Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Score: If not Franke then who?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spoo Junky
    replied
    If Beck doesn't do the job the way JMS wants, JMS could fire him and take over.... just like Spielberg did with Poltergeist.

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkerCaste
    replied
    I'm obviously not an expert, but I always got the impression that JMS, for all his control, didn't want directors that were simply technicians. I remembered some posts talking about how he worked with directors, did a search, and found this gem.

    http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-11601

    In it he mentions writing mostly in master shots, and having the directors take it from there. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll get good direction, but can't offer any real opinions since I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Becks work, his potential, or even if he's the final answer. I don't think, though, that you can have a great movie unless the director is at the very least pretty good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garibaldi's Hair
    replied
    Originally posted by DysfunctionalReality
    The B5 series did well enough with directors who may have not had quite the same vision or experience as some of those in the film industry, though they were competent enough to get the job done and help make B5 the success that it was.
    But TV and film are completely different. With a TV show, you can get away (to an extent) with less visionary directors because, e.g. in the case of B5, a story is being told over the long term using a number of different directors - with those who best capture the creator's vision tending to direct more episodes (Mike Vejar, Janet Greek etc.).

    With a movie you have basically two hours or so to grab your audience by the hair and pull them into your story.

    I think this really does amount to a matter of personal taste; what is it that defines a good movie? Does the directing have to be brilliant/near perfect for a film to succeed in telling a story? It really is all a matter of opinion.
    I disagree. Telling a story is not all a movie is about - for a movie to really work it has to have some sort of "WOW!" factor. That element that makes you walk out of the theatre thinking "That was great, I want to see that again". Which is why some of your no-brainer action movies can be huge box office hits - they might have no actual story whatsoever, but the action set pieces or FX give them that "WOW!" factor in spades and puts bums on seats night after night.

    If a movie just tells a story without that factor, then it will be just that - a story - which is not why I go to the theatre to watch a movie. Doesn't matter how good that story might be, the end result is inevitably underwhelming.

    A TV show can get away with that becaue not every episode needs to have that "WOW!" factor to keep its audience watching from week to week.

    Besides, I know nothing about film-making and colonyearth does it for a living, so I am happy to defer to his greater wisdom in these matters.

    Last edited by Garibaldi's Hair; 02-11-2005, 03:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    Personally, I'd take his very well argued opinion over your weak and understated facts any day.

    Leave a comment:


  • DysfunctionalReality
    replied
    Originally posted by colonyearth
    Historically, directors for hire have made crap...period. The best they usually turn out is mediocre.
    CE
    ....in your own opinion.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact

    Leave a comment:


  • colonyearth
    replied
    Originally posted by DysfunctionalReality
    The director is only one of the elements that go into making a film.

    The B5 series did well enough with directors who may have not had quite the same vision or experience as some of those in the film industry, though they were competent enough to get the job done and help make B5 the success that it was.

    Can we say the music, acting and visual presentation was consistantly top-notch? Not even close.

    I think this really does amount to a matter of personal taste; what is it that defines a good movie? Does the directing have to be brilliant/near perfect for a film to succeed in telling a story? It really is all a matter of opinion.
    Film is a director's medium. Historically, directors for hire have made crap...period. The best they usually turn out is mediocre.

    Opinion only weighs the most minute amount on it.

    CE

    Leave a comment:


  • DysfunctionalReality
    replied
    The director is only one of the elements that go into making a film.

    The B5 series did well enough with directors who may have not had quite the same vision or experience as some of those in the film industry, though they were competent enough to get the job done and help make B5 the success that it was.

    Can we say the music, acting and visual presentation was consistantly top-notch? Not even close.

    I think this really does amount to a matter of personal taste; what is it that defines a good movie? Does the directing have to be brilliant/near perfect for a film to succeed in telling a story? It really is all a matter of opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • colonyearth
    replied
    The only problem with what you're saying, grumbler, is this: there is no such beast as a good film with a "technical director" as you call it. You have to have a director who knows how to direct, not just put cameras in a spot and say, "act." Just look at the new SW films with Lucas directing for how well that works.

    The only times a "hired gun" director has turned out a great or even good film is when that hired gun turned out to be a talent no one expected or a newby trying to prove him or herself (such as Spielberg or even Nick Meyer on ST II, who had directed a good film before that and showed the talent, unlike Beck).

    By his own record, Beck is not a natural talent nor a director who's trying to prove his talent. He's a hired gun in the worst sense...a bigger paycheck. And such directors do not make good films..even with visionaries behind them like JMS. It's just not how things work. What you're saying sounds good, but simply is not reality.

    To have a good or great film...you need a director with a vision and the talent to direct (which is more than just putting a camera somewhere and saying, "go!") People who don't make films don't understand what goes into it. The director must have a vision for the film and a passion to make a great film. A good director, who knows how to direct, can marry that vision with someone like JMS' and make it even better...that's how a real director works...and they know how to draw out the best performances from any actor...which again, Beck has no clue how to do.

    For a clue on how a director works and can make a difference, watch MULHOLLAND DRIVE sometime and pay attention to the actress and how she reads her lines in the film when she's rehearsing with her friend and then how she performs them once she's been directed at the audition...it's a glimpse into the difference a real director can make.

    Beck...simply and undoubtedly...is a terrible choice and causes me to be concerned for this film.

    As I've said, if TMoS turns out to be a good film, it will be in spite of Beck...not because of him.

    CE

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Originally posted by colonyearth
    In all honesty, Beck (if he's trully slated to direct) is a director for hire only and will most likely not have a great deal of control over such things as composer or other major issues. He's there to do the job of a director and plan the film out visually...that's about it. In most cases like this, the director is not that good or is hired because he's new and needs some time to prove himself.
    Yes, this is the impression I got - that JMS was not figured to get along with a competing "vision," and so they hired a technician to carry out JMS's vision. The question is whether or not JMS has the vision to visualize on the scale of a feature film. On that rests the quality of the film, if they have a mere technician directing.

    Rarely does this bring about an impactful film, with a few obvious exceptions (Spielberg was a director for hire on JAWS and went that extra couple of hundred miles to prove himself worthy). Beck, on the other hand, is an FX man, who directs because there's more money in it...a vastly different beast...much like Stuart Baird and many Directors of Photography who aren't very good directors, except on some technical level, but who direct to get a bigger paycheck (many of them admit this freely -- which pisses people like me off, who really want to direct because we're directors).
    But we have always hung our hopes on JMS for an impactful film, no? In that case, the less presence the director has, the better (so long as things get on film properly enough to be turned into a good film during Post). If this film (or any film in the B5iverse) depends on a director for its vision and impact, it is already a failure in my eyes.

    In this case, Beck is a hired gun to fulfill a producer's vision, so the main decisions will remain in the hands of JMS and the others most likely.
    Whoo-hoo! I like the way that sounds!

    This is why I'm very leary of why they named Beck and why I think it's a bad call on the part of the new producers (who are most likely the ones who hired him). B5 needed a true director who's out to prove something but who could remain true to B5 and its vision while bringing something vast and special to the table...not a "yes" man...which even by Beck's own words in interviews I've read with him, he is. He takes what he's given and does what he's told and never asks for bigger or better. This, to me, is not good.
    I think you are probably asking too much to have a director 'with vision" who is willing to subordnate his vision to that of a mere writer, even if the writer is also a producer. I like the idea of a director who is a Straczinski lackey, because then the responsibility for the success or failure of the film will be right where it belongs.

    I know directors don't like to hear that, but PJ pretty much convinced me that director/producers are asses when it comes to the works of others - no matter how commercially successful.

    Leave a comment:


  • colonyearth
    replied
    If you mean a co-director...I would seriously doubt it. The one hope I have is that when (notice I said "when") the original cast does return...at least they know their respective characters so well, they won't need tons of direction. That, of course, still leaves the problem of new actors and characters who will need direction and help with the B5 universe. Perhaps when the original cast returns, they can help any newbies with a lot of it.

    But a good director, to me, was and is still an absolute necessity.

    CE

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    Originally posted by colonyearth
    {snip}In this case, Beck is a hired gun to fulfill a producer's vision, so the main decisions will remain in the hands of JMS and the others most likely. This is why I'm very leary of why they named Beck and why I think it's a bad call on the part of the new producers (who are most likely the ones who hired him). B5 needed a true director who's out to prove something but who could remain true to B5 and its vision while bringing something vast and special to the table...not a "yes" man...which even by Beck's own words in interviews I've read with him, he is. He takes what he's given and does what he's told and never asks for bigger or better. This, to me, is not good.
    Any chance that they will bring in a deputy director to do the human scenes with Beck doing the FX scenes?

    Leave a comment:


  • colonyearth
    replied
    In all honesty, Beck (if he's trully slated to direct) is a director for hire only and will most likely not have a great deal of control over such things as composer or other major issues. He's there to do the job of a director and plan the film out visually...that's about it. In most cases like this, the director is not that good or is hired because he's new and needs some time to prove himself.

    Rarely does this bring about an impactful film, with a few obvious exceptions (Spielberg was a director for hire on JAWS and went that extra couple of hundred miles to prove himself worthy). Beck, on the other hand, is an FX man, who directs because there's more money in it...a vastly different beast...much like Stuart Baird and many Directors of Photography who aren't very good directors, except on some technical level, but who direct to get a bigger paycheck (many of them admit this freely -- which pisses people like me off, who really want to direct because we're directors).

    In this case, Beck is a hired gun to fulfill a producer's vision, so the main decisions will remain in the hands of JMS and the others most likely. This is why I'm very leary of why they named Beck and why I think it's a bad call on the part of the new producers (who are most likely the ones who hired him). B5 needed a true director who's out to prove something but who could remain true to B5 and its vision while bringing something vast and special to the table...not a "yes" man...which even by Beck's own words in interviews I've read with him, he is. He takes what he's given and does what he's told and never asks for bigger or better. This, to me, is not good.

    CE

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Originally posted by NivenPournelle
    No Director wants to work with a dogmatic Producer. "This is your Composer, you have no choice in the matter."
    Yep, that is one of the most worrying things about getting this beastie to fly, frankly. Directors are notorious for not giving a rat's ass about how their inferiors (i.e. all other humans on earth) conceptualize things, as the visions of anyone other than themselves (and a handful of respected peers) is by definition faulty. See: Peter Jackson's vast improvement of JRR Tolkien's lackluster tale.

    Can you see JMS swallowing this fact of Hollywood? No director wants to work with a dogmatic producer, and there are few producers as dogmatic as JMS re: B5. After all, on this topic, JMS wrote the dogma.

    Leave a comment:


  • DysfunctionalReality
    replied
    Franke - anything else would be sacriledge. Utter sacriledge.

    I wouldn't mind Evan Chen myself, but given a project of this size, it would be one heck of a chance to take (again?). I'd pay money to see the kind of net reaction it would generate though.

    Leave a comment:


  • NivenPournelle
    replied
    Still, at least you can wistle JW's scores (think JAWS, any Star Wars film, Ind Jones, Superman et al), when was the last time you could say that of.....mmm, how about Danny Ellfman? Can anyone here hum/wistle EITHER of the 2 Spiderman themes, or maybe his HULK theme? The last time Ellfman produced a memorable theme was BATMAN. To my mind still his best piece.
    [/B]
    Batman was superb, but one of the problems with The Hulk (which i think is a far better film than people deserved) was that Ang Lee didn't want a classic 'Elfman' score, so he pushed Elfman to explore other area's, which resulted in one of his best score's yet.

    As for someone other than Franke, bear in mind that the Director also has input. If Steve Beck could say "Sorry, i understand why you want to go with Franke but i feel we could try something a little more adventurous."

    No Director wants to work with a dogmatic Producer. "This is your Composer, you have no choice in the matter."
    Last edited by NivenPournelle; 02-06-2005, 06:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X