Movie Talk (was Questions for Jason)

[mrk]

It's going to be hard prying directors away from comic book films now. Alot of the ones with promising credentials are already tied to film adaptations of superhero films and their sequels. LOTR didn not spawn the fantasy renaissance some were hoping for. JK Rowlings gets credit for spawning the young adult fantasy films, but as far as sword and sorcery goes, Conan never got revived, and Elric is looking more distant. Though I'd be happy to be wrong. (I still can't get the foul taste of "The Scorpion King" out of my mouth.)

Actually it's the studios and the producers who make the decisions on what is made or not. The new Lord of the Rings,Harry Potter and even Narnia films have made billions and that helps create interest in Hollywood to fund more fantasy based films, that with Iron Man making $500 million worldwide theatricaly, your going to see a lot alot more superhero and fantasy related movies for years to come ( so long as they keep making money). I only hope films like The Dark Knight ( which I saw last week and is the by far, grimiest comic book adaptation I have seen to date) and The Watchman do extremely well, as that only means th Film Industry will be more willing to take a chance on Adult themed graphic novels and comics and not try and sell us only on kiddy movies ( like the new crappy Journey to the Center of the Earth). BTW...a new revamped Conan series is in the works at a well funded company.

Edited July 15, 2008 by mrk

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Actually it's the studios and the producers who make the decisions on what is made or not.

I agree partially with your point and certainly don't disagree that studios and producers are the driving force, but I have to disabuse you of that notion that they are free to go to production without the right director at the helm. Look at the Harry Potter films as an example of very canny staging of directors with pedigrees to fit the tone of each film. Studios simply won't fund $100 million CGI projects without a capable director to lens it. As upstart Marvel Studios have proven, the traditional insider producers have been elbowed offstage by Avi Arad and Marvel with "Iron Man." They couldn't have done it without J. Favreau and they wouldn't dare doing IM2 without him (see the controversy on that onine).

Studios can certainly greenlight films all they want, but they can wallow in pre-production for years with directors flitting in and out of availability (see the attempt to revive "Superman" and further back the abortive efforts to get "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" launched. Or worse, when they greenlight with a complete idiot behinds the lens--X-Men 3) I know this b/c of long-term acquaintances who helped in the three Spider-man films who gave me blow by blows on how a film like that comes to fruition. Sam Raimi held those films together in a way someone like Brett Ratner could never do because the studios had faith that he and Laura Ziskin's production company were on it. Even the "Incredible Hulk"'s reboot owes as much to the director/actor team of Leterier/Norton to make it work. There is no way they would have taken that big a chance without some confidence that this time it would really deliver the goods (though the Ang Lee "Hulk" was a moderate success and not as big a failure as some make it out to be--financially at least). Big gambles each one and the ones that worked were the ones that just didn't have studios passively greenlighting projects, but the ones they carefully selected directors for it. See the controversy over Peter Jackson's ugly split with New Line. Fans were ready to boycott "The Hobbit" before it even went into production. The compromise of Jackson as producer and Del Toro as director made the deal happen. Yes, you need the hammer, but you can't do it without the nail.

Edited July 16, 2008 by FunGuyFromYuggoth

[mrk]

Unless your Steven Spielberg, most directors don't have the pull to get a film into production. Look at Martin Scorsese, he's one of the greatist film makers of all time, but it took him 25 years to get Gangs of New York made. Most films usuelly start either with a screenplay or some intellectual property people are interested in or a bankable Actor wanting to work with the company on a project. Also, it's not just the director that makes a good movie but many other people as well who are involved as well. Anyway funguy, I'm sure you know this just as much as I do as we both live in LA and have some friends who work in that industry. :focus:

I agree partially with your point and certainly don't disagree that studios and producers are the driving force, but I have to disabuse you of that notion that they are free to go to production without the right director at the helm. Look at the Harry Potter films as an example of very canny staging of directors with pedigrees to fit the tone of each film. Studios simply won't fund $100 million CGI projects without a capable director to lens it. As upstart Marvel Studios have proven, the traditional insider producers have been elbowed offstage by Avi Arad and Marvel with "Iron Man." They couldn't have done it without J. Favreau and they wouldn't dare doing IM2 without him (see the controversy on that onine).

Studios can certainly greenlight films all they want, but they can wallow in pre-production for years with directors flitting in and out of availability (see the attempt to revive "Superman" and further back the abortive efforts to get "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" launched. Or worse, when they greenlight with a complete idiot behinds the lens--X-Men 3) I know this b/c of long-term acquaintances who helped in the three Spider-man films who gave me blow by blows on how a film like that comes to fruition. Sam Raimi held those films together in a way someone like Brett Ratner could never do because the studios had faith that he and Laura Ziskin's production company were on it. Even the "Incredible Hulk"'s reboot owes as much to the director/actor team of Leterier/Norton to make it work. There is no way they would have taken that big a chance without some confidence that this time it would really deliver the goods (though the Ang Lee "Hulk" was a moderate success and not as big a failure as some make it out to be--financially at least). Big gambles each one and the ones that worked were the ones that just didn't have studios passively greenlighting projects, but the ones they carefully selected directors for it. See the controversy over Peter Jackson's ugly split with New Line. Fans were ready to boycott "The Hobbit" before it even went into production. The compromise of Jackson as producer and Del Toro as director made the deal happen. Yes, you need the hammer, but you can't do it without the nail.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Topic? I think that was gone a while ago man. :-P

Of course, I agree with you on that point, but my point was never that the director is the only thing you need to get a movie, but you need something more than an eager producer and a studio willing to sign on. That's the SCI-FI CHANNEL. :shocked: You said:

Actually it's the studios and the producers who make the decisions on what is made or not.

My point addressed that point above, which made my eyebrows rise. Yes, in the 1970s, but not today. Unless a good director is in place, you don't get name talent, without talent, you get no movie. They won't sign on with the producer's nephew directing anymore. Those days are gone.

Even in those days, directors were flexing. I'll take your Spielberg example and turn on the Wayback Machine: When Spielberg was a young director 20th Century Fox took a pass at a certain film involving a 1930s hero with a whip and a fedora. He said, "Fine, I'm going to Paramount." He did and the rest is history. The power of the name director who (at the time) was just another up and comer (1981).

The studios know that the fans are also more educated (thanks to the fanbase online) and demand directors with promising credentials. When McG was signed to do "Superman" fans groaned worldwide. These $100 million days you also need a bankable director at the helm. Brett Ratner, as much as I loathe him, has a great track record with making the studios happy, but the man is even now more hated by fanboys (which is important to studios after how poorly X3 was received since DVD sales are important). The skinny is that he wouldn't clash with the talent (actors) so much because the fallout from X2 and the pre-production on X3 would have had Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry, etc. walking off and complaining to the execs. The trade of Singer for Ratner was not a good one for the franchise, but they had no time to find a better one who wasn't already committed. Of course, great directors don't always make great superhero movies (see Singer's "Superman" or Lee's "Hulk" which dissapointed a lot of people).

Leterier, while well known for action, was new enough and flexible enough to (barely) handle Ed Norton's "co-direction" of "The Incredible Hulk." Still they clashed. Looking forward to the 70 minutes of additional completed work in the Blu-ray. (Almost an entire movie in the Extras! Wow.)

Failing that, you get the fiasco of LXG where the director famously clashed with Sean Connery and almost got the Alan Smithee...almost... :ohwell:

Actually my friend is near the apex of the production food chain in a certain wall-crawling superhero trilogy, so I got the feed and was sworn to secrecy during production. I was offered a tour but declined. I'm a fan, yes, but I really don't like seeing how they do this and that until after I see the movie. I love studying the business aspect of it, but I want the illusion to exist just for a little while. Anyway, it was fascinating for an outsider like me to hear how such big machines work. Truly collaborative work, but so much has to happen right to make things happen. The old days of studio plus producer are gone baby gone.

Hey it's nice to know another Angeleno is here! Send me an e-mail mrk!

Edited July 16, 2008 by FunGuyFromYuggoth

[mrk]

It's funny how Fanboys will hate someone they never met because they don't like some of their work. Bret Ratner is actually a nice guy. He did a Learning Annex seminar a few years back and was very open and cordial. I'm not a fan of all his movies, but I like some of his music video and commercial work and dug one or two of his movies( His Red Dragon was much better then Michael Mann's version). Yeah, I didn't like his X Men movie, but then again I didn't like ANY of the X-Men movies. Honestly, after Iron Man, I don't think I'll want to watch another bastardization superhero movie ever again--especially if you have Wolverine wearing a unisexual bodysuit.

Edited July 16, 2008 by mrk

[Jason D]

Brett Ratner, as much as I loathe him, has a great track record with making the studios happy, but the man is even now more hated by fanboys (which is important to studios after how poorly X3 was received since DVD sales are important). The skinny is that he wouldn't clash with the talent (actors) so much because the fallout from X2 and the pre-production on X3 would have had Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry, etc. walking off and complaining to the execs. The trade of Singer for Ratner was not a good one for the franchise, but they had no time to find a better one who wasn't already committed. Of course, great directors don't always make great superhero movies (see Singer's "Superman" or Lee's "Hulk" which disspaointed a lot of people).

The fiasco regarding X-Men 3 was far more complicated than that.

When Tom Rothman, a head at Fox, kept dragging his heels about X3 and wouldn't commit to making it, Brian Singer packed up and took his team with him to go make Superman Returns.

Matthew Vaughn stepped in with an extremely edgy, alternate take on the franchise. He had a new script written, and worked with the production team in casting, etc. Then for reasons of his own (various reports say budget issues, lack of confidence, etc.) he stepped out of the production just before it was going to go before cameras.

Ratner had been the front-runner for the new Superman flick before Singer came onboard, and as he has a "dependable" reputation at Fox, they got him to take over X3 so close to shooting.

So most of the story problems with X3 can be laid primarily at Vaughn's feet (and the screenwriter whose name escapes me... Zack Penn, maybe?), but the lackluster direction and sloppy presentation of the film are entirely Ratner's fault.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

The fiasco regarding X-Men 3 was far more complicated than that.

When Tom Rothman, a head at Fox, kept dragging his heels about X3 and wouldn't commit to making it, Brian Singer packed up and took his team with him to go make Superman Returns. t.

It's always more complicated and when directors leave, both sides turn out the spin machines. "Wouldn't commit" is usually a euphemism for, "You're not paying me enough of a cut for what I want to do or won't fund us enough to do what I want to do it with."

In essence I've given the Marvel and the Fox side, and you gave the Singer side, but I give the studio more credibility because during production of X2, the cast had already started their feud with Singer and were ready to walk. Singer was exhausted by the end of X2 (remember how he barely finished production on X1 weeks before it went to the theaters--the man is brilliant but infamously demanding even by Hollywood standards). Berry even said she wouldn't do it.

I know story is important, but the sad truth is that it's all about the money. The other sad truth is a corollary: studios don't give a rat's brown behind about story. They're happy to do another "Love Guru" or "Meet Dave" movie if it stood a chance of making money. This is product. For this reason, Marvel got fed up with it and built their own club house. They have to, its their franchise and if they screw the pooch with weak story and sloppy directing, they lose their bread and butter.

Edited July 16, 2008 by FunGuyFromYuggoth

[Jason D]

It's always more complicated and when directors leave, both sides turn out the spin machines. In essence I've given the Marvel and the Fox side, but I give them more credibility because during production of X2, the cast had already started their feud with Singer and were ready to walk. Singer was exhausted by the end of X2 (remember how he barely finished production on X1 weeks before it went to the theaters--the man is brilliant but infamously demanding even by Hollywood standards).

Part of the problem with X1 was that the studio scheduled it for an insanely short production-to-release cycle, and cut the budget before filming (which is why the climactic fight takes place in an unconvincingly crappy looking gift shop).

I remember an interview where Singer claimed that in the summer of 1999 when he'd heard the release date of July he went "All right, two years of pre-production, production, and post-production... that's good!" and was told "No, we mean July 2000."

I'm sure, though, that none of the cast were too sorry to see him gone for the third installment. It's always going to be one of those big question marks... if Superman Returns had been excellent, people would assume that X3 would have been equally incredible. Instead, Superman Returns wasn't the film it should have been, and now there's an even bigger question mark...

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

I'm sure, though, that none of the cast were too sorry to see him gone for the third installment. It's always going to be one of those big question marks... if Superman Returns had been excellent, people would assume that X3 would have been equally incredible. Instead, Superman Returns wasn't the film it should have been, and now there's an even bigger question mark...

Honestly I was more heartbroken after seeing Superman Returns. I wanted to see something like Superman 2--an iconic film of my childhood. I must've seen Superman 2 twenty times that summer of 1980 and dozens more when it came to video. Then Richard Pryor showed up in Superman 3 in full retrograde/harmless mode (not the Richard Pryor anybody wanted to see) and that was it.

For Superman Returns, somebody must've been thinking, "We need a great director with a track record in this "superhero thing" to do it right." What a bummer. I wanted to see Supes do more than just move an iceberg and deflect a bullet with his eye.

The addition of Super Kid was just...baffling...

And no chemistry at all with the actress who played Lois...

Loved Spacey's Luthor though, though others didn't.

Edited July 16, 2008 by FunGuyFromYuggoth

[mrk]

For Superman Returns, somebody must've been thinking, "We need a great director with a track record in this "superhero thing" to do it right." What a bummer. I wanted to see Supes do more than just move an iceberg and deflect a bullet with his eye.

To bad McG didn't make his superman movie. I saw some design art for it that looked very cool like Superman in outerspace fighting big robots. Some of the Terminators and bots are very cool in McG's new film. There's sort of a Quake feel to some of them. I've heard some funny Bryan Singer stories over the years. Quite a "funny" guy he is...

Edited July 16, 2008 by mrk

[Jason D]

I've heard some funny Bryan Singer stories over the years. Quite a "funny" guy he is...

My wife got to meet him a few times at the Austin Film Festival a few years back. She said he's definitely a strong personality, and can see how people might run into problems with him in a high-stress environment like a big-budget film shoot.

[mrk]

There's a lot of enfant terrible's in hollywood. Infact, he's not even the worst or that bad. It's the smaller guys who want to cheat and lowball you for every nickel they can get that makes life miserable. I'll take a hundred Brian Singers over one Charles Band any day of the week.

Edited July 16, 2008 by mrk

[Negative_Thac0]

Honestly I was more heartbroken after seeing Superman Returns...

My feelings are more or less the same, though I feel the need to add that the "Super Stalker" scene kind of bugged me too.

I really wanted to like the movie, since Singer seemed to "get" Superman in all the interviews he gave, but I should have seen it coming when the first pictures of the costume were released.

[Nightshade]

Ironically, I didn't have any big issues with the X-Men movies; I quite liked the second one, thought the first one was good, and even thought (despite some problems) that the third was acceptable. On the other hand Superman Returns seemed extremely flat to me. Go figure.

[mrk]

To introduce the Sentinels simply as a big giant head rolling out of the darkness was a huge let down. infact, after I saw that clip on line I didn't even go the the theatre and just waited till it showed up at my cruddy little DVD rental store down the street that you can rent movies for $1 buck. I still wish I could get my dollar back.

[Nightshade]

To introduce the Sentinels simply as a big giant head rolling out of the darkness was a huge let down. infact, after I saw that clip on line I didn't even go the the theatre and just waited till it showed up at my cruddy little DVD rental store down the street that you can rent movies for $1 buck. I still wish I could get my dollar back.

Eh, it was just a visual bit. Though I'd have liked to had a full Sentinal movie, I can see that it would have been a big budget bloater. As I said, I thought that while the third was the weakest of the three, on reflection it wasn't that bad. And I think as a set they did a perfectly good job of presenting a decent representation of what the characters and book are about; barring Halle Berry's very lukewarm depiction of Storm, all the characters were well realized by their actors, and if some of them were slightly different than their traditional comic depictions (Mystique) that didn't really bother me; characters often change somewhat when hopping media, and on the whole, these weren't extreme changes.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

My only happy moment at X3 was watchng the CGI "youngify" Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian. Aside from that, I thought it was a dreadful mess. Hoping they do better with the Wolverine movies.

[mrk]

Big Budget Bloater? The Budget was over $200 million dollars already! X-Men 3 cost $60 million more then Iron Man which had much better special effects from ILM and the late great Stan Winston and if they added another $25 million, I don't think it would of hurt it's $450 + worldwide theatrical take. Even Cloverfield which cost only $25 mill did a pretty good job of making you believe a monster was attacking NYC.

Eh, it was just a visual bit. Though I'd have liked to had a full Sentinal movie, I can see that it would have been a big budget bloater. As I said, I thought that while the third was the weakest of the three, on reflection it wasn't that bad. And I think as a set they did a perfectly good job of presenting a decent representation of what the characters and book are about; barring Halle Berry's very lukewarm depiction of Storm, all the characters were well realized by their actors, and if some of them were slightly different than their traditional comic depictions (Mystique) that didn't really bother me; characters often change somewhat when hopping media, and on the whole, these weren't extreme changes.

Edited July 18, 2008 by mrk

[Nightshade]

Big Budget Bloater? The Budget was over $200 million dollars already! X-Men 3 cost $60 million more then Iron Man which had much better special effects from ILM and the late great Stan Winston and if they added another $25 million, I don't think it would of hurt it's $450 + worldwide theatrical take. Even Cloverfield which cost only $25 mill did a pretty good job of making you believe a monster was attacking NYC.

You'd still, in practice, needed to have added the equivelent of the Transformer movie's SFX budget (or a big part of it) to what they already had. That's just more than you're going to see (and that's not counting how even a couple of years makes a significant difference in the CGI capability cost/benefit right now).

[mrk]

I'm afraid that's still no excuses . Both films were made only a year apart of one another so the value of the dollar was still the same. They even had the actors locked down to a contract to do the sequels which would make it harder for them to demand some over the top rate( which is how Keanu Reeves was able to cut a $600 million back end deal to finish the Matrix series because he didn't sign to do anymore after the first film). None the less, Transformers cost $150 million and had much more CGI and action sequences then all the X men films put together. With that extra $60 mill you think they could of easly added a few giant size robots distroying some cities. Don't you think?

Edited July 19, 2008 by mrk

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

they could of easly added a few giant size robots distroying some cities. Don't you think?

Now you're talking!

Seriously, they were dealing with waaay too much in that movie. What could've been a nice set-up for an update to the Phoenix saga turned into this mutant "cure" movie and something crucial about a little girl that I never really quite got or cared about.

[Jason D]

... something crucial about a little girl that I never really quite got or cared about.

That was a boy, actually.

The same actor, in fact, played the "strange youth born with the key to genetic salvation" in Ultraviolet.

Talk about typecasting.

[Nightshade]

I'm afraid that's still no excuses . Both films were made

Then you don't. I still don't think it was a particularly bad movie, especially given the chaos around its production and filming, nor did it do that bad a job with the franchise in my opinion. Other people are welcome to disagree, but since some of them didn't like any of the three films, I can only shrug; people who disliked the second one I can't see liking any X-Men movie that would be at all likely to actually get made.

[Trifletraxor]

I'm REALLY looking forward to Watchmen! :happy:

SGL.

[mrk]

I was looking forward to the Watchmen, but now I'm starting to have my doubts after viewing the trailer. I like Zack Snyders' commercial work and his remake to Dawn of the Dead, but I wish he would of taken a different cinematic approach to making the Watchmen from what I've seen so far. Hopefully it will be great and will do justice to the Graphic Novels.

Edited July 19, 2008 by mrk