The directors on these projects DO have creative input. Yes. I know all about auteur theory and all that jazz. I had to study all this at school, but the history of cinema is also filled with directors butting heads with studios over creative differences. Ridley Scott had to release a version of Blade Runner unlike his original vision. Only later did HIS version see the light of day. I can list thousands of examples of this happening to great directors. It has been happening with cinema since the founding of cinema. People here act like directors get full say on their projects. Unless they get in their contracts that they get final cut or they produce their own work, they don't. That isn't conjecture on my part. That is fact. That is reality. It is how the studio system has always worked. Ask anyone working on a FOX picture under Tom Rothman about this.
Marvel is managing a shared universe. With that comes the need for consistency, so yes. Directors must respect the visions of other directors when making a Marvel Studios picture. But, that doesn't mean that these films aren't good representations of their work. Go back to my previous post. All those filmmakers clearly had a hand in the creative process. Heck, Gunn, Whedon, and Black all had their hands on writing the films themselves!
Allow me to clarify: directors in the past have not had to deal with creative input from studios. They have merely had to deal with creative limitations.
The difference between MCU films and Blade Runner or every other example of creative differences I've seen is that others studio are giving purely marketing/business constraints. The Blade Runner changes were to dumb it down for the audience and make a happy ending. That's not the same kind of creative input a creator like Marvel Studios would put in. They're not just controlling for tone and marketability, they're telling their own story, of which the director's story is just a part. That means story beats get added in, scenes get rewritten, characters and character types added in or barred, the kinds of things a showrunner would do for a TV show director. Not just 'make happy ending' or 'make it more like movie X' that directors have been getting from the beginning of Hollywood.
When you go look at Tom Rothman's movies, you don't get the feeling that 'oh, this is a Tom Rothman film' because he's not giving creative input, he's only providing creative restraints. When you go see an MCU film, it feels like an MCU film. It may ALSO feel like a Whedon/Gunn/Favreau film, but the fact that there is creative and themataic consistency in the MCU testifies that they are giving creative additions to the films, intentionally, each time. That's something new.
And it's not 'other directors' they're respecting, Feige is the architect, he's not just playing referee between other directors' visions.
So again my point is NOT:
- The directors don't have creative input
OR
- The directors usually get to do whatever they want and now they can't.