Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.
 
So, 'alexei' came here and posted the same thing he always does again?:)
 
I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.

True, but this is at least the third example of someone leaving a Marvel project due to their heavy hand. At some point you run the risk of not being able to secure the top level talent they've gotten so far.

I love these movies, but I won't sit here and say they aren't somewhat formulaic (to be fair, most origins from that time period were kinda formulaic as well) Still, I don't think giving a little more creative freedom is necessarily a horrible thing
 
I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.

Marvel had nothing to do with Ang Lee's hulk.
 
Marvel had nothing to do with Ang Lee's hulk.

I think that's Raiden's point. Marvel saw how off the tracks Ang took the Hulk (some of which I liked, some I didn't) so once they got their opportunity to start overseeing these projects, they steadfastly wanted to put a halt to that much creative freedom, I think there's some credence to that.

TIH was basically hamstrung to be a straight action flick with minimal psychological aspects directly as a result of Ang's movie. In fact, most of these films have given the bare minimum in terms of characterization and deeper subtext in order to keep things moving, brisk & digestible. Not saying everything needs to be deep & dark, but the Hulk certainly should be, Ang just went too abstract with it, not to mention the marketing that lead the general audience to believe it was a straight popcorn summer film.
 
I think that's Raiden's point. Marvel saw how off the tracks Ang took the Hulk (some of which I liked, some I didn't) so once they got their opportunity to start overseeing these projects, they steadfastly wanted to put a halt to that much creative freedom, I think there's some credence to that.

TIH was basically hamstrung to be a straight action flick with minimal psychological aspects directly as a result of Ang's movie. In fact, most of these films have given the bare minimum in terms of characterization and deeper subtext in order to keep things moving, brisk ''digestible. Not saying everything needs to be deep '' dark, but the Hulk certainly should be, Ang just went too abstract with it, not to mention the marketing that lead the general audience to believe it was a straight popcorn summer film.

But you could equally look at Nolan's Batman film to realize what can be done if you give the director room to breathe, or even IM1 for that matter. You can't just look at the negative results. Hulk may not have work execution wise but I think most can agree it was a bold thing to attempt for a superhero film, in my view anyway I can appreciate it for giving it a red hot go. Not being flexible with creativity will ultimately lead to good directors not wanting to do your movies, if all you're looking for is someone to match your vision you may as well get someone from inside the studio to direct.
 
Oh literally thank GOD! I was trying to fall in line and back Jenkins but everything screamed AWFUL idea right from the start. Dodged a huge bullet here... now almost anyone will seem like an improvement. Maybe that was Marvel's grand plan all along!

This will be just like when Tom Cruise passed on playing Tony Stark!!!!

Happy day :woot:
 
But you could equally look at Nolan's Batman film to realize what can be done if you give the director room to breathe, or even IM1 for that matter. You can't just look at the negative results. Hulk may not have work execution wise but I think most can agree it was a bold thing to attempt for a superhero film, in my view anyway I can appreciate it for giving it a red hot go. Not being flexible with creativity will ultimately lead to good directors not wanting to do your movies, if all you're looking for is someone to match your vision you may as well get someone from inside the studio to direct.

Oh I'm in direct agreement with you, in many ways I still prefer Ang's movie to TIH, I just didn't agree with some of the more unnecessary changes he made that served no purpose other than visual stimulation (mainly the size changing & some of the more abstract mental imagery)

I'm just stating the reasons I think Ang's film, in particular, is the catalyst for the approach Marvel's been taking with their movies, and how ultimately, it's going to hurt more than help.
 
Oh literally thank GOD! I was trying to fall in line and back Jenkins but everything screamed AWFUL idea right from the start. Dodged a huge bullet here... now almost anyone will seem like an improvement. Maybe that was Marvel's grand plan all along!

This will be just like when Tom Cruise passed on playing Tony Stark!!!!

Happy day :woot:
I firmly believe Cruise would have been a great Stark. He just wouldn't have been as big of a wiseass of RDJ's. The guy always brings his A-game, and would make that whole "Tony Stark is a Celebrity Superhero" very meta.
 
True, no MS movie is a certified flop, nor has any of them been bashed by critical consensus; but it *is* true that Marvel have so far only managed to strike Top 10 superhero gold with Iron Man; *not* Cap, Thor, or Hulk. IM 1 & 2 are the only ones in boxofficemojo's Top 10 superhero films; Thor sits at #15, Cap at #17, and TIH at #24.

So the "Marvel Studios/Kevin Feige formula" has been good for one certified blockbuster franchise; and even it worked best because Favreau was given free rein (at least in the first film). The tight leashes on Johnston, Leterrier and Branagh have yielded less favorable results.

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.


-----------

Also, what are these 'tight leashes' that everybody keeps talking about? You people continue to say these things without any knowledge of how Marvel conducts business. Iron Man 2 'suffered' because Marvel allowed Justin Theroux to be hired as writer. Everything else about that movie was great. The only things that suffered in Cap and Thor was they had to fit into the Avengers storyline. I'm sorry but if you think Marvel is going to let Favs do a 'Demon in a Bottle' storyline in it's most important summer blockbuster, you're insane.
 
That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.

Good post. I was about to post something similar.
 
And I love how people bring up Nolan as being an example of creativity regarding BB/TDK. He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies. Chris Nolan didn't create the Joker and 'dark' Batman stories. He simply drew inspiration from Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and No Man's Land. That is why he was successful with Batman. The previous 3 Batman movies could have used a Kevin Feige to control the nonsense that had been allowed.

If any example is needed to why a creative director isn't a good thing, just look at Aronofsky. Anybody remember his godawful idea for a Batman movie? Or James Cameron's for Spider-Man? Or Tim Burton's Superman and how insane he allowed Returns to get? Or Bryan Singer's Superman? Marvel has avoided all this bulls--t by not allowing directors to make bad movies. Demon in a Bottle would have been stupid as a 2 hr movie as mentioned earlier.
 
You shouldn't have mentioned Nolan or batman here. Hell will breal loose. :D
 
Good post. I was about to post something similar.

Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands. Kenneth Branagh made a great movie with bold creative design and interesting characters--and some don't appreciate it. I watched Thor the other day on Blu-Ray and just continue to be amazed on how incredible and colorful the movie looks. The Rainbow Bridge, Asgard, the Frost Giants, etc. How funny and well acted it is. All actors perfectly cast by Marvel. They clearly allow for creativity and Thor is it's best example. I hate to keep sounding like a Marvel fanboy but they are one of the bright spots in Hollywood.
 
Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands. Kenneth Branagh made a great movie with bold creative design and interesting characters--and some don't appreciate it. I watched Thor the other day on Blu-Ray and just continue to be amazed on how incredible and colorful the movie looks. The Rainbow Bridge, Asgard, the Frost Giants, etc. How funny and well acted it is. All actors perfectly cast by Marvel. They clearly allow for creativity and Thor is it's best example. I hate to keep sounding like a Marvel fanboy but they are one of the bright spots in Hollywood.

Yes, the fact that some of these characters were virtually unknown to the GA, and, in Thor's case, how 'out there' his concept is, make him very tricky to pull off. Not to mention how crowded the summer was.
I was honestly surprised (and happy) about how succesfull and popular he's become.
 
And I love how people bring up Nolan as being an example of creativity regarding BB/TDK. He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies. Chris Nolan didn't create the Joker and 'dark' Batman stories. He simply drew inspiration from Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and No Man's Land. That is why he was successful with Batman. The previous 3 Batman movies could have used a Kevin Feige to control the nonsense that had been allowed.

If any example is needed to why a creative director isn't a good thing, just look at Aronofsky. Anybody remember his godawful idea for a Batman movie? Or James Cameron's for Spider-Man? Or Tim Burton's Superman and how insane he allowed Returns to get? Or Bryan Singer's Superman? Marvel has avoided all this bulls--t by not allowing directors to make bad movies. Demon in a Bottle would have been stupid as a 2 hr movie as mentioned earlier.

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.
 
It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself.

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.
 
It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why Marvel is strict about their movies is because they are all set in MCU, so they all have to adhere to a certain vision. I think if Marvel decided to make all their movies standalones, they'll probably be more lenient and will allow Nolan to make BB & TDK the way he wanted to. And WB's policy of letting the filmmakers to do whatever they want doesn't pan out aside from Nolan's films; remember Bryan Singer's Superman Returns and Martin Campbell's The Green Lantern? Yes, Marvel is at fault for exerting too much control over their directors, but in a way they have prevented disasters or bombs from happening to their Marvel Studios movies.
 
Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

I think it's completely valid. There's nothing stopping them from pushing things to the next level, but you can't get to that next level if you don't allow someone to try and do it. The argument was the reason TDK/BB worked so well was because it stuck close to the source material, that's part of the reason, the other part was that the director was allowed to make the movie he wanted and wanted to push the envelope. If they want a cinematic universe that's fine, but they need to be more flexible in how they go about things otherwise they won't get the good directors and the results will reflect it. By having such a hardline stance against the talent if they don't see eye to eye and taking some chances with the direction and themes of their films they're only going to hurt themselves and their fans coz eventually one of these hardline decisions will cost them.
 
Some of these defenses of Marvel are just insulting to the medium.

You're an insult and a disgrace to humanity, with your snide comments and holier than thou attitude. You're no better than the trolls wHo T@lk Lyk Dis, and no worse than snide jerk. You're opinions isn't law, and you need to get that out of your head that it is. These posters here express their opinions too, but do not talk down to people like children the way you do. Questioning people's intelligences and saying people's explanations are insulting to medium, as your explanations are more insulting to the people's minds with your terrible contrarion behavior.

Marvel Studios has been pretty well as a studio, and in terms of CBMs, Thor and Captain America, while not reeinventing the wheel (every movie, especially hollywood movies does not have to), they do what they do best: entertain the masses with faithful representations of their characters. With vision, we are so used to the director having the vision for the story that we forget that their not the only ones who could have a vision and could have the vision. Producers have a vision too i.e. Tim Burton for a Nightmare before Christmas or Warren Beatty for Bonnie and Clyde. I'm not comparing Feige to them, but we don't know the whole story. Feige has a vision for these characters too that is obvious interfering with Thor.

Their goal clearly is not to make revisionist tales of the character like Batman. Every character isn't Batman, nor do they need to be placed in a realistic world like Batman. That's like going to see the The Transporter, wishing it was Drive. Both have similar concepts and are in the same genre, but have different appeals and tones. More people should accept that Marvel won't be making their movies like the Batman series, and they should accept that the Comic Book Genre has grown to be more complex to the point that there are different kinds of not only comic book, but superhero movies.

Why are people complaining that this movie "isn't the greatest superhero movie ever"? If the movie is good, fun, and entertaining, I couldn't care less if it isn't the great superhero movie ever. Marvel Studios has done that with every movie, and yes even IM2, which I felt was a fun comic book movie that almost literally felt like a comic book.
 
JMC, the reason I think it's invalid is that Nolan played by different rules. He was allowed to create a universe for himself. Batman's entire world is the one Nolan imagined (for better or worse) and leaves no room for connected stories. That sort of control is something Marvel can't offer, so it never would've happened.

There are upsides and downsides to both ways of thinking. Unlimited directorial control can yield great results (TDK) and it can lead to total disasters (GL, B&R). Marvel's approach so far has yielded above average movies, even some bordering on great, but nothing groundbreaking. I think they're more successful at the moment, however, because the MCU is something we haven't seen attempted before. The Avengers is nothing less than a living piece of movie history, even before we see the thing. It's huge. And maybe they won't have an Oscar-caliber film this cycle, but things change, and I see more potential for them as they refine the process of connecting their properties while allowing the filmmakers to put their stamp on the movies.
 
Yes, the fact that some of these characters were virtually unknown to the GA, and, in Thor's case, how 'out there' his concept is, make him very tricky to pull off. Not to mention how crowded the summer was.
I was honestly surprised (and happy) about how succesfull and popular he's become.

Yeah, it was much more than the character. They sold the notion that there were Norse Gods living in outer space and able to travel to earth using wormholes. I think it's one of the most bizarre summer blockbuster concepts that was successful.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,872
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"