Guy makes a mediocre indie movie about time travel, next thing you know he's helming JURASSIC WORLD and a STAR WARS movie.

Welcome to 2015!

http://heroichollywood.com/home-1/2015/ ... -episode-9

I don't get it either...it used to be, you'd have to build slowly and steadily up to a major summer tentpole that costs $200 million, but nowadays, studios will hand the keys over to virtually ANYONE. And not even good indie filmmakers are chosen that often...like Andy said, Safety Not Guaranteed was an immensely forgettable film (all I remember were Aubrey Plaza's eyes), and yet Universal and Disney were both like, "Yes, this is EXACTLY who we want to trust our huge blockbuster franchise to"? At least with 1989's Batman, Tim Burton was an unconventional choice, but had shown he could craft a visually exciting movie on a modest budget. What was there in, say, (500) Days Of Summer (I movie I did like) that made Sony decide on Marc Webb to handle The Amazing Spider-Man, aside from the happenstance of his surname? I honestly think the only reason this is happening is because studios want someone they can keep their thumb on through the entire process, and who will not go apeshite with their money and will produce a proficient, agreeable product with a minimum of pesky auteurist style. Look at films like John Carter or The Lone Ranger, where Andrew Stanton and Gore Verbinski were given carte blanche to do anything they wanted with a minimum of studio interference, and basically lost a combined BILLION of Disney's investments. That's why Edgar Wright was kicked off Ant-Man, and they handed it off to the guy who made the modest hit Bring It On...fifteen years ago. That's why Burton was kicked off the Batman franchise after the dark and morbid (yet fascinating and underrated (Batman Returns and was replaced by uber-hack Joel Schumacher, who knew exactly what the studio wanted...toy shilling (and neon. And homoerotic subtext ).

I honestly think the only reason this is happening is because studios want someone they can keep their thumb on through the entire process, and who will not go apeshite with their money and will produce a proficient, agreeable product with a minimum of pesky auteurist style

This is absolutely part of it. Most of it really.

Disney is going hog-wild in the hiring process for these Star Wars movies in that regard beyond Abrams, who is certainly not an auteurist by any means but someone who will deliver a watchable and respectful film. Unlike all the other hires, he obviously has a track record and was chosen to "lay the groundwork" for the rest of these pictures before making a quick exit.

Abrams surely had some leeway in doing what he wanted -- but he's a "company guy" who's known for resurrecting prefab franchises, so they also know what to expect.

With the rest of these hires, they've tapped into whoever's been behind a recent commercial success -- even without any kind of real track record. It's pretty amazing when you think about it:

Garth Edwards -- one mediocre indie film, gets hired to do GODZILLA, now he's doing STAR WARS.

Colin Trevorrow - one mediocre indie film, gets hired to do JURASSIC WORLD, now STAR WARS.

Rain Johnson - two indie films (neither of which have a thing to do with this genre), makes LOOPER (not a smash hit by any means critically or commercially), now STAR WARS.

And the one that they let go:

Josh Trank - one low-budget feature, CHRONICLE, gets hired to do STAR WARS before the bottom falls out and they ax the project. He's the exception at the moment...and it makes you wonder if he wasn't willing to "play ball" with whatever Disney's demands were.

It's a fascinating shift but it tells you these guys will all make a "corporate product" much like the people who get hired to do the Marvel movies. The Russos had absolutely nothing but a TV comedy series on their resume before they were hired for CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER and the film turned out well enough. It makes you wonder how much, really, the filmmaker has in terms of creative vision or anything else working on a big ticket Disney project.

These movies are corporate products -- they always have been -- but that bottom line is becoming louder and louder with the millions at stake for a large conglomerate like Disney.

Contrast this with what Lucas did when he was selecting directors to do Star Wars and American Graffiti movies when he first "retired" from directing.

First he gets Irvin Kershner, who wasn't known as a commercial filmmaker, but who had been a teacher of Lucas' and who had a strong sense of character and story. Sadly, the manner in which he directed Empire resulted in a lot of overruns and confusion along the way. And since Gary Kurtz didn't have much control over him or the process, Lucas discarded both men at the end of the movie. (Final straw was Lucas getting nailed by both WGA and DGA over the crediting - something that could have been headed off easily if anyone had taken the time to do so...)

Then he gets Bill Norton to do More American Graffiti - Norton wasn't known as a particularly commercial director.

Then gets Richard Marquand to do Jedi. Marquand was mostly known for Eye of the Needle and was an independent, non-DGA (at that time) director, but also a malleable person who would essentially do what Lucas told him. Which was a major contrast with Kershner, who had his own ideas.


The directors they're picking for these movies now are a far cry from even these men. The only one who even comes close is Abrams, and his real talents lie in television writing/producing/directing. And Abrams isn't even capable of the more intelligent fare we see on AMC or HBO these days - his high mark was the best eps of Alias and the pilot of LOST. The other guys are clearly there to do what they're told. Kind of like TV directors, frankly - they're told to make it interesting, but get the coverage within the time you have and don't aggravate the cast. Which sounds like what's going on with Marvel, Disney, Universal and the other studios.