Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I don't really see it, honestly. Thor really does feel like Branagh's film, with the frequent Dutch Angles, scenes that are just about showcasing a place, and focus on family ties within a royal court. Iron Man 3 does feel like a Shane Black movie, with the dark night cinematography, many scenes of irreverent conversation, and frequent Mood Whiplash. Joe Johnston's influence over The First Avenger is also readily obvious.
Branagh didn't return because work on the sequel started much sooner than he expected and would require tons of commitment when he was tired after wrapping up the last one, though he remained a producer.
I've heard a lot about Thor 2 being a Troubled Production but never anything concrete as to what exactly went wrong. Can someone with more knowledge on that elaborate? Only things I can think of are Executive Meddling cutting out Dark Elf scenes and shoehorning more Loki, although given that he ended up being one of the few remotely interesting things about that film, this coming from someone who was never a fan of him until then, maybe it wasn't that bad.
My main problem with Thor 2 is that they wasted Christopher Eccleston (though I imagine that can also be chalked up to Money, Dear Boy in the same vein as Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving)
Marvel gets a lot of good actors to play their villains but they don't make those villains interesting enough to make those actors actually care about putting in a memorable performance - though Weaving was cool and Robert Redford clearly cared a lot.
"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."I think now that Marvel Studios is a much better established brand they're probably willing to loosen it up a little. Antman probably suffered the drawbacks it did due to being in development at an earlier stage in the MCU's history, Iron Man 2 was kind of the necessary fallguy for them to pull the Avengers off, and Thor 2, well I don't really know what happened. But Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty risky and it seems like James Gunn has had a lot of relative freedom.
From what I've read Hugo Weaving actually thought the role itself was fine. He just didn't like the rather stressful makeup for it and was at a point where he wanted to move away from blockbuster films.
Behind-the-scenes shakeups or no, Thor 2 is far superior to Thor.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I wouldn't confuse "The director has to follow the style of the MCU" with "They can't make any independent choices". For example, there is a huge difference (music, colour palette, staging, even tone) between Winter Soldier and Got G. Having the whole thing streamlined to a certain degree is important.
![]()
I beg to differ. I went into Thor having absolutely no knowledge of the characters or anything expecting it to be an incredibly mediocre film. I was only watching it for completion purposes (I had seen Avengers prior to seeing it, as well).
While it may have been those incredibly low expectations setting me up to enjoy it - I still genuinely think Thor is a great movie. The hero is Brought Down to Normal for most of the movie so we actually spend time getting to know him, the fish out of water stuff actually feels pretty fresh and funny, character development is awesome, Loki is super Shakespearean and interesting as opposed to the "I wanna take over Earth!" villain he was in Avengers, Hakweye is introduced - albeit briefly, and the acting is great and isn't overshadowed by stupid action scenes. It would have been easy to turn it into a boring action flick given Thor's powers - but by negating them for most of the movie we focus on him.
I owe a lot of why I like it to Kenneth Branagh's directing. The one point friends of mine have made though is that all of Thor's character development happens in his first movie so from a character standpoint there's nowhere else he can go unless the plot demands it.
Another reason I resent Avengers is how it completely rewrites Loki. One of the last things he says to Thor before disappearing is "I never wanted the throne. I only ever wanted to be your equal." That's a beautiful line from a greatly written Tragic Villain.
And then Avengers comes along and he's like "KNEEL!" for no reason. It just irks me. But I can get why people don't like Thor. It's just my own personal Ensemble Dark Horse as far as the MCU goes.
"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."
I guess you didn't notice that I wasn't arguing Thor was bad.
I realize that. I just think it has more to it than Thor 2, which does feel like a dumb action flick at times, but I still loved just about everything about it. It just feels like it fits snugly with the rest of the MCU whereas Thor feels more stylistically distinct, though it's subtle - and I like seeing those stylistic risks being taken like with Guardians or something in big universes like this. Thor 2 felt a bit more confined.
Generally speaking, I feel like there's just this attitude of "Yeah the Thor movies exist, but really, who cares? When's the next Iron Man or Captain America?" and it bothers me.
"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."Thor 1 had a lot of great concepts but very mixed execution, sometimes it felt pretentious and a lot of Narm. Thor 2 was more consistently competent and "fun", but it was super generic and the fight choreography was terrible, they shouldn't have made it an Actionized Sequel if the fight scenes were going to be that bad. I personally like Thor 1 better because it had ambition, even if it didn't always pull things off properly, whereas Thor 2 was soulless and content with its mediocrity.
![]()
![]()
Yeah, having watched Avengers first I absolutely hated Loki for being such a shallow villain and didn't get any of the fan praise at all. Then I saw Thor 1 and while he wasn't a huge winner yet in my eyes I realized just how god-awfully Whedon botched his characterization in Avengers.
In Thor 2 Loki was fantastic, Hiddleston and the writers really killed it to the point I really want him to be redeemed even though it's super-unlikely, and not because of Draco in Leather Pants reasons. At the very least I think Loki works much better as an anti-hero/villain figure than as a proper Big Bad.
edited 8th Apr '15 1:42:43 AM by AlleyOop
The way it works with most big movies is that the director is brought in part way through the pre-production stage with a shootable script, location scouting and concept art available for them to select from. They have a strong influence on the direction the film and, in theory, are the top of the pyramid when it comes to coordinating all the different departments but their primary job is to work with the talent on set.
So here's the main thing, if you are surrounded by an experienced cast and crew it is very easy for the producers to take away your executive power and leave you as basically the guy talking to the actors between takes. No power to change the lighting, no power to rewrite the script, no power to suggest camera movement, no power to alter the wardrobe, no power to request a different prop. The movie will get done, but was in truth directed by committee.
And there are varying degrees to which it happens. Joss Whedon said that the first Avengers was pretty much locked in regarding characters, story and the MacGuffin, so all he really had to make the movie his own was rewriting dialogue and some specific shot selections. He has said Age of Ultron will be more of his own baby.
And so that's what is going on with the MCU, Kevin Feige is at the center of the movies and the directors have a space to work but are not allowed too much deviation from the established path they have mapped out. Some directors have had a lot of fun in the sandbox, while others felt like they were just a figurehead (Thor 2's director said he was annoyed with The Stinger because he had nothing to do with it, it was filmed by GotG's director on those sets).
The DC movies are not as centralized and could very well go a different direction, not being so dependent on the puzzle pieces and leaving room for the director to experiment with the story and characters.
The Russo Brothers must have done really well in that sandbox, then.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project![]()
![]()
I think there's an implication that Avengers Loki isn't in the right state of mind, given how he praises the Tesseract in the same way his brainwashed minions do.
I mean, I don't think he's literally mind-controlled by Thanos, but I think he's had some kind of modification there to ensure he doesn't go rogue like Ronan did.
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!Well, Ronan broke The Other's neck when he tried to pull the obedience shtick on him.
Loki was an insecure manchild whose entire world had just fallen apart around him so thoroughly that it propelled him to attempted suicide. Ronan was a genocidal warlord actively trying to bring extermination to his enemies even when his people had turned their back on the conflict. One of these is easier to mold than the other.
edited 8th Apr '15 8:50:34 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Not to metion Ronan wasn't supposed to be made aware the Orb contained a gem. He was just supposed go fetch Thanos a funny little sphere to keep on his office desk, and be rewarded with a planetary explosion. Whereas Loki was likely aware from the start that the Tesseract was an Infinity Gem, or at least an object of unfathomable power that he could conceivably betray Thanos with.
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!
Well, in the MCU, "powerful alien" is pretty much what the Asgardians are.
Now, if we start getting guys like Dormammu, things might be different.
Oh God! Natural light!Besides, manipulation is a matter of personality, not power level. Loki is gullible enough that he can be played like a fiddle by humans.
Even physical intimidation has elements of deception in it. It doesn't matter if you actually can bring the harm you threaten or imply, only that you communicate it in such a way that the other party believes you can.
Loki is insecure and easily manipulated. Ronan came ready for a fight and was having none of it.
edited 8th Apr '15 9:30:38 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Quite. Quill stumbled on the one bluff that super-serious hard-edged types like Ronan will typically fall for: the "What is this I don't even."
The Chewbacca Defense of strategy.
edited 8th Apr '15 9:35:10 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It's Ronan's fault for expecting everything to make sense.
Nobody is prepared for the Five Stairsteps Dance Party Defense.

On the other hand, we're getting stuff like GotG and Daredevil which clearly don't have the "standardized MCU tone." Maybe it's just an Avengers thing...
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.