Nostalgia Critic: Why Do Good Directors Go Bad?

[wisdomwizard]

Since someone forgot to upload this, here's the first of Shymalan Month with Doug's editorial that takes a closer look at him, George Lucas and others.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbL0jIl-NY8

[Hit Girl]

Same reason good internet film reviewers go bad.

[A Platypus Rave]

They suddenly decide that they are artistes and can do no wrong and other people stop challenging them.

[xCompackx]

I didn't watch the entire video because I value my sanity, but I disagree that directors "go bad". Any director can make a good movie or a bad one, or even a string of good movies or bad ones. There's no clearly defined category for things like this.

[Deleted]

Part of me thinks that it comes down to resources & the insular nature of the business.

when you're early in your career you have to be more creative and dynamic with your film-making because you have limited resources. When you're basically told, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to work with, it makes the entire project difficult to direct because there are more, gigantic, moving parts to get a hold of. Plus you're in a sandbox with no restrictions, which seems like a good thing, but restrictions actually enhance the creative process more times than you think. Not ALOT of restrictions, but basically being given free reign rarely results in cool stuff.

because you're a seasoned director, you're A) less exposed to things outside Hollywood, so you're inside the "bubble" of the film industry, which is how you get so many films about filmmaking kinda stuff. Or movies that feel very out of touch.
and B) Like with some musicians, directors struggle their whole lives to make those first few movies, they pour their entire life into them. But after you've made those first few movies, you're kind of tapped out in terms of that hunger/struggle to make great stuff.

Some directors continue to make cool stuff into their later years, partly by staying outside the Hollywood machine and partly by continually challenging themselves to do new stuff. Which I think is the key. but if you're just making the same kind of film over and over again (which, hey - who doesn't want to get paid?) then you lose that edge that is required to make good art.

[The Ichi]

Could ask you the same question, Critic.

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2016 10:35:29 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

Since someone forgot to upload this, here's the first of Shymalan Month with Doug's editorial that takes a closer look at him, George Lucas and others.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbL0jIl-NY8

Sure........."Forgot"

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2016 12:26:04 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Part of me thinks that it comes down to resources & the insular nature of the business.

when you're early in your career you have to be more creative and dynamic with your film-making because you have limited resources. When you're basically told, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to work with, it makes the entire project difficult to direct because there are more, gigantic, moving parts to get a hold of. Plus you're in a sandbox with no restrictions, which seems like a good thing, but restrictions actually enhance the creative process more times than you think. Not ALOT of restrictions, but basically being given free reign rarely results in cool stuff.

because you're a seasoned director, you're A) less exposed to things outside Hollywood, so you're inside the "bubble" of the film industry, which is how you get so many films about filmmaking kinda stuff. Or movies that feel very out of touch.
and B) Like with some musicians, directors struggle their whole lives to make those first few movies, they pour their entire life into them. But after you've made those first few movies, you're kind of tapped out in terms of that hunger/struggle to make great stuff.

Some directors continue to make cool stuff into their later years, partly by staying outside the Hollywood machine and partly by continually challenging themselves to do new stuff. Which I think is the key. but if you're just making the same kind of film over and over again (which, hey - who doesn't want to get paid?) then you lose that edge that is required to make good art.

I know Tarantino said something like this that being a director is a young man's game for this reason. Eventually you get comfortable, complacent, or use most of your ideas you become a parody of yourself. Sometimes most important crew members pass on or move on or falling out happens. I haven't seen The Hateful Eight but it seems like lots of the criticms are the same with Django of being overly long for the sake of it. The reason why Django was so long because Tarantinos editor in all of his movies has passed away before the movie was made and she was the only one who can convince Tarantino to cut out scenes or make them shorter. She was the one who convinced Tarantino to cut down the date scene in Pulp Fiction from 90 mins to 25 mins.

[A Platypus Rave]

Jan 12, 2016 14:39:05 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Jan 12, 2016 12:26:04 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Part of me thinks that it comes down to resources & the insular nature of the business.

when you're early in your career you have to be more creative and dynamic with your film-making because you have limited resources. When you're basically told, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to work with, it makes the entire project difficult to direct because there are more, gigantic, moving parts to get a hold of. Plus you're in a sandbox with no restrictions, which seems like a good thing, but restrictions actually enhance the creative process more times than you think. Not ALOT of restrictions, but basically being given free reign rarely results in cool stuff.

because you're a seasoned director, you're A) less exposed to things outside Hollywood, so you're inside the "bubble" of the film industry, which is how you get so many films about filmmaking kinda stuff. Or movies that feel very out of touch.
and B) Like with some musicians, directors struggle their whole lives to make those first few movies, they pour their entire life into them. But after you've made those first few movies, you're kind of tapped out in terms of that hunger/struggle to make great stuff.

Some directors continue to make cool stuff into their later years, partly by staying outside the Hollywood machine and partly by continually challenging themselves to do new stuff. Which I think is the key. but if you're just making the same kind of film over and over again (which, hey - who doesn't want to get paid?) then you lose that edge that is required to make good art.

I know Tarantino said something like this that being a director is a young man's game for this reason. Eventually you get comfortable, complacent, or use most of your ideas you become a parody of yourself. Sometimes most important crew members pass on or move on or falling out happens. I haven't seen The Hateful Eight but it seems like lots of the criticms are the same with Django of being overly long for the sake of it. The reason why Django was so long because Tarantinos editor in all of his movies has passed away before the movie was made and she was the only one who can convince Tarantino to cut out scenes or make them shorter. She was the one who convinced Tarantino to cut down the date scene in Pulp Fiction from 90 mins to 25 mins.

over an hour of the date scene? Really? That would have been brutal...

And yeah that's kinda what I was talking about in my original post.

When Star Wars came out George Lucas wasn't anyone, so people would challenge his writing and directing cues.

When the Prequels came out he was GEORGE LUCAS... and everyone just let him do his own thing.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Because they were hanging in the corner with their five best friends?

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2016 14:39:05 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Jan 12, 2016 12:26:04 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Part of me thinks that it comes down to resources & the insular nature of the business.

when you're early in your career you have to be more creative and dynamic with your film-making because you have limited resources. When you're basically told, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to work with, it makes the entire project difficult to direct because there are more, gigantic, moving parts to get a hold of. Plus you're in a sandbox with no restrictions, which seems like a good thing, but restrictions actually enhance the creative process more times than you think. Not ALOT of restrictions, but basically being given free reign rarely results in cool stuff.

because you're a seasoned director, you're A) less exposed to things outside Hollywood, so you're inside the "bubble" of the film industry, which is how you get so many films about filmmaking kinda stuff. Or movies that feel very out of touch.
and B) Like with some musicians, directors struggle their whole lives to make those first few movies, they pour their entire life into them. But after you've made those first few movies, you're kind of tapped out in terms of that hunger/struggle to make great stuff.

Some directors continue to make cool stuff into their later years, partly by staying outside the Hollywood machine and partly by continually challenging themselves to do new stuff. Which I think is the key. but if you're just making the same kind of film over and over again (which, hey - who doesn't want to get paid?) then you lose that edge that is required to make good art.

I know Tarantino said something like this that being a director is a young man's game for this reason. Eventually you get comfortable, complacent, or use most of your ideas you become a parody of yourself. Sometimes most important crew members pass on or move on or falling out happens. I haven't seen The Hateful Eight but it seems like lots of the criticms are the same with Django of being overly long for the sake of it. The reason why Django was so long because Tarantinos editor in all of his movies has passed away before the movie was made and she was the only one who can convince Tarantino to cut out scenes or make them shorter. She was the one who convinced Tarantino to cut down the date scene in Pulp Fiction from 90 mins to 25 mins.

Yeah, that also kind leads into another point of if a director gets big enough - no one wants to tell him "no." Which can lead to any number of issues.

[xCompackx]

Jan 12, 2016 14:45:30 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave said:

Jan 12, 2016 14:39:05 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

I know Tarantino said something like this that being a director is a young man's game for this reason. Eventually you get comfortable, complacent, or use most of your ideas you become a parody of yourself. Sometimes most important crew members pass on or move on or falling out happens. I haven't seen The Hateful Eight but it seems like lots of the criticms are the same with Django of being overly long for the sake of it. The reason why Django was so long because Tarantinos editor in all of his movies has passed away before the movie was made and she was the only one who can convince Tarantino to cut out scenes or make them shorter. She was the one who convinced Tarantino to cut down the date scene in Pulp Fiction from 90 mins to 25 mins.

over an hour of the date scene? Really? That would have been brutal...

And yeah that's kinda what I was talking about in my original post.

When Star Wars came out George Lucas wasn't anyone, so people would challenge his writing and directing cues.

When the Prequels came out he was GEORGE LUCAS... and everyone just let him do his own thing.

That's not strictly a Hollywood issue; you can see that everywhere. Whether it's Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear Solid's story going completely off the damn rails, or Lil Wayne making a "rock" album when nobody wanted it.

[HMARK Center]

Jan 12, 2016 12:26:04 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Part of me thinks that it comes down to resources & the insular nature of the business.

when you're early in your career you have to be more creative and dynamic with your film-making because you have limited resources. When you're basically told, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to work with, it makes the entire project difficult to direct because there are more, gigantic, moving parts to get a hold of. Plus you're in a sandbox with no restrictions, which seems like a good thing, but restrictions actually enhance the creative process more times than you think. Not ALOT of restrictions, but basically being given free reign rarely results in cool stuff.

because you're a seasoned director, you're A) less exposed to things outside Hollywood, so you're inside the "bubble" of the film industry, which is how you get so many films about filmmaking kinda stuff. Or movies that feel very out of touch.
and B) Like with some musicians, directors struggle their whole lives to make those first few movies, they pour their entire life into them. But after you've made those first few movies, you're kind of tapped out in terms of that hunger/struggle to make great stuff.

Some directors continue to make cool stuff into their later years, partly by staying outside the Hollywood machine and partly by continually challenging themselves to do new stuff. Which I think is the key. but if you're just making the same kind of film over and over again (which, hey - who doesn't want to get paid?) then you lose that edge that is required to make good art.

You beat me to the punch with B.

I've been into the arts most of my life, and I really enjoy writing a lot, both fiction and nonfiction academic writing. I've never gone full bore with fiction writing (something I want to change in my 30s) and I've recently completed a masters thesis that I hope gets published, but I know that I'm quite passionate about my thesis topic, and my fiction ideas are story concepts I've had kicking around in my head for years. Should I ever get them down on paper/the computer, I'm going to put everything I've got into realizing them as well as I can, and hope that it gives me a new avenue to express myself and my interests.

But pretending for a moment that I pull that off and then get a chance to write another story...where would I go next? I've had the same ideas in my head for a long time now, would I really have a new one in me? People underestimate how enormous a challenge that is for artists of any kind and at any experience level; art is the expression of your passions, and once you've gotten that one story, that one song, that one painting, or that one thesis out that you've wanted to show the world for years, "what's next?" becomes a very scary question. That first story/song/whatever was what brought you into putting your art together; how do you replicate that feeling of "I HAVE to get this filmed/written/composed/programmed/etc.!"

[Jiren]

Jan 12, 2016 14:46:38 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Jan 12, 2016 14:39:05 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

I know Tarantino said something like this that being a director is a young man's game for this reason. Eventually you get comfortable, complacent, or use most of your ideas you become a parody of yourself. Sometimes most important crew members pass on or move on or falling out happens. I haven't seen The Hateful Eight but it seems like lots of the criticms are the same with Django of being overly long for the sake of it. The reason why Django was so long because Tarantinos editor in all of his movies has passed away before the movie was made and she was the only one who can convince Tarantino to cut out scenes or make them shorter. She was the one who convinced Tarantino to cut down the date scene in Pulp Fiction from 90 mins to 25 mins.

Yeah, that also kind leads into another point of if a director gets big enough - no one wants to tell him "no." Which can lead to any number of issues.

This is a big one

George Lucas had nothing but yes men, he really needed someone to tell him his scripts are awful, some amazing ideas but he can't write for shit.

Phantom Menace/AOTC felt like I was watching the first and only draft.....I'll call ROTS an accident

[wisdomwizard]

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:42 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Jan 12, 2016 14:45:30 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave said:

over an hour of the date scene? Really? That would have been brutal...

And yeah that's kinda what I was talking about in my original post.

When Star Wars came out George Lucas wasn't anyone, so people would challenge his writing and directing cues.

When the Prequels came out he was GEORGE LUCAS... and everyone just let him do his own thing.

That's not strictly a Hollywood issue; you can see that everywhere. Whether it's Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear Solid's story going completely off the damn rails, or Lil Wayne making a "rock" album when nobody wanted it.

Things got a little bit crazy with 2 aka Sons of Liberty, but Guns of the Patriots managed to smooth most of them out. Granted, I haven't gone back and finished Phantom Pain yet.

[A Platypus Rave]

Jan 12, 2016 22:55:21 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Jan 12, 2016 14:46:38 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

Yeah, that also kind leads into another point of if a director gets big enough - no one wants to tell him "no." Which can lead to any number of issues.

This is a big one

George Lucas had nothing but yes men, he really needed someone to tell him his scripts are awful, some amazing ideas but he can't write for shit.

Phantom Menace/AOTC felt like I was watching the first and only draft.....I'll call ROTS an accident

Yeah, as I said in the Star Wars thread when people brought up the let George Lucas direct petition.

George is good as world building and effect work.

direction and actual dialogue is not his strong suit... and he shouldn't be the sole person in charge of that...

also the man seems to have a bizzare love of Trade Negotiations... they show up in his original drafts of Star Wars and then obviously were a main part of Episode 1. This probably somehow relates back to the old serials... but still...

[SAJ Forth]

Jan 12, 2016 11:15:59 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Same reason good internet film reviewers go bad.

Pretty much.

[lionheart21]

Jan 12, 2016 11:15:59 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

Same reason good internet film reviewers go bad.

This was my first thought when I read the title and I was expecting this to be one of the first responses.

[RadcapRadsley]

Very easy

They are trying to get that David Schwimmer money

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

Using the Coen brothers as an example is weird because they have only ever had two films with a poor to mixed reception since they got big which were Ladykillers & Hudsucker Proxy. I mean, they have only gotten 89 award nominations from their 20 odd films.