The Force Awakens Star Wars VII Director? - Part 1

[paladinryan]

Reasons why it will be David Fincher:

1) His first job was taking on a franchise (Alien3)
2) He loves SW, especially ESB, which he's always wanted to remake
3) He's worked with Kennedy before (remember, she said she was going to talk to people who were both enthusiastic and who she's worked with)
4) He was going to make 20,000 Leagues for Disney, but this is a much more certain money-maker, dream project. Note that he said he wanted 20,000 Leagues to be his ESB. Well, know he can really make ESB.
5) He has the SW Pedigree (having worked on ROTJ--sorry, Johnston).

And a David Fincher SW, IMO, will be great.

Star Wars Episode VI: Princess with the Hutt Tattoo :-D

 

[dude stannis]

I hope Brad Bird is just lying to throw people off the scent or something, some really good directors are passing this up if all of them are telling the truth.

There's still a chance for Jon Favreau and Matthew Vaughn.

 

[CConn]

Yknow, Brad Bird makes sense in my head, but rewatching MI4 today...I really don't think he'd be that good. It was a good movie - well paced, and acted, and whatnot - but it was pretty average looking when it came to shot composition and cinematography. And honestly, in its totality, I'd say Abhram's MI3 was LEAGUES better than MI4 when it comes to actual quality of direction.

 

[paladinryan]

There's still a chance for Jon Favreau and Matthew Vaughn.

I would rather see Verbinksi, Nolan, Fincher, Cuaron, and Aronofsky than either of those two.

 

[dude stannis]

I would rather see Verbinksi, Nolan, Fincher, Cuaron, and Aronofsky than either of those two.

I disagree on Verbinski, Nolan or Aronofsky. What about Aronofsky has shown us that he has a sense of light hearted adventure? What about Nolan has showed us he get go all out fantasy?

Verbinski made the Pirates seuqels. I instantly can't trust him.

 

[Hunter Rider]

There's still a chance for Jon Favreau and Matthew Vaughn.

I heard this in Lando being choked by Chewie voice!

Yknow, Brad Bird makes sense in my head, but rewatching MI4 today...I really don't think he'd be that good. It was a good movie - well paced, and acted, and whatnot - but it was pretty average looking when it came to shot composition and cinematography. And honestly, in its totality, I'd say Abhram's MI3 was LEAGUES better than MI4 when it comes to actual quality of direction.

I don't think the latter two matter that much as compared with the former things you mentioned, yes they matter to cinefiles but for many the former is of a much greater value.

 

[paladinryan]

Yknow, Brad Bird makes sense in my head, but rewatching MI4 today...I really don't think he'd be that good. It was a good movie - well paced, and acted, and whatnot - but it was pretty average looking when it came to shot composition and cinematography. And honestly, in its totality, I'd say Abhram's MI3 was LEAGUES better than MI4 when it comes to actual quality of direction.

I concur, sadly.

 

[dude stannis]

Bahahahaha!

Thereshhsssstillachance!

 

[paladinryan]

I disagree on Verbinski, Nolan or Aronofsky. What about Aronofsky has shown us that he has a sense of light hearted adventure? What about Nolan has showed us he get go all out fantasy?

Verbinski made the Pirates seuqels. I instantly can't trust him.

What about Kersh showed he could do ESB?

Just give me the greatest director. Don't give me someone who's worked in the fantasy genre before.

The director will adjust to the story, like Kersh did.

 

[paladinryan]

I heard this in Lando being choked by Chewie voice!

LMAO. :-D


Come on, you know you all want to see this first scene in the film:

Mark Hamill: The first rule of the Jedi Temple is--YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE JEDI TEMPLE.

 

[CConn]

I don't think the latter two matter that much as compared with the former things you mentioned, yes they matter to cinefiles but for many the former is of a much greater value.

Not particularly.

As it was just pointed out, David Yates sucked ass with the former two, yet really no one in the GA really seemed to notice.

But that aside, why should I even care what matters to the many? It's my opinion, and my taste that I'm referring to, and I would like as complete a film as possible.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Bahahahaha!

Thereshhsssstillachance!

 

[Marvolo]

Yknow, Brad Bird makes sense in my head, but rewatching MI4 today...I really don't think he'd be that good. It was a good movie - well paced, and acted, and whatnot - but it was pretty average looking when it came to shot composition and cinematography. And honestly, in its totality, I'd say Abhram's MI3 was LEAGUES better than MI4 when it comes to actual quality of direction.

I've never understood the praise MI4 gets. Don't get me wrong it isn't a bad film, but it doesn't thrill me. In fact it bores me, and most of the humor falls flat for me. I also think the pace and editing was awful. Scenes went on beyond what was necessary and some jokes felt overplayed. IDK it is one of the weirdest experiences I've ever had with a film, because it isn't a bad film, but I just don't see what is so special about it. I've never felt so out of touch with a film and its praise. At the theater it ws very meh, and everytime since it leaves me with a strong feeling of meh. Can't explain it, but I find it to be the most overated film of the last five years. For me personally that is. All this talk of Brad Bird has me really nervous, because if he was picked I would have serious misgivings about this film.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Not particularly.

As it was just pointed out, David Yates sucked ass with the former two, yet really no one in the GA really seemed to notice.

But that aside, why should I even care what matters to the many? It's my opinion, and my taste that I'm referring to, and I would like as complete a film as possible.

I'd say very much particularly.

Whoa! Ok then man, not that big a deal. For the record I've never seen Yates Potter movies so I couldn't comment on if I agreed with what was pointed out. As for shot composition, well we'd have to go more in depth than I think anyone cares to in this thread regarding MI:GP. With cinematography any director can pair up with a superior cinematographer beyond their first film.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I've never understood the praise MI4 gets. Don't get me wrong it isn't a bad film, but it doesn't thrill me. In fact it bores me, and most of the humor falls flat for me. I also think the pace and editing was awful. Scenes went on beyond what was necessary and some jokes felt overplayed. IDK it is one of the weirdest experiences I've ever had with a film, because it isn't a bad film, but I just don't see what is so special about it. I've never felt so out of touch with a film and its praise. At the theater it ws very meh, and everytime since it leaves me with a strong feeling of meh. Can't explain it, but I find it to be the most overated film of the last five years. For me personally that is. All this talk of Brad Bird has me really nervous, because if he was picked I would have serious misgivings about this film.

Our complete difference of opinion on that movie aside, who are your picks for this?

 

[The Guard]

So Bird's out (Heck, any of the directors interviewed could be lying and actually in the running). It'd be nice if Favreau would say he wasn't directing it now...

 

[Solidus]

I'm sorry for Bird, but honestly he's only done one live action film. Same reason I don't think the Colin guy should get it.

I bet it will be Fincher, Nolan, or Verbinski. Probably Fincher, since Kennedy worked with him before and he already has a relationship with Disney. Plus, he's just got a better resume than Verb (and hasn't relied on Johnny Depp to make his way).

I don't think this is a matter of directors turning down SW. I'm pretty sure they're going to get the man they want.

But he did a great job, with a huge budget. And has made over a billion dollars in BO with his three films. He has tons of experience.

 

[CConn]

I'd say very much particularly.

Whoa! Ok then man, not that big a deal. For the record I've never seen Yates Potter movies so I couldn't comment on if I agreed with what was pointed out. As for shot composition, well we'd have to go more in depth than I think anyone cares to in this thread regarding MI:GP. With cinematography any director can pair up with a superior cinematographer beyond their first film.

Hah, I didn't mean any of it that seriously.

But I do think all aspects of direction are equally important. And I think as long as you get a majority (or even a handful) of them right, the layman really doesn't seem to notice what's missing. That's why MI:GP was successful despite lacking on the visual end, and why Yates' films were still successful despite lacking with the other aspects of direction.

I do disagree that getting a new cinematographer will fix things, though. I really think it goes beyond that. I mean, for instance, I've always thought Joss Whedon made rather-cheap looking TV Shows/movies. And, despite TA having a massive budget and a totally different cinematographer from his TV shows, I still found it having his same signature visual styles that I'm not particularly into. I think it's always the director that imbibes that stuff into a film. The DP just handles the technicalities of it, the translation of the overall vision.

 

[paladinryan]

But he did a great job, with a huge budget. And has made over a billion dollars in BO with his three films. He has tons of experience.

I agree, but Nolan and Fincher just have better resumes. Even Cuaron would be a better choice.

 

[dude stannis]

What about Kersh showed he could do ESB?

Just give me the greatest director. Don't give me someone who's worked in the fantasy genre before.

The director will adjust to the story, like Kersh did.

But there's a matter of Nolan not wanting to adjust his style. If he didn't do it for a fantastical property like Batman, he wouldn't for Star Wars.

In all fairness, I'm just not high on Aronofsky to begin with.

 

[paladinryan]

But there's a matter of Nolan not wanting to adjust his style. If he didn't do it for a fantastical property like Batman, he wouldn't for Star Wars.

In all fairness, I'm just not high on Aronofsky to begin with.

Batman already was a film noir/detective/psychological/dark story before Nolan got his hands on it. Nolan's Batman films are closely intertwined with the comics, which fit Nolan's style well.

Star Wars would stretch him out more than Batman did.

And I think Aronofsky is a genius, although I can see how he annoys the heck out of people.

 

[Marvolo]

Our complete difference of opinion on that movie aside, who are your picks for this?

I'd like to hear your opinion on Ghost Protocol. Not to argue, but to hear it. I really don't know why the film doesn't click with me. One example is tis scene.

[YT]cHEBRo_Y51Y[/YT]

I find it to be completely unnecessary. I found this throughout the whole movie. Just scenes of them talking about what they were going to do rather than just doing it. I guess that's my biggest problem with the film. Needless exposition, humor that falls flat, and a lack of a sense of urgency in the pace.

I guess you could say it pays off here in a scene that aggravates me to no end! How many times does Cruise have to say jump, and how many times is renner going to hesitate!? Their is a nuclear threat and IMF is comprimised. Do your job and stop being a *****.

[YT]V63aR6WrxaE[/YT]

They could have cut the first scene, and removed this needless hesitation. Heck, they could have cut the first scene, and the second scene would have worked all the same. MI3 didn't have this problem. It didn't set you down and walk you through the plan, and then take its time executing the plan. It went straight to the plan or explained the plan's crucial point while moving through the plan. Look at the raid, and the kidnap of Davien's character. It didn't spoonfeed you details. It executed the plan and the audience just went along with it. MI3 had a constant sense of motion and urgency. MI4 felt like it had the urgency of a spa day.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Hah, I didn't mean any of it that seriously.

But I do think all aspects of direction are equally important. And I think as long as you get a majority (or even a handful) of them right, the layman really doesn't seem to notice what's missing. That's why MI:GP was successful despite lacking on the visual end, and why Yates' films were still successful despite lacking with the other aspects of direction.

I do disagree that getting a new cinematographer will fix things, though. I really think it goes beyond that. I mean, for instance, I've always thought Joss Whedon made rather-cheap looking TV Shows/movies. And, despite TA having a massive budget and a totally different cinematographer from his TV shows, I still found it having his same signature visual styles that I'm not particularly into. I think it's always the director that imbibes that stuff into a film. The DP just handles the technicalities of it, the translation of the overall vision.

Well I would have to profess to being a layman I guess as I didn't feel either The Avengers or MI:GP lacked visual flair, maybe not as distinctive as some other directors but I found both films vibrant in their shooting style and having their fair share of quality shot selection.

The cinematographer issue would be down to how willing a director was to be advised, however I think recently of Skyfall, Mendes has a great cinematographer yet IMO it was overdone in that film and the quality of the chosen camera angles was erratic so there's always room to expand and improve, and of course we also don't know how much will be shot purely on green screen.

 

[Solidus]

But there's a matter of Nolan not wanting to adjust his style. If he didn't do it for a fantastical property like Batman, he wouldn't for Star Wars.

In all fairness, I'm just not high on Aronofsky to begin with.

Sorry , Batman's "fantasy" is a far away in a lot of aspects to Star Wars. You say he does not want to change his style? You have no idea of that and are just claiming that. Sorry he based his Batman off of legitimate sources that treated Batman the same way. Batman has had many different versions in it's comic property, from really gritty/realistic crime stuff, to very fantasy based. So saying that he did not stay true to the material is not true at all.

I just tire of this Nolan can't do anything different. Maybe he can't, but I still think saying that with 100% certainty is just wrong. I have a feeling for Star Wars he could. But again I'd still prefer someone else.

 

[dude stannis]

I wasn't criticising the guy. It's just beyond obvious by this point that he's not interested in fantasy. If he does one I'll eat Werner Herzog's shoe.