He just not interested in films?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Paul Thomas Anderson
msb-87624 — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 10:20 PM)
It's confusing to me that someone with such immense talent just..doesn't work that much. Is he like taking a page out of Daniel Day's book and only getting off the couch to do crazy rare phenomenal roles/scripts? Or is he just living the dream and whatever out of Val Kilmer's book?
-
Raoul88 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 12:15 PM)
Maybe hes not interested in doing a film every couple of years.
Directors like PTA seem to only do a film once in a while because he may be focused on writing a screenplay or script or whatever. Or maybe hes only doing films on subject matters that interest him. Stuff that isn't really floating about at the moment.
I do like PTA films but he is a very niche director. -
LotsaMotsa — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 03:33 PM)
When you write your own scripts, it's a journey in itself to find a story (original or source), then the process of writing multiple drafts, production planning, and the list goes on. He just released a movie in 2014 that's moly long ago. If you want him to make a movie every year or two then you're asking for a diluted product. It takes a long time to develop the kinds of films he does.
-
silver_snail14 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 08:51 PM)
The reason that PTA's films are so great is because he takes his time and puts a lot of care into crafting them. I don't think he's lazy or disinterested, he's just very careful about the way he works and doesn't feel the need to rush the process. Also, he has four children and has spent the last few years raising a family so I think his productivity has slowed just a tad. That's natural.
You who wish to conquer pain, you must learn to serve me well. -
jerrellejames-1 — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 07:28 AM)
The reason that PTA's films are so great is because he takes his time and puts a lot of care into crafting them.
Writer/directors can be great AND prolific. Look at
Ingmar Bergman
and
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
for example. -
silver_snail14 — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 08:40 PM)
Not arguing that, but directors like Bergman, Fassbinder and Robert Altman are t16d0he exception rather than the rule. Not many artists can live up to that kind of pace, and the level of creative freedom for auteurs seems to have diminished over the years.
You who wish to conquer pain, you must learn to serve me well. -
taran-rod — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 10:48 PM)
Stanley Kubrick was doing the same, just like Tarantino still does it. You don't have to be a Spielberg who associate his name with any trash as long as he makes money. These director take their time and give us constant quality. I also love hardly working directors like Ridley Scott, they just do the things differently.
-
taran-rod — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 01:44 AM)
Spielberg WAS a sure thing when we looked for quality. Back in the time he was investing more time in filmmaking than in the business around it. Now, he ruined Indiana Jones, totally made me asleep with Lincoln (no, it is NOT a bad movie It is just kinda long and boring) and seemed to use his last breath while making Brige of Spies (once again not a bad movie but just kinda empty and lame for Spielberg's standards imo). This is about the movies he directed, because you get me started with naming the movies he produced that were just utter garbage i'd fill a trash can.
-
theunopeneddoor-697-442391 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 11:17 PM)
I find it weird you'd thin he's "not interested in films" because he's only made a few. Was Kubrick not interested in films? he only made 13. Tarantino is a huge fan of films and he's been around longer than PTA and he's only made 9 hes' had about the same pace.
Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.