Oh, come on guys, nominating Michael Bay and Uwe Bowl is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Actually, to be fair, while I don't really like any of his films, Bay does strike me as being competent, at least as far as cinematography goes. The Transformers films I've seen are lacklustre, and Pearl Harbour/Armageddon aren't much better, but I don't really have a problem with how they're directed. Unlike, saw, Bowl; while I haven't seen any of his films, looking at reviews of them, some of the cinematography looks absolutely horrendous.
But, okay, I'll play - I'm not really a follower of directors, as in, telling me that a movie is directed by (insert name here) is rarely a selling point or detracting point in of itself. But I guess I can throw out the following:
1) Steven Spielberg/Blade Runner
Ask me who my favorite director is, and I'd probably say Spielberg. That said, I don't think he's the greatest director ever, at least in as much as contributing to the medium (i.e. he's not exactly Kubrick or Hitchcock) but I do tend to really enjoy his films. That said, there are some tropes that he's fond of, and I can't see them being applied to Blade Runner, which is meant to be cold, unfeeling, where human relationships and the human spirit are broken down, etc. Spielberg usually places emphasis on family ties and childhood innocence, and while in most cases that works, in Blade Runner? Not so much.
2) Neil Blokamp/Alien (note: I erronously listed Duncan Jones in Blokamp's place, no idea how - I've corrected it)
No Blokamp, I don't think retconning Alien 3, Alien: Resurrection, and every piece of associated media is a good idea, just so you can "finish Ripley's story." I mean, fine, I like Alien 3 a lot more than a lot of people, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want it retconned because of your desire to do a fanfic film. And besides, Elysium was lacklustre, and while I hear good things about District 9, that does seem to be a blip in your filmography.
So please, please, just leave the setting alone.
3) Christopher Nolan/Stanly Kubrick/Peter Pan
Okay, I'll say it - I'm not that enamored of either of these directors, but I can't help but respect them. Kubrick, I've only seen 2001 and about 60% of Full Metal Jacket, while with Nolan, I've seen his Batman films, Inception, and Interstellar. Focusing on Nolan for a bit, I don't think he's as great as a director as many say, but damn it, I can't fault the variety in his films, and even if they don't always land (e.g. Interstellar), you can't fault the ambition behind them.
So, why Peter Pan? Because Peter Pan is a property that's based in whimsy, childhood adventure, etc. The book has a dark undercurrent to it, but I've never seen anyone else say so, so maybe it's just me. But by virtue of said whimsy, this is a property that Kubrick and Nolan should stay away from, since there's a 'coldness' in all of their films that I don't think would translate well unless it was a dissection of the IP (Nostalgia Critic's AI review demonstrates this better than I can, contrasting Spielberg and Kubrick). Granted, Kubrick's dead, so that kind of helps, but, yeah.
4) James Cameron/Jurassic Park
Only because I've read what Cameron would have done with the first film, and...yeah. Not sold. I like Cameron's films (yes, even Avatar - heck, far more than True Lies), but I can't really discuss any directing style he has per se. But, yeah, I don't doubt that Spielberg's version is better than what Cameron would have done.
5) Roland Emmerich/Foundation
I'm generally apathetic about Emmerich - I find his films to be mostly average, with the occassional standout (e.g. Independence Day and Anonymous). But dear god, he is the wrong director to take on Foundation. I mean, almost Michael Bay levels of wrong. I mean, Emmerich, I think you can do good films (e.g. ID4), you can even do good films that don't have explosions (e.g. Anonymous), but egads man, stick with what you know.
