[worry]

All of my opinions are extreme to the extreme. In fact I'm skateboarding while I write this.

[McLovin]

And drinking Brawndo! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!!!

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 22 March 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to like The Rock (or even Armageddon), but even if you do I'm not sure it should mean much re: TMNT because it is at best an anomaly in his otherwise F-minus career. And I'm not saying Michael Bay sucks because he makes popcorn movies, I'm saying he sucks at making popcorn movies. Like, whoever directs Mythbusters builds more excitement and tension before an explosion than Michael Bay seems capable of. He's incompetent at making movies, not competent at making bad (or mediocre-to-good shallow) movies. He's Ed Wood with financial backers. Plus Bay is responsible for the Platinum Dunes production company, which is maybe neither here nor there re: his directing, but it's still a slap in the face as far as film-making goes.

Anyway, here's even more TMNT news for the Prometheus thread (glad Anomander started this aside, so none of us can get scolded for going Off Topic): http://www.avclub.co...er-laird,71365/

See, the measure of his success or skill as a film maker isn't really up for discussion since his movies make bank every single time. To me and the world...that is success.

Is he David Cronenberg? No. Is he better than Paul W. Anderson? Hell yes.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 23 March 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

But then he mixed the one in with some awful slapstick non-humour and made the other way too long - he has very little sense of tone and pacing. t doctors). Who'd have thunk?

Okay, I'm going to say this once and attempt to sound cordial about it...

Michael Bay is NOT, I repeat NOT the writer of his films. He is a director. This entails deciding what shots go where, managing the storyboards, choosing main camera work (in conjunction with the Cinematographer) and basically how the entire organism of the film production works as a whole.

Therefore he does NOT add any of the comedic moments (in TF2 & TF3 for example) In TF 2 your beef is with screenwriters Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman and in TF 3 your beef is wholly with Ehren Kruger. So anything you don't like about STORY, CHARACTER and the like...is not even in Bay's spectrum of responsibility.

The twins from TF 2 that everyone complains about...Michael Bay didn't add those guys in...he had to work with them because they were in the story the screenwriters listed above crafted...but he did not add them in.

Sorry, but the amount of people I meet in daily life who dismiss a director's work as crap based on a STORY or CHARACTERS, or SCRIPT BEATS that they had nothing whatsoever to do with, annoys me.

He also has very little to do with pacing, since he is in charge, he influences the editor as to how he wants things to flow, but overall "pacing" is the editor's responsibility. Oh and "tone" is script-based as well.

If folk wish to pick apart Michael Bay for his DIRECTION...have at it. But can we leave out the notion that he's responsible for shitty scripts?

Merci.

/rant

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 March 2012 - 01:03 PM

[amphibian]

Well, he does continue to work with shitty scriptwriters again and again, so that is in part his responsibility.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 23 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Well, he does continue to work with shitty scriptwriters again and again, so that is in part his responsibility.

True. Though it might be hard to figure out which are the bad ones when he's hired as he's rarely worked with the same ones more than once (Orci and Kurztman are the only repeat writers he's worked with)...though they are responsible for THE ISLAND...so you know...LOL

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 March 2012 - 07:34 PM

[polishgenius]

The idea that a director on a film has nothing to do with the script is a completely false one. That's largely the case with television directors as far as I know but on the vast majority of movie productions the director's job has as much to do with what would be the showrunner on TV as the director. He has the final oversight, unless the moneymen decide to stick their grubby fingers in, so he has to take final responsibility. Sure, some directors may decide to just work with what they're given on the page, but many others polish up pre- and during production, or hire a script doctor if they feel they're unqualified or don't have the time.

He's also responsible for how the script is delivered on-screen and therefore most certainly has responsibility for a large part of the tone.

Same goes for editing, except even more so; post-production, the director will spend a hell of a lot of time with the editor - and there's another piece where he gets some control of the screenplay, since if a scene doesn't work that's when it should be dropped.



Of course if he's working with a dirge of a script then the writer also has to take some responsibility, don't get me wrong.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 23 March 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

The idea that a director on a film has nothing to do with the script is a completely false one. That's largely the case with television directors as far as I know but on the vast majority of movie productions the director's job has as much to do with what would be the showrunner on TV as the director. He has the final oversight, unless the moneymen decide to stick their grubby fingers in, so he has to take final responsibility. Sure, some directors may decide to just work with what they're given on the page, but many others polish up pre- and during production, or hire a script doctor if they feel they're unqualified or don't have the time.

Nope. None of these things are done by the director. they are done by the producer. You see, the producer PAYS for the film and the producer has the ultimate decision about what gets done to the script. I have NEVER heard of a director doing any of the above without the express say so of the producer first. Unless he wrote it as well (like George Lucas), then he hath not a lot of clout there.

If you'd like to use TV as an example...THE WALKING DEAD...showrunner and director Frank Darabont...fired by the producers. If he had the clout you seem to ascribe to him, then this would not have happened. Producers make these calls. And ONLY producers.

Quote

He's also responsible for how the script is delivered on-screen and therefore most certainly has responsibility for a large part of the tone.

No, this is mostly A., the actor's job and B. the cinematographer's job. Next time you are on a film set...see if ANY director can tell a DOP what to do shot wise and tone wise...it doesn't happen sir. The only time it gets close is when the Director and the DOP are friends, like Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski...and even then...

Quote

Same goes for editing, except even more so; post-production, the director will spend a hell of a lot of time with the editor - and there's another piece where he gets some control of the screenplay, since if a scene doesn't work that's when it should be dropped.

I never said the director didn't have influence over the editor. they do, but they also have to work with what was shot (see above, Actors, Cinematographer)

Look PG, this is an industry I know about. I have friends in the industry. It's not false. But I really don't want to get into it with you since you'll only keep throwing the same rebuttal at me. If you wish to believe that Michael Bay has a say on scripts, then believe that. It's not true in the slightest, but you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

I go based on what the people I know (some of them directors and producers) have told me who work in Hollywood. Some of who's films you probably have seen. Any of the Final Destination films for a start. But whatever man.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 March 2012 - 10:13 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 23 March 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Nope. None of these things are done by the director. they are done by the producer. You see, the producer PAYS for the film and the producer has the ultimate decision about what gets done to the script. I have NEVER heard of a director doing any of the above without the express say so of the producer first. Unless he wrote it as well (like George Lucas), then he hath not a lot of clout there.

Well of course. I did specify the moneymen. He answers to them and the cast and creative crew answer to him.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the Darabont thing. I never said he was sole man in charge of the entire production.

Quote

He's also responsible for how the script is delivered on-screen and therefore most certainly has responsibility for a large part of the tone.

Quote

No, this is mostly A., the actor's job and B. the cinematographer's job. Next time you are on a film set...see if ANY director can tell a DOP what to do shot wise and tone wise...it doesn't happen sir. The only time it gets close is when the Director and the DOP are friends, like Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski...and even then...

And the director isn't in charge of the actors? Yes it's their job to act but it's his job to coach them into the sort of performance they're supposed to be putting in.

I think we may be at crossed wires when we're talking about 'tone' though. I mean the overall mood of the whole thing. If the DoP is responsible for that then what is the director even doing?

Quote

I never said the director didn't have influence over the editor. they do, but they also have to work with what was shot (see above, Actors, Cinematographer)

Quote

Look PG, this is an industry I know about. I have friends in the industry. It's not false. But I really don't want to get into it with you since you'll only keep throwing the same rebuttal at me. If you wish to believe that Michael Bay has a say on scripts, then believe that. It's not true in the slightest, but you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

I go based on what the people I know (some of them directors and producers) have told me who work in Hollywood. Some of who's films you probably have seen. Any of the Final Destination films for a start. But whatever man.

It's not as if I'm commenting on an industry I know nothing of: I might not know people involved to the degree you do (and certainly not in Hollywood) but I have a friend who was heading to be a director for a while (before becoming a reviewer) and a scriptwriting brother. And a great general interest in which almost the only counter to my perception

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think your idea of it is right all the time. The impression I'm getting from your descriptions is that the director really doesn't have all that much control at all; the director doesn't oversee the DoP? Really?

I think we may be misreading each other a bit though... The picture you seem to be painting suggests to me a set on which each individual aspect has control of their own thing and all the director does is act as a middleman between them, which I'm not sure is what you're actually saying, and I'm certainly not saying the director runs the set like an army base in which every single thing must be done with his say-so. The truth, I'm fairly sure, lies somewhere in between those two extremes.

It's also, and I'm sure we can agree on this, a job in which some people differ from each other greatly, which probably accounts for some of this difference of perspective. Stanley '99 takes of the same scene' Kubrick (who afforded much less control to the actors than the average) and Terrence 'film so much footage that when you've finished cutting it down your main star has been demoted to basically a cameo' Malick (who is much more involved with editing than normal) work(ed) in extremely different ways. And I also suspect (and this is one place in which my opinion has been shaped by direct contact with people who do it) that the type of production has a lot to do with it too. Way down at the grassroots, micro-budget indie-film level the director will be responsible for almost everything, down to the script and casting, then as you go up the budgetary scale the jobs get more and more defined and the producers more and more powerful until the rareified air of the super-legends and major auteurs where the directors get a bit more control again.

So, in that sense, I have to concede that Michael Bay may for at least some of his films be less in control than I'm making him out, since he works a lot with Jerry Bruckheimer, who's known as a very hands-on producer. Which may also explain why Michael Bay's best-recieved work is that which he did with Bruckheimer.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 23 March 2012 - 11:00 PM

[QuickTidal]

Two things directly from the people I know in the industry:

One: The DOP more often than not (depending on their skill level) will argue for things to be shot in a certain way...and the Director either finds a way to oblige and appease him/herself or they lose a DOP. It's that simple...and it's happened. The DOP for TERMINATOR SALVATION for example, was almost constantly at odds with both the main stars and most especially with McG and that was only due to his "way of shooting"...the DOP in most of these situations wins out...and it's only because finding a GOOD cinematographer is tough, and replacing one on the fly on a movie in production is damned near impossible. So the director has to play balanced.

Two: Take DRAGONBALL...a film I know a good deal about. James Wong (the director and a person I am acquainted with) was sent to Mexico to shoot (not his first choice) WITHOUT a script (the exec producers told him it would be there when the crew arrived) and he actually had to start shooting the DAY he got the script...only realizing then how truly awful it was, and worse that the film he signed up to direct (AKA the treatment he was given when they hired him) was nowhere to be seen and the script he was given was VASTLY different from that original story. He was also told (again the day they started shooting) that the special effects budget he'd been told he could have was not just cut in half, but quarter...thus again changing what he could and couldn't do. He basically had his hands tied from day one and things only got worse as production went on. He did his best with what he was given, but he A. Had no influence whatsoever on the script and B. had barely a fraction of the budget he was told he could have.

Those are just two things a director basically has to contend with and has LITTLE to no control over.

The director's job is to direct. They make sure the production runs smoothly, they direct actors (as you've said), and they direct everyone else. It's like the guy who takes the lead in a business meeting. Their specific job is one of organization. If a director had to have his fingers in all the aspects of production as you think he does, he'd have to have 42 arms. It's just not possible. The only time I've seen it is say Peter Jackson...but he works himself to the bone (and worked himself un-fat) to just handle both direction and script edits with his wife and her partner...but that is a wholly different situation.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 March 2012 - 11:20 PM

[polishgenius]

Well, I can't argue with the Dragonball example and I know that that happens. But that kind of thing is usually presented by the people involved (like, say, Alien 3 where much the same thing happened to David Fincher) as an unwanted example of studio interference and directors will avoid those situations when they can and some will fight the studio if they end up in them (Terry Gilliam being a particularly notable example of someone who's always fighting to get his way over the producers, obviously not always succeeding). In a perfect world the producers would stay out of the creative side and keep their financial promises and the creators would run in-budget and on time, but I'm aware that when those things break down it's the producers who get the final say.

It's why Matthew Vaughn funded and produced Kick-Ass himself (I know that's a meh example for you since you don't greatly like it, but...), since he knew he'd not be able to get it made the way he wanted if it was a studio film.


As for the DoP - I'm not saying the director stands over his shoulder and picks the shot, but at the same time, it's got to be the director's call what kind of shot it is, no? By which I mean that it's the DoP's job to best do what the director needs from the story, so if the director says he needs a view of the whole room for this bit or a close-up here, surely the DoP's only going to overrule him if it's a particularly impossible thing to do? I know that Joss Whedon, at least, has more control then that, since I've seen him talk about the way he chose certain shots in Serenity (the opening long take, for example, and the steadycam moment in the bank place they're robbing).


Btw, I'm not pushing this point out of being an annoying bastard- this discussion is of genuine interest to me and since I have close friends and a brother who have designs on the industry who I'd probably be helping out if it came down to it, the more perspectives I can get the better, especially if they come from personal knowledge and not publicly presented factoids.
Plus, you know, having a difference of opinion on t'internet with someone willing to do it without anger is always fun. Even though I know I come off blunt sometimes.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 24 March 2012 - 12:00 AM

[worry]

Can we get a disinterested third party to declare a winner in this debate?

[Binder of Demons]

worrywort, on 24 March 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Can we get a disinterested third party to declare a winner in this debate?

As you should know Worry, historically on this board, the winner is always ABYSS (or maybe Wolverine).

[McLovin]

The correct answer is Charlie Sheen.

[A Demon Llama!]

The USCSS Prometheus

Spoiler

I dont know if I like it or not. Looks kinda wierd in my opinion. I think its the curves, and the funny engines.

Spoiler

[polishgenius]

I'm sorry, there's no two ways about it, that's a Firefly. An updated model with a couple more engines and a straighter front, but nonetheless clearly a Firefly.

[QuickTidal]

@PG. I think it would be nice if it was a Firefly...that would be a cool little nod to Whedon by Scott.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Super stoked. Just found out about this movie the other day (I don't have cable TV and don't troll new movie listings ever).

Had a bad cold and stayed home yesterday. Rewatched Alien and Aliens in preparation for prometheus. Man...suuuuper different movies those two. I'd forgotten the details of both but on a rewatch, I definitely liked the singular a lot more. The Cameron one was too much special effects glitz and annoying empathy-triggering characters. The Scott one was just pure scifi awesome with a much more convincing script, characters and story.

So yeah. Much anticipation for this 5th alien movie...or whatever the current consensus is RE its true prequel status.

I dig the ship. A lot. From a purely functional realism perspective, having 4 engines that can individually pivot on either end of a long arm that also pivots relative to the ship is a nice piece of efficient design. It allows all 4 engines to contribute to forward thrust during interstellar travel (without one being in the wash of the other) and in landing situations puts the downward thrust where it needs to be relative to the centre of gravity of the ship. Not a lot of sci fi movies give thought to stuff like that, as though they can just have a main engine on the back and rely on a few tiny thrusters to slow a million-tonne spaceship from entry velocity to VTOL speeds.

One thing I was wondering about the series in general...is there supposed to be FTL travel? It wasn't specifically discussed in Alien or Aliens, but considering the closest star (let alone the closest star with planets) IRL is more than a lightyear away, they'd have to be rocking at least 5-10x lightspeed to be hitting their destinations in months right? I think 8 months for the trip to earth was mentioned somewhere in Alien.

[McLovin]

The whole FTL issue is deliberately fudged, IMO. But the math would suggest they must have it. Especially beginning in Aliens where Ripley & the Marines land on LV 426 just a couple weeks after the colony falls.

[cerveza_fiesta]

yeah right...forgot that was only weeks. Granted they launched from a deep space station that might have been nearby, but in Alien they were definitely headed for earth and the time was measured in months from LV426.

And they found Ripley 57 years after the events of Alien on the far side of the core systems because she drifted right through, meaning she was even farther from LV426...but then again maybe they carted her back to the space station near LV426 before even waking her up.

Hmm...more I think about it, the more I realize just how badly it's fudged. Seems funny they would do that considering it's so easily summarized by a single line of dialogue regarding the existence of an FTL drive. I guess it isn't really the focus of the show anyway. Not really a deal breaker either way.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 13 April 2012 - 12:58 PM