Trevorrow gonna bring back that prequel quality.god fucking damnit...
This reminds me of the Sucker Punch reviews that said "This guy is going to direct Superman next?!"
I am so fucking terrified for Episode IX
If Guy Ritchie is still directing Aladdin after the critical and financial failure of King Arthur this guy isn't gonna go anywhere.
These are the perks of being a white dude in Hollywood.
Hollywood is weird.
You have this guy, who directed one low budget indie movie that was okay, then a couple years later gets handed the keys to two of the biggest franchises in movie history, Jurassic Park and Star Wars
The writer/director of Monster, a critically acclaimed movie didn't get another shot until 13 years later.
If Guy Ritchie is still directing Aladdin after the critical and financial failure of King Arthur this guy isn't gonna go anywhere.
These are the perks of being a white dude in Hollywood.
So, let's judge his work on Episode IX when it comes out. For all we know it good be a solid or even great entry in the series.
... Wait, what?
... Wait, what?
Man, the Trevorrow-hate is real, huh. Not saying he is the best director out there, but he isn't the develish schmuck you all make him out to be. No Jurassic World wasn't perfect and had it's tonal quirks, but it was a very competent blockbuster imo. Safety Not Guaranteed was pretty fun too. And it seems like this movies problems are mainly due to the wonky screenplay. Empire actually praised his direction on it. (And yes, I know Empire is a very mild medium which hardly ever pans movies, but they had there fair share of critisism on the film too)
So, let's judge his work on Episode IX when it comes out. For all we know it good be a solid or even great entry in the series.
With his kid brother Peter (Jacob Tremblay), Henry is being brought up by his stressed but cheerful single mom Susan: a deeply unrelaxed and unconvincing performance from Naomi Watts. Henry is pretty much a prodigy level genius who, when not absolutely crushing his homework, has secretly made his mom a fortune by dealing in stocks from a payphone near their house. He has also apparently designed and built a huge and elaborate treehouse/den in their backyard, with sweet Heath Robinson inventions in it, the sort of thing that would take a grownup movie set-designer months to build. The film is always ordering you to believe in how joyful and life-affirming Henry is.
I mean, if the most flattering thing you can say about his biggest film is that it was 'very competent' that's pretty faint praise. He's not an absolutely awful director, but he seems to hit fairly major stumbles in his work and doesnt have any particular aesthetic/thematic strengths to make up for them.
That's why people are so confused about his meteoric rise - as a director he is relatively inexperienced and there is nothing that seems unique about him stylistically, and yet he has been granted these mega franchises like he is some kind of visionary.
I'd rather he get's replaced because I have no faith in him.
At most he'll do a serviceable job, that's not exciting enough.
As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.
You can say the same about Abrams actually.
To me Jurassic World succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a fun blockbuster with spectacular moments, offset by some wonky character bits. (Which I found strange, because this is actually something Trevorrow seemed good at in SNG, and it's also the only thing you hear good stuff about in Book of Henry)
His rise isn't more meteoric then other indie darlings that suddenly got handed a big franchise. Garret Edwards went from a no-budget monster-movie to do a big budget Godzilla, and got Star Wars afterwards. Rian Johnson didn't exactly have a classic blockbuster on his name when he got granted VIII (Looper is still a relatively small movie). I feel like there has been a moment in Hollywood where they were looking for fresh blood for blockbuster series and found it in directors of indie flicks. And Trevorrow only got IX after he made a billion dollar blockbuster, don't forget that.
To me, the hate comes over as hyperbole. People forget he had a similar careerpath as some other director's they do like and forget he made one of the most profitable movies ever (which isn't something Hollywood glosses over), just because they didn't like JW.
it's boring. There is nothing but visual spectacle to Jurrasic Word. Just like avengers from the same year.You can say the same about Abrams actually.
To me Jurassic World succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a fun blockbuster with spectacular moments, offset by some wonky character bits. (Which I found strange, because this is actually something Trevorrow seemed good at in SNG, and it's also the only thing you hear good stuff about in Book of Henry)
There's also the fact that Trevorrow got the Jurassic World gig (which it was what led him to Star Wars) because of a "this guy reminds me of me" push from Brad Bird to the producers.I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.
Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
I would generally agree about JJ, he certainly has his strengths but he's never blown me away. He seems to be a more of a dependable 'all-rounder' than Trevorrow to me though.
Personally I found JW to be a very confused film that didn't understand exactly what it was trying to accomplish, with very awkward character motivations/arcs and no particularly memorable spectacle to gloss over it's flaws. Also to be fair, I count the original Jurassic Park as one of my favourite blockbusters of all time, so I could well have a harsher reaction due to my love for the original.
You make a good point that his rise isn't necessarily out of step with the current trend of elevating indie filmmakers to massive blockbusters straight away, but that is a phenomenon that I find pretty fascinating in general. Gareth Edwards at least had Monsters being in a similar genre to Godzilla, and it showed that he had the right skillset to transfer across, so I get the reasoning there. Rian Johnson also took a huge step from Looper to Episode VIII, but his career has followed a more sensible progression with each film building in scope from his previous work.
Obviously money talks in the end and JW was a monster hit, so I get it, it's just surprising because Trevorrow is so genuinely uninteresting to me.
There's also the fact that Trevorrow got the Jurassic World gig (which it was what led him to Star Wars) because of a "this guy reminds me of me" push from Brad Bird to the producers.
Her last movie, Monster, was in 2003. Despite her small movie being well received by critics and winning an academy award, according to her, Hollywood wasn't offering her any interesting projects until Thor 2, which she left over creative differences, and Wonder Woman.is there a story to support this claim?
I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.
Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
Makes sense, we all know how difficult it is for Star Wars films to make money.It made a lot of money
Her last movie, Monster, was in 2003. Despite her small movie being well received by critics and winning an academy award, according to her, Hollywood wasn't offering her any interesting projects until Thor 2, which she left over creative differences, and Wonder Woman.
I thought it was that she wanted to started a family after Monster, and TV afforded her better flexibility than movies would during that time. Though that's another problem all its own!
Yeah, which is why it's a problem cause it reinforces public misunderstanding of a disorder trumpeted as a metaphor. It's an outdated myth thinking schizophrenia is about split personality. People are usually meaning either bipolar or dissociative identity disorder.
I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.
Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
Acting like Star Wars isn't going to be committee directed.
Damn, some people are ruthless.