Post by theory1relitve on Oct 11, 2007 4:27:35 GMT -5
Director Matthew Vaughn, who left the X-Men 3 production eight or nine weeks before filming was due to start, allegedly for family reasons, speaks in the UK newspaper The Telegraph.
www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...fvaughn105.xml
The relevant text is this:
Still, Vaughn can't help savouring the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing when he risked his career by walking out on the £100 million X-Men 3: The Last Stand after he had been hired by Fox to take over the lucrative franchise.
He strongly denies he was overawed at the prospect of taking on such a financially heavy responsibility. "Big movie-making is a lot easier than small movie-making," he says. "All these big directors and producers would be struggling if you gave them a million dollars and told them to make a movie for that amount.
"What happened with X-Men was I didn't have the time to make the movie that I wanted to make. I had a vision for how it should be, and I wanted to make sure I was making a film as good as X-Men 2, and I knew there was no way it could be. I just suddenly knew it wasn't the right thing for me to do.
"It was a tough decision because it was a hell of an opportunity. But I was trying to make a career as a director, and I didn't want to be the guy accused of making a bad X-Men movie."
Brett Ratner stepped into the breach, and Vaughn was not impressed. "As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."
Happily, Neil Gaiman, with whom he had worked on a short film, gave him the go-ahead for Stardust after Miramax, who owned the rights, could not see how to make it.
"The X-Men thing could have been a death knell," says Vaughan. "I had to be very, very careful because Hollywood could have said, 'Who does he think he is? He walked off a big movie.' So it was a scary time doing Stardust."
"As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."
He did have slightly more time than Ratner, but hopefully his comment is rooted in the fact that FOX had time constraints. What really sucks is that Singer could have had it and left the project. FOX was in a bind with Singer's departure. It is not completely the studio's fault. What people seem to forget as well is that even big studio's have deadlines.
Considering all of the limitation that Ratner faced I think X3 turned out pretty impressive. Like many of you have said before, maybe if Ratner had the alloted time needed to truly map out his vision he could have produced a better product. I'm not exactly a fan of Ratner, but I wish people would not be overtly critical of this director. FOX needed someone at the last minute to make a decent film and they found that person. The film was acceptable, but there was so much that should have been explored. At times I wonder what would have happened if FOX found no one to take on X3. Would they have scrapped the idea entirely? Was there a way that the movie could have been put on the back burner till for Singer to direct? I understand the whole "deadline" concept, but considering the money that was involved could there have been a way to have extended the time frame for the new directors to thoroughly plot out the story?
As a side note to Mr. Vaughn, what were your ideas? What about your vision would have been more empowering? I would like specific answers, not some vague answer as "more emotion." I would love to hear/read what you, Mr. Vaughn, already had planned for X3.
www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...fvaughn105.xml
The relevant text is this:
Still, Vaughn can't help savouring the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing when he risked his career by walking out on the £100 million X-Men 3: The Last Stand after he had been hired by Fox to take over the lucrative franchise.
He strongly denies he was overawed at the prospect of taking on such a financially heavy responsibility. "Big movie-making is a lot easier than small movie-making," he says. "All these big directors and producers would be struggling if you gave them a million dollars and told them to make a movie for that amount.
"What happened with X-Men was I didn't have the time to make the movie that I wanted to make. I had a vision for how it should be, and I wanted to make sure I was making a film as good as X-Men 2, and I knew there was no way it could be. I just suddenly knew it wasn't the right thing for me to do.
"It was a tough decision because it was a hell of an opportunity. But I was trying to make a career as a director, and I didn't want to be the guy accused of making a bad X-Men movie."
Brett Ratner stepped into the breach, and Vaughn was not impressed. "As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."
Happily, Neil Gaiman, with whom he had worked on a short film, gave him the go-ahead for Stardust after Miramax, who owned the rights, could not see how to make it.
"The X-Men thing could have been a death knell," says Vaughan. "I had to be very, very careful because Hollywood could have said, 'Who does he think he is? He walked off a big movie.' So it was a scary time doing Stardust."
"As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."
He did have slightly more time than Ratner, but hopefully his comment is rooted in the fact that FOX had time constraints. What really sucks is that Singer could have had it and left the project. FOX was in a bind with Singer's departure. It is not completely the studio's fault. What people seem to forget as well is that even big studio's have deadlines.
Considering all of the limitation that Ratner faced I think X3 turned out pretty impressive. Like many of you have said before, maybe if Ratner had the alloted time needed to truly map out his vision he could have produced a better product. I'm not exactly a fan of Ratner, but I wish people would not be overtly critical of this director. FOX needed someone at the last minute to make a decent film and they found that person. The film was acceptable, but there was so much that should have been explored. At times I wonder what would have happened if FOX found no one to take on X3. Would they have scrapped the idea entirely? Was there a way that the movie could have been put on the back burner till for Singer to direct? I understand the whole "deadline" concept, but considering the money that was involved could there have been a way to have extended the time frame for the new directors to thoroughly plot out the story?
As a side note to Mr. Vaughn, what were your ideas? What about your vision would have been more empowering? I would like specific answers, not some vague answer as "more emotion." I would love to hear/read what you, Mr. Vaughn, already had planned for X3.