We got Ant-Man movie

Josh, where are you getting this idea that directors simply hand over their movies to the FX guys and essentially relinquish control over huge chunks of their movies? It's simply not true that "the director is not as important as the FX team". Directors work in close collaboration with their effects teams to get the results they want. Would you say directors aren't as important as directors of photography because DPs can make a huge decisions on how scenes are lit, framed and shot?

Here's Shane Black discussing his experience with Iron Man 3:

Shane, this is your first film in eight years, and the biggest film of your career. Were you ready for what lay ahead?
Black: I was prepared. I'd been warned in advance that there would be a tutorial involved where people would walk me through a process that had been tried and true. I've learned a lot about special effects in this room and what's required and how desperate they are for us to do what we do so we can turn it over and they can start the process of rendering it. Along the way, animatics and storyboard people would take it to an animatic and then that would be a pre-viz that I could approve and along the way it was the most elaborate storyboard staff at my disposal. Everything we could think of could be rendered. It's not a movie where you can walk onto the set and say, "What are we doing today?" You're collapsing a building. Let's start with floor one. You have to have so rigorously laid out in advance everything you're going to do and that's what these people are good at.

No-one's disputing Marvel movies are FX-driven but given how different the tone of Iron Man 3 is to Favreau's movies you'd have to be nuts to suggest directors don't have an important role to play. Edgar Wright has a very distinct style and I'm 100% sure his Ant-Man would have been a different movie to the one that will be made by Marvel's second choice.

not to mention that Wright and Joe Cornish have been working on the script for a decade (although that's probably mostly out the window now)

I never said the director didn't play an important role (obv.), or that distinctive writers like Wright or Black don't bring something cool to their projects. It's that as far as billion dollar enterprises go, making the movies "good" or "distinctive" or "original" goes second to having them make tons of money. Which, hey, may be why Wright was fired. The Shane Black quote perfectly illustrates my point: he really didn't know much about FX, but they walked him through a "tried and true" tutorial, he learned a lot and pulled it off. And again, I liked his Iron Man 3 a lot, better than the other two! But that's a critical judgement on my part. The studio, I assume, likes anything that makes a lot of money, the more the merrier, and I think they care more about a director who can get the work done on time and on budget than one with any particular vision or voice. Those may be bonuses, and it makes me like the movies more, personally, but my point is just about any competent director could be quickly brought up to speed. I never said a non-Wright "Ant-man" would be as good, or would not be different, just that it could easily be done by any number of directors, which was my response to the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

there's a difference between knowing how FX is done and having a creative vision about how you want it to play out.

The studio, I assume, likes anything that makes a lot of money, the more the merrier, and I think they care more about a director who can get the work done on time and on budget than one with any particular vision or voice.

I don't think there's as much clear water between vision & voice and billion-dollar franchises as you do. Here's some quotes from Marvel's Kevin Feige:

"There are five things I can point to in the bones of this movie that are 100% solely Shane Black," says Feige. "It has as many, if not more, visual-effects shots than Avengers, but at the same time it has this awesome sort of 80s action-movie overlay, especially with some of the action that Tony and Rhodey find themselves in."

I will say that we bring in different film-makers because we want that outside voice, that unique viewpoint to come into each of the movies, so they can stand alone and have a value in their own right. We want directors to believe they can do a better job.

I never said a non-Wright "Ant-man" would be as good, or would not be different, just that it could easily be done by any number of directors, which was my response to the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

Doesn't Marvel's 'apparent difficulty' that suggest that maybe it's not as easy as you think it is?

s1ocki otm

Doesn't Marvel's 'apparent difficulty' that suggest that maybe it's not as easy as you think it is?

Well, I imagine there are a lot of factors at work here at this point, not least schedule.

s1ocki otm

Absolutely! But just to use Shane Black as an example again, if someone told me at any time in the previous decade that Shane Black was going to make a huge superhero sequel, I would have raised an eyebrow. But he did a great job! And he had a vision for the film, at least tonally. But the film's success I think was still largely due, beyond RDJ, to the FX, because if they failed, the film would have failed, and as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

Here's another good example. Gary Ross was best known as a writer, then moved into directing with "Pleasantville," which was very visual but still very script-driven. Then he did "Secretariat," which was very traditional. So two movies down, and he gets tapped to direct the first "Hunger Games" movie, a huge property handled by a well-regarded writer/director with no track record when it comes to action movies. The film comes out, it gets good reviews, it's a huge hit - fait accompli. For the second movie they picked a relatively unknown director who did an even better job, but the only thing I remember reading in the lead-up was that the effects were much better. And of course it was a big hit, too. Or the "Harry Potter" movies: huge property, huge endeavor, first two made by a competent hack, third by an auteur, fourth by a guy best known for "Four Weddings and a Funeral," and every one after that, the next four, by David Yates, a TV guy who had never done a huge, FX-driven film, or any theatrical film, afaict. And not only did he do a great job, there was absolutely no drop-off in quality. That the world had already been established so well by books and previous films certainly helped, but probably also that he was not the sort to get in the way. Those last four HP films are great, and he did a great job, but I'm not sure there's anything particular about his approach that helped make them great. Mostly his competence, his ability not to make them worse. Would Alfonso Cuaron have made them differently? Sure. But they didn't leave me wishing Cuaron had made them instead.

the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

it's been five days since they boned the dude that spent eight years working on this, can't believe the movie isn't on VOD yet

Well, I wouldn't exactly say he spent the last 8 years working on it, considering he did manage to write, direct or produce several movies in the interim.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. Is it that competent directors who understand screenwriting are hired to make marquee movies and then those movies are successful at the box office but that you, Josh in Chicago, might not have personally chosen those directors to make those movies if you were in charge?

Also, something something something FX something?

But the film's success I think was still largely due, beyond RDJ, to the FX, because if they failed, the film would have failed, and as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

quoted for boneheadedness

I'm all ears: why is that boneheaded? Do you think IM3's FXs looked good because of Shane Black's vision? Would the film have done well if the FX looked like crap? How much credit does Shane Black deserve for the quality of the FX?

xpost It's really not that complicated: it's that writer/directors with vision may make these movies better, but that these franchises, Marvel or otherwise, have a long track record of directors with very little experience in this milieu doing more than adequate jobs. Given there are exponentially more directors in the latter camp than the former, one would think finding a substitute director to make these movies would not be so difficult. It's totally fair to point out it's only been a week. At the same time, with a cast and a release date on the calendar, plus all the other Marvel movies being juggled, they don't have a lot of time to dither.

I don't get why you all think I think the directors who made a lot of these movies were the wrong pick, or that I somehow wouldn't prefer Wright, who I've been a fan of since Spaced.

Actually, I'm starting to get confused what this pseudo counter-argument even is myself. That Edgar Wright has spend so much time on Ant-man, and he is such a formidable director, that no one can replace him?

so your stupid point is... other directors... can direct... movies?

Off topic, but just want to mention that Bruno Delbonnel is absolutely crucial in making The Half Blood Prince as good as it is. And somebody somewhere chose to have that film focus on Snape and Malfoy, which was also absolutely the right choice, could as well have been Yates?

Yes, that is my stupid point. That apparently any director can do it.

no

I don't get why you all think I think the directors who made a lot of these movies were the wrong pick, or that I somehow wouldn't prefer Wright, who I've been a fan of since Spaced.

Because you're doing a very poor job of explaining your point.

Do you think IM3's FXs looked good because of Shane Black's vision?

yes

Would the film have done well if the FX looked like crap?

Marvel have the budget to hire top-of-the-line effects houses to create a consistently high quality for their FX. The chances of the FX looking like crap were very slim because the studio hired competent professionals to support the creative decisions which are ultimately the responsibility of the director. You might as well ask if the film would have done well if the DP had left the cap on the lens when they shot the live-action sequences.

How much credit does Shane Black deserve for the quality of the FX?

74%

"how the fx looks" is only one of many metrics for judging a movie, and a fairly minor one at this point in cinema history

"finding a new director for ant-man at this point is like finding a new bride because you already rented the church"

as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

Josh, I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this comment - could you explain your understanding of how directors oversee the construction of and direct the action during CGI sequences differs from your understanding of what they do during live-action sequences?

I'll try. If an actor, say, blinks during a take, or gives a strange reading, or bounces on a wire wrong, you can just yell cut and have them do it again. Or even if you need to bring an actor back to reshoot something, you call them back in, or have them even do it remotely. It takes work, but it's more or less immediately re-shootable. But if, after months of rendering, Iron Man's final battle comes back looking terrible, it's not so simple. Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the technology, it takes days of rendering, and hundreds of people at work, sometimes multiple effects crews. And in the end, it could still come back looking "fake," or otherwise not up to snuff. And all the while, the deadline and/or budget is looming. It's obviously vital that the acting be good, or suitable, but so much of these films is acting or reacting around things that are not there, because they take an immense deal of time and money and effort to create. But Robert Downey Jr. in front of a green screen, no so much. Or at least, much less so. Good actors are the ultimate practical effect. So sticking with Iron Man 3, granted, I only saw it the once, but as I noted upthread, I was blown away by the complexity of the final showdown, of which I imagine 90% (at least) was stuff that was created in a computer. So Shane Black writes the script, and the FX team can tell him it's doable. He can approve the animatics and storyboards. He can shoot his actors where they are supposed to be, and saying what they are supposed to say. But all those bangs and whistles that he devised, it's out of his hands how good they look. He's at the mercy of the immense FX teams. Who, famously, are in the midst of a simmering labor debate for that very reason, iirc.

I mean, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but everything from the angles to the editing of these elaborate sequels are pretty locked well in advance, not unlike a strictly animated Pixar film. There are still DPs and editors and lenses, in a virtual sense, but none of those things can trick a fickle audience into accepting something artificial as real. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. Clearly often it really doesn't matter. But back to my "Hunger Games" example, I heard lots of complaints that the CGI mutant dogs looked terrible. Less no or even no complains with the apes in the second movie. And there are lots of blockbusters with terrible acting, but sort of accept that in a way that we do not accept fake giant robots.

Sequences, not sequels.

ya but dude

someone has to visualize what HAPPENS in these sequences

it's not down to like, the individual techs doing the shading and stuff, any more than a practical action sequence is down to the guy who looks after the props

For sure, they have to be visualized, and for sure, the director is the one in charge, in the end. But I always imagined these immense CG worlds as almost a parallel virtual movie being made at the same time the actual movie is being made. I wonder how much tweaking can be done once the sequence has been set in motion, as such.

Thanks for your reply, Josh.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the technology

I think that's basically what you're doing. There is so much concept work, pre-visualisation, animatic creation etc before a final render that the chances of the finished version of a shot being an unexpected surprise are pretty slim.

But all those bangs and whistles that he devised, it's out of his hands how good they look. He's at the mercy of the immense FX teams.

It's not really any more out of his hands than any practical effect, or how well the sets are built and dressed, or how good the costumes look, or how effective the focus-pulling is. Filmmakers hire the crew they think will best support them in making the movie they see in their heads. FX crews are just a part of that process.

Would you say Shane Black is less responsible for the outcome of the Iron Man 3 finale than, say, John Lasseter was for the outcome of Toy Story?

Or Ang Lee for the outcome of Life of Pi?

We got Ant-Man movie thread sidetrack.

Josh if we all just say yes you're right can we go back to talk about something else?

I can never understand people who pop up on a thread just to tell other people to stop posting on a thread. I may be boring or stupid or even wrong, but I'd like to think I am almost always civil.

Yes but you can be a little...let's say tendentious.

They put one of their posts on the thread, you put ten of yours on the thread. That's the Chicago way.

OK. But a bomb thrower I am not.

The John Lasseter/Shane Black question is actually a really interesting one. I'd flip the hypothetical and ask if Shane Black could successfully direct a Pixar movie. I don't know. I always assumed it required a relatively unique perspective and skill set, not just a vision, but I don't know.

The Ang Lee question I'd argue ie easier to answer, and gets to the idea of authorship/auteurship. That is, I don't think that movie ever would have been made without Ang Lee, and certainly not made the way it was by someone else, probably radically so. But many (though not all) of these Marvel movies are being made no matter what. The property comes first, and then it's a matter of finding the right pegs to slot in the right holes. If anything, Lee's "Hulk" may have doomed future radical artistic comic book visions. What I love about Black's contributions to Iron Man 3 is that it really lifts all the sections of the movie that were not flying and shooting and exploding. I imagine Wright would have done the same for "Ant-man."

But anyway, it's a free forum, and I'm not a dick, but if you all want me to take some time away, I can do that, too.

Dude I'm not saying go away

I'm saying you've been posting about this for like 12 hours and we're nowhere. Like I kinda wanna light up a cigarette and put on my white vest like Ed Harris in Apollo 13 and yell WORK THE PROBLEM. LET'S NOT MAKE THINGS WORSE BY GUESSING

anyway

seriously, you're smart you contribute a lot to a lot of threads and you have good things to say...but you've made you're point like 10 million times over on this particular issue and it's kinda tiring?

*your

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUIPXBOoDe0/UungGw-2rWI/AAAAAAAAAsE/nm58iAxp_ig/s1600/TOM_HANKS_CAST_AWAY_ED_HARRIS_APOLLO_13_similarity.png

teal & orange

the problem with ang lee's Hulk wasn't that it was a radical take. the problem was that it was forced and obvious and also sucked.

Adult Pi Patel: So which Hulk story do you prefer?
Writer: The one with the tiger. That's the better story.
Adult Pi Patel: Thank you. And so it goes with Go-wait. You didn't even see Ang's Hulk, did you?
Writer: It looked really bad.

The only truly unforgiveable misstep in Lee's Hulk was the use of comic book-style page-flippy scene transitions. If that had taken root as an in-house style, I would most assuredly not be a fan of the current gen Marvel films. Leave that shit to Creepshow, full stop.

iirc the scooby doo fight was pretty unforgiveable

I was under the impression that Ant Man is hardly an obvious Spiderman/Wolverine type candidate for Marvel movie blockbusterhood, and that the reason it got greenlit, as opposed to, say, more saleable Marvel heroes, was that Wright and Cornish had a unique take on it that would have placed the movie in a more leftfield space than Iron Man or Avengers or Captain America. And that therefore, minus Wright and Cornish, what you have is a not-massively-saleable Marvel hero starring in a movie now absent the unique twist (Wright and Cornish) that got it commissioned.

ya cuz seriously like... ant-man? who gives a fuck

I think the only thing that made me WANT to see Ant Man at all was Edgar Wright's involvement. I'm not really clamoring for that movie otherwise, tbh

get amy heckerling to direct

remember back when scuttlebutt was this would be a pixar thing? that was a good look

had no idea this guy was the original villian:

http://eclectikrelaxation.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/a035scu.jpg

what if we dust off old Sid & Marty Kroft