Guardians of the Galaxy James Gunn is directing Guardians of the Galaxy!

[Kiltman]

You know, I really like this choice if he gets it.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Yeah, but Zach Snyder with his own vision sucks ***.

That was sort of implied I think. I was just trying to be less harsh about it.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

James Gunn?

 

[Chewy]

Joss Whedon, Shane Black, Edgar Wright, James Gunn

For as much flack as people give Marvel that's a pretty freaking great group of filmmakers. Kind of feel spoiled

 

[craigdbfan]

Not only that but they're all "out there" choices. That's why I hate when people say they play it "safe". Bologna.

They take huge freaking chances. Also picking Jon Favreau as the director of their first gamble into the fray of live action as an independent studio?

Yeah, these guys have guts.

 

[Suzanne78]

Joss Whedon, Shane Black, Edgar Wright, James Gunn

For as much flack as people give Marvel that's a pretty freaking great group of filmmakers. Kind of feel spoiled

I'm thinking about making this my signature. Just so it always appears in every thread I post in. Ever.

The entire Phase I was a huge risk on Marvel Studio's part. A new studio like Marvel cannot risk huge losses and huge failures financially, and the fact that they managed to churn out 6 good to great to "BLEW MY FREAKIN' FACE OFF!!" movies, one of which is the 3rd highest grossing domestic film of all time, is a bloody wonder.

People need to step back sometimes and get a little perspective.

 

[Chewy]

Not only that but they're all "out there" choices. That's why I hate when people say they play it "safe". Bologna.

They take huge freaking chances. Also picking Jon Favreau as the director of their first gamble into the fray of live action as an independent studio?

Yeah, these guys have guts.

Out of the 10(?) directors so far the only one that doesn't make sense as soon as you hear it is the Russos. The rest I have gotten. Ballsy, awesome choices, but they just make sense

I'm thinking about making this my signature. Just so it always appears in every thread I post in. Ever.

The entire Phase I was a huge risk on Marvel Studio's part. A new studio like Marvel cannot risk huge losses and huge failures financially, and the fact that they managed to churn out 6 movies, one of which is the 3rd highest grossing domestic film of all time, is a bloody wonder.

People need to step back sometimes and get a little perspective.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I actually think that Johnston and Brannagh were both fairly "safe" choices. Especially Johnston, who I consider to be a journeyman director. I think those movies took some chances in other ways, but the direction was a bit "on the nose" (they wanted a Rocketeer feel for the period CA, and a Shakespearan feel for Thor/Loki/Asgard), and it resulted in good but not great movies. Im not faulting them - they needed those movies to not fail in order for their long term plan to work - but I'm glad they didnt learn the wrong lessons from the moderate success of those films.

All their choices since have shown they are determined to aim for greatness from now on. Kudos to them.

Btw I am a huge Cap fan, and I enjoyed the hell out of CA:TFA, but if I force myself to be objective, I have to admit the 3rd act is pretty weak. Hasn't stopped me from watching it multiple times though.

 

[Chewy]

Branagh had never directed a commercial hit and his most recent film had been a pretty huge failure, so I'm not sure I agree with him being a safe choice. You're right that Johnston was ("from the director of The Rocketeer") and Leterrier probably was, too

 

[craigdbfan]

Out of the 10(?) directors so far the only one that doesn't make sense as soon as you hear it is the Russos. The rest I have gotten. Ballsy, awesome choices, but they just make sense.

I'm thinking something during their meeting with them made Feige & and the rest of the guys at Marvel Studios think they were well suited. They do earnest humor with sentimentality very well and I think that's one important aspect that a Captain America movie should have so that could have been a big deciding factor, that and probably a drive from both directors to really do this as they seem to be big comic buffs.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

They knew exactly what they were getting with Branagh (a highly competent, experienced director who can do Shakespearan drama in his sleep), and that's exactly what they got. They weren't relying on his name to sell the movie, so his commercial success wasnt relevant. They wanted someone they knew for a fact would "get" the material, and would give them a polished product. Mission accomplished. Plus he was probably fairly cheap, which is part of the "safe" calculus.

I'm not saying he was the safest choice out there, but he was a very practical/logical even obvious choice. I remember thinking "that makes sense" , when I heard he was directing.

To fans of Whedon, Im sure he seemed like a logical choice as well, but given the enormity of the project, and his rep as a tv guy, it was a ballsy move. Allowing him to write AND direct also required a leap of faith. Given the huge investment, they needed the movie to be a monster hit, and to give that level of control to a fanboy television director took guts. And, as it turns out, good judgement.

 

[Xeno]

The presumption that a given director's "cheapness" factors in may be a fallacy. No matter what their base salary, we're talking about Hollywood so there are doubtless deals in place that call for performance incentives on the back end for them. We really have no idea what any of them was able to negotiate with the studio. Also, every one of Marvel's films has been a big budget affair. Saving a little money on a "cheap" director who can't deliver a decent film would be foolhardy.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Saving money on a (relatively) cheap director who COULD deliver a decent film is exactly what they did on Thor.

Favreaus struggles with Marvel regarding his compensation are pretty well-documented and illustrate Marvel's desire to control costs on that end. We don't need to know the exact numbers to see this.

And keep in mind that either Feige and Marvel determined that both Johnston and Branagh were replaceable, or those directors determined whatever Marvel was offering wasnt worth returning for the sequels. Either scenario - or a combination - suggest a "limited" financial package. Neither side was fully invested enough to even consider serious negotiations. Johnston and Branagh were hired hands, not partners. (And journeyman hired hands with more failures than successes of late.) Favreau thought he was a partner, but felt like he was being treated like a hired hand. Several sources contend that it was at RDJ's insistence that he got a cut of IM2 and an EP credit for future films, and that otherwise he wouldve been done after IM1.

RDJ is a partner and, going forward, and without having to know the exact numbers, so is Joss Whedon. Partners get a lot more money. By a factor of 10 or more actually.

James Gunn, who I like very much, will be a bargain. And yes that will be a factor in Marvel decision.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, but Zach Snyder with his own vision sucks ***.

There are plenty of directors that don't write their own scripts, so what's your point? Some director just aren't screenwriters.

 

[Chewy]

Saving money on a (relatively) cheap director who COULD deliver a decent film is exactly what they did on Thor.

It's what they've done on every one of their movies, except Favs and Whedon's respective second go-rounds

 

[terry78]

Basically while on the surface it looks like they're getting some artsy fartsy director with a passion for the material, they also realize these types of guys will be cheaper compared to other big directors.

 

[metaphysician]

I think part of it is also, they don't want the directorial vision overwhelming the overall studio vision. Sure, all the directors have produced their own specific take, but IMO, that take was roughly decided upon by Feige and Marvel Studios when they picked the director.

Marvel wants craftsmen who will bring *Marvel's* vision to life. They don't want artistes who will fight them all along the way.

 

[terry78]

Frankly a director who is known for doing more avant garde indie stuff will gladly take like a hundred grand or something in that vein for his fee.

 

[Floppity]

That was sort of implied I think. I was just trying to be less harsh about it.

Well I wasn't. t:

There are plenty of directors that don't write their own scripts, so what's your point? Some director just aren't screenwriters.

Sorry, Sucker Punch scarred me.

 

[SuperSAINT]

I'd be really happy with this.

Really liked both his films. Another typical Marvel choice.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think you might be onto something.

With Fillion's connections to both Gunn and Whedon, and with him distancing himself from the fancasting for Ant-Man, it could very well be that he's been hand-picked for Peter Quill. And with his experience in Serenity/Firefly, that just adds fuel to the fire.

Hope Marvel pulls the trigger on Gunn. :sneaks sidelong glance at DarkRaven:

Well, Fillion is a lot of fans choice for Starlord as well, mine included, love the guy and he needs to be in more blockbusters, he is perfect for PQ, has the same sarcastic and world-weary attitude as Mal Reynolds did.

Gunn's directing for Slither was spot on as well, he handled everything perfectly, and in one movie showed a deft touch with horror, action, comedy, effect both practical and CGI as well as character moments. He would be a great pick for this. Havent seen Super but only heard good things.

 

[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.

 

[flickchick85]

I liked Super and loved Slither, so I'd be on board with this. Though I hope he doesn't get too "watered down" by having to make a somewhat family-friendly movie, lol.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Well I wasn't. t:



Sorry, Sucker Punch scarred me.

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).

 

[metaphysician]

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