Now the movie is out I’ve closed our old one and will open this as the traditional discussion/review thread. Spoilers are allowed.
Looks like Trank is coming out fighting and saying he had a much better version in the can a year ago.
Not much to go on, but it certainly suggests that there’s some truth in the rumours that the project was essentially taken off his hands some time ago. This is presumably his way of insulating himself against some of the bad press. After what happened with his Star Wars project he probably wants to make sure his name still has some currency.
Hmmm, suddenly the producers are saying that the FF and the X-Men definitely don’t exist in the same universe, so a crossover is unlikely:
wow that’s some quick back-pedaling
Well, people complaining about Wright and Whedon and Marvel can feel better now… =P
Presumably that means that he is no longer an employee of Fox and doesn’t need to keep on message. I wonder how that works. Does that relationship end at the point the movie is released?
You have to ask why these companies hire guys like Trank, who would come to the movie with a specific vision, rather than someone more amenable to taking instruction from the studio. I remember reading an interview a while back with Brett Ratner where he poured scorn on the idea of having the final cut on his movies. He felt that if you wanted to precious about it or an “Artiste” like a Scorcese that was important to you, but otherwise why bother…and he made the fairly successful (but in my opinion not very good) X-Men 3.
I suppose that encapsulates the difference between treating it like a job - and being able to handle the business side of things, including the relationship with the studio - and doing it out of a desire to create good art.
To be a really successful filmmaker, I guess you have to be able to do both. Trank seems like someone with vision, but who has struggled with the demands of a big studio movie.
I watched a documentary on Netflix last weekend which was pretty much all about that. It was called Lost Souls and it was about Richard Stanley and the making of the movie The Island of Doctor Moreau (the Marlon Brando/Val Kilmer version) and how that became a debacle. He was a director with a vision but probably not enough experience in dealing with a big studio and no one to back him up. Honestly he was probably a little naive. It is worth watching if you haven’t seen it.
It is an interesting insight into how crap movies happen. It often isn’t just one thing, but with film being a collaborative medium, it is due to a conglomeration of things.
Did Stanley get his ‘vision’ from a 2000ad annual again?
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if he did to be honest.
The documentary was slanted very much in his favour with a lot of the blame going on the shoulders of Val Kilmer and Marlon Brando (and we never hear their sides of the story), but he did come across as a guy who was completely out of his depth. And more than a little eccentric.
Stanley’s not the only one with stories about Brando and Kilmer.
But yes, “eccentric” is a good word for him, and for anyone wanting to see a really beautiful looking horror movie, I recommend ‘Dust Devil’. He had problems on that too, but it was lower budget with no real movie stars and it’s a great looking film.
Trank… I think he needs a holiday. Wherever the blame deserves to be applied, tweeting this stuff is not good.
The stories about Brando from Superman: The Movie alone are enough.
“I totally made this awesome film, it would have been the best thing since Citizen Kane…but you’ll never see it. To bad for you!.”
It seems like a very easy excuse to blame the studio for the bad reviews.
At the moment…
Rotten Tomatoes: 10%
(It has an audience score of 35% Liked but my gut tells me to take that with some salt.)
(It actually dropped 2 points in 15 minutes!)
That means its RT score has improved. It was 9% yesterday.
I’m sure in his mind it’s fantastic, but I doubt it’s really any better than what’s out there. Just slightly different.
If this Tranks… I mean, tanks, I really really really want Marvel Studios to get the rights back. The FF (and Silver Surfer, Galactus, etc) really needs to be a part of that universe and the upcoming Thanos-ness.
A Kilmer story I heard was from one of William Goldman’s books (not Adventures in the Screen Trade) about ‘The Ghost and the Darkness’.
Kilmer’s career was at it’s peak, he loved visiting Africa and it was his desire to make the movie that got it greenlit. Michael Douglas was his costar but also the film’s producer.
So when Kilmer was less than committed to filming (ie. late, absent, unprepared etc.) Douglas took him aside and asked him if he wanted to have Eric Roberts career?
He’s probably sincere though, even if he’s wrong. We’ve been hearing for a while that this isn’t his version of the movie and he probably had to cut a lot of things he wanted to keep.
But they may not actually have been good things? Just things he loved. Shaping movies is very difficult and everyone has an opinion.
He probably wishes he had Eric Roberts career at this point.
To be fair, didn’t Roberts have a substance abuse problem?