Is everyone's ultimate goal to direct Hollywood features?

Nic Aragon said:
no way! ive known some people who did that. basically the worst job ever is what i hear...
Click to expand...

One of the major game testing outfits for both Xbox/MS and Nintendo is a few miles away... trust me, you don't want to be a game tester. From what I've heard, you basically try and crash the system, make the game freeze, repeat the same level over and over again, with few breaks and at minimum wage.

Here's a Seattle Weekly article on it
 
I would like to shoot for Discovery or be a DP in a stable for a production company. I really like being a DP on a movie set but I don't know if I could do it for the entire length of a feature film. Maybe if it was a small indie flick...
 
puredrifting said:
It's called "blame boy". If the movie tanks, the suits can say, "hey, we hired this hot new director, guess he wasn't up to the task."

If the movie makes money, the suits can say, "hey, we nurture the best new talent. This guy is brilliant and has a great career ahead of him and guess who was genius enough to recognize his talent and give him his shot?"

It's a win, win for the suits at the studio because these days they are all terrfied of losing their jobs so no REAL risk is ever taken. New directors on studio fare are for the most part, a token position. They don't get any autonomy or power until the make the studio a LOT of money and they can threaten to go elsewhere. Then they have power. That's how the Ratners of this world climb the ladder.

Dan
Click to expand...

What about a director who has established themself through several financially successful or notable independent features? Let's say someone like Darren Aronofsky for example. He did Pi, then Requiem for a Dream. Both films were well regarded by viewers and were nominated or won some prestigious awards. He became well know enough to the public, or at least movie buffs before he went on to larger budgeted films like The Fountain, and now the Robocop remake he will be doing.

Is there any difference in studio treatment of someone like Aronofsky as opposed to a Len Wiseman or a Brett Ratner when they are starting out? I would imagine there is, because logic dictates that there would be. Then again, with Hollywood logic is not always available in large amounts.

My theory is that a director-for-hire like Len Wiseman directing Die Hard 4 would be scrutinized and watched closely, compared to a writer / director like Aronofsky directing The Fountain. DH4 only came about because the studio wanted it, where as The Fountain is an original creation by Aronosky, only existing because he created it. I would guess that the studio would not be as interested in trying to screw with Aronofsky because of this. Plus, a franchise film like DH4 is a potential cash cow for the studio. It makes sense from an accounting point of view to make sure that the film is safe enough for as large an audience as possible. The studios can only do the risky projects like The Fountain because they make their major profits on the tentpole summer blockbusters and franchise films and their endless sequels. So if you get yourself into a situation where you are directing Dukes of Hazard 3 or Spiderman 4, then you shouldn't expect the same amount of creative control as if you were directing your own original screenplay. Not saying that it is right, just that a filmmaker should know what they are getting themselves into.

I've always thought that it is better to start out in the independent world (we have to anyways for our first projects anyways). Once you've directed a few films, depending on how successful they are, you can use those successes to gain attention from the studios. If their offers suck, then you can stay independent until you get a good enough offer to tackle a big studio movie.

I think the real danger is to think that big budget Hollywood is the only goal in filmmaking, the tippy top of the pyramid. Why not establish yourself independently so that if the Hollywood stuff doesn't work out you can always come back to smaller budgeted films? Personally, I wouldn't just take any big studio offer. I mean if they asked me to direct a big budget adaptation of My Little Pony or something else inappropriate to my sensibilities I would obviously decline. I'd rather direct low or no budget films that are stories I love, than big budget films of stories I have no passion for.
 
Nektonic said:
What about a director who has established themself through several financially successful or notable independent features? Let's say someone like Darren Aronofsky for example. He did Pi, then Requiem for a Dream. Both films were well regarded by viewers and were nominated or won some prestigious awards. He became well know enough to the public, or at least movie buffs before he went on to larger budgeted films like The Fountain, and now the Robocop remake he will be doing.

Is there any difference in studio treatment of someone like Aronofsky as opposed to a Len Wiseman or a Brett Ratner when they are starting out? I would imagine there is, because logic dictates that there would be. Then again, with Hollywood logic is not always available in large amounts.

My theory is that a director-for-hire like Len Wiseman directing Die Hard 4 would be scrutinized and watched closely, compared to a writer / director like Aronofsky directing The Fountain. DH4 only came about because the studio wanted it, where as The Fountain is an original creation by Aronosky, only existing because he created it. I would guess that the studio would not be as interested in trying to screw with Aronofsky because of this. Plus, a franchise film like DH4 is a potential cash cow for the studio. It makes sense from an accounting point of view to make sure that the film is safe enough for as large an audience as possible. The studios can only do the risky projects like The Fountain because they make their major profits on the tentpole summer blockbusters and franchise films and their endless sequels. So if you get yourself into a situation where you are directing Dukes of Hazard 3 or Spiderman 4, then you shouldn't expect the same amount of creative control as if you were directing your own original screenplay. Not saying that it is right, just that a filmmaker should know what they are getting themselves into.

I've always thought that it is better to start out in the independent world (we have to anyways for our first projects anyways). Once you've directed a few films, depending on how successful they are, you can use those successes to gain attention from the studios. If their offers suck, then you can stay independent until you get a good enough offer to tackle a big studio movie.

I think the real danger is to think that big budget Hollywood is the only goal in filmmaking, the tippy top of the pyramid. Why not establish yourself independently so that if the Hollywood stuff doesn't work out you can always come back to smaller budgeted films? Personally, I wouldn't just take any big studio offer. I mean if they asked me to direct a big budget adaptation of My Little Pony or something else inappropriate to my sensibilities I would obviously decline. I'd rather direct low or no budget films that are stories I love, than big budget films of stories I have no passion for.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention, I happened to have worked on DH4 and shot all of the bonus material, interviews, BTS and some of the EPK. From my time with him and with others on the film, I did get the impression that the main thing that got him the job was his vision for Underworld jibed with the producers vision for the DH4, heavy VFX, animation, design, etc. They knew that they wanted DH4 to be "techie" and to appeal to more of the ComicCon type of crowd so they went to that world to find the director.

I am not sure how much of the direction was dictated to Wiseman, it can be hard to tell on a film that where almost every shot is CGI and heavily storyboarded. That film was also part of a well-established franchise that makes Fox metric tons of money so in the end, I think any director who they would have given it to would have had much of his direction dictated to him/her. Die Hard is not the type of project that any of the producers would have let anyone tamper with the formula, it's really not that different than being called in to direct an episode of "Two and Half Men" or "Seinfeld" or any other successful series, you pretty much have to stick within the mold that has been established.

I do agree with what you say about Aronofsky, I would suspect he was probably not dictated to as much as a "newbie" director on a studio project. I have not worked with him but I can tell you that the power structure of a director wanting to be put onto a project versus a studio wanting a certain director because he or she is "hot" is a very fluid thing and changes almost hourly.

Most of the directors who are given a first or second time job helming a studio project that have "come up through the ranks" as a producer/VFX producer/writer/DP is going to be told what to do and which "box" to stay in as they direct. What the studio cares about is the director getting good performances and are they shooting the movie in a way that marketing thinks will be successful and most importantly these days, is in the film on schedule and on-budget. Also, insane A-list actors can overide any of these decisions, they are the wild cards. The studio can love the director they have assigned but if Renee Zelwigger hates him, he is gone. Studios these days are ran by lawyers first and marketing second. Creative filmmaking and filmmaking for the art is pretty far down the list of who gets to chime in on the direction of studio films.

It does all come down to power in the end. If you have a studio begging you to direct a project, you have the power and they will only try to dictate to you once you are well entrenched in the process and then it becomes somewhat of a pissing match as to who will back down first.

But if you are up against half a dozen other directors of your rank and file, then to get that first directing gig on something big for a studio probably does mean that you have to bend to the producer and EP and studio people because you are easily replaceable in their eyes. If you don't do what they want you to with a smile, you are off and the next guy in line is brought in. Happens every day and has happened many projects I have worked on.

Hollywood is such a mess of insecure, petty, jealous, egocentric and talented people, it really is like the adult version of the school playground.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks puredrifting. Your description of DH4 is dead on. Felt too FX-ish and tame compared to the original. Of course Fox probably wanted a PG-13 so that explains a lot. It really feels that most big films these days are made to appeal to the Comic Con crowd. Not always a bad thing, but sometimes I like a grittier feel to things, especially Die Hard. I would have loved to see Paul Greengrass do a Die Hard that goes back to the style and feel of the original.

I have always wanted to follow the path of the writer / director type, which is probably even more of a pipe dream these days, but that is what appeals to me. Personally I'm extremely tired of all the remakes and adaptations but that is the present reality of big budget filmmaking.

What I am very curious about is who dictates what these up and coming directors are shooting? Who creates the story boards? Sounds like the X-Files where the Cigarette Smoking Man is pulling all the strings from within the shadows?

Another question then I have to go to bed... how is it for TV directors? They always say that TV is a "producer's medium".
 
The Director of DH4 said in an interview that he did not use that many effects. Because he wanted to avoid it looking campy. If I remember right the plane was only Half CG because you cant fly that type of jet less than 14 feet off the ground and the car hitting the chopper was real as well. but to me it still looked heavily CGI-ish.
 
filthrich said:
The Director of DH4 said in an interview that he did not use that many effects. Because he wanted to avoid it looking campy. If I remember right the plane was only Half CG because you cant fly that type of jet less than 14 feet off the ground and the car hitting the chopper was real as well. but to me it still looked heavily CGI-ish.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of practical and enhanced practical effects on the film but a lot of CGI as well. And yes, the director was required to turn in a PG-13 cut by the studio.

A film like that is really quite a monumental achievement to be inolved in on any level, you can't imagine how BIG it is and how many hundreds of people are involved (might have even been thousands if you take into consideration all of the shoots).

When I saw it, I was disappointed but not surprised after covering the post process so closely. I was at Company 3 and did interiew the VFX Supervisor and yes, of course, there was a lot of blatant CGI as well as a lot fo continuity CGI for skies, BGs, etc. PLUS the DI was very involved in the look as well.

Dan
 
The very first book I ever read on the industry was - How to be a Producer and I think for my personality, though directing is cool, producing is even cooler, you control all aspects of the show.
 
puredrifting said:
There were a lot of practical and enhanced practical effects on the film but a lot of CGI as well. And yes, the director was required to turn in a PG-13 cut by the studio.

A film like that is really quite a monumental achievement to be inolved in on any level, you can't imagine how BIG it is and how many hundreds of people are involved (might have even been thousands if you take into consideration all of the shoots).

When I saw it, I was disappointed but not surprised after covering the post process so closely. I was at Company 3 and did interiew the VFX Supervisor and yes, of course, there was a lot of blatant CGI as well as a lot fo continuity CGI for skies, BGs, etc. PLUS the DI was very involved in the look as well.

Dan
Click to expand...

Maybe it was the DI that contributed to the very slick sheen along with the CGI. Compared to the first two Die Hard films it looked much slicker and cleaner. I like the feel of the first two. Not that I didn't enjoy DH4. It was fun but not as good as the original, then again, none of the Die Hard sequels were.

As for big crews on a film, I hear that the Lord of the Rings trilogy had something like 10,000 people that worked on the films (cast, crew, and post combined). Watch the end credits, they go on forever.
 
The thing that gets me about Hollywood is how they greenlight movies like gigli, Christmas with the Kranks, Soulplane and many others that they have to know are bad from jump. But I guess on the other end, take a wretched film like Norbit that goes on to gross 100 million. Is it a case of "Hey you never know" or is it "we will make it back on DVD sales"? Evan almighty cost 170 million to make and it did not even take in close that. I guess the studios make more than they lose or they would go under.
 
I want to be a Hot Actress' Boy toy, and work my way into the industry from there. It worked for Jon Peters, only I'd aim way higher than Barbara Streisand.
 
I'd like to do some H-wood stuff but my goal is to make commercially viable indy films.

-Nate
 
I wish there was a machine that you could hook into sort of like when the characters "jack-in" to The Matrix, that would record thoughts and dreams in whatever resolution you want and store them on a hard disk. Later you could go back and re-edit this "mind footage" into a film. If you don't have a shot or want a different angle, simple, just hook in again and re-imagine the shot or scene the way you want it to be.

Well, that would be nice anyways. I'm sure if this could ever be done I'll never live to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top