There's me, saying what you said I didn't say.
So yeah, you're "wrong" for selectively reading my posts. I don't understand why Marvel making good decisions in some cases has any bearing on the existence of "bad" decisions they've made and the effects of those decisions. They made TFA better and they made Thor 2/IM2/AoU worse. They put the success of the overall franchise over the quality of any given movie. If they didn't, they'd probably be out of a job.
What's complicated?
Well, that's more of the straw man. The problem doesn't boil down to that.
My problem with Guardians of the Galaxy, for instance, with that "two minute scene" with Thanos and Ronan is that it makes the characters laughable, even after that scene, and thus less interesting to me for the duration of the MCU. For me, whenever Thanos shows up I roll my eyes. My kids don't see the problem, because they don't expect (or notice) most social dynamics. My girlfriend doesn't see it as a problem, because to her these are cartoon characters, that can't be taken seriously anyway. Only me and my comic book nerd friends see it as a problem because we see these characters on the level with Darth Vader, Hal and Hannibal Lecter. To see them handled with all the weight and subtlety of Snidely Whiplash and Mandark the Magnificent, well, it's a bit sad, really.
There are other problems that come up with the checklist, from decreasing the hero's agency and relevance in his own story to simply requiring plot points that are less interesting. These are appreci
able problems. Whether you as an individual appreciate them or not is your own affair, of course.
But we do know several things about what go on behind closed doors. We have dozens of first hand accounts and we can see the effect and compare it with the effects of other studios. I think that's what's really interesting about your point of view, you seem to be really selective in what you accept as reality, even in the face of documentation.
I think Gunn is playing it smart. He knows when you give in you get more power later. That's probably how he got to the point where they backed off the Thanos requirement. He also has a little more lee way in that he's out in space away from everyone. Even the way he publicly goes on record with the moderate response whenever there's a controversy on this issue is brilliant politics. He probably means every word, too, but it's also perfect hollywood political maneuvering.
I also reject any "either/or" false dichotomy along with the ad hominem and strawman. Marvel can improve their framework's flexibility without having to choose between running off talented directors and "just do what you want."
If mods give you warnings for nitpicking a film, then maybe I'm on the wrong forum.
All movie studios stifle creativity. Not supposedly, it's literally their job. In order to further the idea that they don't you've been using rhetoric that ignores a lot of stuff that's well known. Yes Picard is out to lunch... who cares? We can still talk about what's wrong with Marvel movies. It doesn't mean there's nothing right with them, far from it, but, as I said before,
good is the enemy of great.
