Director not as important to a movie as we thought?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-07-21 12:27am

This is a thought I had after seeing T3: Rise of the Machines. T3 was IMO a worthy successor to T2, and better than the first movie, yet it was done without Cameron. Then I thought about Star Wars, and how Lucas directed all 5 movies, and the OT were classics and part of world heritage yet the Prequels were horrendous pieces of shit. Could it be that we've been giving directors too much credit, and that casting staff plays a much bigger role in the quality of a film?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-21 12:29am

Gary Kurtz was with Lucas for ANH and TESB. Kershner directed TESB.

There's a reason it was so good: it wasn't just GL's baby.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-07-21 12:32am

Usualy a director brings a certain type of feel to a film, like Tim Burtons Beatle Juice and The Nightmare Before Christmas, but sometimes they can be so infulenced by Hollywood and the need to make it full of special effects like Planet Of The Apes which, IMHO, didn't have a Tim Burton feel to it.

Equinox2003 · Post by **Equinox2003** » 2003-07-21 01:06am

I think the quality of the movie is more defined more by the story and
the acting than by the director.
If you have a stupid story, I doubt that Spielberg, Lucas, Bryan Singer,
and James Cameron together could make it enjoyable.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-07-21 02:00am

I think it varries incredibly whether a director shows much impact on a movie or not.

A lot of times directors have directors of photography or cinematography working along with them. So who's impacting the movie more?

I would imagine the movies that in which you can easily tell whether or not they were made by a sepcific director that those people are at least in the director/producer vein even if they don't get a producer credit.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-21 01:33pm

The late Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-21 01:36pm

Durran Korr wrote:The late Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi.

Supposedly he was far more controlled by Lucas and under his thumb than Kershner.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-21 02:24pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:This is a thought I had after seeing T3: Rise of the Machines. T3 was IMO a worthy successor to T2, and better than the first movie, yet it was done without Cameron.

I disagree with that. T1 is still the best, the only one of the trio that ever was original in the least. Reese makes a more "human" hero then the Terminator in later films and Ahnuld is just so bloody menacing as the Terminator, something that neither Robert Patrick or Kristanna Loken really achieved.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-07-21 03:31pm

Sir Sirius wrote:I disagree with that. T1 is still the best, the only one of the trio that ever was original in the least. Reese makes a more "human" hero then the Terminator in later films and Ahnuld is just so bloody menacing as the Terminator, something that neither Robert Patrick or Kristanna Loken really achieved.

Oh come on! I could buy an argument that T1 was better than T3, I wouldn't agree with it, but I might be able to see the merit, but better than T2? The only movies I'd rather re-watch than T2 are Ghostbusters and the OT, and maybe Aliens if it's been too long since the last time I saw it.

EDIT: As to why I disagree with that assessment, Reese may have been more human, but watching the T-101 learn how to be human in T2 was so well done than I cringe watching TNG reruns and their clumsy attempts with Data. Arnold's menace during a still frame certainly can't be compared to Patrick or Loken, but the crappy effects in T1 killed any menace he may have held for me.

I almost burst out laughing those times they subbed that robot for Arnold that couldn't pass for him to a dog with cataracts. And when his skin got burned off, that whole scene was ruined by the jerky, inhuman movements it made. Here I thought improper use of CG was bad, gawd! And don't tell me "it was good for 1984", because it wasn't. Cutting edge, perhaps, but not good. Good special effects doesn't use cutting edge technology if it still looks like shit. Aliens looks great today despite using guys in suits and camera tricks, just like the original trilogy is already starting to look better than the prequels because of the latter's overuse of CG where it doesn't belong. T1 was a good movie, but T3 was a whole lot better, and T2 was a classic.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-21 03:39pm

I disagree quite thoroughly. I thought Kristanna Loken and Robert Patrick both did a very good job being menacing in their respective films. I would not want them chasing my tail.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-21 04:36pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Oh come on! I could buy an argument that T1 was better than T3, I wouldn't agree with it, but I might be able to see the merit, but better than T2?

IMHO T1 is better then T2, but that is just a purely subjective oppinion and arquing over it is rather pointless.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:EDIT: As to why I disagree with that assessment, Reese may have been more human, but watching the T-101 learn how to be human in T2 was so well done than I cringe watching TNG reruns and their clumsy attempts with Data.

LOL, the Terminators atempts at being more human was one of the things I didn't like in T2. This "machines striving to be more human" theme so bloody common in Sci-fi pisses me off to no end... What is there so bloody great about humour and fear or human "emotions" in general? Sentience is over rated and has actualy never really been even defined properly.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Arnold's menace during a still frame certainly can't be compared to Patrick or Loken, but the crappy effects in T1 killed any menace he may have held for me.
<snipped to save space>

Provided that the SFX in amovie serve their purpose, as they do in T1, I don't pay much attention to them, but thats just me. Not to say that T1 wouldn't benefit from better SFX, but considering the movies age I don' really hold the "flaws" in the SFX agains't it.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-21 04:39pm

Durran Korr wrote:I disagree quite thoroughly. I thought Kristanna Loken and Robert Patrick both did a very good job being menacing in their respective films. I would not want them chasing my tail.

Ahnuld in T1 was great, Patrick in T2 was O.K., Loken in T3 was kinda blech in the menacing department, I have a hard time feeling manaced by a chick that gives me a boner. Not enough blood to operate the brain and the penis at the same time I quess.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-21 04:48pm

Lucas didn't direct ESB or RotJ.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2003-07-21 05:16pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:I disagree quite thoroughly. I thought Kristanna Loken and Robert Patrick both did a very good job being menacing in their respective films. I would not want them chasing my tail.
Ahnuld in T1 was great, Patrick in T2 was O.K., Loken in T3 was kinda blech in the menacing department, I have a hard time feeling manaced by a chick that gives me a boner. Not enough blood to operate the brain and the penis at the same time I quess.

I liked T2 over all then T3 and T1 respectively. But what confuses me is the Terminator version. Arnold has been a T-101, a T-800 and a T-850 but they are all the same. The only difference that I can tell is that the T-850 has a couple of hydrogen cells in it's abdomen and it is weaker too!

As for the enemy terminators in T2 and T3, I find that they made a weaker terminator in T3. IMHO the T-1000 could mop the floor with the T-X.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-07-21 05:19pm

Dorsk 81 wrote:Usualy a director brings a certain type of feel to a film, like Tim Burtons Beatle Juice and The Nightmare Before Christmas, but sometimes they can be so infulenced by Hollywood and the need to make it full of special effects like Planet Of The Apes which, IMHO, didn't have a Tim Burton feel to it.

Tim burton should work on every movie

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-07-21 05:31pm

aphexmonster wrote:
Dorsk 81 wrote:Usualy a director brings a certain type of feel to a film, like Tim Burtons Beatle Juice and The Nightmare Before Christmas, but sometimes they can be so infulenced by Hollywood and the need to make it full of special effects like Planet Of The Apes which, IMHO, didn't have a Tim Burton feel to it.

Tim burton should work on every movie

In what way?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-07-21 06:42pm

Enigma wrote:I liked T2 over all then T3 and T1 respectively. But what confuses me is the Terminator version. Arnold has been a T-101, a T-800 and a T-850 but they are all the same. The only difference that I can tell is that the T-850 has a couple of hydrogen cells in it's abdomen and it is weaker too!

Seemed stronger to me. The T-101 in T1 was never subjected to hardly any punishment, and in T2 the most he had to take was the T-1000 beating the hell out of him. In T3 he seemed much more resilient to being hit much harder by the T-X. The T-1000 never sent him flying across the room when it hit him. He also survived a shot from that plasma gun that demonstrated the ability to blow cars apart, something I'm extremely dubious the previous model could withstand, given that he was blown in half by a relatively small amount of explosives in T1.

That's explains the volatile power cell and his heavier weight, too. To keep the obsolete T-101 effective, they needed to replace the lightweight titanium construction with stronger, tougher steel and replace his power cell with a much more energetic one.

As for the enemy terminators in T2 and T3, I find that they made a weaker terminator in T3. IMHO the T-1000 could mop the floor with the T-X.

I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion. When the T-1000 gets shot by powerful guns, he staggers or is even blown backwards while the T-X doesn't even slow down. The T-X is far stronger given her ability to launch the T-101 6+ feet in the air with a blow. The T-X's plasma gun could arguably blow the T-1000 to bits, and her flame gun could probably melt him. Conversely, there's no reason to believe his stabbing weapons would be able to penetrate both the liquid and solid metal. She's stronger, faster, has more powerful weapons, and has a hardened frame under the liquid metal that can keep taking punishment, while the T-1000 was toast at the end of T2 whether he had fallen in the lava or not. He had simply taken too much damage. Add to that her ability to construct nanomachines to remotely take control of cars, other terminators, etc., not to mention her ability to repair herself and I'm not seeing a contest here. The only advantage the T-1000 has is his ability to turn completely to liquid, and that's just not very useful in comparison.

EDIT: On a related note, one thing I really liked about T3 was that it featured a useful and plausable showing of nanotech without being stupid or wank-tech. The whole constructing nanoprocessors in the steering column to take control of cars was genius IMO.

aphexmonster · Post by **aphexmonster** » 2003-07-21 08:07pm

Dorsk 81 wrote:
aphexmonster wrote:
Dorsk 81 wrote:Usualy a director brings a certain type of feel to a film, like Tim Burtons Beatle Juice and The Nightmare Before Christmas, but sometimes they can be so infulenced by Hollywood and the need to make it full of special effects like Planet Of The Apes which, IMHO, didn't have a Tim Burton feel to it.

Tim burton should work on every movie
In what way?

It was just a joke, but alot of movies that tried to be dark could of used him ...

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-21 08:40pm

I think a director's influence varies with each movie, but in general they are the most important people in shaping movies. Writers are second most important, actors third, and producers dead last, unless it's Jerry Bruckheimer.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-07-21 10:19pm

aphexmonster wrote:
Dorsk 81 wrote:
aphexmonster wrote:
Tim burton should work on every movie
In what way?

It was just a joke, but alot of movies that tried to be dark could of used him ...

Ah, I thought you ment in general.
He does do the whole dark thing well though like Edwards mansion in Edward Scissor Hands and Halloween Town in Nightmare Before Christmas.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Director not as important to a movie as we thought?

Director not as important to a movie as we thought?

Re: Director not as important to a movie as we thought?

Re: Director not as important to a movie as we thought?

Re: Director not as important to a movie as we thought?