Highest Grossing or Most Critically Acclaimed?

If you were a filmmaker and you could only achieve one of the two, and be mediocre in the other category, which would you choose?

Would you rather create a Star wars/ Avatar type phenomenon or a Godfather.

 

Do you think Roman Polanski would´ve jumped at the chance to direct something like Star Wars?

Fuck, no. ::

 

I'm not asking what Roman Polanski would do...I'm asking it of you...the people.

 

What about this scenario?


Making "Chinatown" / or underage ass-fucking for the rest of his life, and never getting caught

 

Probably, yes.

anyway, if it's one or the other Id rather create something really good

 

See - the true greats can get both. ::


Critically acclaimed movies and also the odd one or two that make a lot of money.

 

Masterpiece obviously

 

Don't compare Avatar and Star Wars. Star Wars is high grossing AND quality. Avatar is a piece of shit.

To answer the question, I'd MUCH rather my movie be a critically acclaimed master piece rather than a blockbuster that's not quality.

 

Ask yourself, is there ANYBODY in filmmaking who respects Michael Bay more than Martin Scorsese?

There's your answer.

 

I'd make the biggest pile of shit and make the most money.

Then I'd donate most of the proceeds to orphaned AIDS puppies and buying the music catalog of Sarah McLachlan to use in sad commercials for the rest of time.

I'd be a hero. :bears:

 

Everyone on this forum is a film buff in his mind. So I'm not surprised that the knee jerk reaction is to say Masterpiece. That's what you're supposed to say. But what most of you are failing to ignore is the creation of a huge fan base...a large cult of followers if you will. Sure that guy who creates the masterpiece is revered more by people in the industry...that's a given and not a clever point at all...but the guy who creates the high grossing film has his work watched and consumed by more people and has potentially a greater number of fans (quality of those fans is irrelevant).

Now I'm not saying I'd prefer the highest grossing...in fact I'd probably say masterpiece too as I am a person that takes pride in my work...but to dismiss the other option without considering it for a moment is also ignorant. To create a piece of work that creates fanboys and large numbers of fanatics...as well as a serious amount of money would give a certain amount of satisfaction also. Taken to the extreme...would you want to work hard on a project that although great and loved by the insiders of the industry....very few people have seen or even know about it? Surely a large audience has its merits?

 

You do know that you can accomplish both, right?

You asked would we rather create an Avatar or a Godfather. I dunno who in their right mind would rather make an Avatar.

 

Accomplishing both isn't the question...and perhaps I shouldn't have given examples.....as people could point out that Godfather has indeed made quite a bit of money. The point of the poll...is to assume you'd achieve one and not the other. Else why would I make it a choice?

 

NOBODY wants to make a movie that completely flops and makes NO money. Art be damned, you gotta make a profit from it.

HOWEVER, if I was a major filmmaker, I'd rather make 20 million off a masterpiece than 40 million off a piece of shit.

There's your answer.

 

Who wants to be loved and stopped in the streets by a bunch of dumplings, Sly? 'Hey man, I just wanted to say I loved that bit when you made the hulk throw that helicopter at Thor, man, it really meant a lot to me.'

 

"Hey man, you remember that part in Avatar when..... well.... I dunno what the fuck there is to remember in Avatar... besides Zoe Saldana in a blue suit."

 

.

But this is the discussion. Some would want quality of audience whereas others only concern themselves with quantity

 

I'd much prefer to be known as the guy that directed "The Great Ecstasy of the Woodcarver Steiner" than the guy who directed "Independence Day"

 

Basically this thread is saying:
"Fuck off, Sly"

 

Hahaha. You're such a grumpy cunt.

 

::::

 

The Godfather was a freaking box office monster aside from the critical acclaim. A better comparison is 'The Wizard of Oz' which bombed at the box office but became a classic. Critical acclaim means shit, look at 'The Artist' a critics darling that won Best Picture of the year but tanked at the box office. It didn't did shit for anyone involved in it, but Michael Bay releases stinker after stinker that makes a killing at the box office and the guy is revered as like the Second Coming of Steven Spielberg even though he can never be worthy of such comparison.

So to answer your question, I'll take the box office blockbuster and become a millionaire than be revered in Tinseltown by the It crowd, but still struggling to pay my mortgage.

 

Which one has the most money? Fuck dying a penniless destitute artist.

 

Whores

 

Thanks. Finally someone with the courage and insight to think outside the box.

 

That's the other side I'm talking about. These wannabe film buffs here have dismissed this choice out of hand because they think it somehow makes them more respectable to choose art over money and fame. People have to remember to live in the real world.

 

I don't think anybody who makes a critically acclaimed masterpiece has ever gone hungry

 

Not the first time panch has the set the world right with insightful, out the box thinking!



Because it didn't happen here either

 

Agreed. Some of the highest grossing movies of all time are critically acclaimed, which is why this thread makes no sense.

 

But even ones which don't do that well....panch brings up The Artsist- does he imagine the director is living in some banlieue bedsit eating baked beans twice a day? He's fucking some babe on silk sheets in the St.germain des pres. Thinking 'damn that film I made was good, I'm the fucking man!'