I Will Forever Love Disney For Buying Marvel

[Triniking1234]

The opening post is a short essay patting Disney on the back for introducing diversity but then there's mentions of Blade which means Marvel would've tapped into their lesser known characters anyway and there's also the part where Disney stifled X-Men comic, their property with the most diverse cast, just because they couldn't make live-action movies/TV series with them.

[Kingdom X]

I still wish the cartoons were better.

Part of me (the pessimistic part) thinks that they don't invest a lot into their cartoons because if they dipped into deeper territory and had good writing they could rival the movies in terms of where the best "version" of these characters are. Having the cartoons act as glorified promotional material probably saves money and leads to a less divided fan-base.

[jwatson]

Part of me (the pessimistic part) thinks that they don't invest a lot into their cartoons because if they dipped into deeper territory and had good writing they could rival the movies in terms of where the best "version" of these characters are. Having the cartoons act as glorified promotional material probably saves money and leads to a less divided fan-base.

Sounds like it's time to let pixar or someone make the MAU, Marvel Animated Universe. Then they can easily seperate them from the movie counterparts/

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The opening post is a short essay patting Disney on the back for introducing diversity but then there's mentions of Blade which means Marvel would've tapped into their lesser known characters anyway and there's also the part where Disney stifled X-Men comic, their property with the most diverse cast, just because they couldn't make live-action movies/TV series with them.

Disney was notorious for being "middle America is the heartland" for decades. It's laughable that people think the "push for diversity" came from Disney and not from the basic fact that -- the MCU being driven by novelty and expanding universe means it has to constantly introduce new characters and the success of Iron Man meant traditional stuff that counted before (i.e. character with prestige/great stories/great villains/cool supporting cast, none of which applies to IM) meant that MCU could do any kind of hero -- capitalist interests coincided in the direction of better representation, which again is a good thing and not a surprising or game-changing thing. But that also means it's not really heroic in the slightest. What Disney-MCU did was do the right thing after doing everything else.

The push for diversity and the credit for that belongs to the MCU, to Kevin Feige and his fairly diverse bunch of people in executive chairs like Trinh Tranh and Nate Moore.

Marvel Comics themselves started pushing for diversity in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Bendis created Miles Morales inspired by Donald Glover's failed campaign to play Peter Parker in the Mark Webb movies, as well as Barack Obama's election. Miles Morales' success and breakout turn inspired Kamala Khan, inspired Riri Williams and many others. So again that wasn't Disney doing any of that.

The first Aladdin of the '90s was awash in stereotypes and racist coding i.e. the most stereotypically Arab-looking dude in the cast is the villain (Jafar) while the heroes are essentially white teenagers with tan coating (Aladdin, Jasmine). Then there's Pocahontas which is sentimental hogwash. The first Mulan wasn't popular in China (unlike Kung-Fu Panda) and the second Mulan is possibly complicit in the genocide of the Uighurs (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54064654). Let's not forget the Pirates of the Caribbean movies which doesn't mention slavery even if runaway slaves formed 25% of all pirate crews in that time and doesn't have any sympathetic POC character in any of the movies (nor mention the fact that Keira Knightley's character, as daughter of the Governor of Jamaica, would obviously be the daughter of a slaveowner and be a Scarlett O'Hara type surrounded by slave handmaidens). The video game Assassin's Creed Black Flag actually touched on the issue of slavery in that time.

[chicago_bastard]

One director, an Argentinian female director respected in international circles, pointed this out:
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/lu...es-1202027524/
“Companies are interested in female filmmakers but they still think action scenes are for male directors,” Martel said. “The first thing I asked them was maybe if they could change the special effects because there’s so many laser lights. I find them horrible. Also the soundtrack of Marvel films is quite horrendous. Maybe we disagree on this but it’s really hard to watch a Marvel film. It’s painful to the ears to watch Marvel films.”

So it's again a decision without teeth. These movies aren't really good for the directors who are hired to make these films fundamentally.

It is common for almost every major blockbuster production that second unit directors do the action scenes, that's not Disney exclusive. And when the director is someone who has no experience in shooting action scenes like Cate Shortland, Chloe Zhao or Destin Daniel Cretton that's actually a good thing. Movies like The Rider and Nomadland are a fundamentally different kind of filmmaking than directing an action blockbuster. As an example Batman Begins would have benefited from someone else directing the action scenes as it clearly wasn't Nolan's strong suit at that time because he had made only smaller scale movies like Following or Memento prior to it.

And of course the directors benefit from their Marvel gig. Having your name attached to a billion dollar movie opens more doors for future projects.

Oh, and maybe someone who thinks Marvel movies are horrendous shouldn't apply for directing them in the first place. And her accusations are wrong, as letting the second unit doing the action has nothing to do with the main director being female but with the main director having no experience in shooting action scenes.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It is common for almost every major blockbuster production that second unit directors do the action scenes, that's not Disney exclusive.

Second Units exit on various productions but a below-the-line unit designing pre-viz and concieving action scenes before the director is signed on all based on the script is very much next-level.

MAD MAX FURY ROAD, Christopher Nolan's films, even Michael Bay's films, and of course Spielberg all have the major directors designing the action scenes, and deciding the camera placement and look of stuff.

And when the director is someone who has no experience in shooting action scenes like Cate Shortland, Chloe Zhao or Destin Daniel Cretton that's actually a good thing.

This idea that directors "who have no experience in shooting action scenes" can't direct action scenes or be trusted in creating it, is a) Unfair, B) Doesn't really trust or believe that said director can maybe expand their repertoire and skill-set now does it? Soderbergh started out as an independent director but he learned how to direct action scenes and genre films. So it's not like independent directors can't learn and develop new skill-sets. Christopher Nolan did independent low-budget character stuff before he did Batman Begins and he's good at directing action scenes.

But the MCU movies don't provide them platform to expand in that direction.

As an example Batman Begins would have benefited from someone else directing the action scenes as it clearly wasn't Nolan's strong suit at that time because he had made only smaller scale movies like Following or Memento prior to it.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't point against the fact that the movie was a commercial success and it doesn't explain how Nolan improved in directing action scenes in The Dark Knight, Inception, Dunkirk and even Tenet.

Because you know the more chances you get at something the better you get.

And of course the directors benefit from their Marvel gig. Having your name attached to a billion dollar movie opens more doors for future projects.

Mostly it seems to make them stuck doing just superhero stuff for the most part and becoming a hired hand designing pre-visualized stuff before they come in, like an elaborate TV-directing gig.

[Iron Maiden]

Second Units exit on various productions but a below-the-line unit designing pre-viz and concieving action scenes before the director is signed on all based on the script is very much next-level.

MAD MAX FURY ROAD, Christopher Nolan's films, even Michael Bay's films, and of course Spielberg all have the major directors designing the action scenes, and deciding the camera placement and look of stuff.



This idea that directors "who have no experience in shooting action scenes" can't direct action scenes or be trusted in creating it, is a) Unfair, B) Doesn't really trust or believe that said director can maybe expand their repertoire and skill-set now does it? Soderbergh started out as an independent director but he learned how to direct action scenes and genre films. So it's not like independent directors can't learn and develop new skill-sets. Christopher Nolan did independent low-budget character stuff before he did Batman Begins and he's good at directing action scenes.

But the MCU movies don't provide them platform to expand in that direction.



Even if that's the case, that doesn't point against the fact that the movie was a commercial success and it doesn't explain how Nolan improved in directing action scenes in The Dark Knight, Inception, Dunkirk and even Tenet.

Because you know the more chances you get at something the better you get.



Mostly it seems to make them stuck doing just superhero stuff for the most part and becoming a hired hand designing pre-visualized stuff before they come in, like an elaborate TV-directing gig.

Directors usually don't get typecast like an actor would. Directing Thor didn't prevent Kenneth Branagh from directing Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, a filmed live production of Romeo and Juliet and recently completing a new film Belfast about the turbulent 60s

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Directors usually don't get typecast like an actor would.

Directors do get typecast all the time. It's not the same way with actors but it happens all the time. Alfred Hitchcock famously said, "I'm a typed director. If I directed Cinderella, everyone would look for a body in the carriage."

I don't think directing in the MCU is really a step-up to big things in any real sense. The idea that directing MCU stuff would give people freedom to make movies they really want for the most part hasn't really applied.

Most of the directors of MCU are mediocre stylists whose pre-MCU movies were generally not all there. Some were TV directors -- the Russos, Whedon -- who graduated into a set-up several degrees above what they were used to but not essentially different in kind. Of the ones whose movies I have seen, Ryan Coogler is the only one of the lot who's directed a legitimately great film when he made FRUITVALE STATION and that was before he worked for the MCU. And since Black Panther 2018, he's not directed anything. He was supposed to direct a smaller film focusing on an Atlanta college scandal but that didn't follow through. He's become involved as a producer and that's fine but it doesn't augur well, it feels like the kind of burnout that Sam Raimi underwent when he did the Spider-Man movies. Those movies sucked him dry, and since then he's just directed 2 movies and none of them measure to the stuff he did before.

IN general there aren't many directors who did the superheroes movies for any company and did well. Tim Burton and Chris Nolan are the only ones who made the genres work for them. Others got sucked dry since it just took all their time and attention and energy. And those are the ones who had real talent for the films. James Mangold made maybe the best superhero film recently with LOGAN and since then he made Ford v. Ferrari, so maybe he's another exception.

Directing MCU is basically like directing an episode on TV. It's not really directing in the sense that originating a project of your choosing is.

Directing Thor didn't prevent Kenneth Branagh from directing Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, a filmed live production of Romeo and Juliet and recently completing a new film Belfast about the turbulent 60s

Branagh is an actor-director first and foremost and he's involved in legitimate theater, so it's not the same thing. Besides he's directed stuff since the 90s, doing Shakespeare, thrillers like DEAD AGAIN (actually his best film, though even his best isn't really great just above average).

[chicago_bastard]

Second Units exit on various productions but a below-the-line unit designing pre-viz and concieving action scenes before the director is signed on all based on the script is very much next-level.

If a first-time MCU director does a good job he is getting more influence on the sequel. James Gunn had bigger influence in the making of GOTG 2 than he had in making the first movie, same goes for Taika Waititi's coming Thor movie.

MAD MAX FURY ROAD, Christopher Nolan's films, even Michael Bay's films, and of course Spielberg all have the major directors designing the action scenes, and deciding the camera placement and look of stuff.

This idea that directors "who have no experience in shooting action scenes" can't direct action scenes or be trusted in creating it, is a) Unfair, B) Doesn't really trust or believe that said director can maybe expand their repertoire and skill-set now does it? Soderbergh started out as an independent director but he learned how to direct action scenes and genre films. So it's not like independent directors can't learn and develop new skill-sets. Christopher Nolan did independent low-budget character stuff before he did Batman Begins and he's good at directing action scenes.

But the MCU movies don't provide them platform to expand in that direction.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't point against the fact that the movie was a commercial success and it doesn't explain how Nolan improved in directing action scenes in The Dark Knight, Inception, Dunkirk and even Tenet.

Because you know the more chances you get at something the better you get.

Miller, Bay and Spielberg started their movie careers with action films so they aren't comparable to the likes of Shortland or Zhao. And as I said Nolan isn't a good example for thrilling action scenes in comic book movies.

Marvel Studios expects a certain standard. They don't want a sluggishly choreographed brawl of Black Widow and Taskmaster throwing Haymakers at each other for three minutes, filmed from close range without any sense for scale and movement, but that's what Warner got from Nolan in Batman Begins.

As I mentioned, if a director delivers in his first effort he gets more control over the sequel. Taika Waititi can influence the action of the next Thor movie to a degree because he is the screenwriter this time around.

Mostly it seems to make them stuck doing just superhero stuff for the most part and becoming a hired hand designing pre-visualized stuff before they come in, like an elaborate TV-directing gig.

Taika Waititi made an Oscar winning movie after directing a Marvel movie, right now he just completed a movie starring Michael Fassbender and Elisabeth Moss for Searchlight, I'd say he's looking all right escaping these imagined clutches of being a hired hand for a TV-directing gig. So I'm pretty confident Chloe Zhao will be back directing movies for the award circuit after Eternals. And if not and she continues doing MCU superhero movies instead then that's what she wants, I don't see the problem here.

Maybe you should ask yourself the question why filmmakers like Gunn, Waititi, or Coogler commit themselves to multiple MCU projects and an established name like Sam Raimi joins if it were such a bad place for directors as you paint it.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If a first-time MCU director does a good job he is getting more influence on the sequel.

So they get a medal confirming all that they already knew about themselves before they worked in the MCU! That's pathetic.

And as I said Nolan isn't a good example for thrilling action scenes in comic book movies.

The box-office returns of Batman Begins says something more interesting on that front.

Marvel Studios expects a certain standard.

Yeah rumbles between heroes in airports with no civilians, no consequences, no stakes and fight scenes covered all over the place and then getting extra coverage in reshoots.

Maybe you should ask yourself the question why filmmakers like Gunn, Waititi, or Coogler commit themselves to multiple MCU projects

Retirement money, kids' college fund, agents commissions, debts, student loan payments? There's not a real mystery why they would commit because nobody says no to work.

It's just that doing so isn't a validation of the MCU or Disney as any kind of stable for nurturing talent by any means.

It's not Roger Corman, or to use a more recent example, it's not Blumhouse productions.

...and an established name like Sam Raimi joins if it were such a bad place for directors as you paint it.

Sam Raimi hasn't directed a movie in more than a decade not since the flop of his film, Oz, the Great and Powerful. That film and a low-budget horror called "Drag Me To Hell" has been all he has directed since Spider-Man 3.

So this is him coming out of semi-retirement and doing an instant slam-dunk.

[charliehustle415]

Sounds like it's time to let pixar or someone make the MAU, Marvel Animated Universe. Then they can easily seperate them from the movie counterparts/

This is my thinking as well they could do more young kid friendly stories like Power Pack or imagine a movie with Kid Loki or New Mutants.

I think it is inevitable that we get it, I wonder if What If? Is a testing ground

[chicago_bastard]

So they get a medal confirming all that they already knew about themselves before they worked in the MCU! That's pathetic.

When you make movies on a 200 million budget you try to minimize the risk. Giving a director who only made low-budget indie films beforehand carte blanche for his first outing in the blockbuster segment may be a bold move, but it can also turn out to be a stupid one.

The box-office returns of Batman Begins says something more interesting on that front.

First of all I don't see how the box office return tells us anything about the quality of the fight scenes and secondly, Batman Begins wasn't even a hit at the box office. Making less than 400 million on a 150 million budget not including marketing cost is hardly a success.

Retirement money, kids' college fund, agents commissions, debts, student loan payments? There's not a real mystery why they would commit because nobody says no to work.

Waititi, Gunn, and Coogler don't rely on Marvel, they can choose the studio they want to work with. And yet they come back to direct more MCU movies.

Sam Raimi hasn't directed a movie in more than a decade not since the flop of his film, Oz, the Great and Powerful. That film and a low-budget horror called "Drag Me To Hell" has been all he has directed since Spider-Man 3.

So this is him coming out of semi-retirement and doing an instant slam-dunk.

In the last decade he developed Ash vs Evil Dead and directed and wrote episodes for two other TV shows, so he was hardly out of the business.

[Journey]

THE MOUSE WANTS TO BE THE DOMINANT SPECIES ON THE PLANET AND HE'LL DESTROY US ALL TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

[Noek]

Hey who here rembers when Phineas & Ferb did a crossover with some Avengers.

[Dr. Skeleton]

The Mouse has too much power for my taste.

This. I'm still not comfortable with the whole partnership. I've never been a Disney guy. I shudder what they could do to their darker and edgy characters like the X-Men and Ghost Rider. I also don't trust them with other properties like Aliens and Planet Of The Apes.