It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
domino harvey wrote:
Thank God. Even with the producers' less than stellar reputation of interfering with directors, they could probably get literally anyone they wanted and his choice never made sense


I still don't understand why people get so caught up in thinking the director is so important for a Star Wars movie in 2017. It's so locked by the studio anyway, it's not as if a director could give the movie a very specific visual aspect (though for sure, Jurassic World is so visually bad, I guess a better director would be a nice thing to have).

On top of this, looking back at Ep 7 and Rogue One, their biggest issue certainly wasn't the direction, but rather the writing. I'd be much more reassured by knowing the scripts will be better and tighter than watching another probably meaningless director switcheroo.

swo17 wrote:
This must be a fun day for Colin Trevorrow to read about himself on the internet.


The only thing I believe in is karma, and I guess that seeing how Jurassic World was one of the biggest recent hold up in cinema history, I guess this is simply payback.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I agree with all of the above. Certain franchises have grown so big now that they seem larger than any particular star or director. Perhaps even the content of them isn't important any more when they're perhaps more important in sending you to Universal or Disney theme parks as telling a continuing story. You've got to keep the brand awareness up somehow, so why not with a new film to whet the appetite in between family vacations?

This all rather flies in the face of the 'auteur director' idea mentioned earlier, and even that idea that sometimes gets mentioned in commentaries that you just have to get to a certain stage of production and they'll have to keep you on, at least until control of the film can be wrested away in the editing room (as say happened to Peckinpah over and over), because its expensive to replace a director in mid-shoot. Then there's the possibility of maybe doing a "Director's Cut" later on (which itself is why its very interesting to see the 'Richard Donner cut' of Superman II, while it seems rather unnecessary to have an extra hour of footage added to Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. The latter appears to be done less because of editing room conflicting visions resulting in different takes on the material and more just for extra marketable 'content' for the home video release). Expense seems to be relative thing on big franchise movies though.

What strikes me as strange about this is why all these young up and coming indie directors were hired for big franchise entries anyway if nobody wanted their particular vision? They all had nerd-culture indie cred built up through small scale hits, but that seemed to get steamrolled over and the safe-but-bland Ron Howard and Lawrence Kasdan types brought in after all. That might make sense, in having a crushingly dull blockbuster series in crushingly dull safe hands (as with the majority of the Harry Potters, despite the Cuaron-directed middle one. Though there is that cautionary tale of being too crushingly dull in knowing how the George Lucas directed prequels turned out), but why line up such youthful energy in the first place to just dispose of it? Is it just that every studio were desperate for their own 'hip, young' Joss Weedon or J.J. Abrams type, then suddenly realised that not every other up and coming director were happy to rigidly work within the confines of a particular template? That other directors might be primarily concerned about their particular film than the total direction of the franchise itself?

Also, I know its an entirely different franchise so maybe there's no connection to be made at all, but how much did the 2015 Fantastic Four film having all of its troubles cause a sea change in studio thinking towards that particular generation of directors suddenly helming blockbuster franchise entries?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:36 pm
Tempting to wonder how Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand would have fared as director choices against modern-day social media scrutiny!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm
Kershner was a well-regarded strictly for-hire director in the industry, so I doubt much would've been made of him. Marquand, on the other hand, would've likely suffered the same fate as Trevorrow and Lord & Miller, given that it's been fairly well-documented that it was felt his inexperience working on large-scale films showed quite a bit and that Lucas more or less ended up co-directing ROTJ as a result. I'm still not sure how "Eye of the Needle" made him an ideal choice for helming such a project (again, according to several people associated with ROTJ). Maybe they had gone all in on either Lynch or Cronenberg, and, once they spurned them, had no other marquee choices? :-k

Still, I find it strange that Trevorrow got the boot despite pretty much doing exactly with "Jurassic World" that Abrams had done with TFA, i.e. giving people a modernized rehash of the original film of the franchise and seemingly thinking they wouldn't notice. A lot of the sources I've seen seem to cite "The Book of Henry"'s poor box office performance as a significant reason. But, really, I can't imagine that film ever actually being capable of attracting a mass audience. I can't help but think Di$ney is being highly over-cautious. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
MoonlitKnight wrote:
I can't help but think Di$ney is being highly over-cautious. :|

If they were, they would never have hired Trevorrow in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Ah yes, noted cinematic outlaw Colin Trevorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:42 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Gossip says Trevorrow was fired for being arrogant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:45 am 

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
After Deadline reporting that Rian Johnson turned it down, JJ Abrams has signed on to direct IX and is co-writing with Chris Terrio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:51 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Excellent news!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:08 am 

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Yeah, I enjoyed VII. Might not be as interesting as Rian Johnson would have been (though I'll have to wait until December to get a better idea of that), but it's a big step up from the likes of Trevorrow and Edwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc
Glad Abrams is returning and will wrap up the trilogy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
An absolutely safe choice and one I'm glad they made. I just can't imagine them trying to make it anymore difficult for themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Looking forward to the studio firing Abrams and replacing him with Morten Tyldum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago
Obviously this isn't the last trilogy, but given what little I know about JJ, hopefully this leaves room for an open ending-Jedi always felt rushed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
mfunk9786 wrote:
Looking forward to the studio firing Abrams and replacing him with Morten Tyldum

If that doesn't work out, Oscar-nominated prestige director Scott Hicks is probably available!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:02 am 

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am
calculus entrophy wrote:
Regardless of the name in the credits, all Star Wars activity is clearly done by committee at this point. And it reflects that.


...more


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection