It depends on which way you understand the term 'filmmaker'.
I was especially talking about directing, and being a creator of blockbusters does not mean being a good director, but actually knowing how to exploit the likes of the masses.
Now, if by filmmaker you understand producer/writer/director all together, then what you said is true.
I think that if some of these directors actually cared to do something of their own, not for the likes of teenagers (not that there is anything wrong, just not my taste), but art, they could potentially be better.
But I think that a filmmaker is an artist, and I don't believe a person who just makes things to earn a profit to be much of an artist as he would be a businessman. Of course the end of the concept 'art' is only defined by philosophy.
It all depends on your likes. I reckon I do not have much love in my heart for popular things, and try to avoid going to big cinemas and 'blockbusters' (though I have to watch them to criticize them).
I will never give in on Cameron and Spielberg; nevertheless, I never explicitly said that I did not like the rest, I just compared them to an old director.
Originally Posted by Charie
By the way, I've never watched Tarantino. A half of 'Pulp Fiction' doesn't count.
He's not that bad of a director, but they have made too much fuss about him. Pulp Fiction
is a very good independant film, you should see it one of this days.