What do you think about Joss Whedon's influence on the MCU films?

[Bunch of Coconuts]

That would have more to do with the costume designer's work than with the photography/directing.

IDK...I think the lighting and angle of the shot has a lot to do with it, as well. It takes effort to make a black outfit stand out. Look at the sheen on that rump.

Loki was the villain of the movie and the audience clearly wasn't meant to approve of the things he said or did.

This didn't answer my question.

They had a writing room for IW and Endgame where the Russos, the screenwriters, and Feige discussed the plotline together. And even if that weren't the case the Russos were allowed to make major changes to the scripts while shooting. There are several examples for that, one of them is even the Vormir scene as the script had it play out very differently and the scene that ended up in the movie was actually filmed during the reshoots. So if the Russos weren't in agreement with something it wouldn't have made it into the movie. But it's fair to put equal responsibility on the writers and Feige, not arguing that.

You think the Russo's had the power to actually change a major plot-point that would impact all future MCU movies? Yeah we're gonna hard disagree there, as well.

[chicago_bastard]

IDK...I think the lighting and angle of the shot has a lot to do with it, as well. It takes effort to make a black outfit stand out. Look at the sheen on that rump.

Then we still have the fact that one shot forces you to ogle her ass as there is nothing else in the frame one could look at, while the other is a medium long shot of her and a full shot of Loki as it's pretty common for such a dialogue scene.

This didn't answer my question.

I'm not used to answering rhetorical questions.

You think the Russo's had the power to actually change a major plot-point that would impact all future MCU movies? Yeah we're gonna hard disagree there, as well.

What makes you think it is more reasonable to assume that Markus and McFeely (the screenwriters) have more power to impact all future MCU movies? The plotline being developed in a collaborative effort by the writers and the Russos is a fact, so if you want to disagree with facts go on.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Then we still have the fact that one shot forces you to ogle her ass as there is nothing else in the frame one could look at, while the other is a medium long shot of her and a full shot of Loki as it's pretty common for such a dialogue scene.

Her ass is still wide and center. I'm just gonna ::shrug:: if you don't think peoples' attentions are drawn to it. I'm gay...like 1000%...and my eyes go right to it. But I am a "booty man."

I'm not used to answering rhetorical questions.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious if the person who wrote that line is also the same person that wrote the line about Tony reinstating prima nocte, if they're the same person that had a male character fall into a woman's chest in two separate movies, and is also the same person who wound up not being as feminist as they proclaimed to be. Also curious if it's the same person who always had BW go back to a short-haircut because they may think it's sexier (this one you might can consider rhetorical).

What makes you think it is more reasonable to assume that Markus and McFeely (the screenwriters) have more power to impact all future MCU movies? The plotline being developed in a collaborative effort by the writers and the Russos is a fact, so if you want to disagree with facts go on.

A collaborative effort sure. Did I argue that anywhere? The point was how much responsibility the Russo's actually have (if any), versus how much you were (initially) pinning on them.

[Powerboy]

I think Favreau established the "house style" more than Whedon, and that, as others have said, Gunn and the Russo Brothers had a greater impact in establishing both a better team formula and a much broader range for the MCU as a whole.

Having said that, I think his organizational skills and experience as a comic writer and TV show producer likely smoothed over a lot of possible hiccups the first Avengers movie had, and that Feige and others might have absorbed his skills in that are going forward.

But yeah, I think Favreau, Gunn and the Russos are the "Holy Trinity" of MCU cretaors.

I was going to say much the same thing. I think Favreau and RDJ established the style from the start by making a highly successful movie to launch what became the MCU. To be sure, Whedon fit right in with that style, which I think really worked for Buffy and Angel and clearly has worked for the MCU.

[chicago_bastard]

Her ass is still wide and center. I'm just gonna ::shrug:: if you don't think peoples' attentions are drawn to it. I'm gay...like 1000%...and my eyes go right to it. But I am a "booty man."

One still has a choice to look at something else in the frame, in the shot from TWS that's not the case.

By the way I have to correct my earlier post saying the Russos didn't objectify her in IW and Endgame due to the lack of screentime. Despite having her in the movie for only 5 minutes the Russos managed to get a very similar shot to the one in TWS in (guess the Russos like these low-angle backside shots), now that's what I call dedication to the cause. I'm pretty sure Whedon's ass shot to screentime ratio was lower.

iw.jpg

At least they also put in America's ass for gender equality so that may make it better for some I guess, but unlike Nat Steve was given more to do in that movie than just showing his ass.

It wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious if the person who wrote that line is also the same person that wrote the line about Tony reinstating prima nocte, if they're the same person that had a male character fall into a woman's chest in two separate movies, and is also the same person who wound up not being as feminist as they proclaimed to be. Also curious if it's the same person who always had BW go back to a short-haircut because they may think it's sexier (this one you might can consider rhetorical).

You know the answer to your question (if not: it is Whedon) so of course it's a rhetorical one. Don't know what you aim to achieve with it though as I never disputed that Whedon did sexualize her, instead I was merely pointing out that the Russos did so, too.

A collaborative effort sure. Did I argue that anywhere? The point was how much responsibility the Russo's actually have (if any), versus how much you were (initially) pinning on them.

To me Russos/McFeely/Markus are one entity when it comes to these movies, the reason I was mentioning the Russos only stems from the fact that I was entering a discussion that was talking about Whedon vs Russos and just adopted their terminology and secondly that I was too lazy to write three names instead of one every time.

That said, the Russos do get the majority of the praise for these movies so I'd find it a bit inbalanced to excuse them from the shortcomings.

[Stick Figure]

I do think Whedon’s Avengers date because of the treatment of Widow & the lack of representation in the characters. I don’t completely blame Whedon because that’s the team they put together back then. I think they were just trying to bring characters from the comics to life. No way that Avengers lineup is all white straight guys & one woman if it’s made today. It might be comic accurate but that shouldn’t be the main focus. The Roussos did a bit better I think but they had more diverse characters to work with. Whedon had the original core Avengers & made a good movie with them.

[GAP]

Not to mention, Whedon may have some tropes that may not fly in the modern MCU.