"This movie should be directed by James Camercon/Ridley Scott/Peter Jackson" etc...

[Badbird]

Something that drives me crazy around here is the notion that only a handfull of directors should be doing everything that comes out. Countless times I've read about an upcoming movie that gets tagged with either a first time director, a "second tier" guy, or an established veteran who has made a lot of movies but still isn't that famous, only to have someone chime in with something like:

"Nooo!!! This movie needs someone like Ridley Scott who is a visionary!"

Or Peter Jackson. Or Steven Speilberg. Or James Cameron. Or David Fincher.

That's pretty much the list.

It's like people really believe that every movie should have LOTR like resources and studio support.

Basically people just want the same thing they've already seen. God forbid an unproven director show up and surprise us (see: Zack Snyder).

Besides, Cameron, Scott, Jackson, etc, they all had to start somewhere. So maybe Kurt Wimmer doing Metal Gear will elevate him to James Cameron like status... Maybe unknown Niel Blomkamp doing Halo will blow our minds and make him the next Peter Jackson (if only).

[Tweek]

Basically people just want the same thing they've already seen. God forbid an unproven director show up and surprise us (see: Zack Snyder).


Watchmen is tied with The Spirit at the top for anticipated releases of '09. So there's my thoughts on that.

I dunno... I think the whole "_____ should be directing this" is fine to an extent. As long as there are no petitions or something it doesn't really irritate me.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Basically people just want the same thing they've already seen. God forbid an unproven director show up and surprise us (see: Zack Snyder).

Judging from what he's done, that's not a good example.

[thedudeman69]

Judging from what he's done, that's not a good example.

He's done only two films. So, you are just making a assumption based on only two movies? That's like going to a restaurant, ordering two of the same thing every time you go there, then saying the restaurant sucks without even trying the other food.

[EVILxxx]

A director's ability to follow up a successful first film with an even more successful and well done second film is very telling of what we can expect from him.

[Le_Big_Mac]

He's done only two films. So, you are just making a assumption based on only two movies? That's like going to a restaurant, ordering two of the same thing every time you go there, then saying the restaurant sucks without even trying the other food.

How else am I supposed to judge whether or not he's an up-and-coming talent? If the director mentioned had a more prolific career so far, it might be different or I might have more to support my opinion.

And regardless of the second movie's greater success, I thought 300 was worse than Dawn of the Dead.

[Badbird]

I'm no fan of 300, but Snyder is clearly a very talented director.

My biggest complaint about this is that people will say these directors names for just about anything that pops up. It's one thing to say "Man, Spielberg should have done Transformers," because that is something you could have seen him doing. "Spielberg should have done The Ruins" is just stupid.

[Z_oasis]

Well, kinda off topic, it think Zach Braff needs to bring us another great directoral pic soon. So he should direct "" whatever. Yea.

[Lost in Space]

How else am I supposed to judge whether or not he's an up-and-coming talent? If the director mentioned had a more prolific career so far, it might be different or I might have more to support my opinion.

And regardless of the second movie's greater success, I thought 300 was worse than Dawn of the Dead.

I feel what your saying. Zack Snyder does not seem, to me atleast, to be a particularly talented director. Nothing above mediocre

[APzombie]

He's done only two films. So, you are just making a assumption based on only two movies? That's like going to a restaurant, ordering two of the same thing every time you go there, then saying the restaurant sucks without even trying the other food.

I see what you are saying, but studios have to make those assumptions all the time, they had to take an expensive gamble based on only two features when it came to hiring him for Watchmen. Why can't we? Besides, some directors shine an extraordinary amount of promise in two features. Snyder in my opinion does not. He is kind of a kid with a video camera filming shit he thinks is "extreme" or cool like guns being fired in slow motion (Dawn) or blood in slow motion (300). He does though make studios money, which they like.

I really get where this rant is going, we hear this all the time! Especially with Cameron, Scott and Jackson.

[Powerslave]

Or Guillermo Del Toro. Though that doesn't bother me as much, since he has a very specific style that is clearly suited to certain things. But still, he gets mentioned a hell of alot.

But yeah, I agree, it does get annoying to hear the same names get suggested for every movie that comes along. But at the same time, if the movie is an adaptation or a sequel of something that you really care about and want to turn out well, like an adaptation of your all-time favorite book or something, it's hard to say "hey, let's give the new guy a chance and see what he can bring to the table." That doesn't necessarily mean the new guy won't make something incredible, he very well may, but it's alot easier to have faith in a movie when it's being helmed by a veteran director, or even by a younger director whose proven himself capable of the task, than by a no-name with a few short films and music videos under his belt. It just makes people nervous I think, myself included. I'm always hoping that new talent will emerge and make some spectacular new movie, or at least one that shows lots of promise, but that doesn't mean I'm excited by the notion of entrusting them with something really big without being fairly confident they'll succeed in doing it justice. A director whose proven themselves time and again, like Spielberg or Scott, instills that kind of confidence.

But yeah, that said, I still agree that not every movie should be directed by these same people. Partially because most of the time it's unrealistic and just not worth saying, but also because it's usually not the most exciting idea, regardless of whatever confidence it may instill. For example, I can't wait to see Pineapple Express, not because it looks funny, which it does, but because it's such an enormous departure for David Gordon Green, whose movies I love. I'm beyond excited just to see what it's like. If Judd Apatow was directing, I probably wouldn't care all that much.

[Tweek]

I feel what your saying. Zack Snyder does not seem, to me atleast, to be a particularly talented director. Nothing above mediocre

Yeah but he sells tickets! ;)

[Rated R]

I think the statement "this movie should be directed by...[insert accomplished director here" can be a fair statement. I reserve that for a film that looked promising but failed to deliver in crunch time.

To be honest, off the top of my head I have a hard time to come up with an example...

The reverse can also be true though. Say you see an awful action movie from a director that you respect. "This should be a Michael Bay movie" would be a valid response.

[FatSakHead]

Zack Snyder seems to be the new Michael Bay. To some that could be considered a compliment. IMO, not so much.

An established and successful director such as Spielberg, Fincher, Paul Anderson, would have NEVER made fluff such as 300, even if they were just doing a summer popcorn movie.

[blk_flower]

Around perhaps the year 2020 you'll hear about
*cough* Serge Soucy

doesn't make sense now but it will eventually.

[fooknasty]

I like it when new directors are given a chance to direct something that a traditional direct could easily direct.

There are so many new good directors films that I look forward to much more than a Spielberg, Cameron, etc.

[Cop No. 633]

Fuck this thread, James Cameron should have written it!

[JohnLocke2342]

I'm not gonna lie, I would have loved to see what Spielberg would have done with a movie like Jurassic Park 3.. I can imagine him dumping that shit and getting an entirely new script thats original and closer to the first one.. instead of an awful movie that was horribly miscast.

I also would have loved to see what Spielberg could have done with Revenge of the Sith or Attack of the Clones.. Steven has always mentioned that he wanted to direct a Star Wars film, but that Lucas wouldn't have let him. Judging by how character driven Spielberg is I could imagine a lot of those characters being slightly different, with a much bigger picture.. and a lot less CGI. I dunno, I think it would be cool to see what could have happened with those 2 movies :cool:

[Sigur509]

Everything should just be directed by Wes Anderson.


Im serious.

But honestly, Revenge of the Sith directed by Steven Spielberg could have been the greatest film ever.

[movie2cats]

Zack Snyder seems to be the new Michael Bay. To some that could be considered a compliment. IMO, not so much.

An established and successful director such as Spielberg, Fincher, Paul Anderson, would have NEVER made fluff such as 300, even if they were just doing a summer popcorn movie.

:confused: Did War of the Worlds have a deeper message that Morgan Freeman forgot to mention? That is actually why I hated WOW. It took a classic H.G. Wells story and made it into a fluff piece.