Prestige directors views on the MCU and comic book movies

[Tofali]

Or maybe stop listening to Randolph, most of her takes on women talent are just disturbing and myopic.

[HollowSage]

Grace Randolph Tweet.

@GraceRandolph
''Nia DaCosta did a good job defusing the story of her not being there for all of post production.

But it’s still rare for the director of a $250m film to not be there in person to steer the ship, especially so early in their career.

If the film does well, no problem. If it doesn’t, other people associated with the film will likely use this against her and to clear themselves of blame''.


MCU is indirectly trying to sabotage this woman's career before it flourishes. An African American director for that matter. it makes me kind of mad

People are trying hard to turn this into something that it is not. DaCosta gave a simple explanation for what happened. She agreed to direct the movie but Marvel pushed back the start date several times, not unusual. This caused a conflict with another movie she had agreed to do.

She couldn’t be there for most of post production due to a prior obligation. It’s a scheduling conflict. There is nothing nefarious about it.

[Zero Hunter]

Personally I'm more confused on why they hire someone with only 2 previous directing credits (and one of those being a remake) to helm a 250 million dollar blockbuster. I think we all know why and its because it hits those good publicity soundbites.

Actually I'm wondering why the hell Marvels is a 250 mil movie to begin with. This should have been 150 tops. You don't dump that kind of money on a solo film. That is a team movie budget. I know there are 2 leads in this, but still that budget is insane.

[JBatmanFan05]

Man that article was low-key brutal to Scorcese. They practically call him an old white man hypocrite just using a lot more words.

It does (and I don't fully like the article), but the article does try to entertain his claims, understand where Scorcese might be coming from. I think Scorcese has perhaps identified the right problems (getting more bigger budget money and more attention to more worthy artistic pursuits not so driven by things like IP or studio notes or selling merchandise and maintaining a franchise or spinoff or tie-in), but Scorcese is not targeting his attacks on the right parties responsible for the degradation of this over the years.

If directors such as Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick were alive today, they'd very likely have similar views as Scorsese and other directors.

I too would speculate that this is true. Hitchcock maybe possibly not, but who knows.

[Jim Kelly]

If directors such as Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick were alive today, they'd very likely have similar views as Scorsese and other directors. Welles probably would been worse than Francis Ford Coppola was when the latter expressed his dislike for superhero films.

Orson Welles is a very different story. After getting all the financial and technical support he could want to make his first picture, CITIZEN KANE, Welles never had that again in his lifetime. He had to struggle all his remaining days to find financing, taking jobs that were beneath his talent, just so he could have money to shoot one part of a movie. And then shelving that picture, until he found more backing to film another part.

The one way in which he is similar is that he was trying to make movies for the theatrical market. In some ways, Francis Ford Coppola could be compared to Welles, when he was also trying to get financing for his films. But the kinds of movies that Coppola was trying to make had massive budgets, that's why sometimes he went over budget. For the money spent on a Coppola picture, Welles could have made every movie he ever wanted to make and more.

Maybe when Scorsese was young and scrambling to complete WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, he would have known those struggles. But the Scorsese of today gets hundreds of millions of dollars to shoot motion pictures. Once the movie is finished, the people in the crew, the men and women doing the physical work, must look for their next job so they can put food on the table and pay their rent. It little matters to them if they're hired for a Scorsese picture or a Marvel movie--the movies require the same skill set, follow the same standardized practices, are regulated by the same rules.

These are all industry movies. They create employment and that's a good thing. When you factor in the thousands of jobs associated with the making of movies and the money they put into local economies, they are a huge benefit to people. But the idea that they are more than just a product for the entertainment of the masses is a self-delusion on the part of people who call themselves directors. In any other industry, they would be called supervisors. Yet these supervisors get to claim that all the work done by those under them is their work--they get the accolades and the profits. The workers get lunch.

[Agent Z]

As a producer he undoubtedly has a role to play in the creation of films, but I think Kevin Fiege has overstepped his role and we have a director saying as much. Kevin Fiege certainly does want to create 'art' as he has claimed that Marvel movies are being shut out of the Academy Awards and he thought the Eternals was going to be his ticket into a best picture nomination (Producers are the ones that receive the Oscar for Best Picture). I just don't think he can at the moment.

Something I remember saying years ago, is that the reason why a lot of MCU films feel inauthentic is largely because they are 'sexless' (with exception to the time of GotG 1, a good MCU film). Industry writers eventually caught on to what I was saying and said the same thing. Well, Eternals made a big deal about it having the first 'sex scene' because, in Fiege's mind, that made it a serious film. Fiege knows his films aren't (or mostly aren't) 'cinema' and even though his films have made billions, he still resents that aspect of his work.

A film being sexless will never be a criticism worth taking seriously.

[Agent Z]

Personally I'm more confused on why they hire someone with only 2 previous directing credits (and one of those being a remake) to helm a 250 million dollar blockbuster. I think we all know why and its because it hits those good publicity soundbites.

Actually I'm wondering why the hell Marvels is a 250 mil movie to begin with. This should have been 150 tops. You don't dump that kind of money on a solo film. That is a team movie budget. I know there are 2 leads in this, but still that budget is insane.

Look up the Russo brothers' resume from before they directed the second and third MCU Captain America movies. Funny how no one accused their hiring of being publicity driven. I wonder why.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Look up the Russo brothers' resume from before they directed the second and third MCU Captain America movies. Funny how no one accused their hiring of being publicity driven. I wonder why.

The Russos aren’t the only MCU directors that were hired after only having minimal directing credits.

[Totoro Man]

if I recall correctly, Scorsese actually liked Sam Raimi's Spiderman films and didn't have a problem with Nolan's Batman films either. I think he specifically complained about the assembly line aspects of the current MCU. the underlying complaint is that these movies feel like a mass-produced consumer good with little or no uniqueness or personality.

the fact that Marvel keeps hiring inexperienced directors with limited experience sort of proves the aforementioned argument... that the directors are not actually that important to the process. the MCU "assembly line" is more important as to how the final product turns out than the director.

I feel like the larger problem with the MCU has been that the writing just hasn't been as good. it's almost like they think the brand name recognition is so strong at this point that they no longer have to try. to pick a recent example:

I enjoyed "Doctor Strange: The Multiverse of Madness" because the director and the cast were really trying their best... but the script falls apart when you think about it very much. nearly all of my complaints about Marvel lately has been that their scripts all feel very much by the numbers. MCU films have this nasty habit of ignoring character development and hitting the reset button for each film. (how many times does Thor need to go on a journey and find himself?)

if they bring back Raimi as director for Doctor Strange 3 I'd probably watch it.

[krazijoe]

The Russos aren’t the only MCU directors that were hired after only having minimal directing credits.

Studios can only put so much pressure on an established director. Up and coming directors can be pounded into submission? BUT even they can not like the pressure and walk, Edgar Wright anyone?

[Pinsir]

A film being sexless will never be a criticism worth taking seriously.

Genuine sexual attraction is a core part of the human experience. In Spiderman 1, the scene where Mary Jane kisses Spiderman while upside down is iconic for a reason. Wonder Woman and GotG 1 also had that element to them as well. Does every movie need this? Maybe not, but I think the actions of Marvel Studios speak for themselves. When they wanted to make a serious movie, with serious themes, they added a sex scene. The characters were, from what I remember, actually naked too, unlike the above films I mentioned, but its awkwardly done, so it comes off bad (probably because of the age rating of the film itself).

[Totoro Man]

Studios can only put so much pressure on an established director. Up and coming directors can be pounded into submission? BUT even they can not like the pressure and walk, Edgar Wright anyone?

I agree with your basic argument... but feel the need to nitpick one thing.

Edgar Wright started out in television in the late 1990s. by the time he directed "Antman" he had been working over 15 years in the industry. he directed "Shawn of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", "Scott Pilgrim vs the World", and "The World's End" prior to "Antman".

one of those films, "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was a comic book film adaptation with a lot of post-production work required. I would argue that he was not "up and coming" at this point in his career.

not everybody will like working within the MCU assembly line terms and conditions. on this much I think most of us can agree.

but to suggest Edgar Wright was an up-and-coming director when he was given the "Antman" project is to seriously misunderstand how long he has been working in the industry.

full disclosure: as I had no prior interest in Antman as a character... the only reason I even bothered to watch Antman was because Edgar Wright was connected to the project. I enjoyed all of his other feature length films and hoped to do so again. while I did enjoy the film, I consider it to be Edgar Wright's weakest film to date. (yes, I enjoyed "Baby Driver" and "Last Night in Soho" more.)

as a point of comparison: Tim Burton was far less experienced a filmmaker (than Edgar Wright) when he was given the chance to direct "Batman"... with only "Peewee's Big Adventure" and "Bettlejuice" as full-length feature films prior to that. He had previously worked in animation on several Disney films as a concept artist, character design work, and storyboarding... so, he wasn't completely inexperienced.

the biggest difference would be that they gave Burton a lot more creative freedom (for better and worse) than what comparable MCU movie directors are given.

[krazijoe]

I agree with your basic argument... but feel the need to nitpick one thing.

Edgar Wright started out in television in the late 1990s. by the time he directed "Antman" he had been working over 15 years in the industry. he directed "Shawn of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", "Scott Pilgrim vs the World", and "The World's End" prior to "Antman".

one of those films, "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was a comic book film adaptation with a lot of post-production work required. I would argue that he was not "up and coming" at this point in his career.

not everybody will like working within the MCU assembly line terms and conditions. on this much I think most of us can agree.

but to suggest Edgar Wright was an up-and-coming director when he was given the "Antman" project is to seriously misunderstand how long he has been working in the industry.

full disclosure: as I had no prior interest in Antman as a character... the only reason I even bothered to watch Antman was because Edgar Wright was connected to the project. I enjoyed all of his other feature length films and hoped to do so again. while I did enjoy the film, I consider it to be Edgar Wright's weakest film to date. (yes, I enjoyed "Baby Driver" and "Last Night in Soho" more.)

as a point of comparison: Tim Burton was far less experienced a filmmaker (than Edgar Wright) when he was given the chance to direct "Batman"... with only "Peewee's Big Adventure" and "Bettlejuice" as full-length feature films prior to that. He had previously worked in animation on several Disney films as a concept artist, character design work, and storyboarding... so, he wasn't completely inexperienced.

the biggest difference would be that they gave Burton a lot more creative freedom (for better and worse) than what comparable MCU movie directors are given.

True, but he was given Ant-Man in 2006. And when Hired they probably gave him more leeway but as the films became more and more successful, they probably exerted more and more pressure until he said he's out...

[skyvolt2000]

I agree with your basic argument... but feel the need to nitpick one thing.

Edgar Wright started out in television in the late 1990s. by the time he directed "Antman" he had been working over 15 years in the industry. he directed "Shawn of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", "Scott Pilgrim vs the World", and "The World's End" prior to "Antman".

I think the issue is we have seen studios hire directors of various levels to direct and 9 times out of 10 very FEW question it.

Or attack it as we have seen at times.

Nobody had questions for Jonathan Franks when he was hired to direct Star Trek First Contact (who remains 1 of 2 WB films to not do reshoots or cut stuff after preview audiences saw it. The other was Forrest Gump).

Jordan Peele was not questioned when he did Get Out nor Ryan Coolger.

If The Marvels was directed by Seth Rogen-would we hear a peep questioning him??? Nia has directed more than him and both have had one hit movie with Seth making more.

The bottom line is when it's women especially of color (mainly black) everyone gets in their feelings and question the hiring.

The Marvels were looking at 4 different directors before Nia DaCosta.

[Totoro Man]

True, but he was given Ant-Man in 2006. And when Hired they probably gave him more leeway but as the films became more and more successful, they probably exerted more and more pressure until he said he's out...

LOL... I forgot that part. good call. I just collapsed everything into the release date and forgot that sometimes productions linger in development hell for years.