Originally Posted by Episode29
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.