Who is the Greatest Screen Writer and Director of all time.

[Scott Taylor]

I'm still struggling with the definition of the criteria. I mean, Hitchcock was a credited screenwriter and a director during the 1920s and 1930s. And we know that he collaborated (some might use another term) with writers of the screenplays for all of his most famous works or those screenplays were written from Hitchcock's notes in many cases. Not to mention that, as director, he often changed things in the script.

Going with Hitchcock myself.

[ChrisIII]

Dunno, beyond the fact that art is subjective (therefor an objective best doesn't exist in the first place), film is so broad and multi-faceted that you can't really factor in everything (not every great is going to be great at everything) and most of us haven't seen a wide sampling, anyways.

All that said, I think Steven Spielberg has more than earned his spot on the list of best directors; he's proven to be versatile (compare Jaws, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan), he has a good track record with the use of special effects (both in quality and in having them be in the service of the story), consistently collaborates with the best in the business (e.g. his shared filmography with creators like George Lucas and John Williams), has a resume that goes beyond directing (including credits on some acclaimed films and TV shows), and he has a knack for capturing the emotions of the story (why do you think Jurassic Park stands out from all the dinosaur pictures that have been made over the decades?).

There probably are cases to be made for other directors and we'll see new ones in the future rise to take the crowns from the past giants, but still, I don't think Spielberg is going anywhere anytime soon.

He did write and direct Sugarland Express & Close Encounters but I think the two other scripts he was most involved in-Poltergeist and Goonies-were given to other directors, although there's some debate over Poltergeist.


It's worth noting that Spielberg's original Poltergeist script would be more R-rated. Also it would have focused on making The Beast an old man instead of the skeleton monster in the finished film; this concept of course was reused for the sequels.

[Kirby101]

I love it when only certain genres of film can be important cinema.

It's not that, I just don't think most are very well made films. Some you could say had good writing and direction, but I don't think of any I would call great. YMMV

[Castle]

He did write and direct Sugarland Express & Close Encounters but I think the two other scripts he was most involved in-Poltergeist and Goonies-were given to other directors, although there's some debate over Poltergeist.


It's worth noting that Spielberg's original Poltergeist script would be more R-rated. Also it would have focused on making The Beast an old man instead of the skeleton monster in the finished film; this concept of course was reused for the sequels.

He also wrote Artificial Intelligence, a very underrated Spielberg movie.

I do think Spielberg has writing talents maybe even more than Cameron, since if Spielberg had written Avatar, it would not have been as generic as Cameron wrote it. though I dont feel Cameron is overall a generic writer however Avatar had generic writing.

Spielberg does not seem driven much to be known as both. (Writer-Director). he seems very content with the fact that he is known mostly as a Director.

[Castle]

I'm still struggling with the definition of the criteria. I mean, Hitchcock was a credited screenwriter and a director during the 1920s and 1930s. And we know that he collaborated (some might use another term) with writers of the screenplays for all of his most famous works or those screenplays were written from Hitchcock's notes in many cases. Not to mention that, as director, he often changed things in the script.

Going with Hitchcock myself.

The way I see Hitchcock and writing is how I see some pop stars, who get writing credits for a song but are not really the dependent song writers? if you google the question of Hitchcock and screenplays, this is the answer.

Did Hitchcock write screenplays?
Although he rarely did any actual “writing”, especially on his Hollywood productions, Hitchcock supervised and guided his writers through every draft, insisting on a strict attention to detail, and a preference for telling the story through visual rather than verbal means.


It does confirm what I said earlier on this thread, that directors even if they don't write the scripts are story tellers. You have to be an amazing story teller to make a movie like Rear Window work so well as it did.

Also, the reason I would put Wilder over Hitchcock is that Hitchcock himself was aware of how uniquely good Wilder was doing both writing and directing. When Double Indemnity came out in 1944/1945 or whatever year. Hitchcock said of the film... there are only two important names in movies. Billy Wilder.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/the-two...-billy-wilder/
“The two most important words in movies today are ‘Billy Wilder’!”

So for Hitchcock to give that kind of praise, to me showed Hitchcock was not really a screen-writer/director as we can primarily view Wilder.

[WebLurker]

Billy Wilder's movies are art. There is barely any mainstream comedy film today that can even get close to some like it hot.

Maybe. Course, that doesn't include non-comedy fare with a similar level of craftsmanship.

Any screenplay-directing from Alex Kurtzman as Staglag 17

Don't follow you. That said, I will concede that I think I've liked Kurtzman's work supervising Star Trek way more than his screenwriting.

The point about Cameron is that he does both primary. And speaking of Gunn, he does both as well but Cameron is the stronger and more seasoned of the two as a director/writer. To be honest, they are barely on the same level. Since not only is Cameron the better film maker, but Cameron's writing has never bordered lined on irritation and cringe factor as Gunn's writing can be.

What did Gunn write that was more cringeworthy than Avatar?

Perhaps I am been quite hard here with Gunn as his writing credits has two of the GOTG and two of Scooby Doo movies. maybe I should blame this more on the writing of those films trying to appeal to a dense definition of a kid friendly film market but it can still be irritating enough that it should put him far away from Cameron as a director/writer.

It is on record that Gunn would've gotten away with the Scooby-Doo movie if it wasn't for those meddling executives (it was written to be a R-rated take that got busted down to PG), but he has gone of record that he had creative freedom with the Guardians movies (up to the fact that he did not want to make a R-rated version of it), so I think it's fair to say that he's full responsible for the good and bad in those.

With historical significance as you asked, Gunn would have to end up with a filmography where GOTG and Scooby Doo movies are not the films he is best known for because of the nature of how MCU movies are directed and written, The film makers of the films had to follow a formula and were very restricted. Gunn has even said his time on SS 2 was the best he has had as an artist.

And yet Gunn and others have stated time and time again that they're given creative freedom from Marvel Studios when working for them. Can we stick to the facts here?

Gunn has more work to do if he wants to be seen as a great director/writer in the coming future. One of my advise to him, let him attempt a serious drama.

Why would a good drama (as opposed to a good anything else) be needed?

[ed2962]

Forgetting Hard Core, Cat People and The Card Counter was a damn good film too. Plus he wrote the script for Raging Bull. Schrader definitely is a contender.

De Palma too (Blow Out, ScarFace, Dressed To Kill, Body Double)

Brian De Palma doesn't get enuff recognition these days.

[Totoro Man]

James Cameron's "Avatar" script IS cringe-worthy and uninspired IMO. I hated that film... mostly on account of its absolutely dreadful writing... the fact that Sam Worthington is not a very good actor doesn't help either.

sure, "Aliens" was fantastic... but he shared writing credits and ideas with some other writers who were actually really solid. we could take the AUTEUR path and give Cameron credit for everything... but I just can't do that. ignoring the groundwork laid by Dan O'Bannon and Walter Hill just to praise Cameron's script seems a bit TOO selective to me. any script where Cameron is the only writer tends to be unimpressive. the fact that Cameron IS an impressive director shouldn't distract us from his merely passable writing.

[Scott Taylor]

The way I see Hitchcock and writing is how I see some pop stars, who get writing credits for a song but are not really the dependent song writers? if you google the question of Hitchcock and screenplays, this is the answer.

Did Hitchcock write screenplays?
Although he rarely did any actual “writing”, especially on his Hollywood productions, Hitchcock supervised and guided his writers through every draft, insisting on a strict attention to detail, and a preference for telling the story through visual rather than verbal means.


It does confirm what I said earlier on this thread, that directors even if they don't write the scripts are story tellers. You have to be an amazing story teller to make a movie like Rear Window work so well as it did.

Also, the reason I would put Wilder over Hitchcock is that Hitchcock himself was aware of how uniquely good Wilder was doing both writing and directing. When Double Indemnity came out in 1944/1945 or whatever year. Hitchcock said of the film... there are only two important names in movies. Billy Wilder.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/the-two...-billy-wilder/
“The two most important words in movies today are ‘Billy Wilder’!”

So for Hitchcock to give that kind of praise, to me showed Hitchcock was not really a screen-writer/director as we can primarily view Wilder.

Good point about Hitchcock. Wilder was definitely an influence on him, as was Francois Truffaut. It really comes down to personal preference on my part.

I feel Hitch had a slight advantage over Wilder with his choice of shots, lighting and camera angles. But Wilder is a better writer than Hitch, just going by their respective best films. Wilder just had a lot more sophisticated and deliberate social commentary behind his stories. Honestly I am not sure which director was able to get better performances out of their cast, seems like a draw there. As individuals, I suspect Wilder was a lot less of a jerk than Hitch.

Also its hard to compare modern directors to them. Seems like there is less freedom to direct and write with a singular vision these days.

[Castle]

Maybe. Course, that doesn't include non-comedy fare with a similar level of craftsmanship.

?

Both Wilder's comedy films and drama films had the same level of craftsmanship. This is what made him a top notch artist.

Don't follow you. That said, I will concede that I think I've liked Kurtzman's work supervising Star Trek way more than his screenwriting.

Alex Kurtzman is not comparable to Wilder. there is a reason I specific chose Staglag 17 to use an an example because that movie showed you can do something in a film Kurtzman for example does not feel it is possible.


I doubt r rated ratings would have saved Scobby Doo movies, one of the reasons those movies are what they were is that the movies looked and read more cartoonish than the actual classic cartoons in a very bad way.

James Cameron's "Avatar" script IS cringe-worthy and uninspired IMO. I hated that film... mostly on account of its absolutely dreadful writing... the fact that Sam Worthington is not a very good actor doesn't help either.

sure, "Aliens" was fantastic... but he shared writing credits and ideas with some other writers who were actually really solid. we could take the AUTEUR path and give Cameron credit for everything... but I just can't do that. ignoring the groundwork laid by Dan O'Bannon and Walter Hill just to praise Cameron's script seems a bit TOO selective to me. any script where Cameron is the only writer tends to be unimpressive. the fact that Cameron IS an impressive director shouldn't distract us from his merely passable writing.

Avatar is no where near as cringe worthy as GOTG and Scooby Doo, because unlike those films, Avatar did not have some of the pit falls that comes with comedy. one of the hard parts about comedy is when a joke is not funny or a joke drags, it turns straight to cringe and a lot about the scobby doo films and GOTG jokes were not funny, not to remember that some of the harsh criticism of the gotg sequel is that most of jokes did not land, this is why I see those films are cringe.

another reason those movies bothered on cringe is that the acting can be bad because sometimes the actor will try too hard to be funny, leading to overreacted scenes. I know Sarah Michelle Gellar is a good actress watching buffy, you cannot tell in those Scooby Doo films. Kurt Russsell is not a bad actor either but Ego performance was quite bad and I have already scene many threads about the Chris(s) of Hollywood, Chris Hemsworth , whose most famous acting role is Star-Lord tends to scores quite lows point in the acting category with Chris Pine and Chris Evans more favoured as better actors.


Avatar while generic in story, had strong performances from all the actors giving the fact they were doing something new with motion caps elevated a lot about the film. So from a film critical eye, Avatar is not as irritating as GOTG and Scooby Doo movies.

Gunn's creative freedom definition should also not be compared to what Hitchcock or Wilder would define as creative freedom.

Additionally GOTG would never have been an r rated film. Disney would never have allowed it and we all know this, in contrast to Two Billy Wilder movies like Some Like it Hot and Double Indemnity that broke all the rules of what can be put in a mainstream film, Hollywood had to change their Hayes codes in the 40s and 50s.

In fact of Gunn's own words. Gunn said SS2 is the best time he has had as a writer/director and since this thread is about who is the best writer/director of all time, it is more logical to incline the directors at their very best. Gunn's SS2 to him is his very best and a lot of film fans can easily support this because he pushed his limits more as a writer/director than in SS2 than GOTG and Scooby Doo movies, which is what Wilder and Hitchcock did when they put out Psycho and Sunset Blvd.

Why would a good drama (as opposed to a good anything else) be needed?

In an interview Billy Wilder once said, whenever he made a drama like Sunset Boulevard or Double Indemnity , people will come up to him and say, billy that was dark and too cynical, when will you do comedy again and when he does comedy again like Some like it hot and Sabrina, the same people will come up to him and say, billly when will you do drama again. What this does is showed his wide range as a talented writer/director.

Hitchcock that has been mentioned in this conversation saw Grace Kelly as one of his muse. he would easily put her in drama and mystery like Rear Window and Dial M for Murder and put her in more of his lighter sort of comedy films like to Catch a Thief.

So it feels too too unrealistic for me to buy ''why a good drama'', when people have mentioned modern men like Nolan, Coen brothers. I can understand this question on a general comic book movie thread because comedy vs drama has always been debated, but not a thread like this when we are debating greatest writer/director ever because part of been great is to be able to write multiple film genres well.

[Castle]

Good point about Hitchcock. Wilder was definitely an influence on him, as was Francois Truffaut. It really comes down to personal preference on my part.

I feel Hitch had a slight advantage over Wilder with his choice of shots, lighting and camera angles. But Wilder is a better writer than Hitch, just going by their respective best films. Wilder just had a lot more sophisticated and deliberate social commentary behind his stories. Honestly I am not sure which director was able to get better performances out of their cast, seems like a draw there. As individuals, I suspect Wilder was a lot less of a jerk than Hitch.

Also its hard to compare modern directors to them. Seems like there is less freedom to direct and write with a singular vision these days.

Wilder's characters felt more real and relatable. whereas Hitchcock characters always had this larger than life personality.

I dont think I saw any Hitchcock movie with Grace Kelly where I could relate to her character. Kelly was a princess like actress before she married an actual prince. However I could relate to Wilder using Audrey Hepburn in his movies.

Also as much as Cary Grant was his male muse, Grant was his James Bond before Bond aka North by Northwest and while I loved Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window, I did not feel sorry for his character as he should not have been spying on Thornwall (lol)

However Joe Gilles from Sunset Blvd. oh I felt sorry for him when Norma pulled the trigger even though Joe was no saint.

Wilder can bring out more humanity in his characters

Hitchcock characters are more lager than life and a step into to a 5th new dimension.

[Kirby101]

It also depends what you are looking for. Which is all a matter of personal preference. Wilder made more human movies with well told stories. He was also a brilliant comedy director. His movies did not have as much visual flair, the story telling was mundane at times, which was a positive to keep them grounded. There are few who were as masterful as Hitchcock in visual impact. His camerawork, and style are exceptional. Obviously better than Wilder in that respect. But that doesn't make him the better director. So as i said, it comes down to personal preference. Is Double Indemnity better than Strangers on a Train or Vertigo? I think Wilder's best work is his comedies. But it is hard to compare them to Hitchcock's suspense pictures. It's apples and avocados.

[WebLurker]

Both Wilder's comedy films and drama films had the same level of craftsmanship. This is what made him a top notch artist.


Alex Kurtzman is not comparable to Wilder. there is a reason I specific chose Staglag 17 to use an an example because that movie showed you can do something in a film Kurtzman for example does not feel it is possible.


I doubt r rated ratings would have saved Scobby Doo movies, one of the reasons those movies are what they were is that the movies looked and read more cartoonish than the actual classic cartoons in a very bad way.




Avatar is no where near as cringe worthy as GOTG and Scooby Doo, because unlike those films, Avatar did not have some of the pit falls that comes with comedy. one of the hard parts about comedy is when a joke is not funny or a joke drags, it turns straight to cringe and a lot about the scobby doo films and GOTG jokes were not funny, not to remember that some of the harsh criticism of the gotg sequel is that most of jokes did not land, this is why I see those films are cringe.

another reason those movies bothered on cringe is that the acting can be bad because sometimes the actor will try too hard to be funny, leading to overreacted scenes. I know Sarah Michelle Gellar is a good actress watching buffy, you cannot tell in those Scooby Doo films. Kurt Russsell is not a bad actor either but Ego performance was quite bad and I have already scene many threads about the Chris(s) of Hollywood, Chris Hemsworth , whose most famous acting role is Star-Lord tends to scores quite lows point in the acting category with Chris Pine and Chris Evans more favoured as better actors.


Avatar while generic in story, had strong performances from all the actors giving the fact they were doing something new with motion caps elevated a lot about the film. So from a film critical eye, Avatar is not as irritating as GOTG and Scooby Doo movies.

Gunn's creative freedom definition should also not be compared to what Hitchcock or Wilder would define as creative freedom.

Additionally GOTG would never have been an r rated film. Disney would never have allowed it and we all know this, in contrast to Two Billy Wilder movies like Some Like it Hot and Double Indemnity that broke all the rules of what can be put in a mainstream film, Hollywood had to change their Hayes codes in the 40s and 50s.

In fact of Gunn's own words. Gunn said SS2 is the best time he has had as a writer/director and since this thread is about who is the best writer/director of all time, it is more logical to incline the directors at their very best. Gunn's SS2 to him is his very best and a lot of film fans can easily support this because he pushed his limits more as a writer/director than in SS2 than GOTG and Scooby Doo movies, which is what Wilder and Hitchcock did when they put out Psycho and Sunset Blvd.



In an interview Billy Wilder once said, whenever he made a drama like Sunset Boulevard or Double Indemnity , people will come up to him and say, billy that was dark and too cynical, when will you do comedy again and when he does comedy again like Some like it hot and Sabrina, the same people will come up to him and say, billly when will you do drama again. What this does is showed his wide range as a talented writer/director.

Hitchcock that has been mentioned in this conversation saw Grace Kelly as one of his muse. he would easily put her in drama and mystery like Rear Window and Dial M for Murder and put her in more of his lighter sort of comedy films like to Catch a Thief.

So it feels too too unrealistic for me to buy ''why a good drama'', when people have mentioned modern men like Nolan, Coen brothers. I can understand this question on a general comic book movie thread because comedy vs drama has always been debated, but not a thread like this when we are debating greatest writer/director ever because part of been great is to be able to write multiple film genres well.

You lost me right about the part where Guardians of the Galaxy was more cringe-worthy than a film where the macguffin is lterally called "unobtainium" (did no one point out to Cameron how stupid that was?) and that Avatar had good acting across the board (all I can say is that Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, and Michelle Rodriguez were the only ones delivering and the latter two were the only characters I personally cared about).

(Also, have to say that Avatar's use of mocap is kinda irrelevant to whether the story worked. I mean, Jurassic Park was movie that revolutionized the craft with its special effects in a way that dwarfs Avatar, but the reason we still watch it today is because the rest of the product works. Special effects always age the most and, if like Avatar, that's all its got going for it, it's not going to last. Look up the original Toy Story if you'd like another example of how to make a movie that outlasts the technology.)

[Johnathan]

Forgetting Hard Core, Cat People and The Card Counter was a damn good film too. Plus he wrote the script for Raging Bull. Schrader definitely is a contender.

De Palma too (Blow Out, ScarFace, Dressed To Kill, Body Double)

Yes - George Miller wrote his movies as well, right? Mad Max, Babe and such.

Also, George Romero in the horror genre changed cinema - did he write his films?

[Johnathan]

You lost me right about the part where Guardians of the Galaxy was more cringe-worthy than a film where the macguffin is lterally called "unobtainium" (did no one point out to Cameron how stupid that was?) and that Avatar had good acting across the board (all I can say is that Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, and Michelle Rodriguez were the only ones delivering and the latter two were the only characters I personally cared about).

(Also, have to say that Avatar's use of mocap is kinda irrelevant to whether the story worked. I mean, Jurassic Park was movie that revolutionized the craft with its special effects in a way that dwarfs Avatar, but the reason we still watch it today is because the rest of the product works. Special effects always age the most and, if like Avatar, that's all its got going for it, it's not going to last. Look up the original Toy Story if you'd like another example of how to make a movie that outlasts the technology.)

Avatar was the least original of Cameron's movies and honestly the least memorable. I don't think I could provide the names of five characters in that movie without Googling them.