Three years after X-Men 3: The Last Stand, Wolverine is the first movie in a series of spin-offs.Hugh Jackman reprises his role and he's also a producer.Until its release, many things happened, from disagreements between the director and the studio to a leak of a work in progress version in file-sharing sites.Despite all this, the expectations were relatively high.So, does it deliver or does it disappoint?
The answer to the previous question is somewhere in the middle.The origins of Wolverine are established decently, but not without missteps.There are moments where you think that the filmakers achieved what they set out to do and other moments where you think that this isn't the origin story that you wanted or that you expected.And that's exactly the main flaw of the movie, the fact that it's an uneven one.There are certainly well-filmed, impressive, and emotional scenes, and the perfomances are decent (Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth stands out).Overall, there was potential, which to some level was wasted.
What's the reason for this outcome?Is it because you remove the mystery behind a character and you try to explain and eventually you fail?Is it because there isn't material, which could function as a basis for a decent story?As far the last question is concerned, it could be argued that there is plenty of material, which would be more than enough for a decent movie.
With a Wolverine sequel (set in Japan), a Magneto spin-off, a Deadpool spin-off and X-Men First Class already in development, it's evident where the series is going.This concept (of origin stories) is interesting, keeps the franchise fresh and ensures a steady source of revenue for the studio (with lesser cost, if the characters are recast).While i'm not opposed to all these spin-offs (if the execution is better than Wolverine), i have some reservations.My main reservation is about X-Men: First Class.I think that it's too soon for such a movie, even it's still in the early stages of development.But with all the remakes/reboots/spin-offs of recent years and of the future ,it's understandable why the studio would follow that concept.What i would want to see is X-Men 4, a true sequel to X3.The reception to The Last Stand was lukewarm and many think that the series reached its peak with X2, and so it's argued that there is no reason for another sequel and if there was possibility for such a movie, new contracts with the actors and actresses would be needed, which means new negotiations and maybe higher cost.However, i would like to see, after some spin-offs, a true X-Men sequel, ideally with most of the cast and Bryan Singer returning.I think that there many good stories that deserve to be told.I know that it's probably not going to happen, though you can never be certain for anything.
Read more!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
X-Men OrIgins: Wolverine and the future of the series
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
X-Men spin-offs, Constantine 2 update
X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner talked to Sci Fi Wire about the status of future spin-offs in the franchise.She said that the production of Magneto, for which a script exists, and of the Deadpool spin-off,depends on the success of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.She also said that the first draft of the script of X-Men: First Class (another spin-off, which will feature younger X-Men) is still being written (by Josh Schwartz).Finally,she mentioned that the production company is looking for a writer for Constantine 2. Read more!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Comic Franchises For Fox?X-Men spin-offs and Daredevil reboot
by Orlando Parfitt, IGN UK
UK, September 10, 2008
Variety has let slip some interesting gossip regarding Fox's plans for future superhero movies.
In an artcle about the studio's less than-profitable summer line-up, it reveals that Fox has decided to look into the remaining comic book characters they have the rights to in an effort to replicate their rival's success.
Aparently one idea is a Young X-Men project that, similar to the animated series X-Men: Evolution, will follow the main characters as teenagers.
A second idea is a spin-off based around Deadpool -- the wisecracking mercenary from the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which Fox will release next summer) to be played by Ryan Reynolds.
The final possibility mentioned by the trade mag is a reboot of the Daredevil franchise, which ground to a halt after only one instalment when Ben Affleck played the blind superhero back in 2003.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Spinoffs becoming ever more common
The knock against television series used to be that shows essentially told the same story week after week.
But lately, networks have been trying to replicate entire series night after night.
From NBC's "The Office" to Fox's "Family Guy" and Sci Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica," ratings-hungry networks increasingly are urging their best performers to produce offspring. The debut of "Grey's Anatomy"-inspired "Private Practice" in the fall was only the start. Next season there's the still-unnamed "The Office" spinoff and Fox's "Family Guy" extension, "The Cleveland Show," as well as the "Battlestar Galactica" prequel, "Caprica," which is filming a two-hour backdoor pilot. Projects based on Fox's "House" and "Prison Break" also are in development.
"It's a simple financial equation," "House" creator David Shore said. "Something is working, they want more of it. If you can figure out a way to split it in half, they're gonna go for it. It's really that simple, and I can't blame them. It's just a question of making it work."
Spinoffs are nothing new. The annals of television count more than 100 attempts to successfully spin off a show's character or concept. The 1970s in particularly were spinoff boom years, when such hits as "All in the Family" and "Happy Days" spun off multiple shows.
By the '90s, however, spinoffs had become much less common. Sometimes a network would spin off a dying comedy to fill a ratings void (such as when NBC's "Cheers" successfully spawned "Frasier" and NBC's "Friends," less successfully, gave rise to "Joey").
More recently, networks tried copying such crime procedural hits as NBC's "Law & Order" and CBS' "CSI." The spinoffs worked partly because their parent shows had an episodic formula that was precisely replicated to fill multiple hours.
TV historian Tim Brooks said the new spinoff projects represent an overall trend of networks trying to make safer plays. "Networks with their declining audiences and pinched financials seem to be trying to stretch things more than create things," Brooks said.
"Office," "Grey's," "Family Guy" and "House" also each bear the tricky-to-copy distinctive voice of their respective creators -- a point "Lost" co-creator Damon Lindelof says is no longer unnoticed by media-savvy fans.
"I've seen in the press and also on the message boards, people are concerned with what's going to happen to 'The Office' if Greg Daniels starts to work on a second show," he said. "Whereas before, the public perception would be that Steve Carell makes 'The Office' great 'cause he just makes up the show as he goes along."
Fan concern that showrunners could spread themselves too thin is perfectly valid, writers say. Just running one broadcast series is more than enough to fill a workday.
"The studio will say, 'You know, we'd love to get another show from you,' " one showrunner said. "Then 10 minutes later, they'll say, 'But your current hit has to be your No. 1 show.' And they mean both parts of it. What they really want is for me to work 48 hours a day."
Lindelof noted he's frequently asked by fans if he'd ever do a spinoff of his trapped-on-an-island hit "Lost." His answer: "How does that work?"
Hollywood Reporter,23/5/2008,written by James Hibberd
