Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:29 pm
by Farm Ur-Ted
I'm not the biggest FF Coppola fan, but really, throw a dart at anything that dude did from the 80's forward and you've got yourself a giant turd (some people like The Outsiders, but I can live without it, Ponyboy).

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:20 pm
by Cagliostro
I dunno...I don't buy it on the Lucas thing. Cinematography doesn't equal a good director. Which shoots down my defense of Legend, to a degree, but hey...

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:15 pm
by Cail
Not to mention that the cinematography is usually due to the director of photography.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:18 pm
by matrixman
No offense to Cagliostro if my response may seem rude, but I'm not that stupid: I know when I'm talking about direction and when I'm talking about cinematography. When I say I think Lucas constructs scenes well, I meant that I thought he constructed scenes well. Having composed the shot he wanted, he then turns it over to his director of photography whose job it is to make sure the shot is lit appropriately, according to the mood that the director wishes to establish.

There are exceptions like Peter Hyams, who appears to cover both duties on his films. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only ever seen his own name listed as director of photography in his movies.) That would certainly explain why all his movies have a very consistent look to them.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:45 pm
by Farm Ur-Ted
Ocean's 12 by Steven Soderbergh. That movie was a complete mess. I have no idea what was going on in it, neither did the actors, writers, producers or the director. It was awful, on par with Smokey and the Bandit 3. Actually, it was worse. (And I liked Ocean's 11.)

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:58 pm
by Usivius
heyyyyyy. I like Ocean's 12. Admittedly it was not as good as 11, but it was pretty entertaining.

I'm not sure why people have a problem with the plot. It's pretty simple, actually...