Creative Differences Are Knocking Directors Out of Marvel Movies

Published 2 years ago by , Updated January 29th, 2014 at 2:27 pm,

Official Marvel Studios Logo Creative Differences Are Knocking Directors Out of Marvel Movies

Marvel Studios now has five movies under its belt, with a sixth coming next summer in The Avengers, two confirmed for 2013 and another pair of unannounced films scheduled for 2014. All of these movies exist in a shared universe, taking part in an ongoing continuity with an overarching storyline running congruently in the background.

While seeing movies follow the comic books in this respect makes The Avengers possible, this strategy does also have its downside as we saw most evidently in Iron Man 2. Each movie by Marvel Studios must follow certain guidelines and must include certain characters portrayed in a very specific way, thus restricting the creative freedom of the filmmakers and talent involved.

Combine this lack of creative freedom with Marvel’s super tight money management and strict deadlines and we have Iron Man 1 filming without a complete script and Iron Man 2 becoming a complete mess, so much so that Mickey Rourke had bad things to say about Marvel. Then there’s Ed Norton who couldn’t even get along with Marvel enough to return for what would have been one of his coolest roles ever in The Avengers.

All this to say, Jon Favreau felt Marvel didn’t really know what they were doing with the next Iron Man movie and he wanted out. Kenneth Branagh also doesn’t want to return for Thor 2, so Marvel brought in Monster director Patty Jenkins who would have been the first female director to work for the studio. After she signed on, met with the cast, all things were positive until out of the blue she also dropped out. Why?

THR reports that like Branagh, “creative differences” are what made Jenkins pass on the job she was so excited for, but it’s not all negative, at least on the surface. Apparently, she’s in line to direct another film for the studio down the road, one that’s not a sequel.

“I have had a great time working at Marvel. We parted on very good terms, and I look forward to working with them again.”

Thor 2 is still on schedule and Marvel is reportedly going to replace Jenkins quickly – they just need to find a director who will eagerly follow all of Marvel’s demands and comply with the pre-established story arcs and creative direction. It’s a shame Jenkins couldn’t do her thing as her character-driven and dramatic expertise would lend itself well for a Thor sequel, where the first one had too much shine and camp factor.

With so many of Marvel’s directors dropping out and Joe Johnston (Captain America) not signing until after seeing where The Avengers leaves the character he helped establish, it’s interesting to see how the shared Marvel cinematic universe affects those behind the cameras and what they’re allowed to do.

As our own Kofi Outlaw questioned, is The Avengers hurting other Marvel movies?

Let us hope Joss Whedon knocks it out of the park with The Avengers and that the solo movie sequels that come out afterwards (Thor 2 and Shane Black’s Iron Man 3) bump up the quality.

The Avengers opens May 4, 2012 and Thor 2 hits theaters in the on November 15, 2013

-

Follow me on Twitter @rob_keyes.

Source: THR

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: captain america, captain america 2, iron man, iron man 2, iron man 3, the avengers, the incredible hulk, thor, thor 2

126 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. This is so pitiful. There’s no collaboration there. It reminds me of my work in advertising, where a bunch of creative people get hired and do great work and then when it reaches the top, the person with the least creative history (a CEO, Executive, whatever), just craps on everything and decides to make their own decisions instead of collaborate and trust the director or writer they hired.

    • It’s all micro-managing from the stuffy suits up top.

      These Marvel movies, if there’s anything good about them, it’s by accident. They’re almost all extremely and safely mediocre, in a very corporate fashion.

      They take no risks, the director’s hands are cuffed, and the directors, like you said, aren’t trusted to work their magic or mojo on the movies. The studios should just sign some hacks to “direct” the movies. They’re not directing — they’re just playing Connect the Dots, or Paint by Numbers.

      • Disagree. All the movies from Marvel studios so far are very good. True to the nature of the characters. I enjoyed all of them, and will continue to watch their film, especially Iron Man and Thor.

      • Agreed. Theyhave sacraficed tellin a more engaging story for the sake of Thr Avengers. As i am curious to see the Avengers it looks to be more of the formula, inside the box thinking, films like the previous. I see it as a Transformers explosions&boobs type flick ..giggady.. which is cool cause like two.

      • I agree 100% Hiro.

      • Dang Hiro, you hit the nail right on the head! The same can be said for Tron: Legacy. In a word, Safe. Just like all Disney movies.

      • I totally concur with this. All the Marvel movies have been “safe,” boring, and corporate. Iron Man was good because of the casting; RDJ carried the flick. The Hulk movies where thoroughly mediocre, Thor was abysmal, as was Captain America (disappointed I wasted money and time on either of them). I like Whedon a lot, but I’m not sold on Avengers yet, particularly given Marvel’s track record.

  2. Not excited about Thor 2 anyway lol but this sounds crazy. I still remember that bad feeling I got after walking out of Iron Man 2, it’s a damn shame.

  3. All these directors just need to suck it up and just direct the dang movies. These characters are Marevl’s babies and they have a plan for the shared universe, they cant have some directors screwing that up. Just look at what happened to the first Ghost Rider movie and the first Hulk movie.

    • That’s the problem. Marvel wants safe mediocrity, and that’s what they get: safe, pandering mediocrity. They were lucky to get an Iron Man out. We see what happened with Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor and so on.

      The Avengers will be more of the same.

      • I liked Captian America and Thor. Iron Man 2 had its moments. If Marvel has a vision, it has to stick to its guns. Directors can either find a way to work in the model presented, or as they have chosen, can leave.

      • I think mediocrity speaks to movies like the first Ghost Rider, Elektra, Daredevil, X-Men 3, the Punisher movies (I liked the Tom Jane one actually).

        Marvel’s movies have been average at worse, and great at best. While there have been no Watchmen’s or TDK’s, they’ve consistently put good product out. All that said, where are we getting that Jon Favreau didn’t know what Marvel was going to do with the next Iron Man and hence bailed? I’m not trying to be contradictory here. I’ve read this statement over and over again these past few weeks, but I never read or heard Favreau say anything of the sort. So far as I know, Favreau had other opportunities and he went for them.

        The Edward Norton thing was a mess. No denying that, but Mickey Rourke has a reputation for bashing his old projects. Iron Man 2 wasn’t as good as it should’ve been, but Rourke exagerrated. I don’t think his cynicism should count for too much here.

    • I know it was too long and too serious, but I like the first Hulk movie. Not a perfect movie. Could have been better. But it did take risks and try different things, with some awesome results.

      The only thing that made me appreciate Thor and Captain America at all was the Green Lantern movie, which reminded me of how truly awful a movie can be.

      Marvel movies aren’t bad, but their not really good either. I’m hoping they’ve given Joss Whedon some freedom. My fear is that Avengers is going to set up the next big event and we’ll be expected to endure another bunch of vanilla movies. If that’s the case, Avengers may be the last Marvel movie I see until I hear something really good.

  4. Directors can screw things up! All the movies that Marvel has control over have been successful. I can see Branagh point of view. He directed the first but Jenkins has no say in this and she knew going in what Marvel is about. The Norton thing sucks but we don’t know everything there.

    • Successful, yes. Good? No.

      • Good? No. Great? Definitely.

        • ^I agree.
          @Hiro: why are you so down on Marvel’s movies dude?

          • Perhaps because they are shadows of the comics. Until Iron Man the previous films were not nearly as good as the works that spawned them. Each director did what they always did before, make movies that barely resembled the comics and characters that they are based on. The X-Men Franchise is a perfect example. They white washed the characters and changed both histories and even the timelines of the characters. Just because they made money doesnt mean they were good. Paul Blart Mall Cop made a ton of money but I would never call it a good movie.

            • “Until Iron Man the previous films were not nearly as good as the works that spawned them.”
              –Yeah, but the “previous films” weren’t produced by Marvel Studios (this article is about the Marvel Studios films).

              Forget about X-Men, FF, Daredevil, etc. Those films have NOTHING to do with what we’re talking about here.

              The movies produced by Marvel Studios have been pretty accurate to the source material, and has showed that Marvel Studios cares about their characters (unlike Fox, Sony, etc.).

              • They do if you want to compare successes and failures. The other movies mentioned gave the directors creative control and they were not as good as they could have been (though I think X-Men 2 was pretty good). Marvel is keeping creative control from director’s and keeping thier vision in mind. So they are relative to the argument.

                • Speaking from a from a super hero movie perspective and no brand specifically, Let me just say this:

                  Creative Control = Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

                  Marvel System = Captain America and Iron Man 2 (Captain America instantly forgettable movie and Iron Man 2 rather bland.)

                  You can’t compare the two system’s. Look at what we got with some creative control from WB for Nolan. Easily the two greatest comic movies ever.

                  • Creative control can also result in Batman and Robin, or Punisher Warzone. Nothing is full proof. I’m a Spidey fan. I’d love to see him in the MCU with RDJ, Chris Evans, and Hemsworth. That being said, I think that Sony has it in them to create a very Spidey centric movie that benefits from being in its own universe. If Fox can turn a new leaf with XMFC and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, so can Sony.

                    • All this goes to say that it’s not so black and white, like this text here. For what it’s worth, I prefer the Marvel way. They did say that they were going to start focusing on more character centric movies.

                    • @Levi

                      Batman and Robin (and Batman) forever was studio control. They made Schumauer make that movie and have thrown him under the bus ever since.

                      Batman Returns however is directorial control all the way. Tim Burton had free reign to go darker & more wierd penguin black bodily ooze

            • Captain America and Thor are movies that are riding the wave started by X-men.

              I remember being a little bugged by the first X-men and explaining to people about the “original” X-men and the new X-men X-cetera, X-cetera. But I must have also listened because I kept hearing from all kinds of different people about how much they liked that movie, and I could tell that a lot of what they were feeling was the same feeling the comics gave me when I first read them. So when I’ve watched the movie since, with fresh eyes, I see that it was really well made.

              Captain America and Thor aren’t generating a lot of love. People know about the Avengers and that’s mostly what they have going for them.

  5. Honestly, I hope Joe Johnston DOESN’T return for Cap 2. While Cap was a good film, he is the factor that held it back from being what it could’ve been.

    • I agree, the campy moments nearly ruined the movie.

      As for the article, I thought Branagh passed due to other commitments, not because he didn’t like working with Marvel

    • I am curious, what did he do to hold it back?

      • How many Germans did Captn America fight? Hydra doesnt count, they werent true German soldiers they were swearing alliegance to Red Skull not Adolf Hitler.

        Where was Nick Fury?? The Howling Commandos were shy the one person that made the group what it was.

        • Biggest Marvel let movie let down.

  6. I am not a believer in pushing the need for continuity with these characters. Yeah it’s fun to see these crossovers in Marvel films for a while, but these are not comic books that come out every month with only small parts of a much larger story arc. These films take much longer to produce and put in front of the public. By the time a lot of these sequels will be made the actors will be 4, 5, 6 years older, so how long can this continuity go on. I don’t like restricting the creativity of writers and directors as described above. Don’t get me wrong I am stoked for the Avengers movie and I have enjoyed all the other Marvel films so far, but I don’t habitually read comics and could care less about the universal continuity created in the comics. That works in that medium but maybe not so good in film.
    Look what Nolan has done with the Batman franchise, or the reboot of X-Men “First Class” and even in the Avengers switching out Ed Norton for Mark Ruffalo. These are great characters and and I love the idea of them being interpreted by many different writers and directors and actors with out the restrictions of continuity in the comics or in other films.
    Frank Miller took Batman somewhere he had never been before “The Dark Night” Brian singer messed up Superman Returns trying to stick to strictly follow the original Richard Donner first two Superman films.
    How many times has Sherlock Homes been interpreted, or Tarzan, or Dr. Who. These characters can be written and rewritten and I believe the audience will still love the good versions and not love the bad ones but I think we are sophisticated enough to get it.
    There is nothing better than a well written stand alone story filled with great characters. Why don’t we let the continuity go for now. I would still go to an Avengers movie even if none of the actors were the same as in the stand alone films.
    There I said it. Don’t hate me, it’s just my opinion.

    • Tedlee, I agree with thee.

  7. Can’t we all just get along?

    • Keep reading. One of these days someone is going to write a thoughtful, heartfelt, and articulate comment that will unite us all. I just know they will.

  8. Hmm….Interesting news. I guess i really haven’t read to much into the whole Marvel movies thing. I had no idea there was such anymosity going on in the background. First hint of anything of the sort was when i heard Ed Norton was not gonna reprise his role for the Avengers. I felt he did a great job as Banner in the 2nd Hulk. From what i could gather it seems that Sony is just protecting their property but i could also see it from the filmakers POV also where they feel their hands are being binded and restricted.

  9. I think the problem is, is that these directors want too much freedom to interpret their (own) view of these iconic characters. I personally believe what Marvel is doing is correct (safe…..yes) but correct nonetheless. They saw what Fox and Sony and Lionsgate and Universal were doing and they didn’t want to do that. They didn’t want a Daredevil or a Ghost rider on their hands, or Heaven forbid, an Electra or a Fantastic four (and lets be honest, would you be?).

    Now one of the commentators here (tedlee…no offence) stated correctly as to what Nolan did with the Batman franchise. Tedlee, Nolan had nothing to lose. Before he came along, the Batman franchise was a cautionary tale. It was a joke. Nolan brought the Batman that we’ve (comic book fans or some comic book fans) have seen in the comic book from the late 70′s all the way up the 80′s. A gritty crime crime fighter and not some sort of 60′s caricature (No offecne to the Batman series with Adam West). I’ve never liked directors coming along and changing the character to suit their needs. Nolan paid homage to almost 70′s years of History and took bits and pieces from that varied rich history and weaved a tale.

    Hey, what I do I know, maybe I’m wrong!!

    • Precisely my thoughts, Directors think they have carte blanc to change long standing and established characters and settings because they “know better”. Its BS, if they are not able to direct a good movie with the established content then obviously they arent as good as they make themselves out to be.

      Its a double edged sword, they want the freedom to “interpret” the comice to bring it to the big screen, then when it flops they blame the fan boys or the content itself. BS, that excuse has gotten very old.

    • mart, I’m not a commentator here, just a fan with an opinion.
      I just think the continuity thing is made to be way too important. Great characters can stand multiple interpretations that use continuity or not. Can pay homage to the history of the character, without a strict interpretation.
      For me just make me a great story, with cool characters, and I can eat my popcorn in peace and enjoy the show.

      • You talk as if there is established continuity in comic books. With all the re-writes, new universes, retcons, continuity errors and even when new writers take over from old, changes happen to the established content. These movies are written for the general movie goer who doesn’t have 60+ years of comic book knowledge. These movies need to make certain changes, either by picking and choosing which established content they need, or making up new stuff to have a complete story which any guy off the street can understand. Everyone loves Nolans take on Batman. Show me which comic book arc or story is as exactly as Nolan has put on screen.

        • There have always been different “what if” stories in comic books. You could look at the films as one of those. Comic book stories have always had reboots (coughDCcough) that have given different takes on a character(s). Just look at the films as the same thing.

        • Frank Millers Year One
          Blind Justice
          Daughter of the Demon
          For Batman Begins (bits from all these stories)

          Long Halloween
          Batman 1 (1st appearance of the Joker)
          Inspiration for the for the Dark Knight

          And what I can gather for the new movie. Its seems to be based “in part” on the Knightfall Storyline as well as elements from the The Dark Knight Returns as well as Year One

        • Granted, you have a point. No one can keep to “strict” continuity because (Hey) it doesn’t truly exist. You and Ghost are right in regards to all the retcons that have taken place in the last +-70 years.
          My contention is, is that if you 70 years worth of material that you can pick and choose from, then (man) USE it. Use it as inspiration, as a starting point. Granted, Nolan didn’t copy Year One, frame for frame bur he used it as a “focal point”.
          Look at the the X-Men films. Save for 1 and 2. Where is even scant evidence if even cinematic continuity. 3 was a mess. Wolverine tries but fails. Xavier, bald and standing in what we believe is the 80′s as opposed to losing his mobility in First class. I can understand all the reboots and retcons in the comic books because atleast they explain that; Infinity Crisis, Zero Hour and not to mention Flashpoint. But the writers atleast explain that away (cosmic event or someone messing with time line). Look what JJ Abrams did with the rebooted Star Trek. He got a character to actually explain to the audience (Spock) that the events are the result
          of someone messing with the timeline.
          Where are these inconsistencies even mentioned in the X-Men franchise

  10. Apologies for the spelling.Late where I am.

  11. Funny, MARVEL Studios sound a biiiit more like DISNEY Studios..

  12. When Mickey Rourke eluded to the creative handcuffs Marvel put on Favreau, in his own not so diplomatic way, allot of people said he was just being difficult. Now that a pattern seems to be developing some people are starting to question certain aspects of Marvel Studios decision making.

    The fact is they are making these movies to turn a profit, and artistic merit really never had much to do with it. The movies Marvel are doing have to be expected to fall into a mold for many of the reasons other posters have mentioned. First off they are owned by Disney, who are not known primarily for taking risks in the name of creativity. Second, the way other Marvel properties have done under other studios really does not leave much desire to really try and rock the boat too much, since it can produce an even worse product in most cases. And lastly the Avengers and most of the solo characters they have been doing, while well-known because of longevity, are not really Marvel’s top properties, so they might feel the need to keep things as tight and simple as possible to keep the movies broad enough to attract as many people as they can.

    • Mickey Rourke is a douche.

  13. Face it, filmmaking is a BUSINESS. They have to make money, just like you do. Movies are investments; there’s low and high risks. As long as they’re making money, why change a successful model. Don’t like it, stop going; only way things will Change.

  14. Yeez Rob, no offence, but this article kinda seems a bit like a bash-fest on Marvel Studios…

    And if I remember correctly, Favreou isn’t directing IM3 because he’s already directing ANOTHER movie (scheduling conflicts was the official report – NOT “creative differences” if memory serves correctly).
    Same goes to Branagh: he isn’t doing Thor 2 because of a tight schedule (he said so in multiple interviews)… in fact, Branagh has even admitted that he’d love to do another Marvel movie again (he may even be producing Thor2).
    As for Norton and Jenkins: no arguments there. Yes, they did leave because of “creative differences” but IMO, I say good riddance. Jenkins was never the right gal for the job IMO, and Norton is such a control freak, he’d have made the whole movie about Banner’s character (and no Hulk) — at the end of the day, these are action movies.

    So… Marvel Studios isn’t at all as bad as this article makes out IMO. Most of the directors are still very friendly with Marvel Studios (Favreou, Branagh AND even Jenkins) and most of them are even more than willing to return for another go at a Marvel movie.

    Marvel knows what they want. (That’s not a bad thing). Yes, all the “interference” has had some negative repercussions (IM2 most notably), but in the end, I think we can all agree that the majority of Marvel movies turned out GREAT. Marvel cares about their characters, and want their movies done a certain way (I fully support that and it’s worked out pretty well so far).

    I will unfortunately and respectfully have to disagree with this article.
    Sorry Rob.

  15. Well maybe they dont like where marvels pushing the avengers story and they want out? I mean if you were a director you wouldnt want to direct a bad movie will you?

    • Many do for a lot less money that is for sure, look at all the bombs in the last 5 years.

    • Nah, most of the directors (Favreou and Branagh) are still very involved with Marvel and have publicly said that they are very interested in how these stories will unfold.

      If I were a director, I wouldn’t want to direct a bad movie, but then again, it’s the director’s job to find a balance between the production companies’ ideas, and the ideas that the director has himself/herself.
      Plus, most Marvel movies have been pretty good so far. I don’t think they’d just randomly start making “bad movies” after the Avengers all of a sudden.
      The only movie that I think would be majorly affected by The Avengers is Cap 2… all the others (IM, Thor, Hulk, etc.) would be pretty easy (IMO) to continue with, in their own franchise.

      As far as I know, Shane Black has had a tremendous amount of creative freedom on IM3 (announced during multiple interviews, including comic-con), my guess is, he just managed to find that right ~balance~ between all the factors.

  16. The reason why the soon to be batman trilogy is better than what marvel makes is because nolan has creative freedom he can do whatever he wants. Let the directors do what they want don’t be so strict!

    • I think we can safely say not all directors possess Nolan’s skill set

    • I want to say that too, but undeniably the biggest factor in the success of the Nolan Batman movies is the character Batman, and how the public perceives him. And a lot of that is because he’s been around for so long through many incarnations in comics and on TV. The only comparable Marvel character is Spider-man.

      I was into Nolan movies before BB and he has definitely brought his mark to Batman, but the character lends himself to a more “realistic” approach. What would Nolan do with Spider-man, or Thor and Captain America for that matter?

      I’m in agreement that Marvel movies are mediocre and unmemorable, and I automatically look to the Nolan Batmans as counter examples, but that’s really not a fair comparison.

      Marvel has really jumped on the scene in the last decade or so. Spider-man and X-men have stepped onto the stage once held solely by Superman and Batman. As much as people now are hating on Fox, Marvel was in the position of signing the rights away 15, 20 years ago, and the move helped build the brand we are now quibbling over.

      So far, IMO the only character that Marvel Studios has elevated to the “stage” I spoke of is Iron Man. I never would have believed it but they did, thanks to CGI and RDJ. Favreau I think really walked the fine line with IM 1. IM 2 won’t damage that characters potential in the future.

      I would say that Hulk has a spot on the stage but they haven’t got him there yet, and Marvel Studios has nothing to do with his position, I’d credit cartoons and the old TV show for that. .

  17. I dont see why people are getting so angry at Marvel for this. Marvel is trying to keep their fans happy first by keeping their characters as close to the comics as possible. They also want to create a universe that we have been clamoring for. Many directors are going to want to come in and completely change much of that. Look what happens to characters when not under Marvel Studios… they make Green Goblin a power ranger, Juggernaut Australian, and The Thing Shorter than Mr Fantastic.

    Its like the comics themselves, an editor may say “here’s your freedom to make a great story, but keep the characters intact”.

    Thats fine with me.

    • I agree.
      And also, I can kinda agree that Marvel Studios’ movies haven’t been AS good as they could have been lately (Cap, Thor, IM2), BUT, that was mainly because they were setting up The Avengers (like Ignur said)
      After the Avengers, we’ll most likely start to get movies like Iron Man 1 and TIH again (individual movie franchises with only small easter-eggs and references – not entire movies packed with references and stuff that makes the individual movie itself a failure.)

    • This is true lol

  18. Observation:

    So previously, people complained that Marvel didn’t have enough control of their properties and other production companies screwed them up (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Punisher etc….). They needed better control of their characters.

    Now Marvel exerts control over their properites under their own studio banner and are specific about what they want and they get backlash…..

    There should be a degree of collaboration for sure between them and the creative folks they hire (I had my issues with IM2, definitely) and they haven’t done everything perfect, but the degree of instant/total backlash on this against Marvel from some folks intrigues me…..

    • Yeah… it’s a cruel, cruel world ;)

      I don’t get it either to be quite honest:
      Throughout the past 4 years, reaction to the Marvel movies have been mainly positive. (People were praising what they are now seemingly dissing – i.e. the fact that Marvel is keeping control over their characters).

      And the thing about IM2 is, that Marvel learnt a lesson with that movie: they now know where to draw the line, and so far, I don’t think they crossed it (Cap & Thor were quite good and there weren’t too many references to bugger it up).

      But now I’m reading all this talk about Marvel and Fox not being so different?! – NOT cool with that.
      If that’s what people think, they should seriously go watch the X-Men, FF, Daredevil and Elekra movies, followed by the REAL Marvel movies, and try to make that statement again.

      • Marvel connecting stories is a cool thing. I actually hope more film outside of comics take a cue from creating a shared universe. Marvel has been great to thensource material but not so great to the story. These films have pretty much become prologues (which is ok) instead ofmstand alone movies. Which gives me the taste that the Avengenrs will be more intune with the previous movies instead of being its own event.

        The Avengers IMO would have worked even better if each film really had been almost completely different genres with a very loosely threaded SHIELD connecting all of them. It would make their team up that much awkward and thus that much better. It feels like a standard superhero team up flick instead it could have been a team up between a Howard Hughes inventor, a fugitive on the run, an other worldy warrior, a soldier out of time, a spy, black op archer with a criminalmpast & a bf/gf scientific couple (sorry Hank&Jane). Had they really created films for there genre’s I think it would makenthe end result that much better.

  19. The similarities between Fox and Marvel are there though…Where Fox had to finally back off and let the directors do their job-ala “RISE” and “XMEN-FIRST CLASS” thus getting quality product as oppose to previous works like “DAREDEVIL”,”FF,FF2″ and “GHOST RIDER”,with “IRON MAN 2″ the Marvel claws were definitely there and also in “THOR”..Luckily “CAPTAIN AMERICA” did as well as it did without a constant ref to SHIELD throughout til the very end…With THOR2 they will definitely have to break away from the AVENGERS scheme and wallow around in Thor’s universe….and that will have to take a very creative and detailed orientated director…
    With IM3, getting back to basics-the hero part of Tony,versus a Villan that is more a threat to IM but to the whole world-THE MANDARIN and ULTRON!!

    • What is “RISE”? “Rise of the Silver Surfer”? If so, your sentence doesn’t make sense since you referred to it again as “FF2″.

  20. As a shared universe these directors have to work within the framework that Marvel has set out. I think Marvel has done really well thus far, maybe as they see past mistakes they’ll correct them. For example they always aim for 2 hours or less, if the movie needs to be longer let it be, don’t sacrifice important character moments for the sake of run time so it can run 2 more times daily at the theater.

    I also think (hope) that they learned a lot from IM2. Too many characters at once without giving them their proper due. It’s cool for us comic book fans but the uninitiated is probably saying “WTF”

    And if I recall correctly weren’t the film writers sort of getting input from the comic book writers to get a better feel for the characters. I’d rather Marvel keep going the way they are than letting someone come in and totally wrecking everything. I’m sure they’ll open up to taking more chances if the films stay succesful

  21. Yes, I completely agree with this article. I think Marvel is more worried about money. That’s why they let go of Ed Norton. And besides, now that i look at it, I enjoyed most of the Marvel movies, and i have to say I thought Captain America wasn’t all that great as everybody put it out to be. It was ok. It was my least favorite marvel movie, next to spiderman 3. On top of that, Joe Johnston isn’t one of my favorite movie directors. His films aren’t terrible but they aren’t excellent. Just ok. And he really cant shoot action scenes that good at all really. The action for Captain America was kinda bad. Same for Thor. The action wasn’t all that great. The only scenes that I liked from Thor was when they where in Asgard.
    But other than that, Marvel needs to take more risk and let the directors do their damn job.

  22. You know, I just can’t help but think that giving a director complete control can be good and bad. Anyone remember that George Lucas had complete control over the prequels? Yeah, remember how those turned out?

    • here we go with the lucas bashing/inaccurate comparisons. the directors that marvel hires had no input whatsoever in the creations of these characters. these were well established characters 30/40/50+ years old, and marvel has the right to have these films go in the direction they are aiming for. george lucas created the entire star wars universe, so why shouldn’t he have control of where the stories go? i know it’s fun to bash the pre-quels, but, apparently alot of people liked them enough to keep going to see all 3 even after the horrible acting of jake loyd (“i was wondering…what ARE midi-chlorians?”) and jar-jar binks (“how rude!”) i liked the stories in all 6 SW films. i don’t care for some of the changes lucas made in ep 4,5,6,(han shot 1st!) but some of them are ok. my point is, you either like the films and you go see/buy them, or you don’t. no one is forced to watch a movie

      • Um, it IS accurate. When Lucas made ANH, he didn’t have free reign over the film. When he made the prequels, he did. Nobody would say “no” to George Lucas by the time he was making the prequels.

        But if that comparison isn’t enough, then how about Christopher Nolan and Batman? WB is willing to let Nolan do WHATEVER he wants with his Batman films. He had no involvement in creating that character, just the current films. Nolan could have Batman humping a tree for 2 1/2 hours, and WB would still let him have his way (exaggeration of course). Or we could go back to the Joel Schumacher example. Despite what people think, it wasn’t him that destroyed Batman. It was WB. The studio were the ones who wanted him to make a kid friendly film. Don’t believe me? Go watch the deleted scenes from Batman Forever. It will show you that he knew what he was doing when he made the film, but WB wanted him to not make it dark.

        A director should be able to give their own input when it comes to writting a script.

        • @ Ghost

          That is true. WB is willing to let Nolan do whatever he wants with not only his Batman films, but any other DC film afterwards without a doubt.

          I been sayin it all along that the first Batman franchise self-destruct foremost because of WB wanting to take the franchise into a more & more family-friendly direction. Schumacher can be blamed for the way the costumes looked. Infact, despite all the critism Batman & Robin got with it’s box office take that was enough to green-light a sequel- Schumacher wanted to make it up to the fans by makin the 5th fan as dark as the first two Burton films. Or atleast make a Batman: Year One film, which alot of fans are grateful he didn’t get the job & Nolan got to film the reboot.

          I agree with the last sentance. Reason for that is because it reminds me of how Burton had his own version of the Penguin for his film for the way the script/plot was like. From having him emerge from the sewers & work to have society accept him as his comic counter-part for a short while and then have it taken away. Personally Penguin wasn’t one of my favorite villains as he never seemed intimidating or a threat. Or someone who likes to get his hands dirty. I liked how Penguin was accepted by society by people & still had people make fun of him or seem afraid of him just alittle. It’s no wonder why Bruce Timm & Co. went with Burton’s Penguin for awhile in Batman:TAS before switching him to his more comic counter-part in the New Batman Adventures.

        • You’re a bit off on that count. Lucas got total creative freedom on Star Wars; his only studio constraint was the budget. He went to various studios before Fox was willing to give him a shot and the control he sought, and that was only after he was willing to give up certain financial incentives in exchange for merchandising rights.

  23. All I have to say is THANK FREAKIN GOODNESS Patty Jenkins isn’t going to ruin, er, I mean direct Thor 2. Hopefully she picks up something already lame like Antman or something…

  24. Marvel studios has a plan set people, their trying to create a cinematic universe on film for multiple characters coming together for the very first time. The reason Chris Nolan is doing so great with batman is because it’s all about batman, no one else, just batman. So it’s not that hard to work/focus on one primary DC character and don’t have to worry about B-Man fitting into cinematic DC universe is just sweat off Nolan’s head. So Marvel Studios are going for the *Big One* and they have to make sacrifices in their solo movies to assist the people in knowing “why the hell is Sam Jackson showing up in specific superhero movies”?…”Why does some people in the theater have an orgy whenever someone in these films saids Avenger”?…Why does that america flag dude shield shows up in Iron Man movies?…You get what I mean about sacrifice for the later term?

  25. Well..let me throw this at you…If Disney/Marvel Studios allowed ..Directors and Actors, dictate how these Characters are presented.how these films are made…irregardless of the public promise to make Marvel Character films consistent with the history of the Comic Books(Fox, Sony-Columbia aren’t obligated because they don’t sell the comics and dont make a profit in their selling) and allow *changes that the other studios have done to continue YOU WOULD HAVE A FIT!!!

    I for 1 will 100% agree not to turn over any of the remain characters under the Disney/Marvel banner to Directors or Artists .”Who now want to pretend the character belongs to them in the short term…make the Movie and then say “Oh the Fan base didn’t like it..Oh well I did “F##$%&! them and then move on leaving Disney/Marvel I’m a mess with the fan base. If anyone with any “Business sense out there knows what I’m saying ..
    “Let ME HEAR YA! There’s no way your gonna burn down my House, and split.. and me give you the Matches and Dynamite..just no way…If Dis/Marv is doing somethin wrong…its *theirs to do it..

    Think about it..
    I’m still mad about RDJ taking a shot at the Avengers/Joss.. cause it ain’t all about him…Shane Black’s script is the best I’ve seen ..what the hell is that..?!! Dude this is the biggest CBM to date..what the hell are you doin?!!! Promote the DAMN movie!!! Are you kidding me….This is the last contracted pic…time to start lookin for Tony Stark again..

  26. Are you all serious???? Really you want Marvel to just hand over their bread & butter to people looking to develop “artistic license”!!! Does anyone remember Ang Lee’s Hulk!? That movie damn near killed all the work that Marvel had with X-men. While we are at it…Lets talk about just how messed up the X-men movies became. We (the audience) were so happy to finally get to see a live action Marvel movie only to get Wolverine and the back ups. I am proud for the fact Marvel is standing up for THEIR property! After FOX basically bent over Marvel with X-men I can fully understand Marvel’s right to play hardball.

    • Marvel has no say in what Fox does with X-men for one simple reason, they have no control of the movie rights.

  27. Marvel being pushy is what brought down the Spiderman franchise: Raimi & McGuire should have stayed, but been given the time and money they needed (however, The Vulture and spinoffs such as Vulturess were bone-headed choices. Better would have been Lizard, Mysterio, Electro, Scorpion, or maybe Morbius). Iron Man 2 was OK but weak. And Shane Black is too scary to direct Iron Man 3 after I read his interviews…sounds like he’s gonna wreck everything. AND—I had BETTER see The Mandarin in IM3!!!

    • That was Sony being pushy. Not Marvel

      • Yeah Mart, you’re right:
        Marvel Studios had absolutely NOTHING to do with Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3. It was Sony that produced those flicks.

        (I’m really getting annoyed at people who think ALL the marvel-character-movies were created by Marvel themselves.)

        • @TheAvenger

          Actually Marvel has been involved in EVERY marvel movie released, some more than others. Before Marvel Studios there was Marvel Entertainment. Avi Arad (who also founded Marvel Studios) along with Laura Something were the producers on SP3 that were advocating for Venom’s inclusion.

          Its is only now with Marvel Studios does Marvel have complete control but it was Marvel’s sticky fingers originally that created the SP3 mess.

          • Not really though…
            It was a different bunch of guys responsible for that (even though they were technically from Marvel). Kevin Feige (who’s basically in control of the entire MCU and all the current Marvel movies) had nothing to do with that.
            And even if they wanted Venom in the movie, that still doesn’t mean it was them/Marvel who made him such a sucky Venom. (Venom could have worked out very well for the movie) — but the director and Fox (the people who were mainly in control of the movie) were the reason Venom bombed.

            • Kevin Feige was a producer (in a smaller capacity) since 2000′s X-Men for EVERY marvel movie released since. He has worked under Avi Arad, who was head of Marvel Ent. In 2005 Avi began setting up the independentMarvel Studios. By 2007, Avi resigned in order to start his own production house and Feige was named president. But Avi was still heavily involved with Iron Man & TIH. IM2 & everything proceeding is Feige.

              • Never knew that… (I’ll have to go look that up).
                Still, it doesn’t really matter, because like I said: even though Marvel may have been responsible for getting Venom in SP3, it still wasn’t them who messed up the character (that was the director’s and Fox’s doing)

  28. And again, apologies for the spelling. Damn iPhone autospelling
    “Where is even scant evidence of cinematic continuity”. At least (and not atleast)

  29. Marvell knows these characters inside and out. Most of these directors have never read a comic. So Marvel has to keep a pretty tight hold if they want movies about their characters and not some directors unrelated vision.

    A great director would immerse himself in the comics and do a movie that wasn’t an insult to the fans and could appeal to the non fans too. That’s what Nolan did.

    But Nolans are few and far between. With the average arrogant director you are going to have to say no you can’t make the Hulk a gay environmentalist as interesting as that sounds. This is an action character about a guy who becomes a huge green monster. Stick to the character.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!