Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Harpospoke]

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

David Fincher was offered The Force Awakens directing position before anyone else but he declined. The reason being is that he would have been a supervisor and not a director, that the creative control he would have was too low.

This makes me laugh because everyone on here thought I was a nut job for suggesting The Force Awakens was a studio movie not a director movie. I remember this was brought up when people on here were angry that Jim hadn't send JJ Abrams a congratulations letter (like Lucas had to Jim).

 

https://www.empireonline.com/people/david-fincher/empire-podcast-david-fincher-interview-special/

 

Finch also says that cinema right now is poor and movies right now can be broke into 3 categories, heroes in spandex, romance and dumb comedy.

Makes him sound like a bit of a D-bag.

 

"Oh thank you lord Finch for enlightening us unwashed masses on what movies should really be like today!"

 

He also seems think think a director should also be a writer.   Those are two different jobs.  How dare a studio hire him to just direct a movie while they hire someone else to write it.   All they did was put up the 200+ million for it.   How does that give them the right to impede his "vision"?

 

The idea that a "studio movie" is inferior to a "director movie" fits in pretty well with his ego.   There is nothing to back that up.   Studios have been making great movies for 100 years.

 

He's right in that he would have no business "directing" a Star Wars movie though.   That would be a complete train wreck with his "creativity" all over it taking a dump on the established mythos.

[Barnack]

18 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Makes him sound like a bit of a D-bag.

 

He is a proud one, Fincher level of wanted control is a bit legendary

 

Sony/Rudin/Sorkin conversation about giving Fincher total control over the movie (that for Fincher include release/marketing campaign, etc...)

 

Scott Rudin wrote:

You don’t think $40m to shoot three scenes is enough?  Do YOU want every control given to him, including the entire marketing campaign?  This is the director who refused to put the girl with the dragon tattoo in the ads for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.
 

Sorkin:

You're not going to get an argument from me on that. I wrote the least expensive movie I know how to write. And while I think he can be of enormous value when it comes to marketing (the materials for TSN were fantastic), no, I'd be uncomfortable with him having control because there's always the risk that the billboards will say, "Anyone who doesn't see this movie is an asshole". But is there nothing in the middle that would make everyone happy?
 

18 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

He also seems think think a director should also be a writer. Those are two different jobs.

Not sure why you are saying that, he often made other strong writer script (like The Social Network and was in conversation for Steve Jobs) and never had a writing credit on is feature film.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Barnack

[IronJimbo]

25 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Makes him sound like a bit of a D-bag.

 

"Oh thank you lord Finch for enlightening us unwashed masses on what movies should really be like today!"

 

He also seems think think a director should also be a writer.   Those are two different jobs.  How dare a studio hire him to just direct a movie while they hire someone else to write it.   All they did was put up the 200+ million for it.   How does that give them the right to impede his "vision"?

 

The idea that a "studio movie" is inferior to a "director movie" fits in pretty well with his ego.   There is nothing to back that up.   Studios have been making great movies for 100 years.

 

He's right in that he would have no business "directing" a Star Wars movie though.   That would be a complete train wreck with his "creativity" all over it taking a dump on the established mythos.

He said it less d-baggy than I put it, was my interpretation of what he said.

 

Quote

He also seems think think a director should also be a writer. 

 

This is not anything close to what I wrote, having a vision doesn't mean writing the script. I don't understand why you're conflating vision with script writing.

 

Another reason he said was that the pressure of making that film is too much, because you're expected to hit a number like $1b or $1.5b.

 

Quote

The idea that a "studio movie" is inferior to a "director movie" fits in pretty well with his ego.   There is nothing to back that up.   Studios have been making great movies for 100 years.

For studios it's money before quality. The best films of all time are rarely studio movies to the degree of the force awakens. Think about it hey but a giant budget on it, have more sequels lined up and so on. They're going intervene with everything the director does because they've got so much money on the line.

Edited October 20, 2017 by IronJimbo

[Harpospoke]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

He is a proud one, Fincher level of wanted control is a bit legendary

 

Sony/Rudin/Sorkin conversation about giving Fincher total control over the movie (that for Fincher include release/marketing campaign, etc...)

 

Scott Rudin wrote:

You don’t think $40m to shoot three scenes is enough?  Do YOU want every control given to him, including the entire marketing campaign?  This is the director who refused to put the girl with the dragon tattoo in the ads for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.
 

Sorkin:

You're not going to get an argument from me on that. I wrote the least expensive movie I know how to write. And while I think he can be of enormous value when it comes to marketing (the materials for TSN were fantastic), no, I'd be uncomfortable with him having control because there's always the risk that the billboards will say, "Anyone who doesn't see this movie is an asshole". But is there nothing in the middle that would make everyone happy?
 

Not sure why you are saying that, he often made other strong writer script (like The Social Network and was in conversation for Steve Jobs) and never had a writing credit on is feature film.

Definitely looks like Disney dodged a bullet there.

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

This is not anything close to what I wrote, having a vision doesn't mean writing the script. I don't understand why you're conflating vision with script writing.

 

Another reason he said was that the pressure of making that film is too much, because you're expected to hit a number like $1b or $1.5b.

 

For studios it's money before quality. The best films of all time are rarely studio movies to the degree of the force awakens. Think about it hey but a giant budget on it, have more sequels lined up and so on. They're going intervene with everything the director does because they've got so much money on the line.

Of course they want to make money.    That's is not mutually exclusive to making great movies obviously since they've been doing it for 100 years.   The studios used to run everything and classic Hollywood is awesome.

 

Mozart wrote everything he ever wrote for monetary reasons.   The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel exists because Michelangelo was motivated by money.   The Beatles put great effort into writing hit songs.   Shakespeare created his great works to make money.

 

The "starving artist" thing is hipster and all, but is way overrated.

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

David Fincher was offered The Force Awakens directing position before anyone else but he declined. The reason being is that he would have been a supervisor and not a director, that the creative control he would have was too low.

This makes me laugh because everyone on here thought I was a nut job for suggesting The Force Awakens was a studio movie not a director movie. I remember this was brought up when people on here were angry that Jim hadn't send JJ Abrams a congratulations letter (like Lucas had to Jim).

 

https://www.empireonline.com/people/david-fincher/empire-podcast-david-fincher-interview-special/

 

Finch also says that cinema right now is poor and movies right now can be broke into 3 categories, heroes in spandex, romance and dumb comedy.

I guess Fincher just had another film shot out of under him ........Good director, but his habit of going widly over budget does not help him.

[ZattMurdock]

 

 

 

LEGENDS. FRIENDS. PRESIDENTS OF THE MOVIE STUDIOS OF THE TWO BIGGEST SUPERHEROES PUBLISHERS.  

 

I'm ready for their biopics. 

[Ethan Hunt]

On 10/20/2017 at 6:14 AM, AndyK said:

My Nolan list would only have Dunkirk and TDK on it.

 

 

Literally his two worst films LMAO

[Harpospoke]

13 hours ago, iJackSparrow said:

 

 

 

LEGENDS. FRIENDS. PRESIDENTS OF THE MOVIE STUDIOS OF THE TWO BIGGEST SUPERHEROES PUBLISHERS.  

 

I'm ready for their biopics. 

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

 

Feige and Johns are friends, have a history, admire each other, and root for each other to do well?    That's hilarious.   Cue the sound of a million fanboys' heads exploding.

 

Should WB be in charge of doing Superman movies?   Seems like they really don't know what they are doing and never have.   Donner saved Supes from the "Who Loves ya, baby" version WB wanted to do.   Then they tried to hire Kevin Smith to do one with a giant spider featuring a non-flying Supes.   Then they did Superman Returns followed by emo Supes in MoS, and BvS.   Yikes...and I thought Fox didn't get the X-men and Fantastic Four.

[MCKillswitch123]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Literally his two worst films LMAO

Can't comment on Dunkirk, but your opinion on TDK('s position amongst Nolan) sucks shitdicks, Ethan

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

 

Feige and Johns are friends, have a history, admire each other, and root for each other to do well?    That's hilarious.   Cue the sound of a million fanboys' heads exploding.

 

Should WB be in charge of doing Superman movies?   Seems like they really don't know what they are doing and never have.   Donner saved Supes from the "Who Loves ya, baby" version WB wanted to do.   Then they tried to hire Kevin Smith to do one with a giant spider featuring a non-flying Supes.   Then they did Superman Returns followed by emo Supes in MoS, and BvS.   Yikes...and I thought Fox didn't get the X-men and Fantastic Four.

The DC Marvel Feud is a fanboy only phenenmenon

The companies often work together on the DC/Marvel crossovers, which have proven to be lucrative for both companies.

They are Professiionals and Professionals know that there is a difference between competition and a feud, and feuds are stupid and a waste of time and money.

 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

 

Feige and Johns are friends, have a history, admire each other, and root for each other to do well?    That's hilarious.   Cue the sound of a million fanboys' heads exploding.

 

Should WB be in charge of doing Superman movies?   Seems like they really don't know what they are doing and never have.   Donner saved Supes from the "Who Loves ya, baby" version WB wanted to do.   Then they tried to hire Kevin Smith to do one with a giant spider featuring a non-flying Supes.   Then they did Superman Returns followed by emo Supes in MoS, and BvS.   Yikes...and I thought Fox didn't get the X-men and Fantastic Four.

Warners owns DC outright, so Supes is not going anywhere.

 

 

[cax16]

At Paris comic con today, they also showed 10 minutes of JL and a “mind blowing sizzle -reel from Aquaman”. 

[dudalb]

23 hours ago, cax16 said:

At Paris comic con today, they also showed 10 minutes of JL and a “mind blowing sizzle -reel from Aquaman”. 

I think that the solo Batman film might be a little delayed while Warners waits to see how much damage the Affleck scandal has done to Affleck's image.

[cax16]

9 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I think that the solo Batman film might be a little delayed while Warners waits to see how much damage the Affleck scandal has done to Affleck's image.

Reeves just started working on the script not to long ago I think so I wouldn’t be surprised. I have no clue what’s happening with Affleck after JL, maybe he’s gone, maybe he’s staying. It will be interesting to see what’s announced after JL. 

[dudalb]

38 minutes ago, cax16 said:

Reeves just started working on the script not to long ago I think so I wouldn’t be surprised. I have no clue what’s happening with Affleck after JL, maybe he’s gone, maybe he’s staying. It will be interesting to see what’s announced after JL. 

The aftershocks of the Weinstein scandal are showing no signs of stopping anytime soon.

And I have noted that although Affleck in on the press junkets, Warners is taking pains to give him as low a profile as possible without making it real obvious that is what they are doing.

[MattW]

3 hours ago, cax16 said:

Reeves just started working on the script not to long ago I think so I wouldn’t be surprised. I have no clue what’s happening with Affleck after JL, maybe he’s gone, maybe he’s staying. It will be interesting to see what’s announced after JL. 

I'm guessing WB will wait until well into 2018 before they make their next DC universe announcement.  

[Mojoguy]

Why the fuck are they showing Aquaman movie clips? Shouldn't all the marketing be focused on JL right now? lmao

[Jonwo]

Forget Justice League, this looks a fun crossover of two of WB's biggest properties

 

[cax16]

 

[AJG]

Just now, cax16 said:

 

 

Honestly, I expect it to be slightly worse when compared to the first and do a tad bit less at the BO. Like a not so extreme Kingsman 2