D-MONEY talks The Wolverine
Posted by Ali at 22:07 on 22 Nov 2010
Director and full-time gangsta Darren Aronofsky has been chatting about his vision for The Wolverine, the not-sequel to last summer's side-burned turd that'll apparently be a standalone movie. Player!
User Comments
7 comments.
Posted by Goatboy at 15:52 on 24/11/10
Matthew Vaughn walking from X-Men 3, another Fox property.
That's the example I was struggling for. They hired Vaughn to do his thing yet told him what to do, when and how.
And Rattner stepped in to finish the job.
Can't see anything different here sadly.
That's the example I was struggling for. They hired Vaughn to do his thing yet told him what to do, when and how.
And Rattner stepped in to finish the job.
Can't see anything different here sadly.
Posted by Goatboy at 13:41 on 23/11/10
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Aranofsky (I was the guy that bought The Fountain on DVD and no, fuck you) but as we've said, either he walks mid-shoot and McG steps in to finish it or - and this is a the biggest and most unlikely or in the history of or - they step back and let an artistically & critically praised director do something completely unique in the history of summer superhero/action films.
As Matt said, Ang Lee did The Hulk and it was "rebooted" a couple of years later.
Let's be honest - 99% of cinema goers don't care about directors, they like Wolverine and would watch sock puppets if it had enough explosions behind them. Average Joe isn't going to turn to their partner and say "Wow, I wonder how Aranofsky will work within the corporate blockbuster world of summer movies given his fierce independant history".
Average will see the trailer on Superbowl day, whoop and holler and lay his $15 down to watch Wolverine slash people with his fistclaws.
I'd be 1st in line to see a Darren Aranosfky "Wolverine" film, but sadly I think it'll be a sunday afternoon watch years from nwo because we witnessed him being anchored & dunked to millions of dollars and a toy line.
As Matt said, Ang Lee did The Hulk and it was "rebooted" a couple of years later.
Let's be honest - 99% of cinema goers don't care about directors, they like Wolverine and would watch sock puppets if it had enough explosions behind them. Average Joe isn't going to turn to their partner and say "Wow, I wonder how Aranofsky will work within the corporate blockbuster world of summer movies given his fierce independant history".
Average will see the trailer on Superbowl day, whoop and holler and lay his $15 down to watch Wolverine slash people with his fistclaws.
I'd be 1st in line to see a Darren Aranosfky "Wolverine" film, but sadly I think it'll be a sunday afternoon watch years from nwo because we witnessed him being anchored & dunked to millions of dollars and a toy line.
Posted by Matt at 12:36 on 23/11/10
Serious awards-y director hired to give integrity to a comic-book adaptation. I think the last time this happened was with Ang Lee and Hulk.
Posted by Ali at 12:10 on 23/11/10
Why hire him? Good press. The last Wolverine made a ton of money but got blasted by critics. Fox must want to change that so have roped in a big name indie director to boost their credentials. Doesn't change a thing - trailer will still have Wolverine snarling at the sky and snikting bad guys.
Everybody wins, weirdly. Fox get kudos for hiring a 'proper' director, Aronofsky gets a big payday, the chance to work on a big blockbuster for once, he gets to work with his own team and his friend Hugh Jackman, and he gets to blame the studio when they inevitably turn it into another turd. Everybody wins but us, then.
Everybody wins, weirdly. Fox get kudos for hiring a 'proper' director, Aronofsky gets a big payday, the chance to work on a big blockbuster for once, he gets to work with his own team and his friend Hugh Jackman, and he gets to blame the studio when they inevitably turn it into another turd. Everybody wins but us, then.
Posted by Ben at 11:24 on 23/11/10
"see if I can do what I do in that world" interesting quote.
It's really odd. As you say, I can't see Fox letting him do what he does - but why hire him then? He doesn't seem like the sort to let his vision be altered by a studio. Is he going to become submissive and take the pay cheque and do what the studio want?
If he did do it in his own way, I'd want to see it. But I won't be surprised if he walks during shooting.
It's really odd. As you say, I can't see Fox letting him do what he does - but why hire him then? He doesn't seem like the sort to let his vision be altered by a studio. Is he going to become submissive and take the pay cheque and do what the studio want?
If he did do it in his own way, I'd want to see it. But I won't be surprised if he walks during shooting.
Posted by Goatboy at 10:37 on 23/11/10
I forsee many, many reshoots and box office poison with Aranofsky making a Wolverine film.
I agree with his "every time I start a film, people go 'what?'" comment, who thought a film about a wrestler starring Mickey Rourke or ballet with Portman would be fantastic.
But...and it's a big but...Fox won't let anybody do anything with their tentpole summer blockbusters, and I can't see Wolverine with a chest-cam tottering down a corridor and vomiting into a bin.
I agree with his "every time I start a film, people go 'what?'" comment, who thought a film about a wrestler starring Mickey Rourke or ballet with Portman would be fantastic.
But...and it's a big but...Fox won't let anybody do anything with their tentpole summer blockbusters, and I can't see Wolverine with a chest-cam tottering down a corridor and vomiting into a bin.
| + | Man Of Steel (12A) Our review | All articles |
| + | Much Ado About Nothing (12A) Our review |
| + | Admission (12A) |













Add Your Comments