I dunno, he's not only a great artist, but a pretty dang good storyteller too. If he can translate that into the medium of film, it will be epic. The trick is capturing the story, flow, pacing, and nuances of the story into a movie.
The first movie was fun, but in a Syfy-channel sort of way. I feel like it could have been as good as the first Ironman movie, with how good the comic book story was.
A lot of directing is about dealing with people and figuring out to get them to work well with the content, and a lot of your time is devoted to the other technical minutia of the entire project. The fact that he is "a great artist and stortyteller" is exactly my point--such folks usually make for shit directors. Now, I think Stephen King is a no talent assclown when it comes to writing, but that's me. He's a great storyteller...but when it comes to films, all of his stuff has been crap when he gets involved. I think he's directed once or twice, maybe, but I know that when he gets producing credits, the content is garbage.
George Lucas: another brilliant creative mind that is an awful director, just completely awful. It doesn't help that like with Lucas, McFarlane is also known for being quite the dick with a massive, throbbing ego. Honestly, the fact that it is his baby is probably a bad thing.
There are a few auteurs out there that are great, obviously: I'd put Kubrick at the top (but never his own original content) and then today someone like PT Anderson or Wes Anderson (
almost always their own content), but these guys are famously known to be somewhat chill, good people to work with, that actually like actors. Kubrick was exacting and demanding, but by most accounts he was still pretty chill in a way.
The first movie...you mean the one with John Leguezamo as the Violator? D: Brother and I actually sneaked into that one after watching Air Force One. ....I kinda felt like the theater
owed me money after that!