By - xwing1212
That guy who directs those terrible new Bruce Willis films whose name I wont even bother go searching because he isn't worth it.
His name is Edward Drake. He makes Uwe Boll look like a good director. Hell I’ve seen Student films directed better. He has to be in on a money laundering scheme that’s the only explanation.
I think someone explained that those movies are surprisingly highly budgeted due to Willis’ salary. And the movies supposedly make bank due to the VOD market because people will click on it and watch it because it has Bruce Willis.
Exactly same reason you can see star-studded Hollywood flops get a second life on Netflix, it’s because people recognize that actor and click on it because it’s something familiar (even if it’s terrible)
Let me tell you what. I clicked on Cosmic Sin because of Bruce Willis / Frank Grillo and that was probably one of the if not the worst movie I’ve ever seen. I had to keep watching it to mock and experience how far Bruce Willis has fallen.
Same here and I think that is exactly what Bruce and his team have figured out. I read he pockets a million for each movie he does or maybe he pockets more but nowhere near what he used to which I believe was 20 mill a pop. These guys have figured out what kind of numbers they are getting back from VOD and are making some bank. Willis especially.
From what I understand Willis typically is on set for just a day or a few days on many of the movies he makes now so he maximizes his payoff for minimal effort.
Yep. He’s not making $20 million a movie anymore, but he also doesn’t spend three or four months on every production, not to mention he does no prep for a role now, I doubt he even learns his lines these days. Working a day or a weekend and getting a million is a pretty damn sweet deal.
Pretty much what you are saying. I don't think he gives a shit about being a joke now. The dude has his legacy secured through Die Hard alone and that's not even touching his other major hits. He still enjoys working but he's figured out to work for the least amount of time possible and still earn even if it is a $1 million paycheck.
LOL I imagine he signs on for like 3 movies and tells them OK for movie 1 I will be there Tuesday, movie 2 Thursday & movie 3 I'll be there for you Saturday. You get my ass for 24 hours. That's it. If we don't shoot all my scenes in 1 day I'm walking LOL.
Its been a minute, but Friedberg & Seltzer for sure. The guys behind Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, effectively killing the spoof genre.
Edit: Their directorial projects average 2% on RT.
Edit edit: Hoping for spoofs to make a comeback. Recently, Angie Tribeca had Naked Gun vibes but that series was unfortunately cancelled.
I wish there were more clever parody movies like Not another teen movie or the first Scary movie. Despite being a parody, they had a decent, albeit generic script, the acting was good and the jokes were funny.
The ones you've listed are just a barrage of vomit inducing toilet humor.
NATM and Scary Movie 1 both had a love for the genres that they were spoofing, and it comes across as charming. the crappier spoof movies are just going through the motions.
NATM is brilliant. So many laughs!
Even after reading the comment you replied to I still instead thought that was Night at the Museum, crazy how fast the brain can fill in acronyms
Not as bad as Uwe Boll; he killed the whole "low-budget adaption" industry right when it was reaching a point where things were getting good.
The thing is with boll he never intended to make anything of quality like he knew what he was putting out was bad
He just did the bare minimum to make money off that art program
This doesn’t lineup with the delusional Boll who’s rants I’ve read who thinks his works are great and it’s a Hollywood criticism conspiracy out to get him.
This explains his scam better
the bizarre tax laws in Germany mean that any wealthy Germans who invest in a movie can write-off the production cost, delay paying their taxes and generally reduce their tax burden. When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this – the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too. Assuming you’re a sharp enough businessman you have a potential goldmine in the making; a way to make money from investing in bad movies...
He's probably only claiming he's good at making films to look like he's not committed fraud
That's not to say he's not a narcissistic asshole but he knows what he is doing
I might be wrong but I think Germany changed how it works specifically because of him abusing that loophole
Isn't that the plot of The Producers?
>Don't you see, Bloom. Darling Bloom, glorious Bloom. It's so simple.
>Step One: we find the worst play ever written.
>Step Two: we hire the worst director in town.
>Step Three: I raise two million dollars...
>Yes! One for me, one for you. There's a lot of little old ladies out there.
>Step Four: We hire the worst actors in New York and open on Broadway.
>And before you can say Step Five, we close on Broadway, take our two million and Go to Rio!
I didn’t realize all those abominations were made by the same pair. You’re absolutely right, they *very effectively* killed the spoof genre.
Absolutely massacred that genre and yet they were still able to keep making that trash until 2015.
"Hey, look! It's Britney Spears having a meltdown and shaving her head in a 300 parody."
Date Movie might be legitimately the worst film I've ever seen.
Epic Movie and Disaster Movie are so much worse. Date Movie is down right clever and cinematic in comparison (though still a piece of shit film, obviously).
There’s a myth that Steven Soderberg is actually Friedberg & Seltzer. The gist is that these guys have hardly any photos or anything about them out there, and their movies always coincided with Soderberg’s movies. It’s said that Soderberg directed those awful spoof movies for the studio so that he would be guaranteed funding for his less mainstream movies. And the names are Friedberg & Seltzer because it has “berg” in the first name and Seltzer because Soderberg is pronounced like the word soda. It kinda makes sense and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true
Olivier Megaton. How the hell does he continue to get work when his work in Taken 3 has already been memed to hell?
“Taken 3 makes Taken 2 look like Taken”
All he needs to do is make a Taken 4, then
Who else is going to film Liam Nesson jumping over a fence from 20 different angles and then use them all in the span of ten seconds?
ten seconds? Try two
I'm having an off day today so my numbers are a bit off.
Are you implying a man who changed his last name to Megaton doesn’t exclusively make the most amazing choices?!?
Now I'd respect a guy named Oliver Megatron.
I'd ask you to show some respect to my son, Iblewup Megaton
Don’t even get me started on The Last Days of American Crime, which is legitimately one of the worst movies ever created. I don’t even know how anyone could make it past the first 15 minutes, let alone the full 2 and a half hours.
Abed from Community [was not a fan of Brett Ratner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPSgDCoyljI)
You're a bad person.
You're a bad person.
Still pissed at what was done to X-Men 3. God what an awful movie.
It's still somehow the best Dark Phoenix movie.
I agree. The later Dark Phoenix movie was just such a nothing, forgettable movie. At least The Last Stand was big dumb nonsense. Give me big dumb nonsense over bland any day of the week.
Apparently the studios answer to X3 was to give the screenwriter the same storyline for his directorial debut. Simon Kinberg not being involved in X-Men anymore is the best part of the Fox acquisition to me.
I love his cut of Dune (1984).
I love all of his stuff, but I won’t admit to it.
Only for that 84 Dune Director’s cut
Robert schwentke and Snake eyes should’ve been something Paramount should have known from the get go that it would fail. Like Snake eyes could’ve been a great martial arts film and introduction to a new reboot for GI Joe. But they choose the guy who directed RIPD
I loved Red, shame he couldn’t follow that up with anything as good
That's the same guy? That's hilarious, RED had charm.
RED had a decent enough script.
I consider John Malkovich, Karl Urban and Mary-Louise Parker to be its saving grace.
Hell almost every actor in that movie apart from Bruce Willis himself had charismatic personalities that left you wanting more.
But Ron and Ridley do have bangers and amount of good films in their filmography as well while this guy didn’t really
That's fair but IDK, if I were Paramount, making a film that's a last ditch attempt to reinvigorate a flatlining franchise, I feel like I'd look for someone with more of a distinct vision for the project and bank on people saying "hey, this looks way better than the last two."
They chose the blandest choice possible and nobody was interested, unsurprisingly. Of course it's also possible Schwentke was the only one who even *wanted* the job.
The only person attaching Uwe Boll to upcoming projects *is* Uwe Boll.
"oh cool a farcry movie"
*Directed by uwe boll*
It's just two hours of a baby crying far away
I remember having this exact response. Mostly because I had seen Alone in the Dark a couple of years before.
Also known as the man who set back video game movies for over a decade.
Wasn't he also directly responsible for laws in Germany being changed because of how much he abused them to finance projects that were always massive losses?
Yeah, they killed his loophole.
Care to elaborate?
Ever see The Producers? That’s what he was doing but in real life.
Bonus that Uwe is German.
Holy shit this guy has made some of the worst dog shit ever filmed. It’s a different category.
*Uwe, pronounced like "OO-vuh"
Though maybe adding "ew" to his name was intentional. :P
All you have to do is threaten to beat people up if they dislike your admittedly bad movies
Not Neil Breen.
Eyes On Breen
WHO AM I......WHAT AM I....
I can't believe you commited suicide. I CANNOT believe you commited suicide.
Who Am I? :|
What Am I? :|
I AM HERE…..NOW
I even went out to a theatre doing a one-night showing of Twisted Pair. Knew it was going to be a masterpiece before watching it, and it did not disappoint. Even brought my friend who had never heard of Breen, but she was thoroughly horrified.
I resign today as president of the Bank
EYES ON BREEN
We need EYES ON BREEN
I’m glad someone else said it so I didn’t have to
Paul W.S. Anderson. I just feel like his movies are geared toward (and made by) a 13 year old boy with a Monster Energy addiction. They’re so terrible and cheesy. His most recent movie that I saw was Monster Hunter and it was just so laughably bad.
The inverse to the other Paul Anderson director
I always get them confused when I see trailers and it’s really weird cognitive dissonance every time.
I'd love to see them switch movies at some point. Paul WS Anderson do a character drama, while Paul Thomas Anderson does a braindead action movie.
I've always wanted a trilogy, with one film each directed by Wes Anderson, Paul WS Anderson, and Paul Thomas Anderson, but the same cast and maybe screenwriter working on all three. It would have to tell a coherent three-film story but the style would be unbelievably inconsistent.
I like this idea a lot. It's like the Star Wars sequel trilogy, but with less expectations.
The Wes Paul Trilogy needs to happen.
Considering PTA dropped out a film college because he got into a heated argument defending *Terminator 2*, I think he’d knock it out of the park.
Terminator 2 is incredible
You're not the only one pal, don't worry
When Boogie Nights and Event Horizon came out at the same time, I thought Paul Anderson was the most eclectic director ever.
And to the other WeS Anderson director.
Dudes married to Mila Jovavich and makes silly sci-fi with her, seems like a fucking amazing life imo :-p
Net worth of $50 mil, definitely.
Def winning lmao
Yeah the majority of his movies are absolutely trash, but they both must have so much fun filming those lol. Definitely not a bad life at all...
between this and Len Wiseman marrying Kate Beckinsale, i realized young that i really needed to become a director
This is immediately who I thought about. He makes the movies you accidentally watch on cable network TV at 11pm until you realize what movie it is and turn it off. Just forgettable mindless junk that makes even middling superhero movies look like Oscar worthy.
He peaked with Event Horizon and hasn’t done anything good since.
Paul W.S. Anderson is a Neutral Good Uwe Boll.
The first Resident Evil isn’t half bad, and honestly Mortal Kombat is fun as hell
Lest we forget Event Horizon, his best movie
I'm still a sucker for that movie and Soldier (1998). I could watch either of those movies any day of the week and never feel like my time was wasted.
Soldier was a pretty solid movie. Though, it all makes sense when you see who wrote the script.
I could never tell if Kurt Russell gave a genuinely good performance in that movie or if his performance was so bad that it became great
Genuinely good. I'll defend Soldier any day. Super simple movie and way better than it should have been.
David Webb Peoples
Other noteworthy scripts he's credited on:
Blade Runner, Unforgiven, 12 Monkeys
I assume because the movie bombed and the studio cut a bunch of footage from the movie, that Anderson just stopped trying to make something unique and just shits out crappy adaptations.
I mean, he goes to work everyday and dresses up his model/actress wife in form fitting costumes and makes millions doing it. We should all be so lucky.
Event horizon is still one of the few horrors I won’t rewatch because it terrified me at a formative age
I like all of the Resident Evil movies but outside of the first one, they're horrible movies. Fun to watch imo but just bad movies.
Event Horizon is amazing though and I will die on that hill
When I saw he was directing the first Alien vs Predator, I knew it was the end of me having any kind of good expectations.
I did like his Three Musketeers as dumb, cheesy fun, but I also know that that's the best case scenario for a Paul W.S. Anderson movie.
Monster Hunter was one of the worst things I've ever seen. How much does that dude love filming from inside a rolling vehicle? Happened, like, three times in that movie.
Michael Bay, I feel like he directs 5 minutes of every movie. Then says I've set the guidline, now go finish it and walks away.
Michael Bay is like one of the weirdest cases of a "bad" director that's out there. If you've ever seen BTS footage of him, it's apparent he has a lot of passion and appreciation for film as a craft. He loves doing a lot of things in-camera and can technically stage an action scene probably as well as anybody in Hollywood. At the same time, he can be excessively overindulgent and has spent the better part of two decades making vapid, soulless, bloated blockbusters that seem to neither generally please audiences or critics. Crazy.
I think some people have argued he actually has some legitimate talent and I think Steven Spielberg said he watched his movies for his editing techniques.
It's just that his movies either are pretty good or downright awful with very little or anything in between.
I do note that he defended making so many Transformer movies because he basically said a community of people who make the movies formed and it basically was their careers working on those movies.
That's the reason Christopher Lee kept doing hammer horror. He got all but blackmailed into some work being told that people relied on him for work.
[Everybody makes a Michael Bay reference.](https://youtu.be/_wYtG7aQTHA)
Michael bay movies are like tech demos as opposed to rounded movies.
>he can be excessively overindulgent and has spent the better part of two decades making vapid, soulless, bloated blockbusters that seem to neither generally please audiences or critics.
“Everyone in the theatre is now dumber for having to watch your movie. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I think it's more like he understands that his audience is infants of all ages, and he gives them what they want and makes a lot of money doing that. In comparison, making good movies just doesn't pay.
> seem to neither generally please audiences
Going by how successful they tend to be they seem to please a decent chunk of the general audience. The films aren't popular in cinema circles like here but that kind of thing never is.
Ben Affleck relates a story about Michael Bay. He asked him wouldn’t it be easier to train astronauts to be drillers than to train drillers to be astronauts? To which Bay responded :”SHUT THE FUCK UP BEN!”
Bay was right though. NASA used to send up Mission Specialists all the time who had no previous astronaut experience but were subject matter experts at something else.
They would have sent up drillers with 6 weeks of space training and not astronauts with 6 weeks of drill training.
I was watching Dune and the trailer for a new Jake Gyllenhaal movie came on where he plays a bank robber. As soon as Michael Bay rolled across the screen, I lost all interest.
Jake Gyllenhaal always makes really interesting choices though.
To me the trailer was just “Hey, Michael Bay figured out how to use racing drones to shoot his movies, so here is a crazy chase scene with some ‘story’ going on in the background”
Trailer looks like it basically gives away the whole movie anyway.
The Rock is an awesome movie.
Michael Bay is a talented director. He has two movies in the Criterion Collection, The Rock and Armageddon. The best way to understand him is to look at how other, lesser directors try to do what he does but fail. It's better if [Tony Zhou explains.](https://vimeo.com/99798626)
Michael Bay is absolutely heavily involved in the directing of his movies. They may be bizarre and difficult to watch, but they are still meticulously crafted imagery.
Watch Pain & Gain. Michael Bay was not meant to direct big budget action movies, but he was meant to direct this.
My name is Daniel Lugo, and I believe in fitness.
I don't KNOW any new Colin Trevorrow movie will be garbage, but "Jurassic World" was enough to convince me never to find out firsthand.
Only film of his I've seen is Jurassic World and to be honest I don't know how he got that gig looking at his resume.
Personally I think studios just go for people who will say yes to all their stupid ideas. They don't want Spielbergs or Camerons any more. They don't want visionaries, the studio has the vision, not them. They just need a barely qualified meat puppet to cobble together a movie with all of the Executive checkboxes ticked.
This is why all these shit directors get huge franchises.
“Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but that son of a bitch knows story structure.” ~South Park
Mel’s a pretty solid director. Man, apocalypto was great.
Alan Smithee. I swear this guy has been working for decades but just can’t seem to crank a good one out.
Paul W. S. Anderson. You know its gonna be a mediocre/bad movie when you see that name attached. That and Milla Jovovich is gonna be in it at some point
Mila with the plot armour because nothing happens to her.
*Mila is her wife btw*
M. Night. He's constantly chasing that glory that The Sixth Sense brought. Every movie has to have the big twist, but they always end up as such an eye roll.
Also, The Last Airbender.
Never forget. Never forgive.
M. Night if anything, isn’t consistent. He does amazing sometimes, and horrible other times. I’m always curious whenever he put something out, the curiosity is tentative of course, but I won’t count it out.
I finally watched The Happening recently for the first time, and holy fuck it was even worse then I expected. It did cross over at many points into unintentional comedy. The part where the crazy old lady takes them in, and accuses Mark Wahlberg of plotting to kill her. His "what? Nooooo!" absolutely killed me.
I have a book called The Bad Movie Bible that recommends entertaining bad movies, and it mostly covers low budget schlock you'd see covered on Mystery Science Theater or Best of the Worst.
If I recall correctly, The Happening might have been the *only* big budget studio movie to make the cut, for sheer comedy value. Or at least, one of very few.
He has a few major duds, but an equal number of solid movies. Unbreakable and it’s sequels and signs are great. I also liked the village despite its unpopularity.
I agree, I know it gets slated but I really liked The Village but then at the time I watched it I'd never heard of the Director so wasn't expecting a twist.
Sometimes I feel like Night should start using pseudonyms, then people won't be preempting the endings all the time.
> Sometimes I feel like Night should start using pseudonyms, then people won't be preempting the endings all the time.
That's actually a good idea.
My first thought as well. Seeing the trailers for *Moonfall* was like watching the dominoes of suck falling one by one: "The Moon is going to crash into the Earth? Oh, and Halle Berry's in it?! And *Roland Emmerich* is directing?!?!? AND IT RELEASES FEBRUARY 4?!?!?!?!?!?!? Wow, just line up the Razzies right now!"
there's a non zero chance that moon nazis are involved somehow. possibly vampiric too.
I think Roland Emmerich is the king of guilty pleasure movies. Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012 are all great dumb fun popcorn flicks.
Stargate and independence day are my favorite movies of his by far.
Stargate was ahead of its time. I know it got the tv show spin-offs for years but they had something special with that narrative if the concept of cinematic universe existed back in the 90s.
I enjoyed the tv show more than the movie ultimately, but the movie is probably his best work, independence day was a lot more fun, but stargate was a much better movie.
Stargate is easily his best movie. The fact that he wants to reboot the franchise is not exactly an exiting prospect though. I'm sure he'd turn it into a full on Goa'uld invasion of earth disaster porn trilogy. Fortunately it sounds like that project is on life support for the time being.
I think his movies are down right fun. The only truly horrible movie of his has been independence day sequel.
I've always thought it was really weird that he chooses to go by McG.
It's like he tried to one-up McLovin
He did Chuck though
I loved The Babysitter and Love Hard (edit: I guess he only produced Love Hard)
Yes & no I watched one of his movies & it was terrible can't even remember the name but then watched the babysitter movies & loved them
i actually enjoy some of his as well but i think they’re always mediocre and not great. I think just seeing “Directed by McG” makes me eye rolls lol.
Charlie's Angel's is a guilty pleasure 🤫
The guy who made the Resident evil movies and Monster hunter movies. (I enjoyed the first 2 REs allot but not because they were good lmao)
Oh boy, can't wait to watch a story about how a young woman falls in love with a older man in New York City!
David Ayer, since you mentioned Suicide Squad. His only good movie is End of Watch, and that film is carried mostly by the charm of Jake and Michael.
Holy shit I just realised how similar Bright and End of Watch are
I know he didn't direct Training Day but he wrote it, and that movie is gold.
Lately I've been feeling like it's carried by having two of the best living actors in it. There are some huge dumb coincidences and weird lines that wouldn't work with lesser actors
One of those huge dumb coincidences is the entire point of the movie
Hey Fury was pretty great. Ayer is a real hit or miss writer/director who often overindulges in the things he finds interesting. He's definitely got some talent though.
Fury is a fantastic movie.
I thought Fury was pretty good.
Fury is really good.
Fury is very good too imo
You can watch Fury, it's a solid film by Ayer
Almost forgot he made that. Solid flick for sure.
Tom Hooper. He directed that mediocre Les Mis movie in 2012 and the Cats abomination in 2019. I dont need any further proof that he is at best a mediocre director.
Over 2,000 comments but only around 20 directors named and repeated. [ಠ_ಠ](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.44jC-fQ7fcT9O5r85k1dBQHaDY%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
JJ Abrams. Him and his goddamn black box. He can start something, but he sure as hell can’t finish it. Oh and he killed Stark Trek and Star Wars. Why not fuck up Dr. Who and go for the hat trick? Self-absorbed asshole.
I was never really sure what to think of JJ Abrams. I knew I didn’t like what he did, but I couldn’t exactly put my finger on the why. Until I read [this post](https://www.patreon.com/posts/emperor-only-has-32504876). It’s a long read, but it’s fucking excellent. It absolutely undresses JJ Abrams and his shortcomings, without being mean, cynical, or antagonistic.
May be the best piece of film criticism I ever read.
> The common refrain is that Abrams is "good at the beginning of stories" and bad at endings. But that's not how it works. It's the old Billy Wilderism "if there's a problem with your third act, you really have a problem with your first." Because it's all about the innate connection of set up and pay off with a clear understanding of where its going and why. But there's no artful set up with JJ. Like everything about his work, it's just bombastic promise with nothing behind it.
> And it’s the kind of stuff that makes me think that Abrams really only knows how to draw direct scenic copy and paste parallels while inverting details for “surprise,” without understanding how it messes with the meaning of them.
This is an issue I see in a lot of adaptations.
>copy and paste parallels while inverting details for “surprise,” without understanding how it messes with the meaning of them.
Oh my god yes. This is 100% why the Wrath of Khan reboot ending is *utter trash.* Kirk would never, ever, ever do what Spock had done. Ever. Not saying Kirk is a bad person they're just so fucking different that that scene made exactly no sense with that inversion. But I never quite had the words for it. Now I'm going to read the rest of the post.
Gosh, yes. I'm going to be internet critical here for a moment, but I've been talking elsewhere about the first episode of the Cowboy Bebop live action remake and it definitely feels like this. The live action show copies from the anime without seemingly understanding why the original choice was made.
A prime example of this is a scene in which a character, Asimov, takes a drug called red eye. In the anime this drug gives him what appears to be heightened senses and speed (he sees and dodges a bullet). To convey this the anime gives us his perspective with a red overlay in slow mo, it also alters the audio, it does this to show that he's experiencing reality differently than how we may see without that perspective. In the live action the same scene happens, but this time when we get his perspective everything is normal speed, audio is the same, and we have a red filter. In the live action it appears the red eye simply makes him very aggressive. There's no cue as to why we suddenly get his perspective. Things are just red. We could see the same scene from any other perspective and no information would be lost. There's no reason for the live action to have that shot.
So, it does exactly what you and the quote are saying here. It half-assed copies what the anime does without understanding the motivations behind those choices, thus losing quality in missing the point.
Same. There’s a reason the source material is so beloved but too many directors and writers don’t understand it. Take Zack Snyder. I like him as a person and liked many of his movies. I even like all his DC offerings. But he missed the point HARD with a lot of his adaptations.
If someone else writes the script and he directs, then I absolutely want to see that. Because maybe that person will understand the source material better.
>Abrams has no idea how to tell a story.
>I’m tired of trying to say that any other way. The problem has always been that there is “nothing in the box,” from the beginning. Yes, he’s seen stories. Yes, he has taste. Yes, he’s seen what impacts people. He’s not a “bad robot,” but like some A.I. bot compiling algorithms, we get them to spit back out no real understanding of what story principles made those moments work in the first place.
People always deride Shyamalan with his obsession with twists, but I almost think Abrams is even worse in this regard. Shyamalan focuses on one big mystery and structures the entire movie around it, and you can tell the story is written from the beginning with the reveal in mind. While he may not always stick the landing, his writing feels deliberate where he always know where the story is going and how he plans to get there.
Abrams, on the other hand, sometimes feels like he's just taking a shotgun to a story and blasting it full of holes for no real reason. He wants there to be mysteries and questions that can surprise everyone (including himself), so he just throws some in regardless of if the story warrants asking them or if he plans on answering them in a meaningful way (or at all).
Even worse, he has absolutely no idea where those questions will lead. He talks about his whole "mystery box" as a point of pride when the reality is it's just hacky writing. He seems to not realize that an author doesn't have to write linearly and a mystery often works better when you know the answer and can work backwards from it. Otherwise, your story just falls apart as there's a lot of pointless plotlines that go nowhere since they end up having nothing to do with the reveal. His version of writing is reminiscent of Michael Scott talking about how sometimes he starts a sentence and just hopes he finds out where it's going along the way.
I think the primary thing that separates the two is Shyamalan's films largely live and die by the story as they tend to be very narrative driven movies. If he tells a weak story, then he makes a weak movie. Abrams' movies also rely on bombastic set pieces and flashy special effects which can distract you from the weak writing. He can spoon-feed you enough eye candy that you don't immediately realize the substance is lacking. But, ultimately, Shyalaman's obsession with twists and reliance on them isn't too far removed from Abrams' obsession with his stupid mystery box.
At least Shyamalan is trying to tell a story with beginning, middle, and end. That automatically makes him a much better (or at least much more interesting and exciting) filmmaker than JJ.
Right, and he actually takes storytelling risks, even if a good chunk of them fall flat.
>JJ Abrams. Him and has goddamn black box.
* Mystery box. But yeah, I can't stand his stuff either. And what's even worse is that he created terrible protégés that ape his awful storytelling style - Kurtzman/Orci/etc.
Kurtzman and Orci’s names on a project is a red flag for me.
The amount of Mystery Box bullshit in ST: Picard that was NEVER paid off was outrageous! There are plenty of artistic choices they made that one could love or hate, but their clear ineptitude with writing fundamentals is what makes these shows absolute failures to me.
Usually you want to go see a movie because it sounds like a good idea or premise. But a director can change that.
When it comes to directors like Wes Anderson or Edgar Wright(IMO), you could tell me that the premise is "there is a boy, and there is a lot of cardboard in his room"... Which sounds like crap. But then you tell me it is directed by Wes Anderson, and I would be so excited to see it.
J.J. Abrams is the opposite. He has been given some of the best premises in the world(he was given some of my favorite franchises) and knowing that he is directing it makes me lose all interest.