-
[QUOTE=Castle;5585310]I don't think they are. I am sorry to say this to some fans but they wont qualify as auteur because Gunn and Waititi are not the people that decided Thor 3 and GOTG should be comedy when their source material are not so. Disney decided that because Disney mostly makes fun and light-hearted films and they got directors that will go along with like Gunn and Waititi.
[/QUOTE]
Besides the fact that the MCU movies are not only fun and light hearted. Disney giving Gunn full reign on what to do with Guardians, knowing that he has a strong comedic side, makes him no less an auteur than WB giving Snyder Superman knowing he has an over-serious, melodramatic style.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5585332]Besides the fact that the MCU movies are not only fun and light hearted. Disney giving Gunn full reign on what to do with Guardians, knowing that he has a strong comedic side, makes him no less an auteur than WB giving Snyder Superman knowing he has an over-serious, melodramatic style.[/QUOTE]
GOTG comics is not a comedy at least not up until 2014 before the first film release. GOTG been a comedy was Disney's idea and they found the perfect director for it in Gunn. There is a big-big difference. If Chris Nolan had said, I want GOTG to be like Interstellar would MCU give him that reigns? No. This is why we can call Nolan an Auter comic film maker when he did Batman Begins, TDK, TDKR.
Love or hate Snyder but he is an Auteur director because everything about the DECU was his vision as the director. Also why if you look back at the Infinity War/Endgame vs JL Cut thread, I favoured Snyder's Cut more because his movie was less factory and more auteur. it was never about which was better based on personal loves Marvel or DC fans has for the series.
-
What you're saying doesn't even work.
If it was the supposed Disney formula that made GOTG a comedy then why did the 2 movies preceeding Guardians be Thor the Dark World and Captain America the Winter Soldier?
Movies that can't be mistaken as comedies, you're giving no sort of evidence to back up your claims, all you're doing is saying it's true because you said it is
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5585347]GOTG comics is not a comedy at least not up until 2014 before the first film release. [/QUOTE]
While Gunn certainly ramped the comedy up and changed many of their personalities, Dan Abnett and Andy Lenning (DnA) purposely assembled a more humorous team in the 2008 comic, especially after the weight of the Annihilation War. This is why the book was populated by such off-beat characters like Rocket, Groot, Cosmo, and Bug and juxtaposed to more traditionally stoic and no-nonsense characters like (the mentally-restored) Drax, Moondragon, and Warlock.
And we can talk about what makes a comic a comedy or an action comedy, but the 2008 comic was going for that off-beat action/comedy vibe, and the humor in Al Ewing's current GoTG is closer to the DnA style than the movies. The success of the 2008 revamp is what put the team on Feige's map, and the vibe of the comic (especially Abnett's writing of Rocket) is one of the things that drew Gunn to the project in the first place (though it could be said that Rocket is probably the most faithfully adapted character of the GoTG movies, and probably for that reason).
-
[QUOTE=Metro;5585324]You lose an amazing amount of credibility when you're saying people like Taika Waititi and James Gunn weren't the people who decided their movies should be humorous, it's almost like you don't know any of their work at all.[/QUOTE]
This. Every Waititi movie to this point was a comedy, heck he even made a film about Nazi Germany into a comedy but Disney had to force a humorous tone on him, right...
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5585347]GOTG comics is not a comedy at least not up until 2014 before the first film release.[/QUOTE]
DnA GoTG have always been BWAHAHA comics ... since 2008. They were the inspiration for the MCU Guardians. The debrief logs were a hoot and a half. Even the Dirty Dozen Conquest pre-GoTG Star-Lord team had lots of humor, mostly black.
[IMG]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/808/886/a74.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://i1.wp.com/michaelmay.us/08blog/0828f_gamoragoteam.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/P3N1sJY.png[/IMG]
Do you even comic bro??
I wish the debrief logs would show up in the movies. They were the parts of the comic I kept shoving in my wife's face going, "SEE!? They'd be great in the MCU! They are tailor made!" And here we are ... yay!
-
[QUOTE=Metro;5585357]What you're saying doesn't even work.
If it was the supposed Disney formula that made GOTG a comedy then why did the 2 movies preceeding Guardians be Thor the Dark World and Captain America the Winter Soldier?
Movies that can't be mistaken as comedies, you're giving no sort of evidence to back up your claims, all you're doing is saying it's true because you said it is[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Anyone that knows Gunn or Waititi knows their previous movies have been comedies and they made their MCU movies as such.
Saying that Disney made them make them "comedies" is stupid because the previous Thor movies weren't comedies and Marvel's previous movies weren't comedies.
-
[QUOTE=chicago_bastard;5585473]This. Every Waititi movie to this point was a comedy, heck he even made a film about Nazi Germany into a comedy but Disney had to force a humorous tone on him, right...[/QUOTE]
Hey, if the Mouse asks you to make a comedy and just a comedy( because certainly a movie can't have comedy and serious tones in it^^) you better do it.
-
I don't think Disney forced anyone initially to stick to a humorous/GotG style feel, but once it was successful and other more "serious" movies like the 2nd Thor and the Iron Man sequels were awful they've clearly pushed to have that be the House Style. There are exceptions, but mostly it's quip/quip/action/quip/action/action/lil bit of drama to break the humor up/rinse/repeat. It makes me less interested in watching them because I feel like I've seen the movies already before they've even hit theaters, but that clearly isn't the case with the majority of Disney's audience. And the only DC movie I've liked since the Nolan Batman films was Shazam!, which was arguably going with the GotG style itself.
Honestly they ought to reboot the JLA with the JLI/'80s Giffen style league. Find a way to bring Max back, give him a new outlook, and just embrace what works. And given Giffen helped develop the incarnation of the Guardians we're all familiar with it's not even really copying, so much as taking back what's theirs.
-
[QUOTE=CSTowle;5593070]I don't think Disney forced anyone initially to stick to a humorous/GotG style feel, but once it was successful and other more "serious" movies like the 2nd Thor and the Iron Man sequels were awful they've clearly pushed to have that be the House Style. [/QUOTE]
They weren't awful and were more successful than their predecessors.
-
I've said this before and I'll say it again to say the MCU isn't diverse in film making is just untrue. It's like saying the golden era of Hollywood wasn't artistic due to the Studio System which would sound foolish as does the argument against the MCU.
Yes Feige and company set guide lines but they allow their talent to add their own touches to the films scripts and looks.
First Avengers looks so much like a Joe Johnston film it could be canon with Rocketeer.
Avengers and AOU are dripping with Josh Whedon dialogue styles and humor.
Iron Man 3 has Shane Black touches down to the Christmas theme.
If you saw What they do in the Shadows or JoJo Rabbit you can see that Thor Ragnark is all Taika Waititi.
The Guardian films are so James Gunn Marvel shelved Vol. 3 until they could get Gunn back.
and these are just the films where the character of the director comes thru both tonally and visually. But most MCU films have the feeling of their Directors on them especially once they have directed multiple films and it becomes more apparent like Jon Favereau, Payton Reed, and the Russo Bros.
While honestly with all the talk of being a creatives studio WB has simultaneously allowed for creative freedom with style choice but strangled creativity with editing demands.
As for the Fox X-Men films outside of Logan, First Class, and the Deadpool films that series is one of the most homogeneous films series ever put to film. Heck it's hard to tell Singer didn't direct Last Stand, Wolverine X-Men Origins, the Wolverine, or Dark Phoenix with how much lack of personal style is on those films.
-
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;5594752]I've said this before and I'll say it again to say the MCU isn't diverse in film making is just untrue. It's like saying the golden era of Hollywood wasn't artistic due to the Studio System which would sound foolish as does the argument against the MCU.
[/QUOTE]
Every MCU movie post phase 1 are made the same way, usually a common notice about the series and even a pattern Fiege does admit in a soft way. The first avengers looks the most comic bookie and was one of the most cartoonish like Wonder Woman 1984, it is easy to see this because when Captain America shifted to Winter Solider, they had to ground him more even in costumes , and every MCU film has looked like Avengers. GOTG 2014 was when MCU finally combined movies look cartoons and humour and this led heavily into their phase 3 films.
One of the biggest criticism of MCU is their director cannot just do what they want. Also Disney due to their parent friendly identity, they have a rule of how their films should be, Many MCU fans keep ignoring this but that truth is not going to go away.
[url]https://www.spreaker.com/user/14480098/the-mcu-directors-creative-freedom-debat[/url]
It just ironic someone is saying this when the truth is that the director of Strange is not the original director for the second film, he left because he did not get his way.
.I know this has become a talking pattern about X-MEN.. To say X-MEN 3 felt Singer direct last stand is just lol... The first trilogy of xmen is most famous for loosing Bryan Singer, reason the film was mixed. In 2006 this was one of the biggest film stories that Fox should have waited for Singer and not rushed X-MEN 3, I still remember the controversy of Singer and Retner as directors and talent.
Additionally you would be contradicting yourself again, because you sort agreed with criticism of X-MEN 3. Your own words are here. lol
[url]https://community.cbr.com/showthread.php?146056-X-Men-3-(2006)-Rewatch-and-Thoughts[/url]
Singer's personal style was drama and putting grounded themes front and centre and creative a more realistic world of comic books , while scaling down what is now seen as comic bookie in 2021, a style Singer has been factually greatly praised for even after 21 years. no other director apart from Nolan got the same amount equal praise or more and Nolan himself admitted that Singer's style helped a lot.
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1m1ipt/according_to_hugh_jackman_when_christopher_nolan/[/url]
LOL. At DOFP, This is a film a [B]veteran [/B] comic book director showed how to master an adult comic film with easiness because he had done 2 in the past compared to marvel first try but the film is now a very infamous film because MCU realised their their cooperate formula cannot make them recreate the quicksilver scene so they had to kill Aaron Johnson's Quicksilver and also jump on the Evan Peter Quicksilver bandwagon with Wandavision.
This would never have been if Singer was not famous of how he uses VFX in films, compared to the standard cgi of MCU films, a style singer had not already used in the Plane Scene from Superman Returns and the Nightcrawler scene from X2 and even the shapeshifting scene of Mystique in X-Men 1. Also watch dark phoenix and the end of X2. You would see a different in style, Singer still grounded Phoenix, Kinberg did not, not to mention you could also tell how not experienced Kinberg was.
I will call it a success if any upcoming xmen director even gets 1/4 of the freedom Singer had. Usually I used think the reason why MCU X-MEN films may end up far lesser or much worse to the Singer films is because, MCU cannot allow the same mature themes or adult drama style approached as Singer allowed with his films but it is beyond that now, because the MCU multi-coloured cartoony look style used by Disney because it is more toy accurate is going to be a bigger problem for the X-MEN to the more realistic style of the Singer films.
When you think he was the first director to succeed with a mainstream grounded comic book movie where it was now okay for people to talk about the Holocaust in a comic film and have David Duke kind of villains instead of the Thanos or the Mr Freeze from Batman and Robin.
-
[QUOTE=CSTowle;5593070][B]I don't think Disney forced anyone initially to stick to a humorous/GotG style feel, but once it was successful and other more "serious" movies like the 2nd Thor and the Iron Man sequels were awful they've clearly pushed to have that be the House Style. [/B] There are exceptions, but mostly it's quip/quip/action/quip/action/action/lil bit of drama to break the humor up/rinse/repeat. It makes me less interested in watching them because I feel like I've seen the movies already before they've even hit theaters, but that clearly isn't the case with the majority of Disney's audience. And the only DC movie I've liked since the Nolan Batman films was Shazam!, which was arguably going with the GotG style itself.
Honestly they ought to reboot the JLA with the JLI/'80s Giffen style league. Find a way to bring Max back, give him a new outlook, and just embrace what works. And given Giffen helped develop the incarnation of the Guardians we're all familiar with it's not even really copying, so much as taking back what's theirs.[/QUOTE]
I think this was always in play. Disney does have a strict schedule, no director can just do what they want. Also other Disney movies have leaned towards comedy. it was just not a luck that the humorous feel of GOTG became a thing. It was well planned.
However the comedy just does not work much as it does with other Disney films like Frozen or Toy Story because marvel is still real life even if their movies have a cartoon feel. the weakness of comedy shines more in that setting. As you said, it is kind of odd with the quips and action. ironic because the marvel films back then like the Singer X-men films scaled back on the action and quips or found a good balance like the Sam Raimi Spiderman films.
[QUOTE]
Honestly they ought to reboot the JLA with the JLI/'80s Giffen style league. Find a way to bring Max back, give him a new outlook, and just embrace what works. And given Giffen helped develop the incarnation of the Guardians we're all familiar with it's not even really copying, so much as taking back what's theirs.[/QUOTE]
I will much prefer the 90s George Miller JLA vision. After Wonder Woman 1984 and X-MEN Apocalypse , I don't think you can really make a convincing 80s comic book film anymore. between the 60s, 70s and 80s decade. the 80s feels the most corny and dated era.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]Every MCU movie post phase 1 are made the same way, usually a common notice about the series and even a pattern Fiege does admit in a soft way.[/quote]
You mean the ones where they started experimenting with different genres and making movies that were more then just superhero movies (e.g. political thrillers, space opera, capers, John Hughs-style coming of age, the one where the bad guy wins, etc.)?
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]The first avengers looks the most comic bookie and was one of the most cartoonish like Wonder Woman 1984, it is easy to see this because when Captain America shifted to Winter Solider, they had to ground him more even in costumes...[/quote]
You lost me.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]...and every MCU film has looked like Avengers.[/quote]
Except the ones that didn't, which was, well, most of them really.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]GOTG 2014 was when MCU finally combined movies look cartoons and humour and this led heavily into their phase 3 films.[/quote]
Dunno; just like [I]Star Wars[/I], they've always had a sense of humor about themselves from the very beginning.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]One of the biggest criticism of MCU is their director cannot just do what they want. Also Disney due to their parent friendly identity, they have a rule of how their films should be, Many MCU fans keep ignoring this but that truth is not going to go away.[/quote]
"[I]Every step along the way I’ve been surprised by how much freedom Marvel gave me. So much to the point I sometimes doubted their wisdom in letting me do so much. It’s strange, my first draft probably wasn’t quite as funny as the second draft. They loved the humor, but I was worried about making a movie too funny. I naturally make things funny, I guess. I don’t want to mix genre and confuse people, but they were like, ‘We love it.’ They know how to make a hit movie, while I know how to make my kind of movie. I hope that’s the right path, so I kept going.[/I]" - [URL="http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2014/08/does-marvel-studios-hold-back-director.html"]James Gunn[/URL]
"[I]I think it's proof that Marvel's formula works. I mean, everybody works a little differently here but Marvel, when they hire their filmmakers, you have a pretty wide berth. They're giving you a lot of creative freedom and it's no different from any other studio where of course when somebody writes a check for $200 million, they're going to expect to have a say at some point but it's been the most hands-off experience we've ever had, no question. And we were given the most creative freedom we've ever had, inclusive of our TV experience, where we've built ourselves up into a nice position of power in television.[/I]" - [URL="https://comicbook.com/news/exclusive-captain-america-the-winter-soldier-directors-joe-and-a/#:~:text=Joe%20Russo%3A%20I%20think%20it's,have%20a%20pretty%20wide%20berth."]Joe Russo[/URL]
"[I]But I think to Marvel’s credit, that’s what makes them great- that’s what makes those successful movies. They invite people who aren’t the obvious choices for directing these movies, and they say ‘Go for it. Get in the sandbox, throw everything around, and see what you come up with. And then we know the rules of our universe, and we know what we want to make this film, and now we’ll start helping you shape it into something that fits with our franchise. And it’s actually a perfect model, because as a filmmaker, you want to be left alone. In a film like this, where you want it to be fun- I’m trying to bring my tone and sensibility from my other films.[/I]" - [URL="https://mcuexchange.com/sdcc-taika-waititi-thor-ragnarok-80-percent-improvised/"]Taika Waititi[/URL]
It would seem that the truth actually is that Marvel Studios is far less restrictive thn you want it to be.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]It just ironic someone is saying this when the truth is that the director of Strange is not the original director for the second film, he left because he did not get his way.[/quote]
Creative freedom doesn't mean the director gets everything they want and that the studio doesn't get final say.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457].I know this has become a talking pattern about X-MEN.. To say X-MEN 3 felt Singer direct last stand is just lol... The first trilogy of xmen is most famous for loosing Bryan Singer, reason the film was mixed. In 2006 this was one of the biggest film stories that Fox should have waited for Singer and not rushed X-MEN 3, I still remember the controversy of Singer and Retner as directors and talent.[/quote]
Yeah, X3 wasn't that good. Not sure what that has to do with anything else, but fine.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]Singer's personal style was drama and putting grounded themes front and centre and creative a more realistic world of comic books , while scaling down what is now seen as comic bookie in 2021, a style Singer has been factually greatly praised for even after 21 years. no other director apart from Nolan got the same amount equal praise or more and Nolan himself admitted that Singer's style helped a lot.[/quote]
Okay?
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]LOL. At DOFP, This is a film a [B]veteran [/B] comic book director showed how to master an adult comic film with easiness because he had done 2 in the past compared to marvel first try...[/quote]
Funny how DOFP wasn't so "adult" that it couldn't have giant killer robots and time travel. Also have to say that [I]Winter Soldier[/I] and the [I]Guardians[/I] movies show that they can do maturity (maybe not to the standards of a studio like Pixar, but who does?).
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]...but the film is now a very infamous film because MCU realised their their cooperate formula cannot make them recreate the quicksilver scene so they had to kill Aaron Johnson's Quicksilver and also jump on the Evan Peter Quicksilver bandwagon with Wandavision.[/quote]
Didn't do the research did you?
"[I]Right. So Joss [Whedon] spoke to me early on about where he wanted to take Pietro. From the beginning, he liked the idea of lulling the audience into a false sense of security. A lot of people thought Hawkeye was gonna bite it. My character was new, so surely he wasn't going to die, right? To paraphrase Pietro, the viewer wouldn't see it coming. So shock value was definitely one of the two reasons why they killed me off.[/I]" - [URL="https://www.comicbookmovie.com/avengers/avengers_age_of_ultron/aaron-taylor-johnson-finally-reveals-why-quicksilver-was-killed-off-in-avengers-age-of-ultron-a132921#gs.3wlwpm"]Aaron Taylor-Johnson[/URL]
"[I]We had a grief counsellor come to the [writers] room, and we did some research on grief, and there’s a lot about how people remember faces. The anxiety of not remembering the faces of your loved ones, misremembering, or actively misremembering things as a self-preservation tactic – all of that became fascinating to us, and we thought that by casting Evan [Peters] in the role, it would not only have that effect on Wanda, but it would have this meta layer for the audience, as well.[/I]" - [URL="https://www.nme.com/news/tv/wandavision-creator-explains-why-evan-peters-was-cast-as-pietro-maximoff-2916765"]Jac Schaeffer[/URL]
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]I will call it a success if any upcoming xmen director even gets 1/4 of the freedom Singer had.[/quote]
Then we should have nothing to worry about.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]Usually I used think the reason why MCU X-MEN films may end up far lesser or much worse to the Singer films is because, MCU cannot allow the same mature themes or adult drama style approached as Singer allowed with his films...[/quote]
Why are we still going over this in a post-[I]Guardians of the Galaxy[/I] world?
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]...but it is beyond that now, because the MCU multi-coloured cartoony look style used by Disney because it is more toy accurate is going to be a bigger problem for the X-MEN to the more realistic style of the Singer films.[/quote]
Oh, the horrors, that the X-Men might actually look like their comic book counterparts.
[QUOTE=Castle;5595457]When you think he was the first director to succeed with a mainstream grounded comic book movie where it was now okay for people to talk about the Holocaust in a comic film and have David Duke kind of villains instead of the Thanos or the Mr Freeze from Batman and Robin.[/QUOTE]
Probably because both are valid so long as done well and he pulled it off. Not rocket science, really.
-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;5595717]You mean the ones where they started experimenting with different genres and making movies that were more then just superhero movies (e.g. political thrillers, space opera, capers, John Hughs-style coming of age, the one where the bad guy wins, etc.)?
[/QUOTE]
they don't really experiment. Experimenting is what Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron could have been but the directors and actors were not given much. the last MCU films, Endgame, Captain Marvel, Homecoming. there is nothing experimental about this films. it is as cooperate as Singer X-MEN 1 was as anti 90s comic book films. [B]New Mutants[/B] was a bigger try at experimenting with the genre and may have done well if not for the Disney/Fox deal, not to even mention how some fans agreed that the movie was judged to harshly including you if I remember? but again other comic films were always judged by higher-higher standard.
Also there is no point quoting what directors agreed to do to market their films under Kevin Feige . that is not objective criticism but a marketing tool to get fans all hyped. Some can keeping saying these films are not alike but It is pretty clear now, I mean this is part of the reason phase 4 so far looks meh because it feel s all rinse and repeat.
Having killer robots is science fiction is common for any kind of story both for kids and adults.lol maturity is drawn from style , directing, themes, use of drama and real life settings, characters arcs, and tone. GOTG is one of the most kid friendly of MCU films that I don't even think we age well because kids do grow out of colors and jokes. Winter Solider is the only attempt of marvel to make mature film but even that still felt limited, for Bryan Singer or even Nolan POV ,They will still have done more with Winter Solider by their standard like the cinematography and much compelling character arcs that would have been not allowed from an MCU film. Xavier storyline in DOFP of Two Face Storyline in TDK or just even the villains for those films, MCU can't have Joker and MCU cannot make a story either where the so called killer robot have all the power psychically.
Also the Quicksilver is a done deal. for anyone to keep telling me that Aaron Johnson Quicksilver's death had nothing to do with Evan Peters Quicksilver is lol. In hindsight, Aaron not Evan should have been in Wandavsion.
I think we should worry, Phase 3 MCU were way too lighhearted, the most lighthearted xmen stories still packs much punch , Also if you look at Eternals, the costumes dont really merged well in a grounded world that X-MEN just works better with. this is the reason why I asked, imagine if Eternals has been phase 4 xmen trailer, what would be the reaction based on past films. Not really good to be honest, Almost every comic fan in 2014 and 201y while they can enjoy the 4 films, will tell you there was fine line between GOTG 1 AND 2 and DOFP and Logan. Even for the[B] fact[/B] that this films redefined PG 13 and R Rated comic films and offered the other side of the comic Marvel universe that MCU does not want to show.
It is not rocket science either while only films like X-MEN 1 or Batman Begins or Man of Steel or even TDK, LOGAN, Joker are called Oscar worthy comic films while films like batman and robin and endgame are never taken seriously. Even the recent Snyder Cut would stand a far better chance at Endgame to get nominated for oscars because of the lord of the rings fantasy sort of vibe and it been an auteur director film after the cooperate mess of the Whedon film.
It is many times not a matter of what is pulled off, for comic books. what matters is which films are pushing the genre to level where comic films cannot and should not be dismissed anymore as nothing more but about toys or kids entertainment. Again why Snyder is right also in his many interviews to the one he said Marvel films are action comedies. which has always been the easiest but truest way to explain the origins of comics stories before Chris Claremont, Allen Moore and Frank Miller started writing comics.
