Brian Earl Spilner said:
Let's recap. We have a ridiculous premise, insane third act, cheesy dialogue, among other things.
We have one of the most successful horror directors currently working, with a big studio budget and a string of successful horror franchises. Hiring better actors would not be a problem here.
Your position is that the acting is terrible and James Wan is such a bad director that he either a) doesn't know how to direct them better or b) doesn't even realize the acting is bad?
This is more plausible to you than him making an intentionally ridiculous, over-the-top B movie with hokey acting and dialogue? Something also done by many other successful directors, such as Sam Raimi?
Why is that more believable to you and apparently nobody else?
First of all, "successful" doesn't automatically = "good." There are plenty of financially "successful" movies that are pure crap. That isn't some big Hollywood secret.
Secondly, horror movies are known as one of the last near "guarantees" in the theatrical business. In other words, audiences will show up for just about any horror movie, as long as it's decently-executed and provides enough thrills/scares. Bonus points if its inventive or something we haven't quite seen before. Either way, they're hardly dependent on their cast, and are in fact known for hiring budget actors and being incredibly cheap to make, relatively speaking, because it's the premise that sells, hardly ever the cast.
But to break these down individually...
Saw = You couldn't pay me to see this, but it was financially successful no doubt due to its unique, entertaining premise as a horror movie, not its cast. I couldn't name a single actor in the entire franchise.
Insidious = I admit, I have no idea what this even is. I remember seeing the title, and I know it's a horror movie, but that's the extent of my knowledge. If it was financially successful, though, again, I chalk that up to it simply being a horror movie with exciting scares, not its cast, of which I couldn't name a single actor either.
Furious 7 = Probably Wan's most charismatic cast, but a cast he inherited from other directors.
Aquaman = Similar to
Furious 7, the two leads were cast by another director. Regardless, as I've said previously, this is easily one of the worst blockbusters I've ever seen, some of the worst CGI I've ever seen (in a tentpole blockbuster), and features some of the most baffling cinematography I've ever seen as well.
The Conjuring = I have vague memories of seeing the first one, at home, years ago. Didn't leave an impression on me, though. But this Wan's *only* movie in which he cast legitimately impressive leads (in Farmiga and Wilson) that he didn't inherent from previous directors.
So, out of everything he's done, he's basically responsible for ONE good/notable cast (in
The Conjuring). That's it. Again, the reality is that Wan has made a career out of capitalizing on a genre that is the least dependent on quality actors/acting. Which I don't fault him for at all. In fact, good for him. But just because he's had a financially successful career doesn't mean he understands great casting/acting/dialogue, or could execute a good movie outside of horror/franchise blockbusters, the two genres least dependent on across-the-board quality.
All of this is to say that, yes, given the circumstances, and given his track record, it's HIGHLY likely to me that casting/actors/dialogue aren't Wan's strong suits, and that he doesn't at all have a command of how to make any of those things truly compelling. You may very well think my arguments are ridiculous, but you're the one arguing that the bad thing is actually intentional. I'm simply saying the bad thing is bad. In other words, the burden of proof is more on you than it is me.
