Discussion in 'Thor: The Dark World' started by HighFivingMF, Dec 6, 2011.
In the end, that's what really matters to me.
I never got this argument. Fox and Sony also don't have CBMs as their sole asset, but unlike WB are more aggressive in utilizing them.
Well until recently WB had a biannual cash cow they could depend on, but they messed up Green Lantern.
They have to be. If Sony and Fox doesn't have their respective Marvel films in production/development by a certain time period, the rights will revert back to Marvel and they'll lose everything.
WB on the other hand has no such fear. They can literally do nothing and will always be in control of these properties. Superman probably being the exception at the moment. The upcoming reboot is a product of the Siegel lawsuit, forcing their hand.
Wow, it took all of 5 seconds for someone to blame this on Feige.
You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.
I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.
Don't know her work, so won't miss her, but this can hardly be considered good news. Whether Marvel's reputation is deserved or not, this will only play into it.
They only produced one sequel, actually.
They probably announced her as the new director without hammering out the details cause Marvel is on a timeline. So when they got to a certain issue she just walked. Luckily the postponed release date gives them some time to look for a replacement.
Don't worry. The ones doing that are the 'usual suspects' from this forum.
It's always easier to blame the people with no creative involvement in the filmmaking process. We always want to be on the side of the creators, mind you , in this case, are we really at a loss? Granted, I'd be more than happy to see Branagh come back, but failing that, was Patty Jenkins really on anyone's radar to direct a movie like this? Outside of Monster, there's honestly nothing all that impressive on her resume. It'd be interesting to see if Marvel gets to replace her.
Just like the usual suspects will always defend any given superhero/studio?
This made my day!!
Here's an idea:
Why not get a *Scandinavian* director to direct a film about, you know, Scandinavian gods?
Tomas Alfredson, a Swede, had an international hit with the vampire thriller Let the Right One In, and now he's gone on to bigger things with LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. He seems to be available, and Marvel could stick a feather in their hat for "cultural authenticity" if they bag him.
Just because he's Scandinavian doesn't mean he's right for the material.
Aww. Touched a nerve?
Sorry to hear this .
I hope they find and finalize a deal with a new director ASAP.
I wonder what interviews are going to be like for the main cast that was confirmed and Kenneth when asked about this. I mean one moment we hear Chris, Kenneth, and Tom saying on how great they thought Patty was and of her understanding of the material, then the next minute we get this.
I wonder how actors in their shoes approach doing interviews from here on out when asked about this, especially when another director is finally chosen as a permanent thing for the sequel.
Same as usual, we'll always hear the "oh its great to be working with [name], such a great vision that's going to really excite people" etc.
There's no point in journalists really asking about this from here on out, because the interviews should generally be about the movie that's getting made, not the one that Patty Jenkins...isn't going to make. This is not a Superman Lives situation where the production got within days of filming and/or with a director with much more clout who had major creative control over the production. This is Marvel's bag...and they do make sure people know it.
But yes, actors, etc. move on and just try to produce the best film they can. Many of them do care about the product as well, but are ultimately at the behest of the studio's (and director's) creative choices.
Well, I just hope that they pick a director that's someone will make the entire cast honestly excited to be working with like they had mentioned when talking about Kenneth in their interviews.
No, not really. Often times it means what it says. Disputes about the creative process and direction of the film/production. The amount of times we've heard about things "falling through" with Marvel Studios and talent in their short life I think really says something about their overall agenda, which to some degree is about money...but it's also about creative and industrial positioning.
Benecio del Toro and Paramount recently "couldn't come to terms" for the Star Trek sequel. That one was about money...apparently. Del Toro has been fairly highly regarded in recent years. Patty Jenkins, while also well-regarded, simply doesn't have the same 'clout'...whether that's partially because she's a rarity, a strong-willed female director, is debatable.
Anything deeper than Thor would be Superman Returns? I think a Thor sequel can (and should) have better writing, without going that far.
How about Lars Von Trier?
How'd you come to that conclusion? Saying this plays into Marvel's hardline reputation, whether it was an amicable parting or not, is hardly fanatical.
I get that, and I agree with you about Marvel's hardline reputation.
Anyway, believe me, I don't think your opinion is fanatical.