Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]489735[/split]
I think that ignores how important the creative input of a director is. Having a director to just serve as a placeholder can (and usually does) hurt the quality of the film. How well the story and characters play out depends largely on their execution, which is up to the director. I think the video I posted shows the kinds of creative choices in direction that Wright would make and that the current director is less likely to make.
And it's not like good storytelling in an individual installment has never before suffered do to attempts to service the larger plan.
Yeah I sort of brough that up earlier in a post, the question of how much a director's involvement is seen through their personal styles. With Shane Blackd heavy buddy cop influence being seen in IM3 but the Russos heavy comedy influence not being seen in Cap2.
In the scope of just MCU movies in particular with their directors how much of that directors personal influences are seen within those films generally? Does marvel let the director tap into his or her own vision and personal history more or do they take a more hands on approach and sort of have the director take on "their" (Marvel's) vision for the movie?
Yeah I sort of brough that up earlier in a post, the question of how much a director's involvement is seen through their personal styles. With Shane Blackd heavy buddy cop influence being seen in IM3 but the Russos heavy comedy influence not being seen in Cap2.
In the scope of just MCU movies in particular with their directors how much of that directors personal influences are seen within those films generally? Does marvel let the director tap into his or her own vision and personal history more or do they take a more hands on approach and sort of have the director take on "their" (Marvel's) vision for the movie?
And with this being such a specific and "risky" project I guess it's safe to assume Marvel wanted everything to touch perfectly on their vision.
Side note: I really like how you can see Rudds eyes clearly through the lenses in the mask. It's a nice and simple touch that I wasn't expecting when the mask was on.
I feel it should have gone the way of the test footage, showcasing Antman's action choreography and unique use of his powers with some situational humour.
Perhaps. But then Guardians was arguably riskier, and while I don't think it's the most James Gunn-y of all James Gunn films, it's definitely a bit outside of the ravel wheelhouse and more inside of Gunn's.
Ant-Man is much more of a straightforward super hero tale than Guardians is. Ultimately, we still don't know what the "creative differences" between Wright and Marvel were.
Also, yeah, the eyes thing is neat.
That is sooo weird!We all know how Rudd worked out for Ant Man:
The CG looked weirdly out of focus and a bit cartoonish.
Yeah, Guardians was something that I never expected to love. I've never been one for the scifi space epic type film. I think what really sold that film to me was the cast, specifically Pratt, doing a great job. As well as the more outlandish characters of Rocket and Groot being so easy to love.
I've never been too worried for AntMan as a concept not peaking my interest as it's essentially a spy/heist movie which are fun. I think it's another case here of the cast that will really solidify the movie on it being great or just normal. I don't think the movie will turn out bad under any circumstances.