Upcoming
December 31
January 2
Cargo 200
January 7
Silent Light
January 9
How About You
Yonkers Joe
January 16
Cherry Blossoms
January 21
Of Time and the City
He Da Boss
This is a second-hand but reliably sourced story about the currently-shooting Wolverine movie, the upcoming 20th Century Fox tentpoler that's currently being shot by Gavin Hood (Rendition, Tsotsi) and an issue that begs the question "who's really in charge here?" In one corner is Hood, whose once-soaring stock suffered a NASDAQ falloff last year after nobody much liked Rendition, and in the other is Fox co-chairman and CEO Tom Rothman, who's widely known for being a very willful and meticulous micro-manager.
Wolverine director Gavin Hood; 20th Century Fox co-chairman and CEO Tom Rothman.
There was/is a huge Wolverine set being recently used. I'm not even sure which lot it was built on, but the look or mood of the set is, according to a source who was told Hood's view of things, supposed to be on the dark, dinghy and somber side. I only know what I was told, but the basics are that Hood was away from the set for whatever reason (shooting something else, taking a day or two off), and when he returned to the big somber set he was shocked to find that it had been repainted top to bottom on Rothman's orders. The murky-scuzzy vibe was gone, and a brighter and less downish look had taken its place.
That's all I know, but at the very least, given my confidence in the source, it suggests that a creative tug-of-war is going on, and that Rothman, one can reasonably gather, feels a certain managerial-slash-territorial investment in the X-Men franchise (the technical name of the film is X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and believes that he, being the big Fox cheese and an inheritor of the spirit of golden-age Fox strongman Daryl F. Zanuck, is more or less entitled to make his own Wolverine calls, whether or not Hood fully concurs.
That said, the situation probably isn't quite as cut-and-dried as suggested by this story. But I do know that Hood was utterly surprised when he got back to the set and saw what had been done.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM
comment #1
The Winchester says ...
Isn't Rothman out anyway after the amazing Fox summer tentpoles Meet Dave, X-Files, The Happening, and my personal favorite of the bunch Space Chimps? I thought I heard that somewhere. Possibly around the Defamer area.
Posted by The Winchester at August 16, 2008 2:26 PM
comment #2
Jeremy Smith says ...
Rothman wants a WOLVERINE aimed expressly at twelve-year-olds. I'd say he has a point, but his idea of what a twelve-year-old likes is the reason the FANTASTIC FOUR franchise ended with the second movie.
Posted by Jeremy Smith at August 16, 2008 2:34 PM
comment #3
Rothchild says ...
Rothman is unstoppable. Unfortunately.
Posted by Rothchild at August 16, 2008 2:34 PM
comment #4
Chapman Carruthers says ...
Rothchild, make sure to document your journey into adulthood so we can have a treatise on how to prevent similar creatures from invading the movie studios.
Posted by Chapman Carruthers at August 16, 2008 2:51 PM
comment #5
High Chaparral says ...
Rothman knows. There's obviously no market for dark comic-book adaptations these days.
Posted by High Chaparral at August 16, 2008 3:03 PM
comment #6
BurmaShave says ...
The Comic-Con bootleg trailer didn't exactly look cheery.
Posted by BurmaShave at August 16, 2008 3:27 PM
comment #7
BurmaShave says ...
PS why are we turning Gavin Hood into the next Lee Tamahori? When and if this does indeed underwhelm, I hope he gets back to South Africa.
Posted by BurmaShave at August 16, 2008 3:29 PM
comment #8
cjKennedy says ...
My history of nerd rage is a little fuzzy, but isn't Rothman blamed for a lot of the mess that was X-Men 3? Like, he's the reason Bryan Singer bailed and they brought in Ratner?
Posted by cjKennedy at August 16, 2008 4:32 PM
comment #9
D.Z. says ...
"In one corner is Hood, whose once-soaring stock suffered a NASDAQ falloff last year after nobody much liked Rendition,"
Is that really fair to blame Hood for its failure? I mean, Greengrass' career should've ended with United 93, but he managed to make a comeback with Bourne 3. [Or would that have made money, whether or not he was attached? I guess we'll know with Green Zone.]
"The murky-scuzzy vibe was gone, and a brighter and less downish look had taken its place."
If Rothman prefers "Hellboy 2" over "Underworld", then he gets what he deserves. I have a weird feeling Wolvie will be his Batman and Robin. [Well, actually, DBZ will be his Batman and Robin, while Wolvie will be his new Daredevil.]
Jeremy: Fantastic Four was more tolerable than I expected-at least next to the Corman version-but that second one was a lazy cash-in.
Chaparral: If Watchmen bombs, then Rothman might be right. Audiences might like a dark Batman, but not necessarily any other comic-based movie.
Posted by D.Z. at August 16, 2008 4:45 PM
comment #10
Devin Faraci says ...
I'm curious to see if Hood does general press for this film.
Posted by Devin Faraci at August 16, 2008 4:50 PM
comment #11
Edward says ...
DZ, United 93 was one of the best films of it's year, it was grossly unfortunate that hardly anyone saw it. How is the Bourne movie a comeback?
Posted by Edward at August 16, 2008 5:44 PM
comment #12
D.Z. says ...
Edward: Well, the fact that he managed to use his more edgy tone in a genre film, and be successful with it, indicates he salvaged his disappointment; but I could be wrong.
Posted by D.Z. at August 16, 2008 5:52 PM
comment #13
actionman says ...
Greengrass got an Oscar nom for United 93. And rightly so; the film is a masterpiece of directing.
I had heard months ago that Dick Donner was brought in to take over the Wolverine shoot after Hood was fighting with Rothman/Fox.
I guess I am the only one who thought Rendition was actually pretty good. It wasn't perfect but it certainly didn't deserve to die at the box office the way it did.
Posted by actionman at August 16, 2008 7:43 PM
comment #14
oranthal james says ...
Dearest DZ, you mongoloid, see below United 93 gross figures (it cost $15 mil to make)...
Domestic: $31,483,450
+ Foreign: $44,802,646
= Worldwide: $76,286,096
Posted by oranthal james at August 16, 2008 9:42 PM
comment #15
Scott Mendelson says ...
I rather liked most of Rendition (it faltered when it diverted from its core subject), but it was never going to be a box office hit with its subject matter and tone.
On one hand, I'm loathe to side with Rothman as he constantly does these kind of bonehead plays (X-Men 3, Daredevil, Kingdom Of Heaven, etc). On the other hand, I'm a huge Richard Donner fan so I'm curious as to whether that's true. Although I like them both, 16 Blocks was really the purest version of Die Hard 4 and the most natural conclusion to the series.
Yet on the other hand, how incredibly ironic if Richard Donner was brought in by a tyrannical producer to take away a superhero film from its original director and re shoot and retool the project. I'd think Donner would be the last person in the world to participate in that.
Posted by Scott Mendelson at August 16, 2008 10:04 PM
comment #16
D.Z. says ...
oranthal: But with part of the money going to charity, it probably didn't make that much profit in the end. Not to mention that it was expected to be a hit here, not the rest of the world, so it's still a disappointment.
Posted by D.Z. at August 17, 2008 12:29 AM
comment #17
BurmaShave says ...
I think that's the most wrong you've ever been, in your long history of being wrong. First of all, the charity was only from the first week's grosses, which were about 11 million. It still made another 27 here at home. And second, no it was not expected to be a hit, it was expected to be a flop. Do you not remember the "too soon!" movement? Jesus christ D, back away. Stop digging.
Posted by BurmaShave at August 17, 2008 2:24 AM
comment #18
D.Z. says ...
Burma: "First of all, the charity was only from the first week's grosses, which were about 11 million. It still made another 27 here at home."
I think you meant 20 million, with P+A pushing it down to about 10 million domestic. And if it wasn't expected to make money, then they wouldn't have released it in over 1,000 theaters and given so much press coverage to it.
Posted by D.Z. at August 17, 2008 4:26 AM
comment #19
Richardson says ...
"I could be wrong."
It's about time you got some self-awareness, DZ. Ironically, this is the first sentence you've ever wrote which approaches being correct.
Posted by Richardson at August 17, 2008 10:00 AM
comment #20
erniesouchak says ...
There might have been a interesting movie somewhere in "Rendition," but none of it ended up on the screen. Nevertheless, I was dismayed to see Hood's name on "Wolverine" because it seemed like an ill fit for the guy who did "Tsotsi." Or maybe it's just that "Wolverine" seems like the kind of crap that could be directed by anybody.
Posted by erniesouchak at August 17, 2008 1:03 PM
comment #21
Chapman Carruthers says ...
DZ may be wrong but it at least he comes with an interesting, alternative viewpoint. I'd say Greengrass should have been kicked out of the biz for directing a film that, while pretty, is nothing more than nationalistic schlock that futher cements the us-versus-them mentality.
Posted by Chapman Carruthers at August 17, 2008 2:11 PM
Post a comment