# Directors who used to be great, started to suck



## MartialHorror (Jul 12, 2014)

Edit: Whoops, botched the title. Sorry!

So the "Exodus" thread made some claims that Ridley Scott's career needed to be saved. I disagree, looking at the movies Scott has made in the past 10 years, I think he has been consistently solid- albeit unexceptional- with his output. But it got me thinking about what directors who did fall hard and I refer to the quality of their works, not their financial draw. 

Since I am a horror fanatic, most of my choices will be based around that genre.

M. Night Shyamalan and George Lucas are easy targets, but in the case of the former, I think he could make a comeback if he was able to humble himself. His ego, in my opinion, keeps him from noticing his flaws. But he does have enough strengths to give me hope. Lucas is the same way, but I think he's so used to being the top dog that if he ever does return to directing, I don't see him listening to any advice. 

John Carpenter: It should be noted that the majority of his films during his prime were financial flops...and his newer films have also been flops. The difference is his earlier films were still awesome, while his newer films were...well, "The Ward" (mediocre at best). I've heard that his "Masters of Horror" episodes have been impressive, but I haven't seen them. Otherwise, he's left us with the aforementioned slice of mediocrity and "Ghosts of Mars"- which is so mind numbingly terrible that people have begun to enjoy it ironically. As for why he fell, I think during the 90's he became too desperate for a hit so began recycling past ideas and trying to make 'hip' movies to appeal to the masses. It just didn't work and now it seems like he just has run out of creative juices. 

Dario Argento: Argento had two decades worth of strong horror thrillers under his belt, but began to waver in the 90's. Unlike the others in this list though, Argento has occasionally produced a good flick ("Sleepless" is a personal favorite). Yet whereas his 90's/early 2000's films ranged from uneven to mediocre, lately he has become a parody of his former self. "Giallo" was overshadowed by behind-the-scenes controversy, "Mother of Tears" can only be enjoyed on a so bad-it's good level and I've heard "Dracula 3D" is just so bad. I think it's part traditional burn-out, part indifference. Argento seems to just want to collect his check and could care less about the quality of his pictures. 

Lucio Fulci: In Fulci's defense, he was the victim of his times. Unlike Argento, who could continue to make horror thrillers even after they ceased being trendy, Fulci was a bandwagon jumper/working director who occasionally dabbled in genres he simply had no talent in. But when horror lost its popularity, his budgets/time to film were slashed so severely that he could not adapt. He seemed to lose interest in filmmaking and was desperate for cash, so would do anything. Whereas at least Argento's lesser works were generally watchable, Fulci's worst resembled student filmmaking. Shame, as I was a big fan of his better movies. 

George Romero: Probably the biggest example, as Fulci and Argento never enjoyed critical acclaim like he did. During his time, his zombie movies not only were highly regarded, but they revolutionized the genre. If you see a zombie flick, it likely borrowed the rules from "Night" or "Day of the Dead". I also remember adoring "Martin" and his 90's works were pretty fun too. But he's pretty old now and eventually his films started losing their luster...before becoming downright awful. "Dairy of the Dead" earned some positive notices, but I remember thinking it was uneven. Yet "Survival of the Dead" was hated and I hated it even more than most. It killed off any interest I had in watching future Romero films.

Michael Bay: Sort of...I think Bay has always been the wrong person to helm the "Transformers" franchise, but now he's only known for his involvement with it. I like a lot of his early action flicks, such as "The Rock", "Bad Boys" and as a kid I even enjoyed "Armageddon". But since doing "Transformers", he has become everything I hate out of a director. He remakes films exclusively for their name value, seems more interested in selling a product than telling a story and he won't move on. "Pain and Gain" was pretty good, but its under-performance means that Bay will probably continue only doing what is expected of him.


----------



## martryn (Jul 12, 2014)

I only wanted to include directors I've seen at least 6 or 7 films by.  That way I can make a personal judgment call instead of relying on what other people think about a film's quality.  This is what I've come up with: 

John McTiernan and Richard Donner: Two great 80's action movie directors who haven't been able to hit that same magic when the times changed.  

Ron Howard: Crashed and burned since the new millennium.    

Jay Roach: Austin Powers and Meet the Parents were both good films, but he's since had a string a shittier and shittier comedies. 

Joel Schumacher: Should have never made any Batman movies.  I think it fucked with his head and collapsed his career. 

Ivan Reitman:  Started higher than Jay Roach.  Fell quicker and further.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 12, 2014)

Interesting choices. Donner hasn't made a good movie since "Maverick". I thought Ron Howard's "Rush" was pretty good, but it was proceeded by "The Dilemma" which was arguably his worst movie. I also liked Jay Roach's "The Campaign", but most of his movies have been meh for me. 

The sad thing about Joel Schumacher is that "Batman and Robin" has pretty much overshadowed the rest of his career. I like "The Lost Boys" and "A Time to Kill" more than I hate his Batman movies, but even I usually immediately think of "Batman and Robin" whenever his name is brought up. 

lol, I had forgotten that Joel has fallen to the realm of 'direct-to-DVD' cinema.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Jul 13, 2014)

John Carpenter, Dario Argento and George A. Romero as already mentioned. I don't agree about Lucio Fulci though. While the quality of his films dropped, I don't think he went on to actually suck. Thought he made several awesome flicks later on in his career.

Also, I thought Pain & Gain was a back to form for Michael Bay. Best he've done since Bad Boys, interestingly enough also his lowest budget since Bad Boy. But out of his last nine films, only two are worthwile IMO. So yeah, he should be here. 


The first that hits me, other than some horror directors, are these:

Terry Gilliam:
Six out of his eight first films are nothing short of brilliant, then came The Brothers Grimm... which was followed up by fucking Tideland. How the mighty had falled. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was OK for what it was, but not a very good film. A typical 5/10 film. Mediocre. This man really fell from his throne, and he was hurt by it. I don't think he'll ever get up again.

Luc Besson:
Another good example on someone that suddenly turned sour. From films such as Subway, Nikita, L?on: The Professional and The Fifth Element to The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, Arthur and the Invisibles and the rest of the fucking Arthur films, The Lady and The Family. The Extraordinary Adventures of Ad?le Blanc-Sec was surprisingly entertaining film, though, but it didn't help much on the impression of the guy as one of the awful Arthur films was released the same year.

James Cameron
I adore everything up and until True Lies, and while Titanic itself ain't too bad of a film, I personally can't stand it and Avatar is one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I am also tempted to add these two to the list, but not together with the others:

Francis Ford Coppola
But I haven't seen all of his recent films. But this guy went from The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation and Bram Stoker's Dracula to Jack and Youth Without Youth. That's pretty bad. But as I haven't seen all of his new films, it would've been a bit unfair to put him on such a list.

Guillermo del Toro
That's based on Pacific Rim alone, which would be unfair, but as Pacific Rim is one of the worst films I've ever seen I have to at least mention. But I should just wait and see what the future brings for this guy. From what I've gathered it looks like he's on his way to rape At the Mountains of Madness too.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 13, 2014)

> John Carpenter, Dario Argento and George A. Romero as already mentioned. I don't agree about Lucio Fulci though. While the quality of his films dropped, I don't think he went on to actually suck. Thought he made several awesome flicks later on in his career.



....like what? Sure, "Zombie 3" and "Cat in the Brain" has some fans, but his only decent flicks to come out in his later years were "House of Clocks" and "Voices from Beyond" and they don't redeem "Sweet House of Horrors", "Door Into Silence", Aenigma", or "Ghosts of Sodom" (his worst, imo). Am I forgetting anything, or did you enjoy those movies? 

While I disagree with you on del Toro, I'm sort of with you on the others, albeit for different reasons. Gilliam has descended into crap, but he's a lot like Tim Burton in that you can still see what originally made him great, but it just doesn't seem to be working anymore.

 Luc Besson is consistently entertaining when he directs (I haven't seen "Arthur" though, if he helmed those), but he produces so much that I've become indifferent to him. James Cameron is still a great director, but his more recent stuff is insanely overrated. 

Ford Coppola was a great choice. Ugh, I get depressed whenever I think about what happened to his career. I'm too scared to risk "Twixt"/


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jul 13, 2014)

Ridley Scott.


----------



## masamune1 (Jul 13, 2014)

Ridley Scott.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Jul 13, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> ....like what? Sure, "Zombie 3" and "Cat in the Brain" has some fans, but his only decent flicks to come out in his later years were "House of Clocks" and "Voices from Beyond" and they don't redeem "Sweet House of Horrors", "Door Into Silence", Aenigma", or "Ghosts of Sodom" (his worst, imo). Am I forgetting anything, or did you enjoy those movies?



It's probably hard to believe for a lot, but I actually enjoy films such as A Cat in the Brain, Voices from Beyond, House of Clocks, Touch of Death, Zombi 3 and Aenigma. While some of these aren't very good films, I still think they're awesome for what they are. Lots of nostalgia involved of course, but that doesn't change the fact that I think they're awesome.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Jul 13, 2014)

A couple of more:

Brian De Palma
This guy made a lot of great films up until Mission: Impossible, but he hasn't done anything decent after Mission: Impossible. He really went bad IMO. I haven't seen his three last films, but I am not tempted to either. Body Double is a film that should be way bigger than it is, by the way. What a film!


And Robert Zemeckis kinda belong here, doesn't he? I mean, he's not made too many awful films, but Beowulf and A Christmas Carol are both awful. Not see Flight, which I kinda believe might be a decent film. And the fact that he's produced films such as House on Haunted Hill, Return to House on Haunted Hill, Thirteen Ghosts, Ghost Ship, Gothika and House of Wax doesn't exactly help either.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't really follow directors but I will talk Bay since he is one that is so recognizable and I have seen a lot of his work.

95 - Bad Boys
98 - Armageddon
03 - BBII
07 - Transformers

So basically 3-5 timespan gives him a good movie IMO. However, I don't think there has been anything good since the first Transformers so at this point maybe he is on the downswing since he is at 7 years with nothing standout to show for it. And I am leaning towards the current Transformers being the worst of the bunch which probably solidifies the point of him falling off. 

Pain and Gain was okay but not as good as any I listed above. I haven't seen The Rock or Pearl Harbor so I can't comment on those.


I am going to look up more directors to try and add more to the convo.


*Edit*

I will submit Judd Apatow though I don't know if his history is really old enough. In 05 and 07 he had 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up which I think were 2 of the better comedies around that time. Since then we have gotten Funny People and This Is 40 which aren't even close.


----------



## Zen-aku (Jul 13, 2014)

No mention OF Shmalan is surprising.

Edit: never mind my bad


----------



## teddy (Jul 13, 2014)

He was the first one the op mentioned...


----------



## Arya Stark (Jul 14, 2014)

Tim Burton.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 14, 2014)

1 - Ridley Scott

2 - Michael Mann

3 - Steven Spielberg

These guys rocked the 80's and 90's and weren't able to produce on par movies through out the 2000's.
There are shitloads of guys like them, actually. Most 60+ directors ended up the same. But I think this isn't simply because these directors are getting worse, but the movie industury is changing too rapidly. If a script can be marketed to mass audiences, then studios are interested in doing that movie. IF not, then it doesn't matter whether the movie has the potential to become awesome. They just shelf it.


----------



## masamune1 (Jul 14, 2014)

Yeah, _Lincoln_ was pure mass-market entertainment, wasn't it?


----------



## Nuuskis (Jul 16, 2014)

George Lucas came to mind first, but the only good movie he has directed was the first Star Wars. He didn't direct the other two and prequels were shit.
I have even read somewhere, that the first Star Wars was dull before Richard Chew stepped in to edit it.

Other than Lucas, I really can't think of anyone particular director who would have started to suck before being good. I still enjoy Ridley Scott's movies and I liked Steven Spieldberg's "Lincoln".


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 17, 2014)

George Lucas is an odd case because his ego also eroded his skills. When he did the original Star Wars, he was still humble enough to take the right advice. By the time he did Return of the Jedi, he apparently had become difficult to work under and obviously he chose to do everything for the prequels. I do think that he is pretty creative when it comes to designing sets, props, costumes, etc...but that might be the extent of his talent. 

Another director who fell hard was Tsui Hark. He revolutionized special effects in Hong Kong and made plenty of cult classics...but now he's just sort of lost it. His newer films have dated effects and at best are mediocre. Although every once in awhile he'll recapture his lost magic (he did direct "Detective Dee", right?).


----------



## TetraVaal (Jul 18, 2014)

Michael Mann? Steven Spielberg? James Cameron?

I don't think the majority of people participating in this discussion actually understand the title of this thread. While those three filmmakers may not be what they once were--although Mann still makes quality flicks--none of them outright 'suck.' They're just past their prime.

M. Night Shymalan and Zack Snyder should be headlining every post in this thread.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jul 18, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> George Lucas is an odd case because his ego also eroded his skills. When he did the original Star Wars, he was still humble enough to take the right advice. By the time he did Return of the Jedi, he apparently had become difficult to work under and obviously he chose to do everything for the prequels. *I do think that he is pretty creative when it comes to designing sets, props, costumes, etc*...but that might be the extent of his talent.



Personally I don't believe that he ever had any real skills as filmmaker. He has always been good as a storymaker, but he doesn't have the skills to transform that story into a movie. But to give him some slack, he did have the right mindset for a movie maker, but he lacked the skills.

_"Special effects are just a tool, means of telling a story."_

I would rather say that it wasn't his skills that changed the most, but his mindset as a movie maker. He got greedy and started focusing more on special effects and toys to make more money.

*"I do think that he is pretty creative when it comes to designing sets, props, costumes, etc"*

George Lucas didn't design any of those in any of his films. Other people did, and he at most just gave his permission to ones he liked best. But I see your point, and I somewhat agree. I think the sets and props in Prequels looked bland and boring, but of course you can blame the overuse of CGI. They looked great in the Originals though.


----------



## Ae (Jul 18, 2014)

Just going to drop names that haven't been mentioned

Jonathan Demme
Oliver Stone
Martin Campbell
Gus Van Sant
Bernardo Bertolucci
Alex Proyas
Paul Verhoeven


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 18, 2014)

Sauron said:


> Personally I don't believe that he ever had any real skills as filmmaker. He has always been good as a storymaker, but he doesn't have the skills to transform that story into a movie. But to give him some slack, he did have the right mindset for a movie maker, but he lacked the skills.
> 
> _"Special effects are just a tool, means of telling a story."_
> 
> ...



Good points. 

lol, I had to look up what some of these people have been doing the past few years. I havent even seen anything Gus Van Sant has made in the past 10 years and I'm not really sure it's fair to criticize Michael Mann as he hasn't done too much directing lately. 

Zack Snyder...I dunno. I only really liked "300", so can't decide if he was ever really good or not. "Dawn of the Dead" was alright, but Snyder seemed to peek at "300". I still haven't forgiven him for "Sucker Punch", lol.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 19, 2014)

TetraVaal said:


> Michael Mann? Steven Spielberg? James Cameron?
> 
> I don't think the majority of people participating in this discussion actually understand the title of this thread.* While those three filmmakers may not be what they once were*--although Mann still makes quality flicks--none of them outright 'suck.' They're just past their prime.
> 
> M. Night Shymalan and Zack Snyder should be headlining every post in this thread.



I thought the bold was what the thread was about.

Last 2 movies of Mann made in 10 years : Public Enemies and Miami Vice. Both were terrible. 

Collateral was his last decent movie. Sad but true.


I don't get why Zack should be leading this. He got 5 or 6 movies in total and he isn't an established "big" director. I loved watchmen, and I think it was a decent film, but I am not sure if he has any other movies that stand out. 

I completely agree with M. Night. He is the posterboy for this thread.


----------

