Patroklos wrote: ↑
Billion dollar franchise given to no-name TV haunt. Surely a smart move, and not something that has ever back fired above.
She has a long career directing on TV, including in other SF series. Being a big name (which very few directors are in the sense of being known to the general public) is not the same as being capable.
As to her only having worked in TV before, David Yates had pretty much only worked in TV when he got the directing gig for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
(which, let's not kid ourselves, is a much bigger franchise than Star Trek at this point). He did fine. Joss Whedon had never directed outside of television when he directed Serenity
, and while it wasn't a box office hit, it was generally critically well-received, I believe. IIRC, he had not directed any films other than Serenity
when he got the Avengers
Do you have an actual argument for why this person is unfit for the job, or are you just engaging in vague smears because a woman got hired/because you want to preemptively bash the film/because you didn't like my post on the subject?
And its nice to see TRRs first post in these threads is the same copy and paste he always posts in these threads. Some preemptive whining screed about some whining screed.
And its nice to see that your first post in the thread is to single me out to insult.
But I am curious if there were more qualified female directors that were pursued for the project that turned it down.
Why would you even suspect this, and why would this question have any bearing on the topic? You say she's a no-name director, imply she was hired because they wanted a woman, and then ask if some more qualified women were turned down? That seems... contradictory to me. Unless they, you know, actually thought that she was talented.
Lets not kid ourselves, there were suits in the the process that made a female director a priority.
Got a source, or are you just treating speculation as fact? I ask because whenever a woman is hired/cast in a traditionally male job in entertainment/the media, there is invariably
a horde of people who rush out to assert that a woman was hired because of her gender, based on zero visible evidence other than the fact that a woman was hired. Every. Fucking. Time.
The obvious implication of this is that if a woman was hired, it must
have been because of some "agenda", because obviously
a woman could never have been hired based on merit. In other words, the implication is that if a woman is ever hired, they must have unfairly "stole" the job from a more deserving man.
Not many people are stupid enough to come right out and say that, of course. But the implication is definitely there. If you don't want me to come to the same conclusion about you, then you need to actually bother to provide reasons and evidence for your arguments.
Now, all that said, its not implausible that this was one of the considerations in hiring her. How much weight it was given vs other considerations, I can't say without someone making behind the scenes information available to the public. But its important to remember that even if that was one of the motivations, it does not automatically follow that she's incompetent or undeserving of the job. I say we wait until we actually see what she does before we make that determination.
Nor, for that matter, do I see "We want to hire more women in a traditionally male field" as a bad thing, even if the motives behind that decision aren't wholly altruistic.
You would have to be a dunce if you are a businessman in the current environment and not want to cash in on the moment. If you are looking at this from the outside and think this was not an explicit hiring consideration you are an idiot.
So I guess rather than back up your assumption, you'll just label it self-evident and preemptively insult anyone who disagrees.
But there is a growing pool of experienced female directors and a franchise of this sort should be attractive to most directors regardless of gender, so that makes me think they couldn't pull one into the project. That they couldn't get one makes me feel there is something flawed with the project, not the director they chose.
They did get one, who has a long history of directing on respected series.
You seem to be engaging in some pretty tenuous speculation to preemptively bash this film.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"Trump admirers like @TuckerCarlson describe themselves as "nationalist." But their nationalism attaches not to the multiracial American nation... but to a multinational white race with a capital in Moscow"-David Frum