Confusing Directorial Choices...

[Bonzi]

How about Ben Affleck? I don't remember exactly, but I bet Ben Affleck directing ANYTHING was considered "confusing".

[Rudeboy2025]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

Alan Taylor is not a no-name.

Originally Posted by csdot

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

+1

I hope Alan Taylor does a great job with Thor 2!

Originally Posted by Bonzi

How about Ben Affleck? I don't remember exactly, but I bet Ben Affleck directing ANYTHING was considered "confusing".

Definitely when I heard about Gone Baby Gone, but I was blown away and now it's not confusing anymore lol

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

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.

At the time, Richard Donner still had a hold of it, and was going to direct it forever, but after several scripts, the Usual Suspects Guy sounded like a handpicked choice.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Jon Favreau, Iron Man
To me, he was Foggy Nelson in "Daredevil". I didn't even know he was a director at that point.
I'd never heard of him before that.

At the time, I only knew him from "Elf", but it's more likely the Paramount producers who wanted to hire him for a Fantastic Four-style non-Marvel "tongue-in-cheek" version of Captain America had selectively short memories and only knew him from "Zathura".

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

But perfectly capable of being hyperactively struck with their own slacker cuteness, and destroying a beloved family-friendly children's book.
(Something tells me they were a little more suited to the goofy slack-pack comedy...)

[tigertron]

Marc Forster for Quantum of Solace and Lee Tamahori for Die Another Day.

Oh, and John Woo doing MI:2. It was a great film, but it didn't feel like a M:I film. Brian De Palma should have done the second.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by tigertron

Oh, and John Woo doing MI:2. It was a great film, but it didn't feel like a M:I film. Brian De Palma should have done the second.

If I remember correctly, that was largely Tom Cruise's doing. He's produced all the films so far, and has said he wants all of them to stand on their own merits.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

Alan Taylor is not a no-name.

I didn't say he was a no-name - I understand that, in certain circles, people have heard of a lot broader directors than others, but I just meant that, for a commercial, blockbuster superhero film, he seemed like a strange choice given his background. I must confess that I hadn't heard of him but that, of course, doesn't mean that he wasn't well-known for certain things.

Sorry about the confusion.

[Gilmourfan]

Marc Webb -- The Amazing Spider-Man

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by tigertron

Marc Forster for Quantum of Solace and Lee Tamahori for Die Another Day.

Oh, and John Woo doing MI:2. It was a great film, but it didn't feel like a M:I film. Brian De Palma should have done the second.

Given his background of more drama based films with dark themes, he does seem like a strange choice to have done a Bond film really - Quantum was not as bad as people say it was, and I enjoyed it, but it in no way lived up to the heights seen in Casino Royale, which was a shame.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bonzi

How about Ben Affleck? I don't remember exactly, but I bet Ben Affleck directing ANYTHING was considered "confusing".

No, the confusing part was that it was really good

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Given his background of more drama based films with dark themes, he does seem like a strange choice to have done a Bond film really - Quantum was not as bad as people say it was, and I enjoyed it, but it in no way lived up to the heights seen in Casino Royale, which was a shame.

Actually, I thought having a drama-based director was a good idea, and having the second unit director of the Bourne movies for the action sequences seemed like a good idea too.

As we all know, that didn't work out very well. The framing was very tight and the editing was very choppy to the point where many times I could not see what was going on. The story was weak too, but the editing/framing/directing or combination of that was what killed the movie for me.

When the movie relaxed and didn't cut every few seconds like at the opera house (

[Show spoiler]save for his escape and fight at the end

) it was more enjoyable, but those moments were few and far between in terms of the action sequences.

[Livelong420]

Originally Posted by Taro

Marc Webb -- The Amazing Spider-Man

Do you think it'll be his last action movie?

[spanky87]

David Gordon Green directing Pineapple Express. That was before he became a vulgar comedy director.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livelong420

Do you think it'll be his last action movie?

Most likely not, since Sony wants him for the sequel(s).

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by spanky87

David Gordon Green directing Pineapple Express. That was before he became a vulgar comedy director.

He went from being a true auteur, directing films such as "George Washington", to thinking "ah, f*ck it, maybe vulgar comedy's the way to go". Pineapple Express was probably the best one out of his recent releases, but he really has gone down-hill since his early days.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

He went from being a true auteur, directing films such as "George Washington", to thinking "ah, f*ck it, maybe vulgar comedy's the way to go". Pineapple Express was probably the best one out of his recent releases, but he really has gone down-hill since his early days.

Like the Coens with "Big Lebowski" or Michel Gondry with "Be Kind Rewind", there's always those "quirky" indie directors who think they want to do one mainstream-comedy project with Lovable-Loser No-Future Stoners as an isolated duck-blind portrait in lovably goofy counter-cultural quirkiness...

Until the real stoners, who don't realize they're being made fun of or just being exploited for their "lovable quirkiness", start cult-rallying around the movie and hoisting the director up on their shoulders chanting "One of us! Gooba-gabba, one of us!", and then the director's career is pretty much typecast down the toilet.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Given his background of more drama based films with dark themes, he does seem like a strange choice to have done a Bond film really - Quantum was not as bad as people say it was, and I enjoyed it, but it in no way lived up to the heights seen in Casino Royale, which was a shame.

No different than Michael Apted directing a Bond, or Sam Mendes. None of them are action directors, but it goes to show that's mostly second unit stuff anyways.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Like the Coens with "Big Lebowski" or Michel Gondry with "Be Kind Rewind", there's always those "quirky" indie directors who think they want to do one mainstream-comedy project with Lovable-Loser No-Future Stoners as an isolated duck-blind portrait in lovably goofy counter-cultural quirkiness...

Until the real stoners, who don't realize they're being made fun of or just being exploited for their "lovable quirkiness", start cult-rallying around the movie and hoisting the director up on their shoulders chanting "One of us! Gooba-gabba, one of us!", and then the director's career is pretty much typecast down the toilet.

"The Big Lebowski" didn't ruin the Coen Brothers' career, though - if anything, it made a mass audience more aware that they existed, allowing them to move onto more mainstream projects. It's a very surreal film, but a lot of the humour is typical of normal Hollywood releases, so it's pretty easy to get even if you're a hardcore mainstream fan.
"Be Kind Rewind" was more a Jack Black film than Michel Gondry, and that was its downfall - Gondry proved that he could be funny and quirky in "The Science of Sleep", but threw that away for a Black-orientated comedy. It wasn't a terrible film, but didn't deliver on the promises of the cast and director.

[Decado]

The dude who directed 47 Ronin (and has subsequently been sacked).

Noam Murro directing the sequel to a film that grossed $450m world wide (300: Rise of an Empire). His credits? A crappy comedy from 2008. Seriously WB? Are you that keen on ****ing up this film franchise, too? The should have let Zack do it and pawn Superman off to some talentless hack (wouldn't make a difference for that dull franchise).

Studios do this, I suspect, so they have complete control. Of course it makes for shitty films, but they don't care as long as they make money. Short-sighted bastards.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by retablo

No different than Michael Apted directing a Bond, or Sam Mendes. None of them are action directors, but it goes to show that's mostly second unit stuff anyways.

That is true. Both of those were strange choices but it follows a tradition of Bond directors being chosen seemingly at random - when Martin Campbell was picked for Goldeneye, he hadn't done anything other than a couple of British sex comedies and one action film starring Ray Liotta, which hadn't achieved international recognition.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Decado

The dude who directed 47 Ronin (and has subsequently been sacked).

Noam Murro directing the sequel to a film that grossed $450m world wide (300: Rise of an Empire). His credits? A crappy comedy from 2008. Seriously WB? Are you that keen on ****ing up this film franchise, too? The should have let Zack do it and pawn Superman off to some talentless hack (wouldn't make a difference for that dull franchise).

Studios do this, I suspect, so they have complete control. Of course it makes for shitty films, but they don't care as long as they make money. Short-sighted bastards.

That seems to be why they do it - as another member posted on this thread, film studios tend to hire no name directors for sequels/prequels or even reboots so they can pay them minimum wage and have complete control over the project. Directors have to do a certain amount on set, according to rules governed by the Directors' Guild, but directors with smaller projects under their belts obviously can't influence as much as big name ones.

For my money, 300: Rise of an Empire will be terrible anyway - does 300 even need a prequel? I've never watched it and thought "boy, this could really do with a film explaining what happened before this to make sense!"