Why is it that some directors can direct a multi-million dollar blockbuster hit one year and then a different year rolls along and they end up directing one of the biggest bombs ever!?
One director comes to mind.
John McTiernan.
I think of him only 'cause I just bought and am watching "Die Hard" the collector's edition on DVD.
I also picked up "Predator"
How is it that "Die Hard" & some of his other films could be so good but one of his latest disasters, "Rollerball" could be so horrid?
Why is it that some directors do this?
I'm sure many factors come into play.
I wouldn't even begin to try to guess them all!.
(That's why I'm asking you!)
Probably the #1 reason is that they're human and are obviously not perfect and depending on the circumstances, mistakes can & will be made.
Was he limited while filming "Rollerball" by a bad script?
Was he in ill health? (I know that he smokes alot)
Did his wife or ladyfriend leave him?
Or did he just not feel the creative flow like usual?
Was he having just a plain old s**tty couple 'a months?!
Maybe he just "didn't have it" that time around.
Who knows?
What do you think?
I well know that when you see the director's name that it also means that he had help...his film & production crew.
He alone didn't make the movie.
It could also possibly be their faults.
HE IS the director after all though and does call MOST of the shots!
But then again he has the producers breathing down his neck every second.
I'd like to know from you what you think the other reasons might be.
Why do you think a director can make the film of the year and then later the bomb of the year?
Some director's are only as good as the material they are given.
A movie is a team effort. A bad director can ruin a movie, a good director cannot assure that a movie will be good. Same with actors and many other positions
Plus you then have the "suits" trying to fit a movie in a certain demographic, etc. So the studios can get involved and make changes to a script or the actors or cut out scenes. But, they're the ones paying the bills.
As implied in most of these posts film making has so very many factors involved that there is no way a director can assure a successful film. Films are rought with politics and egos. Some times they work well together sometimes it's like water and oil. The number one cause for a films failure most frequently involves the executive side of things. Somebody may have a relative that they insist be apart of the film. Sometimes the execs resort to post director's cut editing to appeal to demographic (as Foy suggested). Sometimes the script gets rewitten so many times mid-production that the film looses focus and continuity. Some directors are surprisingly week people and are easily bullied by others and loose control of the picture. Some actors/producers are such egomaniacs that they become impossible to work with.