MCU: The Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Discussion - Part 1

[marcvader]

I don't think they ever really came into the idea of phases as having their own common theme. If I recall correctly, Feige said in an interview that fans had started coming up with the idea of "Phases" and then they merely adopted the notion.

I don't think that the phases truly mean anything, it is just a way to sort of separate the Marvel Studios films into different sections other than through individual franchises.

This

 

[Kurne]

Feige's really invested in bringing Strange to the big screen. Haven't seen him this enthused since maybe Thor or Iron Man.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Strange is Feige's baby so I know he'll do his best to produce a fantastic movie. After TWS and GOTG, my hopes for Doctor Strange are through the roof.

 

[marcvader]

I'm with you. Rrrrreally looking forward Dr. Strange on the big screen. My only concern is that they characterize him correctly. I dont want Tony Stark 2.0.

 

[The Endless]

i dont like Kevin Feige either. one mind behind all is like dictator. main reason ant man will suck is feige and Disney Corps.


every marvel studios movie shouldnt be includded in MCU. They could try some RRated movies. You cant do blade punisher ghost rider without blood and stuff like that.

Kevin Feige is a genius. He's a very efficient studio exec... but he actually has passion for the source material.

There has been some hiccups along the way, but the guy is responsible from turning Marvel Studios from an indie studio that needed loans to make their films... to a multi billion dollar movie house that is now backed by Disney.

 

[First Avenger]

i dont like Kevin Feige either. one mind behind all is like dictator. main reason ant man will suck is feige and Disney Corps.


every marvel studios movie shouldnt be includded in MCU. They could try some RRated movies. You cant do blade punisher ghost rider without blood and stuff like that.

Wat.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

"One mind behind all" is the only reason the MCU exists...

Is a director a dictator on a film or a play? Is a show runner a 'tyrant', breaking the creative flow, because they expect continuity and an overall vision?

Ridiculous.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

"One mind behind all" is the only reason the MCU exists...

Is a director a dictator on a film or a play? Is a show runner a 'tyrant', breaking the creative flow, because they expect continuity and an overall vision?

Ridiculous.

I guess Stan Lee was a tyrant back in the days when he created the universe on its own.

Also, while Feige is the highest and last authority with MS and the MCU there are a lot of clever, creative people around him that have ideas on their own, again, just like Lee in the 60ies

 

[metaphysician]

Also, why *should* the director be the first, last, and only word on creative content? What makes the director more special than anyone else involved?

 

[DrCosmic]

Also, why *should* the director be the first, last, and only word on creative content? What makes the director more special than anyone else involved?

They provide creative oversight over every aspect of the film and devote all their time and creative energy to a single project over the course of several years. While the producers, writers, even actors are on to the next thing, the director is dedicating all his efforts into mastering every aspect of this single project. It is their reputation, career and future prospects that is most impacted by the quality or lack thereof of the film.

In short, they are most connected to the film, critically and creatively. This is why they naturally have been the most special over the years without anyone having to make any rules to make it so.

It's a little rough when you take some of that creative control away, but the director still assumes the critical risk. Marvel films don't open up doors for directors like they do for actors. The market encourages it, but it is a change that is disadvantageous to directors.

 

[The Endless]

To be fair, pretty much any director has to compromise and collaborate when it comes to these big studio films. At the end of the day, the director isn't providing the cash to create their vision.

There is only a handful of directors working today that get carte blanche.

 

[DrCosmic]

True, but in the past, it was all marketing and these sort of businessman concerns and restrictions. When the guys providing the money are themselves creators like Feige, they can basically ghost write something dramatic or comedic and then put your name on it, and it becomes part of what's expected from you creatively from you going forward. It's different.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Sorry guys, but I have seen the director stamp of most of the guys who made these films. Thor felt like a Branagh film (dutch angles and all). Cap TFA felt like a JJ film. Cap 2 felt like the Russos got to do what they wanted. GotG is DEFINITELY a Gunn film. Avengers was clearly a Whedon film. While IM2 felt like studio interference, both IM1 and IM3 bear the stamps of Favs and Black. Etc. This notion that Marvel directors have no say or creative control of their movies is just not right guys. Yes, on a few films, Marvel was more involved than in others. With ANY studio that happens, and some things need to be done to keep the universe consistent. But, it obviously hasn't limited the imaginations of the directors I named above. They all got to put in their stamps.

 

[flickchick85]

Sorry guys, but I have seen the director stamp of most of the guys who made these films. Thor felt like a Branagh film (dutch angles and all). Cap TFA felt like a JJ film. Cap 2 felt like the Russos got to do what they wanted. GotG is DEFINITELY a Gunn film. Avengers was clearly a Whedon film. While IM2 felt like studio interference, both IM1 and IM3 bear the stamps of Favs and Black. Etc. This notion that Marvel directors have no say or creative control of their movies is just not right guys. Yes, on a few films, Marvel was more involved than in others. With ANY studio that happens, and some things need to be done to keep the universe consistent. But, it obviously hasn't limited the imaginations of the directors I named above. They all got to put in their stamps.

Agreed. The directors they've chosen, with the exception of Letterier and Taylor, imo, all have distinctive cinematic voices, and those voices were very much present in their MCU films. And even with those two I made exception to, their MCU films definitely contain recognizable traits from their other stuff, even if their work generally isn't as auteur-ish and distinctive as the work from the other filmmakers in the Marvel family.

I will say the Russos were a bit of a wild card as we didn't have much of their film work to go on, but based on what we've heard about how they were hired, it seems clear that they were allowed to do exactly what they wanted, as major Ed Brubaker fanboys making their ultimate Cap passion project.

 

[The.Brotherhood]

People b*tching bout Marvel Studios inputs on their films, you people must understand that it's the Studio's Vison in the first place and then the director's touch...they (Marvel) envision this MCU then the directors are out there to help them as they TOGETHER (with the whole cast, crew, fans and etc.) built it.

Marvel has the rights to interfere and that is why it is successful. If you're still going at this argument then tell me more when Sony interfered with Raimi's work on Spiderman 3 and insist on putting out Venom and look what happened to that film (I know this may be the same played out on the marvel-wright terms BUT they had 8 freakin years to do it and Marvel has yet to put out a bomb. For Sony / Raimi had less years for them on that account).

 

[First Avenger]

So guys,does anyone else feel Phase 2 so far has been better than Phase 1? 'Cause I really do.

 

[Loki882]

Half of Phase Two is better. So far, here's how it looks to me:


Phase One:

-Iron Man-Great.
-The Incredible Hulk-Decent.
-Iron Man 2-Not bad, but underwhelming as a follow-up.
-Thor-Good but flawed.
-Captain America: The First Avenger-Good but flawed.
-The Avengers-Epic.

Phase Two:

-Iron Man 3-Meh.
-Thor: The Dark World-Not terrible, but still the weakest MCU entry thus far.
-Captain America: The Winter Soldier-Fantastic.
-Guardians of the Galaxy-Fantastic.
-Avengers: Age of Ultron-To be determined.

 

[DrCosmic]

Sorry guys, but I have seen the director stamp of most of the guys who made these films. Thor felt like a Branagh film (dutch angles and all). Cap TFA felt like a JJ film. Cap 2 felt like the Russos got to do what they wanted. GotG is DEFINITELY a Gunn film. Avengers was clearly a Whedon film. While IM2 felt like studio interference, both IM1 and IM3 bear the stamps of Favs and Black. Etc. This notion that Marvel directors have no say or creative control of their movies is just not right guys. Yes, on a few films, Marvel was more involved than in others. With ANY studio that happens, and some things need to be done to keep the universe consistent. But, it obviously hasn't limited the imaginations of the directors I named above. They all got to put in their stamps.

Just because it didn't limit their imaginations to zero doesn't mean it didin't limit their imaginations at all. And again, it's not about having limits on their imagination, that happens with every big film, it's about having to accommodate someone else's imagination as well. Notice, as much as these films all feel like they come from the directors, they ALSO feel like MCU films. That's not limits, that's creative input, and that's something directors have not had in the past.

People b*tching bout Marvel Studios inputs on their films, you people must understand that it's the Studio's Vison in the first place and then the director's touch...they (Marvel) envision this MCU then the directors are out there to help them as they TOGETHER (with the whole cast, crew, fans and etc.) built it.

Marvel has the rights to interfere and that is why it is successful. If you're still going at this argument then tell me more when Sony interfered with Raimi's work on Spiderman 3 and insist on putting out Venom and look what happened to that film (I know this may be the same played out on the marvel-wright terms BUT they had 8 freakin years to do it and Marvel has yet to put out a bomb. For Sony / Raimi had less years for them on that account).

Might doesn't make right, just because Marvel can doesn't mean that they should. Just because there are positive results doesn't mean there are no negative ones.

In the history of cinema, it's been the director's vision and then the actors touch, with the studio providing funding and choosing someone whose vision they like. The director has been the chief creative officer. In the MCU, and only there, he is not. He's like that VP that does all the work but the President shows up and takes the credit.

 

[Dark Raven]

Half of Phase Two is better. So far, here's how it looks to me:


Phase One:

-Iron Man-Great.
-The Incredible Hulk-Decent.
-Iron Man 2-Not bad, but underwhelming as a follow-up.
-Thor-Good but flawed.
-Captain America: The First Avenger-Good but flawed.
-The Avengers-Epic.

Phase Two:

-Iron Man 3-Meh.
-Thor: The Dark World-Not terrible, but still the weakest MCU entry thus far.
-Captain America: The Winter Soldier-Fantastic.
-Guardians of the Galaxy-Fantastic.
-Avengers: Age of Ultron-To be determined.

I'd agree pretty much with this assessment.

 

[The Endless]

Fact is, if you want to create a "continuity" there has to be an Editor in Chief, or in the case of the movies, a Kevin Feige like Producer.

In the comics, the writer of Captain America has to take into account what the writer of Avengers is doing with the character. Same applies to the films. The Editor/Producer is the guy overseeing that process. The key is finding that balance, where one individual writer/director can bring their own ideas to the table, but they are not contradicted by another individual writer/director in another story. For the most part, i think Marvel Studios has got that balancing act right. Better than the comics come to think of it.

It's a blessing and a curse.

 

[DrCosmic]

It really is. What Feige does is kind of like an director-director, it's not like a producer or studio exec at any other studio and directors used to movie-director creative control now have tv-director creative influence, where their primary contributions are style and details, filling out the vision of the showrunner/ArchDirector. It is necessary to have the Avengers be what it is, but it does come at the expense of the contributing films.

 

[Victarion]

Fact is, if you want to create a "continuity" there has to be an Editor in Chief, or in the case of the movies, a Kevin Feige like Producer.

In the comics, the writer of Captain America has to take into account what the writer of Avengers is doing with the character. Same applies to the films. The Editor/Producer is the guy overseeing that process. The key is finding that balance, where one individual writer/director can bring their own ideas to the table, but they are not contradicted by another individual writer/director in another story. For the most part, i think Marvel Studios has got that balancing act right. Better than the comics come to think of it.

It's a blessing and a curse.

What's great is that in the films there's no room for retcons or reboots if some continuity gets flubbed. So it should be pretty tight and coherent. Oh, the only phase three I didn't really care for was Thor TDW, and I thought The Incredible Hulk > Iron Man 2.

 

[First Avenger]

I can't even rank those movies anymore,I love all of them lol.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

I rather see a show for the Punisher than Daredevil because the latter to me feels more cinematic.

 

[Shikamaru]

So guys,does anyone else feel Phase 2 so far has been better than Phase 1? 'Cause I really do.

I wrote this in another thread:

Phase 2 is much better than Phase 1 IMO.

-Each franchise has more of its own distinct feel and tone.
-Avengers/universe setups feel less gimmicky and only used when absolutely needed.
-On average, with the exception of TDW, quality is a step up. IM3 and TWS are a step up from IM2 and TFA respectively, with TWS being the film overall IMO. Guardians would also be in the top 5.
-Marvel has mastered event stories to a whole new level. The way they showed the fallout to the TWS events in Agents of SHIELD was phenomenal.
-Marvel takes more risks and plays it less "safe"/family friendly.
-Universe building generally feels more cohesive. I could see why IM3 is the first Phase 2 film released, why Cap 2 is the last solo film released, and why Avengers 2 is the finale. With Phase 1, you had the Iron Man films then it felt like "Ok, here's a Hulk film, now here's a Thor film, now here's a Cap film, now we're doing Avengers."