Steven Spielberg vs Martin Scorsese

If you look at things like # of DGA nominations, # of Best Director nominations, # of Oscar wins for his movies, # of hit movies, # of tickets sold for all of his movies, # of tickets sold after opening weekend for all of his movies,...objective data like that combined overall, then Spielberg wins...easily. There's no competition.

It seems that the Scorsese fans have to reach into thin air to find reasons to select Scorsese as the better director. It's amazing how in the sports world, people are endlessly using objective stats to figure out who's better than who, but when it comes to Scorsese vs. Spielberg, all of the important stats get thrown out the window. Amazing.

It's amazing how in the sports world, people are endlessly using objective stats to figure out who's better than who, but when it comes to Scorsese vs. Spielberg, all of the important stats get thrown out the window. Amazing.

That's because sports are objective and films are not. If a baseball player hits a home run, it actually happened and that is indisputable. If you show a film to ten people, you will have ten different reactions. Some may think it's a home run while others may feel that the director struck out. In sports, all players must follow a predetermined set of rules. As far as I know there are no rules in Hollywood saying "Each director must make the same number or films and his work must be evenly divided between every genre in existence. Every film produced must have the exact same budget and use the same cast and crew." And even if such rules did exist, there would be no way of determining objectively which director is best because it all comes down to opinion. Just because the Academy or the public likes something it doesn't mean that they are right.

I don't know why you're offended. I stated my opinion, I don't care about oscars and all of that stuff. I like scorsese's movies better I don't see what' the problem is. I still love spielberg's movies too I just wanted to know what others think.

So according to sheetsadam1 then, "there would be no way of determining objectively which director is best", but yet you have people like Richard Corliss of Time Magazine state that "Martin Scorsese, by general acclamation the most intense and gifted director...lost out to that of other, lesser directors" in the Time Almanac of 2009. So it seems that Martin Scorsese fans are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

If you show a film to ten people, you will have ten different reactions.

That's not exactly the case here...we're talking about millions and millions of people, repeatedly over the course of several films. Not one film shown to ten people.

...because it all comes down to opinion

Giving stats on # of DGA nominations, # of Best Picture nominees, # of tickets sold, etc. aren't opinions. They are facts. They actually happened and they are indisputable.

Just because the Academy or the public likes something it doesn't mean that they are right

True, the Academy and the public both liked Gone With The Wind, and from what I've seen of it, it's terrible. But we're not talking about one movie, we're talking about two lists of movies over two careers. Martin Scorsese fans have to reach into thin air to come up with the claim that Scorsese is better than Spielberg. The objective data is clearly in Spielberg's favor. It's a landslide...not even close.

So according to sheetsadam1 then, "there would be no way of determining objectively which director is best", but yet you have people like Richard Corliss of Time Magazine state that "Martin Scorsese, by general acclamation the most intense and gifted director...lost out to that of other, lesser directors" in the Time Almanac of 2009.

Corliss offered an opinion. Based on what you quoted, he did not state that his opinion was fact.

Giving stats on # of DGA nominations, # of Best Picture nominees, # of tickets sold, etc. aren't opinions. They are facts. They actually happened and they are indisputable.

Still not the same thing. I can say "LeBron James scored more points than any other player last season" and you can then look that up to see whether or not the statement is correct. He either did score more points or he did not. It's not a matter of opinion.

Awards and box office are entirely matters of opinion, the opinions of whoever is giving out the award in question or of the general public. Both can be wrong. Haven't you ever felt that there was an election where the best candidate lost or a time when the #2 song on the Billboard chart was better than #1? Or is the majority always right in your world?

In your opinion was Victor Fleming a better director than Alfred Hitchcock? He must have been since he won an Oscar for Best Director and directed the most successful motion picture of all time when adjusted for inflation. Hitchcock never won an Oscar.

Is How Green was My Valley a better film than Citizen Kane? Is The Greatest Show on Earth better than High Noon or The Quiet Man?

Go to the message board for any film to have won the Oscar for Best Picture from 1927's Wings to 2014's Birdman and you will find all variety of opinion ranging from "This movie sucks" to "Good movie, but (other movie) deserved the Oscar more" to "Greatest movie of all time." None of these opinions are incorrect.

Then go over to the sports board. If somebody posts that Hank Aaron has more RBIs than anybody in the history of Major League Baseball, you'll find nobody who will dispute that fact. Does that make Aaron the best baseball player of all time? Not necessarily. There are other objective statistics to look at and you also have to take into account players who didn't remain in the league for as long as Aaron but had similar statistics on a season-by-season basis, the level of competition when he played vs. the level of competition before and after, and the fact that great players sometimes end up on bad teams. But all of that can be determined by looking at player stats and team win-loss records.

With film all you have is opinion. To answer my own previous questions, no, Citizen Kane is not a better film than How Green Was My Valley and Hitchcock is not a better director than Fleming. I enjoy Citizen Kane and Hitchcock more and most people seem to agree, but our opinions are no more valid than the opinions of those who feel the opposite.

As for Spielberg vs. Scorsese, my opinion is that both of them are fantastic directors. I would probably include more Scorsese films on my personal list of favorites, but both would be heavily represented. With that said, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Stylistically and in terms of the genres they tend to work in, there are very few points where you can compare them directly. By my count Spielberg has made 17 of the types of movies that tend to do very well at the box office, while Scorsese has possibly made one (his family-friendly film Hugo). By my count, Scorsese has made 11 crime dramas, while Spielberg has made one (Catch Me If You Can). Scorsese has made 14 documentaries while Spielberg has made none. Spielberg has made at least three war films (five if you include Schindler's List or 1941), while Scorsese has made none.

Where can we compare them? Certainly Hugo vs. E.T., Hook, or The Adventures of Tintin or Catch Me If You Can vs. any of Scorsese's crime dramas. Both made biopics of American icons, so we can compare Lincoln and The Aviator. We can perhaps look at which of them better handled films centered around women by comparing The Color Purple to Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. But really they are vastly different directors. Both are great at what they do and probably do it better than any other director working today. They just tend to do very different things.

"Corliss offered an opinion. Based on what you quoted, he did not state that his opinion as fact."

I pointed out before that he made that statement about Scorsese in the Time Almanac of 2009.

Almanac. Think about that for a moment. Is an almanac a book of opinions? Or is it a book of facts?

On the back of the Almanac, it says "The Trusted Source for Facts Around the World". It then says "Two of the world's great names in information...team up to create a volume bursting with facts you can use about every subject under the sun". So twice it mentions "facts" and once it says "information".

Corliss doesn't state that his opinion was either fact or opinion, but considering it to be in a book of "facts", Corliss is misleading people about Scorsese and Spielberg. So, therefore, Corliss is wrong.

And you're wrong for defending him.

In my earlier post, I mentioned # of DGA nominations and # of hit movies, which would give the edge to Hitchcock. I also stated that Gone With The Wind was a terrible movie.

It's kind of interesting that you mentioned Victor Fleming and Alfred Hitchcock. Spielberg has a unique relationship between the two men.

Victor Fleming directed the biggest money-making movie of all time in 1939 with Gone With The Wind. He also gave us The Wizard Of Oz that year, a movie I would argue is more relevant today than Gone With The Wind simply because Gone With The Wind is such a terrible movie.

Spielberg directed the biggest money-making movies of all time in 1982 and 1993 with E.T. and Jurassic Park. He also gave us more relevant movies during those same years. He gave us Poltergeist in 1982 and Schindler's List in 1993. Because of the ending to Poltergeist, I would argue that Poltergeist is more relevant today than E.T. Schindler's List is for obvious reasons more relevant than Jurassic Park.

Also in 1982 and 1993, Spielberg inadvertently paid homage to an Alfred Hitchcock classic from the early 1960's. The end of Poltergeist pays homage to Psycho and Jurassic Park pays homage to The Birds.

There are 45 movie similarities between 1982 and 1993. I just mentioned three of them.

....The Wizard Of Oz that year, a movie I would argue is more relevant today than Gone With The Wind simply because Gone With The Wind is such a terrible movie.
______________
I would have to say that is a highly subjective and self-opinionated comment to make. While OZ, is a perennial favourite of many and is full of charm and magic, WIND is still highly regarded and revered as a cinematic epic and drama, even if soapy in parts.....but oh, what enjoyable and intriguing soap!