Matthew Vaughn in negotiations to direct Thor?

[Advanced Dark]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...&coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true

Hellmistress just posted this article in the FF2 forums but I noticed this little tidbit about Vaughn here? I wonder if he realizes that it takes a year or so to film and complete a movie now. He he.

'Silver Surfer': Make it gnarly

Fans tend to think a PG 'Fantastic Four' is wimpy. So maybe the silver guy's spinoff will be edgier.
By Jay A. Fernandez, Special to The Times
June 13, 2007

Feeling bullish on the eve of the release of its "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," Fox has already put a feature spinoff into development that will star the enigmatic Surfer, with J. Michael Straczynski currently crafting the screenplay.

Despite lackluster reviews, the first "Fantastic Four" raked in $329 million worldwide, apparently a result of its appeal to younger viewers. So the sequel, which opens Friday with a story by John Turman and Mark Frost and a screenplay by Frost and "Simpsons" writer Don Payne, has skewed its tone even softer. This has resulted in a PG rating, which has provoked a disgusted outcry from fans online who churlishly point out that even Harry Potter is now too gritty for 11-year-olds.

They may have a point, given that this film ostensibly features a Christ-like harbinger of doom like the Surfer and Galactus, a God-like destroyer of worlds whose rep may be a little inflated. Reports from the project's development indicate that the producers kept trying to purge Galactus entirely from early versions of the screenplay.

Well, perhaps the studio has heard the negative static, since it apparently hopes to spin the new Surfer franchise in a darker direction to attract the slightly older demographic of its X-Men films. If so, Straczynski, whose original screenplay "The Changeling" is on director Clint Eastwood's slate, is a logical pick for the Surfer story line.

A longtime writer of television science fiction on "The Twilight Zone" and "Babylon 5," Straczynski has also spent much of the last few years writing for Marvel Comics on properties like "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Thor" (also in development with a Mark Protosevich screenplay and "Layer Cake's" Matthew Vaughn reportedly negotiating to direct). Straczynski recently penned 15 issues of Fantastic Four for Marvel, and the first issue of his "Silver Surfer: Requiem" series just published last month, with three more in the works.

Seems like Straczynski's on the rise too.

 

[Dynasty]

Hmm well if this is true, I hope that they make the Captain America movie before Thor, have Thor be the last character to have a solo film before the Avengers movie.

 

[blind_fury]

He's a respectable director. He's far more visionary than most commercial directors. I wasn't impressed by the Stardust trailer but I don't think I'm in the target audience.

They should do both Thor and Captain America in 2009. The Iron Man and TIH sequels in 2010 then bring on the Avengers trilogy starting in 2011.

 

[Philly Phanboy]

So does this mean that we can expect to see Jason Statham and/or Vinnie Jones as Norse gods?

 

[Spider-Fan]

LOL...I have seen like non of his movies, so I can't say he can't do it.

Hope Thor comes in 2009 as well as Cap!

BTW, WHEN IS CAP GETTING HIS CAST AND CREW!!!

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Shouldn't Marvel be the first to release news like this?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well, he isn't on board yet, so there is nothing to report for Marvel.

 

[Ring Deacon]

Actually it may seem hard to believe but a Thor movie may be a better seller then a Captain America movie.

With Thor you don't need to put him into modern times for the movie and can do a period piece. Have Thor fighting a war along side vikings about 400 years ago. You can end it with Thor's hammer being lost and it being found in 2008 by Donald Blake. From there you can go with Thor 2 in modern times or straight to Avengers.

I see Thor being on the scale of Braveheart. A big time epic adventure. And if done right, Oscar worthy

 

[Spider-Fan]

Actually it may seem hard to believe but a Thor movie may be a better seller then a Captain America movie.

With Thor you don't need to put him into modern times for the movie and can do a period piece. Have Thor fighting a war along side vikings about 400 years ago. You can end it with Thor's hammer being lost and it being found in 2008 by Donald Blake. From there you can go with Thor 2 in modern times or straight to Avengers.

I see Thor being on the scale of Braveheart. A big time epic adventure. And if done right, Oscar worthy

Cap was born in WWII, thus you have a war-period piece if you choose to.

Cap is more recognizabvle than Thor, however, and I think is a more sympathetic character (done right, of course).

I hope we hear more about Thor and Cap in the coming weeks!

Also, anyone thinking Thor will be an Oscar candidate, think again. There is still a stigma with things based on comics in higher awards shows like the Oscars. Effects is the best we'll get for a long, long time.

 

[Ring Deacon]

But with Thor you don't even have to call him a superhero because he isn't. And with Thor he is one of the only Avengers that could live in his own universe. Blade was a very little known comic in the general public and the first two movies did very well at the theaters. Thor can do the same thing.

 

[Spider-Fan]

When did I say Thor can't be a successful movie? I never did. He could be quite successful. I am just saying he won't be nominated for any non-effects Oscars. Though I do think a Captain America movie would be better.

 

[jaguarr]

Vaughn doing Thor? Hmmm....I kind of like the idea. As long as they don't cast some meathead like Triple H in the part or make it too much of a comedy like focusing on modern day people reacting strangely on his use of an older and more prose tilting form of English.

jag

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

He's a respectable director. He's far more visionary than most commercial directors. I wasn't impressed by the Stardust trailer but I don't think I'm in the target audience.

They should do both Thor and Captain America in 2009. The Iron Man and TIH sequels in 2010 then bring on the Avengers trilogy starting in 2011.

I'd rather have The Avengers in 2010, kind of an across the board sequel for Iron Man and Hulk...

 

[Ring Deacon]

When did I say Thor can't be a successful movie? I never did. He could be quite successful. I am just saying he won't be nominated for any non-effects Oscars. Though I do think a Captain America movie would be better.

I am not saying that you did. ButIi am saying if done right it could be oscar worthy. I am saying do it up like a Braveheart or Gladiator style movie and you have gold. Do it from a superhero tone and you only get FX nominations. That is why I said do Thor taking place in the distant past. Have it end with the hammer being lost and Thor losing his powers/dissapearing. At the end of the credits have Donald Blake find it, that sets up the Avengers.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I am not saying that you did. ButIi am saying if done right it could be oscar worthy. I am saying do it up like a Braveheart or Gladiator style movie and you have gold. Do it from a superhero tone and you only get FX nominations. That is why I said do Thor taking place in the distant past. Have it end with the hammer being lost and Thor losing his powers/dissapearing. At the end of the credits have Donald Blake find it, that sets up the Avengers.

I don't think so. It is a comic movie. I felt V For Vendetta was an Oscar worthy movie, but the academy didn't, and if movies like that get no nominations, I don't see Thor getting one (his is much more superhero than V).

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

I don't think so. It is a comic movie. I felt V For Vendetta was an Oscar worthy movie, but the academy didn't, and if movies like that get no nominations, I don't see Thor getting one (his is much more superhero than V).

Perhaps a special effects or musical score oscar?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Perhaps a special effects or musical score oscar?

Sure, but not anything other than that kind of stuff.

Hey guys, I don't make the rules...the academy does.

Sorry, but we will never see:

"And the nominees are, (some boxing movie), (some bio-epic), (some movie about horses), (some war movie...possibly foreign), and Thor"

Not gonna happen.

 

[Silvermoth]

I only care for one thing from a Thor film. Will Fox be involved?
Matthew + Fox= Matthew leaves the project, movie turns out terrible
Matthew + Marvels independent movie production= Could be a good film

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Thor is at Marvel studios.

 

[Ring Deacon]

The History of Violence was nominated for a best actor award for Whilliam Hurt at the oscars. I don't see why Thor can't get a few too. Nicholson got one for Batman 89 too.

It is foolish to think it can't happen because it can.

 

[Silvermoth]

^ Thor is at Marvel studios.

Thanks for the wonderful news!

 

[Spider-Fan]

The History of Violence was nominated for a best actor award for Whilliam Hurt at the oscars. I don't see why Thor can't get a few too. Nicholson got one for Batman 89 too.

It is foolish to think it can't happen because it can.

Just checked IMDB, no he did not get a nomination for Batman. History of Violence was also a much different film than Thor will be. Thor = superhero, superheroes do not equal Oscar.

Sorry guys, Superman: The Movie and Spider-Man 2 (with Ebert's push) were the best shots we had at Oscar noms.

It is not foolish to think it can't happen, because it doesn't. History has said so.

Also, Captain America movie > Thor movie

I love Thor, but Cap has the better story to tell.

 

[Sebastos]

This seems interesting. I saw Vaughn's movie Layer Cake and thought it was great. So I look forward as to what will happen if he becomes the director.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Ring Deacon!

Actually it may seem hard to believe but a Thor movie may be a better seller then a Captain America movie.

I can certainly see it doing more international business, with Captain America doing more domestic business. Of course the current international market seems about 50%+ bigger than the domestic market, so in all likelihood Thor would do better overall.

With Thor you don't need to put him into modern times for the movie and can do a period piece.

If they do that then its not the Mighty Thor. The whole point of Marvel's Thor is that he is a god on (contemporary) Earth.

Have Thor fighting a war along side vikings about 400 years ago.

I fail to see the point of that.

Go read my Thor movie treatment to see how Thor can work on contemporary Earth.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm

You can end it with Thor's hammer being lost and it being found in 2008 by Donald Blake. From there you can go with Thor 2 in modern times or straight to Avengers.

What the heck is the point of doing that!? You have said that a contemporary Thor can't work, now you are saying well lets do it as our second movie!? Big mistake, you are simply making the first movie obsolete!

I see Thor being on the scale of Braveheart. A big time epic adventure. And if done right, Oscar worthy

You can have the 'epic' without sacrificing the contemporary setting.

 

[Ring Deacon]

Hey there Ring Deacon!



I can certainly see it doing more international business, with Captain America doing more domestic business. Of course the current international market seems about 50%+ bigger than the domestic market, so in all likelihood Thor would do better overall.



If they do that then its not the Mighty Thor. The whole point of Marvel's Thor is that he is a god on (contemporary) Earth.



I fail to see the point of that.

Go read my Thor movie treatment to see how Thor can work on contemporary Earth.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm



What the heck is the point of doing that!? You have said that a contemporary Thor can't work, now you are saying well lets do it as our second movie!? Big mistake, you are simply making the first movie obsolete!



You can have the 'epic' without sacrificing the contemporary setting.

Yes i am saying do a modern Thor for 2, You still need to intro him from his own world first for people to understand who he is. You just can't say "oh BTW this guy Donald Blake is really a God in human form and doesn't know who he is." The general public would never buy that. But they would care more about him if you tell them WHO the Mighty Thor is in the first movie.