Dredd loses director Pete Travis
Dredd wrapped principal photography earlier this year and it seems the producers and executives in charge of the production were not pleased with the footage Pete Travis was delivering. Another insider claims that, while Pete Travis isn't involved in the post-production process, he is still keeping tabs on the project.
There is also the possibility that Dredd may undergo reshoots, although it isn't known who would direct. Dredd doesn't hit theaters until September 21, 2012, so there is still plenty of time for this matter to be sorted out.
Alex Garland may go after a directorial credit, along with producers Andrew McDonald and Allon Reich. It is said that a final decision about the producers seeking directorial credit will be made as the movie nears completion.
Dredd comes to theaters September 21st, 2012 and stars Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Jason Cope, Warrick Grier, Joe Vaz, Langley Kirkwood, Deobia Oparei, Francis Chouler. The film is directed by Pete Travis.
Comments (11)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
XxNickTheFilmCriticXx
This will most likely work for the better.
8 months agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag
JasonKat
Dred should have told the director or whoever started this mess... "I M THE LAW". lolz
8 months agoby @jasonkatFlag
slysnide
@messenger: Nah, if a director even has the slightest producing credits, then they're calling the shots. Typically they don't get outta hand. It's just in these rare cases where they do. But this guy here doesn't have a producing credit (I checked online) and was probably--like many--allowed to hang around, but just got fired or whatever happened. The screenwriter Alex Garland is one of the film's three producers (I checked) so he can takeover, but if he wasn't acting as producer, then it'd be incredibly bizarre for a screenwriter to hang around in post, if they even stuck through production for that matter.
8 months agoby @slysnideFlag
Messenger
Oh, yeah I know that, contract wise, they can't be messing around if it's not in their contract. For some reason I thought you meant if they were in their rights to be in pre and post they still didn't call creative shots.
8 months agoby @messengerFlag
slysnide
@messenger: They make plenty of decisions on set, and can hang around to advise in post, and the producer typically doesn't have an issue with it, but if they try and royally redefine what they shot in post, or what they planned in pre-pro, then they're not gonna be hanging around in post or pre-pro for very long before being fired (pre-pro), or simply informed that their contracts had already been fulfilled (post).
8 months agoby @slysnideFlag
Messenger
I know that directors have some say in pre and post. I agree that producers over see a lot but to say directors do nothing except be on set is off.
8 months agoby @messengerFlag
slysnide
@messenger: Actually that's the producer's job. They're the ones whom apart from serving the director, have to serve the studio's interest, and by doing so they're primarily the ones calling the shots in pre & pro. You can write a script, cast actors, go one recces, outline a proper budget, and still not have a director. Hence why the Star Trek sequel issue over Abrams returning or not wouldn't have been a big deal in his delaying his decision to return or not had he also not been signed on as producer. That's the big decision maker in a film project. It's just so much easier for directors to share a producing credit if they've got enough money (like most do). But while they can hang around if they want to, the producer calls the final decisions in post as they're representing the studio, who picks a director they find suitable to helm production, and then expect to leave the project in their producer's hands. But if the director who hangs around doesn't serve the studio's vision on a film funded by their money and shot with their equipment, then they can boot them out and let the producer call the shots. Plus, it interferes with most directors' schedules, and if it's not a big film that they don't have a producing credit on, then it doesn't make as much of a difference if they hang around or not. Browse through some credits or on wikipedia and you'll see that a lot of known directors act as co-producers or executive producers in some respect, but a lot of these young and 'out of the gate' directors so to speak only direct, not produce. And therefore they're gone when the film wraps. If they've got no other obligations in their schedule, then they'll tend to hang around, but they aren't required to, and don't have the final say in post without that producing credit. And as far as pre-pro goes, typically producers & studios hire directors for cheap things like this when they've already got the most of it underway. But if it's a major director like Spielberg, then they tend to pay it forward a bit to get a small producing credit to be involved from the start, as there's always projects going around that people express interest in doing. It just come down to whether they've got the money or the rep to be wanted and/or required for all three phases of production.
8 months agoby @slysnideFlag
Messenger
@slysnide
Huh? I've never met a director who had nothing to do with pre-pro or post. Even if they weren't bound by contract to be there, they more than likely would stick around because a good director is going to see it through the entire process. There is so much for a director to oversee in pre and post.
8 months agoby @messengerFlag
slysnide
Unless directors are also writers or producers on the projects they're involved with, then they typically aren't contractually obliged to hang around during post, as it's the producer who handles that whole thing, how it's prepared and presented; director's typically aren't involved in pre-pro either. It's just that with so many directors sharing producing credits nowadays that we notice they hang around for all three phases of production. But in reality, this isn't odd at all. Only that the producers & executives may hire someone else for reshoots for the specific purpose of replacing shots they're dissatisfied with. For typically directors can't return to projects that need reshoots months later in post, and someone else is hired to do it. So this is really either way nothing new.
8 months agoby @slysnideFlag
mosorwvlad
This movie should not be made, it looks terrible.
8 months agoby @mosorwvladFlag
drexll
just keep that damn helmet on.
8 months agoby @drexllFlag