How might we establish the GOAT director? What qualities and accomplishments should we consider?

[Guestx]

I still wish more people would keep listing other criteria. Then we could really get something going with a unique conversation.

Agreed. All right, let's see what we got so far from everything that's been said already:

• Quality of the director's best work - How good are his very best films?
• Quality of the director's work over time - Did he just have a few big hits and then a lot of mediocre films or has he been able to sustain a high level of quality over several years?
• Profitability - How well have his films performed at the box office?
• Popularity - How well known is the director? How beloved are they by the public? How large and devoted is their fan base? Could they be called an "icon?" Have they penetrated pop culture in any way?
• Longevity - How long have they stayed relevant? Did they have a brief prime and then fade into obscurity or have they had a career that has remained notable across decades?
• Awards - What notable awards have they won? What other industry recognition have they received?
• Range - How varied is their output? Do most of their films "feel" the same? What genres have they worked in?
• Are they story creators or only directors? - Do they usually write their own screenplays in addition to directing? Are those screenplays usually original ideas or adaptations of others' ideas?
• Impact on other filmmakers - What impact did they have on other filmmakers? How have they influenced the way that movies are made?

What do you think? I think we've done some good work here.

 

[chickenluver]

Tarkovsky has always been my GOAT. I don't really factor box office and shit like that into it tbh. Just body of work

I guess my top 5 would be

1. Tarkovsky
2. Melville
3. Kurosawa
4. Wong Kar-Wai
5. Herzog

How do you feel about Ingmar Bergman?

Here's an interesting quotation by him:

"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest (director), the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."

This fascinates me, because filmmakers and artists in general almost always cite their favorites as someone who came before them, heavily influenced them, often their primary inspiration. Jim Jarmusch loves Kurosawa who loved John Ford etc. Yet Bergman was born 14 years before Tarkovsky, and released his first film 16 years before Tarkovsky's first film. He was already 54 years old when Solaris was released, and 68 when The Sacrifice was released. So unlike with Scorsese and Tarantino, nobody can accuse Bergman of holding on to his childhood / early life favorites.

 

[Zer]

How do you feel about Ingmar Bergman?

Here's an interesting quotation by him:

"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest (director), the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."

This fascinates me, because filmmakers and artists in general almost always cite their favorites as someone who came before them, heavily influenced them, often their primary inspiration. Jim Jarmusch loves Kurosawa who loved John Ford etc. Yet Bergman was born 14 years before Tarkovsky, and released his first film 16 years before Tarkovsky's first film. He was already 54 years old when Solaris was released, and 68 when The Sacrifice was released. So unlike with Scorsese and Tarantino, nobody can accuse Bergman of holding on to his childhood / early life favorites.

I haven't seen a lot of Bergman tbh. Great quote though. Reading more quotes I guess Tarkovsky was the director that Bergman aspired to be

"When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure"

 

[chickenluver]

He whose name shall not be mentioned (Polanski)

Whatever his ultimate legacy may end up being, I will forever cite his Macbeth as being one of the greatest Shakespeare films.

Francis Ford Coppola prior to whatever sort of brain damage he seems to have suffered

Looking at Coppola's filmography now, I've only seen Godfather 1-3, and Apocalypse Now. Also I watched The Outsiders in a middle school English class after reading the novel.

If GOAT was determined by the quality of any given director's three best films Coppola would be tough to beat.

It seems like Apocalypse Now left him broken, and in debt. One from the Heart was supposed to pull him out of the hole, but it went way over budget and put him even more in debt. I guess all his films since then have been made for the purpose of climbing out of the hole.

Are his later films really that bad? Does he have no hidden gems since the 70's? I often see people cite Dracula, although I know some people hate it.

 

[Guestx]

Are his later films really that bad? Does he have no hidden gems since the 70's? I often see people cite Dracula, although I know some people hate it.

Twixt is worth a watch just because of how strange it is. I hesitate to call it "good," but it is interesting.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Are his later films really that bad? Does he have no hidden gems since the 70's? I often see people cite Dracula, although I know some people hate it.

Dracula is reasonably good, not great. The Rainmaker is reasonably good.

The Outsiders is good.

Peggy Sue Got Married is kind of a mild hidden gem. Doesn't reinvent the wheel or anything but it's a nice little movie.

 

[Fedorgasm]

I don't think box office should factor in. Because

1. People are dumb and spend more on fast and furious than they do on Malick films
2. Any movie, no matter how terrible, can make a ton of money if they have a big marketing budget and a Chinese character
3. Many of the best movies ever made didn't really gain appreciation until years later--at the time, they were actually box office bombs.

I think what you need for greatest director, is to take the average of all the scores for their films. Now we can choose to use rotten tomatoes, or IMDB, but once that's decided, then average the numbers. That way it hurts a director when he makes a bad film. As some directors make 2 bad films for every 1 good one, and should be penalized appropriately.

 

[Guestx]

I don't think box office should factor in. Because

1. People are dumb and spend more on fast and furious than they do on Malick films
2. Any movie, no matter how terrible, can make a ton of money if they have a big marketing budget and a Chinese character
3. Many of the best movies ever made didn't really gain appreciation until years later--at the time, they were actually box office bombs.

I think what you need for greatest director, is to take the average of all the scores for their films. Now we can choose to use rotten tomatoes, or IMDB, but once that's decided, then average the numbers. That way it hurts a director when he makes a bad film. As some directors make 2 bad films for every 1 good one, and should be penalized appropriately.

Regardless of whether you think the movies are good, box office is an element of success.

Can someone whose films have all been financial failures really be the GOAT?

 

[newcastleman]

My favourite is Alfred Hitchcock. A prolific filmmaker and master of his craft.
I also love De Palma and Sergio Leone.
But, based on the criteria mentioned, it's got to be Spielberg.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Agreed. All right, let's see what we got so far from everything that's been said already:

• Quality of the director's best work - How good are his very best films?
• Quality of the director's work over time - Did he just have a few big hits and then a lot of mediocre films or has he been able to sustain a high level of quality over several years?
• Profitability - How well have his films performed at the box office?
• Popularity - How well known is the director? How beloved are they by the public? Could they be called an "icon?" Have they penetrated pop culture in any way?
• Longevity - How long have they stayed relevant? Did they have a brief prime and then fade into obscurity or have they had a career that has remained notable across decades?
• Awards - What notable awards have they won? What other industry recognition have they received?
• Range - How varied is their output? Do most of their films "feel" the same? What genres have they worked in?
• Are they story creators or only directors? - Do they usually write their own screenplays in addition to directing? Are those screenplays usually original ideas or adaptations of others' ideas?
• Impact on other filmmakers - What impact did they have on other filmmakers? How have they influenced the way that movies are made?

What do you think? I think we've done some good work here.

I agree with all of this and would like to add: size and voiceforusness (sp haha) of fans

 

[Guestx]

I agree with all of this and would like to add: size and voiceforusness (sp haha) of fans

Cool, I will add that in as a point to consider under Popularity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh, I got one more for you @Cubo de Sangre. . .

Spoiler

M. Night Shyamalan!

Spoiler

Because I love that Indian fucker!

Spoiler

Come on man. QT is well-ahead of this cat.

Cool, I will add that in as a point to consider under Popularity.

An enduring fan-base says something.

 

[Guestx]

Come on man. QT is well-ahead of this cat.

I'd have to put QT ahead as well, but I do love M. Night.

The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable and The Village was an incredible run.

 

[Fedorgasm]

Can someone whose films have all been financial failures really be the GOAT?

No, but you could have the opposite happen, where Michael Bay is declared the GOAT simply because his box office numbers destroy most other directors.

Plus, if you use box office then you have to adjust for inflation, it's just a mess.

I think you just take their rotten tomatoes score from each movie and average it. And have a minimum number of movies as well. Like, you can't be the GOAT if you've only had 3 movies. I think the minimum should be 7.

Check out this guy's page. He has a spreadsheet that might help me accomplish what I'm talking about, but I can't download it because I'm at work. Maybe I'll give it a shot when I get home if someone doesn't beat me to it.

http://zepfanman.com/2013/10/mega-spreadsheet-of-movie-ratings/

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'd have to put QT ahead as well, but I do love M. Night.

The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable and The Village was an incredible run.

Great, whatever, damn good, annoyingly lame.

Edgar Wright kicks his ass too.

Shaun of the Dead
Hot Fuzz
Scot Pilgrim
The World's End
Baby Driver (haven't seen it yet but have heard great things)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think you just take their rotten tomatoes score from each movie and average it. And have a minimum number of movies as well. Like, you can't be the GOAT if you've only had 3 movies. I think the minimum should be 7.

Definitely needs to be a minimum of films. Can't argue with seven. Could go as low as five. But GOAT ain't P4P, so it'd be tough to win with miniscule output.

About current internet scores, that would fail to take into account cinematic impact at the time for decades of films. You might find plenty of movies with current scores as good as Jaws, but precious few of them will have the cultural impact. Not everybody goes on that site either. I don't and cinema has been a huge part of my life. But if their demographics could be show to be close enough to a random sampling then sure.

On second thought, that's probably as good a numerical metric as any.

 

[Guestx]

Great, whatever, damn good, annoyingly lame.

Very good, Great, Great, Great and highly underrated

Edgar Wright kicks his ass too.

Shaun of the Dead
Hot Fuzz
Scot Pilgrim
The World's End
Baby Driver (haven't seen it yet but have heard great things)

LOL

 

[Guestx]

No, but you could have the opposite happen, where Michael Bay is declared the GOAT simply because his box office numbers destroy most other directors.

Well that's why box office is just one of several different criteria pieces that I think should be considered.

Did you see the list that Spengler and I came up with? Here it is again if you missed it:

• Quality of the director's best work - How good are his very best films?
• Quality of the director's work over time - Did he just have a few big hits and then a lot of mediocre films or has he been able to sustain a high level of quality over several years?
• Profitability - How well have his films performed at the box office?
• Popularity - How well known is the director? How beloved are they by the public? How large and devoted is their fan base? Could they be called an "icon?" Have they penetrated pop culture in any way?
• Longevity - How long have they stayed relevant? Did they have a brief prime and then fade into obscurity or have they had a career that has remained notable across decades?
• Awards - What notable awards have they won? What other industry recognition have they received?
• Range - How varied is their output? Do most of their films "feel" the same? What genres have they worked in?
• Are they story creators or only directors? - Do they usually write their own screenplays in addition to directing? Are those screenplays usually original ideas or adaptations of others' ideas?
• Impact on other filmmakers - What impact did they have on other filmmakers? How have they influenced the way that movies are made?

Nine different points of consideration, with several sub-points underneath those nine.

So I'm not saying that box office--or profitability--is the ONLY point to consider. But I definitely think that it is A point to consider.

I think you just take their rotten tomatoes score from each movie and average it. And have a minimum number of movies as well. Like, you can't be the GOAT if you've only had 3 movies. I think the minimum should be 7.

I just think this feels too simplistic. For one, there's the issue with the very un-nuanced way RT scores are devised. For another, this means that it's only the critics and not regular moviegoers who get a voice.

And like I said, I think that artistic considerations are NOT the only things that needs to be considered.

Check out this guy's page. He has a spreadsheet that might help me accomplish what I'm talking about, but I can't download it because I'm at work. Maybe I'll give it a shot when I get home if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Link?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Very good, Great, Great, Great and highly underrated



LOL

I asked my wife her assessment of M's films. And she's culturally biased towards him. Film for film, her answer mimicked mine.

Which of those films have you even seen? Wright's quirky way of entertaining is far more consistent than M's attempts at paradigm-shifting reveals.

 

[Guestx]

I asked my wife her assessment of M's films. And she's culturally biased towards him. Film for film, her answer mimicked mine.

Which of those films have you even seen? Wright's quirky way of entertaining is far more consistent than M's attempts at paradigm-shifting reveals.

I've seen all of the films you've listed. I love Scott Pilgrim. I also thought Baby Driver was a lot of fun. The rest were etertaining enough but not films that I think much about or ever go back to revisit.

I've watched Signs, Unbreakable and The Village several times though. There's something about M. Night's movies--especially those early movies--that I find very compelling. I'm glad to see that he's currently in the middle of a career renaissance and I hope that he's able to get back to making films that are on the same level as his first four mainstream releases.