modfather

I've been thinking about this lately - there's a lot of horrible movies out there, but they almost all seem to have bad acting/casting, bad script, bad effects, bad editing or some combination thereof. People then attribute that to the director.

But I'm wondering if anyone has examples of shitty movies that really fall on the shoulders of the director, alone? I realise that it's up to the director to get the performances needed, best special effects for the budget he/she has, etc. Alternatively, can you have a movie with a great script, acting, etc., but directed poorly? Any suggestions/thoughts/examples? I suppose my whole point is: you couldn't replace Uwe Boll with Martin Scorsese and expect it to be much better, could you?

marginal

A lot of folks will disagree, but I think Alien Resurrection kind of fits. I love Jean-Pierre Jeunet, but it's painfully clear that he didn't know how to direct a movie in English. He didn't understand Whedon's dialogue at all, and it shows.

There were plenty of other problems with the movie (including lots of budgetary cuts that gutted some really cool sequences in the script), but I'm afraid the director was the main one.

Trevor

I have nothing concrete to add, but have often thought about this and appreciate the topic.

And I guess I agree with marginal's example. I love parts of Alien Resurrection, the premise and much of the acting and dialogue; but something is missing.

inri222

With a good script, a good director can produce a masterpiece.
With the same script, a mediocre director can produce a passable film.
But with a bad script even a good director can't possibly make a good film.

- Akira Kurosawa

Shannon Nutt

I think MAN OF STEEL might be a perfect example of what you're talking about.

Solid Snake

You're saying Goyer can write a good script by himself?

hanshotfirst1138

Whedon claims that his script for that was rewritten pretty heavily.

PenguinJoe

I don't know Man of Steel's script wasn't very good.

johnnysd

Man of Steel had some interesting elements that could have made an awesome movie. If they had stayed with the loner/roamer Clark Kent who gradually gets pulled into becoming Superman and not worried about recycling Zod, and had a lower key finale/villain where he finally becomes Superman it could have been a great film. Supermans origin story handled this way is MUCH more interesting than most others and could have easily supported an entire film. This is the film that was hinted at in the awesome trailer, but the movie itself was nothing like it.

OldBoy

Joss Whedon wrote Resurrection? huh, did not remember and/or know that.

johnnysd

Would the remake of the original Psycho count?

inri222

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=77814

Joss Whedon Reflects On What Went Wrong With ALIEN: RESURRECTION

The Alien franchise hit a real low point with 1997's Alien: Resurrection. What may surprise you is that The Avengers writer and director Joss Whedon had a writing credit on the film.
"There is always going to be a shitty Alien movie out there. A shitty Alien movie with my name on it."


Geek God Joss Whedon has done very little wrong over the course of his remarkable career as a writer and director, but Alien: Resurrection was definitely a hugely disappointing addition to his résumé. In a recent interview with Total Film Magazine, Whedon was asked to share his thoughts on Prometheus and to reflect on his own contribution the franchise. "Yes, I did see Pro-meaningless," he joked. "In all seriousness, Alien: Resurrection was, I thought, the lowest I could ever feel. And then they cancelled Firefly. 'Yup, there you go. That's me feeling even lower.' Let me quote King Lear - 'The worst is not, so long as we can say, "This is the worst.'"

"Casting is storytelling," he added when asked about what his experience working on the Jean-Pierre Jeunet helmed movie taught him. "I wrote two characters for Alien: Resurrection and their arc was that you would not know what way they were going to go. One of them turned out to be insane - and what do they do? They call Brad Dourif. So there is no plot twist. Brad is a very good actor but he has been pigeonholed into these roles. Then they case J.E. Freeman as a thug - and his character was also supposed to be a mystery. So there you go again - the mystery is gone. Those are just a couple of examples because there are thousands of them when it comes to Alien: Resurrection."

As for whether or not how Alien: Resurrection turned out continues to bother him, it turns out that despite the huge level of success he has since achieved, he won't forget it any time soon. "Yeah - you don't ever get over it. When you are making a movie you are making something that is going to last forever, especially now with the internet. So there is always going to be a shitty Alien movie out there. A shitty Alien movie with my name on it." However, he must at least feel a bit better knowing that the terrible Alien vs. Predator movies would eventually prove to be THE perfect example of a bad Alien film. Right? "I actually like the first Alien vs. Predator. I'm a Paul W. S. Anderson fan."

RichC2

Usually if the script and acting are good, the director isn't terrible since part of the acting falls on them. But then you have directors like Tom Hooper, who has solid scripts, excellent acting, but tries so hard to be modern in traditional pieces he actually winds up being the weakest link (both The Kings Speech and Les Mis fall to this).

Jay G.

It's hard to say that there's anything that's solely the fault of the director, since there's literally nothing on screen that's the sole domain of the director. The director doesn't actually do anything as a scene is being shot, normally, aside from calling action and cut. What he does, as per his job title, is direct everyone else on how to to their job, and give final approval.

The difference would be if the director is performing multiple roles. For example, if it's a writer/director, then any problems with the script would be solely their fault. If the director also edited the film, then editing issues are solely their fault. But the director is largely working in collaboration with everyone else, which makes it hard to pin responsibility for one particually bad aspect solely on them, except that they typically have final approval on everything unless overruled by a producer.

If a director has picked a good script, hired a good cast and crew, then his work is already half done before it's even started filming.

I think George Lucas on the first Star Wars film is an example of this. There's a number of accounts of him being a poor director/communicator on the film, at least where actors are involved. A good number of the crew thought'd it'd be a dud, and it was really saved in post production with the editing and SFX work. Of course, Lucas at least had the foresight to see that the first edit was a disaster and fire the editor and re-edit the film, as well as re-doing a lot of the SFX when the original stuff wasn't working.

Isn't Jaws considered an example of what many considered to be a B-movie script elevated by the director Spielberg into something more?

johnnysd

I would think they meant at the time a B-type movie rather than a script. The script for Jaws is pretty stellar. And I miss that Spielberg too

inri222

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director

Film Director

A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision.

Film directors create an overall vision through which a film eventually becomes realized. Realizing this vision includes overseeing the artistic and technical elements of film production, as well as directing the shooting timetable and meeting deadlines. This entails organizing the film crew in such a way as to achieve his or her vision of the film. This requires skills of group leadership, as well as the ability to maintain a singular focus even in the stressful environment of a film set. Moreover it is necessary to have an artistic eye to frame shots and to give precise feedback to cast and crew, thus, excellent communication skills are a must. Since the film director depends on the successful cooperation of many different creative individuals with possibly strongly contradicting artistic ideals and visions, he or she also needs to possess conflict resolution skills in order to mediate whenever necessary. Thus the director ensures that all individuals involved in the film production are working towards an identical vision for the completed film. The set of varying challenges he or she has to tackle has been described as "a multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle with egos and weather thrown in for good measure". It adds to the pressure that the success of a film can influence when and how they will work again. Omnipresent are the boundaries of the films budget. Additionally, the director may also have to ensure an intended age rating. Theoretically the sole superior of a director is the studio that is financing the film, however a poor working relationship between a film director and an actor could possibly result in the director being replaced if the actor is a major film star. Even so, it is arguable that the director spends more time on a project than anyone else, considering that the director is one of the few positions that requires intimate involvement during every stage of film production. Thus, the position of film director is widely considered to be a highly stressful and demanding one. It has been said that "20-hour days are not unusual".

Ash Ketchum

Any Bourne film directed by Paul Greengrass.

duff beer

Lincoln (2012)

It basically just showcased how shmaltzed, overcooked, stale the direction is. Basically any scene where people are looking on with doey eyes, any scene where Lincoln is speaking and everyone is looking at him quietly like this is theater class (except the wood carving scene), the big argument scene (complete with thunderbolts) between Lincoln and Mary felt more like "ok guys, this is supposed to be the DRAMATIC argument scene, so just be dramatic" (except the scene arguing about his son being conscripted in the streets.) I really wish that Oliver Stone would have done this. His matter-of-fact no nonsense approach would have ironically made the movie feel more real, and fresh, instead of the weird mythologizing we got. They go to the trouble to give the most true physical appearance of Lincoln, but of course still devolve to unrealism.

Jay G.

The script is stellar, but much of what was used for the final film was scripted on the fly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_(film)#Writing
Peter Benchley had the right to write the first draft of the screenplay, but Spielberg ultimately wasn't happy with any of the 3 drafts Benchley turned in.

Rypro 525

Didn't most of Whedon's dialogue stay in the final cut of Alien Resurrection? just not in the way he imagined or envisioned it

Hokeyboy

Every time a Whedon line stinks, it's the director's fault, right? "Toad struck by lightning..."

dugan

I seem to recall Josh Whedon saying this.

hasslein

I like Oliver Stone, but I would've liked to have seen Quentin's Natural Born Killers. I didn't like Stone's.

Charlton Heston has said he thought El Cid would have been much better with William Wyler at the helm.

Jay G.

Whedon's has had some choice words about the directing done on Alien Resurrection over the years:
http://www.avclub.com/article/joss-whedon-13730
http://www.avclub.com/article/joss-w...xclusive-13729

RocShemp

^ Those comments from Whedon were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, right? Because taken as written he sounds like a whiny bitch.