Brad Bird Directing Tomorrowland

[Man in the Suit]

i think the problem we have is that he made the big mistake of working with Lindelof. he should know better.

i guess he wanted to make this kind of movie and needed Lindelof. but its............Lindelof.

Lindelof

Lindelof Lindelof

Made a mistake? No. He's Brad Bird and he could do whatever he wanted with the script. (He co-wrote it!) This is the movie he wanted to make, unless Disney interfered somehow.

Bird has known Lindelof from when he did uncredited work on Ghost Protocol. No mistakes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I normally don't get all that invested in these things, but this one's breaking my heart a little bit, not gonna lie. Brad Bird was like, my rock. Creatively speaking that is, lol. I mean, it's not like I won't be a fan from now on if I don't like it, because of course I will. I think he's one of the best visual storytellers we have, and I'm already chomping at the bit for Incredibles 2...but I always took comfort in his dependability before, so that won't be the same.

I'm gonna be honest, it sounds like Bird's heart really isn't in Incredibles 2 and is doing it for the big paycheck. There's a reason why he probably won't direct... unless this movie does horrible and he pulls an Andrew Stanton. I hope not. He deserves so much better. Well maybe he'll do Star Wars!

Every filmmaker makes a movie that isn't as good as others. The problem is the internet puts them on a pedestal and when they give a film that isn't as good, the sky is falling. It happened with Nolan, it can happen to anyone. For ****'s sake it has happened to everyone. Look at Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Scorsese. The internet forgets their history, or they're very limited idiots. Probably both at times.

 

[Marvin]

I'm a fan of Bird so yeah it does suck. All one can do is see the film and make up their own mind.

Is it too much to ask that Brad Bird not be treated like the worst director ever because of one film by overly reactionary fans?

This is the internet, he's immune and there will be conjecture about whose really at fault. Luckily there is a big notorious name also attached to the creative end that blame can be levied against.
If this was Bay or Snyder or something it would be a very different game. Mind you Brad won't be immune forever though, you get one, two if they aren't consecutive.

That being said, this is kinda bad in that he was still proving to hollywood that he can hang outside of animation. A world class bomb BOTH critically and financially(which I have a feeling this thing will do given it can't simply lean on a brand and has no big leads and plenty comp in the same demos) and hollywood may not be so quick to let him strut around. Abrams atleast has clout.

Bird really should have taken that star wars gig, he would have entered mega stardom. I suppose there is still time in the sequels.
Like nolan, do that then do the inception/stellar risk after.

I fear if this incredibles sequel is standard pixar sequel letdown(exception being toy story) then...ehh. Good luck to him trying to top that original.

 

[kedrell]

Very surprised at the critical drubbing this is getting, given it's pedigree(well, Lindelof aside). Still, I make up my own mind and so this has not diminished my desire to see it. I still consider Bird one of the few true genius's of our time when it comes to directing so I'll see anything by him unless he turns a corner creatively, Sham-hammer style(but I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that Bird saw MI4 as his Batman type blockbuster so he moved on to a passion project. I mean if I was a great beloved director and had a choice would I have chosen Tomorrowland over Star Wars? Nope. I commend him for doing his thing though and hope it works out box office and audience wise.

 

[Kane52630]

Has anyone here seen it though?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I have to wait till Saturday to see it. Can't do midnight and have no car tomorrow.

 

[Marvin]

I think that Bird saw MI4 as his Batman type blockbuster so he moved on to a passion project. I mean if I was a great beloved director and had a choice would I have chosen Tomorrowland over Star Wars? Nope. I commend him for doing his thing though and hope it works out box office and audience wise.

I for one feel that movie's reception is a tad over blown and the third under rated. As far this point, I don't think it made enough money.
Making raw money is also needed for that circumstance to kick in. TDK/Avengers money = carte blanche.
Good or bad Starwars would have afforded him this circumstance imo.
I also feel he was kinda born for disney's star wars. I feel this was his moment(long earned too).

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I for one feel that movie's reception is a tad over blown and the third under rated. As far this point, I don't think it made enough money.
Making raw money is also needed for that circumstance to kick in. TDK/Avengers money = carte blanche.
Good or bad Starwars would have afforded him this circumstance imo.
I also feel he was kinda born for disney's star wars. I feel this was his moment(long earned too).

I mean 694mil is pretty damn good though but it was just one movie. It's, I think, safer and smarter to build up your (live action) film career with 2 or 3 blockbusters before diving into that big budget passion project. If this movie disappoints or flops it's not going to look good for Bird.

I think Bird would probably be perfect for a Star Wars movie and even a Marvel movie honestly.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I for one feel that movie's reception is a tad over blown and the third under rated. As far this point, I don't think it made enough money.
Making raw money is also needed for that circumstance to kick in. TDK/Avengers money = carte blanche.
Good or bad Starwars would have afforded him this circumstance imo.
I also feel he was kinda born for disney's star wars. I feel this was his moment(long earned too).

I am a big fan of MI3 and Ghost Protocol. But JJ was clearly not on the level of Bird in terms of cinematography and motion. GP is a gorgeously shot film, with the exception of one unavoidable CGI bit. JJ was still spreading his wings in a cinematic sense with MI3. JJ showed his stuff with Star Trek and Super 8 imo. TFA trailers look at a whole other level again.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I mean 694mil is pretty damn good though but it was just one movie. It's, I think, safer and smarter to build up your (live action) film career with 2 or 3 blockbusters before diving into that big budget passion project. If this movie disappoints or flops it's not going to look good for Bird.

I think Bird would probably be perfect for a Star Wars movie and even a Marvel movie honestly.

Bird will be fine. Disney values him. People understand how good he is. It was different with Stanton, who showed he was actually inept at directing. He was a literal disaster on set.

 

[Octoberist]

I for one feel that movie's reception is a tad over blown and the third under rated. As far this point, I don't think it made enough money.
Making raw money is also needed for that circumstance to kick in. TDK/Avengers money = carte blanche.
Good or bad Starwars would have afforded him this circumstance imo.
I also feel he was kinda born for disney's star wars. I feel this was his moment(long earned too).

Yeah the third MI was (to me) as good as the fourth one. It's not that much of a dramatic leap in quality from 3 to 4.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Bird will be fine. Disney values him. People understand how good he is. It was different with Stanton, who showed he was actually inept at directing. He was a literal disaster on set.

Also MI4's box office and reviews make this virtually nothing like the Stanton situation. I still don't think this is a great situation of course...if the film disappoints at the box office. But yes we know Bird can direct a live action film and I agree with you that MI4 was better directed than MI3 because Abrams was still showing his television roots in that film.

Well at least Britt has been getting some really good notices.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Also MI4's box office and reviews make this virtually nothing like the Stanton situation. I still don't think this is a great situation of course...if the film disappoints at the box office. But yes we know Bird can direct a live action film and I agree with you that MI4 was better directed than MI3 because Abrams was still showing his television roots in that film.

Well at least Britt has been getting some really good notices.

Yes, Britt seems to be getting love here.

Funny to hear Clooney was miscast here from quite a few people. I remember thinking that RDJ was cast in this film for the longest time. Clooney didn't seem to fit the character in my head.

 

[Marvin]

I mean 694mil is pretty damn good though but it was just one movie. It's, I think, safer and smarter to build up your (live action) film career with 2 or 3 blockbusters before diving into that big budget passion project. If this movie disappoints or flops it's not going to look good for Bird.

I think Bird would probably be perfect for a Star Wars movie and even a Marvel movie honestly.

MOS made more than it in all categories and people don't really celebrate it's figures. I mean if it made inception money... I just never understood what the big deal about that movie outside of it being solid. And it's not like it single handedly brought back that franchise from death or something(that was MI3 funny enough).

Yea Bird I feel pitimizes what the mcu is going for at it's most '...'
Just as feel George Miller is that dude for the DCU and what they are all about. I do love how it's only now I see people actually recognizing what he latter can do, shame about WW.

Yeah the third MI was (to me) as good as the fourth one. It's not that much of a dramatic leap in quality from 3 to 4.

The third speaks to me more. Plus I love Hoffmans work and how deeply personal it all felt. Like Royale and Skyfall, it's the solid personal spy ones that really get me and 3 was epic in this regard. I'll never forget him waking up and grabbing the gun after being out like that at the end, death threats and begging... Four was more fun 50's stuff imo.
Plus Cruise with the TopGun, MI1 hair is where it's at. Cruise with MI4 hair pisses me off(no joke).

I am a big fan of MI3 and Ghost Protocol. But JJ was clearly not on the level of Bird in terms of cinematography and motion. GP is a gorgeously shot film, with the exception of one unavoidable CGI bit. JJ was still spreading his wings in a cinematic sense with MI3. JJ showed his stuff with Star Trek and Super 8 imo. TFA trailers look at a whole other level again.

First of all, I will point out that their level of 'cinematography' mainly comes down to whom they hire as 'cinematographer' as far as this conversation is concerned. This is how the internet talks and I'm personally not with it.
As for the style Brid opted for in his movie, I personally felt it was cartoon like. Very much inline with the story boards from incredibles(I had to study in class). Especially that finale fight with the cars and such.
As for Abrams' camera, I often see it celebrated. Just like his MI movie, it's conveniently being underrated.
From the star trek stuff(right down to the sky dive and ship to ship), to this new star wars, to that awesome trailer money shot from MI3 on the bridge. I also prefer the Abrams lighting aesthetic, very Bay if you will. Abrams has always been dynamic on the lens it's just that Bird is in your face with it, almost 'one take' like similar to the early Fincher(panic room) stuff and it stands out.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

]First of all, I will point out that their level of 'cinematography' mainly comes down to whom they hire as 'cinematographer' as far as this conversation is concerned. This is how the internet talks and I'm personally not with it. [/B]
As for the style Brid opted for in his movie, I personally felt it was cartoon like. Very much inline with the story boards from incredibles(I had to study in class). Especially that finale fight with the cars and such.
As for Abrams' camera, I often see it celebrated. Just like his MI movie, it's conveniently being underrated.
From the star trek stuff(right down to the sky dive and ship to ship), to this new star wars, to that awesome trailer money shot from MI3 on the bridge. I also prefer the Abrams lighting aesthetic, very Bay if you will. Abrams has always been dynamic on the lens it's just that Bird is in your face with it, almost 'one take' like similar to the early Fincher(panic room) stuff and it stands out.

Uh, Scorsese has had more then a few cinematographers over the years. His films always look like Scorsese films. From Hugo to Taxi Driver. It is the same with the vast majority of great directors. It is why SPECTRE does not look removed from Skyfall, even without Deakins.

I have no problem with JJ. Love him actually. But MI3 is small because of his direction. Bird brings the fantasy, the animated element, but unlike most it has grounded weight to it. So while the frame might hit like something from the Incredibles, it feels appropriately different do to it being live action. The opening jail break is a lovely example.

Bird did with GP what all Bond directors between Thunderball and Casino Royale failed to do. He brought to life the childhood super spy fantasy.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm gonna be honest, it sounds like Bird's heart really isn't in Incredibles 2 and is doing it for the big paycheck. There's a reason why he probably won't direct... unless this movie does horrible and he pulls an Andrew Stanton. I hope not. He deserves so much better. Well maybe he'll do Star Wars!

Every filmmaker makes a movie that isn't as good as others. The problem is the internet puts them on a pedestal and when they give a film that isn't as good, the sky is falling. It happened with Nolan, it can happen to anyone. For ****'s sake it has happened to everyone. Look at Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Scorsese. The internet forgets their history, or they're very limited idiots. Probably both at times.

Yes, but Ghost Protocol was supposed to be his paycheck movie to prove his live-action chops so he could go make a passion project. Which was this. That's what makes this one a little more disheartening to me. This was an "original" genre film from one of our most talented and imaginative filmmakers with an A-list star and a blockbuster studio budget backing it...we just don't get those very often. And we'll get them even less often if they fall on their face when we do. Obviously everyone's human and no one's a sure thing, but Bird of all people is the person I least expected to drop the ball when given an opportunity like this. It's just disappointing is all. The sky's not falling, it's just cloudy and unpleasant.

 

[TheAQU4M4N]

Seeing this tomorrow morning, pretty excited. Getting the cool pin for the first showing of the day.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm gonna be honest, it sounds like Bird's heart really isn't in Incredibles 2 and is doing it for the big paycheck. There's a reason why he probably won't direct... unless this movie does horrible and he pulls an Andrew Stanton. I hope not. He deserves so much better. Well maybe he'll do Star Wars!

Every filmmaker makes a movie that isn't as good as others. The problem is the internet puts them on a pedestal and when they give a film that isn't as good, the sky is falling. It happened with Nolan, it can happen to anyone. For ****'s sake it has happened to everyone. Look at Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Scorsese. The internet forgets their history, or they're very limited idiots. Probably both at times.

What do you base this on?

 

[Octoberist]

I got a feeling too, that Incredibles 2 is an obligation. But that's just a gut feeling, nothing tangible.

 

[Sithborg]

I would probably see this this weekend if Mad Max was calling to me again...

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I am a total "read between the lines" chick but I haven't yet seen any reason to believe that Bird's heart isn't in Incredibles 2. I am completely open to having my mind change with an article or something.

 

[flickchick85]

I would probably see this this weekend if Mad Max was calling to me again...

Ha, see I was gonna see Pitch Perfect 2 on Monday and saw Mad Max for a 2nd time instead. I was gonna go see this tomorrow, and now I'm actually contemplating seeing Max a 3rd time instead, lol. I think I have a Max problem. It's beginning to seriously interfere with my ability to keep to my summer movie viewing schedule.

I will have to see this one this weekend too, though. I just...need another Max fix first.

 

[titansupes]

Uh, Scorsese has had more then a few cinematographers over the years. His films always look like Scorsese films. From Hugo to Taxi Driver. It is the same with the vast majority of great directors. It is why SPECTRE does not look removed from Skyfall, even without Deakins.

Yep, it's more often than not about the director. I mean, the guy that shot The Green Mile is also the guy that shot Attack of the Clones.

 

[Marvin]

Uh, Scorsese has had more then a few cinematographers over the years. His films always look like Scorsese films. From Hugo to Taxi Driver. It is the same with the vast majority of great directors. It is why SPECTRE does not look removed from Skyfall, even without Deakins.

You missed my point in all of this. Whomever Bay works with, his films always look like bay, similar deal with Burton and various others people with distinct aesthetics. It's their choice, their will done by the cinematographer(if the talent is there). Same as with a production artist and how a director brings their choices and proclivities but it's that artists drawing ability(talent)...
You distinctly said something along the lines of Brid is a more talented cinematographer! I responded with something along the lines of, if you want to compare the talent of the cinematography in both films, perhaps this measure should pertain to that of the actual cinematographers. I find it odd that they actually have an award given to these people for their work yet in your language you would assert something that undermines this.
Just like stunt teams, just like composers if you want to actually compare the talent on display, do just that. What you are doing is comparing the directors preferences and proclivities and consistent habbits imo and that's why sky fall/spectre look similar at the outset, the director wants them too but it's not actually his light measuring and photography at work here. Not in a discussion of 'talent'. If you meant to say Bird has a better aesthetic for you, cool.

I have no problem with JJ. Love him actually. But MI3 is small because of his direction. Bird brings the fantasy, the animated element, but unlike most it has grounded weight to it. So while the frame might hit like something from the Incredibles, it feels appropriately different do to it being live action. The opening jail break is a lovely example.

Bird did with GP what all Bond directors between Thunderball and Casino Royale failed to do. He brought to life the childhood super spy fantasy.

Like I said, not for me. It has it's strengths clearly, as does the prior one. For MI3 also does what dozens of bond films(up ill recently) fail to do also, personalize the drama on screen and take the villain beyond a childhood fantasy with the twirling stache...

As for MI3 feeling small. It did? If it felt 'small' I would describe that as a story choice not so much directing. The same way the bourne film 'feels' small but mainly because it's not about something the avengers would get up to in story. I thought the tokyo stuff was a 'big' as TDK imo.
You felt birds movie: 'animated but had a weight to it', I felt it had an animated to it period. Surely you can understand how if I felt the later without the former it would teeter on kinda lame? I can only imagine Ulimatum in that same circumstance. Fun throw back for some I suppose.
I still take that bridge scene over most. That to me harked over to 90's James Cameron.