Is it just me or are great movie directors becoming more scarce than dancing Panda bears? I mean, back in the 70's, 80's and even the 90's a plethora of amazing directors were emerging and making some great films. Perhaps this has something to do with the lack of quality movies being put forth on the screen today. I just have not been impressed with today's generation of movie makers compared to those who came before them.

Then there was Coppola, Gilliam, Kubrick, Lucas, Burton, Spielberg, Stone, Carpenter and Scorcese along with too many more to mention. I guess these are still today's generation of directors but can anyone think of a director that has popped up in the last ten years that belongs on this list? I can't.

Cattivo wrote:

Christopher Nolan. Wes Anderson. Charlie Kaufman (although, he's thought of more as a writer). Richard Kelly was thought of after Donnie Darko, but his follow-ups have been failures.

I would not put Nolan on that list, Batman was good, but other than that he has produced some crap movies aka Insomnia and The Prestige. He is a long way away.

Wes Anderson I would agree because he is the kind of director that when I see one of his movies I can tell that it is one of his own. Much like the directors I listed he has definitely made his mark on film making.

Richard Kelly is FAIL. I love Darko, but like you said he may be a one-hit wonder, time will tell.

Cattivo wrote:

Ash Burton wrote: I would not put Nolan on that list, Batman was good, but other than that he has produced some crap movies aka Insomnia and The Prestige. He is a long way away. Memento?

No thanks, I like Footos.

Probable Muppet wrote:

The Coen Brothers for sure, some might argue David Lynch (I would), Wes Anderson Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuarón. Also, Christopher Guest in his own way. lots would say Quentin Tarantino, although I really don't like him much.

Coen Brothers came onto the scene in the 80's (Raising Arizona).
David Lynch? He is more of a producer/writer.
Alejandro González Iñárritu: 21 grams, Babel, thats about it.
I agree Quentin Tarantino is a bit overated, although RD and Pulp were amazing, however he came to light in the early 90's.

My point is there are no current directors of great talent that have emerged in the past decade save Wes Anderson. So far this holds true.

Edit: I love Danny Boyle, Trainspotting is one of my all time favorites. I will allow him to join Wes, although his first great directing achievement occurred over 13 years ago.

Probable Muppet wrote:

to clarify, I guess my real question is why make a thread using 30 some years worth of some director's bodies of work as an example for comparison then decide/nitpick that you are going to disallow certain directors due to them having made some movies in a previous decade. Then you seem to like Danny Boyle so decide to "allow it" in an edit in the same post. Also, the only really "new" director that I posted about, Alejandro González Iñárritu, gets "disqualified" because he has only a few movies. This isn't making much sense to me. Edit: Current Directors is pretty relative (to your point). What happens if Tarantino makes 8 super awesome, over the top fantastical movies, all in one year, 15 years from now and say he doesn't make any movies until then. Where does he belong then?

Listen you crazy Muppet, I'm sorry I confused you here. I was just pondering to myself why there hasn't been any recent "emerging directors" who stand out like those in the past. When Spielberg, Lucas, Scocese and Co. hit the scene they were amazing out of the gate and continued to be. I said last 10 years because it seems the last of the great filmmakers came from the early or mid 90s such as Danny Boyle and your boy David Lynch. About Lynch, you were very right about him and his directing, I was just not well educated about him.

So think of a film director who has had his film debut in the PAST 10 YEARS who belongs on my original list. Someone who made an amazing film and made a stylized impact on film making. As your mind goes blank my point is made, there are very few if any at all.

Here is a list of Directors who made their debut in the 80's and had a large body of work that was well recieved: John Hughes, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ron Howard, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, John Landis, Joel and Ethan Coen. Then there was the 70's which brought us Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin, Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg plus too many more to list.

Here is our list so far from 1997 on: Wes Anderson.

See what I'm saying?

Tyop wrote:

Ash Burton wrote: When Spielberg, Lucas, Scocese and Co. hit the scene they were amazing out of the gate and continued to be. Back then they were however not considered to be among the greatest directors of all time, but merely the greatest contemporary directors, because it had yet to be determined whether their films would hold up. John Ford or Howard Hawks are the kind of directors they were likely compared to in their early years, just like you are now comparing newer directors to Spielberg and Scorsese. Only later, after they had produced a large enough body of work and enough time had passed to see whether their movies could stand the test of time, did general opinion grant Spielberg & Co. their place in the pantheon of the greats. A decade from now we will likely be able to assess which directors of the last ten years belong there as well. It's too early for now.

I see what your saying here, but my thinking kind of started from the movies that are being made these days. Maybe you are right and we just have to wait and see. However as of right now no one seems to be putting a body of work together like these guys did so early on. I will repost this exactly 10 years from today and we shall see who is right.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Michael Bay

No...not even funny.

"

Syd Lexia wrote:

McG movies have all been terrible. And he's making T4, which shouldn't exist. I submit to you that Michael Bay is not a bad director. However, he chooses scripts/projects that are so awful that any directorial talent he may have is overlooked. Also, The Rock is awesome.

I submit this definition of "Michael Bay" I came across:

Michael Bay:

1. A person who is incapable of complex and/or abstract thought, and focuses on pure visual and tactile stimulation.
2. A movie director who, in order to appreciate his dumb shock and awe style, you must either be stupid enough to think on his level or smart enough not to care how intellectual a movie about robots and explosions is. He literally believes that an edit every second is the best way to make a film. I don't think it's possible to physically count the number of cuts and explosions in his films within one human lifetime.

Example:
1. He never talks about anything other than sex and explosions. That guy is such a Michael Bay!