destrekor
Lifer
It's kind of funny everyone blaming Abrams for what they didn't like in the new movies.
Everyone forgets how the Hollywood machine really works these days.
There was a time, back in the 70s, when studios were somewhat OK giving COMPLETE autonomy to the directors and visionaries.
Realize that Lucas didn't even fully direct the original trilogy, or have complete writing credit. He probably had ultimate control but understood, as a young director, that there were experts to be listened to.
Only a few directors of that era actually continued to make good films, but even they had duds.
Lucas basically went into studio controller mode and not visionary film director mode and lost touch. More importantly, he had SO much history and power as a studio executive, he was basically able to grant himself visionary director on-set-dictator powers, and the prequels bombed for that reason.
The point, however, is that very few directors actually get that kind of power these days. They answer to studios, and don't have yes men because they have people who actually listen to the studios and not to the director, at least not fully.
There really isn't that much that comes out today, at least not anything with massive budgets, that is a product of a visionary director who had the last say on everything.
Which is to say, perhaps what everyone hates about any given modern film is the fault of the director, but unless it's of the technical nature, it's more likely to be the result of the studios. They will put their control on the writing, on plot direction, on styles of shots/edits in order to do their part to ensure they get their profit.
If it's an acting issue or just bad action development or a failure of convincing set and the incorporation of everything, you can problem blame the director.
If you felt the movie was too boiled down, too popcorn flick as opposed to developed drama, well... that's probably a result of studio control.
They like money and have their nearly-sure-bet formulas.
I wouldn't worry about it being an Abrams film at all. He has actually demonstrated terrific visual direction. I think, if it fails to be enjoyable, it'll be a result of the studio machine and story direction.
Everyone forgets how the Hollywood machine really works these days.
There was a time, back in the 70s, when studios were somewhat OK giving COMPLETE autonomy to the directors and visionaries.
Realize that Lucas didn't even fully direct the original trilogy, or have complete writing credit. He probably had ultimate control but understood, as a young director, that there were experts to be listened to.
Only a few directors of that era actually continued to make good films, but even they had duds.
Lucas basically went into studio controller mode and not visionary film director mode and lost touch. More importantly, he had SO much history and power as a studio executive, he was basically able to grant himself visionary director on-set-dictator powers, and the prequels bombed for that reason.
The point, however, is that very few directors actually get that kind of power these days. They answer to studios, and don't have yes men because they have people who actually listen to the studios and not to the director, at least not fully.
There really isn't that much that comes out today, at least not anything with massive budgets, that is a product of a visionary director who had the last say on everything.
Which is to say, perhaps what everyone hates about any given modern film is the fault of the director, but unless it's of the technical nature, it's more likely to be the result of the studios. They will put their control on the writing, on plot direction, on styles of shots/edits in order to do their part to ensure they get their profit.
If it's an acting issue or just bad action development or a failure of convincing set and the incorporation of everything, you can problem blame the director.
If you felt the movie was too boiled down, too popcorn flick as opposed to developed drama, well... that's probably a result of studio control.
They like money and have their nearly-sure-bet formulas.
I wouldn't worry about it being an Abrams film at all. He has actually demonstrated terrific visual direction. I think, if it fails to be enjoyable, it'll be a result of the studio machine and story direction.
