Action!

Here's a question: Why do some film directors vary so much quality-wise?

Some directors put out consistent product, whether it be good or bad. Take Uwe Boll for instance. His films are shit. Absolute shit. If an alien race were to decide humanity's fate based off the quality of his films, we would all die. He is a worthless director, but he's consistently worthless, so you know what to expect from him every time.

Some directors, like David Fincher are consistently good. Sure, there may be an exception that isn't so great but, for the most part, you can pay the ticket price knowing you'll be pleased.

Now let's move to a few directors that I just don't understand.

James Cameron: Here's a filmmaker that started out great. Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2, and True Lies. Then it all went downhill. Despite it winning several awards, I think his directing skills sunk alongside Titanic. I don't know how anyone can look at that boring mess of a film and say it's deserving of the praise it got.

Then we move on to Avatar, which I truly feel is one of the worst films I've ever watched. What makes this one exceptionally perplexing is the time involved in its creation. I could forgive the bad script and bad plot if it had been rushed into production, but it wasn't rushed. Cameron worked on Avatar on and off for 10 FUCKING YEARS. After 10 years, I expect a masterpiece, or at least a film that isn't so goddamn predictable.

George Lucas: THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars: A New Hope are the 3 that everyone talks about. Star Wars: A New Hope not only changed filmmaking, but it changed the way Hollywood operated in regards to marketing and merchandising. At that time, Lucas was a visionary trying to make the movie he wanted to make, and Hollywood be damned if they didn't like it.

After A New Hope in 1977, Lucas didn't direct again until 1999, when The Phantom Menace came out. I have nothing good to say about this film or the remaining two Star Wars prequels.

What the Fuck Happened? That's what I'm getting at here, I don't know what the fuck happened. With Cameron, I could say that he's not that good with romance, being that both Titanic and Avatar were strongly focused on the romantic element. However, The Abyss had a strong romantic element to it as well with Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's characters, and it worked. The scenes with Harris sinking to his presumed death is pretty powerful stuff. So it's not the romance. is it merchandising? Titanic didn't have a lot of merchandising, so that theory is out. Is it writing? Since Cameron is credited as a writer on most of his films, then it isn't that either. I just don't understand how Cameron can go from a compelling storyteller to someone who just makes things pretty on screen. He proved that he's talented, so where did that talent go?

It's confusing with Lucas as well. Everyone will say that he became a studio tool just cranking out films for merchandising, and I think that's partially true. Lucas was the first filmmaker to foresee the importance of merchandising, and it's made him a VERY rich man. Looking at the prequels, you can see that he took a lot of time and effort to make them marketable, at the cost of making a GOOD film.

But, it isn't just marketing. Marketing explains the shitty character work and the needless special effects. Marketing doesn't explain the general laziness of the directing.

Now, I didn't notice this next point on my own. it took someone with filmmaking experience to point it out, and once it was pointed out, it's as clear as day. Take a look at all three prequels, and pay attention to scenes where two people are talking. In almost every instance, either 2 things are happening:

1. The two characters are slowly walking somewhere while talking.
2. The characters are sitting on a couch talking. The camera alternates between static, over-the-shoulder shots between character A and character B until one of the characters gets up, walks a few feet, and turns around to continue talking.

That's it. You have a director who uses the SAME shots EVERY time. He's the writer as well, so he wrote this shit the same every time too. If it was just about merchandising, then you wouldn't want to slow the film down with the same old exposition shots every 10 minutes. A slow film is generally not an exciting film. Do you think kids give a shit about the political ramifications of the trade federation? Fuck no. At least do something interesting with the camera work so people don't fall the fuck asleep in the seats.

Part of it is that Lucas got lazy. He didn't want to take the time to set-up interesting shots, or coax quality performances out of his actors. He instead chose to get the films made as quickly as possible, and the whole franchise suffered for it.

Merchandising and apathy doesn't fully explain why the films were so shitty though. As an artist, if you create something, you have a certain amount of pride in it. George Lucas created a world and characters beloved by millions. This was HIS idea, and HIS creation. If it were forced upon him by the studio with someones else's screenplay, then I could see how he wouldn't give a shit. It's HIS creation though, and I can't believe that he doesn't have an insane amount of pride for him. I can't believe that laziness and merchandising could override the desire to keep your creation as good as it could be, as good as your personal standards originally made it.

Why? Why do great directors fall so far? I just don't get it.