Confusing Directorial Choices...

[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!"

[Decado]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

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!"

How many movies really need a prequel or sequel? That doesn't, nor should it, have any baring on the film's quality. I just wanted another quality film in the same vein as 300...I don't care what they call it.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Decado

How many movies really need a prequel or sequel? That doesn't, nor should it, have any baring on the film's quality. I just wanted another quality film in the same vein as 300...I don't care what they call it.

You weren't happy with Immortals then, I take it? It depends - these days, some films are deliberately left open-ended so that, if it makes the right money, a sequel can be in development as soon as possible and the story can continue easily. 300 was a film that seemed to me to be a one-off, something that you don't see every year and don't want to; it was special, visually unique and totally electrifying. At no point through it, either in plot or character development, did I wonder why it was happening - there was no need to think like that because it didn't need anything added to it.

I love 300 and everything about it, but I'm sure that any other addition to the series - especially from a director who has nothing in his filmography - would just serve to show how great the first one was.

[Decado]

Yes, but I'd have been just as happy with a new story based in that world/setting. The connect can be tenuous so the studio has some marketing fodder.

And yes, throwing in some no-name director makes it look like a cash-in.

Immortals was terribly disappointing. Had a few good action sequences, but was overall a bit of a joke and a complete waste. Better than Clash/Wrath of the Titans, though.