Interesting video but I think it's a bit misguided? The first thing I have to ask is: are you a filmmaker, or are you just observing films as a critic? And I don't mean just making small independent projects with friends, but being in the "industry". This is not an attack at all, but I think it's important to understand how much perspective and experience you have, because it shapes your outlook on filmmaking. This is just an assumption, I could be wrong, but if you don't actively work in the industry as a professional, you're often critiquing without having the daily experience or understanding of how the landscape is when dealing with the actual politics of filmmaking, meaning your view becomes very limited. When you cherry pick some of the "GOATS" as you call out, from the 60s onward, you're literally cherry picking the big names that have lasted through the decades because they happen to be the lucky ones that have the financial standing to do large films. You forget about the other 95% of filmmakers from the 60s onward who have NOT done large films, and so they aren't in your memory. But then you compare them to random modern filmmakers that aren't making films at the same scope, scale, budget level as Ridley or Chad. The actual landscape of filmmaking has also vastly changed. Comparing the way directors rose up in previous decades to modern times where filmmaking has been democratized (which is a blessing and a curse), there are so many more people fighting for those limited spots to get to direct. The main issue with your video is that you make a lot of assumptions based on your limited (and I'm guessing young) perspective. You assume that there are no "tough" filmmakers out there, but that ends up just sounding like a jaded, and somewhat offensive, assumption. There are SO many filmmakers who would be dying to make large scale, detailed films. But what opportunities do they have? Have you talked to them? How do you know what they are willing or not willing to do? As other comments have pointed out, your discussion here ends up just being vague. It doesn't have a strong point, and I see you've tried to explain it more in the comments, but even then it feels just like a rant? I think you are simply looking back at the older years with "nostalgia blinders" to be honest. For every "old" director that you call out as "good", you can find a modern director that has proven the same, even in your own replies. Damien Chazelle, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers. From a creative standpoint, a lot of the examples you bring up aren't great either... I love Ridley, but a majority of his films in the past 2 decades are pretty poor. John Wick 4 is fun, no doubt, but it's not as consistently solid as the smaller JW1 or JW2. As others have said, bigger =/= better. And doing bigger things without purpose just makes it feel bloated. What if people simply don't WANT to make large films? What if someone just wants to make a small intimate, non-flashy film like Past Lives? Blade Runner is a classic, for sure, but as a whole film, it's just alright - a lot of things are done in that film just to look cool. Blade Runner 2049 ends up being a much more focused and complete film by a modern filmmaker that isn't doing things "just because it can" for the sake of being large, but for story/character driven reasons.
Firstly thank you for taking the time to write up a number of well thought out comments and doing so in a respectful and intelligent manor, this kind of discourse is why most film youtubers make their videos and why social media can be a productive place. A healthy disagreement can go a long way so it is only right for me to reciprocate as best I can! To answer your first question: Yes. I am and have been actively working in the industry for a number of years. Having been mentored by a number of seasoned veterans who have now retired but still keep a close eye on the industry and art form, working on a number of productions from filmmakers operating in their prime as well as the odd amateur student film during my time at film school and of course as a creator here on TH-cam. Plus 2 directed features and a tv series. I would humbly say at the brisk young age of 22 I have some awareness of this great industry/art form haha and certainly would not dare to even open my mouth about these topics if I was merely an observer. As some of the points you have raised have been addressed by myself or others in the comments I will not spend time further elaborating things like the correlation or lack thereof between budget and ambition, the "does bigger always equal better" debate or whether or not a director can in fact create films of that level of scale or ambition in this current climate of cinema etc. The two things I would like to take this reply to explore and further elaborate are: The actual definition and scale of the word "ambition" in today's world vs what it was a couple decades ago and secondly, the importance of mental fortitude and discipline. Firstly as we have said, Eggers or Chazelle etc are very impressive directors who have made some of my personal favourite films. However, a modern audience member or a young movie watcher just getting into films may watch these two direct a hundred extras in Babylon or the Northman and say that is impressive and the height of ambition and be completely blind to the fact that David Lean or Akira Kurosawa could do that in their sleep as they were directing a thousand extras...on horseback! It is just as difficult to find a battle sequence in the last 10 years as magnificent as Helm's Deep just as it is to find a character study as intricate and carefully explored as say Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. Size or not I simply believe films are just not made with quite as much love and care as they used to be. This is evidenced across the board ie. Digital cinematography takes half the time and half the kit to get a slightly weaker image and yet almost everyone is doing it because it is cheaper and easier when most cinematographers and directors know deep down film is just better (unless you're Fincher of course). There is also a reason that when any great director regardless of age is asked about their favourite films or influences, they almost always cite an older film. Nostalgia or not, most directors or just audience members will agree that if you were to pick any best picture winner from the last ten years there's a very good chance that film wouldn't even make the top 10 list of the best films a couple of decades ago. The bar has been lowered and a "masterpiece" now and a "masterpiece" 20 years ago are two very different films of very different qualities. Of course at the end of the day this is a very subjective argument as is any debate to do with art is but I am speaking from a clear common consensus. The second point I wish to highlight which is ultimately what the video is really about is people not just filmmakers but just in general needing to be a bit stronger and a bit more industrious. At the end of the day, this is a video talking about the importance of people doing the things they say they are going to do and doing it well. Just as I believe the quality of films have dropped in the last ten years, so have the quality of young people (and I'm one of them). Social media has more than ever allowed individuals a platform to complain and moan about how difficult things are and how many problems they have when young people of older generations would have simply just gone and solved their problems. This issue has seeped into every corner of the working world and has obviously found its way into filmmaking with young and "ambitious" filmmakers across the board declaring their love for the medium only to capitulate instantly when an issue arises, an issue that a young Scorsese or a young Spielberg would have solved in a heartbeat. I have witnessed this first hand time and time again. This is not an assumption whatsoever. The evidence quite honestly lies in this very comment section with a number of people writing paragraphs worth of excuses as to why something cannot be done instead of going out there and just at the very least trying to do something. They would prefer to moan and complain and list off a myriad of excuses than take action. It's like me making a video about why people are easily offended only for the comment section to be littered with people saying they are offended by the video... In theory, if I was wrong, this comment section would be empty as everyone would be too busy working hard and trying to pursue their dreams to even bother watching a TH-cam video from a random guy in god knows where. But instead, the core message at the heart of the video has unfortunately been proven right. I have made a video talking about how great filmmakers triumph because they embrace challenges and overcome difficulties only for people to respond by listing a number of challenges and difficulties as excuses for why they or others cannot do a certain thing. When examining any great filmmaker or any successful individual the one quality you find near instantly is that their ambition is matched only by their IGNORANCE. They arrive at Mt. Everest with no gear or know how and somehow, the best ones find a way to get to the top through sheer will, determination and resilience. And they do it their way "make your own industry" as Scorsese says. The best example of course is Orson Welles who made arguably the greatest debut feature of all time even though he had no idea how films were made. But he did not allow any problem to deter his goals and charged through everything with the right mentality. Orson Welles certainly would not be commenting excuses and arguments on some random bloke's video because he would have been too busy chasing his goals. So it sucks to conclude that the thesis at the core of the video stands true. That most individuals would rather make excuses as to why something cannot be done than make excuses as to why something can. As evidenced through the ratio of comments in this here video which serves as the perfect microcosm for how most individuals just need to toughen up and view the world with a better mentality. And whilst I could be even more of a smug bastard and say "hey that just means less competition for me", I think we can all agree this is not a good way for younger generations to come into the world. I fully acknowledge that what I have said as well as the way I have said it is extremely straightforward, blunt and even bullish in many areas but from many of the comments on this video I seem to have struck a nerve with some people which positive or negative is ultimately a good kick up the arse for people to start doing things be that chase their goals or monologue in a youtube comment section. But it is just disappointing at the end of the day that I have to spell out in such detail on multiple comments why "just do it" is a positive way to get things done only to be met with excuses and complaints. If people spent more time giving themselves and others reasons as to why they can instead of why they can't, this video wouldn't exist.
@@flickfanatics7948 Thanks for the reply! And yeah, hopefully I kept a constructive vibe throughout, not looking to be antagonistic in any way here. I think the issue with the discussion still here is that it's fully subjective, based on just your feelings without any concrete data. You keep saying that people today aren't as industrious, working as hard, or creatively solving problems - but how do you know that? I work in LA in film from large scale productions to streaming series to indie films - I see just as much hard work from people all the time. Cherry picking a few people from the past, while excluding the majority of the others from the past who failed, isn't a fair assessment. Like when people bring up Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur, they shot that way with extras because they "had" to - they knew no other physical way. It's not a better way at all, and it doesn't objectively change the artistic quality of the film at all. I love Orson Welles, but I wouldn't list any of his films in my top films to be honest. I grew up watching a lot of classics in cinema but if I'm honest, when I assess the filmmaking, there are more modern filmmakers I would place above them. It's all subjective, and I think it's easy to look back with nostalgia blinders on that all the time. Ultimately, the video and your replies I guess seem to be a case of "you're arguing with yourself?" Like you say " "just do it" is a positive way to get things done only to be met with excuses and complaints " - is confusing, because people ARE doing it? You're just not seeing it because you have exposure to a small bubble of experience. People aren't even disagreeing with you, because there's not much of a point to disagree with. Like, I'm not even opposed to your root sentiment - I'm all for throwing your life at film, it's what I do in my own life. But you're sort of just saying words about "old good, today bad" without anything of substance in the discussion. It just ends up being similar to when a boomer listening to the same blues riffs for 60 years talks about how modern guitarists can't play, while ignoring so many avenues of new music. I know you're trying to defend your video saying people are offended... but people aren't offended. Your wording can be offensive, but people aren't offended. It's more just confusion because again, there's not much strength to the discussion? Like if you're saying people aren't working hard or creatively solving problems, what if that's just in your limited circle? Otherwise, I still see people shooting 14-16 hour days in scorching heat, limited equipment and budget, etc. That doesn't mean their film will be good, as that still boils down to an individual's artistic merit - but merit is not what's in the discussion. So it just feels like you're trying to convince yourself of your argument more than others in a sense.
@@thewrongvine Fair enough. Of course all of these comments as well as the video itself are subjective opinions, and I believe and encourage disagreements as seeing other's point of views is how one can learn! Your experiences tell you one thing and mine tell me another, we stand by them and that's cool, such is the nature of a healthy disagreement. I guess we could go back and forth forever haha but at the end of the day it is a case of we can only wait and see how it all pans out. No doubt you'll agree those who work hard and commit will eventually find their way and we will know about them before long so all one can do now is just push forward, support one another with the occasional kick up the arse if needed and simply do the work!
I'm in two minds. Yes - directors should become stronger and more resilient. Filmmaking is hard, and only the most resilient will survive. As Kubrick said, making a film "can be like trying to write ‘War and Peace’ in a bumper car, in an amusement park..." and anyone who has tried to make a film will know that is true. But at the same time, I think there are thousands of filmmakers who would love to even be presented with the opportunity to make what Scott, Stahelski etc. get to make - as I certainly would. I'm not at all ready for that scale yet, but one day, God willing. Yes, Stahelski can shoot in France, with the Eiffel Tower in the background and in a stable with horses going around etc. but he likely couldn't have done that in the first John Wick, even if he wanted to. An issue nowadays is there is a low chance they would be given that opportunity, because, when considering the piece as a creative whole, it's not just about the director. Yes, they will lead, they will set the vision, but a film requires everyone to have the right attitude. When you really make a film, you discover how small the director can be at times: studio executives, funders, producers, the wider creative team (camera dept, production design dept etc.). I don't think this is just a director thing though - some of the next generation (if I am going by my student experience) are very resilient and some are getting weaker - it's a very mixed bag. So many complain, don't put the effort in, don't want to do basic things, others (in a fewer number) want to do as much as it takes. But, I think the weaker people will learn that making films is an inherrent challenge, and only the resilient will be left. I'm not sure if you necessarily argued "why directors are getting weaker" so much as, how they are getting weaker. I think the why could likely be a result of financial challenges, greedy studios (unwilling to fund original projects), oversaturation, overstimulation, an industry that breeds quick releases rather than paced creativity... I could go on. The next Ridley Scott may not be coming for a long time, because they don't have the money and are refused it by those who hold the keys. That can make you weaker (but not defeated - defeat is a choice).
What a wonderfully thought out and written argument thank you for this mate. I agree with so much of what has been written here but would only add that the next Ridley Scott or the next big epic director may not arrive for a while not just because of certain limitations but also because younger filmmakers will be raised mostly on a different kind of cinema if they do not choose to go back and study the history of the medium. The kinds of films being celebrated may not contain the same level of grandiosity or intricacy as the ones our parents or grandparents loved which of course is fine. But my fear lies in future generations seeing a CGI mess shot all on green screen and believing that to be a true epic when we grew up on stories of crews braving rivers and jungles and deserts. This will lead to a lower ceiling for filmmakers, a lower bar, a lower standard in what ambition could be in filmmaking and in turn produce filmmakers and creatives who no longer wish to even attempt such grand undertakings even if presented with the option to do so.
Its not that directors are getting weaker, its that budgets are getting smaller and producers place too many restrictions on films - especially in the indie filmmaking world. Bad, interfering producers are the bain of the indie world right now. Especially in Australia.
Great point, but in so doing the up and coming directors will no longer be trained or pushed to view challenges and overcoming them in the same way older directors were!
I think it's fantastic that you see a film like "John Wick 4" and become inspired. Knowing that a director came before us and created the exact kind of work we crave from within an infamously difficult system can only serve to give us confidence in pursuing it ourselves. However... I can't help but worry that some might come away thinking that your messaging is, "I'm most impressed when there's *more*." That quantity or excess are your guiding principles. (You even admit at one point that these added elements don't always need to make sense within the scene, but because they went for it, they have your respect.) It's this sort of mentality that drives far too many filmmakers to do the most "impressive" thing in ways that don't serve their story, tilting their dolly at a 45 degree angle because the shot is "cool" but adds nothing to the scene they're filming. Is it neat when the departments are hyper-detailed? Oh for sure. But plenty of films look incredible but are empty at the center, while films that take place entirely indoors in real-time have the capacity to bring folks to tears. So which is more "impressive?" As a fellow artist, though, I'd encourage you to also never lose the ability to spot the value in reduction too, in restraint, in scaling back. The best films are the ones, in my opinion, in which the story and its needs feed into the visuals. (I'd actually argue that "John Wick" has created an alternate universe where too much of everything is exactly the flavor.) Also: Saying that Jordan Peele can't make an epic is presumptuous. Does he want to? Until he says it in an interview, we can't know. But the man's singular in our industry, and I don't think either of us should be arrogant enough to state outright that he is incapable of accomplishing something.
Brilliant points across the board sir, and yes my message here is not bigger=better but that Hard work = better, regardless of scale and size. However I also believe that "big" today is not the same as "big" a few decades ago. Sure I would agree that Jordan Peele is a promising and certainly fantastic director who when given a bigger tool kit on Nope has certainly impressed me but even then because of things like CGI and the volume, studios will push filmmakers to lean on easy decisions rather than correct decisions sometimes and so if I were to ever be fortunate enough to be in a position where I have that kind of money, I would prefer to invest it in things that make filmmaking more of an adventure than a 9-5 office job :)
I don't know if i'd say directors are getting weaker, especially if the directors the person in this video is talking about is his fellow film students then it's a bit of a poor comparison. One is Ridley Scott, with a multimillion dollar studio + hundreds of crew members and resources, the other is not. Let's also not pretend that the entirety of Napoleon was created on Scotts shoulders. New and bold filmmakers are arising all the time. I for one look forward to future filmmakers and am ready to empower them as they come.
I mean if you see some of these directors prior films before joining disney, often independent feature debuts, they're quite good but so much smaller in scale. It's a dramatic leap and these disney films are corporate machines heavily infulenced by the suits. These "fresh" directors don't have the power or influence even with something like the script. Hollywood now is a very different beast to what it was in the 70s and even just ten years ago. @@AnonymousAnonposter
@@enzog8245 Great point! The idea of pushing oneself past one's comfort zone is at the heart of my rant haha so couldn't agree more there. As for comparisons to film students, I meant that as an outlook on filmmakers of my age range in their 20s-30s as a whole who with one or two exceptions consistently show their lack of character when it really comes down to it. Time and time again I have been shown how easily their "passion" dissipates when faced with the slightest problem which has taught me the importance of patience and discipline!
I think one issue in film sets now is that studio want the film to finish as early as possible so a lot of film shoots are so short so producers don’t care if the film is sloppily made as long as it fits the schedule
I think to work on the level where you take these big challanges, get the scene, move on, and keep at it until you're done, you have a truly want it. It cannot just be a job. It has to be a thing that you actually WANT to work extra long days for, not even caring that when you clock in and clock out. And all those hours are for the director. Actors, crew, etc. have a call time. When you're a director, your call time is when you wake up in the morning and you wrap when you go to bed. You have to LOVE what some call "blessed unrest," where you are thinking about the proejct, working through ideas, working out problems in your head from the moment you wake up to when you go to bed. Even when you're sleeping, and it might actually wake you up in the middle of the night (when I made my first feature film I was actually sleep walking, dreaming it was time to go to set lol my ex had to stop me because it was still nighttime). But, if you're someone who doesn't want it that bad, there's no shame! Maybe it isn't for you, but that doesn't mean you can't still work in the industry. You can be a commerical director, make music videos, be a writer, etc. don't expect those jobs to be easy, you just won't have to worry about the burden of leading a feature film. And that's fine. Build the life that you want for yourself. I have found that directing can be a masochistic act. But remember... you're creating images and moments that did not exist in the world until you assembled the crew and cast and put a camera in front of them. It's a precious, magical thing. At least it feels that way!
First of all, bigger doesn't always mean better. And unfortunately, every time Ridley makes one of his epics and it tanks at the box office, it prevents other film makers from doing similar scale projects. Basically, your argument comes from a place of ignoring the basic economics of the film business. As a director myself,I would LOVE to be given the chance to make huge scale projects like Ridley. And I have directed several massive battle sequences on Game of Thrones. Directing such large scale scenes with multiple elements doesn't scare me at all. I love it! And I'm sure there are many other up and coming directors who feel the same way. All we need is the money and resources to do it. Directors aren't doing this kind of project because they're afraid, or weak. It's because you can't do these things on a low budget with ridiculously tight schedules. You need studio backing, and Ridley (due to his long track record) has that. So if you want to point the finger, then point it at the studios for not giving newer film-makers the chance to prove themselves on the battlefield.
Unfair to say Jordan Peele can't do what Ridley Scott can. The age and experience gap is huge, give JP some time to develop and show off his skillset. Also, there is the desire to make a film on the scale, sometimes bigger isn't always better. I agree with the attention to detail aspect, Chad Stahelski has proven he's one to keep an eye on
I think I take the point you're struggling to make; but, if you think that the assertion here, was simply "Bigger is Better," then, I would suggest, that you seemed to have missed the point this video was offering. I would further suggest that this video is advancing the idea that the difference between many of the directors of today, and those who made their bones years ago, isn't simply a difference in age & experience; but one of intestinal fortitude & mental outlook. The differences of approach to the act of filmmaking. The early work of many of the more seasoned veterans, generally, supports this argument; but I do take your overall point, about specifically talented directors, like Peele.
Fair enough, Peele is a fantastic director and has done a very good job with the 3 films he has made so far. My point however is that I believe most modern directors would not even wish to make films of that scale or grandiosity. Even if they could. Large films seem to be a dying breed, especially when the landscape of cinema is shifting towards either big budget CGI showcases or super small indie filmmaking with the films being made in the middle dying out. Because of that, promising directors either tend to stick to smaller movies, join a Marvel or a Star Wars or just move to TV and therefore we need filmmakers who stick to their guns and their path to create big things that exist independent of franchises
@@KrishanChoudhury What a perfect film to choose as an example. 12 Angry Men is actually among my favourite films because it does exactly what I said in the video. Sidney Lumet at every turn chose to make the correct decisions as a director instead of the easy ones. My point is that directors should always strive to create the best possible version of a scene or a movie even if it requires more work and time, be it in a jury room with twelve actors or a battlefield with twelve hundred. More than anything this video serves to highlight the importance of hard work and maximum effort not just in art but in life. Filmmakers can choose to set their movies wherever their story guides them, that can be in a castle or an office, it is the work they do within that place with the people they have that I find important as so many young filmmakers love to exist in their comfort zone and nothing great has ever been made from a place of ease and comfort. 12 Angry Men is the perfect example of people putting in 100% and it resulting in a once in a lifetime masterpiece. I did not think I would have to explain that hard work and effort equals success but here we are. Thank you for proving my point.
@@KrishanChoudhury except it absolutely is mate. Bigger doesn't always mean better but bigger definitely means you've done more. Raising 6 children is more difficult than raising 1. Maintaining a farm is more difficult than maintaining a one bedroom flat. Lawrence of Arabia which took a year and a half to shoot will contain more problems to solve, more challenges to overcome, more moments of doubt and difficulty than 12 Angry Men which was shot in 3 weeks (I love the two films very equally). It will always be more impressive to see someone maintain grace under pressure as a person, maintain discipline as a leader, maintain integrity as an artist out in the desert for a year and a half than someone doing so on a studio for a few weeks (not to diminish Lumet's legendary career). Strength of character lies in not just being strong willed or solving problems but doing so consistently over a long period of time especially in more difficult circumstances. So yes, a bigger film shot over a longer period of time, in numerous locations, involving a far larger group of people working on it will be a more impressive feat to pull off just as building a skyscraper will require more work than building a straw hut. More movie means more hard work means more impressive feat. It's simple logic and common sense that quite frankly should not have to be explained to a grown adult. As for you being offended by the choice of words selected by a random person on the internet. That sounds like a you problem mate.
I think you all are missing the point of what makes a compelling film. It's not "adding horses to make it look cool". Aim what serves the story the best. And sometimes that is a dull room. And saying those on smaller budget films aren't working as hard... yo... those on small budgets are probably the hardest workers ever. Putting their heart and soul into everything. Just coz it's big and busy doesn't mean it's great.
Agreed. Big doesn't mean better, caring more and showing it means better. Regardless of size. If one is shooting a film in a room with a few people and a table, they best do it as best they can and yet no film like that made in the last few years even come close to the works of Lumet, Wilder or Hitchcock. Good work is good work regardless of size.
It's not just about the physical size of the production - it's about DARING, man! In themes, content, styles, experimentation, and above all, total freedom from censorship!
I get where you are coming from, we do not have young directors who can risk it all to make a grandiose film like Francis Ford Coppola did with Apocalypse now, the only other filmmaker outside the Speilberg, Riddley Scott generation pushing the envelope is Christopher Nolan and for the younger generation, Robert Eggers seems like someone willing to work outside his comfort zone.
One of my favorite film stories, is when Kubrick cast Harvey Keitel in the lead role for eyes wide shut, he made him do so many takes that Keitel eventually walked off the set and never came back. And I love how Harvey Keitel responded in that moment because it shows that making a movie is not a solely artistic endeavor, but one where you're also dealing with people's time, money, and careers. You're definitely free to "challenge" yourself as an artist however you want, but people are also free to think that if you don't know what you're doing you're ultimately wasting their time. So while a lot of your film school buddies who made simple films might've been pussies to you, I can commend them for caring enough about the people that worked under them to put themselves in situations where they knew they'd thrive on some level.
great video man! only one I disagreement though boss, Jordan Peele would definialy be able to make a massive film like bladerunner given the time. I agree with you on so many other points you made.
More than a fair point, he certainly has impressed me in dealing with a bigger scale like Nope but even then I would also say that the evolution of films is simply that we are moving away from the proper huge epics of old and that even if he had the money or the desire to do so...we would be hard pressed to see something akin to the likes of Lord of the Rings etc
I disagree. I don't think Peele would have delegated as much of the creative process to others as Scott did. Remember, Scott can't write, which is why there were practically 40 fucking drafts of BLADE RUNNER before shooting was even halfway done. Also, he can storyboard, but he's not Syd Mead or Ron Cobb. Scott knows he can't do everything so he doesn't try; instead, he assigns the tasks to the right people. Peele is a writer/director. I think he would try to do everything himself and that can be a George Lucas-sized problem. On his audio commentary for GET OUT I heavily disagreed with his creative approach to the backstory of the conspiracy and felt it was so overblown that it ruined the commentary the film is legendary for.
I understand this reality I am almost 22 years old and i directed a short film in 2020 my first work ever and it was a free course in my residence country . I was 18 and i was shit scared and i must confess i design everything in order to feel more in the confort zone. You know i understand is kind of a lame comparation but sometimes the thing comes from a certain fear of showing up and actually make a bloody movie.
Just fantastic. Showing up and just doing it means you have done more than most and I will always respect those who just get on with it and are still self reflective enough to know where their pros or cons lie. Good on you mate!
Barry Levinson mentioned this happening on the set of DINER in _My First Movie._ He said it was when the lighting truck showed up at 5 in the morning on the first day of the shoot (like most first-timers, he couldn't sleep the night before Day 1) that it finally sunk in that it was happening and the reality practically froze him in place outside in the cold.
I don't see how comparing John Wick 4, a movie I absolutely loved and is an exercise in "how far can we push this" to what Jordan Peele is doing makes any sense. The amount of horses people use in the frame doesn't equal how hard or soft they are as a director. Sometimes directors go out of their way to make a story choice or beat that was risky and could be great or ruin the whole movie. I would consider that pretty badass, with no horses involved.
What you're talking about is the physical demands, but films are made at kitchen tables. The homework and that is where Napoleon failed and many modern films fail. When Luca Brasi is killed in Godfather I feel something, when the Killer in David Fincher shoots Tilda Swinton, I don't give a shit. When Vincent Vega accidentally shoots Marvin in the face I feel more than I did in the whole of Napoleon, something has shifted in the way films are made and it's not about being on set and the rigor of that, it's the rigor of what ends up on the page and the screen that has shifted.
I feel like you are missing some majors factors here. First of most directors nowadays who helm big budget projects are plucked from indie obscurity and thrown into the deep end of 200 million dollar movie making. They’ll probably make like 1 or 2 indie movies that cost 5 millions dollars, that’s a big jump. Imagine if Steven Spielberg made Duel and then immediately jumping into Saving Private Ryan, the results wouldn’t be a good as what we got. As for the examples made in this video. Ridley Scott before his feature film debut, spent years developing his craft by directing commercials before directing The Duellist Chad Stahelski spent his career as a stunt coordinator and a second unit director working on big action movies before directing John Wick. I do believe if Jordan Peele was given 100 million dollars and is given the enough time to breath, he could make an detailed and ambitious epic, so could filmmakers like Robert Eggers, Damien Chazelle or The Daniels. The problem is not the filmmakers , it’s the modern studio system hiring them.
Same thing almost happened to Nolan, but he was smart and only accepted a journeyman project at the scale he though he could handle (INSOMNIA), which he did. Gave him the experience without overwhelming him. And he learned fucking fast which is how he could jump to BATMAN BEGINS.
There was a reason for the horses by the way in that scene with Bill Skarsgard. His character in the movie comes from a family that do those fancy horse show thing. I forget the name of it. The things in JW4 that seems excess or just for cool sake there is a reason.
This is akin to people who listen to an artist like Frank Sinatra and bemoan, “why don’t they make music like this anymore?” Well there generally is, but that person is not going to get a record deal. There’s plenty of filmmakers who want to make challenging, and even “big” films, but you ain’t making Napoleon on an indie budget. Plus you’re not even considering all the filmmakers who make this very well crafted innovative independent films only to break into the industry and get stuck doing reboots and remakes, instead of given the chance to do the stuff they’d like to do. The Hollywood landscape is different than when a Spielberg, or even a Tarantino or Nolan came onto the scene. A filmmaker today would lucky to get to make a Pulp Fiction, or Momento as their first studio film. Hollywood isn’t in the business of making movies like that anymore. So how are new directors supposed to distinguish themselves and work up to the epics that the speakers are so enamored of?
Great input here. I think especially nowadays it is very much a case of 1 in a million who gets to make the kinds of movies we talk about but that doesn't mean we should stop striving to be that one! I believe sometimes a bit of ignorant optimism can lead to many great things. Orson Welles of course being exhibit A :)
I think you're missing a number of compounding factors here. For one, filmmaking is extraordinarily corporatized: Scott, Kubrick, Speilberg, etc. are all grandfathered in from the New Hollywood days and are allowed to indulge themselves in ways that NO other new director would be. Budgeting and scheduling are micromanaged to the hilt and no one is allowed the time to direct the way they did. Secondly, long physical shoots like the old days would be seen as abusive by new casts and crews because of the amount of time spent doing things. Even if you take the emotionally abusive stuff out (Kubrick on THE SHINING for instance), doing 40 takes until something gets done right would prompt complaints from the talent to the executives to get you drummed off the film. Everybody shows up at work wanting to go home ASAP and that is not an environment where art is made. Hell, reaction channels have shown that people have totally forgotten how movies used to roll and they're constantly surprised by just how effective "old-fashioned" movie techniques are compared to today. They've lost an entire conceptualization of how stories can work. Combine all this shit together and you get the very thing you're talking about and weakness isn't even in play yet.
You are well within your rights to criticize who or whatever you want. It is the creator's job to create and the consumer's job to consume and criticism is a natural product of consumption. The point I was making is that if you are a fellow filmmaker I believe it is important to understand the intricacies and difficulties when creating a motion picture before making blanket statements about it. Many people on the internet speak before they understand and therefore I do not believe it productive to promote an impulsive and ignorant way of speaking when it comes to film. Or anything for that matter.
I understand the underlying point, but there are a lot of the points being made are regarding to budget. Which I agree, when I see a big budget movie, I want to see every dollar on screen, and the movies that don't achieve that should be called out. But dollar amount does not equate to work ethic. Give Jordan Peele a Napoleon-level budget, he will create something insane with an original perspective.
Agreed, the one thing I would add to your point however is that aside from money or work ethic, I feel the sheer hunger and desire to challenge oneself has been missing from cinema in the last few years with some small exceptions of course. Even some of our favourite directors are happily making masterpieces within their comfort zone. But when we look back to the likes or Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kubrick etc. these were directors who would almost never make the same movie twice, who actively pushed themselves past the ridiculously high standard that was already expected of them. My point is that I believe most modern directors and certainly those of my generation (20s-30s) do not have the same kind of hunger for greatness as those from generations before us.
@@flickfanatics7948 yeah you're on the money with that. I do think there are some younger names right now that are really pushing. Ari Aster comes to mind. Even though he's three films in right now, I don't think it can be denied that he's trying something new with every project. Midsommer seemed like a natural progression from Hereditary. But then Beau is Afraid is an enormous swing. Whatever your thoughts on those films are, I feel like it can't be denied that he's putting everything into them. But that's just one name. There are others out there, but I definitely agree that more filmmakers in general should be pushing themselves and the art form.
Also gotta respect Aster for being so unapologetically him. I'd definitely add Chazelle and Eggers to that list in regards to hunger and ambition as directors as well as their undeniable ability to execute their visions which most definitely comes from a genuine love and understanding of the medium and its history. @@keepshowingface
@@flickfanatics7948 This is the issue. "I feel the sheer hunger and desire to challenge oneself has been missing from cinema in the last few years with some small exceptions of course." So your entire discussion is just about a feeling without any data? How would you know if those filmmakers didn't have a hunger and desire to challenge themselves? That's rather insulting to the people who love film just as much as you, or even more than you? Just because someone has a desire and hunger and works hard, doesn't mean the film will end up great. What ends up happening is that, you look at a film that is "bad", and you assume it's bad because they didn't have the same "drive" as someone like Ridley Scott did (according to you). But the truth is, they could just be a bad filmmaker and artist. But that doesn't discredit their love and passion fro the craft. So if you make films, are we to assume that you are one of the "good" directors that have hunger for greatness? Are you going to walk up to the Safdie brothers and just tell them that they don't have a desire for greatness because they make small films?
I think that this is a passionate interpretation and one that I want to believe is just a matter of will. But as the other comments mention this isn't just a matter of the quality of the directors. It's a feedback loop between the creatives and the studio system in a larger context of the risk profiles and calculations of everyone involved. Our world just has much less room for error when it comes to capturing attention spans and building reputations or momentum and this manifests itself in the process of making absolutely anything that 1) costs money to make and 2) eventually has to be sold. That means that it is an inherently less risky world where high challenges can lead to high rewards but there are just more and more visible examples of high risks not paying off. That is just optics and reality. At the same time, I'm curious if you think that this isn't a self-limiting problem. In my discipline of choice, Karate, the gross quality of students has dramatically decreased. But the quality of the dedicated students really doesn't vary. The ones who would push through in the past have the same tenacity and urgency to absorb, imitate, & innovate as those same types of students today. The larger amount of people who try the discipline than before (democratization) naturally leads to high attrition rates because it is hard and because there are so many other distractions in people's lives that call upon their attention. Not necessarily because people are en masse becoming less tolerant of discomfort. The cream still rises to the top. Perhaps attention to detail won't manifest in management of huge productions with massive IRL setpieces and managing on location filming schedules. Perhaps it just manifests in doing smaller things faster and better. Why do you feel that the actual numbers of people who could do what Scott did is limited by availability of such people rather than opportunity to make films of that scale?
Outside of the creative aspect (which is integral ofc and nothing gets made without the idea and script) / vision, Ridley has less to do with the hard work that goes into the overall management and execution than the various below-the-line HoDs who execute the massive vision, i.e. the 1st AD, and their team members - the ones who are REALLY outside in the elements (with the toughness and grit you claim these newer directors do not have). I think there are lots of directors who, if they had the experience and financial draw of Ridley, would absolutely have the spine and vision to make a film as...ambitious as Napoleon, at least on a technical level (where elsewhere in quality I find it lacking). I found what you were trying to say slightly unclear - I don't think it's the brutality of the physical elements that are deterring newer filmmakers from going bigger and I guess what you would then equate with as better(?). I don't think they need to go stand in the sun for 10 hours a day; what directors need are strong scripts and strong visions. After all, 99% of the time, they are not the ones on radio coordinating to multiple people who are coordinating 100s of extras and 100s of animals. I'm no doubt digressing, but I feel like you could be clearer on what you're trying to say, on what you think new filmmakers are lacking comparatively. Also, the doorway into filmmaking is much wider nowadays, which no doubt has the effect of there being more...mediocrity.
Great points, especially that it has become easier to be a filmmaker and therefore easy for mediocrity to find its way through. My main point in the video is on the importance of hard work and mental fortitude. Making the right decisions and maintaining creative integrity whether you're standing in the sun for 10 hours or in an air conditioned studio for 3 hours (although I'm sure you agree its a lot easier to maintain sanity when you are filming in comfortable locations). The greatest filmmakers are the ones who always make the right decisions even if they may also be the difficult decision and not only do I believe that modern filmmakers of my generation who more often than not seem to be creatures of comfort can benefit from having a stronger mentality. I simply respect the fact that a seasoned director like Scott who could in theory just retire and relax is still year after year putting in work to make things for us to enjoy when so many are scared to even begin.
(Sorry, I was typing this before your latest response which I will read now) And, which directors in their prime do you think wouldn't have the guts to do something like what Ridley does? I'm probably repeating but I think the issue is more the fact there are few directors who studios would back with such funding, both in the sense of amount and direction (like large amount of real people/props/animals versus CGI (which Napoleon certainly employs)). That said, directors DO need to prove themselves, like Ridley & Nolan & Denis have. On another note, I think the idea that cinema is dying - as others have said - is a wee silly. In the world of art, cinema was born yesterday. Too, a lot of these "cinema is dying" discussions centre around the Western mainstream studio films; there is a vast wealth of quality outside that bubble.
@@michaelv2304 To be honest I feel as if most of our favourite directors have in one way or another already done as Scott has. Nolan with Dunkirk, Tarantino with Kill Bill etc and so its not even a matter of guts but whether or not they actually want to again. I watched a great roundtable in which Danny Boyle talks about space films and how every director who has ever gone to space never went back and made a second...except Scott, who as it stands as gone back 3 times. So I'd say most of our directors operating in their prime have already proven themselves and it is now time for the next generation to do so. Also agreed that cinema is not dying, just evolving and even if one does not like or agree with the direction it is going in I think there are enough "traditional" filmmakers who will still have an audience.
havent heard of other african american film makers than Jordan Peele after John Singleton died!Spike Lee made that nice movie Inside Man... havent seen a movie that made you smile or remember it like Monsters by Gareth Edwards or John Wicks club shoot out by David Leitch and Chad Stahelski...
So, I feel that you are praising directorial decisions that have no storytelling aspect to them at all. Like, yeah, let's throw some horses because they look cool! Filmmaking is about getting to the essence of the story and presenting it in the visual way. Anything else from that is just being gimmicky. Being a great director doesn't necessarily require putting as much effort as possible, but rather being able to tell what's needed and what's not. There are some minimalist directors who make great films, and there are some over-the-top directors who are also great, because they know how to make use of things they put in frame, but for service of storytelling. I love Martin Scorsese's Casino, it's big, and showy, and over-stuffed because the story requires it to be such; and I also love Aki Kaurismaki's almost empty frames, because they corresponds to his stories and approach. Also, what's wrong with going to therapy if it's needed?
Great points across the board and thank you for presenting them in a very considerate and measured way! I too love more minimalist and smaller films, some of my all time favourites films take place in a set of rooms. The heart of this video however is not so much about the idea that "bigger=better". But that regardless of the size of your film production or even the weight of a task you do in your daily life, you should do it to the best possible ability. How you approach a miniscule task is as much a reflection of your strength of character as how you approach a massive one. The problem I have noticed is more people are taking filmmaking for granted and therefore the ambition in their actions do not align with the ambition in their words. As you say, Scorsese puts as much effort into making the gigantic Casino as he does with a small dialogue driven characters study in the King of Comedy, granted in this particular comparison Casino would in nature be a bigger undertaking on a logistical level and therefore be more impressive in that way but that certainly does not make it a better film, just a more impressive undertaking. My point at the end of all this is that if someone's story requires them to simply shoot two people standing in an empty room and talking for 90 minutes then by all means do that and do it as best you possibly can, but it would be moronic and delusional to say that doing that well is as impressive as filming 200 individuals dressed in custom made Rohirim armour charging at 200 extras who woke up at 4am to have their Orc make up done in time for an 8am shoot start. With the films of last year alone, I can tell you I personally preferred Past Lives over Napoleon by a long shot but I also don't need to be a rocket scientist to say which film was a more impressive feat in execution.
Ridley Scott is 86, doing pretty well for that age. Unfortunately this project was doomed to fail from the jump since it'd always be compared to Kubrick's "greatest movie never made"
I feel like doing things for 'no fucking reason because its cool' really harms the story when its not relevant to the film and its just done for the sake of it. All it does is show off what they CAN do, and not the reason because WHY or how it motivates the story/characters.
When you’re a Ridley Scott you have an entire team of people that helps you undertake it all. If anything, his producers do most of that organizing and execution. Look at the credits at the end of the film. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. Not one single man doing it all.
must be crap like other directors and actors/actresses who signed a 3-5 picture deal! Either you make this movie, or you will be fired and sued into oblivion!
With that logic it's like saying you can win a game of football without a manager or win a battle without a general. Sure at the end of the day players score the goals, soldiers do the fighting, cast and crew do the actual "work". But ultimately none of them will know what to do or where to go with regards to the match, the battle, the film without the leader, without clear and concise direction...without the director. There's a reason the director's name comes first in the credits. Also Scott is a producer on all his films...
@@flickfanatics7948 Of course a director is IMPORTANT, but when someone is talking about the “undertaking” of such a large ordeal, a director is going to definitely lean on their team. The director is paid to have a vision, but the REAL generals of a production are the producers. And, yes, he’s part of that producing partnership (mainly because he’s agreed and acknowledged to usually have creative control), but I guarantee you that the organizing of those productions are his team and not mostly him. He is paid to tell them what he wants and needs, and they’re paid to make it happen so he can focus on the creative aspects. On a set, it’s why producers are more powerful than directors.
Ain't just directors it's the whole f... society. TV / Cinema was really over for me 2010 - 2014 that's 10 years ago. The boredom of streaming wading through 100s of Reviews just to find a few decent contemporary works or the retros ect. Exhausted.
9:00 what does that even mean??? director with different style can't make the same type of film? It's like asking if Ingmar Bergman can make The Searcher
My biggest complaint with Marvel Studios is that they hire unexpericned directors to held 100million dollar films , you cant do an indie today and next year blockbuster why ? because then you have no say/control any know this and exploit it so Studio Exes can do whatever they want , films nowadays are too "cooperate " and not creative
You can't say that these new directors are fucking scared of difficulties and pressure if they don't even have that big of an opportunity to make such grand-scale films in the first place. With experience, comes confidence, and if they have garnered that confidence thats the time they make movies of such scale with such efficiency as that of Ridley Scott.
Very good point. However I'd also say how one approaches making a 5 minute short is often a good indication of how they would approach a 3 hour epic. How you do something is how you do everything and from experiences with fellow young filmmakers and younger generations...it's not looking too good. Granted we can always say young filmmakers are at the beginning of their journey and have a lot to learn but just as one can watch Following or Reservoir Dogs and see that Nolan and Tarantino have serious balls and bravery, there just doesn't seem to be quite that kind of energy even in indie filmmaking anymore. Or at least not as much.
Haha! I found this whilst randomly browsing TH-cam, and I absolutely agree with what's being said. In a way, I come from the reverse background of the big films and directors you cite: I've made a load of zero-budget films that were ridiculously ambitious and ball-breakingly hard to complete , and you need the same philosophy of being tough and resilient to get them made. There are so many people (not just directors, all roles) moaning and groaning in the business, and many who are just not tough enough mentally or fit enough physically to stay the course. Great video, thanks!
I agree with everything in this video pretty much. The only push back I have is, Napoleon was a bad movie. It was poorly done. It was rushed. It was like filmed cliff notes of a biography but it wasn't even complete. The technical aspects of it were near flawless (though I do think the acting could've been better on the parts of certain people in it.) I also just watched Killers of the Flower Moon and came to the conclusion half way through that Scorsese should retire from film making. The last few he's done are excessively long, excruciatingly boring and tbh... not interesting. (My opinion, watch what you want.) These old school directors are now just old and the younger movie goers, as is tradition, I don't think, appreciate the work these directors did in the 70s-90s. Again, my opinion. I'm 40 years old. I've ALWAYS thought Hitchcock was grossly overrated. His movies were boring but the stories themselves were good. And as I said, I chalk it up to, I wasn't there at the time to really appreciate what he did for movies, JUST FOR MOVIES, I'm not talking about the garbage person he was. Does anyone really think if you show 10 people, aged 18-21 Goodfellas and their gonna understand the significance of that movie in terms of the direction? Maybe 2 of them will. My long winded point is, I wish we could go back to the time when these directors were great. When stories mattered over cast and effects. I miss seeing real fire in movies, real clothing, real sets, real locations, practical affects rather than computer generated, all that stuff that made movies so wonderful and enjoyable. I think most people have become desensitized to modern movies so when these old school directors, shoot their movies with the old school method, it doesn't hit like it used to. (My opinion, watch what you want.)
There are still great directors with original voices coming through. Along with more seasoned names like PTA, Wes Anderson, Denis Villeneuve & Christopher Nolan still at the top of their game you have Emerald Fennell, Yorgos Lanthimos, Brandon Cronenberg, Robert Eggers etc. etc. making pretty unique and challenging films.
Very much so! But even then I would say my personal opinion is that filmmaking across the board doesn't seem to be the adventure that it was a couple of decades ago as evidenced by the majority of movies made now as well as the way in which they are made.
Money is a major impediment, filmmakers don’t get to be brave and make their edgy masterpieces because studios are risk avoidant and would rather reserve those slots for the legendary few such as PT Anderson, Scorsese, and Tarantino. 😊
The evolution or devolution of the studio system definitely plays a role and as you say directors do not get to be as "brave" now even if they wanted too which for me is a scary concern going forward for myself as well as younger generations.
@@flickfanatics7948 I agree. However, where there's a need to serve, there's room for growth. I can envision independent cinema growing stronger and stronger if riskier filmmaking ends up paying off more than conventional fare. Look at Mattel with their Toy Universe vision-bring auteurs to write and direct Barney and Hot Wheels could be our strange, aesthete-capitalist future.
what about the director of The Marvels?!!!!didnt she only have 1 movie that nobody saw and then got handed a 300mill dollar movie by Marvel!the movie she made was Candyman from 2019!
If we are working with that logic technically speaking just as the Marvels was Nia Da Costa's third studio funded movie, Batman Begins was Nolan's third...
but he is actually a visionary, like Scott brothers!rip Tony! I am one of the few who Hates Memento, I hate the pacing and bread crumbs that falls once in a while, He actually knows how to use superheroes!how many reshoots did Marvels have?@@flickfanatics7948
putting on yourself on a bit of a pedestal before shooting a frame anyone has seen. Id say most of the issues you speak about are solved by budget. Not everyone is given a blank check. Socrsecce and Scott were given blank checks to make flops for apple.
Respectfully disagree. Black Widow cost 280mil and John Wick 4 cost 100mil. You give a billion dollars to an idiot they're gonna use it as toilet paper. In most cases hard work, discipline and a positive mentality shows far more clearly on screen than money.
@@flickfanatics7948 But what's your point? That the filmmaking on JW4 is better than BW? Of course. How would you know the "hard work, discipline and positive mentality" of one film over the other? Were you there on set, gauging the efforts of the cast and crew each day? These are just individual circumstances. I think the issue as many people point out with your discussion being ultimately vague is that - you are trying to extrapolate a large thesis about the state of filmmaking without any actual data beyond how you "feel". Every example you bring up just stands as an individual comparison. I love that you're passionate about film, but it just seems like a lot of... ranting here? It's not productive, there's not a clear thesis, and there's not many good points to back the discussion up.
@@DialloMoore503 Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon were financial flops. Cost 200 and 130 million to make and brought back a fraction of that. But they were made because of the standard Apple TV is trying to set for their streaming service, which would eventually pay off in the long run. They are both really expensive commercials for Apple TV.
Who is giving the opinions in this video? How the F do you know if Jordan Peele can make an epic? He hadn’t tried. The John Wick series jumped the shark with part 4 and Napoleon was a mess from a storytelling standpoint despite Scott thinking he’d made a masterpiece. But yay they had very busy frames!
@@flickfanatics7948 uh I hope though you have the knowledge of multiple film industries existing in India otherwise you're gonna get heavily criticised by Indians if you ever talked to them 💀
And all of those are good because of the script, production design, cinematography, editing, music, acting, etc and NOT direction. Scott is probably the most overrated of all time. Hearing this sycophantic child endlessly blandish them would be amusing were it not pathetic
I think he is a good director in the sense that he is good at his job. Works well with actors, works quickly and efficiently. But truly his best films are the ones which are best written.
Ridley Scott is strictly a professional hired hand. The one advantage he has is that he can compose his own shots well but only if the script is good. He can't write, produce or design anything else. He needs an 10/10 script and he'll bring it down to an 8/10 by the time it's final cut.
The fella doing most of the talking sounds like a guy who would irritate the shit out of me, if I had to spend more than five minutes conversing with him, buuuuuut... he ain't wrong.
Lad, on projects like this it's the producers who do the real heavy lifting. As a director here Ridley aint managing all of this. He will tell his H.O.Ds what he wants and they'll do it for him. You're talking out of your nut bud.
Yes that's why producers win best picture not directors. Everyone on the crew of a undertaking that massive deserves credit and praise as they all worked through it together. There are people who have to wake up way earlier and finish way later than the director, people who have to stand in the cold for longer etc but the one thing they all have in common is they follow the lead and direction of the director (and producers of course). For one individual to be such a successful and consistently effective leader at the heart of projects that employ thousands is a feat on its own. Also Scott is a producer on pretty much all his films...
Ridley Scott's problem is: now he thinks he's capable of doing everything, including the scripting and design, out of sheer arrogance. With one or two exceptions, I agree that, in general, the art of cinema is in decline. There are few directors, actors and writers who have the same quality, competence and creativity when compared to previous generations. They may have the new technologies and money and big budgets, but it's a long way to go for them to be really great directors.
Facts. Not to be a nostalgia merchant here but I would bet most of the top films of the last few years would not make it anywhere close to the best of the last few decades that came before. The bar has been significantly lowered. You are completely onto something with regards to filmmakers having more money and tech to play with and therefore potentially the importance in good old fashioned workmanship.
@@KrishanChoudhury Yea you've lost the plot here lad there's a reason IMDB's top 10 doesn't contain a single film from the last decade and Letterboxd's more niche Top 10 only has 1. These lists are voted by actual viewers and film fans not just critics. Also I wouldn't go around using the "watch more movies" argument with people you don't know, makes you look like a mug. Cheers for all the comments tho, got user engagement through the roof
As a filmmaker, I couldn't care less is the conditions are tough or not. Ask Fincher how hard it was to make Panic Room which was all controlled. There is nothing easy about directing any kind of movie so kudos for anyone trying. What I am looking for is how good the film is and Napoleon (as are the majority of Scott's films anyway, a controlled director who has been labeled visionary so many times yet he hasn't amassed to an inch of his idol, Kubrick) as is John Wick is pure shite. The end result only matters and not how dictatorial the director is. Maybe we should focus instead on why films are exceedingly worse (with a few bright exceptions).
![โกหกเธอทั้งนั้น (Pinocchio) - SERIOUS BACON [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P1HhTYwrR5A/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting video but I think it's a bit misguided? The first thing I have to ask is: are you a filmmaker, or are you just observing films as a critic? And I don't mean just making small independent projects with friends, but being in the "industry". This is not an attack at all, but I think it's important to understand how much perspective and experience you have, because it shapes your outlook on filmmaking. This is just an assumption, I could be wrong, but if you don't actively work in the industry as a professional, you're often critiquing without having the daily experience or understanding of how the landscape is when dealing with the actual politics of filmmaking, meaning your view becomes very limited.
When you cherry pick some of the "GOATS" as you call out, from the 60s onward, you're literally cherry picking the big names that have lasted through the decades because they happen to be the lucky ones that have the financial standing to do large films. You forget about the other 95% of filmmakers from the 60s onward who have NOT done large films, and so they aren't in your memory. But then you compare them to random modern filmmakers that aren't making films at the same scope, scale, budget level as Ridley or Chad.
The actual landscape of filmmaking has also vastly changed. Comparing the way directors rose up in previous decades to modern times where filmmaking has been democratized (which is a blessing and a curse), there are so many more people fighting for those limited spots to get to direct. The main issue with your video is that you make a lot of assumptions based on your limited (and I'm guessing young) perspective. You assume that there are no "tough" filmmakers out there, but that ends up just sounding like a jaded, and somewhat offensive, assumption. There are SO many filmmakers who would be dying to make large scale, detailed films. But what opportunities do they have? Have you talked to them? How do you know what they are willing or not willing to do?
As other comments have pointed out, your discussion here ends up just being vague. It doesn't have a strong point, and I see you've tried to explain it more in the comments, but even then it feels just like a rant? I think you are simply looking back at the older years with "nostalgia blinders" to be honest. For every "old" director that you call out as "good", you can find a modern director that has proven the same, even in your own replies. Damien Chazelle, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers.
From a creative standpoint, a lot of the examples you bring up aren't great either... I love Ridley, but a majority of his films in the past 2 decades are pretty poor. John Wick 4 is fun, no doubt, but it's not as consistently solid as the smaller JW1 or JW2. As others have said, bigger =/= better. And doing bigger things without purpose just makes it feel bloated.
What if people simply don't WANT to make large films? What if someone just wants to make a small intimate, non-flashy film like Past Lives? Blade Runner is a classic, for sure, but as a whole film, it's just alright - a lot of things are done in that film just to look cool. Blade Runner 2049 ends up being a much more focused and complete film by a modern filmmaker that isn't doing things "just because it can" for the sake of being large, but for story/character driven reasons.
Firstly thank you for taking the time to write up a number of well thought out comments and doing so in a respectful and intelligent manor, this kind of discourse is why most film youtubers make their videos and why social media can be a productive place. A healthy disagreement can go a long way so it is only right for me to reciprocate as best I can!
To answer your first question: Yes. I am and have been actively working in the industry for a number of years. Having been mentored by a number of seasoned veterans who have now retired but still keep a close eye on the industry and art form, working on a number of productions from filmmakers operating in their prime as well as the odd amateur student film during my time at film school and of course as a creator here on TH-cam. Plus 2 directed features and a tv series. I would humbly say at the brisk young age of 22 I have some awareness of this great industry/art form haha and certainly would not dare to even open my mouth about these topics if I was merely an observer.
As some of the points you have raised have been addressed by myself or others in the comments I will not spend time further elaborating things like the correlation or lack thereof between budget and ambition, the "does bigger always equal better" debate or whether or not a director can in fact create films of that level of scale or ambition in this current climate of cinema etc.
The two things I would like to take this reply to explore and further elaborate are: The actual definition and scale of the word "ambition" in today's world vs what it was a couple decades ago and secondly, the importance of mental fortitude and discipline.
Firstly as we have said, Eggers or Chazelle etc are very impressive directors who have made some of my personal favourite films. However, a modern audience member or a young movie watcher just getting into films may watch these two direct a hundred extras in Babylon or the Northman and say that is impressive and the height of ambition and be completely blind to the fact that David Lean or Akira Kurosawa could do that in their sleep as they were directing a thousand extras...on horseback! It is just as difficult to find a battle sequence in the last 10 years as magnificent as Helm's Deep just as it is to find a character study as intricate and carefully explored as say Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. Size or not I simply believe films are just not made with quite as much love and care as they used to be. This is evidenced across the board ie. Digital cinematography takes half the time and half the kit to get a slightly weaker image and yet almost everyone is doing it because it is cheaper and easier when most cinematographers and directors know deep down film is just better (unless you're Fincher of course). There is also a reason that when any great director regardless of age is asked about their favourite films or influences, they almost always cite an older film. Nostalgia or not, most directors or just audience members will agree that if you were to pick any best picture winner from the last ten years there's a very good chance that film wouldn't even make the top 10 list of the best films a couple of decades ago. The bar has been lowered and a "masterpiece" now and a "masterpiece" 20 years ago are two very different films of very different qualities. Of course at the end of the day this is a very subjective argument as is any debate to do with art is but I am speaking from a clear common consensus.
The second point I wish to highlight which is ultimately what the video is really about is people not just filmmakers but just in general needing to be a bit stronger and a bit more industrious. At the end of the day, this is a video talking about the importance of people doing the things they say they are going to do and doing it well. Just as I believe the quality of films have dropped in the last ten years, so have the quality of young people (and I'm one of them). Social media has more than ever allowed individuals a platform to complain and moan about how difficult things are and how many problems they have when young people of older generations would have simply just gone and solved their problems. This issue has seeped into every corner of the working world and has obviously found its way into filmmaking with young and "ambitious" filmmakers across the board declaring their love for the medium only to capitulate instantly when an issue arises, an issue that a young Scorsese or a young Spielberg would have solved in a heartbeat. I have witnessed this first hand time and time again. This is not an assumption whatsoever. The evidence quite honestly lies in this very comment section with a number of people writing paragraphs worth of excuses as to why something cannot be done instead of going out there and just at the very least trying to do something. They would prefer to moan and complain and list off a myriad of excuses than take action. It's like me making a video about why people are easily offended only for the comment section to be littered with people saying they are offended by the video...
In theory, if I was wrong, this comment section would be empty as everyone would be too busy working hard and trying to pursue their dreams to even bother watching a TH-cam video from a random guy in god knows where. But instead, the core message at the heart of the video has unfortunately been proven right. I have made a video talking about how great filmmakers triumph because they embrace challenges and overcome difficulties only for people to respond by listing a number of challenges and difficulties as excuses for why they or others cannot do a certain thing. When examining any great filmmaker or any successful individual the one quality you find near instantly is that their ambition is matched only by their IGNORANCE. They arrive at Mt. Everest with no gear or know how and somehow, the best ones find a way to get to the top through sheer will, determination and resilience. And they do it their way "make your own industry" as Scorsese says. The best example of course is Orson Welles who made arguably the greatest debut feature of all time even though he had no idea how films were made. But he did not allow any problem to deter his goals and charged through everything with the right mentality. Orson Welles certainly would not be commenting excuses and arguments on some random bloke's video because he would have been too busy chasing his goals.
So it sucks to conclude that the thesis at the core of the video stands true. That most individuals would rather make excuses as to why something cannot be done than make excuses as to why something can. As evidenced through the ratio of comments in this here video which serves as the perfect microcosm for how most individuals just need to toughen up and view the world with a better mentality. And whilst I could be even more of a smug bastard and say "hey that just means less competition for me", I think we can all agree this is not a good way for younger generations to come into the world. I fully acknowledge that what I have said as well as the way I have said it is extremely straightforward, blunt and even bullish in many areas but from many of the comments on this video I seem to have struck a nerve with some people which positive or negative is ultimately a good kick up the arse for people to start doing things be that chase their goals or monologue in a youtube comment section. But it is just disappointing at the end of the day that I have to spell out in such detail on multiple comments why "just do it" is a positive way to get things done only to be met with excuses and complaints. If people spent more time giving themselves and others reasons as to why they can instead of why they can't, this video wouldn't exist.
@@flickfanatics7948 Thanks for the reply! And yeah, hopefully I kept a constructive vibe throughout, not looking to be antagonistic in any way here.
I think the issue with the discussion still here is that it's fully subjective, based on just your feelings without any concrete data.
You keep saying that people today aren't as industrious, working as hard, or creatively solving problems - but how do you know that? I work in LA in film from large scale productions to streaming series to indie films - I see just as much hard work from people all the time.
Cherry picking a few people from the past, while excluding the majority of the others from the past who failed, isn't a fair assessment. Like when people bring up Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur, they shot that way with extras because they "had" to - they knew no other physical way. It's not a better way at all, and it doesn't objectively change the artistic quality of the film at all. I love Orson Welles, but I wouldn't list any of his films in my top films to be honest. I grew up watching a lot of classics in cinema but if I'm honest, when I assess the filmmaking, there are more modern filmmakers I would place above them. It's all subjective, and I think it's easy to look back with nostalgia blinders on that all the time.
Ultimately, the video and your replies I guess seem to be a case of "you're arguing with yourself?" Like you say " "just do it" is a positive way to get things done only to be met with excuses and complaints "
- is confusing, because people ARE doing it? You're just not seeing it because you have exposure to a small bubble of experience. People aren't even disagreeing with you, because there's not much of a point to disagree with. Like, I'm not even opposed to your root sentiment - I'm all for throwing your life at film, it's what I do in my own life. But you're sort of just saying words about "old good, today bad" without anything of substance in the discussion. It just ends up being similar to when a boomer listening to the same blues riffs for 60 years talks about how modern guitarists can't play, while ignoring so many avenues of new music.
I know you're trying to defend your video saying people are offended... but people aren't offended. Your wording can be offensive, but people aren't offended. It's more just confusion because again, there's not much strength to the discussion?
Like if you're saying people aren't working hard or creatively solving problems, what if that's just in your limited circle? Otherwise, I still see people shooting 14-16 hour days in scorching heat, limited equipment and budget, etc. That doesn't mean their film will be good, as that still boils down to an individual's artistic merit - but merit is not what's in the discussion. So it just feels like you're trying to convince yourself of your argument more than others in a sense.
@@thewrongvine Fair enough. Of course all of these comments as well as the video itself are subjective opinions, and I believe and encourage disagreements as seeing other's point of views is how one can learn! Your experiences tell you one thing and mine tell me another, we stand by them and that's cool, such is the nature of a healthy disagreement. I guess we could go back and forth forever haha but at the end of the day it is a case of we can only wait and see how it all pans out. No doubt you'll agree those who work hard and commit will eventually find their way and we will know about them before long so all one can do now is just push forward, support one another with the occasional kick up the arse if needed and simply do the work!
I love you guys for being both respectful to each other
How do YOU know so much? Are YOU in the industry? DOUBT IT. So, your opinion here is no more legit than the opinions expressed in the video, pal.
I'm in two minds. Yes - directors should become stronger and more resilient. Filmmaking is hard, and only the most resilient will survive. As Kubrick said, making a film "can be like trying to write ‘War and Peace’ in a bumper car, in an amusement park..." and anyone who has tried to make a film will know that is true.
But at the same time, I think there are thousands of filmmakers who would love to even be presented with the opportunity to make what Scott, Stahelski etc. get to make - as I certainly would. I'm not at all ready for that scale yet, but one day, God willing.
Yes, Stahelski can shoot in France, with the Eiffel Tower in the background and in a stable with horses going around etc. but he likely couldn't have done that in the first John Wick, even if he wanted to.
An issue nowadays is there is a low chance they would be given that opportunity, because, when considering the piece as a creative whole, it's not just about the director. Yes, they will lead, they will set the vision, but a film requires everyone to have the right attitude.
When you really make a film, you discover how small the director can be at times: studio executives, funders, producers, the wider creative team (camera dept, production design dept etc.).
I don't think this is just a director thing though - some of the next generation (if I am going by my student experience) are very resilient and some are getting weaker - it's a very mixed bag. So many complain, don't put the effort in, don't want to do basic things, others (in a fewer number) want to do as much as it takes. But, I think the weaker people will learn that making films is an inherrent challenge, and only the resilient will be left.
I'm not sure if you necessarily argued "why directors are getting weaker" so much as, how they are getting weaker.
I think the why could likely be a result of financial challenges, greedy studios (unwilling to fund original projects), oversaturation, overstimulation, an industry that breeds quick releases rather than paced creativity... I could go on.
The next Ridley Scott may not be coming for a long time, because they don't have the money and are refused it by those who hold the keys. That can make you weaker (but not defeated - defeat is a choice).
What a wonderfully thought out and written argument thank you for this mate. I agree with so much of what has been written here but would only add that the next Ridley Scott or the next big epic director may not arrive for a while not just because of certain limitations but also because younger filmmakers will be raised mostly on a different kind of cinema if they do not choose to go back and study the history of the medium. The kinds of films being celebrated may not contain the same level of grandiosity or intricacy as the ones our parents or grandparents loved which of course is fine.
But my fear lies in future generations seeing a CGI mess shot all on green screen and believing that to be a true epic when we grew up on stories of crews braving rivers and jungles and deserts. This will lead to a lower ceiling for filmmakers, a lower bar, a lower standard in what ambition could be in filmmaking and in turn produce filmmakers and creatives who no longer wish to even attempt such grand undertakings even if presented with the option to do so.
Its not that directors are getting weaker, its that budgets are getting smaller and producers place too many restrictions on films - especially in the indie filmmaking world. Bad, interfering producers are the bain of the indie world right now. Especially in Australia.
Great point, but in so doing the up and coming directors will no longer be trained or pushed to view challenges and overcoming them in the same way older directors were!
I think it's fantastic that you see a film like "John Wick 4" and become inspired. Knowing that a director came before us and created the exact kind of work we crave from within an infamously difficult system can only serve to give us confidence in pursuing it ourselves. However... I can't help but worry that some might come away thinking that your messaging is, "I'm most impressed when there's *more*." That quantity or excess are your guiding principles. (You even admit at one point that these added elements don't always need to make sense within the scene, but because they went for it, they have your respect.)
It's this sort of mentality that drives far too many filmmakers to do the most "impressive" thing in ways that don't serve their story, tilting their dolly at a 45 degree angle because the shot is "cool" but adds nothing to the scene they're filming. Is it neat when the departments are hyper-detailed? Oh for sure. But plenty of films look incredible but are empty at the center, while films that take place entirely indoors in real-time have the capacity to bring folks to tears. So which is more "impressive?" As a fellow artist, though, I'd encourage you to also never lose the ability to spot the value in reduction too, in restraint, in scaling back. The best films are the ones, in my opinion, in which the story and its needs feed into the visuals. (I'd actually argue that "John Wick" has created an alternate universe where too much of everything is exactly the flavor.)
Also: Saying that Jordan Peele can't make an epic is presumptuous. Does he want to? Until he says it in an interview, we can't know. But the man's singular in our industry, and I don't think either of us should be arrogant enough to state outright that he is incapable of accomplishing something.
Brilliant points across the board sir, and yes my message here is not bigger=better but that Hard work = better, regardless of scale and size. However I also believe that "big" today is not the same as "big" a few decades ago. Sure I would agree that Jordan Peele is a promising and certainly fantastic director who when given a bigger tool kit on Nope has certainly impressed me but even then because of things like CGI and the volume, studios will push filmmakers to lean on easy decisions rather than correct decisions sometimes and so if I were to ever be fortunate enough to be in a position where I have that kind of money, I would prefer to invest it in things that make filmmaking more of an adventure than a 9-5 office job :)
I don't know if i'd say directors are getting weaker, especially if the directors the person in this video is talking about is his fellow film students then it's a bit of a poor comparison. One is Ridley Scott, with a multimillion dollar studio + hundreds of crew members and resources, the other is not. Let's also not pretend that the entirety of Napoleon was created on Scotts shoulders. New and bold filmmakers are arising all the time. I for one look forward to future filmmakers and am ready to empower them as they come.
I'm not disagreeing completely tho fyi! I do agree that every creative should push themselves to create something beautiful even if it's hard!
So we are pretending that all these new directors, especially working for Disney, don't have millions and staff at their disposal?
I mean if you see some of these directors prior films before joining disney, often independent feature debuts, they're quite good but so much smaller in scale. It's a dramatic leap and these disney films are corporate machines heavily infulenced by the suits. These "fresh" directors don't have the power or influence even with something like the script. Hollywood now is a very different beast to what it was in the 70s and even just ten years ago. @@AnonymousAnonposter
@@enzog8245 Great point! The idea of pushing oneself past one's comfort zone is at the heart of my rant haha so couldn't agree more there. As for comparisons to film students, I meant that as an outlook on filmmakers of my age range in their 20s-30s as a whole who with one or two exceptions consistently show their lack of character when it really comes down to it. Time and time again I have been shown how easily their "passion" dissipates when faced with the slightest problem which has taught me the importance of patience and discipline!
I think one issue in film sets now is that studio want the film to finish as early as possible so a lot of film shoots are so short so producers don’t care if the film is sloppily made as long as it fits the schedule
I think to work on the level where you take these big challanges, get the scene, move on, and keep at it until you're done, you have a truly want it. It cannot just be a job. It has to be a thing that you actually WANT to work extra long days for, not even caring that when you clock in and clock out. And all those hours are for the director. Actors, crew, etc. have a call time. When you're a director, your call time is when you wake up in the morning and you wrap when you go to bed. You have to LOVE what some call "blessed unrest," where you are thinking about the proejct, working through ideas, working out problems in your head from the moment you wake up to when you go to bed. Even when you're sleeping, and it might actually wake you up in the middle of the night (when I made my first feature film I was actually sleep walking, dreaming it was time to go to set lol my ex had to stop me because it was still nighttime). But, if you're someone who doesn't want it that bad, there's no shame! Maybe it isn't for you, but that doesn't mean you can't still work in the industry. You can be a commerical director, make music videos, be a writer, etc. don't expect those jobs to be easy, you just won't have to worry about the burden of leading a feature film. And that's fine. Build the life that you want for yourself. I have found that directing can be a masochistic act. But remember... you're creating images and moments that did not exist in the world until you assembled the crew and cast and put a camera in front of them. It's a precious, magical thing. At least it feels that way!
First of all, bigger doesn't always mean better. And unfortunately, every time Ridley makes one of his epics and it tanks at the box office, it prevents other film makers from doing similar scale projects. Basically, your argument comes from a place of ignoring the basic economics of the film business. As a director myself,I would LOVE to be given the chance to make huge scale projects like Ridley. And I have directed several massive battle sequences on Game of Thrones. Directing such large scale scenes with multiple elements doesn't scare me at all. I love it! And I'm sure there are many other up and coming directors who feel the same way. All we need is the money and resources to do it. Directors aren't doing this kind of project because they're afraid, or weak. It's because you can't do these things on a low budget with ridiculously tight schedules. You need studio backing, and Ridley (due to his long track record) has that. So if you want to point the finger, then point it at the studios for not giving newer film-makers the chance to prove themselves on the battlefield.
Unfair to say Jordan Peele can't do what Ridley Scott can. The age and experience gap is huge, give JP some time to develop and show off his skillset. Also, there is the desire to make a film on the scale, sometimes bigger isn't always better. I agree with the attention to detail aspect, Chad Stahelski has proven he's one to keep an eye on
I think I take the point you're struggling to make; but, if you think that the assertion here, was simply "Bigger is Better," then, I would suggest, that you seemed to have missed the point this video was offering.
I would further suggest that this video is advancing the idea that the difference between many of the directors of today, and those who made their bones years ago, isn't simply a difference in age & experience; but one of intestinal fortitude & mental outlook. The differences of approach to the act of filmmaking.
The early work of many of the more seasoned veterans, generally, supports this argument; but I do take your overall point, about specifically talented directors, like Peele.
Fair enough, Peele is a fantastic director and has done a very good job with the 3 films he has made so far. My point however is that I believe most modern directors would not even wish to make films of that scale or grandiosity. Even if they could. Large films seem to be a dying breed, especially when the landscape of cinema is shifting towards either big budget CGI showcases or super small indie filmmaking with the films being made in the middle dying out. Because of that, promising directors either tend to stick to smaller movies, join a Marvel or a Star Wars or just move to TV and therefore we need filmmakers who stick to their guns and their path to create big things that exist independent of franchises
@@KrishanChoudhury What a perfect film to choose as an example. 12 Angry Men is actually among my favourite films because it does exactly what I said in the video. Sidney Lumet at every turn chose to make the correct decisions as a director instead of the easy ones. My point is that directors should always strive to create the best possible version of a scene or a movie even if it requires more work and time, be it in a jury room with twelve actors or a battlefield with twelve hundred. More than anything this video serves to highlight the importance of hard work and maximum effort not just in art but in life. Filmmakers can choose to set their movies wherever their story guides them, that can be in a castle or an office, it is the work they do within that place with the people they have that I find important as so many young filmmakers love to exist in their comfort zone and nothing great has ever been made from a place of ease and comfort. 12 Angry Men is the perfect example of people putting in 100% and it resulting in a once in a lifetime masterpiece. I did not think I would have to explain that hard work and effort equals success but here we are. Thank you for proving my point.
@@darinsingleton3553 Yep, that's basically it. Hit the nail on the head.
@@KrishanChoudhury except it absolutely is mate. Bigger doesn't always mean better but bigger definitely means you've done more. Raising 6 children is more difficult than raising 1. Maintaining a farm is more difficult than maintaining a one bedroom flat. Lawrence of Arabia which took a year and a half to shoot will contain more problems to solve, more challenges to overcome, more moments of doubt and difficulty than 12 Angry Men which was shot in 3 weeks (I love the two films very equally). It will always be more impressive to see someone maintain grace under pressure as a person, maintain discipline as a leader, maintain integrity as an artist out in the desert for a year and a half than someone doing so on a studio for a few weeks (not to diminish Lumet's legendary career). Strength of character lies in not just being strong willed or solving problems but doing so consistently over a long period of time especially in more difficult circumstances. So yes, a bigger film shot over a longer period of time, in numerous locations, involving a far larger group of people working on it will be a more impressive feat to pull off just as building a skyscraper will require more work than building a straw hut. More movie means more hard work means more impressive feat. It's simple logic and common sense that quite frankly should not have to be explained to a grown adult.
As for you being offended by the choice of words selected by a random person on the internet. That sounds like a you problem mate.
Matchstick Men, Black Hawk down, Thelma and Louis all character driven fliks by Ridley just to name a few
Exactly
I think you all are missing the point of what makes a compelling film. It's not "adding horses to make it look cool". Aim what serves the story the best. And sometimes that is a dull room.
And saying those on smaller budget films aren't working as hard... yo... those on small budgets are probably the hardest workers ever. Putting their heart and soul into everything.
Just coz it's big and busy doesn't mean it's great.
Agreed. Big doesn't mean better, caring more and showing it means better. Regardless of size. If one is shooting a film in a room with a few people and a table, they best do it as best they can and yet no film like that made in the last few years even come close to the works of Lumet, Wilder or Hitchcock. Good work is good work regardless of size.
completely agree with the statements throughout the video feels like a sense of grandness has left film
It's not just about the physical size of the production - it's about DARING, man! In themes, content, styles, experimentation, and above all, total freedom from censorship!
I get where you are coming from, we do not have young directors who can risk it all to make a grandiose film like Francis Ford Coppola did with Apocalypse now, the only other filmmaker outside the Speilberg, Riddley Scott generation pushing the envelope is Christopher Nolan and for the younger generation, Robert Eggers seems like someone willing to work outside his comfort zone.
Hundred percent
I don't think adding difficult things to a scene is going to make it better, it just depends of the story.
Does make it more impressive and shows they cared a bit more even if the story may be sub par
@@flickfanatics7948 majority of the people on this fkn planet cares about the story.
@harryom3497 I don't.
@@SlyTF1 well then sk the D
@@harryom3497 😂Poetry
One of my favorite film stories, is when Kubrick cast Harvey Keitel in the lead role for eyes wide shut, he made him do so many takes that Keitel eventually walked off the set and never came back. And I love how Harvey Keitel responded in that moment because it shows that making a movie is not a solely artistic endeavor, but one where you're also dealing with people's time, money, and careers. You're definitely free to "challenge" yourself as an artist however you want, but people are also free to think that if you don't know what you're doing you're ultimately wasting their time. So while a lot of your film school buddies who made simple films might've been pussies to you, I can commend them for caring enough about the people that worked under them to put themselves in situations where they knew they'd thrive on some level.
great video man! only one I disagreement though boss, Jordan Peele would definialy be able to make a massive film like bladerunner given the time. I agree with you on so many other points you made.
More than a fair point, he certainly has impressed me in dealing with a bigger scale like Nope but even then I would also say that the evolution of films is simply that we are moving away from the proper huge epics of old and that even if he had the money or the desire to do so...we would be hard pressed to see something akin to the likes of Lord of the Rings etc
I disagree. I don't think Peele would have delegated as much of the creative process to others as Scott did. Remember, Scott can't write, which is why there were practically 40 fucking drafts of BLADE RUNNER before shooting was even halfway done. Also, he can storyboard, but he's not Syd Mead or Ron Cobb. Scott knows he can't do everything so he doesn't try; instead, he assigns the tasks to the right people.
Peele is a writer/director. I think he would try to do everything himself and that can be a George Lucas-sized problem. On his audio commentary for GET OUT I heavily disagreed with his creative approach to the backstory of the conspiracy and felt it was so overblown that it ruined the commentary the film is legendary for.
I understand this reality
I am almost 22 years old and i directed a short film in 2020 my first work ever and it was a free course in my residence country .
I was 18 and i was shit scared and i must confess i design everything in order to feel more in the confort zone.
You know i understand is kind of a lame comparation but sometimes the thing comes from a certain fear of showing up and actually make a bloody movie.
Just fantastic. Showing up and just doing it means you have done more than most and I will always respect those who just get on with it and are still self reflective enough to know where their pros or cons lie. Good on you mate!
Barry Levinson mentioned this happening on the set of DINER in _My First Movie._ He said it was when the lighting truck showed up at 5 in the morning on the first day of the shoot (like most first-timers, he couldn't sleep the night before Day 1) that it finally sunk in that it was happening and the reality practically froze him in place outside in the cold.
I don't see how comparing John Wick 4, a movie I absolutely loved and is an exercise in "how far can we push this" to what Jordan Peele is doing makes any sense. The amount of horses people use in the frame doesn't equal how hard or soft they are as a director. Sometimes directors go out of their way to make a story choice or beat that was risky and could be great or ruin the whole movie. I would consider that pretty badass, with no horses involved.
Fair point sir
What you're talking about is the physical demands, but films are made at kitchen tables. The homework and that is where Napoleon failed and many modern films fail. When Luca Brasi is killed in Godfather I feel something, when the Killer in David Fincher shoots Tilda Swinton, I don't give a shit. When Vincent Vega accidentally shoots Marvin in the face I feel more than I did in the whole of Napoleon, something has shifted in the way films are made and it's not about being on set and the rigor of that, it's the rigor of what ends up on the page and the screen that has shifted.
Fair point
Maybe because Tilda Swinton and Luca Brasi's death aren't even remotely approaching for the same reaction?
I feel like you are missing some majors factors here. First of most directors nowadays who helm big budget projects are plucked from indie obscurity and thrown into the deep end of 200 million dollar movie making. They’ll probably make like 1 or 2 indie movies that cost 5 millions dollars, that’s a big jump. Imagine if Steven Spielberg made Duel and then immediately jumping into Saving Private Ryan, the results wouldn’t be a good as what we got.
As for the examples made in this video. Ridley Scott before his feature film debut, spent years developing his craft by directing commercials before directing The Duellist
Chad Stahelski spent his career as a stunt coordinator and a second unit director working on big action movies before directing John Wick.
I do believe if Jordan Peele was given 100 million dollars and is given the enough time to breath, he could make an detailed and ambitious epic, so could filmmakers like Robert Eggers, Damien Chazelle or The Daniels.
The problem is not the filmmakers , it’s the modern studio system hiring them.
A fantastic outlook thank you!
Same thing almost happened to Nolan, but he was smart and only accepted a journeyman project at the scale he though he could handle (INSOMNIA), which he did. Gave him the experience without overwhelming him. And he learned fucking fast which is how he could jump to BATMAN BEGINS.
There was a reason for the horses by the way in that scene with Bill Skarsgard. His character in the movie comes from a family that do those fancy horse show thing. I forget the name of it. The things in JW4 that seems excess or just for cool sake there is a reason.
I guess you really do learn something new everyday. Thank you for sharing haha!
This is akin to people who listen to an artist like Frank Sinatra and bemoan, “why don’t they make music like this anymore?” Well there generally is, but that person is not going to get a record deal. There’s plenty of filmmakers who want to make challenging, and even “big” films, but you ain’t making Napoleon on an indie budget. Plus you’re not even considering all the filmmakers who make this very well crafted innovative independent films only to break into the industry and get stuck doing reboots and remakes, instead of given the chance to do the stuff they’d like to do. The Hollywood landscape is different than when a Spielberg, or even a Tarantino or Nolan came onto the scene. A filmmaker today would lucky to get to make a Pulp Fiction, or Momento as their first studio film. Hollywood isn’t in the business of making movies like that anymore. So how are new directors supposed to distinguish themselves and work up to the epics that the speakers are so enamored of?
Great input here. I think especially nowadays it is very much a case of 1 in a million who gets to make the kinds of movies we talk about but that doesn't mean we should stop striving to be that one! I believe sometimes a bit of ignorant optimism can lead to many great things. Orson Welles of course being exhibit A :)
I think you're missing a number of compounding factors here. For one, filmmaking is extraordinarily corporatized: Scott, Kubrick, Speilberg, etc. are all grandfathered in from the New Hollywood days and are allowed to indulge themselves in ways that NO other new director would be. Budgeting and scheduling are micromanaged to the hilt and no one is allowed the time to direct the way they did.
Secondly, long physical shoots like the old days would be seen as abusive by new casts and crews because of the amount of time spent doing things. Even if you take the emotionally abusive stuff out (Kubrick on THE SHINING for instance), doing 40 takes until something gets done right would prompt complaints from the talent to the executives to get you drummed off the film. Everybody shows up at work wanting to go home ASAP and that is not an environment where art is made.
Hell, reaction channels have shown that people have totally forgotten how movies used to roll and they're constantly surprised by just how effective "old-fashioned" movie techniques are compared to today. They've lost an entire conceptualization of how stories can work. Combine all this shit together and you get the very thing you're talking about and weakness isn't even in play yet.
Of all the languages in the world, you woke up and decided to speak facts.
Man I needed to hear this.. been so obsessed with only dealing with “doable” ideas but needs to be pushed further
Made my day, thank you for getting the core message of the video :)
just bc we couldnt do it ourselves doesnt mean we cant criticise it
You are well within your rights to criticize who or whatever you want. It is the creator's job to create and the consumer's job to consume and criticism is a natural product of consumption. The point I was making is that if you are a fellow filmmaker I believe it is important to understand the intricacies and difficulties when creating a motion picture before making blanket statements about it. Many people on the internet speak before they understand and therefore I do not believe it productive to promote an impulsive and ignorant way of speaking when it comes to film. Or anything for that matter.
4:39 guy would go crazy watching a Hong Sang-Soo movie
I understand the underlying point, but there are a lot of the points being made are regarding to budget. Which I agree, when I see a big budget movie, I want to see every dollar on screen, and the movies that don't achieve that should be called out. But dollar amount does not equate to work ethic. Give Jordan Peele a Napoleon-level budget, he will create something insane with an original perspective.
Agreed, the one thing I would add to your point however is that aside from money or work ethic, I feel the sheer hunger and desire to challenge oneself has been missing from cinema in the last few years with some small exceptions of course. Even some of our favourite directors are happily making masterpieces within their comfort zone. But when we look back to the likes or Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kubrick etc. these were directors who would almost never make the same movie twice, who actively pushed themselves past the ridiculously high standard that was already expected of them. My point is that I believe most modern directors and certainly those of my generation (20s-30s) do not have the same kind of hunger for greatness as those from generations before us.
@@flickfanatics7948 yeah you're on the money with that. I do think there are some younger names right now that are really pushing. Ari Aster comes to mind. Even though he's three films in right now, I don't think it can be denied that he's trying something new with every project. Midsommer seemed like a natural progression from Hereditary. But then Beau is Afraid is an enormous swing. Whatever your thoughts on those films are, I feel like it can't be denied that he's putting everything into them. But that's just one name. There are others out there, but I definitely agree that more filmmakers in general should be pushing themselves and the art form.
Also gotta respect Aster for being so unapologetically him. I'd definitely add Chazelle and Eggers to that list in regards to hunger and ambition as directors as well as their undeniable ability to execute their visions which most definitely comes from a genuine love and understanding of the medium and its history. @@keepshowingface
@@flickfanatics7948 Agreed. I really like Eggers especially.
@@flickfanatics7948 This is the issue. "I feel the sheer hunger and desire to challenge oneself has been missing from cinema in the last few years with some small exceptions of course." So your entire discussion is just about a feeling without any data?
How would you know if those filmmakers didn't have a hunger and desire to challenge themselves? That's rather insulting to the people who love film just as much as you, or even more than you? Just because someone has a desire and hunger and works hard, doesn't mean the film will end up great. What ends up happening is that, you look at a film that is "bad", and you assume it's bad because they didn't have the same "drive" as someone like Ridley Scott did (according to you). But the truth is, they could just be a bad filmmaker and artist. But that doesn't discredit their love and passion fro the craft.
So if you make films, are we to assume that you are one of the "good" directors that have hunger for greatness? Are you going to walk up to the Safdie brothers and just tell them that they don't have a desire for greatness because they make small films?
I wanted to shoot this epic outdoor scene for my movie, but then there was a light drizzle so I decided to stay home and eat cheetos instead.
a modern day tragedy to say the least😂
I think that this is a passionate interpretation and one that I want to believe is just a matter of will. But as the other comments mention this isn't just a matter of the quality of the directors. It's a feedback loop between the creatives and the studio system in a larger context of the risk profiles and calculations of everyone involved. Our world just has much less room for error when it comes to capturing attention spans and building reputations or momentum and this manifests itself in the process of making absolutely anything that 1) costs money to make and 2) eventually has to be sold. That means that it is an inherently less risky world where high challenges can lead to high rewards but there are just more and more visible examples of high risks not paying off. That is just optics and reality.
At the same time, I'm curious if you think that this isn't a self-limiting problem. In my discipline of choice, Karate, the gross quality of students has dramatically decreased. But the quality of the dedicated students really doesn't vary. The ones who would push through in the past have the same tenacity and urgency to absorb, imitate, & innovate as those same types of students today. The larger amount of people who try the discipline than before (democratization) naturally leads to high attrition rates because it is hard and because there are so many other distractions in people's lives that call upon their attention. Not necessarily because people are en masse becoming less tolerant of discomfort. The cream still rises to the top. Perhaps attention to detail won't manifest in management of huge productions with massive IRL setpieces and managing on location filming schedules. Perhaps it just manifests in doing smaller things faster and better.
Why do you feel that the actual numbers of people who could do what Scott did is limited by availability of such people rather than opportunity to make films of that scale?
Outside of the creative aspect (which is integral ofc and nothing gets made without the idea and script) / vision, Ridley has less to do with the hard work that goes into the overall management and execution than the various below-the-line HoDs who execute the massive vision, i.e. the 1st AD, and their team members - the ones who are REALLY outside in the elements (with the toughness and grit you claim these newer directors do not have). I think there are lots of directors who, if they had the experience and financial draw of Ridley, would absolutely have the spine and vision to make a film as...ambitious as Napoleon, at least on a technical level (where elsewhere in quality I find it lacking). I found what you were trying to say slightly unclear - I don't think it's the brutality of the physical elements that are deterring newer filmmakers from going bigger and I guess what you would then equate with as better(?). I don't think they need to go stand in the sun for 10 hours a day; what directors need are strong scripts and strong visions. After all, 99% of the time, they are not the ones on radio coordinating to multiple people who are coordinating 100s of extras and 100s of animals.
I'm no doubt digressing, but I feel like you could be clearer on what you're trying to say, on what you think new filmmakers are lacking comparatively. Also, the doorway into filmmaking is much wider nowadays, which no doubt has the effect of there being more...mediocrity.
Great points, especially that it has become easier to be a filmmaker and therefore easy for mediocrity to find its way through. My main point in the video is on the importance of hard work and mental fortitude. Making the right decisions and maintaining creative integrity whether you're standing in the sun for 10 hours or in an air conditioned studio for 3 hours (although I'm sure you agree its a lot easier to maintain sanity when you are filming in comfortable locations). The greatest filmmakers are the ones who always make the right decisions even if they may also be the difficult decision and not only do I believe that modern filmmakers of my generation who more often than not seem to be creatures of comfort can benefit from having a stronger mentality. I simply respect the fact that a seasoned director like Scott who could in theory just retire and relax is still year after year putting in work to make things for us to enjoy when so many are scared to even begin.
(Sorry, I was typing this before your latest response which I will read now)
And, which directors in their prime do you think wouldn't have the guts to do something like what Ridley does? I'm probably repeating but I think the issue is more the fact there are few directors who studios would back with such funding, both in the sense of amount and direction (like large amount of real people/props/animals versus CGI (which Napoleon certainly employs)). That said, directors DO need to prove themselves, like Ridley & Nolan & Denis have.
On another note, I think the idea that cinema is dying - as others have said - is a wee silly. In the world of art, cinema was born yesterday. Too, a lot of these "cinema is dying" discussions centre around the Western mainstream studio films; there is a vast wealth of quality outside that bubble.
@@michaelv2304 To be honest I feel as if most of our favourite directors have in one way or another already done as Scott has. Nolan with Dunkirk, Tarantino with Kill Bill etc and so its not even a matter of guts but whether or not they actually want to again. I watched a great roundtable in which Danny Boyle talks about space films and how every director who has ever gone to space never went back and made a second...except Scott, who as it stands as gone back 3 times. So I'd say most of our directors operating in their prime have already proven themselves and it is now time for the next generation to do so. Also agreed that cinema is not dying, just evolving and even if one does not like or agree with the direction it is going in I think there are enough "traditional" filmmakers who will still have an audience.
who would you consider to be a modern cinema director who is "scared"of the challenge of filmmaking?
havent heard of other african american film makers than Jordan Peele after John Singleton died!Spike Lee made that nice movie Inside Man... havent seen a movie that made you smile or remember it like Monsters by Gareth Edwards or John Wicks club shoot out by David Leitch and Chad Stahelski...
@@johnbernhardtsen3008 are you just ignorant? Barry Jenkins? Boots Riley? Ava Duvernay? Shaka King?
Damn son
Not drinking enough milk :(
So, I feel that you are praising directorial decisions that have no storytelling aspect to them at all. Like, yeah, let's throw some horses because they look cool! Filmmaking is about getting to the essence of the story and presenting it in the visual way. Anything else from that is just being gimmicky. Being a great director doesn't necessarily require putting as much effort as possible, but rather being able to tell what's needed and what's not. There are some minimalist directors who make great films, and there are some over-the-top directors who are also great, because they know how to make use of things they put in frame, but for service of storytelling. I love Martin Scorsese's Casino, it's big, and showy, and over-stuffed because the story requires it to be such; and I also love Aki Kaurismaki's almost empty frames, because they corresponds to his stories and approach. Also, what's wrong with going to therapy if it's needed?
Great points across the board and thank you for presenting them in a very considerate and measured way! I too love more minimalist and smaller films, some of my all time favourites films take place in a set of rooms. The heart of this video however is not so much about the idea that "bigger=better". But that regardless of the size of your film production or even the weight of a task you do in your daily life, you should do it to the best possible ability. How you approach a miniscule task is as much a reflection of your strength of character as how you approach a massive one. The problem I have noticed is more people are taking filmmaking for granted and therefore the ambition in their actions do not align with the ambition in their words. As you say, Scorsese puts as much effort into making the gigantic Casino as he does with a small dialogue driven characters study in the King of Comedy, granted in this particular comparison Casino would in nature be a bigger undertaking on a logistical level and therefore be more impressive in that way but that certainly does not make it a better film, just a more impressive undertaking. My point at the end of all this is that if someone's story requires them to simply shoot two people standing in an empty room and talking for 90 minutes then by all means do that and do it as best you possibly can, but it would be moronic and delusional to say that doing that well is as impressive as filming 200 individuals dressed in custom made Rohirim armour charging at 200 extras who woke up at 4am to have their Orc make up done in time for an 8am shoot start. With the films of last year alone, I can tell you I personally preferred Past Lives over Napoleon by a long shot but I also don't need to be a rocket scientist to say which film was a more impressive feat in execution.
@@flickfanatics7948 fair enough. Cheers and good luck!
I don't think they "put" those pigeons there, great men have gone insane trying to remove the pigeons from Paris.
😂😂😂Brilliant
Ridley Scott is 86, doing pretty well for that age. Unfortunately this project was doomed to fail from the jump since it'd always be compared to Kubrick's "greatest movie never made"
Yea imma have to agree there, Kubrick's Napoleon is as you say the greatest movie never made, 2023 version was always gonna be in its shadow.
I feel like doing things for 'no fucking reason because its cool' really harms the story when its not relevant to the film and its just done for the sake of it. All it does is show off what they CAN do, and not the reason because WHY or how it motivates the story/characters.
All the problems with Napoleon are purely on a script level. The wardrobe, the cinematography, the overall production was stellar.
Yep
i wonder what your take about zack snyder and his cult after all this
Money is huge factor
When you’re a Ridley Scott you have an entire team of people that helps you undertake it all. If anything, his producers do most of that organizing and execution. Look at the credits at the end of the film. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. Not one single man doing it all.
must be crap like other directors and actors/actresses who signed a 3-5 picture deal! Either you make this movie, or you will be fired and sued into oblivion!
With that logic it's like saying you can win a game of football without a manager or win a battle without a general. Sure at the end of the day players score the goals, soldiers do the fighting, cast and crew do the actual "work". But ultimately none of them will know what to do or where to go with regards to the match, the battle, the film without the leader, without clear and concise direction...without the director. There's a reason the director's name comes first in the credits.
Also Scott is a producer on all his films...
@@flickfanatics7948 Of course a director is IMPORTANT, but when someone is talking about the “undertaking” of such a large ordeal, a director is going to definitely lean on their team. The director is paid to have a vision, but the REAL generals of a production are the producers. And, yes, he’s part of that producing partnership (mainly because he’s agreed and acknowledged to usually have creative control), but I guarantee you that the organizing of those productions are his team and not mostly him. He is paid to tell them what he wants and needs, and they’re paid to make it happen so he can focus on the creative aspects. On a set, it’s why producers are more powerful than directors.
Problems are meant to be complained about. Good over all comment on the times
Ain't just directors it's the whole f... society. TV / Cinema was really over for me 2010 - 2014 that's 10 years ago. The boredom of streaming wading through 100s of Reviews just to find a few decent contemporary works or the retros ect. Exhausted.
Too many films being made, bar is lower for sure.
9:00 what does that even mean??? director with different style can't make the same type of film? It's like asking if Ingmar Bergman can make The Searcher
My biggest complaint with Marvel Studios is that they hire unexpericned directors to held 100million dollar films , you cant do an indie today and next year blockbuster why ? because then you have no say/control any know this and exploit it so Studio Exes can do whatever they want , films nowadays are too "cooperate " and not creative
Facts. More than ever films are becoming mass produced products and not artistic pieces.
You can't say that these new directors are fucking scared of difficulties and pressure if they don't even have that big of an opportunity to make such grand-scale films in the first place. With experience, comes confidence, and if they have garnered that confidence thats the time they make movies of such scale with such efficiency as that of Ridley Scott.
Very good point. However I'd also say how one approaches making a 5 minute short is often a good indication of how they would approach a 3 hour epic. How you do something is how you do everything and from experiences with fellow young filmmakers and younger generations...it's not looking too good. Granted we can always say young filmmakers are at the beginning of their journey and have a lot to learn but just as one can watch Following or Reservoir Dogs and see that Nolan and Tarantino have serious balls and bravery, there just doesn't seem to be quite that kind of energy even in indie filmmaking anymore. Or at least not as much.
Haha! I found this whilst randomly browsing TH-cam, and I absolutely agree with what's being said. In a way, I come from the reverse background of the big films and directors you cite: I've made a load of zero-budget films that were ridiculously ambitious and ball-breakingly hard to complete , and you need the same philosophy of being tough and resilient to get them made. There are so many people (not just directors, all roles) moaning and groaning in the business, and many who are just not tough enough mentally or fit enough physically to stay the course. Great video, thanks!
Thank you for sharing!
I agree with everything in this video pretty much. The only push back I have is, Napoleon was a bad movie. It was poorly done. It was rushed. It was like filmed cliff notes of a biography but it wasn't even complete. The technical aspects of it were near flawless (though I do think the acting could've been better on the parts of certain people in it.) I also just watched Killers of the Flower Moon and came to the conclusion half way through that Scorsese should retire from film making. The last few he's done are excessively long, excruciatingly boring and tbh... not interesting. (My opinion, watch what you want.) These old school directors are now just old and the younger movie goers, as is tradition, I don't think, appreciate the work these directors did in the 70s-90s. Again, my opinion. I'm 40 years old. I've ALWAYS thought Hitchcock was grossly overrated. His movies were boring but the stories themselves were good. And as I said, I chalk it up to, I wasn't there at the time to really appreciate what he did for movies, JUST FOR MOVIES, I'm not talking about the garbage person he was. Does anyone really think if you show 10 people, aged 18-21 Goodfellas and their gonna understand the significance of that movie in terms of the direction? Maybe 2 of them will. My long winded point is, I wish we could go back to the time when these directors were great. When stories mattered over cast and effects. I miss seeing real fire in movies, real clothing, real sets, real locations, practical affects rather than computer generated, all that stuff that made movies so wonderful and enjoyable. I think most people have become desensitized to modern movies so when these old school directors, shoot their movies with the old school method, it doesn't hit like it used to. (My opinion, watch what you want.)
Super fair and I definitely agree here. Just don't hit like it used too, don't have to be nostalgic to know that.
An artist should never retire. Ever!
I’m glad that Scorsese is still going.
There are still great directors with original voices coming through. Along with more seasoned names like PTA, Wes Anderson, Denis Villeneuve & Christopher Nolan still at the top of their game you have Emerald Fennell, Yorgos Lanthimos, Brandon Cronenberg, Robert Eggers etc. etc. making pretty unique and challenging films.
Very much so! But even then I would say my personal opinion is that filmmaking across the board doesn't seem to be the adventure that it was a couple of decades ago as evidenced by the majority of movies made now as well as the way in which they are made.
Money is a major impediment, filmmakers don’t get to be brave and make their edgy masterpieces because studios are risk avoidant and would rather reserve those slots for the legendary few such as PT Anderson, Scorsese, and Tarantino. 😊
The evolution or devolution of the studio system definitely plays a role and as you say directors do not get to be as "brave" now even if they wanted too which for me is a scary concern going forward for myself as well as younger generations.
@@flickfanatics7948 I agree. However, where there's a need to serve, there's room for growth. I can envision independent cinema growing stronger and stronger if riskier filmmaking ends up paying off more than conventional fare. Look at Mattel with their Toy Universe vision-bring auteurs to write and direct Barney and Hot Wheels could be our strange, aesthete-capitalist future.
Not Quentin Tarantino
what about the director of The Marvels?!!!!didnt she only have 1 movie that nobody saw and then got handed a 300mill dollar movie by Marvel!the movie she made was Candyman from 2019!
If we are working with that logic technically speaking just as the Marvels was Nia Da Costa's third studio funded movie, Batman Begins was Nolan's third...
but he is actually a visionary, like Scott brothers!rip Tony! I am one of the few who Hates Memento, I hate the pacing and bread crumbs that falls once in a while, He actually knows how to use superheroes!how many reshoots did Marvels have?@@flickfanatics7948
Eh, not a fan of pointless ornamentation -- "look at me, I'm a director! I have a big budget!"
putting on yourself on a bit of a pedestal before shooting a frame anyone has seen. Id say most of the issues you speak about are solved by budget. Not everyone is given a blank check. Socrsecce and Scott were given blank checks to make flops for apple.
Respectfully disagree. Black Widow cost 280mil and John Wick 4 cost 100mil. You give a billion dollars to an idiot they're gonna use it as toilet paper. In most cases hard work, discipline and a positive mentality shows far more clearly on screen than money.
@@flickfanatics7948 But what's your point? That the filmmaking on JW4 is better than BW? Of course. How would you know the "hard work, discipline and positive mentality" of one film over the other? Were you there on set, gauging the efforts of the cast and crew each day? These are just individual circumstances. I think the issue as many people point out with your discussion being ultimately vague is that - you are trying to extrapolate a large thesis about the state of filmmaking without any actual data beyond how you "feel". Every example you bring up just stands as an individual comparison.
I love that you're passionate about film, but it just seems like a lot of... ranting here? It's not productive, there's not a clear thesis, and there's not many good points to back the discussion up.
What Scorsese flop are you referring to?
@@DialloMoore503 Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon were financial flops. Cost 200 and 130 million to make and brought back a fraction of that.
But they were made because of the standard Apple TV is trying to set for their streaming service, which would eventually pay off in the long run.
They are both really expensive commercials for Apple TV.
Who is giving the opinions in this video? How the F do you know if Jordan Peele can make an epic? He hadn’t tried. The John Wick series jumped the shark with part 4 and Napoleon was a mess from a storytelling standpoint despite Scott thinking he’d made a masterpiece. But yay they had very busy frames!
the most genuinely insane moment of this video was calling his fellow FILM SCHOOL classmates spineless pussies for making a student film indoor
I think you're the type of guy who's going to love Indian cinema, ever seen an Indian film btw?
Absolutely, big fan of bollywood!
@@flickfanatics7948 uh I hope though you have the knowledge of multiple film industries existing in India otherwise you're gonna get heavily criticised by Indians if you ever talked to them 💀
Ridley Scott is NOT a good filmmaker. The main things he is known for are Alien,Blade runner and Gladiator. That’s all
Come at me
Each to their own mate, each to their own.
And all of those are good because of the script, production design, cinematography, editing, music, acting, etc and NOT direction. Scott is probably the most overrated of all time. Hearing this sycophantic child endlessly blandish them would be amusing were it not pathetic
I think he is a good director in the sense that he is good at his job. Works well with actors, works quickly and efficiently. But truly his best films are the ones which are best written.
Ridley Scott is strictly a professional hired hand. The one advantage he has is that he can compose his own shots well but only if the script is good. He can't write, produce or design anything else. He needs an 10/10 script and he'll bring it down to an 8/10 by the time it's final cut.
@@Sska29 glad you added to what I said
Thank you
The fella doing most of the talking sounds like a guy who would irritate the shit out of me, if I had to spend more than five minutes conversing with him, buuuuuut... he ain't wrong.
This easily makes my top 5 favourite comments of all time. Fair play mate, fair play
Lad, on projects like this it's the producers who do the real heavy lifting. As a director here Ridley aint managing all of this. He will tell his H.O.Ds what he wants and they'll do it for him. You're talking out of your nut bud.
Yes that's why producers win best picture not directors. Everyone on the crew of a undertaking that massive deserves credit and praise as they all worked through it together. There are people who have to wake up way earlier and finish way later than the director, people who have to stand in the cold for longer etc but the one thing they all have in common is they follow the lead and direction of the director (and producers of course). For one individual to be such a successful and consistently effective leader at the heart of projects that employ thousands is a feat on its own.
Also Scott is a producer on pretty much all his films...
Ridley Scott's problem is: now he thinks he's capable of doing everything, including the scripting and design, out of sheer arrogance.
With one or two exceptions, I agree that, in general, the art of cinema is in decline. There are few directors, actors and writers who have the same quality, competence and creativity when compared to previous generations.
They may have the new technologies and money and big budgets, but it's a long way to go for them to be really great directors.
Facts. Not to be a nostalgia merchant here but I would bet most of the top films of the last few years would not make it anywhere close to the best of the last few decades that came before. The bar has been significantly lowered. You are completely onto something with regards to filmmakers having more money and tech to play with and therefore potentially the importance in good old fashioned workmanship.
@@KrishanChoudhury Yea you've lost the plot here lad there's a reason IMDB's top 10 doesn't contain a single film from the last decade and Letterboxd's more niche Top 10 only has 1. These lists are voted by actual viewers and film fans not just critics. Also I wouldn't go around using the "watch more movies" argument with people you don't know, makes you look like a mug. Cheers for all the comments tho, got user engagement through the roof
It’s not on the decline. It was, but not anymore.
Quality cinema is coming back.
Napoleon and The KIller and The Moon killers or whatever - dissapointing films.
As a filmmaker, I couldn't care less is the conditions are tough or not. Ask Fincher how hard it was to make Panic Room which was all controlled. There is nothing easy about directing any kind of movie so kudos for anyone trying. What I am looking for is how good the film is and Napoleon (as are the majority of Scott's films anyway, a controlled director who has been labeled visionary so many times yet he hasn't amassed to an inch of his idol, Kubrick) as is John Wick is pure shite. The end result only matters and not how dictatorial the director is. Maybe we should focus instead on why films are exceedingly worse (with a few bright exceptions).
Napoleon was one of the worst films I’ve ever seen….end of
you haven't been seeing enough films ig
Wokeness and political correctness