In your opinion, who is the biggest hack director?

[DrRingDing]

as the title of the thread asks: in your opinion, who is the biggest hack director?

NOTE: i did say "in your opinion", so criticizing others opinions is already unjustified. open debate on their opinions, however... :D

i'll start by saying that i think it doesn't get much worse than Chris Columbus, director of such classics as Home Alone, Home Alone 2, Mrs. Doubtfire, Stepmom, Bicentenial Man and the first two Harry Potter movies.

the reasons why the first 2 HP movies had no style? C. Columbus.

the reason why the third HP movie had style and got much better reviews than the first 2? they weren't directed by Columbus.

-di doctor-

[FinkPish]

How would you define hack exactly? Just so everyone knows how to properly rip down someone.

[DrRingDing]

i don't know... i think "hack" is a fairly subjective term.

my idea of a hack is somebody who might be able to competently make a movie (especially a Hollywood movie) but who gives little to no style or substance to the effort; the ultimate cookie maker - the person who does what Hollywood dictates with few to no personal flourishes thrown in or if they are personal flourishes, they are too bland or banal to warrant attention.
-di doctor-

[Jackskeleton]

what the fuck is the talk of "style and substance". Oooh, you mean tossing in music of the time and flavor of the week actors? "Hack" does seem a bit off to bring Chris Columbus up. I mean his movies were successful for a reason and he does direct childern pretty well.

I'm sure lucas will be tossed into the list here. It's only a matter of time. Seems like pure flame war material really.

[Mr. Salty]

I'll get in the obvious choice right now: Michael Bay.

[roger_d]

Paul Anderson

[ytrez]

McG

&

Brett Ratner

[ckolchak]

Michael Bay is the epitome of a hack.
he never ran across a scene that couldn't use a crane shot.

Lucas has become the worst kind of hack (going back and screwing with what were fine, soundly constructed, well paced films in order to incorporate unneccessary, meaningless spectacle...UGHHH!).

[Geofferson]

Stephen Somers

[fryinpan1]

Originally posted by DrRingDing
as the title of the thread asks: in your opinion, who is the biggest hack director?

NOTE: i did say "in your opinion", so criticizing others opinions is already unjustified. open debate on their opinions, however... :D

i'll start by saying that i think it doesn't get much worse than Chris Columbus, director of such classics as Home Alone, Home Alone 2, Mrs. Doubtfire, Stepmom, Bicentenial Man and the first two Harry Potter movies.

the reasons why the first 2 HP movies had no style? C. Columbus.

the reason why the third HP movie had style and got much better reviews than the first 2? they weren't directed by Columbus.

-di doctor-

You may or may not be pleased with this news:
Chris Columbus to Direct Sub-Mariner
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=7449

[PixyJunket]

Insert popular director who has made successful movies.

[mdc3000]

Peter Segal.

He directed 50 First Dates, Anger Management, The Klumps to name a few... he seems like a hack for hire who keeps getting jobs to make highly unfunny movies...movies that have great casts and pretty decent concepts, but never come together to their full potential... I'm hoping he proves me wrong with THE LONGEST YARD...but I doubt it.

MATT

[matome]

Originally posted by PixyJunket


Insert popular director who has made successful movies.



:up:

[fumanstan]

Originally posted by PixyJunket


Insert popular director who has made successful movies.



Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Goldberg74]

John Carpenter?










Oh... I thought we were talking about creepy slasher films. My bad. ;)

[tommyp007]

Luca$



(not really...I love his work. just wanted to be the first, cause i know it's coming)

[Sierra Disc]

Brett Ratner, without a doubt. I have no idea why this guy gets work, he's totally lacking in style or imagination. "Rush Hour" movies make money, so he gets stuff like "Red Dragon" pushed out.

[Green Jello]

Originally posted by tommyp007
Luca$



(not really...I love his work. just wanted to be the first, cause i know it's coming)

Too slow:

Originally posted by ckolchak
Lucas has become the worst kind of hack (going back and screwing with what were fine, soundly constructed, well paced films in order to incorporate unneccessary, meaningless spectacle...UGHHH!).

[tommyp007]

oops, missed that. BTW...that's not my quote up there!

[flashburn]

Originally posted by roger_d
Paul Anderson

[Triple S]

Francis Ford Coppola...

We all gave you one pass (G pt III), but then you had to go and make Jack. Good day sir.


....I said good day sir!

[wordtoyamotha]

Originally posted by Triple S
Francis Ford Coppola...

We all gave you one pass (G pt III), but then you had to go and make Jack. Good day sir.


....I said good day sir!

rotfl

My vote goes to Michael Bay

[Giles]

Originally posted by DrRingDing
i don't know... i think "hack" is a fairly subjective term.

my idea of a hack is somebody who might be able to competently make a movie (especially a Hollywood movie) but who gives little to no style or substance to the effort; the ultimate cookie maker - the person who does what Hollywood dictates with few to no personal flourishes thrown in or if they are personal flourishes, they are too bland or banal to warrant attention.
-di doctor-

like the director and (remake) film: Shall We Dance

[DonnachaOne]

Paul WS Anderson.
His films are comepletely devoid of style or imagination. Whatever knowledge of or reverence for the material he uses are minimal at best. From his "ooh! Let's rip off Solaris completely, but with HORROR!" piece of stupidity Even Horizon to the just plain awful and indefensible Alien Vs. Predator, he has shown time and again that he just does not know how to make a decent film. Paul... I challenge you to make a film that could be construed as "good" or "entertaining".

Shawn Levy
Huh boy. The Paul POS Anderson of "comedy". Big Fat Liar, Just Married, Cheaper By The Dozen... about as bad as

Raja Gosnell
The Scooby-Doos and Big Momma's House. Yikes. Next up - Big Baby, about a dude who doesn't want a kid, then suddenly starts behaving like an infant. Hi-larious again, I see.

Andrzej Bartkowiak.
Once a respected cinematographer, now the director of cheap beat 'em ups with Jet Li and/or DMX. BNext up - a video game adaptation! Going places, I see.

Dominic Sena
Just watch... we have a challenger for Mike Bay's throne...

Ivan Reitman
Hasn't made a good film since Dave. After Junior, which seemed more like a personal film for him, he's just done paycheck pictures.

Harold Becker.
Hal, I've seen your work. You're better than your Mercury Risings, your Domestic Disturbances...

Stephen Hopkins.
I think I can include a "happy ending"... after doing just by-the-numbers pictures for anyone willing to pay, he's beginning to come into his own, shepherding "24" into existence with Joel Surnow and getting good notices for The Life & Death Of Peter Sellers.

Stephen Norrington.
Blade was fun and Steve seemed into that film; stuff on the DVD shows how involved he was. But then... The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen...

Francis Ford Coppola.
I know, I know. But look at his films since Dracula.

Jack
The Rainmaker
and, supposedly, Supernova.

All just generic market films that Coppolla did for a buck. I understand, guy's gotta eat. But this guy did four of the best films in the seventies, a few of which are seen as THE BEST EVER MADE, and this is what he's directed over the last ten years? I understand he's been producing, and hasn't that been great? I mean, Jeepers Creepers and Jeepers Creepers 2... nice work, Franky.

that'll do for now.

[Giles]

Originally posted by DonnachaOne

Raja Gosnell
The Scooby-Doos and Big Momma's House.



well hey now, I thought Big Momma's House was pretty funny.

[supersonicx]

Originally posted by Mr. Salty
I'll get in the obvious choice right now: Michael Bay.

I'd say him and Joel Schumacher

[DonnachaOne]

Originally posted by supersonicx
Joel Schumacher Ah, but there's an enigma. oel's always struck me as the kind of guy who'll direct a paycheck film so he can finance his own projects without much interference. He dropped the ball completely with the last couple of Batman films, true, but as long as he still gets to make stuff like Tigerland, he's okay in my book.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Chris Columbus? You sir are fired!

I don't think Michael Bay is a hack director at all. Despite the movies he does being very cliche, his choice of camera angles and shots are sometimes very original and clever.

[QuikSilver]

Joel Schumacer (sp??).... he totally ruined the Batman series.

[jaeufraser]

I would agree with Brett Ratner. His films don't have one iota of creativity in them. There's nothing in his films that say "hey, this is a Ratner film!" and in general, there's little in his films that is good.

I'll defend Bay and Columbus though. Columbus has made some quality family movies, and HP, though nowhere as good as what Cuaron did, you have to give credit where credit is due...Columbus laid the groundwork for those movies, did some wonderful casting and made a couple competent films that paved the way for a great one. Bay, well most of his movies suck, but he most definately has a distinctive style. He's not a hack, I've no doubt he's churning out the movies he wants to see. He's got some impressive visuals to boot. But, his vision in general is of bad movies, but he's no hack. Neitehr is Lucas for that matter...assuming we're talking about people who just churn out stuff. You can hate the prequels all you want, but theyr'e hardly the product of an uncreative or by the numbers filmmaker, good or bad.

[Jackskeleton]

Originally posted by Green Jello
Too slow:

actually, both them were way to slow. See 3rd reply to the thread. ;)

[Terrell]

Insert popular director who has made successful movies.



:lol: Aint that the truth!

[William Fuld]

George Lucas

[ckolchak]

Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt


I don't think Michael Bay is a hack director at all. Despite the movies he does being very cliche, his choice of camera angles and shots are sometimes very original and clever.

he's stolen a lot of his cleaver camera moves from old spielberg movies, and yet unlike spielberg, bay doesn't seem to understand that the reason they were so impressive in SS's films were because he used them as emotional punctuation.
Bay just bludgeons you over the head with one after the after, for no purpose other than they look cool in and of themselves.

with Lucas, you have the ability to compare what his filmmaking values were 26 years ago to what they are now.
gone is subtlety and its replaced by souless spectacle.
the escape from Bespin was wonderfully executed back in 1980- now we have to suffer thru the score and pace being butchered so that we can get some inane superfluous shots of a model taking off and landing.
he also jettisons a dramatic line reading that encapsulates the attitude of the character and situation perfectly, in favor of banal literalness.

face it, he was once a fine storyteller, now he's a hack.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Originally posted by ckolchak
he's stolen a lot of his cleaver camera moves from old spielberg movies, and yet unlike spielberg, bay doesn't seem to understand that the reason they were so impressive in SS's films were because he used them as emotional punctuation.
Bay just bludgeons you over the head with one after the after, for no purpose other than they look cool in and of themselves.

with Lucas, you have the ability to compare what his filmmaking values were 26 years ago to what they are now.
gone is subtlety and its replaced by souless spectacle.
the escape from Bespin was wonderfully executed back in 1980- now we have to suffer thru the score and pace being butchered so that we can get some inane superfluous shots of a model taking off and landing.
he also jettisons a dramatic line reading that encapsulates the attitude of the character and situation perfectly, in favor of banal literalness.

face it, he was once a fine storyteller, now he's a hack.

There's no point in a debate in the "who stole what camera shots from whom "argument. We can trace this back farther than Orson Welles. The point is that when you turn on your TV and see a movie directed by Michael Bay you instantly know that its him. He has style, whether or not you like the style is irrelevent. He's not a hack director and often has music video directors imitate him.

[jeffkjoe]

Gus Van Sant.

1998's shot-by-shot remake of PSYCHO was the laziest project a director could undertake.

[asianxcore]

Uwe Boll.

[ckolchak]

i guess it all comes down to how we are going to define 'hack'.

[DonnachaOne]

Originally posted by asianxcore
Uwe Boll. I was tempted to nominate Uwe, but he seems genuinely passionate about his work, and believes in what he does; the kind of guy that if he wasn't getting paid, he'd do it for free.

However, he's an awful, awful, awful, awful, crap, shit, stupid, terrible filmmaker.

[Burzmali]

Peter Jackson.

Went the safe route and cookie cuttered one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Not to mention his other films...

[Sooperior]

Originally posted by Burzmali
Peter Jackson.

Went the safe route and cookie cuttered one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Not to mention his other films...

Heavenly Creatures was a great film and I thought Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles were pretty damn funny plus I don't see how anyone could have made LOTR better. But thats just my opinion.

[Matthew Chmiel]

Joel Schumacher and Gus Van Sant are not hack by any means. They've all had their shit fests; but Van Sant still continues to take risky chances (Gerry and Elephant come to mind) as does Schumacher (Tigerland, Phone Booth, and Phantom of the Opera).

And I would like to say the following... ahem...

SCHUMACHER DID NOT RUIN THE BATMAN FRANCHISE. THAT WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT KNOWN AS AKIVA (WHO HAPPENS TO BE A WORTHLESS ********ING DOUCHEBAG) GOLDSMAN RUINED THE GODDAMN FRANCHISE.

Thank you.

Uwe Boll? Hack.
Paul W.S. Anderson? Hack.
Brett Ratner? Hack.
Chris Colombus? Hack (whose dick did he suck to get Rent by the way?).
Lucas? Greedy and a hack.
Loved the mention of Harold Becker earlier in this thread.

What about Jon Turteltaub? Joe Roth? Martin Brest? Donald Petrie?

Let's not go for the "easy" targets. Let's pick out some truely fucking awful directors.

And please for the love of God, let that Peter Jackson comment be sarcasm.

[Mr. Salty]

Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
The point is that when you turn on your TV and see a movie directed by Michael Bay you instantly know that its him. He has style, whether or not you like the style is irrelevent.
The same can be said for the works of Edward D. Wood Jr.

He's not a hack director and often has music video directors imitate him.
Having music video directors imitate you isn't exactly a compliment.

[Shamu]

Originally posted by PixyJunket


Insert popular director who has made successful movies.



Steven Spielberg!!!

[FinkPish]

Originally posted by PixyJunket


Insert popular director who has made successful movies.


Originally posted by Burzmali
Peter Jackson.

Went the safe route and cookie cuttered one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Not to mention his other films...
:rolleyes:

[caligulathegod]

Doris Wishman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0936543/)

Herschell Gordon Lewis (http://imdb.com/name/nm0507267/)

Despite the low budgets with which they were forced to work, they never, ever, rose above them and made art.

[FinkPish]

Originally posted by caligulathegod
Doris Wishman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0936543/)

Herschell Gordon Lewis (http://imdb.com/name/nm0507267/)

Despite the low budgets with which they were forced to work, they never, ever, rose above them and made art.
I don't know if I would categorize these guys as hacks. I think there is a big difference between directing all around bad movies and being a hack. To me, a hack is someone who is presented with somewhat good material and is unable or unwilling to make the material their own, or as you put it, "rise above it."

[DonnachaOne]

Originally posted by Burzmali
Peter Jackson.

Went the safe route and cookie cuttered one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Hear that? Trying to adapt those books, a massive undertaking utilizing thousands of people, with millions of fans to please... is now the "safe route".

Oh, Chmiel - it's as much Schumacher's fault as it is Goldsman's, truth be told.

[Giantrobo]

David Cronenberg
Roger Corman

[tasha99]

There are lots of hacks, to be sure, but George Lucas is in a class of his own because he used to be good. When Star Wars I came out, I was so excited I prebought tickets and rushed my kids from school to the theater on opening day. And what did we see?

<img src="http://onfinite.com/libraries/104468/2cc.jpg" />

I don't think Lucas can ever recover his reputation after that, at least not with me because I couldn't leave that movie (one of my kids actually liked it, so out of courtesy, we had to stay and let him watch it.) George Lucas raped my parenthood. :mad:

[fumanstan]

I'm surprised there's so much hate for Chris Columbus.

[RyoHazuki]

Originally posted by fumanstan
I'm surprised there's so much hate for Chris Columbus. Me too. Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the 1st two Harry Potter movies and he's a hack? Come on.

[veloce]

When I think of hacks, I don't think of guys like Joel Schumacher or Michael Bay. I personally think those two guys suck more often than not, but they sure do have personality. Hacks don't have any personality. Hacks to me are directors like Gary Fleder or Greg Hoblit.

It's no coincidence that they are TV as well as feature directors. Some people work in both and distinguish themselves in both, but some don't. There are plenty of hack directors that have careers in both TV and movies but who are they? Who knows them? Who cares about movies by hacks like James Hayman, or Michael Dinner? You know their work, but not because of them. You've heard of their television series, but not because they directed a given episode.

I think there are hacks, but there also reformed hacks. I mean, think of guys like Curtis Hanson. Total hack, but then he went and made LA Confidential, Wonder Boys, and 8 Mile (the latter not as good the former two, but still a good film).

And of course, there are also guys brought from overseas to Hollywood who lost whatever made their work distinctive after they started working in America -- think Lee Tamahori, for example.

Just my $0.02!

[DrRingDing]

Me too. Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the 1st two Harry Potter movies and he's a hack? Come on.

hey, when i defined what i believed to be a "hack" in my second post, i did point out that a hack can competently make movies. i just don't see any flavor to him. if i see a film without knowing who the director is and i can still identify who directed it, there's flavor. by that definition, as well, there are a lot of "hacks" in the industry... i guess, in my opinion, Columbus happens to be the most successful, getting to dip his hands into some very high profile projects.

just a further elaboration of my $.02
-di doctor-

[moocher]

Peter Jackson?? Francis Ford Coppela?? Steven Speilberg?? Michael Bay?? Chris Columbus?? George Lucas?? These folks are responsible for making films that millions went to see more than once and these same people (millions of them by the way) went back to see even more films by them. They are responsible for billions of dollars of box office receipts.

I'm sorry but this definition of "hack" is flawed. A "hack" is someone who cannot competantly make a feature film but tries anyway. Yes, Ed Wood is a good example. Someone who makes a film that millions want to see is not a hack. I have seen very few names in this thread that qualify. Because you don't like someone's movies or their "style" does not make them a hack.

Now the question is who here will admit to having DVDs in their collection by these "hacks"? I would be willing to bet that there are very few here who have not spent some of their hard earned bucks on films by these "hacks".

But then again I do own the Edward D Wood collection so what do I know :).

[drjay]

I'm gonna have to go with Hitchcock and Kurosawa. Friggin hacks with no talent at all. I mean jeeze, Hitchcock, why don't you cameo yourself again. And Kurosawa: we get it, you like samurais. Jeeze, get out of my DVD player.

[Rival11]

I'm gonna have to go with Hitchcock. Friggin hacks with no talent at all. I mean jeeze, Hitchcock, why don't you cameo yourself again.

You're joking..............right?

[MoviePage]

The ultimate hack: Ron Howard.

I define a hack as a director who takes stories with great potential and reduces them to their utmost manipulative levels of easy sentimentality, and who removes all levels of complexity so that the movies will be more appealing to the small town folks, in a TV-movie-of-the-week fashion.

[drjay]

You're joking..............right?
http://rabid.biz/emot-q.gif Damn I was hoping for more emotional responses.

[Kal-El]

Insert popular director who has made successful movies.



truedat.

[Rival11]

http://rabid.biz/emot-q.gif Damn I was hoping for more emotional responses.

Couldn't tell if you were serious or not - good stuff.

But you were joking..................right? :)

[kenbuzz]

Spike Lee, hands down.
















Oh, you said biggest "hack" director. Okay, well let me change my vote.














Spike Lee

[grunter]

The ultimate hack: Ron Howard.

I define a hack as a director who takes stories with great potential and reduces them to their utmost manipulative levels of easy sentimentality, and who removes all levels of complexity so that the movies will be more appealing to the small town folks, in a TV-movie-of-the-week fashion.

Strong agreement.

[moocher]

The ultimate hack: Ron Howard.

I define a hack as a director who takes stories with great potential and reduces them to their utmost manipulative levels of easy sentimentality, and who removes all levels of complexity so that the movies will be more appealing to the small town folks, in a TV-movie-of-the-week fashion.

Apollo 13?? A Beautiful Mind?? I thought these were pretty good films but if you're talking Grinch I would agree. Regardless, I wouldn't consider an Oscar winning director a "hack".

Man you guys are tough. Is there anybody you actually think is any good??

[Kerborus]

Michael Bay. His movies are mindless and shameless.

[glassdragon]

I'm gonna get alot of shit for this but i absolutely do not like David Lynch... Every movie i've seen from him is imo pointless and just plain stupid. I know a lot here like him but i can't say that i've ever enjoyed even 1 of his movies
Now i think hack is kinda harsh as he must have some fans to be doing this for as long as he has, but i honestly do not like his movies one bit.

[tanman]

Peter Jackson
George Lucas
Quentin Tarantino
M Night Shyamalan
Steven Spielberg














;) This thread can now be closed.

[DonnachaOne]

Peter Jackson?? Francis Ford Coppela?? Steven Speilberg?? Michael Bay?? Chris Columbus?? George Lucas?? These folks are responsible for making films that millions went to see more than once and these same people (millions of them by the way) went back to see even more films by them. They are responsible for billions of dollars of box office receipts.A movie's revenue isn't at all a benchmark of quality, and I'm very surprised that you'd think that. Also, the discussion isn't about what those you named (most of whome were named earlier only in jest) did a long time ago, but what they're doing now.
I'm sorry but this definition of "hack" is flawed. A "hack" is someone who cannot competantly make a feature film but tries anyway. Yes, Ed Wood is a good example. Someone who makes a film that millions want to see is not a hack. I have seen very few names in this thread that qualify. Because you don't like someone's movies or their "style" does not make them a hack. I strongly disagree. To me - and, to many directors who have said so - a hack is a director who's doing it just for the cash, investing the minimum of him/herself into the project. Phillip Kaufman may have made a classic with the The Right Stuff, but Twisted? Pure paycheck work. A hack job.

Ed Wood put his heart and soul - and what cash he had - into his pictures. It was his dream and his mission. However, he was a terrible director. Perhaps, when he was doing the low-grade porn in his later years, you could call him a hack. But when he invested as much as he could into his work, he was no hack - just very misguided and a barely competent director.

[veloce]

from 1924:

Fitzgerald and the Hollywood hacks
By F. Scott Fitzgerald

I WAS TALKING the other day with a Prominent Business Man who had just visited an eastern moving picture studio. He remarked that never in his life had he seen so much waste and inefficiency in a single day.

“Why, look here,” he began and, with such a pretty flow of words, told us how it could all be systematised. We forgot for a moment that this was an old, old story. When Prominent Business Men go through moving picture studios they always come out feeling very superior and contemptuous — because they imagine that turning strips of celiluloid into visible stories is as simple a matter as turning western cattle into eastern roast beef.

The real fallacy of the Business Man’s attitude lies, of course, in Laura La Plante’s eyes. When Laura has a cold — and Laura will take cold, even when she’s under a $200,000 contract — her eyes grow red and dim just like yours and mine, and the lids swell. You can hardly blame her, when she’s in this condition, for refusing to go before the camera. She imagines that, if she does, every inch of red-eyed film will lose her one admirer, one silver dollar, one rung on the ladder she’s been climbing for years.

“Fire her!” says the Business Man with a bold air. “Why, last week when my superintendent disobeyed an order . . .” But his superintendent was not the mainspring of a picture in which was tied up $200,000. In short, the moving picture is not a good profession for the efficiency bully. It is more often confronted with the human, the personal, the incalculable element than any other industry in the world.

But in one respect, there is much truth in the Business Man’s criticism of the movie. He wants to see centralisation and authority, and he sees none.

Is the responsibility with the producer? No — for he seems to be dependent on the director, who, in his turn, is apparently at the mercy of his story and his star. If in movie circles you mention a successful picture, David for example, you will hear the credit for its success claimed for the producer, the director, the star, the author, the continuity writer and Lord knows how many technical artisans who have aided in the triumph. Mention a failure and you will hear the blame heaped on each one of these in turn — and finally on the public itself for not being “intelligent” enough to like what they get.

Well, I am going to venture three opinions on the subject — three opinions that I think more and more people are coming to hold.

First — that the moving picture is a director’s business, and there never was a good picture or a bad picture for which the director was not entirely responsible.

Second — that with half a dozen exceptions, our directors are an utterly incompetent crew. Most of them entered the industry early and by accident, and the industry has outgrown them long ago.

Third — that any director worth the price of his puttees should average four commercial successes out of five attempts in every year.

Let me first discuss his responsibility. In most of the big companies the director can select his own stories — the scenario departments are only too glad when a director says, “I want to do this picture and I know I can.” The director who undertakes pictures he doesn’t believe in is merely a hack — some ex-barnstormer, who directed an illustrated song back in 1909 and is now hanging around Hollywood with nothing left except a megaphone.

The director chooses his cast, excepting the star, and he has control over the expenditure of the allotted money and over the writing and interpretation of the continuity. This is as it should be. Yet I have heard directors whining because they couldn’t find a story they wanted, and the whine had the true ring of incompetence. An author who whines for a plot at least has the excuse that his imagination has given out — the director has no excuse at all. The libraries are full of many million volumes ready to his hand.

In addition, directors sometimes complain of “incompetent actors”. This is merely pathetic, for it is the director’s business to make actors. On the spoken stage the director may justly cry that once rehearsals are over the acting is out of his power. But the movie director labours under no such disadvantage. He can make an actor go through a scene 20 times and then choose the best “take” for the assembled film.

And in a fragmentary affair like a movie where the last scenes may be taken first, the director must do the thinking for the actor. lf he is unable to, he does not belong on the platform of authority. After seeing what Chaplin did with that ex-cigarette-villain, Adolphe Menjou, and what Von Stroheim accomplished with the utterly inexperienced Mary Philbin, I believe that the alibi of incompetent acting will fall upon deaf ears.

Now directing, as the hack director understands it, is to be privy to all the outworn tricks of the trade. The hack director knows how to “visualise” every emotion — that is, he knows the rubber-stamp formula; he knows how every emotion has been visualised before. If in a picture, the hero departs from the heroine and the heroine wants him back, the hack director knows that she must take a step after him, hold out her hands toward him and then let them drop to her side. He knows that when someone dies in the street, this is always “visualised” by having a kneeling bystander take off his hat. If someone dies in a house, a sheet is invariably drawn over his face.

Very well, let us see how Chaplin, greatest of all directors, conveyed this latter event in A Woman of Paris. He realised that the old convention was outworn, that it no longer had the power of calling the emotions to attention, so he invented a new way. The audience does not see the dying man at all; it sees the backs of the surrounding crowd and suddenly a waiter pushes his way out of that crowd, shaking his head. At once the whole horrible violence of the suicide is plain to us. We even understand the human vanity of the waiter in wanting to be first to convey the news.

We may forget that incident because the picture is full of spanking new effects but, when it is over, every bit of it, despite the shoddy mounting and the sentimentalised story, seems vastly important. Chaplin has a fine imaginative mind and he threw himself hard into his picture. It is the lazy man, the “wise old-timer” — in other words, the hack — who takes the timeworn easy way.

All I am saying comes down to this — the chief business of a director is to invent new business to express old emotions.

An “original” picture is not a story of a lunatic wanting the North Star. It is the story of a little girl wanting a piece of candy — but our attention must be called with sharp novelty to the fact that she wants it. The valuable director is not he who makes a dull “artistic” transcription of Conrad’s Victory — give me the fellow who can blow the breath of life into a soggy gum-drop like Pollyanna.

Perhaps such men will appear. We have Griffith — just when he seems to be exhausted, he has a way of sitting up suddenly in his grave.

We have Cruze, who can be forgiven The Covered Wagon, if only for the amazing dream scene in Hollywood. We have Von Stroheim, who has a touch of real civilisation in his make-up and, greatest of all, Chaplin, who almost invented the movies as a vehicle for personal expression.

There are half a dozen others I could name — Sennett, Lubitsch, Ingram, Cecil B. DeMille, Dwan — who in the last five years have made two or three big successes interspersed with countless reels of drooling mediocrity, but I have my doubts about them; we must demand more than that.

As for the rest of the directors — let a thick, impenetrable curtain fall.

Occasionally, a picture made by some jitney (five-cent) Griffith is successful because of the intelligence of self-directing stars — but beware of such accidents.

The man’s next effort is likely to show the true barrenness and vulgarity of his mind.

One more remark — I doubt if successful directors will ever be found among established authors — though they may, perhaps, among playwrights and not-too-seasoned continuity men. Author-directors have a way of condescending to their audiences. Bad as Rupert Hughes’s books are, they are seldom as silly and meretricious as his pictures. I suspect that his mind is on Minnie McGlook, the girl-fan of North Dakota, and not on his work — which is to believe in his story, to keep his whole story in his head for ten weeks and, above all, to invent new business to express old emotions. All we ask from any of them is a little imagination and a little true feeling for the joys and the hopes and the everlasting struggles of mankind.

[Michael Corvin]

The point is that when you turn on your TV and see a movie directed by Michael Bay you instantly know that its him. He has style, whether or not you like the style is irrelevent. He's not a hack director and often has music video directors imitate him.

I couldn't have said it better. I was getting ready to try, before I read this post. Well said Popcorn Tree.

[Rival11]

Peter Jackson
George Lucas
Quentin Tarantino
M Night Shyamalan
Steven Spielberg














;) This thread can now be closed.

Man this is getting weird.

[Rivero]

George Lucas and Michael Bay. Neither has a clue on what makes an effective film.

[Rivero]

Peter Jackson.

Went the safe route and cookie cuttered one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Not to mention his other films...

Correction: Took one of the longest, most unadaptable novels ever and made three exquisite films that captured the essence of Tolkiens work and will enchant viewers for generations. As for his other films, Meet the Feebles, Bad Taste, Forgotten Silver, Braindead and Heavenly Creatures are all pretty damn good.

[Burzmali]

Correction: Took one of the longest, most unadaptable novels ever and made three exquisite films that captured the essence of Tolkiens work and will enchant viewers for generations. As for his other films, Meet the Feebles, Bad Taste, Forgotten Silver, Braindead and Heavenly Creatures are all pretty damn good.

As far as I know, the thread title asked for my 'opinion.'

I didn't realize you had the right to correct that chief. Thanks for playing. -rolleyes-

"Exquisite films" - lol are you serious man? The films are the most corny nonsense I've ever seen. they didn't capture the 'essence' of the books. they took the plot, took the visuals from some artists, and added in some nice effects. end result: typical hollywood fare dressed up in some new clothes called fantasy. big surprise, a tolkien story was a success. pretty hard to screw up IMO with 300 mil and a story like that.

a non-hack might have tried to be a little more original with his visuals. might have had less cheesy lines in the script. "a diversion!" "let's hunt some orc" right. jackson is nothing more than a b-level horror director, which was evident in lotr. too many times did his vision sink to places it shouldn't have touched. 9 hours worth of cheese and cheap hollywood tears rolling down cheeks with some decent action interspersed.

i would give up all 3 lotr movies for 1 ridley scott directed dune movie.

[FinkPish]

As far as I know, the thread title asked for my 'opinion.'

I didn't realize you had the right to correct that chief. Thanks for playing. -rolleyes-

"Exquisite films" - lol are you serious man? The films are the most corny nonsense I've ever seen. they didn't capture the 'essence' of the books. they took the plot, took the visuals from some artists, and added in some nice effects. end result: typical hollywood fare dressed up in some new clothes called fantasy. big surprise, a tolkien story was a success. pretty hard to screw up IMO with 300 mil and a story like that.

a non-hack might have tried to be a little more original with his visuals. might have had less cheesy lines in the script. "a diversion!" "let's hunt some orc" right. jackson is nothing more than a b-level horror director, which was evident in lotr. too many times did his vision sink to places it shouldn't have touched. 9 hours worth of cheese and cheap hollywood tears rolling down cheeks with some decent action interspersed.

i would give up all 3 lotr movies for 1 ridley scott directed dune movie.
While I totally believe you are entitled to any opinion you want to have, however much I disagree with it, I can't see how Jackson could even approach being called a hack.

I think the great thing about the LOTR movies is that they are so familiar and comfortable. They just seem "right," for whatever reason; somehow Jackson and his crew managed to capture what mass culture seemed to have stored up in their minds as the quintessential fantasy world. To me, he scored on all levels, and while they absolutely did approach what you call "typical hollywood fare," that essence came from the books more than what he created on his own. That is why so many elements might have seemed so schmaltzy and cliched to you, because Tolkein did it first and everyone else borrowed from him.

I hate saying I feel sorry for people who don't like certain movies, but I have to say it here. I don't know if it is possible for anyone to dissolve any preconcieved notions they have about a movie, but in your case, I hope it is.

[Tarantino]

George Lucas and Michael Bay. Neither has a clue on what makes an effective film.

The millions of dollars their films continue to make have the opposite opinion. In my opinion, a hack would be a Brett Ratner...a Harold Becker...people who could be substituted on a project with a green film school drop out and the project would look exactly the same. If you put some random good time Charlie and replaced Michael Bay with him, the film wouldn't have the same look or feel.

I'm shocked that Shymalan and Tarantino were only mentioned on page 3 of this thread. Where are the inevitable "Tarantino rips off HK movies!!!!11!" comments?

[psd]

A movie's revenue isn't at all a benchmark of quality, and I'm very surprised that you'd think that. Also, the discussion isn't about what those you named (most of whome were named earlier only in jest) did a long time ago, but what they're doing now.
I strongly disagree. To me - and, to many directors who have said so - a hack is a director who's doing it just for the cash, investing the minimum of him/herself into the project. Phillip Kaufman may have made a classic with the The Right Stuff, but Twisted? Pure paycheck work. A hack job.

Ed Wood put his heart and soul - and what cash he had - into his pictures. It was his dream and his mission. However, he was a terrible director. Perhaps, when he was doing the low-grade porn in his later years, you could call him a hack. But when he invested as much as he could into his work, he was no hack - just very misguided and a barely competent director.


100% right on.
although i think there are other variations to just the paycheck hack.
that's why, no matter how impressive or iconic Michael Bays camera work may look, to me its hackwork because he consistently uses the same camera MOs regardless of the emotional content of the scene.
unlike the 'paycheck hack' though, i actually think MB believes in what he is 'achieving' but what he is achieving is banality thru clueless repetition.
he's a hack because he hasn't grown beyond just being content with flashy camera moves or composing pretty 'splosion shots.
hes an example of the 'same old, same old' hack

[Michael Corvin]

The millions of dollars their films continue to make have the opposite opinion. In my opinion, a hack would be a Brett Ratner...a Harold Becker...people who could be substituted on a project with a green film school drop out and the project would look exactly the same. If you put some random good time Charlie and replaced Michael Bay with him, the film wouldn't have the same look or feel.

I'm shocked that Shymalan and Tarantino were only mentioned on page 3 of this thread. Where are the inevitable "Tarantino rips off HK movies!!!!11!" comments?

I will go with this explanation. People can bitch and moan about Lucas and Bay all they want. They have style, and they leave their mark on a film whether you like it or not. When you watch one of their movies you KNOW exactly who is behind the camera. Unlike a Brett Ratner or McG who could be substituted with anyone and end up with the same exact film. Hell they could be substituted with each other and it wouldn't matter.

And whoever mentioned Tarantino and Shyamalan is not right. They both have their own styles as well. Most people mentioned here is just a case of hating who is popular.