Directors or actors/actresses who "didn't get it" (1 Viewer)

[tenordas]

This is a spin-off from the thread about the possible Harry Potter because I didn't want to thread-jack.

In that thread, Ridley Scott's comment that "Deckard is a replicant" concerning Blade Runner was brought up, which made me also think of Peter Jackson's statement about not filming the Cleansing of the Shire for the ending of The Return of the King. I remember him saying in an interview that he chose not to film that part of the book because "he didn't understand it."

That statement blew my mind, and I thought to myself, "How did he do such a masterful job putting the trilogy to film when he obviously doesn't even understand the story?"

So, two examples of directors who didn't fully understand the source material, yet made a fantastic film (films) out of it anyway.

I can't think of other examples, but there's something at the edge of my mind about an actor saying something in an interview about a film where it was obvious he didn't get the film. I just can't quite recall what it was.

Anyway, wondering if others can think of examples of directors or actors/actresses clearly not "getting" the film they made, especially if it was good movie.

 

[Optimus Prime]

some would argue both George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry

Starting with the Motion Picture Roddenberry was basically given a ceremonial title and role and others were tasked with keeping him away and his involvement/interference to a minimum (for all the original cast movies he kept pushing a time travel movie where Kirk would have to be the one to assassinate JFK in order to preserve the timeline (basically a big budget, big screen update of City on the Edge of Forever)

Starting with the prequels people have accused Lucas of not really understanding Star Wars or why people loved it, but even a large part of the original trilogy was due to his then wife Marcia

And I've heard people say Return of the Jedi was when his focus became more about selling toys than creating a great movie

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don't know if the blame falls on the actor, director or writer (or all of them) but Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face in Batman Forever and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman are two epic fails that completely misunderstood the characters

 

[St. Widge]

Not sure that this is exactly the same thing, but I know that Paul Verhoeven intended the Starship Troopers movie to be a parody of the book to demonstrate his dislike for the views expressed in the book, but the movie he made didn't end up like a parody and people did not take it as a parody. Though you don't necessarily like the Federation in the movie, it's hard not to think that what they were doing was at lest to some extent right and necessary in the face of the annihilation of the species.

 

[zeetes]

grrm and everyone involved with season 8.

 

[tenordas]

Not sure that this is exactly the same thing, but I know that Paul Verhoeven intended the Starship Troopers movie to be a parody of the book to demonstrate his dislike for the views expressed in the book, but the movie he made didn't end up like a parody and people did not take it as a parody. Though you don't necessarily like the Federation in the movie, it's hard not to think that what they were doing was at lest to some extent right and necessary in the face of the annihilation of the species.

View attachment Stinker movie.mp4

That was just a stinker movie - ha. Verhoeven's efforts to turn it into a parody were misguided in the first place. If he wanted to parody "hawkish" attitudes, he should have used different source material that was satire in the first place. Using Heinlein's decidedly pro-military novel was a really dumb idea. So I'd say that's a case not so much of not understanding the source material, but of not understanding what could be done with it realistically.

 

[GeauxWhoDats]

grrm and everyone involved with season 8.

 

[St. Widge]

View attachment Stinker movie.mp4

That was just a stinker movie - ha. Verhoeven's efforts to turn it into a parody were misguided in the first place. If he wanted to parody "hawkish" attitudes, he should have used different source material that was satire in the first place. Using Heinlein's decidedly pro-military novel was a really dumb idea. So I'd say that's a case not so much of not understanding the source material, but of not understanding what could be done with it realistically.

I have to be honest. I love that movie. Sure, it's cheesy and overdone, but it's just a fun movie to watch.

But yeah, it's not that he didn't understand the book, it's that he tried to parody it and failed miserably. Which is why I said I was not sure if this counted for your thread.

 

[soupcan dan]

bruce willis in his last 6 0r 7 money grabs----------



too soon?

 

[livefromDC]

... which made me also think of Peter Jackson's statement about not filming the Cleansing of the Shire for the ending of The Return of the King. I remember him saying in an interview that he chose not to film that part of the book because "he didn't understand it."

That statement blew my mind, and I thought to myself, "How did he do such a masterful job putting the trilogy to film when he obviously doesn't even understand the story?"...

I applaud Pater Jackson for being wise enough to know what he didn't know. Perhaps I'm alone on this but I appreciate that as great of a filmmaker he has proven to be, he understands that if he doesn't "know" the author's intent or the meanings within a story, it's better to not attempt to be the storyteller for that particular story. And as we saw, just because he didn't understand a few parts of the story, it didn't mean the rest of the story didn't resonate with him to the point that he couldn't do a great job bringing it to life.

 

[livefromDC]

I said it in the HP thread and it's definitely worth mentioning here.

Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore. It's like someone told him Albus Dumbledore was an amazing, yet kooky old wizard who aspired to be the Minister of Magic, but had to settle on being headmaster at Hogwarts even though he finds kids to be rather annoying and somewhat untrustworthy.



He got better in the movies following his debut, but still...

 

[tenordas]

I said it in the HP thread and it's definitely worth mentioning here.

Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore. It's like someone told him Albus Dumbledore was an amazing, yet kooky old wizard who aspired to be the Minister of Magic, but had to settle on being headmaster at Hogwarts even though he finds kids to be rather annoying and somewhat untrustworthy.



He got better in the movies following his debut, but still...

I just feel like he never got the character. Harris played the Dumbledore of the books: he was relaxed, in control, the smartest one in the room, two steps ahead of everyone, approachable, affable, sympathetic, and had that "not fretting because I'm in charge" air.
To me, Gambon's Dumbledore was anxious, suspicious, slightly forceful, not particularly approachable, and did not have that relaxed and in control air about him at all. Simply not the character from the novels at all while Harris had the character down cold.

 

[Penguin]

I find it entertaining that this thread was created so as to not thread-jack a Harry Potter thread. And now, it has been thread-jacked with Harry Potter.

I don't think this is necessarily not understanding the source material, but Joel Schumacher's decision to camp up Batman & Robin (and Batman Forever to a lesser extent) was a horrible creative decision.

I disagree with the argument for George Lucas. Lucas IS/WAS the source material. Some not liking what he did with it does not even come close to him not understanding the source material.

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. In the source material, Reacher's physical stature is very critical to the stories and the character.

Director Dominic Sena, writers Jon Hoeber, Eric Hoeber, and Chad Hayes - Whiteout. Eisner-award winning graphic novel turned into a steaming pile.

 

[tenordas]

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. In the source material, Reacher's physical stature is very critical to the stories and the character.

Agreed, it made the films downright silly. Had Cruise not been the producer, it wouldn't have happened. I don't think anyone else ever would have cast him as Reacher. The series on Prime is a welcome respite from the ridiculous version of Reacher that Cruise played. Alan Ritchson isn't the greatest actor in the world, but he fits the character from the book pretty much perfectly.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I disagree with the argument for George Lucas. Lucas IS/WAS the source material. Some not liking what he did with it does not even come close to him not understanding the source material.

No movie is a solo endeavor- Lucas had lots and lots of help for the OT (Lawrence Kasdan, the editor whose name I forgot and the actors in particular)

We’re in sticky area about knowing material and being able to articulate it
I’ve known ballet divas and math geniuses who could do the thing but not explain the thing

And then there’s the example of someone like Francis Ford Coppola - who went from genius to pedestrian- I don’t think he forgot how to direct, he just had enough juice that he didn’t want to listen to the smaller voices that every creative really should listen to