Age of Ultron The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - - - - - Part 51

[Flint Marko]

For the record, James Gunn has stated that once he found incorporating Thanos into GOTG difficult, Marvel said he could just remove him completely, but Gunn told them he wanted to give it a shot anyway.

I think that's true on both sides. It is both true that most studios mess with their artists' work. It's also true that this affects quality negatively, generally. This is still true at Marvel studios. Pointing out that the movies still do well and are successful doesn't address this. After all, whose to say that the movie wouldn't do even better without their meddling? I certainly would've enjoyed a Thanos-less GotG or a Cave-full AoU more. I think we all would have enjoyed a SHIELD-less IM2 more. Even to say that they have a checklist and nothing more (item 3: don't have farm scenes?), doesn't negate the idea that that checklist, or perhaps the inflexibility of it, takes quality away from films for the sake of connecting it to the larger story of the MCU. You reducing the reality of the executive-mandated weaknesses of this movie to "Executives are evil and the MCU is ruined!" is just as much a strawman as reducing your point, that the MCU is successful despite, or perhaps because of it's quality-reducing meddling to "artists don't matter."

Now, some directors are fine. Gunn is a great example of someone who takes Marvel Studios making his movie worse and shrugs and continues on. That's the kind of attitude you need as a director, to work with Marvel. They're going to come in, ask you do make a poor decision for your story, and not take no for an answer. Moreso than other studios, judging by how many take umbridge with MS and not any other studio. Without knowing how badly they're going to gut your movie, it's impossible to know beforehand if you can handle that. Wright didn't know for nearly ten years that Marvel Studios were going to make him make the change that (in his opinion) weakened/gutted his film. It's possible those who've had good relationships so far, like the Russos had decisions that really didn't hurt the film. Cutting out Arnim Zola walking didn't actually hurt Cap 2, it helped it really. This may not be true in the future, as we've seen with Whedon. After all, being told to cut Wasp didn't hurt Avengers one bit either, actually made it stronger. The rarity of return directors and the increasing use of newcomers are further indicators that being a director for Marvel Studios is especially difficult.

A better counter would be pointing out how those weaknesses and meddling are necessary to connect the universe and make everything more successful overall, even if it does sometimes lower the quality. A less credible point might be that their changes make things better just as often as worse and we just don't know. Or you could just go crazy and say you liked all the SHIELD in IM2, or Thanos making Ronan cooler, or Malkeith being underdeveloped made him more mysterious, or some other outlandish minority opinion, and stick to it. Or you could just continue the ad hominem attacks. Whatever. It's your world.


Throw the baby out with the bathwater? If you love something, you don't just walk away because someone makes a mistake. You tell them to correct the mistake. It's only after they've proven that they don't give a crap about the quality of it that you stop supporting them.

I'm using ad hominem attacks? I, and several others, have addressed his points pretty thoroughly.
As someone just pointed out in another thread, Whedon recently said in a podcast he was more than happy with the final cut and that if he had it his way there would be an extra two minutes in there. That's it. That's the extent of this "tension" and Marvel's "meddling".
Again, the studio interference is overblown by people who want to poke holes where there really aren't any. Every major studio does it, and the one in question has a reputation for it because they are trying to spin nine plates and juggle three balls at once with an entire cohesive cinematic universe that spans across all forms of media. Interference is going to happen. I've brought this up multiple times both here and elsewhere and as you even say yourself, it's a valid point. The fact that you water it down and simplify it to "make a poor decision with your story" shows your thoughts on the matter.
And no, I don't see how anything I am arguing or have said is a straw-man argument.
But if the worst of the meddling is behind us (Iron man 2) and the most readily available example of it in recent years is AoU (which most regard as a great movie) then I personally don't see a lot to complain about.

Finally. Someone with common sense arrives with a stellar post.

It was a stellar post, albeit his insistence my argument relied on ad hominem attacks. But did you note that he articulated his points very clearly and respectfully, with a level-headed tone, and did not resort to twisting others words to suit his argument?

 

[hafizbat]

Again, the studio interference is overblown by people who want to poke holes where there really aren't any. Every major studio does it, and the one in question has a reputation for it because they are trying to spin nine plates and juggle three balls at once with an entire cohesive cinematic universe that spans across all forms of media. Interference is going to happen. I've brought this up multiple times both here and elsewhere and as you even say yourself, it's a valid point.
And no, my argument that the executive meddling lends itself to the success of the universe is not a straw man. I don't see how you can say that.
But if the worst of the meddling is behind us (Iron man 2) and the most readily available example of it in recent years is AoU (which most regard as a great movie) then I personally don't see a lot to complain about.

This, exactly. I wish people would actually talk about the content in the movies rather than this overblown studio vs director stuff. Unfortunately, people love making things a lot more dramatic than they are, and love talking about it even more.

 

[Picard Stewart]

No one said you were wrong to support Whedon. What is wrong is you taking a combative attitude on stuff that's complete speculation on your part. You did it on the Vision thread, and you got a warning, and now you're doing it here.

And sorry we don't know what goes on. We know what the media tells us and even having quotes from the directors is only one side of the story.

So you felt the need to remind me that I received a warning? Lmao so much for your ability to debate, dude.

Put me on ignore please.

 

[Flint Marko]

So you felt the need to remind me that I received a warning? Lmao so much for your ability to debate, dude.

Put me on ignore please.

I'm not seeing you do much debating here either, to be frank.

This, exactly. I wish people would actually talk about the content in the movies rather than this overblown studio vs director stuff. Unfortunately, people love making things a lot more dramatic than they are, and love talking about it even more.

Agreed.
I responded to Dr. Cosmic's post in a hurry, but to return to something he brought up; would a Thanos-less Guardians, or a cave-ful AoU, really have made that vast of a difference? Here we are arguing over one short little scene, and saying this characterizes Marvel as an entity and their interference on these projects.
To re-emphasize, we are talking about maybe two or three minutes worth of screen time. Am I alone in thinking that's a pretty insignificant amount of movie affected by these mandates? Am I crazy for saying that isn't a big deal to me in the slightest?

 

[Picard Stewart]

I'm using ad hominem attacks? I, and several others, have addressed his points pretty thoroughly.
As someone just pointed out in another thread, Whedon recently said in a podcast he was more than happy with the final cut and that if he had it his way there would be an extra two minutes in there. That's it. That's the extent of this "tension" and Marvel's "meddling".
Again, the studio interference is overblown by people who want to poke holes where there really aren't any. Every major studio does it, and the one in question has a reputation for it because they are trying to spin nine plates and juggle three balls at once with an entire cohesive cinematic universe that spans across all forms of media. Interference is going to happen. I've brought this up multiple times both here and elsewhere and as you even say yourself, it's a valid point. The fact that you water it down and simplify it to "make a poor decision with your story" shows your thoughts on the matter.
And no, I don't see how anything I am arguing or have said is a straw-man argument.
But if the worst of the meddling is behind us (Iron man 2) and the most readily available example of it in recent years is AoU (which most regard as a great movie) then I personally don't see a lot to complain about.


It was a stellar post, albeit his insistence my argument relied on ad hominem attacks. But did you note that he articulated his points very clearly and respectfully, with a level-headed tone, and did not resort to twisting others words to suit his argument?

I don't twist words. I just quote people.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't twist words. I just quote people.

You're the only one that keeps bringing up Fiege not being able to direct a home depot commercial or something, which couldn't be farther from the point that anyone is trying to make. That can read as troll-ish, off-topic, and intentionally inflammatory.

 

[InCali]

I think I prefer the complex film (AOU) to A1 (a more straight fwd popcorn movie). I loved A1 but what I wanted from AOU was a more layered/intricate experience that posed questions and had cool ideas while expanding the Avengers MCU.

I liked AoU better for precisely the reasons you posted. I also liked the look and feel of the cinematography more. It was nice to see a farm and fields. IMO, GotG was, from a cinematography standpoint, the best of the Marvel movies. Very nicely done and maybe my favorite MCU movie. I felt so happy after seeing that movie. It washed away the foul taste of sitting through Crapformers Age of Suckstinktion earlier.

Just to distill my thoughts on the current "controversy".....If Feige wants to step in because the direction of MCU is getting pulled away from where he needs it to go, I can understand him wanting to push it back into shape. If he's making changes because he happens to think it will make the movie better, then he should tread very, very softly and pretty much let the people he hired do their jobs. That's sort of it in a nutshell.

 

[Picard Stewart]

You're the only one that keeps bringing up Fiege not being able to direct a home depot commercial, which couldn't be farther from the point that anyone is trying to make.

There are posters here who believe the MCU needs nothing but Feige, hence why I responded with that to one of them.

The MCU only works because talented filmmakers like Favreau, Whedon, The Russos and Gunn gave their respective films their all. Without the auteur there is no art, just popcorn.

That they would micromanage Whedon after the outrageous success that was the first film says alot about their misguided approach to filmmaking. They need to let the artists create art, specially when said art had already proven to be very successful for them.

That's my point and the point Whedon is trying to make indirectly by venting. He's been planting those seeds since the Wright fiasco and will probably continue to vent further in the coming months.

I only hope his guile in being open about this stuff empowers The Russos, Derrickson & Gunn to stand up for their creative visions and prevent the studio from compromising their films.

 

[InCali]

There are posters here who believe the MCU needs nothing but Feige, hence why I responded with that to one of them.

The MCU only works because talented filmmakers like Favreau, Whedon, The Russos and Gunn gave their respective films their all. Without the auteur there is no art, just popcorn.

That they would micromanage Whedon after the outrageous success that was the first film says alot about their misguided approach to filmmaking. They need to let the artists create art, specially when said art had already proven to be very successful for them.

That's my point and the point Whedon is trying to make indirectly by venting. He's been planting those seeds since the Wright fiasco and will probably continue to vent further in the coming months.

I only hope his guile in being open about this stuff empowers The Russos, Derrickson & Gunn to stand up for their creative visions and prevent the studio from compromising their films.

It's interesting. I'm not even 100% sure you guys really disagree that much. I think it's important that the filmmakers are allowed to make films. Without them and a strong cast, you won't have a good movie.

I also think Kevin has done a good job of articulating direction as I happen to really like just about everything MCU. I hope he isn't making the mistake of messing with the artistic direction of the MCU films as long as they don't stray from certain overall guidelines. An extreme example of this would be if another director decided s/he wanted to change Wanda's powers from those that have been established (like all of the sudden she can turn invisible or something like that). I'm using that as an extreme example for the point of illustration.

It takes an entire team to make a good movie and a good MCU. As they say, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link".

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm using ad hominem attacks? I, and several others, have addressed his points pretty thoroughly.
As someone just pointed out in another thread, Whedon recently said in a podcast he was more than happy with the final cut and that if he had it his way there would be an extra two minutes in there. That's it. That's the extent of this "tension" and Marvel's "meddling".
Again, the studio interference is overblown by people who want to poke holes where there really aren't any. Every major studio does it, and the one in question has a reputation for it because they are trying to spin nine plates and juggle three balls at once with an entire cohesive cinematic universe that spans across all forms of media. Interference is going to happen. I've brought this up multiple times both here and elsewhere and as you even say yourself, it's a valid point. The fact that you water it down and simplify it to "make a poor decision with your story" shows your thoughts on the matter.
And no, I don't see how anything I am arguing or have said is a straw-man argument.
But if the worst of the meddling is behind us (Iron man 2) and the most readily available example of it in recent years is AoU (which most regard as a great movie) then I personally don't see a lot to complain about.

You have good points, which I've acknowledged, but yes, you are also relying on characterizing your opponent a certain way to add supposed validity to your points. Even in this post, you say people who disagree "Want to poke holes where there aren't any," as opposed to addressing the holes they've pointed out. Then pulling a single statement out of context and say that (and not, y'know, my whole post) are "my thoughts on the matter." If you take that further to expound on what you believe those thoughts are then you are creating a strawman, especially if they conflict with the explicit points you quoted and read before you came to the conclusion of what my thoughts are. Nothing personal, you just address people instead of points. It's not good, or evil, it's just a fact.

Likewise, Whedon has also gone on record about the tension and meddling, as have others. His opinion changing later for a podcast doesn't erase those events from history. They still happened, they still affected the film in an appreciable way. When you say "I don't see" things that have been so explicitly detailed, it makes it seem as though you just don't care about these facts. Which again, it's your world, you don't have to.

For me, I'm pretty sure that more flexible "checklists" would make the MCU films better as well as allow them to accomplish their overarching universe goals. Thanos isn't 'coming to do it himself' for another 3 years. They could've been more flexible and still hit all their goals. The MCU films, in general, are good, but good is the enemy of great. Also, that feeling of disappointment I got from Thor 2, that many got from IM 2, or AoU... I think it can be fixed. So... why not? Why settle for less when we don't have to?

It was a stellar post, albeit his insistence my argument relied on ad hominem attacks. But did you note that he articulated his points very clearly and respectfully, with a level-headed tone, and did not resort to twisting others words to suit his argument?

Not insistence. Simply pointing out the facts, with examples. Do with them as you will. You are still a valuable person with a purpose for being on the planet, even if you don't see the points or value of others.

Heh. Point value.

 

[Flint Marko]

There are posters here who believe the MCU needs nothing but Feige, hence why I responded with that to one of them.

No, there aren't. There are people who believe he is the most important person in the MCU, and that's certainly worth debating, but no one honestly thinks that the entire franchise hinges on his creative input. Again, you are clearly misinterpreting what others have said. I've pointed that out several times now. It's clear as day.

The MCU only works because talented filmmakers like Favreau, Whedon, The Russos and Gunn gave their respective films their all. Without the auteur there is no art, just popcorn.

It doesn't only work because of them, you are forgetting the hundreds of talented people behind the scenes of every movie working on costume designs, props, special effects, sound editing, etc. This goes all the way up to the producers, like Fiege, who reign it all in and make it work with the other films they make. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.

That they would micromanage Whedon after the outrageous success that was the first film says alot about their misguided approach to filmmaking. They need to let the artists create art, specially when said art had already proven to be very successful for them.

The fact that this "misguided" approach has led them to undeniable success both critically and financially, time after time, says that it is not as misguided as you'd like to believe. You can dislike this method all you want, but to call it "misguided"? I'd love to be as "misguided" as them at my job, I'd be a billionaire by now.
Again, as I've said time and time again, they are asking film makers to make relatively minuscule changes that, at the end of the day, probably won't make or break the movie for you unless you know going into it you aren't going to like it.

That's my point and the point Whedon is trying to make indirectly by venting. He's been planting those seeds since the Wright fiasco and will probably continue to vent further in the coming months.
I only hope his guile in being open about this stuff empowers The Russos, Derrickson & Gunn to stand up for their creative visions and prevent the studio from compromising their films.

It won't, because the Russo's & Gunn can clearly work within Marvel's framework. And their films won't be more "compromised" than any of their other movies.
I said this earlier and you did not respond to it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on other studios doing this. WB is going through the same things with film makers on their Aquaman and Wonder Woman movie. This would demonstrate to me that it's just a cost of doing business and that you are going to have to accept this "misguided approach" as an inevitability of putting a connected cinematic universe on screen.

 

[Tony Stark]

There are posters here who believe the MCU needs nothing but Feige, hence why I responded with that to one of them.

Please provide a quote of someone who said that. Yet another straw-man argument from you.

 

[DrCosmic]

Please provide a quote of someone who said that. Yet another straw-man argument from you.

Yeah, I'm getting on Flint Marko, he's more ad hominem, but Picard Stewart's Strawman is out of this world.

 

[Tony Stark]

I would say that in that business, you do get alot of strong personalities. The most infamous example I can think of, where artists, directors and producers can't get along was on the filming of Aliens. James Cameron is notorious for recutting scenes at the last minute. This frustrated the hell out of James Horner who had ideas for the score in the final sequence, but they were still shooting and he didn't have a cut to set the score against. They were on a deadline and was told he had a matter of days to finish the score, but there was still no cut. He then pieced something together and Cameron recut the scene and Horner was told he had to change the score because it wouldn't fit. He was furious and was basically told to finish it, or they would find someone else, to which he replied "please find someone else because if someone can do this in that amount of time I could really learn from them."

He did the score and it became one of the most famous tracks from the Aliens movie and was reused in several trailers, but the relationship between Horner and Cameron was damaged, and they didn't speak to each other for over a decade, until Cameron started his work on Titanic.

The point here is disagreements happen. Films have to be on a budget and on a time line. Someone has to call the shots, and a director can't have free reign, even on property that he creates, because there's someone putting their money behind it, and someone putting it out there.

Do you know what you get when a director gets everything they want? The Star Wars prequels. Lucas had built himself up to a point where he could finance the films himself. He could write and direct them himself. He owned and effects studio so he could get the shots he wanted.

Rick McCallum is a yes man, and basically did George's will on both the special editions (which most people hate vs. the orignial films) and the prequels. No one told George he should or shouldn't do certain things, because he was financing the movies, he owned the characters, he owned the FX house, it was all his baby, and those movies pale in comparison to what the orignal films were.

 

[Picard Stewart]

Please provide a quote of someone who said that. Yet another straw-man argument from you.

Without the straw-man bit what else ya got?

One more time, put me on ignore.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Dude, your love for a typical Hollywood producer and hate for true artists/auteurs is appalling.

Its a mentality like this that gave birth to the Transformers series, which by the way is a series Feige is actually a fan of.

Its Feige who should be grateful that he's a rich man today because of the talents of several great filmmakers.

Dude....if only you actually understood how it all works...

 

[darkslayer101]

a little too early to move on to Ant-man boards...

 

[spideyboy_1111]

He mentioned Disney in that article. How does it really work with these movies? How much can Disney meddle in to Marvel affairs? The decision to go all out with the movies and change the comics to match them probably came from Disney rather than a in-house decision.

Marvel has altered there movies from the comics since before disney...

 

[Tony Stark]

Without the straw-man bit what else ya got?

One more time, put me on ignore.

IOW, you don't have a quote.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

What are you a mod, now? Here to tell me its wrong to support Whedon in his plight with studio meddling?

There's no conjecture in those RT scores for sequels to critically acclaimed blockbusters that suffered from studio interference. Btw, that audience rating for AOU has half the votes the first film has. Expect that percentage to lower as more people chime in.

Also, Whedon has revealed what goes on behind the scenes as have others in the past. You're whole "we don't know what goes on..." argument gets thrown out the window every time Whedon or Wright or Gunn or Favreau speak out on the studio's faults.

you just keep moving that goal post don't you... good luck with that

 

[Son of Coul]

I would say that in that business, you do get alot of strong personalities. The most infamous example I can think of, where artists, directors and producers can't get along was on the filming of Aliens. James Cameron is notorious for recutting scenes at the last minute. This frustrated the hell out of James Horner who had ideas for the score in the final sequence, but they were still shooting and he didn't have a cut to set the score against. They were on a deadline and was told he had a matter of days to finish the score, but there was still no cut. He then pieced something together and Cameron recut the scene and Horner was told he had to change the score because it wouldn't fit. He was furious and was basically told to finish it, or they would find someone else, to which he replied "please find someone else because if someone can do this in that amount of time I could really learn from them."

He did the score and it became one of the most famous tracks from the Aliens movie and was reused in several trailers, but the relationship between Horner and Cameron was damaged, and they didn't speak to each other for over a decade, until Cameron started his work on Titanic.

The point here is disagreements happen. Films have to be on a budget and on a time line. Someone has to call the shots, and a director can't have free reign, even on property that he creates, because there's someone putting their money behind it, and someone putting it out there.

Do you know what you get when a director gets everything they want? The Star Wars prequels. Lucas had built himself up to a point where he could finance the films himself. He could write and direct them himself. He owned and effects studio so he could get the shots he wanted.

Rick McCallum is a yes man, and basically did George's will on both the special editions (which most people hate vs. the orignial films) and the prequels. No one told George he should or shouldn't do certain things, because he was financing the movies, he owned the characters, he owned the FX house, it was all his baby, and those movies pale in comparison to what the orignal films were.

Indeed. People are people, and bad ideas can come from both sides as much as good. Based on leaked info from Sony, it's already clear they were a complete mess and Avi continues his misguided obsession with Venom, but we don't know all the little details. Some studios destroy movies with interference, some talented ones can in fact improve them.

There's no surefire formula to success. Some directors are total auteurs whose works are best left completely untouched. A lot of big movies like the works of Disney Animation and Pixar are pitched by one person and then developed in groupthink, then pitched to producers, in an extremely collaborative process. There are some artists best kept on a leash and some best left unrestricted. Marvel chooses to do their work this way and it won't always work out, but it also often does. Wright is someone best left to his own devices, so it would appear we would've gotten a "Wright-lite" film that could've disappointed due to this method. Conversely, the Russos have worked in TV for years and are used to this process and possibly even work better under these conditions. The collaboration & delegation makes it work in this instance, they don't make it work in spite of it.

One can take the easy route of blaming the big evil studio for any & every flaw, but it's an overly simplistic way to look at things.

 

[blake c]

So about that movie.... I liked when Hawkeye shot that one robot. You know, the scary one that flew? Yeah, that was great. Then he made that one joke haha ha ha

 

[Flint Marko]

You have good points, which I've acknowledged, but yes, you are also relying on characterizing your opponent a certain way to add supposed validity to your points. Even in this post, you say people who disagree "Want to poke holes where there aren't any," as opposed to addressing the holes they've pointed out. Then pulling a single statement out of context and say that (and not, y'know, my whole post) are "my thoughts on the matter." If you take that further to expound on what you believe those thoughts are then you are creating a strawman, especially if they conflict with the explicit points you quoted and read before you came to the conclusion of what my thoughts are. Nothing personal, you just address people instead of points. It's not good, or evil, it's just a fact.

Maybe you aren't as familiar with Picard's posting history as I am, and maybe that's wherein the confusion lies. Because I still don't see how I've resorted to ad hominem. The only person I feel I have been "characterizing" has been Picard, but I'm far from the only person who has taken issues with his posts.
But my larger point with you was that I disagree that the creative decisions from Marvel are detrimental to the movies. You described it as such, and your whole post did nothing to undo that. Here is your exact quote:

That's the kind of attitude you need as a director, to work with Marvel. They're going to come in, ask you do make a poor decision for your story, and not take no for an answer. Moreso than other studios, judging by how many take umbridge with MS and not any other studio.

Am I wrong for taking it the way I did?
I think Thanos did nothing to take away from Guardians, it was actually Fiege's idea that Captain America: TFA take place almost entirely in WWII despite multiple people's insistence other wise, and it was also the Marvel brass' idea to dismantle SHIELD. Do you understand why I disagreed with the notion that Marvel "guts" these film makers movies?
Now I'm not saying they are above making poor decisions. Iron Man 2 alone proves that. But I feel you are over-simplifying things.

Likewise, Whedon has also gone on record about the tension and meddling, as have others. His opinion changing later for a podcast doesn't erase those events from history. They still happened, they still affected the film in an appreciable way. When you say "I don't see" things that have been so explicitly detailed, it makes it seem as though you just don't care about these facts. Which again, it's your world, you don't have to.

And that's just the thing, they don't affect the film in an "appreciable" way in my eyes. Like I've said before, a two minute scene here or there that, at the worst, feels disjointed, is not enough to get me upset, especially if the rest of the film is as good as the Marvel films have been recently. Does that make sense? I feel more than comfortable saying "I don't see" problems that have been "explicitly detailed" when the problem can be boiled down to "this two minute scene feels like it serves the cinematic universe as a whole more so than this movie I am watching now", which is something I only really felt in Iron Man 2 when it was more than two minutes.

For me, I'm pretty sure that more flexible "checklists" would make the MCU films better as well as allow them to accomplish their overarching universe goals. The MCU films, in general, are good, but good is the enemy of great. Also, that feeling of disappointment I got from Thor 2, that many got from IM 2, or AoU... I think it can be fixed. So... why not? Why settle for less when we don't have to?

Someone pointed out earlier that some of Marvel's checklists are, indeed, pretty flexible. Once Gunn expressed trepidations about shoehorning Thanos into his movie, Marvel backed down from it, but Gunn took the challenge anyway and, in my opinion, the film benefitted from it.
Could Marvel stand to back down from certain things every now and then? Sure, but I don't really know. None of us do. But given that we know nothing about what goes on behind closed doors, I'd rather take Marvel's approach of laying out a framework for the film makers to play within as opposed to some of their competitors approach, which feels more like "throw whatever on the wall and see what sticks" or "just do what you want from movie to movie, it doesn't really matter".

Not insistence. Simply pointing out the facts, with examples. Do with them as you will. You are still a valuable person with a purpose for being on the planet, even if you do rely on dismissing the value of other people in order to make your point.

It has nothing to do with dismissing the "value of other people", it's seeing the vitriol aimed at a movie studio for supposedly stifling the creative vision of someone and condemning them for it. My posts have been specifically aimed at Picard, because he has taken umbrage with several minor details about this movie to the point where the mods had to apparently step in and tell him to keep it in line.
For what it's worth I'm at work right now, and while we are having a slow day, I haven't been able to spend an abundance of time picking apart this debate and giving it my full attention so if there are details I'm missing or bits I'm leaving out, I apologize.

 

[hafizbat]

There's more than enough quality posting and rational sense to drown out the delusion on this page. Good job guys

 

[spideyboy_1111]

There are posters here who believe the MCU needs nothing but Feige, hence why I responded with that to one of them.

The MCU only works because talented filmmakers like Favreau, Whedon, The Russos and Gunn gave their respective films their all. Without the auteur there is no art, just popcorn.

That they would micromanage Whedon after the outrageous success that was the first film says alot about their misguided approach to filmmaking. They need to let the artists create art, specially when said art had already proven to be very successful for them.

That's my point and the point Whedon is trying to make indirectly by venting. He's been planting those seeds since the Wright fiasco and will probably continue to vent further in the coming months.

I only hope his guile in being open about this stuff empowers The Russos, Derrickson & Gunn to stand up for their creative visions and prevent the studio from compromising their films.

i'm pretty sure everyone with any sense of reality... knows and understands it's a massive group effort from every side... not one... it's not all fiege, and it's certainly not all the directors...

it's Fiege and the producers, the directors, the writers, the actors.... that's what has shaped the MCU... to think it's one side or another is completely ignorant.

The producers higher all of the people below to tell the story they want to tell...

The Writers bring the stories and dialogue to the table

The Actors bring the characters to life

and the Directors direct the actors, organize the shots, the emotion, and collaborate with the writers...

Films of this magnitude are MASSIVE undertakings.. and its incredibly ignorant to assume it's not a group effort.