Rank them from brest to worst

Rank them from brest to worst.

>brest
What did I mean by this?

brest

tarantino (i enjoy his full catalogue)
scott
sr. spielbergo
nolan
snyder
cameron (abyss > aliens)

worst

all of them are shit

Cameron
[power gap]
Spielberg
Nolan
Snyder
Tarantino
Scott

1. Scott
2. Nolan
3. Cameron
4. Tarantino
5. Snyder
6. Spielberg

Spielberg
Cameron
Tarantino
Scott
Nolan
[power gap]
Snyder

1. Spielberg
2. Scott
3. Tarantino
4. Cameron
5. Nolan
6. Snyder

>spielberg
>scott
>tarantino
>cameron
>nolan
>snyder

Swap Snyder and Scott and I agree.

...

oh shit didn't take long

>Best
Tarantino
>Worst
Nolan

The others you can put in whatever order you want.

Spielberg>Scott>Cameron>Nolan>Tino>Zack

Nolan
Spielberg
Cameron
Scott
Snyder
Tarantino

>Cameron worst of the bunch

Retard

>Tarantino
>muh self-aware b-movies

Ew, no thanks.

If you only take in to account the past 10 years then Tarantino is obviously the best.

Which really is fucking sad.

Scott's a great *technician* even at his feeblest. I don't mind having Snyder and Tarantino fight over bottom position with rusty hooks until either or both of them are dead.

They are all genuinely terrible and have tried to kill the medium several times with their atrocities, in Ancient Greece that was a crime and they'd have been executed for their sins

All movies are self aware, bro. It's what makes them movies.

>Spielberg
>Cameron
>shit
>scott
>tarantino
>nolan
>snyder

Everyone who doesn't put Spielberg at #1 is a pseudo-patrician and/or a hipster.

Snyder
Tarantula
Bane?
Cameron
Spielberg
Aliens hack guy

They'd more probably have been ostracized. Even worse, like Cosimo di Medici during his exile from Firenze, they probably have left the city accompanied by crowds of their clamorous harelip supporters.
Wait, did I say worse?

Spielberg > Tarantino, Cameron > Snyder, (early) Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nolan

You could be right. It mightn't be what you admire about him but it's seemed to me for a long time that Spielberg's a deeply humane person and that this same quality informs everything he makes. Even the shit.

Spielberg
Scott = Cameron
Tarantula
Nolan
Snyder

spielberg
tarantino
nolan
cameron
fincher
some guy i've never seen

I don't feel like ranking the from breasts to worst, I only came here to say that in any list of directors with Zack Snyder in it, he will always be the worst.

Attack of the Killer Movies

Official VIP list coming trough

Taranton
Scott
Cameron
Spyder
Shillberg
Nolan

this

>Hack Snyder
>comparable to actual directors

neck yourself

Tarantino
[power gap]
Nolan
Snyder
Scott
[gaping maw of Hell where ego goes to die]
Spielberg

Nolan
[power gap]
Snyder
[power gap]
Cameron
Spielberg
Scott
Tarantula

i love brest. some say it's ugly but it has a special atmosphere. would recommend

Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino, Nolan, Scott, Snyder.

>nerds placing Spielberg unironically at the top because muh Indiana Jones

Spielberg is a hack, look at his filmography. Horror schlock like Jaws, goofy kids movies that bombed like Hook, Oscarbait like Schindler's List, people mock Nolan for his science fiction but ignore Spielberg's boring Close Encounters.
He never had an original thought, just like his pal Lucas.

Scott did Phillip K. Dick right with Blade Runner, but Spielberg fucked up with both AI and Minority Report.

Spielberg is the hamburger of cinema, most people will eat it and enjoy it but it is neither healthy nor cultured.

>Nolan above Scott, Spielberg, and Cameron
Opinion discarded

Tarantino (most consistently good)
Spielberg (very strong filmography overall despite some real duds)
Cameron (certain of his films are pretty much landmarks in the history of filmmaking)
Nolan (competent, made some great films, remains to be seen whether he'll improve)
Scott (I love a few of his films, don't care for most of them)
Snyder (do I really need to justify myself?)

I just found the average of what I gave each of their films on IMDb. Have some autism.

7.7/10 Tarantino (Haven't seen My Best Friend's Birthday)
7.5/10 Cameron
7.2/10 Nolan (Haven't seen Following)
6.4/10 Spielberg (Haven't seen Firelight)
6.0/10 Scott (Haven't seen Someone to Watch Over Me)
4.7/10 Snyder

On a related note, are
>My Best Friend's Birthday
>Following
>Firelight
>Someone to Watch Over Me
worth a watch?

>Spielberg is a hack, look at his filmography.

You remind me of a certain kind of film student.

Cameron, Tarantino, Snyder, Scott, Spielberg, Nolan

Spielberg was only good when he was young and still in touch with his inner 10 year old. After he turned into a grumpy old guy, he started making boring Oscar bait.

He's vanilla, average, mediocre.

He never made action films as good as Cameron.
He never grasped science fiction the way Scott did.
He never understood imagery and cinematography the way Nolan has.
He lacks the flavor, grit, style of Tarantino.
Even Snyder has made better action sequences.

Spielberg is a hamburger of cinema. The vanilla milkshake. He makes average joe entertainment for Saturday nights.

>boring Close Encounters
You're asking for it.

B O R I N G. And cheesy as fuck.

>Even Snyder
Opinion discarded.

>Have some autism.
well, at least you know. i agree with your order though.

>Spielberg
Got me into movies, watched JP and Indiana Jones as well as their behind the scenes stuff countless times growing up
>Scott
Incredibly inconsistent, but when his good stuff supersedes most pther films of their respective genres
>Tarantula
Consistently puts out enjoyable content, but hit his peak with his first film and often wastes his potential by falling back on le ebin super violent meme (see the hateful 8)
>Cameron
Best technical director, can't say I like his storytelling outside of the first Terminator unfortunately
>Snyder
Probably the best modern director in terms of visuals, but sucks at telling a genuinely compelling story
>Nolan
Outside of Memento he's a wet rag who hides behind the practical effects and super realistic memes over genuinely good storytelling and characters

I don't think you're supposed to be here

Today it's different since current film critics are 70s-80s nostalgia babbies who think Spielberg was the shit because his movies made a great babysitter on VHS when their parents were having the night out.

Show me on the doll where Snyder touched you

>Scott did Phillip K. Dick right with Blade Runner

yeh, I didn't think you were serious

I actually don't mind Snyder, it's the placing of Nolan on top that suggests that you're a high-schooler

i think titanic and T1 are cameron's best

>The critics didn't like any of Spielberg's movies back in his heyday

What an odd, unsubstantiated claim.

The critics didn't like any of Spielberg's movies back in his heyday, they only started liking him when he went into Oscar bait mode in the 90s, because all film critics hate action movies on principle. Their idea of the perfect film is On Golden Pond or some pretentious bullshit like that.

Y'all niggas know Scott did Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator right? Just because he's senile now doesn't mean he ain't the best by a mile

scott = spielberg
nolan
cameron
tarantino
snyder

Titanic has great spectacle, but a lame story, but yeah, my ranking of Cameron would go along the lines of
>T1
>Titanic
>Aliens=T2
>The Abyss
>Avatar
>That Piranha movie that he did

Question is "Who is the best", not "Who has made the best film".

Scott has some absolute shit in his filmography. He's wildly inconsistent.

Pauline Kael claimed that all directors do that as they get older, they lean increasingly on pretentious award b8 instead of the silly pop culture-driven films of their youth, when they're still a big kid.

Scoff all you want to, but I don't think Ridley Scott ever made a science fiction film better than (or maybe even as good as) Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

all of this is wrong, but anyway 50% of spielberg is john williams and that's enough to make him better than these other directors

kingdom of heaven was better than gladiator though

So now that the dust has finally had time to settle, can we point out the generational divide. Born pre-1990ish, Spielberg. Born post 1990- Autistic, ADD, cultureless Nolan fans.

I'm with you two, Terminator is one of my top 10 films.
I'd go:
>Terminator
>T2
>Avatar
>Titanic
>Aliens
>True Lies
>The Abyss
>Pirahna II

I guess even George Lucas is kind of an example of that principle, the Star Wars prequels were made by a bunch of middle aged industry veterans making slick corporate product designed to sell toys, unlike in the 70s when he was a young guy simply trying to make an interesting, engaging sci-fi film.

I mean I'm 1992 and I have Nolan just above Spielberg so in that was you're right, but it's mostly just because Nolan doesn't have enough of a sample size yet.
Spielberg is so goddamn prolific that he has some dogshit in there mixed in with the masterpieces.

We're talking an entire career vs the last ten-fifteen years, it's an extremely unfair comparison.

why does everyone hate Nolan? He has a lot of provocative movies with good concepts despite their flaws

people act like he's Snyder-tier on here

I was born in 1988, so I remember Jurassic Park, but not any of Spielberg's earlier movies, and by the time JP came out, he was already shifting away from action movie cheese (Schindler's List and JP were contemporaneous films).

Scott
Cameron Snyder
Spielberg
Besson
Tarantino
Burton
Bay
Refn
Lucas
Nolan

>[power gap]

Spielberg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cameron>Nolan>Tarantino>Snyder>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scott

Just learnt a new word; cheers.

>provocative

How? He's an abysmal filmmaker. He can set a scene or come up with cool concepts but that's it, the execution is amateurish, empty, clunky. Non-stop hand-holding exposition where he continues to let the audience the themes at all time. No visual acumen or imagination.

Snyder dwarfs Nolan, at least he can create beautifully realized action with visual flair.

Nolan is not a serious filmmaker, has nothing to say, not anywhere in the same ballpark as actual greats.

The 80s just happened to have an exceptional amount of action movie cheese because Lucas and Spielberg made everyone want some of that. There were serious films (like On Golden Pond) but they were a lot more pushed into the background compared with the early to mid 70s. By the 90s, the industry had succeeded in merging big budget action movies with serious drama.

>On Golden Pond
>On Golden Pond

Why do you keep referencing this film, it was a sweet sort of vanity project that was well received but left no lasting critical or cultural impact.

1. Quentin
2. Ridley
3. Spielberg
4. Cameron
5. Nolan
6. Snyder

1. Ridley
POWER GAP
2.Quentin
3.Spielberg
4.Nolan
5.Cameron
6.Snyder

I was just using it as an example of the kind of movie that professional critics like, which is snobbish award b8 that can only be appreciated by people who wear a lot of wool.

From a purely storytelling POV, the 80s was a terrible, terrible decade for Hollywood. Serious drama was buried under an ocean of cringy action flicks starring one-dimensional uberheroes.

They did figure out how to merge the two in the 90s, as you said, which was also an Indian Summer before the new millenium when everything got swallowed up by endless capeshit.

1. Cameron
2. Tarankino
3. Nolan
4. Ridley
5. Spielberg
6. Snyder

Pauline Kael said that she was convinced the 70s was the best decade of Hollywood, it had once been the 30s-40s (and having been born in 1921, she had a huge nostalgia boner for that era of movies), but they'd since been surpassed.

This is exactly my order

Another 80s example--The Whales of August.

>low budget flick with a bunch of elderly actresses just sitting around bitching/reminiscing about their lives
>made about $10 at the box office but all the critics dickrode it to the Moon
>also it was Bette Davis's last movie so it got a free unwarranted sympathy card

The big deal about the 70s was that the industry finally became unchained from 35 years of the Hayes Code, so they could do all the graphic nudity/sex/profanity/blood they hadn't been allowed to show for decades.

I liked Following and would recommend it, but I really liked his neo-noir phase

31 years (1935 to 1966)

1. Tarantino
2. Spielberg
3. Nolan
4. Cameron
5. Scott
6. Snyder

Ah yes, I recall that Pauline Kael used that as an example of why old actors should retire because it was depressing seeing her childhood heroes like Bette Davis look like they just emerged from of the crypt. She also mentioned Katharine Hepburn's last screen appearance in Love Affair, when she was 86 ("I really didn't need to see her like that").

Spielberg > Nolan > Cameron > Tarantino >>> Scott >>>>> Snyder

>Nolan
>Tarantino

Putting these in the same conversation as Cameron is a fucking crime. Get this normie taste of this board this instant.

Reminder that the Avatar franchise is going to obliterate star wars.

>avatar and titanic, the two highest-grossing films of all time
>terminator 1 and 2
>aliens
>not normie taste

God-Emperor of Kino-tier
>James Cameron

Shit tier
>everyone else

In all fairness, the switch to corporate product designed to sell toys happened with ROTJ.

Cameron films are pure entertainment which is why they can be enjoyed by everyone.

This is what you sound like.

>coca cola, best selling beverage of all time
>original flavour, cherry, diet
>not normie taste

You don't need to be a normie to enjoy a bottle of coke.

this, well said