Why things look better at a distance
Jan. 12th, 2011 09:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI admit to being totally excited about Captain America, definitely more than that dated comic character's movie update deserves. I know it won't be "good," but I've been more excited about other movies before with bigger letdowns than Captain America could ever have. ::Sobs over Tron Legacy some more::
Point is, excited as I am, I'm not stupid. I'm also not really going into it thinking "This could be the next Iron Man!" Imma gonna get me sommathis:
Am I shallow? FUCK YES. But I know what I'm in it for. I'm not in it for good. I'm in it for beefcake. (Ooh, and 1940s lady hair. I love me some victory rolls!)
But even with my shallower-than-a-drop-of-water-hitting-a-high-mountain level of interest, I had to pause when I realized that the man directing Captain America directed last year's lamentably bad The Wolfman. Now, I can forgive a lot of what was wrong with that movie because it was clearly a case of studio meddling and delays leading to disaster. Fifteen different people walked out on that thing (and I'm not just talking about audience members)--people who were supposed to do pretty major things, like direct, act in, or score the damn film. Still, a film that manages to waste Hugo Weaving in what may be the only time he and Anthony Hopkins could have had a Ham-Off (TM![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
glvalentine ), is doing something seriously wrong. That someone has to be the director because the Wachowski brothers couldn't direct the third Matrix movie to save their lives, but Hugo Weaving still managed to rampage the shit out of that funk. The only one stopping Hugo Weaving from EPIC HAM is someone other than Hugo Weaving. (Because Hugo Weaving, dramatic actor, was long banished to indie cinema of Australasia by Hugo Weaving, Actor Capable of Set Demolition Even When Only Present As Voice Actor.)
This interview about why The Wolfman isn't The Wolfman's director's fault IS NOT HELPING. Basically, he says that whatever Captain America is or is not, it is not The Wolfman, which is like saying while your movie may not be Citizen Kane, it is still better than those commercials Orson Welles did at the end of his life. "I only did The Wolfman 'cause I was 'po. Now Marvel has showered me with money to make this movie, iz allllll goooooood, baby."
This would be the same Marvel Studios that paid Robert Downey Jr. less than a million dollars (reputedly) for the first Iron Man. That balked at paying Jon Favreau any more money for Iron Man 2 despite the fact that he delivered them a hit that cost them next to nothing. Whose continued refusal to pay talent what it's worth has led to Favreau being ousted as director of Iron Man 3. (And led to the replacement of Terrence Howard by Don Cheadle, but that's fine 'cause I loves me some of the Cheadle.) The studio that almost wouldn't take JOSS WHEDON, HE OF THE INCREDIBLY RABID AND LOYAL FAN BASE, for The Avengers because of his price.
Either this director got $5 to make The Wolfman, or the previously tight-fisted Marvel got an accounting sphincter-loosened. And I'm not going to lie--I could believe that The Wolfman was made for $5. They could have just filmed Anthony Hopkins drunk on his weekend in his dirty old mansion, for all I know. Judging by the state of Benecio del Toro's eye bags, ditto. Hugo Weaving, it is assumed, shows up places in period or fantasy costumes all the time. It's not inconceivable that he raided Hopkins' place dressed like a Victorian dandy.
That means this Joe Johnston person is, like, SUPER PSYCHED about his budget of $15. Must remind myself: beefcake. As long as there is beefcake...
Point is, excited as I am, I'm not stupid. I'm also not really going into it thinking "This could be the next Iron Man!" Imma gonna get me sommathis:
Am I shallow? FUCK YES. But I know what I'm in it for. I'm not in it for good. I'm in it for beefcake. (Ooh, and 1940s lady hair. I love me some victory rolls!)
But even with my shallower-than-a-drop-of-water-hitting-a-high-mountain level of interest, I had to pause when I realized that the man directing Captain America directed last year's lamentably bad The Wolfman. Now, I can forgive a lot of what was wrong with that movie because it was clearly a case of studio meddling and delays leading to disaster. Fifteen different people walked out on that thing (and I'm not just talking about audience members)--people who were supposed to do pretty major things, like direct, act in, or score the damn film. Still, a film that manages to waste Hugo Weaving in what may be the only time he and Anthony Hopkins could have had a Ham-Off (TM
glvalentine ), is doing something seriously wrong. That someone has to be the director because the Wachowski brothers couldn't direct the third Matrix movie to save their lives, but Hugo Weaving still managed to rampage the shit out of that funk. The only one stopping Hugo Weaving from EPIC HAM is someone other than Hugo Weaving. (Because Hugo Weaving, dramatic actor, was long banished to indie cinema of Australasia by Hugo Weaving, Actor Capable of Set Demolition Even When Only Present As Voice Actor.)This interview about why The Wolfman isn't The Wolfman's director's fault IS NOT HELPING. Basically, he says that whatever Captain America is or is not, it is not The Wolfman, which is like saying while your movie may not be Citizen Kane, it is still better than those commercials Orson Welles did at the end of his life. "I only did The Wolfman 'cause I was 'po. Now Marvel has showered me with money to make this movie, iz allllll goooooood, baby."
This would be the same Marvel Studios that paid Robert Downey Jr. less than a million dollars (reputedly) for the first Iron Man. That balked at paying Jon Favreau any more money for Iron Man 2 despite the fact that he delivered them a hit that cost them next to nothing. Whose continued refusal to pay talent what it's worth has led to Favreau being ousted as director of Iron Man 3. (And led to the replacement of Terrence Howard by Don Cheadle, but that's fine 'cause I loves me some of the Cheadle.) The studio that almost wouldn't take JOSS WHEDON, HE OF THE INCREDIBLY RABID AND LOYAL FAN BASE, for The Avengers because of his price.
Either this director got $5 to make The Wolfman, or the previously tight-fisted Marvel got an accounting sphincter-loosened. And I'm not going to lie--I could believe that The Wolfman was made for $5. They could have just filmed Anthony Hopkins drunk on his weekend in his dirty old mansion, for all I know. Judging by the state of Benecio del Toro's eye bags, ditto. Hugo Weaving, it is assumed, shows up places in period or fantasy costumes all the time. It's not inconceivable that he raided Hopkins' place dressed like a Victorian dandy.
That means this Joe Johnston person is, like, SUPER PSYCHED about his budget of $15. Must remind myself: beefcake. As long as there is beefcake...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-13 01:37 am (UTC)While on the topic of comic book adaptations, I was very unimpressed with what I've seen of The Green Lantern, but I've been seeing a lot more on and it's starting to at least look entertaining enough for me to want to see it, although it still doesn't look good by any means.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-13 06:34 am (UTC)You know what it is? It's the hair. It's almost entirely the hair. The hair isn't just different for Evans, who is usually seen with spikier, gelled looks, but it's different for a superhero character of this age. Of course, that's because the majority of the Captain America film will take place in WWII, so, naturally, he's a got a very retro haircut. Honestly? It suits him. I swear I'm not just biased by naked chestyness. It's a good look for him in that it makes him look slightly more mature without making him look old. It also changes his look an inordinate amount. Did you ever see Danny Boyle's Sunshine? He had a shaggy haircut in that, and I totally didn't even recognize him for fully half an hour.
Green Lantern looks dreadful from the trailer. I mean, a good trailer does not a good movie make, nor a bad trailer a bad movie, but it's not a good marketing move for them to put out a trailer that is so uneven. Is it about Ryan Reynolds being all funny? Is it a story about awesome responsibility and maturity? Is it about space aliens? Is it about how that chick from Gossip Girl cannot deliver a line to save her life?!? Who knows? You compare that up-and-down, outer-space-vs-inner-peace trailer to something stylish and simple and, importantly, tantalizingly mysterious like the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens (directed by Favreau, dontcha know) and there just is no comparison.
Funnily enough, there was an article on io0 (I say article, it was really a paragraph) of pure rumor-mongering that pointed out that, six months out from the premiere, there still has not been a trailer for Captain America, whereas something like Green Lantern, releasing only a month before, has had its trailer out for two-and-a-half months already. The rumor-mongering surrounded someone not even remotely related to the production of Captain America saying the film was shit and there was nothing to present on top of that. Now, I'm disheartened by that director's interview, but I'm totally skeptical of this bullshit rumor. I'd also point to the Green Lantern trailer as to why it might be a good idea to delay a trailer. Yes, you want to whet appetites, but GL's trailer had shoddy CGI, uneven mood, and no clear narrative about its hero. A bad trailer can kill interest. Better to keep people guessing even if it makes them start to question your film's quality than to show a trailer that confirms their worst suspicions. In film terms, better to be silent and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove them right...