CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › "X3" vs. "Superman Returns": Behind the Scenes with THR
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"X3" vs. "Superman Returns": Behind the Scenes with THR

post #1 of 23
8/18/06 at 2:43pm
Thread Starter 
Fox Got Bigger Hit, but WB Happy with Singer

Very interesting article. A lot of it is stuff we knew, but they get some really nice quotes from the WB heads as to the future of the franchise and what was really going on. Favorite portion though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hollywood Reporter
Singer was the creative force behind the "X-Men" franchise, and now he's gone. Ratner is not in the picture; the sense in Hollywood is that Fox scored with "Last Stand" despite the director, not because of him.
Reply
post #2 of 23
8/18/06 at 3:03pm
Another Superman thread has hatched...
Reply
post #3 of 23
8/18/06 at 3:25pm
I brought this up in the Superman Returns Post-Release discussion thread. Some think it's simply spin from WB.
Reply
post #4 of 23
8/18/06 at 3:35pm
Quote:
While some "Superman Returns" viewers objected to the addition of an illegitimate child of Lois Lane and Superman (which never appeared in any of the comic books), Singer intends to proceed with that story arc. "There's a lot of room to go with that character and his upbringing and human background and Krypton heritage," he says. "He's the genetic material of both parents. Superman doesn't have that. It's hard to write for Superman. He's a tough character to create insurmountable obstacles for. This one is unique and insurmountable."
So he wanted to get involved in a Superman franchise to NOT tell stories about Supes? I'm confused. It's challenging to create stories based on Kal-El, so through misdirection and re-focus, we'll turn the franchise into SUPES JR.... That doesn't sit well with me.
Reply
post #5 of 23
8/18/06 at 3:44pm
Yeah I don't mean to play Devin here but I take that story with a huge grain of salt. Frankly Superman (as much as I enjoyed it) wasn't that successful but wasn't an outright failure either.

What I found curious is what that piece is saying in that Superman is ready for more films and the X-Men movies are in trouble.

Of course the problem with the further X flicks is the star salaries but all you really have to do in my opinion is bring back Jackman, Stewart and McKellen and bring on new faces and the series can continue. However is it true Fox doesn't want Ratner to return?

It would seem natural that he would after the film did as well as it did. Although i'd like to see another filmmaker give it a shot.

Edit : Have to agree with Darkmite about *spoiler* the kid stuff. This is Superman not Superboy.
Reply
post #6 of 23
8/18/06 at 4:34pm
Thread Starter 
A lot of sounds like spin, though really, what do they have left to spin? SR didn't light the world on fire, it's pretty obvious by now. I think it's interesting though the concept of it being more profitable in the long run just to have Singer on the WB lot than the Fox lot.

As for "X3", I think part of the problem is that initially they signed people to 3-picture deals, which have now run out. It's a big universe, and when you consider that Jackman, Stewart, and McKellen cost a nice chunk right off the bat, you're looking at some pretty big overhead. Say what you want about SR, Singer cast it cheap.

And I'm not too surprised that Ratner's probably gone. This was a stepping stone for him (though he's stepping to "Rush Hour 3" and greater heights of mediocrity) and he never seemed terribly interested in the whole thing.
Reply
post #7 of 23
8/18/06 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew
And I'm not too surprised that Ratner's probably gone. This was a stepping stone for him (though he's stepping to "Rush Hour 3" and greater heights of mediocrity) and he never seemed terribly interested in the whole thing.
Well i'm surprised Fox isn't bringing him back. Seems like they have a hard time keeping good filmmakers around. Not that Brett is but he did a serviceable job on X3 in my opinion. Fox seems to want to wait for something I guess a fresh take (and no doubt see where the spinoffs go).
Reply
post #8 of 23
8/18/06 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
So he wanted to get involved in a Superman franchise to NOT tell stories about Supes? I'm confused. It's challenging to create stories based on Kal-El, so through misdirection and re-focus, we'll turn the franchise into SUPES JR.... That doesn't sit well with me.
That paragraph seemed to be saying (to me) that having the kid in the franchise could open up all sorts of dramatic possibilities for Supes, i.e. if he can be a good father, and how the kid should be raised, if Lois should leave Richard, etc. It does open up some possibilities, I'll admit that, but it's really easy to fuck it up.

Here's hoping, I guess...
Reply
post #9 of 23
8/18/06 at 6:20pm
Ratner is not bad. He's a classic shooter, someone competent who comes in, shoots the picture and exits just as quietly, without really leaving a personal mark. X3 was well directed and only suffered from a half-baked script which kept the film from greatness. The hatred has more to do with the dorky rich kid getting the fat paychecks and the chicks than with any lack of talent.

Singer on the other hand let Superman's budget spiral out of control, jetissoned finished -and very expensive- effects sequence form his final cut and was apparently happy with his writing team churning out a remake of the old films.

Like Ratner, he's not a great visualist. At the end of the day, he's also a shooter, hiding behind the themes of adoption and being different (gay/jewish/mutant/alien) from the rest of the world, to create an aura of auterism. his best film, by far, is still The Usual Suspects and it's been 11 years since it came out.
Reply
post #10 of 23
8/18/06 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
Ratner is not bad. He's a classic shooter, someone competent who comes in, shoots the picture and exits just as quietly, without really leaving a personal mark. X3 was well directed and only suffered from a half-baked script which kept the film from greatness. The hatred has more to do with the dorky rich kid getting the fat paychecks and the chicks than with any lack of talent.
Bullshit. X3 was utterly pedestrian directorial-wise, and the idea that people dislike him only because of jealousy is insane. The guy is an average director at best, a point-and-clicker who has an empty style. Singer may have faltered slightly with RETURNS, but he's a far better director than Ratner has shown thus far. Just compare X3 and X2, there's absolutely no contest.
Reply
post #11 of 23
8/18/06 at 6:40pm
Absolutely. One of the reasons X3 comes off so badly is that it has to stand in the shadow of the two previous films. Had Ratner directed the first X-Men film, then...well, there probably wouldn't be a franchise, but at least it wouldn't pale next to anything.
Reply
post #12 of 23
8/18/06 at 6:49pm
X3 comes off so badly because the script was not all it could be. What was frustratign to a lot of people was that hidden in there were the seeds of a great movie and the film failed to deliver on that promise. It was decent, while it could have been golden.

That has nothing to do with Ratner. His direction was solid, if unexceptional. And as far as action was concerned, he delivered. You can't really ignore the whole sequence in the Gray Household.

The film was definitely less than it could be and for that, ultimately a disappointment but you can't really blame the Rat for that.
Reply
post #13 of 23
8/18/06 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
That has nothing to do with Ratner. His direction was solid, if unexceptional. And as far as action was concerned, he delivered. You can't really ignore the whole sequence in the Gray Household.
Nor can we ignore the final acts Mutant Confrontation that was poorly shot, badly choregraphed and about as pedestrian an action sequence as I have seen in a Hollywood film over the last few years. Shit, people rag on Nolan for delivering shitty fight scenes in Begins but that Big Mutant Dust Up in X3 was lame as fuck.
Reply
post #14 of 23
8/18/06 at 7:51pm
As far as Singer is concerned (don't get me wrong, he's still the better director), the fact that Logan's Run is apparently dead speaks oodles about Warners' faith in him.

On another note, what I find interesting from the source article is the studios' realisation that comic book movies have reached a boiling point. Fox needed X3 this summer because the are afraid the audience will soon lose interest on the genre.
Reply
post #15 of 23
8/18/06 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker
Of course the problem with the further X flicks is the star salaries but all you really have to do in my opinion is bring back Jackman, Stewart and McKellen and bring on new faces and the series can continue.
Aren't those three the bulk of the salaries they're worried about?
Reply
post #16 of 23
8/18/06 at 8:25pm
Thread Starter 
Ratner, as the director, deserves to bear a healthy share of blame for a bad movie. Script issues or not, this is a film that constantly feels as though it's just starting, only to crush you with the realization that they're heading into the finale and you don't know or care about a single character or plotline they've established. The pacing is horrendous, and more than any other superhero film, he at least gets the softball pitch of having the perfect opportunity for the huge mutant vs. mutant that all these films have been flirting with.

And he whiffs.

That's direction. The whole thing is lifeless, and completely devoid of any of the thematic underpinnings that Singer's films were built around. But even with all this considered, if he just had the balls to kill Jean Grey, Professor X, Cyclops, and leave Magneto powerless, and stick to his guns, I'd give him credit. But he pusses out of almost all of it.

It's funny, interviews with Penn suggest that the script was good and the studio and Ratner screwed it all up. But the defense of Ratner usually hinges on, "well he did what he could with a bad script".
Reply
post #17 of 23
8/18/06 at 8:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
On another note, what I find interesting from the source article is the studios' realisation that comic book movies have reached a boiling point. Fox needed X3 this summer because the are afraid the audience will soon lose interest on the genre.
I thought this was very telling myself. Especially as it pertains to Fox, who consistently rushes to release these movies. The irony is that if the audience loses interest it will be because of half-assed, lackluster rush jobs like the ones Fox is becoming infamous for.
Reply
post #18 of 23
8/19/06 at 2:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Aren't those three the bulk of the salaries they're worried about?
Indeed only minus Miss Berry.
Reply
post #19 of 23
8/19/06 at 4:56am
I got the impression from the article quote that Singer meant for the kid to be a problem for Superman that couldn't be dealt with by means of his invunerability/godlike powers. Which is actually a good idea.

As far as X3, it sucked on many levels. There was the script level, which killed off (or depowered, which is just as good) a shitload of main characters with an amazing lack of drama. There was also directorial level, where it was completely unremarkable. And as I mentioned in the theatrical thread, the climactic battle between the mutant armies appears on screen as Wolverine on one side, and a bunch of mutants whose power is to run in a straight line until Wolverine chops them up on the other. Then there is the issue of paling to comparison of the first two, where the main criticism is a lack of scale and grandeur. X3 had that, but it was lackluster. It's like with Singer's movies, less is more, and with Ratner's, more is less.
Reply
post #20 of 23
9/5/06 at 11:42am
Well yea, that`s a given. But when we say the pacing of X3 was bad, we have to realise that Rat directed what was in the script so the fact that Jean Grey went from Phoenix consuming everything to zombie to letting lose again when somebody tried to sting her was all the writers`fault. They did a miserable job at it. Then again I have to wonder if it wasn`t the studio itself that wanted to have them cram all these different things in one movie. And it probably was. All this stuff from all the deaths, to Jean becoming Dark Phoenix probably should have happened over several movies so most of them would have been more meaningful where everything happens the way it should happen. So basically it all comes down to the original source of the problem: Fox.
Reply
post #21 of 23
9/5/06 at 7:48pm
It is my opinion that X3 would have been better had Phoenix (whom I've never liked) been left out of the running together and the far, far more promising (and in tone with the previous films) anit-mutant serum been focused on.
Combining a good plot with an overblown deus ex machina like Phoenix was the biggest mistake. Didn't leave enough room in the film for any of the other things it needed.
Reply
post #22 of 23
9/5/06 at 7:54pm
They could have let the Dark Phoenix thing slowly start to develop during X3, with the actual plot being about the serum. Then if the film was a success, X4 could have been just about Phoenix with Famke, Scott and Jackman being the main focus - which would have been considerably cheaper.
Reply
post #23 of 23
9/6/06 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
They could have let the Dark Phoenix thing slowly start to develop during X3, with the actual plot being about the serum. Then if the film was a success, X4 could have been just about Phoenix with Famke, Scott and Jackman being the main focus - which would have been considerably cheaper.
This would have been better. I could then have just plain not seen X4, while getting a decent film out of its predecessor.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › "X3" vs. "Superman Returns": Behind the Scenes with THR