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

[Castle]

Titanic 3D was post-production 3D, not shot with 3D cameras like Avatar. It has the same flaws as all post-production 3D movies, including all MCU, Snyderverse and Star Wars films. Students of film would know that post-production 3D is a gimmick that is a detriment to the film. I have no idea why any film class would show Titanic in 3D, except to show how superfluous post-production 3D is, and how it hurts the cinematography.
There are a small handful of films, shot in 3D since Avatar.

My point of Titanic 3D was Cameron knew how to convert it to great 3D because he is a masterclass film maker of directing/producing. Apparently George Lucas did not have much luck trying to do the same with Star Wars Episode 1.

Additionally Titanic 2D was a brilliantly well made film in its own right. The VFX of Titanic hold up supremely better than the feige films, nearly 25 years on.

Lastly 3D is not a gimmick. The films that came after avatar and tried to do the money avatar did but without the heavy lifting Cameron put in the film making was the real gimmick.

What Cameron has achieved with 3 point turning films in cinema (Terminator 1-2, Titanic and Avatar) has been far more impactful to the world of film making than all the 27 MCU films Feige has produced. Feige movies are popcorn fun produced by a well oiled cooperate machine as Disney. Cameroon's movies are personal art.

[Kieran_Frost]

This response only works when you delete the second sentence of my post which you did for no reason. But then I'll repeat it: Despite having a comparably small film output 2020 still managed to bring out two movies that are head and shoulders above Dune.

The second part of your sentence had no baring on my gleeful point.

You asked me to name a year in the last decade this film would have been a front runner? I named 2020. You go off on how resorting to the pandemic year was cheap. The latter part of your sentence really makes no difference to your retort. We'll have to see, come Oscar time, how Dune does with nominations and wins compared to Promising Young Woman (the other one stood very very little chance, having not gotten a Best Editing nomination).

[Noodle]

My point of Titanic 3D was Cameron knew how to convert it to great 3D because he is a masterclass film maker of directing/producing. Apparently George Lucas did not have much luck trying to do the same with Star Wars Episode 1.

Additionally Titanic 2D was a brilliantly well made film in its own right. The VFX of Titanic hold up supremely better than the feige films, nearly 25 years on.

Lastly 3D is not a gimmick. The films that came after avatar and tried to do the morning avatar did but without the heavy lifting Cameron put in the film making was the real gimmick.

What Cameron has achieved with 3 point turning films in cinema (Terminator 1-2, Titanic and Avatar) has been far more impactful to the world of film making than all the 27 MCU films Feige has produced. Feige movies are popcorn fun produced by a well oiled cooperate machine as Disney. Cameroon's movies are personal art.

The goal post, it moves.

If 3D wasn't a gimmick then more filmmakers would be using it currently. But I guess the complexity of it so vast that only a cinematic god like Cameron can even fathom how to use it correctly.

[Castle]

The second part of your sentence had no baring on my gleeful point.

You asked me to name a year in the last decade this film would have been a front runner? I named 2020. You go off on how resorting to the pandemic year was cheap. The latter part of your sentence really makes no difference to your retort. We'll have to see, come Oscar time, how Dune does with nominations and wins compared to Promising Young Woman (the other one stood very very little chance, having not gotten a Best Editing nomination).

Dune if nominated by a large amount, will likely follow the likes of movies like Gravity, Interstellar, Inception, Life of Pi, 1917 and Mad Max Fury Road. the artistry of Dune fits more in line with those films and those films did well in the technical awards.

it is usually the other main awards that tends to be become too political and business ridden these days that sometimes it is not even worth it anymore when you know a film is not wining because they are deemed the best. In a way, the technical categories can be more fun as they more than 90% of the time give the awards to actually great-well made film.

This year or last year (2021), Dune by large is the best made film. the second closest will be The Snyder Cut and maybe King King vs Godzilla for VFX but No Feige produced year is in those league.it will be hard to see them winning over them if all get nominated.

[Kirby101]

Additionally Titanic 2D was a brilliantly well made film in its own right. The VFX of Titanic hold up supremely better than the feige films, nearly 25 years on.

No they don't. The movie holds up, and the film making was great, the model and practical effects were well done. But 1997 CGI looks stilted by today's standards. The people in drone type shots over the ship looks like Sims.

I think the effects in Avatar are brilliant and look forward to the sequels, but every post-production 3D has negative effects on the movie, including Titanic.
If Titanic 3D is shown in a movie class as a good thing, it's a bad class.

[WebLurker]

Dune if nominated by a large amount, will likely follow the likes of movies like Gravity, Interstellar, Inception, Life of Pi, 1917 and Mad Max Fury Road. the artistry of Dune fits more in line with those films and those films did well in the technical awards.

it is usually the other main awards that tends to be become too political and business ridden these days that sometimes it is not even worth it anymore when you know a film is not wining because they are deemed the best. In a way, the technical categories can be more fun as they more than 90% of the time give the awards to actually great-well made film.

This year or last year (2021), Dune by large is the best made film. the second closest will be The Snyder Cut and maybe King King vs Godzilla for VFX but No Feige produced year is in those league.it will be hard to see them winning over them if all get nominated.

The Snyder Cut won't get nominated; it's not eligible. Not sure I'd nominate any of the MCU movies this year, but I did think they were generally better in terms of storytelling. Would be cool with Godzilla vs. Kong wining something; I liked that one well enough.

[Castle]

Speaking of Cameron, he spoke recently about Marvel with Dune's director Denis Villeneuve and not to my surprise but he confirmed what I and Kieren-Frost have said already, so I guess we needed that vindication.I actually said 2 days ago that one of the issue with Dune and Eternals for example is that Dune had this deep rich look which actually was because of the film making style that Villeneuve chose and Eternals just did not have that, despite it been pushed in the same epic range as Avengers. (Eternals Assemble) E


it is nice to see Cameron also pick on the same thing as I did with Dune, but he uses the term, Epic. that Dune felt epic and Cameron praises Dune's directors discipline, film vocabulary and film making. Which is something some of us have said here.
You can read Cameron full take here on Dune and Marvel
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/james-came...094853401.html

Cameron also seems to be on the idea that marvel just destroy cities but it still does not feel epic because that is not what epic means and I agree. Epic is mostly down to film style and tone and something I have also mentionedgoing back to classic Hollywood films like William Wyler's Ben Hur or Cece Demile's, Ten Commandments. 2 other people (Wyler and Demilie) I already listed on this thread as one of the best producers of all time.

Has Feige ever produced an epic in the same cinema language as Ben Hur, Lord of the Rings, Titanic or even that Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra film that apparently flopped? the answer would be unlikely not. I will always wonder how a Spiderman or X-Men James Cameron film would have turned out if he had went on to make one of them as planned in the late 90s.

I see his X-MEN fitting more like Terminator and Alita.

And I see his Spiderman, following the steps of Titanic.

He would not only have been a great director, but also a great producer on those comic films. Little chance Cameron and Feige will have gotten along and if it was down to those one choice. Cameron stays, Feige goes.

[Albert1981]

Human nature? Most fields of work have awards, we just hear about the ones in the entertainment industries, that's all.


Well you're not being judged by strangers, you're being praised by peers. They know each others work, if not each other. And it awards great achievements in their field; as with any other job. It's perfectly nice.


Pretty sure referees exist. And from what I gather, it's far from agreed upon as the right call everytime on the pitch, so it's very much about judges.


Avatar won a bunch of technical awards, let's not forget. It won Cinematography, Visual Effects and Art Direction. That's it. And it was a WEAK year. Very weak. A superhero film can 100% win big awards... but if Marvel won't let their films be truly bold, I don't see it happening. And that's not the Oscars fault.

I think it's great to be recognized by your peers in the industry. But to ME, I just don't care about that kind of thing. I don't think any expression of art is "better" or "worse" than others. It's PURELY subjective. And critics sometimes have their own interests and lean on their own biases to determine the "winners" in these awards shows. Like how many musical biopics have gotten awards? It's ridiculous! Referees should absolutely NOT determine games. But sports like football, baseball and basketball often follow an informal rule during the playoffs: "Let the players play". By and large, the refs try to stay out of the way in those things. This is NOT the case with boxing and figure skating...And look how much corruption and duplicity there are in those sports. Let's not even get started on the questionable folks who have "won" Nobel Peace Prizes. I consider the Oscars and Grammys to be three hour long events of celebrity worship and advertisements.

[Albert1981]

In most cases it's screeners for the entire film or an entire season or a set number of episodes.

Black Panther had 3 different versions.

GOTG 2 had one.

Endgame had one.

Netflix Marvel for all the shows.

Antman had one.

Hulu Marvel had one.

ABC (like Netflix) will send voters an entire box of all the shows and movies that they want nominations for.

I didn't know this. Thank you for the heads-up!

[Kieran_Frost]

I think it's great to be recognized by your peers in the industry. But to ME, I just don't care about that kind of thing.

Which is totally cool, it's not for everyone. But that doesn't mean they don't have merit. I couldn't care less about football, but that doesn't mean football is a worthless event just because it doesn't do it for me.

I don't think any expression of art is "better" or "worse" than others. It's PURELY subjective.

Categorically disagree. While anyone can talk about how a certain piece of art effects them (and this is purely subjective, agreed), there are many technical aspects that can be compared and contrasted. And when talking about a greater scope of discussion, again these can be quantified to a certain degree. There is always a colossal difference between "this is my favourite film" and "this is the best film ever made." Two very, VERY seperate statements and criteria of analysis.

Referees should absolutely NOT determine games. But sports like football, baseball and basketball often follow an informal rule during the playoffs: "Let the players play". By and large, the refs try to stay out of the way in those things. This is NOT the case with boxing and figure skating...And look how much corruption and duplicity there are in those sports. Let's not even get started on the questionable folks who have "won" Nobel Peace Prizes.

There are very, very, VERY few things in this world that are without bias. Who gets the promotion. Who gets the best parking space. Who has to work the rubbish shift at work. Who you give a better present to at Christmas. Awards cannot be void of human bias, because frankly nothing in the world is; that's... just human nature.

I consider the Oscars and Grammys to be three hour long events of celebrity worship and advertisements.

They still have merit, even if you don't personally care for them. And it's purely because they celebrities and films people have seen. If everyone cared about real estate the way they care about films, I'm sure the real estate awards would be televised.

[Albert1981]

Which is totally cool, it's not for everyone. But that doesn't mean they don't have merit. I couldn't care less about football, but that doesn't mean football is a worthless event just because it doesn't do it for me.


Categorically disagree. While anyone can talk about how a certain piece of art effects them (and this is purely subjective, agreed), there are many technical aspects that can be compared and contrasted. And when talking about a greater scope of discussion, again these can be quantified to a certain degree. There is always a colossal difference between "this is my favourite film" and "this is the best film ever made." Two very, VERY seperate statements and criteria of analysis.


There are very, very, VERY few things in this world that are without bias. Who gets the promotion. Who gets the best parking space. Who has to work the rubbish shift at work. Who you give a better present to at Christmas. Awards cannot be void of human bias, because frankly nothing in the world is; that's... just human nature.


They still have merit, even if you don't personally care for them. And it's purely because they celebrities and films people have seen. If everyone cared about real estate the way they care about films, I'm sure the real estate awards would be televised.

I agree with you about the technical aspects of films and shows. You won't get any argument from me there. But performances are a different story. Different panels of judges might determine some work of art is better than others. And I concur with your opinions about biases seeping into decision-making. I think it's all the more reason to get rid of subjective awards because they WILL get tainted by that kind of thing. However, I will admit my view is minority one. Real estate awards might be fun. No navel-gazing is gonna happen there. If awards shows wanna have better viewership, they should make them SHORTER. They've become so self-indulgent that so many folks have lost interest in them. I also have the same criticism for blockbuster movies now too. No Time to Die and the Eternals EASILY could have been reduced in length. I'm hearing that the Batman is gonna be THREE HOURS LONG! I wouldn't be surprised if the Multiverse of Madness will be close to that as well.

[useridgoeshere]

But isn't the decision about which technical aspects are important, which elements to compare and contrast, and the "right" way to execute also subjective? People still had to sit down and say "this is what makes these technical aspects ideal/superior." Individuals disagree on the best look, sound, performance, production, etc., so they're not agreeing on how to evaluate the technical aspects of filmmaking.

[Albert1981]

But isn't the decision about which technical aspects are important, which elements to compare and contrast, and the "right" way to execute also subjective? People still had to sit down and say "this is what makes these technical aspects ideal/superior." Individuals disagree on the best look, sound, performance, production, etc., so they're not agreeing on how to evaluate the technical aspects of filmmaking.

Very good point! Again, more subjectiveness in determining the value and merit of art. I bet there is some disagreement over who gets to win technical awards as well.

[Kieran_Frost]

But performances are a different story. Different panels of judges might determine some work of art is better than others.

I'd disagree. There are still many, many technical aspects to a performance, that can be critically analyzed, praised and labelled as 'good acting'. That doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it, but again there is a huge difference between "I didn't care for this performance" and "this was a BAD performance". The one that is opinion is just, the other... can just be an incorrect statement.

And I concur with your opinions about biases seeping into decision-making. I think it's all the more reason to get rid of subjective awards because they WILL get tainted by that kind of thing.

All awards are subjective, in some way. You're basically saying do away with all awards for everything. And why? It doesn't hurt anyone.

If awards shows wanna have better viewership, they should make them SHORTER. They've become so self-indulgent that so many folks have lost interest in them.

It's 3 hours once a year, they're fine as is; why condense it? It'll only end up cutting the technical awards (because they aren't 'famous') which is just rude, they work bloody hard and deserve their time to shine. Instead of making them shorter a simpler solution is: don't watch it if you don't like them. The super bowl is longer, and no-one suggests trimming the game length (I mean, I'm sure some do, but I find ALL sporting events tedious, which is why I simply don't watch them).

I also have the same criticism for blockbuster movies now too. No Time to Die and the Eternals EASILY could have been reduced in length. I'm hearing that the Batman is gonna be THREE HOURS LONG! I wouldn't be surprised if the Multiverse of Madness will be close to that as well.

WHY are films becoming so long??? The goal length is 1 hr 30mins. Anything after that I want to see WHY. And 'couldn't be bothered to trim it' is not a good enough answer; which is what most are guilty of.

But isn't the decision about which technical aspects are important, which elements to compare and contrast, and the "right" way to execute also subjective? People still had to sit down and say "this is what makes these technical aspects ideal/superior." Individuals disagree on the best look, sound, performance, production, etc., so they're not agreeing on how to evaluate the technical aspects of filmmaking.

You have to remember when it gets down to 'which of these five great performances should win?' YES it becomes very much opinion, because ultimately what tips the scale is very much personal preference. But all of them already tick the technical aspects (well, mostly, ha). And then it becomes preference. To some the overall arc and story of the character and how it moves them matters most, to others it's purely down to the variety of emotions and technical skills did they display (and whether the script is not good, or the film just okay makes no difference as they only care about the performance stripped of all else). Neither is a wrong choice, merely a preference. The only time I disagree with someone winning, is where I feel the outside narrative was the deciding factor, and that shouldn't be a thing. The choice should come down to the work, not the outside world.

[Brian B]

Feige maybe the most financially successful movie producer ever. But “greatest” producer? No. I’m not sure who is, but it’s not Feige.