lordofthenerds
Not a Goddamn Side-Kick
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,633
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 73
So, if I understand this correctly, the director who makes a pitch isn't worth criticizing so long his pitched gets picked up by a studio? Why? Just because he's telling the story he wants (and some sucker bought it) doesn't necessarily mean it's a story worth telling.I don't agree with the idea a Director can be critized for giving a pitch, having it greenlit and doing the movie he wanted. Lots of people can always say Directors could change the story because of X or Y reasons, but why? The director is telling the story he wants, or what the studio wants.
You're acting as though all the blame is suddenly transferred to the studio once they greenlight the idea. I disagree. The blame isn't transferred to them, they simply share it.
Because it's an adaptation of a property known for action and adventure. Adaptations are supposed to capture the spirit and essence of the properties they're adapting. You can't capture the spirit of the Fantastic Four without including action and adventure, and a couple of trips to Planet Zero wouldn't cut it for me.Drz said:We'll now we're going circles but why can't a science fiction superhero comic book have an emphasis on the family and science? Overcoming obstacles in non violent solutions? FOX has called this movie a prequel and Trank wanted to do an Origin story, did it need violence? According to the studio it did. Will the audience enjoy that action? Only time will tell.![]()


