James Mangold will direct The Wolverine

[Rac]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

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-wo...sequels/99163/

[psylockolussus]

Maybe the script isn't finished yet.

[Crockett]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

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...enture-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]

Originally Posted by 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?

That would be music to my ears

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

That would be music to my ears

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/ar...-october-start

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by akfj

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

Beat me to it...LOL

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Supermanreturns

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]

Originally Posted by fallenAngel

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]

Originally Posted by Episode29

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]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

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]

Originally Posted by Episode29

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

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

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

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

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

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.