StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2018-05-02 02:28pm Their headline is slightly misleading since the TV show's have had female directors I'm sure.

Roxanne Dawson and Gates McFadden have both directed. Dawson's main job now I think is directing. McFadden's been a choreographer and unit director before for motion pictures like Labyrinth. Dawson's done 12 episodes.

Mulgrew never wanted to for Trek (she prefers theatre) and I don't think Sirtis, Ryan, Lien, Visitor etc had any interest (just as many of the guys had no interest either).

Yeah, Dawson's done a lot of directing, not just for Star Trek. I remember her being credited for directing an early episode of Agents of SHIELD, among other things.

ray245 wrote: ↑2018-05-08 09:18pm See Crazedwraith arguments. No one is disputing the article should give facts. The question is what are the points you want to emphasize. As a news source, not making a big fuss about her being the first woman director of ST movies would have been more effective in communicating the message.

If the news article makes her prior work the primary focus, those against her as the director have to actually make an argument against her prior work and why she is not good enough. This would actually require those objecting to she being hired to actually do some work and critique her previous films/TV episodes.

That's my argument -- why even give the impression that this is a diversity hire? Her body of work is the only relevant factor in her merits as an ST director, so that's all that should be offered. Don't give easy prey to the trolls.

I know some people might find it insensitive or bigoted, but I'm firmly in the camp against drawing attention to minority status. If it was wrong to treat someone being a woman as being a negative quality when it came to directing, it's wrong to treat it as a positive quality or something special.

Master Six wrote: ↑2018-05-25 11:19am That's my argument -- why even give the impression that this is a diversity hire? Her body of work is the only relevant factor in her merits as an ST director, so that's all that should be offered. Don't give easy prey to the trolls.

I know some people might find it insensitive or bigoted, but I'm firmly in the camp against drawing attention to minority status. If it was wrong to treat someone being a woman as being a negative quality when it came to directing, it's wrong to treat it as a positive quality or something special.

I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to cast a wider net and search for more talents that don't fit the usual bill. Studios should do this and make more effort to look at a more diverse hiring process.

The problem is with advertising yourself as this great progressive company because you hired a woman or minority. It's self-congratulatory and more of a marketing gimmick.

Right, by all means open the field to minority talents if you excluded them in the past -- just always remember what really matters to the job. Patting yourself on the back for it makes you look like you're just using the black person, woman, whatever and their special status as a tool, which is in no way respectful to the person getting the director's slot.

Master Six wrote: ↑2018-05-25 11:39am Right, by all means open the field to minority talents if you excluded them in the past -- just always remember what really matters to the job.

No, what matters is sweet coin. People want more diverse voices in film and storytelling, to see themselves on the big screens. Done right, that puts arses in seat, and money in the bank.

Gandalf wrote: ↑2018-05-25 04:50pm

Master Six wrote: ↑2018-05-25 11:39am Right, by all means open the field to minority talents if you excluded them in the past -- just always remember what really matters to the job.

No, what matters is sweet coin. People want more diverse voices in film and storytelling, to see themselves on the big screens. Done right, that puts arses in seat, and money in the bank.

Its actually one of those rare cases where you can get capitalism working on behalf of ordinary people- companies put women and minorities in because it makes them look good and gets media attention, and they get money. Women and minorities get increased career opportunities and greater representation (and also more money).

Its a win win, even if its a bit tawdry, and it would be better if people would do the right thing on principle rather than out of self-interest.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-05-25 05:00pm Its actually one of those rare cases where you can get capitalism working on behalf of ordinary people- companies put women and minorities in because it makes them look good and gets media attention, and they get money. Women and minorities get increased career opportunities and greater representation (and also more money).

Its a win win, even if its a bit tawdry, and it would be better if people would do the right thing on principle rather than out of self-interest.

I won't be so eager to jump on board with saying capitalism is a good thing in this scenario. Pushing for social progress only when it is financially attractive is a horrible way to go about it.

It's a system that measures the worth of minorities financially. What happens when certain minorities aren't able to bring in money to the big Hollywood studios?

And I believe I've sent you the guardian article making a solid case why Hollywood studios trumpeting diversity( as a marketing tool) is not a good thing.

Billion dollar franchise given to no-name TV haunt. Surely a smart move, and not something that has ever back fired above.

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. But I am curious if there were more qualified female directors that were pursued for the project that turned it down. Lets not kid ourselves, there were suits in the the process that made a female director a priority. 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.

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.

All directors have to start from somewhere. Steven Spielberg made the transition from a tv director to big film director in the past as well.

Indeed. Look at the Russo brothers. The biggest parts of their background were episodes of Community and Arrested Development among some other small things. Who had really heard of them? Now they're kings of the MCU.

Similarly, the Trek franchise needs to roll some dice. Worst case scenario, it's as bad as the last two.

Start somewhere yes, but in your example the Russo Brothers had two big screen releases over a decade before The Winter Soldier, one at a $10m budget then progressively moving up to $60m, and then up to the $150m+ MCU war chests. There are better examples, it’s not impossible to make the jump, but Hollywood history is littered with more failures in this regard than successes.

There is a difference between a breakout film and the film you cut your teeth on. I would prefer this movie not be another Red Tails which had a similar direct from TV to big budget movie transition with disasterous results. And that movie had no franchise to live up to.

Patroklos wrote: ↑2018-05-26 11:15am Start somewhere yes, but in your example the Russo Brothers had two big screen releases over a decade before The Winter Soldier, one at a $10m budget then progressively moving up to $60m, and then up to the $150m+ MCU war chests. There are better examples, it’s not impossible to make the jump, but Hollywood history is littered with more failures in this regard than successes.

Way to invoke the cinematic glory of You, Me, and Dupree.

There is a difference between a breakout film and the film you cut your teeth on. I would prefer this movie not be another Red Tails which had a similar direct from TV to big budget movie transition with disasterous results. And that movie had no franchise to live up to.
[/quote]

I'd rather they experiment and fail (like the TOS films) than just aim for the safe middle and sort of get there (like the TNG films). Clarkson's background in shows like Jessica Jones and the British Life on Mars is encouraging in that regard.

Gandalf wrote: ↑2018-05-26 12:03pm

Patroklos wrote: ↑2018-05-26 11:15am Start somewhere yes, but in your example the Russo Brothers had two big screen releases over a decade before The Winter Soldier, one at a $10m budget then progressively moving up to $60m, and then up to the $150m+ MCU war chests. There are better examples, it’s not impossible to make the jump, but Hollywood history is littered with more failures in this regard than successes.

Way to invoke the cinematic glory of You, Me, and Dupree.

Not all of us learn from an uninterrupted string of successes as you have presumably experienced in your life given your condescension. failure, and adequate repetition, is how most learning happens.

But your concession of the point is taken. The biggest part of their background was a $50m plus big screen feature. Which took in $130m so it was a successful experience in the business sense, even if I share your derision of its artistic value. My point is of course not restricted to artistic talent, a directer being just as involved in the business and management end of things as they are in framing shots.

I'd rather they experiment and fail (like the TOS films) than just aim for the safe middle and sort of get there (like the TNG films). Clarkson's background in shows like Jessica Jones and the British Life on Mars is encouraging in that regard.

Experiment with the films all you want. But if you want to strike out into a bold and new course, all the better to have an experienced hand on the tiller.

Patroklos wrote: ↑2018-05-26 01:46am 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 gig.

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.

ray245 wrote: ↑2018-05-26 08:53am All directors have to start from somewhere. Steven Spielberg made the transition from a tv director to big film director in the past as well.

Exactly.

Whatever your views on publicizing the fact that they hired a woman (which in my view has some merit, but does have the regrettable down side of triggering insecure Right wing men), I'm glad we can at least agree that being an experienced TV director does not automatically make you unfit to direct film.

Sorry for the slow reply, it's a long weekend here.

Patroklos wrote: ↑2018-05-26 12:51pmNot all of us learn from an uninterrupted string of successes as you have presumably experienced in your life given your condescension. failure, and adequate repetition, is how most learning happens.

But your concession of the point is taken. The biggest part of their background was a $50m plus big screen feature. Which took in $130m so it was a successful experience in the business sense, even if I share your derision of its artistic value. My point is of course not restricted to artistic talent, a directer being just as involved in the business and management end of things as they are in framing shots.

No concession, just making the fun. I've never seen anyone jump to proclaim an Owen Wilson comedy as a springboard to MCU greatness.

Though interestingly, the Russo's cinematic work wasn't what got them the job. Feige saw their work on season two of Community and decided that they might be worth a run for Winter Soldier.

Experiment with the films all you want. But if you want to strike out into a bold and new course, all the better to have an experienced hand on the tiller.

Clarkson has plenty of experience. Working in British television, as well as American network and cable productions. Television requires directors to work within a whole bunch of rules set by everyone from showrunners, networks, and actors. No matter how talented or visionary that they may be, they're a temporary cog in an ongoing machine. It's part of why Whedon and Wright left the MCU. Film production now is essentially big screen television, especially in massive properties like the MCU or Star Wars. Directors need to know and toe the line, and there's little room for auteurs. Presumably Trek is trying to move in the same direction, with a centralised studio system running the whole thing. It's sort of like the systems of old.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-05-26 01:59pmExactly.

Whatever your views on publicizing the fact that they hired a woman (which in my view has some merit, but does have the regrettable down side of triggering insecure Right wing men), I'm glad we can at least agree that being an experienced TV director does not automatically make you unfit to direct film.

It worked for Joss Whedon in the MCU too.

Clarkson seems to be a TV director with a smattering of episodes across a wide variety of shows. Previous sci-fi entries are two solid episodes of Jessica Jones Season 1, two of the better (well... less bad) episodes of Defenders, and two episodes of Heroes season 4, which was after I stopped caring. No real precedent for what she can or can't do with a big budget sci-fi blockbuster. So far as I can tell, if you hand her a good script and tell her to make it fit with an established series, she does the job right, so I'm mildly optimistic.

I'll decide whether I'm enthusiastic for the movie or not when I find out if they give Checkov's chair to Jaylah.

Ultimately, this film, like any film, needs three things to work:

1. A writer who can, and is permitted to, write a script with a somewhat coherent and logical plot.

2. A director who is professional, takes the job and the material seriously (note: this is NOT the same as saying the director should be a die-hard fan), and can motivate the people they work with to do likewise.

3. Executives who will give the writers and directors the support they need to get the job done, reign them in if they engage in any blatant excesses or follies, but not get in their way by micromanaging trivial things or letting the marketing department dictate how the film is written.

Whether or not the film works is irrelevant. What matters is that it makes sweet coin.

The two don't always line up.

Gandalf wrote: ↑2018-06-01 02:24am Whether or not the film works is irrelevant. What matters is that it makes sweet coin.

The two don't always line up.

To the executives, yeah, the coin is generally going to be the priority. And yeah, that may or may not lead to a good movie. But that's not really the point of my last post. I'm looking at this from the point of view of a fan concerned about the quality of the film here.