| The Mighty Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 132 | I think picking a director that is known for making questionably good movies is a major mistake. It's no different than the recent Transformers movie, which despite it's meager success, still drew a lot of critisism; if the only thing viewers can agree on is the special effects, then the director failed, because thedirector has little control over that part of the production.
There are a ton of better suited directors to make the film, but the problem likely arrises from the stigma an 80's kid's show brings with it. A lot of credible directors might feel a little silly making a movie they consider to be for "big kids," so the job goes to B-list directors 'cause they'll do anything. Little do they know G.I.Joe would make a great movie!
The problem with Stephen Sommers, not quite unlike Michael Bey, is their resumes are made up of movies that are designed to make their money at the box office, and that's it. In order to do this, they have to be packed with lots of action and great special effects, or else people won't go see it; in the end, no one buys it on DVD when it comes out, and you see them selling in bargain bins as time goes by.
It all comes down to money; like I mentioned, they want to make their money at the box office. Why is that? Most movies never make any money, plain and simple. If a movie costs, say, twenty million to make, by the time it makes it to theaters, its costs have nearly doubled from distribution and promotion, and if the movie finds some success, it costs more money to put it in more theaters, and so on. The only way a movie can really make money is through the DVD market, but that can take decades (seriously!), or to try to hit it big at the box office, which rarely happens. No body in Hollywood wants to wait years and years for a movie to make a profit, so they opt for trying to make a box office smash.
That being said, the best way to maximize the success of a G.I.Joe movie is to select a director who is known for directing ACTORS. Lets face it, if viewers don't believe the actors (or like them in the first place) it's going to be difficult to find it interesting. If the director, for whatever reason, can't direct great action sequences, secondary directors come on board, and take it from me, it happens more than you would think! Also, they need to try and use fewer CGI effects; though these look great, they greatly increase the cost of the movie, and frequently cause them to go overbudget (because by that stage in production, everything has been filmed and millions have already been sunk in, so effects companies can now charge whatever they want).
Also, better writers are needed. In this case, consult Larry Hama! I know he hasn't writen a screenplay before, and probably doesn't know the format, but he need only find someone who does (hey, Larry, call me!), and we colul have a decent script! No effects in the world make up for a bad script.
Finally, I would suggest using a lot of lesser-known actors whenever possible; when a movie is loaded with "stars," it carries a stigma with it, and people who don't like said actor will not see the movie, so better to play it safe.
Lets just cross our fingers and hope for the best, 'cause I know Holly wood already doesn't care about G.I.Joe. |
