It’s like the end of a Shamalamadingdong flick! How else other than a twist ending do you explain a ground-breaking director such as Aronofsky at the helm of the follow-up to what may just have been the worst movie of the previous decade*? Well, one thing is for sure, if this is indeed the case** I’m going to be reneging my absolute ban of any other films with ‘wolverine’ in the title. However, here’s the question – looking into the scrying mirrors I can see one of only two outcomes – either Aronofsky will make number two good and dark, like Larry Hama’s run on the comic back in the late 80’s/early 90’s (most of his run that is) was and we’ll all forget we ever saw that piece of shite ‘origins’ or, well, or Aronofsky will take a hit on an otherwise impeccable run of films.
I for one am gleefully letting my guard down to assume the previous, simply because Wolverine is a character who has had a lot of great stories written, and when you stop to think about it most of those great (or even just ‘good’ ones) were written back in the 80’s. According to his imdb page Mr. Aronofsky was born in 1969, which would place him as a teenager in the 80’s, and thus possibly yet another kid who devoured Chris Claremont, John Byrne, Frank Miller and later Mr. Hama’s runs on the character. If this is true we could be looking at something really great here. Just the idea that the studio would be seeking a director such as the one who made Pi, Requiem For a Dream, The Fountain or the heart-wrenching The Wrestler would seem to suggest that they realize what a piece the first one was and want to distance themselves from it.
Let’s hope so, eh?
……………..
* Exaggeration? Maybe, but not by much. new moon was arguably the worst, and yet Wolverine had so much farther to fall from source material.
** And from what I can tell it’s not 100% the case yet but looking pretty
much like a done deal from everyone except Aronofsky. I may be jumping the gun I guess – I’d like to hear him say it but from
his presence on the net he hasn’t said a thing yet.