PD: The Sandman is obviously not the easiest of comics to adapt for the big screen. What has been difficult in that process? And what has been easy?
CT: Yeah, in terms of adaptation, it is probably the material I have struggled the most with to be honest. That's not a bad thing, either! It just immediately presents the task of how do I present this 75-issue story in a handful of feature films. I have to sort of arbitrarily draw the lines in terms of how much I'm going to adapt because I have to think about the limited runway that I have compared to a weekly format. It's also one of the most visually compelling comics I've ever read, which means that I have to figure out how exactly to translate that to the written word, if possible. So in terms of easiness - and excuse if I've used this metaphor before but I think it is particularly true here - I like that it then becomes a bit like solving a puzzle but you don't know what the final image is going to be. You have all of these marvelous pieces of lore in front of you and it becomes "how do I put these in the right order to make a movie that can standalone while still being connected to the larger lore?". And sometimes that even meant going in my own direction with things as well. For example, Johanna Constantine does not have the role in the comics that I give her here but I knew I wanted to work with Elizabeth Debicki again and pairing her with Death felt like an amusing way to accomplish that.
PD: There were some difficulties finding the right cast for this sequel, much moreso than the first Sandman film, can you describe that a bit?
CT: I think the first Sandman was an easier process because that film has a few key players that are starring roles and then a set supporting crew. This film is...different. I knew I had to introduce the siblings after the stinger of the first film and that became a major hurdle. How do I make these roles feel important while also acknowledging that not every actor is going to want to come in for what is essentially a one-scene performance. And then there's the roles themselves. Desire is very tricky role to pull off and so my options felt limited, leading to a few rejections there. Despair is a similar case and for that one, I figured I could kill two birds with one stone by being able to include the role of Cain and have Serkis do double duty. And for Delirium, we had one choice and then went with the other. But that other just happened to be Sadie Sink, who got a bigger comic book role offered to her in the pre-production process and I don't blame her one bit for taking it. And finally Lucifer, perhaps the most important role to cast given the gravitas needed for his small amount of runtime. So for that one, I once again got in touch with John Malone, who helped me with casting Dream way back when. And when he mentioned the possibility of Jonny Lee Miller, it felt like something clicked. And thankfully he said yes on first try! *laughs*
PD: The Fall Guy: Trouble in Tahiti ended up being one of your biggest hits (not based on a comic book character). I know it's early, but is a third film something we may see?
CT: I am happy to reveal that work on a third Fall Guy film is in active development. I can't compliment Matt Park enough for helping to come in and really revitalize this franchise. I think it helps that it's not necessarily a property that people feel serious about and so we both kind of come at it from a place of "how can we make this as fun as possible?". Dave Bautista fighting off real pirates with movie prop pirate swords? Let's do it! As you said, it's quite early but the plot of the third film is already shaping up to be quite different from the first two. There will be some new exciting faces, some elevation of existing ones, and plenty of action to go around.
PD: After The Sandman: Season of Mists, you have the Stephen King adaptation Revival set for release. Are you worried about the recent "novel adaptation curse" at all?
CT: I've been keenly aware of this novel adaptation curse for a while now. I'll say first and foremost that I don't think it's a lost art despite the streak of flops. There have plenty of great novel adaptations throughout movie history, including here at LRF. I just think it's a tight balancing act of taking these incredibly detailed narratives and fitting them into a ~2 hour time frame. How much backstory and character description should I give? Which characters are absolutely essential to include? Which parts of the story can be cut? These are all questions where any misstep could hurt the overall product and I think that's why audiences are hesitant. And so I'll be honest, part of me does have worry, simply because I did not choose an easy story to adapt by any means. It spans the course of almost fifty years! But hopefully the other aspects of the production can help remedy any potential curse. In particular, Frank Darabont is someone who knows his way around a King adaptation and so having him at the helm should be beneficial to all parties.
PD: I know you and Jimmy Ellis had high expectations for Man Made Machine. Are you pleased with the response to the film?
CT: I'd say we're both very pleased with how the film was received. One of our main goals was to make a fun globe-trotting blockbuster not based on any previous IP and those profits prove that it was a shot worth taking. The film wasn't perfect but it provided a blueprint for success and a foot-in-the-door with audiences - similar to how the first Fall Guy played out, actually. And as with that franchise, our box office results now give us a greenlight to note what worked, what didn't, and develop a sequel that can hopefully improve those shortcomings.
No comments:
Post a Comment