that sounds like you need to blame the writers and producers more than the director to me
MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
At the time of its release the first Shazam film was solid and generally fit in the “good” section of the DCEU.
However by the time Shazam 2 came out it was bad and generally fit in the “bad” section of the DCEU.
I don’t think Shazam 2 was poorly directed, but the story didn’t work at all and was ultimately a mess. So with that, it’s difficult to blame anyone other than the director.
I’m glad Sandberg is taking another swing at something big because they seem like a nice person and I think they can do a good job.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 weeks ago
MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I would but I don’t have the inside knowledge. For all I know the director made exactly what they intended and that was apparently terrible. Maybe they cut scenes, maybe they added unnecessary scenes, maybe there was push from the studio.
Ultimately a film is what the director creates. If the writing wasn’t good it’s up to them to figure something out how to improve it. If the producers try and force changes it’s up to the director to either make them fit or convince them otherwise.
Obviously you pick your battles and a film is a collaborative project, but the director is the captain, they guide the ship, they guide the film.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Yeah, no. In franchise films, the director has very little influence on how it turns out. Studio leadership, producers, and the franchise star(s) all have greater control.
spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Ultimately a film is what the director creates. If the writing wasn’t good it’s up to them to figure something out how to improve it. If the producers try and force changes it’s up to the director to either make them fit or convince them otherwise.
I will say, however, that even the best directors get fucked by bad editing. I mean, how many versions of Blade Runner are there (and how many of them are actually good)?
Maven@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Apparently (according to the actors involved and some behind the scenes nonsense) some of the story problems in Shazam 2 are actually The Rocks fault.
The movie was supposed to be more connected to DC but The Rock wanted to have Black Adam be the face of the franchise so he severed any real connections and had them dance around it in a really awkward way.
I really don’t think that having the movie be less clunky when it comes to the rest of the franchise would’ve fixed it but I also don’t see how having to dance around your own franchise would’ve helped the movie or been a good experience for the director.
SL3wvmnas@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
I guess the actor of Shazam beeing an alt-right MAGA dickhead hasn’t helped the situation.
Maven@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Oh yeah I don’t trust the guy at all.
I just also 100% believe when someone says the rocks ego got in the way of making a good movie given… Every movie the rock has been in for about 10 years now
MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yeah I wasn’t even going to touch on that. AFAIK he was just a “regular dude” when this film came out. But chances are he was just hiding it. If the DCEU didn’t die I suspect the future of these films and the lead actor would be a huge problem.
MimicJar@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That sounds absolutely plausible.
The film also has the most egregious bit of product placement I’ve ever seen in the film, which I have to imagine is a push from the studios/finance.
For those who haven’t seen the film, the film deals with gods and other mythical creatures. One of those creatures is a unicorn. One of the characters, a young girl, loves unicorns. However these unicorns are less friendly horses and more fantasy war machines. Luckily they can be tamed by “ambrosia” aka “nectar of the gods”. So when the unicorns appear and begin to attack everyone, good or bad, the little girl tames them using… SKITTLES. And I swear a character even says “Taste the Rainbow”. Basically Skittles save the day and defeat the bad guy in the film. They are core to the story.