[LAEM] Director?

[Hexon.Arq]

Hmm, Robert Rodriguez? Can you say "Shinji Ikari = Ike Sanchez?" J/K. I love Mr. Rodriguez's work minus the Spy Kids films, but there's a difference between a great director and the right director. El Mariachi series was an outstanding set of films, but would you say they're texturally anywhere near Evangelion? What's I'm afraid of is a director who puts too much emphasis on style; those films kicked ass, but that's about all they did for me, personally, and that's good because that was his aim. I like his style, but it seems that style is all we really have to choose from these days.

If this were a Trigun movie, I'd scream "YES" to Rodriguez at the top of my lungs, though.

So far, Ridley Scott has been my favorite suggestion, though his presence on THE LIST is something that somehow seems unlikely to me. BTW, what the hell is that guy up to?...

Other people who are, in my stuffy opinion, no-no's (They aren't necessarily bad directors, but based on what seems to be desired, their approaches are definitely innapropriate): Les Wiseman (Underworld), Stephen Somers (The Mummy, Van Helsing),.... that's all I can think of for now.

[MongolSquad]

Ang Lee wouldn;t be half bad. I've seen him work behind the scenes, he puts an incredible amount of energy, dedication and work into The Hulk. Did you know he was model for all the motion capture work on the Hulk?

[Phaze]

Gainax is supposed to be a part of this project right? Shouldn't someone from Gainax be the director?

[Crazyman42]

Gainax is supposed to be a part of this project right? Shouldn't someone from Gainax be the director?

That would be thinking.

I don't like Ang Lee that much to be honest, I just don't think he puts enough thought into his work.

oh John Woo is a definit who. What about Gore Verbinski though? He did an amzing job capturing the directing style in The Ring and then it completly changed for Pirates. That guy is fucking devoted.

[Hexon.Arq]

All Mr. Verbinski basically had to do for The Ring was copy Ringu from slightly different angles, make it all blue, and add spooky noise. I would never consider The Ring to be an outstanding credit; only about 20% was different from the original, including the Nine Inch Nails-inspired remake of the video. It's hard to gauge his ability for this project based on Pirates, because that was an over-the-top action comedy that did really well what it was supposed to, but did something completely different nonetheless. It was a great movie, but not really comparable in any perceivable way, at least not for me right now. An anime project for him: Inuyasha. Besides, I think he's busy working on the next Pirates movie, and probably another one after that.

Ang Lee: ZzZzZz. I don't intend to be mean, but I don't consider myself to be someone with A.D.D., and I've yet to see something from him that I can stay fully alert for.

And as for the "someone from Gainax" comment, the question is still, "Who?"

[houtaru]

Dude, you have awsome taste, though I dissagree with the Rodriguez and the Wachowski Bros. The first Matrix was ingenous and I loved Rodriguez's El Marchi series ( Not Spy Kids!) I like Alfonso Curon, but I hate all the Hp movies period. I mean THE FOURTH ONE IS BEING DIRECTED BY THE GUY WHO DID MONA LISA SMILE!

I liked The Matrix, but it really wasn't character based was it? That's the type of director we need. Besides the sequels were so awful I thought the directors just gave up. But I have a feeling Gainax will choose them. The only Rodriguez movie I've seen is Deperado, and he just doesn't seem right for Eva. If Curon isn't doing the fourth HP, then it seems he doesn't like doing movie series at all, so I wouldn't choose him now, although I think he's a good director. John Woo isn't really good at character so I don't like him for an Eva movie.

What about Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider)? He would defintely focus on character and acting and not on special effects. This isn't really his genre, but I'm just dreaming. He might be interested. (I know, I doubt it, but there's hope).

What about Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, New Batman movie)? I'd have to see the new Batman movie but he could be good. He is good at character and mood.

The pickings are slim here for directors I think. I don't believe that this movie will get off the ground for at least five years. They won't even choose a director for at least four. Movies, espeically one of this magnitude, take forever to plan.

My favorite choice for now is David Fincher. Ridley Scott close second. I would want whatever director chosen to do the whole series. I think that's important.

[Crazyman42]

I do agree with you 100% with the character, that I think is what will make this a strong movie. This might bring some people back to Sam Raimi

Micheal Mann? Eh, he's ok, not great. Good idea though, I still agree that either Ridley Scott or Sam Raimi would be the best.

I've never seen a Christofer Nolan movie.

I've been also thinking about Steven Soderberg. I love his movies, but I don't think this is his type of movie. Though the way he had character in Ocean's Eleven was well done.

[Hunter21]

Here is a good but lesser known director- Alex Proyas. He is the current director of "I, Robot" so he has good experience with FX. He also is the director of "The Crow" and "Dark City" along with a lot of lesser known/indie films that are very character driven. He seems to have the necessary skills needed for a project like this, and based on his previous work could easily handle the pyscological aspects EVA.

[The Eva Monkey]

I've seen the Wachoski Brothers' first film "Bound", and it was one of those "people trying to out-smart each other" kind of movies. It was a severe dissapointment. The only good thing about it was that it had the guy who played Cypher in The Matrix.

[Hexon.Arq]

I just saw I, Robot. And, ah, no. True, most of the folly was due to a terrible script, but the directorial style seemed to be that of the standard, "modern hollywood sweep of something cool." As memorable as The Crow and Dark City are, they are undeniably oddball movies. A degree of slickness on that level might choke out those very psychological aspects (the great thing about Eva is that the psychological aspects are interwoven into ordinary and casual interaction, rather than arsty brooding). But in any case, I believe that the most recent project is always the best indicator, and with respect to I, Robot, sweeping angle CG fest is what I'd say you could expect.

[Hunter21]

Hexon- I pointed out "I,Robot" in terms of FX not story, the movie was created to be a typical blow them up movie, and a lot of directors do these to get money for other pet projects (like I said before look at some of his other movies(www.imdb.com is a good area to start)), and since he is also a producer he needs the money.

Also "undeniably oddball movies"- you just described how most people would classify EVA.

[Hexon.Arq]

Different standards of oddity, I suppose? It depends on how the story is treated; initially, there might not be anything oddball about it.

And regardless of what the movie was created to be, it still fell into the now pregnant lot of visually-overdone movies. If it had been a masterpiece, it would still have the same eye-catching/eye-rolling appearance. Of course, if it had been a masterpiece, there would not be so much stigma associated with the extent to which it utilized effects. I'm not saying that cool shots of action scenes automatically make bad movies, but there is a definite pattern forming. It's gotten to the point where I can tell if a film will be bad simply by looking at the trailer. I really want to be fooled, but it's been so long since I've been really curious about a film.

This level of predictability is not a good thing. More importantly I can recall very few examples of filmmakers not falling subject to these trends while still making something visually mind-blowing. (I'm mostly talking about the last four years or so; before that was a different story.) Is it just a coincidence that bad scripts get the best pampering? Is there a rule of sacrifice? What is it? You know, just because you can do something with a computer doesn't mean you have to. What's with all these crazy camera movements? They look like friggin' cartoons! Why can't you just have a spectacular CG image and treat it like a real object in 3D space? Film it like you would twenty years ago, man! Put me IN the movie!

Sorry, it's just been a bad day for me.

[aranami]

What about Tim Burton. He makes good movies that are dark.

[Hexon.Arq]

Tim Burton: that depends. Do you want to wait? Right now he's doing Wonka with Depp. I don't know how far along they are, but it might take a while.

I would never call Tim Burton's movies "dark". In fact, I think they're downright chipper. The reason Tim is seen as a dark director is because of his aesthetic style and love for absurdity. He has a dark sese of humor, and often utilizes a decidedly gothic visual style, but it's a completely different form of darkness.

And now, a little sidenote: I saw I, Robot again. And I saw Spiderman 2 again. The former is notnearly as bad as I thought it was the first time, and anyone who says that the latter was a better film obviously has some issues. Granted, neither was a masterpiece, but the gap in reviews and content thereof is a complete mystery to me. I, Robot had a much better script than Spiderman, and infinitely better acting (I feel that's not saying much). I just wanted to clarify because I felt a little bad for not giving IR its due credit. It was't great, but it was better that you should probably expect from an American summer film. My qualm is that I think it still falls into the visually overdone, slightly simple category. It's more about a style that I've gotten tired of.

What I'd like to stress is how bad Spiderman 2 was.[/i]

[Alien Guy]

I, Robot, you mean I, CGI. I hope what ever director the get for Evangelion is a director who likes to experiment with different kinds of FX, and not jump straight to CGI.

[Hexon.Arq]

I recall Mr. Taylor saying that the Weta staff would opt for more diverse techniques like scale models before going directly to CG. The director search team might even be taking that into consideration.

[Karma Burn]

I'll have to go with Spielberg, Burton or Raimi. More on the Raimi because if he's directing then Bruce Campbell will be in it! I can see Campbell as Fuyutsuki-esque character. It would sure as hell give that character more of a sarcastic punch, which I think Anno tried to hint towards during the anime. Even if Campbell just camoed it would be amazing.

[EVA-01X]

And speaking of Directors...... ADV has confirmed that they have narrowed it down to about 7 or 8 directors, all of them A-List it seems.
http://forums.trivialbeing.net/index.php?act=ST&f=17&t=1181

[Hexon.Arq]

No to Raimi. Big, fat 'NO' to Raimi. I don't trust him. This is the man of Evil Dead fame. He tried to tell a great big joke with Spider-Man 2 and nobody got it. If you thought SM2 was a deep and heart-felt film, you didn't get it. The guy's got a sick side people don't catch.

Burton. I'm a big fan of his aesthetic, but... he'll screw it up somehow. An Evangelion with a signature fairytale Burton edge would be amazing, (especially considering the "mother-haunted-monster" concept), and I'd like to see his emphasis on Shinji, who can be interpreted as a very Burtonesque character. But I don't think he'd be willing to go that far with his own style, and the result might have the same odds of being ruined as his... last... adaptation. I just can't get Planet of the Apes out of my head. God help me, I've tried. Still loking forward to the Wonka movie, though.

Did I say something about Spielberg already? Probably. I really liked Jurassic Park, but after I read the book, I liked the movie a whole lot less. The sequel was horrible. Spielberg's movies lose credibility simply by virtue of the fact that he is making them. He's the most "A-list" you can get, and that can backfire in a harsh way. He's a loose cannon when it comes to adaptation films; what you may be imagining and looking forward to with all the zeal of a child awaiting Christmas morn can be easily lost in a film that bears an unpredictably small amount of semblance to your dream.

Besides, all three of these are busy.

[The Eva Monkey]

I think their use of the term A-List is a bit liberal. Basically, if you've made a major motion picture, you're A-List, to them.

Seven or eight directors could mean that there's only that many that have said "Sure, I'm interested".

People would probably label someone like Joel Schumacher as A-List. But lets not forget the horrible monstrosity that is Batman and Robin.