Production Weekly, a trade magazine we shouldn’t forget, has THE LOOKOUT director Scott Frank attached to GENESIS: APES, 20th Century Fox’s attempts to revive the four decade old franchise.
Solid, solid, choice. Actually he’s better than that, he is a great choice. THE LOOKOUT is a stunning thriller, this is a hungry director who will have the enthusiasm to move this series forward. This is a director without ego, he is not a Brett Ratner or hell, even a Tim Burton who had too much of his own personal vision to bring to this series.
He may be inexperienced but hell, Chris Nolan only directed two features before he took on BATMAN BEGINS.
We await some kind of official announcement but it sure looks like things are quickly moving forward on bringing back those damn dirty apes!
source - first showing
via - cinema blend
20/03 
20/03
8 Comments
I find the criticism of Tim Burton to be peculiar. So is is not a good thing for a director to bring his own personal vision to a project? Yes, we all know that his version of “Apes” sucked. However, the reasons for that have very little to do with Tim’s vision. Rather I feel that his remake was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the original “Apes” cannon. Just as this remake is completely unnecessary and will add nothing to the series. I would argue that it is a fatal lack of vision that is killing the film industry right now. This lack of vision is exemplified by pointless remakes like “Genesis: Apes.”
No, I do love directors who can bring their own vision to to the table, absolutely. And I hope Scott Frank, if he had has indeed got the job here will do just that.
What I meant was, Tim Burton had too much TIM BURTON, for a PLANET OF THE APES movie to work. Just like he had too much Tim Burton present for BATMAN RETURNS to be a BATMAN movie.
Meaning Tim Burton’s personal vision is not necessarily the right vision for the franchise.
Planet of the Apes is the most un Tim Burtony film he’s done. The fault lies in the script rather than his vision. Visually and stylistically, the film is absolutely stunning.
And Tim Burton or not, Batman Returns still remains the greatest Batman film.
Each film must stand on it’s own merits as an entertainment and a work of art. One should never judge the quality of film on how well it fits into a studio’s marketing campaign. We need only look at the miserable Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies to see where corporate group think leads to. I would rather have one great or even mediocre film made by Tim Burton than have to suffer through a hundred films made by corporate stooges like McG, Brett Ratner,Zach Snyder and Francis Lawrence.
‘The Lookout’ was sick, but Planet of the Apes, as a franchise, has generally been rubbish in all of it’s various incarnations in my opinion.
And Z, I’m sure you’ll agree that corporate stooges, love them or loathe them, account for EASILY 75% of Hollywood’s output. The unfortunate truth is that if you go and watch a film in Cineworld or an Odeon these days you are doing nothing but funding the corporate mentality that you seem to be rallying against. Corporate stooges too have their own personal vision, the only difference is that they tend to have a vision that ties in with a corresponding vision held by the majors. And more often than not that vision involves making a lot of money…
Is Tim Burton not a prime example of that? Every one of us can recognise a Burton film within 30 seconds, but he’s pretty studio friendly is he not? Burton must have made more money for Hollywood than most directors.
… and precisely because his films are more marketable than most!
Burton is studio friendly in the way that Hitchcock was studio friendly. He is able to get his films made his way. Largely because of his talent, but also because he stays away from political issues and other hot button topics. What I object to is these young directors who seem more like project managers than filmmakers. The majority of studio product I choose not to see because it is quite simply beneath contempt.
I agree with you on your last point certainly. I feel sorry for people who just don’t have access to independent, art-house or foriegn film because os little of it gets the kind of exhibiton deal that would put it in somewhere like Cineworld or Odeon. For those who love film and want to push their boundaries there’s no problem - the world cinema section in any HMV is only 10-20 feet away from the section where they buy their blockbusters from - but seeing that kind of content in a cinema is a whole different thing.
I would love to say that I spend more time in the Showroom cinema in Sheffield and the Cornerhouse in Manchester than I do in my local Cineworld but it’s simply not true. In any case, arthouses are forced to take on the big blockbusters at some point just to make some money.
As for visionary directors; the general public are feeding on scraps, and it’s not much better for those of us that know where to look. We’ll always be the minority in the face of the Hollywood product and the people that demand it. If Cineworld and Odeon took on more independent and foreign film, film that actually showcases individuality, than maybe in time things would change and people could develop a stronger diversity in taste for what they go to see on a Wednesday or Saturday night. Until that happens it’s going to be the same old grind for the film enthusiasts.
On a different and slightly more childish note; perhaps if Burton really wanted to be considered more than a cash cow he should consider directing the odd film without borrowing the talents of his ‘heart-throb’ muse Johnny Depp? I’m sure such a unthinkable act would really reveal how studio-friendly he is.