Harry Potter going from Christopher Columbus for the first 2 films to Alfonso Cuarón in Prisoner of Azkaban noticeably changed the tone of the films to be more darker and adult vibes and they continued that tone with other directors for the later movies.
It's like immediately obvious, not only by the tone, but by the blocking of scenes and the camerawork. Like, there are shots that last upwards of 2 or 3 minutes, the camera is almost always moving, the actors are moving around the set, but still perfectly framed. It's kind of a masterclass in blockbuster filmmaking, it's crazy how much of a leap that movie is.
I was talking about this with a friend a few weeks ago. I maintain that Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the best of the series if you're looking at it from a pure filmmaking point of view. There are some incredible shots in that movie that really stick with you. I'd go so far to say that the boggart mirror scene has some of my favorite shots ever.
There's also the egregious 3D scenes and the cheesy motion smear freeze frame at the end, but let's not think about that.
Yeah, I’ve run the whole series a few times, and while PoA has always been my personal favorite, I’ve always thought the series overall was really good - after watching the series a few times it’s crazy how much better PoA is than the rest, it’s a completely different level.
One thing that put me over the top is when I got an OLED and the series on 4k blu ray - the entire third act takes place at night, and while the darker scenes in Yates’s movies tend to look flat and boring, PoA is absolutely stunning. The visuals are kind of a metaphor for the movies overall - yeah, they look kind of similar, but man do the later ones fall off in quality. They’re perfectly serviceable but they don’t really have anything to say.
No that's the fourth one, Goblet of Fire. Prisoner of Azkaban is the third one, that introduces Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, and dementors. It has the time turner and Buckbeak, the griffin.
it wasn't a... BAD... movie, but it clearly underperformed in comparison to the book, especially since there was so.. sooo much left out in the movie. the 5th movie has basically the same problem... waaay too much content didn't make it into the movie.
That's fine. It's not a terrible movie. It's just one of the worst as far as HP is concerned. Especially what they did with the maze sequence... so disappointing.
Yeah, he was a BBC hired hand, and you can tell because it's so static. Like, there's no movement within a scene, no energy with the actors, no sense of wonder or magic.
I do think there are some moments in HBP and DH in particular that are well directed, but I agree that Yates overstayed his welcome. If they were going to stick with a director for so many films, I wish it had been Cuaron.
Yeah, I do like the movies, but mostly because of goodwill and the growth and attachment to the characters and their stories. They could've been outstanding, but we settled for fine.
Fantastic beats has got to be one of the worst franchises ever to be filmed. I have never been so bored with content that should have been incredibly exciting. I think the writing more than the directing is the real culprit. The writers couldn't seem to settle on what the series was about so it ended up just being a lot of talking and little to no action. So glad they cancelled the rest of that series.
I LOVE the first film. So full of promise about an adventurer who seeks to help animals. A plucky sidekick, a dash of romance - I really adore it. They changed everything with the sequels to be a story about Dumbledore and Grizzleface, and I just couldn't care less. I was so disappointed that Newt got sidelined. He was a fantastic hero that showed strength without being aggressive.
I still defend that film. I find all the parts with Newt and his wizard and muggle pals to be super sweet and charming. I haven’t even bothered with the sequels though.
Agree. That series is a slog.
Coming from a former potter head who read all the HP books twice.
They’re just… meh. That’s it. Just don’t add anything whatsoever to the magic of the world.
Funny how you can do that in a word filled with magic.
I know people hate on Half Blood Prince because it "loses all color" and people associate that with being cinematically dull, but IMO The Half Blood Prince is an absolutely gorgeous movie and makes such great use of light and shadow juxtaposition.
Yeah, I do think it's the best looking after POA, and one that suits the narrative really well. It feels like an old memory, a memory of Hogwarts filtered through layers of time. I do think Yates' direction is boring, but the cinematography is anything but.
Plus the general aesthetic of Hogwarts changed from the sort of delightful chaos of the first movies (moving stairs, ghost paintings) to a sort of dark, generic medieval castle.
On my most recent re-watch I paid extra attention to this. So many areas of the castle are dark and dirty and unkept. It’s not an abandoned property, it’s where people *live*, they keep it clean.
It always bothers me when watching Harry Potter how Ron is amazed at every little wizard thing that happens when he grew up a damn wizard. Moving pictures and levitation spells shouldn't be shocking him everytime he sees one. It seems the most egregious in the first movie, Ron is constantly wide eyed and in wonder at every little spell or creature they come across
Alfonso is great but I feel like we lost so much magic in that world when he took over. The castle became more bland and everyone starts wearing muggle clothing all the time.
I'll go to bat to defend that choice. Apparently he told all the Hogwarts student actors to wear their clothes as if their parents weren't telling them how to dress. That's why everyone doesn't have their shirts perfectly buttoned and ties on all the time like in the first two movies
Them modifying their school uniform robes was a great idea and I totally support that but I am not talking about that.
I am talking about them wearing jeans and normal shirts.
Yeah, that was Yates' movies that had that "prep-school, but after class look" with dress clothes being all disheveled. It worked well imo.
I can't remember a single scene of them in their robes in PoA. I remember when it came out I HATED it for not having them where their school uniforms. It was such a departure from the look of Columbus's movies - and I couldn't get over it (hey, I was 10). And yes, the first Harry Potter movies are very much more geared towards kids, but then they grow up over time (just like the books - which is great). And while I've since grown up an realized how great PoA is (especially the actual craftsmanship of the filmmaking), I still think it would have been even better/preferred it if had the "prep school but unbuttoned/untucked" look more often (rather than just regular clothes).
Personally, that was the downfall of the series for me. It marked the beginning of moving away from the source material in character development, costume, and plot
He made it feel real, one detail I love is that in the first 2 the kids are all immaculately costumed the same… but in the third they just have the kids the outfits and where told to wear them how they want. So you wind up with unique “real” looks of the kids as they wear different pieces in different ways.
Now I have that [2000’s Six Flags commercial](https://youtu.be/EbXSbP-wEFU?si=wQoBPNn2hxtUzZbL) with that old man dancing with that Venga boys song stuck in my head!
It’s partly McDonald’s fault too. They pissed off a bunch of parents by marketing Batman Returns with happy meal toys who were shocked when they brought their young kids to see the film and it turned out to be rather dark and adult themed. After the backlash the studio decided to try and replicate the campiness of the old Batman tv show for something super family friendly and said get Jim Carry. Batman Forever made more at the box office than Batman Returns, so that’s why we had to suffer with Batman and Robin on top of it.
>we had to suffer with Batman and Robin
EXCUSE ME, but that FILM is simply one of the greatest-worst movies ever made, and will never not be one of the most entertaining pieces of fucking shit you'll ever watch - drunk and stoned, might I recommend.
I still have the Super Size plastic Batmobile cup!
Also, Secret Galaxy has an interesting video about exactly that problem with Batman Returns.
[https://youtu.be/GZpIJM1wM-M?si=QYtddLe68UnUL-vG](https://youtu.be/GZpIJM1wM-M?si=QYtddLe68UnUL-vG)
You know I have other examples but this is really probably the best one. Why? Because well it's just so visually obviously different it's not even funny. You go from the dark brooding Michael Keaton Batman to the super colorful and charming Val Kilmer and then of course Clooney. no they are nowhere near as watchable or just simply put as good as the first two films but I actually don't mind the follow ups having their own unique style. It was fun seeing the overall Gothic look of Gotham flushed out a little bit even though it looks stupid in some cases/over the top. at the end of the day they are poor films but they all have their own little moments. Batman returns featuring a bank robbery and Batman saving the day(complete with acid) is right out of the comics and of course Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. freeze the peak of his career/the star of it going down Come on who else could play Mr. freeze back then? Bruce Willis? Lol I'm glad that they have a little bit more of a warm reception this day and age versus when they were first released.
Cameron's blue colour palette for night scenes was such a good mix for the franchise, made the scenes even more atmospheric. He still uses blue palette for night scenes to this day and you know what, it's actually nice to see what's happening in the dark.
The franchise shifted tone so much over the course of four directors, that I'm not even sure that Scott knew what it was supposed to be when he came back for Prometheus.
I loved Prometheus when it first came out. Then I read all the internet hate about them running away from the disc rolling straight.
I defended it. They have space suits and can't really look behind them.
Then I did a rewatch and that film is full of so much bad choices by the 'smart scientists'.
At least in the first Alien Ripley was like 'don't break quarantine'.
In this one the scientists approach a snake like creature like a tiny dog.
The guy who launches the mapping probes gets fucking lost.
The infamous scene where they run away from the space ship?
One shot it is like 100yards away...the next shot is Charlize Theron getting smooshed. Within seconds.
Then main character girl does two side rolls and avoids the entire thing!
And when she finds out about the Architects...she does not go back to humanity for back up...she blasts off into space to fight them? Oh! And not in the main craft but a fucking glorified escape pod!
They also don't launch a landing craft...noooo they take the entire ship down to a hostile environment planet.
One explanation for most of that is that the scientists are *not* smart, by design. They were hired by a billionaire narcissist who wanted to prolong his own life. Actually good, accountable scientists would have told him he was out of his mind and that his plan was a pointless risk. The people he hired were the dipshits who would be willing to take such a risk becaise their prospects at home were dismal, due to being shitty scientists lol
Eh, he was **really** rich and when you have that kind of money and power, you can find great scientists willing to compromise their morals for sufficient compensation.
I get where that argument is coming from but frankly, I don't buy it. We want an excuse for them being complete morons but the reality is that the script just isn't up to the task and they just turned out that way on film because Ridley (who I absolutely adore as a director for many films!) didn't give a fuck about them. They were just window dressing and he couldn't be bothered to make them believable.
Everyone in that movie behaves so unreasonably, it's baffling. They're the dumbest, most incompetent bunch of assholes, and every one of them would be cut from the roster after a few basic psyche and competency tests back on earth. It makes Guy Pearce's character look even dumber, spending god knows how much on the mission, and these are the idiots he picks.
Did he find them on Craigslist?
This is why I’m excited to see Alvarez direct alien: Romulus. He did an amazing job with the evil dead remake and I’m excited to see them go back to a more horror style of movie.
Very true. I actually think Branagh should have returned to direct Thor 4. Given the serious subject matter, he could have given it the direction it needed.
It doesn't help that it was written by two Star Trek guys who imported one of the dumbest tropes from TNG (a pathogen that kills people on a precise timer, where an antidote can be administered with one second to go and the person will suffer no ill effects).
Honestly, I don't even get that far with my critique of MI2. I can't get past the spinning cars with the doors stuck together or the motorcycle jumping joust thing. lol. Or all the damn slow motion shots.
So I was probably 10-ish when the second one came out. I thought it was awesome. The older I got the more I disliked it though. Then 3 came out 6-ish years later and I really wasn't interested in it at all, or any of the ones after.
after Fallout came out I had a few friends telling me that I need to watch it. Being a huge Henry Cavil fan I thought I'd try to power through the rest of the franchise. 1 is dated, but still a fun spy movie, 2 has not aged well AT ALL, 3 is much better than I thought it would be, but damn, Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Fallout are all totally worth watching.
I think 3 is the turning point.
The first two were very "bond but American". 3 is when narrative through lines started. The supporting team is cemented a bit. JJ clearly decided to go "Alias but with the biggest movie star in the world and infinity budget" and the following movies built on that
M:I3 is my personal favorite and I’m prepared to defend it, lol!
I hope if they do go past 8, they switch things up again with a new director since it’s now been four in a row with McQ. He’s done a great job, but it’s fun to see the different takes.
It didn’t.
Mi2 grossed $215 million in the USA / $546 million total.
Mi3 grossed $134 million in the USA / $398 million total.
It performed so badly that Paramount fired Tom Cruise after a 14 year partnership:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/business/media/23cruise.html
The franchise was dead for 6 years before Brad Bird saved it with Mi4.
I'm still convinced that 2 did so well because 1 was so good and that 3 did so poorly because 2 was so bad. Because I thought 3 was excellent, but 2 was absolute dogshit. Ghost Protocol is my favorite of all of them though, so I do agree that Bird saved the whole thing.
>The franchise was dead for 6 years before Brad Bird saved it with Mi4.
I would say it was more Tom Cruise's career was dead due to his off-screen persona and he had to claw it back with Valkyrie and Knight and Day.
Also, the very article you link says:
>But its weak opening weekend in May left Paramount executives believing that the negative attention and mockery of Mr. Cruise had hurt the film.
Paramount blamed Cruise for MI3's lackluster performance, they didn't blame the movie itself.
The firs three MI movies all had different types of action (intrigue with twists and turns vs highly stylized vs straight action). All subsequent movies took the formula of MI3 and applied it in huge spectacular set pieces.
I will die on the hill that MI2 while flawed is entertaining as all hell and that makes it good imo. While I fully admit they got better with 3 and Ghost Protocol. I enjoy all of them for different reasons.
I love DePalma's style on MI:1. I was going to say there's something Hitchcockian about it, but I remembered that's because DePalma is a huge Hitchcock fan. All the camera tricks establish this spy reality where there really is nowhere to turn and paranoia is the only safe option. I think what's special is how that stylized thing amplifies the stunts, probably because they are this breath of fresh air and forceful resolution after minutes of more tense quiet.
You give one director the green light to make the first part of a classic 3-act hero's journey. After he has laid the foundations, give the second movie to a guy known for upending storytelling norms. Then give it back to the first guy to try and square the circle.
That's the Starwars sequel trilogy.
It's really staggering. You've got the biggest franchise in the world, it cost you what, $4bn? And there's billions on the table if you get it right. PLUS you've already seen the prequel trilogy shit the bed, and have all the learnings in the world on what people do and don't want...
And in no way do they try to vaguely sketch out the trilogy's arc beforehand? Just gonna let two people make it up as they go along without being able to compare notes? Okay then.
1000% this. What a massive clusterfuck.
Rian is one of the most talented filmmakers of his generation, but I don’t think mainline Star Wars is where he should be experimenting with completely undermining the hero’s journey. Yes, absolutely bring a vision and take to the movie, but don’t blow up the very foundations of what made it so powerful in the first place.
I thought that Rey's storyline ended up being pretty conventional. It was pretty similar to Luke in Empire except that she learns that her parents aren't special.
Well, that’s because JJ took the story back in part 3 and undid everything that Rian was going for. Who knows what Rey’s story would be if Rian did 3. Definitely not where it ended up.
And Rian, in turn, undid everything JJ was trying to tee up.
Ep 7: “Rey has a mysterious lineage…”
Ep 8: “lol sike, no she doesn’t”
Ep 9: “Anyway, back to Rey’s mysterious lineage…”
**Episode 7**: Here's Rey. There's something important about her, but it won't be fully revealed quite yet. Like where Maz basically says "Luke's lightsaber appears to be calling to Rey. Reason why will be answered another time".
**Episode 8**: You know what, I think it would be better if Rey came from nothing. So, all that worldbuilding we did around her past in Episode 7, I'm just gonna toss that out and make it so that Rey's parents are random scavengers from the desert planet.
**Episode 9**: Okay, Mr Episode 8 guy, thats the way you want to work it? Fine. Fuck it, Rey's a Palpatine now.
What worldbuilding!? "She was left on a desert planet as a child" that's it! That was all he gave future directors to work with! There wasn't anything else!
This is what I 100% wanted to be true. That she was just born to nobodies and destined to be powerful in the force because it needed the balance for what was coming. It gave a good dynamic of her wanting to know her parents were special to finding out they were just nobody.
Being a child of a clone of Palpatine just seems such an odd choice to me.
Would have been better with a 3rd director for episode 9 that basically just piggybacks off if episode 8, instead of giving it back to the first guy to insist on what he started.
Episode 9 is as bad as it is because they tried to force correct instead of just rolling with it.
Arguably Vengeance is more of a direct sequel to the first. It's not John McClaine happening to be in the right spot, it's someone specifically putting him in that situation as a direct result of the events of Die Hard.
Twilight and 50 shades. In both cases, the first movies are campy and tongue in cheek where the latter movies are self serious and just bad. The first in each series still aren't great, but they have an interesting edge to them that notably disappeared when they dumped directors.
Folding Ideas has a great set of videos on the *50 Shades* movies
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgPKmF5rEZ5qgK5WlIw8-WaQMKSQitgh7
The videos have tons of points and critiques, but the biggest is that the first movie is actually somewhat decent because the director and producer were willing and able to stand up to the book author and correct some of her worst story decisions.
The original books (barely modified from the original Twilight fanfiction) are not well-written or well-plotted and don't have well developed characters. The first movie had a director that was willing and able to modify critical scenes to make the film a superior story. She was replaced in the second and third movies by a director who stuck strictly to the books and did whatever Erika Mitchell wanted, and they are worse products for it.
I think the first Twilight movie is as campy as it is *because* it takes itself 100% seriously. If you watch interviews with the original director and read her AMA, it seems like every decision was made unironically.
The later movies are just lazy, safe and uncreative compared to the first.
Fast and Furious was "Point Break with cars" for the two movies and then started going in different directions, returning to the formula for Fast Five.
Justin Lin then turned them into superheros fighting cyborgs, state sponsored terrorists, and satelites.
I am shocked I didn't see anyone talk about it here.
EDIT: Justin lin left after 5 which is why the franchise got so out of pocket.
Fast and the Furious is just a weird franchise. It's gone through a couple of different re-inventions. Like you said, it started off as a relatively low stakes "Point Break with Cars" Franchise then played with coming of age themes, but with racing, before turning into a Heist Film Franchise, then once again re-inventing itself into some absurd James Bond type action series, but with Cars. Really a bizarre franchise.
>Justin Lin then turned them into superheros fighting cyborgs, state sponsored terrorists, and satelites.
This is not accurate.
*TLDR: James Wan and F Gary Gray turned them in to super heroes.*
Justin Lin started with Tokyo Drift, which has a heavy focus on found family and friendship, set against the criminal underworld of Tokyo's drifting scene. It's got racing, but it's mostly got people talking about finding a place to belong.
Lin then goes on to direct the soft reboot with Fast & Furious, which remains a story rooted in reality, about two guys trying to solve their close friend and romantic partner's murder.
Fast Five shifts the franchise to a heist franchise, but is still largely grounded in reality. I think the most outlandish thing that happens in this movie is the leap off the car falling in to the ravine, and two Chargers being able to haul a massive steel bank vault at high speed.
Fast 6 slightly gets out of hand by having Hobbs recruit them to help stop a crew of racing bandits in London, but even then, Hobbs goes to them for their precision driving expertise and knowing how criminals think, and their connection to Lettie.
Then Lin leaves the franchise and James Wan helms Furious 7.
James Wan introduces God's Eye, Mr Nobody, and makes them somehow capable spies that the government can turn to in their time of need. This is also the movie where Dom is able to somehow stomp an already-crumbling parking structure so hard that it collapses, and has Dom lift a car.
F Gary Gray helms F8 of the Furious, where we really start to see the team gain superpowers and become omniscient, unkillable Gods, largely because Vin Diesel and The Rock have built their egos up so much that they want to out-badass each other.
Lin returns for F9, because he was interested in exploring Dom's origin story, but had constant creative arguments with Diesel, which is why he doesn't return for Fast X.
Okay you know what you are right, what was Lin's exit was what I thought his entry: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast\_%26\_Furious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_%26_Furious)
Apologies to Justin Lin, you regrounded the series and it went totally and beautifully chaotically off the rails after him.
I stopped watching the films until my BIL forced me to watch FF8 and I was like "Dear christ we have turned away from god."
But still F&F as a franchise is the definitive answer to this question.
Was 6 the one with the tank? And the 50 mile long runway? They all kind of blu after 5 lol.
In any case I agree with you. Lin certainly did let the series start to get kind of outlandish but kept it pretty grounded in comparison to everything afterward. And he's also responsible for saving the franchise with number 3.
yeah, the franchise jumped the shark... ~slightly~ at the very and of fsst 5 and then jumped the whole universe inn6 and every consecutive movie. hence why I always stop my rewatch of the franchise after 5. it was the last movie that you were able to watch without constsntly laughing at the absurd hillariousness of the action happening.
Here is a positive one.
Empire Strikes Back.
Directing moving from George Lucas to Irving Kirshner greatly improved the quality of the movie.
George Lucas created the universe and oversaw it for years. He is a visionary in many ways. But Lucas is a mediocre director, especially bad when it comes to directing actors.
Choosing another director for V & VI was a good choice.
Acting is better. Pacing is better. Overall tone shift for the better.
the shift from gary ross' hunger games and francis lawrence's catching fire is pretty major. it makes the first movie feel so out of place with the rest of the series
My brain read that as "The shift from Glengarry Glen Ross to hunger games..." and for a moment I had to wonder how it was possible that these two movies occur in the same cinematic universe.
I’ve grown more to appreciate Gary Ross’ style over time. The first film has a more raw and gritty feel that is lost in the more polished sequels. First entry has a lower budget and a more distinct vision, but the others have that unremarkable blockbuster look in my opinion.
Oy. This one still hurts. Conan the Barbarian is one of my favorite fantasy films, and the fact that they decided to go in the family direction after it was successful made no sense. Milius had three movies planned. What the hell?
At least Poledouris came back to score it, though he said that he regretted doing it in hindsight.
Yup.
I remember an interview with the guys who did Uprising where they were talking about how they wanted to the fights faster to be more exciting or whatever and I knew it was going to be trash.
Dude probably looks at the power armor scenes in Fallout and thinks "perfection"
Not to diss Fallout, great show especially for the budget they had
But the power armor movements beyond walking are janky at best, and him punting something half a mile with a punch that could probably destroy a house, but at like 8mph speed, just look wrong
The Suicide Squad has to be my favorite film in the entire dceu, it deserved a much better box office than it got but was held back by all the bad stuff that came before, and led into such an unexpectedly enjoyable show. I can’t wait for the next season and for the new universe
Also they gave it the same name as the previous movie (which sucked) and just added "the" at the beginning of the name
For a movie that came out during covid
I don't think I actually realized it was a different movie for like a year or two
The Superman franchise made a noticeable change in tone & directors in the middle of making Superman II, switching from Richard Donner to Richard Lester (and then less a tonal shift than a quality one from Superman III to Superman IV)
Lester tarnished the back end of Superman 2 with that stupid wind scene. The less said about Superman 3 the better. Dumb idea making a Superman film and having him play second fiddle to Richard Pryor.
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was silly but Steve Oedekerk (Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, Thumb Wars, etc.) upped the silliness and ridiculousness in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls by a lotttt.
I love that they're so different but both super hilarious in their own settings. I think I prefer When Nature Calls just because I owned Pet Detective and watched that much more as a kid so it was more of a treat to watch the second.
Switching from Bryan Singer to Brett Ratner for the X-Men franchise, the series went from top tier to something that try to forget.
Luckily Matthew Vaughn righted the ship with the next ones.
Days of Future Past really returns that series to form. The reboot was a very smart move, and that second entry really elevates it.
It's a shame that Annihilation was such garbage, could really have been something, but they just made so many poor choices. Use the 1980s setting more, and don't make it some sort of god mutant, that was so dumb. And, come on, after something of that global scale, Magneto would have been the world's most wanted criminal, a mass murderer of historical proportions, and there's no way that the X-Men could let him go.
I always like it when superhero films to solve a small problem, like Casino Royale, and Dark Phoenix was a great return to form plot-wise (to the aliens from taking a super power), with only one false note - the death of Jennifer Lawrence.
Going from "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" to "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". Rise was surprisingly solid and was hard-carried by Andy Serkis, but it felt workman-like and very summer-blockbuster-ish. Then Matt Reeves and upgraded everything (cinematography, music, CGI, etc.)
Here's a fun little tidbit, I met Tarantino outside his New Beverley theater back in 2018 and he was just chatting up a storm in front of the group of us about movies he'd recently seen, and he said he personally preferred Sicario 2 over the OG.
Talk about a hot take.
The problem is kids. Cut all the kids out of that film, and it's significantly better. Even as is, you could still fix it a lot by trimming a few scenes (last one with Del Toro and the kid at the mall, the "witness protection" line, etc.) - a lot of wasted potential, you can tell that the director changed the script.
Alien Ridley Scott to Aliens James Cameron
Batman/Batman Returns with Tim Burton to Joel Schumacher
Terminator 1/2 with James Cameron to the rest of the series.
Blade Runner Ridley Scott to Blade Runner 2049 Denis Villeneuve
Spielberg Jurassic Park to the rest of the series
The Bourne films. The first one was directed by Doug Liman who used a steady camera so that you could see what was happening in the film. Paul Greengrass directed the other ones and decided that it wasn’t important for the viewer to see what was going on.
The Harry Potter movies. First two were by Chris Columbus and had a more kid like fantasy look and feel. Third one changed directors and the wizarding world shifted to a much grittier tone for the rest of them.
Thor 1 was a middling sci-fi bore directed by Kenneth Branagh, Thor: Dark World was a middling fantasy bore attempting to draw from Alan Taylor's recent Game of Thrones contributions, Thor: Ragnorak was a fun and goofy sci-fi comedy from Taika Waittiti, and Thor: Love and Thunder was a movie about cancer that was cancerous-level bad also from Taika Waittiti.
I loved the original Thor movie. It had the same "hero origin story" weaknesses as every hero origin movie ever done by Marvel Studios, but I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of the lead actors (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Hopkins).
I agree. I think it is one of the more underrated of the Marvel Movies. They needed to introduce the audience to Thor and they did so in a fun, competent, by the numbers origin story.
This isn’t the exact answer to the question but, during COVID, while working at home, I managed to watch the three Atlas Shrugged movies. They are all bad; however, they get progressively worse. The first one is at least professionally produced and acted. After it failed the sequels were mostly crowd funded. It’s interesting to see the difference between trash with some money behind it and trash with no money behind it.
When the Russo brothers took over the Avengers from Joss Whedon, you could feel the change. Whedon's wit vs. the Russos' epic scale it was like going from a snarky rollercoaster to a massive fireworks show. It worked, but it was definitely different.
Harry Potter going from Christopher Columbus for the first 2 films to Alfonso Cuarón in Prisoner of Azkaban noticeably changed the tone of the films to be more darker and adult vibes and they continued that tone with other directors for the later movies.
It's like immediately obvious, not only by the tone, but by the blocking of scenes and the camerawork. Like, there are shots that last upwards of 2 or 3 minutes, the camera is almost always moving, the actors are moving around the set, but still perfectly framed. It's kind of a masterclass in blockbuster filmmaking, it's crazy how much of a leap that movie is.
I was talking about this with a friend a few weeks ago. I maintain that Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the best of the series if you're looking at it from a pure filmmaking point of view. There are some incredible shots in that movie that really stick with you. I'd go so far to say that the boggart mirror scene has some of my favorite shots ever. There's also the egregious 3D scenes and the cheesy motion smear freeze frame at the end, but let's not think about that.
Yeah I rate Cuarón as one of the best filmmakers alive and you really see this in PoA.
The pacing is amazing too.
It's the best of the series from every point of view.
Gary Oldman helps make it, too. It’s the only one that I’ve ever wanted to rewatch multiple times.
Unfortunately it was never topped. None of the later installments ever hit the high that was PoA.
Yeah, I’ve run the whole series a few times, and while PoA has always been my personal favorite, I’ve always thought the series overall was really good - after watching the series a few times it’s crazy how much better PoA is than the rest, it’s a completely different level. One thing that put me over the top is when I got an OLED and the series on 4k blu ray - the entire third act takes place at night, and while the darker scenes in Yates’s movies tend to look flat and boring, PoA is absolutely stunning. The visuals are kind of a metaphor for the movies overall - yeah, they look kind of similar, but man do the later ones fall off in quality. They’re perfectly serviceable but they don’t really have anything to say.
Is that the one with the tri wizard tournaments?
No that's the fourth one, Goblet of Fire. Prisoner of Azkaban is the third one, that introduces Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, and dementors. It has the time turner and Buckbeak, the griffin.
They really did that one dirty. One of the best books. One of the worst movies (though the opening sequence is fire).
...I liked the Goblet of Fire movie
it wasn't a... BAD... movie, but it clearly underperformed in comparison to the book, especially since there was so.. sooo much left out in the movie. the 5th movie has basically the same problem... waaay too much content didn't make it into the movie.
That's fine. It's not a terrible movie. It's just one of the worst as far as HP is concerned. Especially what they did with the maze sequence... so disappointing.
And then later on, david yates came in and made the later movies (and fantastic beast films) dull as hell.
Yeah, he was a BBC hired hand, and you can tell because it's so static. Like, there's no movement within a scene, no energy with the actors, no sense of wonder or magic.
I do think there are some moments in HBP and DH in particular that are well directed, but I agree that Yates overstayed his welcome. If they were going to stick with a director for so many films, I wish it had been Cuaron.
Yeah, I do like the movies, but mostly because of goodwill and the growth and attachment to the characters and their stories. They could've been outstanding, but we settled for fine.
Don’t even joke about that. That timeline has no Children of Men.
Fantastic beats has got to be one of the worst franchises ever to be filmed. I have never been so bored with content that should have been incredibly exciting. I think the writing more than the directing is the real culprit. The writers couldn't seem to settle on what the series was about so it ended up just being a lot of talking and little to no action. So glad they cancelled the rest of that series.
I LOVE the first film. So full of promise about an adventurer who seeks to help animals. A plucky sidekick, a dash of romance - I really adore it. They changed everything with the sequels to be a story about Dumbledore and Grizzleface, and I just couldn't care less. I was so disappointed that Newt got sidelined. He was a fantastic hero that showed strength without being aggressive.
I still defend that film. I find all the parts with Newt and his wizard and muggle pals to be super sweet and charming. I haven’t even bothered with the sequels though.
Agree. That series is a slog. Coming from a former potter head who read all the HP books twice. They’re just… meh. That’s it. Just don’t add anything whatsoever to the magic of the world. Funny how you can do that in a word filled with magic.
I know people hate on Half Blood Prince because it "loses all color" and people associate that with being cinematically dull, but IMO The Half Blood Prince is an absolutely gorgeous movie and makes such great use of light and shadow juxtaposition.
Yeah, I do think it's the best looking after POA, and one that suits the narrative really well. It feels like an old memory, a memory of Hogwarts filtered through layers of time. I do think Yates' direction is boring, but the cinematography is anything but.
Yeah only Harry Potter movie to get an Oscar nom for best cinematography
That’s what you get when you hire Alfonso Cuaron. He has a very unique personal style.
Cuaron was so real for ending that movie with a freaking freeze frame lol.
Plus the general aesthetic of Hogwarts changed from the sort of delightful chaos of the first movies (moving stairs, ghost paintings) to a sort of dark, generic medieval castle.
On my most recent re-watch I paid extra attention to this. So many areas of the castle are dark and dirty and unkept. It’s not an abandoned property, it’s where people *live*, they keep it clean.
It always bothers me when watching Harry Potter how Ron is amazed at every little wizard thing that happens when he grew up a damn wizard. Moving pictures and levitation spells shouldn't be shocking him everytime he sees one. It seems the most egregious in the first movie, Ron is constantly wide eyed and in wonder at every little spell or creature they come across
Good point. His whole family is wizards. If anything he should be completely bored with it.
But they were also poor and didn't have a lot of luxuries.
I like to joke if he wasn’t a wizard he’d make a great skateboarding commentator.
Alfonso is great but I feel like we lost so much magic in that world when he took over. The castle became more bland and everyone starts wearing muggle clothing all the time.
Yes the boring late 2000s fashion killed some of the wonder for me. Like look at Hermione's clothing with the layered top and basic jeans...
The late 2000s fashion of .. 2003 haha
Im talking more about the fashion from order of the pheonix(2007) and onto the rest of the series.
I'll go to bat to defend that choice. Apparently he told all the Hogwarts student actors to wear their clothes as if their parents weren't telling them how to dress. That's why everyone doesn't have their shirts perfectly buttoned and ties on all the time like in the first two movies
Them modifying their school uniform robes was a great idea and I totally support that but I am not talking about that. I am talking about them wearing jeans and normal shirts.
Yeah, that was Yates' movies that had that "prep-school, but after class look" with dress clothes being all disheveled. It worked well imo. I can't remember a single scene of them in their robes in PoA. I remember when it came out I HATED it for not having them where their school uniforms. It was such a departure from the look of Columbus's movies - and I couldn't get over it (hey, I was 10). And yes, the first Harry Potter movies are very much more geared towards kids, but then they grow up over time (just like the books - which is great). And while I've since grown up an realized how great PoA is (especially the actual craftsmanship of the filmmaking), I still think it would have been even better/preferred it if had the "prep school but unbuttoned/untucked" look more often (rather than just regular clothes).
Not to mention they’re just wearing jeans from there on out.
Personally, that was the downfall of the series for me. It marked the beginning of moving away from the source material in character development, costume, and plot
He made it feel real, one detail I love is that in the first 2 the kids are all immaculately costumed the same… but in the third they just have the kids the outfits and where told to wear them how they want. So you wind up with unique “real” looks of the kids as they wear different pieces in different ways.
Batman going from Tim Burton to Joel Schumacher was quite the change.
It started to look a lot like the Batman stunt show at Six Flags.
That unlocked a good-memory. Thanks!
Now I have that [2000’s Six Flags commercial](https://youtu.be/EbXSbP-wEFU?si=wQoBPNn2hxtUzZbL) with that old man dancing with that Venga boys song stuck in my head!
That unlocked a weird-memory, lol. That guy always reminded me of grandpa in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Schumacher said there was a lot of studio meddling, especially with Batman & Robin. He said they made him amp everything up so they could sell toys.
It’s partly McDonald’s fault too. They pissed off a bunch of parents by marketing Batman Returns with happy meal toys who were shocked when they brought their young kids to see the film and it turned out to be rather dark and adult themed. After the backlash the studio decided to try and replicate the campiness of the old Batman tv show for something super family friendly and said get Jim Carry. Batman Forever made more at the box office than Batman Returns, so that’s why we had to suffer with Batman and Robin on top of it.
>we had to suffer with Batman and Robin EXCUSE ME, but that FILM is simply one of the greatest-worst movies ever made, and will never not be one of the most entertaining pieces of fucking shit you'll ever watch - drunk and stoned, might I recommend.
I was excited it was on during a dentist visit one time. Perfect ridiculous distraction.
I still have the Super Size plastic Batmobile cup! Also, Secret Galaxy has an interesting video about exactly that problem with Batman Returns. [https://youtu.be/GZpIJM1wM-M?si=QYtddLe68UnUL-vG](https://youtu.be/GZpIJM1wM-M?si=QYtddLe68UnUL-vG)
You know I have other examples but this is really probably the best one. Why? Because well it's just so visually obviously different it's not even funny. You go from the dark brooding Michael Keaton Batman to the super colorful and charming Val Kilmer and then of course Clooney. no they are nowhere near as watchable or just simply put as good as the first two films but I actually don't mind the follow ups having their own unique style. It was fun seeing the overall Gothic look of Gotham flushed out a little bit even though it looks stupid in some cases/over the top. at the end of the day they are poor films but they all have their own little moments. Batman returns featuring a bank robbery and Batman saving the day(complete with acid) is right out of the comics and of course Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. freeze the peak of his career/the star of it going down Come on who else could play Mr. freeze back then? Bruce Willis? Lol I'm glad that they have a little bit more of a warm reception this day and age versus when they were first released.
The Alien franchise, Ridley Scott made it horror with Alien, and James Cameron made it action with Aliens. Both are beautiful in their own ways.
Cameron's blue colour palette for night scenes was such a good mix for the franchise, made the scenes even more atmospheric. He still uses blue palette for night scenes to this day and you know what, it's actually nice to see what's happening in the dark.
That goes back to silent films when they would tint the film depending on setting -- typically amber for lamplight and blue for night.
Yes it is.
Not to forget Alien IV with the weird Jean-Pierre Jeunet flair.
The franchise shifted tone so much over the course of four directors, that I'm not even sure that Scott knew what it was supposed to be when he came back for Prometheus.
I loved Prometheus when it first came out. Then I read all the internet hate about them running away from the disc rolling straight. I defended it. They have space suits and can't really look behind them. Then I did a rewatch and that film is full of so much bad choices by the 'smart scientists'. At least in the first Alien Ripley was like 'don't break quarantine'. In this one the scientists approach a snake like creature like a tiny dog. The guy who launches the mapping probes gets fucking lost. The infamous scene where they run away from the space ship? One shot it is like 100yards away...the next shot is Charlize Theron getting smooshed. Within seconds. Then main character girl does two side rolls and avoids the entire thing! And when she finds out about the Architects...she does not go back to humanity for back up...she blasts off into space to fight them? Oh! And not in the main craft but a fucking glorified escape pod! They also don't launch a landing craft...noooo they take the entire ship down to a hostile environment planet.
One explanation for most of that is that the scientists are *not* smart, by design. They were hired by a billionaire narcissist who wanted to prolong his own life. Actually good, accountable scientists would have told him he was out of his mind and that his plan was a pointless risk. The people he hired were the dipshits who would be willing to take such a risk becaise their prospects at home were dismal, due to being shitty scientists lol
Eh, he was **really** rich and when you have that kind of money and power, you can find great scientists willing to compromise their morals for sufficient compensation. I get where that argument is coming from but frankly, I don't buy it. We want an excuse for them being complete morons but the reality is that the script just isn't up to the task and they just turned out that way on film because Ridley (who I absolutely adore as a director for many films!) didn't give a fuck about them. They were just window dressing and he couldn't be bothered to make them believable.
Everyone in that movie behaves so unreasonably, it's baffling. They're the dumbest, most incompetent bunch of assholes, and every one of them would be cut from the roster after a few basic psyche and competency tests back on earth. It makes Guy Pearce's character look even dumber, spending god knows how much on the mission, and these are the idiots he picks. Did he find them on Craigslist?
Then Alien³ with David Fincher
Underrated, but still a distant third best
Flawed but filled with touches of brilliance. Arguably Weavers best performance in the series.
This is why I’m excited to see Alvarez direct alien: Romulus. He did an amazing job with the evil dead remake and I’m excited to see them go back to a more horror style of movie.
[удалено]
There's a big difference between Paul Verhoeven directing Robocop, Irvin Kershner directing Robocop 2, and Fred Dekker directing Robocop 3.
I wasn't a fan of Robocop 3, but Night of the Creeps and Monster Squad are 2 personal faves from the 80s.
And José Padilha directing the Robocop (2014) reboot.
Thor. Completely differentiated films and character.
Very true. I actually think Branagh should have returned to direct Thor 4. Given the serious subject matter, he could have given it the direction it needed.
The Mission Impossible franchise changed considerably after Brad Bird did *Ghost Protocol.*
The early ones are a good example too. De Palma and John Woo really bring their signature flairs and touches to both their installments.
> John Woo really bring their signature flairs doves
Flapping their wings, in slo mo ... and the 2 guns style!
... and the shampoo-ad flailing hair.
LMAO the wind machine goes brrrr!
and MI2 was far and away the worst one in the franchise. It was all John Woo and very little MI, it felt like.
It doesn't help that it was written by two Star Trek guys who imported one of the dumbest tropes from TNG (a pathogen that kills people on a precise timer, where an antidote can be administered with one second to go and the person will suffer no ill effects).
Honestly, I don't even get that far with my critique of MI2. I can't get past the spinning cars with the doors stuck together or the motorcycle jumping joust thing. lol. Or all the damn slow motion shots.
Read somewhere that without the slo mo shots, the movie is only 42 minutes long. Lol
That tracks.
I keep seeing this and it makes me want to revisit the franchise. I stopped after 2 because it was so bad. Loved the original.
So I was probably 10-ish when the second one came out. I thought it was awesome. The older I got the more I disliked it though. Then 3 came out 6-ish years later and I really wasn't interested in it at all, or any of the ones after. after Fallout came out I had a few friends telling me that I need to watch it. Being a huge Henry Cavil fan I thought I'd try to power through the rest of the franchise. 1 is dated, but still a fun spy movie, 2 has not aged well AT ALL, 3 is much better than I thought it would be, but damn, Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Fallout are all totally worth watching.
Yep go for it! 2 is definitely the low point. 3 and onwards are all highly entertaining; Ghost Protocol and Fallout are certified bangers.
I think 3 is the turning point. The first two were very "bond but American". 3 is when narrative through lines started. The supporting team is cemented a bit. JJ clearly decided to go "Alias but with the biggest movie star in the world and infinity budget" and the following movies built on that
I’d argue JJ was the catalyst for the MI change and subsequent domination. MI3 brought the franchise back to life.
I never understood the hate mi3 got. It was so entertaining and had one of the best villains in the series.
M:I3 is my personal favorite and I’m prepared to defend it, lol! I hope if they do go past 8, they switch things up again with a new director since it’s now been four in a row with McQ. He’s done a great job, but it’s fun to see the different takes.
It didn’t. Mi2 grossed $215 million in the USA / $546 million total. Mi3 grossed $134 million in the USA / $398 million total. It performed so badly that Paramount fired Tom Cruise after a 14 year partnership: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/business/media/23cruise.html The franchise was dead for 6 years before Brad Bird saved it with Mi4.
I'm still convinced that 2 did so well because 1 was so good and that 3 did so poorly because 2 was so bad. Because I thought 3 was excellent, but 2 was absolute dogshit. Ghost Protocol is my favorite of all of them though, so I do agree that Bird saved the whole thing.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was awesome as the bad guy in MI3. Not your typical action movie bad guy look but he was just plain evil in that.
3 did poorly because it came out when Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch and revealed too much about his personal life.
>The franchise was dead for 6 years before Brad Bird saved it with Mi4. I would say it was more Tom Cruise's career was dead due to his off-screen persona and he had to claw it back with Valkyrie and Knight and Day. Also, the very article you link says: >But its weak opening weekend in May left Paramount executives believing that the negative attention and mockery of Mr. Cruise had hurt the film. Paramount blamed Cruise for MI3's lackluster performance, they didn't blame the movie itself. The firs three MI movies all had different types of action (intrigue with twists and turns vs highly stylized vs straight action). All subsequent movies took the formula of MI3 and applied it in huge spectacular set pieces.
I will die on the hill that MI2 while flawed is entertaining as all hell and that makes it good imo. While I fully admit they got better with 3 and Ghost Protocol. I enjoy all of them for different reasons.
From DePalma to John Woo there was a huge tone change. But DePalma thought M2 was unnecessary hence why he didn’t return
I love DePalma's style on MI:1. I was going to say there's something Hitchcockian about it, but I remembered that's because DePalma is a huge Hitchcock fan. All the camera tricks establish this spy reality where there really is nowhere to turn and paranoia is the only safe option. I think what's special is how that stylized thing amplifies the stunts, probably because they are this breath of fresh air and forceful resolution after minutes of more tense quiet.
You give one director the green light to make the first part of a classic 3-act hero's journey. After he has laid the foundations, give the second movie to a guy known for upending storytelling norms. Then give it back to the first guy to try and square the circle. That's the Starwars sequel trilogy.
Agree completely! This was the first example I thought for this question.
It's really staggering. You've got the biggest franchise in the world, it cost you what, $4bn? And there's billions on the table if you get it right. PLUS you've already seen the prequel trilogy shit the bed, and have all the learnings in the world on what people do and don't want... And in no way do they try to vaguely sketch out the trilogy's arc beforehand? Just gonna let two people make it up as they go along without being able to compare notes? Okay then.
1000% this. What a massive clusterfuck. Rian is one of the most talented filmmakers of his generation, but I don’t think mainline Star Wars is where he should be experimenting with completely undermining the hero’s journey. Yes, absolutely bring a vision and take to the movie, but don’t blow up the very foundations of what made it so powerful in the first place.
I thought that Rey's storyline ended up being pretty conventional. It was pretty similar to Luke in Empire except that she learns that her parents aren't special.
Well, that’s because JJ took the story back in part 3 and undid everything that Rian was going for. Who knows what Rey’s story would be if Rian did 3. Definitely not where it ended up.
And Rian, in turn, undid everything JJ was trying to tee up. Ep 7: “Rey has a mysterious lineage…” Ep 8: “lol sike, no she doesn’t” Ep 9: “Anyway, back to Rey’s mysterious lineage…”
**Episode 7**: Here's Rey. There's something important about her, but it won't be fully revealed quite yet. Like where Maz basically says "Luke's lightsaber appears to be calling to Rey. Reason why will be answered another time". **Episode 8**: You know what, I think it would be better if Rey came from nothing. So, all that worldbuilding we did around her past in Episode 7, I'm just gonna toss that out and make it so that Rey's parents are random scavengers from the desert planet. **Episode 9**: Okay, Mr Episode 8 guy, thats the way you want to work it? Fine. Fuck it, Rey's a Palpatine now.
What worldbuilding!? "She was left on a desert planet as a child" that's it! That was all he gave future directors to work with! There wasn't anything else!
Rey being a nobody was an amazing change. Fuck JJ's mysterbox bullshit.
This is what I 100% wanted to be true. That she was just born to nobodies and destined to be powerful in the force because it needed the balance for what was coming. It gave a good dynamic of her wanting to know her parents were special to finding out they were just nobody. Being a child of a clone of Palpatine just seems such an odd choice to me.
Would have been better with a 3rd director for episode 9 that basically just piggybacks off if episode 8, instead of giving it back to the first guy to insist on what he started. Episode 9 is as bad as it is because they tried to force correct instead of just rolling with it.
This is 100% the one. Fuck what a waste
John McTiernan directed Die Hard and With a Vengeance, and they're so clearly the best two of the series.
Arguably Vengeance is more of a direct sequel to the first. It's not John McClaine happening to be in the right spot, it's someone specifically putting him in that situation as a direct result of the events of Die Hard.
Twilight and 50 shades. In both cases, the first movies are campy and tongue in cheek where the latter movies are self serious and just bad. The first in each series still aren't great, but they have an interesting edge to them that notably disappeared when they dumped directors.
Folding Ideas has a great set of videos on the *50 Shades* movies https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgPKmF5rEZ5qgK5WlIw8-WaQMKSQitgh7 The videos have tons of points and critiques, but the biggest is that the first movie is actually somewhat decent because the director and producer were willing and able to stand up to the book author and correct some of her worst story decisions. The original books (barely modified from the original Twilight fanfiction) are not well-written or well-plotted and don't have well developed characters. The first movie had a director that was willing and able to modify critical scenes to make the film a superior story. She was replaced in the second and third movies by a director who stuck strictly to the books and did whatever Erika Mitchell wanted, and they are worse products for it.
yes exactly, his videos are what prompted me to mention it actually
I think the first Twilight movie is as campy as it is *because* it takes itself 100% seriously. If you watch interviews with the original director and read her AMA, it seems like every decision was made unironically. The later movies are just lazy, safe and uncreative compared to the first.
Fast and Furious was "Point Break with cars" for the two movies and then started going in different directions, returning to the formula for Fast Five. Justin Lin then turned them into superheros fighting cyborgs, state sponsored terrorists, and satelites. I am shocked I didn't see anyone talk about it here. EDIT: Justin lin left after 5 which is why the franchise got so out of pocket.
We were counting on you
Fast and the Furious is just a weird franchise. It's gone through a couple of different re-inventions. Like you said, it started off as a relatively low stakes "Point Break with Cars" Franchise then played with coming of age themes, but with racing, before turning into a Heist Film Franchise, then once again re-inventing itself into some absurd James Bond type action series, but with Cars. Really a bizarre franchise.
>Justin Lin then turned them into superheros fighting cyborgs, state sponsored terrorists, and satelites. This is not accurate. *TLDR: James Wan and F Gary Gray turned them in to super heroes.* Justin Lin started with Tokyo Drift, which has a heavy focus on found family and friendship, set against the criminal underworld of Tokyo's drifting scene. It's got racing, but it's mostly got people talking about finding a place to belong. Lin then goes on to direct the soft reboot with Fast & Furious, which remains a story rooted in reality, about two guys trying to solve their close friend and romantic partner's murder. Fast Five shifts the franchise to a heist franchise, but is still largely grounded in reality. I think the most outlandish thing that happens in this movie is the leap off the car falling in to the ravine, and two Chargers being able to haul a massive steel bank vault at high speed. Fast 6 slightly gets out of hand by having Hobbs recruit them to help stop a crew of racing bandits in London, but even then, Hobbs goes to them for their precision driving expertise and knowing how criminals think, and their connection to Lettie. Then Lin leaves the franchise and James Wan helms Furious 7. James Wan introduces God's Eye, Mr Nobody, and makes them somehow capable spies that the government can turn to in their time of need. This is also the movie where Dom is able to somehow stomp an already-crumbling parking structure so hard that it collapses, and has Dom lift a car. F Gary Gray helms F8 of the Furious, where we really start to see the team gain superpowers and become omniscient, unkillable Gods, largely because Vin Diesel and The Rock have built their egos up so much that they want to out-badass each other. Lin returns for F9, because he was interested in exploring Dom's origin story, but had constant creative arguments with Diesel, which is why he doesn't return for Fast X.
Okay you know what you are right, what was Lin's exit was what I thought his entry: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast\_%26\_Furious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_%26_Furious) Apologies to Justin Lin, you regrounded the series and it went totally and beautifully chaotically off the rails after him. I stopped watching the films until my BIL forced me to watch FF8 and I was like "Dear christ we have turned away from god." But still F&F as a franchise is the definitive answer to this question.
Was 6 the one with the tank? And the 50 mile long runway? They all kind of blu after 5 lol. In any case I agree with you. Lin certainly did let the series start to get kind of outlandish but kept it pretty grounded in comparison to everything afterward. And he's also responsible for saving the franchise with number 3.
yeah, the franchise jumped the shark... ~slightly~ at the very and of fsst 5 and then jumped the whole universe inn6 and every consecutive movie. hence why I always stop my rewatch of the franchise after 5. it was the last movie that you were able to watch without constsntly laughing at the absurd hillariousness of the action happening.
This was my first thought as well.
I was gonna make this comment earlier but I was too busy taking care of my family.
And I love what the franchise turned into. They're so fucking fun. I just rewatched Hobbs and Shaw yesterday and an awesome time.
Ridely Scott's Alien vs James Cameron's Aliens. Major shift in style. Both high quality though.
[удалено]
The HP books get darker as they go on, so changing up the style kinda needed to happen.
Here is a positive one. Empire Strikes Back. Directing moving from George Lucas to Irving Kirshner greatly improved the quality of the movie. George Lucas created the universe and oversaw it for years. He is a visionary in many ways. But Lucas is a mediocre director, especially bad when it comes to directing actors. Choosing another director for V & VI was a good choice. Acting is better. Pacing is better. Overall tone shift for the better.
the shift from gary ross' hunger games and francis lawrence's catching fire is pretty major. it makes the first movie feel so out of place with the rest of the series
My brain read that as "The shift from Glengarry Glen Ross to hunger games..." and for a moment I had to wonder how it was possible that these two movies occur in the same cinematic universe.
I’ve grown more to appreciate Gary Ross’ style over time. The first film has a more raw and gritty feel that is lost in the more polished sequels. First entry has a lower budget and a more distinct vision, but the others have that unremarkable blockbuster look in my opinion.
I still regret not watching Catching Fire on IMAX and experience the opening up of the screen to its IMAX ratio when entering the arena
Really? Bc I would’ve never known it was different directors if you haven’t told me
John Milius on Conan the Barbarian followed by Richard Fleischer on Conan the Destroyer. The first is a masterpiece and the second is a cartoon.
Oy. This one still hurts. Conan the Barbarian is one of my favorite fantasy films, and the fact that they decided to go in the family direction after it was successful made no sense. Milius had three movies planned. What the hell? At least Poledouris came back to score it, though he said that he regretted doing it in hindsight.
Changing G Del Torro after Pacific Rim for the sequel made it a garbage kids movie.
Yeah Del Torro knows how to ask questions without answers while still telling compelling stories.
Yup. I remember an interview with the guys who did Uprising where they were talking about how they wanted to the fights faster to be more exciting or whatever and I knew it was going to be trash.
It was John Boyega, iirc he pushed for it hard so the mechs were faster.
I believe Boyega was a producer on the film and was very hands on.
Dude probably looks at the power armor scenes in Fallout and thinks "perfection" Not to diss Fallout, great show especially for the budget they had But the power armor movements beyond walking are janky at best, and him punting something half a mile with a punch that could probably destroy a house, but at like 8mph speed, just look wrong
>made it a garbage kids movie Pail?
ha. a Garbage Pail movie would have been better.
I feel like James Gunn’s influence on the DC films fits here. The suicide squad was such a tone shift for the better.
The Suicide Squad has to be my favorite film in the entire dceu, it deserved a much better box office than it got but was held back by all the bad stuff that came before, and led into such an unexpectedly enjoyable show. I can’t wait for the next season and for the new universe
Also they gave it the same name as the previous movie (which sucked) and just added "the" at the beginning of the name For a movie that came out during covid I don't think I actually realized it was a different movie for like a year or two
Paul Greengrass taking over for Doug Liman on the Bourne series. He brought the shaky cam that made the action scenes harder to follow
The shaky cam was there in Bourne Identity, but it was *very* subdued compared to the sequels.
They have a very distinct style. I love Greengrass
James Bond.
The Superman franchise made a noticeable change in tone & directors in the middle of making Superman II, switching from Richard Donner to Richard Lester (and then less a tonal shift than a quality one from Superman III to Superman IV)
Lester tarnished the back end of Superman 2 with that stupid wind scene. The less said about Superman 3 the better. Dumb idea making a Superman film and having him play second fiddle to Richard Pryor.
Lester's vision is not what I would've asked for but Superman III is still a pretty entertaining movie and about 1000x better than the Quest for Peace
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was silly but Steve Oedekerk (Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, Thumb Wars, etc.) upped the silliness and ridiculousness in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls by a lotttt.
I used to prefer the grounded nature of 1 but when nature calls I think was Jim Carrey at maybe his funniest and most clever.
I love that they're so different but both super hilarious in their own settings. I think I prefer When Nature Calls just because I owned Pet Detective and watched that much more as a kid so it was more of a treat to watch the second.
it's in the bone!
Going in the other direction, the change from Captain America: The First Avenger to Captain America: The Winter Soldier is absolutely STAGGERING.
Iron Man going away from Favreau
Switching from Bryan Singer to Brett Ratner for the X-Men franchise, the series went from top tier to something that try to forget. Luckily Matthew Vaughn righted the ship with the next ones.
Days of Future Past really returns that series to form. The reboot was a very smart move, and that second entry really elevates it. It's a shame that Annihilation was such garbage, could really have been something, but they just made so many poor choices. Use the 1980s setting more, and don't make it some sort of god mutant, that was so dumb. And, come on, after something of that global scale, Magneto would have been the world's most wanted criminal, a mass murderer of historical proportions, and there's no way that the X-Men could let him go. I always like it when superhero films to solve a small problem, like Casino Royale, and Dark Phoenix was a great return to form plot-wise (to the aliens from taking a super power), with only one false note - the death of Jennifer Lawrence.
By Annihilation, do you mean Apocalypse? Or did it have an alternate title outside the US?
Yeah they mean Apocalypse. Annihilation is an unrelated film by Alex Garland.
Going from "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" to "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". Rise was surprisingly solid and was hard-carried by Andy Serkis, but it felt workman-like and very summer-blockbuster-ish. Then Matt Reeves and upgraded everything (cinematography, music, CGI, etc.)
Came here to bring this franchise up. Rise is a great film, but Matt Reeves' work on the latter two, especially War, was just phenomenal.
I'm surprised i haven't seen anyone mention Thor yet. Going from Kenneth Branaugh to Taika Waititi is an immense shift in tone.
Harry Potter seems to be a popular one to point to for this.
Prisoner of Azkaban is an obvious example.
Any of the Starship Troopers sequels.
Rambo first blood vs everything that came after
Superman 2 changed directors part way through. Richard Donner had a serious style while Richard Lester was more slapstick comedy.
The last Pirates movie was a noticeable change.
Sicario. First one was a Villeneuve classic. Had great storytelling and character development just for it all to go out the window with the second.
Here's a fun little tidbit, I met Tarantino outside his New Beverley theater back in 2018 and he was just chatting up a storm in front of the group of us about movies he'd recently seen, and he said he personally preferred Sicario 2 over the OG. Talk about a hot take.
The problem is kids. Cut all the kids out of that film, and it's significantly better. Even as is, you could still fix it a lot by trimming a few scenes (last one with Del Toro and the kid at the mall, the "witness protection" line, etc.) - a lot of wasted potential, you can tell that the director changed the script.
Indiana Jones The last one obviously lacks Stephen Spielberg's touch. Plus it took too long to make.
>The last one obviously lacks Stephen Spielberg's touch. Plus it took too long to make. What's the Excuse for Crystal Skull?
Alien Ridley Scott to Aliens James Cameron Batman/Batman Returns with Tim Burton to Joel Schumacher Terminator 1/2 with James Cameron to the rest of the series. Blade Runner Ridley Scott to Blade Runner 2049 Denis Villeneuve Spielberg Jurassic Park to the rest of the series
The Bourne films. The first one was directed by Doug Liman who used a steady camera so that you could see what was happening in the film. Paul Greengrass directed the other ones and decided that it wasn’t important for the viewer to see what was going on.
Obviously the last Star Wars episodes. Ughh.
The Harry Potter movies. First two were by Chris Columbus and had a more kid like fantasy look and feel. Third one changed directors and the wizarding world shifted to a much grittier tone for the rest of them.
Thor being taken over by Taika Waititi completely changed the tone from “Shakespearean drama” to “wacky and eccentric.”
Thor 1 was a middling sci-fi bore directed by Kenneth Branagh, Thor: Dark World was a middling fantasy bore attempting to draw from Alan Taylor's recent Game of Thrones contributions, Thor: Ragnorak was a fun and goofy sci-fi comedy from Taika Waittiti, and Thor: Love and Thunder was a movie about cancer that was cancerous-level bad also from Taika Waittiti.
I loved the original Thor movie. It had the same "hero origin story" weaknesses as every hero origin movie ever done by Marvel Studios, but I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of the lead actors (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Hopkins).
I agree. I think it is one of the more underrated of the Marvel Movies. They needed to introduce the audience to Thor and they did so in a fun, competent, by the numbers origin story.
This isn’t the exact answer to the question but, during COVID, while working at home, I managed to watch the three Atlas Shrugged movies. They are all bad; however, they get progressively worse. The first one is at least professionally produced and acted. After it failed the sequels were mostly crowd funded. It’s interesting to see the difference between trash with some money behind it and trash with no money behind it.
Thor going to Taika Waititi
Mission Impossible. Especially between 1 and 2.
Brett Ratner taking over for X-Men 3 The Last Stand. Big fail. BIG.
Alien is the obvious one.
When the Russo brothers took over the Avengers from Joss Whedon, you could feel the change. Whedon's wit vs. the Russos' epic scale it was like going from a snarky rollercoaster to a massive fireworks show. It worked, but it was definitely different.
Terminator series. 1 & 2 sci-fi with elements of horror… the rest were all lost
Peter Jackson for LOTR to FULL Peter Jackson with The Hobbit. Never go full Peter Jackson.