|
I sometimes wonder about the role of the film director
|
10-13-2009, 09:02 PM
I mean, the actors are trained to act, so...they act! And then you have a movie! Whatcha need a director for, anyway?
Then I remember: Hayden Christensen in Shattered Glass, vs. Hayden Christensen in Star
10-13-2009, 09:10 PM
A film without a director is like:
- A car without a driver - A ship without a captain - A web forum without a web host - A life without a vision - A plan without a goal The actors are generally trained to take direction and act. If they just act without direction, it's just a mess.
10-13-2009, 09:16 PM
Star Wars is a perfect example of what a director can do, or rather shouldn't do. Natalie Portman is usually a very good actor. Not great, but capable. She and every other actor in the Star Wars movies managed to produce the most consistent pile of crap they were capable of. They were the most 2-D performances possible.
10-13-2009, 09:17 PM
I sometimes wonder if certain films have actually had a director and wonder if not, why not?!?!?!
Just even something as simple as the delivery of one line and how it stands out to me as "not right". It will throw off a scene and I wonder why the director didn't have them re-shoot it. I imagine it's more to do with budget than it is negligence. It makes me appreciate a good actor and/or director even more.
10-13-2009, 09:17 PM
10-13-2009, 09:34 PM
ztirffritz wrote: It was balanced out with 90% of 3D Jar Jar binks.
10-13-2009, 10:06 PM
ztirffritz wrote: Without the director, there would have been no story.
10-13-2009, 10:09 PM
Was there a story? It seemed like they were making it up as they went. A New Hope, Empire, and Jedi were clearly successful despite the efforts of George Lucas. I'm not sure what happened to the next 3 movies but they were crap.
10-13-2009, 10:26 PM
M A V I C wrote: Without the director, there would have been no story. Or consistency. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
