Whom do you think is the best science fiction films' director ?
i think Spielberg is very strong with his E.T and Jurassic Park(s) , but he got a strong opponent who is nobody else than Lucas with his lengthy prequels and sequels of Star wars.
Whom do you think is better situated.
I personally like Spielberg better
Spielberg or Lucas or ?
-
hamdiderot
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:24 pm
Spielberg or Lucas or ?
Fritz Lang, every time. He must have out-influenced Spielberg or Lucas a hundred times over.
If you insist on a US-born director then Stanley Kubrick created Science Fiction so vividly that people still discuss the questions, which is a large part of what it's for. It's all very well for Anthony Burgess or Arthur C Clarke to have posed them initially but it's Kubrick's vision that made people listen and wonder.
John Carpenter's not in that league perhaps but he's more watchable than Spielberg or Lucas. Again, it's more questions and less bullying insistence. The chap who directed Silent Running is from the same mould.
This is Stanley Kubrick, it's a stunning self-portrait of a great man.
If you insist on a US-born director then Stanley Kubrick created Science Fiction so vividly that people still discuss the questions, which is a large part of what it's for. It's all very well for Anthony Burgess or Arthur C Clarke to have posed them initially but it's Kubrick's vision that made people listen and wonder.
John Carpenter's not in that league perhaps but he's more watchable than Spielberg or Lucas. Again, it's more questions and less bullying insistence. The chap who directed Silent Running is from the same mould.
This is Stanley Kubrick, it's a stunning self-portrait of a great man.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
hamdiderot
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:24 pm
Spielberg or Lucas or ?
Thank u Spot for the very interesting photo
Kubrick is great , especially his 2000: Space Odyssey but i haven't watched it (which is a big problem, really) and so i can't be fully objective in my personal judgement. I v watched Shining and Eyes Wide Shut , but (unfortunately) that is not science fiction.
Concernining Carpenter i watched his The Thing (the scene of the blood test especially is outstanding) which is a very thrilling film but i think his Vampires is a commercial spectacle.Generally Carpenter is a not much-acclaimed director.
My conclusion is that Spielberg with his Close Encounters of the Third Kind and a whole set of other films is much more interesting . Everybody knows the obsession of Spielberg with extra-terresterial theme and that is why i would chose him as the gifted icon of science fiction as a genre ( by the way my definition of sci-fi excludes fantasy , because i conceive the former as mainly based on science).
Kubrick is great , especially his 2000: Space Odyssey but i haven't watched it (which is a big problem, really) and so i can't be fully objective in my personal judgement. I v watched Shining and Eyes Wide Shut , but (unfortunately) that is not science fiction.
Concernining Carpenter i watched his The Thing (the scene of the blood test especially is outstanding) which is a very thrilling film but i think his Vampires is a commercial spectacle.Generally Carpenter is a not much-acclaimed director.
My conclusion is that Spielberg with his Close Encounters of the Third Kind and a whole set of other films is much more interesting . Everybody knows the obsession of Spielberg with extra-terresterial theme and that is why i would chose him as the gifted icon of science fiction as a genre ( by the way my definition of sci-fi excludes fantasy , because i conceive the former as mainly based on science).
Spielberg or Lucas or ?
Perhaps sci-fi is only based on science when science succeeds in catching up?
The Postman was wonderful science fiction so I'll add Kevin Costner to the list of great sci-fi directors. It was a wonderful novel before it was a movie and Mr Costner didn't set a foot wrong in bringing it to the screen.
The Postman was wonderful science fiction so I'll add Kevin Costner to the list of great sci-fi directors. It was a wonderful novel before it was a movie and Mr Costner didn't set a foot wrong in bringing it to the screen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Spielberg or Lucas or ?
Kubrick-when 2001 came out, it was science fiction/reality/philosophy/everything taken to a new level. You can watch the movie many times, and come up with different areas to discuse afterwards, always different. Definitely the best, but Clarke's book made that film great. I enjoyed all the books.
Those who came after, are good. But on a different level. Lucas achieves some with many levels of thought behind his sagas. But even he has evolved them differently from his original conception in the 1970s, and the last three will probably never be made for film.
Spielberg is good also-Jurrasic Park is better in book form then cinema form though. There the mathematical nuansances and genetic boo-boos are intensified, and lots of stuff that just couldn't transform to screen.
Those who came after, are good. But on a different level. Lucas achieves some with many levels of thought behind his sagas. But even he has evolved them differently from his original conception in the 1970s, and the last three will probably never be made for film.
Spielberg is good also-Jurrasic Park is better in book form then cinema form though. There the mathematical nuansances and genetic boo-boos are intensified, and lots of stuff that just couldn't transform to screen.