tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post8562648578668915636..comments2024-03-28T03:10:19.013-07:00Comments on Fraggmented: The Current Marvel Movie StandingsJohn Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07530526320973807452noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-29184207965602309382015-07-22T12:23:01.406-07:002015-07-22T12:23:01.406-07:00What's been neat about the Marvel Studios film...What's been neat about the Marvel Studios films, which you point to and others illumine, is that we're seeing a sort of return to old Studio System. For the past few decades, even the most intrusive studio or production interference with projects didn't hold back that the Auteur System was the One True Way that film was being done. When Marvel Studios got back the Avengers properties and started making these films, the real change wasn't just the continuity interconnection but the logistical infrastructure – the role of Kevin Feige and later how Joss Whedon and others would bounce between projects to keep consistency. While the trades make note of production-versus-individuals, it's really Marvel being an old-school Studio System – which the experience of the comics Editorial Office and Bullpen model always drew directly from. That's where we get this fine-tuned series of one good film after another – and I'm curious how other studios will learn from that (Warners has a very different structure; having Geoff Johns as a liaison between independent projects that have continuity nods isn't the same as a Studio System, so its not going to have the same modular logistics – and that's not the debate that anyone's having). The reason that THE INCREDIBLE HULK, for example, was a bit sloppy (although a good film) was Marvel learning to rebuild the old Studio System and make it work (similarly, the critiques about IRON MAN 2 really boil down to learning how to structure a sequel in the new model, so like with TIH this was a 'first-draft' sort of film where they learned how-tos on things).Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10058171030261812885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-67292642507711524262015-07-21T11:49:34.009-07:002015-07-21T11:49:34.009-07:00Do the two "Fantastic 4" movies not coun...Do the two "Fantastic 4" movies not count because of the impending reboot?magidinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255841033538755123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-8425260214808578872015-07-21T08:08:42.925-07:002015-07-21T08:08:42.925-07:00Part III
And so working for Feige, for both teams...Part III<br /><br />And so working for Feige, for both teams, is not something they haven't seen before. The problem with hiring auteurs is that perhaps they don't understand that. Afterall, it's been said that movies are a director's medium while TV is a producer's. The directors who don't understand that get in trouble. James Gunn has no problem being a "Marvel" director despite being an indie himself. He seems to have written some things about Edgar Wright and Joss that shows he understands both sides of the issue. Marvel isn't the evil overlord, but it's system maybe isn't for everyone.<br /><br />Remember, Joss had all he wanted for Serenity and it was a bomb. (It was also a poorly directed movie, with its action scenes appearing static and movement obviously very choreographed. Having a company like Marvel with its resources covering your back an really help make a writer like Whedon appear to be a much stronger director than I suspect he really is.<br /><br />At least these are my thoughts. Now that I've read this, I suspect I haven't left you anywhere to go. If you agree, you agree. If you disagree, then maybe you can comment. But I really think I am on to something here. Marvel isn't making movies, it's making one long TV show that appears in movie theaters.<br /><br />I suspect that's where DC will go wrong. They pick strong directors for each indivdual film, so a single film might be strong, but they will clash and make wanting to see all the films to understand the universe less than important.<br /><br />Or I could be wrong.Jim Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-16698647620189293042015-07-21T08:07:54.661-07:002015-07-21T08:07:54.661-07:00Part II
My thinking is this – Take a show like Br...Part II<br /><br />My thinking is this – Take a show like Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul. (I count them as one show. Same show runners, same crew, some of the same actors operating in the same universe).<br /><br />Vince Gilligan is the boss. Yes, he works with directors, writers and actors. And he's been generous in giving them credit for their strong contributions to his universe. But he's the boss. He's the final decider. Everything that appears on the screen has his final stamp of approval. And no one blinks an eye because that's the way TV works. A director is a "gun-for-hire" who serves the vision of the head producer. So there's no way a TV director would try to impose his vision ahead of Vince Gilligan. Now I use the Breaking Bad example for a couple of reasons. First Gilligan is putting out quality shows that no disputes are good. Second, in addition to putting some TV directors on the map - Michelle MacLaren (who was going to direct Thor until artistic differences ensued) he also hires feature film directors - Rian Johnson, who directed Bruce Willis in Looper. These guys served Gilligan's vision.<br /><br />Now to Marvel Studios. It serves Kevin Feige's vision. Directors like Joss Whedon (He really isn't a director. Two of his three films are Marvel films. He is himself a show runner. I suspect much of the friction he had in Avengers II can be traced to him not liking to take orders. He's the guy who gives orders.) Kenneth Branaugh, Well, I don't think he was ever going to be a company man. Good choice for Thor, but he still didn't make Brian Blessed Volstagg - there is a guy who could have made a meal of that part.)<br /><br />Joe Johnston - You named it right. WWII comic movies are his wheel-house. <br />Jon Faverau- bold choice. But his indie habits failed him in Iron Man II. A good film, but you could see the seams, and they weren't because of the Black Widow. I think Cowboys and Aliens show that Indie looseness can really fail.<br /><br />MacLaren thought she was a movie director and not a TV director with Thor. I think Alan Taylor had the same problem with Thor II. Given the disaster that is Terminator Genysis, the firm hand of Kevin Feige has again shown its value.<br /><br />The artists who work best in the Marvel system - The Russo brothers and writers Christopher Marcus and Stepen McFeely - are used to working in a system where there's always a "next." Just look at the Narnia movies. Each movie has to be a movie on its own, but they are part of a larger whole. <br /><br />The Russos are known for Arrested Development and Community. TV shows where their styles serve the vision of people like Dan Harmon and Mitchell Hurwitz. And they also directed their own movies, but understand their role in TV.Jim Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-74581496732617024202015-07-21T08:05:35.472-07:002015-07-21T08:05:35.472-07:00Mr. Seavey,
Well written review. I would like to ...Mr. Seavey,<br /><br />Well written review. I would like to share a couple of thoughts. First, all the Marvel movies are well made. Both in the technical sense and in the story sense.<br /><br />I was not a fan of Man of Steel for a variety of reasons, not the least because seeing all the buildings tumble down made me uneasy in a sort of "this reminds me of 9/11 footage I saw and now I am uneasy" way. In Age of Ultron, they show the actual people on the streets, their terror and the aftermath of such a terrbile incident. Even psyched-out Hulk is taken aback by the destruction and feels guilty.<br /><br />But I also want to share this thought with you and hope that you use your insight from my, as far as I know original observation, for a column in the future. (I won't argue is someone were to go on the Internet as say "Hey, someone else came up with this first).<br /><br />My observation is this – Marvel isn't make movies as we understand them. The studio is really making a TV show where the final product is shown on movie screens.<br /><br />Jim Snoreply@blogger.com