Does the world need Clint?

[Fingolfin]

That is the big question now.We all know he was a vital figure in film industry for over 30 years,but now that his films seem to repeat themselves(no offense to Clint or anyone,iam just voicing my opinion),does the world of films really has the need for Clint?Because iam afraid that he might become one of the "monuments",great filmmakers and stars who are kept active just for who they were and not who they still are.Just to keep the flame of legend burning.But think about it,havent we already gotten all we could from Clint?

I cant say anything for sure yet.Maybe he hasnt dried up,maybe he will surprise us again.But ladies and gentlemen,we all know that Clint is no Orson Welles,no Kurosawa....only such men could show flashes of brilliance when others had already lost their touch long ago and they could revive their spark.Can Clint do that?I guess it remains to see.Again,i wish not to provoke anyone here,these are just thoughts.

[mgk]

Fingolfin -

In my opinion, yes, the world needs Eastwood as long as he can continue to bring us great films.  In case you haven't been reading the board lately, track down the links about Eastwood's upcoming Mystic River.  The preliminary reports are that the film is excellent.  If Eastwood can continue to produce and direct really good films and, if he still enjoys doing it, he should keep making film after film after film.

There are so few really good films being made that appeal to audiences who like great storytelling and great relationships, two of Eastwood's strong directorial qualities, that we are usually desperately looking for one.  Eastwood has always provided us with those kinds of excellent films.

[misty71]

Well of course the world doesnt need clint, I mean, hes not preventing nuclear explosions or anything , but I think as long as his movies stay enjoyable, and he doesnt become a parody of what he used to be, he can still be a very succesful director/actor/producer, whatever he feels like doing. Im looking forward to mystic river, and I know clint still probably has some surprises for us in the future. We have had a long thread about clint wanting to quit acting, but if he goes on, Im sure its gonna be good.
 I dont think his movies are repeating themselves....Just in the last decade, hes been a photographer, a robber, an astronaut,an FBI profiler,a texas ranger, a secret service agent, a retired killer and much more.....
 Clint keeps surprising me, and he entertains the world. And we need entertaining.

After all, maybe we do need clint

[KC]

The world doesn't need Clint, the world doesn't need the entire entertainment industry. The world needs a cure for cancer and an end to war and the destruction of the environment. But the world WANTS Clint, at least, those who choose to post on this board do. Why else are they here?

Eastwood's films do not repeat themselves; on the contrary, they have gotten more and more varied as he has more and more of a body of work built up, and is able to pick and choose exactly the films he wants to do. Or is there any other filmmaker out there who might have been likely to give us Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, True Crime and Space Cowboys (just to pick three successive films more or less at random) over a span of three years?

[Fingolfin]

In my opinion none of those films you mentioned KC can match his earlier work."Midnight" is suspenseful and interesting to watch,but i dont see it as a great work.
What i was saying is that his films have lost their spark and the last one that i fully enjoyed was "White hunter,black heart".Clint is a fine filmmaker,but no genius.

[KC]

What i was saying is that his films have lost their spark and the last one that i fully enjoyed was "White hunter,black heart".Clint is a fine filmmaker,but no genius.

If you think Unforgiven, A Perfect World and The Bridges of Madison County are evidence of a filmmaker who has "lost his spark," then I'm sorry, Fingolfin, but I think it may have been a mistake for you to re-register here.

[eustressor]

What i was saying is that his films have lost their spark and the last one that i fully enjoyed was "White hunter,black heart"

I'm sorry to hear that. I have fully enjoyed every film he made after White Hunter... with the possible exception of Blood Work, which I fully enjoyed up until the ending scene, which I only partially enjoyed.

I just have to add that starting a thread on this board entitled "Does the world need Clint?" strikes me as being about as counter-intuitive as posting a similar message about Tolkien, the creator of your user name, over at www.theonering.net. How could you realistically expect anything other than disagreement?

It's a free country and a more or less open forum, but to me, the tone of this post seems out of place here.

[Fingolfin]

I dont understand you.I have never posted on onering.net.There are others who use this name.Bridges of Madison County was made just to show another side of Clint.A perfect world is made from the same reason.He wanted to get rid of the "tough and insensitive " mark.Iam not saying those are bad films,its just that they have been overpraised in my eyes.Not so much "Perfect world" as "Bridges",which was overhyped thanks to the legions of weeping women(uh oh,now iam dead for sure!).It was an enjoyable picture in its own right though.But to me,who craves more from a film,it was not satisfactory work.Really i think that "Pale rider" was above all the 3 that you mentioned KC."Unforgiven" maybe had a broader perspective,but it never became so haunting and evocative as "Pale rider".
Before i get lost in all these expressions,i will finish.

[misty71]

which was overhyped thanks to the legions of weeping women(uh oh,now iam dead for sure!).

ahum ahum
ok, first off, Im not into romantic movies. I even had to watch bridges in 2 parts, because I got kinda bored, but thats strictly because its not my kind of movie. After re-watching it, I found it brilliant, its a beautiful movie and a fine storyline.
 My mom likes it a lot, and she doesnt weep. Were not weepers, thats all. that doesnt make it a bad film.And clint did it for people like you who seem to think all he can do is be aa tough guy. Clint has been in a lot of different roles in his career, more than a cop and a cowboy, and it sucks that people dont seem to realize/respect that.
 Anyways, I dont wanna start a big thing here
 

[philo]

I admit I liked Pale rider more than Unforgiven, Pale rider was more vintage Eastwood and that is what I like. However Unforgiven was something new and is praised by most.

Bridges has to be given credit for not following the book and the project was once linked with Spielberg who's version I feel we would have had to make Dental appointments after having seen it.

Eastwood like all stars has his classic time (for me that is his films made during the 1970's) If you look at some of the modern crap that is being made with stars like DeNiro "slumming it" in some roles .... Then Clint is not doing bad from where I am sitting.

Finally do we need him ? I would have a lot more money to spend if he hadn't been around ..... but probably nothing to spend it on  


Philo .    

[eustressor]

I dont understand you.

That's OK. I'm not sure I follow you either

[Fingolfin]

Cmon,dont be a thickie! To use the Brit slang.

[Hemlock]

They are making more and more sequels(Charlie`s Angels:Full Throttle.Who needs that film )or remakes(Get Carter,Mr Deeds,Psycho and so on)in Hollywood.Therefore I think the world needs more than ever Clint Eastwood and his films.
He`s films today may not be"sexy"and full of mindless action and explotions.Like the XXX-film that butchered Bloodwork in the boxoffice.They are more  adult oriented.You know films for people who can use mind of their own and appreciates good script and acting.
Out of curiosity tell me Fingolfin who do you consider today better film maker than Eastwood?

[eustressor]

Cmon,dont be a thickie! To use the Brit slang.

Wow, regional slang abounds today – both clever and less so.

Tell you what, Fingolfin. Tell me what you mean by "thickie", and I'll try to clarify my original post for you.

[Fingolfin]

Nothing,it was just a friendly,playful joke.Maybe a bit too agressive sounding,but that wasnt the meaning.
And Hemlock,i think that today a better filmmaker than Clint is Scorsese.And Coppola,although he didnt direct anything significant in about six years.I admire Robert Altman who in his seventies is still a creative individual.
And i think the japanese Sabu has made a few films that are better than last few of Clint's.But dont take this as "Clint is a bad filmmaker" statement.Please dont!I am asking you nicely.I hate being misunderstood.Which has happened more than once both here and around.

[Fingolfin]

To finish this thread and clear up some things,i can say that you didnt understand my motiffs here.I was simply curious to find out what everybody thought of mr.Eastwood's future.I like him very much,i even idolize him in a way and i wish i was like him.And he is the coolest star in Hollywood and remains that.He is a genuine star and filmmaker and actor.If he didnt exist,the film world wouldnt be exactly the same.Specially Hollywood.So lets bury the hatchett you who have gotten a grudge against me for thinking i am slagging off your hero.He's my hero too.

[Hemlock]

And he is the coolest star in Hollywood and remains that.He is a genuine star and filmmaker and actor.If he didnt exist,the film world wouldnt be exactly the same..

Now that`s more like it Fingolfin
You made some good choice there: Altmann,Scorcese.Coppola but I do think that Eastwood is as good as those guys...if not better

[dane with no name]

So lets bury the hatchett you who have gotten a grudge against me for thinking i am slagging off your hero.He's my hero too.

I dont think anybody holds a grudge against you for posting your opinion, you´re merely using your democratic right for free speech and opinion 8even though i must admit that some of the things you wrote here

which was overhyped thanks to the legions of weeping women(uh oh,now iam dead for sure!).

would probably be the equliant of vearing a I LOVE SATAN t-shirt in the vatican or Mekka  

I´ll agree that Eastwood is not a Welles or a Kurosawa, but remember that they had their UNIQUE style and so does eastwood and thats why we love him. In all of hollywood  there is no one you can compare him to. in popularity maybe, but newer in style. Scorsese could never make a western like eastwood, neither could Coppola make a police story. thats because it is not where THEIR strenght lies, how impressive it might be...




 

[bdc28]

I think fing is missing the overall picture.

Of course some are going to like the older "faster cooler" movies Clint did. They were great.

But because Clint cant play "quick on the draw" characters doesnt mean he isnt making great work now. IMO his work is MUCH more varied now than in the seventies. IN THE GARDEN could have never been directed by Clint during his DIRTY HARRY years.

The point is, there is more to Clints rappor than "WHATCHA DOIN PUNK?", and he is exploring that. If you see SPACE COWBOYS expecting THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY, of course you will be disappointed. But , without expectations, wasnt SPACE COWBOYS a good movie on its own?