The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Kel Varnsen]

This.  She is a known entity now and isn't hiding.  It makes perfect sense to me that she would want Bucky and anybody else to do the same thing.

That's sort of what I was thinking. I mean she might not want him to serve prison time. But that is only one end of the spectrum. Maybe she wants him to make some sort of amends for his actions (like she has been trying to do) and maybe Cap ultimate goal would be for him to become James Barnes anonymous citizen.

[Dandesun]

There might also be the question of just how brainwashed Bucky was, is and remains. Steve's faith is in a boy he grew up with and a remnant of a life he no longer has any connections, too. I mean, I totally understand why Steve would cling to and protect Bucky but I can also believe that there's a big blind spot there. Bucky remembered things and, ultimately, saved Steve's life after Steve refused to fight him and told him to finish his mission... but I can buy that others will not be as quick to believe that the conditioning Hydra did over the decades won't rear its head.

 

Which leads to the question of what Bucky will ultimately do to prove himself?

 

(And dare I hope that we get the 'It wasn't worth it...' line from Tony?)

[emma675]

 

But if the conflict is over Bucky, how the hell does Natasha end up on Tony's side? I 500% don't believe Natasha of all people would hold the actions of a brainwashed HYDRA/maybe Red Room victim against Bucky.

Bucky did shoot through her once to kill someone, leaving a scar on her abdomen. And now she can't wear bikinis because of it. Maybe she's still pissed about that?

 

Yeah, I got nothing.

Edited August 17, 2015 by emma675d

[VCRTracking]

From the Birth.Death.Movies. report of the D23 footage:

 

At another point Stark says

“We have no boundaries. We’re no better than the bad guys,”

which points to a strong grounding for his position, especially coming after an off-screen voice says

    “What would you call a group of enhanced individuals who inflict their will anywhere they choose?”

This alleviates the worry that Stark will just seem like a bad guy, and everything I know indicates that the script goes out of its way to present both sides as equally as possible when one guy’s name is in the title of the film.

 

Edited August 17, 2015 by VCRTracking

[stealinghome]

. So I can see how she would be on the side of people being held accountable for their actions.

This.  She is a known entity now and isn't hiding.  It makes perfect sense to me that she would want Bucky and anybody else to do the same thing.

But when was Natasha ever held accountable for her actions in the way that a trial/persecution/murder of Bucky would imply? As far as we know, Natasha never faced anything like that. SHIELD deprogrammed her, helped her, and by the time of Iron Man 2, she was clearly actively making the decision to stay with SHIELD because she trusted Fury and the organization. And I'm sure there were people in SHIELD who said "this is stupid, let's just kill the Russian bitch who's been a huge thorn in our side for years and probably murdered a bunch of SHIELD agents," but she was given help and a chance and became someone different, someone better. (And yes, she later chose to release all of her files/history, but she made that decision years after being deprogrammed, and after having built up a solid track record with SHIELD and in full understanding of what she was doing--releasing the entire truth about Bucky to the public is in no way a comparable situation imo.) So no, I just don't believe Natasha, who is canonically quite non-judgmental and compassionate, wouldn't extend that same chance to another victim of HYDRA/the Red Room. It feels massively out of character for Natasha to look at a person who's had a similar experience and be like "nah, man, no redemption possible, we gotta bust out the pitchforks!!!"

 

I mean, I guess I'm making the assumption that a) the team thinks they could deprogram Bucky (which the events of Cap 2 as well as Natasha's entire existence pretty conclusively prove is possible) and b) that Bucky would want to join the fight against the bad guys, which, I can't imagine him not. I guess the situation might be different if those two things aren't true, but I feel pretty solid making those assumptions.

 

I can at least buy Tony being uber difficult about Bucky, because he's a self-centered, obnoxious, immature idiot to start off with, and the Winter Solider killed his parents. His attitude toward Bucky is understandable. But Natasha? Someone who's been in Bucky's same exact shoes? And has big picture vision and a level of detachment Tony can't approach (the Hulk went after her and she still was all over Bruce just fine)? Still not buying it.

 

This alleviates the worry that Stark will just seem like a bad guy, and everything I know indicates that the script goes out of its way to present both sides as equally as possible when one guy’s name is in the title of the film.

So we're in for a Tony-is-totally-right apology-fest in what's supposed to be Captain America's film? Joy.

Edited August 18, 2015 by stealinghome

[benteen]

Not to mention Natasha gave Steve a bunch of information at the end of The Winter Soldier about Bucky.  She knew Steve wasn't going to bring Bucky "to justice" so that would make her deciding that Bucky needs to be punished even more odd.

[lion10]

There's still the whole issue of super registration that seems will be a major part of the movie.  That may be the issue that sways Natasha over to Tony's side.

[anna0852]

When it gets close to the time for Avengers: Infinity War  does anyone else want to see some massive photo shoot in EW with all the various movie casts together. Team Thor, Team Iron Man, Team Cap, Team Guardians, Team Ant-Man and the of course our TV tie-ins, Team Shield and Team Agent Carter. Can you imagine getting all that talent into one place at one time?

 

They did something similar for Star Wars (new cast and surviving old cast) when the prequels came out and it was really freaking cool!

[VCRTracking]

 

This alleviates the worry that Stark will just seem like a bad guy, and everything I know indicates that the script goes out of its way to present both sides as equally as possible when one guy’s name is in the title of the film.

 

So we're in for a Tony-is-totally-right apology-fest in what's supposed to be Captain America's film? Joy.

 

Your dictionary must have a different definition of "equally" than mine.

Edited August 18, 2015 by VCRTracking

[KatWay]

      This alleviates the worry that Stark will just seem like a bad guy, and everything I know indicates that the script goes out of its way to present both sides as equally as possible when one guy’s name is in the title of the film.

        

 

    So we're in for a Tony-is-totally-right apology-fest in what's supposed to be Captain America's film? Joy.

Your dictionary must have a different definition of "equally" than mine.

 

 

Not to mention "as equally as possible when one guy’s name is in the title of the film". Come on, as if there is a chance that they would make an argument between Tony Stark, the only character they allow to continuously screw up and do morally questionable things and Captain America who is the paragon of virtue truly equal. At least I'm taking from this quote that they're making an effort to make Tony's actions understandable, but I have no doubt we're headed for a "you're always right, I'm always wrong" conclusion from this.

Edited August 18, 2015 by KatWay

[frenchtoast]

When it gets close to the time for Avengers: Infinity War  does anyone else want to see some massive photo shoot in EW with all the various movie casts together. Team Thor, Team Iron Man, Team Cap, Team Guardians, Team Ant-Man and the of course our TV tie-ins, Team Shield and Team Agent Carter. Can you imagine getting all that talent into one place at one time?

 

They did something similar for Star Wars (new cast and surviving old cast) when the prequels came out and it was really freaking cool!

I want this right now, in costume, with Stan Lee in the front as his character from Big Hero 6.

[lion10]

I hope we see the Cape killer suits and the supe prison.

[Kel Varnsen]

Bucky did shoot through her once to kill someone, leaving a scar on her abdomen. And now she can't wear bikinis because of it. Maybe she's still pissed about that?

 

I forgot that he shot her. Maybe that, combined with the fact that if he is coherent enough to not kill Cap and actually save him how was he able to be brainwashed to do all those other evil things?

 

So no, I just don't believe Natasha, who is canonically quite non-judgmental and compassionate, wouldn't extend that same chance to another victim of HYDRA/the Red Room. It feels massively out of character for Natasha to look at a person who's had a similar experience and be like "nah, man, no redemption possible, we gotta bust out the pitchforks!!!"

But there are different degrees of "paying for your crimes" so while she might not want him locked up in a supermax prison, maybe she is not ok with him being deprogrammed and going back to a normal life like nothing ever happened in the last 70 years.

[frenchtoast]

Not to derail this discussion, because I do find it fascinating. (And I am hoping it gets brought up in Agents of SHIELD because there is a definite tension between enhanced vs "average" and where is the balance--if Skye/Daisy is our gateway character should be interesting)

 

Anyway, I saw this article today and it reminded me that last year, prior to Guardians of the Galaxy opening, I figured GotG would flop because Marvel has to have a flop at some point. And then even Ant-Man didn't do horribly--I found it a fun romp and a pleasant way to spend 2 hours. (I sat through Fantastic Four last weekend and...yeah, that's a deserved flop. Definitely showed that while Marvel may not make brilliant, amazing movies, I enjoy the time and I like the characters.)

 

Making movies isn't always about the money, and this is more of an investor driven idea anyway. But what movie will just not resonate with audiences? I know the Thor movies are not well received, but I think Ragnarok could be very interesting, but I like the relationship between Thor and Loki.

 

So, I think the movie that will fail is Dr. Strange. No, that's not true. We have no word on Captain Marvel, soI have a real sinking feeling that that one will be serving too many masters and it will be a flop. And then studio heads will point and say that's why a woman can't head a movie and my head will explode.

[Kel Varnsen]

So, I think the movie that will fail is Dr. Strange. No, that's not true. We have no word on Captain Marvel, soI have a real sinking feeling that that one will be serving too many masters and it will be a flop. And then studio heads will point and say that's why a woman can't head a movie and my head will explode.

Just looking at the schedule for Phase 3 Captain Marvel is in a tough spot. It will be the third of three MCU movies to come out in 2018, and it comes out in between Infinity War Part 1 and 2. Now Black Panther will be in the same boat, but it comes out before Captain Marvel and in the summer (Captain Marvel comes out in November) so it has that working for it. My worry would be that after seeing Infinity War Part 1 and Black Panther, people might start to feel MCU fatigue and not care as much about Captain Marvel. Plus depending on how Part 1 ends, people might just be thinking "get on with it and show me part 2 not some other movie I don't care as much about".

[JessePinkman]

I think coming out between the Infinity War(s) will actually help both, they'll likely benefit from the Avengers effect where Iron Man 3 came out after and basically played as a sequel in a sense to Avengers and grossed a billion dollars inexplicably. But I could totally see fatigue setting in as well. 

 

Inhumans is the one I'm worried about, it comes after the last Infinity War (which will play as sort of a finale even though I'm sure Marvel wants to avoid that perception). Unless they get a really good cast and build it up well...

[Kel Varnsen]

I think coming out between the Infinity War(s) will actually help both, they'll likely benefit from the Avengers effect where Iron Man 3 came out after and basically played as a sequel in a sense to Avengers and grossed a billion dollars inexplicably. But I could totally see fatigue setting in as well. 

That is sort of why I said it will all depend on how infinity war part 1 ends. Maybe they can set it up so people will want to see about Carol Danvers between the movies and it will fill out the story more. Or people might just want to find out what happens with Iron Man/Hulk/Thor/Cap and not care about Captain Marvel.

 

 

Inhumans is the one I'm worried about, it comes after the last Infinity War (which will play as sort of a finale even though I'm sure Marvel wants to avoid that perception). Unless they get a really good cast and build it up well...

 

I think part of this will depend on what the post Phase 3 release schedule is. Because you are right, at the moment it looks like infinity War pt2 has been set up as the finale. From what I remember Inhumans was supposed to come out between the Avengers movies then got pushed back because of Spider Man. So now that movie looks like then end. But when they announce whatever movies are coming out in Phase 4 it might change that perception. Especially if it is movies about characters that people actually care about.

[benteen]

As much as I enjoyed Ant-Man, I really wonder if the time to release Captain Marvel and the Black Panther should have been now.

[OakGoblinFly]

I think coming out between the Infinity War(s) will actually help both, they'll likely benefit from the Avengers effect where Iron Man 3 came out after and basically played as a sequel in a sense to Avengers and grossed a billion dollars inexplicably. But I could totally see fatigue setting in as well. 

 

Inhumans is the one I'm worried about, it comes after the last Infinity War (which will play as sort of a finale even though I'm sure Marvel wants to avoid that perception). Unless they get a really good cast and build it up well...

 

 

I'm concerned for Inhumans as well; which is a shame as I simply adore the comics (especially the Marvel Knight run).

[Fukui San]

I think we have enough of a track record to say this: If Marvel makes a good movie, they'll get a respectable box office return even if the title isn't currently prominent. When the point comes that there is significant negative buzz around a Marvel movie, we'll have to see what happens. For all we know the next Avengers could be the one that doesn't have good buzz around it. Would past history override a bad current product?

[benteen]

Marvel has really kicked things into high gear since the first Avengers movie.  They are delivering.  As long as they deliver, they'll be fine.  Although I do imagine at some point the train will start slowing down.

[lion10]

I think we have enough of a track record to say this: If Marvel makes a good movie, they'll get a respectable box office return even if the title isn't currently prominent. When the point comes that there is significant negative buzz around a Marvel movie, we'll have to see what happens. For all we know the next Avengers could be the one that doesn't have good buzz around it. Would past history override a bad current product?

 

For a single movie, definitely yes.  Especially if it was only mediocre and not horrible.  But it impact future movie earnings, especially if the movies after the flop were also reviewed as being middling or outright bad.  

[kattybiz]

When will that teaser just leak already?!?! 

 

Late October or early November.  :-P  Disney confiscated all phones at D23 before the trailer, so no leaks.  I've heard it'll be previewed before the new Bond movie.  Happy birthday to me if it's true!

[Rick Kitchen]

ABC is working on a "Mockingbird" series:

[benteen]

Speaking of Marvel television, it looks like Alfre Woodard is going to be cast as the villain in the Luke Cage Netflix series.

 

http://www.slashfilm.com/alfre-woodard-luke-cage/

[JBC344]

Speaking of Marvel television, it looks like Alfre Woodard is going to be cast as the villain in the Luke Cage Netflix series.

 

http://www.slashfilm.com/alfre-woodard-luke-cage/

Wow, I really have to hand it to Netflix.  I was thoroughly impressed with Daredevil and if Jessica Jones and Luke Cage are as good as I hear than the Marvel television shows may pass the movies in terms of quality.  I love that they are committed to adding real talent to these shows.  Alfre is a great addition.

[Demented Daisy]

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/feature/a664341/does-marvel-studios-have-a-director-problem-why-a-list-filmmakers-are-fleeing-the-mcu.html?rss#~pmhFWPR97SLmWu

 

Interesting article about some of the issues the MCU is having with its directors.

[Raja]

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/feature/a664341/does-marvel-studios-have-a-director-problem-why-a-list-filmmakers-are-fleeing-the-mcu.html?rss#~pmhFWPR97SLmWu

Interesting article about some of the issues the MCU is having with its directors.

Just as actors got over their stage, screen and TV prejudice to work so will directors get over theirs as an increasing amount of film producers attempt franchises and shared universes to get paid.

[VCRTracking]

And related to that a what the Thor scenes in the cave were originally and why their lenght was cut down in the movie:

 

http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/11/8585809/avengers-ultron-thor-cave-scene-explanation-cut-farmhouse

[frenchtoast]

I have two conflicting thoughts about the pool/dream scene mentioned in the article linked above. First is the Hulkbuster scene had been cut shorter, we could have had more Thor pool scene just so it made more sense (though I kind of figured it out). Second is that the author (or execs, can't remember) are kind of right--a weird, trippy Norse scene would have seemed shoehorned in and really out of place in that movie. Having said, that, I wish we had cut the action/explosions down a little bit and had some time with the visions the team was having. Or even a little more about Ultron.

 

Eh, who am I kidding, I'd watch a whole movie of just them at the party in the beginning. 

 

The directors vs Marvel studios is interesting because again I have contradicting thoughts. Part of me is reminded of artists in Face Off who complain when asked to do a beauty make up. Well, the challenge is a beauty make-up, you are a make-up artist, quit yer bitchin. And oftentimes it seems the ones that are open to working and learning do some excellent work. And sometimes those open challenges, with no guide/constraints make for some real stinkers. For some artists, it's a good thing to give them a certain toolbox instead of all the tools. They thrive on the challenge of making it work. On the flip side, it must be difficult to be working in the constraints trying wrangle your vision into something that's not fitting. In Marvel's case there is very much a double edged sword. The linked universe is great because each movie feels part of something, even when it's new. But it can really put a damper on creativity when it has to serve too many masters. You can't make everyone happy all the time. 

[Kel Varnsen]

I have two conflicting thoughts about the pool/dream scene mentioned in the article linked above. First is the Hulkbuster scene had been cut shorter, we could have had more Thor pool scene just so it made more sense (though I kind of figured it out). Second is that the author (or execs, can't remember) are kind of right--a weird, trippy Norse scene would have seemed shoehorned in and really out of place in that movie. Having said, that, I wish we had cut the action/explosions down a little bit and had some time with the visions the team was having. Or even a little more about Ultron.

Yea it is hard to get too upset or feel too bad for Whedon about that whole pool scene, because what was described sounds crazy and kind of dumb.

 

As far as the directors to, again having a hard time feeling too bad for them. I mean sure they aren't Whedon or even Jon Faverau. But at the same time I am curious to see what the Russo bros and some of these other directors do once they leave the MCU. I mean the Russo's prior to Winter Soldiers were known as the guys who directed a bunch of episodes of Community and Happy Endings. So what does going from doing that to directing what will probably be the biggest movies in 2016, 2018 and 2019 do for their careers?

[NumberCruncher]

I don't feel at all sorry for the directors not having the final say as to the content of Marvel movies because at the end of the day, these movies are selling a cohesive product built upon the Marvel brand. Marvel is attempting (I would argue, quite successfully) to tell a continuous story by using each movie as a chapter. Each director has his/her own style which could potentially derail that continuity so I don't blame Marvel one bit for keeping tight control on the product. IMO, audiences pay to see these movies because they know Marvel Studios = quality, fun, engaging movies. They aren't likely going because [insert random moviemaker] is the director.

[JessePinkman]

It's like someone coming in to direct an episode of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones and doing something completely off brand. I like to think of the movies as one incredibly long and expensive TV series and you can't just suddenly start directing an episode of Grey's Anatomy like The Good Wife.

[Raja]

It's like someone coming in to direct an episode of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones and doing something completely off brand. I like to think of the movies as one incredibly long and expensive TV series and you can't just suddenly start directing an episode of Grey's Anatomy like The Good Wife.

That's why I think Whedon seems the most childish in the I AM THE DIRECTOR stance. When he made his name for an hour or two of Buffy.

[Sakura12]

Most tv shows have different directors for each episode, they may do multiple eps but they don't do them all.. So if we do think of the Marvel Universe as a years long, expensive tv show then having different directors is how it's done. Plus I don't really watch Marvel movies for the director. 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Sakura12

[VCRTracking]

I would say the Iron Man movies fit the TV analogy. They haven't not deviated far from a consistent look, even when the third one directed by the more distinct Shane Black. They really are like 2 hour episodes of a TV show where Tony Stark's character grows and changes throughout the series and with a consistent cast of supporting players. Then there's the Captain America movies where The Winter Soldier which is completely different in style and tone from the previous movie. It works because while the time period has changed the character of Steve Rogers remains essentially the same.

Edited August 25, 2015 by VCRTracking

[JBC344]

To me the success at least lately is actually a mix of "new/innovative director" and the "Marvel brand".  The Marvel movies do have to fit into the brand but that doesn't mean that they can't be interesting and different.  For example, Winter Soldier is arguably the best Marvel movie and that was a take on the "70's political spy drama" and very different from the first Captain America.  It made a ton of money and critics loved it.  Same with Guardians of the Galaxy.  It in itself was a different kind of Marvel movie; a space opera. 

 

I think the mix is hiring new directors, but also ones that share the Marvel vision/brand.  Now we have seen Marvel go after incredibly innovative filmmakers like Edgar Wright and Anna DuVerrnay, with Ant Man and Black Panther respectively.  Unfortunately those partnerships just didn't work out creatively.  Doesn't make either party the bad guy. 

[CMH1981]

I can't remember, did Whedon originally plan to do an Avengers trilogy then bowed out after the interference on AoU? At the time when he said he wouldn't direct any further Avengers films he said he was exhausted and wanted to focus on his own stuff, but now he is saying otherwise since Wright's departure from Ant-Man. I know he is still consulting/writing/contributing in some capacity on the remainder of the Phase 3 films including the Infinity Gauntlet/War 2-parter.

I do think Disney/Marvel gives the directors some leeway in regards to the MCU films as long as they hit main points that connect to the overall vision and aren't just totally off from the source material.

[VCRTracking]

I can't remember, did Whedon originally plan to do an Avengers trilogy then bowed out after the interference on AoU? At the time when he said he wouldn't direct any further Avengers films he said he was exhausted and wanted to focus on his own stuff, but now he is saying otherwise since Wright's departure from Ant-Man. I know he is still consulting/writing/contributing in some capacity on the remainder of the Phase 3 films including the Infinity Gauntlet/War 2-parter.

 

 

From an on set interview last year while Age of Ultron was being filmed in London:

 

But then I didn’t actually want to make the film necessarily. I was ragged from the first one, and so I just turned off my brain. I was like, do not think of cool ideas for the next one. Just get through this. But after a few months when they talked about, um… This is now something that makes sense in my life; do I have anything to say?

And so my agent calls, I was in London, and he called me and said there’s a deal that’s worth talking about- time to start to think about whether there’s a movie. And I’m going, all right. I went to a pub and sat down with my notebook, and about forty-five minutes later, my notebook was filled. And I texted my agent “yup” and I have so many things to say and I was kind of surprised. It took me unaware. It was very beautiful.

 

Edited August 26, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Kel Varnsen]

That's why I think Whedon seems the most childish in the I AM THE DIRECTOR stance. When he made his name for an hour or two of Buffy.

Whedon has always come across as a whiney complainer to me. Going all the way back to the Buffy movie where he complained that screen legend Donald Sutherland had the nerve to make changes  to a first time movie screen writers script.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kel Varnsen

[vb68]

 

Whedon has always come across as a whiney complainer to me.

 

I agree.  Some of his interviews when AoU was released bordered on being unprofessional IMO.

 

 

I know he is still consulting/writing/contributing in some capacity on the remainder of the Phase 3 films including the Infinity Gauntlet/War 2-parter.

 

That's very surprising to me.  I thought he was done.  He talked like he was completely over it and done with Marvel.

Edited August 26, 2015 by vb68

[Kel Varnsen]

I agree.  Some of his interviews when AoU was released bordered on being unprofessional IMO.

The stuff from some of his other projects was just as bad. His excuse for why Alien Resurrection wasn't a success and why it was everyone else's fault but his seems almost crazy.I am sure that with some further digging similar complaints could be found about other projects of his that didn't go as he liked. Seems like complaining to the press is his go to move. 

[ChelseaNH]

I have so many things to say and I was kind of surprised

 

I think this is the difference.  The Captain America movies from the Russo brothers have distinctive styles and smart writing,  but they aren't terribly complex.  A Cap movie is largely about putting him in circumstances that reveal the qualities of his character.  Whedon comes at stories with a particular philosophy/point of view.  This wasn't a big problem with Avengers because that was mostly a story of logistics -- getting the team together.  Going forward, you have to pick a direction.  When you have ideas, when you have things you want to say, you're much more likely to bump into the confines of the Marvel big picture.

[frenchtoast]

To be fair to Whedon, he isn't the only director that has left. And in fact, he didn't just leave a project unfinished as other directors have done. It seems like those departures were mutual decisions and there were no acrimonious feelings. Disappointed and maybe a tiny bit of bitterness, but nothing like a Trank situation with Fox. I think that speaks well to both sides that there haven't been such meltdowns. And if they were, they were smart enough to not make them public. In Edgar Wright's instance, the picture (and Whedon's similar) one was more disappointment, sadness and a smidge of bitterness that they weren't able to see it all the way through. But neither of them have come out against the movie. And didn't Dark World have a switch of directors? That one it was very noticeable because it was a very uneven film, but there were no excuses or shade thrown on either side. 

 

I guess it feels like all those involved have tried and have realized you can't always get what you want. But they do know it's a business and how you present yourself is important and it's not worth burning bridges. And if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

 

I may be wearing some rose colored glasses, but I love them!

[NumberCruncher]

Thor: TDW switched directors at the beginning of the project, not during it. Branagh left early so that he could direct the new Jack Ryan movie and Alan Taylor was chosen as the replacement and saw it through to the end. That said, I think the unevenness of the movie had more to do with Marvel ordering re-shoots and adding scenes because they didn't like the first cut of the movie and they were trying to fix it. That's why Taylor made some subtle jabs about his experience directing the project but nothing over-the-top.

Edited August 26, 2015 by NumberCruncher

[drmka9]

That said, I think the unevenness of the movie had more to do with Marvel ordering re-shoots and adding scenes because they didn't like the first cut of the movie and they were trying to fix it.

 

From what I remember, it had a lot more to do with the Avengers being released and everyone fangirling over Loki. Marvel wound up demanding that Loki be given more of a storyline, and Malekith's plot (the actual film plot, in other words) was cut drastically. It makes some sense, given the bigger picture of the MCU, but it's a shame TDW wound up so uneven as a result of the meddling.

[VCRTracking]

Whedon has always come across as a whiney complainer to me. Going all the way back to the Buffy movie where he complained that screen legend Donald Sutherland had the nerve to make changes  to a first time movie screen writers script.

 

 

With all due respect to Sutherland(who is a great actor) considering the TV show Buffy was actually truer to his vision than the movie and the latter was a bomb while the former was way better and critically acclaimed I think he had a right to complain.

 

 

The stuff from some of his other projects was just as bad. His excuse for why Alien Resurrection wasn't a success and why it was everyone else's fault but his seems almost crazy.I am sure that with some further digging similar complaints could be found about other projects of his that didn't go as he liked. Seems like complaining to the press is his go to move.

 

What was crazy? That he wrote five versions of the final act that weren't shot? That the director Jean-Paul Juenet decided not to use the asked him to make changes to the script and then later in post production when they looked at what was filmed and Whedon said that it didn't make sense, the editor, a friend of Juenet sneered at him (in a French accent) it was because the writer "wrote it that way"?

 

He had writing credit on Toy Story a huge hit and bonafide classic which he could brag about but he gives most of the credit to John Lassetter and the brain trust at Pixar.

 

He also would have demanded that the blu ray have a three hour director's cut which is superior and that's what audiences should have seen, but no, he's fine with the theatrical cut and said "That's the movie."

 

From what I remember, it had a lot more to do with the Avengers being released and everyone fangirling over Loki. Marvel wound up demanding that Loki be given more of a storyline, and Malekith's plot (the actual film plot, in other words) was cut drastically.

 

 

I feel bad for Chris Eccleston, but from what I did see of Malekith I wasn't clamoring for more. We also did need to see the fallout from what happened in The Avengers.

 

Marvel along with other studios know that for sequels audiences  want "the same thing but different". The trouble is it's hard to tell what they want the same and what they want different! You'd assume that for Avengers they'd want the same  characters they liked from the first movie interacting, and fighting a new threat together. Nope. What they really wanted was a NEW group of larger-than-life characters meeting, squabbling and then banding together against a common threat for the third act.  Which they got in Guardians of the Galaxy.

Edited August 26, 2015 by VCRTracking

[JBC344]

Thor: TDW switched directors at the beginning of the project, not during it. Branagh left early so that he could direct the new Jack Ryan movie and Alan Taylor was chosen as the replacement and saw it through to the end. That said, I think the unevenness of the movie had more to do with Marvel ordering re-shoots and adding scenes because they didn't like the first cut of the movie and they were trying to fix it. That's why Taylor made some subtle jabs about his experience directing the project but nothing over-the-top.

I think the poster was actually referring to the fact that Patty Jenkins was the original director of Thor 2.  Kenneth Branagh wasn't returning and made that clear very early on.  The studio chose Patty Jenkins as the director, and then subsequently fired her. Alan Taylor was actually her replacement.

[Kel Varnsen]

With all due respect to Sutherland(who is a great actor) considering the TV show Buffy was actually truer to his vision than the movie and the latter was a bomb while the former was way better and critically acclaimed I think he had a right to complain.

I will give you that the movie basically bombed, and the show (at least when they were in High School) worked better. At the same time for me it is kind of the case of a first time screen writer, complaining about a veteran actor making changes to his script, and not realizing that this is exactly how Hollywood works (and that you should suck it up and try to be a professional about it).

 

What was crazy? That he wrote five versions of the final act that weren't shot? That the director Jean-Paul Juenet decided not to use the asked him to make changes to the script and then later in post production when they looked at what was filmed and Whedon said that it didn't make sense, the editor, a friend of Juenet sneered at him (in a French accent) it was because the writer "wrote it that way"?

 

 

 Here is Whedon's quote about the issues with that movie:

 

"It wasn't a question of doing everything differently, although they changed the ending; it was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong. They said the lines...mostly...but they said them all wrong. And they cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do. There's actually a fascinating lesson in filmmaking, because everything that they did reflects back to the script or looks like something from the script, and people assume that, if I hated it, then they’d changed the script...but it wasn’t so much that they’d changed the script; it’s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable."

 

If that doesn't sound like over the top crazy complaining I don't know what does. The one that always stands out for me is the fact that he thinks they cast it wrong. It is an Alien movie with Sigourney Weaver, Brad Dourif, Winona Rider and Ron Pearlman? In what world is that bad casting for any movie? And again it goes back to being professional and keeping your mouth shut or bashing everyone else involved in the movie. Now his complaints about Avengers 2 don't seem to be as harsh, but at the same time there seems to be a pattern.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kel Varnsen

[NumberCruncher]

I think the poster was actually referring to the fact that Patty Jenkins was the original director of Thor 2.  Kenneth Branagh wasn't returning and made that clear very early on.  The studio chose Patty Jenkins as the director, and then subsequently fired her. Alan Taylor was actually her replacement.

Yes, I know that Jenkins was originally going to be Branagh's early replacement, but my point was that the switch to Taylor happened well before TDW went into actual production and shouldn't have had any effect on the movie's unevenness, unlike the situation with Edgar Wright who left Ant-Man much further into the project.

 

From what I remember, it had a lot more to do with the Avengers being released and everyone fangirling over Loki. Marvel wound up demanding that Loki be given more of a storyline, and Malekith's plot (the actual film plot, in other words) was cut drastically. It makes some sense, given the bigger picture of the MCU, but it's a shame TDW wound up so uneven as a result of the meddling.

I think VCRTracking's response pretty much sums up what I see is most likely the reason the studio went with less Malekith and more Loki:

 

I feel bad for Chris Eccleston, but from what I did see of Malekith I wasn't clamoring for more. We also did need to see the fallout from what happened in The Avengers.

Eccleston is a good actor and I enjoy his work but I, too, found Malekith incredibly bland and uninteresting. It's not that Eccleston did a bad job in the portrayal, but the character himself lacked any solid motivation for his wrongdoing other than he wanted the world to be covered in darkness for the sake of it. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Marvel had the same impression, realized the villain wasn't working, and went with what they knew did work (Loki)--especially after The Avengers.

Edited August 26, 2015 by NumberCruncher