Support NeoGAF

[Foggy]

Directing is pretty low on the totem pole of problems so people really shouldn't be wringing their hands over this. TV directors range from experienced cinematic director to an actor that has a pulse and it doesn't always have a tremendous impact on the show. Regardless, hopefully it's a good season because if it sucks then they'll be the first scapegoat.

Writing was poor, showplanning was poor, and Ritter's casting was poor. Those were always my primary issues with it.

I really liked Lexi Alexanders take on the Punisher, I remember when i read posts on other forums back when she was announced "Ugh a woman Directing Punisher , what would she know" and "She's gonna make Frank Castle Limp and Lame" and other worse comments.

So go right ahead.

Her approach to Castle was the best, but turning Jigsaw into Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face was astonishingly awful. Anything involving the villains was bad. Also the Boondock Saintsy opening gunfight was awful. Punisher: War Zone is such an aggravating movie to watch.

 

[lightskintwin]

That is not what I am assuming. The dude asked me to clarify a point so I made a hypothetical example. It's a pattern I hope they break.

The problem is you're missing the big picture and getting concerned for an issue that doesn't exist yet.

 

[jax]

Hopefully this makes it better than S1.

 

[Zero-ELEC]

Good on Marvel.

Hopefully this makes it better than S1.

Directing wasn't really the problem with the first season. It just had a few too many contrivances. Still a good watch, tho.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

Probably shouldn't flaunt that. It's illegal to recruit employees in a way that discriminates against gender identity. The EEOC is already investigating a lot of studios for gender discrimination. The best angle to defend against prosecution would be to frame this as an Affirmative Action issue, since it compensates for the disparity that the EEOC is already investigating, but I don't know what kind of legal precedent there is for AA and gender without doing a lot of reading.

 

[broncobuster]

Kathryn Bigelow is the first female director to direct a film with a 100 million dollar budget with K-19 The Widowmaker in 2002, Patty Jenkins is the second, Ava Duvernay will be the third and the first women of color to do it, when she direct's Disney's A Wrinkle in Time.

Bigelow was mentioned in the story, or the responses to it, but as I recall the point was a budget well over $100mil with a female lead. There's no definitive figure out there. Estimated to be $130mil minimum. Either that same story or one near it brought up how you'd get certain directors given opportunities over others. The "he reminds me of me," where the "me" happens to be a white man.

 

[Kid Ying]

I don't think it matters much. The first season already gave up the best Alias story on awful episodes, now there's nowhere to go but down, but let's see if they will do a good job out of it

 

[firelogic]

I wasn't a fan of season 1 so I'm probably going to skip season 2 unless I hear they turned it around. The pacing of the show really got to me because it felt like they only had enough material for 6 episodes but dragged it out to 13. So it was like deja vu when she catches him and lets him go and he catches her and lets her go and around and around.

Actually, Daredevil season 1 could have trimmed 2 or 3 episodes out and season 2 could have removed the Elektra story completely thereby reducing the episodes by another 3 or 4.

 

[Gorillaz]

I hope they don't use that as a scapegoat if s2 is shit.

JJ had a lot of problems in general. From pacing to just overall character development being all over the place. Good shit tho.

 

[Henkka]

Hiring practices are a big part of the problem. If women don't get directing jobs and visibility for the jobs they do, that won't encourage women to even apply to education that would lead them to becoming directors when it doesn't seem like profession that accommodates female directors well.

Seems like a vicious circle to get out of.

All big star directors (Spielberg, Kubrick, Nolan etc) are male --> Young girls don't see it as a career choice --> Film schools are filled with men --> Big budget entertainment continues to be directed by mostly men

 

[Famassu]

So is it the case that women aren't being hired, or that there is just less female directors out there? If there's just less women directors available, then the issue is with TV / film education, not hiring practices.

Hiring practices are a big part of the problem. If women don't get directing jobs and visibility for the jobs they do, that won't encourage women to even apply to education that would lead them to becoming directors when it doesn't seem like profession that accommodates female directors well.

 

[Henkka]

No need to be cheeky.

Yeah, hiring more women will increase the chances of there being a female equivalent of Spielberg. It will be a slow process, though. I'm not saying Marvel shouldn't hire only women for JJ, they're free to do whatever they want. It does run the risk of the second season becoming some sort of litmus test for female directors, like Ghostbusters became a litmus test for women in big budget sci-fi comedy (In some circles).

I feel like I'm not making really any definitive argument, just thinking out loud.

 

[Azerth]

as long as its good idc who is directing the ep

 

[theWB27]

Probably shouldn't flaunt that. It's illegal to recruit employees in a way that discriminates against gender identity. The EEOC is already investigating a lot of studios for gender discrimination. The best angle to defend against prosecution would be to frame this as an Affirmative Action issue, since it compensates for the disparity that the EEOC is already investigating, but I don't know what kind of legal precedent there is for AA and gender without doing a lot of reading.

If I read that right...they're producing the results the investigation would want. Why not flaunt it by leading the charge?

 

[lightskintwin]

Bigelow was mentioned in the story, or the responses to it, but as I recall the point was a budget well over $100mil with a female lead. There's no definitive figure out there. Estimated to be $130mil minimum. Either that same story or one near it brought up how you'd get certain directors given opportunities over others. The "he reminds me of me," where the "me" happens to be a white man.

100 million is 100 million and the line people use for differentiating Blockbuster budgets. Not to mention 100 million in 2002 where there were far less budgets over that amount is more impressive in retrospect than it is now where budgets at or over 100 million is the norm and that's not even including inflation within the 2002 numbers.

The other part was in reference to Colin Trevorrow who jumped from doing one independent film with a budget less than 1 million to Jurassic World with a budget of 150 million which has now lead him to direct Star Wars episode 9 all because Steven Spielberg saw potential in him due to reminding him of himself, and highlighted the disparity in opportunities that are often afforded White male directors by other White males in powerful positions in Studios.

 

[BronsonLee]

Well yeah that Trevorrow shit was wack

Spielberg getting stupid in his old age what with that and BFG being a 90 minute fart joke starring a marble mouth

 

[duckroll]

Well yeah that Trevorrow shit was wack

Spielberg getting stupid in his old age what with that and BFG being a 90 minute fart joke starring a marble mouth

I don't know. He's hardly the exception. A number of young white male directors have been getting big breaks going from smaller stuff to franchise blockbusters. Josh Trank and Gareth Edwards are just like Trevorrow for example. We also see VFX guys like Tim Miller and Robert Stromberg getting to helm films. A huge Disney blockbuster in Stromberg's case. So many opportunities for talented white men in Hollywood.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

If I read that right...they're producing the results the investigation would want. Why not flaunt it by leading the charge?

The investigation doesn't want them to hire directors because they're women. It wants them to stop discriminating against women in their hiring process. They're not trying to get rid of the smoke, but the fire. That's why I said the only defense they could mount would be an Affirmative Action one, but I'm not aware of any AA precedent involving gender--only race and ethnicity.

 

[broncobuster]

100 million is 100 million and the line people use for differentiating Blockbuster budgets. Not to mention 100 million in 2002 where there were far less budgets over that amount is more impressive in retrospect than it is now where budgets at or over 100 million is the norm and that's not even including inflation within the 2002 numbers.

The other part was in reference to Colin Trevorrow who jumped from doing one independent film with a budget less than 1 million to Jurassic World with a budget of 150 million which has now lead him to direct Star Wars episode 9 all because Steven Spielberg saw potential in him due to reminding him of himself, and highlighted the disparity in opportunities that are often afforded White male directors by other White males in powerful positions in Studios.

If I recall correctly, Brad Bird introduced Trevorrow to Spielberg. So it's doubly that.

 

[Henkka]

But I'll say this. Would I make this choice if I was in charge of JJ? No. I would just focus on making the best show possible (You can groan now), and I think by deliberately focusing on only one gender, you disqualify a huge swath of the talent pool for arbitrary reasons.

Now the argument is that it's not arbitrary, right? I think MHWilliams made the point earlier that female directors bring a unique point of view to a show such as JJ, which obviously deals with themes of sexual assault and such. I think that's somewhat true, but also overstated. I would make sure there's women involved in the process and in the writing staff, yeah, but only hiring female directors is overkill, imo.

First of all, it assumes no male director could have a unique or interesting point of view about these issues. I think that's patently false, and people should be viewed as individuals first and foremost.

Second, I find the whole trend of putting the identity of creators on a pedestal odd. As an example, take George R.R. Martin. Dude is as white and male and as they come, yet he can convincingly enter the mind of a pre-pubescent girl in the middle-ages and tell a story from her perspective. Another, JK Rowling. Definitely a woman, but does a great job of describing the inner mind of a teenage boy growing into a man. The key word is empathy and understanding, not identity. If you're talented enough as a writer or a director, if you can empathise with and understand how humans tick, you can make any story, even if it's not something you've lived through.

I can concede the point of hiring more women to hopefully increase the overall number of women in directing, though. I don't really know of any other way to do it, other than waiting and hoping it works itself out eventually.

 

[Odrion]

cool, maybe they can hire at least one black director for a luke cage episode next season

 

[Platy]

When Kathryn Bigelow does not appear ANYWHERE in rumors about directors being choosen you know something got wrong because SHE WON A FUCKING DIRECTOR OSCAR and yet people don't consider her to direct stuff =P

What people really mean though, is that they are happy with their slice of the world, and don't want any disturbance to that. Why are people always talking about race? I just want to talk about my superheroes without all that social commentary! Am I right?

 

[lightskintwin]

But I'll say this. Would I make this choice if I was in charge of JJ? No. I would just focus on making the best show possible (You can groan now), and I think by deliberately focusing on only one gender, you disqualify a huge swath of the talent pool for arbitrary reasons.

Now the argument is that it's not arbitrary, right? I think MHWilliams made the point earlier that female directors bring a unique point of view to a show such as JJ, which obviously deals with themes of sexual assault and such. I think that's somewhat true, but also overstated. I would make sure there's women involved in the process and in the writing staff, yeah, but only hiring female directors is overkill, imo.

First of all, it assumes no male director could have a unique or interesting point of view about these issues. I think that's patently false, and people should be viewed as individuals first and foremost.

Second, I find the whole trend of putting the identity of creators on a pedestal odd. As an example, take George R.R. Martin. Dude is as white and male and as they come, yet he can convincingly enter the mind of a pre-pubescent girl in the middle-ages and tell a story from her perspective. Another, JK Rowling. Definitely a woman, but does a great job of describing the inner mind of a teenage boy growing into a man. The key word is empathy and understanding, not identity. If you're talented enough as a writer or a director, if you can empathise with and understand how humans tick, you can make any story, even if it's not something you've lived through.

I can concede the point of hiring more women to hopefully increase the overall number of women in directing, though. I don't really know of any other way to do it, other than waiting and hoping it works itself out eventually.

It will never work itself out by itself because the networks and systems are in place to maintain the status quo. You have to make effort and be proactive in working against these systems in place now, if you want any change to take hold and continue in the future.

 

[Brianimaniac]

When Kathryn Bigelow does not appear ANYWHERE in rumors about directors being choosen you know something got wrong because SHE WON A FUCKING DIRECTOR OSCAR and yet people don't consider her to direct stuff =P

She is a producer. She's not looking to get hired to direct a project, because she can hire herself for things she has a personal interest in seeing made.

 

[someday]

I'm happy with this. I'd love more shows to purposely hire women or POC, regardless of the reason. It's not like white dudes have cornered the market on greatness and/or shitting the bed. Let some others have the same chances.

 

[Dalek]

Man this has really rubbed some people the wrong way. I love it.

 

[brinstar]

wow @ the comments section of that article

 

[lightskintwin]

When Kathryn Bigelow does not appear ANYWHERE in rumors about directors being choosen you know something got wrong because SHE WON A FUCKING DIRECTOR OSCAR and yet people don't consider her to direct stuff =P

I prefer Kathryn to do more interesting films like her current project about the 1967 Detroit Riots. Plus she's got a stellar cast that includes John Boyega, Jack Reynor, Will Poulter, Ben O'Toole, Hannah Murray, Brandon Scales, Anthony Mackie, Jacob Latimore, Kaitlyn Dever, Jason Mitchell, Algee Smith, Joseph David-Jones and John Krasinski.

I can't wait for the film.

 

[lsslave]

It had the best critical reception of all Marvel shows. A lot of people really liked it.

Critical reception means very little.

Pretty much anyone who watched it that I know hasn't even watched Luke Cage because of it. Myself included. Tennant literally carried the show on his back and is the only reason I even finished it.

Everyone in here saying GAF hates it. People buzzed about Daredevil. No one I spoke with talked about JJ.

JJ took a great premise and probably the best opportunity to strike gold with a strong woman suffering from PTSD and blew it with a terrible actress (even in Breaking Bad she was poison and her arc didn't end fast enough) and an awful showrunner.

 

[duckroll]

I always love the "should make the best show possible instead" comments because it suggests zero awareness or knowledge of how TV shows actually work. If you think episode staff are assigned with the noblest intentions of doing the best job possible, I don't know what to say. The reality is that staff are picked up based on availability and familiarity.

No one, and I mean this factually, no one on this planet, has the mutant ability to just channel their mind to find the "most qualified" candidate for a job and then offer the job to that person. This is not how the real world works. So when you need something done, you either draw from a pool of people you already know who could do the job, or you cast a wider net and filter it down to certain qualities you want. In any of these cases, you are never getting the most qualified person for the job, only possibly at best the most qualified person within a narrow view.

When someone says they want to prioritize women or minorities in a selection process, it just means they want to change the pool they are looking at, to find qualified people that they would not otherwise even see if they used the standard pools available by default. That's just how things work. It's not how good you are in the grand scheme of things, it is how many people know you can do a job. Discovery is a much bigger problem than the non-existent concern that if you look in a different pool you might "miss out" on the "more talented" white male.

 

[Litan]

I always love the "should make the best show possible instead" comments because it suggests zero awareness or knowledge of how TV shows actually work. If you think episode staff are assigned with the noblest intentions of doing the best job possible, I don't know what to say. The reality is that staff are picked up based on availability and familiarity.

No one, and I mean this factually, no one on this planet, has the mutant ability to just channel their mind to find the "most qualified" candidate for a job and then offer the job to that person. This is not how the real world works. So when you need something done, you either draw from a pool of people you already know who could do the job, or you cast a wider net and filter it down to certain qualities you want. In any of these cases, you are never getting the most qualified person for the job, only possibly at best the most qualified person within a narrow view.

When someone says they want to prioritize women or minorities in a selection process, it just means they want to change the pool they are looking at, to find qualified people that they would not otherwise even see if they used the standard pools available by default. That's just how things work. It's not how good you are in the grand scheme of things, it is how many people know you can do a job. Discovery is a much bigger problem than the non-existent concern that if you look in a different pool you might "miss out" on the "more talented" white male.

Preach, duckroll. Preach.

 

[demon]

I never particularly care if a movie is directed by a man or a woman (JJ being directed entirely be women doesn't make me any more interested in seeing it), but it's pretty well established that women are under-represented in directing, and giving them more exposure and broadening diversity in the "directing pool" is definitely a good thing.

I have a sister in film school looking to become a director so in a sense this affects me personally. Funnily enough I was talking to her last night and she was telling me I should watch this show.

 

[m3k]

nice.. i wonder if the product will differ greatly

edit: this is a uni thesis in the making

 

[Opto]

Critical reception means very little.

Pretty much anyone who watched it that I know hasn't even watched Luke Cage because of it. Myself included. Tennant literally carried the show on his back and is the only reason I even finished it.

Everyone in here saying GAF hates it. People buzzed about Daredevil. No one I spoke with talked about JJ.

JJ took a great premise and probably the best opportunity to strike gold with a strong woman suffering from PTSD and blew it with a terrible actress (even in Breaking Bad she was poison and her arc didn't end fast enough) and an awful showrunner.

anecdotes! I have them too. A guy I saw Shin Godzilla with talked about how JJ had the better empathetic character. Daredevil certainly has the higher budget and fight coeography, which is a lot easier to hype up than "good show about PTSD and relationship abuse"

It sounds like you really don't like the actress, or the characters she plays? she was a tragic character in breaking bad and that you're glad her arc ended kinda disturbs me

 

[CloudWolf]

When Kathryn Bigelow does not appear ANYWHERE in rumors about directors being choosen you know something got wrong because SHE WON A FUCKING DIRECTOR OSCAR and yet people don't consider her to direct stuff =P

You don't know that, maybe she gets offered a lot of stuff, but just says "no". Kathryn Bigelow seems like a director/producer who only does stuff she wants to be made. "Rumors" about directors are often about big studio projects, Bigelow hasn't done big studio projects in a long time.

 

[The Kree]

But I'll say this. Would I make this choice if I was in charge of JJ? No. I would just focus on making the best show possible (You can groan now), and I think by deliberately focusing on only one gender, you disqualify a huge swath of the talent pool for arbitrary reasons.

They've been disqualifying huge swaths of talent in women since the birth of Hollywood for arbitrary reasons, and women have been hurt by that. Men will not be hurt over the loss of opportunity on this one show, and if the show were bad with all male directors we'd blame it on them being bad directors, not on a failure to draw from a bigger talent pool. Whether the show is good or bad because of this decision continues to be baseless. It'll be good or bad because the talent was good or bad.

Now the argument is that it's not arbitrary, right? I think MHWilliams made the point earlier that female directors bring a unique point of view to a show such as JJ, which obviously deals with themes of sexual assault and such. I think that's somewhat true, but also overstated. I would make sure there's women involved in the process and in the writing staff, yeah, but only hiring female directors is overkill, imo.

This argument rarely comes up when the status quo is maintained. It can't be overstated until women are overrepresented in directorial roles. And whenever women fail, it's often used as an excuse to further exclude them. Meanwhile, men get infinite do-overs. It's why we've had half a dozen shitty Batman and Superman movies but are only now just getting one Wonder Woman movie - and demanding that it be flawless because we know how Hollywood will react if it isn't.

First of all, it assumes no male director could have a unique or interesting point of view about these issues. I think that's patently false, and people should be viewed as individuals first and foremost.

No it doesn't assume that a man couldn't have an interesting point of view within the context of this show, it just makes a conscious effort to give the show a uniquely female perspective. We don't live in an ideal world, so we don't get to demand ideal behavior. Women and men are not treated as individuals. Men and women as groups are treated differently. This initiative is a small stepping off point towards that ideal world.

Second, I find the whole trend of putting the identity of creators on a pedestal odd. As an example, take George R.R. Martin. Dude is as white and male and as they come, yet he can convincingly enter the mind of a pre-pubescent girl in the middle-ages and tell a story from her perspective. Another, JK Rowling. Definitely a woman, but does a great job of describing the inner mind of a teenage boy growing into a man. The key word is empathy and understanding, not identity. If you're talented enough as a writer or a director, if you can empathise with and understand how humans tick, you can make any story, even if it's not something you've lived through.

Yet so many stories never even get to be about women without relating them to the thoughts and perspectives of men. Men already thrive upon a pedestal. Again, things are not ideal, and you don't get to the ideal by demanding equality when the other half of the population suddenly catches a rare windfall. It doesn't matter that a man can do the job - we know they can, we've been watching them do it for a hundred years. Some people have now decided to give women that push on this one show. It's one show.

I can concede the point of hiring more women to hopefully increase the overall number of women in directing, though. I don't really know of any other way to do it, other than waiting and hoping it works itself out eventually.

These things never just work themselves out. It requires actual initiative to make a positive difference. This show is one such initiative. But I'm reading a lot of unnecessary deliberation over a single raindrop in a storm and it looks suspect at best.

 

[Gorillaz]

When Kathryn Bigelow does not appear ANYWHERE in rumors about directors being choosen you know something got wrong because SHE WON A FUCKING DIRECTOR OSCAR and yet people don't consider her to direct stuff =P

Bigelow is "bigger" then a lot of this comic book shit. Like it would obviously have to be something like WW and it would be fun but nah, she can do better then DCU/MCU stuff.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

I really wanted to like the first season and I did at the start. But I shared many of the critiques given by previous posters.

I hope the second season will rock

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

But I'll say this. Would I make this choice if I was in charge of JJ? No. I would just focus on making the best show possible (You can groan now), and I think by deliberately focusing on only one gender, you disqualify a huge swath of the talent pool for arbitrary reasons.

I don't understand how you're making this argument about women now but not about the men in nearly all of Hollywood's directing roles previous. You just aren't framing the situation in a way that matches reality.

 

[Henkka]

I don't understand how you're making this argument about women now but not about the men in nearly all of Hollywood's directing roles previous. You just aren't framing the situation in a way that matches reality.

Well, the same argument would apply in those cases, wouldn't it? If whoever was in charge of deciding who was going to direct Jurassic World deliberately made the choice to consider men, and exclude women because they're women, I think that's misguided, too. No reason a woman couldn't direct a kick-ass dinosaur movie.

But ultimately, it's their art and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I'm all for empowering women but I hope they turn things around in S2.

I dunno. Seems a little sketchy to me. Luke Cage gonna have all black directors? Iron Fist all white males?

Yeah, doing it for the sake of a marketing or making a statement is all good but don't fuck it up. All female, all male, all black, all white, all diverse, anti-diverse. I don't care if they're not doing it for the sake of doing it. Don't make it a marketing spin, and do it right. It'll only be a scapegoat if it sucks.

Of courser these are first page posts.

Discovery is a much bigger problem than the non-existent concern that if you look in a different pool you might "miss out" on the "more talented" white male.

Bingo.

The idea that the status quo should be abided by simply because prejudice exists is in itself prejudice.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Well, the same argument would apply in those cases, wouldn't it? If whoever was in charge of deciding who was going to direct Jurassic World deliberately made the choice to consider men, and exclude women because they're women, I think that's misguided, too. No reason a woman couldn't direct a kick-ass dinosaur movie.

But ultimately, it's their art and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

Do you feel the same about museums that feature women artists only? It's a statement that gets people talking about how women only represent 10-30% of the art. There's no exclusion; men are still dominating the art museum space everywhere else in the world.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/arts/design/the-resurgence-of-women-only-art-shows.html

 

[Slayven]

Man this has really rubbed some people the wrong way. I love it.

Only straight white men can direct, write, act, create and talk about women health issues.

 

[Henkka]

Do you feel the same about museums that feature women artists only? It's a statement that gets people talking about how women only represent 10-30% of the art. There's no exclusion; men are still dominating the art museum space everywhere else in the world.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/arts/design/the-resurgence-of-women-only-art-shows.html

Hmm no, I think that's different. Museums are about specific topics all the time. Like most history museums will feature a lot of men, since they were mostly the ones calling the shots about all the wars and stuff. So having a history museum that specifically focuses on women makes sense. Just like it makes sense to have a female-focused superhero series like Jessica Jones.

A more direct parallel to what I'm saying would be if that museum only hired women.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

A more direct parallel to what I'm saying would be if that museum only hired women.

You jump straight from "a female-led show has all female directors" to "only hiring women"?

 

[4 is a cutie]

Critical reception means very little.
(even in Breaking Bad she was poison and her arc didn't end fast enough)

Yeah because every Breaking Bad fan knows that outside of Krysten it was a fantastic season...

 

[V_Arnold]

I love how any deviation from the "norm" (i.e. overrepresentation of straight white males) is considered problematic and somehow needs justification.

No, it does NOT. The current situation, the current status quo has no justification as well. Yet many just accept it as the norm. Red or blue pill indeed.

 

[SparkleMotion]

Thank God no white males got a job.

 

[oatmeal]

As long as Mimi Leder wasn't taken from THE LEFTOVERS at all, I'm fine with this.

 

[lightskintwin]

You jump straight from "a female-led show has all female directors" to "only hiring women"?

It's disingenuous concern trolling.