Hollywood Directors distate for the MCU...

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Literaly in 20+ movies MCU has lost 3 directors to creative differences that I know of(Jenkins,Wright,and Dickerson). Flash has lost just as many on one movie. And 3 out of the crap load of movies the MCU has made isnt bad. And this is the first issue Post Pearlmutter getting demoted and Feige being given Full control. I assume they liked Dickerosns Treatment but when he turned in a script they had some unfixable disagreement.

Not to mention, just because it was “the director’s vision” doesn’t mean it was good.

[Rincewind]

I provided two examples when I made my argument; Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor and MJ and Spiderman from Spiderman 1. These are PG-13 films, yet these relationships display an intimacy between their characters that the MCU can never match because they acknowledge the characters as sexual actors. FYI, I'm not the only one bringing this up; here is an article from 2017 and I've heard this claim before too.

How are we suppose to believe that MCU characters are emotive, human beings when they appear to lack an intrinsic desire that nearly all of us hold? None of them are asexual either, they are supposed to be sexual actors that desire to be intimate with others, but that is never depicted in the films themselves.

Also, the Captain America thing is honestly cringe if you think about it too; The 'beta' Steve gets the 'chad' formula which allows him to swoon Peggy. Even though they fought Hydra for like a year, the only intimacy they share is like a Church kiss or something (because once again, light kissing is the closest form of intimacy we see in the MCU), but that's enough for Captain America that he never gets over this woman for like 10 years or however long the MCU supposedly is, until he decides to time travel back to be with his love with his chastity fully intact.

This is not how humans behave.

Wait, do you actually view all stories through an incel/MRA lens like this? "Betas" and "Chads" are not how normal actual humans behave. Just because you don't believe in chaste, or unrequited love doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that hte Steve storyline is implausible or inhuman. It means you have trouble accepting anything that falls outside your own strict definitions.

[jetengine]

This weird focus on drugs and sex is incredibly cringe inducing. It feels like the "I want muh R rated Superheroes cause blood and boobs make things better" crowd.

If you require these things for "cinema" and storytelling then you've failed as a writer and director.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Someone using words like “beta” and “chad” as descriptors, and trying to explain “how humans really behave” is rather amusing.

[WebLurker]

I provided two examples when I made my argument; Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor and MJ and Spiderman from Spiderman 1. These are PG-13 films, yet these relationships display an intimacy between their characters that the MCU can never match because they acknowledge the characters as sexual actors. FYI, I'm not the only one bringing this up; here is an article from 2017 and I've heard this claim before too.

How are we suppose to believe that MCU characters are emotive, human beings when they appear to lack an intrinsic desire that nearly all of us hold? None of them are asexual either, they are supposed to be sexual actors that desire to be intimate with others, but that is never depicted in the films themselves.

Also, the Captain America thing is honestly cringe if you think about it too; The 'beta' Steve gets the 'chad' formula which allows him to swoon Peggy. Even though they fought Hydra for like a year, the only intimacy they share is like a Church kiss or something (because once again, light kissing is the closest form of intimacy we see in the MCU), but that's enough for Captain America that he never gets over this woman for like 10 years or however long the MCU supposedly is, until he decides to time travel back to be with his love with his chastity fully intact.

This is not how humans behave.

I find this to be a really warped view on humanity and not very accurate to character writing.

[80sbaby]

It's very unnatural for close bonds to form with someone you've risked your life with in battle. Especially someone who you already have a physical and mental attraction to. That never happens to real life people.

[Midvillian1322]

Not to mention, just because it was “the director’s vision” doesn’t mean it was good.

Lol yea I just realised I've been calling Derrickson, Dickersson this whole time. Oh well

[Powerboy]

There are sexual jokes in the MCU, I mean in Age of Ultron Iron Man essentially makes a rape joke. But that's the thing, sex is a joke in the MCU.

When I say the MCU is sexless, I'm not just speaking of physical act, but of the intimacy between the partners which involves sexual activity among others. There is no depth in the MCU's relationships.

This has been a critique I've harboured against the MCU for years now, but I read Tom King's Mister Miracle yesterday and the relationship depicted in that book is just leagues better than anything we've seen in comic book movies. Where are the cbm about superheroes getting married? About them having a child? Or about them falling out of love?

I do understand what you were getting at. I missed that Stark made a rape joke. Don't remember that one. There was a certain intimacy between Stark and Pepper if only indirectly. With Cap and Peggy, it's only in the last scene. But, yes, by and large, MCU relationships are juvenile or extremely understated. For instance, there is an implied attraction between Antman and the Wasp but it's never really shown as more than implication.

If that's a huge requirement for you, then the MCU movies will be very lacking.

[Patrick Gerard]

Funny thing is The Russos role in the MCU fits what your saying way more then Taika Waititi or James Gunn. Gunn has literaly said nobody understood GOTG. And he bumped head with the studio and the actors(Espeicaly Saldana). Untill he cut together a teaser for Comiccon only 2 weeks into filming. And then everyone finally got the Tone of the movie and Gunns Vision. And Gunn has said for GOTG vol 2 Feige gave him Carte blanche. He even talks about how controlling he can be when filming a movie and much he over prepares. Those movies are all him. Now his movies outside the MCU I dont know havent really looked into the process.

Anyone working in the MCU has to Colab somewhat because they are agreeing to make a film in a shared universe but Gunn,Coogler,Waititi and a few others are very much driving forces behind their movies. The Russos are involved somewhat in every step but other people write the films and then on the Avengers flicks they bring in other directors to help like Gunn with all the Guardians stuff. But alot of these director arent hired Gunn these Films are their visions. I mean Waititi came to Mavrel with his pitch for taking Thor in a crazy new direction. He apparently let the Actors improvise alot of the comedy but other then that it's his vision. Hes even talked about he was shocked that Marvel never told him to tone it down after submitting the dailies. The MCU is for sure like TV in alot of ways but I feel like your doing some these directors a disservice by acting like these films weren't their vision. Especialy the two you picked out by name.

I picked them out not because they are like the Russos but because I think they ARE more like the Russos than they are like Scorsese. Gunn may feel he put hidden depth into GotG but he isn’t demanding top billing or that he be given credit for it.

[Midvillian1322]

I picked them out not because they are like the Russos but because I think they ARE more like the Russos than they are like Scorsese. Gunn may feel he put hidden depth into GotG but he isn’t demanding top billing or that he be given credit for it.

What are you suggesting? I thought originally you were saying those movies werent their visions but more a collaborative effort. Which would be true for half the MCU movies where they are just a gun for hire. But the two directors you singled out are 100% the vision and driving force behind they're movies. And now your saying Gunn doesnt require top billing or demand credit for these movies? Think I'm missing your point. If you mean GOTG is called a Marvel movie rather then a James Gunn movie. While a Scorsese movie is billed as a Scorsese movie. Well that's true Gunns was 100% unknown to the general public prior to GOTG. Also no matter who does a Marvel movie, the Mavel brand will get top billing. Doesnt Matter if it's a Gunn/Waititi/Coogler who executed their own visions or a director for hire.

[Beaddle]

Gunn/Waititi/Coogler who executed their own visions or a director for hire.

There is no chance they executed their own vision.

Gunn's GOTG is one of the most unfaithful adaptation of comic books. there is no chance Gunn was the master mind. the movie was a full out comedy and more like a Disney film.

Waititi body of work is not like Thor 3. there is no way he executed his vision that somehow made it to turn out like GOTG

Cooler is a young director but there is not way he executed his vision that made black panther follow some of the exact storyline of the first thor film , with little character driven arcs. also as a director, there is no way he saw the final visual effects in the film and must have been okay with it.

What those movies did was convinced people further the MCU formula controls everything. When joker gets nominated for best picture next week, the black panther subject is going to come up again that is what a formula movie only nominated for specific reasons unlike Joker that was not a DCU or Zack Snyder formula movie but was fully Toad Philips vision.

[Beaddle]

About the sex, drinking, drugs and hardship of life themes. It is not a matter of how much you think its shown, that is not the way it works, these things are a part of everyday life. the sex scandal that went on with cyclops/jean/mma frost in the books was going on as they were still fighting bad guys because x-men is a soap opera.

Stan Lee made spiderman a great hero with one of the best rogues gallery in comics but after he fought, he came home and worried about how Aunt May will pay the bills.

Any hollywood director now who has been a comic book fan will tell you these were the kind of stories that attracted them to the comics, not the main stories of heroes beating up villains. now that Disney has taken all away from their movies, what is there to look forward too beyond the superficial stereo type of what comic book are which is heroes beating up villlians? this is were the hate of these Hollywood directors are coming from. they are looking beyond CGI heroes fighting villains.

When you see a quite bizarre Hawkeye family in age of utlton that looked so out of place in the film but still sort of works, you will always wonder how that movie would have tuned out if whedon got creative control of the film. When you see films like IW and Endgame, you appreciate what a very talented Hollywood director as Whedon wanted to do in Ultron but was stopped.

[lowfyr]

There is no chance they executed their own vision.

Gunn's GOTG is one of the most unfaithful adaptation of comic books. there is no chance Gunn was the master mind. the movie was a full out comedy and more like a Disney film.

Waititi body of work is not like Thor 3. there is no way he executed his vision that somehow made it to turn out like GOTG

Cooler is a young director but there is not way he executed his vision that made black panther follow some of the exact storyline of the first thor film , with little character driven arcs. also as a director, there is no way he saw the final visual effects in the film and must have been okay with it.

What those movies did was convinced people further the MCU formula controls everything. When joker gets nominated for bets picture next week, the black panther subject is going to come up again that is what a formula movie only nominated for specific reasons unlike Joker that was not a DCU or Zack Snyder formula movie but was fully Toad Philips vision.

Just one point you know what Peter Jackson was mostly known for before Lord of the Rings? Horror movies. Directors can make new stuff you know? But I fear in your hate-on to the MCU you just do not want to know other things. Just put out your stuff and sell it as fact.

Just one thing and than it is off to the weekend: If you really think that Gunn and Waititi were just the director drones of Feige or whatever, you really either know nothing about what you are writing about or your agenda is even more out of control than I thought after all those X-men movies thread I read.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

You can definitely see Waititi’s influence on Thor: Ragnarok.

Well, if you don’t ignore it for the sake of some “argument”, that is.

[jetengine]

You can definitely see Waititi’s influence on Thor: Ragnarok.

Well, if you don’t ignore it for the sake of some “argument”, that is.

Taikas influence is so strong I've seen Beadle actually complain about his influx of humour compared to older Thor movies. So its a Schrodingers complaint.