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'

Comments

[trinityvixen]

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.

[six_demon_bag]

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.

[trinityvixen]

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...

[six_demon_bag]

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]

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.

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...