Home Posts filed under >20th Century Fox
It looks like director Betty Thomas woke up and smelled the coffee. And these weren't your ordinary Folgers crystals.
With production set to begin on the third installment of the "Alvin & The Chipmunks" franchise in eleven weeks, Betty Thomas has decided not to helm the picture, leaving Fox executives scrambling to find somebody so they can still meet the targeted release date of December 16, 2011.
But really, their task shouldn't be too hard. It wasn't like Thomas was some kind of auteur (she helmed "Alvin & The Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel" and before that, was best known for telling Eddie Murphy when to make funny faces in "Doctor Dolittle") and with the third installment said to be shooting in a seaside location (maybe Hawaii) we're sure there are plenty of hacks who wouldn't mind a paid vacation that requires little more than telling Jason Lee to act like a jackass.
At any rate, and in case you care, Fox was toying with shooting in 3D but will apparently go 2D now and the plot will center on the Chipmunks getting shipwrecked (hence the seaside location). We're sure there is an apt metaphor somewhere in there.
Despite rumors of budgetary troubles, and our extensive campaigning (in case you missed it, it kicked off our new "Should This Be Made?" feature last week), 20th Century Fox's prequel to the "Alien" series is moving full-speed ahead. Recent casting rumors have linked the likes of Noomi Rapace, Gemma Arterton, Carey Mulligan and Abbie Cornish to the lead role, and Damon Lindelof, of "Lost," "Star Trek" and "Cowboys & Aliens" fame, was brought on to rewrite Jon Spaihts' draft in July.
Well, it looks like Lindelof did a decent job, as Vulture report that Fox are 'thrilled' with his version, which is not only 'creatively engaging,' but has also managed to keep the set-piece count low, which will help with the budgetary wrangles -- the film's currently set at around $160 million, and Fox would prefer it to get smaller, rather than bigger.
While confidentiality clauses remain in place for everyone involved, so details remain fairly unclear, Vulture confirm that the project is set 35 years before the original, and focuses on "a female Colonial Marine general." As for who'll take that role, Vulture back up earlier claims that "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" star Rapace is a front-runner, but have added a new name to the list: Natalie Portman. Supposedly, while Scott has met with a slew of actresses (presumably including some of the aforementioned names), it's Portman and Rapace who've made a particular impression, and it's the former who's at the top of the studio's list.
With the actress looking like an Oscar nom lock for "Black Swan," and set to have a high profile in 2011 with "No Strings," "Your Highness" and "Thor," she's in high demand at the moment and, having turned down Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" and dropped out of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" in the last week, has a relatively clear slate, apart from possibly The Wachowskis/Tom Twyker's "Cloud Atlas," which she's attached to. If Portman wants to do it, than the role seems to be hers, but that's a pretty big if, unless the script is as good as Vulture suggests.
The report also confirms recent rumors that Fox are aiming for a PG-13 with the film, one of the apparent conflicts with Scott. Lindelof's draft is geared to that rating, and one source is quoted as saying "The thinking is that if the original "Alien" were released today, minus the F-bombs, you could still get a PG-13. "Alien" is a very "Jaws"-ian movie: There's no sex, and while there's lots of violence, most of it is off-camera. Maybe you'd have to cut away from certain scenes two seconds earlier, but it could be done." This, of course, suggests that everyone involved has forgotten the first film's most indelible moment, of a phallic alien bloodily ripping its way through John Hurt's chest. If the scene would retain its power by cutting away from it to stay family-friendly, then our name's Harvey Weinstein.
It's also worth reporting that, while at one stage there was talk of making two back-to-back films, there's no mention of this in Vulture's story, so it may have been cut back to one film by now. We're not that much more optimistic about "Untitled Alien Prequel" (as it's still being referred to -- apparently Fox and Scott haven't been able to agree on any of the other potential possibilities as yet) than we were before, but it is at least comforting to hear that the script is shaping up.
Consider this a weekly look at the biggest projects of the week, and whether they should be crowding multiplexes or not. If we had our way, everything would be French, in black and white, with Asia Argento smoking cigarettes, naked, but we often try to look at matters in the eyes of the major studios. They have feelings too, you know.
"Alien" Prequel
Who’s Behind It?: 20th
Century Fox, director Ridley Scott, screenwriters Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaights.
What Is It?: Reportedly, the intentions of Scott are to take the series back to its roots, specifically the haunted original film that introduced the murderous xenomorphs as a parasitic alien race emerging from the shadows to kill. This planned two-film prequel, which deals with the Weyland-Yutani corporation developing terraforming technology, would also primarily showcase what happened to the spacecraft explored by Ellen Ripley and company in the first film, particularly the deceased Space Jockey, whose remains have been speculated on by a legion of fans.
Why Should This Be Made?: “Alien” is a popular series that has spanned six movies and several videogame, comic book and novel tie-ins. It was only a matter of time before Fox got the ball rolling on another film in the franchise, so why not take a chance with Ridley Scott? Scott’s had a number of hits since “Alien,” but most feel that as the architect of the franchise, he made the best “Alien” film yet. Furthermore, there is iconic resonance of the Xenomorph creatures, one of the few genuine monster movie icons in the last forty years. While later films in the series emphasized the science fiction trappings of the story, Scott’s original film was something of an outer space slasher, so it’s clear someone needed to restore the creature to its monstrous origins before it lost relevance, giving the franchise a new lease on life and re-igniting interest in the earlier films as catalog titles.
Why Shouldn’t It Be Made?: Scott has apparently suggested a $250 million budget would be necessary for these films. While it remains unclear if he was suggesting $250 million for each film or $125 per, that’s still a very steep price. None of the “Alien” films have even crossed $100 million domestic ("Alien Vs. Predator" is the biggest worldwide moneymaker at $172 million) so if the two films, in total, carried a quarter of a billion price tag on production alone, they would most assuredly have to make $600-$800 million worldwide for a theatrical profit. If they cost $250 million each, then a billion dollar gross is the starting point. That is, of course, if the first one doesn’t flop, turning the second film into an albatross. Of course, being a franchise, the value will lie in ancillaries, but how many times can you re-release “Alien Resurrection” on Blu-Ray? Scott’s also demanding an R-rating, and the list of $600 million-grossing R-rated movies isn’t very big - just "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Passion of the Christ."
Scott also isn’t the filmmaker he used to be, alternating between dull, expensive epics with varying degrees of financial success. His name doesn’t have the cachet it did ten years ago when “Gladiator” won Best Picture, and he’s coming off “Robin Hood,” the most successful (and expensive) of Universal’s recent expenditures, and only because it barely eked out a profit, and only because Europe loves their period epics, as domestic grosses reflected a willing but apathetic core audience. His talk about returning to the roots of the first film sound promising until you realize the budget he’s demanding suggests a film that would be nothing like the claustrophobic original.
And finally, it’s a prequel. Of course, Fox is a business, and they want to keep revitalizing this brand name every few years, but after two “Alien Vs. Predator” movies, this brand is damaged goods. It would take a lot of marketing power to get people into the theaters to see this monster again, and even then, why? Why must we know exactly what happened with the Space Jockey? That moment in “Alien” carries power because of the horrifying fates we imagined the crew suffered at the hands of their attackers, and it’s already been diluted by all the sequels. Two prequel films would render it irrelevant.
Similar Films: Fox knew the “Predator” franchise was damaged by its team-ups with the “Alien” characters, so they were wise to allow Robert Rodriguez to shepherd the title back to the screen in a film that was part sequel, part remake, and part reboot. “Predators” was cheap, and released in the middle of summer, it grossed $52 million domestically, $125 worldwide.
Final Word: Fox was developing this project under the aegis of frosh director Carl Erik Rinsch, but once they decided to take a shot at making something a little bigger, they requested Scott take the helm. He’s since requested a two-film commitment at that hefty budget, which lends some doubt as to whether the project will happen. It’s possible this could become a co-production between Fox and another heavy hitter, or that a super-producer (James Cameron?) might lend the project some extra heat. Or it’s possible Scott doesn’t actually want to make the movie, and is torpedoing the studio efforts with unrealistic demands. Whatever the case, it’s a dubious proposition to make tent pole blockbusters at ever-unreliable Fox, especially if the budget is that out-of-control. They had the right idea in “Predators,” which was to work fast and cheap, and hope that a strong DVD showing paves the way for a bigger sequel. At this point, Ridley Scott is not the filmmaker needed to examine the possibility that previous “Alien” films weren’t galactic blockbusters because of too-small budgets.
Should It Be Made?: No.
Superman: The Man Of Steel
Who’s Behind It?: Wa
rner Bros., director Zack Snyder, producer Chris Nolan, writer David Goyer
What Is It?: Warner Bros.’ sixth big screen attempt at bringing Superman to the masses, though the plot is being kept under wraps. It is said to be a reboot of the franchise, so no attachment to previous titles is expected, though it will feature the Man of Steel in combat with Kryptonian super villain Zod, and may have a strong Clark Kent angle.
Why Should This Be Made?: Warner Bros. and DC Comics are smarting at their failure to launch films based on their stable of comic characters while Marvel Films flourishes, but they still have a large pool of marketable entites to utilize. And there’s none bigger on either side than Superman, a pop icon like no other who hasn’t shined on the big screen since “Superman II” in the early eighties. Superman is the most instantly recognizable superhero available, with an unforgettable look and an origin story that most know by heart. There is no ancillary product with a big red “S” that you can’t sell. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Warner Bros. trusted Bryan Singer on “Superman Returns” and were burned by his stately, mannered take on the character that valued reverence and thematic knottiness to crowd-pleasing action sequences and high drama. They made the safe choice in allowing the next Superman project to reach the screen under Nolan, who has provided the architecture for the current onscreen DC universe with “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” He skewed conservatively as well by involving Snyder, who adapted two other comic properties for the WB thus far, with mixed but mostly positive success.
Furthermore, despite the negative reputation of “Superman Returns,” it grossed $400 million worldwide. Regardless of profit, when a property brings in that level of cash, its foolish to ignore the earning potential of the brand name. Audiences clearly have a hunger for costumed adventurers, and Superman’s image has survived partly due to the characters’ malleability. The Last Son Of Krypton means something different to everyone, so there’s reason to believe Snyder and Nolan’s vision will differ greatly from the Man of Steel brought to us by Singer or director Richard Donner.
Why Shouldn’t It Be Made?: As conservative as this new approach may be, cost still factors in. A “Superman” film isn’t going to have less than a $200 million production budget, so you’re looking at a necessary worldwide number of $600 million to break even right off the bat. This would mean the new “Superman” film would have to be much bigger than the previous one, and while money talks, “Superman Returns" tepid DVD showing suggests a franchise picture that no one truly liked, furthering the chasm between the appeal of the big blue boy scout and the more risqué, socially relevant adventures of Iron Man and the X-Men. This means a gargantuan marketing budget to get audiences burned six years ago back into the theater.
There’s also the possible torpedoing of D.C.’s cross-pollination plans. Seeing Marvel’s intentions for “The Avengers” have made the company eager to use their characters to populate each others’ universes, in essence using Superman to sell the Flash, using the Flash to sell Wonder Woman, and so on. Nolan has unfortunately gone on record saying that he dislikes this blueprint, and would prefer to have both Batman and Superman exist in completely isolated universes. While DC is adding a few outer-universe references in next summer’s “Green Lantern,” it would be much easier to tie an already-established heavy hitter like Supes or Batman into the larger superhero world. But Nolan already killed the George Miller “Justice League” movie that was set to go in front of cameras on the eve of the writer’s strike, and that was pre-“Inception.”
And why Nolan’s judgment need not be questioned previously, Zack Snyder? The overeager hitmaker has reflected a dullard’s mindset in his theatrical pictures thus far, emphasizing empty thrills over thematic intent. In adapting “300” and “Watchmen,” he created empty, meaningless dioramas posing as motion pictures, and while DVD numbers on the latter are hard to find, the film needed to do gangbusters business to compensate for a mediocre theatrical showing. Snyder’s gone on record about being offered the director’s chair for “Superman” and turning it down, so accepting it so quickly after the first weekend failure of his animated “Legend of the Guardians” speaks volumes about his next picture, “Sucker Punch.”
Similar Films: Universal and Marvel tried to reboot the “Hulk” franchise after the dismal showing of 2003’s “Hulk,” and while 2008’s “The Incredible Hulk” grossed a similar amount ($263 million over $245 worldwide), there was strong skepticism over presenting a different version of the character with another actor. While “Incredible” was a popular catalog title, Marvel has no plans for a third “Hulk” adventure (we'd be hard-pressed to believe what they've told Mark Ruffalo), opting to recast again for the upcoming “Avengers” film.
Final Word: It’s unce
rtain if the development on the new “Superman” picture has anything to do with the lawsuit against the WB regarding ownership rights of the character. They spent time in court justifying their treatment and marginalization of the character on film, so turning around and making another big budget adventure is suspicious. They might be required to get a film in theaters by 2012 to retain the character, as per the lawsuit’s requirements, and are likely putting their best foot forward. Ideally, the best financial decision would have been to agree upon a massive settlement and joint ownership, but either that wasn’t in the cards and/or the studio realized they could make billions of dollars in profit by relaunching a “Superman” franchise. Even if the new film is a break-even, a quality picture that audiences like goes a long way towards guaranteeing the longevity of the character in future installments. Snyder on his own doesn’t seem to be the right fit for that plan, but with Nolan exerting strong creative control, there’s reason to believe this is a step in the right direction.
Should This Be Made?: Yes.
For a guy who professes not to be a comic book fan, Darren Aronofsky could have fooled us. Since breaking through with "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream," he's been attached to a number of graphic novel-related properties, including "Watchmen," "Batman: Year One," the Manga adaptation "Lone Wolf and Cub" and "Robocop" (which yeah, isn't based on a comic book, but might as well be). With his latest film "Black Swan," picking up excellent buzz, he's been linked of late to "Preacher," "Superman" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2."
Supposedly, Aronofsky was pursuing "Superman" fairly vigorously, but proved to be too much of a perfectionist for Warner Bros, and Zack Snyder landed the gig on Monday. As a result, both Vulture and Deadline are reporting that offers and/or talks are underway between 20th Century Fox and the director for the latter to helm the 'Wolverine' sequel. A number of names had been linked, including "Let Me In" director Matt Reeves, Robert Schwentke, who dropped out the running in favor of "R.I.P.D" and "The Osterman Weekend," and "Twilight: Eclipse" helmer David Slade, but franchise star Hugh Jackman was apparently keen to reteam with his friend and director on "The Fountain," and seems to have gotten his way.
Supposedly, Aronofsky met with studio head Tom Rothman to ensure that, if he signed on, he'd be given full creative control (man, we bet Gavin Hood wished he'd taken a similar meeting...), and that talks are now underway. It remains to be seen whether Aronofsky will sign on, but clearly, Fox are serious about trying to land the director. We've heard some very good buzz on Christopher McQuarrie's script, which follows Wolverine to Japan (if anyone happens to see it lying around, you know where to send it...), and with Aronofsky on board, this should be a sequel that far surpasses the original. Although, having said that, the film could be nothing but 90 minutes of Jackman clubbing baby seals, and it would still far surpass the original. According to Jackman, filming will kick off in March/April next year, for a Summer 2012 release.
Just to cement how in-demand Aronofsky has become, Vulture also report that, as a consolation prize from Warner Bros., he's been offered "Tales From The Gangster Squad," a period gangster movie about cops attempting to bring down notorious LA gangster Mickey Cohen. Ben Affleck got a similar offer last week, but turned it down, so WB have moved on to Aronofsky. Supposedly 'Wolverine 2' has the edge, but that could all change in the next few days.
Last week, Timur Bekmambetov and Tim Burton began shopping their revisionist historical action film "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" around Hollywood and 20th Century Fox wanted it. They really, really wanted it.
From parking signs in the Fox lot reading "Parking for Vampire Hunters Only, Park at your own risk" to bloody footprints lining the path all the way to the meeting room with Fox execs, some poor interns were busy at work making sure director Timur Bekmambetov and producer Tim Burton knew how badly their bosses wanted the film. Posters with images and lines from the book were put up on walls, and silver bullets were placed in a bowl at reception. And that's not all. Bloody axes were placed around the offices and a bugle player in a Confederate uniform played "Taps."
And yes, after all that, Fox's efforts were rewarded and they did land the film. Based on the novel by Seth Grahame-Smith ("Pride And Prejudice And Zombies"), the story spins the familiar history of Abraham Lincoln, but casts him as a ruthless vampire killer.The film will be in 3D, has been okayed with a $69 million budget and will hit theaters in 2012.
Remember earlier this year when Ridley Scott talked non-stop about his "Alien" prequel films? And then remember how everything suddenly got very quiet? Perhaps there is a reason for this.
Script Flags (via Bleeding Cool) are reporting that Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox are clashing over the budget and rating for his prequels. According to the site, "Scott wants a budget of around $250m to make it a sci-fi spectacular, and is also pushing for an 18-rated level of violence and horror" (bear in mind this is a Brit site so change "18-rated" to "R"). Fox apparently don't want to spend that much and want a wide audience friendly PG-13 rating.
While we can't vouch for the source, the circumstantial evidence does add up. Scott has already intimated more than once that his 3D prequels will be gritty, and that he wants to out do James Cameron's "Aliens." And he was definitely jazzed about doing the films after reading the original script by Jon Spaights, but the hire last summer by Fox of "Lost" writer and "Star Trek," "Cowboys & Aliens" c0-writer, Damon Lindelof to re-write the script certainly seems like they want a much more populist and PG-13 affair.
One only has to look at the box office performance of Scott's last two films to see why they might be hesitant to hand over $250 million to the director. "Body Of Lies" (rated R) brought in $115 million on a $70 million budget; "Robin Hood" (PG-13") brought in $310 million on a budget of $200 million. While arguably profitable, with budgets like that, studios are expecting at least double their investment if not more. Particularly for a budgets over $200 million, Fox would want some "Inception" or "Avatar" sized numbers (both rated PG-13 btw).
Also worth mentioning is Script Flags' August story is that "[Noomi] Rapace met with....Ridley Scott (and Scott Free’s Michael Costigan) [and he] is most likely currently looking for lead actresses and with the films he has on his slate there is really only one that requires personal meetings at this stage, Alien Prequel." It's an interesting way to connect the dots -- Rapace did indeed meet with several Hollywood directors -- but it seems like she is just in the mix (he also met with a not-so-interested Gemma Arteton), rather than a favored choice.
It will be interesting to see how long Scott waits to get a green light from the studio. He doesn't like to sit idly by and has numerous projects he can jump to instead, but lately, this is easily the one he's most eager to do. If you're a concerned fanboy you can join this very lame Facebook campaign for Scott to retain creative control on the film.
>>> Ridley Scott In Battle With Fox Over Budget & Rating For 'Alien' Prequel? >>>
It looks like director Betty Thomas woke up and smelled the coffee. And these weren't your ordinary Folgers crystals.
