Shadowman wrote:Me, Grimlock! wrote:Shadowman wrote:There's something of a rule: Every time the director is replaced, the movie sucks that much more.
Again, you can't argue with Aliens. I wouldn't say *every* time. Just most times.
I'm still holding out on a press release saying that Raimi and Sony kissed and made up. Probably won't happen, but I can hope.
That's not what I meant. I meant movies where the director is replaced
during production. I can't exactly name anything off the top of my head, but it's usually much worse. What Fanboys almost became is a good example.
The Mummy went through 3 directors during filming as I recall.
When you're dealing with an established franchise, like Spider-man or Batman, getting a director who's passionate about the franchise is always better than getting someone who doesn't care about the franchise. Since people keep batting around Tim Burton (which would be horrible for Spider-man, Burton makes good movies, but he doesn't fit the genre of Spider-man) and his Batman movies... They were good movies, and I liked them, but to the fanboys (not hardcore, just fanboys) they're like the Bayformers movies to the Transformers franchise. Sure, they're good movies (Batman ones), but compared to the rest of the franchise, they're pretty far off.
Casting also goes a long way. The new Trek film was awesome, in my opinion, but less for the story and more for the casting. For the most part, you can look at the cast and go "Hey... I'd buy that's a younger version of that character."
Another thing that tends to be annoying is when people do "This guy would be awesome as this role, because he's popular." That almost never works when casting for roles. You're almost always better off casting someone who's virtually unknown rather than going with an established talent, unless the role is written with that talent in mind, which usually makes the character come across as being out of character.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
