Discussion Frank Marshall: Director search down to a few

If you really think about it, in a case like this the director isn't such a super big deal. He's going to be there to call action and cut, but so many of the major creative issues are going to be handled/micromanaged by others higher-up that it's kind of like a minor issue.

 

Hmm, Gary Ross I haven't considered yet. He dropped out of the second Hunger Games (written by Arndt) due to conflicting schedules... I have seen the Hunger Games and think he did a preety good job considering the source material... He just have to get rid of all that shaky camera stuff.

Jar-Jar Abrams would be ok for me, I enjoyed Cloverfield, Super 8 and Star Trek as well. I was never a Trekkie because it always felt suppar to Star Wars (OT), I would guess I watched about 80% of TNG,DS9 and Voyager, because back in the days when I went to school, they were on TV ervery day (after Baywatch lol). Abrams Star Trek movie was the first I truly enjoyed. I can't vouch for Lost, because I have only seen the first two seasons and they were great, but stopped after that because I heard that the end was horrible ( never watched the final season of BSG for the same reason).
I think Abrams would certainly do better than the old Turtleneck himself.

 

mathew vaughn

 

Actually, he was pretty generous with the points (even when he wasn't required).
Honestly, "Lucas is a greedy hack" thing is getting old... Especially in light of his 2bil donation.

 

http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981755568

 

She became co-chair in June, so I would say pre-production started around then.

 

Bingo. People really need to stop assuming he is all about the money. The argument has never really been there. Just because you didn;t like some of his work does not mean he was trying to screw over fans.

 

No, that is not how directors work. At least it shouldn’t be. Maybe in television, but not in film. A director who does operate like that has a name: hack. I hope we don't get a hack here. I prefer my directors to have identities and their own voice. I want the director of Episode VII to bring something of their own to the table. Kershner, for example, was most certainly not a hack. That would be my worst nightmare. As well as being a Star Wars fan, I am also a film fan in general.

 

Not a minor issue to me -- we NEED news to talk about! LOL

 

Do you know how franchise film making works in the modern era? Do you honestly think that Marc Webb was calling the shots on Amazing Spider-Man? At any rate, the notion of the primacy of the director in something as complex as a film isn't always necessarily true, but that's a long talk about the inherent flaws of the auteur theory and its reception that doesn't really belong here.

 

I think his argument was more that while some directors are that way, if they are it makes them a pretty bad director. A good quality director understand every aspect of his role. Just because some directors don;t grasp that concept does not mean their job is meant to be insignificant. That's basically like seeing a few school teachers only teach by reading directly out of the textbook and then saying that is how all school teachers teach and are supposed to teach.

 

It doesn't always make them a bad director. It makes them a director that doesn't fall under the notions we receive from auteur theory. What do we make of extremely talented journeyman work-for-hire directors like Robert Wise or Jacques Tournier who were absolutely not the prime movers on their films? What do we make of producers like Jerry Bruckheimer who are arguably more the authors of the films they produce than the director's they hire? What about the old studio system where directors were hired on and off of films by different studio heads? Are these directors of classic films all "hacks" themselves?

What the exact role of a director is in a given production is very much an open question, and I think its fair to note that in this case the prime creative movers are going to be Kathleen Kennedy, Disney, and to a lesser extant George Lucas. Everyone else is just another technician. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.

EDIT: More the point, what I'm saying is this movie does not need a "visionary" (I hate this term) director. It needs a steady hand at the tiller who can direct actors and stage action and get the thing in on time and on budget and is competent enough to react to unexpected events on the day. The prime creative decisions are being made upstream from the director. And I don't want to see an incredible director on this because I'd rather see an incredible director with a distinct voice make one of his own films.

 

Agree to disagree. I think a quality director needs to be able to put some of his own artistic style into a film in order to give it something a little extra. I think that is able to be done in episode VII. It just seemed a little off to me when it seemed as though you were saying there was no way the director would have any real significant say in the development of the film. Perhaps it would be fairer to just have a wait and see approach.

 

Well of course we should wait and see as we have literally nothing to go on, but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we're going to have anything other than a competent journeyman selected, just based on the nature of studio filmmaking these days. And I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in this case, but that's because I don't necessarily think that the prime mover on every film is the director.

 

That's someone's interpretation of what he actually said:

"Look, Star Wars is one of my favorite movies of all time," J.J. gushed. He added, "I frankly feel that – I almost feel that, in a weird way, the opportunity for whomever it is to direct that movie, it comes with the burden of being that kind of iconic movie and series. I was never a big Star Trek fan growing up, so for me, working on Star Trek didn’t have any of that, you know, almost fatal sacrilege, and so, I am looking forward more then anyone to the next iterations of Star Wars, but I believe I will be going as a paying moviegoer!"

Source

I'm not saying that he will be directing. Just that he didn't say 'no'.

 

Fair enough. I guess I would simply say it is my personal preference that we get someone who is more than just a yes man. History for me has shown that I prefer films where the director takes more of an active role. Obviously it is no guarantee, and this film could do without and still be great, but it could also really benefit form an invested director I think. It's my personal preference.

 

I guess I just don't see how being a work-for-hire director precludes interest or investment, or implies that they are going to be a "yes man," that's a whole lot of baggage to lump onto a category that includes most directors of the classic hollywood era.

 

Again agree to disagree. Totally respect your opinion though and I see where you are coming from. It also has happened to get us pretty off topic

 

As the other guy said, we'll agree to disagree. If you've watched (500) Days of Summer you can see Marc Webb's fingerprints all over the new Spider-Man film. Obviously I know it’s a different ball-game if it’s a big studio film, but even then, a director can still inject their own signature style. If Kershner was just a "point and shoot" director, TESB would not be regarded the way it is.