Name the worst of all living film-makers.

[Luther Blissett]

M Night School

Though I'm not fully in agreement that he's the worst. My vote will probably go with Michael Bay.

Who directs the Fast and Furious films? Who directs the Scary Movies and all those other satires?

[brekin]

Jack Riddler wrote:

Interesting. Your example of Lucas fits this profile, but he's one-of-a-kind and exceptionally dweeby about his vision, which was harmless in the first place. Cameron is another one who probably gets to do exactly what he wants with half a billion dollars, but Avatar was practically financed out of his own pocket and anyway his return rates have always been phenomenal, unmatched. And despite this total freedom, what do you see? Other than that he's free to take his time, Avatar has the same hero-story conventions, act structure, sequencing of fights in order of the villain's importance, and predictable outcomes as in all the other big budget movies. ("But Pandora feels so real!! I wanna live there!!")

Yes, but Cameron's pockets are like Spielberg's. "Making it" doesn't always mean everyone in town will now loan you money. It can simply mean
you've got enough cash to bankroll your own vision. I think the obvious flaws and structure in it have more to do with Cameron's vision then the freedom he had.
A structure, for better or worse, which has a two millennial proven track record. And frankly Avatar has been made and will be remade hundreds of times. But his
Aboriginal-environmental spin is actually daring for a block buster. No doubt the movie would have been made lickety split if the blue people were cute jungle dwelling speechless apolitical pokemon type creatures.

Generally I believe the opposite of what you say applies. Lower budgets mean lower stakes, more risks allowed. You can make an indie about two cowboys falling in love, but a studio and the bankers are not going to let Return of the Jedi end with Luke Skywalker and Han Solo happily married and having a swinger's foursome with Chewbacca and a robot on the deck of the Millennium Falcon, no matter how much Lucas may want that. (Pat Robertson probably thinks it already happened.)

Small production means one person might exercise control over all aspects. They may have more original ideas when young, thus produce more interesting work. If they succeed and access huge budgets that means more bankers and insurers, more rules, simultaneous crews in diverse locations, battalions of animators in Korea, etc. You can't cast an ensemble of unknowns. A 100 million dollar budget will be run on commercial algorithms with sequels in mind. If you fuck up one of those, it's much worse than if you make an indie flop. (And actually there's no such thing as an indie flop, since most barely make any money in the first place and it's success if you get to haunt festivals and cable channels. Ever wonder why the thank-you lists are so long? At least half of those entries should be listed instead as "Unpaid Labor," from family and friends.)

I'd disagree with the lower stakes. Ang Lee doesn't make indie films, and the man could afford a minor flop with his record. A true independent film has a lower budget but that is usually financed by credit card debt and/or mortgaging the house by the creator(s). That's total financial ruin wrapped up in creative risks for the person taking the chance. A proven director doing a personal project or indulging a creative whim is a different ball park. An art house film I guess is financed assuming it will at least cover it costs at some point, and no one involved is going to risk their livelihood over it.

How many current blockbusters ever really surprise you? It's all formula. Big budget places limits on creative control in a million ways. Transformers 3 will not see Earth destroyed, unless it ends with "To Be Continued" and T4 is already in the can with the story of how they un-destroyed Earth. There will not be a 20-minute interlude in which Shia LaBoeuf takes a ballet lesson. "The Amazing Spiderman" is not going to see the hero beheaded on screen halfway through the movie, and then turn into a poignant bitter comedy about Peter Parker's funeral, not even if David Mamet writes the script and wins a Nobel Prize for it. Etc.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the big blockbusters can't or don't match up with some ones vision, usually myopic. I've followed people out of theaters who inexplicably shout, "That movie was the best thing I've ever seen!" after seeing Transformers 2. It wouldn't surprise me if the director of Transformers 2 shouted at the end of making the film, "This is the best movie I have ever made!"

Speaking of Mamet, this thread kind of reminds me of Speed The Plow.

[Nordic]

One thing I think makes critiquing directors (or any other professional) who have done good or great things in the past and then later birth monstrosities is that I would think those first projects there were more obstacles, compromises, collaborations and limitations that they had to work with. As they get more successful they get more options, access, autonomy and power and so their work is a closer estimation of who they are and what they really want to accomplish.

Interesting. Your example of Lucas fits this profile, but he's one-of-a-kind and exceptionally dweeby about his vision, which was harmless in the first place. Cameron is another one who probably gets to do exactly what he wants with half a billion dollars, but Avatar was practically financed out of his own pocket and anyway his return rates have always been phenomenal, unmatched. And despite this total freedom, what do you see? Other than that he's free to take his time, Avatar has the same hero-story conventions, act structure, sequencing of fights in order of the villain's importance, and predictable outcomes as in all the other big budget movies. ("But Pandora feels so real!! I wanna live there!!")

Generally I believe the opposite of what you say applies. Lower budgets mean lower stakes, more risks allowed. You can make an indie about two cowboys falling in love, but a studio and the bankers are not going to let Return of the Jedi end with Luke Skywalker and Han Solo happily married and having a swinger's foursome with Chewbacca and a robot on the freshly pimped-up deck of the Millennium Falcon, no matter how much Lucas may want that. (Pat Robertson probably thinks it already happened.)

Small production means one person might exercise control over all aspects. They may have more original ideas when young, thus produce more interesting work. If they succeed and access huge budgets that means more bankers and insurers, more rules, simultaneous crews in diverse locations, battalions of unknown animators in Korea, etc. You can't cast an ensemble of unknowns. A 100 million dollar budget will be run on commercial algorithms with sequels in mind. If you fuck up one of those, it's much worse than if you make an indie flop. (And actually there's no such thing as an indie flop, since most barely make any money in the first place and it's success if you get to haunt festivals and cable channels. Ever wonder why the thank-you lists are so long? At least half of those entries should be listed instead as "Unpaid Labor," from family and friends.)

How many current blockbusters ever really surprise you? It's all formula. Big budget places limits on creative control in a million ways. Transformers 3 will not see Earth destroyed, unless it ends with "To Be Continued" and T4 is already in the can with the story of how they un-destroyed Earth. There will not be a 20-minute interlude in which Shia LaBoeuf takes a ballet lesson and finds himself. "The Amazing Spiderman" is not going to see the hero beheaded on screen halfway through the movie, and then turn into a poignant bitter comedy about Peter Parker's funeral, not even if David Mamet writes the script and wins a Nobel Prize for it. Etc.

.

The big movies are all corporate now. Like so many other things. I've heard it said they want a movie that they can literally sell on the side of a bus. That's all that counts -- can they sell it? Thus all the remakes and Marvel movies and sequels.

What's weird about the movie business is that it's easier for a director to make a first movie than a second one.

Why is that?

Well for one thing, people get caught up in the excitement of the potential "dark horse". You never know which first-timer is gonna pop, hit a home run, and be that guy you can tell people later "I discovered that guy" or whatever.

Also, first time director movies are more interesting for this main reason -- they're already taking a chance hiring a first-timer, so they might as well let him take some chances because the whole thing is such a crapshoot anyway.

If you're directing Home Alone 5, well, you're making a branded product, and a room full of MBA's are marketing people are gonna have the "vision", not the director. The director is there to deal with the talent and make sure they get the "coverage". The DP and the script supervisor also cover his ass on getting the coverage.

But first-timers also get seriously abused. First timers will work for very cheap, or even for nothing, and they never get final cut of any kind. In short, they're very easy to work with, at least insofar as getting that contract signed. Because by golly they're eager.

Also first-timers are extremely interested in coming in on time and on budget, because this is their "big chance". I've had producers tell me that because of this, it's second time directors who are notoriously difficult, and go over schedule and over budget, because they learned that they COULD have on their first one, and didn't, and they're kicking themselves for it.

Usually they won't let you direct a movie unless you've already made that movie. Almost literally. It's especially true in commercials, where directors and DPs are expected to almost have the exact commercial already on their reels that they're being considered to make. "You've only shot commercials for white wine, this one is for a red wine"

There's an old saying "Be careful what you're good at, because they'll make you do it forever".

As far as guys who hit it big and then start making crap movies, I dunno, it's a real mystery to me, unless they're falling into that "I'm brilliant, so anything I come up with must be great!" syndrome, which any artist is capable of falling into, at least for a time. But sometimes, people just steal shit. I knew a writer who got a writing career started by stealing other people's screenplays. He even fooled me, finally I saw something that I KNEW he'd written himself and it was so incompetently and amateurishly written I was floored. Then he stole one of mine to get his first studio deal. One night I had a dream I was beating the living shit out of him.

Oh Hollywood ........ Every time I read Nikki Finke's blog I feel like I have to take a shower. Why is that?

[DrVolin]

As far as guys who hit it big and then start making crap movies, I dunno, it's a real mystery to me, unless they're falling into that "I'm brilliant, so anything I come up with must be great!" syndrome, which any artist is capable of falling into, at least for a time.

The Linus Pauling effect.

[beeline]

.

No one has mentioned Woody Allen or Roman Polanski?

[Bruce Dazzling]