Originally Posted by CConn
No, the problem is a lot of people don't understand what a director's job actually is.
They assume everyone's like Lucas or Cameron who write their own scripts, manage the overall production, and have full creative oversight.
But for most directors that's not the case at all. For most directors, you're nothing more than another hired crew member charged with brining someone else's story onto the screen under someone else's creative oversight.
I've seen movies with horrible scripts or casts or whatnot, but with great direction and visual flare. And that's usually due to what I've described above.
Now I haven't seen any of this guy's movies, so I can't say one way or the other, but what we should be judging is the actual technical direction of those films, not the quality overall or the plausibility of their scripts, or how well they're casted. Which is what everyone seems pay attention to.
No, I have a good handle on what a director actually does. He's the one on set that has a say in blocking, shot composition, and working with actors. Yeah, not every director is a visionary auteur with final cut, but most good directors are going to have an effect on a movie in some way. If they're nothing but a malleable toady, of course the movie is going to be a mess. If they have potential, it will come out in individual scenes or performances which can be pointed to. If it hasn't come out at all in 2 previous films, which for all we know the director had significant control over, why should it come out in a third film?
And perhaps he has shown some signs, I haven't seen those films. The reviews aren't reassuring though.
And, frankly, I think KA2 needs a director with some spine and vision because it could go wrong in a great many ways. Matthew Vaughn long-distance director isn't going to work. The director has to have some sense of tone and be able to work with the actors on set if there's any hope for the project.