HBO PROVIDES A HELMER FOR THOR 2

Luther? Sold.

I'm more excited for a Thor 2 then I am for another Captain America..

Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't it true that TV directors are mostly at the mercy of the writers' creative vision, and make very little artistic choices for themselves? Even actors I have heard mostly relate to their characters through the showrunners and individual ep. writers, receive instruction from them, etc. I don't actually know much about this -- it's just a cliche I've often heard repeated. If true, isn't it kind of unwise to hire a guy with relatively untested abilities for making his own shit to be the lead dude on your next tentpole?

 

Other than that I don't have much of an opinion other than "oh, okay." It's impossible to get excited by this news, but it would be equally stupid to get disappointed when the talent is so unexpectedly anonymous.

 

Yeah, the Luther bit was the thing that really caught my eye. Now just cast Ruth Wilson as The Enchantress and we are good to go.

 

I don't know if this perception is correct. If it is, then Kirk is in fact a good choice. All the Marvel Movies get a lot of direction and input from the Producer Kevin Ferge. My suspicion is that Ferge's involvement is part of the reason Favreau and Branuagh are not returning to their respective franchises.
 

 

I saw Game of Thrones and said okey-dokey.

By all means doubt the correctness of the perception, I really have no idea whether it holds truth or not. I was kind of hoping someone here might be able to give more insight on that.

 

I really don't think, though, that Feige's hiring Kirk specifically because he won't be much of a creative force. That's clearly not Marvel's mentality -- if it was, why hire guys like Branagh or Whedon in the first place? These are directors with a specific vision who are hired for their suitability to their respective projects. Marvel doesn't just want directors they can push around; they want people who can nail the approach and tone of their franchises. Now Kirk must be quite the find if they're still following this formula... but nothing he's done really indicates that he would be, which is why it's a weird choice.

Yeah my post came off as more negative than I intended.  Sorry about that.

 

You are right that Marvel are not just hiring drones to direct their films...but clearly they want a Collaborator vs. letting someone just run with their own vision. There are a lot of cross connection within each film to the larger Marvel Movieverse and each Director has to deal with that. Favreau has complained publically about that.
 

 

 

100% agreed.  Whoever they hire has to be willing to play ball.  Kirk will be allowed to do his own thing, as long as he doesn't try to step too far outside of the box.  I do like the fact that they are hiring a director early on who will be heavily involved in the development of the script and the design of the film.

 

Anyway, I have no problem with this choice.
 

 

I get the feeling Marvel is operating with a director wish list on each of these movies, and they start at the bottom with the absolute cheapest options.

Looking at the other choices in the article, I can't really see most of them costing much more than Kirk would.

I guess we'll see. Certainly not a bad choice on the surface but not one to make me jump for joy either.

In terms of Thor 2, I'm more interested to find out what direction they plan on taking the story in.  The Variety article seems to hint at a more Asgard-based sequel, which I hope is the case.

 

Directorially, I'm more interested in Marvel's choices for their next round of "new" films (i.e. Dr. Strange) than the ones they choose for sequels.  It is the first film in any new franchise that is going to set the initial tone.......though sequels can certainly change or enrich what has already been established.  That said, the fact that we are getting a Shane Black-directed Iron Man 3 (2013) and Edgar Wright's Ant-Man.  I really wouldn't mind Whedon doing another Marvel film after The Avengers either.

 

Does anyone know if John Singleton and Jonathan Mostow are still linked to Luke Cage and Sub-Mariner, respectively?

Yep.  GoT perked my ears, but Luther made me do that annoying "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!" deal.

 

Interesting choice but can't say I'm not a little worried. Many great TV directors have made really weak-ass jumps into features.

 

I know this has already been addressed, and I am not a huge TV guy, but there are a few shows of which I've watched the entire run. The director definitely has an impact on a given episode. If you watch the first season of Community, it doesn't take a trained eye to tell which episodes were directed by Justin Lim.

 

On the flip, I always got excited when Joss was writer/director of an episode of Buffy or Angel, because I knew I was getting the goods.

 

So to answer your question: Maybe, I don't know.

TV directors definitely make artistic choices, anybody who's seen an episode of Breaking Bad know that, but the vision is much less singular. The show-runners handle much of the performance and the overall look is already decided for them by the show-runner, director of the pilot and DOP.

 

It's interesting that you mention Whedon because his Angel/Buffy episodes were great, but Serenity looked like a made-for-TV movie.

I've seen that criticism a lot. I've never agreed.

I do love how Mr. "Quentin Tarantino doesn't make Academically satisfying films" doesn't seem to have a clue about how creative enterprises actually work. Whilst TV is more of a writer's medium than film, that's largely due to writers having more sway and creative control of their own work. TV is still a visual medium so of course TV directors have input, it's literally moronic to think otherwise.

 

In terms of TV directors who became film directors David Yates was able to step up from TV Projects to being able to stamp his own style onto the Harry Potter franchise, Edgar Wright proved with Scott Pilgrim that the energy of Spaced was as much in his direction than as Pegg's writing. Michael Haneke worked as a TV director for 15 years before his first feature film, Lars Von Trier moved between TV and film in his early career. Steven Spielberg, briefly, started out as a TV director.

 

In short JMulder, you're a fucking idiot.

Jesus Christ Spike, you've been name-calling out of the blue a whole lot recently. I ask this with all sincerity: Is there something wrong with you?

A good point, but I feel like this is your one example that should be held up to scrutiny. I hope I don't need to explain this, do I?
 

 

I know that Yates is viewed as a little workmanlike, in comparison to Cuaron, but you can see the tonal similiarities between his direction on State of Play and his Potter direction. There's a low-key, graceful, style to the way Yates directs the Potter movies (a great example being the way the camera almost impassively regards Dumbledore burning down half of a room in an Orphanage in Half Blood Prince) which feels very specific to his entries. Unless you're trying to make some other point that I'm missing.

 

 

 

About a year ago any number of people would have called JMulder out on what he said. I've had it happen to me a bunch of times. I know we're supposed to be a kinder, happier, Chud but...we need a little piss and vinegar now and then.

 

Well, your unprovoked tirade is pretty fucking embarrassing since I was never situating myself as an expert in the first place -- my entire post was phrased as a question, actually. And since you don't seem to know anything more than what I already know (other than "TV and film are both visual mediums so therefore they're the same!"), I am not too sure you're the one who should be answering that question.

 

Now obviously TV directors have input -- I never once doubted that. They obviously have a role to play or else there would be no need for them. But if you're the director of a movie, I expect you to have a vision. Directing a couple episodes of Breaking Bad does not demonstrate vision. Being Vince Gilligan, however, does. Similarly, someone like David Benioff would be pretty instrumental in bringing Game of Thrones to life, and his choices would define the show as we've seen it, while someone like Brian Kirk would comparatively not have much of a creative voice. 

 

The Breaking Bad comparisons as evinced earlier in this thread are moot anyway, since the episodes of Breaking Bad that really show flair in terms of direction are the ones directed by guys who are proven filmmakers, i.e. David Slade and Rian Johnson. Most TV direction is flat, lifeless, and uninteresting, but yes, film and TV are both visual mediums -- it's stupid not to acknowledge, though, that the environments in which they're made are completely different. If you can't think conceptually and can't be an idea man then quite simply you're not a director, and TV directors from what I understand aren't really required to be either of those things.

 

So in short Spike Marshall, shut the fuck up and only act haughty and superior when you actually have a justification for acting that way.

As much swing as Ron Moore or Matt Weiner might have over the narrative and creative course of an entire season, you only have to listen to an audio commentary for an episode of Man Men or Battlestar to realise that the different directors bring a lot of their own ideas and own style to the show. Framing, composition, lighting, even the performance of actors are all down to a good director. It's why the Van Patten episode of Sopranos tend to be the most memorable ones. Naturally you get some TV directors who are just there to follow orders and point a camera, but you have Film directors who do the same thing. You only have to look at the work of people like Adam Smith, Euros Lynn, (both Doctor Who) or Julian Jarrod and Michael Winterbottom (both Cracker) to see directors who established an aesthetic and continued that aesthetic throughout their individual episodes.

Well I think we're mostly in agreement if that's all you really have to say on the subject, since I do believe that TV directors can establish an aesthetic (but let's remember that style isn't everything -- just because you have a distinctive aesthetic doesn't mean you're a good director) and make the most of an environment predominantly dictated by people who are not them, since I have also seen it before. But the vast majority of them don't, and there is a reason for that. I would guess the reason is that TV isn't really conducive to a director exploring his skills, trying to make a statement, creating great characters, etc. (all the things we expect from a good director), partially because that's the nature of the beast and partially because that is the territory of the writers. If you actually disagree with this then please, throw out some real arguments other than name-dropping TV directors with style -- otherwise I'll just assume that you have some kind of personal axe to grind, probably as a result of my opinions on Quentin Tarantino.

1 JMulder prefaced his comment by saying he was no expert 2) you can "call someone out" without being a bleeding cunt about it. Man up Sir!

 

This!

 

That said, there was nothing really brief about Spielberg's TV stint.  He directed episodes of multiple shows, a Columbo movie, and directed three feature length TV films (Duel, Something Evil, Savage).  He managed to bust out into theatrical films quicker than most tend to, but he certainly paid his dues before doing so.

 

Quote:

Not to mention Ridley Scott & David Fincher, who went straight from TV commercials & music videos into features.

I'll float this as an idea. Kirk may well have been excellent in the room. While the Tv industry is traditionally known less for its directors, there's no reason not to speculate that Kirk could have a very strong vision for a new Thor movie, a side he may simply have had less of an opportunity to show within the confines of Tv. Add that to an impressive list of show credits, a lower price tag than some of the bigger names (which Marvel has to love), and a proven ability to collaborate with corporate interests. I'd have liked Branagh to come back, but barring that, this actually seems like an intriguing pick. It isn't like Spike Lee was on the shortlist.

 

Blasphemy!

 

Although, I do wonder what a Cap 2 will do since the Avengers movie could limit the sequel a bit. I imagine we get the "fish out of water" stuff from Cap there.

 

But for Thor 2, I'm also curious to see how Avengers will impact it. They setup the end of the movie to be about him maybe returning to earth to reunite with Jane Foster, will we see that in Avengers (doubtful)? That's where the Avengers movie makes the sequels a bit more of a challenge.

Even if Brian Kirk is a point-and-shoot type of director (I'm not saying he is, though for a fantasy show I thought Game of Thrones was a little flatly directed and lacking in flair; the only ones that really stuck out for me were the Alan Taylor episodes) there's something to be said for directors who focus on storytelling and character work over flash. I actually think there's a bit of an overabundance of the latter lately.

 

Ed Brubaker and a few writer before him were all about taking advantage of the political climate, I imagine there are plenty of stories one can tell, and just as many characters you can introduce to tell those stories.

 

Also, not for nothing, but having Rogers meets this guy on screen...

 

 

 

...might actually get me excited about this cinematic universe again.

 

 

Wait, um... is this a bad thing?
(it's fucking not, for the record).

 

 

I don't think it's unfair to raise concerns about TV directors making a leap to the big-screen. Fact remains that they are beholden to show-runners for many things, including performance. Who knows, Kirk might end up being a Jarrold or Winterbottom or he might be more like an Ernest Dickerson or Clark Johnson.