Even more great news!
AICN's Quint interviewed Favreau at a press event the day after the screening for Zathura. It's a longer interview than what you usually see but well worth reading the whole thing. Especially if your curious as to how Favreau is approaching making JCoM.
After reading this, I think I'm more excited than ever. Favreau seems genuinely honest about making this the best film it can be.
Interview is split into 2 posts, this is part 1
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21509
QUINT: So... big news in your life at the moment, eh?
JON FAVREAU: Yeah, me doing JOHN CARTER is the film geek equivalent of me dating Jennifer Anniston. Now everybody all of a sudden has a personal stake in my career.
QUINT: Well, it's good for ZATHURA, too. Now the sci-fi geeks will want to see the movie to see how you handle the genre.
JON FAVREAU: Which is actually really good because up until recently it was on the kids' radars a lot and now it's going to have to stand up to the scrutiny of the sci-fi fans, but we put in the work, so I'm really curious to see how people respond because it definitely was a different approach to what is going on now in science fiction.
To jump to JOHN CARTER a little bit, here I am stepping in and the last two directors who have been attached have a very different approach to filmmaking than I do. They're both real Jack of All Trades, they both do a lot of different things on their films, especially (Robert) Rodriguez, who seemingly does every aspect of filmmaking. I'm much more specialized. I don't have that group of skills. I tend to be somebody who focuses more on the storytelling and then bring in people who are really good at what they do and are inspired by the material. Together we form a strategy based on the overriding thrust of the film.
QUINT: Well, both Kerry Conran and Robert Rodriguez are both heavy CG users. On ZATHURA you made a big deal about using as many models and practical effects as possible...
JON FAVREAU: Right. I think that the main goal for me as a filmmaker, being that I come from acting and then writing, is to approach it from the humanity of the characters. I haven't really responded to the approach that had been taking yet in the adaptation in the little bit that I've seen, but I found that the books themselves, specifically the first one, is a perfect myth in the Joseph Campbell sense. All you have to do is maintain the integrity of that myth and you have a story that could sustain a great deal of special effects and a great deal of visual fireworks, but you have to maintain the integrity of what Burroughs tapped in to.
The John Carter character is very archetypical and that's what was intriguing about this material is if you stand fast to what was there, you can have a lot of fun visually. I think that was ultimately the strength of the STAR WARS films, especially the first one, which stuck very close to the myth. Joseph Campbell himself even acknowledged that the STAR WARS story was right up there with world religions as far as how true it was to the mythological aspects of it.
That's what's exciting. As a director, that gives you something to hang on to that could sustain you even past a single film. That's why LORD OF THE RINGS was so strong. Again, you had a mythology that you were depending on and were sticking close to. On the films that I've worked on, I've had to impose that and really struggle to keep that aspect of it, because they were so mundane. You know, MADE and SWINGERS and ELF, but it's there. I mean, I really tried to.
So, this is very exciting. I feel like I'm at a point in my career where I've done enough different things. I understand the technical aspects enough to conduct a lot of other talented people around the technical aspects of it while still maintaining a very strong connection to the characters and the romance involved in the book.
QUINT: What's great about the book is that each and every action set piece goes to further either John Carter's quest or strengthen his love for Dejah Thoris. The visual eye candy, if adapted correctly for the material, won't be hollow, you know?
JON FAVREAU: That's right.
QUINT: Especially in the first couple books there is very little fat. Everything that happens is moving the story forward.
JON FAVREAU: There are issues in the book that have to be solved. There are things that don't lend themselves perfectly plot-wise, but thematically it's very strong and very true and as long as you have that spine you can solve those problems.
My instinct is going to be to take it maybe a different way than (how) most people would approach this. Most people would approach this as an epic. I would approach it as a very personal story. I would approach it as not the story of the book, but the story of the manuscripts within the book. Cut right to the story of John Carter and not take all that time framing it because that tends to make it a little more important and little bit more precious than it should be for general audiences. It may satisfy purists to use every page of the book, but my first instinct is to just make it about John Carter.
QUINT: Well, if LORD OF THE RINGS proved anything, if you get the essence of what the book was trying to and capture the spirit of the book, most of the hardcore fans will forgive you telling the story in a different way.
JON FAVREAU: They will like it if it makes them feel the same way reading the book made them feel. So, when I look at it I don't look at it as a big epic. I don't even look at it in the scope of LORD OF THE RINGS. Maybe eventually it gets to that point, but looking at mass CG battles gets... It's kinda interesting the first time you see it, but if you keep going to that over the course of a movie it tends to create distance emotionally. It's like watching a video game.
QUINT: Well, it depends on how you do it. I think the reason the Pelennor Fields battle in RETURN OF THE KING worked so well is that Jackson focused on single elements in the larger battle, following characters we've come to care for and focusing on them, not just faraway shots of CG people fighting. It's the same thing if you have an army of 10,000 extras. That'll get old unless you focus on the developed characters...
JON FAVREAU: That's right. That's right... you know, BRAVEHEART was very effective. But I think the first time people saw Massive rendering a battle scene it was just mind blowing in the technology. Now you've seen it. Now it is like watching a Cecil B. DeMille thousand extras scene. The pageantry of it doesn't forgive you poor storytelling.
So, my in to the film is to keep it very personal and small in the beginning. One of the movies I point to as I talk to the studio and people who I want to collaborate with is the first PLANET OF THE APES. It didn't bend itself out of shape trying to explain the technology behind it. They really made it a personal journey about somebody in a strange land learning about a strange culture in a strange society and eventually getting to a point where he understands it and could communicate with them.
But really, ultimately, you have to dial into what this guy is experiencing if this really were happening. The story is so fantastic that the responsibility of the filmmakers is to put it in a context that the audience can emotionally connect to. If that connection exists and is maintained, you can push all of these things. There's going to be no lack of excitement, visual excitement.
The other big challenge is the Tharks. How do you create a cast of characters that is an alien race that...
QUINT: That doesn't just look like a man in a suit?
JON FAVREAU: That doesn't look like... on one side a guy in a suit...
QUINT: Or a big CGI blob...
JON FAVREAU: Yeah, you got the two choices. You have sort of the BATTLEFIELD EARTH route to go, where you take a human and make them as different as you can size-wise and physically, which I don't think you totally buy, or you go the Gollum route, which is very expensive and ultimately I think that if you had 6 Gollums talking to each other I don't know that you could differentiate them that well, although it worked very well for one. Also, performances suffer.
What I would like to do is find a way to base it around performers so that I could actually cast people as Tharks and not just their voices to be behind CG puppets. That being said, I have to see what the state of the art CG does right now, but my sense is that it's a mixture of practical with some sort of CG augmentation to help sell how they're different from people. I don't to just put big shoes on them and rubber arms.
That's going to be the challenge, in doing a lot of research. I think that PLANET OF THE APES, the first one, even though the make-up was sort of restrictive of the movement of the faces and I wouldn't want to go completely down that route, I did feel that you were able to differentiate the apes. You knew it was Roddy McDowell in there and it was a wonderful performance and there was emotion involved.
I was talking to one of the people who previously worked on this movie in the art department and we were talking about Boris Karloff's performance in FRANKENSTEIN. His face was Boris Karloff and his performance, but it was augmented and built upon with prosthetics. Pretty extensive low-tech prosthetics. It was pre-Latex. I mean, it was like a terrible process and the stuff would melt, but somehow it didn't interfere with the performance. There has to be a digital equivalent of that now.
I think the biggest challenge is to humanize the Tharks and that speaks to how you would write the story and how much you'd have to thin out those characters for the sake of being cinematic.
QUINT: All I gotta say about the Tharks is Keith David.
JON FAVREAU: You like Keith David. Thanks to his voice?
QUINT: I do hear his voice when I read Tars Tarkis.
JON FAVREAU: The other interesting thing is I've been getting the information from people who have been involved with this project... I had no idea of the 75 year struggle of development that's been on this film.
QUINT: Like the cartoon?
JON FAVREAU: Everything. You mean concurrent with SNOW WHITE at Disney? That cartoon?
QUINT: Yeah.
JON FAVREAU: Yeah. Everybody has either tried to get the rights or tried to get involved with it. The more I talk to people it feels like I'm Jack Nicholson in CHINATOWN as I'm, like, learning all the intricacies and talking and having conversations with people who are very passionate and have a history with this thing. It's very overwhelming to think of all these talented people who have been involved with this thing and haven't been able to crack this nut and I'm just hoping that the technology has created a tipping point that has made this very readable story now filmable.
It really is exciting, that whole aspect of it is really intriguing and I can see myself burying into this movie for years to come.
QUINT: You said that you don't think they've cracked the movie, yet...
JON FAVREAU: Script-wise, yet.
QUINT: So, are you going to go to someone other than Ehren Kruger?
JON FAVREAU: Yeah, I think we have to find somebody with a much more traditional take on the material that keeps closer to the books. I've never met with Ehren. I know that as a writer once you've worked on a project for so long and it hasn't moved any further to getting made, I get frustrated as a writer. We may need some new blood in there. I don't know how much of what he wrote were choices that were forced upon or how much came from him. I know that the drafts didn't really speak to me, in a sense of what I thought was appealing about the books.
I think you just have to find somebody who's very good with structure. Remember, I'm always there to help with the characters, the humanity, the dialogue. I'm not trying to reinvent these characters, I'm just trying to find their essence. I'm very confident in my understanding as a writer and as a director of the human dynamic between these people. What I need is somebody who could help break the back of this piece structurally, so you're not forced to make tough decisions about what can stay and can go.
I think there are set pieces that we can build around, but there are problems to be solved logistically about the language, technically about the physiology of the aliens and the alien creatures. The one thing I'm not worried about, however, is trying to reinvent it because it's too similar to all the movies that have picked the bones of this material for the last, you know, close to 100 years. I don't mind that it's close to STAR WARS or FLASH GORDON. Really, anything in science-fiction that dealt with similar issues since has drawn a lot from Burroughs. But I think the fact that since it's been around since then gives you the freedom to go right after it and not be afraid of being similar in certain ways to other things that have subsequently come. You know, I'm going fly right at it. I'm not gonna be scared of it.