That Adrien Brody sure gets around, doesn't he? Since winning Best Actor for "The Pianist," Brody has probably had the busiest post-Oscar decade of any previous winner. Not all the work has been great, but it's certainly been diverse, and he's worked with a number of huge names. And yet, "Predators" stood out as a definite gamble, a strong detour turn into action hero mode. Might we see him do it again?
Speaking at New York Comic Con, Brody chatted up another potential installment in the series. "I think it's done well enough to justify [a sequel] for sure... I think the goal initially was to make a film that is worthy of [a franchise]. The film is even structured that way, to kick in for another one. I'd be excited. I'd be excited to do it. I think that was part of the allure." The man does not lie -- he wanted to be in a movie that would guarantee him at least one more job. Smart business, this sequelizing is, especially when you go cheap; "Predators" reportedly had a budget of $40-50 million, grossing $125 million globally before surely becoming a big DVD renter. Brody also spoke of "Ant-Man," an upcoming Marvel project he's been linked to that would also provide him with a tidy regular paycheck. He also admitted he learned about the news the same way you did: the Internet, which likely means that the original report was bogus as sources told us they were. "I haven’t been involved in any of those discussions – I have mentioned it to my reps who have been kind of covert about their response as well, which is very strange to me. I said ‘Is there any validity to this, what is this?’ and they said ‘Well…it’s too early to say.’ It was very strange and I kind of dropped it at that…Not everything that is bandied around the Internet is factual, but sometimes there are elements that do stem from truth that people who are in the middle of it aren’t aware of either. We’ll see." Unfortunately, no one asked him about the "Fantastic Four" rumors that have been flying around, but if the actor knew anything about them, we assume he would have addressed them when discussing Marvel projects.
At New York Comic Con, remake happy Strike Entertainment producer Eric Newman took time out from promoting "The Thing" to discuss the company's plans for John Carpenter's "They Live." In the original, Roddy Piper plays a homeless wanderer who finds a batch of sunglasses that help him uncover a global conspiracy led by aliens trying to seduce humans into complacency through Reagan-era capitalism. He then shoots them all in the face.
Apparently, the glasses might not be an integral part of the remake. I09 spoke to Newman, who revealed D.B. Weiss ("Game Of Thrones") would be writing the remake, and he shared details about what they are considering for this planned update. When asked about the sunglasses, he said, "We're discussing that. I'd like to say that really, a vagrant wandering around the streets could get you to try on his sunglasses, if he would leave you alone afterwards. He may even pay you $100, 'Hey put these on.' So we're kind of exploring different versions of what is that thing that allows you to see. But I'm not going to tell you what it is. It might be something different than sunglasses." So that's what caused JC's seizure this weekend (Get well, John).
If not glasses, then what? "They Live" is the sort of idea that could probably be adapted for each generation, but one of the more memorable scenes of an unforgettable movie is Piper trying to convince Keith David to "Put on the glasses!" via fistfight, resulting in one of the longest onscreen fistfights in cinematic history. To try to top it is foolish, but to eliminate it entirely? Perish the thought.
At New York Comic Con, Magnet had a panel set up for "Monsters," with writer-director Gareth Edwards set to unveil the secrets of his super low budget science fiction drama. Little did he realize going in unprepared would be a mistake, as the gregarious first-time filmmaker, who didn't know if he should use a moderator or not, intended to fly blind, free-associating his way through a discussion of the movie. When the tech department failed, showing clips and footage that was discolored and distorted, Edwards was at a loss, also slowly becoming aware of the film's low profile amongst the fans gathered in the auditorium to catch a glimpse at his film.
But he handled it like a pro, with a smile and a few jokes, providing a chatty presence in front of fans, politely deflecting any miscalculations and debunking a number of rumors about "Monsters" (including the $15k budget: "not true at all"). When we sat down to discuss the film, he was more than eager to be straightforward and get the word out about this very unusual film, sans technical difficulties.
The heart of "Monsters" lies in the relationship between the leads played by Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able, who eventually married in real life. Did you notice a blossoming relationship and try to reshape the film to accommodate this? That was all pre-determined, all the beats that happened to them, that was all in the treatment. When we shot the film over six weeks in Mexico, Belize, Texas, we edited for four months, and because we were being so guerrilla and opportunistic, we needed to go back and fill the gaps. We went back to Costa Rica, because there was debate about returning to Mexico, due to a smallpox outbreak. That was the irony. Everyone had gas masks because they were already sick, and I said, that’s what movies are all about! But we couldn’t get insurance. I remember it felt like the world was ending when that was happening. So during reshoots I was getting nervous, thinking, what if they break up? We had it down, betting whether those two were an item or not. And my money was on the fact that they weren’t, and then they got married. Shows what I know. How did you go about creating the special effects for the movie, particularly on such a small budget? There’s a lot in the movie that people think are CGI but aren’t. There are other things that are CGI. Anything that is military was CGI. Anything with a sign was CGI. I wanted to shoot the film as if it was actually happening. There’s a lot of stuff like destroyed buildings that were really there, and a lot of signs, we just shot them and CGI’ed them later. There are actually aliens in Mexico, of course, but they’re only about six feet or so, and I needed at least two story monsters, and in the end we had to CGI them. There’s one scene where they’re looking at the trees, there are these eggs of the aliens left on the trees, like spores. They’re always flashing back at you. We were shooting another scene, we saw these people at a market, selling these toys with flashing lights. We were like, how many do you have, and he said, twenty, and we said, we’ll take ‘em all! And he was really confused, but I got duct tape and I taped them to the trees. So when we get to that scene, it’s kind of supposed to be a magical moment, with the characters looking up in awe, and they’re just looking at children’s toys. It’s kind of embarrassing.
Why did you decide to set the film in Mexico? Are there political connotations behind that decision? I thought about setting it in Australia, Thailand, even England. And if we had an infected zone in Australia, people would wonder, are you trying to comment on Aboriginies. If we had it in England, people would be like, is this a comment on Eastern Europeans? I think, inevitably wherever you set it, most countries have this sort of paranoia. I think the one thing I was conscious of, was the idea that, there are monsters in the world, there is evil in the world, and they kill people. What point is it worth to destroy them? Especially if you kill more people getting rid of them. Is that a good thing? That’s the question of the movie, not to emphasize the “War on Terror” specifically.
There was a long time I really debated explaining the wall [between Mexico and America], but I left it up to the audience. The theme of the film came up by accident, and the theme is, you can’t fight nature. It’s a stupid idea, it’s going to get out. Our characters in the film, they can’t fight nature, but they are trying not to be together. They can’t be together. And the world is trying to keep these creatures limited to this area. There’s never an epiphany made by the characters about how they come about, where they come from, because our characters are just trying to survive. There are scientists in this world who may know all about these creatures, but that’s not what the movie’s about. It’s about following these two, so whatever they get exposed to, that’s what we know.
Are there any ideas or sequences you came up with that proved too ambitious to film? The very first idea for the film was to have three different stories, and one would be a soldier, another was a family member in Mexico, and the couple, and it got too complicated and too ambitious. For a first film, it would have made the film ten times harder, so the producers steered me away from that. I think there are many more stories to tell in that world, I really enjoyed being in that world. I’d like to go back one day.
Monsters 2? Monsters 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Is there anything you'd like to say about your upcoming collaboration with Timur Bekmambetov? It’s a science fiction film, it’s way more ambitious than "Monsters." It will require all my resources. The trick is to take the positive elements of having more money and the positive elements of having no money, and try to combine the two. The tagline is very vague, it's an epic human story set in a futuristic world without humanity. So, go figure. If you figure it out, tell me, because I’m not sure yet.
And you’re writing and directing it? Yeah, I’m gonna write it and direct it and it’s an idea I’ve wanted to do for a long time, before “Monsters.” We need more money to do it. I’m hoping now we can get it off the ground, and we’ll see what happens. And maybe I can come back and present it to everyone at Comic Con.
That Adrien Brody sure gets around, doesn't he? Since winning Best Actor for "The Pianist," Brody has probably had the busiest post-Oscar decade of any previous winner. Not all the work has been great, but it's certainly been diverse, and he's worked with a number of huge names. And yet, "Predators" stood out as a definite gamble, a strong detour turn into action hero mode. Might we see him do it again?
