Drawing by John Romita Jr. | Darren Insert by Moi
I realize that the Aronofksy/Weisz NYC lovenest probably doesn't come cheap. And I realize that after 5 straight winners showcasing your visual originality, gift with actors, and massive cojones, anyone would be tempted to cash in. But how exactly is that going to look on the filmography? Is he just hoping to get the acclaim that Chris Nolan has from the public by going more mainstream? (If you ask me he's a better director than Nolan but Nolan makes high tech sci-fi/superhero movies so naturally he's a million times more beloved.) Will this sequel be an unsightly blemish or am I just worried because of the permanent scarring from the 100% joy-free X-Men Origins: Wolverine?
So maybe it'll be great to see Jackman reinvigorated as an actor within his signature character? It is hard to give a bad or lazy performance in a Darren Aronofsky movie... and they're obviously comfortable with each other via The Fountain. Presumably a director is choosy about which actor he'll direct making love to his longtime girlfriend onscreen.
To make a long story short, this movie is bound to look rosy in comparison to the first Wolverine. And if anybody deserves some safety cushion funding for their next few weirdo projects, it's Aronofsky. So why not cash in?
Two Face: The Fountain and Wolverine
Worst Case Scenario: The homogeny-loving power of both suits and fanboys sap most comic book projects of any chance at originality and specificity, so what if Aronofsky's artistry is violently sucked from him, the tragic victim of status quo vampirism? What if he makes his first dud? That'd be so sad.
It's true that I haven't seen Black Swan yet and it's true that many people hate The Fountain (but you can't exactly knock it for being generic, can you?) so perhaps I protest too much. But from The Wrestler to Black Swan to... a sequel to someone else's vision?
I worry.
Maybe you don't. Are you already salivating to see the claws come out again or just to see this director/star pair reunited?
Posts
28 comments:
I can't do anything but be bummed by this news. Black Swan is a tremendous film, and I was really hoping Aronofsky would be able to follow it up with something even more ambitious (like another Fountain-sized project, but maybe less insane). Of course, we have no idea if Black Swan will be a hit, so I guess you can't blame him for taking the cash when it's being presented.
I'm stealing this point from someone else, but it's just a bummer to see directors at the height of their creative powers get sucked into a project that just doesn't seem like it can possibly be so rewarding. Even if Aronofsky does want to bring something interesting to Wolverine, Fox is not known for working well with director's visions (like, say, Warner Bros. is for working with Nolan). The first Wolverine totally destroyed Gavin Hood, a decent director; Aronofsky obviously has more bargaining power given his relationship with Jackman, but I still see him getting crushed under the wheels.
Ugh. I'm so sick of superheroes I could scream.
It's interesting that you describe The Fountain like that, because when I read this article I was thinking that when it comes to films I dislike, I would rather see a hundred films like that before even one X-Men Origins: Wolverine (and yes, I like to spell out the full title to display one of the most obvious things wrong with it).
In general, I don't like to see celebrated auteurs in charge of big-budget studio pictures. There's just too much money involved to risk it on innovation. Yes, yes, The Dark Knight took a lot of risks in tone and content, but that's the exception. Most are corporate products meant to entertain the masses and placate the fanboys, and I just don't think a director as bold as Aronofsky should waste his time with that when a mediocre director like David Slade would be just as adept at following studio orders.
P.S. Right there with you on superheroes, Katey. After Nolan's final Batman film, stick a fork in me, 'cause I'm done with them.
Katey & Robert -- glad to see i'm not alone in worrying... though from the looks of the internet, the masses are still very much in the thrall of the superheroic, so from a fiscal standpoint the decision seems sound (Hollywood is so weird about crediting success to people involved with concepts/genres that are automatically successful... I mean even DAREDEVIL and GHOST RIDER made lots of money). I expect we won't see this phase of cinema die down until we have like 3 bad movies in a row --it'll take more than several generic films to kill the craze.
but when i wass reading the description of FLASH and Greg Berlanti was referencing every other movie to explain it, I wanted to die. If it's like every other movie, DON'T MAKE IT. This said in the abstract to the man who brought us the utterly vanilla Incredibles rip-off NO ORDINARY FAMILY.
I hate all his movies but The Wrestler, specially The Fountain and its laughable new-ageism.
IF I was him, I'd try to keep the pace he's got in The Wrestler, a movie that cares about people without trying to show off or directing skills or to defend an out of date mystical miserability.
By the way, if he is a good director, he'll be fine no matter how awful the project is.
You know Ang Lee? Hulk is a brilliant movie.
I don't think Ang Lee did such a good job on Hulk. I'm worried
Well, except, Ang Lee wasn't too suited to a Hulk movie. We wound up with the best "Ang Lee's Hulk" we could get, even if that isn't exactly what comic book fans want. And the "new ageism" of The Fountain maybe "laughable" but it's definitely not generic. I thought it was at least a "cool" movie. So: I'm somewhat confused as to why they picked someone like Aronofsky, but I think we can be sure it'll be a cool, exciting movie. Maybe at the end of the day, this really could get him that Oscar nom? I'd say a win could even be possible. (If it's really, really bleeping awesome and released at the right time, I mean.)
i don't find most attempts at spirituality "laughable" so i can't agree there.
I don't practice ANYTHING so i'm not speaking from personal experience but i've never understood why people get so angry/dismissive about mystical/spiritual/"new-agey" stuff. as long as your not hurting other people, who cares?
It's so funny to me because so many of the major world religions do so much harm to people and we're supposed to respect them... but get a little "new agey" -- which seems to me in its harmlessness a direct descendant of "flower power" and hippie sensibility -- and people make fun.
it's weird to me.
They should get John Waters or Bruce LaBruce
anon - HA! I would love to see what they would do to Jackman. Particularly Bruce LaBruce ;)
I kind of agree. They may get a bit weird, but there are certainly ways in which they could help people. And speaking of spirituality: Yesterday's Glee episode bunched being spiritual together with being religious. How I understand it is: Religious: To believe in a "god" or other sentient power above humanity. Spiritual: To believe ONLY in the power of the spirits of sentient life, whether human or animal. So, on the topic of that episode, Kurt actually qualifies as SPIRITUAL.
Zack Snyder as the director of SUPERMAN???? I don't think he's solely a "hip" director, but I could think of 10 directors for Superman I'd prefer to him. Nolan, Cameron, Raimi, Bruce Robinson, Spielberg, Jackson, Del Toro, Friedkin, Wright (On that note: What's happening with Ant-Man?) and The Ghost of Laughton. If anyone has got any other ideas as to what they think would actually WORK as a Superman director, mention them.
I'm not sure I'm averse to the idea of Aronofsky doing a comic book, however the sequel of a spin off (and a crappy one at that) is just so beneath him.
Not to mention that there aren't many good comic books left to direct. Now Aronofsky doing The Sandman or The Maxx or a Spawn reboot or even an X-Men reboot (which the franchise needs but won't happen since they're still trying to milk sequels of spinoffs and spinoffs of spinoffs and prequels), could at least pique my interest.
This is just like Aronofsky getting sloppy seconds.
I hope he turns it down. Sure, the money could help, but at the expense of artistic integrity? I say let someone else take over the project, but not Aronofsky.
I'm actually very fond of The Fountain; for a long time it was my favorite Aronofsky film and its still one of my overall favorites. But I knew it wouldn't be a big favorite when I was the only one in the theater...on opening weekend.
well I soooo worri with u. for Aronofsky is the most exciting talent to emerged in the last 15 maybe 20 last year..
The Fountain had enough fans, whether critics, directors, or serious filmgoers, to land on the Empire Top 500 list 2 years ago, which is why I first saw it. So, I'm guessing it picked up A LOT of fans on DVD.
Anyone else find it hilarious that ARONOFSKY wants to do a superhero movie? I mean, imagine he got Superman. He'd probably have Superman slowly go insane while trying to protect humanity, complete with kryptonite hallucinations.
Well Andrew, he was the guy who wanted to cast Clint Eastwood as Batman.
Hey, I was not mocking spirituality or the subject matter of The Fountain. I mentioned new-ageism as a formula of bad filmmaking, with obvious choices, light and score.
I don't respect The Fountain as a spiritual movie because its way of trying to film this spirituality doesn't go deep enough to leave cliches of spirituality behind.
We're not talking about Breaking the Waves, or the Decalogue, or Hirokazu Koreeda's Distance or anything by Apichatpong Weerasethakul...
You can film all the new ageism you want, but, please, don't sound like you've read a lot of bad Paulo Coelho novels.
I meant After Life, not Distance.
Let me try to pus this in better words.
We're humans, and most of all can only guess things. We don't know that, if there's something else beyond life, how it's like.
So,if you are a filmmaker you have no limits to portray your feelings about this whole thing.
When I first saw Breaking the Waves, I thought I really had experienced a miracle. I could never see that coming. The movie was so strong that I couldn't stop my tears. It was something I've never seen, and most people that still haven't seen the movie have never seen something like that, too, I'm sure.
In The Fountain we have three stories, the same actors, and hints that everything is connected. I'm sorry, but that's the basic spirituality speech, book one, with a structure like a movie by Alejandro Gonzales Iñarritu.
I am not saying you gotta be absurd and insane with outré concepts. I am saying you have to make your movie feel fresh, and not a compilation of everything you ever read about this subject. You have to be strong enough to make people believe they're experiencing somthing supernatural. You have to surprise people to achieve this goal.
I still haven't said what I want the way I want. Writing is not easy. I give up for a while.
the subject of Aronofsky is kind of frustrating to me. He is a good director and I like his films well enough, but the way some people online have him up on this pedestal almost makes me wish I hated him.
I just wanted to mention there wasn't any bald cap. In the extras you can actually see the process of head shaving. Btw, the extras for the Fountain are awesome, highly recommend if you haven't seen them yet. Nevertheless, agree with you point. Personally I believe your optimistic scenario, don't even know why, maybe because another Jackman/Aronofsky collaboration (although Wolvie 2 is the last thing I expected it to be, but seriously even Pockemon live action movie I wouldn't mind ) was my secret wet dream for a long time. At the current moment I see it as win-win for all the sides involved.
I'd want Aronofsky to do a Johnny the Homicidal Maniac adaptation, as opposed to a "superhero" or even a "mainstream comic book" adaptation. Edgar Wright produced a loudly beautiful and taut movie out of fringe comic Scott Pilgrim. The Maxx has already been adapted as a cartoon, Spawn is a Superhero comic (not to mention one that has the utmost faith in the Judeo-Christian belief system, which likely means it's not for Aronofsky to get right) and The Sandman and an X-Men reboot seem interesting, but he'd presumably need a big budget for The Sandman and he'd definitely need a giant budget for X-Men, so, in today's climate, he'd need to sell out anyway to make it. JTHM? Could easily be done with actors and primarily practical effects (blood and puppets) alone. (Plus: It's been years since I heard anyone in Hollywood was interested in The Sandman. I know she's small right now, but Rosario Dawson loves it. Not a huge in, but this isn't a huge movie.) JTHM is a definite NC-17 risk, especially if the brain removal scene is inlcuded, but Aronofsky has shown he isn't afraid of that rating.
Is it bad for me to say that I really enjoy Zack Snyder's work (I haven't seen "Guardians") and think he's the perfect director for the film?
Superman doesn't need another Bryan Singer-like visionary, sadly most didn't want that when we got it. This material needs someone that gets epic scope and action...Snyder is clearly Warner's go-to boy for that behind Nolan, he's also a known as a great guy behind he scenes and actors like to work with him....AND he makes money, even this new film apparently has had better legs than anyone expected.
Sorry, just coming to the defense of Mr. Snyder...now back to this horribly bad career move on Aronofsky's part.
Kyle -- i'm not suggesting that everyone should dislike Snyder (i actually loved his Dawn of the Dead remake) but I just can't see how his particular style is a good match for Superman AT ALL.
I think Superman needs classical treatment.
I'm confident that he'll choose a good script for it and elevate the franchise. Why else would he bother? And maybe he wants a break from all the serious stuff he's been doing.
Post a Comment