Name a better filmography

Name a better filmography

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0T-mo4iX6Tg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

scorsese

Nolan

tv is honestly dead

You name a good one first

tarkovsky

Scorsese put out too much garbage

He could be a contender

kys

Yeah

jim jarmusch

Gabriele Salvadores

Andy Warhol

Kurosawa.

CINÉMA:
1: 夢 (1990, Kurosawa)
2: This Night (1965, Fassbinder)
3: La morte d'Isotta (1968, Schröter)
4: Reassemblage (1982, Minh Hà)
5: Кpaдeцът нa пpacкoви (1964, Radev)
6: โรงแรมนรก (1957, Pestonji)
7: قمران وزيتونة (2001, Abdelhamid)
8: ¾إشآ (1984, Zhuangzhuang)
9: Ocْنeيè ؤyّè (1975, Radev)
10: Lost River (2014, Gosling)

FILMS:
1. دècüىa ى¸pٍâoمo ÷eëoâeêa (1986, Lopushansky)
2. Un condamné à mort s'est échappé (1956, Bresson)
3. Guns of The Trees (1961, Mekas)
4. Love Streams (1984, Cassavetes)
5. êôژX½ضةظؤêڑ¢بثتآ¼ (1991, Yang)
6. Duelle (1976, Rivette)
7. Alice in den Stنdten (1974, Wenders)
8. Le Rayon Vert (1986, Rohmer)
9. Սայաթ-Նովա (1968, Parajanov)
10. Mauvais Sang (1986, Carax)

MOVIES:
1. Barry Lyndon(1975, Kubrick)
2. “Vچ‘‚ئ’nچ– (1963, Kurosawa)
3. Blue (1993, Jarman)
4. Fanny och Alexander (1982, Bergman)
5. The Long Day Closes (1992, Davies)
6. “Vچ‘‚ئ’nچ– (1963, Kurosawa)
7. Le Révélateur (2002, Philippe Garrel)
8. Providence (1977, Resnais)
9. لت§بµاأأة (2006, Weerasethakul)
10. Punishment Park (1971, Watkins)

OVERALL:
Sommaren med Monika (1953, Bergman)
êôژX½ضةظؤêڑ¢بثتآ¼ (1991, —î)
চারুলতা (1964, রায়)
Ordet (1955, Dreyer)
Les Moissons du Ciell (1978, Malick)
Oêٍےلpü «ؤecےٍü نيeé, êoٍopûe ïoٍpےcëè ىèp (1927, فéçeيٍّeéي)
؛ى¸كء» (1987, صإزصؤ±)
Fear and Desire (1953, Kubrick)
اepêaëo (1975, Tapêóâcêèé)
01010101 01101110 00100000 01000011 01101000 01101001 01100101 01101110 00100000 01000001 01101110 01100100 01100001 01101100 01101111 01110101 (1928, Luis Buٌuel)
ہثبA±¯¸è (1936, œد؟ع)
Le Révélateur (2002, Philippe Garrel)

Out of all these, this man single handedly shaped the future of cinematography.

...

Peter Weir

Tarr

coppola

Snyder and Bay both have better filmography than this hack

*Tip*

...

>10: Lost River (2014, Gosling)
every time

this

who in the world is Luis Buٌuel?

...

lost river is one of the only true kino masterpieces of the 2010's so far you utter pleb.

...

>Shallow Grave
>Trainspotting
>28 Days Later
>Millions
>Sunshine
>Slumdog Millionaire
>127 Hours
>Trance
>Steve Jobs

desu

This Tarr is great

Bergman and Kieślowski

Eastwood is up there

Absolutely this.

...

Bergman

He has pumped out some truly mediocre movies, with a few exceptions

kubrick = 7 good movies
tarkovsky = 3 good movies

yeah, nah.

the only real contender is bergman

Fincher

not even trolling

you should be

Plenty.

wat an utterly mediocre genre film maker.

Man! Peter Jackson looks good - has he lost weight?

oh and kurosawa ofc. guys like milos forman, orson welles, bunuel made a few really good movies, but not only as many masterpieces as bergman, kubrick and kurosawa

list 3 reasons why

1. Fincher doesn't write
2. Fincher uses filters
3. Fincher takes obvious cash grabs

Kubrick himself was a genre film maker, you are calling the pot kettle black kettle pot.

Tarantino and PTA are going strong with their work. Both of them make exclusively good-great movies. Just like
Kubrick. Also Kurosawa had bad ones.

and the list goes on because Kubrick does not interest me.

Lynch
Kusturica

John Cazale

None

The only two who even come close are scorcese and spielberg

Tarantino shouldn't have made 2 westerns

Cecil B. DeMille
>implying anyone on Sup Forums watched a DeMille film that's not The Ten Commandments
lol

>scorcese and spielberg
they put out too much trash to even be on Kubrick level. Not 1 bad film in Kubrick's filmography

>>Cecil B. DeMille
yeah let me go watch 40 films and get back to you

not a director, lad

Fuck off 10 commandments is goat all his othet crap pales in comparison half his shit is barely a step above a sikent movie

Implied, not explicit, Chad

you haven't experienced true film until you've watched blue movie

What are you, mad?

I'm smart and I want respect

David Lean

Godard
Bergman

none of those say anything about the quality of his filmography. Him not writing doesn't change the fact that he has directed some good movies. The use of filters seems more like a subjective opinion about his cinematography style. While he has taken on adaptations of popular airport novels that are seen as cash grabs you didn't say whether or not these adaptations were good movies or not, regardless of if they are good adaptations.
You really gave arguments for him not being a great filmmaker, but said nothing about the quality of his films or filmography. All you had to say was Alien 3, Benjamin Button, and Panic Room and you would have had a better argument

Most of his movies are pretty mediocre.

You don't need another reason.

I didn't say it wasn't, I'm just saying that his other films are also great.

>Fincher uses filters
There really is nothing funnier than when Sup Forums attempts to critique a piece of work while having absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the filmmaking process or any of it's other aspects.

Did you feel smart writing that? Did it make sense in your head? Because what you just argued proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you aren't familiar with filmmaking in any sense whatsoever.

Your other two points are garbage non-arguments as well. 1, he isn't a screenwriter, he's a Director. That doesn't make Tarantino or Wes Anderson objectively better because they decide to write scripts that cater to their directing style. If anything it's more difficult for a director to pick projects that he believes he can do justice to. That's why he makes so many psychological thrillers.

And 3, I don't know what the fuck you're even trying to say. If I had to name a cash-grab movie from the past decade it would probably be a superhero one, which he has never had anything to do with. He simply finds good source material, gets one of his screenwriting pals to adapt it and directs. I don't see anything about cash-grabs in that process other than the fact he INDEED likes to MAKE MONEY in his career, wow!

Fincher does use filters though user

So fucking what? He has a very distinct style and themes nowadays, practically auteur despite not writing his stuff and his latest three form a thematical entity

I think he's the guy who did Un chien andalou with Dali

PLEASE right now explain what you think a filter is.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept.

youtube.com/watch?v=0T-mo4iX6Tg

Camera lens is a filter, it filters light.

You want film made without camera?

Fincher adds filters to his moviess when editing. It's a shitty technique most of the time but he makes it work. But you are denying he does it which is bizarre

You realise most films have some element of color correction, right? It's not something only Fincher does. It's very common.

What the fuck are you even trying to prove with that video? It's showcasing FCP7, multicam and matte keying shots on to television screens. I'm not arguing he doesn't use """"""filters"""""" (it's called colour grading) I'm trying to explain to you that that's an integral, necessary process in post-production. You think grading footage is a gimmick that Fincher came up with? Have you ever even held a camera before

Every single thing you've seen on a theatre screen for the past two decades has gone through a mastering and colour grade process. If you're seriously arguing the fact that Fincher takes footage to post and work on it digitally as a "fault" in his filmmaking I don't know what to tell you. You're a fucking moron

How can you be this fucking stupid dude. Everything is graded in post. Everything. Stop using the word filters, get it out of your thick head.

>it's called colour grading
no it's actually called a filter

Eh, jobs had some great performance and staging, but I thought it was sort of inherently limited by its subject matter.

Was a good movie, but not great.

test

Actually it's called Color Correction

Whatever, you know I'm right. Good troll though

...

It's actually called Color balance you fucking heathens

...

Color Balance is one of the tools, Color Correction is the process as a whole since Balance involves the overall picture while Correction enables you to change a few precise things

Before cinematography went digital, Fincher didn't use filters in the sense that the user who started this debate postulated; however, Fincher (Soderbergh is another one) now basically Instagrams the fuck out of his films, and as a result, they have a pretty and stylish sheen, but are flat and lifeless.

>Days of Heaven in French
>Un Chien Andalou in binary
Gets me every time

>Flat and lifeless.
Hope you arent saying this as a critique of any kind. The flatness and cold look of his films contributes heavily to The Social Network, Gone Girl and Dragon with Girl Tit Tattoo.

in Soderperk's films it just makes me feel sick (Side Effects) like it supposed to or comfy like Magic Mike (or something in between - KNICK)

YOAH MY KID BROTHA
IMMA GONNA DIE TRAGICALLY AT A YOUNG AGE, CAPICHE?

OK

I mostly agree with you as far as being part of the gloomy, detatched nature of those films; nevertheless, I still find it a bit cheap.

I thought 2 our of 3 were utterly horrible films tho.

Films even back before digital used color correction to a degree, why do you think ''Color by Technicolor'' was a thing? Film was very unstable when it came to how it looked after shooting, footage would either look too pink, yellow or green, so Color Correction back then was to make the film look consistent

Well it is not for you then, but it is far from random or uninspired use of the tools. It creates a very thematically coherent image through out the three films.

Soderbergh seems to use it for multiple purposes in his cinematography,

Also, as far as Soderbergh goes, this was obviously the intention, and he's a pretty great director, but those films were perfunctory, half-cocked ideas.

Nolan

Literally doesn't have a bad film (TDKR is great capeshit despite the memes)
Lots of variety in different genres
Virtually bulletproof on RT and IMDB

Only thing I dislike about him is how he constantly reuses casts. Enough Michael Caine pls.

Thats called color grading. Filters are put in front of the lens which Fincher doesn't use. Get off Instagram

I liked Michael Caine when he shot a bunch of niggers

I know what you mean. Heavy contrast, cool temperature and tons of vignettes. Whereas Se7en and some of his other stuff had a distinct style to them, warmer and almost sepia. See, that is valid criticism though, if you don't agree with the colour grading I personally would equate that with not liking someone's performance or disliking the score. Critiquing the very process of grading itself though is incredibly stupid.

Sure, but the debate wasn't about technicolor vs. Color correction. But I guess the 2 are similar, in that they often produce risibly generic looking films.

>Side Effects
>Magic Mike
>KNICK series
>half-cocked
what? They're all good imo. Whats your favorite film from Steven? I find him great director, one of my favorites. Especially Knick.

Fincher and Soder might only look generic due to extent they're aped by classless monkeys.

>Whereas Se7en and some of his other stuff had a distinct style to them,
please don't tell me modern Fincher does not have distinct style.

se7en is the one that looks generic of his filmography.

Yeah, we agree on this.

Technicolor, Skywalker Sound and THX are the evils that need to be killed