Something I'm wondering about some movie directors...

[Beorning]

Okay, this is probably a weird question without a good answer, but I'll throw it out here. Because I'm kind of wondering.

The question is: do the directors of failed movies know they screwed up? If so, do they feel bad about it?

For example: does JJ Abrams realize that The Rise of Skywalker wasn't generally well-received? Does he realize that, overall, the new Star Wars trilogy is a creative failure? On related note, do all those execs at Disney realize that they didn't manage to do much with Star Wars aside from soulless pseudo-cinematic product?

Similarly, does Joss Whedon realize that his Justice League movie was crap? And that Zack Snyder's unpolished cut was much better? Also, do these D&D guys behind Game of Thrones realize how much they screwed up the show's final season?

Finally, does Tom Hooper realize that he created a cinematic abomination in the form of his Cats adaptation..?

Do you think they all know? Do they think about these things when looking in the mirror? Do they wake up in the middle of the night, screaming..?

What's your opinion?

[Oniya]

It hasn't stopped M. Night Shyamalan. I think at a certain point, ego takes over and we poor peasants simply can't understand their magnificent vision.  (heavy eye-rolling)

[Kathadon]

Honestly do creative types EVER really think their creation is bad? I don't think so, or else we would not see it. It would be in the garbage somewhere.

And this goes double for collaborative creations like movies. They might know it is badly received, but they can just blame someone else for it.

[wander]

Okay, this is probably a weird question without a good answer, but I'll throw it out here. Because I'm kind of wondering.

The question is: do the directors of failed movies know they screwed up? If so, do they feel bad about it?

For example: does JJ Abrams realize that The Rise of Skywalker wasn't generally well-received? Does he realize that, overall, the new Star Wars trilogy is a creative failure? On related note, do all those execs at Disney realize that they didn't manage to do much with Star Wars aside from soulless pseudo-cinematic product?

Similarly, does Joss Whedon realize that his Justice League movie was crap? And that Zack Snyder's unpolished cut was much better? Also, do these D&D guys behind Game of Thrones realize how much they screwed up the show's final season?

Finally, does Tom Hooper realize that he created a cinematic abomination in the form of his Cats adaptation..?

Do you think they all know? Do they think about these things when looking in the mirror? Do they wake up in the middle of the night, screaming..?

What's your opinion?

Of course they know.

However, there 2 important factors that the Hollywood execs and Disney uppers care about now;

Did it make Money?

Keep to the Agenda.

It doesn't matter if a film is seen as crap and railed on, if it's getting clicks (so the chosen moral agenda the film is popularising is pushed) and making money, that's all it comes down to.

There's also shit like Uwe Boll's tax write-offs due to film-making laws where he's at and sometimes films are contractually made to lead to other projects getting sorted, stuff like that.

[Chaosfox]

It hasn't stopped M. Night Shyamalan. I think at a certain point, ego takes over and we poor peasants simply can't understand their magnificent vision.  (heavy eye-rolling)

But.... the twist!  Anyway I think Wander pretty much hit the nail on the hand. As for do any creative types think there stuff is crap.... I do not consider my self super creative but I have almost zero confidence in the thins I create (basically see it as crap) .... part of why I keep dispersing from the site... but I am trying this time round.

[Beorning]

It hasn't stopped M. Night Shyamalan. I think at a certain point, ego takes over and we poor peasants simply can't understand their magnificent vision.  (heavy eye-rolling)

That reminds me of a hilarious press conference from a few years ago, after Lars von Trier presented his new movie, Antichrist, at the Cannes Festival. The press conference involved the journalists asking questions like: "Mr. von Trier, is your movie bad on purpose, or..?" - and von Trier sitting there with a really angry look on his face...

Honestly do creative types EVER really think their creation is bad? I don't think so, or else we would not see it. It would be in the garbage somewhere.

I don't know. I'd think that a director might be determined to release a movie, because there are contracts, money that was invested etc. It doesn't mean that they couldn't know that they didn't do a great job...

Also, sometimes it takes time to realize these things. Case in point: there's this memetic movie scene (often listen in "worst movie scenes ever" types of lists) with an actor going "Oh God, oh man, oh God, oh man, oh God, oh man...!!!", while the camera spins around him. I remember that, some time ago, I saw a fragment of an interview with the director of this movie, conducted years later, where the director admitted that yeah, it wasn't really a good scene. He even went on to admit that, back then on the set, everyone else was telling him: "It's a bad idea! It won't work!", but he thought he knew better. In the interview, he admitted he should've listened...

So yes, some creative types can admit when they missed their mark and screwed up.

Of course they know.

However, there 2 important factors that the Hollywood execs and Disney uppers care about now;

Did it make Money?

Keep to the Agenda.

It doesn't matter if a film is seen as crap and railed on, if it's getting clicks (so the chosen moral agenda the film is popularising is pushed) and making money, that's all it comes down to.

The idea of people having this kind of mindset makes me really sad and angry 

[Deamonbane]

It takes a very special creative mind to look at the finished product that they've been working on and think that is it absolute perfection. Look no further than George Lucas and his obsessive reframing and reshaping of the films until they were no longer in his hands.

Similarly, I assume that it gets to the point where a director is just helping to put someone else's vision to life (usually producers) and it gets to the point where they don't really care how its received so long as someone cuts them a check. I'm assuming that's what J.J. Abrams mindset was when he was working on the Star Wars sequels. They gave him a list of instructions, a beat-by-beat screenplay and told him to make it happen, and he did.

In the end, director vanity projects very rarely end up as commercial successes because they are intended for an audience of one: The director.

As usual, the best projects are those that see passions from everyone involved, from the editing team to the actors, to the directors. You see a lot of that in the Tarantino films, which might not be for everyone, but I don't think anyone can deny that everyone involved added their own little bit of passion to the end product.

To answer the questions, I would say that yes, they probably do know that they screwed up to some extent or another. And no, they probably don't feel bad about it. Those that made passion projects that flopped probably feel that nobody is seeing their work from the perspective that the director does, so they 'just don't understand it' or they took the paycheck, flipped the studio a massive bird and moved on to the next project (this is how I imagine Michael Bay finishes most of his projects).

And then there are people like M. Night Shyamalan. I read an interview somewhere where he said that he thought Avatar: The Last Airbender was a masterpiece and he would love to get a green light for a sequel. At this point, I'm having a difficult time enjoying his good work, just knowing how he feels about it.

[Kathadon]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That reminds me of a hilarious press conference from a few years ago, after Lars von Trier presented his new movie, Antichrist, at the Cannes Festival. The press conference involved the journalists asking questions like: "Mr. von Trier, is your movie bad on purpose, or..?" - and von Trier sitting there with a really angry look on his face...

I don't know. I'd think that a director might be determined to release a movie, because there are contracts, money that was invested etc. It doesn't mean that they couldn't know that they didn't do a great job...

Also, sometimes it takes time to realize these things. Case in point: there's this memetic movie scene (often listen in "worst movie scenes ever" types of lists) with an actor going "Oh God, oh man, oh God, oh man, oh God, oh man...!!!", while the camera spins around him. I remember that, some time ago, I saw a fragment of an interview with the director of this movie, conducted years later, where the director admitted that yeah, it wasn't really a good scene. He even went on to admit that, back then on the set, everyone else was telling him: "It's a bad idea! It won't work!", but he thought he knew better. In the interview, he admitted he should've listened...

So yes, some creative types can admit when they missed their mark and screwed up.

The idea of people having this kind of mindset makes me really sad and angry 

There is a big difference between admitting after the fact that something is bad, and when they are making the art. The stuff they think does not work, or is just bad is on the cutting room floor.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

It takes a very special creative mind to look at the finished product that they've been working on and think that is it absolute perfection. Look no further than George Lucas and his obsessive reframing and reshaping of the films until they were no longer in his hands.

Similarly, I assume that it gets to the point where a director is just helping to put someone else's vision to life (usually producers) and it gets to the point where they don't really care how its received so long as someone cuts them a check. I'm assuming that's what J.J. Abrams mindset was when he was working on the Star Wars sequels. They gave him a list of instructions, a beat-by-beat screenplay and told him to make it happen, and he did.

In the end, director vanity projects very rarely end up as commercial successes because they are intended for an audience of one: The director.

As usual, the best projects are those that see passions from everyone involved, from the editing team to the actors, to the directors. You see a lot of that in the Tarantino films, which might not be for everyone, but I don't think anyone can deny that everyone involved added their own little bit of passion to the end product.

To answer the questions, I would say that yes, they probably do know that they screwed up to some extent or another. And no, they probably don't feel bad about it. Those that made passion projects that flopped probably feel that nobody is seeing their work from the perspective that the director does, so they 'just don't understand it' or they took the paycheck, flipped the studio a massive bird and moved on to the next project (this is how I imagine Michael Bay finishes most of his projects).

Ah! Now "mercenary," for lack of a better term, directors are a different subject worthy of discussion. J.J., Michael Bay, Joss Whedon, and Ron Howard are very much in this mercenary vein to me. James Gunn is heading in this direction too. They are the directors that are safe, technically competent, and have name recognition that the studios can bring in to bat clean up after another director makes the suits nervous. I can appreciate them as competent, even great in some instances, but they are very paint by the numbers safe. As the Snyder cut has shown in my opinion, they can also completely ruin another more daring director's vision completely. 

[Inkidu]

There is a big difference between admitting after the fact that something is bad, and when they are making the art. The stuff they think does not work, or is just bad is on the cutting room floor.
Ah! Now "mercenary," for lack of a better term, directors are a different subject worthy of discussion. J.J., Michael Bay, Joss Whedon, and Ron Howard are very much in this mercenary vein to me. James Gunn is heading in this direction too. They are the directors that are safe, technically competent, and have name recognition that the studios can bring in to bat clean up after another director makes the suits nervous. I can appreciate them as competent, even great in some instances, but they are very paint by the numbers safe. As the Snyder cut has shown in my opinion, they can also completely ruin another more daring director's vision completely.

The Snyder cut of Justice League is no doubt better than the original cut, but is it actually any good? Better of bad can still be bad.

[Beorning]

I wouldn't call it truly good, no. Snyder's DC movies were marred by a rather unfortunate decision to make everything grim... Not sure if this was only Snyder's fault. David Goyer was involved in these movies, too - and he's a guy that just does not get superheroes...

Anyway. Snyder's movies were uneven. Man of Steel was, in many ways, a truly good superhero movie - it just didn't work as a *Superman* movie, IMHO. Batman vs Superman was... bad, I think. And the Snyder cut of Justice League wasn't that good, either... Still, I cannot deny that Snyder was trying to develop a consistent narrative with these movies: a dark and serious take on DCU, with this whole "apocalyptic future" plot building in the background... It was interesting, in retrospect. Plus, Snyder's Justice League did many things better than Whedon's version: the story flowed better, Flash wasn't annoying anymore (although I still say the actor was a really bad choice), Steppenwolf actually had some personality and we were shown Darkseid! Meanwhile, what Whedon created didn't fit with the previous movies at all and was boring as heck...

There's one tiny thing Whedon did better than Snyder: he included Diana's "I'm a believer" quip in her opening sequence. It was corny, but it worked better than Snyder's bland "Believe it". But that's it. And speaking of boss scenes, I really liked how the whole final battle ended: with Darkseid moving to enter the boomtube... and being welcomed with Diana tossing Steppenwolf's head at his feet. And the whole League giving him the silent "This. World. Is. Protected." look. That *was* good.

Just me five cents re: Justice League...

[Cydaea]

I think it really depends, including why things fail.
- It might have been torn to bits in production by other creators, inherited from a failing project (coming in late so to speak), or otherwise didn't have the resources it needed.
- It hit a bad nerve for a lot of people, leading some or most to declare it a failure when it may in fact be perfectly good on its own or have strong backing
- but because people are exposed to limited social circles, a lot of them think that bad impression is basically everyone. - It was generally just mediocre and failed to capture anything it was inspired by, according to majority fans of the source material. May or may not - motivations could go from genuine fanship that doesn't click with the majority to 'I know I'm getting paid here, so fuck it'.

Probably a lot more, but there are examples for each.
- TROS fits the first one cleanly. It had serious backend issues and when a creative type is constantly challenged in their production, they may not think it's bad for the same reasons, but they will almost certainly agree something went terribly wrong. I'd say Justice League likely fits this one too.
- The Last Jedi had a strong wave of this on the internet that persists to this day.
- You could hear this for movie ports of video games in general. There's one guy famous for making them who's been terribly received and rated, I forget his name. But it's a classic scenario where you wonder if 'this' is really his vision or if the given film was just done to make money without a single thread of creativity.

So really a lot of avenues for this to go, I don't think one brush fits all. The 'you just don't get it' attitude is pretty pervasive when outside factors aren't involved though.

[wander]

- You could hear this for movie ports of video games in general. There's one guy famous for making them who's been terribly received and rated, I forget his name. But it's a classic scenario where you wonder if 'this' is really his vision or if the given film was just done to make money without a single thread of creativity.

That's Uwe Boll. I mentioned him in my own post. He legit makes them as tax write-offs due to how law worked in Germany. He also gets triggered the fuck out of criticism and challenges critics to boxing matches if they give his films shit whilst also railing into films on his own letterboxed account.

Top fella.

[Oniya]

That's Uwe Boll. I mentioned him in my own post. He legit makes them as tax write-offs due to how law worked in Germany. He also gets triggered the fuck out of criticism and challenges critics to boxing matches if they give his films shit whilst also railing into films on his own letterboxed account.

Top fella.

Now I want Arnold Schwarzenegger to give one of Uwe's films a pan.  Because even at - what - 70? I think that Arnie stepping into the ring would make Uwe think twice. 

*snickers*  But it looks like this is a real thing.

[wander]

Challenged his critics in June 2006 to a "put up or shut up" boxing match. His production company issued a press release stating that Boll would challenge his 5 harshest critics each to a 10-round boxing match. To be eligible, the critic must have written two extremely negative reviews of Boll, in print or on the Web, in 2005. The fights are documented in the film Raging Boll (2010). Boll knocked out all opponents.

However...

Considered fighting comedian Ron Sparks when he challenged critics to a boxing match during the filming of Postal (2007) but ultimately declined because of Sparks' age, height and weight advantage - and due to the fact he'd be fighting several challengers back-to-back. Boll ultimately defeated every opponent in the Vancouver matches, which can be seen in the Raging Boll (2010) documentary.

and most funnily;

[on fighting--and winning--against all of his critics in a boxing ring] You see what happens when people get hit in the head? They like my movies!

I do not play video games at all.

From the Director of the adaptations of House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne, Postal (which he also wrote the script of), Far Cry...

[Oniya]

Little Oni and I were laughing earlier at a review of 'Alone in the Dark 2' (directed by somebody else):

R.L. Shaffer wrote: "Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did not require a sequel. Critics hated the film. Fans hated the film. ... Thankfully though, Alone in the Dark II is actually a much better film than the first.

[wander]

For me, this type of film guy that grinds my gears is Adam Sandler.

Grown-Ups was written, though not directed by Sandler and was a film of his I had the misfortune to get subjected to by my ex at the time, prior to me coming here.

It was clearly written by Sandler for him and his mates to have a holiday and get together, with the aside of them referring to each other as character names and having to film it. They're clearly having in-joke laden conversations to each other and is incredibly insipid to watch when you can see it.

I say this as I like trashy cinema... I love Troma, I love gory 80s schlock horror, I love bawdy comedies, I grew up on the Police Academy flicks. I went to film school and I'm a script writer and proof-reader by trade and I really dislike pretentious auteur high-class cinema... Though some films out there are so dishonest in their intention it pisses me off. Grown Ups is one of those films.

It's like the Lonely Island song 'Japan' (where they sing how they're at high-cost places in Japan purely so the music video has to show them there enjoying the hot-spots as it's in the song) though actually happening for real.

[Oniya]

For me, this type of film guy that grinds my gears is Adam Sandler.

Grown-Ups was written, though not directed by Sandler and was a film of his I had the misfortune to get subjected to by my ex at the time, prior to me coming here.

It was clearly written by Sandler for him and his mates to have a holiday and get together, with the aside of them referring to each other as character names and having to film it. They're clearly having in-joke laden conversations to each other and is incredibly insipid to watch when you can see it.

So with you on this.  Back when we would send Little Oni up to visit Nana for a week or so in the summer, she would inevitably end up spending most of it at the complex's 'Kids Club'.  One year, we were told that there was a planned trip to see Grown-Ups 2, and - after looking the thing up on IMDB, we said that we didn't want her to go on that.

Nana ignored that and signed off on the trip, and we were very cross with her afterwards.  She claimed she 'didn't know anything about the movie', even though we'd explained our reasons at the drop-off.  Little Oni was actually kinda bored and vaguely embarrassed by the movie, and we still can't figure out how the complex was okay taking a bunch of barely-old-enough minors to it.  (The movie was PG-13, Little Oni would have been 12 at the time.)

[wander]

Interesting. My mate is pretty sheltering over his girl whose the same age. Whilst at that age I was already watching '15' rated anime VHS (britbong here, so the bbfc ratings are U=universal, PG=parental guidance, 12a=essentially PG-13, 12=12+ only, 15=15+ only, 18=18+ only - there's also R18, which is for hardcore porn dvds) and alot of the time my parents let me stay up to watch stuff past the watershed too (essentially here in the UK after 9pm, tv does not need to keep to family friendly material, so channels often broadcasted 15 or 18 films).

I was 13 and got all the ALIEN films on VHS and marathoned them. 

[Oniya]

We didn't 'shelter', so much as remain aware of what she was ready for.  When we looked up the 'parental guidelines' on IMDB, there were a few things that we thought wouldn't go over well (we were right).  If we'd thought that she would have enjoyed the movie, we might have gone as a family.  Her tastes in comedy run more towards Mel Brooks and crazy puns more than simple slapstick and 'butt jokes'. 

I was more puzzled that a community group - which is really a glorified baby-sitting service - would chance other parents being as uninformed as my MIL and having their kids show up with a 'here, Mom, sign this' permission slip.

[Beorning]

Interesting. My mate is pretty sheltering over his girl whose the same age. Whilst at that age I was already watching '15' rated anime VHS (britbong here, so the bbfc ratings are U=universal, PG=parental guidance, 12a=essentially PG-13, 12=12+ only, 15=15+ only, 18=18+ only - there's also R18, which is for hardcore porn dvds) and alot of the time my parents let me stay up to watch stuff past the watershed too (essentially here in the UK after 9pm, tv does not need to keep to family friendly material, so channels often broadcasted 15 or 18 films).

I was 13 and got all the ALIEN films on VHS and marathoned them. 

As a side note, let me tell you that when I was in the 7th or 8th grade of elementary school (around 14, I think), our teachers arranged for my class to go for a showing of Bram Stoker's Dracula (it was in cinemas at that point). A genius movie, but featuring chopped-off heads, eroticism, sadistic group sex and borderline bestiality. I'm still puzzled why our teachers thought is was a appropriate movie for our age group 

[Oniya]

I - would have gone with the classic Lugosi at that age...  (Presuming that this was a tie-in for studying the novel.)

[Beorning]

I - would have gone with the classic Lugosi at that age...  (Presuming that this was a tie-in for studying the novel.)

Ah, not really. Just a bit of entertainment our teachers organized for us....

[Oniya]

Fair enough.  We got away with a bunch under the heading of 'cultural experiences'.  (No really, these cookies are for German class.  We're having a 'cultural experience'.)

[wander]

As a side note, let me tell you that when I was in the 7th or 8th grade of elementary school (around 14, I think), our teachers arranged for my class to go for a showing of Bram Stoker's Dracula (it was in cinemas at that point). A genius movie, but featuring chopped-off heads, eroticism, sadistic group sex and borderline bestiality. I'm still puzzled why our teachers thought is was a appropriate movie for our age group 

Rated '18' over here (even though I think it's a weak example of an 18).
Though yeah, it got that rating for multiple scenes of 'bloody violence', the scene where it is implied though not shown that vampires eat a baby (this was in the og novel, more on this in a second), the sexual violence of the bride's orgy scene where they're topless and bite Harker (the bbfc deciding a vampire biting someone mid-coitus -and in a vampire movie where these things do bite people to feed- is 'sexual violence' is classic draconian bbfc) and the scene with Lucy as she fucks Dracula in wolfman form and includes thrusting, which I admit is pretty explicit for a mainstream movie of the early 90s.

I'd imagine that whilst it has all that adult and violent stuff, for a Dracula film it is pretty much the only adaptation faithful to the novel with most all of it intact and that is why a teacher would likely want to take their students to see it.

More hilarious your teacher's took you and it wasn't even to do with that...