Franchise directors

email this story
read comments (14)
post a comment

An okay but moderately boring Associated Press piece about franchise directors -- Sam Raimi, Gore Verbinksi, Peter Jackson, Paul Greengrass, Tom Shadyac, etc. "Unlike Hollywood in earlier days, when any old director might take on a sequel, the same filmmaker continues to oversee the latest installments of most big franchises out this summer," etc.

Rome pics #4<< previous | next >>Freidman on Travolta, "Hairspray"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 3, 2007 at 2:55 AM

comment #1

milestogo says ...

I'm not sure Peter Jackson belongs in the same category since the Rings trilogy was conceived and shot as 3 movies. And as a counterpoint, the Harry Potter series should have at least been mentioned.

Posted by milestogo at June 3, 2007 4:40 AM

comment #2

Ian Sinclair says ...

Yes, Peter Jackson shouldn't be mentioned. The Lord of the Rings is just one long movie released in three parts. It wasn't as if the next two parts were greenlit after the critical and commercial success of the first part. They had already been shot and the actors let go apart from pickups and ADR. Calling the Rings films a franchise always struck me as ridiculous. As the above poster mentioned, Harry Potter is a better choice, or the Bond pictures.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at June 3, 2007 5:58 AM

comment #3

The Winchester says ...

It's interesting that they don't have Harry Potter, but given they're on their fourth director, it wouldn't really fit with the piece. Sure, Columbus made two, and Yates is helming the one this summer and the next, but if he were to finish it out, it would make more sense. (I'm still hoping Cuaron comes back and does one, his is the best by far)

Posted by The Winchester at June 3, 2007 1:55 PM

comment #4

The Winchester says ...

Posted by The Winchester at June 3, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

Not sure Greengrass should be included either, as he wasn't there for the beginning of the Bourne franchise.

Posted by Josh Massey at June 3, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #6

George Prager says ...

Yes, leave out Peter Jackson. Unless you are talking about McDonald's or Burger King franchises. Then, by all means, you can mention Peter Jackson.

Posted by George Prager at June 3, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #7

christian says ...

mcdonald's franchise? now you're talking about SHREK.

Posted by christian at June 3, 2007 2:50 PM

comment #8

Cadavra says ...

Funny there's no mention of Richard Donner, who helmed all four LETHAL WEAPONS...

Posted by Cadavra at June 3, 2007 10:04 PM

comment #9

The Winchester says ...

or that dude that made thos Indianapolis Jones movies. Aren't they making another one?

Posted by The Winchester at June 3, 2007 10:35 PM

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

Thanks for pointing us to articles you find boring, Wells.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 4, 2007 1:29 AM

comment #11

le corbeau says ...

You know, the real issue is that in the old days sequels were considered kind of disreputable, which is why they were fairly rare (and largely confined to two, not quite class-A genres: horror movies, and mystery series featuring a recurring detective character-- a mold even the Pink Panther and James Bond series basically fit).

In the old days you'd do followups-- Errol Flynn in Captain Blood begat Errol Flynn in The Sea Hawk, with Michael Curtiz directing both-- but you didn't do Captain Blood Goes To Tortuga. (It was a little more common in the silent era, perhaps-- thus Son of the Sheik and Don Q, Son of Zorro.) The number of actual class-A sequels outside those two genres in the old days is quite rare-- Four Daughters produced Four Wives and Four Mothers, Peyton Place spawned Return to Peyton Place, and I suppose there's the Lassie movies, but all in all, Hollywood seemed to regard sequels as kind of cheesy back then, so no wonder top directors rarely came back for more.

Posted by le corbeau at June 4, 2007 8:27 AM

comment #12