In this first part of a new series, we will explore a serious epidemic in Hollywood: major films and franchises being turned over to inexperienced directors who eventually drive things over a cliff.
At one time, the year was sprinkled with heavyweight names such as Spielberg, Coppola, Howard, McTiernan, and Scott. Nowadays, those names are absent, and when they do show up, the end result on the screen is far from the high standards they themselves have set. This has led to the keys to the vault being turned over to a bunch of fellas with little to no upper-level experience. While this blogger is all for giving the new generation a chance, the end results have been far from spectacular.
Consider:
1. X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. One of the most popular comic heroes of all time is given a spinoff film after wowing audiences in three X-MEN movies. Although X3 fell short, Hugh Jackman’s clawed character still enthralled geeks and moistened panties everywhere. WOLVERINE was handed off to Gavin Hood, whose previous credits were RENDITION (2007), and nothing else worth noting. WOLVERINE was met with critical drubbing.
2. DIE HARD 4. Arguably, the best action franchise of all time. Bruce Willis’ main character was an everyday joe everyone connected with; smoking cigarettes, losing the girl, and just trying to get by in the worst of situations. The beloved character and his bigger-than-life adventures was turned over to UNDERWORLD director Len Wiseman, who turned in a watered down DH4, which was devoid of cigarettes, swearing, and any sort of life.
3. HARRY POTTER. The keys to Hogwarts were turned over to TV director David Yates after four successful and enjoyable films, which made for good film while keeping the purists loyal to the novels happy. Yates could not shake his TV habits, and turned in two rushed films which were lifeless and went by in the blink of an eye.
Why are the major franchise being helmed by virtual no-names? Money would be the obvious answer. These guys came cheap, and the remainder of the dough could go to visual effects, location-shooting, and actor salaries. Some years ago, Ron Howard was set to direct a little film by the name of THE ALAMO (2004). The studio balked at Howard’s budget (and presumably salary), and Richie was shown the door. The project was turned over to relative newcomer John Lee Hancock, who turned in a somewhat dull and critically slammed film. It can be argued that Howard’s exit marked the beginning of the epidemic. Out go the big names, in come the little guys. It’s just a theory, and what should also be considered is that maybe the old guard is just getting “too old for this shit”.
In Part 2, we’ll take a look at some of the older heavyweights who have not turned in a knockout in several rounds. Chances are you’ll recognize them.
What say you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alan, Could it be that that the recent 'Greats' haven't been replaced, because the business has changed. They were mavericks...fresh out of film school, high on foreign influences and able to capitalize on a recently fallen studio system. Now, the studio system has built itself back up...the industry is interested in the quick buck and not the cultivation of talent.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue, strongly, that the studios are too involved in the production. How often do we hear of a great script and never see it onscreen. In the case of Die Hard 4, how much of that was the choice of the director, and how much was the demand that it come in as PG-13.
I would bet that the gentlemen in your list have enough talent to do something great (and for the record, Potter 5 was one of my favorites. Potter 6 was too dark..as in poorly lit.) They just haven't really been given the chance. They've been given these high profile films, when they still need a few more b-movies under their belt.
"Why are the major franchise being helmed by virtual no-names?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they are cheaper to hire than the heavyweights, and the only reason 99% of sequels exist is because the original films made money. Nobody greenlights a sequel because they have a good idea or an interesting story to tell. They are made solely for money, which is why they typically lack the quality of their original counterparts.
That's Hollywood's idea of "going green" - focus only on the cash. The suits know that people are going to pay money to see a sequel of a film they liked regardless of whether or not the second or third or fifth is on the same level as the first, so why spend time and effort to make it that way?
The Matrix Reloaded didn't break box office records because it was a good movie. It broke records because The Matrix was a good movie. Reloaded is a fucking piece of shit.