scifi's best Director...

[RobertScorpio]

So who would be considered the greatest director of SCIFI movies of all time. And yes, LOTR fans, Mr. Jackson is eligible since I will include fantasy films (like Indiana Jones)

But it has to be the complete package. Not just being able to use FX (hello Mr. Cameron) but also directing of actors and putting it all together and making it special and entertaining.

Is it Spielberg, with is CLOSE ENCOUNTERS--ET--Indiana Jones--AI--Minority Report--Jurasic Park run?

Or is it Cameron? Or someone else out there???

If you were a studio exec and you had a well written movie, with great characters, but also needed a director who could work well with FX and actors and put it all together would it be...Michael Bey???

Who then?


Rob

 

[TEH BABA]

Ron moore.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ He's not a director, is he? Either of them?

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

While he sometimes gets a little too kill-happy with his characters, I really like Joss Whedon. There were a lot of great action set pieces in Serenity and his characters are always great fun.

But I'm still inclined to go with James Cameron. He's not perfect. Some of his movies are blatantly emotionally manipulative (SEE Avatar, Titanic, the special edition of The Abyss). But still, you gotta give props to the storyteller that gaves us Aliens, The Terminator, & Terminator 2. True Lies was a bit lightweight but very fun for what it was. Plus, he got Sigourney Weaver her first Oscar nomination for Aliens and elicited many of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best performances.

Bryan Singer is another director I would nominate. Superman Returns was a masterpiece of visual storytelling. X-Men & X2 made comic book movies respectable again. And in the non-sci-fi category, The Usual Suspects still has a huge cult following and I'm a huge fan of Valkyrie.

 

[The Comedian]

All time: George Pal. Some of his movies (War of the Worlds) hold up to this day.

Currently: Cameron. Spielberg would have gotten it if he had done War of the Worlds with the same balls to the wall grit as he did Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List. But he tends to kiddify his sci-fi.

 

[Faldor]

Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott.

 

[Greg Cox]

All time: George Pal. Some of his movies (War of the Worlds) hold up to this day.

.

I thought of Pal, but he may have been more of a producer than a director. Byron Haskin actually directed WAR OF THE WORLDS . . . .

(Although Pal did direct THE TIME MACHINE and THE 7 FACES OF DR. LAO.)

 

[T'Baio]

Not just being able to use FX (hello Mr. Cameron) but also directing of actors and putting it all together and making it special and entertaining.

If you knew anything about directing, you wouldn't have taken that swipe at Cameron.

Gotta' go with James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

 

[Harvey]

Unlike, say, the gangster film (Martin Scorsese) or the horror film (John Carpenter, Wes Craven) the science fiction film lacks a prolific and notable director.

Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Andrei Tarkovsky each made a pair of influential science fiction films* back to back, but subsequently did not return to the genre. Of the three, only Scott is still alive. He may make his comeback to science fiction with an Alien prequel.

*2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange; Alien and Blade Runner; Solaris and Stalker.

James Cameron is also a possibility, since his Avatar (regardless of one's critical opinion) has become the highest grossing motion picture of all time and his The Terminator and Aliens remain highly influential. On the other hand, he's branched out from the genre with the equally successful True Lies and Titanic.

And then there is Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, although the former has branched out in many different directions (and produced several science fiction films that have been disappointing) and the latter has mostly restricted himself to his Star Wars franchise.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'd love to see what Martin Scoresse do a science fiction film but he doesn't seem to have any interest in the genre. I would say Jim Cameron too. Speilberg and Lucas are up there. Bryan Singer as well.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Not just being able to use FX (hello Mr. Cameron) but also directing of actors and putting it all together and making it special and entertaining.

If you knew anything about directing, you wouldn't have taken that swipe at Cameron.

Gotta' go with James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

Then I guess you better talk to many reviewers out there..because I am not the only person who thinks Cameron relies to much on his FX. Its a popular held conception of the guy. Avatar is probably the best example, IMO, of a Cameron epic. Big on Fx...light on story and acting. Exactly how many acting oscars did Titanic and Avatar get between them?

Rob

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Andrei Tarkovsky each made a pair of influential science fiction films* back to back, but subsequently did not return to the genre. Of the three, only Scott is still alive. He may make his comeback to science fiction with an Alien prequel.

Two Alien prequels if we're to believe recent rumors.

Chris Nolan my be gunnin' for the runnin'. Batman Begins & The Dark Knight were surprisingly light on gadgets (except for climactic MacGuffin's like the microwave emitter & the cell phone sonar). But The Prestige kicked ass like nobody's business and Inception is getting great buzz.

 

[Reverend]

Mel Brooks for Spaceballs. Masterpiece of science fiction I tell you!

Seriously though, it depends on how you define "best". If it's most proliferate then it's defiantly Spielberg, if it's most profitable then it's probably either Cameron or Lucas, if it's quality and influence then probably Ridley Scott. Scott may only have done two sci-fi films but he achieved more with those two than most directors do with twelve.
Kubrick I'm not so sure about. I know the guy was a master, but I can't figure out why or of what. Without getting into a diatribe of his work (which I've just half typed and deleted as it was too much like hard work) I've never been able to get to grips with his style of direction. There's always this oddly detached feel to his films that's always prevented me from ever actually liking them.

 

[UncleRogi]

Who was it that directed Silent Running? Underated classic, IMO

 

[startrekrcks]

George Lucas
JJ Abrams you know why
Stephen Spielberg are all brilliant directors in my opinion sorry to disappoint you if Abrams is on my list.

 

[Myasishchev]

Andrew Niccol, for Gattaca, ties with Darren Aronofsky, for Pi and The Fountain.

Well, yeah, fine, James Cameron is the real answer, but I want to be different...

 

[Too Much Fun]

The reason I can't pick a best sci-fi director is the same reason I wouldn't call a lot of the directors whose movies I own on DVD favourites - for every great movie they've directed, there's at least one that I think sucks.

Bryan Singer directed "X2: X-Men United" - the best comic book movie of all-time. He also directed "Superman Returns", one of the most disappointing experiences I've ever had in a movie theatre, and the movie that to this day motivates me more than any other to make sure I check out the general consensus before I go see a movie (I went to it without reading reviews first and regretted that).

James Cameron directed "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", one of my top ten favourite movies of all time. He also directed "Aliens", which upon recent re-watch, struck me as massively overrated (though not completely without merit). Terry Gilliam directed "Twelve Monkeys", another favourite of mine, but also "Brazil", another huge disappointment.

John Carpenter did "Halloween", my favourite horror movie, as well as "They Live", "Star Man" and "Escape from L.A.", all of which I would consider sci-fi and loved. Unfortunately, he also did "The Thing" and "Escape From New York"...two movies I can't understand the hype for. I love Ridley Scott's "Alien" and hate his "Blade Runner". I love Jonathan Frakes's "Star Trek: First Contact" and hate his "Star Trek: Insurrection".

I love "E.T.", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", and "Minority Report" (although that kind of lost me at the end), but "A.I." was only about half good. Robert Wise did "The Day the Earth Stood Still", which I would call the classiest and most beautiful sci-fi movie I've ever seen. He also did "The Andromeda Stain" (which I haven't seen, but heard is excellent), but I couldn't call him a great sci-fi director due to how fundamentally flawed "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is (not a total failure, though).

It seems I have a love-hate relationship with all major sci-fi directors. Christopher Nolan is the closest to being one I could call a favourite. I just don't think any of his movies suck, but I have problems with all of them, mostly minor. I hope someday a sci-fi director comes along who can actually consistently make sci-fi movies that I enjoy. A sci-fi soulmate if you will. It's like all these directors were people I dated where the first (or first few dates) were amazing and then they blew it on one of the subsequent ones.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

Paul Verhoeven should be given a place among the Top 10 of this chart:

"RoboCop", "Total Recall", "Starship Troopers" and "Hollow Man".

Oh and let's not forget Robert Zemeckis - "Back To The Future" trilogy and "Contact".

 

[RobertScorpio]

Not bad choices at all Truth Seeker. I liked all of those movies by Zemeckis, which gives him a higher success percentage than that of some of his peers, IMO.

Rob

 

[startrekrcks]

How about my choices do those directors suck