James Gunn is directing Guardians of the Galaxy!

[YoungPrime]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

Marvel Studios has earned enough credit with me that I will basically accept their judgement on the matter.

And that's what it boils down to. Thor, Cap and Ironman 2 could've been better but they were no were near the flops that Lionsgate and Fox have made.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

It scarred a lot of people and it shows that Snyder should never write his own script. If he has an idea, he should be like Aronosky and take his idea to a screenwriter (which is what he usually does).

It had flashes of brilliance. Get a good screenwriter and that movie would have been a big cult hit.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

Are you guys worried at all by the prospect of Alan Taylor directing Thor: The Dark World and the Russo brothers directing Captain America: The Winter Soldier? In both cases I feel a little worried at the prospect of these relatively untried directors taking on sequels to hit movies that I have a real fondness for.

James Gunn at least seems like a logical choice for Guardians of the Galaxy, since his previous work indicates he can handle special effects and action alongside offbeat humour. But Alan Taylor - I can see why his Game of Thrones work might recommend him for Thor, but then again, he's only directed a handful of feature films (though it's worth noting that the same criticisms could have been used against Joss Whedon - and indeed worried me - before The Avengers became a box office phenomenon and the culmination of every comic fan's wet dreams).

The real concern for me are the Russo brothers. CA: TFA was my favourite of the Phase 1 Marvel films, and I'm really worried that hiring a pair of directors best known for TV comedy is shortchanging the Sentinel of Liberty a bit. Cap has to be handled delicately. Joe Johnston was a perfect choice for a period piece like the first movie. But I'm seriously worried that Marvel might fumble the ball in re-introducing our star-spangled hero into the modern world with the choice of the Russo brothers.

The Russos, Alan Taylor, James Gunn and even Edgar Wright were certainly not on my short list for directors for the Phase II films. I still question some of those decisions, but I know that you could just as well say (as many did) that Jon Favreau did *not* have the right resume to direct Iron Man.

So....benefit of the doubt and all that. If the Russos screw up the Cap movie, I'll fanboyrage then.

[Spider-Vader]

So if Gunn gets the job, I think it's safe to assume that Whedon will have a heavy influence on this movie. Perhaps even "ghost directing" it?

I'm totally fine with that.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Joss will probably be the most involved with this one more than any other Phase 2 film seeing a how its release is the closest to Avengers 2 and the involvement of Thanos.

[TheVileOne]

LOL Spider-Vader you mean like Jon Favreau is doing on Iron Man 3.

Just FYI, I'm half-kidding about that but man at Comic-Con Shane Black kept referencing how awesome it was to have Favreau on board and it almost felt like he was trying to tell me something. I was like, "OK Shane I get it. You are happy to have Favreau on board to work on the movie even though you are the director now." Then my gears started thinking and turning, "Is this Shane Black's weird way of saying how awkward this is and Jon Favreau is practically taking the movie away from him?"

And as ridiculous as that sounds . . . crazier things have happened in this business.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

The Russos, Alan Taylor, James Gunn and even Edgar Wright were certainly not on my short list for directors for the Phase II films. I still question some of those decisions, but I know that you could just as well say (as many did) that Jon Favreau did *not* have the right resume to direct Iron Man.

So....benefit of the doubt and all that. If the Russos screw up the Cap movie, I'll fanboyrage then.

Good call. A lot of the time when we've had a director who didn't seem to be right for directing a big budget superhero movie, they not only succeeded, but hit it out of the park. I mean, let's do a quick rundown: Sam Raimi directing Spider-Man? Chris Nolan doing Batman? Jon Favreau on Iron Man? Mark Webb, again, with Spider-Man? I could go on...in each case, there was nothing on the director's resume prior to filming that indicated they could handle a blockbuster superhero flick. But in each case, that actually turned out to be a benefit. By hiring directors not known for this kind of film, the studios managed to create truly unique movies that had a special charm, rather than generic blockbusters. Favreau injected a quirky humour into Iron Man, Nolan grounded the Dark Knight in gritty realism, Webb nailed the teen angst and offbeat romance.

Compare that to the times when we've had seasoned directors take the reins of superhero films. Interestingly enough, these supposed "safe hands" often end up creating something more generic than anything else. Just look at Bryan Singer's take on Superman. Fans at the time were fairly enthusiastic; the guy directed two X-Men pictures, so how could he fail at re-inventing the last son of Krypton? But as it turned out, his "vision" for Superman was notoriously flawed. The same could be said for Martin Campbell on Green Lantern: proven action director, everything seemed to be in place - but in the end, Green Lantern was one of the most generic superhero movies ever made, totally failed to live up to the promise of its concept and was a box office bomb.

So it seems that the strategy of hiring unlikely but talented directors with their own style and vision has created better films than the so-called "safe" choices. That makes me wonder what will happen with Man of Steel. Superman is my absolute favourite superhero, and after the debacle of SR, I'm desperate to see him re-take the mantle of the definitive cinematic superhero. Having directed Watchmen, Snyder on the surface seems like a safe choice, the trailer was intriguing, and with a script by David Goyer you'd think everything is set to create movie magic. But as we've seen in the past, the apparent "safe" choice often results in nothing but mediocrity.

[Captain Marvel]

Marc Webb hit it out of the park? I heard that movie sucked.

[ThePowerCosmic]

You heard wrong.

[Chewy]

I was not a fan. But this isn't the thread to get into all that

[ThePowerCosmic]

Yeah, that's true.

So... how 'bout those Guardians?

[Axl Van Sixx]

Hmm, yeah, I didn't intend to convey that meaning and describe Webb as "hitting it out of the park", but I guess that's what I did. Well, he certainly didn't fail as much as Singer did with SR or, in particular, Martin Campbell with GL. The Amazing Spider-Man was a serviceable superhero movie - nothing more, nothing less. But it certainly wasn't a flop like GL.

I'm actually really excited about Guardians of the Galaxy. Honestly, I had never even hear of them before Marvel announced they were making the movie. But now I'm all enthusiastic, especially after hearing the comments of fans knowledgeable about the comics. It seems so offbeat. The material will either be a big hit or a big flop - Rocket Raccoon in particular seems like a challenge. An animated walking, talking (and badass) raccoon? But Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad movie yet. And I think this movie will do a good job of expanding the "cosmic" aspect of the MCU, to the point where audiences will accept a character like Rocket Raccoon alongside Cap, Thor, Iron Man and all the rest.

[Silvermoth]

Originally Posted by Captain Marvel

Marc Webb hit it out of the park? I heard that movie sucked.

It wasn't great to be honest. Spider-man deserves more than 'serviceable', especially when a perfectly good series of Spidey films already exists.

I think ASM will have a legacy like 'The Incredible Hulk's. Adored by a very small group of fanboys on the internet who swear it's the second coming of Jesus, ignored by everyone else.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Silvermoth

It wasn't great to be honest. Spider-man deserves more than 'serviceable', especially when a perfectly good series of Spidey films already exists.

I think ASM will have a legacy like 'The Incredible Hulk's. Adored by a very small group of fanboys on the internet who swear it's the second coming of Jesus, ignored by everyone else.

Both series' have their pros and cons, though I can live with ASM's cons a little more than the original series' cons. Even before ASM was announced I watched SM2 after not having seen it for a while, and it was way too sappy and corny for me.

[Spider-Vader]

ASM is easily the best Spider-Man movie. It's the only one that gets Spider-Man's character right. Spider-Man is a wiseass & a genius, not a baby dork like Rami's "Spider-Man". & I agree with JB, the original trilogy is just too cheesy, it has not aged well. & those films really don't get the characters right. ASM felt like I was seeing most of the characters come to life (Dr Connors/Lizard was the only iffy interpretation), Rami films like they were the characters in name only.

But yeah, when is Marvel going to C/D if Gunn is directing?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Couldnt disagree more about the Spidey films to be honest, the first 2 Raimi films were a lot better than ASM in my eyes, I found ASM to be very dissapointing, everything just felt dis-connected, especially Uncle Ben's death which is possibly the most important part.

Raimi's movie/s got you so involved in that aspect and the emotion of it, you couldnt help but get invested in it all.

And yeah, I know GOTG is out late summer 2014 but I would imagine they need to confirm a director soon.

[Silvermoth]

I agree AVEITWITHJAMON. It just didn't have that energy.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Definately, I enjoyed it, but it wasnt a patch on the first Raimi movies, I just felt de-tached from the whole thing. Garfield was good though, the budget was ridiculous though at the same time.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Can we all agree that Andrew Garfield is perfect for Peter Parker though? They definitely knew how to cast this time around.

[Silvermoth]

Oh yeah definetly. Garfield was amazing. No pun intended.

[KangConquers]

So has Gunn been confirmed yet?

[ThePowerCosmic]

Nope.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

Can we all agree that Andrew Garfield is perfect for Peter Parker though? They definitely knew how to cast this time around.

He is okay but nothing extraordinary.

[S. Grundy]

Originally Posted by Spider-Vader

So if Gunn gets the job, I think it's safe to assume that Whedon will have a heavy influence on this movie. Perhaps even "ghost directing" it?

I'm totally fine with that.

He's friends with Gunn and respects him, so he's not going to pull any crap like that and take over the set from him (that is if Gunn does do the movie). The most involvement Whedon will probably have will be punching up the script.

[S. Grundy]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

Can we all agree that Andrew Garfield is perfect for Peter Parker though? They definitely knew how to cast this time around.

He was good, but I felt the characterization was pretty off. They basically had him come off as a too cool, more brooding bad boy then put upon geek.