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

It's subjective because we're assessing value.

Really everyone should be forthright with their criteria and how the weighed value on each.

My opinion, the goat director is whomever enhances their scripts the most in the visual medium.
 
Fedorgasm said:
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/
Click to expand...

Why not just do all of it? Box office can't be just utterly meaningless. It can't be the most weighted for the reasons you stated but it also can't be ignored
 
Luminaire said:
No one ever mentions David Fincher... maybe he's too much of a contemporary?

Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl (Top Tier)

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Benjamin Button, Panic Room, Alien 3, The Game

He could also use a deeper collection, but the guy knows how to make a good movie.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he just needs a more prolific collection. I have yet to see a shit-tier David Fincher film. I can't say that about many directors.
 
shadow_priest_x said:
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.
Click to expand...


The first, second, and fourth bullets could be covered with my suggestion of averaging their movies' IMDB ratings. Then you could cover some of the other bullet points afterwards, like number of awards won.

That last bullet is impossible to quantify unless you could get every director to respond to a survey or something.
 
DeepCover said:
Yeah, he just needs a more prolific collection. I have yet to see a shit-tier David Fincher film. I can't say that about many directors.
Click to expand...

Definitely not shit-tier. But he has made a few that I found underwhelming.

I don't really have a strong desire to rewatch Panic Room or Benjamin Button, for instance.

I loved Se7en, Zodiac, Fight Club and Social Network though.
 
shadow_priest_x said:
Definitely not shit-tier. But he has made a few that I found underwhelming.

I don't really have a strong desire to rewatch Panic Room or Benjamin Button, for instance.

I loved Se7en, Zodiac, Fight Club and Social Network though.
Click to expand...

Alien 3 is his best movie
 
Crazy how people loved Zodiac. I found it totally underwhelming. Could be that I liked the book. Didn't read Social Network, so not sure what made that one seem so boring.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Making classics helps. Doing it in a variety of genres helps. That's why my pick is Kubrick.

Dr. Stragelove (satire)
Full Metal Jacket (war)
The Shining (horror)
A Clockwork Orange (avant garde?)
2001 (sci-fi)

Honorable mention to:

Barry Lyndon (period piece)
Eyes Wide Shut (relationship drama)
Click to expand...

I own Dr. Strangelove, and like it but someone could find it to be too heavy-handed and ineffective satire. 2001 is a monumental film. I wanted to love A Clockwork Orange, read the book, it sucks. The Shining was hideous. I like Full Metal Jacket but it's not a great film in any way.

Making classics and different genres is good. Also, if other top directors probably couldn't make the film - it helps.
 
Hitchcock directed 53 feature films. He's like those all time great boxers of the past with 200 wins. You can't compete with that.

Just looking it up John Ford directed more than 140 films...crazy
 
Here are a few names, no particular order: Billy Wilder, Hitchcock, Huston, Coppola , Leone, Kubrick, and Orson Welles among Americans and Brits.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
If you think either the book or the adaptation fits the definition of "sucks" then we're at an impasse.
Click to expand...
Read the book in college, not for a class just because I heard that it was awesome. I saw the movie soon after. We don't agree that's ok just don't turn the ultra-violence on me.:)
 
I don't think 'profitability ' is a good measure.
The Backstreet Boys outselling other actual legit musicians doesn't make them better musicians

It's hard to say there's a GOAT director, because it's largely based on your tastes.
Spielberg has a lot of classic movies. I respect them for what they are, but i also don't care about most of them, they didn't give me much of any "feels".
And when you make a hit movie, studios are more likely to throw money at you and let you do as you please. A "hit" doesnt always = actual good movie.
Some movies are not going to be for the masses, and directors won't get the resources to make their films because of it

Creativity and body of work are my criteria
Some guys id consider among my most liked...
Kurosawa
Wong kar Wai
Tarrentino
Steve McQueen
Fincher
 
SmilinDesperado said:
I don't think 'profitability ' is a good measure.
The Backstreet Boys outselling other actual legit musicians doesn't make them better musicians
Click to expand...

Profitability is a big element of professional success. As has already been discussed ITT, I think that establishing the GOAT goes beyond simply saying whose movies you like the best or whose movies you think are the most "well-made."

It's also about what you have accomplished professionally and box office success is a big factor in that respect.
 
chickenluver said:
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.
Click to expand...

See also Sergei Parajanov. Had been making fairly popular socialist realist films since the 50s, almost a decade before Tarkovskys debut. But even though he was 8 years older he wrote ‘As my teacher, I consider an absolutely young and amazing director, Tarkovsky, who didn’t even realize himself what a genius he was in ‘Ivan’s Childhood’’. And only then went on to make his masterpieces.

I love that Bergman quote though.
 
Trying to make a definitive GOAT director list is futile. You can't even get people to agree on GOAT mma fighters where there is a pretty rigid criteria for what is good and what is not.





​
 
Rimbaud82 said:
See also Sergei Parajanov. Had been making fairly popular socialist realist films since the 50s, almost a decade before Tarkovskys debut. But even though he was 8 years older he wrote ‘As my teacher, I consider an absolutely young and amazing director, Tarkovsky, who didn’t even realize himself what a genius he was in ‘Ivan’s Childhood’’. And only then went on to make his masterpieces.
Click to expand...
Yes good call. I don't usually mention Parajanov in GOAT discussion because he made so few films, and his work is rather esoteric. But I count him among my favorites.
 
I didn't read through the entire thread but here are some thoughts

I think you can have 3 different things worth considering when talking about this

1. Awards won
2. Critics scores
3. Box office


Right? So find the averages of that and you can find your "best director"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Two Crows
Movies Films where the Director was the problem
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
3K
Streeter
Streeter

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,694
Messages
55,435,346
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top