Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Spider-Man Sequels' started by Advanced Dark, Jan 28, 2007.
^ I'd say he's alone in that opinion.
I know there are many directors out there filming their own comic book movies but lets be real here, getting a new director isn't as hard as you make out. Spider-Man is hot property and although some may feel overwhelmed by the prospect of directing it, there's plenty of talented directors out there that can do the job. No need for sony to think outside the box, people will come running.
Raimi will be the director dont worry about it.
As long as it isn't Brett Ratner I'll be fine.
Why? Ratners a proven director who's films make loads of money at the box office consistently. If you don't like his films your opinion is not a reflection of the rest of the World outside of SHH. Regarding X3 it's not like Ratner had alot of time to get ready for that film since he was hired last second. To me he did an amazing job all things considered including Singer taking his writers with him with almost no notice to Fox.
The Phantom Menace also made a billion and it sucked horribly.
Both of these directors are terribly overrated.
The Rush Hour films are pretty cool and Red Dragon was awesome. X3, however, was a different story. I liked the movie but Ratner was basically work for hire. They could have just hired anyone and the movie would have been the same. We need a director who's talented and will continue what Raimi did, but at the same time will do his own thing. You know...put his own stamp on things.
Like I said...their are exceptions. Phantom Menace wasn't one of them.
Ratner has no soul. All of his movies (even though I enjoy the Rush Hour films) are vacant empty products made for the sole reason to earn money. They are devoid of any artistry or creativity or general care for the subject, characters or story. Sometimes actors or the screenwriter can overcome him (see Red Dragon) but often not (see After the Sunset, Money Talks, arguably The Family Man and now X3).
X3 was a stuiod committee movie that epitomized what people don't like about Hollywood. They took a big property that has fans, ignored the fans (knowing they'd pay to see it anyway, b/c let's be real, comic fans are sheepish when it comes to this stuff), and sat down and put in whatever idea they liked to increase the product's marketability (getting rid of characters that are in way of the sexy name stars, making sure it is a short running time so they can sequeeze in more showings, avoid too much diaogue or depth so as to get to the SFX and action to appease mass audiences with eye candy easier), etc.
After Bryann Singer, who managed to make two quality films in the studio system that played their game but also paid homage to the material and above all else were intelligent and well made movies with heart and soul....it ish ard to swollow what essientially was a Big Mac in movie consumerism.
The Spider-Man movies have avoided becoming just a brand name (though there is no denying they are) and have some artistic merit with good acting, direction and for the most part solid, sharp writing (more the second than the first). It is likely the next director wil lbe one to hire on the fly to get that 2009 release date and that means probably a "workman" like Ratner who just does what the studio wants to get his paycheck and then they can get their's as well.
Uwe Boll? McG? Joel Shumacher?
You actually think they'll be considered? I was referring to people who actually had a shot at this.
The entire world would be in an uproar if Schumacher directed Spider-Man.
I won't even speak of the dreaded toilet Boll.
But you've got to look in the unlikely places! Before Spider-Man, how many of us would have said Sam Raimi, director of Evil Dead and Dark Man, should direct the Spider-Man movies? Barely any.
I dont know, the directing was pretty bad, things felt soooooooooooooooo rushed, the scenes sucked. In the director commentary, he took out a couple pretty good scenes, for stupid ass reasons.
No you were refering to anyone but Ratner, but they do have just as much of a shot of directing the movie as Ratner does.
Boll is universally panned and Schumacher did Batman & Robin. Ratner has a bigger shot of directing Spidey 4 than they do.
Yet, you bought the DVD?
Yea, the promblem is? I liked the movie, barely. But the directing sucked and the movie was very disappointing, and I really bought it hoping for some cool extra scenes so...
**** that, the Spider-Man franchise is buy far my favorite comic franchise. Ratner was good for Rush Hour but Ratner didn't have 40 years of comics to live up to.
RATNER Says: Gotcha!
I actually liked X3, although, I wouldn't want Ratner directing SM4. I think if they're going to get another director, in a hugely successful franchise, get someone with some really good or great movies under his belt or/and a style and talent that you know will have a better chance of delivering something great. There are other directors much better than Raimi, you just have to look for them, and not just grab the first director who wants to direct it. That's where MARVEL and SONY comes in, they need to do their part, especially MARVEL.
Maybe someone like James Cameron, or David Fincher.
But lets face it, theres a lot of directors that never made a blockbuster movie and could make a great job.
Ex:Christopher Nolan, Brian Singer, even Sam Raimi.
True. And that's just it, when I say a really good or great director, I'm not talking in terms of having a Blockbuster movie under their belt. There's plenty of qualified directors for SM4, and they don't need to be a big named director either.
Cameron was going to direct Spidey back in the 90s. He had plans of Arnold as Doc Ock.
Hey, I want Peter Jackson for everything, The Dark Knight, Wonder Woman, The Hulk 2, Dukes of Hazard 2. Say what you will, he makes a movie look good, except for the slow motion shots, I hate those, oh and I don't think Spidey would work in New Zealand.
But he can't do The Dark Knight Returns, that's gotta be Robert Rodriquez.