Why are people treating James Gunn as if he is some "talented director"?

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Everytime when people think of James Gunn they constantly say "he's a talanted director he made Guardians of the Galaxy the way he wanted" Like as if he was the next Quintin Tarantino or something but really, has anyone actually seen his Filmography? Because this guy made a lot of mediocre to forgettable movies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gunn_(filmmaker)#Filmography

I mean this is guy that was the scrennwriter for the first 2 Live Action Scooby Doo movies for goodness' sake. And he had "partial" direction for Movie 43. And his other movies are rather unmemorable.

So now he's treated as some Superstar Director because he made one Blockbuster Hit movie? I don't know why but I am getting flashbacks to Neill Blomkamp and his one hit wonder District 9.

The reason I made this thread because I was watching Cheshire Cat Studio's recent Podcast on the new Ghostbusters movie and LaughingMan saying this word for word: "James Gunn he is a talented director and he got the chance to make a fun movie the way he wanted to make it"

I honestly doubt he had any complete creative freedom judging from the whole Edgar Wright fiasco with Ant-Man. Even if James did not directed it, I truly think it could have been the same movie regardless.

 

[Marter]

Probably because his two previous directorial efforts were Slither and Super, and both of them were pretty good. Then he got a shot at a blockbuster and nailed it. So, three good-to-great directorial efforts and no failures is a pretty good track record.

His screenwriter career is more mixed. It gets largely ignored because (1) people don't think about screenwriters that much and (2) Troma films are expected to be bad.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

As far as I can tell, he's not accomplished much, true. In that filmography you posted, he only directed three movies so far. At least, fully directed.

Only one if them has a negative review, Super, and its not even a "it's bad" score. A 50-50. Slither has good reviews, and is described as a "cult hit".

And Guardians of the Galaxy is Guardians of the Galaxy.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if GotG 2 is good to decide whether or not the dude's a good director.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Well the thing you're overlooking is that most directors who get really big, generally have their fair share of pretty mediocre movies in their past. Most directors aren't visionary phenomenons from the word go, which also doesn't stop them from being talented, as you have to be talented just to keep working. He's also a fairly fresh face in directing, where he only has 12 credits, most of which are in TV it seems, according to his IMDB profile. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0348181/] That's not a lot to work with, also keep in mind you can't judge someones directing talent by screenplays that they've written. Someone can after be a terrible screenwriter, but a fantastic director.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Probably because his two previous directorial efforts were Slither and Super, and both of them were pretty good. Then he got a shot at a blockbuster and nailed it. So, three good-to-great directorial efforts and no failures is a pretty good track record.

His screenwriter career is more mixed. It gets largely ignored because (1) people don't think about screenwriters that much and (2) Troma films are expected to be bad.

Personally I think people underrate the importance of Screenwriters in movie/tv making. I mean the Academy has awards for Screenwriters.

And I question whether Super was any good considering it has the lowest Box Office earnings I have ever seen and increadibly mixed reception.


You say it as a good movie? Fine I won't take that away from you. But its a movie I honestly think it will not be remembered in the next 20-30 years by anyone who only know of James Gunn through Guardians of the Galaxy.

Heck people forgotten older movies that the greatest Directors have made. Like I don't see people mentioning 1941 when talking about Spielberg. Or One From the Heart when talking about Coppola, or THX 1138 when talking about George Lucas.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

"Why do people like what I don't like"

Because he made good movies.

Did you watched Slither and Super and whatever his portion of Movie 43 was?

"Why do people like what i don't like?

No Why are people treating a director/writer, who's filmography ranges from mediocre to forgettable/average, is now treated like the next Christopher Nolan?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And I question whether Super was any good considering it has the lowest Box Office earnings I have ever seen and increadibly mixed reception.

Well, have you seen it yet? I mean, the ending kinda depressed the fuck out of me because it struck a little too close to home , but it was very good in my opinion.

No but I watched Scooby Doo 1 in theaters and let tell ya that movie is not a pretty sight.

Super eh it reminded me too much of movies like Kick-Ass and Sucker Punch, these experimental "hip" Superhero movies that tries to not take themselves serously.

And I just watched the trailer to Slither...and yeah it looks like crap, like kind of movie my dad would rent because he's bored.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

No Why are people treating a director/writer, who's filmography ranges from mediocre to forgettable/average, is now treated like the next Christopher Nolan?

Who's saying that?

No that is how I feel these people are treating him like. Not that is an actual word these people use when referring to James Gunn.

And anyways people like that Laughingman from Cheshire Cat Studios? ScreenJunkies? any other internet celebrity I watch?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Heck people forgotten older movies that the greatest Directors have made. Like I don't see people mentioning 1941 when talking about Spielberg. Or One From the Heart when talking about Coppola, or THX 1138 when talking about George Lucas.

So you talk about people forgetting Super down the line, but then say that people forget great movies from great (debatable) directors. So, how is a film being forgotten over the passage of time a criticism if most films, good or bad, fall to it?

Also, Box office success is not a measure of quality, just popularity... I really shouldn't have to explain the distinction, so please don't make me.

You'll note that people's opinions of creators are rather fickle, usually falling on their most recent accomplishments or failings to judge them. George Lucas gave us Star Wars, a fantastic trilogy that completely reshaped action and adventure in cinema. He also gave us the other star wars, which is dog shit. So what is George? Good or Bad?

Peter Jackson gave us Lord of the Rings, a fantastic fantasy epic that was especially faithful to the source material in a time where adaptions rarely resemble the source material.

He then gave us the Hobbit, which felt like a really expensive cast and crew reunion party that lasted years.

James Cameron has a great filmography, having his hand in some of the most iconic and memorable films of the last 30 years. He also made Avatar which is a vapid CGI movie on par with direct to DVD disney movies, but with a horrendously huge budget.

Note, I have great respect for all of these folks. Even Lucas who is routinely crucified for the disasterpiece that is the prequels. Because they do have skill in their craft, but creators fuck up from time to time, or maybe they take on more then they can handle, or maybe they get blinded by vision and hubris. Sometimes fuck ups work out really well (see Avatar) other times they fizzle out like a wet fart (Hobbit)

What has James Gunn gave us? Well he did give us 2 horrendous Scooby Doos over 12 years ago, but he also only recently directed and wrote Guardians of the Galaxy, which many consider the freshest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Avengers Assemble, even though it didn't hit such heights in the box office.

Is he to the same level as Kubrick or Scorsese? What the fuck no. Cameron or Spielberg? Hahaha Nope.

I put him somewhere below Guy Richie but above Matthew Vaughn on a scale that's hard to be accurate with. Your values may vary.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

"Why do people like what I don't like"

Because he made good movies.

Did you watched Slither and Super and whatever his portion of Movie 43 was?

"Why do people like what i don't like?

No Why are people treating a director/writer, who's filmography ranges from mediocre to forgettable/average, is now treated like the next Christopher Nolan?

"He made good movies" is not "every movie he made was good", don't strawman me.

As far as the other statement goes, probably the same reason people love Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder.

Was The Prestige that good? How about Sucker Punch? Dawn of the Dead? Every director has flops in their filmography, and James Gunn is only starting his. And, if Guardians of the Galaxy is any indication he's got some talent to spread around.

He's an underdog, while Nolan and Snyder are the establishment. And the internet loves an underdog.

We get it, you're mad that people aren't loving BvS.

Notice how I did not even MENTION Anything about Batman v Superman or Zack Snyder in my OP. Zack is obviously infallible, he's a man just like anyone else I mean he made Sucker Punch and Legends of the Guardians and those are movies I honestly don't care for. I just like his style of visuals and action fights.

And you say the Internet loves an underdog? Well so far he is now the establishment since he is working with Disney.

Also he was the writer for Dawn of the Dead and who directed that movie? Zack Snyder.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Heck people forgotten older movies that the greatest Directors have made. Like I don't see people mentioning 1941 when talking about Spielberg. Or One From the Heart when talking about Coppola, or THX 1138 when talking about George Lucas.

So you talk about people forgetting Super down the line, but then say that people forget great movies from great (debatable) directors. So, how is a film being forgotten over the passage of time a criticism if most films, good or bad, fall to it?

Also, Box office success is not a measure of quality, just popularity... I really shouldn't have to explain the distinction, so please don't make me.

You'll note that people's opinions of creators are rather fickle, usually falling on their most recent accomplishments or failings to judge them. George Lucas gave us Star Wars, a fantastic trilogy that completely reshaped action and adventure in cinema. He also gave us the other star wars, which is dog shit. So what is George? Good or Bad?

Peter Jackson gave us Lord of the Rings, a fantastic fantasy epic that was especially faithful to the source material in a time where adaptions rarely resemble the source material.

He then gave us the Hobbit, which felt like a really expensive cast and crew reunion party that lasted years.

James Cameron has a great filmography, having his hand in some of the most iconic and memorable films of the last 30 years. He also made Avatar which is a vapid CGI movie on par with direct to DVD disney movies, but with a horrendously huge budget.

Note, I have great respect for all of these folks. Even Lucas who is routinely crucified for the disasterpiece that is the prequels. Because they do have skill in their craft, but creators fuck up from time to time, or maybe they take on more then they can handle, or maybe they get blinded by vision and hubris. Sometimes fuck ups work out really well (see Avatar) other times they fizzle out like a wet fart (Hobbit)

What has James Gunn gave us? Well he did give us 2 horrendous Scooby Doos over 12 years ago, but he also only recently directed and wrote Guardians of the Galaxy, which many consider the freshest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Avengers Assemble, even though it didn't hit such heights in the box office.

Is he to the same level as Kubrick or Scorsese? What the fuck no. Cameron or Spielberg? Hahaha Nope.

I put him somewhere below Guy Richie but above Matthew Vaughn on a scale that's hard to be accurate with. Your values may vary.

1. The Hobbit movies awesome and at times it was extremely faithful to the source I mean the first scene when Bilbo first made Gandalf was straight right out of the books.

Its better than both these Marvel and DC movies combined.

And they are certainly no where near as terrible then the Star Wars Prequals.

Now onto your point.


2. I agree exactly what you meant despite the whole thing with the Hobbit I just said but again I am just bothered by his "underdog" staus among the internet despite his past mediocre filmography.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Are you seriously shitting on James Gunn because he didn't slide out of his mother's vagina with a complete and total understanding of directing and writing, thus allowing him to ace every single professional effort he's ever tried his hand at?

The man did a lot of practice work. When he finally got to the big chair, he knocked two out of three swings out of the park, and the other one wasn't terrible. People like what he's made, so they think he's talented.

And who the hell is calling him a super star director? I've never heard his name pop up in 'best director' conversations - People just really liked Slither and GotG, and they'd like to see him make more Slither and GotG, or at least similar films. That's it.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

1. The Hobbit movies awesome and at times it was extremely faithful to the source I mean the first scene when Bilbo first made Gandalf was straight right out of the books.

Its better than both these Marvel and DC movies combined.

And they are certainly no where near as terrible then the Star Wars Prequals.

Now onto your point.


2. I agree exactly what you meant despite the whole thing with the Hobbit I just said but again I am just bothered by his "underdog" staus among the internet despite his past mediocre filmography.

1. You're welcome to your opinion, but when I say "Hobbit" I meant the trilogy of films he made. Also I never compared it to Marvel, DC or Star Wars so I don't see why you brought that up. Though with that said, Avengers Assemble and Age of Ultron grossed a combined 3 billion dollars worldwide, while the hobbit trilogy (that's 3 films) grossed 3 billion (about a billion per film). By your own standards, at least from what I gathered above, that makes Avengers a superior film series by about half a billion extra butts in seats per film.

Take note, I don't think that highly of Avengers. I enjoy them as cinema flicks but that's about it.

Regardless I stand by my assessment.

2. Your thread title is "Why are people treating James Gunn as if he is some talented director" (You'll note that this is distinctly different to "underdog" status). To which people explain and demonstrate why they feel as such, to which you respond that he's not the second coming of Christopher Nolan and that films regardless of quality are in fact potentially forgettable, as if Nolan is some sort of litmus test for talent or that culture moving on is somehow a flaw of the film/director and not just a symptom of time.

I don't know of a single instance beyond this thread where Nolan and Gunn are even mentioned in the same body of text. In fact, this thread pops up on the first page in google if you type "James Gunn next Christopher Nolan" into Google, and it's the ONLY instance where both people are mentioned in the same context.

But let's focus on "underdog" status for a second. What constitutes an Underdog? Typically an underdog is someone or something that is unassuming, something not well known, but has shown potential... just potential. Even a glimmer. Whether or not he had full directorial control over Guardian is unimportant, he still directed and wrote the film and it worked. Really well I might add. Either you're devaluing his contribution or over estimating how much interference (and talent) Disney execs had in the production.

But this again forgets that he has demonstrated potential BEFORE guardians was even made. Slither is a well regarded cult classic. Super is a polarizing but still well regarded film where much of the flak comes from the films hard to swallow themes and whether they worked for the film or not.

The fact he released doozies makes him more of an underdog, not less of one, because coming from a banal/mediocre background is the very definition of Underdog. Underdog: Someone that isn't expected to do well. Having your name on a blockbuster like Guardians with an "underdog" status certainly raises a few eyebrows and have people take notice, but it doesn't mean people think they are dealing with Kubrick reincarnated.

Heck people forgotten older movies that the greatest Directors have made. Like I don't see people mentioning 1941 when talking about Spielberg. Or One From the Heart when talking about Coppola, or THX 1138 when talking about George Lucas.

Peter Jackson gave us Lord of the Rings, a fantastic fantasy epic that was especially faithful to the source material in a time where adaptions rarely resemble the source material.

He then gave us the Hobbit, which felt like a really expensive cast and crew reunion party that lasted years.

When it comes to Peter Jackson's status as a director, I honestly prefer his older stuff to even his critically applauded things.

I've spent more time watching Meet the Feebles than I have Lord of the Rings, and I spent a lot of time watching LOTR.

I've heard Peter Jacksons early comedy horror "Braindead" is great, but I've never had a chance to watch it. Never even heard of Meet the Feebles, but it looks... strange. Might throw that on the list of stuff to watch too.

Also was that a dig at LOTRs ludicrous run time (especially if you have the extended editions)?

It was an easy shot, but a Good one *nods approvingly*

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Guy has some amazing PR, every time I hear his name it's in conjunction with "from the mind of". But he doesn't walk the talk.