The required talent to make a good film isn’t proportional to how easy that film is to make.
Armageddon. That was a simple story. You didn’t need rocket science to film it (though it would have helped a bit when they wrote it). So, apparently, any simple director would be able to make a good film out of it. But, oops!
The problem is, any simple concept that involves many pieces is not simple. 110 minutes of film always require putting many pieces together, even if they are toy building blocks. If you give that task to a good director, they will make a good film out of it, and in less time than they would need for a complex film. If you give it to a bad director, they will do a bad film, regardless of the time spent.
Talent and experience are like sight. If you haven’t got them, you are as unable to spot the Moon than to spot Betelgeuse. It doesn’t matter if the Moon is so big and bright that, hey, anyone should be able to see it. Or like a good pair of legs. Running 100 meters is simpler than running 42 kilometers, but without a good pair of legs, you won’t be fast in any case.
Of course, bad directors may train and improve themselves until they are up to the task. Generally, though, they should be doing it with smaller budgets. Yet, Hollywood manages to flood us with lots of special effects films that promise a lot but end in a wasted ticket and a two hours hole in your memory.
Viewed 2 times |
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
