Will ‘Van Helsing’ director Stephen Sommers be the next Spielberg?
 

The article is pure blasphemy:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4892866/

Quotes that made me gag:

Ummmm. I saw Van Helsing and its not even as good as Hook. Will it make a crapload of money? Yes it will.

I enjoyed The Mummy films and I like how Sommers makes these big action epics fun and fluffy (though I haven't seen Van Helsing yet), but I'd never consider him in the ranks of Spielberg. Michael Bay.... that's a little more accurate.

Sure. And Raja Gosnell will be the next Preston Sturges.

No.

:D

man that is funny.

Uhhmmm...... yeah..... :yack:

He wishes he could be the next Michael Bay...

That's even worse than the Hitchcock/M Night Shamalamadingdong comparisons.

That is just so funny and original everytime I see it. :rolleyes:

Anyway. To reply to the topic at hand. Eh, No. The first Mummy movie was a decent flick, The Mummy Returns was easily one of the worst movies ever made. It made the first movie look better than it actually is. So in my book he is 50-50. Just because his movies are marketed to death and they made a bunch of money does not make him a good director.

Even though I thought the first Mummy was very entertaining, I find this comparison radiculos at best, insulting at worst.

Will ‘Van Helsing’ director Stephen Sommers be the next Spielberg?

Yeah, if aliens abduct Sommers and replace him with a genetically altered clone.

"In movie-making, there is only one Steven"?

Has this guy never heard of Soderbergh?

I think Stephen Sommers would like to remain Stephen Sommers if you ask me. Besides, wasn't this "Next Spielberg" title already given by Newsweek or some other such news mag to one-trick-pony Night when Signs came out?

Sommers will never even be as good Michael Bay. This article makes me blow chunks! :yack:

More like Susan Sommers than Spielberg.

Oddly enough, they both directed a film titled Catch Me if You Can.

Next Speilberg?

Well, maybe if in Schindlers List, Liam Neeson ran around and killed CGI zombie Nazis.

or

In The Color Purple Danny Glover discovered Whoopi was a Voodoo Preistess and he then ran around killing CGI zombies.

or

In E.T. Elliot discovers E.T. is really an evil alien plotting to take over the world and he then has to run around killing CGI Aliens.

oh yeah, and if all of Speilbergs films were crap too, then yes.

Just the premise of the article makes me not want to waste my time reading it.

Spielberg and Sommers aren't even comparable at all...or even allowed to coexist in the same sentence when talking about quality directors.

MATT

VH certainly won't make Sommers the next big thing...sure it's fun, but it's not half as much fun as the Mummy flicks.

The problem with this comparison, as well as the Steven/Stephen comparison made here, is that both comparisons are SO WRONG that all it reveals is the ignorance of the writer, and doesn't shed a speck of light on any greater understanding of anyones career.

The biggest problem with this crapola journalism is that no director has ever been the "next" anything.

When Spielberg showed up on the scene no one called him "the next Curtiz".

When Soderburgh made a splash no one called him "the next Casavettes".

Great directors emerge in their own right, they aren't the reincarnation of anybody.

Thank you.

Just wait Mummy 3 will be here,I bet by next summer,and no this guy shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath,Spielberg make's good/great movie's,Sommer's make's crappy summertime popcorn flick's,end of story.

Let's see...

Stephen Sommers has no idea how to frame a shot, craft a decent (much less intriguing) narrative, move a story, use good CGI, or write convincing characters.

But aside from those things, he's a great director.