David Cronenberg VS. John Carpenter
- Thread starter batmon
- Start date
Now THIS is a good one. All the "cool" film nerds are gonna say Cronenberg. I'm a fan of both, but I'm gonna have to go with Carpenter. Dude has some bonafide classics and i grew up on most of them.
Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Big Trouble in Little China, etc etc.
Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Big Trouble in Little China, etc etc.
I'm a big fan of Cronenberg's story and style progression - if you look from Shivers to Eastern Promises and all that is in-between, it's pretty amazing.
It is hard to deny Carpenter Halloween, Escape from New York and Eyes of Laura Mars...but they still don't quite live up to Cronenberg for me.
It's a hard choice on the Teen Beat aspect; Cronenberg might be from Toronto, but Carpenter was married to Adrienne Barbeau
It is hard to deny Carpenter Halloween, Escape from New York and Eyes of Laura Mars...but they still don't quite live up to Cronenberg for me.
It's a hard choice on the Teen Beat aspect; Cronenberg might be from Toronto, but Carpenter was married to Adrienne Barbeau
Cronenberg all day. He's much more consistent and continues to make great films.. I can't wait to see "The Talking Cure".
J.C. has NOT put out a decent full length film in several years. The last o.k. thing he did was "Cigarette Burns" and thats a 45 minute feature for the "Masters of Horror" series.
J.C. has NOT put out a decent full length film in several years. The last o.k. thing he did was "Cigarette Burns" and thats a 45 minute feature for the "Masters of Horror" series.
crazy how THE THING hasn't been mentioned yet, as it is many people's favorite Carpenter film.
I think this is a bit of apples and oranges, although definitely an interesting one ... Carpenter is way more straightforward action/tension, while Cronenberg is all about the mind-fuck and quasi-surrealism.
I think Carpenter has more films that I fully ride for, but Cronenberg takes way more chances.
Videodrome was always a late-night cable brain-blower for me back in the 80's, no doubt.
I think this is a bit of apples and oranges, although definitely an interesting one ... Carpenter is way more straightforward action/tension, while Cronenberg is all about the mind-fuck and quasi-surrealism.
I think Carpenter has more films that I fully ride for, but Cronenberg takes way more chances.
Videodrome was always a late-night cable brain-blower for me back in the 80's, no doubt.
For contributions over his entire career I really should go with Cronenberg who's mixed up his style over time but always made at least one great film per decade.
However, Carpenter's output from 74 to 88 contains some of my personal favourite films of all time and he will therefore come out on top in a comparison with almost any director put up against him. JC for the win.
However, Carpenter's output from 74 to 88 contains some of my personal favourite films of all time and he will therefore come out on top in a comparison with almost any director put up against him. JC for the win.
Carpenter has made some of my favourite films, but I doubt he will make any more.
Cronenberg gets the nod simply for making Naked Lunch. Give most directors the book, and I bet they'd tell you it's un-filmable. It has no plot, no conflict, nothing to really drive a story-line. What it does have is a series of sketches and perverted fantasies, ramblings and anecdotes, loosely tied together by Burrough's writing style and themes of power and sexual gratification. Cronenberg had to mix elements of it's real-life genesis, Burrough's past, and the book to conjure up a story, but is there really a story? Could this film be watched with out any knowledge of the book, the writer, the 'scene'? I don't know, but I think it's brilliant art.
Cronenberg gets the nod simply for making Naked Lunch. Give most directors the book, and I bet they'd tell you it's un-filmable. It has no plot, no conflict, nothing to really drive a story-line. What it does have is a series of sketches and perverted fantasies, ramblings and anecdotes, loosely tied together by Burrough's writing style and themes of power and sexual gratification. Cronenberg had to mix elements of it's real-life genesis, Burrough's past, and the book to conjure up a story, but is there really a story? Could this film be watched with out any knowledge of the book, the writer, the 'scene'? I don't know, but I think it's brilliant art.
batmon said:Go
Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes. Most of the time, that suits the material, but I've always found Carpenter's work more enjoyable in any event. He's one of my favourite film-makers of the modern era - The Thing is not only a Private Mindgarden Top 10-er, but I'd argue it's one of the most underrated movies of the 80s and possibly the greatest remake ever.
Why the comparison, though, batmon? Apart from the low-budget/indie background, I'd say they're very different film-makers.
Carpenter, no contest. I like Cronenberg, but his style is very detached and his movies can seem a little emotionless sometimes. Most of the time, that suits the material, but I've always found Carpenter's work more enjoyable in any event. He's one of my favourite film-makers of the modern era - The Thing is not only a Private Mindgarden Top 10-er, but I'd argue it's one of the most underrated movies of the 80s and possibly the greatest remake ever.
Why the comparison, though, batmon? Apart from the low-budget/indie background, I'd say they're very different film-makers.
i suppose lynch vs cronenberg could have been a closer comparison, but lynch would still have won it
I think cronenberg had a bigger impact on me - Existenz, Videodrome, Scanners, The Fly. Probably my age. (80s kid). Discovering Carpenter in a catch up way, its clear that he makes better films, with doper soundtracks. Cronenberg does some really freaky stuff that no one else does tho. Proper skin crawling putridity.
I think cronenberg had a bigger impact on me - Existenz, Videodrome, Scanners, The Fly. Probably my age. (80s kid). Discovering Carpenter in a catch up way, its clear that he makes better films, with doper soundtracks. Cronenberg does some really freaky stuff that no one else does tho. Proper skin crawling putridity.
I think you can compare them directly in their attempt to use weird/alien/gorey/icky visuals realistically, and I think they both do that well.
They both also mix comedy and creepy (in very different ways).
If I had to live with one filmography or the other, I'd probably choose Cronenberg only because I really like more of his movies than I do Carpenter's. But that's pure bean counting...there's no denying how great some of Carpenter's films are.
They both also mix comedy and creepy (in very different ways).
If I had to live with one filmography or the other, I'd probably choose Cronenberg only because I really like more of his movies than I do Carpenter's. But that's pure bean counting...there's no denying how great some of Carpenter's films are.
batmon said
ustedDon said:batmon said:
And didnt Halloween start the Slasher genre?
No way dude. See Bava's "Blood & Black Lace" and grip of other Italian jawns....
They were calling it Slasher film in 1963?
Does it matter what they were calling it? Peeping Tom and all those Giallo movies share a huge amount with slasher movies. When was the term "slasher" even coined, and by whom? I know that there are some people who would say that almost anything that was made outside of the 70's isn't a "true" slasher, but then that excludes 90's revivalist efforts like Scream. At any rate, I think that the first movie credited as a slasher is Black Christmas.
Back on topic, both directors have done a lot of great stuff, but I don't really see why the comparison is being made. Is it because of Cronenberg's body horror concept and Carpenter's work with special effects in movies like The Thing?
At any rate, I'm gonna go with Cronenberg, simply because he's produced a lot more movies that I love - has nobody mentioned Dead Ringers yet? - even though some of Carpenter's rank among my favorites of all time.
ustedDon said:batmon said:And didnt Halloween start the Slasher genre?
No way dude. See Bava's "Blood & Black Lace" and grip of other Italian jawns....
They were calling it Slasher film in 1963?
Does it matter what they were calling it? Peeping Tom and all those Giallo movies share a huge amount with slasher movies. When was the term "slasher" even coined, and by whom? I know that there are some people who would say that almost anything that was made outside of the 70's isn't a "true" slasher, but then that excludes 90's revivalist efforts like Scream. At any rate, I think that the first movie credited as a slasher is Black Christmas.
Back on topic, both directors have done a lot of great stuff, but I don't really see why the comparison is being made. Is it because of Cronenberg's body horror concept and Carpenter's work with special effects in movies like The Thing?
At any rate, I'm gonna go with Cronenberg, simply because he's produced a lot more movies that I love - has nobody mentioned Dead Ringers yet? - even though some of Carpenter's rank among my favorites of all time.
Similar threads
