And so I don't have to re-type it, here is my take on directors and such for TMoS as stated over at B5tv:
Ok....time for the filmmaker to weigh in on a few things here. First of all, JDM is right on aspect ratios. There are two standard ratios in practice today, 1.85:1 (Flat) and 2.35:1 (Scope). Spielberg used to shoot in Scope until "E.T", after which he predominantly started shooting in Flat (though I'm a big Scope fan myself, I feel it gives a film a broader and more epic canvas, making it feel wider like the horizon and thus grander in scale and feel). This is why LOTR was shot in 2.35:1 to give it that epic feel(and yes it was 2.35:1...period). This is why Spielberg returned to Scope for "Schindler's List" as well.
The fact that JMS hints at a 2.35:1 ratio gives me the impression that they are looking at Scope for the film, which means they're going for a grand epic feel and look. This is a wonderful sign.
As for the director's ego. Yes, that can be a problem, but it can also be an asset, if you find the right director. Whether it's TV or film, a director will always bring their own vision to the project, period. The trick is finding a director who shares the main vision but who can bring his own style and approach in such a way that it complements the story. I feel pretty confident that JMS has contracted many "controls" over this project. I'm also fairly confident that he won't just be the screenwriter on this but a Producer as well, therefore giving him a great deal of power on the set and over the production and over choice of director and other lead crew and supporting cast, etc.
A good producer will work closely as a team with a director. In Hollywood today, the producer and the director (unless your Spielberg or Scorsese and even then they still are), are a team these days...trying to work in tandem to create the best film. This is the goal at least. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't...that's why I'm certain JMS will do his best to find the right man for job. Someone who will respect JMS's vision and still have his own with which to complement it. If you try to control or limit any director's vision for a film, then it's over...shut the project down because it will end up terrible. Film is a collaborative medium and the best directors out there are the ones who either have a great talent at taking their vision and collaborating seamlessly with his cast and crew to foster extreme creativity on the set, or is someone like Kubrick who's vision was so solid in his head he simply expected people to do as he asked and trust him. Few directors have reached the genius of Kubrick, and the level of respect and awe he fostered in those around him though.
So as to letting a TV director take the reigns...I would really be a lot more leery of that than finding a proven and visionary feature director who loved and respected JMS's work and wanted to enhance that vision with his own. A few examples of TV directors going big screen are David Carson (ST: Generations), Jonathan Frakes (ST: First Contact and ST: Insurrection), and Rob Bowman (X-Files). The one thing all of these films have in common, is that they were all touted as feeling like two hour eps. on the big screen. Directing TV is a vastly different beast than features. The pacing and the vision are completely different. Besides, a TV director, being given his "big break" notoriously is afraid to ask for vital things he needs and to push the envelope of vision and scope and will accept less when he shouldn't because he doesn't have the clout to demand what he could and should demand from the studio, from the actors, from everyone. No, Vejar is an ok TV director, as is Greek and the others, but trust me...while I respect their work in B5, they are not ready to nor should they direct this feature. This has to work big and feel big. It's too risky to let a TV director take the reigns. Besides, as a director I can truly say that the times I find myself cringing at a bad performance in B5 it is usually due in one form or another to a poor directoral decision. A great director has the ability to draw performances from actors that others can't.
Example: Watch Hayden Cristianson in "Life as a House" and then watch him in "SW: AotC." The first performance is phenomenal the second is weak and aimless and missing passion. Do I blame an actor who I know is capable of a great performance? Or do I blame the director who commanded that weaker performance and didn't know how to tap into the actor's talent? Answer: I blame the director.
Compare Ewan McGregor's performances in "Moulin Rouge" and "SW." One is incredible, the other is plain and hollow.
Nicholas Meyer knew how to draw the best performance from Shatner which is why ST II and ST VI are two of the best. Nimoy discovered better how to do so by ST IV, but wasn't as capable in ST III, which was his first feature by the way.
Watch David Lynch's "Mullholland Drive." In that film there is a place where a character who's an actress performs the same scene two different ways and it will illustrate the power and influence a great director has.
A great director can even illicit a great performance from a lesser actor, or can find that talent that before was hidden and the actor feared to open up to the world. Nope. A TV director just doesn't have that level of influence and doesn't command that level of insight into the feature format and pacing and structure nor does he have that immense respect he will need to allow the cast to trust him and his vision.
As for DP, again, JMS must hire a great feature film cinematographer. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the quality of lighting and look. And DP can change ratios and still be great or suck. It makes no difference on the talent or knowledge. It's the director who will or won't know how to use the Scope frame to its fullest, the DP is simply there to make sure it's done. The DP is the master in charge of the look and feel of the image itself and he must work closely and in tandem with the director who must also have a grasp on his vision from moment to moment and frame to frame and be capable of communicating that vision to the DP (and everyone for that matter). While Flinn did some good work on the series, JMS needs to find a great feature DP for "TMoS." Otherwise it will end up looking like an ep. on the big screen. Feature lighting is very different and much more complex.
As for Franke...given more time (which he will have) and more money (which he will have) and the opportunity to compose for a full orchestra (which he will have), he is the one person behind the camera (other than JMS, himself) who I believe has the ability to move to the big screen. His talent is wondrous and I have faith that he would deliver a fantastic score. However, that being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if WB and JMS didn't try to get someone with epic scoring abilities like Howard or Horner or Shore. If they've decided on an epic LOTR scale feel (which my instincts tell me they have and are going to try for), then they're going to want a composer who can deliver one without question.
Remember, this will be B5 on the big screen, epic in size and scope. It will have to be bigger than it ever has before to pull it off and find a wider audience. It will have to have a newer, grander look and feel. JMS, though loyal to crew, will have to admit this to himself, and go for what's best for the project if this is going to be a success on the scale it needs to be. It's how I would approach it and it's how WB and JMS will have to approach it if they're smart. They don't want to make the horrible mistakes that ST did with the TNG films (mainly by bringing all if the TV people to the features...they were out of their element and didn't understand big screen feel).
B5 has to leap to a higher level now. And TV folk just aren't going to be up to the challenge and worth the risk they're taking here. History has proven it. Rarely are TV people able to instantly or ever make the leap to features and be praised for it and draw large audiences. It's not going to be worth the risk and JMS has to accept that.
Continued on next post.....
Ok....time for the filmmaker to weigh in on a few things here. First of all, JDM is right on aspect ratios. There are two standard ratios in practice today, 1.85:1 (Flat) and 2.35:1 (Scope). Spielberg used to shoot in Scope until "E.T", after which he predominantly started shooting in Flat (though I'm a big Scope fan myself, I feel it gives a film a broader and more epic canvas, making it feel wider like the horizon and thus grander in scale and feel). This is why LOTR was shot in 2.35:1 to give it that epic feel(and yes it was 2.35:1...period). This is why Spielberg returned to Scope for "Schindler's List" as well.
The fact that JMS hints at a 2.35:1 ratio gives me the impression that they are looking at Scope for the film, which means they're going for a grand epic feel and look. This is a wonderful sign.
As for the director's ego. Yes, that can be a problem, but it can also be an asset, if you find the right director. Whether it's TV or film, a director will always bring their own vision to the project, period. The trick is finding a director who shares the main vision but who can bring his own style and approach in such a way that it complements the story. I feel pretty confident that JMS has contracted many "controls" over this project. I'm also fairly confident that he won't just be the screenwriter on this but a Producer as well, therefore giving him a great deal of power on the set and over the production and over choice of director and other lead crew and supporting cast, etc.
A good producer will work closely as a team with a director. In Hollywood today, the producer and the director (unless your Spielberg or Scorsese and even then they still are), are a team these days...trying to work in tandem to create the best film. This is the goal at least. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't...that's why I'm certain JMS will do his best to find the right man for job. Someone who will respect JMS's vision and still have his own with which to complement it. If you try to control or limit any director's vision for a film, then it's over...shut the project down because it will end up terrible. Film is a collaborative medium and the best directors out there are the ones who either have a great talent at taking their vision and collaborating seamlessly with his cast and crew to foster extreme creativity on the set, or is someone like Kubrick who's vision was so solid in his head he simply expected people to do as he asked and trust him. Few directors have reached the genius of Kubrick, and the level of respect and awe he fostered in those around him though.
So as to letting a TV director take the reigns...I would really be a lot more leery of that than finding a proven and visionary feature director who loved and respected JMS's work and wanted to enhance that vision with his own. A few examples of TV directors going big screen are David Carson (ST: Generations), Jonathan Frakes (ST: First Contact and ST: Insurrection), and Rob Bowman (X-Files). The one thing all of these films have in common, is that they were all touted as feeling like two hour eps. on the big screen. Directing TV is a vastly different beast than features. The pacing and the vision are completely different. Besides, a TV director, being given his "big break" notoriously is afraid to ask for vital things he needs and to push the envelope of vision and scope and will accept less when he shouldn't because he doesn't have the clout to demand what he could and should demand from the studio, from the actors, from everyone. No, Vejar is an ok TV director, as is Greek and the others, but trust me...while I respect their work in B5, they are not ready to nor should they direct this feature. This has to work big and feel big. It's too risky to let a TV director take the reigns. Besides, as a director I can truly say that the times I find myself cringing at a bad performance in B5 it is usually due in one form or another to a poor directoral decision. A great director has the ability to draw performances from actors that others can't.
Example: Watch Hayden Cristianson in "Life as a House" and then watch him in "SW: AotC." The first performance is phenomenal the second is weak and aimless and missing passion. Do I blame an actor who I know is capable of a great performance? Or do I blame the director who commanded that weaker performance and didn't know how to tap into the actor's talent? Answer: I blame the director.
Compare Ewan McGregor's performances in "Moulin Rouge" and "SW." One is incredible, the other is plain and hollow.
Nicholas Meyer knew how to draw the best performance from Shatner which is why ST II and ST VI are two of the best. Nimoy discovered better how to do so by ST IV, but wasn't as capable in ST III, which was his first feature by the way.
Watch David Lynch's "Mullholland Drive." In that film there is a place where a character who's an actress performs the same scene two different ways and it will illustrate the power and influence a great director has.
A great director can even illicit a great performance from a lesser actor, or can find that talent that before was hidden and the actor feared to open up to the world. Nope. A TV director just doesn't have that level of influence and doesn't command that level of insight into the feature format and pacing and structure nor does he have that immense respect he will need to allow the cast to trust him and his vision.
As for DP, again, JMS must hire a great feature film cinematographer. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with the quality of lighting and look. And DP can change ratios and still be great or suck. It makes no difference on the talent or knowledge. It's the director who will or won't know how to use the Scope frame to its fullest, the DP is simply there to make sure it's done. The DP is the master in charge of the look and feel of the image itself and he must work closely and in tandem with the director who must also have a grasp on his vision from moment to moment and frame to frame and be capable of communicating that vision to the DP (and everyone for that matter). While Flinn did some good work on the series, JMS needs to find a great feature DP for "TMoS." Otherwise it will end up looking like an ep. on the big screen. Feature lighting is very different and much more complex.
As for Franke...given more time (which he will have) and more money (which he will have) and the opportunity to compose for a full orchestra (which he will have), he is the one person behind the camera (other than JMS, himself) who I believe has the ability to move to the big screen. His talent is wondrous and I have faith that he would deliver a fantastic score. However, that being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if WB and JMS didn't try to get someone with epic scoring abilities like Howard or Horner or Shore. If they've decided on an epic LOTR scale feel (which my instincts tell me they have and are going to try for), then they're going to want a composer who can deliver one without question.
Remember, this will be B5 on the big screen, epic in size and scope. It will have to be bigger than it ever has before to pull it off and find a wider audience. It will have to have a newer, grander look and feel. JMS, though loyal to crew, will have to admit this to himself, and go for what's best for the project if this is going to be a success on the scale it needs to be. It's how I would approach it and it's how WB and JMS will have to approach it if they're smart. They don't want to make the horrible mistakes that ST did with the TNG films (mainly by bringing all if the TV people to the features...they were out of their element and didn't understand big screen feel).
B5 has to leap to a higher level now. And TV folk just aren't going to be up to the challenge and worth the risk they're taking here. History has proven it. Rarely are TV people able to instantly or ever make the leap to features and be praised for it and draw large audiences. It's not going to be worth the risk and JMS has to accept that.
Continued on next post.....
Comment