Desperation: it is the name of the game for one Mr. Louis Leterrier. The blockbuster helmer, who’s got “Clash of the Titans” coming up, has not been afraid to talk himself up for the director’s chair of 2012’s biggest blockbuster, “The Avengers.” Leterrier directed “The Incredible Hulk” for Marvel and while there are no plans for another “Hulk” film, he’s been open about wanting to remain in the Marvel playground. In an interview with AICN recently, he may have confirmed that the interest is mutual.
“I am on the shortlist, but I’m at the bottom of the shortlist, I’m sure,” he tells AICN writer Beaks in an exclusive interview. “I don’t know who the other guys are, but I have a great relationship with [Marvel], and I’ve been very vocal to them and everyone else that I am the one to direct it. I loved my time at Marvel. I loved those guys. They’re fantastic. Kevin [Feige] is such a passionate boss; he gets his hands dirty. It’s a universe I want to keep exploring. I was frustrated with [THE INCREDIBLE HULK]. It was like, “That’s it? Only one superhero? Can I do more???” We’ll see. Time will tell.”
“Frustrated” with “The Incredible Hulk” is one way to put it. On the creative side, Marvel has to have been pleased that Leterrier, a director with then-minimal experience with blockbusters, was able to shoot a streamlined superhero crowd-pleaser without a lot of flair, per se, but simple enough to have a DVD and cable life its predecessor, Ang Lee‘s “Hulk,” was not built for. However, Leterrier sided with star Edward Norton when it came to a longer, more character-centric (and superior, judging by the DVD) cut versus the truncated, action-heavy version Marvel ultimately released, and it soured Norton enough that he didn’t seem likely to return to the role. Moreover, the film only did $263 million worldwide, while the hefty budget suggested a $300 worldwide take (still half of what “Iron Man” generated that summer) would have been a more comfortable result.
As a result, Marvel has found themselves pinching pennies after they squandered their initial studio-starting $525 million loan on “Iron Man,” “Iron Man 2,” “The Incredible Hulk” and pre-production on “Thor” and “The First Avenger: Captain America.” It was Leterrier and Marvel’s vision that allowed them to jettison original plans to make a series of mid-and-big-budgeted Marvel films between $45 and $165 million, a gamble that has the studio once again borrowing in order to complete financing for “Thor,” “Cap” and “The Avengers.” In other words, “The Incredible Hulk” may be a valued catalog title for Universal Pictures, but the film is sort of a black eye for Marvel Studios. Though the financing is currently in place for “The Avengers,” the studio is not as confident as it once seemed.
However, Marvel might not exactly be able to resist the bankability of Leterrier’s vision if “Clash of the Titans” crosses $200 million domestic, which is a strong possibility considering the 3D prices. Speaking to MTV, Leterrier implies his pre-production for the film would involve getting the cast together to “workshop” the movie, which must be French for “improvise” since with the gang-written reputation of the first Marvel films and the “Avengers” with a likely glut of CGI effects suggests several actors won’t be given a real chance to showcase their considerable skills. We did a feature on potential “Avengers” directors, begrudgingly adding Leterrier as a possibility, but we still like our fantasy picks the best. And speaking of fantasy picks, since no one’s listening, Will Forte should be Hawkeye, just because.
please not Delterrier!!
You only have to look at the opening weekend of THE INCREDIBLE HULK to know that the film underperformed the first movie before anyone saw it. There's a reason why you don't remake a film just 5 years after the last one, especially when the previous entry was a colossal misstep.
Most filmgoers STILL haven't seen the new one, nor do they know that Robert Downey Jr. was in as Tony Stark. People on the Internet take for granted that their nerdy obsessive knowledge of the industry does not reflect the perspective or awareness of the mainstream. Blaming Leterrier for THE INCREDIBLE HULK is like blaming Rodriguez and Tarantino for the instant failure of GRINDHOUSE.
Sometimes awareness and demand play a far bigger role in a film's success or failure than I think a lot of box office analysts wish to acknowledge. Also, your statements about the film causing Marvel to have to re-finance is utterly false.
Marvel Studios started off with a $525 million debt facility that could only, and MUST, be used for production money. With the completion of THOR, they no longer had the operation dough to continue financing their own films. With the tough economy and the overall lack of projects for over a year, due to multiple strike threats, Marvel had to go through with a purchase in order to strengthen their relationship with their debt holders.
Why do you think Merryll Lynch not only negotiated and ran their debt management, but also negotiated their buyout with Disney. I'm not trying to knock you guys, but your personal grudge with Leterrier is pushing you to print things that are simply untrue. Also a fact you didn't mention is that after the film hit DVD, sales of INCREDIBLE HULK were stellar, showing a far greater interest than they thought based on the box office.
@anonymous: i see every Delterrier movie(even his french movies):he doesn't direct a movie!
Pomme, no offense, but I don't understand anything you post.
This particular writer leaps before he looks quite often.
Anon, I bear no grudge against Leterrier, and I noted that Incredible Hulk is a strong catalog title for Universal. Also, I merely mentioned that their original plan when they borrowed the $525 million kind of went out the window and that Incredible Hulk's minor failure has somethign to do with their possible buyer's remorse. It's mere speculation, I never put my foot down to say "Marvel's broke!" or something.
"Also, I merely mentioned that their original plan when they borrowed the $525 million kind of went out the window and that Incredible Hulk's minor failure has somethign to do with their possible buyer's remorse."
The problem is that none of that is true. First, their plan went ahead exactly as before with producing additional characters to yield the Avengers property, and all of these were IP's previously negotiated as part of the Marvel Studios/Paramount deal. The one variation is that Iron Man made so much money that it was in their best interests to rush a second Iron Man to create a strong appearance for further financing when the screenwriters strike ruined their chances of delivering any features in 2009.
Their financing bridge was always going to happen because their budget cap is around $160 million per picture. Once Thor was complete, they were out of money no matter what. They now had to secure additional financing in the worst economic climate in Hollywood for 30-40 years counting a worldwide recession, a nationwide recession, a state bankruptcy, one strike and a threat of a second. With Hulk doing OK, and Iron Man being extremely profitable, Disney started knocking on their door and wanted in on the teenage boy market.
Their debt holder essentially goes, "HELL YES!", and Marvel realizes that a solid ownership would allow them to continue their business model and expand into both smaller features and television, which was NOT previously available to them regardless of your speculation in this article. Their $525 million was only available for tapping into feature production spending, whereas all other operational, development and overhead costs had to come out of their own pockets. All their TV, animated and direct-to-video projects were still partnerships with other production companies, and through alternative financing. Incredible Hulk had nothing to do with any of that.
Second, there was no buyer's remorse. Disney sought them out, not the other way around. Once Disney realized that Ike Perlmutter simply wanted to retain his position, the buyout of $4 billion was then a pretty good bet. Disney shareholder's real concern was Marvel's lack of rights to some of their biggest titles (Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) and the short-term contract that Paramount still held as the primary distributor.
I'm still not sure how you got the read you did about the impact of The Incredible Hulk, but the real issue there was a remake that nobody asked for when Marvel's only concern was forcing a re-established version of the franchise on the market. The story of Hulk's inclusion in The Avengers has been famous for decades, so other than the strikes holding back their slate, everything is still going according to plan. The only real opportunity to change course, for worse in my opinion, is to drop the creative team they already have in place. Until that happens, nothing significantly negative has happened.
"It's mere speculation, I never put my foot down to say "Marvel's broke!" or something."
The problem isn't just speculation, it's that you made several leaps of assumption to reach just one or two points. Speculating on the movie industry is a hobby of mine too, but we all have to remain weary of making too many jumps to make one conclusion, because it can't possibly be solid if the theory is supported by lack of information or mistakes. In this case, I appreciate your interest in covering Marvel stuff, as I'm sure everybody does, I'm just saying you should dial the story back a few steps and take a second look at the details surrounding their business model and what actually impacted their strategy these past few years.
If you like, I'll even send you a copy of their Power Point presentation of their model. Yes, I'm not joking, I managed to find it on the internet and it even has numbers…
Really, I'm just trying to help.
– Terence (formerly Anon)