James Mangold will direct The Wolverine

[Blader5489]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/james-mangold-foxs-choice-for-the-wolverine/

EXCLUSIVE: James Mangold is 20th Century Fox's and star Hugh Jackman's choice to direct The Wolverine, ending one of the most competitive contests for a major studio film. Negotiations are about to get underway, but I'm told that Mangold will take the helming job on the sequel to the X-Men spinoff film, a post that became vacant when Darren Aronofsky dropped out of the film in March. I'd heard that Mangold was on a very short list coming into this week, along with Warrior director Gavin O'Connor and Brooklyn's Finest helmer Antoine Fuqua.

I've heard that Fox will look to start principal photography in the fall. Scripted by Christopher McQuarrie, The Wolverine takes place mostly in Japan. Mangold most recently directed the Tom Cruise-Cameron Diaz starrer Knight and Day for Fox, and before that 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line.

[samsnee]

Well, that's mediocre.

[MARVEL ROCKS]

They chose the best director on that list that leaked out a couple of weeks ago. In my opinion James Mangold is a good director. All his films have been solid.

However, I get the feeling that FOX is going full steam ahead with Wolverine sequel because of X-men:FC disappointing boxoffice. Please fox stop making all these x-men spin off flicks. You are diluting the brand name. :cmad:

[PWN3R]

I ****ing love 3:10 to Yuma, but without Aronofsky, I no longer see the point of this. Who knows, it may turn out like First Class, but this news is hardly exciting.

[Ponyboy]

Not bad. At least it wasn't McG. :cwink:

[MARVEL ROCKS]

I ****ing love 3:10 to Yuma, but without Aronofsky, I no longer see the point of this. Who knows, it may turn out like First Class, but this news is hardly exciting.

Aronofsky has spoiled fanboys. No matter who they picked after his departure, fanboys would have complained.

I can't blame fox for his departure. This time it was the director who ditched the project because he officially could demand to direct any movie he wanted after delivering a 300+m WW hit, Black Swan that costed only 12m to make.

[PWN3R]

Aronofsky has spoiled fanboys. No matter who they picked after his departure, fanboys would have complained.


Ha, yes and yes. Even if the film somehow ends up being fantastic, this will always make the 'best films never made' lists.

[MARVEL ROCKS]

Ha, yes and yes. Even if the film somehow ends up being fantastic, this will always make the 'best films never made' lists.

Eh not sure about that. James Mangold will be directing from the same script that Aronofsky would have so "best films never made" doesn't apply.

[PWN3R]

Eh not sure about that. They are using the same script Aronofsky would have directed so "best films never made" doesn't apply.

Yes it does. Same script or not, Aronofsky's involvement would have produced a different film.

I'm not bashing this new development. I like the director that has be chosen, but c'mon. You can't deny there will ALWAYS be a 'what if' article floating around every now and then.

[Cherry]

I fully expected Fox to get this underway in the Fall. Certainly looks like a 2012 release after all. If it pans out, that puts ALL five of the biggest comic book franchises in the same year: Amazing Spider-Man, The Wolverine, Avengers, Man of Steel, and of course The Dark Knight Rises. That's a pretty packed year.

[narrows101]

It better happen in the fall since Hugh was apparently offered the role of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, and they also want to film by the end of the year, and I want him to do that movie too!

Hugh got a Golden Globe nomination for Kate & Leopold when Mangold directed him in that.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Good director, but still not interested in this.

[danoyse]

I love how people talk about the oh-so-awesome Wolverine movie that Aronofsky never did. :doh:

Anyway...great news about finally getting a director. But dammit, this better not keep Hugh from doing the Les Miz movie. I will be so pissed if that happens. :argh:

[PWN3R]

I love how people talk about the oh-so-awesome Wolverine movie that Aronofsky never did. :doh:.

Look at his body of work and his reputation and tell me you don't want that Wolverine film. Also, it would have most likely been composed by Clint Mansell. Clint Mansell + Wolverine would have been pure :awesome:.

[MARVEL ROCKS]

Btw, Fox should brace for another x-men related movie underperforming at the boxoffice. Next year is absolutely jam packed. I don't see how this movie will make as much as the first Wolverine movie. That and the movie sucked, which should prevent people from going in droves to watch the sequel. Does anyone know when this movie is releasing? Something tells me it's going to take Star Trek 2's spot because that movie is surely not coming out next summer!!

Personally, fox should stop with all this spin off nonsense. They should take a chance with X-men:FC sequel. That movie got great reviews and no doubt as time goes by, will gain more fans, making the sequel highly anticipated.

[danoyse]

Look at his body of work and his reputation and tell me you don't want that Wolverine film. Also, it would have most likely been composed by Clint Mansell. Clint Mansell + Wolverine would have been pure :awesome:.

Sure I wanted that movie. But I'm over that now.

[MARVEL ROCKS]

Anyway...great news about finally getting a director. But dammit, this better not keep Hugh from doing the Les Miz movie. I will be so pissed if that happens. :argh:

Totally agree.

This news sounds like a retaliation from FOX to the Les Miz announcement.

[narrows101]

I'm sticking to my theory that Hugh knew the filming schedule for both movies - he's been saying for weeks now that Wolverine will film in October, and just last week I think he said in an interview he was going to "put his hand up" for Les Miz, so he had to know the filming schedule for that. Besides, there are a lot of scenes in Les Miz that Jean Valjean isn't in, so perhaps they can film those first if Hugh is still preoccupied with Wolverine.

[marvelrobbins]

Good choice.He has worked with Hugh and has done action.The big question will Fox
try to rush this for summer 2012 or let it come out In may 2013.

I for one never got so excited over Aronofsky doing It.I was more excited on Christopher Mcquarre having written It.And reading the script details.They got a good director who
has done action In the past.Maybe Fox will finally have a good X-Men film that Bryan Singer Isn't Involved In.

[Cherry]

I'm sticking to my theory that Hugh knew the filming schedule for both movies - he's been saying for weeks now that Wolverine will film in October, and just last week I think he said in an interview he was going to "put his hand up" for Les Miz, so he had to know the filming schedule for that. Besides, there are a lot of scenes in Les Miz that Jean Valjean isn't in, so perhaps they can film those first if Hugh is still preoccupied with Wolverine.

I agree. I think both films will move forward as scheduled.

[Whiskey Tango]

Copland, Identity, 3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line, and yes even Knight and Day. I like Mangold's work. This movie might be salvageable if Fox keeps the interferance to a minimum (ahaha, like that'll happen)

[Superark]

I freaking love this choice! Mangold is a good director who's made some solid and a couple of great films!

I've always been interested in him directing a comic film and He was on my short list of directors of who I wanted for the new Superman film. I'm glad to see he'll be doing Wolverine.

I hope Singer will somehow get involved in this project as well

[Superhero 101]

My guess it will come out in 2013 or winter 2012 and give man of steel a little competition.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Hmm I wanted Mangold for Wonder Woman(yes I know it won't ever get made now) but he's also great for a character like Wolverine.

[psylockolussus]

Well I hope its going to be a good movie!

[Doctor Jones]

I'm very pleased with this choice. He was my first choice on the shortlist too.

It is very much possible we can get a good film. Please, God.

[Rac]

He was my second choice after Mark Romanek. I'm pleased if he stays on board. He might even be able to fight against the studio demands.

[kguillou]

My goodness, next year is going to be BLOATED with superhero movies. Avengers, Amazing Spider-man, Man of Steel, Dark Knight Rises, Ghost Rider Spirits of Vengeance and now Wolverine.....jeez, i dont know if that many comic movies is a good thing.

[Crockett]

Mangold, ok choice, just as long the studio won't interfere much we may get a good movie.

Oh man, if Aronofsky had stayed as the director... :ninja:

[Alexei Belyakov]

Well, as I feared, we got someone bland :csad:

I'm not saying Mangold's a bad director (Cop Land, Girl Interrupted and Walk The Line were good films) but he's just not the great director we needed.

I know the list of suitable replacements for Darren was short, not to mention almost impossible/unattainable, but they really could have done better.

Danny Boyle, David O. Russell, Alejandro González Iñárritu...

Then again, those guys would have required serious convincing (big money).

While I think we might get a decent film, with Mangold we probably won't get that definitive film we coulda gotten with Darren. And no, I have ZERO doubts about the quality of the never-made Aronofsky Wolverine movie. Anyone here that really knows anything about Darren Aronofsky knows the man cannot fail. His movie would have blown The Dark Knight outta the water.

Mangold is gonna have to go to some deep and dark places and tap into that fury and isolation that define the character. He'll have to push Jackman to places most directors would be afraid to and he'll need to keep the studio machine in check. If he fails at any of those we'll get yet another crap rendition of yet another great Wolverine tale.

[Project862006]

^it is wolverine for god sakes i have the comic it is based on while it is good it is not some classic work of art so get over yourself

darren cant fail? did you see the fountain i did and it is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and the critics agreed(51% on RT)

Mangold is more than a good director 3:10 to Yuma and Walk The Line are phenomenal films

[danoyse]

Oy vey, Alexei...how about turning down the doom and gloom a little? :whatever:

[Crockett]

The Fountain was a bad movie?

Them's fightin' words. :argh:



:o

[Alexei Belyakov]

^it is wolverine for god sakes i have the comic it is based on while it is good it is not some classic work of art so get over yourself

darren cant fail? did you see the fountain i did and it is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and the critics agreed(51% on RT)

Mangold is more than a good director 3:10 to Yuma and Walk The Line are phenomenal films

Aren't you the same poster that said we "didn't need a visionary director" to helm this movie? :doh: or for comic book movies in general?

If you thought The Fountain was a bad movie then I have to sadly inform you that you don't really understand serious cinema. That's not an insult, just an observation that anyone else would make. Critics that didn't support The Fountain attacked it for pretty much everything it was trying to achieve. They wanted it to be inside the box and it wasn't. In other words, it did what it wanted to do. If that film was released this year they would all love it. They hadn't yet warmed up to Darren is all.

And 3:10 to Yuma phenomenal????????????

Dude, start watching the greats. Kubrick, Malick, Fellini...then we'll talk what's phenomenal.

[Crockett]

Hey, there's no need to say things like you don't understand serious cinema, you just have to accept that people have different opinions.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Oy vey, Alexei...how about turning down the doom and gloom a little? :whatever:

Don't you want a great movie too? I sure do.

[Alientraveller]

Damn, this thread's reminding me I never saw The Fountain even though I really wanted to... the release was so mangled.

I think James Mangold is a good director (although I thought Walk the Line could've been better, I was disappointed it didn't include Nickajack Cave and as it didn't explore Cash's beliefs it came across as a Ray retread) but come on, we had Gavin Hood, an Oscar winner, on the first Wolverine... I just hope Fox learned from FC it's best not to interfere.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Hey, there's no need to say things like you don't understand serious cinema, you just have to accept that people have different opinions.

If David Fincher had dropped out of the Girl with The Dragon Tattoo remake and the studio would have gotten Renny Harlin to direct it, you would not react well to "Its just a movie based on one of the best novels written in the last 20 years. We don't need a visionary" :cwink:

You want a great film too. I can tell. But if someone doesn't know what a great film is, why would they want one?

[Crockett]

If David Fincher had dropped out of the Girl with The Dragon Tattoo remake and the studio would have gotten Renny Harlin to direct it, you would not react well to "Its just a movie based on one of the best novels written in the last 20 years. We don't need a visionary" :cwink:

You want a great film too. I can tell.

I'd be worried, but I wouldn't judge until I've seen the end result. I'm as devastated as you when Aronofsky left, even though it felt too good to be true to begin with but it's time to move on, and see how the movie will turn out with the new director, for better or worse. And much as I like Dragon Tattoo, I wouldn't consider it the best novel that was written in the last 20 years. :cwink:

[akfj]

Damn, this thread's reminding me I never saw The Fountain even though I really wanted to... the release was so mangled.

I think James Mangold is a good director (although I thought Walk the Line could've been better, I was disappointed it didn't include Nickajack Cave and as it didn't explore Cash's beliefs it came across as a Ray retread) but come on, we had Gavin Hood, an Oscar winner, on the first Wolverine... I just hope Fox learned from FC it's best not to interfere.

Yeah, the script's more important this time around, I think. It's a good start that they got Christopher McQuarrie to write it.

[danoyse]

Aren't you the same poster that said we "didn't need a visionary director" to helm this movie? :doh: or for comic book movies in general?

If you thought The Fountain was a bad movie then I have to sadly inform you that you don't really understand serious cinema. That's not an insult, just an observation that anyone else would make. Critics that didn't support The Fountain attacked it for pretty much everything it was trying to achieve. They wanted it to be inside the box and it wasn't. In other words, it did what it wanted to do. If that film was released this year they would all love it. They hadn't yet warmed up to Darren is all.

And 3:10 to Yuma phenomenal????????????

Dude, start watching the greats. Kubrick, Malick, Fellini...then we'll talk what's phenomenal.

Alexei, I'm getting tired of warning you to knock off this attitude. Being an Aronofsky fan does not automatically make you the smartest kid in the class that gets to talk down to everyone else. It just makes you sound repeated obnoxious and we're all getting tired of it.

Darren Aronofsky did not make a Wolverine movie. Quit acting like he did, and stop treating everyone else who has the audacity to want to see another director's take other than your choices (who were never going to direct a Wolverine sequel anyway) like they don't understand how movies work.

Enough with the drama already.

[Project862006]

news flash alexei we have had great comic book films in iron man,x2,spider man2,x men first class,thor,dark knight,watchmen.,etc. and none are so called visionary directors

[narrows101]

Anyone remember how long it to XMO:W to film?

[akfj]

Principal photography began on January 18, 2008 and ended on May 23.

[Celestial]

Principal photography began on January 18, 2008 and ended on May 23.
Those may be the official dates, but the cast arrived in Queenstown, NZ at the start of February. The wrap party was around the 18th May but Hugh and others were still filming through June. The Normandy landings were filmed around 11th June. At Comic-Con, in July Hugh claimed to have finished on Wolverine just a few days earlier (could be some exageration there, and he had stopped off in Amsterdam to promote "Australia" on the way).
So 5-6 months.

Hopefully, this production will run smoother and take a shorter time to shoot.

[Excelsior.]

news flash alexei we have had great comic book films in iron man,x2,spider man2,x men first class,thor,dark knight,watchmen.,etc. and none are so called visionary directors
umm..dude....Snyder is a visionary director. It said as much in the Watchmen trailer.

[danoyse]

Those may be the official dates, but the cast arrived in Queenstown, NZ at the start of February. The wrap party was around the 18th May but Hugh and others were still filming through June. The Normandy landings were filmed around 11th June. At Comic-Con, in July Hugh claimed to have finished on Wolverine just a few days earlier (could be some exageration there, and he had stopped off in Amsterdam to promote "Australia" on the way).
So 5-6 months.

Hopefully, this production will run smoother and take a shorter time to shoot.

And that Hugh will have time to play Jean Valjean in Les Miz. Because if he has to give that up to do another *%*$# X-Men movie....

...I don't even want to think about it. :doh: :argh:

[narrows101]

And that Hugh will have time to play Jean Valjean in Les Miz. Because if he has to give that up to do another *%*$# X-Men movie....

...I don't even want to think about it. :doh: :argh:
Oh boy, I'm with you. I just read something from one of the gossip columnists that said Hugh had a meeting with director Tom Hooper and it was supposed to last two hours - and it lasted four hours. And when Universal was asked about the casting, they didn't deny it, just said something like "no comment." Those have to be good signs, right??? Last I read, they were hoping to do Les Miz at the beginning of the year. Hugh hasn't done any movie since the beginning of the year because he's been preparing for this one, enough already! This thing better get going and on time and he BETTER do Les Miz! There's no one else more perfect for Jean Valjean! Maybe Hugh will say something in Toronto during interviews/talking to fans at his one-man show... Please just confirm it....

Ok, back to Wolvie....

[danoyse]

Oh boy, I'm with you. I just read something from one of the gossip columnists that said Hugh had a meeting with director Tom Hooper and it was supposed to last two hours - and it lasted four hours. And when Universal was asked about the casting, they didn't deny it, just said something like "no comment." Those have to be good signs, right??? Last I read, they were hoping to do Les Miz at the beginning of the year. Hugh hasn't done any movie since the beginning of the year because he's been preparing for this one, enough already! This thing better get going and on time and he BETTER do Les Miz! There's no one else more perfect for Jean Valjean! Maybe Hugh will say something in Toronto during interviews/talking to fans at his one-man show... Please just confirm it....

Ok, back to Wolvie....

I read that report too. I hope it's true, because it did sound like they're trying to make it work so he can do the movie. Or maybe that's just how I read it, I have no clue how these things work...

[Thebumwhowalks]

While I think we might get a decent film, with Mangold we probably won't get that definitive film we coulda gotten with Darren. And no, I have ZERO doubts about the quality of the never-made Aronofsky Wolverine movie. Anyone here that really knows anything about Darren Aronofsky knows the man cannot fail. His movie would have blown The Dark Knight outta the water.

Mangold is gonna have to go to some deep and dark places and tap into that fury and isolation that define the character. He'll have to push Jackman to places most directors would be afraid to and he'll need to keep the studio machine in check. If he fails at any of those we'll get yet another crap rendition of yet another great Wolverine tale.

Everyone thought that Ang Lee was going to blow us all away with his Hulk movie, and it ended up being a pretentious bore fest in the drama department. You never know with these things sometimes, but yeah, chances are DA would have made an amazing Wolverine movie.

But, Mangold could too, in Copland he handled the central hero of the piece extremely well, he made us care about and understand him, and his moment of heroism in the final act gave you that special hairs on the back of your neck buzz that such moments are supposed to generate.

[Lord]

If he's given a good script like what happened with 3 11 to yuma then he can make an exelent film.

[Silvermoth]

Excellent! The only problem with this is I wanted James Mangold to direct a Captain America reboot.

Hope Fox gives him the same creative freedom they gave Singer and Vaughan.

[JP]

We'll see.

[DocHoliday]

I like this choice. He has tossed around his talent in different genres and I have liked them all sans Knight and Day(though I enjoyed bits of it).

[Superhero 101]

I think Mangold is an excellent Action Director Knight and Day had pretty good Action but i don't know about directing haven't seen enough of his films to decide if he can direct.

[TheWiseGuy487]

I think Mangold is an excellent Action Director Knight and Day had pretty good Action but i don't know about directing haven't seen enough of his films to decide if he can direct.

Watch 3:10 to Yuma. He can be a really good actor director as well as an action director.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Excellent! The only problem with this is I wanted James Mangold to direct a Captain America reboot.

Hope Fox gives him the same creative freedom they gave Singer and Vaughan.

This reboot trend has gone way too far when people are talking about reboots for movies that haven't even come out yet...

[psylockolussus]

This reboot trend has gone way too far when people are talking about reboots for movies that haven't even come out yet...

Well Captain America: The First Avenger is not related to the 1st Captain America movie that came out in the 80s or 90s. So the new Captain American movie is more like a reboot.

[danoyse]

Except no one remembers that first Captain America movie, so this doesn't really count as a reboot.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Except no one remembers that first Captain America movie, so this doesn't really count as a reboot.

WTF is the first Captain America movie??

Im guessing some low budget venture? Probably direct to video?

[Crockett]

WTF is the first Captain America movie??

Im guessing some low budget venture? Probably direct to video?

It was intended to be released theatrical but then that didn't happen so its debut was on direct-to-video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_(1990_film)

[chamber-music]

WTF is the first Captain America movie??

Im guessing some low budget venture? Probably direct to video?

Your not missing much

http://i55.tinypic.com/21oyjr5.jpg

[Whiskey Tango]

WTF is the first Captain America movie??

Im guessing some low budget venture? Probably direct to video?

cs8rFsmhNTc

[Thebumwhowalks]

I haven't seen it either, but I wouldn't mind checking it out for laughs, it's at least notable for the fact that it's JD Salinger's son Matt who plays Cap, although he does not play the ears.

[Project862006]

I think Mangold is an excellent Action Director Knight and Day had pretty good Action but i don't know about directing haven't seen enough of his films to decide if he can direct.
he got reese whitherspoon an oscar :oldrazz:

[akfj]

I haven't seen it either, but I wouldn't mind checking it out for laughs, it's at least notable for the fact that it's JD Salinger's son Matt who plays Cap, although he does not play the ears.

I watched it on HBO when I was about 8 years old, and I thought it was stupid and terrible then.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yea that doesn't count. This isn't a reboot. lulz.

[C. Lee]

The first 15 minutes or so of the 90's Cap movie is halfway decent (not saying good, just better than the rest of the movie).....but it goes downhill fast after that.

[HaloCod27]

Please for the love of god make this be released in 2013. Not only will it have more time to be better, 2012 is already too full of Superhero movies.

And people thought this year was too crowded with superhero movies...2012 will also feature 4, all of A-list property.

TDKR and Avengers will make bucketloads, and most likely Spiderman and Superman too.

[marvelrobbins]

I agree.Release it In Summer 2013 when the only other superhero movie scheduled Is Iron Man 3.

[JP]

Pretty neat that Mangold got 2 actresses Oscars.

[Project862006]

http://www.**************.com/news/?a=40341

Claremont gives his seal of approval on the script

[Excelsior.]

Geoff Johns praised GL to high hell as well. So forgive me if I am wary of comic book writers giving seals of approval.

[marvelrobbins]

You have a oscar winning screenwriter having written it so It should be good.

Claremont Is the quentisal X-Men writer.Working with first Dave Cockrum and then
John Bryne he made X-Men Into the top comic franchise it was for years.

This film should do for his classic Wolverine Miniseries with Frank Miller what X2 did for
X-Men God Loves Man Kills.

His novelation of X-Men the last Stand Improved on film.He brought more comic book stuff Into the book.

[marvelrobbins]

Geoff Johns praised GL to high hell as well. So forgive me if I am wary of comic book writers giving seals of approval.

Yeah but Geoff Johns Is a top DC executive.He was never going to do anything but praise It on release.

Chris Claremont can say whatever he wishes.

[Rac]

WTF is the first Captain America movie??

Im guessing some low budget venture? Probably direct to video?

Very first one was a serial from 1944.
Then there were two tv movies in the 70s.
And finally the 1990 turkey, which was a theatrical release.

[Rac]

Recent interview with Marvel Studios VP of Production Tom Cohen:

"Wolverine’s in the works right now, as soon as Fox locks in a new director for Wolverine that will go forward."

So, Mangold isn't locked and loaded yet? It's a little weird for him not to mention Mangold at all as he says Tim Miller is attached to Deadpool.

http://collider.com/tom-cohen-the-wolverine-ant-man-x-men-sequels/99163/

[psylockolussus]

Maybe the script isn't finished yet.

[Crockett]

Maybe the script isn't finished yet.

McQuarrie was hired to write the script for the movie August 2009, surely the script is done by now.

[akfj]

McQuarrie finished the script in March 2010: http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/03/03/20100303wolverine-japan-adventure-is-a-go

[Crockett]

Thanks for posting that, it wouldn't make much sense if the script wasn't done by now.

Now as for Mangold not being locked in, perhaps he has yet to decide whether or not to do the project?

[Alexei Belyakov]

Thanks for posting that, it wouldn't make much sense if the script wasn't done by now.

Now as for Mangold not being locked in, perhaps he has yet to decide whether or not to do the project?

That would be music to my ears :yay:

They can find a better director if he turns them down.

[Cherry]

Hmmm, maybe they hadn't decided or announced the director at the time of the interview? Maybe the interview was released a bit late? I dunno... :huh:

[narrows101]

Hugh did the Toronto interview this week, and this isn't the first time he said the film starts shooting in October, so they must be pretty certain. He also said he was filming "Les Miserables" next year and no official announcement has come from that either, but he said he's doing it. Just because it's not announced doesn't mean it's not happening. But an official announcement would be nice LOL.

Hugh's new show starts on Tuesday for two weeks and I suspect he'll be giving more interviews, so maybe more info will come out.

[MARVEL ROCKS]

I think this movie will release in November 2012.

[marvelrobbins]

I think they will hold It for may or June 2013.

Bond 23,Man of Steel,and The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey all come out holiday
2012.The next Star Trek film Is also a possability but they have to start focusing on it.
I think summer 2013 Is more likely for Star Trek.

Iron Man III Is only announced Superhero film for 2013.

[Project862006]

That would be music to my ears :yay:

They can find a better director if he turns them down.
like who stop thinking someone like danny boyle will jump in mangold is a very good director who has gotten Angelina Jolie and Reese Witherspoon thier Oscars and Joaquin Phoenix an Oscar Nomination

this is'nt some hack

[psylockolussus]

I hope its a 2012 release date ^_^

[akfj]

With the recent news report on the homepage, Jackman hinted that it may be released in late 2012: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/167717-the-wolverine-targeted-for-an-october-start

[Hellion]

With the recent news report on the homepage, Jackman hinted that it may be released in late 2012: http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/167717-the-wolverine-targeted-for-an-october-start


Beat me to it...LOL :yay:

[fallenAngel]

Even though I have little interest in another Wolverine Solo movie, James Mangold I feel like would do a good job provided the script is good.

Mangold is actually a pretty decent action director and there are very few in Hollywood right now. Knight and Day was silly but that car chase was pretty great.

I've liked all of his movies, I actually feel like he is better suited for this than Aronofsky personally.

[Rac]

Even though I have little interest in another Wolverine Solo movie, James Mangold I feel like would do a good job provided the script is good.

Mangold is actually a pretty decent action director and there are very few in Hollywood right now. Knight and Day was silly but that car chase was pretty great.

I've liked all of his movies, I actually feel like he is better suited for this than Aronofsky personally.
I feel Cop Land is very underrated. Best performance by Stallone, imo.

[psylockolussus]

The earlier release date, the better!

[Supermanreturns]

I think Fox will make an X movie each year or two.

2009 - Wolverine
2011 - First Class
2012 - The Wolverine

2013? Deadpool? First Class 2? X4? New Mutants?

[Cherry]

I think Fox will make an X movie each year or two.


Whether or not Fox adheres to that schedule, it is clear that Fox is upping the release schedule in a big way. I could see FC2 or X4 in 2013 or 2014, definitely.

[Episode29]

I've liked all of his movies, I actually feel like he is better suited for this than Aronofsky personally.

Maybe. But Aronofsky would have made an interesting and unique film no matter what. Mangold, on the other hand, makes well-made, competent films. Not great ones.

I'd argue the closest he's ever come to achieving greatness is 3:10 to Yuma, but that was made without the corporate interests tied to a project like Wolverine. Aronofsky has clout with the studio, Mangold on the other hand...

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Maybe. But Aronofsky would have made an interesting and unique film no matter what. Mangold, on the other hand, makes well-made, competent films. Not great ones.

I'd argue the greatest he's ever come to a achieving greatness is 3:10 to Yuma, but that was made without the corporate interests tied to a project like Wolverine. Aronofsky has clout with the studio, Mangold on the other hand...

I really don't know what to expect from Aronofsky.

I actually haven't seen most of his movies. I think the only one I've seen was Requiem For A Dream, and I wasn't a fan. I haven't seen his other films. What I have seen of The Fountain was kinda weird. But I didn't see that movie all the way through, so I couldn't form a proper opinion.

Not pulling for one over the other. I guess I just never really fanboy'd out for Aronofsky.

[Episode29]

I really don't know what to expect from Aronofsky.

I actually haven't seen most of his movies. I think the only one I've seen was Requiem For A Dream, and I wasn't a fan. I haven't seen his other films. What I have seen of The Fountain was kinda weird. But I didn't see that movie all the way through, so I couldn't form a proper opinion.

Not pulling for one over the other. I guess I just never really fanboy'd out for Aronofsky.

Basically, it can be summed up like thus:

Aronofsky creates compelling art.
Mangold creates safe Hollywood entertainment.

[fallenAngel]

Compelling art, yes, i don't think anyone can deny this. But its not always the most accesable. Wolverine needs to be "mainstream" in a lot of ways.

One reason I was kind of interested in Aronofsky was to see how he would handle a more mainstream movie. Terri Gilliam for example I don't like at all, but Twelve Monkeys I thought was great because it was more toned down than his usual fair.

So for a stand alone film set in Japan I think Aronofsky would no doubt have made something interesting, but depending on the level of control he had it could have been quite awkward and over indulgent. Auteurs directing superhero movies isn't always the best thing. Raimi has gotten a lot of flack for his style with Spider-man and I don't think anyone wants to be reminded about Lee's Hulk movie. It has its fans but most people were very turned off by it.

I am actually surprised that Branagh did such a fluid job with Thor, I thought that movie would have been bogged down by his obvious pretensions but it wasn't at all.

Who knows. but as long as the script is good I have no reason to believe Mangold will do a bad job. His stuff may not be art, but it is decent hollywood fair and 3:10 to Yuma was awesome.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Basically, it can be summed up like thus:

Aronofsky creates compelling art.
Mangold creates safe Hollywood entertainment.

Perfectly said, and I'll add my own concept:

Aronofsky makes brilliant films.

Mangold doesn't.

Compelling art, yes, i don't think anyone can deny this. But its not always the most accesable. Wolverine needs to be "mainstream" in a lot of ways.

Not true and that's pretty much what killed the first movie. The character is a poetic lone warrior. He's a man on a mission to die that can't - and the idea of living [an immortal] life in solitude makes him all the more miserable.

There's nothing mainstream about that.

One reason I was kind of interested in Aronofsky was to see how he would handle a more mainstream movie. Terri Gilliam for example I don't like at all, but Twelve Monkeys I thought was great because it was more toned down than his usual fair.

Brazil is his best film, check it out. I loved 12 Monkeys though, the concept of a man lost in time...good stuff.

So for a stand alone film set in Japan I think Aronofsky would no doubt have made something interesting, but depending on the level of control he had it could have been quite awkward and over indulgent. Auteurs directing superhero movies isn't always the best thing. Raimi has gotten a lot of flack for his style with Spider-man and I don't think anyone wants to be reminded about Lee's Hulk movie. It has its fans but most people were very turned off by it.

I would rather have a competent director making a real movie about a character I love than have a generic director making a popcorn movie about a character I love.

Ang's Hulk may not sit well with the younger audiences, but for me and most of my friends and family (all over 30) its a great allegory for inner rage and release. I preferred the Norton picture simply because of the beats that Norton brought to the table (still wish it would have opened with the suicide attempt in the Arctic). The loneliness of the character was the success of that film for me. You really feel like he just wants to be human again and the frustration of not being able to is brutal. They're very different films with entirely different motivations. Both worked for me.

I am actually surprised that Branagh did such a fluid job with Thor, I thought that movie would have been bogged down by his obvious pretensions but it wasn't at all.

As much as I love Branagh, Thor is not a great film. Its a good popcorn movie with some really great moments, but far from a great film. It really could have been alot better, specially coming from Branagh, but I don't blame him for that. Its Marvel who handicaps their own movies. The scene with Thor trying to recover Mjolnir got me pretty mad. What coulda been the defining moment in the film, where the character is truly broken down in pain over his predicament, Marvel destroyed with Hawkeye's cameo. I love Renner, but he didn't need to be there, specially for that moment.

Who knows. but as long as the script is good I have no reason to believe Mangold will do a bad job. His stuff may not be art, but it is decent hollywood fair and 3:10 to Yuma was awesome.

I too think Mangold, and Slade, and Black will all make decent comic book movies these next 2 years. The thing is, I don't want The Wolverine to be a decent movie. I want something dazzling. I want something brilliant, something that transcends the usual "Hollywood fair". The Dark Knight elevated the genre to the next level. I wanted this movie to take it a level further.

With Aronofsky, it had a chance to do that. With Mangold, no chance at all.

[fallenAngel]

I agree that with Aronofsky there was an obvious chance for greatness, but I find some directors to be a little too set in their own ways and opinions about things and I thought that there was an equal chance of getting something so muddled and odd that it wouldn't have worked well with audiences and only the most diehard of wolverine fans would have eaten it up.

This would of course kind of be okay since this is to be a stand alone film whose success is kind of moot since there would be no direct followup. And there have already been four movies heavily featuring wolverine.

I personally don't really care for wolverine as a stand alone character though. I don't like brooders. So me debating this is kind of pointless, I just think that Mangold is a decent enough director and doesn't deserve to be scoffed at like some people were doing. But other people share this opinion already so I don't need to push it further.

I agree that Thor, like Iron man 2 was a little divided by all the Avengers set up. Not as bad though.

and I have seen Brazil, I have seen nearly all of Gilliam's movies as I kept trying to give him a chance since he was so critically praised. But I do not enjoy his work. He relegates very gifted actors to props for his overly cluttered composition and while most of his movies like Brazil start off strong (the satirical first half is brilliant) he tends to lose any and all humanity by painstakingly trying to control everything. I remember one actor saying that he was much more concerned with a rat running in a wheel somewhere in the background than the actor who was having an emotional scene.

This is the problem I have with artistic diretors being given too much control sometimes, and with the title being "The" wolverine, I just though there was a significant chance for the director to bring too much of his own sensibilities to the table rather than paying attention to the character. Title just sounded a bit pretentious to me.But I have not seen more than two of Aronofsky's movies so I can't judge him to harshly. I was at the very least curious to see what he would do.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Basically, it can be summed up like thus:

Aronofsky creates compelling art.
Mangold creates safe Hollywood entertainment.

Eh. If Requiem For A Dream is an indicator of his other films, then I'll pass on Aronofsky.

But having not seen his other movies, I'll refrain from passing judgment. I just wasn't a fan of that particular movie.

[marvelrobbins]

Having seen Black Swan I am kinda glad he dropped out.This had poential to be another Ang Lee situation.

[Episode29]

Having seen Black Swan I am kinda glad he dropped out.This had poential to be another Ang Lee situation.

Or a Christopher Nolan situation.

[psylockolussus]

Having seen Black Swan I am kinda glad he dropped out.This had poential to be another Ang Lee situation.

I agree!

Or a Christopher Nolan situation.

I agree, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are just too serious. I couldn't enjoy it.

[akfj]

I agree, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are just too serious. I couldn't enjoy it.

I think you may have misinterpreted Episode29, but I'll leave it up to him to elaborate.

[Thebumwhowalks]

The thing about Nolan is, his movies are fairly straightforward(apart from Memento's structure, lol) in comparison to Darren A's films.
Unlike with Nolan, there is nothing in Darren's portfolio that suggests what his take on a straightforward action movie like 'The Wolverine' would have been like, because, no matter how you slice it, no matter how much you want to bang on about his struggle with the animal within, it will turn out to be a mostly action based film, with a love story at the centre. It is still a mainstream superhero movie, and there is only so much weight it can bear.

Nolan made two studo crime thrillers before Batman, whereas DA likes to make movies that he can lean on heavily with as much art as he can muster, ie real life films that can take their time and have the scope to explore the depths of the human condition.

Nolan's studio films are all pretty mainstream in comparison, so I think the Ang Lee comparison is more apt.
What Ang Lee made the mistake of doing was bringing far too much weight onto the Hulk story than it could bear, and we got a movie that not many people could get involved in as a result.

I don't think that is what would have happened here, I like to think that Darren would have reigned it in, and just made sure he got the best performances out of the actors, got down the striking visuals, and stuck to McQuairrie's script, without altering it to a degree of pretention that could have turned the movie into a bit of a joke, like the Ang Hulk film.

edit: But, y'know, he might have ****ed it up in some way too, we might have got some over ponderous movie with Wolverine sitting around meditating in lotus gardens while going into dream sequences about his animal side, before going into an action scene that is too scared to cut loose for fear of being common. ie it could have been overbearingly smart arse to the point of stupidity, where the artist can't dial back his skillset for the appropriate story, like Ang Hulk, although he did get the action sceens down very well, until he went with the overdone pretention in the finale, and we got a truly wtf motion painting ending in a Hulk movie of all things.

[Alexei Belyakov]

I agree!



I agree, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are just too serious. I couldn't enjoy it.

http://i51.tinypic.com/99jcya.jpg

[Alexei Belyakov]

Eh. If Requiem For A Dream is an indicator of his other films, then I'll pass on Aronofsky.

That would be a huge mistake :cwink:

But having not seen his other movies, I'll refrain from passing judgment. I just wasn't a fan of that particular movie.

Go out and rent The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both characters in those films are synonymous with Logan's existential condition.

The journey and struggle that he put them on, both characters and actors, would alone make for an amazing Wolverine movie - which I'm pretty sure is why Jackman was so excited about recruiting Darren.

I know you liked Origins, Nell, but its such a misrepresentation of the character. A Wolverine film should be character-driven. Not popcorn-driven.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Go out and rent The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both characters in those films are synonymous with Logan's existential condition.

The journey and struggle that he put them on, both characters and actors, would alone make for an amazing Wolverine movie - which I'm pretty sure is why Jackman was so excited about recruiting Darren.

I know you liked Origins, Nell, but its such a misrepresentation of the character. A Wolverine film should be character-driven. Not popcorn-driven.

Aye, it is all very well pointing to those films, and saying that he would be a guaranteed shoo in to nail the film, but as I was saying, with these types of films(I have only seen Pi, RFAD, the Fountain and the Wrestler), he does not have to find a balance between that adult, existential tone and the hyper realistic world of mainstream comic book superheroes, with all the restrictions that always apply to these franchise characters.

The Wrestler was like a documentary, and MR's down to Earth performance went a long way in letting us just rest easy and watch a man go through his last days.
An approach that would not work whatsoever in a Wolverine film, not only would DA have his work cut out for him by having such creative avenues cut off from him, but having to deal with the restrictions of having to keep his lead character within the conservative confines of a mainstream franchise that has to include a younger audience.

You might want your 'art house' Wolverine movie, and so do I, but there has to be popcorn moments in there, or else the movie is not doing it's job.
The existential drama can't be too heavy with Wolverine either, let's get real here, the Claremont book is good, but it doesn't go much deeper than a lonely guy with anger management problems, and it can't really because he is a mainstream superhero, and there is restrictions on what you are allowed to do with such a character.
You can't have him doing truly self destructive things like ****ed up human beings do when they are going through a period of losing their minds and identity in their lives, as you would see in a regular DA film, he'd still have to hit this and that hero mark, as they do in all of these mainstream sh flicks.

Sometimes 'necessity is the mother of invention' and all that, but other times when the artist finds himself cut off from his usual avenues of creativity, he ends up making an artistic compromise without meaning to, where the film is neither a great character piece, or popcorn munching mash up of an action film.

Like, DA might have a great idea for what Wolverine would do nest given where his character is at , 'Yeah, he would go nuts here and completely trash the bar, scaring all the patrons..'(or whatever), and then someone steps in from Marvel and say, 'Em, you can't do that, that's kind of like what a super-villan would do, we are in the business of superheroes...' So, DA's ideas are too much for the character to bear and his other idea that fits within the restrictions, is not that great an idea...

I dunno, I'm just hypothesising that there is no guarantee he would have made the great Wolverine movie, he may well might have, but there is nothing in his portfolio to suggest what kind of film he would have made. Some moments in the Wrestler, aye, for sure, but, that was a large canvas upon which to work, no limits, with this type of deal all there are are very strict limits.

Maybe that is what he was starting to feel, and that’s why he walked, and i'm not talking just about studio interferance, but the fact that his usual canvas was going to be very small and with a limited pallette, something he had not dealt with before, and he may well have felt the artistic sensibilities he had developed would have been limited to the point of being negligible.

[Episode29]

I think you may have misinterpreted Episode29, but I'll leave it up to him to elaborate.

Correct-o.

As for whether Aronofsky is capable of toning down his artsier sensibilities, I'm sure he's more than capable. He has expressed an interest in making more mainstream films in the past. He was attached to direct a new RoboCop forever. His next film, Noah, is being pitched as an expensive event film.

I dunno, at this point in the game, I'd rather watch a brilliant and ambitious director tackle a superhero movie and do something interesting than watch another middle-of-the-road effort that hits all the expected beats and doesn't try for anything bold and daring. Even if he failed - like Ang Lee did - his failure would likely be more fascinating and memorable than many of the B-level efforts churned out by safe directors.

Plus, Fox knows fans hate Wolverine. Hugh Jackman knows it. Both adore Aronofsky. They would have been more than open to letting him take chances if they thought he could save the Wolverine franchise.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Correct-o.

As for whether Aronofsky is capable of toning down his artsier sensibilities, I'm sure he's more than capable. He has expressed an interest in making more mainstream films in the past. He was attached to direct a new RoboCop forever. His next film, Noah, is being pitched as an expensive event film.

I dunno, at this point in the game, I'd rather watch a brilliant and ambitious director tackle a superhero movie and do something interesting than watch another middle-of-the-road effort that hits all the expected beats and doesn't try for anything bold and daring. Even if he failed - like Ang Lee did - his failure would likely be more fascinating and memorable than many of the B-level efforts churned out by safe directors.

Plus, Fox knows fans hate Wolverine. Hugh Jackman knows it. Both adore Aronofsky. They would have been more than open to letting him take chances if they thought he could save the Wolverine franchise.

Robocop is an R rated/18 cert film franchise. He would have had a helluva lot more freedom with that movie, yet still he walked away from that one too. We don't know the exact circumstances of why he walked from both franchises despite what the press releases say.

I want to see whoever makes the best Wolverine film, I don't care what lofty aims the director had if he misses the mark, Ang Lee's Hulk sits on my shelf unwatched for many a year now. Aye, it is fascinating to see such a highly regarded filmaker miss the mark, as in getting to see in what way he did so. But that doesn't always make the film fascinating or memorable as a piece of art per se, it can be more of an interesting turn of events, that just goes to show you can hire someone who looks like they would do no wrong artistically, and they churn out a creative turkey. Same with Bryan Singer and Superman Returns.


McQuarrie has apparently written a very good script, if Mangold pulls off his best game, Copland, 3:10 to Yuma, then we could have that great Wolverine movie. He could have strengths in this field of commercial action films that Arfonofsky lacks. It may not be along the lines so much as reigning in your arty fartyness, as much as not being afriad to go down the more common avenue of the heroic tale when it suits the story better.
Like, choosing to pursue the 'man on the run seeking a cure' story of the Hulk, rather than a family psychodrama dealing with repressed memories.

I do think that when it comes to film, people can be quite snobby about strengths in certain areas that some filmakers have.
Whereas in the field of music, it seems that the more arty people recognise the strengths that the more commercial musicians have, and don't turn their nose up at them. Nick Cave doesn't give a **** about what genre you belong to, he'll ask Kylie Minogue to sing on a song of his cause he likes some of her records, and the record might turn out better than had he asked PJ Harvey to sing on it, as he can recognise she has a certain something that is suitable for that particular piece.

I just don't see any evidence that Darren A would have definitely made a better Wolverine film than JM, as a lot of people here seem to think.

With Copland in particular, I do see some evidence that JM could pull off a good meditative character led hero film, along the lines of the CC/FM book. just as, as AB was saying, there is evidence in The Wrestler that DA could have made a great Wolveinre character piece too.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Also, I just had a thought, let's say Darren Arfonofsky *had* made a foray into mainstream Hollywood action movies, and the result was Copland.
Do you guys think there is any chance you would be sat here now saying 'Darren's one foray into mainstream action resulted in not only him persuading Slyvester Stallone to drop the muscle and lay on the fat, and got the best acting performance out of him since his Oscar nominated turn in Rocky, but also subverted the typical Hollywood action finale but having no sound bar the ringing of tinnitus being heard by the lead character.'

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I wouldn't have chosen Darren Arfonofsky myself as director, I would have, all I'm saying is that it's not such a sure thing he would have pulled off a great Wolverine movie.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That would be a huge mistake :cwink:



Go out and rent The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both characters in those films are synonymous with Logan's existential condition.

The journey and struggle that he put them on, both characters and actors, would alone make for an amazing Wolverine movie - which I'm pretty sure is why Jackman was so excited about recruiting Darren.

I know you liked Origins, Nell, but its such a misrepresentation of the character. A Wolverine film should be character-driven. Not popcorn-driven.

Eh, I don't see how it wasn't character driven. Everything leading up to Weapon X, and even a chunk of it after Weapon X, was all about Logan, the relationships he built with people, and then those relationships being taken from him.

But it's also a comic book, and as Thebumwhowalks seemed to imply, I think that some people are overestimating the deepness of a comic book story. It's still Weapon X, it's still Wolverine v. Sabretooth, it's about scientists experimenting on him, and them him raging on them afterwords. Now, I know a lot of people had a problem with Logan's lack of berserker rage in the movie, but I really didn't take issue with it. There were certainly some aspects of the movie I didn't like, but overall, I really never understood why people hate it so much.

One of the things that I love so much about the movie is that I feel it focuses on Logan, and his relationships with both Kayla and the Hudsons so much, and gives those relationships time to build and breathe. We get 45 minutes of that before we get into our first big action sequence, which is the helicopter chase. After that, sure I'll admit the movie loses a bit of focus and kinda ends up all over the place, but the first half of that movie alone give it a lot of heart. And while the 2nd half bounces around a bit, I don't think that it ever loses focus of what his motives are.

Sure, it's not a character piece the likes of The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something, but it's a comic book movie, it's not supposed to be.

I pride my favorite movies on having a certain level of character focus as well, except for certain circumstances, I'm not really impressed by non-character driven action films (although oddly enough, with the whole Aronofsky conversation, I get turned off by movies that become -too- artsy as well, I have a particular medium that I look for). That's why I love X-Men in general, because there is a good focus on character, and what I consider to be a great foundation for the world these characters live in, and I thought that X-Men Origins: Wolverine matched that. To this day, I still don't get why people are so upset with the film.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I'd say the problem when it came to XMWO being character led was it was far too truncated.
We see them as kids, and then bam, they are in the wars, but, bam, it is just for the opening credits, then bam, they are in Stryker's mutant team.

We didn't get to see them bond as brothers, or come to terms with the fact they are mutants, we are just left to assume what happened there.

It was as if they were in a hurry to get to the X-Men 2 stuff with Stryker, as if that was all the audience wanted, to see the blanks being painted in for that story we got the gist of already.

I'm not saying we should have gotten a massive time spanning movie like Once Upon a time in america, although that would have been a frickin amazing Wolverine origins movie, lol, but we should have gotten a helluva lot more than that.

They skip through the time periods and character development between the brothers in order to get to the Stryker stuff, so the whole aspect of them being guys who don't age normally, and have lived through the ages is totally irrelevant. With the story told, they might as well have aged normally, so they did not take advantage of the storytelling potential with that fantasy aspect, which would have been very interesting indeed.

I mean, I was very excited when seeing the initial trailers with Wolverine in the Civil War and Vietnam, and then all we get of that is an opening credit sequence?! They could have had a great opening half hour with all of that stuff, seeing pivotal moments in their lives over the course of the early part of the century, or even the first hour, and had the Stryker stuff in the last hour and twenty minutes or whatever.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Eh, I don't see how it wasn't character driven. Everything leading up to Weapon X, and even a chunk of it after Weapon X, was all about Logan, the relationships he built with people, and then those relationships being taken from him. But it's also a comic book, and as Thebumwhowalks seemed to imply, I think that some people are overestimating the deepness of a comic book story.

That's a poor mentality to have towards the genre. It basically implies that because these films are based on comic books that they shouldn't be serious/intelligent pictures with any depth.

Bryan Singer went into the genre with the complete opposite set of ideals, which Christopher Nolan drove home with TDK.

This genre is very capable of quality material.

It's still Weapon X, it's still Wolverine v. Sabretooth, it's about scientists experimenting on him, and them him raging on them afterwords. Now, I know a lot of people had a problem with Logan's lack of berserker rage in the movie, but I really didn't take issue with it. There were certainly some aspects of the movie I didn't like, but overall, I really never understood why people hate it so much.

Nell, you defend Origins and X3 alot on these forums despite the very general consensus of them by others here, and while I can agree that X3 isn't the horrific film its made out to be by most in the comics community, I really can't say the same about Origins.

Let me clarify that I don't dislike Origins because I'm a comic book fan or because it didn't satisfy my thirst for blood and gore. As a movie, not just as a comic book movie, but as a movie in general, its a really bad movie.

I hate to have to use RT for reference, but 37% says it all.

One of the things that I love so much about the movie is that I feel it focuses on Logan, and his relationships with both Kayla and the Hudsons so much, and gives those relationships time to build and breathe.

While the movie does indeed focus on Logan, it gives us no reason to care about Logan .

All the moments prior to Weapon X that could have made for great emotional drama are wasted on an opening sequence that turns the Origin comic into a 3 minute scene and 150 years of war into a credits montage.

*Gavin Hood spoke of how they had a sequence during the Civil War where the brothers find themselves to be the only survivors of that particular battle shaping them as men now that they know they're impervious to damage.

Obviously that scene wasn't explosive enough to have in the movie.

*In another sequence that never saw the light of day, [Captain] Creed tells the men on his U-Boat in Normandy right before they hit the beach "That they're all gonna die" with a tasty grin on his face.

All those important beats that would have actually developed the brothers were excised in favor of an "epic" montage which does nothing more than suggest one man embraces his animal nature and the other doesn't. Maybe if the rest of the film wasn't an absolute departure from common sense, that would have worked a little better.

His relationship with Kayla was okay, really didn't need more work, but again is completely thrown in the trash can once she reveals her ridiculous intentions for betraying Logan (I literally almost left the theatre when she started saying "They have my Sister!!!!!" over and over again :doh:).

As for The Hudsons. Nell, have you ever seen this movie?

http://i54.tinypic.com/dmy3h3.jpg

They ripped out that ENTIRE concept from Superman: The Movie and I'm almost 100% it was because Donner himself became involved with the film. It is the absolute worst homage to a movie ever made, not to mention Jackman's dialogue and acting take a massive collapse during those scenes.

We get 45 minutes of that before we get into our first big action sequence, which is the helicopter chase. After that, sure I'll admit the movie loses a bit of focus and kinda ends up all over the place, but the first half of that movie alone give it a lot of heart. And while the 2nd half bounces around a bit, [B]I don't think that it ever loses focus of what his motives are.

The character's motives were pretty simple and they still somehow managed to mess them up massively.

-Man lives for war.
-Man gets tired of war.
-Man's brother won't accept his change of heart.
-Man leaves war, pursues quiet life.
-Man's brother destroys man's quiet life.
-Man tries to exact vengeance on man's brother, fails.
-Man turns to monster for tool to defeat brother.
-Man finds out quiet life was never real and brother didn't really do anything worth being killed for.
-We no longer care about man or movie.
-Movie continues anyway and man decides to help woman who........

There were too many ways to get the above before the bold right. They failed.

Sure, it's not a character piece the likes of The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something, but it's a comic book movie, it's not supposed to be.

Again, you should demand more from your movies and expect the best when it comes to characters you loved long before they were adapted into film properties.

Wolverine got quality treatment from Bryan Singer in an X-Men film. He deserved quality treatment in his own film.

The comic book genre hasn't been a "B" genre for over a decade. Unfortunately some producers in Hollywood still think it is and we get crap like Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, Punisher War Zone and X-Men Origins.

Ironically those same producers make so much less than those that approach the genre with respect and creativity :cwink:

I pride my favorite movies on having a certain level of character focus as well, except for certain circumstances, I'm not really impressed by non-character driven action films (although oddly enough, with the whole Aronofsky conversation, I get turned off by movies that become -too- artsy as well, I have a particular medium that I look for). That's why I love X-Men in general, because there is a good focus on character, and what I consider to be a great foundation for the world these characters live in, and I thought that X-Men Origins: Wolverine matched that. To this day, I still don't get why people are so upset with the film.

Nell, you're entitled to enjoy Origins as is everyone else who did, but I gotta ask, are you really gonna say Origins matched the level of its precursors?

[Thebumwhowalks]

Man, I did not know about those planned scenes for during the wars, that is really annoying they did not put them in there.

On one or two of your points though....Wolverine only thinks the life was not real once he got the revelation, he then finds out from her that she did indeed love him, despite the relationship being set up initially under duress.

and on that note, I don't see why her motivation for betraying Logan was ridiculous, as she was promised her sister's release, as opposed her being killed after being experimented on.

and they did that in the books, gave us the story about Sabretooth killing silver Fox, and then later on revealing that she was not killed at all.
Logan still has plenty of beef with his borther though, he was in on the whole plot to have him experimented on and have his memories wiped to be a weapon for the governbment, and of course we have the scene where ST is actually threatening to kill SF for real, with Snyder not giving a sh** now she has served her purpose. It's her scream that leads Logan back to the lab.

I agree that the scenes with the farmers are the worst in the film, last time I watched the movie I did my washing during those scenes. They are nigh on unwatchable, that farmer's first rustic utterance of the classic 'Yip!' is the worst 'Yip' i have ever heard in the history of mankind, it is very funny as a result.


There are some very wonky storytelling devices in the film, and massive potential missed, but I can still watch it as half the movie it should have been, like X-Men 3.
I don't think they compare to the first two X-Men films at all though.
and normally I should be watching a Wolverine origins movie every couple of weeks, like i did when i got Batman Begins and Spider-man 1 on dvd, instead of every few months because I have worn out watching the good X-men films, and feel like seeing some more live action X-Men.
It is a movie that pisses me off, but I can still enjoy the good parts of it, as i outlined in the unpopular opinions thread.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Man, I did not know about those planned scenes for during the wars, that is really annoying they did not put them in there.

There's a good film buried underneath all the junk they aimed at the kids. We'll probably never see it which is why I'm so adamant about the next film being at least a proper Wolverine movie.

On one or two of your points though....Wolverine only thinks the life was not real once he got the revelation, he then finds out from her that she did indeed love him, despite the relationship being set up initially under duress.

and on that note, I don't see why her motivation for betraying Logan was ridiculous, as she was promised her sister's release, as opposed her being killed after being experimented on.

and they did that in the books, gave us the story about Sabretooth killing silver Fox, and then later on revealing that she was not killed at all.
Logan still has plenty of beef with his borther though, he was in on the whole plot to have him experimented on and have his memories wiped to be a weapon for the governbment, and of course we have the scene where ST is actually threatening to kill SF for real, with Snyder not giving a sh** now she has served her purpose. It's her scream that leads Logan back to the lab.

The problem wasn't the actual story. It was the storytelling.

I love the idea of a man betrayed and fooled into becoming a living weapon for the military (Manchurian Candidate being a prime example of how great that kinda story can be).

Kayla's motivations, and Stryker's were what pretty much brought down the house, not to mention how they executed it onscreen.

I woulda been happy with Kayla doing it all for the sake of being bad. Seriously. It woulda been better than "they have my Sister!!!" :doh:


I agree that the scenes with the farmers are the worst in the film, last time I watched the movie I did my washing during those scenes. They are nigh on unwatchable, that farmer's first rustic utterance of the classic 'Yip!' is the worst 'Yip' i have ever heard in the history of mankind, it is very funny as a result.

The first thing I thought when I saw the Hudsons was "Oh my God. They're really gonna do this. Donner is a producer for Christ's sake!" :doh:

If you're gonna make a tribute to his Superman movie, make it good. Or at least don't rip it straight out of the film. The Hudsons were basically Ma and Pa Kent just instead of useful to the story, they were completely irrelevant to the plot.

To make the acquisition of his jacket a big deal in the Wolverine lore made me wanna scream. Its a jacket. Who cares how he got it?

There are some very wonky storytelling devices in the film, and massive potential missed, but I can still watch it as half the movie it should have been, like X-Men 3.
I don't think they compare to the first two X-Men films at all though.
and normally I should be watching a Wolverine origins movie every couple of weeks, like i did when i got Batman Begins and Spider-man 1 on dvd, instead of every few months because I have worn out watching the good X-men films, and feel like seeing some more live action X-Men.
It is a movie that pisses me off, but I can still enjoy the good parts of it, as i outlined in the unpopular opinions thread.

All of the stuff with Schreiber was good. They treated his character the best and since the guy's a heck of an actor, he shines despite his terrible surroundings. Creed's arc was handled the way they should have handled Logan's. Proper development and a clear defining motivation for the character.

Logan just wanted peace. He didn't find it. But yet somehow he ended up in Three Mile Island fighting Deadpool WITH HIS BROTHER.

There goes the whole movie. That alone destroys the one thing that made the movie remotely interesting.

Jimmy: "This doesn't change anything between us, Victor. We're done."

Why?????? Who cares anymore? He didn't even kill your girlfriend.

Man, it all just bothers me so much. So much wasted potential.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Aye, I can see that you are a big Wolverine fan, and also, were one of the few who were defending the Jackman interpretation, in the two good films, in that badass thread.
I thought Origins might have been a return to form as they had hired an art house director, and had great material to draw from, but alas...we got another X-Men 3.

I guess i have just learned not to let it bother me so much somehow, as I know we got two very good ones already, and y'know, back in the late ninties when it was announced they were defo doing a live action X-Men, even though BS was doing it, I did not think we would get such a good live action interpretation, HJ really blew me away.
So, I guess I am still relived and a bit flabbergasted that we did actually get two v good Wolverine films, and I do enjoy his stuff in X-Men 3, he has some great moments, even in that film.

There is hope the next film will be a vast improvement, with McQuarrie doing the scripting, the comic it being based on being great source material, Chris Claremont giving his approval to the script, and Mangold being a solid director, I think we have a good chance of it being as good as the first two films.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Man wow, I just have a totally different interpretation of the entire movie then, I guess that's why it settles with me.

Another reason why it probably settles better with me is that I must admit, I haven't read the Weapon X comic books. It is, however, at the top of my list of trades to buy. My familiarity with the Weapon X story comes mostly from how it was adapted in the cartoon series, along with various versions I have seen in different mediums, as well as what was foreshadowed in X-Men and X2, as well as knowledge of the story that I have gotten through talking to people and my own personal research. So on that level, I think I went into the movie with different expectations altogether. Also, in terms of the lack of violence thing, I was looking at this movie as a prequel to the X-Men version of Logan, which is very much PG-13, as opposed to the rated R version of the solo character.

I do admit I was rather disappointed that the war scenes were condensed into a credits montage. There was a lot of good footage from the wars that was shown in trailers, TV spots, and other promo material, and I was expecting more from that. That said, I can accept what was done. For a credits montage, I thought it was well executed and got the point across well. Even though there wasn't much exploration into the brotherly relationship between James and Victor, when they eventually split, I never really felt like "wow, and I'm supposed to care because?" It worked for me. You mentioning it is really the first time I've thought that they weren't developed well enough.

Now onto something that Thebumwhowalks stated - the whole Silverfox thing is exactly how I remember it from the animated series, and apparently according to him it's what happens in the comics too. Silverfox "dies", but comes back having never really been dead, and it was a plot all along. That all sounds like classic Weapon X plot points to me, and I thought it was handled well.

As far as her motives, her motives were fine to me, and here's a point where I think interpretations differ. My interpretation of the film is that Logan and Kayla were legitimately together, and when Stryker came back into town, and Logan refused him, that's when all the circumstances of Kayla's sister came to be. I believe that they captured her sister, and made her go through with this plan, when they were in love legitimately from the start. The scene where Stryker is explaining all of that to him, Kayla motions as though she is going to tell that to Logan, but Stryker threatens her with the gun. And here is my biggest complaint with the movie - I think the original mind erase sequence puts everything together so much better, but they cut it out, and make the adamantium bullets come across as a really horrid plot device. But with the original mind erase sequence, the adamantium bullets actually make sense, and have a place in the story.

As far as the Hudsons go, I think that's where interpretations are also different. Where you see bad nod to Donner's Superman, I see elements of the story taken right from the source material. As I know the story, after Logan goes through Weapon X and escapes, the Hudsons (who in the comics are actually part of Alpha Flight) take Logan in and care for him while he heals and recovers from what happened. And I see that as exactly what's going on in the movie. They're just old people instead of young Canadian superheroes. That's why that's one of my favorite aspects of the movie, because it's the story as I've always known it growing up being brought to life right in front of me.

There was another point that you made, about the movie relying on the previous trilogy for it's character development of Logan, and I think there's a bit of just cause to that. While X-Men Origins: Wolverine is an origin tale, it still exists in the same universe as the trilogy, and as such, the character development over the course of 3 movies plays a part. I really do feel that if they spent too much time rehashing Logan's character in that regard, it'd get tedious. We've seen it 3 times before. We know who this character is. It's part of the reason why I accept X-Men: The Last Stand and regard it so highly, despite it's overall lack of character development. The characters were developed over 2 movies previous. If X-Men: The Last Stand was the first movie of the series, instead of the 3rd, I'd probably have much more issue with it. But I already knew who these characters were and what they were about from 2 previous movies. It also helps that I feel the characters who were truly important to the story were handled well. I think McKellen's Magneto was brilliant, as always, and while many think that Jean Grey got shafted, I thought the creative take they took with Phoenix being an alternate personality rather than a space entity made her a much more interesting and tragic character. I'm not gonna lie, and I know this may be regarded as blasphemy around here, but how she was portrayed in X-Men: The Last Stand made her one of my favorite characters in the trilogy. I'll admit there could have been more, and a lot of her lack of action in the final battle is explained rather well in 2 deleted scenes that for some reason didn't make it, but I found a real sense of interest in how they explored her character. The way they handled Phoenix was, in my humble (and probably not so popular) opinion, one of the really better things about the movie.

But back to X-Men Origins: Wolverine - I think there's something to be said for letting the prior 3 movies development be considered in this movie. We already know who Logan is. I didn't need to see a bunch of exposition into his character. But that seems to be one of the areas where my interpretation of the film is vastly different from everyone else's.

As far as the other large subject of contention - my feelings towards the treatment of "comic books" on film - there really are 2 sides to that coin.

No, comic books are not just mindless dribble with no depth, character, heart, or intelligence. My favorite fiction is X-Men, so obviously I find something worthwhile.

But let's be real here. Whether it's right, wrong, or just the way things are, comic book literature is never going to be held in the same regard as actual literature. And while I vastly appreciate Bryan Singer's take on the X-Men universe (I think his character driven take was ideal for the franchise), even his most character driven X-Men film isn't ever going to be held in the same regards as movies like The Godfather or something of that caliber. Even the most highly regarded comic book film, The Dark Knight, doesn't get that kind of esteem. It took the death of an actor who gave an INCREDIBLE performance for a comic book film to finally get an Oscar nod in acting.

I love superheroes (even though X-Men is really the only one I am a fan of), and X-Men is my favorite thing in fiction. I love the X-Men world and everything it represents. But even I'm not going to sit here with delusions of grandeur that these are some remarkable works of literature that are going to go down in the canon of English writing. While there are definite layers of depth, character, and heart to comic books and comic book stories, there is also a big level of simplicity to them as well, and an aspect of bright colors and fantastic displays of superhero powers. X-Men included. And while I certainly haven't read every X-Men tale that's been written in comic book form, I do have a box sitting beside me right now with hundreds of X-Men comics, and a bookshelf full of X-Men trades. The genre isn't mindless by any means, but they are still very simple and fun in many regards.

I will say, there is one area where I agree with you on. X-Men Origins: Wolverine works for me because I see it as part of the PG-13 universe of the X-Men - it's an origin tale of how Logan becomes the X-Man known as Wolverine. X-Men Wolverine is very PG-13, whereas solo Wolverine is the R rated version. The "softer" portrayal of the character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine works for me because it's essentially the PG-13 version of the character.

The Wolverine will have no ties to the PG-13 X-Men world. It IS solo Wolverine in his own element. This is the R-rated version of the character. While the movie itself doesn't necessarily have to be rated R, the brutality definitely needs to increase. The Wolverine doesn't need to be kid friendly, and if it is, even I will acknowledge that they failed. I still may find the movie good... but a soft Wolverine won't be good.

That said, I can only hope that my post is taken with honest intentions. I certainly don't agree with your point of view, but you certainly bring up some interesting points in regards to these movies. These are the kinds of conversations and debates that I enjoy. In the end, I think it comes down to we just have vastly different interpretations of the work itself.

[Thebumwhowalks]

Yeah, see back in the early ninties, they used to run Wolverine stories in Marvel comics Presents...the anthology title, you got the initial introduction to Madripoor there, and Black Shadow/White shadow, both v good Wolverine stories.
But, the rest of the comic was garbage, you were paying full price for 8 pages of Wolverine.

So, when they decided to run the Weapon X story in MCP I got so pissed off I refused to buy the comic anymore, it was an important origin story, and I felt it should have run in the regular monthly, so as a protest I didn't buy the comic, lol, only time I have ever done that.

So, I've still not read it, but from what I understand from references to it in other Wolverine stories, Logan was in an mute animal state during his escape from the facility.
When he encountered the Hudsons in the wilderness he was still in that state, and they nursed him back to a human state of being.

so it was a very different encounter than that of the farmers in XMOW, I don't even equate that sequence with what happened with the Hudsons, it's so different.

and as the Silver fox thing, Nell, if you have not read the classic Wolverine issue 10, I suggest you go out and buy one of the trade paperbacks, the first 16 issues of Wolverine are one of my all time fav runs of any comic book series, this being one of the highlights. and there are many great issues after that, here and there, but those first 16 issues are 100% quality sh storytelling. You need to read those first ten issues of MCP as a prequel though, not totally necesarry , but they are also collected in trade pb.

Anyway....after we got that story told in flashback about Sabretooth and Logan's great rivalry beginning over the death of Silver Fox, it is revealed much later on that it was part of one of the fake memories implanted into Logan, and she is alive and well. So, quite different from the movie plot, but still, similar in the fact that we and Logan are led to believe that ST killed her, and it later turns out not to be the case.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yea, I mean the details are different, but I feel the spirit of the story is the same.

And what you're talking about with the Hudsons is essentially what happened in the cartoons too. But again, details are different, but I feel the spirit is the same.

Same way William Stryker was never the one in the comics to experiment on Logan, and Stryker wasn't a General, but a reverend. Details are different, spirit is the same.

Yea, my top trades right now are the Wolverine: Weapon X trade, and The Wolverine Japan trade. I like to at the very least collect the trades that the movies were based on (i.e.: I currently own God Loves, Man Kills and The Dark Phoenix because they were adapted in the movies).

[Thebumwhowalks]

I got the CC/FM Japan trade paperback back when I was still at school, about 1990/91, I lent it out though about 15 or so years ago, and never got it back. I read it a lot back then, hell, my friend and I even recorded a song on his dad's home studio called 'Logan' where we came up with a backing track of music, and my friend just read and sang out the first few pages of the story over it, with Logan climbing up that mountain, and amazingly it went perfectly with it, lol.
I need to replace it though, I am dying to read it again.

If you are interested in the comics the movies are based off of though, you need to get a copy of Wolverine no 10, of course it's in the Essentials, but it's also in one of those full colour Wolverine trades. It has the story on the Logan/St/SF thing, and is an all time classic, the moment when Logan confronts ST in the bar is lifted straight from the comic.

edit: i don't recall offahnd what comics the Hudson's story was originally told in, I'm pretty sure it was told in an X-Men comic, it was years before that Weapon X story. I read the gist of it in vol 1 of 'The Wolverine Saga', those prose books with accompaning panels that filled you in on his long history. normally i would have just tracked down the comics, but back in those days they did not have trades for everything and some back isses would have been difficult and expensive to track down, so I just bought that volume to fill in the gaps.

edit: Actually, from memory, it might well have been told in a couple of issues of Alpha Flight. If i find my Wolverine Saga vol 1 I will type up what issues it's on on this post.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I got the CC/FM Japan trade paperback back when I was still at school, about 1990/91, I lent it out though about 15 or so years ago, and never got it back. I read it a lot back then, hell, my friend and I even recorded a song on his dad's home studio called 'Logan' where we came up with a backing track of music, and my friend just read and sang out the first few pages of the story over it, with Logan climbing up that mountain, and amazingly it went perfectly with it, lol.
I need to replace it though, I am dying to read it again.

If you are interested in the comics the movies are based off of though, you need to get a copy of Wolverine no 10, of course it's in the Essentials, but it's also in one of those full colour Wolverine trades. It has the story on the Logan/St/SF thing, and is an all time classic, the moment when Logan confronts ST in the bar is lifted straight from the comic.

edit: i don't recall offahnd what comics the Hudson's story was originally told in, I'm pretty sure it was told in an X-Men comic, it was years before that Weapon X story. I read the gist of it in vol 1 of 'The Wolverine Saga', those prose books with accompaning panels that filled you in on his long history. normally i would have just tracked down the comics, but back in those days they did not have trades for everything and some back isses would have been difficult and expensive to track down, so I just bought that volume to fill in the gaps.

All I know is that in the cartoons, Logan escapes from Weapon X, and is pretty much feral, like you said, and the Hudsons find him and nurse him back to health. Because of their help, he looks towards them and feels them he owes them a debt of gratitude.

Because of that, he lets the husband live when Alpha Flight comes calling to take him back. He does it for her.

I dunno, obviously details are changed, but in spirit, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the same damn story that I knew growing up. That's why I love the movie so much, I thought it captured how I always remembered the movie rather well. Flawed, sure, but still overall a successful translation in my book. I thought it respected both the source material and what was set up in the previous movies rather well.

[Thebumwhowalks]

I would have liked to have seen Logan reduced to some kind of feral state though, and working through it as the movie progressed.
They stuck to the basics and rushed through a lot of the story, including the whole adamantium bonding process, but aye, it is a movie, so you will get a condensed version of the books, but still, it didn't have to be *that* rushed.

I know some fans took issue with the fact that Logan volunteered for the process, as opposed to being subjected to it in the comics, but that doesn't bother me so much, as he volunteered under false pretences, so there is still that thing of them having 'done this' to him.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yea, it was totally false pretenses.

I do agree that some things didn't need to be so rushed, particularly the Weapon X sequence. I felt like that should have been one of the definitive moments of the entire series, and it was kinda just brushed over.

I mean, I certainly don't think the movie is flawless... but the issues that it does have, I don't see them as making the movie so horrid that people act like it's the absolute worst movie that could ever be made. I find a lot of positives to the movie.

[Rac]

The earlier release date, the better!
No.

[Alexei Belyakov]

No.

I second that.

[psylockolussus]

XFC didn't have the 3 years gap and it was better than X3/XOW.

[Veidt]

XFC didn't have the 2 year gap and it was better than X3/XOW.

It did have a two year gap.

[akfj]

It did have a two year gap.

Yup.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) --> X-Men: First Class (2011)

[psylockolussus]

Sorry, I meant 3 years gap

[Alexei Belyakov]

Its not about "the gap".

Its about giving the production time to breath and finding a decent release date that won't allow the film to drown in between the summer titans (First Class).

I hope they'll wait for 2013.

[marvelrobbins]

I agree.Some will call First Class the best comic book film of 2011 but due to Fox's
bad promation it got kinda lost In films domesticly.

They need to release It In Summer 2013.If they try to release it In 2012 we are probally looking at november 2012 and It will be up against the third Bond film(Sorry but I refuse
to call this Bond 23)

[narrows101]

Hugh is going to be at Comic Con tomorrow at 10:30 in the Petco parking lot promoting Real Steel, giving out toys, signing autographs, etc. JoBlo posted this though, the thought crossed my mind and perhaps this is where the Mangold official announcement will happen? The Fox panel is at 3:15 tomorrow, so it will be interesting...

]joblocom: Hugh Jackman going to be at Comic-Con tomorrow, presumably to surprise during the Fox panel w/ some "Wolverine" news.

[henzINNIT]

As the script is finished and apparently good, this could be done in a year in less of a hurry than FC.

I wonder how FOX feel about 2012. It's a huge comic book year, will they want to avoid it because of strong competition, or will they consider it too important to miss out on?

[narrows101]

In promoting Real Steel and taking questions from the crowd, Hugh confirms Mangold as director, filming partly in Japan, and shooting in October.

http://www.twitvid.com/O7SGV

[Spider-ManHero12]

That's awesome! So we finally have a start date? Okay, now I'm REALLY excited.

[narrows101]

We now have an EXACT date - in this video, Hugh says it starts October 15.

http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,20399642,00.html

[Spider-ManHero12]

That's awesome! And it's fantastic to know he'll fight the Silver Samurai.

[psylockolussus]

Yey! hoping for a 2012 release date!!!

[narrows101]

Yey! hoping for a 2012 release date!!!

The movie will be finished filming by February because that's when Hugh starts filming Les Miserables. If this movie comes out in 2012 it would have to be at the end of the year.

[marvelrobbins]

If they rush It It could be out In July/August.Although a November release Is more
realistic If It comes out In 2012.

[henzINNIT]

I expect FOX might favour a summer '13 date over winter, but I don't really get that logic. There's a lot of holidays over xmas etc and not a lot to do. Avatar made a ton of money.

[psylockolussus]

The movie will be finished filming by February because that's when Hugh starts filming Les Miserables. If this movie comes out in 2012 it would have to be at the end of the year.

Yeah I'm expecting a November 2012 release date :woot: It might oerform like James Bond or Harry Potter.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm just so happy there's another Wolverine film in the works. I ahve a feeling this one will be THE Wolverine film.

[Alexei Belyakov]

There's no way they're gonna waste a summer tentpole vehicle on a winter release date. Take Warner Bros. for instance - which as I had originally predicted, moved Man of Steel to the summer of 2013.

Jackman's Wolverine last pulled an $85.5 Domestic opening weekend. They'll wanna replicate that by giving him another summer to bank on.

2013 is already pretty booked, but it has one slot FOX should nab quickly (not to mention they need to give this film an official release date already):

May 3 - Iron Man 3
May 10 - Mommy and Me
May 17 - Singularity
May 24 - Fast and Furious 6
May 31 - The Wolverine
June 7 - Turbo
June 14 - The Man of Steel
June 21 - Monsters University
June 28 - R.I.P.D.
July 3 - Despicable Me 2
July 12 - Pacific Rim
July 19 - Oblivion
July 26 - Thor II

With a good 4 week distance from Iron Man, it can easily pull a strong a weekend opening and then top out at $200+ million by the end of its Domestic run.

2012 ain't happening.

[JP]

It's Fox. If they want Summer 2012, they'll GET Summer 2012.

They'd be making the same mistake they made with First Class, which seems to have cost them. But, they'd go for it.

[Alexei Belyakov]

It's Fox. If they want Summer 2012, they'll GET Summer 2012.

They'd be making the same mistake they made with First Class, which seems to have cost them. But, they'd go for it.

That's exactly why I expect them to announce 2013 anytime soon.

First Class was first and foremost a learning experience in how not to release a movie.

Most people would dissagree, but had First Class opened the summer in May, it woulda made Thor numbers. Same goes for 3D conversion which has definitely been boosting the 2011 line-up's BO.

To see Thor break $180 Domestic, and First Class still stuck under $145 just bugs the **** outta me. First Class is such a better movie.

[JP]

Completely agree. But, it wouldn't be the first time they made a bad decision twice!

[Alexei Belyakov]

Completely agree. But, it wouldn't be the first time they made a bad decision twice!

http://i55.tinypic.com/2hzk9r5.jpg

[Blader5489]

That's exactly why I expect them to announce 2013 anytime soon.

First Class was first and foremost a learning experience in how not to release a movie.

Most people would dissagree, but had First Class opened the summer in May, it woulda made Thor numbers. Same goes for 3D conversion which has definitely been boosting the 2011 line-up's BO.

To see Thor break $180 Domestic, and First Class still stuck under $145 just bugs the **** outta me. First Class is such a better movie.

What's the difference? Even if it was a 2013 release, Wolverine still wouldn't be opening the summer.

[psylockolussus]

What's the difference? Even if it was a 2013 release, Wolverine still wouldn't be opening the summer.

Yeah Iron Man 3 will open the Summer of 2013 and The Avengers will open the Summer of 2014.

FOX should just promote the movie more.

[narrows101]

I read on another site that Duncan Jones was "in negotiations" so I wonder if that's what Hugh is referring to. He also talks about his XMFC cameo. Video interview:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/07/26/wolverine-hugh-jackman-james-mangold-director/


Just last month, however, Fox announced that the film would have a new director: James Mangold, who previously worked with Jackman on “Kate and Leopold.” According to Jackman, however, Mangold was not the only one gunning for the job

“There were a number of directors who wanted to do this because we have the best script yet, but his take was the strongest,” Jackman told MTV News of Mangold. “He’s phenomenal, he’s going to really knock this one out of the park.”

While the project has a new director, it is retaining the name given to it during Aronofsky’s watch: “The Wolverine.”

[henzINNIT]

I like that it is apparently keeping the title, and it's good to hear Mangold had an impressive "take" on this. Hopefully this film achieves an interesting tone for its unique story.

[Raiden]

So The Wolverine will join The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-man in 2012?

[Alexei Belyakov]

So The Wolverine will join The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-man in 2012?

I hope not.

There's no room for it to make any money if they rush a 2012 release date.

APRIL 27 - PRINCE VAALI

MAY 4 - THE AVENGERS

MAY 11 - DARK SHADOWS

MAY 18 - BATTLESHIP

MAY 25 - MEN IN BLACK III

MAY 25 - MEDALLION

JUNE 1 - SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNSTMAN

JUNE 1 - ROCK OF AGES

JUNE 8 - PROMETHEUS

JUNE 8 - MADAGASCAR 3

JUNE 15 - JACK THE GIANT KILLER

JUNE 22 - BRAVE

JUNE 22 - ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER

JUNE 29 - STAR TREK 2

JULY 3 - THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN

JULY 13 - ICE AGE: CONTINENTAL DRIFT

JULY 13 - TED

JULY 20 - THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

Even if Star Trek gets pushed back and the June 29 slot opens up, its pointless to expect it to make money when competing with Spider Man and Batman.

The intelligent thing for the studio to do is follow the route Warner Bros. took with Superman and put in the summer of 2013 where it'll actually have room to make money. That's if they hurry up and claim the only open slot...

MAY 3 - IRON MAN 3

MAY 10 - MOMMY AND ME

MAY 17 - SINGULARITY

MAY 24 - FAST 6

MAY 31 - THE WOLVERINE

JUNE 7 - TURBO

JUNE 14 - THE MAN OF STEEL

JUNE 21 - MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

JUNE 28 - R.I.P.D.

JULY 3 - DESPICABLE ME 2

JULY 12 - PACIFIC RIM

JULY 19 - OBLIVION

JULY 26 - THOR II

[bhayes]

hey alexi, what do you think of hugh jackman's comments here? he sounds like he is aware that orgins was aweful and has learned his lesson.


http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/675455/hugh-jackman-talks-new-wolverine-director.jhtml#id=1667785

do you think hugh is being his usual optimistic self or do you think that james mangold can really do something with this.

im hoping that like with ghost rider 2 - this is will be a reboot-follow up and not a sequel. i think that is what will happen.

[marvelrobbins]

Star Trek Isn't going to make a 2012 release.J.J. Abrams still hasn't committed to directing,and they don't have a completed draft just a 80 page outline by the writers own comments.mark my words Star Trek won't come out till summer 2013 and that Is only them stop negleting Star Trek and get to work.I successfull told a contact of mine after the writers strike both Star Trek and harry Potter and the half blood prince would be delayed till summer 2009.If The Wolverine Is out In 2012 It will be around november however I think summer 2013 Is more relastic.

Based on Hugh jackman's comments The Silver Samurai may not be the only member of Wolverine's enemies to show up.Now before people start with Fox wanting to add more characters remember by all accounts the Scipt was done last year and there has been no reports of any rewrites.They have been braging how good Christopher Mcquarrie's script Is.Not hard when you have a oscar winning writer who from leaked script details did his homework.

[marvelrobbins]

hey alexi, what do you think of hugh jackman's comments here? he sounds like he is aware that orgins was aweful and has learned his lesson.


http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/675455/hugh-jackman-talks-new-wolverine-director.jhtml#id=1667785

do you think hugh is being his usual optimistic self or do you think that james mangold can really do something with this.

im hoping that like with ghost rider 2 - this is will be a reboot-follow up and not a sequel. i think that is what will happen.

I myself am hoping james Mangold can continue the work of getting this franchise back on track that Matthew Vaughn started with X-Men First Class.

You won't get a complete Wolverine reboot but I think It's safe to say you
can Ignore X-Men Origins:Wolverine.

My hope for The Wolverine Is to now have 4 quality films In the franchise(X-Men,X2,First Class and The Wolverine) and If we can get Wolverine In Full berzerker fury on screen that will determine how Truthfull Hugh Jackman Is being.

[bhayes]

I myself am hoping james Mangold can continue the work of getting this franchise back on track that Matthew Vaughn started with X-Men First Class.

You won't get a complete Wolverine reboot but I think It's safe to say you
can Ignore X-Men Origins:Wolverine.

My hope for The Wolverine Is to now have 4 quality films In the franchise(X-Men,X2,First Class and The Wolverine) and If we can get Wolverine In Full berzerker fury on screen that will determine how Truthfull Hugh Jackman Is being.

you forgot x men 3. x men 3 gets alot of hate that it doesn't deserve. but i accept the fact that it was the step toward the badness of x men orgins: wolverine.

but yeah, i think if fox leaves mangold, jackman and the producers alone and let them make it a hard R or a edgy pg-13 - then we will get a good movie. the animated short Gary Shore did, remember that.

basically that is what happened with Orgins. i think they had a great outline and Hood himself is a great director but too many people interfered and they clashed on the set.

i felt that the film opens real good, but after they get let out of prison - the movie falls apart after that.

i heard a rumor that hood clashed with tom rothman and they ended up having the 2nd unit director direct the rest film and hood was brought in occasionally. and that there were too many producers 'producing'

i mean pretty much if they can make a film that reflects that gary shore short. this could turn out to be as good as dark knight.

should we make a LIST of thing they need to do right this time?

i hope they hire someone to animate the claws better. ever since x-men 2 & 3 - the claws look faker and faker.

this film should be like a cross between 'the last samurai' and 'x-men 2' basically.

i hope they do similar to what they have done with ghost rider 2. it should be a reboot with the same actor (hugh).

[Sgt.Pepper]

So Mangold is lock-down to direct this movie? Hmm, he is downgrade from Aronofsky, but he is an interesting choice and I'm a bit curious to see his take on this.

[narrows101]

From the mouth of Hugh himself, yes Mangold is locked and filming starts October 15.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Well, as predicted, Star Trek got pushed back and G.I. JOE: Retaliation nabbed the June 29 spot, which was the only spot left next summer.

Hurry up, FOX! And announce May 31, 2013 before someone else takes what is the last remaining slot in the 2013 Summer season.

If they do go for Summer 2013, I predict an opening weekend bigger than any of the 2011 CBMs.

[Veidt]

We now have an EXACT date - in this video, Hugh says it starts October 15.

http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,20399642,00.html

Holy cow, that's my birthday.

:awesome:

[psylockolussus]

FOX should now make an official annoucement about the director. The more buzz about this movie, the better.

[akfj]

No one would even know anything if Hugh wasn't asked about the movie in interviews.

[MrWolvers]

never heard of him, any good?

[narrows101]

Check this out.

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/bryan-barber-ready-to-shop-live-action-gigantor-around-after-buying-rights-15133

This is kind of a funny story whether you know what a 'Gigantor' is or not. Deadline (http://www.deadline.com/2011/10/after-getting-close-on-several-big-jobs-director-bryan-barbers-taking-his-next-meetings-with-gigantor-in-his-corner/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) reports that director Bryan Barber is so fed up with losing out on directing jobs that he has bought the rights to 'Gigantor' from an elderly man, and is placing himself at the helm of a $60 million live-action adaptation. He's being smart with the live-action approach. The animated robot route didn't play out very well for the similarly themed 2009 film, 'Astro Boy.'

[snip]

With very little to his name as a director besides the crime/musical, 'Idlewild,' Barber has found it exceedingly difficult to tap into the big projects in Hollywood. He was in talks to direct 'The Wolverine' -- now helmed by '3:10 to Yuma' director, James Mangold -- but lost out even after pouring $50,000 of his own money into a presentation for 20th Century Fox that gave them a good idea of his vision for the film. They liked it enough to reimburse him for the troubles, but no further than that.

[Project862006]

James Mangold Talks "The Wolverine"
“You could actually just tell a story about this amazing character from the start, just the way they do when you really read a comic,” Mangold said via telephone Friday. “You don’t have to spend the first hour saying how they were born; you can actually just find them in an emotional space, in the middle of action, and what happens is you’re not crowded with cutting to nine other action heroes. You can really make a movie about this dude.”“I spoke to Darren a bit about it before I ended up taking it on,” he revealed. “But I will tell you that when Darren stepped off, I was in the middle of doing a lot of other things, and when it was brought up to me, I actually didn’t even consider it for the very reasons you’re talking about. It was, oh, who wants to do that, and follow that, and I could hear all of the media swirl about it.”Eventually, that media buzz died down, enabling Mangold to get a better look at what he might be making if he agreed to helm “The Wolverine.”

“Several months went by and I hadn’t even really read it, and later when they came back to me and I kind of took it in, and a lot of that hand-wringing had kind of died down,” he explained. “What I saw was some really promising material, and to me an interesting character played by a great friend of mine who’s a terrific actor, Hugh Jackman.” (Mangold previously worked with Jackman on “Kate & Leopold,” an unconventional romantic comedy he wrote and directed in 2001.)
Mangold said that he was intensely drawn to the locale of the film, which was not just markedly different from the first film, but an environment in which he felt like audiences hadn’t seen a superhero movie take place. “It’s a kind of adventure following such a unique character also in a really unique environment,” he said. “I mean, the fact that half of the characters in this movie speak Japanese, this is like a foreign-language superhero movie that’s as much a drama and a detective story and a film noir, with high-octane action as it is anything like a conventional tentpole film.”
“Mark Bomback and myself have done a tremendous amount of writing on the movie,” he revealed. “There’s not a page that hasn’t been worked and reworked and rethought and story-boarded. So it just is what it is; I mean, you kind of the part of connecting to the movie and developing the scenes and finding the locations and devising the action is all about not only making it good, but also in the process making it your own.”
Mangold also said he was keenly aware of the conventions of the genre he would be exploring, and felt he’s been able to turn it into a more unique story than most other superhero movies demand.

“I think part of the reason I’m doing this picture has been because it isn’t to me a conventional superhero movie. It isn’t an origin story, so I’m freed from that burden, and it also isn’t a save-the-world movie, which most them are. It’s actually a character piece; I actually think it has more in common with ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ and ‘Chinatown,’ what we’re doing, than the conventional, ‘will Wolverine and his compatriots save the world from this thermonuclear device’ question.”



Following the success of the first “Wolverine,” fans speculated – and in fact hoped - that the second film would examine the comic book story lines written by Frank Miller, in which Wolverine spent time in Japan.

Mangold said that he wants to take advantage of those fish-out-of-water opportunities, and then combine them with storytelling, and of course, action sequences which maximize the influence of the world around the characters. “I think that this movie is much more an intense psychological and action-packed character piece, that’s much more about Logan getting lost in this very unique and insulated world of Japanese culture, gangster culture, and ninja culture,” he said. “The fighting is going to be unique because it’s all influenced by Japanese martial arts.”
Ultimately, however, Mangold insisted that “The Wolverine” would focus on the ideas that are at the core of the character, even as he delivers a visceral, intense, and entertaining film.

“I think more than anything, it’s a character piece, asking really interesting questions that are what pulled me in about what it means to be immortal. What is it to live forever, when you lose everyone you’ve ever loved? Either you watch them get killed, or you just lose them by attrition. What is it to feel the burden of saving mankind through all of its mistakes, over and over and over again. What’s the toll it takes on you as a living being that is somehow living this Frankensteinian, eternal life? And there’s a lot of interesting dramatic questions we’re going to deliver on as well as some really inventive action.”
In fact, Mangold said that because he’s unfettered by considerations of back story or ensemble plot lines, he’s optimistic that his film will finally deliver the Wolverine story that fans have been asking for since he was first brought to the screen. “I like to think that we’re out to make that Wolverine movie that people have been looking forward to seeing, which takes on some of the darker and more intense aspects of the character, and his own journey, that have not necessarily been possible in the origin story that they did or obviously when he’s sharing so much time as a character with so many others in X-Men.”
“It really just was a simple choice,” he admitted. “Do you want to jump on board and take this thing on, with such a cool environment and a world, and this moment when they might actually explore the character? [And] there was so much intriguing in there that I thought could be mined and something really interesting done with it.”http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/james_mangold_calls_the_wolverine_a_dark_character _piece_like_eastwoods_the/

[Whiskey Tango]

Great article.

[J.Howlett]

Very good article.

Frankly, I'm excited by Mangold teaming with Jackman, even if the Aronofsky teaming would've been better.

I think they'll make a great picture because it seems, with Rise of the Planet of the Apes and First Class that Fox may have turned a corner, in terms of genre filmmaking.

I only have three demands for this flick; ignore the Last Stand and Origins Wolverine, take place in the mid 80's, and don't contradict First Class, X-Men, and X2.

If it does those three things well and is as solid or better than First Class, then I'm good to go.

[Saitou Hajime]

Pfft... I've heard this same lipservice of a "serious" Wolverine movie before with the first one, and look what we eventually got. I'll believe it when I see it on the big screen.

[rogue trooper]

I like what Mangold said! It really brings the work Chris Claremont did with both Frank Miller and John Buscema to mind.

[TheWiseGuy487]

Really good interview! He really seems to want to get this right!

[x-fan]

He may want to do it right, but I am positive FOX will not allow it, I think they refuse ti make a good Wolverine movie, just a big teddy bear with claws, that sometimes is in a bad mood, sort of....

[rogue trooper]

Here's hoping Fox will surprise us like they did with X-Men: First Class.

[Hunter Rider]

With First Class and Rise of the Apes Fox actually delivered two of the best blockbusters of the summer IMO, and Mangold certainly has plenty of pre-production time and the right elements in mind, so here's hoping! *fingers crossed*

[Project862006]

mangold is also a better director than the last few x men directors

[Spider-ManHero12]

I still have a lot of faith in this. I just hope it works.

[akfj]

Can the description for this forum be changed? (Talk about the Darren Aronofsky-->James Mangold directed film starring Hugh Jackman.)

[danoyse]

Can the description for this forum be changed? (Talk about the Darren Aronofsky-->James Mangold directed film starring Hugh Jackman.)

Updated. :up:

[akfj]

Thanks. :up:

[Marvel]

Really good interview! He really seems to want to get this right!

Just please no wire-fu crap. Martial arts is great but keep the action grounded in fierce reality.

Also, I guess this really will be outside of the reality they established or else they are ignoring Origins. If he's already lost his memory, how can this "Highlander" angle come in to play? Outliving friends and loved ones seems emotional but it doesn't fit where we left him after the last film. I know it's comic book lore and the last guy with the pen wins (memories did grow back after the damage) but keeping movie continuity will help the average viewer.

Makes you wonder why Fox forced an origin story when everyone wanted to shoot the Japan story in the first place.

[Crockett]

Despite what Mangold said is interesting I'm just going to wait and see the end results.
You might never know, things could be different down the line.

[usagicassidy]

I just worked with Mangold on a new CBS pilot and his dedication to getting everything right was incredible. While at the same time being practical, wanting to make the producers, DP, and cast all happy too. The energy on set was great so I have hope with him at the helm of this new Wolverine flick.

[henzINNIT]

I sincerely hope this is good. I'm looking forward to it more than I am Second Class, and it could be the last film with any of the original cast. Jackman has done good work on this franchise and he deserves a better outing than the last two.

[Great Mind(s)]

I wonder if this film is going to keep in continuity with First Class or not. It would be a smart idea to link the series' together a la The Avengers.

[marvelrobbins]

It Is suspose to be a more stand alone film that doesn't conterdict anything from other films.Wolverine will already have amnesia when film opens.They are trying to distance It from X-Men Origins;Wolverine and this Is almost a seperate X-Men Origins film.Wolverine Is only connection to other films.Rumor was Psylocke was In ealrier version of script and now dropped.WOlverine and Viper are only non japanese characters In film.

My view on contunity Is to view the Wolverine after X-Men first Class and before X-Men and X2.I just Ignore X-Men Origins:Wolverine and X-Men The Last Stand.That Is best way to view films.If Deadpool Is actully made It would depend on when to view It In films place.

[Project862006]

it is kind of crazy but jackman i believe is the longest standing actor in a super hero role

he is going on 12 year and still going as wolverine and is the only actor to portray him

any other actor do this before?

since chris reeve only did it for 9 years with superman i think hugh has the record with 12!!

[Great Mind(s)]

My view on contunity Is to view the Wolverine after X-Men first Class and before X-Men and X2.I just Ignore X-Men Origins:Wolverine and X-Men The Last Stand.That Is best way to view films.If Deadpool Is actully made It would depend on when to view It In films place.

That's how I feel too so I wonder if there'd be any references to First Class. Or like I suggested, they could tie the different movies together at some point in the future.

[psylockolussus]

Rumor was Psylocke was in earlier version of script and now dropped. Wolverine and Viper are only non Japanese characters In film.

Awww Psylocke :( I want to see her in X4 but that X4 would take forever.

[Spuzz]

So this Mangold guy...a good fit? Sort of a strange choice. Those saying he's better than Matthew Vaugh or that it was surprising that Vaughn delivered with First Class are crazy by the way.

[S. Grundy]

He's okay, the best movie he's done has been Cop Land. He was a very safe pick, he'll most likely turn out a pretty good movie, it just probably won't be that visually interesting.

[narrows101]

Mangold also did "3:10 to Yuma" and directed Reese Witherspoon to an Oscar in "Walk the Line." He also directed Hugh in "Kate & Leopold". Meanwhile, sounds like del Toro was in the mix a bit:


DEL TORO: .... But it’s not like I have many meetings with studios discussing superhero movies. They come to me. Normally I pass, respectfully or not. They like it, that we have a very quick response. I was very attracted to doing The Wolverine in Japan, because that’s my favorite chapter in the story of Wolverine. But I’m not a superhero guy. It’s very hard for me to… It’s one thing to like something and another to marry it for two, three years.

So you say you met with Fox for Wolverine?

DEL TORO: I spoke to [Fox executive] Jim Gianopulos a while ago. I thought about it. I actually met with Hugh Jackman. But it’s one thing to say… You have to differentiate between loving it as a fan, which is almost like dating, and creating it from scratch, which takes two to three years of your life, which is like a marriage.






http://collider.com/guillermo-del-toro-hulk-the-wolverine-interview/186970/

[JP]

He also directed Angelina Jolie to an Oscar.

[narrows101]

He also directed Angelina Jolie to an Oscar.
Forgot about "Girl, Interrupted"!

[marvelrobbins]

He has directed some good films.Has exceperence with action In film.And has worked with hugh before.Last time he worked with Hugh he directed hugh to golden globe nomination.

And he has compared his vision to The Wolverine to The Outlaw Josey Wales.

[narrows101]

He has directed some good films.Has exceperence with action In film.And has worked with hugh before.Last time he worked with Hugh he directed hugh to golden globe nomination.

And he has compared his vision to The Wolverine to The Outlaw Josey Wales.
Bad Hugh fan, how the heck did I forget that GG nom for K&L??????

[runningman3000]

I believe "Identity-- 2003" may be one his more stylistic film, however, I haven't seen him take on a more Sci fi/exaggerated film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfcdg7etE0

James Mangold recently directed the pilot episode for CBS "Vegas". Filming wrapped a few months before resuming pre-production on The Wolverine. Vegas was Mangold's first go around with the Arri Alexa digital camera.

Check out the Promo below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIY-yDoEWlU&hd=1

first trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHRnqMkwXY&hd=1

[psylockolussus]

I have hope with this director simply because some of his films were nominated for Oscars like 3:10 to Yuma.

[runningman3000]

I have hope with this director simply because some of his films were nominated for Oscars like 3:10 to Yuma.
No doubt, he is a good director! :yay:

[S. Grundy]

Winning/being nominated for an Oscar doesn't necessary equal quality in all films. I mean look at Gavin Hood, he's a good director, won an Oscar and still made a crappy Wolverine film.

[psylockolussus]

Winning/being nominated for an Oscar doesn't necessary equal quality in all films. I mean look at Gavin Hood, he's a good director, won an Oscar and still made a crappy Wolverine film.

But the movie he made was a foreign film. So its different and he also directed Rendition before Wolverine and that movie wasn't good too.

[747]

I have faith in Mangold, as I think both Copland (underrated) and Walk the Line are absolutely great films. Yuma is a solid and good western too.

[narrows101]

Russell Crowe tweets to Mangold:

Russell Crowe‏@russellcrowe
If you haven't heard the Crowe/Doyle Songbook vol iii, it's on i-tunes,Amazon etc or you can order hard copies from http://www.parkbeachmusic.com

James Mangold‏@mang0ld
@russellcrowe I heartily recommend this album. Its lovely.

Russell Crowe‏@russellcrowe
@mang0ld Jimmy? How's that film career going? I hear you are rocking the set of W2

James Mangold‏@mang0ld
@russellcrowe I am doing my very best, R. HJ is a joy. And watching The Rabbitohs ascent in the wee hours. How is your (spoiler alert) Ark?

5hRussell Crowe‏@russellcrowe
@mang0ld Everything good here, long days blah blah. Good game coming up Saturday. Isn't Hughby the nicest chap? Enjoy Sydney mate.

[psylockolussus]

Oh man, Russell Crowe would be a great addition to the X-Men cast! He would be a perfect choice for Cable.

[Hellion]

Oh man, Russell Crowe would be a great addition to the X-Men cast! He would be a perfect choice for Cable.


If Cable ever appeared I could never think of anyone that could portray him...but Russell Crowe would be perfect. How come I never thought of him before.


I'm not familiar with Mangold, but from what you guys have said he seems solid, so I have faith in him and this film.

[Whiskey Tango]

Mangold hasn't put out a movie I didn't like. I loved Identity, Copland and 3:10 to Yuma. Hell even Knight & Day was pretty cool.

[JP]

Haha, I actually loved Knight and Day. It just happened to come out at a time where people were still anti-Cruise. Thankfully MI:GP didn't suffer the same fate.

[Lord]

I hope this time the director has control and the script is actually good and not full of cameos.

[JP]

Well, you can see by every genre film FOX has done in the last 2 years + the cast of the film that all that seems to be the case.

[Project862006]

have faith in script done by usual suspects writer and even darren said he loved it

[Lord]

Well, you can see by every genre film FOX has done in the last 2 years + the cast of the film that all that seems to be the case.
Yeah, there was a change in management right? So i heard

[JP]

Yeah, there was a change in management right? So i heard
Not sure. But even Kinberg just did an interview where the interviewer asked him about FOX and how their recent genre films have been great, and Kinberg said it was because they were "trusting the filmmakers".

[marvelrobbins]

Tom Rothman Isn't micromanaging them like he used to.Fox Is now letting filmmakers make films.Besides letting James Cameron make avatar franchise look at revival of Planet of the Apes,getting X-Men franchise back to X-Men/X2 shape with First Class,and getting Ridley Scott back to Alien franchise In Prometheus.We all know It was part of alien universe depite all the hedging.The wolverine has script by oscar winner and all reports say despite a rewrite 75 percent of original script remains.James Mangold has directed Hugh Jackman to golden globe nomination In Kate Leoporald plus directed
ANgelana Jolie and Reese Weatherspoon to Oscar wins.And he has directed action.

This time next year I am sure we will be putting maes In Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn cwoad and not Brett Ratner and Gavin Cwoad.

[psylockolussus]

Mangold hasn't put out a movie I didn't like. I loved Identity, Copland and 3:10 to Yuma. Hell even Knight & Day was pretty cool.

Knight & Day wasn't really good because of the story but I really enjoyed the first half of it. Plus the actors carried the movie.

[S. Grundy]

But the movie he made was a foreign film. So its different and he also directed Rendition before Wolverine and that movie wasn't good too.

What does that even mean? A good film is a good film no matter where it was made.

[Transcended]

Mangold hasn't put out a movie I didn't like. I loved Identity, Copland and 3:10 to Yuma. Hell even Knight & Day was pretty cool.

The great thing about his resume is that it's so diverse. He's proven that he can successfully take on many different genres (let's not forget the excellent "Walk the Line"), which makes me trust him. 3:10 to Yuma is his best film IMO and one of the best modern westerns of the past decade. I think he's going to make a stellar Wolverine film.

[Snikt]

The great thing about his resume is that it's so diverse. He's proven that he can successfully take on many different genres (let's not forget the excellent "Walk the Line"), which makes me trust him. 3:10 to Yuma is his best film IMO and one of the best modern westerns of the past decade. I think he's going to make a stellar Wolverine film.

+1 million.

The man has done thriller/horror - Identity

Western/Action - 3:10 to Yuma, Knight and Day

Rom Com - Kate and Leopold

Drama - Walk the Line, Copland

This tells me, he knows how to handle action and characterization.

[Whiskey Tango]

I didn't realize he did Kate & Leopold. I liked that one too.

[S. Grundy]

Yeah, but outside of Copland all those films listed are pretty much average or studio fluff, and in the case of Identity terrible.

[Whiskey Tango]

I liked it. OMG worlds are colliding!

[Oberon sexton]

3:10 to Yuma was brilliant :argh:

[S. Grundy]

It was okay.

[Alexei Belyakov]

It was okay.

Seconded.

He really hasn't done anything mindblowing or brilliant.

HEAVY I think's been his best so far, with Copland coming in at a close second. They were very well-made films with solid storytelling. Both 8/10 for me.

Girl Interrupted, Walk The Line & 3:10 to Yuma were good. Not great. I think the actors shined, but the films as a whole didn't match the performances.

Kate & Leopold was a decent rom-com, nothing more. A fun movie.

Identity & Knight & Day were both an absolute waste of my time.

[Superark]

3:10 to Yuma was brilliant :argh:


Agreed! One of my favorite films!

[def28]

Yeah 3:10 was awesome.

[Whiskey Tango]

Well 3:10 didn't feature 45 minutes of Ryan Gosling doing nothing but furrowing his brow and staring off into the distance so clearly it can't be anything but average. :o

[danoyse]

I loved 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line. :up:

[Alexei Belyakov]

Well 3:10 didn't feature 45 minutes of Ryan Gosling doing nothing but furrowing his brow and staring off into the distance so clearly it can't be anything but average. :o

Right, because DRIVE was terrible.

[Project862006]

Well 3:10 didn't feature 45 minutes of Ryan Gosling doing nothing but furrowing his brow and staring off into the distance so clearly it can't be anything but average. :o

:oldrazz:thought i was in the minority i didn't really like Drive at all definition of style over substance

[Alexei Belyakov]

:oldrazz:thought i was in the minority i didn't really like Drive at all definition of style over substance

You're in the minority, man. It was the most praised film of 2011 along with THE ARTIST.

The fact that the Academy snubbed it created an outrage in the Hollywood circle.

Also, DRIVE has tons of substance.

[Whiskey Tango]

:oldrazz:thought i was in the minority i didn't really like Drive at all definition of style over substance

The soundtrack was pretty good. For a movie about a stunt/getaway driver it could have used a few more driving scenes though. I mean you don't see anyone making a movie called EXPLODE and not blowing anything up, right?

Style over substance is pretty apt. It's one of those overrated pseudo art films that no one will remember in a few years.

[Project862006]

^exactly it's best attributes is it's style

atmosphere, cinematography, soundtrack are the best thing about drive the characters and story is very under developed and thin

you can tell the writer of snow white and the huntsman wrote the script:yay:

[Alexei Belyakov]

you can tell the writer of snow white and the huntsman wrote the script:yay:

The script was re-written by Refn and Gosling.

[Alexei Belyakov]

The soundtrack was pretty good. For a movie about a stunt/getaway driver it could have used a few more driving scenes though. I mean you don't see anyone making a movie called EXPLODE and not blowing anything up, right?

Right, and THERE WILL BE BLOOD needed more BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN needed more old men and TYRANNOSAUR needed an actual Tyrannosaur and THE TREE OF LIFE needed an actual tree [of life].

Style over substance is pretty apt. It's one of those overrated pseudo art films that no one will remember in a few years.

This is just painful to read. Thank God it isn't the slightest bit true.

Also, word of advice - steer clear of Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER. Its got alotta scenes of Joaquin Phoenix doing nothing but furrowing his brow and staring off into the distance.

[Whiskey Tango]

^exactly it's best attributes is it's style

atmosphere, cinematography, soundtrack are the best thing about drive the characters and story is very under developed and thin

you can tell the writer of snow white and the huntsman wrote the script:yay:

Not impressed with anything on the guys resume so not surprising.

[def28]

The short amount of dialogue in Drive attributed to what made it so good imo. You knew what was going on with the characters without them spelling it out through dialogue. It was a huge part of the films style and tone. Didnt think that those choices made it light on plot. Theres def enough going on with the characters and story imo. Thought both 3:10 and Drive kicked ass and had excellent Directors. Ive ran into a few arguments on both films lately so I guess they do have a split audience.

Mangold has a good track record with actors, I really think Hugh will own this one. Hope to see more rage. If they cant get Wolverine on try 5 then it will kinda suck that X2 was really the peak moment for him.

[747]

Drive is a fantastic movie. It's not substance over style but much of it's substance comes from it's style.

With that said I think Mangold can be great too and I'm an avid lover of Walk the Line. As a huge Johnny Cash fan, I think it's fantastic, very emotional.

Copland is really great too and underrated.

[BoredGuy]

Honestly I've liked everything I've seen of Mangold's except for Knight & Day
I even thought Identity was a fun little thriller, though not exactly a masterpiece of cinema

And Drive...well, that movie I still don't know how I feel about it.
It was good, but in a very disturbing, "I-feel-dirty-now" kinda way
When people have asked if i recommend it, my answer is usually: "well, it's goooood, but I can't say I'd recommend it unless you have a night alone to watch it"
I have to know my friends are into weird movies to rec it

[danoyse]

Right, and THERE WILL BE BLOOD needed more BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN needed more old men and TYRANNOSAUR needed an actual Tyrannosaur and THE TREE OF LIFE needed an actual tree [of life].



This is just painful to read. Thank God it isn't the slightest bit true.

Also, word of advice - steer clear of Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER. Its got alotta scenes of Joaquin Phoenix doing nothing but furrowing his brow and staring off into the distance.

How about staying away from responses like this if you don't agree with someone?

[Alexei Belyakov]

How about staying away from responses like this if you don't agree with someone?

Whiskey aimed his DRIVE critique at me so I responded.

[Excelsior.]

Drive lays bare the nature of heroism of the sort of love stricken protagonists you would see in Hollywood movies. Drive presents the hero to be as sociopathic in his brutality and lack of mercy as the bad guys. Enemies who are only his enemies because of his attachment to a woman. Were this woman a heiress of a mob empire he could be swinging his club of brutality to the same people his enemies did.

Drive is quite a thoughtful film that expresses its ideas in audiovisual terms than through exposition and dialogue.

[danoyse]

Whiskey aimed his DRIVE critique at me so I responded.

Respond to each other nicely. Both of you. Since we have a Drive thread, continue it there, since this isn't the forum for that movie.

[usagicassidy]

He directed the series premiere of CBS' Vegas that aired last night. So if you watched it, you saw another example of his work. Also you might've seen me in the background :P

[runningman3000]

He directed the series premiere of CBS' Vegas that aired last night. So if you watched it, you saw another example of his work. Also you might've seen me in the background :P


Pilot episode of VEGAS Directed by James Mangold for CBS

http://www.cbs.com/shows/fall-premieres-2012/full-episode-hub/111389/bbAv92A2U1srohdfzOcvHETmFV9o8ccy