Will Josh Trank direct another film?
I hope so.
Seems a likable enough fella with some amount of talent. Question should rather be, will Josh Trank want to direct another film after what he went trough?
>>63243683
>that face
>likable enough fella
L.O.L
>>63243683
Josh, pls
he got keked out of doing a star wars movie
>>63243683
>after what he went through
You mean making several shitty movies?
>>63243987
But he's only made two movies.
>>63244015
yup
>>63244026
Several usually means more than two
>>63243584
I hope so !!!
>>63243584
I can't believe he almost had a Star Wars movie in the pipeline. Seriously, how do you ruin your career that quickly?
>>63243584
>film
he's a flick-er
I know he wants to blame FF all on Fox, but I'm sure they both were at fault. Lucasfilm wouldn't have fired him so early if it really was all the studio's fault.
he probably won't be making giant movies but he'll come back with the indies which is probably a good thing
No, the sad reality is he won't.
>>63247090
If a studio/financier will trust him with 10 million.
His name is sludge now. I'm sure it's been battered through out the industry. Sure Simon Kinberg says kind things about him but after the press leaves and when he shifts into his true self, he shits all over Trank, hating him for making a stinker in his producerography.
My bet is this guy will just not bother with the film industry anymore and go back to editing shit, possibly making a short that jumps into his brain, here and there.
I have no problem with him. He seems like a skilled filmmaker, he just has some kind of fucked up personal drug / alcohol problem and he wasn't ready for the big leagues. Not sure why he gets blamed for Fantastic 4% when the studio hired him to do his thing and then pussied out and tried to warp it into the Avengers. I'd rather have Trank's original weirdo movie than more generic capeshit.
>>63249077
Because the studio was worried that a more odd film that doesn't go down the typical beaten path might have tanked.
So they wanted something more akin to the genre.
That was the issue: either make something that's of the norm or take the risk. You can't have both.
Trank though was crazy and a super sick on set. Acted like a child during and after release. No professional. He Tranked it.
>>63248990
You can really get away with a lot in Hollywood as soon as you've got your foot in the door. Look at how Shayamalamadingdong got away with making pure crap that lost tons of money.
Badically you can keep making movies after a flop if you're already a directorjust don't insult the jews like Mel did or be a woman that's not Sofia Coppola lel
>>63249168
Lady in the Water was his only money loser.
Plus he works for the studio.
>>63249129
I really could care less about professionalism when execs are fucking with your art. Trank wins any day over cookie cutter yes men like Whedon or any of the other capeshitters. He made his movie and when merchandising suits messed with it he said, "Fine if you want garbage then make garbage, I'm gonna go get drunk." He'll never work again but at least he didn't compromise and water his vision down.
>>63249399
He's not fucking Bergman. He's a guy who made one movie that succeeded despite gimmick.
His vision n seemed cool but the execution was awful. Looking at the first forty minutes, it seemed like his work. Too bad it was little character development and a whole lot of set up.
Even normies felt like it was all Act 1.
