Working with Warner Bros., Legendary has produced some of the biggest film franchise of the past decade, including the Dark Knight and Hangover trilogies. Legendary's existing IP won't move to Universal under this new deal — Batman, Superman and the Wolfpack remain the property of Warner Bros. — but Legendary does bring with it an ongoing relationship with some of Hollywood's hottest filmmakers, including Christopher Nolan ("The Dark Knight," "Inception"), Todd Phillips ("The Hangover"), and Zack Snyder ("300", "Man of Steel"). Given Universal Creative's recent track record of working with directors such as Michael Bay and Peter Jackson to develop attractions based on their films, the Legendary deal brings a potential additional infusion of major star power to Universal's theme park development family.
Variety writes:
NBCUniversal has long been considered the frontrunner given its strong film distribution pipeline around the world and the TV networks it owns — from NBC to Syfy. Company also provides access to the company’s theme parks which could easily house attractions based on Legendary’s upcoming pics that include “Pacific Rim” and “Godzilla.”
Godzilla joining King Kong? Pacific Rim and Transformers? All in a Universal theme park? Legendary attractions, indeed.
Tweet
Plus, why would anyone want that? Sorry, I love Disney as much as anyone, but Disney has not been at the cutting edge for a while now. Things work in cycles, right now it seems that Universal is hitting it out of the park consistently, while Disney is having some issues. At some point in the future that might change, but right now Universal is doing better. As a Marvel fan, I am perfectly happy with the existing rides at Universal.
So, no, it's not a matter of time before that happens. It might happen at some point, but I doubt it will anytime soon. If Marvel is replaced, the more likely choice is some sort of 'movie monsters'-land, with King Kong, Godzilla, and the like. And even then I have my doubts.
I agree, though, that I cannot see Universal getting rid of the Marvel rides. They are an integral part of Islands of Adventure for me.
Even if they kept the rides and re-themed them then people would still call it The Hulk, for example (much as I still call Dragon Challenge, Duelling Dragons).
Too bad Snyder's Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was such a flop, cause it would be a much better replacement for the kiddie area in Universal Studios Orlando than the wretched Smurfs!
Clash of the Titans, baby!!!! There's your replacement for Poseidon's Fury!
And for the record, I liked Lady in the Water.
And James, you actually liked that piece of crap Lady in the Water?
Says someone who has not watched a single Brian Singer film.
Marvel Superhero Island can keep it's characters forever if they want to.
And I agree w/NB, Universal should never get rid of Spidey.
Everybody knows that Six Flags has the rights, but why would Universal have put concept development time and money into something if they didn’t have the fiscal and legal means of obtaining it? Six Flags could easily de-theme/retheme DC stuff in their parks as they are minimally themed. I’m pretty sure Universal could afford to obtain DC Comics rights for park use with the boatload Disney would give them to get back east coast use of the Marvel characters.
I’m not saying this with 100% certainty, but it seems the easiest way for Universal to repurpose Marvel Super Hero Island.
Related: The only folks burning more money than Disney did on 'The Lone Ranger' are the collective Universal Orlando hotel resort guests that are forced to pay for parking.
Snyder is a hack, and if "300" didn't have such an interesting look to it (duplicated soonafter by the equally as good "Immortals" by Tarsem), he'd be directing scenes for video games instead of big budget blockbusters. Snyder piggybacked on what Lucas was doing a decade ago with green-sceen, and used other people's stories. "Watchmen" much like "300" was style over substance, and while the director's cut is quite a bit better than the theatrical release, it still leaves fans of the original work disappointed and those unfamiliar with the graphic novel completely lost.
His one attempt at an original concept, "Sucker Punch", was a complete failure. Much like his other movies, it's pretty to look at, but the movie itself is completely unfulfilling and borderline terrible. I enjoyed "Man of Steel", and hope he gets to direct future Superman movies (he's already signed up for "Man of Steel 2"), because the characters need to be in a space where an effects-wizard like Snyder can make the superhuman look real. Snyder is a good director when it comes to a visual style and branding, but if you want a director to create a universe for the characters to live in complete with subtle backstory and layers of detail, my money would be on Nolan.
I could care less about Todd Phillips, because the comedy genre is such a hit or miss proposition. Great directors are not defined by great comedies, so call me when Phillips works on a real movie.
As for Snyder, I totally agree. He has all the style in the world and very little substance (just like Scott and Cameron, imho). But that style would work amazingly well for a three minute theme park attraction. And further, I would much rather watch one of his stylish, paper thin, eye candy laden movies, than another overwrought Nolan Batman flick any day of the week.
(Fwiw, I thought both the graphic novel and film version of Watchmen were completely outdone by Pixar's The Incredibles, arguably one of the best super hero films of all time).
Finally, yes Phillips really should not be part of this conversation.
I would agree that "Rises" is not to the level of his first 2 Batman films, but it's still better than any other Batman film other than perhaps Tim Burton's first go-around, which owes much of its success to Jack Nicholson and Danny Elfman.
As far as being "heavy-handed" on "Man of Steel", my understanding was that Nolan was most influential in keeping the story grounded in Krypton and diminishing the role of Lois Lane despite the high profile casting of Amy Adams. Both of those decisions, IMHO, are what make "Man of Steel" rise to the heights that it does, and comes really close to matching Donner's "Superman II" (well that and Michael Shannon, of course).
I can't say that I've seen or really heard anything about "Irreversible", but "Memento" still stands up after over a decade as a solidly constructed film, even if you don't appreciate the "gimmick". I still find myself gravitating to it over the nearly 1,000 other movies on my shelf to pull more details from an additional viewing. I also stand by my assertion that "The Prestige" is the most underrated movie of the past decade (and it's got David Bowie as Nikola Tesla for goodness sake!).
And yes, Brad Bird's superhero movie is far more entertaining than just about anything released over the past decade. It's a shame he's gotten relegated to another theme park to big screen roll of the dice ("Tomorrowland") instead of getting at least co-directing responsibilities for "Star Wars". I don't think JJ will mess Episode VII up, but I think he should have EP-ed for Drew Goddard or Bird to stay away from the inevidible comparisons to Star Trek. Trekkers and Star Wars fans don't necessarily play nice all the time, and this will just add fuel to the fire.
I still think Nolan is a landmark director that will ultimately be lauded in the same breath as Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Hitchcock, and Kubrick. His movies reach a wide audience, and are thought-provoking and original. He understands who will watch his films, and anyone that can pull a $300 million domestic box office number from an untethered sci-fi/fantasy story must be doing something right ("The Matrix" couldn't even reach $200 million in 1999).
As for comparing MOS to Superman II, how can you not? The story was ripped straight from that classic film. One of my biggest complaints is that there really was nothing new offered in MOS. It was like Nolan and Goyer took the non-Lex Luthor parts of Superman 1 and the Zod parts of Superman 2 and combined them into one "new" film. I did not hate the movie, but I still wonder why in the world they didn't try something new.
As for the film Irreversible, please do not see it on my account. I will never watch that flick again (in fact there were parts of it I could not watch even once). It was stomach turning. But Gaspar Noe really did turn the Memento gimmick into an essential part of his plot.
Abrams will do a fine job with SW7. Face it, his two Trek movies (both of which I have enjoyed immensely) were more SW than Star Trek anyway!
Lastly, I liked The Prestige as well, but felt it was a bit too long, and while the twist was good, I do not think it was better than that of Sixth Sense or even Unbreakable (another underrated, but excellent super hero film).
I see your point about MOS being ripped from the first two Christopher Reeve movies, but what do you suggest they do? They're telling an origin story, so they can't stray too far from the source material, meaning that there are going to be a large number of parallel scenes. I do appreciate the extended emphasis on Krypton and the clever wink to the logo. I also enjoyed the choice to show his youth through flashback instead of linearly.
Also, the de-emphasis on Lois is huge in my book, because an origin story should be about the hero exploring his powers and skills against a superior foe, not about falling in love and dealing with couples nonsense (one of the few things I HATE about Raimi's first "Spiderman" is the unnecessary focus on Mary Jane). Superman is well known enough to let the Lois character stay on the periphery (as she did for much of the film), and reserve a solid love story for the sequel, when you're not bound by the origin story.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
