View Single Post
Old 07-06-2011, 04:09 PM   #100
Alexei Belyakov
Banned User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,494
Default Re: James Mangold will direct The Wolverine

Originally Posted by Episode29 View Post
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.

Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
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.

Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
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.

Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
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.

Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
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.

Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
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.

Alexei Belyakov is offline   Reply With Quote