Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The linked articles describe meetings between SJ and Marvel Studios producers and writers as to what developments she'd like to see for her character. That seems to match up with the experiences related by other Marvel starring actors. For example, Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo have both asserted in interviews about Thor Ragnarok that Marvel solicited their suggestions for story arcs for their own characters, and are now running with some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from being an inclusive gesture, it also makes sense to get input from actors who have lived with a character for as long as some of the Marvel stars have. Presumably they've thought a lot about them and have insights worth listening to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actors and directors are given some leeway, but Feige keeps everything and everyone on a fairly tight creative leash. It's why the MCU has been so successful commercially, but it is also why some creatives quit (like Edgar Wright). The press likes to play up the artistic stamp each director puts on their movie, but its not like Feige lets them play auteur and do whatever they want with the piece of the MCU they're responsible for delivering to him.

 

Of the actors, RDJ probably wields the most power, even over many directors I imagine, but I doubt any of the others are allowed to have as loud an artistic voice as him. When they are "asked for their suggestions," that's Feige throwing them a bone and playing Nice Dad. But believe me, any suggestion that might compromise his vision for the MCU would be firmly rejected, you can be sure of that. At the end of the day these are his movies, and everyone inside Marvel Studios--and everyone working with them/him--knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right, he is giving them room to express themselves, so long as their vision doesn't compromise his. Maybe the phrase "tight leash" came across as too harsh, but from Disney's point of view, that is exactly what it is. Some have chafed at that leash, others have not. But the leash is still there, and it is very definitely doing its job (for the betterment of the brand, if you ask me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, there's a difference between people quitting a movie and people not making a sequel.  For example there's been 24 official James Bond movies and 2 others, and no director lasts more than a few films.  They didn't "quit" they just didn't make every single film in a series.

 

A project like Marvel needs a strong visionary head, someone with a lock on what can and cannot be done, what fits the world and what does not.  That's how the Bond movies have been made (although lately that seems to have been slipping some).  Sometimes directors are going to have a problem with that, not because its unreasonable, but because they have their idea of how it should be or what they want made, and it may not fit the "Bible" on the movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Gunn is an auteur who had free reign on GotG2. 

 

Arguably Whedon put is vison down with The Avengers (first one). 

 

That is two examples of it working. 

 

Also Gunn is helming (or sub helming) the expanded cosmic corner of the MCU.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually seen an interview with Kevin Feige in which he expressed trepidation with what director Shane Black wanted to do with Iron Man 3, in regards to how the audience would respond to it. In this case he trusted his director's vision, so it counts as another example of Feige giving a director self-expressive room. Although it probably helped a great deal that RDJ had pushed for Black to helm the picture. ;)

 

Whatever some fans' opinions of IM3 might be, it did enormous box office, so it's hard to say Feige was wrong in his decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bazza said:

James Gunn is an auteur who had free reign on GotG2. 

 

Your definition of "free reign" is rather different from mine.

 

Whedon has repeatedly said in interviews that part of the reason he didn't especially want to do Avengers 2, or be the creative lead on the MCU going forward (the way Favreau was originally tapped to after Iron Man) was that the scope and responsibilities of that role exceeded the creative freedom he would have. Favreau bowed out of that role for similar reasons. Their ultimate masters are Feige and the Disney executives that pay them, and those people had compromising agendas that no amount of so-called "free reign" could overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign me up as cheering for the controlling corporate masters, because after the fact the majority of the stuff Whedon said he fought to keep or wanted more of in Age of Ultron would have been better left on the cutting room floor IMHO. The man writes friendship and camaraderie well but over the past decade and a half he's almost always faceplanted when trying to deal with romance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Your definition of "free reign" is rather different from mine.

 

Whedon has repeatedly said in interviews that part of the reason he didn't especially want to do Avengers 2, or be the creative lead on the MCU going forward (the way Favreau was originally tapped to after Iron Man) was that the scope and responsibilities of that role exceeded the creative freedom he would have. Favreau bowed out of that role for similar reasons. Their ultimate masters are Feige and the Disney executives that pay them, and those people had compromising agendas that no amount of so-called "free reign" could overcome.

 

*rein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Your definition of "free reign" is rather different from mine.

 

Whedon has repeatedly said in interviews that part of the reason he didn't especially want to do Avengers 2, or be the creative lead on the MCU going forward (the way Favreau was originally tapped to after Iron Man) was that the scope and responsibilities of that role exceeded the creative freedom he would have. Favreau bowed out of that role for similar reasons. Their ultimate masters are Feige and the Disney executives that pay them, and those people had compromising agendas that no amount of so-called "free reign" could overcome.

 

So Whedon should have a chat with Gunn about being Feige's #2. Got it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 10:22 AM, Doc Shadow said:

Which only makes sense really. An actor is more likely to stay with the studio and not get all grabby/greedy about the money if they genuinely like the way the project is going.

You’re also more likely to get a good performance out of them if it’s a direction that resonates with them and one they feel they had input into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 1:39 PM, Sociotard said:

But we are getting Red Sparrow, which is basically the same thing.

 

As it happens I saw Red Sparrow, and it... wasn't a Black Widow movie.  Excellent spy thriller, but slower than one would expect an MCU film to be.    It did have action scenes, in the way that The Godfather had action scenes.  Don't take the kids to see it.   Edgerton and J-Law are phenomenal as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:54 PM, Lord Liaden said:

I've actually seen an interview with Kevin Feige in which he expressed trepidation with what director Shane Black wanted to do with Iron Man 3, in regards to how the audience would respond to it. In this case he trusted his director's vision, so it counts as another example of Feige giving a director self-expressive room. Although it probably helped a great deal that RDJ had pushed for Black to helm the picture. ;)

 

Whatever some fans' opinions of IM3 might be, it did enormous box office, so it's hard to say Feige was wrong in his decision.

 

IM3 was highly flawed, but I frickin' loved it. I'll take Shane Black rewriting "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" as an Iron Man movie, any day.  I think the big piece that didn't work was that the film seemed to be designed to write Stark out of the forefront of Marvel movies, but then... that didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×