Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
This post is a response to Yunda Eddie Feng's comments under the topic: X3, waste of time.
Yunda's comments are duplicated here:
--------------------------------------
TOPIC: X3, waste of time
Yunda Eddie Feng (Staff) wrote: 05-27-2006 - Edited: 05-27-2006
Everyone seems to blame Fox, but waiting too long to make a sequel can be bad business (see "MI3", which was made so long after "MI2" that a large part of the movie's target audience actually did not see either of its predecessors). The fact is that Fox did not want to mess with a successful team. The studio wanted Bryan Singer to direct the movie. He got greedy and wanted to helm two franchises. The principal actors in the "X-Men" franchise all have busy schedules and were finally able to squeeze the third movie into a workable time frame. They found out that Singer had given them the middle finger.
You want to blame someone for "X3"? Singer shares as much blame as everyone else since you can't put your cast on hold for an entire year.
----------------------------------
The following timeline was constructed to give us a glimpse into what was supposed to have been a done deal for Fox (i.e. Bryan Singer helming X3) turning into a high stakes gamble of finding a new director late in the game.
May 4, 2003 - Opening weekend of X-Men 2 does $85m business in the US.
Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise. The two-year deal is the first studio pact for Singer. Singer will have an office on The Lot. The WMA-repped Singer joins the roster of directors with overall pacts at Fox: Peter and Bobby Farrelly, James Cameron, Ridley and Tony Scott and Mel Gibson.
Mar 4, 2004 - Variety.com reports that Bryan Singer will direct a remake of "Logan's Run" for Warner Bros. and producer Joel Silver. Singer, who just signed an overall deal at Fox, is expected to tackle "Logan's Run" before he gets back to the "X-Men" franchise.
July 16, 2004 - Variety.com reports on Sun., July 18, 2004 that Bryan Singer signed a deal on Friday, July 16, 2004 to develop and direct the long-gestating new pic in Warner Bros' star-crossed Superman franchise. Based on Aug 5, 2004 Variety report Warner made a pay-or-play offer to Singer if he'd consent to make Superman fly post-haste. Insiders said that Warner deal is not an expensive one, because Singer only develops projects he plans on shooting and is not the sort of producer who develops numerous projects or demands a hefty discretionary fund. Fox ends its deal with Singer. While Singer doesn't believe that Fox studio chairmen Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos had the legal right to terminate his deal, he isn't going to contest the studio's request that he vacate his offices on the Fox lot.
March 21, 2005 - 20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment choose British filmmaker Matthew Vaughn ("Layer Cake") to direct "X-Men 3." Alex Young is overseeing "X-Men 3" for Fox, which is aiming for a Memorial Day May 26, 2006, release date.
May 31, 2005 - 20th Century Fox announces Matthew Vaughn departure from X-Men 3.
June 3, 2005 - Variety.com reports on Sun., Jun. 5, 2005 that Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment set Brett Ratner on Friday night, June 3, 2005 to replace Matthew Vaughn as the director of "X3," the third installment of the "X-Men" franchise.
June 6, 2005 - Brett Ratner takes over the directing helm.
Aug 1, 2005 - Production on X-Men 3 begins. - EXTERNAL LINK - cites this date.
May 26, 2006 - Release date for X-Men 3: The Last Stand
May 29, 2006 - Opening weekend of X-Men 3: The Last Stand does $122m in the US. Figures are from - EXTERNAL LINK - and covers May 26-29.
Sources: - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK -
The crucial period of interest is the 7 months between Dec 4, 2003 and July 16, 2004. For reasons yet unknown Fox could not get Singer's signature for X3.
Note that in the 3 months between Dec 4, 2003 and Warner's successful poaching of Singer on Mar 4, 2004 Fox did not announce a single project that it would do together with Singer. The subsequent 4+ months from Mar 4, 2004 to Jul 16, 2004 saw Fox failing to announce any Singer project - not even X3.
The timeline seems to suggest that Warner had successfully used "Logan's Run" as the wedge to pry Singer away from Fox. The "Superman" deal was Warner's coup de grace. It also appears to suggest a degree of complacency on Fox's part in managing talent.
Note that Mr. Singer worked in 2004 as executive producer and director on "House MD", a Universal production on the Fox network. According to an AICN interview (published on 2004-10-12), Mr. Singer stated that the film side of Fox is completely separate from the television side of Fox.
Please reference the Hollywood Reporter (- EXTERNAL LINK - for X3 producer Lauren Shuler Donner's comments on whom she holds responsible for the production's difficulties.
Please note that credit and thanks goes to Nina Kincaid of - EXTERNAL LINK - for the link to the Hollywood Reporter article and the accompanying excerpts.
Portions of the article are replicated as follows.
But Singer leaving to do "Superman Returns" -- which he discussed openly with Shuler Donner and her husband Dick Donner, the director of the 1978 "Superman"-- was tough to take. Particularly since he took all his unexpressed ideas for "X-Men 3" with him. "It was a blow," Shuler Donner admits. "He's my friend, I respect him, and saw us doing all the 'X-Men.' "
Donner goes on to talk about Vaughn's departure and the impact that had on the production:
After the production replaced Singer with Vaughn, the new director worked closely with the writers. Even though Shuler Donner is still furious with Vaughn for leaving, she confirms Kinberg's assertion that Vaughn contributed some brainpower to the script. "We cast Kelsey Grammer with Matthew," she admits, "who was fantastic, and Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. We were lucky to have him."
But Vaughn's departure threw a monkey wrench into a huge $150 million production that was already stretching its resources to meet its opening date. "Then suddenly, weeks of prep time were lost," she says. "It killed us. It was an extremely desirable release date. There was no way we were going to miss that date. We had to protect it by any means possible." Go off that date and "X-Men 3" would bump into the likes of such other summer releases as Singer's own "Superman Returns" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
END OF POST
Yunda's comments are duplicated here:
--------------------------------------
TOPIC: X3, waste of time
Yunda Eddie Feng (Staff) wrote: 05-27-2006 - Edited: 05-27-2006
Everyone seems to blame Fox, but waiting too long to make a sequel can be bad business (see "MI3", which was made so long after "MI2" that a large part of the movie's target audience actually did not see either of its predecessors). The fact is that Fox did not want to mess with a successful team. The studio wanted Bryan Singer to direct the movie. He got greedy and wanted to helm two franchises. The principal actors in the "X-Men" franchise all have busy schedules and were finally able to squeeze the third movie into a workable time frame. They found out that Singer had given them the middle finger.
You want to blame someone for "X3"? Singer shares as much blame as everyone else since you can't put your cast on hold for an entire year.
----------------------------------
The following timeline was constructed to give us a glimpse into what was supposed to have been a done deal for Fox (i.e. Bryan Singer helming X3) turning into a high stakes gamble of finding a new director late in the game.
May 4, 2003 - Opening weekend of X-Men 2 does $85m business in the US.
Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise. The two-year deal is the first studio pact for Singer. Singer will have an office on The Lot. The WMA-repped Singer joins the roster of directors with overall pacts at Fox: Peter and Bobby Farrelly, James Cameron, Ridley and Tony Scott and Mel Gibson.
Mar 4, 2004 - Variety.com reports that Bryan Singer will direct a remake of "Logan's Run" for Warner Bros. and producer Joel Silver. Singer, who just signed an overall deal at Fox, is expected to tackle "Logan's Run" before he gets back to the "X-Men" franchise.
July 16, 2004 - Variety.com reports on Sun., July 18, 2004 that Bryan Singer signed a deal on Friday, July 16, 2004 to develop and direct the long-gestating new pic in Warner Bros' star-crossed Superman franchise. Based on Aug 5, 2004 Variety report Warner made a pay-or-play offer to Singer if he'd consent to make Superman fly post-haste. Insiders said that Warner deal is not an expensive one, because Singer only develops projects he plans on shooting and is not the sort of producer who develops numerous projects or demands a hefty discretionary fund. Fox ends its deal with Singer. While Singer doesn't believe that Fox studio chairmen Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos had the legal right to terminate his deal, he isn't going to contest the studio's request that he vacate his offices on the Fox lot.
March 21, 2005 - 20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment choose British filmmaker Matthew Vaughn ("Layer Cake") to direct "X-Men 3." Alex Young is overseeing "X-Men 3" for Fox, which is aiming for a Memorial Day May 26, 2006, release date.
May 31, 2005 - 20th Century Fox announces Matthew Vaughn departure from X-Men 3.
June 3, 2005 - Variety.com reports on Sun., Jun. 5, 2005 that Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment set Brett Ratner on Friday night, June 3, 2005 to replace Matthew Vaughn as the director of "X3," the third installment of the "X-Men" franchise.
June 6, 2005 - Brett Ratner takes over the directing helm.
Aug 1, 2005 - Production on X-Men 3 begins. - EXTERNAL LINK - cites this date.
May 26, 2006 - Release date for X-Men 3: The Last Stand
May 29, 2006 - Opening weekend of X-Men 3: The Last Stand does $122m in the US. Figures are from - EXTERNAL LINK - and covers May 26-29.
Sources: - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK - - EXTERNAL LINK -
The crucial period of interest is the 7 months between Dec 4, 2003 and July 16, 2004. For reasons yet unknown Fox could not get Singer's signature for X3.
Note that in the 3 months between Dec 4, 2003 and Warner's successful poaching of Singer on Mar 4, 2004 Fox did not announce a single project that it would do together with Singer. The subsequent 4+ months from Mar 4, 2004 to Jul 16, 2004 saw Fox failing to announce any Singer project - not even X3.
The timeline seems to suggest that Warner had successfully used "Logan's Run" as the wedge to pry Singer away from Fox. The "Superman" deal was Warner's coup de grace. It also appears to suggest a degree of complacency on Fox's part in managing talent.
Note that Mr. Singer worked in 2004 as executive producer and director on "House MD", a Universal production on the Fox network. According to an AICN interview (published on 2004-10-12), Mr. Singer stated that the film side of Fox is completely separate from the television side of Fox.
Please reference the Hollywood Reporter (- EXTERNAL LINK - for X3 producer Lauren Shuler Donner's comments on whom she holds responsible for the production's difficulties.
Please note that credit and thanks goes to Nina Kincaid of - EXTERNAL LINK - for the link to the Hollywood Reporter article and the accompanying excerpts.
Portions of the article are replicated as follows.
But Singer leaving to do "Superman Returns" -- which he discussed openly with Shuler Donner and her husband Dick Donner, the director of the 1978 "Superman"-- was tough to take. Particularly since he took all his unexpressed ideas for "X-Men 3" with him. "It was a blow," Shuler Donner admits. "He's my friend, I respect him, and saw us doing all the 'X-Men.' "
Donner goes on to talk about Vaughn's departure and the impact that had on the production:
After the production replaced Singer with Vaughn, the new director worked closely with the writers. Even though Shuler Donner is still furious with Vaughn for leaving, she confirms Kinberg's assertion that Vaughn contributed some brainpower to the script. "We cast Kelsey Grammer with Matthew," she admits, "who was fantastic, and Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. We were lucky to have him."
But Vaughn's departure threw a monkey wrench into a huge $150 million production that was already stretching its resources to meet its opening date. "Then suddenly, weeks of prep time were lost," she says. "It killed us. It was an extremely desirable release date. There was no way we were going to miss that date. We had to protect it by any means possible." Go off that date and "X-Men 3" would bump into the likes of such other summer releases as Singer's own "Superman Returns" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
END OF POST
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
August 2004
August 2004
Thanks for the interesting timeline, I had no idea there was that much "trouble" (so to speak) with the production of X-Men 3. Having not seen X-Men 3 yet, I'm curious as to what it will be like and even more: what Bryan Singer could have done for it.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
MichaelWingate:
From your own post:
"Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise."
Directing "X3" was not a part of Singer's production deal at Fox anyway. Like I already wrote, Fox did not want to break up a successful team; Singer's cinematographer and editor/composer had made "X2" with him.
Given how difficult it is to coordinate the actors' schedules, Fox could not put off "X3" for a year. "X2" almost didn't get made, either, because it was so difficult to get Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Hugh Jackman, and Halle Berry to work at the same time.
By the way, Bryan Singer is an individual capable of making decisions for himself. No one "pried" him away from anything--he chose to make "Superman Returns" instead of "X3".
Eddie
From your own post:
"Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise."
Directing "X3" was not a part of Singer's production deal at Fox anyway. Like I already wrote, Fox did not want to break up a successful team; Singer's cinematographer and editor/composer had made "X2" with him.
Given how difficult it is to coordinate the actors' schedules, Fox could not put off "X3" for a year. "X2" almost didn't get made, either, because it was so difficult to get Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Hugh Jackman, and Halle Berry to work at the same time.
By the way, Bryan Singer is an individual capable of making decisions for himself. No one "pried" him away from anything--he chose to make "Superman Returns" instead of "X3".
Eddie
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
As at Mar. 21, 2005, a total of 8 months had passed since Fox severed ties with Mr. Bryan Singer on July 16, 2004.
As at Mar. 21, 2005, Fox had not completed contract negotiations with Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen or Halle Berry.
On Fox's contract negotiations with principal actors for X3, see DAVE MCNARY's Variety.com article "Next 'X-Men' firms up: Mutant movie meets its maker" (Posted: Mon., Mar. 21, 2005, 10:00pm PT). Relevant excerpts replicated here:
---------------------------------
20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment have tapped Brit filmmaker Matthew Vaughn ("Layer Cake") to helm the second sequel to the beefy franchise. Filming's skedded to start in early summer with many of the cast from the first two films expected to reprise their roles.
Hugh Jackman is set for Wolverine, and Fox is in negotiations with Halle Berry, Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart to return.
---------------------------------
Ian McKellen's blog at url (- EXTERNAL LINK - speaks of Hugh Jackman's three-movie deal.
For Ian McKellen's contract negotiations with Fox, reference url (- EXTERNAL LINK - and url (- EXTERNAL LINK - Relevent portions duplicated here:
---------------------------------
1 March 2005
NEW DIRECTIONS
From: Luke J.
Q: While a large part of me is happy to see Mr. Singer's career going so well (I have high hopes for Superman, now), the selfish part of me is more than saddened by his departure. Assuming you are still contractually obligated to play Magneto, do you feel any sort of concern over how the story might be treated, now that Bryan has left the X-Men family?
A: I am not contracted to play Magneto again , although I hope to be involved in the forthcoming X-Men3 which will film later in the year in Vancouver. Our loss is Superman's gain but there is now an opening for another director to make his mark on what I continue to believe is the most important of all the superhero franchises.
21 June 2005
X-MEN 3
From: Matt
Q: I've seen a lot of web sites that say steam is building up for X-men 3, they have a script and new director and most of the cast is back. But I keep seeing that you are alternately 'signed' or are 'still in talks'. So rather than find out second-hand from these other sites. I thought I'd go straight to the source. have you actually signed yet or are you still in talks?
A: Although I haven't actually signed the contract it is intended that I reprise Magneto in the 3rd X-Men movie. Shooting starts in September in Vancouver, where I shall join the cast after completing my work on Da Vinci Code.
---------------------------------
To read why Mr. Bryan Singer chose "Superman" see AICN's interview, published on 2004-10-12 07:01:52, at url (- EXTERNAL LINK -
Relevant section follows:
---------------------------------
Capone: Was it a tough decision to leave X-MEN at a point in the series where the plot for the next film, or at least part of the plot, was so clearly set up in X-2?
Bryan Singer: I had a very strong vision for the next X-MEN picture. But SUPERMAN has always been a dream of mine. Things weren't moving as quickly as...it was difficult, and I love those actors and I have a strong relationship with the X-Men universe. I'm still taking over the writing of Ultimate X-Men for a year, so I'm by no means out of that universe. But I've had an idea for a SUPERMAN movie for many years, so for me the fact that it was available and Warner Bros. was willing to take everything it had spent 11 years developing with three other directors and throw it completely out and let me start from scratch at an accelerated level of time...once they showed the willingness, the desire and excitement to do that after my pitch, it became an obvious choice for me, but a difficult one.
---------------------------------
END OF POST
As at Mar. 21, 2005, Fox had not completed contract negotiations with Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen or Halle Berry.
On Fox's contract negotiations with principal actors for X3, see DAVE MCNARY's Variety.com article "Next 'X-Men' firms up: Mutant movie meets its maker" (Posted: Mon., Mar. 21, 2005, 10:00pm PT). Relevant excerpts replicated here:
---------------------------------
20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment have tapped Brit filmmaker Matthew Vaughn ("Layer Cake") to helm the second sequel to the beefy franchise. Filming's skedded to start in early summer with many of the cast from the first two films expected to reprise their roles.
Hugh Jackman is set for Wolverine, and Fox is in negotiations with Halle Berry, Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart to return.
---------------------------------
Ian McKellen's blog at url (- EXTERNAL LINK - speaks of Hugh Jackman's three-movie deal.
For Ian McKellen's contract negotiations with Fox, reference url (- EXTERNAL LINK - and url (- EXTERNAL LINK - Relevent portions duplicated here:
---------------------------------
1 March 2005
NEW DIRECTIONS
From: Luke J.
Q: While a large part of me is happy to see Mr. Singer's career going so well (I have high hopes for Superman, now), the selfish part of me is more than saddened by his departure. Assuming you are still contractually obligated to play Magneto, do you feel any sort of concern over how the story might be treated, now that Bryan has left the X-Men family?
A: I am not contracted to play Magneto again , although I hope to be involved in the forthcoming X-Men3 which will film later in the year in Vancouver. Our loss is Superman's gain but there is now an opening for another director to make his mark on what I continue to believe is the most important of all the superhero franchises.
21 June 2005
X-MEN 3
From: Matt
Q: I've seen a lot of web sites that say steam is building up for X-men 3, they have a script and new director and most of the cast is back. But I keep seeing that you are alternately 'signed' or are 'still in talks'. So rather than find out second-hand from these other sites. I thought I'd go straight to the source. have you actually signed yet or are you still in talks?
A: Although I haven't actually signed the contract it is intended that I reprise Magneto in the 3rd X-Men movie. Shooting starts in September in Vancouver, where I shall join the cast after completing my work on Da Vinci Code.
---------------------------------
To read why Mr. Bryan Singer chose "Superman" see AICN's interview, published on 2004-10-12 07:01:52, at url (- EXTERNAL LINK -
Relevant section follows:
---------------------------------
Capone: Was it a tough decision to leave X-MEN at a point in the series where the plot for the next film, or at least part of the plot, was so clearly set up in X-2?
Bryan Singer: I had a very strong vision for the next X-MEN picture. But SUPERMAN has always been a dream of mine. Things weren't moving as quickly as...it was difficult, and I love those actors and I have a strong relationship with the X-Men universe. I'm still taking over the writing of Ultimate X-Men for a year, so I'm by no means out of that universe. But I've had an idea for a SUPERMAN movie for many years, so for me the fact that it was available and Warner Bros. was willing to take everything it had spent 11 years developing with three other directors and throw it completely out and let me start from scratch at an accelerated level of time...once they showed the willingness, the desire and excitement to do that after my pitch, it became an obvious choice for me, but a difficult one.
---------------------------------
END OF POST
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
MichaelWingate:
Your latest post only confirms what I've written--that it was very difficult to get key cast members to commit to working on "X3". During contract negotiations, the actors found out that Bryan Singer had given them the middle finger. Bryan Singer is no Spielberg or Scorsese--no one's going to wait until he's available just to act in a movie.
Eddie
Your latest post only confirms what I've written--that it was very difficult to get key cast members to commit to working on "X3". During contract negotiations, the actors found out that Bryan Singer had given them the middle finger. Bryan Singer is no Spielberg or Scorsese--no one's going to wait until he's available just to act in a movie.
Eddie
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Member since:
September 2004
September 2004
I wonder when Hollywood is going to stop making these crap movies.
It's up to the audiences I guess...
Hurry up America, let's not see these movies, then Hollywood will notice we are tired of this childish crap and we can get to see better movies!
DID THE GERMANS GIVE UP WHEN THEY BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?
It's up to the audiences I guess...
Hurry up America, let's not see these movies, then Hollywood will notice we are tired of this childish crap and we can get to see better movies!
DID THE GERMANS GIVE UP WHEN THEY BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
what's your point? francis ford coppola was almost fired every day when he was directing "the godfather". yet, he wound up making what's considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time.
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
To: Michael B2004
Two possible reasons why we may not be seeing quality movies from Hollywood anytime soon.
For possible reason 1, reference CHUD's Devin Faraci's exclusive interview on 05.21.06 with X3 writers SIMON KINBERG & ZAK PENN. Relevant extract follows:
------------------------------------------------------
Penn: It’s also tough because when we read the sites there are things people say about the filmmaking process and about Hollywood that are completely accurate. There are times that Simon and I wish we could go on there and say, ‘We agree with you. Fuck the system, this is fucked up!’ It’s not like Simon and I are sitting there and boom! here’s our next assignment, X-Men, best get to it. You fight for the job and you take it on knowing it’s going to be difficult. There are choices where you do what needs to be done and you try to make it the best that you can and preserve what’s good about it or you quit and someone else is going to do exactly what the studio wants them to do, or exactly what the director wants them to do. As a writer you find yourself in a weird position where you go online and you see people saying, ‘I didn’t want them to do this to this character’ or ‘I did want them to do this to this character’ or ‘I want Gambit to be in the movie,’ that’s not how it works. It’s not a comic book. We can’t just sit there and say, OK, let’s do Gambit, and we’ll go after so and so to star in it.
------------------------------------------------------
For possible reason 2, reference - EXTERNAL LINK - article "High Anxiety" on 01/24/06 by Stephen Galloway. Relevant extract here:
------------------------------------------------------
More often than not, the notion that an incorrect decision can lead to a pink slip tends to discourage risk-taking -- and that ultimately could mean that despite all of the current upheaval, movies will remain the same.
------------------------------------------------------
END OF POST
[Post edited by MichaelWingate on Jun 21, 2006]
Two possible reasons why we may not be seeing quality movies from Hollywood anytime soon.
For possible reason 1, reference CHUD's Devin Faraci's exclusive interview on 05.21.06 with X3 writers SIMON KINBERG & ZAK PENN. Relevant extract follows:
------------------------------------------------------
Penn: It’s also tough because when we read the sites there are things people say about the filmmaking process and about Hollywood that are completely accurate. There are times that Simon and I wish we could go on there and say, ‘We agree with you. Fuck the system, this is fucked up!’ It’s not like Simon and I are sitting there and boom! here’s our next assignment, X-Men, best get to it. You fight for the job and you take it on knowing it’s going to be difficult. There are choices where you do what needs to be done and you try to make it the best that you can and preserve what’s good about it or you quit and someone else is going to do exactly what the studio wants them to do, or exactly what the director wants them to do. As a writer you find yourself in a weird position where you go online and you see people saying, ‘I didn’t want them to do this to this character’ or ‘I did want them to do this to this character’ or ‘I want Gambit to be in the movie,’ that’s not how it works. It’s not a comic book. We can’t just sit there and say, OK, let’s do Gambit, and we’ll go after so and so to star in it.
------------------------------------------------------
For possible reason 2, reference - EXTERNAL LINK - article "High Anxiety" on 01/24/06 by Stephen Galloway. Relevant extract here:
------------------------------------------------------
More often than not, the notion that an incorrect decision can lead to a pink slip tends to discourage risk-taking -- and that ultimately could mean that despite all of the current upheaval, movies will remain the same.
------------------------------------------------------
END OF POST
[Post edited by MichaelWingate on Jun 21, 2006]
Monday, June 12, 2006
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
from "the new york times":
"Mr. Rothman had picked Mr. Singer to direct the first "X-Men," and together they shepherded the first two hit movies onto the screen. But as Mr. Singer was negotiating to direct the third "X-Men: The Last Stand" in July 2004, Warner Brothers gave him the offer of directing "Superman Returns." Mr. Singer jumped at the chance and, without first talking to Mr. Rothman, accepted the job."
-----
Bryan Singer didn't tell anyone at Fox that he decided to direct "Superman Returns". Therefore, the Fox people were still operating under the assumption that Singer was working on "X3" until Warner made the surprise announcement.
As I have already written, Mr. Singer is as responsible as any party for his not directing "X3". Fox didn't dick him; he dicked everybody else.
"Mr. Rothman had picked Mr. Singer to direct the first "X-Men," and together they shepherded the first two hit movies onto the screen. But as Mr. Singer was negotiating to direct the third "X-Men: The Last Stand" in July 2004, Warner Brothers gave him the offer of directing "Superman Returns." Mr. Singer jumped at the chance and, without first talking to Mr. Rothman, accepted the job."
-----
Bryan Singer didn't tell anyone at Fox that he decided to direct "Superman Returns". Therefore, the Fox people were still operating under the assumption that Singer was working on "X3" until Warner made the surprise announcement.
As I have already written, Mr. Singer is as responsible as any party for his not directing "X3". Fox didn't dick him; he dicked everybody else.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
I really don't understand why this is an issue with Michael in the first place? I could really care less if Singer was attacked or if he screwed someone over. Hollywood is all about screwing people over, so why is it a big issue to defend Bryan Singer?
Then again is this entire post worth the effort? Let's examine; Singer is what I consider to still be fresh meat as far as directors go. If you look at his track record on IMDB you may notice the guy has not done enough to earn the *Spielberg* status of directors. The guy is no Kubrick, he's no Coppola, he no Scorsese and he is certainly no Spielberg. I mean let's face it, Ron Howard and Penny Marshall have made better films than Singer. I personally didn't care for X-Men 1 or 2 and therefore consider Bryan Singer just to be so-so in my book. A directing hack that is mediocre at best and still has a lot to prove. So yipee, X3 had a different director and that's probably why I liked X3.
Then again is this entire post worth the effort? Let's examine; Singer is what I consider to still be fresh meat as far as directors go. If you look at his track record on IMDB you may notice the guy has not done enough to earn the *Spielberg* status of directors. The guy is no Kubrick, he's no Coppola, he no Scorsese and he is certainly no Spielberg. I mean let's face it, Ron Howard and Penny Marshall have made better films than Singer. I personally didn't care for X-Men 1 or 2 and therefore consider Bryan Singer just to be so-so in my book. A directing hack that is mediocre at best and still has a lot to prove. So yipee, X3 had a different director and that's probably why I liked X3.
