Even the most talented and visionary directors have their off days. Today’s roundtable question is put to us by Heather who asks, “When did a favorite director let you down with a movie?”

Tom: When I saw Jupiter Ascending, I saw it with a packed theater filled with all of my co-workers. Our company was throwing us a free movie day, and when looking at the options, we all unanimously voted to see what was to be The Wachowski’s next greatest hit. I mean, surely the genius behind The Matrix series couldn’t do us wrong with what looked to be a fantastic space opera, could they?

Yes. Yes, they could. When we all exited the theater, there was just kind of a stunned and disgusted look on everyone’s faces. I remember standing in a circle with my co-workers marveling at how bad it truly was. We wanted a free movie day do-over.

Justin: One of the biggest let downs I ever experienced in cinema was going to see The Lost World. Spielberg was a huge director of my childhood favorites — and probably yours, too — and Jurassic Park dominated the mid-1990s as a cultural touchstone. Yet it felt like he kind of phoned it in with the sequel, which was hampered with a weaker script, fewer great characters, and a more meandering storyline than the first. While Spielberg still had some great movies in his future, this was kind of the first hint that he had peaked and was starting to head downhill.

Sitting Duck: I’m not sure I’d classify Joss Whedon as a favorite director, but he sure did let me down with Serenity. I was originally drawn to the Firefly television series thanks to its space western and free trader SF themes. However, I was underwhelmed by the Academy subplot and would have been quite happy without the Tams in the main cast. While not the object of gem-like perfection some make it out as, it was enjoyable enough that I was as disappointed as anyone else over it becoming a one-season wonder.

When the movie was announced, I had mixed feelings. Sure, I was keen to see more material for Firefly, but I didn’t believe that the big screen was the right medium. Honestly, I think it would have been better if they had just produced new episodes for SciFi. But it’s not like my opinion would have much weight in these circumstances.

My fears were realized once the previews ended at the York River Crossing 8 (my preferred venue the Hillside didn’t pick it up on opening weekend), as what unfolded appeared to be purpose-designed to alienate me. First and foremost, aside from a bank robbery in the first act, the movie wasn’t particularly Western-like. There certainly weren’t any Free Trader aspects. No, it was all about the Academy and the Tams. Truth be told, it was more like something from the deluge of hack product that came out in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the intent of hitching onto the Star Wars gravy train.

And this leads to the next problem. It tries too hard to be epic, which betrays the principles upon which Firefly was built. One of the core concepts of the show was that it wasn’t about the Big Guys in Big Ships who faced Big Threats and wrestled with Big Concepts. It’s about working stiffs attempting to get by as best they could while trying to avoid getting stomped on by an uncaring, indifferent System. Certainly they wouldn’t be able to fight back against this System with any appreciable effect. What makes it all the more infuriating is how Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door had already shown that a non-epic SF television show could be successfully taken to the big screen and remain non-epic.

Of course, I have a slew of minor quibbles. Like how character reactions to situations result not through personal motivations but because the plot demands it. Or how the Reavers were defanged solely to fit in a Blake’s 7 homage. Or that Wash was killed just to squeeze in a Buffy homage. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to overdo it.

About the only thing in the movie that was an improvement over the television series was the design of the Alliance uniforms. Though considering that those featured in the latter were cast-offs from the Starship Troopers TV show, it was a low bar to clear.

ZombieDog: This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer because rarely is it solely a director’s error that a movie misfires. I absolutely do think there are incompetent directors and projects that were simply too ambitious. I do have an answer though but it’s going to be a little bit broader than the initial question. The director that has let me down has to be Tim Burton. His initial films were extraordinary. His willingness to push the boundaries of style and storyline along with insightful casting put him in a category with very few.

This is where we enter a gray area. I can’t think of a single director who I would consider great who hasn’t had a film that was not their best. That being the case I would have to say after a certain point, let’s say 1999’s Sleepy Hollow, that his films started to become more and more watered-down. It becomes impossible to say ultimately what the cause of this was. Did he simply lose that passion that he had at the beginning of his career? Was it studio interference or combination of both? Was he simply lucky with those initial films? Honestly, I can’t seem to find the answer, and it’s possible that it’s all or none of these. Although the proof is in the pudding, and we have a group of lackluster films that were just designed to make money.

There were always hints of the great artist underneath. However, if there had to be a singular film which proves what I am trying to say it would have to be Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can’t think of a better film to hand to a surreal director and then let him off the leash. In my opinion, the potential of what this film could have been haunts me. It would be like if somebody remade 1982’s The Thing, arguably one of the best sci-fi horror films ever made, and it was a steaming pile of crap. Oh, wait somebody did do that with The Thing 2011. My bad.

I am not completely heartbroken, because there are signs of life with Burton. His 2022 series Wednesday took chances and explored new territory. It was so good that it was renewed for a second season and the main actor (Jenna Ortega) said she was hoping to explore darker areas of Wednesday’s life. If this is the case, then I say let Tim Burton do his thing. We live in an age of quantity not quality. I’d really like to see that equation flip.

Drake: I’m a big fan of John Carpenter, and I would say that his directorial run from 1976 to 1988 is nearly flawless. Past that, his record is a bit spottier. In the Mouth of Madness was good, but his Village of the Damned was a fairly unnecessary remake. Vampires was just OK, and Ghosts of Mars, despite a solid cast, was a bit of a mess.

But what was truly disappointing was 1996’s Escape from L.A. This one didn’t get a lot of coverage at the time, and it was barely advertised. There’s a reason for that: It’s bad. Not even “So bad it’s good,” just bad. The studio head no doubt saw the final cut, tossed the stripper off of his lap, threw his cocaine straw in a rage, and cut the marketing budget down to about $50 in the hopes that no one would ever see it on the big screen.

Well, I saw it on the big screen, and it’s one of my life’s regrets, right up there with not buying Marvel stock when it was around two bucks a share.

Escape from New York was a lean, mean cinematic masterpiece, a B-movie that made that rare leap beyond mere cult status into legitimate action classic. Escape from L.A. is a hot mess. It felt like a parody of the original, but one that wasn’t particularly funny. Less Airplane! and more the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks Dragnet. Granted, it seems to have its fan following these days, but I’m not one of them. I haven’t seen it since that one time in ‘96 and that was harrowing enough.

Gah. Now I’m traumatized. I’m gonna have to go watch Assault on Precinct 13 again just to remember what a good Carpenter film looks like.