Scott Mendelson's Open Salon Blog

The Dark Knight didn't really inspire grim blockbusters.

Mon, 21 May 2012 14:05:58 -0400

I've discussed this a few times over the years, so while debunking the concept in question I must accept guilt for believing it uncritically on prior occasions. If you've been reading reviews and general commentary for The Avengers, you've probably read at least a few pundits talk about how Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a welcome respite from the grim/gritty blockbusters that were born from the massive success of Chris Nolan's Batman movies (the second of which is still falsely held up as a NeoCon propaganda fantasy). It's an easy sell, as the bright, colorful, and larger-than-life super-heroics found in The Avengers are worlds away from the street-level fights and chases in the Nolan-verse. But in the seven years since Batman Begins debuted, where exactly are all of these grim/gritty blockbusters that Nolan is constantly credited with inspiring? In short, they basically don't exist. Whether it be comic book films or unrelated fantasy blockbusters, the films that soared highest are still the biggest, most colorful, most larger-than-life, and arguably the most 'fun'. Four years after The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan's second Batman epic remains not a template for blockbuster success but somewhat of an anomaly.

First of all, despite conventional wisdom, Batman Begins isn't nearly as dark and somber as you've been told. In the run-up to its release, Chris Nolan mentioned that he was crafting an action-adventure appropriate for twelve-year old boys, and that's pretty much how it played. It's quite terrific, and it tells its story with an uncommon intelligence and empathy that makes it function as truly all-ages entertainment. But in terms of onscreen violence and gloomy characters/settings, Batman Begins is really not that much worse than a conventional comic book film. The only moment of violence that truly disturbs is the onscreen murder of Bruce's parents, mostly because of how low-key and frighteningly plausible it is. The rest of the violence consists of occasionally brutal beatings administered by Batman and the occasional bloodless shooting death (for what it's worth, it actually has a lower onscreen body count than Batman, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin). There are moments of PG-13 intensity and arguably the Scarecrow-enhanced menaces are a little scary for younger kids. But Batman Begins is at its core a robust and energetic action drama that thrives on the optimistic idea that a few morally decent people (Wayne, Dawes, and Gordon) can make a real positive difference. I would argue that The Dark Knight is indeed gloomy and 'dark' because of how brutally it undercuts that somewhat simplistic ideology. But that merely makes it one of several blockbuster sequels (The Matrix Revolutions, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, The Empire Strikes Back, etc) that thrive on exposing the dark underbelly of the somewhat simple hero's journey from its respective predecessor. Aside from the usual 'this situation is more complicated and morally gray than I first realized' arc, the one element that sticks out in The Dark Knight is its climax, where regular civilians are tasked with choosing whether or not to murder other civilians in order to save their own lives and the lives of their family members. Whenever my kids eventually see the movie, *that's* the part I'm going to have the hardest time discussing.

And let's examine for a moment the various blockbusters that followed in the path of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Strictly in terms of comic book adaptations, the only post-Dark Knight comic book movie that qualifies as 'dark' would be X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which was always going to go that route. The Punisher: War Zone is obscenely violent, but it's more of a 'fun' and brightly-lit gore cartoon than a serious-minded drama. Iron Man 2 takes a character arc from Batman Returns (I must confront and destroy villains that represent that which I might become!) with the narrative structure and kid-friendly tone of Batman Forever. Watchmen was going to happen some day no matter what, and its first trailer actually debuted with The Dark Knight. You could argue that Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns, which came out after Batman Begins, were darker and more introspectively somber than the series norm, but neither can blame Nolan's success for the tone. Superman Returns was in production as Batman Begins was entering theaters while Spider-Man 3's 'the darkness within' subplot was due to Marvel forcing Sam Raimi to include fan-favorite Venom. None of the several comic book films of summer 2011 were 'dark', in fact Thor and Captain America went out of their way to embrace the gee-whiz adventure aspect of comic book storytelling (Thor is so kid-friendly I'd consider showing it to my four-year old if I thought she'd get anything out of it). X-Men: First Class is no more or less morose than the darker portions of Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner's respective X-Men pictures. X-Men: First Class does do the same thing right that Nolan did, which is tell a genre story (in this case, a 1960s Cold War spy caper) within the confines of an established comic universe, but that's not what everyone is complaining about.

I'd argue that of the various comic book films over the last seven years, only Green Lantern and Iron Man seem unduly influenced by the Nolan Batman pictures. Martin Campbell attempts to balance larger-than-life outer-space heroics with character introspection and a horror film sensibility, to very very mixed results. The irony of course is that Green Lantern was riffing on Iron Man which in turn was riffing on Batman Begins. Jon Favreau's Iron Man, released just two months before The Dark Knight, was clearly playing from the Batman Begins playbook (its been jokingly argued that they are the exact same movie). It sets its comic book tale in a very realistic modern-day setting and has its protagonist grapple with very real social and political issues as he takes his heroic journey. Hell, I'd argue that the second-act climax, where Iron Man saves refugees and takes revenge on his former captors, is the most unpleasantly violent sequence I've ever seen in a PG-13 comic book film (not only does Iron Man kill countless people, but the scenes proceeding his arrival show civilian murders-galore and entire families being massacred just offscreen) and worse than any of The Joker's antics in The Dark Knight.

We've heard and read the dark/gritty cliche tossed around to explain The Amazing Spider-Man, but going somewhat darker and more realistic was the only place left to take that series after the gee-whiz 1960s-style adventure of the Sam Raimi trilogy. So among the various comic book movies that have been released since 2005, really only Green Lantern and Iron Man can be considered 'inspired' by the Nolan Batman films, and both of them take more from Batman Begins than The Dark Knight. Even looking at general summer blockbusters over the last few years, the big movies were the bright and cheerful Star Trek, the often-campy Transformers trilogy (which went uber-violent in the last hour of Dark of the Moon, but I digress), the sweepingly allegorical Avatar, the brainy Inception (which due to its dream motif had almost no real violence), the PG-rated cotton-candy colored Alice In Wonderland, and the admittedly dark and violent literary franchises that are Twilight, The Hunger Games, and Harry Potter. There is no real evidence, aside from an unseen Amazing Spider-Man and promises that Man of Steel will be 'real' or 'down to Earth' that Nolan's Batman films, especially The Dark Knight, have influenced the modern comic book film or even the modern blockbuster when it comes to tone, violence, or intensity. The comic book films over the last few years have been bright, colorful, larger-than-life, and often out-of-this-world. And looking at the non-comic book blockbusters, they generally have been too. Four years after The Dark Knight, the modern would-be blockbuster still makes a concerted effort to be *fun*.

Scott Mendelson

Why's Rihanna in Battleship instead of a minority actress?

Tue, 15 May 2012 13:05:14 -0400

I am not the first person to bring this up. Heck, Samuel L. Jackson went on a mini-tirade about this a decade ago, regards to male actors. But in a day-and-age where meaty roles for black actresses are incredibly scarce, especially in big-budget studio films, it has to be a little grating for the many underemployed African American actresses to see one of the bigger female-minority roles in a major summer tent-pole this year going to not a trained thespian, but a media-friendly musician of thus-far unknown acting capabilities. Rihanna (full name: Robyn Rihanna Fenty) may indeed have the chops to convincingly play battle-ready Petty Officer Raikes who helps Taylor Kitsch fend off an alien invasion in Peter Berg's Battleship. But one has to ask why a popular musician with absolutely no acting experience whatsoever got the prime gig ahead of any number of African American actresses who have struggled with the glass ceiling that exists in the industry.

For a list of actresses that could have used the exposure, just check out the roster for any Tyler Perry film. Pundits and critics may scowl, but Perry is the only writer/director who consistently writes meaty dramatic and/or comedic roles for African American actresses, so it's no wonder that the best of them often find themselves on his call-sheet. The likes of Sanna Lathan, Zoe Kravitz, Naturi Naughton, Tika Sumpter, Tessa Thompson, Meagan Good, Monique Coleman, or (my personal pick) Keke Palmer all could have filled the bill. And that's not counting the likes of Thandie Newton, Kerry Washington, or Sharon Leal who have the chops to rise above the seemingly silly source material but would arguably struggle to convincingly play a 20-year old Navy officer. But even Perry has stumbled in this sense from time to time, casting Janet Jackson in three of his projects (she was the weakest actress in both Why Did I Get Married? films as well as the weak link in For Colored Girls), and he is allegedly casting tabloid/reality starlet Kim Kardashian in a small role in The Marriage Counselor. This isn't even a case like Will Smith, who toiled in several low-profile projects (Six Degrees of Separation, Where the Day Takes You) that honed his acting abilities while spending six years on a popular sitcom before being cast in a starring role in Michael Bay's Bad Boys. This is a well-regarded musician (I don't follow music, but people who do assure me she's the real thing) who has been given a plum role in a major action franchise either because someone at Universal thought her popularity could put butts in the seats or because those involved in casting didn't actually know of any other black actresses who might fill the role.

This isn't a problem that only affects actresses of color, but when roles for this specific demographic are so scarce, it only sticks out more when a major opportunity is given not to a trained actress but to a media-friendly musician who seems to be doing just fine in her 'day job'. In fact, when you look at a list of minority actresses who are considered 'stars' or achieved cross-over mainstream success, a weirdly large number of them (Queen Latifah, Jennifer Hudson, Janet Jackson, Beyonce Knowles, Whitney Houston, Jennifer Lopez, etc) either started out as musicians or are primarily known for their musical careers. It's hard enough for any working actor to break out among the thousands of struggling wanna-be stars in Hollywood, harder still for actors who aren't of the white/male demographic. But for females who aren't Caucasian, it seems that it's easier to achieve mainstream movie stardom by winning a Grammy or two before you even try to win an Oscar. For the record, Rihanna is not to blame for this industry-wide pattern, and anyone in her shoes would be foolish to turn down such an opportunity. But I cannot help but wonder if the reason she got the gig is because director Peter Berg (who I'm generally a fan of) couldn't think of any actual black actresses who met the physical criteria for the role and didn't bother to actually look for any. A starring role in a likely worldwide smash like Battleship is the opportunity of a lifetime for any fledgling actress, especially one from a racial minority. It's a shame the role didn't actually go to an actress.

Scott Mendelson

The Avengers's debut is even more impressive than you think.

Mon, 7 May 2012 12:05:31 -0400

Ten years ago, Spider-Man shocked the industry by grossing more than $100 million in a single weekend. Five years ago, Spider-Man 3 broke the $150 million weekend barrier. This weekend, The Avengers has blown through the $200 million barrier, delivering a record opening weekend of $207.1 million in high style. Yes, the number is beyond huge, besting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II by $38 million. But the total weekend number only tells part of the story. Arguably as important as the massive three-day figure is the manner in which it was earned. First of all, The Avengers is the first film in modern times (going back to Batman 23 years ago) to break the opening weekend record without shattering the opening day record. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II still holds the record for the biggest single day, biggest opening day, and biggest Friday with $91 million. The Avengers earned a massive $80 million on its first Friday, good for the second-highest single day of all time. But for the last several years, massive opening weekends of this nature have been predicated on overly front-loaded opening days, in turn predicated on frontloaded midnight showings. Harry Potter 7.2 made $43 million at midnight alone, or 25% of its $169 weekend total. The Hunger Games did 12% of its $152 million debut at midnight. Twilight Saga: New Moon did 18% of its $142 million debut at midnight alone. The Avengers did just 9% of its gross, or $18.7 million, at midnight. This means that the film played obscenely well all weekend, not just on opening day for frenzied fans.

In terms of single-day records, The Avengers actually did break one Friday record, as it made $61 million not-counting midnight screenings, crushing the $49 million 'regular business hours' Friday grosses of Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II. It handedly broke both the Saturday and Sunday records by wide margins. The Avengers actually made more on Saturday ($69 million) and it did during 'normal business hours' on Friday, besting Spider-Man 3's $51 million Saturday record. And while final figures could change, The Avengers grossed $59 million on Sunday, crushing the $43 million earned by The Dark Knight on its first Sunday. The Avengers did not have a sub-2.0x weekend multiplier like the last Harry Potter film, or the barely-2.0x multiplier like the last couple Twilight films, and The Hunger Games. The Avengers pulled a rock-solid 2.57x weekend multiplier. That's the kind of consistency you rarely find with big opening weekends, let alone monstrous record-setters like this. The film earned an A+ from Cinemascore, and these numbers bare that out. The picture played 50% over/under 25 years old and 60% male. It earned a surprising 52% of its gross in 3D ticket sales with 8% of that being from IMAX. So yes, even without the 3D bump, it still would have set a new opening weekend record (around $175 million, although theoretical 2D IMAX showings would have had the same 'bump' as 3D IMAX showings). And yes even with inflation factored in, the film sold more tickets over its opening weekend than any other film ever (26.5 million tickets, about 3.5 million more than The Dark Knight). The Avengers played all weekend to packed houses all day and night for audiences of all shapes and sizes. And, if only judging by my Twitter feed, there was lots of repeat business just over the weekend.

I may have token issues with the film in terms of its worth as a piece of art (non-spoiler review and spoiler discussion). But as a big-budget spectacle rooted in characters worth cheering for, the picture absolutely delivers the kind of popcorn entertainment that these kind of films often fail to deliver. Marvel did the groundwork over the last four years, releasing stand-alone films that introduced most of these heroes in their solo adventures, and this was the glorious pay-off. This was the first Marvel film distributed by Disney, as Paramount sold the rights to their Marvel characters to the Mouse House back in 2010. While I may carp about the quality of the marketing materials (mediocre trailers, hilariously photo-shopped posters), they did take the time and money to guarantee curiosity and awareness, while the film's quality was the most potent tool in creating interest outside of the die-hards, as Disney correctly screened the film early and often to create a typhoon of buzz heading into its domestic debut. Opening weekend is usually more about marketing than the quality of the film, but the consistent numbers clearly show that the film's quality was a key component of the marketing campaign. Still, if I may, I'd like to take a moment to remember the stellar marketing work that Paramount has done with the prior five films, starting with marketing a B-level hero (Iron Man) to a $100 million debut four years ago. They sold Thor despite having little buzz-worthy footage and managed the tricky feat of turning Captain America into a global blockbuster. Disney deserves plenty of credit for this weekend's debut, but let's not let Paramount become the Chris Columbus of Marvel marketing efforts (although Paramount will get their share of Avengers movie too).

Oh yeah, the film continued to burn up the foreign charts too, and the film now has $648 million worldwide, good for the top-grossing worldwide earner of 2012 (it will probably surpass The Hunger Games's domestically within a week, so I was wrong on that count). How high it climbs is a complete mystery at this point. The strong weekend multiplier, the rousing audience reactions, the strong replay value, and the comparative lack of competition over the next month (sorry Battleship... you're officially sunk) leaves the field open for a huge sprint. In twelve days worldwide, it has outgrossed every prior Marvel movie on a worldwide scale outside of the first three Spider-Man films. It outgrossed the domestic totals of The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America in three days. In just three days, it is the 12th-highest grossing comic book film of all-time in America, and will surpass 300 ($210 million), and X2 ($214 million) tomorrow while passing X-Men: The Last Stand ($234 million), Men In Black ($250 million), and Batman ($251 million) by Tuesday or Wednesday. This isn't a guarantee, but if it can hold up and weather what should be a solid debut for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, we *could* see the first $100 million second-weekend and a ten-day total dangerously close to $400 million. Again, it's not just the three-day figure, but the manner in which it was earned. This is no quick-kill blockbuster that dies off after the hardcore fans see it over opening weekend. Even a somewhat healthy 2.5x weekend-to-final gross multiplier gets the film a $517 million domestic total while a 3x multiplier has it flirting with besting Titanic's original theatrical release with $621 million (these pesky 3D reissues make everything more complicated). If it performs like The Dark Knight (3.3x multiplier), it ends with a stunning $683 million. We'll know more next weekend, but for now, this is an incredible weekend performance by a film that was rewarded for delivering exactly what it promised.

For a look at the history of the opening weekend record-breaker, go HERE.

Scott Mendelson

Why I don't care if today's kids know about the Titanic...

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:04:23 -0400

"Oh no!", shouts America. There are kids on Facebook and/or Twitter who didn't realize that James Cameron's Titanic was based on a true story! Obviously this is a prime example of the dumbing-down of America and proof that educational standards in America have hit rock-bottom, and that kids today just don't have an appreciation for history. All of those things may be true, but what I see is less an example of dumbed-down kids than an older generation once again shocked... SHOCKED that today's kids don't care about the same things we care about. First of all, let's presume for a moment that someone didn't extensively surf Facebook or Twitter and find a dozen or so messages that had kids expressing astonishment that Titanic was a real ship that really sank in 1912. Assuming that the examples in question are enough of a sampling to imply that a decent number of kids don't know about early 20th-century passenger vessel sinkings, so what? I'm sure every single one of you who are up-in-arms about this can deliver a five-minute historical report about the sinking of the Lusitania way back in May of 1915.

The sinking of the Titanic is not 'important' so much that it happens to be something that historians and pop-culture pundits are interested in. Be it the irony and hubris involved or the fact that the ship took so long to sink (which gave us plenty of examples of human drama onboard), the Titanic disaster is only 'memorable' because we keep talking about it. In other words, we make fun of kids who think the 1997 Titanic film is a work of 100% fiction even while we fail to acknowledge that the only reason most of us know so much about it is because of the various entertainments based around it. Moreover, it is a perfect example of generational snobbery. We are stunned and amazed that today's kids don't know about an event that happened 100 years ago. Well, let's say you're 30, can you tell me everything of importance that happened 115 years ago (that would be 1882)? We whine about how kids today don't know about World War II, yet how much do most of us really know about World War I (or the already forgotten Korean War)? We whine that 'kids today' don't know their history, when in fact we're pissed because they don't know their history AND our history. Yes in a perfect world every American would be an A+-level AP history student who could write a volume of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader all by themselves. But there is a cultural narcissism at play when we pretend that today's kids are stupid or ill-informed because their historical memories don't stretch back longer than ours.

Moroever it manifests itself when today's kids are scolded for daring to not know about or like the art that was important to a previous generation. You saw the latter at the Grammys when the blogosphere went nuts after a number of tweets were found of kids wondering "Who is that Paul McCartney guy?". How DARE today's kids not know about Beatle-mania and have a sincere and profound appreciation for a popular rock band that split up forty-two years ago. When I was 15, the musicians that were big 42 years prior were uh... Hank Williams, Duke Ellington, and Bing Crosby. I had to look that up. Have I heard of those musicians? Yes, I have. Could I name you more than one or two of their songs off the top of my head? Nope. I know Elvis Presley because he's still kept in the pop-culture, usually as a satirical or mythologized version of himself. I know Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper, and Ritchie Valens because I saw The Buddy Holly Story and La Bamba, and because "American Pie" is one of my favorite songs. Had those three artists not died in a somewhat famous plane crash on February 3rd, 1959, who is to say whether or not they would still be remembered and lionized fifty years later? Will adults my age really insist that our children worship the likes of Madonna, Michael Jackson, or U2 (judging by the last couple seasons of Glee, the answer is sadly 'yes')? Will the kids of today grow up and become outraged that the kids of tomorrow don't worship at the altar of Kanye West, Taylor Swift, or Coldplay?

If I may use this story as a springboard for a related digression (shocker, I know...), it is this generational narcissism that insists that kids today should care about the same stuff that we cared about. It is what fosters endless rehashes of the various 1980s properties that we loved when we were kids, forever convinced that they are superior to whatever is in today's marketplace purely by virtue of our own nostalgia. The older generation always thinks that their music and their books and their movies are superior to the stuff the younger generation enjoys. Moreover, the older generation always thinks that they grew up in more important or superior times. It was this cultural snobbery that led Billy Joel to write the song "We Didn't Start the Fire" back in 1989, after a friend told history-buff Joel that he was growing up in uninteresting time. Yet we the superior ones think nothing of not remembering American history that happened any number of centuries ago while condemning the kids of today for committing the exact same offense.

While a short-fall in historical studies is both an educational problem and arguably a cultural one as well, it's not the be-all/end-all crisis that we might think, provided we (irony alert) remember the recent past. In short, the people that have done the most harm to this country over the last 15 years were not a bunch of dumb kids sitting at the back of class and ignoring their history teachers. They were (politically-subjective rant alert) the alleged cream of the crop, the alleged foreign policy experts who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan without figuring a way out. They were the alleged financial wizards who didn't see a problem with selling trillions of dollars worth of pretend money for glorified gambling. They were a group of fundamentalist zealots who alternate between worshiping a skewed version of Christianity, a somewhat skewed version of the Objectivist teachings of Ayn Rand, and the theocratic anti-tax teachings of the prophet Grover Norquist. And we can't spend a decade basically castigating intelligent/knowledgeable people as 'out-of-touch' elites and holding up seemingly less-intelligent people as 'real Americans', with no less than a major presidential candidate blasting the act of attending college as 'snobbish' and then turn around and attack kids for not being properly educated. We can't spend thirty years systematically attacking and defunding public education and then complain that 'kids today' don't know anything.

Moreover, we as a society have a nasty habit of forgetting really important stuff while obsessing over the trivial or the patronizingly reassuring. We all 'teach' about Helen Keller's struggles to overcome her blindness and deafness, but how often do we hear about her adult years as a 'radical' socialist? We all know Superman's origins, but how many know that his first comic book adventures (going after corrupt factory owners, domestic abusers, etc) were explicitly left-leaning and socially-progressive in nature (god, I hope that's what Man of Steel is about...). We care more that kids don't know about the Titanic sinking than we do that kids AND adults know so little about the actual teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (you know... his overt support of organized labor, his belief that America was going to hell due to its lack of social and economic fairness) or know so little about the founding documents that created this country. Quick... name all ten Bill of Rights.

There are big problems with this country and big problems with its public educational system. And frankly most of them have to do less with the educational desires of today's kids and more to do with the resources we allocate in order to properly educate them and/or turn them into valuable members of a democratic society. But I don't think the (probable) cherry-picking of a dozen or so kids not knowing about a passenger ship that hit and iceberg and sank 100 years ago is all that big of a deal. Maybe the newest historical textbooks don't have that relatively trivial bit of history in there. But there are plenty of far-more important historical tidbits that children should learn about before we start caring about a 100-year old maritime disaster. There may be a dumbing down of America, or perhaps that's in itself a cultural/generational myth designed to make us adults feel inherently superior. But even if kids aren't learning enough about their own history, there's a painfully easy solution to that. It's called a library. Here's the first book I recommend.

Scott Mendelson

9 female directors who should direct a Hunger Games sequel.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:04:47 -0400

The Playlist doesn't break news all that often, merely seeing fit to be a one-stop shop for the movie news that everyone else breaks during the day (I don't mean that as an insult, The Playlist is the site I go to if I only have time to surf one movie news site in a given day), So it's somewhat of a big deal that The Playlist has broke a pretty major story last week, confirming that director Gary Ross will not be back to helm the second and/or third films in the Hunger Games franchise. There have been rumblings all week about contract negotiations, and Ross has now politely passed. The site chalks it up to both Ross's lack of desire to stay in the same universe for the next several years combined with a somewhat low-ball offer from Lionsgate. Whatever the case, Ross is gone and the hunt for a new director is now on. While editing my John Carter obituary a few weeks ago, I removed a large paragraph dealing with the trend of giving young white-male filmmakers with barely a feature credit to their name the keys to $100-300 million franchise films while seasoned pros and/or minorities remain noticeably absent from the 'wish-list' (yes, I was glad to see F. Gary Gray on the Marvel wish-list for Captain America 2). And while I wouldn't consider The Hunger Games a 'female film', it would be a great opportunity to make a point that female directors can indeed handle the kind of big-scale filmmaking that studios are all-too willing to offer to mostly untested male directors as a matter of course. So, perhaps arbitrarily, perhaps to prove a point about how inaccessible the 'wish list' is for female directors, here are nine directors who happen to be women who also belong on 'the wish-list' as Lionsgate hunts for a second director. These are in alphabetical order, with the exception of the final entry, who would be my 'top choice'.

Kathryn Bigelow

Duh. In fact, she'll probably make the wish-list as a token nod to gender-diversity, and all she had to do was become the first female in history to win a Best Director Oscar. I don't really have to explain this pick. She's been directing hard action pictures for thirty years. She's helmed the likes of Near Dark (a dusty vampire thriller that still holds up 25 years later), Point Break (which is really better than its camp-fueled reputation), the underrated Blue Steel, Strange Days, K19: The Widowmaker, the two-part guns-ablaze sixth-season finale of Homicide: Life on the Street, and of course the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker. If Lionsgate wants instant critical respectability without breaking a sweat, Bigelow will be at the top of the list, regardless of gender.

Niki Caro

North Country is the definition of the kind of movie that they just don't make anymore. As recently as 2005, Warner Bros. gave Ms. Caro the reins to an all-star drama detailing a landmark 1984 sexual-discrimination/harassment suit. Star Charlize Theron and supporting actress Frances McDormand both justifiably received Oscar nominations for the little-seen October 2005 release. The picture is a straight-up social issues drama, filled with character turns from Richard Jenkins, Sean Bean, Sissy Spacek, Woody Harrelson, and then-unknowns Amber Heard, Michelle Monaghan, and Jeremy Renner. In 2005, it was one of any number of big studio dramas battling it out for Oscar glory. Today, it would be a front-runner purely by virtue of its existence. Caro's picture personifies the sort of high-quality big-studio adult drama that is all-but an endangered species, and she also helmed the dynamite Whale Rider back in 2002 as well. If every studio release were at least as good as North Country, I imagine most of us wouldn't feel the need to constantly whine about the state of studio movies these days.

Catherine Hardwicke

Yes, Red Riding Hood was an entertaining whiff. I like it even while admitting its pretty bad (it's certainly never boring and Gary Oldman is a hoot). But go back and watch the first Twilight. Here's a dirty secret: it's actually pretty good. It's light on its feet, quirky, self-depreciating, and utterly aware of its melodramatic nature. Unlike the self-serious sequels which treat their respective source material like holy tombs (and probably would have cut 'vampire baseball' out of fear of irreverence), the first Twilight is genuinely fun, willing to change little details and add character beats to keep the film engaging. Kristen Stewart is quite compelling as a more self-aware Bella while Robert Pattinson is allowed to be just a little goofy in the opening act (his biology-class freak out is pretty hilarious). Most importantly for the purposes of this current franchise, the supporting characters are wonderfully fleshed out and brought to life, giving the film a pulpy lived-in quality that none of the sequels can match (Bella's friends are actually charming and have their own lives). Point being, if you're among the many critics who wished that even a few of the supporting characters were a little more fleshed out in the first Hunger Games installment, why not bring on someone who knows how to build an aggressively lively supporting cast, even one that arguably super-ceded the stars for at least one film. She wouldn't be my top choice, but there would be some poetic justice to it nonetheless.

Mary Harron

Has any movie made in the early 2000s, save perhaps Requiem For a Dream, aged as tragically-well as American Psycho? The film got mixed reviews in its day, with many critics unable to look past the grotesque subject matter (and the even more grotesque source material) to notice that the film's sex and violence were all-but beside the point. Christian Bale turns in what will probably be the best performance of his career (certainly Patrick Bateman is as defining a turn as Robert De Niro's Travis Bickle) in a brutal satire of the 1980s 'greed is good' corporate mind set that tragically proves even more topical today as the ghosts of Reagan came back to haunt us in the guise of George W. Bush and corporate giants like Goldman Sachs. Had the film been better received in its time, perhaps Harron wouldn't have just now helmed a theatrical follow-up, the upcoming The Moth Diaries (she directed an HBO Bettie Page biopic in 2005). Not to repeat a theme (and it won't be the last time I bring this up), but had 'she' been a 'he', Harron probably would have a half-dozen features to her name by this point.

Patty Jenkins

She was supposed to be the mold-breaker. Hired late last year to helm Marvel Comics' Thor 2, Ms. Jenkins was supposed to become the first female director to direct a mega-budget comic book tentpole (Lexi Alexander's Punisher: War Zone cost just $30 million). But rather mysterious 'creative differences' excuse sent her packing, replaced by longtime television director Alan Taylor (director of the heartbreaking Homicide: Life on the Street series finale and the Mad Men pilot), which in turn led to a national grumbling among feminist film pundits and a very pissed-off Natalie Portman. Jenkins's career is a perfect demonstration of the gender-disparity in Hollywood. In an age where Marc Webb is handed the reins to The Amazing Spider-Man after directing one moderately successful low-budget romantic comedy (500 Days of Summer), Jenkins has barely worked since directing the Oscar-winning Monster nine years ago. She had recently won an Emmy for directing the pilot for AMC's The Killing, but that's pretty much all she has done since 2003. If you haven't seen Monster in awhile, it's a pretty great movie, and it's certainly more than just Charlize Theron's deservedly-Oscar winning star turn (Christina Ricci is just as good). Call it poetic justice or merely good sense, but Lionsgate would be wise to snap up Jenkins and give her the keys to an even bigger franchise.

Mimi Leder

In the late 1990s, Mimi Leder was on her way to becoming one of the biggest female directors in modern history. But while male directors get whiff after whiff until their eventual 'comeback film' (think Scorsese in the 1980s, from Raging Bull to Goodfellas), Leder was out after just one high-profile miss. Nevermind that The Peacemaker was a frighteningly ahead-of-its time action drama (and a painfully underrated one at that), nevermind that Deep Impact was at-the-time the highest-grossing film in history directed by a woman. The critical and artistic disaster of Pay It Forward pretty much killed everyone involved, ending the film careers of Helen Hunt and Haley Joel Osment while fatally damaging Kevin Spacey's prestige. Leder hasn't directed another theatrical feature since that 2000 disappointment (she helmed the 2009 Morgan Freeman/Antonio Bandaras direct-to-DVD action flick Thick As Thieves). She just started preproduction on a remake of All Quiet On the Western Front, which if it comes to pass will be her first theatrical release in twelve years. If you want a female director who knows how to craft top-notch action, why not hire Leder?

Lynne Ramsay

In a gender neutral world, Lynne Ramsay would be on all of the wish-lists right now. After all, she made a splash last year with the fantastic We Need to Talk About Kevin, coaxing a career-peak performance from Tilda Swinton and crafting a powerful psychological horror drama that defies easy description or even common interpretation. It's a powerful and gripping picture, her third feature no-less. If Chronicle's Josh Trank can end up with a dozen high-profile choices after making one terrific film, then Ramsay deserves her pick of the litter as well. Of course, the fact that Trank made his mark with a superhero deconstruction and was then offered a bunch of comic book superhero films is in itself a sign of Hollywood's lack of imagination, which is why Debra Granik (who would also be on various 'hot lists' in a just world) won't be on this list. There is no escaping the several similarities between Winter's Bone and The Hunger Games and I'd argue that choosing the helmer of the former is every bit as lazy as choosing Jennifer Lawrence to basically reprise her Oscar-nominated character in the first place. But Ramsay would be an inspired and outside the box choice, and arguably someone who can bring suspense and intensity to a franchise that lacked requisite tension the first time around.

Jennifer Yuh

With all the seemingly justified hub-bub about Brenda Chapman getting canned from Pixar's Brave last year, no one seemed to notice that Dreamworks (who hired Chapman to direct The Prince of Egypt fourteen years ago) gave one of their prize franchises to a South Korean female director who promptly knocked it out of the park. I assume you don't need me to remind you how much I loved Kung Fu Panda 2. It was my favorite film of 2011 and a splendid action dramedy that absolutely stands with Toy Story 2, The Dark Knight, and X2: X-Men United on the list of all-time great genre sequels from the last fifteen years. The only reason she isn't my top pick is because I wouldn't want her taking the Chasing Fire gig to stand in the way of her directing Kung Fu Panda 3. But she absolutely deserves a spot on every genre 'wish-list' from now until she retires.

And my personal pick...

Kasi Lemmons

Yes, it would be groundbreaking/cool/etc if the reins to today's biggest new franchise were handed off to an African-American woman. But it would also be just-plain-cool if Chasing Fire were handed to the person who happened to direct Eve's Bayou and Talk To Me. She directed three features between 1997 and 2007 (the middle one being the not-that great The Caveman's Valentine in 2001, which still featured a fine star turn from Samuel L. Jackson). But Eve's Bayou is a terrific period drama which features one of Jackson's best performances, period. Talk to Me is a fine and thoughtful biopic about 1960s Washington DC radio DJ Ralph "Petey" Greene (played by Don Cheadle) which features fine supporting work from Chiwetel Ejiofor (his pool-hall conversation with Cheadle is the stuff of acting-class gold), Taraji P. Henson and Martin Sheen (even if Sheen's best scene ended up on the DVD deleted scenes reel). I don't pretend to know why she has worked so little in the last fifteen years, but her lack of output has always (to me) personified the difficulty that minority and female filmmakers face in terms of having a steady output of films even after they've had one or two successes. Tokenism and/or Affirmative Action accusations aide, Lemmons has made two awfully good movies and deserves a shot a the big leagues at least as much as the likes of Josh Trank and Marc Webb.

Okay, your turn to pick. Who would you want to see helm the next Hunger Games film? It doesn't have to be a woman or a minority, but try to be a little creative.

Scott Mendelson

Scott Mendelson's Open Salon Blog

The Dark Knight didn't *really* inspire grim blockbusters.

Why's Rihanna in Battleship instead of a minority *actress*?

The Avengers's debut is even more impressive than you think.

Why I don't care if today's kids know about the Titanic...

9 female directors who should direct a Hunger Games sequel.

The Dark Knight didn't really inspire grim blockbusters.

Why's Rihanna in Battleship instead of a minority actress?