17
Oct
10

Director Update: Wolverine 2

Darren Aronofsky is all but confirmed for Wolverine 2, and shooting will start in March. Thoughts?

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Director Update: Wolverine 2”


  1. 1 originalninja
    October 18, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Yay for it not being McG!

  2. October 19, 2010 at 5:22 am

    It’s a little odd that they plan on filming mostly in New York (to accommodate both Jackman’s and Aronofsky’s family), with some shooting planned for Japan. That sounds like they either changed the setting, or they’re using sets in NY and exteriors in Japan. Lame. But then, I’m really not feeling this. Nothing against Aronofsky, but I don’t think he’s the right fit for Wolverine. Besides, I don’t see it changing the look of the movie. Two other directors now have attempted an X-Men movie, and Fox pumped it out to look like a Bryan Singer knock off. The only way I’ll be happy with this is if it’s Wolverine and Silver Samurai, and NO MORE (other) MUTANTS.

    I’d like to see if Aronofsky’s ego holds out for this ride.

  3. October 20, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Okay, I read the short blurb over on Spinoff.com, talking to Jackman about the project. He confirmed that DA has the job and that his take is “going to be out of the box”. Also, the script was written by Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects, Way of the Gun). Kind of an odd coincidence that McQuarrie is connected with Singer. McQuarrie is a great writer, and with Jackman’s vote of confidence this early has turned me around some. He promises that it will be different, a change of pace, will have meat on the bones, and make people think about it when they leave the theater. This doesn’t sound like a straight up action piece. Is this a good thing? I guess we’ll see.

    • October 20, 2010 at 8:26 am

      I feel like a battered housewife with comic movies. They keep telling me they’ll change and I keep coming back just to be beat upside the head again. I’ll definitely go see it, but I’m trying hard not to get excited. We’ll see once previews come out.
      -R1

      • October 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm

        No matter how many rumors they leak promising some iota of quality to these disastrous franchises, these reboot movies are ALL going to SUCK. The reason, I think, for this is that the American people OVERWHELMINGLY support the prosaic formula:

        Part 1:
        1.Intro Good Guy.
        2.Intro Bad Guy.
        3.Intro scheme/plot.
        4.Intro hard-to-escape situation/hard-to-find enemy/victim.
        5.Good Guy fights Bad Guy.
        6.Bad Guy defeated but opening left for sequel.

        Part 2:
        1.Good Guy on top of world.
        2.Intro villain.
        3.Trouble in paradise for Good Guy.
        4.Bad Guy scheme.
        5.Good Guy falls from grace/teaters on edge.
        6.Repeat steps 4-6 from above.

        After they’ve done this formula (or some minutely different variation) there is no follow-up. There hasn’t ever been one. That’s why when you look at all these series they always fall apart after that series of story arcs. In real life and in books/comics this story arc rarely happens and when it does, it’s never so absolute. Furthermore, when they break this formula the movie almost ALWAYS flops. People don’t really want anything new or realistic out of a blockbuster movie series.

        The only exceptions to the rule are 1-off movies. They can break the formula because they don’t have to continue on afterward.

        Instances of this formula:
        Hulk 2, Ironman, Xmen, Batman, the Matrix, Blade

        Instances where they break this formula and fail:
        Hulk, Punisher (number 2), Watchmen, X-Men Origins

        Instances where they break and succeed:
        300, Sin City, 30 Days of Night, American Splendor, Art School Confidential

      • October 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm

        I’m confused too, cuz Wolverine 2 isn’t a reboot. And I liked the movies in your “instances of this formula” – was that list supposed to be good? Agreed on the fail list though.

        Geeky – I didn’t care for Watchmen so much, to be honest, but I never read the graphic novel, which I heard was excellent. I didn’t think the movie was bad, I just thought it was very slow in some parts.
        -R1

      • October 20, 2010 at 6:06 pm

        I think I’m confused. Are you saying that Hulk 2, Iron Man, X-Men, Batman, the Matrix, and Blade were bad movies? In any case, it’s shocking you can lump IM in with the X brand. And Watchmen?! One of the best comic books ever and closest adaptation we’ve ever seen? Almost everyone I know that saw that movie loved it.

        Hulk, Punisher: Warzone, and X-Men: Origins didn’t fail because they broke the formula. They failed because they were horrible movies. Although if you look at the box office, Hulk and any of the X-Men didn’t fail.

        The deal with 300 and Sin City is that the directors had a real passion for what they were making. They weren’t just hired by a studio to make another comic book movie. Your “succeed” list are movies that are not overtly based on a comic. I remember hearing most people in the audience whispering during the intro “it’s based on a comic?”

        The formula you list is not exactly supported, at least not consciously. Its a cycle. The studio makes the safe movie, people see the movie, it makes the studio money, rinse and repeat.

        Btw, Wolverine 2 isn’t going to be a reboot.

      • October 21, 2010 at 12:20 am

        The list isn’t bad movies per se, it’s movies that break/follow the formula I laid out. To quote Geeky: The studio makes the safe movie, people see the movie, it makes the studio money, rinse and repeat. Some are great, some are garbage. It’s all up to opinion anyway. Let’s not forget i hated Avatar and loads of people thought that garbage was genius. My basic point is that the plots all unravel in the same way (see above)

        Geeky: I wasn’t talking about the reboot Hulk (Hulk 2), I was talking about the first one… which was/is panned constantly. Also, I wasn’t talking Punisher:War Journel. That would be Punisher 3, as technically the Dolph Lundgren Punisher is Punisher 1. Punisher 2 is with that dude from Hung.

        Also, you argument about 300 doesn’t hold water as it is a most precise translation of the comic. The only more precise translation of comics that I can think of is/are movies made from manga.

      • October 21, 2010 at 8:24 am

        Quick rant on Avatar – though I really like Zoe Saldana and I LOVE Sam Worthington, Avatar was just Pocahontas with blue people. Were the visuals amazing? Sure, and I didn’t even see it in 3D, but the story was same old same old. It didn’t read 10 years of work was put into this.
        -R1

  4. October 21, 2010 at 12:21 am

    BTW, I can understand your confusion. Looking back, that was much to complex an argument to be clumped together as a rant. It requires to much explanation and we all know I’m anything but short-winded.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: