I’m glad Legendary Pictures honcho Thomas Tull received a nice puff piece in Variety this weekend. After all, the projects his company has been partnering up on have kept the money flowing.
But I was also struck by the fact that Marc Graser’s story rifled off adaptation after adaptation, across a number of platforms, be it “Godzilla,” “Akira,” “World of Warcraft” or the Superman reboot. While Christopher Nolan’s Legendary-backed “Inception” is wowing audiences in theaters with a wholly original concept derivative of nothing, Tull and Legendary are still sticking to built-in fanbases and titles that can provide ancillary dollars as a result of that audience.
It’s a necessary evil. We all get it. But shouldn’t a company like Legendary be in a position to support other filmmakers who might have earned the risk on their own original (high) concepts? Zack Snyder’s getting a Legendary boost for “Sucker Punch” (which will have a presence at Comic-Con), but that’s about it. When I reviewed “Inception,” I wrote that the film is “an entertainment with vivid, profound ideas, precisely the kind of daring that ought to be backed by big money.” When is “big money” going to step up once again?
Anyway, Graser’s piece doesn’t have a quote from Tull, because he so rarely grants interviews. It paints him as a geek-among-geeks type. To wit:
He’s happy seeing himself as just one of the guys. He loves reading graphic novels, visiting comicbook stores and playing videogames. He counts “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones,” “Godzilla” and “The Goonies” as some of his favorite movies. His top pics are the three “Lord of the Rings” films, which he watches every Christmas. He’s such a fan of “LOTR” that he is said to own some 50 statues, figures and other high-end items created by Sideshow Collectibles tied to the films and books.
But, again, I couldn’t help but read through the story and ask myself, “Where are the cojones?” Sure, I’ll be interested in checking out what is intended to be a “Godzilla” film closer to the Japanese original. Yeah, I’d like to see someone offer a definitive Superman on celluloid again. But I’d much rather see some actual without-a-net risks being taken.
Easy for me to say, I guess. And in any case, we all know “Inception” will probably be imitated ad nauseam (if it does well at the box office), rather than remembered as a watershed. Hollywood is really good at missing the point.
Comments
17 responses to “A geek among geeks”
Looking forward to hearing about Legendary’s next project, the third Batman. Would anyone else like to see Cillian Murphy try on the cape for Superman?
The whole time I was watching Murphy onscreen I kept thinking, “why isn’t he given more leading roles?” Superman/Clark Kent would be a great one for him.
I think Cillian Murphy would be an awful Superman, to be honest.
Fair, if you don’t mind my asking how do you have in mind?
My second choice would be Jon Hamm, but he’s stated several times that he won’t do it, despite the internet rumors.
I think Murphy is a bit…frail. Needs to be more beef-cake, all-American-type, in my view. Not really sure who, exactly. Though Hamm has always been a nice thought.
I’m thinking that having Nolan at the forefront of this Superman could get Hamm onboard.
Sorry, that should have read *who not how do you have in mind.
Brandon Routh, anyone?
Brandon Routh, with his good looks and fairly solid skills, is great…but not as Superman…he’s just too young looking.
Hamm has that perfect gravitas and swagger that a Superman/Captain America type hero needs. I couldn’t begin to guess who would be an appropriate choice beyond him though…
Murphy is an exceptional actor, but I agree with Kris…Superman just isn’t the role for him.
Hamm has got the look down-pat, that’s for sure, but I’ve never seen Mad Men so the only thing I’ve actually seen him in was those guest-stints on “30 Rock.” Not too much to go on.
While I like a good speculative discussion as much as the next guy, it’s ironic to note the point of this post and the direction the comments immediately took…
“And in any case, we all know “Inception” will probably be imitated ad nauseam (if it does well at the box office), rather than remembered as a watershed. Hollywood is really good at missing the point.”
This. It’s exactly what happened after the smash success of the Matrix; suddenly where were getting a bunch of imitation Matrixes (Matrices?). And what sucks is some genuinely good films get lost in the shuffle. I recently saw “Equilibrium” with Christian Bale for the first time, and I quite liked it, but was surprised when I looked up that it had a pretty lukewarm reception; the main complaint among reviewers was about how this was just another high-concept sci-fi movie, and barely any discussion on the merits of the film itself.
Surprisingly we haven’t gotten any imitation Avatars that I can recall…not that it’s a bad thing
***Legendary-backed “Inception” is wowing audiences in theaters with a wholly original concept derivative of nothing…***
I loved the movie and think it managed to make its material original in its own way, but this statement is kind of ridiculous. “Inception” kind of proves that anything and everything nowadays is derivative of something else in one way or another. It’s just impossible not to. “The Matrix,” “Paprika,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “Waking Life,” and yes, even “Avatar” have some sort of a part in “Inception.” Nothing wrong with it, but people need to realize nothing uses purely its own ideas anymore.
I frankly don’t get the “Matrix” references. I mean, I get them, but they’re as applicable as comparing “The Matrix” to, I don’t know, “Innerspace” or something. Derivative would not describe it if all you’re gauging is philosophical similarities (which would inherently yield a certain visual style across the board).
I think it’s reaching and yet it’s convenient and can be worn comfortably for so many. But it’s not really accurate and not properly considered.
Hooking up peoples’ consciousnesses simultaneously to occupy the same artificially created area where time and space can be manipulated… yeah, sounds like “The Matrix” to me. Add in the Zero-G hallway fight sequence and you’ve got it.
It’s still a reach. You don’t see it, but it is. Deep down. To me it’s like saying Red Eye ripped off Strangers on a Train.
> Surprisingly we haven’t gotten any imitation Avatars that I can recall…not that it’s a bad thing
Probably because such films would be incredibly time-consuming and expensive to make. Most films are imitating Avatar with the 3D thing instead of with the plot thing.
Geoff Boucher interviews Tull at Hero Complex:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/07/comic-con-2010-dark-knight-producer-thomas-tull-legendary-pictures.html