This could turn into a bashfest (I hope not), but since I see everyone talking about a certain actor having a big ego, what directors do you think has a big egostotical attitude?

One that comes to mind is, Michael Moore.
It's quite obvious that everyone would see why I would pick him.

*predicts that George Lucas would get nailed on the most in this thread*

Although he hasn't directed anything for a while, Sly Stallone had quite a reputation for having a big head in the director's chair.

So it is true!!!

I had heard those stories about Stallone irritating ego problem as a director but could not manage to find any hard evidence of it.

Thanks Groucho.

Groucho didn't exactly produce any hard evidence.

I've always heard that Fritz Lang was quite the egomaniac...

Stanley Kubrick....but his big ego was a good thing.

All you have to see is Sly Stallone's cameo in Staying Alive to understand what a massive ego he has. Probably the largest gap between ego & talent ever to walk the earth.

Yeah, what he said.

One statement: "My movie is not about Vietnam, it IS Vietnam"

From watching the Fight Club DVD extras, I get the idea that David Finsher must be a royal pain in the a$$. The effects guy talks about all the work they put into a realistic penguin model then goes onto to say "But David...." and lists off all the changes Finsher makes.

That seems to be a pattern for the poor effects people. "We did all this work, but David....."

David Lynch
Brett Ratner

Michael Bay
James Cameron

Fincher strikes me as more of a perfectionist than egotistical.

Brett Hackner (the Rush Hour retard) on the other hand...

James Cameron is definitely an egoist (see reports about the making of "The Abyss", or Ed Harris's comments on the commentary on the Criterion edition of "The Rock").

Also: Marcus Nispel (of "manifesto" infamy, which led to Stephen Soderbergh coming up with a set of "rules" for "Full Frontal") and Tony Kaye (director of "American History X", although he disowns the current cut of the film).

Some would probably also call Werner Herzog and egoist, but this is unfair because the man dares to attempt so much more than 99% of filmmakers.

Stephen Spielberg. Watch some of the extras on Jurassic Park, it's hilarious.

George Lucas - But that goes without saying I guess.

I'm wondering how you could be a director without having a big ego. On the smaller indie end of the spectrum you've got guys that devote their every waking minute, and those of their close associates, just to realize their artistic vision. On the blockbuster end of the spectrum you've got guys resposible for creating a product costing hundreds of millions of dollars, employing thousands of people.

In either case how could you do it if you didn't feel pretty highly about yourself and your talent. Honestly, in some cases I'm surprised that directors are as humble as they are.

I had seen an interview with him awhile back and he said he wished he had handled the whole thing differently. IIRC, he finally watched the finished film and it wasn't as bad as he thought it would be.

There's a big difference between having an ego and getting the shots done exactly the way the director wants them. I think that's the difference between Spielberg and Soderberg. I don't really hear of too many directors with egos except for the crappy ones...Brett Ratner, Michael Bay, etc. While directors like Fincher, Soderberg, and Kubrick have a strenous work ethic that crew members get pissed about more so than an egotistical sense that they are holier than though, although I could be wrong.

James Cameron
Kevin Costner

I've known a few people who have worked for James Cameron, and the conversation always goes the same way:

What's he like to work with?

Horrible. The guy is the biggest jerk I've ever dealt with in my entire life.

So, would you work for him again?

In a New York minute.

And it's true. Look at the credits of James Cameron movies and you'll see a lot of the same names over and over again.

Only because they can put up with his ****.

I think all directors' egos are about the same. The difference is in their output.

I bet James Cameron and Michael Bay are both really demanding, work their crews to the bone, think the world revovles around them, and expect everyone to bend over backwards to please them. The difference is when you're a dick and your final product is a great film, they call you a genius. When you're a dick and your final product is Pearl Harbor they call you an ass hole.

Lol, that's true.

haha

You have to give James Cameron credit though. He obviously works just as hard if not harder than his crews. Just look at the documentry on the Abyss DVD.

How is Stallone an egomaniac when he doesn't direct movies anymore? He stopped directing because he feels that it's not worth it spending long years working on one movie. He just want to act and not direct. Sly just want to write, produce and act, not direct. Sly only directed 5 films, so Sly doesn't count in this topic. I meant to talk about current directors having a big ego, maybe I should've made it more clearer before.

Of course I agree with the luminaries mentioned, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, and you could probably add Gilliam and Kurosawa to that list. And if they continue to make what they make(those living at least), aside from Lucas, I have no issue.

But one guy who really gets me as being the quintessential ego is Kevin Smith. I love his films to death, I love his writing, his commentaries and everything. But I bet when Kevin Smith jerks off, he's looking at a picture of himself. Cocky as all get out, watch the Dinner for 5, Faverau's show with the Daredevil roundtable for proof. But the ultimate example is "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". He deflects by making Mewes the lead, but good God, that movie is one big monument to his marginal work. It's embarassing in many ways.

And if I could throw a shout to a guy who should have an ego big enough for two trailers, but is INCREDIBLY humble and down to Earth, it's Sam Raimi. I was a location scout on a few of his recent films, and he's just a super guy. A tad eccentric, but he's definately got his feet on the ground. But beyond that, I respect that he never chose to impose his most impressive early style of the Evil Dead trilogy onto his later work(not that it would have fit with A Simple Plan necessarily). It was never shoehorned in, just to maintain a distinctive look(unlike a guy like Fincher or Bay).

And in working with Gus Van Sant, I couldn't have been more pleasantly suprised at how down to earth he was. He too was able to show a few different faces and looks, and never thought Gus Van Sant was bigger than any particular picture he was a part of.