Support NeoGAF

[DeathyBoy]

I honestly think it's hard to compare Avengers and Nolan's movies. Avengers is summer fun "holy shit, superheroes" while Nolan's Bat movies are more grounded crime superhero movies. This being said, The Dark Knight's writing isn't nearly as solid as people think it is. And we usually have a thread once a month devoted to how quickly TDKR falls apart.

That and The Dark Knight is basically Heat, but with superheroes.

It's not as good as Heat obviously, but Avengers isn't as good as Star Wars (the film it's trying to ape), so eh.

 

[DeathyBoy]

One further point. Why did no one think to take off Joker's makeup during his interrogation?

We want to nail this guy and figure out who he is, yet we never thought to wipe his makeup?

He used... THE CLEAN SLATE. The 'Clean Slate'? Where you type in someone's name, date of birth and a few minutes their gone from every database on earth?

 

[Messypandas]

One further point. Why did no one think to take off Joker's makeup during his interrogation?

We want to nail this guy and figure out who he is, yet we never thought to wipe his makeup?

Simple answer honestly, he looks way cooler. Thats all there is to it really.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

*my 2 cents*

Whedon seems salty that Marvel didn't give him 100% free reign.

marvel hasn't and wont give anyone free reign. that's how it's always has been, that's how it will always be. any director who signs up for a marvel gig and thinks they'll do as they please is delusional and only fooling themselves.

 

[Sorcerer]

Simple answer honestly, he looks way cooler. Thats all there is to it really.

I do get it's better for the story not to wipe the makeup, although I believe there is a shot of Ledger in the movie without the makeup anyway.

I am just being nit-picky and over thinking it of course.

 

[Messofanego]

I think the most important thing is to get into another project relatively quickly. The longer he waits, the more expectations build and warp. I think that's one of the things I admire about Nolan- he never rests. He moved right into Inception from TDK and right into Interstellar after TDKR and just started working on something else.

I'm sure Whedon also has projects in mind. He did that Shakespeare movie, Much Ado About Nothing, in between. He seems restless in the same way.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Honestly, it sounds like hell. Executive meddling to the nth degree. Dude got run ragged, hope he bounces back soon.

 

[Sorcerer]

marvel hasn't and wont give anyone free reign. that's how it's always has been, that's how it will always be. any director who signs up for a marvel gig and thinks they'll do as they please is delusional and only fooling themselves.

I knew someone who used to work in the comics division, and I was surprised to find it out was a real strict place to work at.

Typically you would think a company full of artists would be a fun place to work, but not the way he described it.

 

[Rozart]

DoFP is far more compelling universe imo, but that maybe because Xmen just have so many characters that have more to them then the MCU hero's (Xavier/Magneto dynamic is fucking great to watch). Plus i prefer grounded nature of Nolan/Singer films, when it goes too crazy like Avengers i switch off.

Both Nolan/Singer > Joss. Superman was terrible though, but Singer more than made up for it with DoFP.

The current batch of x-men films are definitely more compelling to me as well. First Class and DOFP are fantastic character-driven comic book movies-- a pleasant breath of fresh air in a genre that tends to favour action and spectacle over everything else. I wonder why they're so underrated. They review extremely well but these films are rarely ever mentioned during discussions regarding movies in the comic book film genre.

 

[Messypandas]

I do get it's better for the story not to wipe the makeup, although I believe there is a shot of Ledger in the movie without the makeup anyway.

I am just being nit-picky and over thinking it of course.

Yeah I know. But that scene was the big one for Nolan, the "battle of philosophies" and the first thing they shot with the two characters (it was also one of the major scenes he hyped). He wasn't going to show Joker for a 10 minute scene with no make-up, as opposed to the quick rifle shot at the ceremony. Its something that people can rightly say makes no sense, but its a lose either way scenario imo.

 

[Messofanego]

This is probably more to do with the difference between Marvel and Disney having a giant, all-consuming plan for all their comic book movies vs. DC and Warner shrugging their shoulders and letting the directors do whatever.

Probably. But with the speed after Man of Steel, Batman vs Superman came, and now Suicide Squad has already gone into shooting. Clearly they've been inspired by Marvel since 2012 and went full steam. Maybe they finally found directors who were willing to be in that kind of universe stuff, could be as simple as that. While Nolan couldn't care about DC and would rather focus on character-driven stuff given all of his movies being thrillers are keyed into that aspect.

 

[DeathyBoy]

The current batch of x-men films are definitely more compelling to me as well. First Class and DOFP are fantastic character-driven comic book movies-- a pleasant breath of fresh air in a genre that tends to favour action and spectacle over everything else. I wonder why they're so underrated. They review extremely well but these films are rarely ever mentioned during discussions regarding movies in the comic book film genre.

And it's worth noting that Singer got nothing but shit while making X-Men/X-Men 2. Release date's put forward, budgets cut, Halle Berry being Halle Berry, had to juggle a dozen actors (with no films setting them up.) People mock the first X-Men, but I defy anyone to tell me that film isn't a masterclass in world building. Singer has, in under two hours, to do the following.

1) Set up mutants.
2) Set up Xavier-Magneto relationship.
3) Introduce the X-Men/Brotherhood.
4) Have moments and introductions for Cyclops, Rogue, Xavier, Magneto, Toad, Sabretooth, Wolverine, Jean Grey, Storm, Mystique and Senator Kelly.
5) Have a start, middle and end.

He pulls it off. So what do they do? They rush X-Men 2. And he still nails it and gives almost everyone a story. With even more characters introduced.

But the moral of the story is that, if anything, Singer being full reign on Superman Returns is why that film doesn't work. Because for all of Fox's meddling, Singer pushed to make a great film. WB let Singer do whatever he wanted, so he wasn't fighting against inadequacy to make something great.

Some people need creative meddling to force them to push for their film (while compromising.)

 

[Schweinehund]

"Daily Marvel vs DC thread".

It's pretty obvious at this point that Marvel is producer driven, I don't think there's any argument to be found against that. The argument should be whether or not it's a good thing or if you want to extend it to other companies, whether or not DC is going to be just as producer driven.

I think producer driven certainly has it's advantage in keeping the storyline/connected universe cohesive. It's also much more safe. Though I can't say I enjoy MCU films because of their strict continuity.

I'm just glad that super hero films aren't aping each other in terms of content. I'm still doubting that DC's overarching story won't be as prevalent as marvel, and that's perfectly fine.

 

[Messofanego]

I think the criticism to this idea everyone got in their heads is valid tho

we know shit. ultimately that's the truth, but everyone will stick to the story they wanna believe out of the percieved fandom they have for certain people's visions

it's like how everyone created this fairy tale about the Kojima / Konami stuff and how obviously Kojima did NOTHING wrong on any of those projects cause we all love him and omg

that's immediatly what happened with Edgar Wright. I love the dude's work and would have loved for him to be on Ant-Man believe me, but we know shit about what actually went down other than "there were differences"

studios are easy targets and the internet makes everything a black and white cookie cutter story.

Edgar Wright and Nolan are very similar in that they're perfectionists and while Warner/DC might have been fine with that time-taking, Marvel not so much. I would have loved Marvel to let him do his Ant-Man movie that didn't have to rely on being part of the MCU, maybe that was it. Wright probably wanted a singular movie to stand on its own, since all of his projects are like that. We still got standalone Marvel movies, like Punisher War Zone or Ghost Rider, before Avengers but I guess the tide has changed.

 

[Abounder]

Honestly, it sounds like hell. Executive meddling to the nth degree. Dude got run ragged, hope he bounces back soon.

Yea just like Sony and the Spider-Man films

 

[Schweinehund]

Edgar Wright and Nolan are very similar in that they're perfectionists and while Warner/DC might have been fine with that time-taking, Marvel not so much. I would have loved Marvel to let him do his Ant-Man movie that didn't have to rely on being part of the MCU, maybe that was it. Wright probably wanted a singular movie to stand on its own, since all of his projects are like that. We still got standalone Marvel movies, like Punisher War Zone or Ghost Rider, before Avengers but I guess the tide has changed.

They really should have let Edgar done his thing. I can't possibly imagine what connected universe shenanigans involving Ant Man would warrant losing Edgar. I'm really doubtful he'll be a big part of Avengers but we'll see.

 

[Kai Dracon]

WB definitely seems to give directors more respect than Marvel and Disney, but there's also the point that Whedon simply seems more likely to actually spill the beans on what Hollywood is really like compared to many high profile filmmakers.

Whedon seems like he's perfectly capable of saying "fuck you all" and walking away to live a normal life with normal money where most would never burn bridges.

 

[Parshias7]

One further point. Why did no one think to take off Joker's makeup during his interrogation?

We want to nail this guy and figure out who he is, yet we never thought to wipe his makeup?

Would that even make a difference? The police can't find any info on him in any fingerprint or DNA database, but I'm sure they could figure it out if they just looked at his face, right? The Joker isn't a celebrity in disguise.

It's like that JLU episode where Lex Luthor and Flash switched bodies. Luthor takes off Flash's mask, but still doesn't know who he is because Wally West isn't a famous person.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

He used... THE CLEAN SLATE. The 'Clean Slate'? Where you type in someone's name, date of birth and a few minutes their gone from every database on earth?

THE CLEAN SLATE. It will wipe your slate clean... CLEAN AS A CLEAN SLATE.

 

[Renekton]

But the moral of the story is that, if anything, Singer being full reign on Superman Returns is why that film doesn't work. Because for all of Fox's meddling, Singer pushed to make a great film. WB let Singer do whatever he wanted, so he wasn't fighting against inadequacy to make something great.

Some people need creative meddling to force them to push for their film (while compromising.)

I'm not sure that's the cause and effect. Maybe Singer plus Dougherty was just a bad fit for the property. One possibility is DC deals with symbolism while Marvel prefers social commentary (which Singer aced with X-Men).

 

[DeathyBoy]

THE CLEAN SLATE. It will wipe your slate clean... CLEAN AS A CLEAN SLATE.

There is no slate.

 

[The Elite]

"Daily Marvel vs DC thread".

It's pretty obvious at this point that Marvel is producer driven, I don't think there's any argument to be found against that. The argument should be whether or not it's a good thing or if you want to extend it to other companies, whether or not DC is going to be just as producer driven.

I think producer driven certainly has it's advantage in keeping the storyline/connected universe cohesive. It's also much more safe. Though I can't say I enjoy MCU films because of their strict continuity.

I'm just glad that super hero films aren't aping each other in terms of content. I'm still doubting that DC's overarching story won't be as prevalent as marvel, and that's perfectly fine.

I really think it works well when you're trying to manage something of this scale and I think it will help DC get their cinematic universe in order. I do think Marvel could do a better job of injecting a bit more style into their different properties like they did with Daredevil but judging by the box office and the success of the MCU they are handling things the right way.

 

[Messofanego]

Warners has been known for awhile as one of the more filmmaker-friendly studios. That Nolan got more leeway and leverage once he scored them a solid success shouldn't be surprising. It's the same studio who let the Wachowskis do whatever they wanted for almost a decade straight after their last financial success. Say what you will about the studio's output, but they seem to be good with giving their directors the opportunity to make the films they want to make. What they do with that opportunity is (mostly) on them. Even within their meal-ticket series, like Harry Potter - filmmakers seem to get a little more freedom to make what they want to make. Cuaron's Harry Potter isn't much like Columbus' Harry Potter, and neither are much like David Yates'.

Marvel has succeeded largely because Feige/Perlmutter are essentially running Marvel like an old 1940s/1950s studio. Big fat package deals for actors, a cycle of journeyman directors, none of whom seem to make it past two films if that, safe, down the middle creative decisionmaking based on what's succeeding in the marketplace. Sell 'em the spectacle, and sell it hard. Part of the spectacle is the fact they've managed to harvest the "TV is better movies than movies" zeitgeist, and make their film series into an extended miniseries event with no end.

Basically, there are a lot of people on the internet who are operating with a sorta half-pieced together definition of Auteur Theory (which is broken anyway) and applying it to an executive (Kevin Feige) at the expense of the people who actually make the movies. The narrative that the suits care is a good one, and people want to believe that the suits are "one of them," even more than they want to believe the directors and the actors are "one of them". Because it's satisfying to believe the people in charge are people who identify with you, and it increases the rooting interest.

But the more you follow that narrative, the less the movie itself matters. It's less about whether the stories' potential is being maximized, and more like team sports.

Articles like this shine a light on the fact that when it comes down to it - they're still film executives, and there's always going to be a level of remove between the actual creatives, and the suits who pay them. And the director's level of freedom is tied, to some degree, with whether their creative intent matches up with what the executives are looking to exploit.

Great points, I sometimes forget how much leeway WB really gives and how similar Marvel acts to old studios.

 

[Blader]

I stand by my comments, from everything I've read Marvel is stingy as fuck. As much as I'd like to believe that heartwarming story about Feige watching an episode of a cult comedy series, seeing something special, and then deciding to give the unknown director duo their big break, in reality I'm fairly sure it simply boils down to the Russos offering to do it cheaper than anyone else.

As for the quality thing, Thor 2 was a garbage ass completely forgettable movie and it still cleaned up at the box office, 700 million or something crazy. That movie proves Marvel can shit out a complete dud and people will still see it in droves.

You can stand by them all you want, that doesn't make them true. Yes, Marvel is stingy, but not so stingy that their selection of directors comes down to picking names out of a hat and deciding on whichever random choice has the lowest price tag attached.

TV directors get hired because of they're cheap and because they're already accustomed to working in something like the Marvel machine, but also because their sensibilities are (on paper at least) a good fit for the material. Sometimes it works, like in the case of Whedon and the Russos; in Alan Taylor's case, it didn't.

And again, it's not as if Feige watched an episode of Community, saw the Russos' name and thought to himself, "Yes...yes! These are the guys! Make them an offer right away!" Like I said, the Russos themselves had to went through several rounds of pitches, drafting up storyboards, etc. before landing the gig.

 

[Messofanego]

Hold the fuck up. Why is OP trying to paint Batman Begins as Nolan's first studio foray?

Nolan made Insomnia for Warner Bros with fucking Al Pacino and Robin Williams on a $46m budget in 2002 money. This was after Memento.

Nolan is a more accomplished filmmaker than Whedon, because he's a better, more talented filmmaker than Whedon - no matter how much the quality of Nolan's films has slid in the past 7 years

Whedon's AoU was a step up from the first Avengers and his direction was much, much better, but his 'failures' ultimately boil down to him not being as talented as Nolan. Whedon's biggest failure is his inability to take responsibility for his failures. If he just accepted that he's a decent gun for hire director with a penchant for generic but marketable tentpole sluglines, then he might be able to sleep better.

I specifically said "big budget studio", you know 100-200+ million

 

[OneEightZero]

But to date he's had to do the 1 for 1 trade with the studio every time he's wanted to make a film for himself. Prestige so long as he returned for TDK. Inception so long as he returned for TDKR.

Insterstellar was a well-developed project long before he wanted to make it.

Cameron most blessed right now. Dude was given free reign to make an original sci-fi universe of his own creation and is given literally all the time he wants in the world to keep developing it.

No other director is going to be given 8 years by a studio waiting to cash in on the highest grossing film of all time.

To be fair, Nolan is still in his pre-Avatar zone. It'll be different now he's out from under that Batman-My Movie stretch. I doubt it'll be a wait of eight years before we see the next Nolan movie, but the guy can relax now and find/craft his next project on a much slower pace.

 

[ScottSullivan]

Nothing in Avengers is as bad as Bale's batman voice

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Most of the stuff Whedon talks about "regretting" and second-guessing are self-driven, not big bad Marvel forcing him to change his ideas. Does the addition of scenes hinting at what's to come later really ruin the overall story? I don't think so.

And the Dark Knight movies are entertaining crime stories, nothing more. Its silly to think of them as masterpieces of artistic vision just because Alfred and Joker talk like they teach a high-school philosophy class.

 

[Blader]

To be fair, Nolan is still in his pre-Avatar zone. It'll be different now he's out from under that Batman-My Movie stretch. I doubt it'll be a wait of eight years before we see the next Nolan movie, but the guy can relax now and find/craft his next project on a much slower pace.

Nolan doesn't really come off as someone who likes to relax and take years between projects before settling on the right one. He likes working, he likes being on a schedule. He's already writing his next movie now and will probably have it out by 2017.

Most of the stuff Whedon talks about "regretting" and second-guessing are self-driven, not big bad Marvel forcing him to change his ideas. Does the addition of scenes hinting at what's to come later really ruin the overall story? I don't think so.

What's funny is that a lot of these were apparently written by Whedon just as part of the story, without actually knowing Marvel's plans of what's to come later.

 

[Pizza]

An whedon's issues with making Ultron absolutely show. His focus was on black widow's love interests and Hawkeye's home improvements, where marvel wanted him to make an avengers movie about Ultron.

Joss should have just directed a hulk/widow/Hawkeye movie. It could have been a much smaller scope of a movie and given characters that really deserve more background screen time without taking away from an avengers storyline

 

[Lothars]

An whedon's issues with making Ultron absolutely show. His focus was on black widow's love interests and Hawkeye's home improvements, where marvel wanted him to make an avengers movie about Ultron.

Joss should have just directed a hulk/widow/Hawkeye movie. It could have been a much smaller scope of a movie and given characters that really deserve more background screen time without taking away from an avengers storyline

I disagree I think they were both fair plots to have in the movie without it taking away from the movie in general. I appreciated having those in it.

 

[Messofanego]

They should have let Nicolas Wending Refn do Wonder Woman since he wanted it. With Christina Hendricks as Diana!

This makes me very very curious as to how that would have worked out. Even a bit moreso than had Darren Aronofsky stuck to Wolverine.

I would still like Arronofsky to do a superhero movie. His visual and reactionary style (dem eyes) would fit really neatly with such a property. Maybe not Wolverine, but something. I have no idea how to envision a Refn superhero movie haha, I think he'd nail doing a crime drama graphic novel movie though, like 100 Bullets.

Oh man, a Refn 100 Bullets movie. Moody crime, anti-hero, sharp visual style. Lionsgate, make that happen.

I'm a card-carrying Nolan fanboy. His Batman trilogy clicks on all levels - gravitas, blockbuster action, character drama, cultural/social/political relevance, etc.

I respect the hell out of Whedon as well. Haven't seen AoU yet, but what Whedon did for the MCU cannot be understated.

Ultimately the distinction between each filmmaker's end result seems to come down to the big picture. Nolan more or less had creative control over his films and was able to create a standalone trilogy. Whedon was working in a larger sandbox and Marvel's demands for their bigger picture, so in some ways his films might not be able to stand out as much in the overall MCU timeline/universe.

People probably get tired of me posting this in related threads, but I just love Spielberg's comments on Nolan's Batman films (go to 4:30).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r69N56plrDE

Had never seen this before, very cool. He's right, art and commerce don't have to be separate.

It’s Summer 2008,

I just saw a trailer for a movie. It featured a superhero I had never heard of. Interested, I went with my mom to the theater with no expectations. Lo and behold I was completely amazed by the film and ended up loving every minute of it. It was only until after I’d watched through the credits that I realized it’s importance. A familiar face to film stepped on the screen said these words “You’ve become part of a bigger universe”. The man was right, something big was happening. The film was Iron Man and it was the world’s introduction in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Fast Forward 7 years and we are now coming into a whole new generation of comic book films. With the sequel to the first Avengers film having just come out and Ant-man only two months away, the world has stepped into an entirely new kind of Hollywood. Next year, DC will be put out Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, the first live action movie featuring Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman in the same film. From then on, DC will be launching superhero as fast as Marvel following up with the Suicide Squad that same year. Yet with all these comic book movies in the future questions of fatigue and the future have appeared. Is Hollywood and cinema forever changed? Has the success of Marvel created a new system of blockbusters, one where you don’t pay once for a film but for an issue in a series?

Many people are wondering if the success of superhero films are beginning to consume the minds of Hollywood and TV alike in a quest to have success. Fox recently announced that they would be using Valiant Comics and the Harbringer series to create their own cinematic universe. Mark Millar, famed comic book writer, has been creating stories for the sole purpose of movie adaptations. It’s working, and Fox has picked them up one after another creating a mini “Millarverse”. The Hobbit which was originally envisioned as one movie, became three films and many are speculating that future Tolkien movies are in store for the Tolkeinverse. Star Wars: The Force Awakens comes out this December and after that, a Star Wars movie will come out every year. Is the age of cinema stand-alone blockbusters dead? Are franchises built for universe the only option now?

There are still plenty of directors who seem intent on creating original movie content year after year. However for every one of those, isn’t there another Transformers movie on the way? Sequels after sequels and crossovers after crossovers are not only present in film anymore. Television has begun to become a place for universes to be developed. The Arrowverse on CW, aptly named for the hit superhero series Arrow, now contains the hit series Flash and the future spin-off superhero show Legends with the upcoming Supergirl show on CBS potentially crossing over. Just recently on T.V. I saw an ad for a Law and Order S.V.U. crossover with Chicago P.D. and Chicago F.D. Spinoffs of C.S.I. and N.C.I.S. are prevalent on network channels. Spin-offs are more popular than ever and it is impossible to get the full story for one character unless you watch them all.

The ideas for cinematic universe are not original to Marvel however. They’ve existed as far back as the Hammer horror movies, when Dracula fought Frankenstein for the first time on film. Decades ago people saw King Kong fight Godzilla and more recently watched Jason take on Freddy. Yet these crossovers and universe were more “events” and less the everyday norm.

Marvel formula to success has worked. The MCU franchise is the highest grossing film franchise in the world and has turned what once could have been considered B to C list comic-book characters into A-list pop culture icons. General audiences seem to enjoy the films, with some of my own friends even mentioning how they’d rate the second Avengers as one of their top ten favorite films of all time. Creativity wise, Marvel seems comfortable at experimenting. Last year they turned the obscure comic book title Guardians of the Galaxy into one of their most profitable and beloved titles. In their next Phase of movies alone they’ll be introducing 4 new potential franchise series on film. This year they debuted their Netflix series Daredevil which has already been renewed for a 2nd season.

It’s clear that Marvel still has a treasure trove of ideas to pull from. Yet is this creativity in its greatest form? There are complaints that many of the films fall on similar beats, with setpieces, villains, and music all blending together. Directors on the films seem to be second wheel to the executive producer, Kevin Feige’s vision of the universe. This lack of creative freedom seems to take out some of the shine that would make each project unique on their own. The director of Thor: The Dark World talked about how edited and changed his vision for the film was once Marvel got their hands on it. Reshoots and cuts led to a completely different film and one that fans of the MCU feel is little more than filler, which leads to the biggest problem of all. Are MCU fans little more than filler to the finale of Phase 3? Is this definite conclusion, this climax, to most of the franchise’s original characters holding back the potential of the MCU as a whole? Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy creatively felt unique on its own. Having no need to acknowledge or make mention of other DC franchises, the story told by the trilogy was fully realized and every movie felt contained and less pandering. Yet one worries what Batman v. Superman will do now that WB has announced their plans for a DC cinematic universe. Will the film be all set up and no delivery?

It’s tough to say what will happen. Hollywood will always follow the popular and superhero films and cinematic universes are all the rage today. Will this end up hurting creativity down the line? Will filmmakers be forced to heed only to a producer’s vision and not their own? Only time will tell , "you just don't know it yet".

Great write-up. Cinematic universes are not new, true. Agreed with everything. Guess we'll see how DC's universe fares, and then whether audiences are fatigued by it all.

 

[DeathyBoy]

You can stand by them all you want, that doesn't make them true. Yes, Marvel is stingy, but not so stingy that their selection of directors comes down to picking names out of a hat and deciding on whichever random choice has the lowest price tag attached.

TV directors get hired because of they're cheap and because they're already accustomed to working in something like the Marvel machine, but also because their sensibilities are (on paper at least) a good fit for the material. Sometimes it works, like in the case of Whedon and the Russos; in Alan Taylor's case, it didn't.

And again, it's not as if Feige watched an episode of Community, saw the Russos' name and thought to himself, "Yes...yes! These are the guys! Make them an offer right away!" Like I said, the Russos themselves had to went through several rounds of pitches, drafting up storyboards, etc. before landing the gig.

This is absolutely right.

But the flip side is that big directors? They aren't going to Marvel. Jones, Cameron, Abrams... people with established careers aren't rushing to Marvel. Because they make films, not products. Now that isn't to say that Marvel makes bad products (I genuinely believe GOTG/CA: TWS are genuinely cracking entertainment), but - as we saw with Wright - they do not want to hire people who have views that differ with Marvel's.

Whereas WB, as mentioned, give more leeway. Suicide Squad doesn't look like it fits in MOS's world at all, and that's kinda awesome. It feels like a distinctive film made by a distinctive director.

I'm not saying one approach is better than the other (MOS is a Snyder film through and through, and it's not one I especially like, whereas Avengers: AOU is a Marvel product and I really liked it), but Marvel is not looking for directors or writers who'll come in and rock the boat. And while James Gunn had a lot of free reign on GOTG, so did Favreau with Iron Man. Then Marvel got more involved in Iron Man 2 and...

Yeah.

 

[Dyno]

It's fascinating to watch these Marvel movies change the nuts and bolts of the movie industry. Everyone else is trying to match their stride. Whedon called it 'episodic TV' types of movies, others have called it universe building. I wonder how many of the old guard are going to walk away because they don't have the new skill set? Are there going to be more Connerys, who in the end claim not to understand the business anymore and retire?

For Marvel, all the movies - good, bad, or mediocre - feed into the Avengers. Soon we will see things from the Avengers spawing new movies. The individual movies - and the stories they tell - are less important than the over-arching whole. What does the movie add to the universe, where does it leave the universe, and how will it help the universe grow?

 

[scabro]

An whedon's issues with making Ultron absolutely show. His focus was on black widow's love interests and Hawkeye's home improvements, where marvel wanted him to make an avengers movie about Ultron.

Joss should have just directed a hulk/widow/Hawkeye movie. It could have been a much smaller scope of a movie and given characters that really deserve more background screen time without taking away from an avengers storyline

pretty sure Whedon himself said that one of his requests for even doing Avengers 1 was that he would be able to do Ultron as the sequel though didnt be?

 

[Can Crusher]

But the flip side is that big directors? They aren't going to Marvel. Jones, Cameron, Abrams... .

I don't know who Jones is but Abrams is working on Star Wars and Cameron.... I mean really? Your argument is that MArvel isn't attracting talent of the likes of James fucking Cameron?

 

[Messofanego]

Messofanego, your threads are some of the best in all of neogaf, both in gaming side as well as OT. Thumbs up

I don't normally do this, but yes. Quoted for truth.

Aww shucks, thanks!

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Nolan circlejerk and Marvel circlejerk fighting over who jerks faster, longer and better.

Maybe it is just everyone giving dutch rudders.

 

[inky]

I don't know who Jones is but Abrams is working on Star Wars and Cameron.... I mean really? Your argument is that MArvel isn't attracting talent of the likes of James fucking Cameron?

Probably means Duncan Jones.

Is he a "big" director now?

 

[Liquidsnake]

TDK ending was just as cliche as all other superhero movies I have watched.

I don't understand what it did different?

That it had real weight to it, not Marvels way of being overly cartoonish.

I cried watching TDKR

 

[inky]

I cried watching TDKR

We all did.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I cried watching TDKR

orphan senses lol

 

[wachie]

It’s Summer 2008,

I just saw a trailer for a movie. It featured a superhero I had never heard of. Interested, I went with my mom to the theater with no expectations. Lo and behold I was completely amazed by the film and ended up loving every minute of it. It was only until after I’d watched through the credits that I realized it’s importance. A familiar face to film stepped on the screen said these words “You’ve become part of a bigger universe”. The man was right, something big was happening. The film was Iron Man and it was the world’s introduction in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Fast Forward 7 years and we are now coming into a whole new generation of comic book films. With the sequel to the first Avengers film having just come out and Ant-man only two months away, the world has stepped into an entirely new kind of Hollywood. Next year, DC will be put out Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, the first live action movie featuring Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman in the same film. From then on, DC will be launching superhero as fast as Marvel following up with the Suicide Squad that same year. Yet with all these comic book movies in the future questions of fatigue and the future have appeared. Is Hollywood and cinema forever changed? Has the success of Marvel created a new system of blockbusters, one where you don’t pay once for a film but for an issue in a series?

Many people are wondering if the success of superhero films are beginning to consume the minds of Hollywood and TV alike in a quest to have success. Fox recently announced that they would be using Valiant Comics and the Harbringer series to create their own cinematic universe. Mark Millar, famed comic book writer, has been creating stories for the sole purpose of movie adaptations. It’s working, and Fox has picked them up one after another creating a mini “Millarverse”. The Hobbit which was originally envisioned as one movie, became three films and many are speculating that future Tolkien movies are in store for the Tolkeinverse. Star Wars: The Force Awakens comes out this December and after that, a Star Wars movie will come out every year. Is the age of cinema stand-alone blockbusters dead? Are franchises built for universe the only option now?

There are still plenty of directors who seem intent on creating original movie content year after year. However for every one of those, isn’t there another Transformers movie on the way? Sequels after sequels and crossovers after crossovers are not only present in film anymore. Television has begun to become a place for universes to be developed. The Arrowverse on CW, aptly named for the hit superhero series Arrow, now contains the hit series Flash and the future spin-off superhero show Legends with the upcoming Supergirl show on CBS potentially crossing over. Just recently on T.V. I saw an ad for a Law and Order S.V.U. crossover with Chicago P.D. and Chicago F.D. Spinoffs of C.S.I. and N.C.I.S. are prevalent on network channels. Spin-offs are more popular than ever and it is impossible to get the full story for one character unless you watch them all.

The ideas for cinematic universe are not original to Marvel however. They’ve existed as far back as the Hammer horror movies, when Dracula fought Frankenstein for the first time on film. Decades ago people saw King Kong fight Godzilla and more recently watched Jason take on Freddy. Yet these crossovers and universe were more “events” and less the everyday norm.

Marvel formula to success has worked. The MCU franchise is the highest grossing film franchise in the world and has turned what once could have been considered B to C list comic-book characters into A-list pop culture icons. General audiences seem to enjoy the films, with some of my own friends even mentioning how they’d rate the second Avengers as one of their top ten favorite films of all time. Creativity wise, Marvel seems comfortable at experimenting. Last year they turned the obscure comic book title Guardians of the Galaxy into one of their most profitable and beloved titles. In their next Phase of movies alone they’ll be introducing 4 new potential franchise series on film. This year they debuted their Netflix series Daredevil which has already been renewed for a 2nd season.

It’s clear that Marvel still has a treasure trove of ideas to pull from. Yet is this creativity in its greatest form? There are complaints that many of the films fall on similar beats, with setpieces, villains, and music all blending together. Directors on the films seem to be second wheel to the executive producer, Kevin Feige’s vision of the universe. This lack of creative freedom seems to take out some of the shine that would make each project unique on their own. The director of Thor: The Dark World talked about how edited and changed his vision for the film was once Marvel got their hands on it. Reshoots and cuts led to a completely different film and one that fans of the MCU feel is little more than filler, which leads to the biggest problem of all. Are MCU fans little more than filler to the finale of Phase 3? Is this definite conclusion, this climax, to most of the franchise’s original characters holding back the potential of the MCU as a whole? Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy creatively felt unique on its own. Having no need to acknowledge or make mention of other DC franchises, the story told by the trilogy was fully realized and every movie felt contained and less pandering. Yet one worries what Batman v. Superman will do now that WB has announced their plans for a DC cinematic universe. Will the film be all set up and no delivery?

It’s tough to say what will happen. Hollywood will always follow the popular and superhero films and cinematic universes are all the rage today. Will this end up hurting creativity down the line? Will filmmakers be forced to heed only to a producer’s vision and not their own? Only time will tell , "you just don't know it yet".

That was the most cringe worthy moment I have ever experienced ever in a cinema. The whole theatre was in splits at that point.

The MCU movies nail down the humour aspect very well but the serious aspect is as much hilarious as the humour bits.

 

[Coffee Dog]

That was the most cringe worthy moment I have ever experienced ever in a cinema. The whole theatre was in splits at that point.

The MCU movies nail down the humour aspect very well but the serious aspect is as much hilarious as the humour bits.

The most cringe worthy moment you've ever experienced is Nick Fury telling Tony stark he's stepped into a larger world? Why?

 

[a916]

I'm surprised no one is wondering why/how Whedon filmed over 3 hours of this movie. That's a LOT of wasted money/resources. I get this thing is going to shatter records but man, that's still a lot of money to waste.

I tend to try and weed things out on paper, because it’s crazy expensive to shoot things that aren’t going to be in the film, It also takes up a lot of time and energy. Pretty much with all my films, there are very few deleted scenes, which always disappoints the DVD crowd.

- Nolan

 

[Blader]

I'm surprised no one is wondering why/how Whedon filmed over 3 hours of this movie. That's a LOT of wasted money/resources. I get this thing is going to shatter records but man, that's still a lot of money to waste.

- Nolan

It's not like Whedon went over budget or over schedule (afaik). Any material that was shot but not used was planned into the resources allocated to the movie ahead of time.

 

[OneEightZero]

Nolan doesn't really come off as someone who likes to relax and take years between projects before settling on the right one. He likes working, he likes being on a schedule. He's already writing his next movie now and will probably have it out by 2017.

I know. I'm just saying he can do that now without having to worry about a studio project i between the projects he wants to make. He keeps his own pace with his own work.

 

[hal9001]

Warners has been known for awhile as one of the more filmmaker-friendly studios. That Nolan got more leeway and leverage once he scored them a solid success shouldn't be surprising. It's the same studio who let the Wachowskis do whatever they wanted for almost a decade straight after their last financial success. Say what you will about the studio's output, but they seem to be good with giving their directors the opportunity to make the films they want to make. What they do with that opportunity is (mostly) on them. Even within their meal-ticket series, like Harry Potter - filmmakers seem to get a little more freedom to make what they want to make. Cuaron's Harry Potter isn't much like Columbus' Harry Potter, and neither are much like David Yates'.

Marvel has succeeded largely because Feige/Perlmutter are essentially running Marvel like an old 1940s/1950s studio. Big fat package deals for actors, a cycle of journeyman directors, none of whom seem to make it past two films if that, safe, down the middle creative decisionmaking based on what's succeeding in the marketplace. Sell 'em the spectacle, and sell it hard. Part of the spectacle is the fact they've managed to harvest the "TV is better movies than movies" zeitgeist, and make their film series into an extended miniseries event with no end.

Basically, there are a lot of people on the internet who are operating with a sorta half-pieced together definition of Auteur Theory (which is broken anyway) and applying it to an executive (Kevin Feige) at the expense of the people who actually make the movies. The narrative that the suits care is a good one, and people want to believe that the suits are "one of them," even more than they want to believe the directors and the actors are "one of them". Because it's satisfying to believe the people in charge are people who identify with you, and it increases the rooting interest.

But the more you follow that narrative, the less the movie itself matters. It's less about whether the stories' potential is being maximized, and more like team sports.

Articles like this shine a light on the fact that when it comes down to it - they're still film executives, and there's always going to be a level of remove between the actual creatives, and the suits who pay them. And the director's level of freedom is tied, to some degree, with whether their creative intent matches up with what the executives are looking to exploit.

Superbly said.

 

[Lothars]

I'm surprised no one is wondering why/how Whedon filmed over 3 hours of this movie. That's a LOT of wasted money/resources. I get this thing is going to shatter records but man, that's still a lot of money to waste.

- Nolan

It happens all the time though where major scenes of movies are cut out for all sorts of reasons. I don't think it's like he wasted the resources.

 

[Ithil]

I'm surprised no one is wondering why/how Whedon filmed over 3 hours of this movie. That's a LOT of wasted money/resources. I get this thing is going to shatter records but man, that's still a lot of money to waste.

- Nolan

They film a LOT more than 3 hours for most movies like this.