Are Most MCU Directors Good Outside of the MCU Films?

[Kirby101]

I agree with that assessment of the MCU Jack. They are not The Revenant or 1917.

[Castle]

Do you have anything backing up what you are saying about why they killed Quicksilver? Or is that speculation on your part?

No it's not speculation, its obvious. I mean I will not even be replying on this one anymore.

Marvel was already up in arms about having to share the twins, DOFP came out 1 year before AOU. Evan Peters became the breakout of that entire prequel film run, you would even think after dark phoenix, those characters appearances should be closed forever never to be seen again but guess who shows up in wandvsion? Evan Peters and it is all because of that time in a bottle scene. yeah , it changed things forever with QS.

However in 2015 Marvel had to bow out and kill QS in AOU. Here is a clue of Joss Whedon talking about the frustration of QS in DOFP and Ultron

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...icle-1.2200652
‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ director Joss Whedon, actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson on using Quicksilver after 'X-Men' flick

And you know what I find more baffling. Marvel had more money than anyone. if they wanted to get the newest VFX film genius fresh out from Harvard film school to topple the QS time in a bottle scene and keep their own QS, they could have.

I know this because I freaking saw what LA LA LAND achieved, many of the people behind that film were just kids, so marvel could have done more using film makers even if the big ones may decline or not bend the knee, but what stopped them is...well revolutionary-jack has already said it all , no need to rehash.

[green_garnish]

No it's not speculation, its obvious. I mean I will not even be replying on this one anymore.

Lol. Good move

[Castle]

It was derivative and unoriginal, changed nothing. Matrix was a game changer. In terms of breaking new ground, Michael J. Fox Pepsi commercial did more.

Lol. Good move

thanks. I will pass, lol this is not my type of commentary.

Although, glad I have given my genuine well structured commentary using many other movies for evidence and sound examples even from MCU itself with Iron Man 1. I hope others will read it and understand the world of modern movies better.

Please if you want to reply to me, I would love film making commentary with deeper insight, I don't agree with everything revolutionary-jack says like how most mcu directors are of mediocre talent but I read what he says because he clearly is passionate about the art of cinema and film making, and you can see his insightful analysis , I don't get that feeling in your reply post to me.

I have never been interested in a superficial MCU vs NON MCU debate, seems to me this is what it is turning into, so I will pass on your posts, since I find that more boring about a reply post to me of who can beat who in a fight.

[Kirby101]

No it's not speculation, its obvious. I mean I will not even be replying on this one anymore.

Marvel was already up in arms about having to share the twins, DOFP came out 1 year before AOU. Evan Peters became the breakout of that entire prequel film run, you would even think after dark phoenix, those characters appearances should be closed forever never to be seen again but guess who shows up in wandvsion? Evan Peters and it is all because of that time in a bottle scene. yeah , it changed things forever with QS.

However in 2015 Marvel had to bow out and kill QS in AOU. Here is a clue of Joss Whedon talking about the frustration of QS in DOFP and Ultron

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...icle-1.2200652
‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ director Joss Whedon, actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson on using Quicksilver after 'X-Men' flick

And you know what I find more baffling. Marvel had more money than anyone. if they wanted to get the newest VFX film genius fresh out Harvard film school to topple the QS time in a bottle scene and keep their own QS, they could have. I know this because I freaking saw what LA LA LAND achieved, many of the people behind that film were just kids, so marvel could have done more using film makers even if the big ones may declines or not bend the knee, but what stopped them is...well revolutionary-jack has already said it all , no need to rehash.

It's obvious you are just speculating. Whedon said nothing about that scene changing what he did, just that he had a different take on the character. I love opinion posts stated as fact.

[Castle]

It's obvious you are just speculating. Whedon said nothing about that scene changing what he did, just that he had a different take on the character. I love opinion posts stated as fact.

Didn't say he did directly, he would never openly say that, what he did was talk about how kind of annoying it was but he kept it subtle. it's not a coincidence that later became the last of what we saw of Aaron, again to think none of that may have happened if every director got to mostly form their own parts

As for Whedon as a director, it's not a question he has talent, he is perhaps the best film maker and director marvel ever hired. He had success before and after marvel but whedon's Marvel movies are not his crowning jewels as a director and film maker. Firefly and Buffy are.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

As for Whedon as a director, it's not a question he has talent, he is perhaps the best film maker and director marvel ever hired.

Jameson laugh.jpg

No. Whedon is a major mediocrity.

He had success before

Not as a professional film director he didn't. He had success as a TV showrunner and writer. And even then for Buffy and Angel only. Everything he did after that on TV failed.

...and after marvel...

What success has he had "after marvel"? In fact recent events point to the opposite of that.

[Castle]

Jameson laugh.jpg

No. Whedon is a major mediocrity.

Let's agree to disagree on this one. I think Whedon, is one of the finest artist of his generation in his field. he may have lost steam in his later years but I find his body of work on TV genius.

Infact had Whedon not been so talented and good at what he was doing, he would never have been able to get away with what he did for so long. Harassing and bullying people.

Not as a professional film director he didn't. He had success as a TV showrunner and writer. And even then for Buffy and Angel only. Everything he did after that on TV failed.

He also directed many of the buffy episodes and some of the best ones, (Hush, Restless, The Wish conversation with dead people, the body, Once more with the feeling) this are some of the best buffy episodes. Once more with the feeling and The Body are regarded as one of the best tv episodes if all time.

His directing gig on buffy should not be compared to his avengers movies because he was completely in a different house.

Buffy arguably now is it own genre. many vampire and some fantasy shows have tried to be buffy and they have all failed and that is all Joss doing.

What success has he had "after marvel"? In fact recent events point to the opposite of that.

He had not really done much after Avengers, but Cabin in the Woods was good and was not a complete flop.

[Killerbee911]

Kevin Feige in my opinion isn't a real movie producer in the sense that he has never worked on or produced a non-Marvel movie, or something that wasn't a big IP. He's spent all his life managing a single franchise and he's done that well (he's apparently tipping his toes into Star Wars which is a lateral move but mostly the same kind of direction) but he hasn't taken real risks, he's never done time in the trenches of working alongside young independent film-makers, helping them get the most out of their budgets or like Blum, taking a genre that was somehow marginal into being viable and commercial in a big way, including helping out the likes of Jordan Peele.

The big decisions to create the MCU and the shared universe weren't even made by Feige, it was made by David Maisel who came up with the entire idea and suggested the funding on how to get it done.

I have seen you make this statement a couple times now AND it is like saying Michael Jordan was only successful because he was on the Bulls and We don't know how he would do because he never played anywhere else in his prime. I understand what your point except that we have people with huge IPs & money and mismanage the hell out of them. Fox has X-men properties for 20 years never made X-men that made a billion dollars, Heck they never made a X-men movie that made 800 million dollars. DC manage to lose money on Justice League movie which is mind boggling. You look at managing the small movies and finding the right one then managing to success as a skill for producers being able do little with nothing. BUT handling large IPs and budget is skill I have seen enough high profile franchises with big resources never make it off the ground. Remember the Dark Universe? Remember Star Wars thought they would be putting out movie every year? Remember Sony coming to Marvel with Spiderman because they couldn't make it work?

I don't think it is fair to say Feigie is not a real producer because we have seen people unable to manage making 1 or 2 movies work to make Cinematic universe work. I don't think Blum could do Feigie job as good as he is because it is a different skill handling big movies and money. I think fair to say Blum is better at things that traditional make a good producer but high budget block buster movies is a different monster and different skillset that not every one can do and that is very clear thing. I will remind you that there is person who is charge of Star Wars and they found a way to almost screw up it. But you frame it as your opinion which you are free have and will express again in the future so there is no need for back and forth on this but you can only control what you are given to you and I think you have vastly underestimated how hard it is to do what Feige has done. 23 films not one has flop at box office there is no Han Solo, Green Lantern, Dark Phoenix or Justice League on his ledger.

[Castle]

I have seen you make this statement a couple times now AND it is like saying Michael Jordan was only successful because he was on the Bulls and We don't know how he would do because he never played anywhere else in his prime. I understand what your point except that we have people with huge IPs & money and mismanage the hell out of them. Fox has X-men properties for 20 years never made X-men that made a billion dollars, Heck they never made a X-men movie that made 800 million dollars. DC manage to lose money on Justice League movie which is mind boggling. You look at managing the small movies and finding the right one then managing to success as a skill for producers being able do little with nothing. BUT handling large IPs and budget is skill I have seen enough high profile franchises with big resources never make it off the ground. Remember the Dark Universe? Remember Star Wars thought they would be putting out movie every year? Remember Sony coming to Marvel with Spiderman because they couldn't make it work?

I don't think it is fair to say Feigie is not a real producer because we have seen people unable to manage making 1 or 2 movies work to make Cinematic universe work. I don't think Blum could do Feigie job as good as he is because it is a different skill handling big movies and money. I think fair to say Blum is better at things that traditional make a good producer but high budget block buster movies is a different monster and different skillset that not every one can do and that is very clear thing. I will remind you that there is person who is charge of Star Wars and they found a way to almost screw up it. But you frame it as your opinion which you are free have and will express again in the future so there is no need for back and forth on this but you can only control what you are given to you and I think you have vastly underestimated how hard it is to do what Feige has done. 23 films not one has flop at box office there is no Han Solo, Green Lantern, Dark Phoenix or Justice League on his ledger.

This is a good sign why Feige is perfect for Marvel/disney. their main goal is to make money, everything they do, they think of money, even how much we talk about their VFX and production set use already in place before the directors starts directing, money is part of it because their movies have to look a certain way that helps with selling toys to kids, which drive kids to see the movie in cinema.

Fiege does that for them. however i think this thread was about directors and producers talents and how good their movies are and not box office flops. Whedon's cabin in the woods was kind of a flop. Still a good producer, writer and director.


some of the greatest film producers/directors have had box office flops. Remember Spielberg's 1941?. box office flops comes with the territory for many artistic film makers and directors, in fact they always expect that, James Cameron once said, he had prepared himself and mind for titanic to flop.


This core difference between producers and directors making mass manufactured movies like Kevin Fiege and artistic good movies on their own terms like James Cameron. The box office pay off for Cameron must have been very personal in 1997 since James Cameron is the perfect definition of a anti- mass manufactured producer-director, which is what Fiege and his directors are, however I wont say Fiege is not a real producer.

I hope this thread stays more on the artistic commentary of ''good movies by directors and producers''. making it about movie flops is too off topic from the thread.Take it from me, a person that just called Joss Whedon a genius even if Avengers:Age of Ultron was one of the worst movies and it made 1.4 billion at the box office. How do you explain that with his artistry?

[Kirby101]

This is a good sign why Feige is perfect for Marvel/disney. their main goal is to make money, everything they do, they think of money, even how much we talk about their VFX and production set use already in place before the directors starts directing, money is part of it because their movies have to look a certain way that helps with selling toys to kids, which drive kids to see the movie in cinema.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Oh Nos!, a Studio wanted to make money. As if making the most successful franchise in movie history was just a matter of cut and paste "money making" parts together. As if WB didn't think making money was the reason they were making movies. As if putting together 23 successful movies joined together with characters and stories people loved was just a toy commercial. This shows no grasp of the actual global audience for these films.
Really Castle, we know you hate the MCU, but this is such a inane statement.

And Avengers was not "one of the worst movies", whatever that means.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I have seen you make this statement a couple times now AND it is like saying Michael Jordan was only successful because he was on the Bulls and We don't know how he would do because he never played anywhere else in his prime.

Producing a movie isn't the same as playing professional basketball. A coach and manager would be closer in terms of analogy. But even then it's not really the same thing because you don't have simple W/L stats in movies.

I understand what your point except that we have people with huge IPs & money and mismanage the hell out of them.

I am not saying Kevin Feige is without skills or talent or it doesn't take hard work to do what he does. I am just saying that in terms of achievement, it's good...but it can be better!!! In terms of achievement, considered as a ratio of what they started with and what they did with it, Feige doesn't rate very high.

Fox has X-men properties for 20 years never made X-men that made a billion dollars, Heck they never made a X-men movie that made 800 million dollars. DC manage to lose money on Justice League movie which is mind boggling.

Both Fox and DC/WB were actual movie production companies as opposed to Walt Disney Pictures, which is essentially a window display of a theme park monopoly. The movies are a tiny percentage of Walt Disney's overall income. Whereas Fox and WB really did need to make and produce movies to survive, and so they made, and in the case of WB, still make, far more movies than Disney has in a calendar year. In the case of Feige, even before Disney, the MCU as an independent studio was focused only on making Iron Man movies whereas Fox and WB make all sorts of movies, that means that the superhero movies are subject to more studio pressure, more politicking and marketing issues as opposed to the clarity of intent in MCU and Disney.

I don't think it is fair to say Feigie is not a real producer because we have seen people unable to manage making 1 or 2 movies work to make Cinematic universe work.

The people unable to make cinematic universes work were producers who succeeded making other kinds of movies. Tom Rothman, the guy often labeled a boogeyman for the X-Men Fox movies failures, actually produced Jim Jarmusch's early independent films and greenlit Titanic and Avatar. Amy Pascal, who granted is a bit of a clown as the Sony emails hack revealed, is often considered a bad producers because she mismanaged the TASM movies, but Pascal produced Greta Gerwig's LITTLE WOMEN, she also co-produced THE POST for Steven Spielberg.

Do we judge Feige because he does one kind of movie better than others who are good at making other kinds of movies? Or do we basically look at that say that he's untested and not willing to step out of his comfort zone?

[Castle]

This is such a ridiculous statement. Oh Nos!, a Studio wanted to make money. As if making the most successful franchise in movie history was just a matter of cut and paste "money making" parts together. As if WB didn't think making money was the reason they were making movies. As if putting together 23 successful movies joined together with characters and stories people loved was just a toy commercial. This shows no grasp of the actual global audience for these films.
Really Castle, we know you hate the MCU, but this is such a inane statement.

And Avengers was not "one of the worst movies", whatever that means.

it's not a ridiculous statement , I used james cameron as an example of a good director and producer. it was not an accident. Ofcourse every studio wants to make money, however the issue here is. can you still make money and be yourself as a good director and producer not following a studio re-establishment that was already set up for you even before your first camera shot? the answer is yes. I have already given you the Quicksilver issue in movies as evidence.

Lastly saying fiege has made a collection of successful franchise in history is not relevant to the topic. David Heyman who I mentioned before was already a Fiege before Fiege but better. he also once produced the most successful franchise in history with harry potter but he has produced other things, Gravity, Once Upon a time in Hollywood, marriage story, Paddington. but going back to the big one, harry potter. he gave a lot of the directors freedom, he respected the nature of the books. how far would harry potter have gotten under Fiege and Disney?

the harry potter franchise is a good study of film making for a big franchise since the franchise went through so many artistic phases. not every harry potter film is the same or share the same technical world, VFX or even acting. David Heyman is the perfect definition of a good producer and I think you even see it with some of the fans and their love for the 3rd film. the 3rd film arguably had the best director in the harry potter series and it showed.

I find it ironic we are even arguing, feige as a producer, He just crushed the hope of r rated movies, when he should be the one trying to be convincing Disney to take that chance. great producers are all about breaking the mold not conforming to it everytime. Great producers are suppose to be a life line for directors who sometimes may need help to get ahead when the studio demigods are giving them a hard time. Feige is famous for having directors quit an MCU project, that is not a good track record for a great producer from an artistic POV.


Lastly I said Avengers:Age of Ultron is one of the worst produced movies by Fiege. more importantly , not really the best example of Joss whedon as a good director when I know he is one.

Whedon's Avengers (first film) was done well, he directed it well, given the tight studio-control circumstance he was working in.

[Cyke]

Goodness, on Whedon: I like Cabin in the Woods as much as the next guy, but direction-wise it is nowhere near the same league as Fruitvale Station, Jumanji, Slither, Mississippi Grind, or pretty much Waititi's last 3 non-Thor movies.

I'm really looking forward to Chloe Zhao's work with Eternals thanks to the year she's been having.

[Rincewind]

Goodness, on Whedon: I like Cabin in the Woods as much as the next guy, but direction-wise it is nowhere near the same league as Fruitvale Station, Jumanji, Slither, Mississippi Grind, or pretty much Waititi's last 3 non-Thor movies.

I'm really looking forward to Chloe Zhao's work with Eternals thanks to the year she's been having.

When talking about Whedon's directing skills, shouldn't the discussion be about a movie Whedon directed? Cabin in the Woods was directed by Drew Goddard.