Specifically, reputations that cling on in such a way that the person in question continues to have their name attached to creative works as some sort of arbiter of quality despite the combined weight of years and years of dire output that would sink lesser persons. Catchy title, I’m sure you’ll agree.
I’m obviously thinking of M. Night Shyamalan whose name still seems to be stamped across his films, like one of those red APPROVED stamps.
Anyone else?
George Lucas?
Stephen Spielberg?
This thread brought to mind two New York institutions, specifically Woody Allen and the Wu-Tang Clan.
pains me to say it but…
John Carpenter
Tim Burton
Shyamalan was a joke a few years ago, they started hiding his involvment in stuff like The Last Airbender and After Earth (which were both terrible anyway). It’s only now he’s back to making decent low-budget films that people seem to like him again.
Oliver Stone
Ridley Scott (though The Martian was great)
was going to say ridley scott
I think Lucas now has a negative reputation - anticipation for the new wave of films was increased due to the fact that he was not involved in any meaningful way
Hype Williams
not sure i get this thread
Tarantino still does that thing doesn’t he where he has
“THE EIGHTH FILM BY QUENTIN TARANTINO” all over his posters.
I don’t like it.
I’m thinking Roman Polanski
Even putting aside the obvious bad stuff in his actual life - has he made any films in the last 30 years that match up to his 70s stuff?
This is probably the one. His reputation was secured by his first two films, so it’s largely irrelevant how good or bad his others have been, his name will be all over them like a trademark. (Note: haven’t seen any Tarantino films for years, they might be fantastic).
Stuff like this (I think):
There’s a whole host of late 00s horror where “from the producers of Saw” was supposed to be a seal of approval.
Perfect.
Yeah the bloke’s a cinema obsessive, or at least was, so he’s got a long-standing self-aware stonk on for being an auteur and all that.
Don’t mind him being thought of as such - just seems very crass when he does it himself.
I could fill at least 5 discs of highlights from his post-1983 work and I still wouldn’t have room for all of my favourites.
So in short - whatevs.
I see what you’re implying, but I’d argue the opposite - if much of Bowie’s post-1983 work was done by anyone else, and was judged on its own terms, it wouldn’t sink these hypothetical careers but raise them.
Obviously.
frances ford coppola
What’s your point?
