The Wolverine (2013)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 42744
Joined: May 2010
IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:
talli wrote:they should put Tarantino or Gibson on it
I agree would love Tarantino to do it.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
allstarr55js wrote:
talli wrote:they should put Tarantino or Gibson on it
:facepalm: Tarantino would never even consider it.
thanks, now if only we can get a statement from somebody who actually knows what Tarantino would or wouldnt do....somebody like.....Tarantino

User avatar
Posts: 42744
Joined: May 2010
thanks, now if only we can get a statement from somebody who actually knows what Tarantino would or wouldnt do....somebody like.....Tarantino
Yes we have heard it from him because he has said he would only do his own original work from now on after he made Basterds. Nice try though.

Posts: 13622
Joined: June 2009
Location: Florida
Tarantino would be awesome, doubt it would happen though.

Posts: 518
Joined: July 2010
Location: Santa Monica
if this is to be believed and this is by the same source that broke the news that Favreau would not be back for IM 3.. then Fox has struck again

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Real ... 23723.html

Here’s the short version: He wanted control and they wouldn’t give it to him.

It’s no secret that Aronofsky has been interested in making a comic book movie for years. Before Christopher Nolan got involved and did Batman Begins, he’d even been working on his own Batman vision. He’s also friends with Jackman, who seemed to know that the first Wolverine wasn’t very good, and approached him about taking over the franchise. That explains how Aronofsky got involved, but he’s still Aronofsky, and his style requires total control over whatever he’s working in. Movies like Black Swan don’t happen in an environment of studio interference and Darren no doubt knew of all the problems the previous X-Men movies have had. So he attached himself to the project, but didn’t sign on the dotted line until Fox agreed to give him the control he wanted.

We’re told that after his last movie earned a Best Picture nomination and won Natalie Portman an Oscar, he made his demand for the total control over the film that he’d wanted all along, the kind of control Christopher Nolan now has over the Batman franchise at Warner Bros. They tried to give him more money but that wasn’t what Aronofsky wanted. In response to his demand for total control, our source says, “the producers pretty much told him to walk.” So this morning, he did.

No surprises there, Fox isn’t known for handing over complete creative control to anyone outside of James Cameron and it’s not like Aronofsky, for all his critical success, is exactly known for turning in massively profitable, effects-heavy blockbusters. Still, much as this all makes a lot more sense than Aronofsky’s I don’t like to travel excuse, and even though this comes from our most reliable and proven source, consider it all rumor and speculation, in the absence of secondary confirmation.

If this is true, where does that leave Wolverine 2? Still searching for another director, probably one who’s willing to let the studio have more influence. That’s pretty much what happened with the first Wolverine film, and we all know how that turned out.
Last edited by cchriswake on March 17th, 2011, 10:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 13622
Joined: June 2009
Location: Florida
That sucks if its true. FOX isn't exactly a studio that lets directors do their jobs.

Posts: 518
Joined: July 2010
Location: Santa Monica
mastervirgo wrote:
cchriswake wrote:you're basing that on pretty much nothing

was Nolan restrained in TDK? Nolan and Bale both stated during the press junkets of Begins' how grateful they were to Warner Bros for "backing them up on their endeavors 100%" and "trusting Chris". It's unlikely they yank that power back the third movie in unless this is Sony (Spider-man 3)... or Fox (X-3)
everybody knows about how Warner gave so much freedom to Nolan on his Batman franchise but they obviously wouldn't have let Nolan to do whatever he would want to do. the thing is he just didn't do anything to concern them. he knew how much he could push the limits and he didn't go further than that. what I think is making big budget movies by great directors like Nolan and Aronofsky is a waste of talent. they would do a great job, no doubt about that, but the truth is both Aronofsky and Nolan are more than that. why we should see only 75% when we can see 95% of them in a movie. 75% surely is more than enough to make a great movie, but a guy like me would always regret that why Aronofsky can't bring his own 100% imagination to the big screen with that money and time. I loved both two Nolan batman films they are in my top 25 favorite of the decade but I still prefer to see more movies like Inception. that's all.£
... I read that twice and still don't see the connection to my rebuttal at all

I mean don't get me wrong, I know you're defending both Nolan and Aronofsky.. but how does that answer my questioning of your baseless opinions? The words "complete trust" can't be condensed into numbers that you're throwing out there, I'm just laying down what has been quoted by the people who were involved namely Nolan and Bale. If they say that WB gave them the trust to make it in Chris Nolan's vision why should we question that? Unlike Fox Warners actually seemed to learn their lesson from previous tanks thus staying out of the way in terms of creative control.
Take TDK for example, if you're a head executive with the rep. that Alan Horn has, wouldn't you want that film to lower the tone down a notch to market it to children? No, instead what we got (thankfully) was the adaptation of The Long Halloween, a murderous Joker, and the only new toys marketable were the batpod and the figures.

Posts: 15900
Joined: June 2009
i think it may also have something to do with that other biblical story he is developing into a comic and then into a movie...i think he may have become very passionate about it and keeps getting great ideas. probably doesnt wanna put it off

User avatar
Posts: 20369
Joined: June 2010
Tarantino would be awesome but its not even worth discussing he will be busy with his western.

User avatar
Posts: 42744
Joined: May 2010
IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:Tarantino would be awesome but its not even worth discussing he will be busy with his western.
He also stated he only does his own original work. Even more of a reason why it is not worth discussing.

Post Reply