OldBoy

1. Bryan Singer- "X-Men" whose known previous effort was "The Usual Suspects"

2. Sam Raimi- "Spider-man" whose most noted outing was "The Evil Dead" trilogy and of course...

3. Peter Jackson- "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy whose acclaimed effort was "Heavenly Creatures" and other known was "The Frighteners"

None of them have had remote commercial success and are really obscure and were not proven in Hollywood.

So my question is how and why did these and other director's get plucked from virtual obscurity to direct some of the biggest movies within the past ten years? Thoughts? Comments? Gripes? Please share...

FinkPish

I wouldn't call them obscure, not mainstream, possibly. Bryan Singer was pretty well known after The Usual Suspects, and he stirred up some controversy with Apt Pupil. Actually, all three of these directors directed a powerfully emotional fim before moving on to the big blockbusters: Apt Pupil, The Gift, and Heavenly Creatures. I think this might have allowed the studios to see what was possible from each of them. Also, in all of these cases, I think the director pursued the film and got themselves on the picture, rather than sitting back and being hired.

fumanstan

I think it comes down to the director's own passion for the project versus their previous history... which is definitely a good thing. Christopher Nolan doing the new Batman is another example.

Rival11

Kind of seems like it's about their previous history and what the studios trust in.

Quick example: Sam raimi as a director, is one hell of a director, IMO Evil Dead 1 & 2 and although not the greatest, Darkman proved this.

Groucho

I thought this was going to be about Alfonso Cuarón directing Harry Potter 3.

OldBoy

no, but he is another example, but i think he is a result of the other 3 previously mentioned. that seems to be the trend based on the others successes...no?

Goldberg74

[tongue-in-cheek] McG directing Superman. [/tongue-in-cheek]

silentbob007

It seems that small films have to rely on strong screen plays and/or skillful direction in order to make it big ... these filmmakers have proven that they are filmmakers.

Goldberg74

I am going to add Robert Rodriguez to this list... since his only major accomplishments are the Spy Kids movies and the El Mariachi/Desperado/Once Upon A Time In Mexico trilogy... and now he's got Sin City, but he's proven he can do it.

He's a freakin' one-man studio.

Jackskeleton

What may seem Obscure to you is not the case and only is a matter of your exposure to the film makers past history of films which were lower in budget but made more or were successful in other ways to warrent their no project. (breath) Think of it as a ladder. the director has proven to the studio in their past work that the studio can trust him to make the film.

Jackskeleton

Usual suspect was not an obscure film.

Raimi had success from the gift, a simple plan and quick and the dead. so it was a leap from Evil dead to spider man.

Not to mention he has produced a lot of works. So the studio can put a lot of trust in him on such a big name such as Spider-man since he is well experienced.

OldBoy

no, i don't buy that. perhaps obscure was not the word to use, but they certainly had not proven themselves that they could make colossal, monumental movie franchises like these movies were destined to be based on their past movie experiences.

'usual suspects' was perhaps not obscure, but a very small movie that was highly acclaimed and critically loved, but still did not garner too much $ and only later would go on to say cult status.

but helming or producing mediocre to decent films that did not make a lot of money at all does not warrant budgets of excess of $100 mil for movies that studios are banking their booty's on. to go from a 'frighteners' to 'lord of the rings' is a very, very big risk..that i am sorry but in this volitale economic climate studios can't just give it up that easy, so there has to be more to it. their past resumes have got to be only a very small cog in how they got these jobs. they were no cameron or scott or even speilberg that are proven in blockbusters and would have succeeded no matter what.

bottomline, way to risky to simply base on past efforts!

OldBoy

the quick and the dead was a bomb when it came out and made like $18 mil with bud of $32 mil. the gift made $12 mil, though recieved some good reviews was def. not considered a success.
a simple plan $16 mil with bud 30mil was more like an independent movie that they said should have done better but didn't.- how do you spell success?

FinkPish

I don't think success is defined only by money, although, a lot of people think studios only think that way. Just because a film makes or doesn't make money doesn't make it a good or bad film. Money isn't everything.

I think success can be defined by creating a quality product, something that fulfills most everything that the director set out to do. Was it effective in creating an emotional reaction, i.e. fear, sadness, laughter, etc?

Obscure is a bad word to use for these films. I think a lot of these director's past films were just not purely mainstream, but they made something that obviously set them up to be able to do more than their smaller budgets allowed, at least in the eyes of the studios.

OldBoy

i totally agree! i mean 'the usual suspects' was indeed a success. critically and as a film, but enough for it and these others to warrant 4 of the biggest movies of all time with a 5th in "Spider-man 2" on the way. just seems way too risky!

Goldberg74

I think the bottom line is that you have to cut your teeth on something.

You have to show that you have imagination, enthusium, determination and the skill.

Look at Spielberg... he cut his teeth on a bunch of little TV films and a few features before he was entrusted with Jaws (1975), then Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and even 1941 (1979) until they he did Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which led to ET, the rest of the Indiana Jones films and so on.

Michael Bay did music videos and commercials before getting Bad Boys (1995) and The Rock (1996). I don't see why McG should be short-sheeted for doing the same thing.

You've got to start somewhere...

FinkPish

Yeah, but you are still defining these past films in regards to how much money they made. If the director can deliver a film that is effective in creating interesting characters, situations and backstories, then it isn't a risk to give them more money to continue to do that.

Any music video director can be handed an action movie to make, but are they always necessarily good films? Not really
(There are exceptions, of course). When you look at these films that you originally brought up, they are, at their base, character-driven stories. The action and spectacle is essentially background for what the characters go through.

And that is (I hope) what people are really going to see them for. People may say they are going to see the effects and hear the sound, but I think what is really interesting are the characters and situations. And what these directors are able to do is create that. Which is why films like Van Helsing fail, because for all of the effects and explosions on screen, there wasn't anything interesting to hold the audience.

DodgingCars

I actually think that both Raimi and Jackson were well known within the business, before they made their big movies.

Besides... who are you going to give these movies to instead? Jackson, Raimi, and Singer were all directors who had a few movies under their belts, proving they could make quality films (depending on who you talk to). There aren't that many Spielbergs to go around... and they're not all interested in blockbusters (been there, done that).

Get Me Coffee

It all depends on who you sleep with

Groucho

If we only let directors who had worked on big-budget movies in the past work on big-budget movies in the future, eventually we run out of directors. Everybody's got to start someplace.

Jackskeleton

Yeah, even though you totally agree with films not being all about the money they make you still argue that these guys didn't earn their ranks?

Raimi's films may have never been block busters but he has what is needed in that ladder. The Experience. As a producer and a director he earned his way up and when an chance opened he got it. simple as that.

So in other words it was a "small" Big movie? It was highly acclaimed and then that in itself made it a very big successful film. I don't see your point. Small picture with a lot of industry praise = good news for directors/actors/writers/etc.

I spell it like this. Can the director produce what the studio wanted? Can the director get the film done? Can the director do the job he was paid to do? Does he have the EXPERIENCE to get it done? Films bomb for many different reasons and the director is not always the one the finger is pointed to. Marketing, lackluster cast, timing, Many different reasons why a film doesn't live to it's potentail domesticlly.

Sony also did The Quick and the Dead. Perhaps, just perhaps that past experience with the studio helped him land the job?


Do you understand what a producer does? Do you? I'm just asking. Do you have ANY idea what a producer's role in a film is? Cause if you did. If you had one simple ounce of knowledge on how big the role a producer is on a film then you would understand that by being a films producer gives you a lot of experience on how to get the film done. That low budget studio picture experience as a producer is much better to bank on then some no name person who has no experience at making a film get off the ground.

There is more to it then just domestic take. Infact with dvd's all those films more then likely by now have made their money back and then some for the studio. If you keep your eye on the $$ picture only you will be missing a lot of what make hollywood work.

These directors were well know before their big chances by the studios and they realized their ability. That is what lets these studios take the "risk" on picking them to helm their project. Because they can get it done.

Jackskeleton

Not to mention imagine the cost that would have be tacked on to the budget to get those higher priced directors to work on it.

Lets put it this way. Del Toro had to work on Mimic before he was able to do Blade 2 and had to do blade 2 before doing his Hellboy. he wanted to do a hellboy film for so long and it got done by simply working up a ladder. Was Mimic a huge success $$ wise? well it was whatever. but he got the job done. He delivered the film. That in itself is enough for the studio to trust him again on bigger things.

devilshalo

Yeah, I blame that ****er Luca$. Who the hell did he think he was directing Star Wars?

PopcornTreeCt

I think the main reason is because the directors have a very strong passion for what they are doing and insisted that the studio choose no other director besides themselves. Besides, directing isn't that hard anyway. As long as you don't royally f*** up like Ang Lee or Joel Schumacher you should come out fine.

jaeufraser

Ha, directing isn't that hard anyway? That makes sense, that explains the huge amounts of amazing films that come ever week. That explains the consistent extremely high level of quality that. Sure...directing...what an easy job.