*Blog inspired by a recent e-mail exchange*
At least according to io9:
The Most Discouraging Justice League Rumor Imaginable.
Well...
Brett Ratner isn't a paragon of a human being, we know that. Honestly, I don't care. Lots of people are assholes and still make good entertainment.
He's
not inspired, but he is a competent, no-surprises director who
understands pacing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ratner
was NOT the problem on
X-Men: The Last Stand. His directing credits are all pretty watchable, high-concept fluff, with some high points.
The Family Man is good,
Red Dragon is (surprisingly) quite good (unless you insist on comparing it to
Manhunter. I try to take each film on it's own terms),
After the Sunset is fun, even if all of those films are clearly "it made money before, make something similar" studio films. And the
Rush Hour movies are exactly the kind of high-value, slicky-made entertainments that Marvel is making right now.
The problem with
The Last Stand (which is a good comparison,
since it's his only other superhero credit) was that Fox was pissed that
Bryan Singer (who's, to this day, the ONLY filmmaker who's had a handle
on how to do the X-Men) for doing
Superman Returns (far better
than people give it credit for, but too beholden to
Richard Donner's film) and dumped
him. They went with a poor script, which
Matthew Vaughan- yes,
X-Men: First Class
(which, it should be noted, had a script co-developed with Singer)
Matthew Vaughan, oversaw putting together. A script that checked off
fanboy "want list" crap over a cohesive vision. Ratner, was hired VERY
late on that film...Fox had a script and a release date, and Vaughan
freaked and quit.
I will never call
The Last Stand the best X-Men movie, but it
is watchable, and the set pieces are well executed and exciting. It
also feels connected with
Singer's first two films. Ratner understood
what he needed to do with that script, not step on the toes of what
worked before, what was expected, and keep the shit moving. He's not an
auteur, he's not even a "great" director, but he is a workmanlike one. I
imagine that if he had come up during the days of the studio system
he'd be a "go-to" guy.
Compared to
Joss Whedon (if we do a direct Avengers/JLA comparison)...Ratner can't touch him on concepts, scripts,
writing, but there's already a script in play. What Warner's wants is a
pure director, and on a pure technical level, the nuts and blots of
filmmaking, I think Ratner's equal to, or even a bit stronger than, Joss
(even if
The Avengers was a big step forward for him).
So, yeah...I understand why they're looking at him. I wouldn't even
be upset if he got the job, because, if he does it, the chances of it
actually getting made probably double. It'll be fun to watch, and
probably faithful to what works. The real question is the script, which
is what really made
The Avengers memorable.
Do I wish they'd find somebody really exciting, with a non-corporate
sensibility to really invigorate the JL? Oh. you bet!
Justice League's current screenwriter,
Will Beall's got a
lot of heat coming off
Gangster Squad, so I expect it's an exciting script (faithful, "good," or "the right script?" Who knows?).
Ben Affleck (who's a GREAT director waiting for the world to realize it)
clearly didn't want it. The
Wachowskis are NEVER going to do it.
Zack Snyder
apparently wants it, but that's because he's exactly what Ratner is,
but with visual flair (even if it's cliche visual flair).
Although, that said...the
Man of Steel teaser is really awesome.
Look at who Marvel's been using;
Jon Favreau, who was fully B-list (if that) before
Iron Man, really (and after
Cowboys and Aliens,
may be again).
Kenneth Branagh, who was hardly known for this sort of thing.
Joe Johnston, who I think is a fantastic, bordering on genius, workman
director, but also has a "hack" label. Whedon, who we know is a genius,
but he's a TV guy with one flop film and some internet stuff.
Shane Black, a huge screenwriter from 15 years ago, who fell off the map, then
made possibly the best film of the 2000's - that nobody saw. They all made great-to-fantastic films.
Honestly, I don't think you can do the shared universe thing with
filmmakers with strong visions and things to say.
Christopher Nolan, for example,
wouldn't want to, and I think, flatly, he couldn't. He wanted to work
with themes and psychological elements that would be completely
invalidated the second
Christian Bale's Batman walked into a JLA meeting
room. The saddest thing, to me, is that kind of vision, that kind of
pushing at the concept, thanks to Marvel, is dead and gone. Hollywood is
fixated on "team 'em up" now.
Yes, Wheadon...who definitely had a strong vision, but what he
wanted to say was "gee whiz! The Marvel Universe is neato!!" I think he
looks at this like working on a TV show...you can make very, very fun,
exciting drama, but, except in VERY rare cases, you're not going to be
transcendent. Which is probably the healthiest place to be, and those
checks will pay for his
Much Ado, and the
Dr. Horrible follow-up.
So, yeah...the collective Internet groan may head off Ratner, but the ultimate choice is going to be in the same realm. What I really wish is that
Andrew Stanton hadn't so quickly slunk back to PIXAR for
Finding Nemo 2 after the pounding he took over
John Carter (a top-ten movie for 2012 in my book...screw the box office). He would be an excellent choice for
Justice League, or heck, what about
Brad Bird?
The Incredibles is still one of the best superhero movies ever made, and flat-out the Best fantastic Four movie. I think he proved himself completely with
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. These are both mid-tier guys who might take the job as another stepping stone, and represent clear, strong visions of the properties they tackle.
