and hi guys. Stac
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on May 7, 2010 20:58:54 GMT -5
M. Night. Shyamalan. Throw the book at him(okay, maybe not for Unbreakable, but c'mon. As I was just watching THE HAPPENING, I was thinking -- this guy needs to be sent to Director's Court. That film's almost audaciously awful. At times I thought it was going for a 50s Sci-Fi parody feel and elsewhere it seems like an episode of Friends, with the cast playing to a live audience. (A miscast, quirky indie "It" girl Zooey Deschannel adds to this confusion.) There's a jarringly superb cameo by the stage actress and singer Betty Buckley in the final bit, but otherwise the acting is almost uniformly off-key. There's no consistent tone to the thing, or any sense that we're in assured stylistic hands. I just kept thinking how much better The Mist was or the other similar one that just came out with Chris Pine and Piper Perabo. Seriously? What was the point of this film other than the director spending the final remnants of good-will off the superbly acted and generally skillful 6th Sense. After the ridiculous Lady in the Water and the appallingly reactionary The Village, this guy completes his curious fall from grace. This is yet another shock ending looking for a movie. I'm not a hater. Really want to know what happened?
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on May 7, 2010 23:14:37 GMT -5
After the ridiculous Lady in the Water and the appallingly reactionary The Village, this guy completes his curious fall from grace. This is yet another shock ending looking for a movie. You know what may be the most interesting thing Shamaylan even participated in? The weird three-hour long special that tied in with The Village that was structured along a horror-themed mystery where the host kept trying to piece together the story of his life and uncovered strange secrets...wish I could remember what it was called, and wish it was out on DVd...
|
|