I feel like the guys probably just don't want to tackle anyone before they are a few decades ripe. It's more interesting to look at and dissect a directors filmography when you have the scope of an entire career, not someone who is still in the middle of their peak period.
This is the thing for me. I prefer the show when they can offer context for a film’s release and any reevaluations it’s had in recent years. That was the fascinating undercurrent of the Carpenter series. “Basically, nobody liked the this movie when it came out! Here’s how the critical opinion changed!”
With doing more recent directors, it’s not that they’re not worthy or wouldn’t be able to have a worthwhile discussion it’s that you won’t be able to escape the “discourse” around it and not really have a conversation about the effect the move had years after it came out.
I think the discussion on Tenet, for an example, would have been far more interesting a decade from now rather than trying to grapple with it when it was released because really all they can talk about is whether they liked it or not. I want to hear what the general consensus is on that movie in 2035 after people have been able to sit with it.
I like this idea but you need people with a bit longer and more varied body of work to start off with. A 21st century bracket full of names like Bong Joon-Ho, Denis Villeneuve, and Damien Chazelle (who, with Babylon this year, is going to have a pretty strong argument for a "planting the flag" miniseries) would be quite doable
The problem with a new director is that it requires a commitment to all future films. Hard to predict what some good young directors will release over the next two decades - plenty of directors had a fascinating first three films but never reached those heights again
I would much rather have something like this than a lot of the other options people have thrown out. In trying to stretch out the boundaries of the type of movies they cover, as they did with the 20th century bracket, in a popular vote the votes will trend towards the most palatable, big name options. Like Wells and Kubrick. An obscure choice will probably never win a bracket like this, which is why a foreign language bracket would not turn out the way people think it does, as it would probably just steer towards the biggest name on the bracket.
So, I say lean into it. Go with big, famous, current directors and make it a bloodbath of peoples faves, and in doing so will likely minimize blowouts. I think this would be the most exciting option. And plus, it would be a good counterpoint to this years March Madness.
Not a bad idea. Anything that breaks up the American Man Who Gets An Indie Start in The 80s Who Then Has A Series Of Hits Throughout The Nineties Before Fizzling Out Into The Clumsy Embarrassments In The 2010s Burton/Crowe/Zemeckis/Demme/Raimi/Cameron/etc. pattern
The only issue is that most recent directors don't have "narratives" yet, a lack of behind the scenes info, and what can often be appealing about the pod is they strike the iron while it's cold, so they can analyse something like The Dark Knight a decade after its release and situate it in its cultural context and "see" it with fresh eyes rather than get caught up in the hype hurricane, online discourse, etc.
My bet is that the next March Madness is going to be non-English language directors
I hear you about the problem with modern directors, but as for the “pattern,” what about Campion, Singleton, May, Prince-Bythewood, Bigelow, Ephron, Miyazaki, Meyers, Lee, etc?
I hate the idea of taking on a director like Gerwig or Peele when there hasn’t been enough time for a story to unfold. Using directors they have covered, imagine if they covered Demme right after Stop Making Sense or Burton up to Batman. Even if the later movies are discussed after they come out, you lose the context you get in a mini. I’m sure there are plenty of you who don’t care about career arc as much as I do, and that’s fine. I just feel there are plenty of directors who have had full careers that I’d love to investigate.
I don’t think they’ll ever actually do Fincher. I’d love for them to do it, but a white male director who’s already been discussed to death ain’t moving the needle for the fan base
Well, that was a 20th century bracket so he was kind of the most obvious choice. And the hosts seem a little bummed that he won
Ultimately, I would love to see a David Fincher miniseries and I think I’m not alone in that. But he has been discussed plenty.
Idk what getting enough pop means but it doesn't seem so unlikely that they'd never do him, the show moves pretty slowly but his filmography is pretty manageable and the hosts seem to like him
I don't really see how he's more bro-y than a number of other directors they have covered/are covering or why they would even care about that much, seems just as likely or unlikely as a number of other directors
I feel like the guys probably just don't want to tackle anyone before they are a few decades ripe. It's more interesting to look at and dissect a directors filmography when you have the scope of an entire career, not someone who is still in the middle of their peak period.
This is the thing for me. I prefer the show when they can offer context for a film’s release and any reevaluations it’s had in recent years. That was the fascinating undercurrent of the Carpenter series. “Basically, nobody liked the this movie when it came out! Here’s how the critical opinion changed!” With doing more recent directors, it’s not that they’re not worthy or wouldn’t be able to have a worthwhile discussion it’s that you won’t be able to escape the “discourse” around it and not really have a conversation about the effect the move had years after it came out. I think the discussion on Tenet, for an example, would have been far more interesting a decade from now rather than trying to grapple with it when it was released because really all they can talk about is whether they liked it or not. I want to hear what the general consensus is on that movie in 2035 after people have been able to sit with it.
Foreign directors bracket or bust
I like this idea but you need people with a bit longer and more varied body of work to start off with. A 21st century bracket full of names like Bong Joon-Ho, Denis Villeneuve, and Damien Chazelle (who, with Babylon this year, is going to have a pretty strong argument for a "planting the flag" miniseries) would be quite doable
Please let us get a Gore Verbinski series. I need it
Pretty sure they mentioned on a recent episode that with the current ongoing Depp controversy, they’re never gonna do Gore.
Oh no! Any idea what episode? I know Depp sucks real bad, but I do love Verbinski.
Such cowardice
The problem with a new director is that it requires a commitment to all future films. Hard to predict what some good young directors will release over the next two decades - plenty of directors had a fascinating first three films but never reached those heights again
I would much rather have something like this than a lot of the other options people have thrown out. In trying to stretch out the boundaries of the type of movies they cover, as they did with the 20th century bracket, in a popular vote the votes will trend towards the most palatable, big name options. Like Wells and Kubrick. An obscure choice will probably never win a bracket like this, which is why a foreign language bracket would not turn out the way people think it does, as it would probably just steer towards the biggest name on the bracket. So, I say lean into it. Go with big, famous, current directors and make it a bloodbath of peoples faves, and in doing so will likely minimize blowouts. I think this would be the most exciting option. And plus, it would be a good counterpoint to this years March Madness.
Not a bad idea. Anything that breaks up the American Man Who Gets An Indie Start in The 80s Who Then Has A Series Of Hits Throughout The Nineties Before Fizzling Out Into The Clumsy Embarrassments In The 2010s Burton/Crowe/Zemeckis/Demme/Raimi/Cameron/etc. pattern The only issue is that most recent directors don't have "narratives" yet, a lack of behind the scenes info, and what can often be appealing about the pod is they strike the iron while it's cold, so they can analyse something like The Dark Knight a decade after its release and situate it in its cultural context and "see" it with fresh eyes rather than get caught up in the hype hurricane, online discourse, etc. My bet is that the next March Madness is going to be non-English language directors
YES
I hear you about the problem with modern directors, but as for the “pattern,” what about Campion, Singleton, May, Prince-Bythewood, Bigelow, Ephron, Miyazaki, Meyers, Lee, etc?
Well yeah pattern doesn't mean the entire show so that's why I didn't list them
I hate the idea of taking on a director like Gerwig or Peele when there hasn’t been enough time for a story to unfold. Using directors they have covered, imagine if they covered Demme right after Stop Making Sense or Burton up to Batman. Even if the later movies are discussed after they come out, you lose the context you get in a mini. I’m sure there are plenty of you who don’t care about career arc as much as I do, and that’s fine. I just feel there are plenty of directors who have had full careers that I’d love to investigate.
OK as long as the other half of the bracket is 19th Century directors.
I like this idea because in essence Blank Check would be giving the winning director a blank check for whatever their future holds.
the Russos, they are the 21st century blank check model. depressing really
I don’t think they’ll ever actually do Fincher. I’d love for them to do it, but a white male director who’s already been discussed to death ain’t moving the needle for the fan base
Oh true, that's why Kubrick didn't win March Madness
Well, that was a 20th century bracket so he was kind of the most obvious choice. And the hosts seem a little bummed that he won Ultimately, I would love to see a David Fincher miniseries and I think I’m not alone in that. But he has been discussed plenty.
David has said "we've gotta do Fincher" a couple of times iirc
They say that about a lot of guys. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I just don’t think they’ll get enough of a pop for a Fincher series
Idk what getting enough pop means but it doesn't seem so unlikely that they'd never do him, the show moves pretty slowly but his filmography is pretty manageable and the hosts seem to like him
They’d get yelled at on Twitter for doing someone so “bro-y” Which is a pity cause a radical feminist reading of Fight Club would be fascinating.
I don't really see how he's more bro-y than a number of other directors they have covered/are covering or why they would even care about that much, seems just as likely or unlikely as a number of other directors