View Single Post
Old 07-21-2010, 11:32 PM   #2
Jeritron
Get a poke on
 
Jeritron's Avatar
 
Posts: 35,234
Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Jeritron makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeRazor View Post
I wouldn't use this as a basis for this argument. Inception was great but it was still a huge-budget action film. A good one, yes. It still was directed by a huge mainstream director coming off of one of the biggest films of all-time. A good director, yes. A good film, yes. It still starred a former teenage Hollywood heart-throb. A good actor, yes.

My point being that it was a great film, with a great director, a great leading man and great supporting actors but it's not like it was some film out of left field or something that didn't have mainstream appeal already. The fact that it's a great film my a genius director/righter is kind of inconsequential in my mind.
It's still new material though. I think material and creators are two different things.
A lot of people will feel comfortable with proven directors, writers and actors. This has almost always been the case.
Actors longer than directors.

With Hitchcock and Spielberg the birth of the namebrand director became a part of the film industry, but they still brought new material to the table.
In this situation the moviegoers and studios have the benefit of tapping into a brand and giving something new at the same time.
Jeritron is offline   Reply With Quote