Back to IndieWire

Discuss: As ‘World War Z’ Gets Seven Weeks Of Reshoots, Why Are So Many Tentpoles Being Delayed & Reworked?

Discuss: As 'World War Z' Gets Seven Weeks Of Reshoots, Why Are So Many Tentpoles Being Delayed & Reworked?

Reshoots: they’re the new principal photography, it would seem. Every so often, a story will crop up that some major movie has reassembled its cast and crew for what’s usually referred to as “additional photography.” And it’s easy for that to be blown up into some kind of scaremongering story, when in actual fact, it’s hard to find a film that doesn’t go back for more after the main bulk of its shoot has wrapped. More often than not it’s for “pick-ups” — filling in some gaps, fixing some scenes that may have had some technical issues. Sometimes it’s to add a new ending, or new scenes elsewhere in the picture, which may have occured to the filmmakers once in post-production. Virtually every major movie budgets and schedules for a week or two of additional photography, and almost every successful movie of the last few years — “Avatar,” “The Avengers,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2,” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” — had some kind of reshoots.

But that’s not to say that they’re always a good sign. According to The Hollywood Reporter, one of the reasons that the budget on “John Carter” went so high is that director Andrew Stanton, used to reworking films while at Pixar, “embarked on extensive and costly reshoots” (something fervently denied by the helmer, who called it “a complete and utter lie,” saying that Disney had let him go for longer reshoots because his principal photography had come in on time and on budget). Regardless of who you believe, the reports helped start the media feeding frenzy on “John Carter,” now one of the biggest money-losers of the year.

Other films had it even worse — both “The Invasion” and “Jonah Hex” famously replaced their directors for extensive reshoots, with Oliver Hirschbiegel swapped out for James McTeigue on the former, and Jimmy Hayward for Francis Lawrence on the latter. In neither case did it help to make the film better, or more coherent, and both flopped at the box office. Now, in 2012, we are seeing some high profile movies being pushed back significantly in order to accomodate vast, expensive, expansive reshoots, and some of these may point to signs of trouble.

First, there was “47 Ronin.” The Japanese-set epic, starring Keanu Reeves, and budgeted at $175 million or so, started filming early last summer, and was set for a key tentpole release date in late November. But shortly before Christmas, we started to hear rumors around the London filmmaking community that the film was planning 6-8 weeks of reshoots at Shepperton Studios, and that it was possible that debut director Carl Erik Rinsch (a commercials helmer who at one point was set to direct the film that became “Prometheus,” before his father-in-law Ridley Scott stepped in instead) wouldn’t be involved, with Universal bringing another helmer in to direct them.

We couldn’t confirm anything at the time, but reports soon emerged that backed it up: The Hollywood Reporter said that after a “tense, combatative shoot,” the film had gone way over budget, and the studio had brought in executives embedded on the shoot to crack down on the director. A new editor was being brought in, and the studio were said to considering whether to let Rinsch shoot desired additional action sequences. And it sounds as if they gave in: back in April, Universal announced that they were pushing the film to February 2013, in order to, as they claimed, perfect the 3D effects. In reality, it’s been an open secret that the film’s had substantial and costly reshoots, although it’s unclear if Rinsch was behind the camera on them.

Then, a few weeks later, Paramount, in almost unprecedent move, delayedG.I. Joe: Retaliation” nine months, to March 2013, only five weeks before release. Initially, the company said that it was because they’d decided to convert the film to 3D in order to boost international box office. In reality, it seems, executives looked at the film and worried that they wouldn’t be able to compete in a crowded marketplace, with “The Amazing Spider-Man” landing a week later, and wanted to add more of Channing Tatum, who was originally to be killed off. Since his star went supernova this year, Tatum now much more value to the company (we’ve heard that a certain freshly-minted star felt he’d been badly treated by the company, and wanted nothing to do with any reshoots, but a deal may have since been made).

But could that be a cover too? Reactions from test screenings have been genuinely dismal, which was surely the biggest reason that the studio decided to delay. And according to Drew McWeeney at HitFix “Things are starting to get genuinely contentious between director Jon Chu and the studio, and right now, there is a chance he won’t be directly involved at all with the reshoots.” Indeed, the young helmer may even try to resort to legal tactics to ensure that he remains involved in the project. In short: it’s an absolute mess, but it’s also another film that is trying to save itself from disaster with what would seem to be extensive reshoots (resurrecting Tatum’s character, and including more scenes of him and Dwayne Johnson, can’t be a minor undertaking).

And now we have a third, as Baz Bamigboye of the Daily Mail reports that Brad Pitt has gone to Budapest for a whopping seven weeks of additional shooting on “World War Z,” the zombie tentpole movie he’s starring in, also at Paramount. The film, directed by Marc Forster, was originally set to open on December 21st but was pushed back to June 21, 2013. At the time, we’d assumed it was a question of getting out of the way of a jam-packed Christmas season, but the sheer length of these reshoots (outside of the big-budget world, entire films can be made in much less than seven weeks, and the additional photography on “John Carter” lasted only 18 days — somewhere between three and four weeks). We’ll assume until proven otherwise that relations between Forster and Paramount are still rosy, but reshoots of this scope and scale suggest strongly that the film has major, major issues, and that may have been the biggest reason for the delay.

So what the devil is going on? Why have studios decided to spend nine figure sums on movies that need fixing after they worked? Perhaps more crucially, how bad did things get that Paramount, who were riding high at the start of the year with “Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol,” have ended up pulling both of their major 2012 tentpole hopes from the release schedule? “Star Trek 2” was originally being eyed for release this month, but J.J. Abrams valiantly put his foot down and refused to let the script and production be rushed, which meant that the film was pushed back to the summer of 2013. Thus, the company were left with a gap, and “G.I. Joe: Retaliation,” a continuation of a franchise-starter that actually lost the studio money significant amounts of money, theatrically at least, was hurried in front of cameras. It would appear, however, that plan backfired. They’re now left without a summer tentpole anyway, and shifting ‘Retaliation’ to next year has created a perceptionthat the movie is a disaster, however right or wrong that may be.

But the situation with “World War Z” might be more complicated. The film was in development for years, with several A-list writers involved, and Marc Forster is a safe pair of hands rather than some artistic firecracker (or newcomer). We suspect that the subject matter may be one of the things causing problems. It’s aiming to be a PG-13 tentpole revolving around a zombie apocalypse, and the tone is likely dark and dour. But it’s also possible that the film finally got the greenlight simply because Pitt had a hole in his schedule, a factor far more important for the studio than whether the script is right. “47 Ronin” is a different beast — the overages and need for reshoots seems to be down to a combatative first-time helmer (although “Drive” writer Hossein Amini was brought on relatively late to polish the script, as he did on “Snow White And The Huntsman”).

We hope that all three films turn out to be great. We hope they all turn out to be hits — no one likes to see a giant flop, particularly when promising directors like Chu or Rinsch are involved. But history is not on their side, when it comes to reshoots of this extent, and reshoots, particularly when new directors are involved, tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Either way, it’s indicative of a culture of fear among the studios at the moment. After a lackluster box office in 2011, things picked up this year, but May saw film after film disappoint, with “Dark Shadows,” “The Dictator,” “Battleship” and even “Men In Black 3” underwhelming (the latter another film with a troubled, contentious production, although the surprisingly decent reviews suggest it may be an example where spending a little extra money helped it creatively).  

Ultimately, the problems with the recent slate was that not many people wanted to see them. Studios dumped hundreds of million dollars on a comedic remake of a campy TV vampire soap, an actioner based on a board game, a comedy about a Middle Eastern despot, and a third installment of a franchise that followed up a dismal second movie a decade ago, without stopping to think if audiences would care about them in the number that they thought they would. And looking at the three films facing reshoots, it’s easy to see why studios might start to panic, and do anything they can to make them more appealing. Whether they fix the situation, or make it worse, remains to be seen, but we certainly hope that executives start to learn from their mistakes on these films sooner rather than later.

This Article is related to: Features and tagged , , , , , , ,



World War Z… don't have to much hope for this one though I once did. Seems they're deviating far enough from the book (stupid ADD-addled, running zombies aside) to make this seem much less interesting conceptually than Max Brooks's source work (which, to me, always owed much to Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka's "Warday" in its structure and tropes). I think this one's gonna be a dog, especially with a ludicrous PG-13 rating (oh, how far from George A. Romero's great early work has the mighty zombie fallen). It's foolish to make this kind of material kid-friendly.


Pixar structures 4 reshoots into the budget, because movies are put together, scenes are scrapped and new scenes are added in. At Pixar, this is a way of perfecting the movie they have. In Hollywood, because it is more public, every news outlet has to report on any reworking and it becomes a bigger story than it needs to be. Wouldn't it be better to judge the movie on it's own? About ten years ago there was a huge reshoot on a certain move that wasnt really reported. The first cut wasnt great at all but the reshoots really helped the movie and it became a big hit and a bigger franchise. Can't the media find something else to report on, like the new french wave, like they used to? At least we learned something back then…


And then you have reshoots like the final final scene of Avengers which wasn't even shot until after the movie premiered.

the ayatollah of film

The Daily Mail who have had more campaigns to ban films than actually been constructive towards them, there up there with The Sun, similar group news papers they make a molehill out of nothing sensationalize it, very unreliable source. Ok its not unusual for films to have re-shoots doesn't mean its bad film, sometimes it is a bad film sometimes we should look at the film director John Chu – GI Joe Retaliation, same guy who did a 3d justin bieber film, Marc Forster who hasn't did any breathtaking films, nearly destroyed James Bond (though money was a bigger problem) just a few people mediocre director not delivering. Film studios think we all want 3d, some people think in europe and UK we love 3D its actually the opposite. Sales maybe good but thats the fact due to cinema chains who will only show a film in 3D even if 2D is available or when they do show 2D, the 2d version maybe shown 2 times a day compared 8 or times a day for 3d. film studios want our money and want PG, 12A (PG-13) films even if the source of the film could be a 15 or 18 rating , it's all $$$$


(I know this will probably get removed, but I'm a longtime pre-indiewire playlister, I swear! So even if you do take it down, please check out the link anyway, I really think you'd dig it!)

I'm a huge HUGE fan of WWZ, and for any other 'listers who are, or who are filmmakers themselves, I wanted to post the zombie short I made — https:/&#x2F


And now for an actual comment: Delayed and reworked doesn't mean bad; there are plenty of great pictures that changed hugely during the course of production . WWZ is a trick and a half, though, and I bet getting the balance right on such a wide ranging story is probably very tough. The book itself is more a collection of short stories than a regular novel, so they've likely had to make big changes already — which always threatens to upset fans. But from what I've seen, it looks pretty amazing.

Thuan Dang

Studios want pg13 tentpoles but they don't have enough quality pg13 tentpole directors to make them. So they cram other type of directors into pg13 and they don't work out. Carl Erik Rinsch isn't a pg13 director. His whole thing is cerebral and very "smartsy". Give him 175 million bucks to make 47 Ronin, dude ain't gonna use it to make MI:4, he's gonna make Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut and probably did.

Andrew Stanton is a pg13 quad tentpole director, problem with John Carter was that he wasn't trying to make a 4 quadrant tentpole for the present day audience. Give him 200 million plus, he's gonna go out and make John Carter as Star Wars but in todays film landscape? That's utterly failure-bound. Modern filmmaking has moved way past Star Wars, he wanted to go back to the classical way with JC. Wrong move.

Jon Chu is pg13 but isn't a 4 quad tentpole director because did those who went to see the StepUp movies go see it for the story? If Spielberg is the apex and Shawn Levy is basically the median, Chu doesn't even hit the median as a 4 quad tentpole director. Chu's a Bollywood/musical director. He won't dazzle you with story and action but he'll dazzle the hell out of you with dance and singing.

Marc Forster ain't a 4 quad tentpole director. He's a character driven/adult material filmmaker.

Hollywood don't have many directors who have a strong passion to make 4quad tentpoles and the intimate storytelling ability for it. Yeah people like Joseph Kosinski can learn special effects but that technical stuff you can learn from others. Visual storytelling, for this point 4 quadrant pg13, whatever you want to call it, visual storytelling, is something you got to figure out by yourself, can't be taught by others. Screenwriters can write a pg13 tentpole script but how it is seen visually is up in the air unless you got a good pg13 tentpole director who will know what works and what won't in his/her head. Most directors aren't interested in only doing just pg13 tentpoles, but the money man, the money (Burton).


The daily mail is hardly the most reliable source for these things, is it?
Has ANYONE else confirmed this?
Pitt's about to shoot a few weeks of "Twelve years a slave" & than a few weeks of "the counselor", almost back-to-back. All while Jolie is shooting Malifecent.
Highly unlikely that he'll be doing 7 weeks of reshoots on WWZ..


Pitt said during the Killing Them Softly Cannes press that they were attempting something similar with WWZ. Perhaps they're retooling it to make whatever message they're hoping to convey clearer?


Why do people keep hiring Marc Forster? He's made one inert dud after another (Stay, Stranger Than Fiction, Quantum of Solace). Even his watchable movies (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner) are unusually dull and conventional. It seems like he gets opportunities simply because he has a history of picking good scripts, in spite of the fact that he's never delivered on the potential of those scripts.


"Why Are So Many Tentpoles Being Delayed & Reworked?" Because Hollywood typically doesn't know what the fuck they're doing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *