Why isn't he a household name?
The guy made BttF and Forrest Gump, that should be more than enough
shareAnd Contact.
shareand roger rabbit
share
MovieChat Forums > Robert Zemeckis Discussion > Why isn't he a household name?
It's not like he is unknown.
Maybe your retarded ass has to improve your reading comprehension, but the title does in fact not say "Why is he an unknown?"
shareWow.
What the hell is with the hostility??
Is this really how you engage with people to have a conversation?
because users like you piss me off, similar on reddit as well, snarky answers that offer absolutely nothing and the world would just be better without them. Don't take it personally though, you were just the last straw and I like flaming people on this site because there are no repercussions
share" I like flaming people on this site because there are no repercussions"
Correct, unless you use profanity or hold an opinion the moderators don't like; then they enforce the strictest interpretation of the site's rule against trolling and flaming.
lol
shareEver since then his record has been kinda "mediocre"
all his films getting high 6s to middle 7 ratings.
He seems obsessed with cgi, and all his movies aren't really memorable.. who is still talking about Beowulf, the walk, polar express, what lies beneath ect.
If he'd continued with more BTTF and contact and forest Gump home runs ya he'd be huge
thanks for an actual response. Although I'm not sure I agree. I made this post 3 months ago and now with a fresh perspective I think it's pretty simple. He's just not that interesting of a person, and doesn't have a style to his movies. Going over some of the most famous directors of all time will give you the answer.
Martin Scorsese - Distinct directing style, made so many great movies that are household names and has real interesting look to him and a memorable name
Spielberg - Directed and produced countless classics (BTTF being one of them). That is enough, but he is also friends with George Lucas so their popularity kinda grows exponentially if you get what I'm sayin
Tarantino - Real distinct style, and he does it real well and his movies make bank (plus he's still in the current zeitgeist). He's also a controversial figure
Hitchcock - Real distinct style, real distinct look to him, real distinct everything.
Kubrick - Kind of a legend figure with him being real mysterious. Made not only classics, but multiple top 10 material movies
Nolan - Still in the current zeitgeist, not sure if his legacy will last, but at least for now he's made multiple movies that the younger generations worship
Tim Burton - This guy is the answer to this question. He's basically had the exact same career trajectory as Zemeckis but somehow he is remembered. And that is all thanks to his distinct style. His movies are almost purely remembered for his style over anything else
Robert Zemeckis - Boring look, personality, and unmemorable name. Has made classics that are still as popular today as they were back then but he is not tied to why they're memorable, it's mostly the cast or effects (or some gimmick). And even though BttF is probably my all time favorite movie, I'd much rather want to meet or have an autograph from any of the directors above.
Yep you've pretty much answered your own question fairly accurately here. He doesn't have a distinct style or any particular traits that stand him out and make him memorable; he doesn't act or make cameos in his movies, does or say anything controversial; you never hear from him or about him much. In terms of his catalogue of films, I would say others have been more prolific in creating classics or films that have resonated with audiences.
That being said, to those who have more than a casual interest in film, they're probably going to know his name.
" He's just not that interesting of a person, and doesn't have a style to his movies. Going over some of the most famous directors of all time will give you the answer."
Agreed. he doesnt seem to have an "auteur" style with a distinct style, motifs, running themes ect.
DOesnt mean some of the films he has done weren't great, iconic or will forever be remembered.
But I mean what running "style" goes through BTTF, christian carol, polar express, cast away ect. they all just seem like stand alone movies and not a filmic portfolio that "feel" like a Zemeckis film.
Had he continued to make big box office or iconic films after BTTF and stuff then id say he'd overcome this hurdle.
but like I said you have iconic film, iconic film, iconic film. then just meh. competent films with middle of the road reception, but no "big ones". Since Forest Gump and arguably Cast away, hes just kinda given us milquetoast competent films. but still milquetoast and with no lasting wow factor.
[deleted]
I can only ascertain you have no actual argument and have no damn clue what you are talking about.
please give me some running themes, motifs, symbols and technuiques throughout his filmography.
please tell me what these are that flows through BTTF, polar express, forest Gump, cast away and others.
please type in "Spielberg auteur". "Hitchcock auteur". "Scorsese auteur". "Woody Allen auteur". When you do a plethora of articles and papers come up discussing their legacy as auteur directors.
now type in "Robert zemeckis auteur" find anything? me neither. There is SO LITTLE written (if any) about Zemeckis being an auteur that what does come up is French websites saying auteur as in "author of or creator of", not in the filmic "auteur director"
my bad I lied. I found this http://bobsmediastudies.blogspot.com/2016/10/is-robert-zemeckis-auteur.html
A guy saying he thinks he's an auteur and gives 5 sentences of half hearted support...
oh and also this
https://www.vulture.com/article/best-robert-zemeckis-movies.html
"Unlike Spielberg, he’s rarely evinced much interest in being a serious auteur. "
[deleted]
"That’s because auteur theory is mostly pretentious junk that doesn’t imagine there’s any other way to judge film’s as a creative work other than its director."
claims Ive never watched any Zemeckis films and based on the quote you referenced implying I dont know anything about Zemeckis and hes an auteur.
I provide evidence he isnt. then cries "that's just pretentious junk!!!!!"
"That said, if you can’t even find stylistic similarities between Back to the Future/Roger Rabbit, or Forrest Gump/Contact/Cast Away then you have no business deciding the criteria."
you are throwing a tantrum and crying.
[deleted]
LOLLLL so me and it seems the filmic community are all wrong.
lol be quiet please. you get deleted already cranky rogerebert and start this new account?
[deleted]
What is "one cherry picked sentence"
my entire argument is that while other directors are clearly recognized as auteurs. Almost no one is talking about Zemeckis as an auteur.
so what hes magically overlooked? or he just isnt one.
No buddy, its you, creankyrogerebert. Jesus you are cringe
[deleted]
lol pyscho. all filmic professors and PHD experts are wrong cause a guy names "shutupdumbass" online said soo.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
pyscho...
share[deleted]
the mental illness is real here...
share[deleted]
hahah seek help. cause I went to school and understand film theory. You claim everyone is wrong except you.
pyscho...
[deleted]
Yes film proofs and people with PHD dont know anything about film. Its all "fag theories". you with no education are the real expert.
LOOOL
[deleted]
its neither a straw man or an ad hominem. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE MEAN?
let me guess you didn't take any philosophy classes either in your non existent time at non existent university.
its clear you never got a formal education past high school
Lawl hes a film expert cause he watched casino. yet thinks auteur theory is made-up LOL.
[deleted]
Yes film analysis is for "jerking off for autist theory fags".
LOL the irony of being on a film board to discuss film. Calls film theory made-up and for fags.
just come out already
[deleted]
Films an art. incase you didn't know. Not a hard science or math. It's fluid, interpretative and not set in stone. There aren't hard "rules". a movie isnt good cause it used "X angle" and "Y shot" and "Z take"
so yes its called film theory since its interpreting an art.
LOL my favourite part of MovieChat is when the ignorant revel in their ignorance and make a fool of themselves :*
[deleted]
"What is “film theory”?"
I answer. two minutes later
"Wow, you gave an answer to a question that no one asked."
LOOL!! ask silly quesitions get obvious answers.
"By the way, art is objective, NOT subjective. Next question psycho."
HAHAHHAHAHAHAH keep going please. ive never seen such ignorance.
yes when people watch a movie, or read a book or look at a painting, they all get the same objective thing from it.
LOL im actually laughing out loud for real. never read such silliness
[deleted]
yes I cant tell rhetorical questions over text. how gay of me!
"
By the way, art is objective, NOT subjective. It’s obvious you can’t understand the concept and are now making strawman arguments to deflect because you can’t prove otherwise."
I keep disproving you. the you claim I deflect LOL
" Haha my favourite part of Moviechat is dumbasses showing how they know nothing about film. You’re gay. Do you not know the difference between objective reality and subjective opinion? Gay"
yes interpreting art is not objective. its about personal interpretation. You clearly mixed up the two words and are now embarrassed!
[deleted]
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2008/jul/03/ronaldberganblog
LOOOL yes subjective is peoples interpretations and opinions. objective is a measurable fact.
if you think film analysis is objective you've never even set 1 foot in a film class.
[deleted]
Yes to study film its so dumb I never stepped foot in a cultural studies classroom, I just took multiple years of film theory LOL
how dumb of me.
[deleted]
no what I do is think "hey the Mona Lisa is art and there isnt "one objective interpretation" behind feelings people get from the Mona Lisa or peoples interpretation of the piece.
again you clearly never attended school. it shows..
[deleted]
where'd all your comments go LOL
no I didn't say the Mona Lisa is objectively the same as a finger painting. the post was about INTERPRETING ART:.
this is such a simple concept. that is too complex for you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
LOL reading comprehension isnt your strong suit is it? where did I say Zemeckis is objectively bad? is aid interpreting film is subjective. wow learn to read then come back :)
share[deleted]
where'd all your comments go LOL
no I didn't say the Mona Lisa is objectively the same as a finger painting. the post was about INTERPRETING ART.
so when you look at a kids finger painting and stick me you say "ohh I see its the family all together looking happy!" and he says "well I meant it to be us working as a team". two subjective interpretations, of the same piece of art.
except film is even more complex cause its not one single picture.
this is such a simple concept. that is too complex for you.
[deleted]
LOOL
share[deleted]
He's a household name with all the folks I know, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, though I could care less about Forest Gump.
share[deleted]
He’s made some enjoyable films but has never left a strong footprint of his own - Back to the Future, Roger Rabbit, Gump... the direction is probably not the first thing most people would think of when they consider those movies. He has never come close to Spielberg/Scorsese-level name recognition, yes, but nor has he ever been so successful an auteur.
shareHe never marketed himself as such. He's always been respected by the studios though and if Spielberg wasn't available to make a movie he was an assured substitute to direct the same project.
shareIt's this right here. People like Spielberg were pushed as celebrities every bit as much as their movies and the actors in them. I think i've seen more hours of behind the scenes footage with Spielberg, and interviews and such, than I have his actual movies. That doesn't just happen. That's an orchestrated push to build and sell a brand. It's good business cause when you condition the audience to love and trust the filmmaker, they'll go see anything he makes. He is the franchise. Zemeckis could have had that too. Most of Zemeckis' movies didn't even mention his name in the promotion at all. Forget about flashy hype reels running on Entertainment Television or Access Hollywood. For whatever reason, he didn't want any part of that racket.
share