Matt Reeves & Tony Scott On Shortlist To Direct ‘Wolverine 2′

Published 5 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:30 pm,

x men wolverine Matt Reeves & Tony Scott On Shortlist To Direct Wolverine 2

Considering the Comic Con buzz surrounding Thor, Captain America, and The Green Lantern, news on the Wolverine sequel has been a bit light. Last we heard, Christopher McQuarrie was hired a few months ago to write the script – otherwise there hasn’t been much information on the film.

But today we’re finally getting some intriguing news – 20th Century Fox has apparently narrowed their choices down to two directors: Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) and action veteran Tony Scott (Man on Fire).

The Playlist reports that the directors have been selected by Fox from a long list of potential helmers which also included Oscar winner Kathryn Bigelow and Wanted director Timur Bekmambetov. Bigelow and Bekmambetov would certainly have brought something different to the comic book sequel – but both were also unlikely choices.

Reeves has become something of a low-level auteur after directing the J.J. Abrams’ produced Cloverfield and the forthcoming remake of Let the Right One In (re-titled Let Me In).

Scott has directed a variety of big budget action films for nearly thirty years including The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Top Gun.

On paper Reeves would appear to be the best option – since he’s got less on his plate, after he puts the finishing touches on Let Me In, he’d have a lot of time to dedicate to the film. Most of all, from the Studio’s perspective, Reeves would be cheaper and more malleable than Scott – who is extremely well established and currently has several projects in pre-production stages.

Matt Reeves

Scott however, brings his Scott Free production company to the table (which he shares with his brother Ridley) – so his number is obviously on studio-boss speed-dial. Though, even with Scott Free at his back, his last two films have struggled a bit, The Taking of Pelham 123 underperformed at the box office despite the combined star power of Denzel Washington and John Travolta. His latest action film Unstoppable faced a few production delays due to budgetary reasons.

As a result, stepping into an established franchise would be a way of keeping Scott’s commercial viability active, it wouldn’t be the first time the British director helmed a sequel, as he also took over directing duties on Beverly Hills Cop 2, despite not taking part in the original.

The downside for Scott is he’s set to direct Potsdamer Platz in the new year – just when Wolverine 2 is set to shoot. However, Wolverine 2 may soon be facing a delay – putting Scott back in the running.

Tony Scott

At this stage, nothing is remotely set in stone, and both directors could simply drop out or reject an offer. During production of  X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Australian director Gavin Hood faced a lot of problems with Fox honcho Tom Rothman – Hood was later replaced by Superman director Richard Donner for re-shoots. Would Scott or Reeves be up for this challenge?

If Wolverine 2 does intend to shoot in January then I’m sure we’ll hear an announcement soon. Wolverine (and the X-Men) is a big franchise for 20th Century Fox, so you would imagine that they’d want their director to spend a solid amount of time on pre-production.

That is unless they want it to end up like X-Men: The Last Stand.

We’ll keep you posed on any further Wolverine 2 news as we get it.

Source: The Playlist

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Matt Reeves is my choice. I loved Cloverfield, and Let Me In looks Ok. Besides, it’s like he can make it any worse than the first film.

    • Got that right. Worst comic book adaptation to date. So much promise with a character like Wolverine but they have to play it safe for the kids to go see it. News Flash–Christopher Nolan,Dark Knight. He did not bow down to the mainstream and instead whether he thought about it or not, made it for the real Batman fans. The ones out reading the graphic novels and following the story lines. They need a director who actually gives a crap about the real fans of that character and not just a bunch of eight year olds who are distracted by fancy CG so story development doesn’t matter.

  2. cloverfield was pretty good to a point , and man on fire was also good. but i would go with Tony Scott. saying that he is a vetran so ya, i would go with the more experienced

  3. The problem I had with Cloverfied was that we hardly saw the monster during the movie. And the movie was partly about this thing ripping through the city. So if he gets the chair then we won’t see any of the main characters in this next X-film.

    • Just b/c that film was filmed that way, doesn’t mean it would done again.

  4. why is there a sequel being made???

    • The first made a lot of funny despite being a POS(imo).

      • MONEY, not funny lmao.

  5. Wow, I would LOVE to see what Tony Scott could do with Wolverine. Neither director ever “connected” with me, although I do find their movies quite good. But Scott’s style and vision could be interesting when applied to wolverine.

    • i really cant see Scott doing this, it’d be a waste of his talents. for all the people out there that said Wolverine sucked, i just cant understand why other than moey, which was obvious. theres no real reason for it to be done, money isnt a real reason either lol

      • Money’s not a real reason? You’re kidding me right? That’s the main thing studios care about. All film is made for the money.

        • actually im not kidding you, and no crap. we all know movies are made for me, just seriously doubt considering most of the audience that saw wolverine thought it absolutely sucked. considering that, the studios cant predict what the audiences will like, dislike, see or go to see.

          • How do you “most of the audience” thought the movie sucked? The people on here, yes, but that’s only a small percentage of people. That still leaves about a million other people. The general audience (the one’s who matter) seemed to have enjoyed it. That’s going by the amount of money the film made, and that all the Blu-ray/DVD sales.

  6. All I can say is despite toning down the 1st film for kiddies it was pretty good but wolverines past was hardcore animal insticts rage bloody and more we didn’t see much of that in the 1st film so I think it needs to be an R rated sequel to make it work and bring the fans what they want

    • they wont make an R rated sequel to it though. it would mean(ghasp!!)less revenue.

  7. There should be no discussion. Tony Scott needs to make Wolverine 2. That’s the only way i would be interested in this movie. Say what you want about his style, he always makes solid films with solid characters which is something the Wolverine franchise desperately needs. I mean, the first one is one of the worst comic-book films I’ve ever seen. With Tony Scott, not even Rothman could mess it up, though you never know, Rothman has a supernatural ability to ruin films over at FOX.

  8. As long as Gavin Hood and Mark Steven Johnson stay as far away from this movie, I will be perfectly fine with seeing this one.

    The first had problems all over do to rushing and premature death scenes. such as the effects. That bothered me the most when Wolverines claws didn’t come out of his hands naturally like the other films (Look closely and you’ll see the claws twitch when coming out.). Also the fat suit on Blob looked so fake i was about to leave the theater. The only good about that movie was Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool (NOT WEAPON XI!!!)

    So my best hope is that this movie doesn’t get rushed or get a bad choice in director.

  9. Tony Scott, should be the only choice.

  10. Hugh Jackman is also a big reason there’s going to be a W2.

    Have you all forgot that he talked about taking the character to Japan in the next film….? There was also a scene post credits that hinted of that.

    • i remember that 790, ijust dindt like wolverine too much. i feel he was kiddied down, which didnt work for me. IF Scott takes this on, i do hope its edgier, grittier, and ultra violent, if not, im not wasting money on it lol.

  11. Maybe FOX will leak the workprint again and you can catch W2 online,,, :-)

  12. Tony Scott easily. The guy directed The Last Boy Scout, True Romance, Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, Pelham 123. He’s an action legend.

  13. Robert Rodrigez should do W2 has any one seen the red ban trailer for machete it’s freakin awesome

    • You hit the nail right on the head. Well said.

      It’s a pity. I for one would prefer the experienced film makers to take on MARVEL’s characters.

      They would certainly make an overall better film based simply on their technical experience and skills garnered over the years when executing drama and action with a far greater understanding of cinematic narrative.

  14. I mean, from the movies utter retarded attempt to capture a decent adaptation of the comic based mutant’s history, what can we really hope to even expect of this? A reboot? a fabricated plot that appeases whatever direction they try to push it in? I personally don’t care for who directs this next installment(if it even happens). Although, the movie may have done decent for the masses that really know nothing of Wolverine(other than he’s a member of the X-men and he has a mysterious past), for the good lot of us, we we’re pretty saddened and pissed at this attempt. Point is, what can any director really salvage from that train wreck?