No Such Thing as The Next STAR WARS (Yet)

The other night, I was watching the sequels to Pirates of the Caribbean, and I was reminded how I read a few articles when the second one came out that this was this generation's Star Wars because of the adventurous tone and the youthful demeanor of the characters.   I tried looking up the articles that made this comparison - from what I remember, there were a few - but I couldn't find them.  However, I do remember them.

When I did an online search, I found a few articles mentioning how the video game Halo could be "the next Star Wars".  I am not very familiar with the story behind Halo, but I have serious doubts that a video game or movie based on it could earn that designation even if Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson is involved.  Here's the article: http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-generations-star-wars.html.

As far as I'm concerned, there has not been a Next Star Wars, and unfortunately, there most likely never will be.

I'm not just saying this because I am a tremendous Star Wars fan.  I have been since my father first took me to see Star Wars - not Episode IV: A New Hope, which I refuse to call the film just like I refuse to precede Raiders of the Lost Ark with Indiana Jones and... - and saw it 30 times before it finally came out on VHS in the early 1980s and saw hundreds of times beyond that.  Many of my fondest memories involves Star Wars: going to the toy store with whatever money I earned or received from relatives to buy the latest action figure made my Kenner; my father waiting in line for hours at the Fox Theatre on Wolf Road in Colonie so we can see The Empire Strikes Back in 1980; my father taking me out of school early in 7th grade and skipping Mrs. Nero's science class to see the first showing of the day  of Return of the Jedi in 1983; being so excited reading the novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye by Alan Dean Foster, the unofficial sequel to Star Wars, and Han Solo  novels by Brian Daley, which were set before Star Wars; waking my father up in the middle of the night to see the premiere of Star Wars on HBO; even driving two hours both ways from Blythe, CA, to Phoenix, AZ, to see the midnight showing of Episode I - The Phantom Menace with my father, my future wife, and my best friends.  Before I had kids, I couldn't wait to sit down and have them watch the movies with me.  Now that they're old enough, we sit together and watch the films whenever they're on cable or if I buy or do something new with electronics - my 55:"HDTV, my Blu-Ray DVD, hooking my stereo up to the TV.  I have to test out the potency of the electronics by playing the opening to Star Wars.


Why?  Because after 35 years since its release, the intro for the 20th Century Fox logo, the flash of the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo, the message, "A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way..." followed by the BOOM! of John Williams's opening score accompanied by the retraction of the STAR WARS title zooming into space and the scroll detailing the prologue to the story, it still sends a chill of excitement up my spine.

So why has the thrill and appeal of Star Wars continued for over 35 years?

1) It redefined a genre. Before Star Wars, science fiction emphasized more of the science than the fiction.  The characters were usually one dimensional caricatures who fit their role and responsibility.  The captain was always the brave adventurer.  The scientist was a genius.  The female was the designated female who served either as the damsel in distress or the eye candy.  The dialogue was wooden and often laced with references and explanations straight out of a textbook.  The lasers were either light shows or sparks and the ships were one step above model kits.  In other words, it was a cheap  genre.

Star Wars transformed the genre.  The dialogue, while not spectacular or resounding, was at least more natural and acceptable than in other science fiction films.  It wasn't stilted or laden with scientific terms or references.  In fact, the only real scientific statement - "But I was going to go into Toshi Station to buy some power converters!" - is downright laughable with how Luke Skywalker whines about the responsibility his Uncle Owen gives him to fix up C-3PO and R5-D4 (not R2-D2, who was purchased only after R5-D4 broke down due to a "bad motivator" - well, there's another scientific term).

Even the robots and aliens had personality!  The dynamic of C-3PO and R2-D2 is more like a classic vaudevillian comedy team than that of two monotone robots.  They're more Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy than monitor and desktop.  The aliens emoted and showed character.  Even when the aliens spoke, they spoke in an alien language that actually had phonics, lexicon, and semantics.  Even R2-D2's blips, bleeps, and bloops had emotional tone behind them.  Never had we seen such portrayals in science fiction movies before, where the robots were generally fact-spewing, logical machines and the aliens just lumbered and even spoke perfect English.

The special effects took filmmaking to the next level.  Spaceships were not hovering in space simply firing at their enemies.  They moved like fighter jets or hulking battleships.  Right from the beginning when we are dragged below the underbelly of the Star Destroyer pursuing the Rebel Cruiser, you know you're about to witness movie magic like you've never seen before.  The amazing thing?  The magic was created with models and innovative movements of a camera, not computer-generated images.

2) It's not just science fiction.  The best stories are those that transcend genres by incorporating motifs under the umbrella of its own presentation.  Star Wars is not just a science fiction story set in space.  It's actually more of a fantasy with its characters of princesses, knights, pirates, and dark lords; its sword fights; its creatures who are more monstrous than alien; and the mysticism of The Force.  It's a western in that it takes place in the "pioneer" of space on the planet of Tattooine with simple farmers taking on "the corrupt system".  It's a swashbuckling adventure in which daring heroes need to rescue the princess from her captors.  It's a romance between a young farm boy and the princess he must save (this is before we learned they were actually brother and sister, which still strikes an odd chord with many - but hey, the religious norms of Earth do not exist in space, so that's how we can explain their incestuous relationship).

3) It defined the times.  Star Wars came out at a time in which America's youth was disenfranchised with the system and society created and run by the adults.  America's youth was disenfranchised with the world their parents had created for them.  We were still licking the wounds from the Vietnam War.  The President had just been impeached for criminal behavior.  Unemployment and crime rates were high.   Adults were intimidated and actually frightened by America's youth, and they oppressed them by denying them the opportunities that were provided to their parents.  Kids were discouraged that their lives were not turning out as smoothly their parents' in the way of "the grand plan" - graduate high school, the man goes to college, marries his high school sweetheart, she stays home and raises the kids.  Kids were fed up, and they wanted more.  However, social norms and situations prevented them from getting what they want.

Star Wars symbolized America's disappointment with the corrupt and conflicted adult culture that was being heaped on them.  When Luke, Han, and Leia went up against Darth Vader and the evil Empire, it struck a chord with America's youth in the seventies.  Here were these kids rising up against their oppressors and trying to create a life that was good for them in a world in which they wanted to live.  Luke was every young man who aspired to be more and fulfill their destiny.  Leia was not just some helpless girl.  She was strong, independent, had freewill, and even put "the boys" in their place when necessary.  Han Solo was the screw-up who redeemed himself by proving "there was more to him than just money" and actually cared about things other than himself.

4) It allowed us to escape.  The seventies were a dark time.  America had just lost a war.  We lacked faith in our leaders.  Married couples were getting divorced.  Moms were no longer staying at home raising the kids and tending the house because they either had to or wanted to go to work.  Kids were coming home to empty houses and spending time with their parents separately.  America's faith and confidence was rocked.

Star Wars whisked us to a galaxy far, far away from the depressing times facing America - and the world, for that matter.   It took us to a place where good beats evil, where the youth can rise against their oppressors, and the story ends happily ever after.  The universe was saved not by the leaders of the political parties but rather a young farm boy who used The Force and believed in himself to blow up the Death Star.  In other words, it gave the world hope.

5) It was not like other films currently being made.  The films of the seventies were dark and tragic.  Most of the films addressed bleak themes.  Graphic violence, nudity, and sex permeated films.  This was mostly out of a response to the new rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America.  Filmmakers felt unrestricted and unburdened to confirm to standards and practices.  The rating system allowed them to address subjects that would be considered risque and taboo prior to the rating system, which gave them the permission to push the envelope.  Case in point - even Alfred Hitchcock featured nudity - albeit uncomfortably - in Frenzy because he could as long as the film was Rated R.

The "heroes" were not noble or upstanding.  Actually, they were more rogues than heroes.  Some of them were even as treacherous as their antagonists.  Think about the characters permeating the films of the 70s.   The Corleone Family were ruthless gangsters and killers whose only redeeming quality was their love and devotion to family.  "Dirty Harry" Callahan resorted to tactics that were sometimes even more violent than the criminals he chased, which usually ended with a kill than an arrest.  Popeye O'Doyle was a ruthless, racist cop who did whatever he could to get what we wanted and lived a single, depressing life when he wasn't working the job.

The stories did not end happily ever after.  In fact, more often than not, these films ended in loss or even death.  In The Godfather, Michael Corleone does not follow the path his father wanted for him and ended up inheriting the mantle of his father's criminal empire.  In The Godfather, Part II, Michael kills his brother and his wife, Connie, leaves him.  In The Exorcist, Father Karras saves young, possessed Reagan by letting the demon possess him and throws himself out the window, where he falls down a staircase to his death.  In The French Connection, the drug czars get away with their crimes.  In Chinatown, Mrs. Mulwray is gunned down and Jake Gittes is told, "Forget it, Jake.  It's Chinatown." In Rocky, Rocky Balboa does not win the title from Apollo Creed.

Even the war films, which were often used as propaganda to celebrate military heroism and might, were more tragic than heroic.  The Deer Hunter and Coming Home showcased the suffering of the Vietnam vet.  Apocalypse Now took the classic Joseph Conrad novel Hearts of Darkness, set it during the Vietnam War, and showed the physical and psychological trauma the war caused for America's soldiers. Taxi Driver introduced us to a lonely Vietnam vet named Travis Bickle who has a warped sense of values and ends up becoming a "hero" through violent means.  The soldier was not one to be celebrated on film but rather pitied.

Films were also geared toward adults.   Kids or family movies were relegated to Disney feature productions, which were often cheaply and even poorly made.  That's why many of the Disney classic cartoons were rereleased into the theaters in the seventies.  Even the first summer blockbuster - Jaws - was a film for adults, a horror film that featured graphic violence and even nudity within the first five minutes.

Star Wars was a family event.  Young and old could see and enjoy the film - and they did!   Adults not only took their children but also went on dates or with groups of friends to see the film.  This was the origin of what Hollywood calls the Four Quadrant Film - a film that appeals to all members of the audience: the young, the old, the men, and the women.

It also brought back the concept of the "happy ending".  Unlike most films of the seventies, the good guys won, and they did so with little sacrifice.  While Jaws can be attributed that it brought back the happy ending with Roy Scheider's Brody blowing up the Great White Shark, he did so after being subjected to great violence, suffering, and even death.  In Star Wars, the good guys won with some tragedy - specifically, the death of Ben "Obi-Wan" Kenobi -  but that loss was more through sacrifice for the greater good than suffering.

However, Star Wars still embodies the darkness of the seventies in that one of the bad guys does get away to fight another day, and when he does, he brings such tragedy to our heroes in the sequel.

6) It doesn't look like a period film.  Most of the science fiction films of the seventies - or even most of the films of the seventies - capture the style of the times.  In the future, people wore bell bottom pants, had mutton chops or feathered hair, and wore leisure suits while the women wore miniskirts or pantsuits.  Think Logan's Run in which Michael York and Jenny Agutter.  Many of the characters look like they were going to dance in a disco rather than soar the spaceways.

With Star Wars, the style is non-descript.  Other than Carrie Fisher's hair, which was more unique than typical of the times, there truly is nothing about the look or style of the film that marks the time period.  Haircuts were nondescript.  Clothing and costumes were simple with bland tones - whites, tans, browns, and darks.  Even the music played in the Cantina was non-descript lounge music that could be from any era - no heavy funk bass or synthesizers.  Star Wars could have been filmed in the seventies, the eighties, the nineties - or any time period.

7) It's still relevant.  The theme of Star Wars (not the soundtrack) is still relevant today.  Good defeats evil.   Young defeats the old.   It allows us to escape the depressing times facing us.  

These are all things what a film that could be "the next Star Wars" needs to do.  Unfortunately, none of the modern films are powerful or innovative enough to create the same effect.

The problem with modern movies isn't just the filmmaking.  It's the audience.  We're not demanding when it comes to our expectations and entertainment of movies.  It's why movies like TRANSFORMERS can make so much money and be considered a box office success.  These days, a movie is judged not just by quality of talent but rather quantity of box office.

Modern audiences also does not know how to create "classics" anymore.  Our memories are too short, and we make things so popular that there's a backlash.  What's popular quickly becomes uncool and therefore forgotten.  Think about it - does anyone get as excited about The Matrix anymore, which was once considered to be "the next Star Wars"?

Then there's the Harry Potter film series, which has the same solid fan base as its own universe like Star Wars.  However, it's not "the next Star Wars" because the fan base came from another medium.  It's the same reason why Star Trek or the comic book movies can't be "the next Star Wars" because there was already an avid fan base before the movies came out. 

The excitement around the upcoming production of The Hobbit could re-establish the Lord of the Rings film series as "the next Star Wars", which is ironic since Tolkien's novels heavily influenced the Star Wars films.  However, it could also be like The Godfather Part III in which there was so much hype and enthusiasm that it was bound to never live up to the expectation of the audience.

That's why the new Star Wars trilogy failed.  While the special effects were much more dynamic, it could never live up to the hype, excitement, or expectations created by the original.  The modern trilogy also felt much more cold and detached than the original trilogy.  Basically, it felt like traditional science fiction films: unemotional and scientific.  Case in point - the resounding boos heard in the theater during the midnight screening of The Phantom Menace in which strength with The Force is due to a midchlorian count.  What was once spiritual became scientific.  What was once original became genre specific.  In other words, Star Wars became Star Trek.

There's only one filmmaker whose films can create the Star Wars effect, and that's James Cameron.  Titanic and Avatar are like Star Wars in that they are great films that encourage the audience to return for repeat viewing.  However, Titanic does not have the staying power a classic like Star Wars or even Gone with the Wind has.  It's not one of those films that trigger memories or reflect a time period.  It's just a damn good movie whose value and presence has been deflated due to repeat viewings on DVD and cable.  Also, there can't be any sequels made.  The boat sank.  Jack died.  Story ends.

When it comes to Avatar,  it could be "the next Star Wars".  However, we'll have to wait until Cameron makes the sequel before any comparisons can be made.  Until then, we have the original, often imitated, never been replicated to entertain us until some creative genius finds a way to tap into those things that make Star Wars so classic without Hollywood overmarketing or overexposing the films.

How The Dark Knight Should Rise

So now BATMAN 3 - or BATMAN 7 if you're counting the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher movies - has a title: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

I'm not crazy about the title.  Why not go with THE CAPED CRUSADER?  What about THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?  Yes, we had BATMAN RETURNS, but calling it this title would be acceptable.  BATMAN TRIUMPHANT?  REVENGE OF THE DARK KNIGHT?  BATMAN: REDEMPTION?   Why not even call it one of the mini-series or one-shots like THE LONG HALLOWEEN or even BATMAN: HUSH?

We also know The Riddler will not be the featured villain, which is also a disappointment considering Edward Nigma, his riddles, and even his question marked costume fits perfectly in the realism of Christopher Nolan.  It's also disappointing considering Tom Hardy had just been cast in the next film.

There's also a lot of buzz on the Internet about Christopher Nolan meeting with a number of actresses regarding the film.  So what role could he be casting?

The Internet is already abuzz with questions about possible villains.  Since the Riddler is out, here's a few who should have their moment shining in the bat signal spotlight.

1) Catwoman - The most logical choice of all the villains/anti-heroes in Batman's rogues gallery and cast of  characters.  Although Catwoman has been brought to the screen with successful (Michelle Pfeiffer) and devastating (Halle Berry) results, Selina Kyle and her alter ego would fit in well with Nolan's Gotham City.  Of course, the plot would have to center the love/hate relationship between Batman and Catwoman.  Considering how Bruce lost his love in THE DARK KNIGHT, temptation from a new romance with a woman who is a thief and former prostitute could make an interesting tale.
Potential Casting: Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, Gemma Arterton

2) Talia al Guhl - Talia al Guhl is the daughter of Ra's al Guhl, who was featured in BATMAN BEGINS.  In the comics, Bruce and Talia have a relationship similar to his with Selina except there's one difference - Bruce and Talia had a son, Damian, who is currently the new Robin in the comics and partner to Dick Grayson's Batman.  Having Talia in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES come to Gotham to avenge the death of her father and finish the job he started could make a good plot.  Perhaps even have Catwoman and Talia be the two villains and fight over Bruce.
Potential Casting: Jessica Biel, Elisha Dusku, Patricia Velasquez, Rosalyn Sanchez

3) Dr. Hugo Strange - Dr. Hugo Strange is a psychologist who injects normal people with a growth hormone that turns them into "monsters".  He also uses a fear-inducing gas to cause panic and terror.  Nolan has already done this with The Scarecrow in BATMAN BEGINS.  Also, there's another Dr. Strange from comic books that could cause confusion if he is called this in the next film.   However, this could work if they bring back...
Potential Casting: Jason Isaacs, John Malkovich, Alan Rickman

4) The Scarecrow - Like The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT, Jonathan Crane and his insane alter ego are still alive.  While he was featured briefly in the beginning of THE DARK KNIGHT, Crane could be brought back amd teamed up with Hugo Strange as he was in the Batman comic series "Prey" and "Terror".
Casting: Cillian Murphy (don't replace him)

5) Deathstroke the Terminator - Slade Wilson is a mercenary who is more of a Robin/Nightwing villain than a Batman rogue, having been the adversary for Dick Grayson and endless incarnations of the Teen Titans.  However, Deathstroke has established himself more as a universal villain in the DC villain.  He is also the anti-Batman, a billionaire who uses his talents and money for profit rather than justice.  Deathstroke would also fit in the realistic world Nolan has created with his Batman films.
Potential Casting: Stephen Lang, Jeffrey Dean Morgan

Modern Day Geniuses of Hollywood

William Goldman is famous for saying, "In Hollywood, nobody knows anything."

While this is true for the most part, fortunately, in a medium where CGI effects dominate and every movie seems to be a remake, a reboot, or an adaptation from another medium,  there are a handful of filmmakers who know story is more important then spectacle.

Many of these filmmakers are not the most talented amongst their peers nor do their films stand the test of time.  However, these are the filmmakers who have consistently shown success commercially and critically in modern cinema.

Here's the list in reverse order:

10) Martin Campbell: He is the filmmaker who breathed life back into the James Bond franchise - twice! He is the director who finally brought Zorro to the screen and introduced the audience to Cameron Zeta-Jones.  He even tried to revive Mel Gibson's career with Edge of Darkness.  Campbell has proven he is at his best when he makes blockbuster pictures based on genre characters.  However, even when he steps into original fare, such as No Escape and Vertical Limit, Campbell is able to entertain.  Edge of Darkness suffered not from the filmmaking but the casting.  Based on the footage from the trailer for next summer's Green Lantern, Campbell will transcend to the next level.

9) Ron Howard: When it comes to reliable filmmakers, Ron Howard is always dependable to make a movie that entertains.  The interesting thing about Howard is that his movies are not original.  They're all homages to the filmmakers.  He's make the Lucas epic (Willow), the Spielberg historical drama (Far and Away, Apollo 13), the Ivan Reitman comedy (Splash!, Gung Ho, Parenthood), the Clint Eastwood western (The Missing), the Oliver Stone political picture (Frost/Nixon), the Tim Burton cartoon brought to life (How the Grinch Stole Christmas), and the Alfred Hitchcock thriller (Ransom, The Da Vinci Code).  However, Howard's best pictures are his biopics - A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man.  The strength of Howard's directing is also his ability to work with talented leading men over and over again - Michael Keaton, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe - and get some of their best performances out of them.  With this year's The Dilemma, Howard has made his Judd Apatow comedy.

8) George Lucas: George Lucas is a one-trick pony, but that pony has provided him a career that has not only lasted over 35 years but has established a universe that has transcended into other mediums.  Lucas is credited for creating two of the most successful film series in the history of cinema - Star Wars and Indiana Jones.  However, the best Star Wars films are the ones not directed by Lucas and Indiana Jones is more Spielberg's than Lucas.  Lucas is a master storyteller, however, his talent improves when he is assisted by another artist.  The more successful Indiana Jones films are due more to Spielberg's direction and the talent of the screenwriters (Lawrence Kasdan, Chris Columbus, Jeffrey Boam) than Lucas's story.  In fact, the worst of the series - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - suffered because Lucas pushed his story about Indy in the atomic age.  Lucas needs to realize his talent lies more in turning his ideas over to other more talented writers and filmmakers who can interpret his vision, be it either on screen, in animation, or in books.  Still, other than James Cameron - who for years lived in George Lucas's shadow until he established his own niche - no one has been able to create and continue to entertain audiences with the universe they have created.

7) Peter Jackson: Forget The Lovely Bones.  Remember The Lord of the Rings trilogy?  Back then, Jackson was being touted as the next George Lucas and Steven Spielberg so much that even Spielberg took notice and directed The Adventures of Tintin for him.  Jackson is like Cameron in that he knows the value of story, character, and spectacle.  The unfortunate thing about Jackson is that he is similar to Michael Mann, another great filmmaker who suffers from creating films with long narratives, which is why Jackson's adaptation King Kong was well made but not widely received.  With The Lovely Bones, Jackson unsuccessfully attempted to combine his talent with special effects with the suspense he showcased in Heavenly Creatures.  After attempting to hand over the directing reins for The Hobbit to Sam Raimi and Guillermo Del Toro, Jackson has finally decided to give the fans what they want and returns to the directing chair to shepherd the classic prequel to the trilogy that made him famous.

6) Clint Eastwood: Like Howard, Eastwood is always reliable for providing reliably films that are both engaging and entertaining (except for Hereafter).  However, the difference between Eastwood and Howard, both former actors who moved behind the camera, is that Eastwood's films have more depth.  Perhaps it's because Eastwood's films are more personal and carry a message.  Prior to his retirement from acting with Gran Torino, Eastwood directed films that allowed him to showcase not only his acting talent but provide roles for his friends.  Now that he has moved behind the camera permanently, Eastwood is determined to present even more personal films.  Invictus is his tribute to Nelson Mandela.  Hereafter is his exploration of life after death.  Eastwood also seems determined to pass on to the new generation of movie stars such as Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon what Sergio Leone passed on to him - an appreciation of the overall craft of filmmaking that transcends beyond acting.

5) Tim Burton: The last three decades can be described as the rise and fall and return of Tim Burton.  In the 1908s, Burton was the bankable blockbuster director thanks to Beetlejuice, Batman, and Batman Returns, which allowed him to make pet projects such as Edward Scissorhands and the reintroduction of model animation with The Nightmare Before Christmas.  In the mid to late 1990s, Burton lost sight of who he was and made a series of critical and commercial disappointments - Ed Wood, Mars Attacks, and Planet of the Apes.  During this time, Burton reunited with his constant collaborator, Johnny Depp, and directed Sleepy Hollow, which not only embodied Burton's gothic yet quirky style but also showcased the strength of his artistic relationship with Depp.  Going into the next decade of the new millennium, Burton has realized his talent lies in two areas - stop-motion animation (James and the Giant Peach, The Corpse Bride) and his collaboration in with Depp in making remakes (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) or bringing other stories from other mediums to the screen (Sweeney Todd, Alice in Wonderland).   Burton is continuing his motif of filmmaking with Frankenweenie and an adaptation of the vampire soap opera Dark Shadows with Depp playing Barnabus Collins.

4) JJ Abrams: JJ Abrams is the modern day Chris Columbus, who was once the heir apparent to Steven Spielberg's throne after Robert Zemeckis.  Like Spielberg, Abrams got his start in TV shepherding the series Felicity, Alias, and Lost - three series known for their strength in characterization.  Abrams is a student of not only the cinema but also genre fiction.  His films are influenced by the two Steves - Spielberg and King.  With Cloverfield, Abrams created a Japanese monster movie using the camera storytelling Spielberg incorporated through the eyes of the shark in Jaws while also incorporating King's ability to tale a story featuring an ensemble cast of dynamic characters.   Abrams's true genius is showcased with Star Trek in that he was able to make a film that satisfied both the die hard Trekkers and brought new fans to a dying series.  Next summer, Abrams will team with his idol on Super 8.  All of his films are clear homages to Spielberg, so it will be interesting to see what happens when the mentor teams with his protege.

3) Christopher Nolan:  The genius of Christopher Nolan is not just for his successful reboot of the Batman franchise by incorporating stark realism into Batman Begins and continuing it with The Dark Knight.  Nolan's talent is exemplified in his more cerebral films - specifically, the mystery he creates and the emotions his films exude on screen - the confusion in Memento, the exhaustion in Insomnia, the tension in The Prestige, and the anxiety in Inception.   The problem with Nolan's films?  The studios don't know how to market them.  They're not straightforward genre pics.  They transcend the genres by incorporating elements of other genres.  The Dark Knight is not a superhero movie but a crime thriller featuring a superhero as the main character.  It's easy to sell Nolan's Batman pics because it features Batman.  However, except for The Joker, the villains in the series are second tier villains, and they are successfully presented in the film through Nolan's direction and his screenwriting partnership with his brother, Jonathan.  We're all waiting who the villains he will feature in The Dark Knight Rises.  Here's hoping one of them is Catwoman.

2) Steven Spielberg: Spielberg is still a cinematic genius only because if it wasn't for him or George Lucas the modern day blockbuster wouldn't exist.  Before Cameron, Speilberg was the filmmaker with the Midas Touch.  E.T. the Extra-Terrestial was the biggest blockbuster of all time until it was dethroned by Cameron's Titanic.  Think of all the blockbusters with Spielberg's name on them as director - Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Indiana Jones movies, Jurassic Park.  Think of the Oscar winners - Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.  Think of the film he's produced - the Back to the Future films, the Men in Black movies, the Transformers movies, Poltergeist, Twister, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Gremlins, The Goonies.  The credits "Steven Spielberg Presents" or "a film by Steven Spielberg" before a movie title continues to stimulate and interest an audience.  When it comes to packaging potential blockbuster pics, he's the first director every studio approaches.  At one point, the trend for Spielberg was to direct the blockbuster for the summer and the Oscar-contender for the winter.  While Spielberg has focused his efforts more on producing blockbusters by others and directing Oscar-caliber film fare over the last decade, he will sometimes remind the audience of his blockbuster talents by giving us a summer blockbuster such as War of the Worlds.  Spielberg currently has a collection of blockbusters and Oscar-caliber dramas he has directed in post-production as well as producing a third Transformers and Men in Black.

1) James Cameron: Name one James Cameron movie that truly disappoints.  You can't.  The Terminator redefined the low budget sci-fi/action film of the 1980s.  Aliens became The Empire Strikes Back of the Alien series.  T2-Terminator 2: Judgment Day brought the morphing technology from commercial to film production and remains one of the greatest action films ever made.  Titanic is one of the few movies that ever successfully struck the four quadrants of an audience - male, female, young, old - and became the biggest blockbuster of all time due to vigorous repeat theater viewings resembling the days before the proliferation of home video and cable.  The only film able to usurp Cameron's work was another Cameron film - Avatar.  Even Cameron's less successful box office blockbusters (The Abyss) and his harshly criticized movies (True Lies) are still more entertaining and enthralling than any of the blockbusters released in the last 20 years.  Not only has Cameron surpassed George Lucas as a cinematic special effects wizard, he is able to do two things not even "the greats" have been able to do - create a movie that weighs story and character equally to special effects.  What makes him even more amazing is his ability to create strong, female characters that can be tough yet tender - Sarah Connor from Terminator/T2, Ripley from Aliens, Rose from Titanic, Netyiri from Avatar, and even Lindsay Bringham from The Abyss.  When it comes to pure genius in filmmaking in all three quadrants - director, screenwriter, producer - no one surpasses James Cameron.

While most of these filmmakers have not become as legendary as their peers, they are the ones who are making an impact on modern moviemaking and at the box office.