How Hollywood's franchise sequels have become catnip for top directors

According to a variety of Web reports, Darren Aronofsky, the gifted filmmaker behind such indie delights as "The Wrestler" and "Requiem for a Dream," has a tough career decision to make. For his next film, should he direct an original script, "The Gangster Squad," about a secret group of L.A. cops who cut all sorts of corners battling mobsters, or should he do the latest installment in Fox's "X-Men" franchise, "Wolverine 2"?

In the old days of Hollywood--meaning five or 10  years ago--Aronofsky's decision would be easy. He'd direct the original story, which would offer far more artistic heft and creative possibilities than a studio sequel. But in Hollywood circa 2010, the rules when it comes to carving out a filmmaking career have all changed. As it stands, Aronofsky is only circling "Wolverine" because he lost out to Zack Snyder in the director derby for Warners' upcoming franchise reboot, "Superman: Man of Steel." In fact, a surprising number of filmmakers who cut their teeth making personal movies are opting for the studio sequels.

Consider the following. In addition to Aronofsky, who so far is only leaning toward the "Wolverine" project: Brad Bird, who directed the sparklingly original Pixar films "Ratatouille" and "The Incredibles," is over at Paramount, trying to figure out how to make Tom Cruise cool again in "Mission: Impossible 4."

Marc Webb, who did the surprise indie delight "(500) Days of Summer," is at Sony, preparing to make the fourth installment in the studio's "Spider-Man" series.

Paul Weitz, who has directed such oddball, satiric films as "American Dreamz" and "In Good Company," is at Universal, readying the launch this Christmas of "Little Fockers," the third film in studio's long-running comedy franchise.  

And Tony Gilroy, who launched his directing career with the cerebral Oscar-nominated drama "Michael Clayton," is also at Universal, having signed on to ramp up "The Bourne Legacy," the fourth film in the studio's successful spy thriller series.

What's going on here? In short, two words: Christopher Nolan. It used to be that you had to choose between street cred or studio moola. But Nolan, thanks to the runaway critical and commercial success of "The Dark Knight" and "Batman Begins," has been able to have his cake and eat it too. If you talk to agents who represent top directors, they all say that Nolan has become the role model for most of their clients, having retained his artistic integrity while still reaping the benefits of seeing his films promoted by a huge studio marketing machine.

So, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. "If these guys think they can make a big studio film without looking like whores or compromising their vision, they are all pretty eager to jump at the chance," says one agent who reps a number of top filmmakers. "The sad truth is that there isn't much of an indie marketplace anymore, so it's not like they have a lot of other places to go. At a studio, you get all sorts of creative resources, you can attract a top cast and still have a surprising amount of freedom."

That's the biggest shift of all. Until recently, studios keep most of their franchises on a tight leash. If you were a filmmaker, you had to serve the material. But especially at Warners, which under Jeff Robinov has become a director-driven studio, and Sony, which has given its filmmakers a lot of artistic leeway, directors are thriving, enjoying little or no studio interference. Insiders assume that Bird only took the "Mission: Impossible 4" job at Paramount after getting assurances from producer J.J. Abrams that he wouldn't end up like John Woo, who got the bum's rush and was unceremoniously locked out of the editing room after shooting "Mission: Impossible II."      

It remains to be seen whether Fox, which has a reputation for preferring to work with more malleable filmmakers, will mesh with Aronofsky, who has a reputation for bringing his movies in on budget but fiercely protecting his independence. But everywhere you look, filmmakers have put all those original stories on hold while they see what they can do to breathe new life into aging studio franchises. Whether it's inspired by a new form of careerism or a lack of other compelling choices, a whole generation of gifted directors is now focusing on piloting the jumbo jets of the movie business. 

Photo: Darren Aronofsky at a news conference for the film "Black Swan" at the Toronto International Film Festival. Credit: Mike Cassese / Reuters

Comments

[Ike]

And Nolan's success with Batman allowed him to make an expensive passion project, in Inception. Wouldn't doubt Aronofsky is thinking the same thing. Big fan of his indie work, but if he wants to get another project like The Fountain financed, he needs a commercial hit.

[Hodges]

great read. wonder how long this trend will last?

[Brett]

True observations. Aronofsky is a critical darling but not much of a box office draw. He's long been "attached" to a "Robocop" reboot that's never gotten off the ground. He has a tangential connection to the comics world ("The Fountain" was also rendered as a graphic novel). If he makes a "Wolverine" film that approximates the storytelling that Nolan displayed in his two "Batman" films, Aronofsky could parlay that into a relationship with Fox similar to Nolan's current relationship with Warner Brothers.

[mike]

just remember, these artistic-indie minded directors will be successful so long as they keep their tastes and the film from going too much their way. audiences dont want arthouse mainstream movies. they want mainstream movies with a touch of the arthouse.

[Jon]

This is SO not a new trend.

Directors with staying power often flit back and forth between studio and more personal fare. It's an obvious combination of career savvy and the ultimate challenge - how to martial the forces of a studio and launch (or re-launch, as is the case with Aronofsky and Wolverine II) a valuable franchise, not to mention the good old fashioned lure of the buck. Directors often get backend points in addition to the residuals from DVD sales, broadcast and sequels. Knock it outta the ballpark and that studio will bankroll your personal vision (hello, Inception).

See Steven Soderbergh for a perfect example of a director successfully segueing between big budget tentpoles (the Oceans franchise) and indie offerings (Bubble, Che). The ultimate director can do all the above and pull off directing TV as well (Scorsese, David Lynch), also a former Hollywood taboo.

[dwayne o]

meh. "new form of careerism"=money.

Writing this article w/out mentioning that he's coming off an arthouse pic - BLACK SWAN - is irresponsible and robs this piece of context.

[Kelsey]

Good read and interesting, but just a note that Alfonso Cuaron directed the third Harry Potter installment, when he was still basking in the Y Tu Mama Tambien spotlight, a full year before Batman Begins was released. In fact, when I saw the headline, Cuaron was the name that first came to mind.

And as much as I loathe Twilight and everything is stands for (which isn't much), I'm also surprised that you left out Bill Condon, who's directing Breaking Dawn.

[nono]

I continue to fail to see how Mr. Nolan is a gifted storyteller (never mind directing and managing a large crew and a large budget - where he clearly excels in). Here in graduate film school my peers exploded with praise on Facebook about the genius of Inception and young students frequently mention The Dark Knight as a work to emulate. There is no concern or interest for the craft of the masters of the past. But that is understandable. So it is a great disappointment to see that top directors with a clear artistic vision, who take on bold subject matters, and who CAN tell a story with the camera and honest dialogue must look at Mr. Nolan as a leading exemplar.