Movies: Indie Directors Being Handed the Keys to Blockbusters - When Has it Worked?

[Trap Jesus]

* For this thread I'm referring specifically to blockbuster movies that already have name/brand recognition like Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Marvel movies, DC movies, etc.

Seems like a pretty big trend in Hollywood where major studios will pluck a relatively obscure indie director to make a big blockbuster movie of a known film franchise. I'm talking about something like Colin Trevorrow going from Safety Not Guaranteed to Jurassic World. It seems like something that should work in theory, by giving someone that can bring something original to the table a unique perspective on something that is on a much grander scale, but it seems like in most cases they just make a run-of-the-mill generic blockbuster movie that you would come to expect.

My question is when has this worked to the degree that you can actually see an indie director's clear influence on a known property like a Jurassic Park movie, a Marvel movie, etc. to the point where it's clear it wasn't just the studio making the majority of the decisions to create a safe blockbuster movie?

 

[Blender]

Don't know if he fits your indie criteria because he made the remake of Insomnia first, but Christopher Nolan making Batman fits your other criteria.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Taika Waititi getting Thor Ragnarok

Russo Brothers getting Winter Soldier, Civil War and Infinity War 1 + 2

Ryan Coogler getting Black Panther

basically its the recipe of the MCU since Ultron

 

[Osprey]

I suspect that hiring them may have less to do with integrating a "unique perspective" and more about the studios guaranteeing their own vision. If you pluck directors out of obscurity and give them the opportunity of their careers, they're more likely to make the film that you want, and, if they don't, you can fire them and people will blame their inexperience more than your mismanagement (see Solo). It's probably also a nice little cherry on top that they'll work for a lot less. It doesn't make much sense to go cheap on the director to save only $5M on a $250M film, but this is Hollywood that we're talking about and that's, perhaps, a tempting corner to cut.

 

[Shareefruck]

I suspect that hiring them may have less to do with integrating a "unique perspective" and more about the studios guaranteeing their own vision. If you pluck directors out of obscurity and give them the opportunity of their careers, they're more likely to do it the way that you want, and, if they don't, you can fire them and people will blame them more than you (see Solo). It's probably also a nice little cherry on top that they'll work for a lot less. It doesn't make much sense to go cheap on the director to save only $5M on a $1B film, but this is Hollywood that we're talking about.

Yep. The alternative is giving these people way too much credit.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

I suspect that hiring them may have less to do with integrating a "unique perspective" and more about the studios guaranteeing their own vision. If you pluck directors out of obscurity and give them the opportunity of their careers, they're more likely to make the film that you want, and, if they don't, you can fire them and people will blame their inexperience more than your mismanagement (see Solo). It's probably also a nice little cherry on top that they'll work for a lot less. It doesn't make much sense to go cheap on the director to save only $5M on a $250M film, but this is Hollywood that we're talking about and that's, perhaps, a tempting corner to cut.

Yep. The alternative is giving these people way too much credit.

I think you guys are correct in the majority of instances. I'd label Nolan as one of the exceptions, as the DK trilogy had his stamp all over it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

This has been talked about in the last few years as if the Star Wars and MCU have invented this idea, but they really didn’t. Studios have been tapping indie/smaller directors for big projects for decades. David Lynch did Dune (and was approached about Return of the Jedi). David Fincher jumped from music videos to Alien 3. Jean-Pierre Jenaut moved from quirky arthouse to Alien: Ressurection. Marc Forster did a Bond movie. Paul Greengrass did Bourne movies (Doug Liman too!). Bryan Singer started the X-Men series. Hell Michele Gondry did The Green Hornet. Tim Burton and Sam Raimi certainly had success but weren’t cranking out mass blockbusters at the point either of them were handed high profile franchises. Oh, Peter Jackson too.

To Trap Jesus’ question, I think James Gunn’s fingerprints are all over the Guardians movies and Taika Waititi is undeniably present on Thor: Ragnarok. I think Rian Johnson is there in The Last Jedi too. Nolan’s Batman movies (Burton’s too if we want to go back that far). I’ve always had a big affinity for the first four Alien movies (yes, even 3 & 4) because it’s the rare series where each director was able to bring a very distinct and different vibe/look to each movie.

 

[Spawn]

Taika Waititi getting Thor Ragnarok

Russo Brothers getting Winter Soldier, Civil War and Infinity War 1 + 2

Ryan Coogler getting Black Panther

basically its the recipe of the MCU since Ultron

Honestly you can throw Joss Whedon in there as well with Avengers. I believe he had only directed one movie up to that point and it was Serenity which was based on his TV show.

I think its fair to say that each of these movies have a distinct feel to them that could be attributed to the directors vision. Throw in Gaurdians of the Galaxy as well as Kallio pointed out.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think you guys are correct in the majority of instances. I'd label Nolan as one of the exceptions, as the DK trilogy had his stamp all over it.

Possibly. Personally, I suspect that it works in a much more callous way than that, and is mostly just a happy accident that resulted from more of a robotic PR/goodwill move that worked out for the best and was going too well to mess with, rather than anything that admirable and thoughtful. (Once Batman Begins became a relatively unique success that people wanted to see more of, Nolan pretty much had all the leverage)

 

[Blender]

Possibly. Personally, I suspect that it works in a much more callous way than that, and is mostly just a happy accident that resulted from more of a robotic PR/goodwill move that worked out for the best and was going too well to mess with, rather than anything that admirable and thoughtful. (Once Batman Begins became a relatively unique success that people wanted to see more of, Nolan pretty much had all the leverage)

Batman Begins was also co-produced by his production company and his wife was one of the producers. I'm sure that helped Nolan have more creative control than would be normally expected.

 

[Osprey]

This has been talked about in the last few years as if the Star Wars and MCU have invented this idea, but they really didn’t. Studios have been tapping indie/smaller directors for big projects for decades. David Lynch did Dune (and was approached about Return of the Jedi). David Fincher jumped from music videos to Alien 3. Jean-Pierre Jenaut moved from quirky arthouse to Alien: Ressurection. Marc Forster did a Bond movie. Paul Greengrass did Bourne movies (Doug Liman too!). Bryan Singer started the X-Men series. Hell Michele Gondry did The Green Hornet. Tim Burton and Sam Raimi certainly had success but weren’t cranking out mass blockbusters at the point either of them were handed high profile franchises. Oh, Peter Jackson too.

I don't really agree with some of your examples, but it's true that, for decades, Hollywood has not been shy about giving big budget films to directors who showed promise on smaller films. I think that there's always been a sense of "If he could make something that good on a low budget, imagine what he could do with a big budget." I do get the feeling that it's gotten a little worse recently, though, thanks to the superhero/franchise craze. Instead of films in a franchise coming out every 3-5 years, they're coming out every year or even multiple times per year. There are more franchise films than ever before and more blockbusters than ever before, so smaller directors being handed the keys to blockbusters happens more than ever before.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I don't really agree with some of your examples, but it's true that, for decades, Hollywood has not been shy about giving big budget films to directors who showed promise on smaller films. I think that there's always been a sense of "If he could make something that good on a low budget, imagine what he could do with a big budget." I do get the feeling that it's gotten a little worse recently, though, thanks to the superhero/franchise craze. Instead of films in a franchise coming out every 3-5 years, they're coming out every year or even multiple times per year. There are more franchise films than ever before and more blockbusters than ever before, so smaller directors being handed the keys to blockbusters happens more than ever before.

I think you're right about that. The practice is an old one, but it seems more prevalent since there are so many more IP-driven movies these days.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Honestly you can throw Joss Whedon in there as well with Avengers. I believe he had only directed one movie up to that point and it was Serenity which was based on his TV show.

I think its fair to say that each of these movies have a distinct feel to them that could be attributed to the directors vision. Throw in Gaurdians of the Galaxy as well as Kallio pointed out.

Joss Whedkn was the mastermind behind Buffy, arguably one of the biggest shows of the 90's and early 2000's. I don't think he could be considered an indie director.

 

[Osprey]

Joss Whedkn was the mastermind behind Buffy, arguably one of the biggest shows of the 90's and early 2000's. I don't think he could be considered an indie director.

You're technically right, but I'm not sure that the OP meant "indie" technically. I, personally, chose to interpret him as referring to any directors who have never made a big-budget blockbuster before. I don't think that where their experience came from (ex. from independent films or TV shows) is as relevant to the question as to the degree that that experience translates to helming blockbuster films.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

You're technically right, but I'm not sure that the OP meant "indie" technically. I, personally, chose to interpret him as referring to any directors who have never made a big-budget blockbuster before. I don't think that where their experience came from (ex. from independent films or TV shows) is as relevant to the question as to the degree that that experience translates to helming blockbuster films.

That was my reading too. "Indie" as a catch-all term for people who hadn't done a large scale, big budget blockbuster. I'd also note that Whedon, though he had some success, was much more of a cult figure than a mainstream one. So he had a loud, dedicated fan base, but I'm not sure how big that group was relative to the overall entertainment public. He was on a post-Buffy cold streak too where his TV shows weren't getting enough eyeballs to survive.

 

[The Madrigal]

Little known fact but when Superman was almost rebooted in the 90's with Nicolas Cage, Kevin Smith was going to be the director. What a nightmare that would have been.

 

[theotis77]

Little known fact but when Superman was almost rebooted in the 90's with Nicolas Cage, Kevin Smith was going to be the director. What a nightmare that would have been.

Not exactly. Kevin Smith wrote a screenplay called Superman Lives at the behest of Warner Brothers. Producer Jon Peters, who WB had handed the entire franchise to because of the success of Batman in '89, wanted Nic Cage as Superman, and then brought Tim Burton in to direct. Burton then threw out Smith's script and brought in his own, shot some test footage with Cage (with an absolutely atrocious suit design for Superman), and the whole thing (mercifully) fizzled out.

Kevin Smith was never slated to direct the movie.

 

[The Madrigal]

Not exactly. Kevin Smith wrote a screenplay called Superman Lives at the behest of Warner Brothers. Producer Jon Peters, who WB had handed the entire franchise to because of the success of Batman in '89, wanted Nic Cage as Superman, and then brought Tim Burton in to direct. Burton then threw out Smith's script and brought in his own, shot some test footage with Cage (with an absolutely atrocious suit design for Superman), and the whole thing (mercifully) fizzled out.

Kevin Smith was never slated to direct the movie.

Yep. I went back and re watched the speaking engagement he did where he talked about this and you are correct he was hired to write a script for the movie, not direct it. He also talks about being given access to the entire Superman comics library to help him write the script, and having meetings with a hollywood producer who wanted a gigantic mechanical spider in the movie. Then there ended up being a big mechanical spider win that piece of crap Wild Wild West.

 

[The Madrigal]

 

[theotis77]

It burns...

 

[theotis77]

I actually think Smith, without Jon Peters' meddling, could have possibly written a pretty good movie. He definitely has a love of the source material.

 

[ngc_5128]

Joss Whedkn was the mastermind behind Buffy, arguably one of the biggest shows of the 90's and early 2000's. I don't think he could be considered an indie director.

He was also a well known script doctor before Buffy. He had contributions to Waterworld, Speed, Twister, X-Men, wrote Alien Resurrection and had an Oscar nomination for co-writing Toy Story. Outside of that, I think his 20 years of working in Hollywood and his comics related resume is expansive enough that I wouldn't think he had the same kind of risks you would associate with an indie director.

 

[kook10]

He was also a well known script doctor before Buffy. He had contributions to Waterworld, Speed, Twister, X-Men, wrote Alien Resurrection and had an Oscar nomination for co-writing Toy Story. Outside of that, I think his 20 years of working in Hollywood and his comics related resume is expansive enough that I wouldn't think he had the same kind of risks you would associate with an indie director.

For the most part, the studio buys the vision when they proceed with the script. They have approvals and control all over the place to ensure that the director can deliver the vision as communicated and do it on time and relatively on budget. This would mean some hiring approvals on key team members, oversight during all the camera and VFX tests, and notes on all the dailies from the very beginning. Plus, the studio has final cut. Even seasoned name directors get barreled over by the studios on blockbusters. A lot of lessons have been learned in the last 20 years of superhero movies, and with technology advances there is a far lesser risk of VFX falling flat. Plus, given the renaissance of comic book companies and their sale to studios there is a much deeper pool of people who work on the properties and are loyal to the origin stories and lore and fancy themselves keepers of tradition. In the earlier days directors came from outside the universe. I doubt you will see Ang Lee's Hulk again any time soon.

 

[Jumptheshark]

they work cheaper or are controlled more easily