like Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner you mean.
lulz.
go ahead skippy neg me for this dose of reality as well.
Citing
Mel Gibson and
Kevin Costner as examples doesn't support your argument as much as you think it does.
So okay, I will. "lulz"
Originally Posted by filmmaker1473
Are you serious?
He is an academy award winner and has been in a number of box office hits and critical hits. He didn't star in Gone Baby Gone because he wanted his brother to star in it, not him. He can do just about whatever he wants to. He has earned that right.
Yes, I'm serious. I think you either misunderstood my point or lack sufficient knowledge about the business side of the industry.
Originally Posted by bouncingbrick
Except when you're an Oscar winner...
Oh, also, except when you've made a crap ton of money over the course of your career leading to that directorial debut...
Nah, sorry, not buying this.
You're not "buying" it because, frankly, you're in the same boat as Filmmaker.
I suggest you folks stop engaging in arguments where you focus directly on implicit statements while wholly ignoring what is actually said. None of you have shown that this is false:
Originally Posted by me
Gone Baby Gone was his directorial debut. The likelihood of a studio providing an actor with his directorial debut AND an artistic vehicle for his acting in the same project is slim to none (especially when it's your "first" feature and especially when the source material is so important to so many people). When you look at his recent projects as well as reports from within the industry, Gone Baby Gone becomes an increasingly irrelevant piece of evidence.
You then go on to cite actors like Mel Gibson and Kevin Costner. These are two examples that you've drawn. Two. You can list what you believe to be "many" more, but the simple truth is that studios need to see more from an individual than star power before they trust them with a film of their own. If every actor who earned a lot of money got a chance to direct, I believe you'd see my point.
But then again, maybe you wouldn't, because you may not understand exactly how flimsy the term "director" is. Directors can have next to no say in what happens with their films (yeah, even the good ones) because so little - if any - of the money on the line even belongs to them in the first place. Viewers frequently refer to their favorite parts of a given film and assume that most or all of that moment can be attributed to the director. Most of the time, directors don't even really shoot their own films, let alone storyboard it. Furthermore, they almost never edit themselves. Like I said, I think you guys have a lot of misconceptions about the industry, and you may not like hearing that from me because I'm new, but it's true.
What I said was that Gone Baby Gone was an extremely rare opportunity. You questioned and belittled that statement, then cited Mel Gibson and Kevin ****ing Costner as support. The fact that you had to cite these two men - some of the most bankable entities in the entire history of the industry - shows no real argumentative direction. Are you trying to say I'm wrong? That it's NOT uncommon for actors to be granted directorship in general, let alone under the circumstances Gibson, Costner, and Affleck were granted the opportunity? Yeah... alright.
When Disney hands French Stewart the reigns to $40M+ worth of intellectual property, come back and say something.
Reply to Topic
