4 ms·

In honor of this movie, Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" was dubbed "Kevin's Gate" by press at the time. In all seriousness, Cimino's magnum opus was just one of m

In honor of this movie, Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" was dubbed "Kevin's Gate" by press at the time. In all seriousness, Cimino's magnum opus was just one of many high profile disasters that resulted from directors being given complete creative freedom throughout the 70s. It turned out that having the suits breathing down the necks of filmmakers was, perhaps, not such a bad thing afterall.

reidjs 5y ago
In moderation, maybe. I can make a good case that the greatest movies of all time were made in the 70s because of that freedom. Jaws, space odyssey, clockwork orange, alien etc
- aphroz 5y ago
  Apocalypse Now
- jfb 5y ago
  The Conversation, Badlands, The Godfather, &c
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    If anyone hasen't seen Badlands, you should. I used to think it was the charisma of Martin Sheen that made the movie, but have changed my mind over the years. It's beautifully filmed. It's hard watching Kit do some of the bad things he did though. Watching it I felt like I lived in that midwestern town. I could almost feel the heat, and such. I belive it was Texas? Martin Sheen also did a movie with Linda Blair called "Sweet Hostage". It not the masterpiece of Badlands, but a good movie. I haven't seen on tv for years though. I thought it was good?
- xkeysc0re 5y ago
  2001 was made in 1968 - definitely a precursor to the New Hollywood era though very much stylistically apart
  - periphrasis 5y ago
    The New Hollywood era is generally considered to begin with 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde, following the accidental but hugely successful US mainstream release of the 1966 British film Blow Up. Kubrick’s career straddles the eras, so he doesn’t belong to the young crop of new directors, e.g. Scorsese, Mallick, Coppola, Spielberg, that defined the movement, but I think it’s fair to say Kubrick’s output from the late 60s onward, to include 2001, absolutely leveraged the creative freedom studios were relinquishing to directors and writers.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  60's and 70's. I don't know why that period was so magical. Not just movies, but all arts.
  - fedreserved 5y ago
    The beginning of color on the tv comes to mind
jfb 5y ago
All art works better when it's pushing against constraints. But I would take the film of the '70s, as flabby and weird and bloated as it ended up, over any other decade.
rectang 5y ago
> It turned out that having the suits breathing down the necks of filmmakers was, perhaps, not such a bad thing afterall. Art often benefits from editing — as this Soderbergh anecdote illustrates. That doesn't mean you want a "suit" as an editor.
axiolite 5y ago
> It turned out that having the suits breathing down the necks of filmmakers was, perhaps, not such a bad thing afterall. Motion pictures are massive collaborations. When one person gets obsessed with their "artistic vision" and thinking they are the key to the process, and reject all suggestions from others as how to make it better, the results are always poor. Whether this particular prima donna is the director, script writer, starring actor, etc., makes little difference.

reidjs 5y ago

In moderation, maybe. I can make a good case that the greatest movies of all time were made in the 70s because of that freedom. Jaws, space odyssey, clockwork orange, alien etc

aphroz 5y ago
Apocalypse Now
jfb 5y ago
The Conversation, Badlands, The Godfather, &c
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  If anyone hasen't seen Badlands, you should. I used to think it was the charisma of Martin Sheen that made the movie, but have changed my mind over the years. It's beautifully filmed. It's hard watching Kit do some of the bad things he did though. Watching it I felt like I lived in that midwestern town. I could almost feel the heat, and such. I belive it was Texas? Martin Sheen also did a movie with Linda Blair called "Sweet Hostage". It not the masterpiece of Badlands, but a good movie. I haven't seen on tv for years though. I thought it was good?
xkeysc0re 5y ago
2001 was made in 1968 - definitely a precursor to the New Hollywood era though very much stylistically apart
- periphrasis 5y ago
  The New Hollywood era is generally considered to begin with 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde, following the accidental but hugely successful US mainstream release of the 1966 British film Blow Up. Kubrick’s career straddles the eras, so he doesn’t belong to the young crop of new directors, e.g. Scorsese, Mallick, Coppola, Spielberg, that defined the movement, but I think it’s fair to say Kubrick’s output from the late 60s onward, to include 2001, absolutely leveraged the creative freedom studios were relinquishing to directors and writers.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
60's and 70's. I don't know why that period was so magical. Not just movies, but all arts.
- fedreserved 5y ago
  The beginning of color on the tv comes to mind

jfb 5y ago

All art works better when it's pushing against constraints. But I would take the film of the '70s, as flabby and weird and bloated as it ended up, over any other decade.

rectang 5y ago

> It turned out that having the suits breathing down the necks of filmmakers was, perhaps, not such a bad thing afterall. Art often benefits from editing — as this Soderbergh anecdote illustrates. That doesn't mean you want a "suit" as an editor.

axiolite 5y ago

> It turned out that having the suits breathing down the necks of filmmakers was, perhaps, not such a bad thing afterall. Motion pictures are massive collaborations. When one person gets obsessed with their "artistic vision" and thinking they are the key to the process, and reject all suggestions from others as how to make it better, the results are always poor. Whether this particular prima donna is the director, script writer, starring actor, etc., makes little difference.