RadioHammer500
Banned
true, at the end of the day what went down with Wright is just an assumption
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Seems like Nolan got the better deal than Whedon on superhero movies
- Thread starter Messofanego
- Start date
- Status
BronsonLee
Member
Tell you what, since you decided to respond like that, you go ahead and figure it out on your own.
RE: Wright, we'll probably never know what happened. If I had to hazard a guess, he wanted to delay Ant-Man again and they weren't having it.
Net_Wrecker
Member
It still turned big and dumb at the end, the same way Iron Man 3 changed from a PG-13 Shane Black superhero movie into a big dumb Marvel movie at the end, the same way Guardians of The Galaxy changed from a PG-13 James Gunn movie into a big dumb Marvel movie at the end.
That's kinda what these movies do. They start trying to do something, and partway through you can almost literally see the suits injecting that patented Marvel® Branding™ into them.
Iron Man 3 was big and dumb pretty much from the word go
a Master Ninja
Member
That's a damn persuasive OP.
Corpsepyre
Banned
I'll agree with The Winter Soldier bit. The last 30 minutes put me off because they were so cliched and Marvel-like. Everything before the reveal of Bucky was superb, and I was super-intrigued by it all. And then that finale...
Colonel Nasty
Member
I dunno Shane Black made a Shane Black film and people lambasted it. I feel like GOTG was very much a James Gunn film. Avengers is positively Weedon, is he upset it wasn't longer?
RadioHammer500
Banned
could that be a reason..why of course this is subjectivelly but generally speaking The Dark Knight is still looked at as one of the greatest superhero movies more so then any MCU film, The Winter Soldier etc.., because it didn't have that sort of branding on top of it, that it didn't have to confine itself with in an artificial canon,
was it just a freak accident?
Lol nice.
I think you're just mistaking "big finale" with 'Marvel Branding' or whatever you want to call it.
At the end of the day, a movie is a movie. I don't think anyone goes into a blockbuster movie in May expecting a movie breaking new grounds in story telling techniques. To argue about that being wrong is something ; to blame it as a big dumb Marvel movie is dumb.
Many movies finish with a big bang, and they're expensive and bit repetitive... but people want that. I want that in some of my movies.
Marvel has shown great restrain on TV and Netflix so far in term of scopes, because the medium allows it. They've already explored many genre throughout the super hero genre (Spy thriller in TWS, buddy comedy in IM3, Fantasy Epic in Thor 1, Space Opera with GotG, War movie with Captain America), which is something that hadn't been done or really explored before.
Whether you want it or not, it works and most movies are different.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
If anyone could have stood up to Disney/Marvel, you'd have thought it'd be Whedon, so it's kind of concerning to see his vision was partially destroyed given that younger directors with no experience with marvel are probably fairing far worse.
TheSadRanger
Banned
Maybe Whedon can get to work on a sequel for this now?
let me dream ;_;
what?
what does this even.. mean?
all movies are producer controlled movies.
do you think that means directors bring nothing to the table?
you think Kevin Feige like.. comes up with plot points? or shots and framing?
only thing the dude did is listen to what people actually wanted and find the right people for the right jobs, then swim in money
RadioHammer500
Banned
yes but none of those movies really challenged viewers like The Dark Knight did...TDK still was true to the origins of Batman but also was able to stress it's muscles and do something different then what is generally seen in comic book movies...
I'm sure it helps that Nolan got to work on his own big pet projects in-between Bat films to clear his head up. At least on the surface, it appears WB gave him a blank check and complete creative autonomy on The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar. I never got the impression that Whedon's relationship with Marvel and Disney was a mirror-image of Nolan and WB's. It's unfortunate that Whedon is coming out of this seemingly sour on the latter chunk of the experience, whereas I can't recall Nolan ever really complaining about WB dicking him around.
I'm curious just how much of this (if any) comes down to Disney's oversight of all-things related to the MCU.
I'm curious just how much of this (if any) comes down to Disney's oversight of all-things related to the MCU.
How did Dark Knight ''challenge viewers''?
RadioHammer500
Banned
i should of used a better term, what i meant was it didn't follow a basic superhero formula that you often see in MCU films
you think the first-time director who had 3 shows cancelled by a smaller studio is "the only one" who could have step up to fucking Disney?
He never said that. He never even implied it.
Whedon said:
Age of Ultron carried weight. It wasn't Marvel Studio's or Feige's ; it's a movie called The Avengers. And Whedon created it. He directed it. He wrote it.
Jack Scofield
Member
Every single movie (aside from Iron Man 1) felt like a long advertisement for the next Marvel film. People are too interested in seeing how all these pieces fit together that they forget to judge the movie on its own qualities.
I wonder, when the MCU hype has died down, if people will look back at these films and say, "what's the big deal?" I think the novelty of seeing these characters on screen blinds many Marvel fans to the film's shortcomings and mediocrity.
I wonder, when the MCU hype has died down, if people will look back at these films and say, "what's the big deal?" I think the novelty of seeing these characters on screen blinds many Marvel fans to the film's shortcomings and mediocrity.
And here is we stop commenting about the OP and instead begin to talk shit about the movies this filmakers made.
Main characters died, it didn't have a happy ending, scenes were breathtaking without being ridiculous, it trascended pop-culture, inspired a new wave, it was a pretty game-changer movie.
Prestige was done by Disney actually.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I meant after the first avengers film...
RadioHammer500
Banned
The "good" thing about the MCU is the same thing some people like to shout from rooftops as demise already
everyone was on board cause they actually "GOT IT!", they got fuckin Jon Favreau to do Iron Man! they do comic stories! they keep the costumes! they got JOSS WHEDON to helm the biggest movie ever! JAMES GUNN!?!??
but apparently now they don't "get it" enough even if they do Black Panther and Captain Marvel and put a horror guy to do Doctor Strange or whatever
they got arguably their best movie (winter soldier) out just last year. It's all a bunch of hyperbole. Superhero fatigue? you bet, but saying there's no creativity in these films or that they're some sort of mass produced husk of a film is just wrong
Well... I think it did.
It ended up with a big finale when Batman invades a building where the Joker held up people hostages. It had explosions, tensions, a cool action sequence... It had high stakes.
That's all you need. The rest of the movie is only great because the Joker's performance is terrific, and there's also that beautiful cinematography.
But most of Nolan's touch get lost, as it did with The Dark Knight Rises.
Eh, I dunno. At a basic level it shares some similarities with your typical superhero sequel. Granted Dark Knight did pioneer the "villain lets himself get captured" trope that every other movie copied for a few years.
Yea, well said. Both approaches have their merit, and I really don't agree that much with the picture the op paints.
For one, I will be forever grateful to Joss for moving the heroes to the screen so vibrantly-- essentially bringing the comic book pages to life, even though he fell prey to bloat and his usual conventions (some of which I touched in the spoiler thread) and forever will hate Nolan for letting Bale do that stupid voice
but applaud that his movies were pretty great crime dramas as well, even though he moved a bit from that Begins tone (which is more of a personal preference, TDK is masterful after all).Indeed they do, but what I don't think people realize with the Nolan-Trilogy is that it didn't set out to give people the stuff already seen in the comics. The trilogy wasn't meant to cater to the comic-book fans, it was meant to be its own thing both as an artistic work and as a blockbuster film. Nolan points this out a couple of times in interviews. They were broad adaptations of its source material, not strictly. Sure, they still are comic-book films, but really, they are in the lightest sense possible.
This was pretty much the same mentality Abrams had with his Star Trek films, he set out to make it his own thing and simultaneously, it was also a vision that helped make something for everyone to enjoy rather than something exclusive to its fanbase.
Not to say I don't like the MCU, it has its own highs as much as its lows. Avengers and TWS still remains as one of my top 10 superhero flicks. It's just that comparing to the TDK trilogy always felt like comparing apples to oranges for me.
Sums up the IWC, nothing is perfect and there's no upside.
Discotheque
Banned
Yeah forreal I fucking loved captain america 2 until the ending battle which you could literally replace with the gotg finale and nobody would prolly bat an eye.
Marvel loves their everything but the kitchen sink final battles even tho they all just look kinda stale after james Cameron kind of put his claim on the Aerial/Land cgi action-fest
As problematic as nolan movies can be (and his flaws can sometimes be apparent in the TDK trilogy too, certainly in the last one) they are so much better made and exciting than what marvel's given us post-iron man 1. They've gone with a sort of cartoon vibe with their universe, has a villain ever been genuinely terrifying or threatening among these movies? It works though to get the majority of the audience, and also the fans of the books like seeing infinity gems and stuff
The difference is merely that the vision for MCU isn't Whedon's - it's Marvel's. More specifically, Feige. You have to have a limited number of people at the top filtering decisions for something this ambitious or it's chaos. Ultimately, the MCU at large has to be an the vision of one man or an elite enclave. These aren't good films on their own imo, the connectedness is largely what makes them so compelling.
Any director looking to get involved with the Marvel Universe should simply be looking to humble themselves and contribute to something greater than themselves. Otherwise, you're just being way self-centered and are completely ignoring the strengths of what the MCU is currently doing.
I think comparing this to Nolan is silly. Begins pretty much kickstarted a new era of Superhero films that no one wanted to even make, so of course he was given full reigns and it's a stand alone trilogy. Were he directing Avengers he'd be just as pinioned.
Any director looking to get involved with the Marvel Universe should simply be looking to humble themselves and contribute to something greater than themselves. Otherwise, you're just being way self-centered and are completely ignoring the strengths of what the MCU is currently doing.
I think comparing this to Nolan is silly. Begins pretty much kickstarted a new era of Superhero films that no one wanted to even make, so of course he was given full reigns and it's a stand alone trilogy. Were he directing Avengers he'd be just as pinioned.
No not all movies are producer controlled in terms of content on screen at all. Does a producer tell Scorsese what to do? Tarantino? Of course not.
The situation at marvel is much more studio and producer driven than say on a Tarantino, Scorsese, Nolan, Linklater, etc film.
Maybe Whedon can get to work on a sequel for this now?
let me dream ;_;
Is this movie a prequel or sequel to firefly ?
I.. guess I get what you're overall trying to say but your perception of it is just kinda cartoonish dude
all movies are collaborations. all movies have lots of working people and moving parts. Whedon made Marvel a lot of money same way Tarantino made Weinsten a lot of money. Both parties ideally want to keep that going.
shit just aint that black and white
do producers have final say on the movie? you bet, guess what: that's the case in every non-independent movie ever.
again: I get what you're going for, but reducing what the director's artistic input on these movies is and being so firm about it based purely on watching them is not a strong argument
Co-Production by Disney/Touchstone and WB.
RadioHammer500
Banned
but that's boring.....i mean you don't see Kojima limiting himself when a new MGS game comes..in fact each MGS game seems to be distinctively different, the guy could care less about canon that much..although each game is technically connected
i don't buy the argument that directors and writers should abandon their vision be cause they are working within a universe/canon etc.
Bluekaveli
Member
This comment reads just like an actual review that gives the movie an 8.5.
But I can and can't agree on you with it being hard to decipher. Watch it twice and you can begin to cut and paste everything together.
Wow, how did he pull that off?
But Whedon can't go in and do stuff that would contradict story lines marvel was setting up for phase 3 and 4 on his own. Nolan had much more creative freedom on his Batman films for example.
Not saying Marvels way is bad. I love most of the MCU films. But it is clearly not a director as visionary franchise.
You are not, very few people will write 9k on something they enjoy.
FullMetalx117
Member
So I guess even Whedon thinks the first Avengers is better?
Sequel
- Status