just stumbled on this interview, very surreal and a very nice find, thanks to uploader...interesting to hear each director's opinions but John Carpenter didn't really say that much!!
it really sucks that The Thing flopped upon release. It made getting movies financed for Carpenter a lot more difficult. He made some good flicks afterwards, but I bet the 80's would've been even more open for him in terms of getting films of the ground with solid budgets if The Thing would've been a hit.
Oh, ok. Well, now you have explained. I don't agree, I think Argento has a lot to say in his movies and I have always felt intrigued (well, maybe not always, I don't like *all* of his movies) by what's going on and felt more about the characters than most horror characters... but to each his own, I guess.
At the height of their horror careers, it would be a tough call between Carpenter and Cronenberg. The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Videodrome, Christine, The Thing, Halloween, Prince of Darkness, and They Live were all classic movies. But Carpenter fans will have to admit that he made some really bad movies (Ghosts of Mars, anyone?), whereas Cronenberg continues to make great films. Anyone who doesn't agree should really see Eastern Promises and A Dangerous Method.
+Timesthree Thehighest Wasn't the biggest fan of A Dangerous Method, but I totally agree that Cronenberg's later drama films as a whole are equally as impressive as his iconic body horror works - a rare transitional feat that most directors would never be able to pull off as graciously.
Cronenberg CREATED the "body horror" film genre. He is the best in terms of his legacy and originality. No one else made films like his before he did. He's one of a kind. Carpenter is definitely more known. He's more Hollywood. Cronenberg was never a Hollywood filmmaker, but all of his films influenced today's horror and psychological thrillers in some shape or form. Take the Alien franchise for instance; clearly influenced by Cronenberg's Shivers. A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, The Fly and Dead Ringers are Cronenberg's most popular and well-known productions, but if you were to ask him what's your favourite work, he would select something buried in the 80s-90s which only a few Canadian film educators and critics can speak on. The Halloween franchise and The Thing are the only thing sitting on the shoulder of Carpenter's legacy. Not to belittle him, but it's true. Landis, on the other hand, was more focused on comedies, I wouldn't really classify him as a horror director.
What... the fuck? I know people can have different opinions and you are welcome to have yours, but how can one not like Suspiria? Or other Argento works? I mean, don't get me wrong, John Carpenter was basically a genius in his time, but Dario Argento's best work are up there as well. Can you atleast shine a little bit of light on why you don't like them? Or is "sucks" the best you can do?
Argento doesn't have a solid story sense, in my view. He is creative with the camera but I lose interest fast with incoherent plots. Not to mention that I've yet to see anything he's done that could be called "scary." I've actually worked with both directors, and they're nice guys, if a bit older and a little more grouchy/flakely. But I while Carpenter's craftsmanship impresses, I don't see much in Argento to like.
Except Dario Argento sucks. Suspiria sucks. Every film that I've seen of his sucks. Carpenter, on the other hand, has made some of the best horror movies of the past 40 years.
I meant "real" in the sense of "at least it looks like it was really there". another example: the backgrounds in the Star Wars prequels look computer generated not like real places. in the former three movies things were filmed on set - and that's why it looks like they were actually standing in a desert etc.
my problem is that a huge chunk of cgi effects look fake. the brain is able to see that the dinosaurs in jurassic park (popular example) are not real. models, miniatures etc. on the other hand look "real" (in the sense of: the things actually exist) - because they are. compare indiana jones 3 and 4. I can't understand anyone who thinks that the latter looks more "realistic".
What I got from watching the whole thing:
John Landis likes to talk
John Carpenter doesn't
David Cronenberg doesn't ever stop talking
PianoArranger it’s a shame
Cronenberg seems pretty quiet and reserved. Not sure what you’re talking about
Great interview. The classics these three guys churned out in the 80's is mind-boggling to think about.
Great interview. Thanks for the upload! Three directors that truly revolutionized the genre.
its like watching 3 gods speak at the olymp:-)i couldwatch this for hours
this is a genius interview.
Thank you so much for posting this interview
Superb, thanks for the upload!
Absolute Gold, you'd never see anything like this today.
three directors comenting their three masterpieces. Amazing
so was mick garris a interviewer before he became a director?
@Tigerlily21 Each one of them is unique, and I'm perfectly happy to listen to their experiences.
John Landis doesn't need to tone it down, it means he's enthusiastic.
Wow.
Just wow.
Damn it. Now I want to see the scene John Landis says he cut out of the film. I can't find it, though. Does it exist?
david cronenberg has such a great way with words. john landis needs to tone it down a bit and I really wish john carpenter had spoken more.
just stumbled on this interview, very surreal and a very nice find, thanks to uploader...interesting to hear each director's opinions but John Carpenter didn't really say that much!!
The music at the end when the credits are rolling. Is that from American Werewolf?
Carpenter's Bubble thought: "Why is Landis here again?"
@Panorama1981 I just saw the stand and it was pretty good.
This was such a pleasure to watch! Thankyou for uploading!
it really sucks that The Thing flopped upon release. It made getting movies financed for Carpenter a lot more difficult. He made some good flicks afterwards, but I bet the 80's would've been even more open for him in terms of getting films of the ground with solid budgets if The Thing would've been a hit.
Wow, I guess directors can only be 'honest' when there real peers are near.
@Deavi783 I think Craven was not known, or not WELL known, at this time.
@Karosanyo I think he's a really cool guy, a good filmmaker, and I like the way he interviews. :)
6:52: Crew member off screen laughs at Landis' stupid decision.
@0:53...Carpenter is like: "Abso-fuckin-lutely interrupted!"
miniseries and things like that.
The music at the end, what film is it from?
3 Great Directors but Carpenter is my favourite from this trio .
Oh, ok. Well, now you have explained. I don't agree, I think Argento has a lot to say in his movies and I have always felt intrigued (well, maybe not always, I don't like *all* of his movies) by what's going on and felt more about the characters than most horror characters... but to each his own, I guess.
As much as I love Carpenter, I agree, I think he feels he's above them, even though I believe the other two are better filmmakers.
@teethindarkness Exactly. His work speaks for itself.
很好
At the height of their horror careers, it would be a tough call between Carpenter and Cronenberg. The Brood, Scanners, The Fly, Videodrome, Christine, The Thing, Halloween, Prince of Darkness, and They Live were all classic movies. But Carpenter fans will have to admit that he made some really bad movies (Ghosts of Mars, anyone?), whereas Cronenberg continues to make great films. Anyone who doesn't agree should really see Eastern Promises and A Dangerous Method.
+Timesthree Thehighest Wasn't the biggest fan of A Dangerous Method, but I totally agree that Cronenberg's later drama films as a whole are equally as impressive as his iconic body horror works - a rare transitional feat that most directors would never be able to pull off as graciously.
Cronenberg CREATED the "body horror" film genre. He is the best in terms of his legacy and originality. No one else made films like his before he did. He's one of a kind. Carpenter is definitely more known. He's more Hollywood. Cronenberg was never a Hollywood filmmaker, but all of his films influenced today's horror and psychological thrillers in some shape or form. Take the Alien franchise for instance; clearly influenced by Cronenberg's Shivers. A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, The Fly and Dead Ringers are Cronenberg's most popular and well-known productions, but if you were to ask him what's your favourite work, he would select something buried in the 80s-90s which only a few Canadian film educators and critics can speak on. The Halloween franchise and The Thing are the only thing sitting on the shoulder of Carpenter's legacy. Not to belittle him, but it's true. Landis, on the other hand, was more focused on comedies, I wouldn't really classify him as a horror director.
Was he ever a director...? Well he did some movies...
@big9nic Totally!
Landis rules!
What... the fuck?
I know people can have different opinions and you are welcome to have yours, but how can one not like Suspiria? Or other Argento works? I mean, don't get me wrong, John Carpenter was basically a genius in his time, but Dario Argento's best work are up there as well. Can you atleast shine a little bit of light on why you don't like them? Or is "sucks" the best you can do?
Despite being a very good movie director at the time, what the hell did he do there ? One horror movie and that's it.
Cronenberg is a very eloquent and sexy man.
What the hell are Landis doing there? Carpenter and Cronenberg are superior.
Hey man, where the hell is part 2 ??? :(
Argento doesn't have a solid story sense, in my view. He is creative with the camera but I lose interest fast with incoherent plots. Not to mention that I've yet to see anything he's done that could be called "scary."
I've actually worked with both directors, and they're nice guys, if a bit older and a little more grouchy/flakely. But I while Carpenter's craftsmanship impresses, I don't see much in Argento to like.
Except Dario Argento sucks. Suspiria sucks. Every film that I've seen of his sucks. Carpenter, on the other hand, has made some of the best horror movies of the past 40 years.
I meant "real" in the sense of "at least it looks like it was really there". another example: the backgrounds in the Star Wars prequels look computer generated not like real places. in the former three movies things were filmed on set - and that's why it looks like they were actually standing in a desert etc.
my problem is that a huge chunk of cgi effects look fake. the brain is able to see that the dinosaurs in jurassic park (popular example) are not real.
models, miniatures etc. on the other hand look "real" (in the sense of: the things actually exist) - because they are.
compare indiana jones 3 and 4. I can't understand anyone who thinks that the latter looks more "realistic".