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
Well, the only one that has had a third part so far has been Iron Man. Next year, we get the third part to Captain America and the Russo brothers will have made back-to-back films in that trilogy.
I don't mind it, actually, because different directors do different things — Joe Johnston was perfect for the first Captain America because he does well as making old-style inspirational films like The Rocketeer or October Sky. What he probably wouldn't do well is a paranoid thriller like Winter Soldier was — but the Russos excelled at it.
Honestly, for an article that long it doesn't really have much content. And also ignores one important aspect: The deciding point for keeping the universe in continuity is NOT the direction but the writing. Unless a director insist on full control over the script (and that is basically only possible if the director is also the writer and/or a big name one...the kind whose movies you watch because his name is attached to it) he always has to take note of the wishes of the producers, the studios aso. That is nothing new. And if you look at the writers, well, in this regard Marvel tends to be consistent. For example the whole Captain America Franchise, including the Agent Carter TV show, has the same writing team which is supposed to stick around until Infinity war. They obviously don't feel limited by the "demands" of Marvel.
And I want to point out that while the directors for Marvel change, that the ones which did the critical fully successful movies - Iron Man, The Avengers, The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy - all stuck around for a second round. The ones which went were all involved in projects which had trouble to get of the ground. Well, Captain America was the exception...I personally liked the movie, but I guess if you pick a director because you think that he will do a good job to portray the 1940s, it doesn't necessarily make him the right pick for a conspiracy thriller set in the 2010s.
Honestly, unless the Russeau brothers suddenly decide that making Civil war and Infinity war (which will make them directors of five movies for marvel in a row) might not be the right fit for them after all or James Gunn gives up on Guardians of the Galaxy after the sequel, there is most likely nothing to talk about. How many Batman movies did Burton made? Exactly two. How many Batman movies Nolan wanted to make? Also only two, but the studio somehow convinced him to do a third one after all. When did Brian Singer leave the X-Men Franchise? After the second movie. He is back now, but two were apparently enough for him back then. When did the Harry Potter franchise change directors? After the second movie. So why is it supposedly so unusual that many directors at Marvel do only one or two movies? That's what nearly always happens in the movie industry.
When did Brian Singer leave the X-Men Franchise? After the second movie. He is back now, but two were apparently enough for him back then.
Actually, that was Fox's fault. Singer wanted to do the third movie, but Fox was dragging their heels on greenlighting it (god knows why), so Singer left to make Superman Returns. As soon as Singer left, Fox hired Brett Ratner to make the film, which turned out to be monumentally bad.
I mean, not because the movie didn't make money; it did. It was just such a critical bomb that they had to scrap a lot of plans to make other films. (Of course, Superman Returns didn't do so well financially or critically either. Singer didn't really make another good movie until Days of Future Past, which may say something.) Of course, Fox then followed that up with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so, uh, good job there, Fox.
edited 17th Jul '15 11:13:24 PM by alliterator
That's an interesting point, especially since when it comes to Hollywood we're typically encouraged to downplay the contributions of writers in favor of directors.
Well, the directors may have changed for the Captain America films, but the writers will have remained consistent through the whole trilogy and Infinity War. And honestly, I think a lot of The Winter Soldier's success comes down to the writing. The Russos do deserve a lot of credit for things like the action sequences, scene framing, subtle acting cues, and the broad strokes of the plot. But the film's emotional depth, strong dialogue, and rich characterization (which was also present in the first film and Agent Carter) come from the script which is Markus and Mcfeely's job.
Edit:Ninja'd. Swanpride does make a very good point about the changing directors.
edited 17th Jul '15 11:31:40 PM by AlleyOop
So ultimately, who should get the final say? The directors or the studio?
Most critics tend to side with the former, as they say that the latter basically restricts the director's vision and it doesn't allow them to take many chances or get a chance to have their voice heard. As a result, all the films start feeling rather samey and formulaic because the studio must make the movie in a way that fits into the bigger picture, as opposed to letting the director do his/her own thing.
It's one reason why they are more optimistic about DC/WB's upcoming films. In addition to hiring big-name directors and stars, they pretty much just sit back and let the directors dictate how they want the movie to be, as opposed to the studio.
Of course, you can also go too far in the other way and end up in a situation where the director has Protection from Editors, which can be just as bad as Executive Meddling. People can sometimes come up with better ideas under restrictions as it gets them to be more resourceful with what they have.
edited 17th Jul '15 11:41:31 PM by MJTrooper
Every movie is a group project. It is never just about the director...casting, cinematography, music, those are just the most obvious elements which can make or break a movie. Sure, often it is the studio which decide against a bolt move because they think that the audience won't like it. But sometimes it is the director who just can't let off a bad idea. So there is no clear answer. Take Walt Disney. He didn't direct everything his studio put out during his lifetime, but the projects in which he was particularly interested in tend to be the better ones. Mary Poppins is pretty much his movie and not Robert Stevenson's. So guess it depends on the director. Some just have this ability to pick the right people for the right job and the vision to create unexpected movies to a degree that it is better to let them run free. Others don't. (George Lucas certainly could have used some studio interference when he made the prequels).
Just got back from Ant-Man.
I feel like this is one of Marvel's weakest outings. It had some great points, particularly where Scott and his relationship with his daughter is concerned. Any time plot isn't happening, the film was usually pretty impactful.
The problem is that the plot itself felt awfully familiar, despite the trappings of a heist movie. After a tragic death changed his life, Discount Tony Stark decides he wants to keep his weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Meanwhile, Discount Obadiah Stane intends to reproduce his work and sell it to terrorists. When Pym's not busy rehashing the plot of Iron Man, he's screaming at his daughter to Stay in the Kitchen and ignoring the fact that every time she objects to the plan, she is 100% right.
She could have solved the plot in five minutes but it would have interfered with the Standard White Guy Montage
. The movie's biggest failing is that its best character is entirely superfluous, a fact Hope is more than happy to exposit on repeatedly.
Meanwhile, the Falcon shows up just in time to demonstrate how ill-equipped he is to handle Avenger work, justifying his absence from Age of Ultron. He insisted in that film that Avenging wasn't his gig and in this one he demonstrates it, getting effortlessly curbstomped by a woefully inexperienced Scott Lang who's only just starting his very first field mission. Not a great first impression for a new Avenger.
In all, I would say this movie is entirely skippable except for those parts dedicated to Scott, Cassie, and the uncomfortable family dynamic. It's in those moments that the movie really shines.
EDIT: Although, upon reflection, even those scenes are damaged by being handcuffed to this plot. The film wants to frame itself as a redemption story, but the problem is that Scott spends the movie going from cat burglar to domestic terrorist. That's not redemption, it's escalation. But he's Easily Forgiven at the end when he saves Cassie from a situation in which her life was only in danger because Scott's excessively criminal activities pissed off the wrong people.
By the end of the film, he's no better equipped to be a father than he was at the beginning. He's still unemployed and has no marketable skills outside of crime. All he's accomplished is gaining the tools to do bigger crime. In their haste to pay off the redemption plot for a happy ending and smiles all around, the movie forgot to actually redeem Scott at any point.
edited 18th Jul '15 2:50:52 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
I'd say the movie isn't about Scott being redeemed in the sense of him becoming a better person. He was already a good person who turned to crime out of desperation, it was about him redeeming himself in the eyes of society and the people around him. Also he does ultimately get a job since Falcon was tracking him down in order to recruit him into the Avengers. That's what Luis meant when he said "yes" in the final word of the movie proper.
My top Myths about the Marvel Cinematic Universe:
1. It stifles the creativity of the directors - Nope, visually the directors can do whatever they want. As far as I can tell, the only part which Marvel insists on are the scripts. Which is necessary to keep the continuity more or less straight. But shouldn't a good director be able to give the movie his voice, no matter how the script looks like?
2. Marvel can't write interesting villains - Oh, they totally can. But usually they choose to keep the focus on the hero, not the villain. The only exception is Loki, which in turn resulted in Thor being slightly underwritten for a guy who got his own movie. In the TV shows, in which there is more time and more room for characters and world-building, Marvel has given us already a few memorable villains, from Grand Ward to Dottie Unterwood. And Kingpin. And Mr. Hyde. And Garret. So they are able to write compelling villains, they just consider the heroes as more important.
3. Marvel Movies are immature because of the tone - nope...for one, tone has nothing to do with the level of maturity. And two, Marvel can go dark if they want. It always depends on the story they intend to tell.
Well I mean, the focus is usually going to be on the hero anyway, because they're the protagonists of the film. Marvel should be pushing for compelling villains and antagonists despite of that. They've had a lot of interesting villains (Loki is entertaining at the very least ((most of the time)), Stane was above average/adequate for his respective movie, Robert Redford was Robert Redford, and Ultron was cool ((even if his potential was sort of wasted)), but they haven't had anything compelling like these films should be aiming for ((in my opinion anyway; if you considered Ronan the Accuser a well used character, I can't really argue against your opinion))).
Wilson Fisk is the best antagonistic character Marvel has made thus far.
sidenote: I apologize for my abuse of parenthesis, I am lacking sleep at the moment.
edited 18th Jul '15 4:48:10 AM by cutewithoutthe
Oh, I absolutely do. I don't get the complains about Ronan, he was the perfect villain for this particular movie.
But let's take "The Dark Knight". Until the very end Batman is nearly a background character, because the movies concentrates way more on Harvey Dent. And that is not a complain. But it is typical for the Batman franchise in general, it is usually more about the villains or the people Batman encounters than Batman himself.
edited 18th Jul '15 5:01:31 AM by Swanpride
Problem is that the movie doesn't really communicate that he was already a good person. Despite claiming a high moral standard in his crime, Scott agrees to the heist at Pym's manor on grounds that the target a) is old and b) has a safe - at one point even openly telling Luis that those are the only details that matter.
Then, when he's in his cell, Paxton mentions that Maggie "was right" about him that when the chips are down, he always goes back to crime. This implies a pattern, which means his previous offense wasn't a one-off.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Luis said "this is right up your alley, it fits your MO." That implies they thought Pym was some rich asshole who got his money in some unethical way. Maybe a bit more detail should have been added there, though. Like maybe Luis says Pym killed a bunch of people and got out of it by bribing the judge, and when Scott confronts Pym about it later he's bewildered and mentions that when he bribed the girl to spread the story, he didn't expect her to make him that evil.
I'm just spitballing. I have to agree that the redemption wasn't perfectly done. Either it was a redemption story that didn't involve actual redemption, or it wasn't a redemption story and it shouldn't have looked so much like one.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.![]()
He doesn't do the heist because he was old, he does the heist because he was old, rich, and not there. He doesn't do robberies, he does burglaries because he doesn't like to hurt people.
But you are right that he went right back to crime when it became apparent that it was going to be some time before he was able to see his daughter if he tried to get a real job. But that's the point. He's not a good dad in the beginning. He takes the easy way. Paxton is right.
And then, at the end, Scott doesn't take the easy way. He fights against Cross, going subatomic in order to save his daughter (you say that it was his criminal activities that brought his daughter into danger — but seriously, Cross was selling stuff to Hydra, that's like blaming a superhero when their family is targeted by a supervillain).
It's not a perfect movie, but it's a fun movie.
(Oh, and in the end, he does have a job. He even says "it's my job" at dinner. He still works for Hank Pym. Doing what? I don't know.)
edited 18th Jul '15 9:29:43 AM by alliterator
Though I disagree with Tobias in general on the point of redemption, it is worth mentioning that none of the heroes actually knew Cross was selling weapons to HYDRA until they were already halfway through carrying out the plan. Before then, they just thought he was selling to the government. Which is equally bad in Pym's eyes - in his opinion, anyone distributing his secrets is just as worthy of getting blown the fuck up.
edited 18th Jul '15 9:45:04 AM by KnownUnknown
Incorrect. He knew that Cross was selling to the ex-SHIELD agent (the guy he punched in the face) who had a habit of selling to warlords and such. He didn't seem to know he was HYDRA, but he definitely told Scott that this guy was the one to watch out for.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.

It's a good article. It doesn't villainize either the studio or the directors, which is good; the studio keeps a tight leash, but the directors know what they are getting into.
Wright started the project before the MCU was even a thing - and I guess after years of it being his "baby," he couldn't handle Marvel Studios rewriting it, so he left.
Honestly, though, that article is wrong in one aspect: a director (or rather, pair of directors) will be directing a third film in the MCU. The Russo brothers, after they finish with Civil War, will direct both Infinity War I and II.