Confusing Directorial Choices...

[legendarymatt92]

After reading threads on this forum for a while for upcoming films, I've realised something - choosing directors for new projects or sequels seems to come up with some confusing, and often unknown, names. To name the three that have confused me recently:

Thor 2 - Alan Taylor (although I'd heard of The Emperor's New Clothes, I'd never really heard of him or his other work; he doesn't strike me as the kind of director to helm a superhero film but, then again, neither did Kenneth Branagh)

Captain America 2 - Russo Brothers (known for You, Me and Dupree - need I say anymore about the obvious problems here?)

Kick Ass 2 - Jeff Wadlow (had never heard of him, and am still quite confused as to why someone so inexperienced would be chosen to direct something so high profile)

I'm sure you guys have many more examples of directors chosen to helm projects that are seemingly too against their normal releases. I couldn't find another thread like this, but maybe that's because no one will like it

[NARMAK]

noticed how all your choices are comic books. Personally i don't care who directs as long as the end product lives up to expectations

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

After reading threads on this forum for a while for upcoming films, I've realised something - choosing directors for new projects or sequels seems to come up with some confusing, and often unknown, names. To name the three that have confused me recently:

Thor 2 - Alan Taylor (although I'd heard of The Emperor's New Clothes, I'd never really heard of him or his other work; he doesn't strike me as the kind of director to helm a superhero film but, then again, neither did Kenneth Branagh)

Captain America 2 - Russo Brothers (known for You, Me and Dupree - need I say anymore about the obvious problems here?)

Kick Ass 2 - Jeff Wadlow (had never heard of him, and am still quite confused as to why someone so inexperienced would be chosen to direct something so high profile)

I'm sure you guys have many more examples of directors chosen to helm projects that are seemingly too against their normal releases. I couldn't find another thread like this, but maybe that's because no one will like it

Think about it from a business perspective.

1) Hire a no-name so that you can pay him/her the minimum required per industry standards. This saves money on expensive productions.

2) Hire a no-name so that basically the director's sole function is to say "Action!" and "Cut!" on the set. That way, you don't waste time with on-set re-writes, and ultimately, the producers or the studios are in control of the production. This is especially true of Marvel, where Kevin Feige is the true "auteur" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That's why Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branagh didn't return (they are big enough directors who don't need another Marvel movie under their belts to put food on the table).

[legendarymatt92]

I know that two of the ones I've listed are Marvel films, and that Marvel have a production team that handles most of the creative choices on set, but the director does have a minimum creative amount to do, which is written into the contracts that everyone signs. Unknown directors will be paid less, that's true, but it means there is also hope for anyone to break through - you get a couple of small films under your belt and you may get called up to do a Marvel film, which will boom your profile a lot.

It isn't just limited to superhero films, they're just the ones I've highlighted from recently. I just thought that, to sell a movie, having a known director would help sell more tickets than an unknown - but, in the cases of Marvel, it's the brand that sells the tickets anyway, I suppose.

Looks to be a bit of a pointless thread now

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I know that two of the ones I've listed are Marvel films, and that Marvel have a production team that handles most of the creative choices on set, but the director does have a minimum creative amount to do, which is written into the contracts that everyone signs. Unknown directors will be paid less, that's true, but it means there is also hope for anyone to break through - you get a couple of small films under your belt and you may get called up to do a Marvel film, which will boom your profile a lot.

It isn't just limited to superhero films, they're just the ones I've highlighted from recently. I just thought that, to sell a movie, having a known director would help sell more tickets than an unknown - but, in the cases of Marvel, it's the brand that sells the tickets anyway, I suppose.

Looks to be a bit of a pointless thread now

I know what you mean, and there are times when a director plucked out of "nowhere" manages to put his/her stamp on a movie. Paul Greengrass is a very good example of this (he made documentaries and docu-dramas before hitting the big leagues with The Bourne Supremacy).

However, hiring a "director" to do little more than say "Action!" and "Cut!" has been a long-time practice in the industry. Sometimes, it's done b/c DGA rules state that a director can't direct two movies at the same time, so they hire a person to stand on the set to pretend to be the director while another person calls the real shots.

[Moviefan2k4]

I was surprised that Martin Campbell directed "The Mask of Zorro", since the only other work I knew of his was "GoldenEye". Jon Turteltaub also surprised me with the "National Treasure" films, because I'd only known his name from the first "3 Ninjas".

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I was surprised that Martin Campbell directed "The Mask of Zorro", since the only other work I knew of his was "GoldenEye". Jon Turteltaub also surprised me with the "National Treasure" films, because I'd only known his name from the first "3 Ninjas".

I'm not. GoldenEye is still one of the best pre-'reboot' movies made.

[Livelong420]

I can't think of any, but I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Livelong420

I can't think of any, but I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Well, thank you very much it's nice to know that my idea wasn't a complete waste of time

[legendarymatt92]

Brad Bird being chosen to direct the last Mission Impossible was a confusing choice to me, simply because it was his live-action debut and they'd given him a film from a pretty decent franchise to do it with. The end result was superb, but it could have ended so badly, really.

Another animated director whose transition didn't quite work as well was Andrew Stanton, who directed the mediocre John Carter - for a first time live-action film, Stanton was allowed a huge responsibility with such a huge film, and it didn't quite pay off. Disney's producers might have handled the creative decisions more than he did, but it's the director who gets most of the flak for a bad movie.

[Revolution 9]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I'm sure you guys have many more examples of directors chosen to helm projects that are seemingly too against their normal releases.

In 1986, Tim Burton was selected to helm Batman. At the time, most people only knew him from his one and only film, Pee-wee's Big Adventure. His next film was Beetlejuice, which didn't exactly assuage fans' doubt about Burton's take on Batman.

[Snikt]

Come on guys, Jon Favreau for Iron Man . I only knew him as Danny Bateman from The Replacements.

Bryan Singer for X-Men

These turned out to be excellent choices in the end. But at the time, very confusing.

How about the guys who did 21 Jump Street? They previously directed Cloudy, With a Chance of Meatballs

[Wally Q]

Alan Taylor is not a no-name.

[csdot]

if youve seen Game of Thrones Alan Taylor directing Thor makes perfect sense.

[42041]

I was amazed that Disney entrusted Tron: Legacy, with its colossal budget, to some guy with no film credits at all. Didn't pay off, it seems.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Snikt

Come on guys, Jon Favreau for Iron Man . I only knew him as Danny Bateman from The Replacements.

To me, he was Foggy Nelson in "Daredevil". I didn't even know he was a director at that point.

Bryan Singer for X-Men

I'd never heard of him before that.

How about the guys who did 21 Jump Street? They previously directed Cloudy, With a Chance of Meatballs

Just goes to show you the same people who make friendly family films are also capable of destroying a beloved '80s TV franchise.

Originally Posted by 42041

I was amazed that Disney entrusted Tron: Legacy, with its colossal budget, to some guy with no film credits at all. Didn't pay off, it seems.

I love "Legacy", although I admit seeing it in 3D was extremely disappointing. There's a great heart to it, though.

[Livelong420]

21 Jumpstreet is beloved? That's the first I've heard of that.

[Bonzi]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I'd never heard of him before that.

How come? He's made The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil prior to that.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Bonzi

How come? He's made The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil prior to that.

I wasn't aware of those films until after "X-Men" was in development. I saw part of "Apt Pupil" on TV once, but didn't know what it was at the time.

Originally Posted by Livelong420

21 Jump Street is beloved? That's the first I've heard of that.

It was by many who grew up watching it. There were aspects to the show that were corny, but the recent film is just another excuse for raunchy garbage.

[Snikt]

Originally Posted by Bonzi

How come? He's made The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil prior to that.

I hadn't heard of Bryan Singer before X-Men...but at the time X-Men came out, I was 12-years-old...time has flown by