Justice League Brett Ratner is the Latest on the Shortlist

[BH/HHH]

Ratners one of those directors you can just get him to shoot it from the script basically he could be like Richard Lester was for Superman in a sense just films what's needed, aka gets it in the can. So it depends on what they want from this film but X3 should have shown them Ratner's not the best choice not saying he's the worst though.

On Ratner I do love the first two Rush Hour films.

 

[Micromind]

If the script is really good and needs to be translated onto big screen with minimal changes, then Brett Ratner could do the job, he is not that much different from directors like Louis Leterrier, Joe Johnston, Tim Story, Stephen Sommers, Len Wiseman and Peter Berg.

Marvel Studios hire such directors all the time.

 

[Project862006]

joe johnson does'nt belong on that list

 

[mclay18]

I tend to agree wit this, however are we really prepared to have the audience walking away from a Justice League film saying the same thing?

I don't know. From the way WB's going about this, they're offering it to their best go-to guys first (and Ratner's near the bottom of the list). Which means it's likely a good script.

Ratner is only as good as the scripts he uses. If the JL script is great, and he accepts it... I have no problem with him directing the film. I say if that happens, take a wait-and-see approach.

 

[psylockolussus]

LOL they are seriously considering Brett Ratner.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Marvel Studios hire such directors all the time.

Has any director hired by Marvel Studios ever wanted to stick their girlfriend into the movie as a super-powered prostitute with the power to emit pheromones which can seduce both men and women?

I rest my case.

 

[Zionite1]

Has any director hired by Marvel Studios ever wanted to stick their girlfriend into the movie as a super-powered prostitute with the power to emit pheromones which can seduce both men and women?

I rest my case.

What da FAK!

 

[Majik1387]

What da FAK!

It got as far as two concept arts for the character; granted was from the comics, but no one cared at all for her.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I knew not of this.

 

[The Guard]

I think sometimes that people here don't quite understand how directing works and what it has historically been, and what is expected of most directors.

Not all directors are writers, and not all directors who are are good directors are good writers. Not all directors are part of every step of the creative process. Most directors are meant to come in and shoot the script, and make a movie, which has certain elements to it.

This idea that if a director doesn't take part in all aspects of the creative process that they're somehow a "hack" or a subpar director seems to be a recent thing.

 

[Captain Marvel]

No, the idea that they're a hack comes from their producing ****** work in whatever areas they DO delve in. I don't care if a director has any hand in the script or not. What I do care about is when the director forces in elements which make the movie worse, not better. That makes him a hack.

 

[BestGirl]

When a director has made nine movies, and only three of them have been liked by critics, that suggest he might be a hack.

 

[Dr.]

I think sometimes that people here don't quite understand how directing works and what it has historically been, and what is expected of most directors.

Not all directors are writers, and not all directors who are are good directors are good writers. Not all directors are part of every step of the creative process. Most directors are meant to come in and shoot the script, and make a movie, which has certain elements to it.

This idea that if a director doesn't take part in all aspects of the creative process that they're somehow a "hack" or a subpar director seems to be a recent thing.

The thing is… the type of dream directors who are on folks’ wish-list (Fincher, del Toro, etc.) are also the types who a) may not be interested in the genre or b) are too “big” to accept a “for hire” position in a corporate/studio devised movie/franchise.

So that leaves a limited pool of directors who are talented enough - but not so “arty” or independent that they’re not willing to play in someone else’s sandbox. Think Irvin Kershner on ESB. Though for JL… I’d like to think that there’s someone better than Ratner in that pool.

 

[Marvin]

I think sometimes that people here don't quite understand how directing works and what it has historically been, and what is expected of most directors.

Not all directors are writers, and not all directors who are are good directors are good writers. Not all directors are part of every step of the creative process. Most directors are meant to come in and shoot the script, and make a movie, which has certain elements to it.

This idea that if a director doesn't take part in all aspects of the creative process that they're somehow a "hack" or a subpar director seems to be a recent thing.

This is true.

 

[Captain Marvel]

When a director has made nine movies, and only three of them have been liked by critics, that suggest he might be a hack.

When a director tries to jam his girlfriend into a movie and give her the power to seduce straight women through pheromones so he can film lesbian love scenes with her, he might be a hack.

 

[dnno1]

I think sometimes that people here don't quite understand how directing works and what it has historically been, and what is expected of most directors.

Not all directors are writers, and not all directors who are are good directors are good writers. Not all directors are part of every step of the creative process. Most directors are meant to come in and shoot the script, and make a movie, which has certain elements to it.

This idea that if a director doesn't take part in all aspects of the creative process that they're somehow a "hack" or a subpar director seems to be a recent thing.

I guess some of these people are using Joss Whedon as a comparator for a good director. Bad move.

 

[dnno1]

When a director has made nine movies, and only three of them have been liked by critics, that suggest he might be a hack.

I don't know if the studio is looking at what the critics think about Ratner's movies. Sure from a critics standpoint, Ratner should not be making comedies, but if you look at the financials, this guy has never lost money on any of the nine films he's helmed. In fact of the nine films he has directed, 7 of them have turned a profit, one made a million over the break even point at the box office, and one (Movie 43) has yet to be released. This type of track record tells film investors that your money is safe with this guy since there is some assurance (seven or eight times out of ten) that you will get it back with some rate of return (at the box office).

 

[BestGirl]

I don't know if the studio is looking at what the critics think about Ratner's movies. Sure from a critics standpoint, Ratner should not be making comedies, but if you look at the financials, this guy has never lost money on any of the nine films he's helmed. In fact of the nine films he has directed, 7 of them have turned a profit, one made a million over the break even point at the box office, and one (Movie 43) has yet to be released. This type of track record tells film investors that your money is safe with this guy since there is some assurance (seven or eight times out of ten) that you will get it back with some rate of return (at the box office).

That's fine from the studio's standpoint, but none of us on these boards work for WB (I assume) so it doesn't matter to us how much of a profit JL makes as long as it's enough to warrant a sequel. Our only connection to the movie will be watching it, so obviously we want a director we have confidence can deliver the best quality product.

 

[dnno1]

That's fine from the studio's standpoint, but none of us on these boards work for WB (I assume) so it doesn't matter to us how much of a profit JL makes as long as it's enough to warrant a sequel. Our only connection to the movie will be watching it, so obviously we want a director we have confidence can deliver the best quality product.

Rachel, what I am trying to say is that wanting to watch a movie is the most important connection and the studio is looking at that moreso than any critic's review or even an award from some motion picture association. Like you have said, a JL picture making enough revenue to warrant a sequel is our concern (being fans) and it is also happens to be a major concern that both the studio and its investors have. This might be why they are considering someone like Ratner to helm the project.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Like you have said, a JL picture making enough revenue to warrant a sequel is our concern (being fans)

It's a secondary concern to having a good movie made. What good is it if the movie makes a lot of money but effectively kills the franchise as Batman & Robin and X-Men: The Last Stand did? And even if it doesn't, would you be happy with the equivalent to the Michael Bay Transformers movies? Awful movies which only succeed due to eye candy?

The danger here is even greater because we're talking about HALF-A-DOZEN potential franchises. WB screwing the pooch on Green Lantern was bad, but they only tainted that one franchise. A terrible Justice League movie, however, will affect Green Lantern, Flash, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and any other character involved. Batman would probably be the only character who'd emerge from that unscathed. The rest would be damaged, though, and have a harder time getting their own individual franchises off the ground. If Justice League is a terrible movie then we can forget about Flash and Wonder Woman having their own movies. And Justice League failing would be even more likely if they have someone with as bad a track record as Brett Ratner at the helm.

 

[dnno1]

It's a secondary concern to having a good movie made. What good is it if the movie makes a lot of money but effectively kills the franchise as Batman & Robin and X-Men: The Last Stand did? And even if it doesn't, would you be happy with the equivalent to the Michael Bay Transformers movies? Awful movies which only succeed due to eye candy?

I don't see how making a lot of money and killing a franchise equate. Marvel's "Avengers" made a lot of money but that didn't kill the movie. Neither did "X-Men: Last Stand", which made a profit and didn't kill the franchise.

The danger here is even greater because we're talking about HALF-A-DOZEN potential franchises. WB screwing the pooch on Green Lantern was bad, but they only tainted that one franchise. A terrible Justice League movie, however, will affect Green Lantern, Flash, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and any other character involved. Batman would probably be the only character who'd emerge from that unscathed. The rest would be damaged, though, and have a harder time getting their own individual franchises off the ground. If Justice League is a terrible movie then we can forget about Flash and Wonder Woman having their own movies. And Justice League failing would be even more likely if they have someone with as bad a track record as Brett Ratner at the helm.

What I am trying to say here is that part of the problem with a number of these DC films is that they don't stay within budget and then don't perform at the box office. That doesn't seem to be the case with Bret Ratner films. If he truly is being considered for director, it would be because he doesn't make expensive films and in turn makes a decent box office gross.

 

[metaphysician]

I guess some of these people are using Joss Whedon as a comparator for a good director. Bad move.

Well, he's directed the third highest grossing movie of all time, and several critically acclaimed television series. Apparently, that's something any bad director can do?

 

[Rowsdower!]

I'll admit, I had serious concerns when Whedon was announced as the director of The Avengers, because I always found Buffy to be overrated crap and Firefly to be cheap and unimaginative. But he totally won me over with The Avengers and The Cabin in the Woods.

I guess it's fair to say that Ratner could do the same someday. But somehow I really don't see that happening.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I don't know if the studio is looking at what the critics think about Ratner's movies. Sure from a critics standpoint, Ratner should not be making comedies, but if you look at the financials, this guy has never lost money on any of the nine films he's helmed. In fact of the nine films he has directed, 7 of them have turned a profit, one made a million over the break even point at the box office, and one (Movie 43) has yet to be released. This type of track record tells film investors that your money is safe with this guy since there is some assurance (seven or eight times out of ten) that you will get it back with some rate of return (at the box office).

You do make valid points.
Of course Hollywood is a movie making business and you basically have to invest money to make movie. Ratner can definately work within the boundaries that have set by the studio exec in order to protect their investment leading to profitable movies but i think that critical acclaim is also of importance.
If you look at the Nolan Batman movies or even Avengers , you can see that these movies are sucecesful while still maintaining the essence of the comic book characters. I do think that by screwing those things up just so you can make the most commercial version possible is a bad thing which either in a long/short time can back fire BIG TIME.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Neither did "X-Men: Last Stand", which made a profit and didn't kill the franchise.

It certainly did. Why else are they going the prequel route? It's because they don't have the faintest clue how to move forward on an X-Men 4 after Ratner came along and pissed in the pool. If X-Men: The Last Stand were considered a success by Fox then you better believe that they would've called him back and started work on a fourth X-Men movie. That they didn't, and aren't anywhere near making an X-Men 4, just goes to show how much damage he inflicted on the franchise.

I guess some of these people are using Joss Whedon as a comparator for a good director. Bad move.

Nope, I'm using good directors as a comparison, of which Ratner is most certainly NOT one.