Originally Posted by marvelrobbins
I don't know if he's up for it or not I haven't seen Kick Ass 2.But consider the
Richard Donnor before the Omen was mostly a TV director and after omen was
choosen to do Superman after Guy Hamilton who did 4 Bond films couldn't.
Tim Burton had only done 2 films-Pee Wee's big adventre and Beetlejuice before
Bryan Singer had done 2 small films-The Usual Suspects and Apt Public before
Chris Nolan did small films before Batman Begins
Joss whedon was known for his cult TV shows and had only directed one
film-Box office disappoint/Cult favorate Serenity before being choosen to do
My perspective is that talent is not based on experience, it's based on insight. Although directors like Donner and Whedon started on television, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't always great insightful directors. They were insightful in their directing regardless of what medium their work was delivered on.
For instance, I was a Buffy/Angel fanatic when they were airing and I can say that every time Whedon directed an episode it was something special. Stylisticlly the episodes had his special signature on it which he relayed through his ability to speak the filmic language. One great example is the Hush episode of Buffy that was essentially a masterpiece of silent cinema. This signature style carried through to the Avengers which is why the moment I heard he was handling it I became confident that we (the world) was in for a major treat.
Originally Posted by Zarex
They may have been a bit green at the time, but Donner, Burton, Singer, Nolan and Whedon proved themselves in a big way when given the opportunity. The Omen, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, The Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil, Memento, Insomnia and Serenity are all truly wonderful films. I'm not sure Wadlow has anywhere near that level of talent.
I may not have seen his Wadlow's films but I would have to agree based on his Rotten Tomatoes ratings along.
Originally Posted by def28
Yeah, that's probably not the best example. Most those films are considered classic nowadays.
Calling someone a hack without seeing any of their work boggles my mind. You jumped to conclusion pretty quick between posts there.
If you wanna know if he's up to the task then best to watch KA2 and judge for yourself. It's accurate to the book, and the changes were good ones imo. Visit the KA2 thread, most people dig it. He's wrote a few episodes of Bates Motel which got strong reviews. The thing he has going for him the most is that his pitch impressed Fox enough to move forward and that he's a fan. If Fox was impressed enough to move forward with hiring him that's a good sign.
Fox was impressed enough to move forward with Brett Ratner on X3 though so a Fox decision isn't always going to portend a good movie. If Wadlow's a fan that's a good thing, but if he's a bad director it won't matter.
Responding to your comment about my quick run to judgement, I can't deny what the Rotten Tomatoe numbers communicate. I've read enough of these ratings to know that when a film is rated in the 20th percentile, it means that the film making was bad. Generally a film falling between the 40th and 70th percentile means that critics disagree but there is a high likelihood that the director knows how to make good choices (which ultimately wind up being controversial). When a film ranks 30 or below, it means there's something fundamentally wrong with the way the film was directed. A good director may have one of these artistic flops every so often, but it certainly wouldn't happen on every attempt. All three of Wadlow's films that have been rated in the 20th percentile. To me that is pretty much conclusive evidence that the director doesn't really know what she/he is doing.
In contrast look at Mathew Vaughn's ratings
, they're in the 75th percentile and above for each of his directing gigs. That speaks volumes to his talent. What is says is that he is a director who fundamentally understands the filmic language. He combines spectacle with substance both in the storytelling and in ability to weave structural themes throughout the narrative and the visuals.
I accept that Kick Ass 2 was likely enjoyable for you and others. I will watch it when it's available on Netflix because I do want to know for sure that I'm right about him. I can tell you now that I didn't much care for the first Kick-Ass because of the story, but the film itself, which was my first exposure to Vaugn's work, made me feel very confident that X-men:First Class would turn out to be a great film. In fact I had no doubt about it. And that's exactly what happened.
Originally Posted by Angamb
saw Kick ass 2, and I liked it. Its not a master piece, obviously, but I think it was a good follow up, not memorable, but still good.
So.... yeah, he has the skills to make a badass X-Force movie. And since that's mainly what XForce should be (badass), he is fine.
X3 had a lot of badassary in it, (ie the Magneto truck scene, the death of Xavier scene, and a lot of the final battle scenes). The problem was that the film making and storytelling was so bad that it completely turned off the general public to the X-men franchise. A badass X-force movie that is directly badly will make it's money back, but it might not do anything for the popularity of the X-force brand, which would suck (I want multiple X-force films).