>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shuac:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?


Of course not, don't be silly. Surely, you know how subjectivity works, yes?

>> ^shuac:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.


Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.

What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.

Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.

And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."

Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

In reply to this comment by radx:
A seven-point suppository makes you say things that are *nsfw


LOL

Sure there is


>> ^marinara:

channels make a dumb interface anyway. We need tags like stackoverflow.com has.
The problem is, there are too many channels to help me browse videos, (i'f i'm looking for clint eastwood, most likely I WON'T find it in the Actionpack channel)
but not enough channels to label videos in any helpful manner. If i'm searching for animation from the iron curtain, there's no way to find it)

channels make a dumb interface anyway. We need tags like stackoverflow.com has.

The problem is, there are too many channels to help me browse videos, (i'f i'm looking for clint eastwood, most likely I WON'T find it in the Actionpack channel)
but not enough channels to label videos in any helpful manner. If i'm searching for animation from the iron curtain, there's no way to find it)

>> ^Aniatario:
Ah yes, Harry Brown
Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.
Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.


Go watch "A Shock to the System".

I positively could not resist!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Lol!
In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
>> ^Aniatario:

Ah yes, Harry Brown
Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.
Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.


Now not many people know that!

Lol!
In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
>> ^Aniatario:

Ah yes, Harry Brown
Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.
Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.


Now not many people know that!

>> ^Aniatario:

Ah yes, Harry Brown
Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.
Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.


Now not many people know that!

He was pretty badass in the original "Get Carter">> ^Aniatario:

Ah yes, Harry Brown
Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.
Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.

Ah yes, Harry Brown

Never before have I seen Michael Caine as such a badass.

Honestly! He's like a charming Clint Eastwood.

>> ^hpqp:

The "no stereo" refers to people who listen to their music like this.
>> ^rottenseed:
um...what fascist country doesn't let you wear earphones on their trains???



Dude, submit that. It's funny!

For both of these videos, I would have given the Vulcan pinch on neck. Something like this parody: http://videosift.com/video/How-Star-Trek-4-should-have-been ...

The "no stereo" refers to people who listen to their music like this.

>> ^rottenseed:

um...what fascist country doesn't let you wear earphones on their trains???

Every time they pan the Martian landscape I expect to see Clint Eastwood.