Ant-Man and the Wasp News and Speculation Thread - Part 2

[MasterCat]

Where did this nonsense of "he doesn't have an Oscar, so he's not a great director" come from?

You, I guess? Because that's not what I said. Branaugh is a great director and he hasn't won an Oscar.

 

[BaronZemo]

Makes me wonder if the MCU will ever have a great director after Branagh's departure.

Maybe you haen't been paying attention to the MCU but they definitely have had great directors since Brannagh.

I don't understand where the jab is coming from. You don't think Taika, Russos or Coogler are great directors based on what?

 

[MasterCat]

Maybe you haen't been paying attention to the MCU but they definitely have had great directors since Brannagh.

I don't understand where the jab is coming from. You don't think Taika, Russos or Coogler are great directors based on what?

Based on the fact that none of them have directed anything great like Branaugh's Henry V and Hamlet, which are some of the only truly cinematic Shakespeare films. Many film productions just rely on the words and the ability to hire really good actors, but he REALLY applied the director's art.

Another great director would be Chris Nolan, whose ability to make art of "large scale films" or blockbusters is recognized as unparalleled.

 

[BaronZemo]

Based on the fact that none of them have directed anything great like Branaugh's Henry V and Hamlet, which are some of the only truly cinematic Shakespeare films. Many film productions just rely on the words and the ability to hire really good actors, but he REALLY applied the director's art.

Another great director would be Chris Nolan, whose ability to make art of "large scale films" or blockbusters is recognized as unparalleled.

I will take Russos's cbms over Nolan's any day of the week.

You seem to have a pre-conceived notion that Feige is a micro-managing tyrant which couldn't be more further from the truth. maybe you should search the name Ike Perlmutter and see what a restricting exec really looks like.

 

[Aximili86]

To be fair to the guy, nobody who's directed an MCU movie is on Branagh's level as an overall career. C'mon now, they're just not.

That doesn't mean Thor's the best MCU movie either, though. But Ken's a god amongst lessers as far as what he'd done prior to being brought into Kevin's crazy superhero world.

 

[legendkillin]

Nope. Creed was good enough that no critic thinks it was a bad film, but it's not exactly Shakespeare... or The Godfather... or James Cameron's anything.
I don't think we're ever going to see anyone like Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood or del Toro agree to direct a Kevin Feige film. Heck, they may actively be afraid of Oscar-worthy directors because of the memory of Ang Lee's Hulk.

meh don't need those "Caliber" of directors. MCU has been doing this well without them. Rather have directors that actually know a thing about the comics they are directing.

 

[legendkillin]

To be fair to the guy, nobody who's directed an MCU movie is on Branagh's level as an overall career. C'mon now, they're just not.

That doesn't mean Thor's the best MCU movie either, though. But Ken's a god amongst lessers as far as what he'd done prior to being brought into Kevin's crazy superhero world.

Maybe they direct things they are interested in. Branagh maybe interested in that Shakesphere stuff so he makes movies about them. I can't judge his overall ability(though I think some are putting him on a pedestal) looking at his past movies, besides Thor I have only watched Harry Potter. None of the rest intrigue me enough to watch.

 

[Aximili86]

 

[BaronZemo]

To be fair to the guy, nobody who's directed an MCU movie is on Branagh's level as an overall career. C'mon now, they're just not.

That doesn't mean Thor's the best MCU movie either, though. But Ken's a god amongst lessers as far as what he'd done prior to being brought into Kevin's crazy superhero world.

Taika is an Oscar-nominated director and most of his films are critically-acclaimed something i can't say about Brannagh so your argument doesn''t hold water.

 

[Chesterfield]

Based on the fact that none of them have directed anything great like Branaugh's Henry V and Hamlet, which are some of the only truly cinematic Shakespeare films. Many film productions just rely on the words and the ability to hire really good actors, but he REALLY applied the director's art.

Another great director would be Chris Nolan, whose ability to make art of "large scale films" or blockbusters is recognized as unparalleled.

If you were smarter you'd realise how silly you sound. Coogler alone and at such a young age has only made 3 films that he has cowritten and directed for which they've all been critically acclaimed, the last of which is one of the highest grossing films of all time and a world wide cultural phenomenon. He wasn't adapting Shakespeare, he's talented enough to use his own imagination to tell great and compelling stories. Spare us your nonsensical logic.

 

[Aximili86]

Waititi and Coogler are awesome, guys. But comparing them at the time of being hired to Kenneth friggin' Branagh is insane, just insane.

The first Thor's just middle-of-the-road MCU fare, obviously, it's hardly the best the studio's put out. But really, along with Johnston he's the only veteran director with a significant resume (ie. more than one or two commercial & critical hits on their hands) they've hired, and even then those two guys are apples & oranges.

Coogler's awesome, and he's likely to be a very big deal someday. He's just not there yet, dudes' still an up-and-comer with a lot to prove (which he probably will prove). He's not Ken, with - you know - nothing at all to prove. Taika's the same deal, talented indie darling, but pre-Ragnarok you'd hardly call the guy a major established force in the industry. They're guys who will very likely become monsters of directors, not guys who are already considered that. Fruitvale's a respected indie, as was Taika's stuff, and Creed was the one hit with the public among the two guy's stuff.

Reed's ****ing fantastic with these two flicks though. Just goes to show you don't necessarily have to go with an obvious choice, a B-level comedy guy can work wonders with some passion for a project.

 

[MasterCat]

Spare us YOUR nonsensical logic. He's made three films, one of which is a Rocky fanfic and another is a comic book adaptation. He was "talented enough to use his imagination" for an original story one time.
You can't actually believe it's logical to call him a better director than Branaugh or Nolan. Just look at the directorial layering of Nolan's Inception or Dunkirk... you're going to use logic to argue that Coogler's one original film is superior to those?

 

[MasterCat]

Reed's ****ing fantastic with these two flicks though. Just goes to show you don't necessarily have to go with an obvious choice, a B-level comedy guy can work wonders with some passion for a project.

You've already seen Ant-Man and the Wasp? From the first one, I thought Reed was fantastic with the framing and CGI, but didn't get much more than quips out of his actors. Michael Douglas says he has fun playing Hank Pym, but I still hope to see him deploy more of his talent.

 

[Xeno]

Based on the fact that none of them have directed anything great like Branaugh's Henry V and Hamlet, which are some of the only truly cinematic Shakespeare films. Many film productions just rely on the words and the ability to hire really good actors, but he REALLY applied the director's art.

Another great director would be Chris Nolan, whose ability to make art of "large scale films" or blockbusters is recognized as unparalleled.

One can only assume that you've never seen Olivier's Henry V, Hamlet and Richard III if that's your opinion. Or Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, for that matter. Branaugh is a fine director and actor, but there are others whose cinematic interpretations of Shakespeare are considered as good as or better than his.

 

[Darkraid]

Why feed the troll?

 

[BaronZemo]

Spare us YOUR nonsensical logic. He's made three films, one of which is a Rocky fanfic and another is a comic book adaptation. He was "talented enough to use his imagination" for an original story one time.
You can't actually believe it's logical to call him a better director than Branaugh or Nolan. Just look at the directorial layering of Nolan's Inception or Dunkirk... you're going to use logic to argue that Coogler's one original film is superior to those?

I don't need to call him a better director. Like i said, i will take most of Russos's cbms over Nolan's most cbms and i think most fans would. Do you want to make a poll the Dark Knight trilogy versus Russos 3 MCU films? The results might surprise you....

Branagh is extremely hit and miss so i wil take Russos, Coogler or Waititi anyday over him. And i don't need Del Toro or Tarantino on an MCU film. Those guys can make any film they want. I much rather prefer Feige trusting talented people who might not have had the chance to tackle a production like that if it wasn't for Marvel. The Del Toros, Nolans, Scotts and Villenueves of this world will always have projects under production. New and fresh blood is always more welcome.

 

[Aximili86]

Jesus Christ this is getting nuts.

 

[CK Spider]

Eh... All respect to Branagh (and I know I have to check his Hamlet), he's a good director and all, but I'll take Taika over him any day of the week. I don't find a single of his movies less than solid (Eagle Vs. Shark is the worst, and it's still a very compelling, oddball story) and can't call Boy anything less than brilliant. And well, he tecnically is and Oscar nominated director for his short film, Two Cars, One Night.

Between him, Gunn, Coogler and even the Russos, I'd say we're more than covered on that front. Gunn's musical sequences on both GOTG's (especially Vol. 2) have as much directorial flair as anything else in the genre.

Anyway, this is becoming completely off-topic, so I'll just say this: Peyton Reed may not have the most impressive resumé outside the MCU (though he has a couple of solid movies), but he seems to be working out great with Ant-Man. Those "Luis story-scenes" are very well thought-out and are completely his as far as we know. Ant-Man and the Wasp looks even better than the first one and is all his. So yeah, I don't see a problem here.

 

[parkerpete]

I shouldn't encourage this, but...

Nolan is an incredible technical filmmaker, and there are films that are suited to his strengths (Memento, Dark Knight, Dunkirk). But as a storyteller? He's a mixed bag with a penchant for over-explaining and demystification that can really make my eyes roll, and often his movies have pretensions towards deep philisophical or political subject matter that is completely, embarrassingly beyond his intellectual and emotional range (DKR, Inception, Interstellar) Don't get me wrong-- thanks to his technical chops, Inception and Interstellar are handsome, watchable films(DKR not so much)-- but they aren't nearly as smart or as emotionally engaging as they think they are.

Branagh's Henry V is a great film, but nothing he's done since has come even remotely close to matching it. And it's been a long time. Plus, Branagh made 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein'. Have you SEEN that movie? No one who made that movie can ever look down their nose at any other filmmaker. It is hilariously terrible, worse than the worst Marvel movie.

It's a bit silly to compare Coogler and Waititi to Nolan/Branagh anyways. They both have rock-solid track records, but they also are relatively young as directors with shorter resumes.

 

[parkerpete]

Also, director resumes aren't that relevant for making the best superhero movies, no matter how brilliant the filmmaker is.

Donner, Raimi, Whedon and the Russos are on the Mount Rushmore of CBMs.

Ang Lee is not.

 

[Kuwolski]

I'll take the Russos and the odds on their future films over Branaugh anyday. Suddenly I've walked back into 2008 where the notion of 'name' directors was actually a thing in critiques of the MCU. It's like people want to ignore the results and focus on the name. Hey if you think Branaugh is all that for a couple of films he directed twenty + years ago then have at it lol.

 

[Kuwolski]

And are are the Russos not name/accomplished directors now? Do they have to direct a non-superhero film to get on the list or somehow meet this warped POV? Let me know.

Actually don't, I've heard enough BS.

 

[Hammer!]

If this argument had any merit than We would actually have had a good movie out of Dark Knight Rises and Green lantern.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

Nope. Creed was good enough that no critic thinks it was a bad film, but it's not exactly Shakespeare... or The Godfather... or James Cameron's anything.
I don't think we're ever going to see anyone like Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood or del Toro agree to direct a Kevin Feige film. Heck, they may actively be afraid of Oscar-worthy directors because of the memory of Ang Lee's Hulk.

Lolno

 

[honestbharani]

I shouldn't encourage this, but...

Nolan is an incredible technical filmmaker, and there are films that are suited to his strengths (Memento, Dark Knight, Dunkirk). But as a storyteller? He's a mixed bag with a penchant for over-explaining and demystification that can really make my eyes roll, and often his movies have pretensions towards deep philisophical or political subject matter that is completely, embarrassingly beyond his intellectual and emotional range (DKR, Inception, Interstellar) Don't get me wrong-- thanks to his technical chops, Inception and Interstellar are handsome, watchable films(DKR not so much)-- but they aren't nearly as smart or as emotionally engaging as they think they are.

Branagh's Henry V is a great film, but nothing he's done since has come even remotely close to matching it. And it's been a long time. Plus, Branagh made 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein'. Have you SEEN that movie? No one who made that movie can ever look down their nose at any other filmmaker. It is hilariously terrible, worse than the worst Marvel movie.

It's a bit silly to compare Coogler and Waititi to Nolan/Branagh anyways. They both have rock-solid track records, but they also are relatively young as directors with shorter resumes.

I honestly did not think Interstellar was all that watchable. I felt the whole movie crumbled once the secret NASA stuff started. Some scenes looked extremely bad as far as CGI goes and the storytelling was God-awful. TDKR was much the same. Inception, though, I thought was awesome alongside something like The Prestige. I think Nolan can nail it like he did with those movies, but IMO he tries to get something deep into every movie of his and that is where the pretentiousness comes in. When he basically shoehorns whatever he feels is a "deeper" message into where it does not belong.