by Mike Russell

To hear Marvel Studios producer Kevin Feige tell it, the earliest “Hulk” movie special-effects test belies his company’s current approach to superhero cinema.
“When [effects legend Dennis Muren] starts on a film, he always does an initial test of what he thinks will be the toughest effect in the movie; if he can do that, he knows what he’s in for and what the problems will be. Now, in the world of CGI these days, that’s not the Hulk throwing stuff around or explosions or any of that – it was the Hulk acting.”

The test, Feige says, “was this really subtle thing – this shot of the Hulk’s face showing simple emotions. It was a living character.”

Emotional nuance in the Hulk? Welcome to the 21st century Marvel movie universe, where – following the blockbuster success of the surprisingly thoughtful “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” movies – character is king. Helping to shape that universe alongside Marvel Studios CEO Avi Arad is Feige, who serves as Marvel Studios’ executive vice president – and acknowleges that the next six months are of vast import for movie superheroes of all stripes.

In February, director Mark Steven Johnson (“Simon Birch”) proves his mettle as an action director with “Daredevil”; in May, following a long, tough shoot, Bryan Singer’s ambitious “X-Men 2” hits theaters; and finally, in June, Ang Lee’s “The Hulk” takes its big, green, purple-panted bow.

With great advance buzz comes great responsibility, but Feige sounds like he’s having a dandy time. After graduating from USC film school in 1995, Feige turned a college internship into an assistant gig at Richard Donner and Lauren Shuler Donner’s production company. (“I was lucky enough to get coffee very well and deliver lunch on time,” as he sums up his intern days.) As an assistant to Shuler Donner, he worked on “Volcano” and “You’ve Got Mail” – and, as he recalls, “there was this one project that she had that I just loved and was fascinated with and had loved since I was a kid, which was ‘X-Men.’ I started doing notes on that script and developing that, and [Lauren] was nice enough to put me on the forefront when we hired Bryan Singer to direct it – and I followed that movie all the way until we released, as associate producer.”

Today, Feige has a production hand in all three of Marvel Studios’ major 2003 releases, with many more to come (see page 16-17 for the litany of Marvel creations in development for the big screen). The young producer took a break during his holiday vacation – the calm before the storm, no doubt – to talk about his company’s character-first philosophy, Marvel’s dubious Hollywood prehistory, and the future of some of the world’s best-loved men in tights.

o o o

I. MARVEL’s NEW
PHILOSOPHY,
plus PRAISE for the
SEMINAL ‘SUPERMAN’

Now, you’re basically at the helm of three of the more anticipated movies of 2003 – Ang Lee’s “The Hulk,” “X-Men 2,” and “Daredevil,” with more on the way.
It’s a pretty exciting time, that’s for sure. I mean, we’re coming off the biggest film of 2002, “Spider-Man,” and we’re going into 2003 with three movies on the slate – and maybe even one or two more sneaking in there before the end of the year. It’s a lot of fun.

Now, in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, Marvel didn’t have the greatest track record with superhero adaptations – I’m talking the Roger Corman “Fantastic Four,” the “Captain America” movie that starred J.D. Salinger’s son, “Punisher” with Dolph Lundgren ...
That’s right.

But today, you have A-list talent directing top-notch actors – and this is crucial, taking these characters really seriously.
It was a very different time [before “X-Men” was released]. I’d go on the Internet, as all good filmmakers do, to see what people are saying about it – and at that point it was, “Everything’s gonna stink! It’s gonna be terrible! Marvel can’t make a good movie! The Marvel curse!”

They were remembering the terrible – if I do say so myself – terrible wastes of film that came out in the ‘80s with Marvel’s name attached to them – bad versions of “Captain America,” bad versions of “The Punisher” … and I don’t want to say “bad,” necessarily, but not the way we would do things now. Because they didn’t have the same kind of enthusiasm and excitement that we have now – and certainly, with Avi [Arad] running the show, it’s a whole different story.

So we just sort of persevered [on “X-Men”], making the kind of movie we thought people wanted to see – which was not all about a million different villains and how many different colors we can get in this set, and “Can we match the costumes exactly as they are in the comic?” Well, no, we can’t, and we wouldn’t want to if we could – because we don’t think it will translate well. So we did something a little different, and we stayed true not to the visual aesthetic, but to the characters and to the emotions.

And that, with the success of the “X-Men,” is what really translated. People who loved the comics said, “This is perfect!” They loved it because of the characters they remembered – and people who’d never seen the comic responded, for the most part, because of the characters, too.

We know that movies appeal to a broader audience than almost anything else. You don’t have all kinds of people necessarily reading comic books; it’s a much smaller niche audience. But if you take what is true about those characters in the comics and what is successful – and the reason that these characters have such rabid fans – and you showcase that in the film, then when it gets exposed to a broader audience, you suddenly get more rabid fans. [laughts] That was our hope, and I think that’s what we achieved with “X-Men.”

It sounds like you regard Singer’s “X-Men” as the point where things turned around.
I certainly consider that the point, because that was the point that my involvement started and there was the broad success. Wheels had been put into motion before then – and, of course, the first “Blade” film was really the first showcase success of a comic-book character to screen in a long, long time. “Blade” didn’t get a lot of press at the time that it was even based on a comic – I don’t think Marvel’s name was even anywhere on that movie, because it was the middle of the bankruptcy, which other people can speak to much more than I can. But that and certainly “X-Men” are what turned the tide – and obviously made executives go, “We can make a profit making movies like this,” but also, “There are other ways to make comic-book movies than just cramming in as many villains as you can.”

Now, you worked for [“Superman” director] Richard Donner and Lauren Shuler Donner. I find it interesting that you’re part of this return to taking comic-book characters really seriously in movies –
And it all started with Dick.

Yeah. Richard Donner made what is the seminal superhero movie.
Absolutely. Absolutely.

Sam Raimi has said that, when he was looking for inspiration for “Spider-Man,” he watched the first hour-and-a-half of “Superman: The Movie.”
That’s exactly right. As a matter of fact, we screened “Superman” early in the development of “Spider-Man.” There were many key points in that first “Superman” movie that influenced Sam heavily.

The word that Dick Donner used while making the first “Superman” – and I can attest to the fact that he still has that word engraved in wood above his office door – is “verisimilitude,” which basically means “take it seriously – this is not tongue in cheek. We are not making jokey references to the fact that these are 2-dimensional characters that appeared in pulpy comic books. These are real characters.” And that’s certainly what Dick did with the majority of “Superman.” And that’s what we did with our friend Peter Parker in “Spider-Man.”

o o o

II. SPEAKING OF
‘SPIDER-MAN’…

One of the things I loved about “Spider-Man” was that it understood that the movie’s not about Spider-Man – it’s about Peter Parker.
Exactly.

Is that trend going to continue into “Spider-Man 2”?
I think it absolutely will. I’m certainly not going to say a whole lot about it – but what Sam has already said in print is that these characters will have grown since we last saw them in the last movie, and we’re going to explore how they’ve grown, and how dedicating your life to wearing a suit and being your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man affects Peter Parker, and how it affects relationships in his life and his loves. What’s great about Sam – and what’s great about the way we want to develop these movies into parts two and three and four – is not, “Well, when are we going to put on this costume?” and “When is he going to wear a bigger mask and get a cape?” It’s about, “How will these characters grow after years and years of choices?”

Is principal photography still slated to begin on that in January?
Um – spring.

And are we days away from learning that Sam Neill plays Dr. Octopus and Bruce Campbell plays The Lizard?
[extremely bemused sounding] I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I read that a few months ago, before we had determined anything. We will learn soon enough who the villains will be and who the actors will be in those roles. But nothing we’ve heard so far is true – I’ll give you that much.

Whose idea was it to use “Amazing Spider-Man” as the sequel’s title?
I’m not sure. I think that also popped up in the press, and that’s what everyone is still calling it for the time being.

How did you get the acclaimed novelist Michael Chabon to work on the screenplay?
Sam Raimi was a huge fan of “The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay” and a huge fan of Michael’s writing, and called him up. And as it would be, Michael Chabon was a huge fan of Spider-Man.

o o o

III. THE LOVES and CRUSHING RESPONSIBILITIES of KEVIN FEIGE

What kind of comic books did you read as a youth?
I read all of the classics, as they say. Certainly “The X-Men.” Certainly “Spider-Man.” I loved “Punisher.” I read “The Fantastic Four” occasionally, and maybe even a “Superman” or two, but we’ll keep that between you and I. [laughs]

Right. What do you consider the greatest superhero movie ever made?
I think the first “Superman” movie held that title for a long time, and far be it from me to declare otherwise – but let me put it this way: For a long, long time, I think there was only one viable answer to that question, and it was “Superman.” I think now, the work that Marvel’s done in the last couple of years gives people two or three or four answers to that question, which I’m happy about.

What sort of sense of crushing responsibility do you feel when you’re basically one of the custodians of these mythological characters?
You’re not going to get me to say, “With great power comes great responsibility,” believe me [laughs] – but it certainly does. You know, part of the thing that can relieve that kind of crushing responsibility is having an amazing team around you. And obviously, I stand underneath Avi Arad, who has the brunt of it all – and is doing a fabulous job at it.

Another question I usually get asked is, “Why [are superhero movies big] now? Why in the last couple of years? Is it because of special effects? Is it because of events in the world and a need for heroes?” I think it’s all of those things, to a certain extent. But the real, behind-the-scenes answer is: “Because Avi Arad moved from Connecticut to Los Angeles to focus all of his efforts on this.” He has been the driving force behind all of these good changes. And when you have people like him – and when, luckily enough, he hires people like me, who also love these characters – and we get filmmakers like Sam Raimi and Mark Steven Johnson and Ang Lee and Bryan Singer, who understand that same responsibility, it’s a task that’s fun to be a part of.

And the weight doesn’t come from asking, “How can we make every single fan perfectly happy?” You can’t, and if you attempt to do that, you will fail – and you’ll usually fail in a much bigger way than if you set out to say, “We want to make the best film possible based on what we believe to be the primary core and emotion of these characters and of these stories.”

The other thing is, I’m one of the biggest film fanboys in the world – so I also understand what it’s like to go into a theater with all sorts of expectations and anxiety and having waited for years and years and months and months to see a film or a sequel … and to be utterly disappointed. It’s happened quite a bit in the last couple of years with my childhood fanboy favorites – and it’s certainly one of my vows that I will do everything in my power to try and be sure that people will not walk out of my movies.

o o o

IV. ON ‘X-MEN 2’

Let’s talk about “X-Men 2” for a little bit. It looks much more epic in scale than the first film.
It is. There’s a big exploration of Wolverine’s backstory in this one.

Does it still retain those personal character touches – that almost melancholy sensibility?
You’ve got some new characters, like Nightcrawler, that definitely carry on that tone.

Nightcrawler [played in the film by Alan Cumming] was always an interesting character – a devout Catholic who was conflicted because he was born looking like a demon.
Yeah – and that’s definitely explored in the film. And you’ve got the same team behind the camera, so we’re in good hands. It’s huge.

Does Hugh Jackman continue to deliver on the promise of the first movie? That’s one of the few truly great matches of an actor with a genre character in recent years. Did his star turn surprise everyone?
I remember that, as filming went on, people would come up to Hugh and say to him, “You realize that, after this, everything is going to be different.” You just knew – from the screen tests on up – that this was going to be something special.

I’ve read Jackman saying that Singer threatened to fire him at one point early on.
You know, I wasn’t privy to that exchange, but I will say this about Hugh Jackman: He is one of the nicest, most gracious men I have ever met. He is an absolute gentleman. And on the screen, he is an absolute jerk – he’s scheming, he’s mean. ... So I don’t know what Singer said to him. The beautiful thing is that Jackman’s goodness informed the character’s badness, and so you have this flawed, sneering character who ultimately does the right thing.

Will there be a special-edition “X-Men” DVD, as has been hinted occasionally?
I don’t think it’s just a rumor any more; I believe it’s slated to come out in February. [Indeed, a 2-disk “Collectors Edition” is set for release on Feb. 11. – Ed.]

Ah. Well. Will it have some extra scenes that were shot during the filming of “X-Men 2,” as had been rumored?
You know, we talked about doing that – but the work we were doing on the sequel was so all-consuming that we weren’t able to.

It’s a demanding project. Singer left his “Battlestar Galactica” TV project to shepherd the “X-Men” script to screen.
That’s right.

He’s known for being an exacting fellow.
Yes, he is. But an exacting, tough person isn’t a problem if it’s in the service of the work.

o o o

V. ‘HULK’ SMASH?

So let’s talk about “The Hulk.” How did you attract Ang Lee to the project? Who knew the director of “The Ice Storm” was a comics geek?
Well, if you remember from “The Ice Storm,” there’s a scene where Tobey Maguire is reading an issue of “The Fantastic Four” in the car. You know, we got Ang for this project before “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” hit $100 million, partly on the strength of a movie he made called “Ride with the Devil.”

A very underrated film, for my money.
I totally agree. As his producing partner James Schamus has said, “Ang has been offered 30 potential tentpole films and turned down 29 of them” – and that one was “The Hulk.” Ang really related to the universal themes of “The Hulk” – this notion that we’re all carrying this rage inside us, that we hold it in all the time.

Now, I don’t know if you can or will answer this, but: Of all the new Marvel movie adaptations, “The Hulk” sounds like it takes the most liberties. We’ve read at the movie-geek rumor Websites that Banner is slowly transformed into the Hulk over a very long period of time, that he gets his Hulk DNA from his scientist father, that Hulk-ed out animals preceded him. Did the big changes arrive with Ang Lee’s involvement in the film?
[pause] You know, I expect that when this film comes out, a number of Websites are going to pop up about this film … and for every plot point in this film, there’s something in “Hulk” comics history to back it up.

So you’re saying that any concerns fans might have would kind of be like that brouhaha over Peter Parker’s “organic webshooters.”
[laughs] Yeah – “organic webshooters.” I’m glad you brought that up. I remember there was this Web site called No-Organic-Webshooters.com that came out before “Spider-Man” opened, and we looked at it and wondered if we should be worried about it. And we decided not to – and I’m glad we decided not to. Again, the important thing is to capture the essence of the character, and we’ve done that.

You have, of course, seen “The Hulk” in its on-screen CGI form by now.
Yes, I have.

How’s it looking?
He looks amazing. I mean, he’s on the posters now – that’s the Hulk. It’s not that big a secret.

Will the Hulk continue the trend toward deeper, more subtle performances, like we’ve seen in 2002 from Gollum and Yoda?
You know, I just saw “The Two Towers,” and Gollum was an amazing CGI performance that really raised the bar. “The Hulk” will raise it again.

Now, is this going to be the talking Hulk that was in the comics in the ‘90s, or is it going to be the “Hulk smash!” Hulk?
Heh. It’s the “Hulk smash!” Hulk.

I’ve also read that The Hulk is naked in the film – no tight purple pants! True?
Hm. [pause] I think if you’re a fan of the tight purple pants, you probably won’t be disappointed.

So we won’t be seeing a lot of well-placed potted ferns in the movie?
No. There won’t be any “Austin Powers” moments.

o o o

VI. DAREDEVILRY

Let’s talk about “Daredevil.” It’s a personal fan favorite for many comics readers, largely because it features the pioneering work by Frank Miller.
Absolutely.

Did you capture the essence of the Miller years on screen?
I think we did. Mark Steven Johnson and his team have done a terrific – and reverent – job.

Now, Johnson’s feature background is mostly in comedy – and his previous directorial effort, “Simon Birch,” doesn’t necessarily suggest he’d be the ideal guy to oversee a $75-million action picture. What convinced everyone he was the man to direct as well as write?
That was Avi Arad. Mark showed tremendous passion for the character, and Avi said, “If you turn in a great script, you can direct it.” And he turned in a great script.

I’ve read that Colin Farrell really lets out his Irish bad boy in this film. [Farrell’s Irish, but “Daredevil” marks the first Hollywood film where he speaks in a non-American dialect.]
You know, I first met Colin on the set of “X-Men.” Joel Schumacher was up there with Colin when he was making “Tigerland,” and Colin needed some voice coaching to get his American accent right. And it’s funny – on the set of “Daredevil,” a couple of times Colin would slip into his American accent by default. He’d always had to sound American whenever he was surrounded by cameras and a Hollywood crew, and it was hard-wired by that point. He’s great in “Daredevil.”

On a more fanboyish note: Why oh why did you deprive red-blooded males of the sight of Jennifer Garner in the classic red Elektra unitard?
[laughs] Well, for one thing, that’s “Elektra: Assassin” – that’s the character in her assassin outfit. When you see the movie, you’ll see that Elektra in the movie hasn’t quite gotten to that point in her life yet. So maybe down the line she’ll be wearing that, but not yet.

o o o

VII. MARVEL’S
CHANGING FORTUNES

I’m going to see if you’ll talk any trash here….
Uh-oh. [laughs]

In the ‘80s and early ‘90s, DC had the market cornered on so-called “quality” superhero films with Superman and Batman. Now Marvel rules the roost. Any idea how to avoid the pitfalls that befell the “Batman” and “Superman” sequels?
You know, nobody sets out to make a bad movie. When I was a kid, I loved the first two “Superman” movies. The second two I didn’t like as much. And like many others, I sat through “Batman and Robin.” I mean, Marvel had some tough times, too. Some of our characters didn’t get the treatment they deserved on television.

Now, with “Hulk” at Universal and “Iron Man” at Fox, is an “Avengers” movie a possibility?
Um, no. “The Avengers” just has too much attached to it because of the British “Avengers” TV series and movie.

Ah. A “branding” problem.
Yes. Now, that’s not to say that we wouldn’t love to do movies with the comic-book “Avengers” characters. ...

Have the movies boosted sales of the source comics?
You know, I don’t know. That’s not my area; I honestly don’t really understand the distribution of comic books.

I don’t think people in the comic-book industry understand the distribution of comic books. I personally miss being able to get them on those cheesy metal racks at 7-Eleven.
Me, too! But you know, the other day, I was in a Barnes & Noble, and they had a prominent display of a whole bunch of Marvel and a few DC comics. It was great to see that.