The Energon Pub

[Keeperofthespark]

You know, I sometimes or oftenly defend filmmakers like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers, etc. but when I see an argument about them and one of the detractors of them says that they were horrid directors because they "repeat their style and camera tricks." I don't understand this argument when their are plenty of diretcors out there that are considered geniuses that also repeat themselve. For example-

Steven Spielberg-He usually has a dysfunctional father figure, has his characters look at things not shown on screen, whether it bbe looking up or side to side.

John Woo-Uses doves in every one of his movies resembling hope and whatnot. After each death their is a few seconds of slow motion. Often close ups on objects and on faces.

Paul Greengrass-Uses handled shakey cam in his work.

James Cameron-has close ups on the feet of his character and rises it up to get a view of them as a whole. Frequently has storng females in his work.

Stanley Kubrick-Featured classical music, had many quick cuts and showcased images of the arts.

Tim Burton-Has an ugly looking castle or house, has a dark and moody cinematography. Most things are dark or plain old black. Has scarecrows.

Baz Lhurman-Has a massive usage of quick cuts and doesn't really slow down that much. Let's not forget ballroom dancing.

But the following above are considered trademarks and not rehashing ideas. So if these are trademarks then why aren't the styles of the likes of Bay considered them as well and why is it that it makes him or many others, bad directors? I find this argument to be a rather a lame one at best.

[Evil_the_Nub]

It's one of those "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" situations. If whoever gives the opinion likes it, it's a trademark. On the otherhand if they don't like it, they see the director as a one trick pony rehashing the samething over and over again.