|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 15, 2018 23:45:06 GMT
...should the director get the most of the blame? Schumacher claimed he was under pressure from the studios to make "Batman and Robin" more toy friendly, he originally wanted to make a more serious Batman film, even going as far as apologizing on the "Batman and Robing" commentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 15, 2018 23:48:54 GMT
Alan Smithee has gotten his fair share of blame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2018 0:03:13 GMT
It depends. The example you give shows studio interference, so I don't see you can blame the director in those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 16, 2018 0:09:53 GMT
It depends. The example you give shows studio interference, so I don't see you can blame the director in those circumstances. Pretty sure most big budget releases have at least some studio interference (there's a lot of investors trying to make sure the film makes money). It's why movie directors turn to small budget/indie projects, they have more creative control. |
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 16, 2018 0:12:46 GMT
It varies depending on what took place during production of the film. In many situations, it's studio meddling by the executives (like in the case for Brazil) that's to blame. Films get rushed to meet release deadlines or things are changed to become more commercially viable. Often times, it can be the director who was given carte blanche that resulted in a film while artistic, but too self-indulgent. In very few occasions, it is the actor like in the case of Tom Cruise with The Mummy who was given excessive creative control and the final cut privilege.
Sometimes, it's both the studio and the director that's to blame, which is where the term "creative differences" seems to pop up.
As of Schumacher, was it Warner Bros. that told him to put nipples on the Batman and Robin suits? Did he not tell the cast and crew that they were making a cartoon?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Sept 16, 2018 0:32:14 GMT
It varies depending on what took place during production of the film. In many situations, it's studio meddling by the executives (like in the case for Brazil) that's to blame. Films get rushed to meet release deadlines or things are changed to become more commercially viable. Often times, it can be the director who was given carte blanche that resulted in a film while artistic, but too self-indulgent. In very few occasions, it is the actor like in the case of Tom Cruise with The Mummy who was given excessive creative control and the final cut privilege. Sometimes, it's both the studio and the director that's to blame, which is where the term "creative differences" seems to pop up. As of Schumacher, was it Warner Bros. that told him to put nipples on the Batman and Robin suits? Did he not tell the cast and crew that they were making a cartoon? Schumacher was told to lighten the tone, not to turn the franchise into a parody of itself. The studio certainly isn't blameless, but it was ultimately Schumacher's 'vision' and his desire to essentially recreate the 60s TV show on the big screen that doomed that film to its ignominious fate. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 16, 2018 0:37:40 GMT
Film editing sometimes has a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 16, 2018 0:39:26 GMT
Well it depends on the problems of the film. Some can be more obvious than others when it comes to where to blame the director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 16, 2018 2:28:10 GMT
It varies depending on what took place during production of the film. In many situations, it's studio meddling by the executives (like in the case for Brazil) that's to blame. Films get rushed to meet release deadlines or things are changed to become more commercially viable. Often times, it can be the director who was given carte blanche that resulted in a film while artistic, but too self-indulgent. In very few occasions, it is the actor like in the case of Tom Cruise with The Mummy who was given excessive creative control and the final cut privilege. Sometimes, it's both the studio and the director that's to blame, which is where the term "creative differences" seems to pop up. As of Schumacher, was it Warner Bros. that told him to put nipples on the Batman and Robin suits? Did he not tell the cast and crew that they were making a cartoon? Schumacher was told to lighten the tone, not to turn the franchise into a parody of itself. The studio certainly isn't blameless, but it was ultimately Schumacher's 'vision' and his desire to essentially recreate the 60s TV show on the big screen that doomed that film to its ignominious fate.
Which is precisely my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 16, 2018 2:46:33 GMT
Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) is the perfect example of the director not being to blame.
This movie had one of the most infamous productions ever. John Frankenheimer was hired last minute and the 2 famous stars of the film had much more power then he did at the time.
There is a terrific documentary about the making of this movie.
I heard that Joss Whedon had a fallout with the MCU because of the studios interference with Avengers: Age of Ultron.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 16, 2018 2:47:45 GMT
Film editing sometimes has a lot to do with it. Something I've found lacking in a lot of films lately. Either the editing is chaotic or the pacing is uneven. Not sure what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 16, 2018 2:49:24 GMT
Film editing sometimes has a lot to do with it. Something I've found lacking in a lot of films lately. Either the editing is chaotic or the pacing is uneven. Not sure what's happening. And not sure why the film's producers let it it go. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 16, 2018 2:54:10 GMT
Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) is the perfect example of the director not being to blame. This movie had one of the most infamous productions ever. John Frankenheimer was hired last minute and the 2 famous stars of the film had much more power then he did at the time. There is a terrific documentary about the making of this movie. According to Thewlis, "we all had different ideas of where it should go. I even ended up improvising some of the main scenes with Marlon". Thewlis went on to rewrite his character personally.[14] The constant rewrites also got on Brando's nerves, and as on many previous productions, he refused to learn lines, so he was equipped with a small radio receiver, so that his assistant could feed his lines to him as he performed - a technique he had used on earlier films.[9] Thewlis recollects: "[Marlon would] be in the middle of a scene and suddenly he'd be picking up police messages and would repeat, 'There's a robbery at Woolworth's'" |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 16, 2018 2:56:12 GMT
Imagine if the director's cut of Once Upon a Time in America was never released.
From what I hear, the studio forced Sergio Leone to edit the movie so much that it made the narrative incomprehensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 16, 2018 2:56:23 GMT
Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) is the perfect example of the director not being to blame. This movie had one of the most infamous productions ever. John Frankenheimer was hired last minute and the 2 famous stars of the film had much more power then he did at the time. There is a terrific documentary about the making of this movie. I heard that Joss Whedon had a fallout with the MCU because of the studios interference with Avengers: Age of Ultron. It also probably didn't help that Brando and Kilmer were a massive pain in the ass to work with |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 16, 2018 2:58:52 GMT
Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) is the perfect example of the director not being to blame. This movie had one of the most infamous productions ever. John Frankenheimer was hired last minute and the 2 famous stars of the film had much more power then he did at the time. There is a terrific documentary about the making of this movie. According to Thewlis, "we all had different ideas of where it should go. I even ended up improvising some of the main scenes with Marlon". Thewlis went on to rewrite his character personally.[14] The constant rewrites also got on Brando's nerves, and as on many previous productions, he refused to learn lines, so he was equipped with a small radio receiver, so that his assistant could feed his lines to him as he performed - a technique he had used on earlier films.[9] Thewlis recollects: "[Marlon would] be in the middle of a scene and suddenly he'd be picking up police messages and would repeat, 'There's a robbery at Woolworth's'" Like I said, I have seen the documentary. That is all in there but it made it sound like studio interference, Val Kilmer and Marlon Brando were mostly to blame. John Frankenheimer was basically just hired to get the movie finished. |
|
|
|
Post by jesserebel on Sept 16, 2018 3:01:07 GMT
It depends. The example you give shows studio interference, so I don't see you can blame the director in those circumstances. Pretty sure most big budget releases have at least some studio interference (there's a lot of investors trying to make sure the film makes money). It's why movie directors turn to small budget/indie projects, they have more creative control. Yes, but they don't all have it to the level that Batman & Robin did, where WB had toy companies come in and design some of the stage sets in the film for toys to be made after it. Schumacher had very little say in this one. I am shocked he didnt pull a Fincher and try getting his name taken off the film like Fincher did for Alien3. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 16, 2018 3:15:20 GMT
Absolutely among the movies I enjoy the most because of the egos, the incompetence, and the ridiculousness.
Would love to see an MST3K version of this.
Supposedly, fired original director Richard Stanley persuaded the makeup crew to make him up as one of the mutants, and he acted in the film until the end, and revealed himself at the wrap party, at which time Val Kilmer kneeled in front of him and asked for his forgiveness.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 16, 2018 3:25:09 GMT
Absolutely among the movies I enjoy the most because of the egos, the incompetence, and the ridiculousness. Would love to see an MST3K version of this. Supposedly, fired original director Richard Stanley persuaded the makeup crew to make him up as one of the mutants, and he acted in the film until the end, and revealed himself at the wrap party, at which time Val Kilmer kneeled in front of him and asked for his forgiveness. That is also in the documentary. It said he actually had to sneak onto the set. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 16, 2018 4:35:36 GMT
Like basically said above... sometimes studio's can interfere with the directors etc so it lessens blame on directors.
but... I still think for the most part a movies quality is largely tied to the director. but with that said... subject matter is important to as some types of movies are far less likely to output a movie of any real worth because of their subject matter.
but with that said... I think movies like the super-hero genre pretty much sell themselves where a director is not as important especially on characters that have established as solid $ with the general public.
|
|
