August 3, 2016 at 1:51AM
Reasoning behind giving indie directors 100 million+ budget films
So I've noticed a relatively recent trend going on where Hollywood will just flat out hand an indie/tv/small budget director a blockbuster franchise with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Examples include Colin Trevorrow who directed Sundance favorite Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) which cost $750K, then after that helms $150 million juggernaut Jurassic World, Jordan Vogt-Roberts who is directing the upcoming Kong: Skull Island (2017) despite just making one indie film before (Kings of Summer (2014)) and even the Russo brothers who were doing TV comedies before directing Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014). Don't get me wrong, this is a fantastic precedent to be setting but wouldn't it make more sense for Hollywood to hand these hundred million dollar projects to directors who are more experienced at big budget action flicks in order to minimize the risk of failure?