Samuel Jackson at ComicCon. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
The New York Times has a fascinating interview with Samuel Jackson, who plays Nick Fury in “The Avengers.” If you’re unaware of why he’s known as one of the hardest working men in show business, this article should clear that up.
The Times is behind a paywalll, though they do allow you to access ten articles a month for free.
Lionsgate has been on a roll lately–after purchasing Summit Pictures, makers of the ‘Twilight’ films–and launching “The Hunger Games,” a franchise based upon the novels of Suzanne Collins.
“The Hunger Games,” has earned almost $400 million worldwide, which is remarkable when you consider that it cost $78 million to produce and $45 million to advertise, and has been in theaters for just over two weeks.
So, what do you do when you have a blockbuster that’s the first in a series of three films?
Well, if you’re Lionsgate, it’s possibly to hire another director.
I like this trailer because Guillermo Del Toro is credited as an executive producer, and as far as I know he isn’t one of those ‘executive producer in name only‘ types.
Besides, anything with his name on it instantly gets bonus points, redeemable toward thought-provoking, kick-arse cinema (in my humble opinion).
We’re introduced to Santa Claus, who I call, “Santa, the Avenger.” No, he didn’t go out and join Marvel’s group of superheroes, but there’s something about a tatted-up Santa with a Russian accent that strikes me as subversive in a very cool way.
Then there’s that Easter Bunny, who looks like he may be a few steps closer to nightmare than any I have seen short of the Twilight Zone movie. The Sandman could have been more interesting in a visual sense, and I don’t quite get what appear to be gills on the Tooth Fairy.
Other than that, very interesting.
There’s (Probably) More To Fox And Marvel Meeting Than Meets The Eye
Daredevil, The Man Without Fear
I was over at WorstPreviews yesterday, and they had an article saying that the meeting between Marvel and Fox execs was over a co-financing deal for a “Daredevil” reboot.
This sounds to me like either deliberate misdirection, or nonsense (though on whose part, I can’t say).
The problem for me is: How can Twentieth Century Fox discuss a co-financing deal about a movie based upon a character, come October 10, they will not have any rights to?
By way of analogy, that’s like me taking out a loan that comes due October 10, and me not only saying that the bank isn’t going to get their money back, but I have a great scheme that–by the graciousness of my heart–will let them in on.
In other words, there can be no “co-financing” deal between Marvel and Fox because it would imply that Fox somehow had the right to make such an arrangement in the first place.
Which also implies that there was more going on at that meeting than we probably know anytime soon.
Share this:
Like this: