-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;5909254]Yeah, we know this for a fact; [B]the directors of the last several films have made it no secret that they were given extensive creative freedom when making their films.[/B] As I recall, it was under Ike Perlmutter that there were the most restrictions and after Feige got control that restrictions were lifted.
.[/QUOTE]
Black Widow is a recent film with very questionable narrative, going by how marvel told the one time director, they don't do their own action scenes and this does make a lot of scene because black widow has one of the worst cgi in a comic film.
NWH is a recent film and it had the same marvel vfx issue.
Shang Chi is a recent film, yet the 3rd arc is like GOTG/Endgame. All out animation.
Eternals acted on something different but stuck mostly to formula, I also keep going back to Eternals, wondering if Chloe Zhao was really fully onboard with the extremely colourful costumes that created a lot of issues to the overall look of the film, since it just clashed with the mix-bred cinemathogprhay of hers and Feige.
Surely this cannot be creative freedom like Zack Snyder doing Man of Steel and Patty Jenkins doing Wonder Woman?
[QUOTE]Love Gravity. I'd agree that it was a better film. However, both movies were great because of their character work; they're ultimately human stories and that, IMHO, is what people really latched onto. Gravity's special effects are impressive, but it's the characters that make the story matter (e.g. Ryan Stone needing to find the will to live again and how that ties into the journey to return to Earth). I mean, what the signature scene of the movie? The one with the radio ham.
Look, no matter how you slice it, I'd argue that both Gravity and Guardians of the Galaxy are good in their own way. That's all that really matters. One doesn't need to be the other.[/QUOTE]
I dont think there are different kinds of complexity in film once you break down the purpose of a movie, all road may be on the same direction. Naturally, it will and should be hard to get a complex story based of a light hearted action driven movie already water down compared to the source material, because there will be no space to layer plot-lines and dive deeper into the characters to make it complex and even any little complexity easily burns out or comes to a halt once we get to the final big 3rd act cgi fight.
I am pretty sure somebody has already blamed GOTG for quips and jokes that all marvel films now do on this thread. Gravity actually pushes you to study science and makes you think more of how dangerous Astronauts jobs can be. It is a great film in many ways and it does not even make me think of Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban (same director). you watch GOTG and you think of Thor Ragnarok or the recent Shang Chi, seem both films are just intentionally way too colourful.
[QUOTE]Which assumes that it needs to be. There are a wider range of stories that can be told.
[QUOTE=Castle;5909170]Also Snyder is not a lone counter point to Feige.
As an example that compares like to like. You could replace with Cameron, if you wanted to. The point still stands.
[/QUOTE]
When you say wide range of stories, what do you mean? when I say range, I mean Joker, the comic books.
[QUOTE]
He may not rank. Neither may James Cameron or others. Frankly, I think its an impossible question to answer. However, I think everything should be given a fair shake, which isn't the case here.[/QUOTE]
James Cameron will rank in the top 10 for the later half of the 20th century. he has changed cinema 3 times as an auteur film maker.
Titanic redefined blockbusters and was a real successor to Ben Hur , the first film since Ben Hur to be epic in scope and visuals and also nabbed 11 Oscar wins all for merited meaning.
T1 and T2 changed science fiction movies film making and has been a constant influenced on the genre. the visual, story and Cameron direction has stood the test of time and gets referenced by many other film makers, heck the Wolverine scene from DOFP where he goes back to the past and has no cloth on was a tribute to T2.
Avatar best show cased what 3D should be used for and used for only with films.
So Cameron will rank, Additionally Cameron by 1997/1998 was already an iconic film maker because of titanic which was both a blockbuster phenomenon, a pop culture phenomenon and an artistic phenomenon. this was before Feige produced the first mcu film in 2008. So Cameron was already way ahead.
Lastly who will be doing the ranking. surely it is not marvel fans or dc fans , or star wars fans or another big blockbuster fans . usually it is other film makers or peers and those who study films for serious earnings and living that can break down film making, down to an atom. so in other words the same people who are reluctant to take feige comic films seriously in the first place :eek:.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5909379]Actually those are two great comparrisons. Both are artists, visionaries and world builders. Both... suck at dialogue. And from what I understand, both of them aren't very nice people. I do give Cameron the superior staple over Lucas when it comes to directing, but I feel Lucas gets the edge over Cameron in story.
.[/QUOTE]
I think we should bring Lucas down overall, below Cameron. the prequels has really taken too many strong positive away from Lucas. Also Cameron made a good 3D conversion with Titanic, Lucas did not with Episode 1.
I love Lucas but I will place him below Cameron. too much damage with the prequels that became more collateral with each releases from 1999-2005.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5900628]Yeah, I have explained many times about Cameron. The idea that Avatar is equal to MCU movies in terms of ''film'' is [B]artistically[/B] not accurate because Avatar was revolutionary in film making.
harshness is not a surprising term here due to the James Cameron/Marvel movies beef that has been around since Cameron said [B][I]''bad''[/I][/B] things about Avengers movies, what people need to understand is that James Cameron and the supposed beef isn't even there to Cameron. he sees MCU films, as everything he does not do and felt they were for the best in taking cinema to a whole new level. Aliens, Terminator, Titanic, Avatar.
James Cameron also[B] writes, directs, edits and produces [/B]and he does this on his own terms. He is way above Feige's league here as a film maker.
Let also make it simpler to show Cameron is the master here.
Is there any Feige marvel movie post-2009 that can be watched in 3D on the same visual film masterclass experience as Avatar or Titanic 3D? No.
My advice watching a Feige marvel film. Stick to 2D and do not bother with the 3D covert version of the film. I saw Avengers 2012 both in 3D and 2D. The 2D was far better. 3D wasted my money. I saw Avatar on more than multiple occasions in 3D and I enjoyed both experiences.[/QUOTE]
On the question of 3D films, I saw a video essay a few weeks ago about why Imax has taken off that seems relevant.
[video=youtube_share;efD8F8kXPN0]https://youtu.be/efD8F8kXPN0[/video]
[I]Avatar [/I]is used as an example of successful 3D, and one reason for that is that the film is shot in a way that is exciting in 3D.
It could very well be that this is part of James Cameron's natural instinct (lots of interesting things in the foreground) which could make [I]Titanic [/I]a more successful than average 3D conversion.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5909379]
Seconded!
.[/QUOTE]
Yep
And can we also add [B]Frank Carpa[/B] to the list of Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, Walt Disney, Steven Spielberg or William Wyler? Carpa was a very unique case. he produced[B] It's a Wonderful Life[/B] and [B]Mr Smith Goes to Washington[/B] all by himself. he also produced [B]It Happened in One Night.[/B]
Looking at the corrupt and polluted mess of the current USA Politics , Mr Smith Goes to Washington a film he produced alone is still very relevant for a film that came out in 1939 than anything Feige has done with his 27 movies, maybe I will exclude only his Black Panther for this one in terms of relevance.
Usually producing credit is listed between 2-4, but Carpa could do it alone and then direct the film also, so Frank Carpa needs to be in this conversation of GOAT producers above Feige.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5909379]
I think you're being a little harsh. Just five of Cameron's films ([I]Aliens, the Abyss, Terminator 2, Titanic[/I] and [I]Avatar[/I]) have amassed a total of 40 Oscar nominations, and 21 Oscar wins. Which, to be fair, is more than the entirety of the MCU put together... times two. Times three even? He is not without artistic merit, or critical acclaim for his artistry.
[I]EDIT [/I]- I thought I'd check. Turns out Marvel has 19 Oscar noms (11 for best visual effects), 3 wins (oddly NONE for visual effects, which surprised me). So it's more times two, than 3. My mistake.[/QUOTE]
Cameron even has more Oscar wins for Best Director than the likes of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick combined, guess that means he's a greater director than all of them.
Or maybe it means that using the Oscars as a measure stick for artistic quality is somewhat flawed...
-
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;5909403]On the question of 3D films, I saw a video essay a few weeks ago about why Imax has taken off that seems relevant.
[video=youtube_share;efD8F8kXPN0]https://youtu.be/efD8F8kXPN0[/video]
[I]Avatar [/I][B]is used as an example of successful 3D, and one reason for that is that the film is shot in a way that is exciting in 3D.[/B]
It could very well be that this is part of James Cameron's natural instinct (lots of interesting things in the foreground) which could make [I]Titanic [/I]a more successful than average 3D conversion.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, Avatar was short in 3D not converted, but thanks for confirming what I already said that this was the difference between avatar and other films that took short cuts, including feige produced films.
[QUOTE]
It could very well be that this is part of James Cameron's natural instinct (lots of interesting things in the foreground) which could make Titanic a more successful than average 3D conversion.[/QUOTE]
Yep already said this as well about James Cameron instinct. I said part of the advantage he has over Feige and many others is that he is a very self aware film maker. I will say he is the the closest thing the world of cinema has to Steve Jobs.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5909379]Actually those are two great comparrisons. Both are artists, visionaries and world builders. Both... suck at dialogue. And from what I understand, both of them aren't very nice people. I do give Cameron the superior staple over Lucas when it comes to directing, but I feel Lucas gets the edge over Cameron in story.
I mean... errrrr... most of these descriptions are a STRETCH! And that's me being polite. If you think Winter Soldier is a political thriller, my follow up question is what political thrillers have you seen? Space Opera? Guardians of the Galaxy? I mean... no.
I don't think it sucked. Visually it was great, and the over-reaching story good (it's just the entire Jared Leto part that needed cutting). I'd LOVE to see an edit of that film, with that plot taken out. I bet it would be awesome. Thought Ryan Gosling was perfect, but he'll never beat Dekker!
Seconded!
I think you're being a little harsh. Just five of Cameron's films ([I]Aliens, the Abyss, Terminator 2, Titanic[/I] and [I]Avatar[/I]) have amassed a total of 40 Oscar nominations, and 21 Oscar wins. Which, to be fair, is more than the entirety of the MCU put together... times two. Times three even? He is not without artistic merit, or critical acclaim for his artistry.
[I]EDIT [/I]- I thought I'd check. Turns out Marvel has 19 Oscar noms (11 for best visual effects), 3 wins (oddly NONE for visual effects, which surprised me). So it's more times two, than 3. My mistake.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a little harsh.
But Cameron's "dismissal" of accusations against his work..particularly when a lot of is justified is grating. Yes, he's won awards....for in some cases plagiarizing other people's work which is an awful thing to do.
He's entitled to his opinion but all his noise about Marvel films not feeling "epic enough" or worst still his "hot take" on Wonder Woman comes across as very silly.
It just comes back to my original point that he's just feeling left behind now that genre film making is a lot bigger than ever and others have run away with it.
-
Titanic story made no sense, why did Rose keep the diamond only to throw it back? The diamond had zero connection to Jack. And was she holding it all those years thinking she was going back to the shipwreck? Maybe using it for your kids would have been nice. Made no sense.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5909509]Titanic story made no sense, why did Rose keep the diamond only to throw it back? The diamond had zero connection to Jack. And was she holding it all those years thinking she was going back to the shipwreck? Maybe using it for your kids would have been nice. Made no sense.[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe it was an historic diamond that belonged to a particular family and if she revealed she had it, it would have been immediately taken from her? Dunno. I've wondered the same things as you are now, but its not the only thing I wonder about with that movie.
-
Titanic was much like Avatar. Cameron wanted to film the sinking, so he just hung a melodramatic story on it. Even if it was full of holes. He got lucky that it starred to amazing actors with great chemistry.
Titanic's story was as weak as Avatar's.
I liked both, despite the flaws.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5909399]I think we should bring Lucas down overall, below Cameron. the prequels has really taken too many strong positive away from Lucas. Also Cameron made a good 3D conversion with Titanic, Lucas did not with Episode 1.
I love Lucas but I will place him below Cameron. too much damage with the prequels that became more collateral with each releases from 1999-2005.[/QUOTE]I deleted my comment due to its irrelevance.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5909381]Black Widow is a recent film with very questionable narrative, going by how marvel told the one time director, they don't do their own action scenes and this does make a lot of scene because black widow has one of the worst cgi in a comic film.
NWH is a recent film and it had the same marvel vfx issue.
Shang Chi is a recent film, yet the 3rd arc is like GOTG/Endgame. All out animation.
Eternals acted on something different but stuck mostly to formula, I also keep going back to Eternals, wondering if Chloe Zhao was really fully onboard with the extremely colourful costumes that created a lot of issues to the overall look of the film, since it just clashed with the mix-bred cinemathogprhay of hers and Feige.
Surely this cannot be creative freedom like Zack Snyder doing Man of Steel and Patty Jenkins doing Wonder Woman?
I dont think there are different kinds of complexity in film once you break down the purpose of a movie, all road may be on the same direction. Naturally, it will and should be hard to get a complex story based of a light hearted action driven movie already water down compared to the source material, because there will be no space to layer plot-lines and dive deeper into the characters to make it complex and even any little complexity easily burns out or comes to a halt once we get to the final big 3rd act cgi fight.
I am pretty sure somebody has already blamed GOTG for quips and jokes that all marvel films now do on this thread. Gravity actually pushes you to study science and makes you think more of how dangerous Astronauts jobs can be. It is a great film in many ways and it does not even make me think of Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban (same director). you watch GOTG and you think of Thor Ragnarok or the recent Shang Chi, seem both films are just intentionally way too colourful.
Which assumes that it needs to be. There are a wider range of stories that can be told.
When you say wide range of stories, what do you mean? when I say range, I mean Joker, the comic books.
James Cameron will rank in the top 10 for the later half of the 20th century. he has changed cinema 3 times as an auteur film maker.
Titanic redefined blockbusters and was a real successor to Ben Hur , the first film since Ben Hur to be epic in scope and visuals and also nabbed 11 Oscar wins all for merited meaning.
T1 and T2 changed science fiction movies film making and has been a constant influenced on the genre. the visual, story and Cameron direction has stood the test of time and gets referenced by many other film makers, heck the Wolverine scene from DOFP where he goes back to the past and has no cloth on was a tribute to T2.
Avatar best show cased what 3D should be used for and used for only with films.
So Cameron will rank, Additionally Cameron by 1997/1998 was already an iconic film maker because of titanic which was both a blockbuster phenomenon, a pop culture phenomenon and an artistic phenomenon. this was before Feige produced the first mcu film in 2008. So Cameron was already way ahead.
Lastly who will be doing the ranking. surely it is not marvel fans or dc fans , or star wars fans or another big blockbuster fans . usually it is other film makers or peers and those who study films for serious earnings and living that can break down film making, down to an atom. so in other words the same people who are reluctant to take feige comic films seriously in the first place :eek:.[/QUOTE]
James Cameron is meh.
Your whole argument seems to be that the MCU is a studio and studio system, the likes of which haven’t really been seen since the ‘30s and ‘40s, and Marvel is probably more effective at its control over its franchises than even those storied old businesses. To that I say, well, yeah.
It doesn’t mean they’re not fun movies, though. They certainly make a bit of a mockery of the auteur theory of moviemaking.
Anyway, I’m not going to MCU movies for their depth. I recognize the limitations of the genre.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5909362]Well... yes and no. Marvel ALSO want to get critical praise/artistic praise. It costs money to put films up for Oscars; they aren't doing it for fun. They clearly care [U]a little[/U] when their art isn't seen as anything but popcorn. ;)
Why can't a director of a specific genre be an artist??? Hitchcock is most certainly an artist, but he stuck to that ONE genre from the second half of his career, and did magnificently.
Oh come on, good sir, COME NOW!!! Why are we calling one of the most famous and influential sci-fi books "a David Lynch biggest flop"? Come on, that's just rude to Frank Herbert
This whole post I 100% agree with, you summerised it all so beautifully. That is EXACTLY how I feel (though I'm now a little superheroe'd out). Haven't even seen Spiderman yet, because I'm all... meh... I'm not excited by the 7th iteration of an idea on screen (honestly, how Fast and the Furious became so big, I will never understand???). And there's now a Mission Impossible 7??? REALLY? Did anyone keep watching after 4? (and that was arguably 3 too many)
First off, in terms of Sir Ridley Scott, we must mention [I]Blade Runner[/I] [SIZE=1](1982)[/SIZE], [I]Thelma and Louise[/I] [SIZE=1](1991)[/SIZE], [I]the Duelest [/I][SIZE=1](1977),[/SIZE] [B]Gladiator[/B] [SIZE=1](2000) [/SIZE](and I love [I]Legend [/I][SIZE=1](1985)[/SIZE], but I'm in the minority there) and[I] the Martian[/I] [SIZE=1](2015)[/SIZE]. Let's not downplay what a colossal giant he is in the world of cinema. [I] Alien [/I]and [I]Blade Runner [/I]are staples of sci-fi, influencing so many (frankly, if someone hasn't seen them, I don't consider them worth listening to as an aficionado of sci-fi films). [I]Thelma and Louise [/I]was a feminist revolution, and [I]Gladiator[/I] re-launched the sword n' sandals genre that had fallen into oblivion since the late 70s. I don't know everything he's said about Marvel, I'd probably not agree with a lot. And yes, the last twenty years he's delivered one brilliant film ([I]the Martian[/I]) and a hell of a lot of "meh" work, but the man has earned the right to speak. He's a legend of cinema, and will probably be remembered long after all these Marvel directors are gone (sorry but it's true).
And I hate pitting one against the others, when it's so different... the MCU is more than the directors who make each film (that's sort of the problem, actually). But Sir Ridley Scott has his place in history. #fact[/QUOTE]
A few points...
— Cameron and Villeneuve are NOT Alfred Hitchcock, that’s all there is to that.
— I refer to Villeneuve‘s Dune as the remake of David Lynch’s biggest flop because that is what it is. Villeneuve‘s Dune owes more to Lynch’s movie than the novel. Except for Villeneuve claiming it was his favorite adolescent read — which he never mentioned prior to making the movie as far as I can tell — is there any evidence Villeneuve is actually familiar with the source material? Is there a scene in Villeneuve‘s Dune that owes something only to the novel? I can’t think of any. Anyway, if you loved Villeneuve‘s Dune and feel it is a great adaptation of the novel, then that’s cool. I don’t see it, but okay.
— Compared to Cameron, I think Ridley Scott is a better director, and he’s also better than some of the other directors mentioned here. I agree. Scott does have a handful of movies like Thelma and Louise that are well beyond standard genre movies. But, for the most part, he’s been working at making big box-office hits his whole career. His Thelma and Louise’s are the exceptions. Also, Gladiator is just another big box-office popcorn movie.
— Of course, the MCU is more than its directors. It’s a studio system. The MCU doesn’t rely on its directors for coming up with its products.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5909399]I think we should bring Lucas down overall, below Cameron. the prequels has really taken too many strong positive away from Lucas. Also Cameron made a good 3D conversion with Titanic, Lucas did not with Episode 1.
I love Lucas but I will place him below Cameron. too much damage with the prequels that became more collateral with each releases from 1999-2005.[/QUOTE]
Oh agreed, I'd place Cameron about Lucas as a director. As a writer, I prefer Lucas' plotting and creativity over Cameron.
[QUOTE=chicago_bastard;5909417]Cameron even has more Oscar wins for Best Director than the likes of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick combined, guess that means he's a greater director than all of them.
Or maybe it means that using the Oscars as a measure stick for artistic quality is somewhat flawed...[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://c.tenor.com/gMbbRBPP4H8AAAAC/give-me-strength-oh-oprah-liz-lemon.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Username taken;5909461]Yeah, it's a little harsh.
But Cameron's "dismissal" of accusations against his work..particularly when a lot of is justified is grating. Yes, he's won awards....for in some cases plagiarizing other people's work which is an awful thing to do.[/QUOTE]
I've never minded 'plagiarizing'; everyone does it. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for us all. Everyone is inspired by other things, and wants to do their own take on a great piece of work or idea, ultimately 'who does it best' is where the legacy lies. I don't think [I]the Departed[/I] [SIZE=1](2006)[/SIZE] is a bad film because it's plagiazed. Or [I]Star Wars[/I] [SIZE=1](1977)[/SIZE] for that matter. I just give greater reverence to the original in terms of creativity of concept.
[QUOTE=Username taken;5909461]He's entitled to his opinion but all his noise about Marvel films not feeling "epic enough" or worst still his "hot take" on Wonder Woman comes across as very silly.
It just comes back to my original point that he's just feeling left behind now that genre film making is a lot bigger than ever and others have run away with it.[/QUOTE]
Based on what I know of James Cameron, I truly do not believe he feels left behind. His ego is colossal, and I don't think he's seen anything in the MCU films that shake him to the core of 'epic enough'; nor does he think they topped him. He's choosing to not make films (like any crazed, rich director, he can afford to wait till it's done right).
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5909509]Titanic story made no sense, why did Rose keep the diamond only to throw it back? The diamond had zero connection to Jack. And was she holding it all those years thinking she was going back to the shipwreck? [B]Maybe using it for your kids would have been nice.[/B] Made no sense.[/QUOTE]
YES! Always bugged me.
[QUOTE=Brian B;5909960]— Cameron and Villeneuve are NOT Alfred Hitchcock, that’s all there is to that.[/QUOTE]
Never said they were. ;)
[QUOTE=Brian B;5909960]— I refer to Villeneuve‘s Dune as the remake of David Lynch’s biggest flop because that is what it is. Villeneuve‘s Dune owes more to Lynch’s movie than the novel. Except for Villeneuve claiming it was his favorite adolescent read — which he never mentioned prior to making the movie as far as I can tell — is there any evidence Villeneuve is actually familiar with the source material? Is there a scene in Villeneuve‘s Dune that owes something only to the novel? I can’t think of any. Anyway, if you loved Villeneuve‘s Dune and feel it is a great adaptation of the novel, then that’s cool. I don’t see it, but okay.[/QUOTE]
I find it... unlikely... Villeneuve wanted to make [I]Dune[/I] [SIZE=1](2021)[/SIZE] out of interest in David Lynch's film. But hey, I could be wrong.
[QUOTE=Brian B;5909960]— Compared to Cameron, I think Ridley Scott is a better director, and he’s also better than some of the other directors mentioned here. I agree. Scott does have a handful of movies like Thelma and Louise that are well beyond standard genre movies. But, for the most part, he’s been working at making big box-office hits his whole career. His Thelma and Louise’s are the exceptions. Also, Gladiator is just another big box-office popcorn movie.[/QUOTE]
I ask again: [B][I]why can't a director of a specific genre be an artist?[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=Brian B;5909960]— Of course, the MCU is more than its directors. It’s a studio system. [B]The MCU doesn’t rely on its directors for coming up with its products[/B].[/QUOTE]
You're not wrong. But I find the very nature of that statement sad, as a state of affairs we find ourselves in.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5910044]
I ask again: [B][I]why can't a director of a specific genre be an artist?[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Because. That’s just how it is. There’s a few good genre directors out there, but usually if that’s all or the vast majority of what they do, it reveals their artistic limitations. Guillermo del Toro seems like a director trying to reach beyond those limits. Ridley Scott has on occasion. John Boorman surely did. Cameron, not so much.
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;5910044]
You're not wrong. But I find the very nature of that statement sad, as a state of affairs we find ourselves in.[/QUOTE]
Why do you find it sad? You can still go see a Paul Thomas Anderson movie. Non-superhero movies are still out there. Marvel’s movies don’t impede your ability to see other types of films than Marvel Studios productions.
This is why complaints coming from Cameron are so rich. What project is he prevented from creating due to the MCU? There’s certainly room out there for serious movies. The reason Cameron complains is because Marvel plays in his sandbox, and Denis Villeneuve‘s sandbox. And often, Ridley Scott’s sandbox. That sandbox is big-budget, effects-driven, tent-pole franchise movies. What those 3 are noted for doing is more commercial than they care to admit. They complain because the success of an MCU movie, or a year’s worth of them, affects their earnings on competing movies.
No one is stopping Ridley Scott from making House of Gucci. But getting the budget for the latest splatterfest and installment of the Alien franchise maybe a bit more difficult, and its profitability may not be as great. That’s where the professional jealousy comes into play. Is the Alien franchise or the Dune franchise necessarily artistically greater than the MCU? No, they are all just popcorn movies. If they want to succeed, they’ll have to make better big-budget movies. But we’ve all read the synopsis for Cameron’s Spider-Man. It’s doubtful Cameron really can make a better movie than the Russos working in Feige’s system, IMO.
