Is Marvel President Kevin Feige The Greatest Producer That’s Ever Lived?

[Kieran_Frost]

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.

"That's just how it is?" Says who? I've not heard anyone make such a claim before. Personally I think this idea that a director who does one genre of movie the vast majority of their career (or certainly in their most famous works) is therefore somehow void of artistry... a bizarre; even bonkers opinion. No offense. Most directors (the great directors) have a style. That's why they are great, because you can instantly know a director from how they do their films. Because they worked out what makes them special. Most, have a genre they like, and visit again and again. Most have an idea that is prevalent in nearly all their work. Hayao Miyizaki only does animated films, and all them have a similar style and flare; all have fantastical elements to them; nearly all have the self as the 'antagonist'. And he's the greatest animated director of all time.

The idea that being the best at a genre of cinema, but only doing that genre, means you have limited artistic vision is... one of the more... I'm finding it hard to put into words, without being rude (and I'm not trying to be rude, so apologies in advance). If you think that way, truly think a genre director is void of artistry... okay. Then I can't help you. I think it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cinema. Of art, even. Sorry, but a variety of genres is the criteria of artistry? What rubbish.

Most artists do their thing, their way, in their distinct style. VERY few actually have successful versatility across multiple genres; and to make a list of ones who create masterpieces in varied genres would be an even smaller list. Most directors have their genre. What is Hitchcock without suspense? What is Sergio Leone without westerns? They are perfecting their voice. Honing their skills, refining, engaging, always wanting to make that flawless, immortal version of what they do best. Not just in directors, in actors, in painters, in music, in comic writers. And you see it as artistic limitation? I cannot respect that opinion. Apologies.

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.

Never said it did.

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.

The Alien franchise has Alien (1979) in it, which yes, is categorically artistically better than everything in the MCU, and probably will be better than anything the MCU will ever make. Period. But Alien is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. You set yourself up to fail with that comparison.

[Brian B]

"That's just how it is?" Says who? I've not heard anyone make such a claim before. Personally I think this idea that a director who does one genre of movie the vast majority of their career (or certainly in their most famous works) is therefore somehow void of artistry... a bizarre; even bonkers opinion. No offense. Most directors (the great directors) have a style. That's why they are great, because you can instantly know a director from how they do their films. Because they worked out what makes them special. Most, have a genre they like, and visit again and again. Most have an idea that is prevalent in nearly all their work. Hayao Miyizaki only does animated films, and all them have a similar style and flare; all have fantastical elements to them; nearly all have the self as the 'antagonist'. And he's the greatest animated director of all time.

The idea that being the best at a genre of cinema, but only doing that genre, means you have limited artistic vision is... one of the more... I'm finding it hard to put into words, without being rude (and I'm not trying to be rude, so apologies in advance). If you think that way, truly think a genre director is void of artistry... okay. Then I can't help you. I think it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cinema. Of art, even. Sorry, but a variety of genres is the criteria of artistry? What rubbish.

Most artists do their thing, their way, in their distinct style. VERY few actually have successful versatility across multiple genres; and to make a list of ones who create masterpieces in varied genres would be an even smaller list. Most directors have their genre. What is Hitchcock without suspense? What is Sergio Leone without westerns? They are perfecting their voice. Honing their skills, refining, engaging, always wanting to make that flawless, immortal version of what they do best. Not just in directors, in actors, in painters, in music, in comic writers. And you see it as artistic limitation? I cannot respect that opinion. Apologies.


Never said it did.


The Alien franchise has Alien (1979) in it, which yes, is categorically artistically better than everything in the MCU, and probably will be better than anything the MCU will ever make. Period. But Alien is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. You set yourself up to fail with that comparison.

If as a director or producer all you ever do is work in genre, you’re not likely to be regarded as some great artist. That is all there is to it. Why hasn’t Tarantino won a real Oscar, except the screenplay ones, when he’s much more well known for directing and producing? Because all Tarantino does is work in recreating B-movie, exploitation-style flicks with A-level cast and production values. He’s stuck in his own genre. He may not even want to get out of it, either. If he’s ever going to win an Oscar for Director or Picture, or be well regarded enough where it’s a possibility he could win, he’s going to have to get serious and give up the gore and genre a bit. Now, Cameron has won Oscars, because he’s made so much money. But Cameron isn’t held up there with the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Fellini, or even Spielberg. Why? He hasn’t done anything that great. His only non-genre work is Titanic, and even that was just big-budget schlock, hardly different than the likes of Irwin Allen’s Towering Inferno. (Allen directed the action sequences, uncredited, and was the producer, and main creative force behind that movie. It’s only slightly an apples and oranges comparison.)

As for someone like Hayao Miyizaki, he proves my point. His work is so great, it transcends its genre, the ghetto of young children’s anime. No one will ever mistake My Neighbor Totoro with the likes of My Hero Academia. One is pure poetry brought to life on a screen, with incredible cultural value, and the other is genre cartoons marketed to the proper demographic.

I’m not knocking Cameron or his ilk. I just don’t see him as some great filmmaker. He’s just some Hollywood hack. Terminator far and away is his best movie, IMO. But Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane it is not.

How is Cameron different than when James Gunn works with Fiege? I don’t see much difference, except Cameron works with sci-fi concepts not owned by a comic company, and he often produces his own work.

I don’t see anything like a Jules and Jim coming out of Cameron, or Villeneuve.

As for Alien? Yeah, it’s a great horror movie in a scifi setting. Is it really better than Avengers Infinity War? I’m not saying it’s worse than that Russos production. I just don’t see Alien as that much better. Alien is just genre work, the haunted house horror story, like the Haunting, aboard a space ship. It’s fine for what it is. I liked Captain America First Avenger better, too. Your idea that Alien is so good and such a classic is just repeating the marketing around those movies for the Alien franchise.

Let’s face it, too. As a franchise, Alien is much weaker than the MCU. There’s quite a few stinkers in the Alien franchise after the first two. I’d even say Prometheus is among the very worst of the Alien sequels. I confess, I haven’t bothered to see Covenant, but do I really need to see it to know it’s big-budget Hollywood trash brought to me by Ridley Scott? I think I’d rather watch his House of Gucci instead.

Marvel Studios has a great studio system running, churning out popcorn movie product, just like Cameron and Villeneuve have been known to do. If you want real art, I suggest you look elsewhere than the likes of the MCU, Cameron and Dennis.

[Kieran_Frost]

That is all there is to it. Why hasn’t Tarantino won a real Oscar, except the screenplay ones, when he’s much more well known for directing and producing? Because all Tarantino does is work in recreating B-movie, exploitation-style flicks with A-level cast and production values. He’s stuck in his own genre. He may not even want to get out of it, either. If he’s ever going to win an Oscar for Director or Picture, or be well regarded enough where it’s a possibility he could win, he’s going to have to get serious and give up the gore and genre a bit. Now, Cameron has won Oscars, because he’s made so much money. But Cameron isn’t held up there with the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Fellini, or even Spielberg. Why? He hasn’t done anything that great. His only non-genre work is Titanic, and even that was just big-budget schlock, hardly different than the likes of Irwin Allen’s Towering Inferno. (Allen directed the action sequences, uncredited, and was the producer, and main creative force behind that movie. It’s only slightly an apples and oranges comparison.)

You're proof Tarantino isn't well regarded because he's in his one genre is he never won Best Director at the Oscars, but then you include several directors who never won Best Director at the Oscars as examples of true greatness. BUT THEN Cameron did win Best Director at the Oscars, and that doesn't count???

Your own examples contradict one another.

I’m not knocking Cameron or his ilk. I just don’t see him as some great filmmaker. He’s just some Hollywood hack.

"I'm not knocking Cameron"... "he's a hack."

As for Alien? Yeah, it’s a great horror movie in a scifi setting. Is it really better than Avengers Infinity War? I’m not saying it’s worse than that Russos production. I just don’t see Alien as that much better. Alien is just genre work, the haunted house horror story, like the Haunting, aboard a space ship. It’s fine for what it is. I liked Captain America First Avenger better, too. Your idea that Alien is so good and such a classic is just repeating the marketing around those movies for the Alien franchise.

[from Wikipedia] In 2002, Alien was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

[Noodle]

[from Wikipedia] In 2002, Alien was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

Not trying to discredit Alien, but Saturday Night Fever, Die Hard and Purple Rain are in the Film Registry. Good? Yes. But being on the registry doesn't automatically equal "high art."

[Brian B]

Not trying to discredit Alien, but Saturday Night Fever, Die Hard and Purple Rain are in the Film Registry. Good? Yes. But being on the registry doesn't automatically equal "high art."

I am of the same mind on this. I completely agree. An honor? Of course. Does it mean it’s the best movie or movies? No. Just good, and just important in that it made an impact on the culture, whether regarded as a mastepiece or not.

[Brian B]

You're proof Tarantino isn't well regarded because he's in his one genre is he never won Best Director at the Oscars, but then you include several directors who never won Best Director at the Oscars as examples of true greatness. BUT THEN Cameron did win Best Director at the Oscars, and that doesn't count???

Your own examples contradict one another.


"I'm not knocking Cameron"... "he's a hack."

What are you talking about? Every person I listed won best director or picture, except for the foreign guys who won best foreign film. It was less than 5 years ago that foreign movies started to receive Oscar wins for best movie or director.

It’s not a contradiction to point out that Cameron only won due to the money he earned.

As for calling him a hack, if you think that’s deriding Cameron, you can read it that way all you want.

[from Wikipedia] In 2002, Alien was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

Someone else explained this far better than I did.

At the end of the day, if you think Feige and company at Marvel represent some crass, commercial modern studio system, and that Cameron, Villeneuve and Ridley Scott are the pinnacle of artistic merit in filmmaking, no one who actually knows movies is going to take such a contention seriously, including me.

[Kieran_Frost]

Not trying to discredit Alien, but Saturday Night Fever, Die Hard and Purple Rain are in the Film Registry. Good? Yes. But being on the registry doesn't automatically equal "high art."

Oh I completely understand. Couldn't be bothered to list all the awards, find all the lists, quote all the influencing by all the great critics putting it as one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. It's like trying to 'prove' Apocalypse Now! (1979) is considered brilliant to those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, what do you put? Someone has an opinion on everything. You put the Library of Congress, well, Die Hard is there. You put Oscars, well, the Muppet Movie has one. You put critic polls, well, they are snobs. Well that was ten years ago. Etc etc.

[Brian B]

Oh I completely understand. Couldn't be bothered to list all the awards, find all the lists, quote all the influencing by all the great critics putting it as one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. It's like trying to 'prove' Apocalypse Now! (1979) is considered brilliant to those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, what do you put? Someone has an opinion on everything. You put the Library of Congress, well, Die Hard is there. You put Oscars, well, the Muppet Movie has one. You put critic polls, well, they are snobs. Well that was ten years ago. Etc etc.

Alien is not as good as Apocalypse Now. Ridley Scott has barely shown himself to be above the sandbox Marvel plays in, but if you find Coppola is knocking Marvel movies, let me know, please. I’d be happy to read what Coppola says. Until then, Cameron and Scott are just jelly of Feige. It’s that simple. The MCU is not great art, but fun popcorn movies. What’s the problem with the MCU? There is none. It’s a great success.

You know, too, it is probably not unusual that someone like me, here on a comics board, would see little to no difference between the likes of James Cameron, and Feige and his Russos. I imagine I have one of the less militant opinions in favor of the MCU among Marvel fans. I am interested in what Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson have to say about the MCU. I am not so blinded by my fandom that I don’t see merit in great movies. I don’t see the MCU as a particularly artistic endeavor. I recognize its limitations. I just don’t think people such as Cameron and Ridley Scott are particularly authoritative figures in filmmaking. They’re just popcorn movie makers, too. I like movies. In my pantheon of great film auteurs, those guys just aren’t it for me. It would be like George Lucas criticizing the MCU. It’s just ridiculous. If the Coen Brothers complain about the MCU, let me know. In the meantime, I have little regard for opinions coming from people like James Cameron. Yes, I like Terminator and Aliens, and Alien, too. But that’s just it. That’s what these guys do — Terminator and Alien. But I’m supposed to take their critique of Black Panther or Avengers or whatever seriously? No, I won’t take that seriously. No one should.

Note, too, unlike the OP, I do not regard Feige as the greatest producer. He maybe the most financially successful producer, but I don’t think he’s the greatest, far from it. Same with Cameron — not the greatest. See the commonality? They are popcorn, tent-pole moviemakers, not auteurs.

[chicago_bastard]

Oh I completely understand. Couldn't be bothered to list all the awards, find all the lists, quote all the influencing by all the great critics putting it as one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time. It's like trying to 'prove' Apocalypse Now! (1979) is considered brilliant to those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, what do you put? Someone has an opinion on everything. You put the Library of Congress, well, Die Hard is there. You put Oscars, well, the Muppet Movie has one. You put critic polls, well, they are snobs. Well that was ten years ago. Etc etc.

One could easily point at the accolades of Black Panther like its inclusion in AFI's top list or the recognition at the Oscars that you deemed such a good metric when talking about other movies. It's also likely that BP will get included in the National Film Registry some day but since that doesn't happen before at least ten years have passed and BP is from 2018 it so far wasn't possible.

So to be consistent with the critics and Oscars reasoning one should acknowledge BP as a groundbreaking movie, too.

Alien is not as good as Apocalypse Now. Ridley Scott has barely shown himself to be above the sandbox Marvel plays in, but if you find Coppola is knocking Marvel movies, let me know, please. I’d be happy to read what Coppola says..

Here you are: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/fr...el-1202183238/

[Brian B]

Here you are: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/fr...el-1202183238/

Wow. I don’t know what to say to Coppola’s diatribe against the MCU. It’s Coppola. You can’t just ignore his opinion.

It’s kind of weird that Coppola’s best known work is an adaptation of Mario Puzo, who worked for Martin Goodman amd Magazine Management.

Feige’s best known works are adaptations of Stan Lee’s, Kirby’s and Ditko’s work, all of them also having worked for Martin Goodman and Magazine Management.

Anyway, it’s just s superficial, historical similarity, not really important.

[Scott Taylor]

The problem with both famous director's remarks is that films meeting their definition of "cinema" have always only been a small, boutique part of moviedom. By far most movies are, actually, amusement park rides. As is, arguably, most entertainment as a whole.

Did the two director's forget that their primary purpose is to entertain? Even for a film like Apocalypse Now, the most memorable aspects are "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," "Charlie don't surf" and the visual of Charlie Sheen rising from the water. About 99 percent of cinema goers had no idea what it all meant or why.

[Kirby101]

The problem with both famous director's remarks is that films meeting their definition of "cinema" have always only been a small, boutique part of moviedom. By far most movies are, actually, amusement park rides. As is, arguably, most entertainment as a whole.

Did the two director's forget that their primary purpose is to entertain? Even for a film like Apocalypse Now, the most memorable aspects are "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," "Charlie don't surf" and the visual of Charlie Sheen rising from the water. About 99 percent of cinema goers had no idea what it all meant or why.

Martin Sheen, Charlie was in Platoon.

[Scott Taylor]

Martin Sheen, Charlie was in Platoon.

Ah yes, Martin. Thanks. I watched that scene again last night, pretty revolting and chilling.

[chicago_bastard]

My biggest problem with the remarks by Scorsese besides the fact that he judges movies that he admittedly hasn't even seen is that he calls Marvel movies the death of cinema while he sells his own movies to Netflix and AppleTV+. If something is the death of cinema then it's the streaming services, and he is helping those to raise their profile.

In the meantime Marvel movies are actually saving theaters from going bankrupt with No Way Home being a total smash and Marvel accounting for five out of the six highest grossing domestic movies during the pandemic.

[phonogram12]

If something is the death of cinema then it's the streaming services, and he is helping those to raise their profile.

In the meantime Marvel movies are actually saving theaters from going bankrupt with No Way Home being a total smash and Marvel accounting for five out of the six highest grossing domestic movies during the pandemic.

While I have no issue with movies going straight to streaming, I have to agree. But for the record, I do vastly prefer seeing movies in theaters.