Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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?

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Would the remake of the original Psycho count?

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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."

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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).

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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?

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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".

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Any Bourne film directed by Paul Greengrass.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

I seem to recall Josh Whedon saying this.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

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

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

As written the comments were fucking awesome. It was the delivery that made them sound whiny-bitchy.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Jaws is as good as it is because Spielberg couldn't accomplish what he'd wanted to. If the shark had actually worked as intended it's more than likely the film would not have packed the punch it did. I take Jaws as another example of limitations being a big contributor to it's artistic success rather than what hold's it back.
Raiders also to an extent- because the film was basically an exercise for both Lucas and Spielberg in how to shot something efficiently and down and dirty (more like a poverty row serial than a blustery big studio A movie).

When Spielberg had nearly unlimited resources and the full faith of the studio supporting him, he created 1941.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

The first one that immediately comes to mind is The Phantom Menace, terribly directed by George Lucas. Considering a much better version of the same movie was realized when someone made judicious edits, called The Phantom Edit, it stands to reason a better director could have really made it a good movie.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

you could argue the same for the entire prequel trilogy. Get someone who is actually good with actors. part o the reasoning for the bad acting is Lucas doing line readings

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

And, probably, Lucas giving the actors nothing but a green screen to act against.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Lucas was very dumb for attempting to make The Prequel Trilogy in mostly digital sets. The technology was certainly not ready for it in 1999.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

there's an infamous story where Lucas visited the Gangs of New York set, & after seeing that Scorsese & crew painstakingly built an entire block to look like the 1800s, Lucas told him "you know, all of that can be done with computers now"

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Perhaps not, but given how thoroughly many directors storyboard and plan their scenes, it's arguable the director, especially a good director, is more the creative force behind a film than anyone else.

Isn't it customary to get a first-time director a top-notch ASC DP and a good editor to try to mitigate and problems which inexperience might bring. As far as the job being half-done, perhaps, but there's still a unifying magic to add. Michael Bay has ACE editors, the top technicians in Hollywood, and many of his action sequences are incompressible and his films have many problems which can be said to fall at his feet. Kurtzman and Orci even talk about him overruling them on the way to write a scene because he wanted it to play a certain way.

Most of Spielberg's non-serious films, at least superficially, are basically redresses of old B-movie conventions. Jaws is basically a remake of Creature From the Black Lagoon, War Horse is draws on Lassie Come Home, Always pays homage to the old screwball comedies and Frank Capra, the Indy movies and CE3K are tributes to old serials and 50s SF flicks, the JP movies are basically Ray Harryhausen movies with bigger budgets. Spielberg of course brings more to good projects than just that, but I think among all of that pop culture detritus, he's found some heart and soul and intelligence. Although I have always wondered if making his more "serious" movies has led him to neglect the scripts of some of his later fantasy flicks. Ray Ferrier or Dr. Grant frankly don't have the feeling of being fully-fleshed characters to me in comparison to Indy, Brody, Neary, Quint, etc.

It's interesting to watch behind-the-scenes stuff on some of my DVDs-Freddy vs. Jason, 28 Weeks Later, Face/Off, etc.-when I hear the director seem to speak in broken English or have difficulty articulating ideas, but seeing everything so clear and controlled on the screen. It fascinates me. It depends though. There are some writers who's voice is so distinctive-David Mamet, Tarantino, etc.-that you can see their fingerprints even on movies they didn't direct.

I like Whedon, but his cult scares me :P.

Jean-Pierre Junet is a pretty talented director, arguably more so than Whedon, in all honesty. Their styles may not have necessarily been compatible, but I don't think Alien Resurrection was a project where the director was simply a TV hack for hire.

I like Whedon and much of his work, but I have always had something of an impression that his ego is formidable.

If it is now, I just find the notion to be rather reductive sometimes, in all honesty. The old Bond films may be dated, but at least there's Ken Adam's striking production design to enjoy. CG doesn't really even offer that sometimes. I think that CG, though an excellent tool, sometimes shows that too much imagination can be a lack of imagination for some directors. Though to be honest, while I've always though Lucas was a great producer and crafted the building blocks for stories well, directing actors or writing dialogue simply doesn't seem to be in his wheelhouse. He's an early post-modernist, and I think once culture caught up to what he was doing, his storytelling seemed a bit archaic with the technology in the service of something which simply hadn't evolved.

Didn't Scorsese promptly ignore him, if I've heard correctly?

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Dogma. I like Kevin Smith but it could have been a classic with a better director.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

The director is arguably the most influential voice in the creative process of making a film, more so nowadays than ever. However, my point was that there's nothing on the screen that's the sole domain of a director. Even if a director draws storyboards for the entire film themselves, there's still dozens to hundreds to thousands of people that work on changing those storyboards into a full fledged movie. As a result, there's nothing in the finished product that one can point to and say definitively "that's solely the director's fault".


Unifying magic is part of the hiring process too. For example, it's not just necessary to hire the best actor for each role individually, but to make sure that the actors work well with each other, which often means playing actors off each other in the casting process. Same with the rest of the crew.

As for surrounding a new director with an experienced crew, that can certainly help, although I don't know if it's straight up standard practice.

And yes, a bad director can overrule the director or script writer or whomever, but a bad producer can override a director too. The point is you can't tell by just what's on the screen what's the fault of the director, if anything.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

I heard that same story with him and Peter Jackson's King Kong. :lol:

Given how much of Kong was rendered digitally, that's actually kind of surprising.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

Great topic, I have not seen Resurrection actually I have not seen any Alien film but all those Wheldon quotes are pretty interesting.. Sucks he still sore about it

I agree with whomever said Les Miserables it coulda have been way better. Also I don't think Synder was the only problem with MOS but Watchmen with another director coulda have been a masterpiece, the script was there the visual were perfect but it all felt so disconnected.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

I think it was in reference to parts of Skull Island being done in miniature.

Re: Good Script, Good Acting, Bad Director?
 

There are movies that have good scripts and with good actors, but bad direction and giving good actors bad direction= shit film.

Did you guys know that 8mm, the Nicolas Cage cop movie was written by the writer of SE7EN? It's also staring Nicolas Cage before he was a parody, James Gandolfini and Joaquin Phoenix. Could have been so good.

http://www.filmlinks4u.net/wp-conten...tch-Online.jpg

And I know a lot of people wont agree, but you could take the exact same script of Batman Forever and get a more serious director and the film would be good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rever_ver7.jpg