I for one actually liked all the XMen movies, including The Last Stand. I didn’t think that Ratner changed the feel of the movie too much from the original Singer vision, despite the casting choices to remove Nightcrawler… but I digress. Everything has room for improvement, and apparently Matthew Vaughn thinks there was a 100 times more room.
Matthew told Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper: “As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made. It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I’m probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it.”
Now I have the highest regard for a Director and I understand how they can shape a movie’s feel, but I wonder if Vaughn is exaggerating just a tiny bit.
A Hundred Times better?
I don’t know that with the same script, the same actors and the same story that you could do a movie a “hundred times better”.
How do you measure that? Would it have taken in a hundred times more money? Would people talk about it a hundred times more? I think any director could look at a movie and say “I could do that better” but that phrase seems to imply that he could have done SO much more that the movie would have been SO dramatically different.
I would be curious to see what he would have changed. Same movie with better acting? Better scenes? Or is he talking about changing the script to have reflected a totally different direction?