Nolan never directed an action film before BB. Favreau had done a couple family studio films before IM. Guillermo Del Toro directed a couple Foreign Language high concept horror films before Blade II and Hellboy. I'm just saying, based on your criteria, at the time they were hired, none of these displayed the skills that are necessary to successfully direct a big budget super hero action flick.
No, Nolan hadn't proven he could do big action. And action remains Nolan's weak point to some degree.
Far more importantly though, Nolan HAD shown the ability to get fantastic performances from his actors, and he had proven ability to handle complex stories and characters, elements I consider far more important to Batman and to a very good film in general than whether a director can do great action. Because on a big budget film, a director has a whole team that assists with action.
As far as Favreau goes, yes, he was a risk. And its arguable that Favreau didn't exactly do a bang up job directing the Iron Man movies anyway. IRON MAN is a very straightforward movie, and IRON MAN 2 is largely considered a mess of a film, and many feel that the films largely only work on any special level because of Downey himself. But IRON MAN was conceived as an effects-heavy action comedy. While Jon Favreau had not done much in the way of action, he had done some, and he had proven he could direct comedies, with two big hits in ELF and ZATHURA. A previous film, MADE, was also a comedy.
As far as Del Toro goes, HELLBOY required someone who understood supernatural/horror elements, and could handle action. Del Toro had more than proven he got supernatural/horror with THE DEVIL’s BACKBONE, CRONOS and MIMIC, and he had clearly shown that he could handle action with BLADE II.
These are just not good comparisons you're making. These weren't directors who hadn't proven they were suited for a particular type of film. Thus far, Brad Bird has proven he can handle action, effects, animation, and very straightforward, simple stories and characters, while getting solid performances, but nothing special from his actors.
I don’t doubt Brad Bird’s action abilities. I have not seen his ability to handle and present complex stories and characters and to elevate his actors talent. Because I have yet to see it from him.
And let's not forget...IRON MAN and HELLBOY, at the time, these weren't A level franchises like JUSTICE LEAGUE will be. IRON MAN and HELLBOY simply weren't the financial/creative risks JUSTICE LEAGUE appears to be shaping up to be. In that context, taking a bit of a directorial risk is ok comparatively.
The reason I want someone who has proven their talent in multiple areas for this franchise is that JUSTICE LEAGUE is going to be an enormously expensive film, probably in the $250-$300 million range. It will feature up to seven very classic, very iconic characters, and possible solo films for these characters may well rest on how audiences respond to them in JUSTICE LEAGUE.
You said, "One major issue I have with trusting him with a project like JUSTICE LEAGUE IS that the script for GHOST PROTOCOL was very weak, and he apparently didn't have the clout to even have an impact on that."
Then that’s what I said. So that's what you should have assumed I meant.
Maybe I misinterpreted but to me that indicates your expectation is that a JL director should have the clout to impact studio decisions on the script. Based on that criteria, neither Raimi or Favreau are qualified to direct JL.
Yes. But having the clout to impact the script doesn't neccessarily mean that they have more power than the studio itself. I didn’t say “a director who has the clout to outweigh the studio”. I said “the clout to have an impact on the script”. As in, the ability to impact the script at all. As in, the ability and clout with a studio to contribute creatively to a film at all before it lenses. Even Brett Ratner, who fans claim was brought on as a hired gun to make X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, had a pretty solid impact on the story, excising bits of the third act and cutting/changing and rearranging other elements.
The net BO has been on a steady decline since MI1, and MI3, which I actually thought was the best of the franchise after GP, was generally lauded as flop in comparison to the others.
MI's world take was roughly $460 million.
MI2's world take actually went up, not down, to about $550 million.
MI3 went down to $400 million. This could be attributed to a number of factors, IE, Tom Cruise being less visible and it being six years between films VS four for the second movie. Either way, hardly "dying franchise" numbers.
It is the job of every director but not every director cuts the mustard. Brad Bird, however, to me he has proven himself as an exceptional director. The only question mark was his live action direction and he answered by delivering the best entry in a blockbuster action franchise.
I don't think he's proven himself to be an "exceptional" director in live action. Clearly we have different standards.
But based on your criteria, only the most influential directors should be allowed the privilege of directing a JL movie.
No, but certainly only well rounded directors should.
I am glad Marvel didn't base their director decisions on your criteria otherwise Favreau and Whedon would have never had an opportunity. It's doubtful even Nolan would have been given the reigns over the Batman franchise.
Whedon had proven himself in several releant directorial areas before THE AVENGERS. Another bad example. See above for my thoughts on Nolan.
Sometimes a studio needs to take a leap of faith.
And sometimes, like when they're making a $300 million movie that they want to compete with a box office juggernaut like THE AVENGERS, they should play it a little safer, or at least pick a proven director.
