Edgar Wright declares his man crush on 'Scott Pilgrim vs The World' player Chris Evans. Plus: 'Green Lantern' casting rumors. 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' cuts down the competition. 'Solomon Kane' wrapped. 'Dead of Night' in progress and more. Less than 5% alcohol by volume, it's your Comics2Film 9.5.3!
Platinum Studios VP of Development Dan Forcey chatted with the ThinkMcFlyThink blog about the work being done on the 'Dead of Night' movie, currently filming in Louisiana. Based on Tiziano Sclavi’s 'Dylan Dog' comics, the film stars Brandon Routh ('Superman Returns') and is directed by Kevin Munroe ('TMNT').
Forcey said fans will see a side or Routh they probably haven't seen before.
"Those folks that are only familiar with Brandon from his work on 'Superman Returns' are going to be surprised by him in this role, I think," said Forcey. "Brandon has a dark complexity, coupled with a genuine likability, that is essential to bring Dylan to life."
Forcey reports that Routh has done his homework, reading numerous Dylan Dog comics and picking up quite a bit of Italian along the way. He's even done an entire scene of the movie in Italian.
Click through for more from the chat with Forcey.
On Location...in which Edgar Wright forgets his boots...
Casa Loma, Fighting and Fatigue...in which Edgard Wright crushes on Chris Evans...
MTV Iggy's got a preview of the latest Japanese 'Death Note' live-action movie: 'L, Change the World'...
Rumor coming, once again, from the ThinkMcFlyThink blog, purports two possible additions to the cast of 'Green Lantern'.
The blog's sources tell them that Rose Byrne (recently of 'Knowing') is "up for" the role of Carol Ferris in the film. Ferris is the employer and love-interest of Hal Jordan, and eventually develops super powers as the villainous Star Sapphire. According to the unsourced rumor, Byrne is the first choice of director Martin Campbell. They call her involvement "very likely".
They also tip Doug Jones for an unspecified role. Jones is well knows as Abe Sapien in the 'Hellboy' movies, and has made a name for himself as a physical actor who typically acts under copious prosthetic and animatronic accoutrements. Jones could easily be up for one of the many aliens that may be featured in the movie, such as Kilowog or G'nort (oh, please let G'nort be in the movie!).
Although there's been virtually no buzz about the movie, director Michael J. Bassett has announced on his blog that the 'Solomon Kane' movie, based on Robert E. Howard's witchhunting pulp novel (and sometimes comic book) character, has wrapped principal production.
On his blog Bassett writes:
So now that Solomon Kane is finished, you all get to see it, right? Er, no… at least not yet. ‘Yet’ being the operative word in that sentence. Of course it will be released but when is the pressing issue.
Creatively Kane is finished (at least the theatrical version is.) but there’s still things that need to be done to make ‘delivery’ of the film. You see, the finishing line for a movie is never quite as clearly defined as you might imagine. In theory I should walk away when the cut is locked but there’s all the sound to supervise - to me, the mix of a movie is 40% of the theatrical experience. I like big, rich, detailed sound with a towering score and that’s not easy to achieve even on a bottomless budget and believe me we are at the very limits of our budget at this stage. So, weeks go by to make the sound as perfect as possible and once that is done the labs take over to make the 35mm print of the film from the digitally created negative. I’ve spent hours pouring over every frame of the movie with a brilliant colourist and the director of photography, trying to ensure that it looks as rich, detailed and cinematic as possible. I know that in the perfect digital theatre in London it looks awesome but now the labs have to recreate this looks exactly and, you know what, they can’t. It’s simply because making a 35mm print is a photochemical process and not a digital process. There’s so much more alchemy at work in the chemical baths of the labs than I know about but it means that every time a print is made it looks slightly different from the digital version I’m used to - indeed, the print looks different every day because each day the chemicals that make the developing baths at the labs are subtly different. Of course, the transfer to actual film is immediately an improvement - it is richer with deeper blacks and a more painterly feel. Subtle, elusive and hard to define but something magical happens. But the first time I saw Kane on film it was not a revelation, the whole movie seemed too pink - it had to go back to be reprinted several times but finally they nailed it. From this ‘perfect’ negative the ‘release print’ is made from which all others will be created. I had to check the first off the production line for this too and, you know what, THAT print looked different again. I get so frustrated by this but my wonderful DP, who has been through this so many times more than me says you have to let it go. The truth is, you - the audience - will never actually see the same film I see. Every theatre is different, each projector has it’s own characteristics - hell, I’ve found out that European projectors are measurably brighter and than American ones - screens get old and lose their brilliance. Even sound systems are hugely variable.
Regardless - I got the print I wanted to see and it looks fab. What you guys get to see is anyones guess. I’m actually looking forward to the BluRay release because, so long as it’s transferred well, it will be as close to the ‘perfect’ version as possible.
And even that isn’t the end. I don’t get to walk away completely just yet. Now the delivery of the film has to take place. There are thousands of documents to gather to together; the budget, everyone’s contracts, the thousands of production stills, the behind-the-scenes footage, every tiny little item has to be accounted for, so it is isn’t just the handing over of the print to…well, who would that be anyway? Kane isn’t a studio movie with a release date already ring-fenced, it’s an independent production made outside the system. Admittedly it’s a pretty big indie but that’s just what it is. So there’s no one place to hand the film to. As it turns out, the sales agent, is the place where it goes because these guys are the ones who, quite literally, negotiate the sale and delivery of the film to each country that buys it. They are responsible for getting it to the places that matter. Many countries have already bought the film but a few other countries are waiting to see the final film in all its magnificence before reaching for their wallets. It’s a nerve wracking time, especially for the producers and financiers but I feel a huge responsibility to them as well. But when all is said and done, I know I’ve delivered a rock-solid movie that is really pretty unique in fantasy film making. People compare it to Lord of the Rings, which is enormously flattering but not entirely accurate. It’s a movie I wanted to see and am incredibly proud of. Is it actually any good? The few who have seen it seem to think it really is but will it play? And more, in this incredibly competitive world where giant franchise movies gobble up so much of the market space, is Solomon Kane even a marketable movie? My answer is a resounding, yes but not without some reservations: it’s a tricky movie to sell to an audience who may not be familiar with the character and might dismiss it as just another silly sword and sorcery fantasy movie. It’s so much more serious, dark and intense than that. Sure it’s got kick-ass sword fighting and nasty demonic monsters but it also has powerful themes dealing with faith and redemption all carried by a taciturn hero who takes the world very seriously. It’s a classically made film with no gimmicks. I think this will make it timeless and I love this approach but will everyone else? Will a distributor embrace that challenge or shy away from it?
But if you all think this is something to worry about, please don’t. It’s entirely normal and simply how the business works. It took me a long time to understand it and I just wanted you guys to get a clearer sense of the process - which is never quite as simple as it seems. We’re more or less there but how close you all are to seeing it, is in the lap of more powerful movie gods than I can control. Maybe I should sacrifice a goat or something? I don’t think Solomon would approve.
In spite of the most infamous leak in movie history, mediocre-to-poor reviews and a looming pandemic keeping folks indoors, 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' proved an unqualified success at the box office this weekend.
According to estimates published by Box Office Mojo, the film raked in $87 million over the weekend, making it the #1 movie by a massive margin. That's an improvement of some $32 million over the much more hyped and anticipated 'Watchmen'.
The movie nearly doubled-down on the world stage, with additional grosses to the tune of $73 million.
Other interesting milestones:
#1 opening movie of 2009 so far (although there's stiff competition coming in just one week and beyond).
#2 opening X-Men movie, behind 'X-Men: The Last Stand'.
It's already #8 grossing movie of 2009
#8 grossing prequel of all time
#11 May opening of all time
#13 PG-13 opening weekend of all time
#15 Summer opening of all time
#16 opening Day Gross of all time
#18 opening weekend of all time
#18 top 3-day gross of all time.
If you're looking for verification that the higher-ups at 20th Century are celebrating victory after a gut-wrenching April, look no further than VP of Production Jeff Katz's Twitter feed, where Katz makes the really icky proclamation:
"I just raped your childhood to the tune of $160M worldwide. And it felt lovely."
Really, Jeff Katz? You're sure want to button your hard-won victory with that?