I hate you 20th Century Fox

[Marvelfangirl]

'Wolverine 2' Director: Darren Aronofsky Rejects Offer of More Money Instead of More ControlSource: By Timothy Sexton, Yahoo! Contributor Network

Contribute content like this. Start Here

Mon Mar 21, 2011, 1:45 pm EDT 1 Comment

Buzz up!

Share

emailimdel.ici.ousdiggfacebook...

The big question was why the director of such distinctly personal and idiosyncratic films as "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan" would have wanted to direct a splashy big budget special effects laden movie about most people's favorite mutant, Wolverine. (Personally, I prefer Nightcrawler, but that's just me recognizing how much more interesting an overlooked character is than the leading man's character. ) The question recently became moot with the announcement that Aronofsky was leaving the project.

 

Maybe an even bigger question is why the suits who expect to make oodles of money off yet another trip to the "X-Men" money well would consider hiring a director not exactly known for that type of movie or for creating massively popular works of cinematic art. Perhaps the folks at Fox just wanted to lend the movie a little critical cache just in case the result wasn't a rowdy crowd pleasing blockbuster.

 

Aronofsky's critical cache as well as his bankability went upscale following several Oscar nominations for "Black Swan." The skinny is that Aronofsky used the clout that comes with a Best Director nomination to urge the bean counters at Fox to give him more creative control over the "Wolverine 2" movie. Bean counters in the movie business typically hold onto the suggestion that everybody in the business, by which I mean the industry, share their view of wealth as being more important than anything else.

 

Fox allegedly turned down Aronofsky's request for control and instead offered him more money to get him to shut up about not having as much control over "Wolverine 2" as he's enjoyed on his far more personal films. The skinny continues thusly: Darren Aronofsky flatly rejected the proposed deal of exchanging more control for more money and took a powder on the hairy X-Man.

 

Back to that big question of why in the first place. Those who love Aronofsky precisely because he doesn't make movies like an entry in the X-Men franchise are doubtlessly raising their glasses to toast the myopia shared by all the suits at Fox. But is that the proper response? Yes, certainly, he will go on to make another movie in the place of "Wolverine 2" that will probably be much closer in spirit to his smaller critically acclaimed films. While that is unquestionably a positive end to this whole bizarre affair, one cannot help but wonder what a "Wolverine" sequel would be like with the intensely independent perspective of a more artistically inclined director behind it. The conventional wisdom is that the two entities just don't match up and so the result would be a failure on all accounts.

 

For those who believe this way, let me recommend the result of what happened when Orson Welles was given the opportunity to direct just another entry in the overcrowded genre of crime flicks about police corruption. The movie is called "Touch of Evil" and it will forever remain the standard by which to judge the potential for matching the fiercely independent vision of an artiste with what appears to be little more than another addition to another overdone genre.

 

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

[Speedy-D]

O man, Touch Of Evil is one of the all time great movies!

[maloney414]

Sometimes it's for the best.

 

I know people were excited about him doing the movie, but you never know what his "creative" twists were going to be that they wouldn't give him control.

 

I remember people being excited about Ang Lee directing the HULK before it was actually made too.

[fantastic_four]

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

Unfortunately that's just how Marvel works; this is the same reason Raimi and Favreau eventually quit, I'm surprised they put up with it as long as they did. I'm not sure it's really even Fox rejecting the auteur theory of film and not giving the director control because no Marvel director has ever been given the kind of complete control Warner gave Nolan. I know Marvel often does things this way on their comics--Stan called their collaborative creative control the "Marvel Method" and subsequent editors have also touted it, I think including Quesada--and I'm curious as to whether this same thinking is why their films are done this way.

 

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made, so on the whole, Marvel and their licensees may just be doing it to hedge their bets and sacrifice brilliance for a reduced chance of cranking out a stinker...although I suppose there have been plenty of stinkers to hold up as evidence that it's not working altogether well.

[Marvelfangirl]

Sometimes it's for the best.

 

I know people were excited about him doing the movie, but you never know what his "creative" twists were going to be that they wouldn't give him control.

 

I remember people being excited about Ang Lee directing the HULK before it was actually made too.

Good point

 

I think they should get a Japanese director for the sequel

[Marvelfangirl]

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

Unfortunately that's just how Marvel works; this is the same reason Raimi and Favreau eventually quit, I'm surprised they put up with it as long as they did. I'm not sure it's really even Fox rejecting the auteur theory of film and not giving the director control because no Marvel director has ever been given the kind of complete control Warner gave Nolan. I know Marvel often does things this way on their comics--Stan called their collaborative creative control the "Marvel Method" and subsequent editors have also touted it, I think including Quesada--and I'm curious as to whether this same thinking is why their films are done this way.

 

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made, so on the whole, Marvel and their licensees may just be doing it to hedge their bets and sacrifice brilliance for a reduced chance of cranking out a stinker...although I suppose there have been plenty of stinkers to hold up as evidence that it's not working altogether well.

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

[paperheart]

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

Unfortunately that's just how Marvel works; this is the same reason Raimi and Favreau eventually quit, I'm surprised they put up with it as long as they did. I'm not sure it's really even Fox rejecting the auteur theory of film and not giving the director control because no Marvel director has ever been given the kind of complete control Warner gave Nolan. I know Marvel often does things this way on their comics--Stan called their collaborative creative control the "Marvel Method" and subsequent editors have also touted it, I think including Quesada--and I'm curious as to whether this same thinking is why their films are done this way.

 

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made, so on the whole, Marvel and their licensees may just be doing it to hedge their bets and sacrifice brilliance for a reduced chance of cranking out a stinker...although I suppose there have been plenty of stinkers to hold up as evidence that it's not working altogether well.

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

 

they didn't already accomplish this with the first piece of celluloid trash?

[paperheart]

'Wolverine 2' Director: Darren Aronofsky Rejects Offer of More Money Instead of More ControlSource: By Timothy Sexton, Yahoo! Contributor Network

Contribute content like this. Start Here

Mon Mar 21, 2011, 1:45 pm EDT 1 Comment

Buzz up!

Share

emailimdel.ici.ousdiggfacebook...

The big question was why the director of such distinctly personal and idiosyncratic films as "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan" would have wanted to direct a splashy big budget special effects laden movie about most people's favorite mutant, Wolverine. (Personally, I prefer Nightcrawler, but that's just me recognizing how much more interesting an overlooked character is than the leading man's character. ) The question recently became moot with the announcement that Aronofsky was leaving the project.

 

Maybe an even bigger question is why the suits who expect to make oodles of money off yet another trip to the "X-Men" money well would consider hiring a director not exactly known for that type of movie or for creating massively popular works of cinematic art. Perhaps the folks at Fox just wanted to lend the movie a little critical cache just in case the result wasn't a rowdy crowd pleasing blockbuster.

 

Aronofsky's critical cache as well as his bankability went upscale following several Oscar nominations for "Black Swan." The skinny is that Aronofsky used the clout that comes with a Best Director nomination to urge the bean counters at Fox to give him more creative control over the "Wolverine 2" movie. Bean counters in the movie business typically hold onto the suggestion that everybody in the business, by which I mean the industry, share their view of wealth as being more important than anything else.

 

Fox allegedly turned down Aronofsky's request for control and instead offered him more money to get him to shut up about not having as much control over "Wolverine 2" as he's enjoyed on his far more personal films. The skinny continues thusly: Darren Aronofsky flatly rejected the proposed deal of exchanging more control for more money and took a powder on the hairy X-Man.

 

Back to that big question of why in the first place. Those who love Aronofsky precisely because he doesn't make movies like an entry in the X-Men franchise are doubtlessly raising their glasses to toast the myopia shared by all the suits at Fox. But is that the proper response? Yes, certainly, he will go on to make another movie in the place of "Wolverine 2" that will probably be much closer in spirit to his smaller critically acclaimed films. While that is unquestionably a positive end to this whole bizarre affair, one cannot help but wonder what a "Wolverine" sequel would be like with the intensely independent perspective of a more artistically inclined director behind it. The conventional wisdom is that the two entities just don't match up and so the result would be a failure on all accounts.

 

For those who believe this way, let me recommend the result of what happened when Orson Welles was given the opportunity to direct just another entry in the overcrowded genre of crime flicks about police corruption. The movie is called "Touch of Evil" and it will forever remain the standard by which to judge the potential for matching the fiercely independent vision of an artiste with what appears to be little more than another addition to another overdone genre.

 

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

and i thought he didn't want to be away from his family

[Marvelfangirl]

This really shows that Fox doesn't care about the stories and they just want to make more $$$$

 

Unfortunately that's just how Marvel works; this is the same reason Raimi and Favreau eventually quit, I'm surprised they put up with it as long as they did. I'm not sure it's really even Fox rejecting the auteur theory of film and not giving the director control because no Marvel director has ever been given the kind of complete control Warner gave Nolan. I know Marvel often does things this way on their comics--Stan called their collaborative creative control the "Marvel Method" and subsequent editors have also touted it, I think including Quesada--and I'm curious as to whether this same thinking is why their films are done this way.

 

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made, so on the whole, Marvel and their licensees may just be doing it to hedge their bets and sacrifice brilliance for a reduced chance of cranking out a stinker...although I suppose there have been plenty of stinkers to hold up as evidence that it's not working altogether well.

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

 

they didn't already accomplish this with the first piece of celluloid trash?

Aww

[500Club]

See my snide remark about studio interference in the other Aronofsky thread.

 

They probably insisted Aronofsky put Deadpool in the movie.

[Marvelfangirl]

See my snide remark about studio interference in the other Aronofsky thread.

 

They probably insisted Aronofsky put Deadpool in the movie.

[fantastic_four]

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

 

they didn't already accomplish this with the first piece of celluloid trash?

 

No, Jackman and Schreiber were decent in it. Underrated film.

[Marvelfangirl]

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

 

they didn't already accomplish this with the first piece of celluloid trash?

 

No, Jackman and Schreiber were decent in it. Underrated film.

I thought they were good,it was the rest of the cast that sucked

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except for Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson

[Prince Namor]

As for why Darren was given the chance in the first place: It was probably due to Hugh Jackman having a say in the matter as star and co-producer. They had previously worked together on the movie "The Fountain".

[Kramerica]

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

 

they didn't already accomplish this with the first piece of celluloid trash?

 

No, Jackman and Schreiber were decent in it. Underrated film.

I thought they were good,it was the rest of the cast that sucked

 

I thought the entire cast did a good job. It wasn't the strongest of scripts but it was entertaining and better than the X3 Hosejob.

[kdoginohio]

I just don't want them to screw up my favorite superhero

Too late for that.

 

BTW, its 20th Century Fox, not 20th Century Aronfsky. When he can afford his own studio, he can do touchy-feely movies.

[fantastic_four]

BTW, its 20th Century Fox, not 20th Century Aronfsky. When he can afford his own studio, he can do touchy-feely movies.

 

After doing "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan" Fox was lucky to have him for Wolverine, not the other way around. He'll easily get a crack at something better with more directorial control, and if he really wants to do a superhero film as he said, he now knows to try to get in with Warner and DC and forget about Marvel.

[Bookery]

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made,

 

So true. Welles made Touch of Evil, one of the greatest films of all time, which actually had quite a bit of studio interference. On the other hand, when Welles had total control, he made Mr. Arkadin.

 

[divad]

I agree though, the auteur theory has produced some of the most brilliant movies in history. On the other hand, it has also produced some of the tiest movies ever made,

 

So true. Welles made Touch of Evil, one of the greatest films of all time, which actually had quite a bit of studio interference. On the other hand, when Welles had total control, he made Mr. Arkadin.

 

And, compare Bertolucci's "1900" with his "Little Buddha"

[Mr 9.8]

Kinda like Francis Ford Coppola directing ''The Godfather'' then directing ''JACK''.