Why things look better at a distance

[trinityvixen]

I 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 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...

Comments

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

I was going to ask why you assume Captain America is going to be bad when (in my opinion) Marvel films have been pretty entertaining and well made as of late. But then I read on and discovered who's directing it. Argh. You never know, though -- it could turn out great (says he of the eternal "cup is half full" mentality).

I read about Marvel's refusal to pay Favreau what he's worth a few years ago and it infuriated me. Doubly when I later read that Howard was jumping ship for the same reason -- I like Cheadle, too, but I thought Howard was great and great for the role, not that Cheadle isn't a good replacement.

I was annoyed a couple years ago when I read The Wolfman was being remade and the stoked when I read that they cast Del Toro because he seemed absolutely perfect for it. Sigh, then I finally saw it and it was nothing more than "meh". A crime considering the cast.

[lnbw.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I like Cheadle, but I was really sad that Howard didn't come back because I'd already gotten used to him in that character.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I try to remain optimistic, especially as Chris Evans is, like, instant lady-boner material. :D

Marvel's strategy regarding its movies infuriates me. Part of the reason Iron Man did so well is that they were kind of hands off. They weren't expecting anything from it, they weren't overly invested (monetarily) in the movie, so Favreau and RDJ basically did whatever the hell they wanted, and it turned out awesome. (Unlike, say, the heavily meddled-with The Incredible Hulk, which I still liked, but which suffered, at least in the press, for all the bickering.)

Instead of following this obviously successful strategy, Marvel, as soon as money was involved, freaked the fuck out. If Favreau hadn't been re-hired, they would have pissed off their star, so that was a narrow victory and one entirely dependent on money. Howard, on the other hand, was paid more than RDJ on the first movie and wanted the same raise everyone else got and was let go. They also insisted on a shit-ton more stuff about the Avengers in Iron Man 2. Aside from the always excellent Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson, none of that helped the movie. (Black Widow? WTF?)

Word has already started circulating that there were major budget fights over The Avengers, too, which? I call bullshit. You have, like, ten stars in that movie, and you have several actors who command a hefty price (and deserve it). Obviously, RDJ gets his mad moneys, but Chris Evans isn't nobody, nor is Samuel L Jackson, and Mark Ruffalo will be playing Bruce Banner. Are they $20M stars? No, but add them to the six other actors in the film--Chris Hemsworth, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johannson to name a few--and that's a lot of money up front for actors alone. To say not a thing about a lot of the pricey special effects something like, say, the Hulk, requires. And Marvel went into this knowing that and they're still being dicks about what to pay Joss Whedon!?

The Wolfman remake was such a disappointment. Two years before the movie came out, they had a full makeup picture of Benecio del Toro as the Wolfman and it looked fantastic. The movie was a total bummer. Except for that one scene where the guy is blithely talking about how crazy del Toro is and how he's totally not a lycanthrope...as he changes into a Wolfman. That didn't rescue the movie, but it was awesome.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That's entirely the problem. It's so distracting when they change out people. I mean, I'd take Maggie Gyllenhaal over Katie Holmes any day, but it's so distracting to swap her out.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

It's not inconceivable that he raided Hopkins' place dressed like a Victorian dandy.

I want that movie. Hugo Weaving, drunk Anthony Hopkins, Victorian dandy suit.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I know, right?

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's a big thing for me.

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's really bad business. I had all kinds of respect for Marvel Studios because all of these great movies (some animated and straight to video and others big budget box office releases) were coming out, but I was giving them too much credit. I liked The Incredible Hulk, too, but you're right and you can very easily tell the difference in quality between that and Iron Man. Too bad.

So if Favreau isn't involved in the third Iron Man film (are they making a third?), will RDJ still be in?

Also, I knew who you were talking about, but never knew Clark Gregg by name until now, so I IMDB'd him to find out what else he's been in/is going to be in and it looks like they're making a Nick Fury film as well. That's news to me. Also, I geaked out a bit when I saw he was in an episode of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

Haha yeah, that scene was my favorite in The Wolfman, too.

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

I also meant to mention I thought Chris Evans was cast to play Captain America, but it doesn't look like him in the pic up there.

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.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Favreau is out, but for better or worse, Marvel and RDJ are bound to each other for at least two more movies. It's possible they booked him for several installments of The Avengers, depending on how well that franchise does. Favreau is actually quite happily working on another project elsewhere, probably with a better budget and less meddling and good on him. He doesn't sound bitter about it at all. I think he might be relieved. What that means for the franchise, I don't want to guess.

Haha yeah, that scene was my favorite in The Wolfman, too.

It was made even funnier by my friends and I imitating the people freaking out about what was going on behind the guy's shoulder in the voice of that pizza-faced kid from The Simpsons...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Actually, Chris Evans was on the cover of Entertainment Weekly in their sneak-peak feature (from which the beefcake photo above comes), and people's response to the cover was "...Nathan Fillion is gonna be the Cap?" It's exaggerated, but not overly. (The cover is here. (http://www.disneydreaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Chris-Evans-Captain-America-Entertainment-Weekly.jpg)

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...