Wednesday Numbers | Official Estimates: Magic Mike XXL - 9.3M; Terminator: Genisys - 8.9M

[zackzack]

How many chances does Alan Taylor get?

And why does he get so many chances?

 

What chances? 

[Plain Old Tele]

Theres a difference between an accidentally bad movie that just didn't turn out well(it happens a lot), and a bad movie turning out bad because the people involved either suck or aren't taking the material very seriously.  Terminator Genitals is just batshit mess, it makes up its own rules as it goes along, its stilted, and dips into self parody quite a bit.

But you have no idea whether they suck (they've done quality stuff before, so in all likelihood they don't) or that they didn't take the material seriously. You just have the end result -- which might be a complete mess. But again, that has nothing to do with talent, effort, intent, etc.

[AniNate]

I'm not even a huge Alan Taylor fan, but y'all aren't being particularly fair to him. I know to movie fans, all of these projects and people play out kinda like fantasy sports, but the reality is that Taylor is a solid and competent director who's had some great success in TV and much less (so far) in movies. At a guess, he'll either return to premium/high profile TV projects, or he'll work on other film projects that aren't at a tentpole level.

 

I don't have anything against him personally, but his hiring is an indication of the direction the production intended to go. Being a tv guy he's used to being a yes man and working in accordance with someone else's vision. He doesn't have the freedom to make his own.

[Gopher]

I'm not even a huge Alan Taylor fan, but y'all aren't being particularly fair to him. I know to movie fans, all of these projects and people play out kinda like fantasy sports, but the reality is that Taylor is a solid and competent director who's had some great success in TV and much less (so far) in movies. At a guess, he'll either return to premium/high profile TV projects, or he'll work on other film projects that aren't at a tentpole level.

Alan Taylor is a talented dude. Which isn't to say he was particularly right for Thor or Terminator, or that either of those projects were conceived on good terms, but you don't direct the freaking pilot of Mad Men without knowing a thing or two.

[grey ghost]

What chances?

Thor 2 and Terminator Genesys.

[zackzack]

How many chances does Alan Taylor get?

And why does he get so many chances?

 

Look at the so-so JW. Other than the dinos & Pratt's presence, what else is there?

JW mostly writes & shoots itself, and Spielberg's around to supervise.

How many chances does Colin Trevorrow get?

JW & Trevorrow get a pass because the dinos made $500M so far.

Credit the T5 team for doing something different but they shoot

themselves in the foot for turning Connor into a villain.

Even if it works, it's a turn-off for the GA

[baumer]

One thing that kind of ticks me off at times is when people say that there was no effort put into the film.  Even if the film doesn't turn out well, (as Tele says), I know there was a lot of effort put in by everyone.  

 

I have worked on two films, one as an actor, and one behind the scenes, doing PA work, and I have been a PA on about a dozen commercials filmed in Toronto.  As an actor on a $10,000 budgeted film, I was there for 14 hours a day at times.  I watched the directors and the crew work hard and work long and they gave it everything they had.  As a PA on commercials, the ones that are 30 seconds long, I would sometimes spend 16 hours a day on the set.  No one mailed it in.  There was a budget, time constraints, daylight issues and so on.  

 

To say people don't try is ludicrous.  It might not turn out beautifully, but one thing about the film/tv industry is that there isn't a lot of half assed efforts imo.

[Plain Old Tele]

I don't have anything against him personally, but his hiring is an indication of the direction the production intended to go. Being a tv guy he's used to being a yes man and working in accordance with someone else's vision. He doesn't have the freedom to make his own.

I think perhaps you're drawing some unreasonable conclusions here. If you're thinking that they should've gone with a writer/director who had a singular vision for the project, I wouldn't necessarily disagree... but there are any number of reasons why that didn't happen. If you're a good collaborator as a director, then working closely with the screenwriter to create a mutual vision isn't automatically a bad thing either. Sometimes things just don't quite work out. Sometimes you have a vision and somehow it just didn't quite translate the way everyone thought it would. Sometimes you go through production and the pieces feel right, and then in the edit bay you realize it's not coming together in the right way; you might try to reinvent it in post and it becomes this new, unwieldy thing.

I'm not arguing against the quality of the movie -- I haven't seen it. But attributing all of it to a lack of talent or care or interest or investment isn't really the right approach, IMO. If it were possible to guarantee at least a solid, robust success by analyzing the talent involved, then shitty movies would never be made.

[Gopher]

I don't have anything against him personally, but his hiring is an indication of the direction the production intended to go. Being a tv guy he's used to being a yes man and working in accordance with someone else's vision. He doesn't have the freedom to make his own.

Taylor himself said that he was given complete freedom with Thor 2 while shooting and was then kicked out of the editing room and they reshot a lot of material (my guess is that he planned to keep Loki dead, among other things Marvel later changed). When that happens the film just isn't his anymore. I'm sure TS was a better situation but the studio not telling him how they were going to show the whole twist of his movie in marketing seems like it wasn't smooth sailing with this one either.

I'm with Tele on this-- he might be good for film, he might be bad, it's kind of hard to tell between two entirely producer-led franchise films.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Gopher

[ddddeeee]

It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the comedy in TDW was added after initial shooting and Marvel fired his initial composer choice.

 

OTOH they added a lot more Loki which is what people like most about that movie so...

Edited July 3, 2015 by ddddeeee

[baumer]

Another thing is, a lot of us, myself included, at times, think we really know what goes on during a shoot, or in a boardroom and so on.  But unless we have actually been on a set or in that room, we really have no idea.  Tele does, obviously.  I have some very very very minimal experience and I don't think we truly understand how much of a collaberative effort it really is.  Yes, the director has final say in what is put in the can but there are so many people that help in this process.  

 

We're just a bunch of nerds playing fantasy studio exec.

[The Futurist]

One thing that kind of ticks me off at times is when people say that there was no effort put into the film.  Even if the film doesn't turn out well, (as Tele says), I know there was a lot of effort put in by everyone.  

 

I have worked on two films, one as an actor, and one behind the scenes, doing PA work, and I have been a PA on about a dozen commercials filmed in Toronto.  As an actor on a $10,000 budgeted film, I was there for 14 hours a day at times.  I watched the directors and the crew work hard and work long and they gave it everything they had.  As a PA on commercials, the ones that are 30 seconds long, I would sometimes spend 16 hours a day on the set.  No one mailed it in.  There was a budget, time constraints, daylight issues and so on.  

 

To say people don't try is ludicrous.  It might not turn out beautifully, but one thing about the film/tv industry is that there isn't a lot of half assed efforts imo.

 

Yes to all of this.

 

I have no doubt that ALL films are made with the best intentions, even Brett Ratner or Uwe Boll movies.

People don't get up in the morning thinking : " hey, let s try to make an awful 170m Terminator movie, could be fun, let s get lazy without even trying "

Awful misconceptions.

 

Good movies are often happy accidents.

Edited July 3, 2015 by The Futurist

[Ozymandias]

But you have no idea whether they suck (they've done quality stuff before, so in all likelihood they don't) or that they didn't take the material seriously. You just have the end result -- which might be a complete mess. But again, that has nothing to do with talent, effort, intent, etc.

 

Well I just didn't get the feeling that the people making this movie were passionate about it at all, its just way too all over the place and its intentionally silly in the worst ways.  Like even winking at the audience silly sometimes.  I literally can't explain what happened in this fucking movie, lol.  In comparison, Terminator 3 is a movie a lot of don't like for its story, but its the only non-Cameron Terminator movie that has a coherent story and is competently directed with momentum.

[baumer]

Yes to all of this.

 

I have no doubt that ALL films are made with the best intentions, even Brett Ratner or Uwe Boll movies.

People don't get up in the morning thinking : " hey, let s try to make an awful 170m Terminator movie, could be fun, let s get lazy without even trying "

Awful misconceptions.

 

Good movies are often happy accidents.

 

As much as I love Jaws, there was a lot of luck involved in that as well.  

[zackzack]

But you have no idea whether they suck (they've done quality stuff before, so in all likelihood they don't) or that they didn't take the material seriously. You just have the end result -- which might be a complete mess. But again, that has nothing to do with talent, effort, intent, etc.

 

Talent alone is not enough

 

Cameron made The Abyss, passion project that is plagued by production problems .Even though the CGI is ground breaking, the 2 leads put up a very strong performances, and the action is still Cameron at his best, but the movie suffers from a rather bland, preachy, anti-climactic 3rd act. 

 

Michael Mann did Blackhat. This is the guy who did Heat, Collateral, Miami Vice Series, Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans, Insider. What could go wrong? 

Some people are just semi-retired. And they probably took some project for mind exercise or to keep themselves busy.

 

Scorsese never made a boring  movie. But his last few ones: Gangs of New York, Aviator, Wolf of Wall St, and especially Departed, do not contain his passion for filmmaking he showed in Goodfellas, Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.

 

Who runs Skydance again? Viacom which owns Paramount has a new CEO, a lawyer, since 2006 when Sumner Redstone stepped down.

[AniNate]

I think perhaps you're drawing some unreasonable conclusions here. If you're thinking that they should've gone with a writer/director who had a singular I'm not arguing against the quality of the movie -- I haven't seen it. But attributing all of it to a lack of talent or care or interest or investment isn't really the right approach, IMO. If it were possible to guarantee at least a solid, robust success by analyzing the talent involved, then shitty movies would never be made.

 

Wasn't it you who said that Asylum produces their movies with quality being a secondary consideration? I mean, I don't want to compare Skydance to The Asylum, but I certainly can imagine a scenario where a movie's running over budget and they're behind their filming schedule and they just decide "You know what, we can live with the actor not emoting right with this scene. Leave it the way it is", especially with it being a franchise film.

 

I come to really appreciate what Pixar did with The Good Dinosaur thinking about this. They saw the movie wasn't working the way they hoped and were willing to completely dismantle a film that probably would've been fairly successful at the box office through their brand power and rework it with the hope of producing a masterpiece out of it.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tribefan695

[baumer]

Talent alone is not enough

 

Cameron made The Abyss, passion project that is plagued by production problems .Even though the CGI is ground breaking, the 2 leads put up a very strong performances, and the action is still Cameron at his best, but the movie suffers from a rather bland, preachy, anti-climactic 3rd act. 

 

Michael Mann did Blackhat. This is the guy who did Heat, Collateral, Miami Vice Series, Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans, Insider. What could go wrong? 

Some people are just semi-retired. And they probably took some project for mind exercise or to keep themselves busy.

 

Scorsese never made a boring  movie. But his last few ones: Gangs of New York, Aviator, Wolf of Wall St, and especially Departed, do not contain his passion for filmmaking he showed in Goodfellas, Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.

 

Who runs Skydance again? Viacom which owns Paramount has a new CEO, a lawyer, since 2006 when Sumner Redstone stepped down.

 

Sorry, you lost me at Wolf of Wall Street and Departed not containing any passion.  

 

[DAR]

Sorry, you lost me at Wolf of Wall Street and Departed not containing any passion.  

 

I'd include the Aviator in that list.

[zackzack]

Sorry, you lost me at Wolf of Wall Street and Departed not containing any passion.  

 

 

My apologies: I should say: "the same level of passion he showed in Goodfellas & Raging Bull.."

[baumer]

My apologies: I should say: "the same level of passion he showed in Goodfellas & Raging Bull.."

 

IMO, you are dead wrong.  Wolf is about as passionate as they come.  You might not think so because you didn't care for it but that's one hell of a movie imo.