• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)

Dunno, I thought the Pilot of "Strange New Worlds" (title: Strange new Worlds), "Rememberance", "The Star Gazer", "Penance" and "Farewell" (all of Star Trek: Picard) were quite good, same goes for "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons".He also wrote the "better" Batman Forever, "The Divergent Series: Insurgent" and "A beautiful mind". So, saying that he couldn't write a good script, if his life depended on it, is a tadbit over the top, eh?

The writing credits in feature films are rarely accurate. Most modern films have multiple writers, only 1-4 of whom get screen credit. Usually the credit is given to the writer who contributed the most, but sometimes a film can be credited to a writer who contributed virtually nothing to the finished product; for instance, Speed is credited solely to Graham Yost, but virtually every line of dialogue in the movie was written by Joss Whedon.

You can't really judge a screenwriter's ability by their feature film credits, not only because of the aforementioned, but because writers in feature films are treated as merely hired contractors whose job is to follow the director's or producers' instructions. If the writer produces a brilliant, subtle, complex script but the director and studio want something simplistic, broad, and dumb, then the writer will either give them something simplistic, broad, and dumb as instructed, or will be let go and replaced with someone else who will, even if the original writer still gets credit. So it's not uncommon for a writer capable of brilliant work, or at least competent work, to have screen credit on multiple terrible, dumb movies. Because it's ultimately the directors who make the decisions, and the writers' job is seen as subordinate to that. It's only in television that writers have creative control.
 
The writing credits in feature films are rarely accurate. Most modern films have multiple writers, only 1-4 of whom get screen credit. Usually the credit is given to the writer who contributed the most, but sometimes a film can be credited to a writer who contributed virtually nothing to the finished product; for instance, Speed is credited solely to Graham Yost, but virtually every line of dialogue in the movie was written by Joss Whedon.

You can't really judge a screenwriter's ability by their feature film credits, not only because of the aforementioned, but because writers in feature films are treated as merely hired contractors whose job is to follow the director's or producers' instructions. If the writer produces a brilliant, subtle, complex script but the director and studio want something simplistic, broad, and dumb, then the writer will either give them something simplistic, broad, and dumb as instructed, or will be let go and replaced with someone else who will, even if the original writer still gets credit. So it's not uncommon for a writer capable of brilliant work, or at least competent work, to have screen credit on multiple terrible, dumb movies. Because it's ultimately the directors who make the decisions, and the writers' job is seen as subordinate to that. It's only in television that writers have creative control.
It's great, to have an author here with us, who knows stuff like this. I wouldn't have known, that Speed is a Joss Whedon Vehicle. But if we can't know for certain, who wrote what script in which capacity, this whole "he can't write scripts to save his life", as @kirk55555 said, is null and void, right? Or is there an exception?
 
Making a few well regarded movies doesn't mean he was capable of making a good Batman film. He was not the type of director capable of making any other type of batman film then the ones he did.

You're going from one extreme to the other. Fact of the matter is, his work prior to Batman included a stylish vampire movie that prominently featured comic books and a comic book store, an atmospheric low-scifi psychological horror movie about experiments with near-death, a thriller about a psychologically disturbed vigilante, and a legal thriller. ALL of these feature elements important to a good Batman movie, so, yes, it was very much the case that one would have expected Schumacher to be a good choice.

He had a disdain for the source material and was an inherently camp focused director.

Where do you get this from? He included comic books in The Lost Boys, with the heroes being comic fans who work at a comic book store. Where is the disdain you speak of?

The man spend decades defending the bat nipples for gods sake, that wasn't a studio mandate.

No, it was a choice. He wanted to suit to look anatomical, like ancient statues of Greek gods. While I don't agree with it, I also happen to think that the shit he got for them is out of proportion. Most of the time you hardly even notice them. And I also don't blame him for being defensive, considering the utter demonisation he received from fans and studio hacks trying to cover their own ass.

I'd also say that I don't think he ever made a good film, but the few I can see that did well were totally different kinds of films then what would make a good Batman film.

How similar to Batman does a movie have to be for you to consider the director a good choice for a Batman movie? We're talking about a time when superhero movies were not a massive genre. Prior to his Batman gig, Tim Burton made Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. That's it. Batman was his third feature film. Chris Nolan's filmography prior to Batman Begins consisted of three low-budget psychological thrillers. Matt Reeves made a romantic comedy, two horror films and two Planet of the Apes films before he got the job to direct Batman.

Compare that to Schumacher's filmography prior to his Batman work.

In the end the director made exactly the type of Batman movies the studio knew he would make when they hired him. The fact that WB hired Akiva Goldsman to write the movies didn't help, the guy couldn't write a good script if his life depended on it, but in the end the studio wanted a certain kind of Batman movie so they hired the perfect people to give them the product that they wanted. The end results were terrible because the studio was run by idiots that wanted something that was never going to be good.

I mean, we do have a pretty good idea what Goldsman's screenplay looked like, because the Alan Grant novelization is basically that turned into prose. I think the screenplay itself is even readable online. And I maintain, of all the four Batman movies of the era, its script was the most comics-accurate.

Some directors are not up to some types of films. That doesn't even make them "bad" directors, just inappropriate for certain projects. David Lynch on Dune immediately comes to mind, the master of arthouse gross out horror was absolute garbage trying to adapt a sci-fi book to a general audience. That doesn't make Lynch a bad director, just a bad director for that project. Schumacher just shouldn't have been making Batman movies.

David Lynch the "master of arthouse gross out horror"? Are you, by chance, mixing him up with David Cronenberg?
 
But if we can't know for certain, who wrote what script in which capacity, this whole "he can't write scripts to save his life", as @kirk55555 said, is null and void, right? Or is there an exception?

I suppose the exception would be if the writer is also the director or producer. Again, the creative decisions in a feature film are ultimately theirs, and the writers are often treated as little more than stenographers who convert the directors' and producers' ideas into script form.

Also, of course, nobody bats a thousand. Even in TV where the writers (or at least the showrunners, the head writer-producers) have relative creative control (subject to executive meddling, of course), a lot of factors can combine to keep a script from working, so even the best writers will have some duds.
 
Please point to the arthouse gross out horror on the list
1977EraserheadYesYesYesNoAlso editor, composer, art director,
and special effects
[17]
1980The Elephant ManYesYesNoYesAlso musical director,
co-written with Christopher De Vore
and Eric Bergren
1984DuneYesYesNoNo
1986Blue VelvetYesYesNoNo
1990Wild at HeartYesYesNoNo
1992Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with MeYesYesExecutiveYesCo-written with Robert Engels
1997Lost HighwayYesYesNoYesCo-written with Barry Gifford
1999The Straight StoryYesNoNoYes
2001Mulholland DriveYesYesNoYes
2006Inland Empire
 
I wouldn't have known, that Speed is a Joss Whedon Vehicle.
To be clear, Speed isn't solely by Whedon. As mentioned, it's the dialogue which is almost entirely by him (as well as reworking a few characters). Graham Yost still wrote the original script and was responsible for much of the film's plotting.
 
Batman Returns ... was perceived as too dark, too openly sexually themed, too violent, too scary, and the Penguin as too gross.
7nmu9d.jpg

this whole "he can't write scripts to save his life", as @kirk55555 said, is null and void, right?
It's very unlike kirk55555 to engage in hyperbolic excess.
 
To be clear, Speed isn't solely by Whedon.

I never said it was. I said that you can't trust the onscreen writing credits to be accurate or comprehensive, and that there's no guarantee the credited writer will be the sole or primary person responsible for the finished product. What made Speed work was both Yost's plot and Whedon's dialogue, but Whedon got no credit even though virtually every word spoken in the film is his, because of the technicality that he didn't contribute to the plot. It's just one of many examples of credits being misleading or incomplete.
 
None of these Gunn projects sound very exciting to me. I couldn't care less about Creature Commandos. Even Peacemaker has lost all its appeal with the prospect of any cool cameos being gone.
 
I never said it was. I said that you can't trust the onscreen writing credits to be accurate or comprehensive, and that there's no guarantee the credited writer will be the sole or primary person responsible for the finished product. What made Speed work was both Yost's plot and Whedon's dialogue, but Whedon got no credit even though virtually every word spoken in the film is his, because of the technicality that he didn't contribute to the plot. It's just one of many examples of credits being misleading or incomplete.
I can't remember for sure what it was, but I while back I read a story about a movie that had 14 different people write different versions of the script, and even though it used bits and pieces of almost every version, once the final movie came out it only credited 3 or 4 of them.
 
I suppose the exception would be if the writer is also the director or producer. Again, the creative decisions in a feature film are ultimately theirs, and the writers are often treated as little more than stenographers who convert the directors' and producers' ideas into script form.

Also, of course, nobody bats a thousand. Even in TV where the writers (or at least the showrunners, the head writer-producers) have relative creative control (subject to executive meddling, of course), a lot of factors can combine to keep a script from working, so even the best writers will have some duds.

Which - again - would lead me to the statement, that this "Goldsman can't write good stories" is a bit on the wrong side.

To be clear, Speed isn't solely by Whedon. As mentioned, it's the dialogue which is almost entirely by him (as well as reworking a few characters). Graham Yost still wrote the original script and was responsible for much of the film's plotting.

Yeah, I understood this one. Found it just fascinating, that, at least dialogue-wise it is a Whedon-Vehicle, and when I stop and think about it, I honestly think, that one can hear this. Stuff like "Pop-quiz, Hot-Shot" sounded Whedon-esque, but I would never thought, that he actually wrote the dialogue.


It's very unlike kirk55555 to engage in hyperbolic excess.

You have done something I didn't think possible and made me think about another way of looking at Batman Forever.
Ehh, sorry, sometimes I don't speak "irony in internet-boards", so I don't know, if that, what the two of you just said, was something to mess with me, of if you meant that geniunely. Sorry.
 
Ehh, sorry, sometimes I don't speak "irony in internet-boards", so I don't know, if that, what the two of you just said, was something to mess with me, of if you meant that geniunely. Sorry.
I think what Commander Troi said was intended completely sincerely. She's that kinda person. :)

My own comment may have contained some irony (possibly as much as a boatload), but it wasn't directed at you.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top