Hollywood legendary director

After Paramount’s "Shrek 4" did not get the box office momentum it deserved, their propaganda offensive changed and they played a card of sentiment. On Tuesday after the first week, Paramount held a press conference. , He personally told the entertainment reporters that the Shrek series would not shoot another one, and their story was over.

When such an argument came out, it made many viewers embarrassed. At any rate, this series is also a beautiful passage in the memories of many viewers, which made the continued decline to be suppressed, but after all, there are too many negative feedbacks, and it is still impossible to burst. This is not a public opinion offensive that can be changed.

Of course, the most sensational event in Hollywood at the end of May was not the end of the Shrek series. On May 19th, Fox suddenly reached an agreement with Disney and announced that it would officially take over the third part of Disney’s "The Chronicles of Narnia" series. The candidate for production and director is still Michael Apter, who was previously selected by Disney.

So, what is the sacred director of Apt, who can be valued by Disney and Fox one after another?

Hey, when it comes to this one, that's a big deal, the name is very loud in the circle.First of all, this once served as the chairman of the American Directors’ Guild, but he is a British director and a high-achieving student in the law department of Cambridge University. He set foot in Hollywood for the first time and hit the film critics with "The Miner’s Daughter" and was praised as A proposition like Andersen's "Red Shoes", filled with sorrow in the light, and strength in my heart, won the Oscar nomination for the best picture in the same session, and then was nominated for the Oscar with "Eighteen Years of the Misty Forest" in 1988, and finally won Won the best actress award.

In other words, when he was invited out of the mountain this time, Disney originally thought that director Apter could use his rigorous structure—perhaps he was born in the law department. The narrative structure of this work is well controlled to make up for the previous one. The criticized narrative is chaotic, and the climax is partially out of balance.

But why did Disney make so much effort and finally gave it to Fox?

It is also very simple.

Didn’t the 2008 "Prince Caspian" screening fall short of expectations, the rate of return was not high, or even nearly at a loss due to various bad reviews? Due to the unbearable destruction of the excellent situation, Disney fired the film’s director Andrew Adamson angrily. And in the subsequent split, there was a quarrel with Walton, an external producer.

Of course, the global market for the film is sluggish, and it’s okay to be angry. Subsequently, Disney’s production plan also decided to reduce the cost and start the shooting of the third part, and hired Michael Apter as the director of the new work, but in the middle of the preparations, I felt unpredictable and the fiasco of "Ink Heart" also reminded that magical themes were becoming less popular.

As a result, after many senior Disney executives discussed the possibility of selling the film, they still felt that the unknown market risk was too high and finally decided to withdraw from the film investment.

For some reason, Fox executives who had not made a big move for a long time heard the news, but they felt that Disney was too embarrassed. There must be a market for magical themes, but some quality and high visual effects control are needed-Fox is confident. After all, Wolverine’s action movies that eat visual effects are selling well, but they suffer from not having a suitable theme project for their team to play. No, they think the opportunity has come, and they quickly went to Disney to discuss their takeover of investment.

As everyone knows, Fox has paid part of the price. Disney can also rely on Fox’s funds to increase the popularity and IP breadth of the series. As soon as the two parties hit it off, Disney transferred the production rights of the series to Fox for their release.

However, at this press conference, compared to the point of concern for fans and fans is that the starring role has been retained, the new director has been fixed, and the shooting team and cast lineup, the media reporters are interested in a character who appeared in attendance, that is There was Rupert Murdoch, a Fox head family who hadn't appeared in public for a while.

Yes, it is strange that Murdoch has almost hidden himself since the eavesdropping door was fermented, but now he is more upright.

But soon everyone discovered that politicians in the UK did not continue to hold on to this topic, and even no longer advocated talking about “stupid things” that News Corporation controls too much of the media.

You see, this world is so magical, such a fuse that can destroy a behemoth, in addition to the loss of several newspapers by News Corporation and the slowdown in the development of the established layout, it has been low-key for a period of time, as if nothing happened.

No one knows what actions Murdoch took to overwhelm this incident, but everyone knows that Fox also came alive.The crisis is lifted.

For a time, Fox continued to act in the field of production. In addition to taking the banner of "The Chronicles of Narnia" in a high-profile manner, it also guaranteed that the sequel of "Wolverine" has been put on the agenda, and it kept showing its strength. , A pair of enthusiasm to compete with Paramount, the top performer, for the crown of the final year.

In contrast, Warner is not like that.

This year, they are still a little bit confused, and they seem to have personally confirmed Hollywood's vicious circle theory, that is, when a studio rises, one studio goes downhill.

The rise of Paramount's performance is like sucking away Warner's luck.

In this way, unknowingly, at the end of the fourth week of May, "Iron Man 2" only received 660 US dollars this weekend. The decline has become more obvious. However, the cumulative total in North America has reached 250 million, and the global box office performance of 487 million US dollars. Said that although it did not continue the strong reputation of the first film, it is definitely better in terms of performance. After all, is there a sequel bonus.

It is worth mentioning that this week Disney’s "Prince of Persia: Blade of Time", which is based on the classic video game of the same name, has been ridiculed by gamers.

Among them, Jack Gyllenhaal, one of the leading actors, was violently criticized for playing the Middle Eastern protagonist as a white man, forcing him to publicly declare that he had failed the play and said that he had learned a lesson from it: "I think I have learned a lot from this movie. It makes me more cautious when casting roles and think about the reasons why I choose them. You will indeed encounter setbacks because of some roles that are not suitable for you, but you will also There are other suitable options."

Poor Jack may only be fortunate that although he was scolded for acting in this film, the performance of the film is not bad. Generally speaking, the negative public opinion does not conceal the sense of satisfaction of passers-by audiences with the action scenes presented in the film.

Under the hustle and bustle of the summer file market, Lehman was also very busy for the later stage of "The Tuner", quite a bit of fun. Seeing a reverse and reverse film taking shape in his own hands That kind of taste is quite joyful for the director.