Justice League Brett Ratner is the Latest on the Shortlist

The main difference between Ratner and Whedon(for starters) is that weather you were into his previous works such as Buffy or Firefly and his musicals...etc all. Or weather you found them "overrated." One can't deny that they were massive hits among many and garnered huge amounts of critical praise/acclaim almost consistently.

The same can't begun to be said about Ratner.
 
i do love the rush hour films no matter what critics say tho

pure fun
 
Ratner directed the most financially successful X-Men film. If people really want to find a scapegoat than why not FOX? They've been lackadaisical toward the franchise since day one. Bryan Singer has no business directing a comic book movie just as Wolverine should never be in a PG-13 film.

Ratner did the best possible job with what he was given and he did fine. Anyone who thinks Singer was gonna deliver some epic masterpiece if he had stayed at the helm is fooling themselves.

As always, just my opinion.
 
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).

Do you really think the studio has the best interests of the property at heart when they look for a director simply on the basis of their ability to turn a measly profit? It's not like Ratner is anywhere close to Bay in the "hacks who make money" department. Ratner is a second-rate director who shouldn't be considered for a potential first-rate franchise.

I find it hard to believe that you're defending this choice. What do you want to see from a Justice League movie? A good movie, or a movie that can maybe turn a profit?
 
Why does Ratner appear on every shortlist? Oh, I know why... it's just... why?
 
He's a studio YES man... Apparently...
 
interesting. we'll see what happens, ratner seems open to getting involved in these kinds of projects, no fears about "inheriting" something that became contentious..
 
Wachowskis all the way. Im liking the idea of them directing this bad boy more and more.
 
Maybe I should give Speed Racer a try, because I'm feeling like the Wachowskis aren't all that great a choice either, but I'm only really basing that on the Matrix sequels, which were...not good.
 
Cloud Atlas looks promising, and just the fact that they had their hands in the first Matrix and V For Vendetta is enough for me to get behind them.
 
if they nail cloud atlas they need to get the gig that is a very complex story with tons of intertwining stories in different eras and ensembles casts
 
Do you really think the studio has the best interests of the property at heart when they look for a director simply on the basis of their ability to turn a measly profit? It's not like Ratner is anywhere close to Bay in the "hacks who make money" department. Ratner is a second-rate director who shouldn't be considered for a potential first-rate franchise.

I find it hard to believe that you're defending this choice. What do you want to see from a Justice League movie? A good movie, or a movie that can maybe turn a profit?

I don't think he's defending Rattner , rather then explaning ( from a financial point) why he could be considered.
We all know that Ratner is a studio yes men.
Although i don't consider Red Dragon a classic a la Silence , i don't think it's a bad movie either. In fact it's a damn good movie.
Suppose Ratner was given a killer script , a solid group of actors and a proper budget and basically told to make the movie just as it's written.
Would he be able to make a good movie ?

Going with that logic if he turned out to make a movie that was well received both critcally and financially because he had agood cast , enough money and a good script , why couldn't anyone repeat that again....
 
Maybe I should give Speed Racer a try, because I'm feeling like the Wachowskis aren't all that great a choice either, but I'm only really basing that on the Matrix sequels, which were...not good.


Keep you're expectations grounded.
Speed Racer is a kiddie flick . I don't mean that in a bad way.
 
Do you really think the studio has the best interests of the property at heart when they look for a director simply on the basis of their ability to turn a measly profit? It's not like Ratner is anywhere close to Bay in the "hacks who make money" department. Ratner is a second-rate director who shouldn't be considered for a potential first-rate franchise.

I find it hard to believe that you're defending this choice. What do you want to see from a Justice League movie? A good movie, or a movie that can maybe turn a profit?

To answer your question, of course they do. If they spent a lot of money on a film and didn't get a decent return on the investment, there is no point in making the picture (especially if they knew that in advance). The last Superman Film was made by a supposedly competent director, but it came in over budget and did not meet expectations financially. The end result was no sequel and a reboot of the franchise. Furthermore, you could make a great picture that is an Academy award winner, but if it isn't profitable at the box office, you are not going to use that formula again. These guys don't make pictures just for entertainment value only. They are in the business to make money. Finally, we should keep in mind that reports are saying that Bret Ratner is under consideration. I really can't defend the "choice" since no choice has been made yet. Now I can understand why he is being considered after looking at the box office performance of the films he has made and I stand by that rational. It looks like they want a director that can stay within a budget and make a profitable film within those constraints.
 
Maybe I should give Speed Racer a try, because I'm feeling like the Wachowskis aren't all that great a choice either, but I'm only really basing that on the Matrix sequels, which were...not good.

Speed Racer cinematically wasn't a bad film. I just think they targeted the wrong market with it (i.e. the "G" rating killed it).
 
any studio who is'nt making a film for the money is in the wrong business

always hate the claim that they only want to do it for money lol
 
any studio who is'nt making a film for the money is in the wrong business

always hate the claim that they only want to do it for money lol
They shouldn't be doing it JUST to make money, though. The reason the 70s was such a great era for cinema was that studios didn't balk just because a film wouldn't turn a huge profit because they weren't owned by conglomerates whose sole use of them was to increase profits. They were owned and headed by people who wanted to make great movies and took risks to that effect. One reason Harvey Weinstein has my respect - for coming back into the film industry after being a pos, and making movies with lots of promise that others would not have financed.
 
They shouldn't be doing it JUST to make money, though. The reason the 70s was such a great era for cinema was that studios didn't balk just because a film wouldn't turn a huge profit because they weren't owned by conglomerates whose sole use of them was to increase profits. They were owned and headed by people who wanted to make great movies and took risks to that effect. One reason Harvey Weinstein has my respect - for coming back into the film industry after being a pos, and making movies with lots of promise that others would not have financed.

Yeah, we live in a vanilla age of cinema. It doesn't help that film budgets are ridiculously high.
 
Last edited:
To answer your question, of course they do. If they spent a lot of money on a film and didn't get a decent return on the investment, there is no point in making the picture (especially if they knew that in advance). The last Superman Film was made by a supposedly competent director, but it came in over budget and did not meet expectations financially. The end result was no sequel and a reboot of the franchise. Furthermore, you could make a great picture that is an Academy award winner, but if it isn't profitable at the box office, you are not going to use that formula again. These guys don't make pictures just for entertainment value only. They are in the business to make money. Finally, we should keep in mind that reports are saying that Bret Ratner is under consideration. I really can't defend the "choice" since no choice has been made yet. Now I can understand why he is being considered after looking at the box office performance of the films he has made and I stand by that rational. It looks like they want a director that can stay within a budget and make a profitable film within those constraints.

His best achievement is the 122nd highest-grossing film of all time, a film that dropped almost 67% in ticket sales in its second weekend. It's not enough that his films have turned a profit. If Justice League is to make Avengers-level money (or even close), it's going to have to have legs, and he hasn't shown the ability to create that kind of movie.
 
Movie studios, for the most part, have pretty much always churned out vanilla, safe, cookie-cutter crap consisting of adaptions, remakes, cliche-ridden genre material, and the occassional risky film.

There was never a time or an era when Hollywood took nothing but risks. It has always been about making money. Are there people along the way who have other motives? Yes, but a studio's bottom line is making money or winning awards.
 
Movie studios, for the most part, have pretty much always churned out vanilla, safe, cookie-cutter crap consisting of adaptions, remakes, cliche-ridden genre material, and the occassional risky film.

There was never a time or an era when Hollywood took nothing but risks. It has always been about making money. Are there people along the way who have other motives? Yes, but a studio's bottom line is making money or winning awards.
It wasn't until star wars that they realized they could make a killing by catering to specific younger demographics while making a killing on extras like toys and ****. Obviously there's always been a need and want for gains, but not until studios were all bought out by bigger companies did the system shift most drastically. Luckily the
independent industry is picking up the slack thanks to easier access to technology. Still, the current system of throwing away money at huge tentpoles only happens so the might make a killing. If more studios went the district 9 route I'd be way happier and we'd likely have more quality products. But studios aren't happy with moderate financial success, they go huge or go home cuz even if the movie sucks, little kids will still live the toys!



Ratner is a terrible choice btw. Love rush hour 1 and 2, but he's been a consistently lackluster director otherwise.
 
Even if Studios want to make money, just throwing money at established franchises for making sequels does not always work, for example- Terminator Salvation and Bourne Legacy failed to make money.

Just making a superhero movie (or a fantasy movie) is not a sure way to get success either as shown by GL and John Carter (and Prince of Persia).

GA will like the movie and it will make money only if the movie's quality is good, just throwing money does not work anymore.
 
I'm not saying their reading is good. It's just clearly what they think and continue to do, haha, to the detriment of us all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"