Which is more important?

WTH?...I thought we've talked about both aspects equally...It's just that we'd focus more on a certain thing depending on the latest news...

Personally, I'm more worried about the actors more than the director...But in terms of importance...Well, I'll have to think about that one for a second..

-TNC

 

A good director is essential...halle berry can always be replaced...

 

A good director-yes,but without good written material to work with it can still end up crap(crossing my fingers zak penn isn't a complete idiot).As for big name actors,not needed if you have a good movie.

 

I don't know which is more important. But the closest is the cast for me. However, as of right now it seems like people think the cast is more important than a new director.
When they talk about the confirmed writers they only talk about their flaws in previous films they've written. That kind of worries me too.

Regarding the talk about James Marsden being fired b/c he took a role in Superman Returns; another thing could be that he apparently lost interest in returning for X3. Maybe this is why he hasn't said anything since B.S. departed. I guess B.S. leaving was too much for him. I remember James Marsden had only talked about coming back for X3 while B.S. was still said to be onboard. It's like if Fox doesn't want back the former director of x-men, than they don't want back the actor that joined him either. It seems like Fox is the kind of film company that says, "Ya snooze, ya lose."

 

^Fox had a schedule to keep, and Bryan Singer knew this. I'm sure he knew things wouldn't go nicely when he left for WB. He went from having a contract with Fox with his production company, to be bought out by WB, who's now put him in a production/ development contract. Singer is stuck with WB for at least the next three/four years, because he already has three films to direct for them. Even if Fox wanted him back, there's just no way now. I don't know about this James Marsden mess. On the internet, things can get interpreted the wrong way. Like you said, maybe he just didn't want to be involved with X3, if Singer wasn't there? Maybe he wasn't fired? That whole report on Marsden just seemed like good speculation on that website's part

I never thought I would say something like this, but I think think the cast returning, and the script is more important than the director right now. The greatest director can't turn a crappy script into gold, and the greatest director can't make a good X-Men film with 50% of the original cast gone...IMO, to justify it as being an X3. Maybe if this was an X4, or a spin-off, and we already got an X3 with closure to the characters we know and love, it'd work...but not for X3, IMO.

But then, the director sort of brings in the cast, and visualizes the script in motion. 'fallen Angel', I'm not sure either.

 

A good script and a good director is like a symbiotic relationship,one can't live without the other.

 

Probably the screenplay.

I've seen too many weak sequels with the original cast and director but a screenplay that is just a warmed-over version of the original.

I've seen good sequels with a new director.

I'm struggling to find an example where recasting has worked well. [I prefered Timothy Dalton to Roger Moore as Bond, but Bond seems to defy all the rules on quality.]

People spend more time discussing actors than directors because it's easier.

 

I am not too concerned with the director b/c he or she will be given the chance to change the x-men. Or at least give their creativity input or aspect to the movie. However, I do hope the scripted is good and that everyone has a larger role than the last two movies. Also, I am hoping that Wolverine doesn't steal the movie or show like it has been in the past two movies either.

 

Well, not everyone needs to come back, and a capable director could retool the script into an excellent movie even if the script isn't great from the get go.

 

Dman it! We need a good script, what the hell's the point of having all the actor's, and The greatest Director of all time if the script sucks?

 

If he's a great director, he'll probably be able to turn that bad script into something good..

-TNC

 

I think we need the actors back. If the director is lacking than hopefully our cast can make up for it. My Dad used to tell me that a good waitress can always make up for a bad meal (I think it works here)

Also, the script I'm sure will be fine. Just as long as we don't get X-Men in space I'll be cool with it.

I think if we have new actors taking the already established roles it will mess with my head , in turn causing me to make meaningless threads.

For your sakes...........pray it does'nt happen

 

This is a rather silly thread.

It's like saying - which is most important for a cake: the eggs or the flour or the sugar? or which is most important for that piece of music - the strings or the drums or the keyboards?

All these things are needed. It's the correct combination that creates it.

 

No!...

Everyone knows that the flour and strings make up the best musical cakes!..

-TNC

 

Very true

 

There should be an "all of the above" option

 

I say director. The director is the main one who'll be accredited if the film does well or blamed if it doesn't. Plus, he can fix weaknesses in the cast and/or script.

 

i said all of the above, a capable director, good script and all major cast returning.

 

all the choices are important, but i voted on the cast, b/c if you think about it, the cast right now is pretty talented to begin with, and i think they could make up for a subpar script/director (not that i want those things to happen either )

 

you need all of them, obviously. but i think a script is most important, after all you've got to listen to it.

 

Good acting will never atone for a bad script.

 

^You realize that you just bumped a thread from a year ago right?