Ratner Iinterview

[Muad'Dib]

I was a little taken back by the personality he displays in the interview. I certainly am not a Ratner hater, I love Red Dragon. Family Man was alright but I can't stand the Rush Hour movies.

I don't like X3, there are scenes or maybe things that happen in it which I thought were cool, but as a movie and as an X-Men story I really disliked it. And his percentages are way off, if anything I read about even the number of people that liked the movie with people that didn't.

I never felt Ratner was more directly the cause of what made X3 bad for me, I place that responsability more on:

1) The studio who have absolutely no idea what an X-Men story really is, like any business they care only for the profits.

2) Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn, well because they wrote it and all the statements they made contradicting themselves on Xverse.com.

But after reading this interview, well Ratner definately comes off to me as pompous and arrogant. Maybe he's really different than this or maybe not. I thought he took a lot of crap which was not his fault in terms of X3, but after reading this I'm disappointed in him.

 

[Seen]

X3 was the first movie in the series to even crack $200 million domestically.

Wrong. X2 made $215 million domestically. It's production budget was $130 million. As for X3, it made $234 million domestically with a production budget of $210 million. So it's safe to say that X3, while a hit, didn't earn much compensation for its budget.

 

[ntcrawler]

Wrong. X2 made $215 million domestically. It's production budget was $130 million. As for X3, it made $234 million domestically with a production budget of $210 million. So it's safe to say that X3, while a hit, didn't earn much compensation for its budget.

You are correct about X2. In addition, keep in mind that humble, little X1 earned 2.75 times more money domestically than X3 did, and cost less than 1/3 of X3's budget to make. X3 made more money total, but had much higher costs to pay off first before it could see profit. Obsecenely higher costs.

 

[danoyse]

X2 made $215 million domestically...

Ooops. I had it confused with the first this year to go over $200 million, not the first X-Men movie. I stand corrected.

Still, the earlier claim that it "died" at $234 million is hardly a bad way to die. It's still the highest grossing film of the series, and it's not even out on DVD yet.

It cost them a fortune to do it because Vaughn left and they rushed to finish it, and because they had a massive cast to re-sign. But there's no one calling it a financial failure.

 

[Cyclops]

No, but to say it gained the most isn't entirely accurate because it's net profit is the lowest of the three. I'm understanding those stats correctly, right?

 

[WorthyStevens]

It's a hit, but it's just not as profitable as the first movies were.

 

[ntcrawler]

No, but to say it gained the most isn't entirely accurate because it's net profit is the lowest of the three. I'm understanding those stats correctly, right?

That's correct. X3 made $234 million domestically. But cost $210 to make. Therefore its net profit is i miserly $234-210 = $24 million. X1's profit by comparison was $65 million. Which lemonade stand would you rather run? I hope not the one that costs 3x to set up but only makes 1/3 the money than your competition

 

[danoyse]

Me too , though I always find time for my friends. So which show did you see?

"Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me". Not my first choice, but it was available on the discount boards, but it was was quite funny. He comes out as Jiminy Glick at one point in the show, and Darrell Hammond from SNL was in the audience, so he brought him up on stage do an interview and he did some of his impressions. It was a lot of fun.

And just to stay on topic, I read James Marsden was in the audience on opening night last month. t:

Actually I am. I was at least hoping the guy had class. Guess I was wrong.

Well, it's an MTV interview, and he's plugging the DVD. Since the movie was successful, and it's well known that he was originally received negatively by the internet fans, the attitude is that (and this isn't my opinion, it's just what I've been seeing in articles so far), their fears were mostly unfounded because the movie did so well, and how does he feel about the whole thing now.

I've read interviews with him before...and the movies he likes are pretty far from the kind of movies I like. I don't hate the guy, I liked "Red Dragon" and the "Rush Hour" movies were harmless enough (I never saw the 2nd one), but even I want to slug him watching the deleted scenes and finding out why they were cut. I can't stand that the movie is so short.

I've also noticed his interviews tend to be more about his party escapades rather than his films--most annoyingly the X3 cover story in EW back in May, which was more about how much time he spent with Lindsay Lohan than it was about the movie.

Also from what I've read, it appears for the most part the cast enjoyed working with him. He's getting props all around for coming in on such short notice and taking over, which frankly, he deserves.

Keep in mind, this is also the guy who made Hugh Jackman think he'd burned his house down on PUNK'd a few months ago, how can anyone trust him?

 

[danoyse]

It's a hit, but it's just not as profitable as the first movies were.

And Fox is just using that as proof as why they ended the series at X3 (for now) and are going to spinoffs...they're spending more money and not making as much money in return, so their logical next step is to make smaller budgeted movies and make more of a profit. If they're done right.

Although logically, with the money they did spend on X3, it would have made a lot more sense to just wait for Bryan Singer and make a better movie with it, instead of racing to finish the movie they had.

Then again...that's a huge cast, which is a dilemna that none of the other big comic movies have, and availability is a big issue there, not to mention a lot more money to bring them back now. It had been 3 years since the last movie, putting it off another year or two would not have been good either. There was a POTC sequel opening the same summer, they didn't want to get in the way of that. It's a lot of things.

I think they never should have chased off Bryan Singer in the first place, but that's done now. No one's ever really going to know how that whole thing broke down.

 

[Downhere]

X1 cost $60 million to make.

Actually, to be accurate, it cost $75 million to make X1 and $110 million to make X2 according to Box Office Mojo.

 

[Theweepeople]

What Fox should have done right from the beginning is sign all the cast members to make multiple movies. That is the way to make a trilogy. Lord of the Rings is the perfect example of what can happen when a movie company signs the right director, gets the right cast, gives the director artistic freedom and proper time to make 3 films. X-Men had the potential to turn into a series at least 3 great movies or more. Fox could have cast a bunch of unknowns and signed everyone for 6 films. Then they wouldn't have to worry about huge increases in cast salary after a few films. Warner Brothers has 5 successful potter films with primarily the same cast and they plan on making 7. I don't see why 6 X-Men films couldn't be made with the right attitude from whatever movie company owns the property rights.

 

[danoyse]

That's correct. X3 made $234 million domestically. But cost $210 to make. Therefore its net profit is i miserly $234-210 = $24 million. X1's profit by comparison was $65 million. Which lemonade stand would you rather run? I hope not the one that costs 3x to set up but only makes 1/3 the money than your competition

You have to look at it this way too:

$210 million is an estimate. No studio in their right mind is going to release actual budget features, even to places like Box Office Mojo, who just list those numbers from the estimates that were reported from various media sites.

It's not to say they didn't spend a ridiculous amount of money making X3, but just that no one knows exactly how much they did spend.

Going back to the first two movies--they didn't have to re-sign the cast for X2, they were signed for a sequel when they signed for X1. They were mostly unknowns at the time, or least...pre-Oscar and Tony wins and stars of the LOTR movies. Plus those movies made a fortune, it was always going to cost a lot to bring them back, even if they kept Bryan Singer and let him do whatever he wanted.

Also, the box office isn't the only revenue stream. The DVD is out next month, the special edition of which is currently #17 on Amazon.com's top 100 sellers. So that's a fortune right there. Plus now we know there's double-dip coming (ugh), so there's even more in DVD sales, not to mention trilogy box sets, and whatever else they think of there. Then it goes to the TV revenue, which is cable and (I'm assuming) on-demand services.

This movie has a ton of money to make yet. It became a hit when it had that first big weekend, financially. Everything else is just tacking on to that, and it's a considerable amount.

And I think...enough to not rule out a new X-Men movie, if the DVDs continue to do well, as well as the spinoff movies. If there's stil an interest, and they're still making money, they'll do it somehow.

 

[danoyse]

What Fox should have done right from the beginning is sign all the cast members to make multiple movies. That is the way to make a trilogy. Lord of the Rings is the perfect example of what can happen when a movie company signs the right director, gets the right cast, gives the director artistic freedom and proper time to make 3 films. X-Men had the potential to turn into a series at least 3 great movies or more. Fox could have cast a bunch of unknowns and signed everyone for 6 films. Then they wouldn't have to worry about huge increases in cast salary after a few films. Warner Brothers has 5 successful potter films with primarily the same cast and they plan on making 7. I don't see why 6 X-Men films couldn't be made with the right attitude from whatever movie company owns the property rights.

That makes sense, and I wish they had too...but it's a different situation than LOTR and Harry Potter.

LOTR is 3 books, with one linear story. X-Men is 40 years of comic books with tons of stories and characters. Also, the comic book movie genre was sort of dead at the time, so they weren't going to commit to more than 2 movies.

"Harry Potter" is also based on one book series. Plus they have to film those movies quickly before their cast gets too old to reprise their roles. They've already announced a release date for the 6th movie, and they haven't even finished filming the 5th.

LOTR was massive risk for New Line. If it had failed, it would have bankrupted the studio. Not many places are willing to take that chance, and logically so. LOTR could have just have easily been a flop.

Plus...not all of their fans are happy with the movie versions. There have been massive cuts in the "Harry Potter" adaptations, and I've seen their fans claim that the WB has a vendetta against Ron Weasley (sound familiar).

And Fox DID cast a bunch of unknowns for X-Men, mostly. Probably the most famous at the time was Patrick Stewart, and that was because of Star Trek. But everybody's star rose afterwards, it was going to take a lot to bring them back.

The studio stuff just gets complicated, which always sucks creatively.

The person who had the best plan was George Lucas...he financed the Star Wars sequels with his own money so Fox couldn't tell him what to do. t:

 

[TrailerCues]

Ratner - I did stay very true not only to the first two movies but ("to the comic books")

LMAO

@ the staying very true to the comic books quote. Ratner is talking out of his ass with this one. If Ratner stayed "very true to the comic books" then almost all fans would have loved the damn movie

 

[ntcrawler]

They were mostly unknowns at the time, or least...pre-Oscar and Tony wins and stars of the LOTR movies.

Exactly. Even more reason to sign them up with options for multiple movies in the future, just in case. Don't these people ever think ahead? FOX Bought the rights for what... 10-15 years from Marvel? Surely not just to make ONE movie...

And don't forget, Anna Paquin already had an oscar under her belt by the time X1 came along, but no one accuses her of being controlled by her ego.

And I think...enough to not rule out a new X-Men movie, if the DVDs continue to do well, as well as the spinoff movies. If there's stil an interest, and they're still making money, they'll do it somehow.

If we act like good, loyal customers they might feed us some gruel, 10 years from now...

 

[Retroman]

Thanks Electrix

MTV: Comic book fans are crazy — some guy has posted a script online for what he hopes will be "X-Men 4."

Wow and that coming from MTV. Go make another stupid reality show or something.

Brett Ratner: When I was shooting the movie it was 90 percent negative, and then it became 90 percent positive.

Lord have mercy.

 

[ntcrawler]

"Harry Potter" is also based on one book series. Plus they have to film those movies quickly before their cast gets too old to reprise their roles. They've already announced a release date for the 6th movie, and they haven't even finished filming the 5th.

A book series that hasn't been written or completed yet. Goodness, sounds very similar to the X-Men situation, doesn't it? At least X-Men had written material to draw inspiration from. Harry Potter is all based on what the author may think up in the future.

LOTR was massive risk for New Line. If it had failed, it would have bankrupted the studio. Not many places are willing to take that chance, and logically so. LOTR could have just have easily been a flop.

And that's exactly the kind of company you would want to approach if you wanted to do a franchise like X-men.

The person who had the best plan was George Lucas...he financed the Star Wars sequels with his own money so Fox couldn't tell him what to do. t:

He's not the only one who thought of that idea. FOX just doesn't sound fan or creativity friendly lately, does it?

 

[TrailerCues]

Harry Potter is all based on what the author may think up in the future.

How so ? All 6 books are out & by the time they even get into Pre Production of the 7th Movie that book should be out by then. It really is a case of filming these movies before the main cast gets to old. No one wants recasting

 

[gambitfire]

Well i think the all the negatives of this interview have been covered so i need not say nothing.

But yea Ratner like FOX, Zak and Simon is not good for the X-Men.

LOL i wonder if he had a comic book panel of Xavier dead and Wolverine crying over him like a baby or Phoenix "killing" Cyke's.

 

[ntcrawler]

How so ? All 6 books are out & by the time they even get into Pre Production of the 7th Movie that book should be out by then. It really is a case of filming these movies before the main cast gets to old. No one wants recasting

That's what I mean. By the time the LOTR movies started production, all the written material was already completed and published. By the time they started making the first Harry Potter film, not all 7 books were written or published yet.

 

[TrailerCues]

That's what I mean. By the time the LOTR movies started production, all the written material was already completed and published. By the time they started making the first Harry Potter film, not all 7 books were written or published yet.

Because unlike LOTR they did not want to shoot all at one time like Jackson did. Its different & you cant compare them that way. Both studios had different plans

 

[Cyclops]

Ratner - I did stay very true not only to the first two movies but ("to the comic books")

LMAO

@ the staying very true to the comic books quote. Ratner is talking out of his ass with this one. If Ratner stayed "very true to the comic books" then almost all fans would have loved the damn movie

He didn't even stay true to the first two movies, but that's more a fault of the screenplay and the special effects than the direction.

Even though he should have said stuff like "No, this doesn't fit the previous films." But he's a "studio yes man", so he wouldn't have done that.

 

[ntcrawler]

Thanks Electrix
Wow and that coming from MTV. Go make another stupid reality show or something.

They don't get out much, do they? Gee, only ONE script for an X4 put together by a fan? People, there are dozens of those already. Not to mention several full length movieverse novels that were written and published on the internet over the last few years!

And their reaction disturbs me as well. There are worse, crazier things people could be doing. I consider this to actually be positive and deserving of praise, not ridicule. It's for dedication like this that X-Men got to be where it is in the first place.

Yeah, go make another stupid reality show, or try showing music videos like you used to back in the 80's when you were actually cool. :P

 

[ntcrawler]

Because unlike LOTR they did not want to shoot all at one time like Jackson did. Its different & you cant compare them that way. Both studios had different plans

Yes I can compare them. LOTR was based on already published, completed material. Harry Potter is being made one movie at a time, according to books which are written and published one book at a time. You don't know the whole story because it's not available, yet. Unlike LOTR.

 

[TrailerCues]

Yes I can compare them. LOTR was based on already published, completed material. Harry Potter is being made one movie at a time, according to books which are written and published one book at a time. You don't know the whole story because it's not available, yet. Unlike LOTR.

They could have also just as easily waited until all books were done before starting to film them but they didnt. I think New Line did what they did with LOTOR to A) do something new by filming 3 Movies at one time B) set records etc. Like I said each studio wanted to do things differently regardless of what source material is out there. Now lets get back to bashing Ratner & FOX