THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023) 9 9

[Gatsby77]

27 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I loved Captain Marvel. For me, the casting was spot on and I found the "road movie to self-discovery" story compelling.

But equally, I loved how Marvel Studios used so much Captain Marvel and Carol Danvers lore from the comics. We saw bits of the Mar-Vell vs Yonn Rogg story, the Kree device explosion which transforms Carol, and a secret desert military base housing Kree alien technology from the original Stan Lee/Roy Thomas stories (I guess that's the "Witch Mountain" part you're referring to). The movie used the history of comic book Carol's repeated bouts of memory loss, long disappearances from Earth, and depowering. The movie used more recent story elements from Kelly Sue DeConnick's take on the character. It was great, for me, watching the movie and seeing so many of these comic elements used in the movie, especially as Carol's origins aren't as fleshed out as her male co-stars. Marvel Studios did a great job tying the comic book elements together into something new.

Not to mention the Skrull twist - which I (personally) didn't see coming, and was arguably the 3rd-greatest MCU twist (after the Mandarin and "I'm always angry").

[akaSteveRogers]

2 hours ago, Grails said:

Am I the only one who really liked Doctor Strange?

Hell no!  I loved Strange.  I really didnt expect to enjoy as much as I did.  Inception-esque with the effects. And Cumberbatch played the a--hole Stephen Strange pretty well in the first act of the film.   

[akaSteveRogers]

2 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

People didn't like Doctor Strange's director??

I thought the writing and direction on that film was remarkable - it was better than any Dr. Strange film had a right to be.

I also love that one the writers was a former AICN guy. Harry Knowles must have been seething at his success.

 

Re-watch anytime Im scrolling through channels and see it on. Every. Time.

[akaSteveRogers]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I thoroughly enjoyed that film and not only saw it in 2-D with friends but later took my wife to see it in 3-D (and she thought it was a lot of fun).

But hey. Don't go by my opinion. I only read the comic books and kept them for some reason. What do I know?

Upset I didnt see this in 3D.   

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, akaSteveRogers said:

Upset I didnt see this in 3D.   

The Dormammu scene was incredible in 3-D. I would do that entire film again at a 3-D theater.

[paperheart]

looks like they've got their director

https://deadline.com/2020/08/captain-marvel-sequel-nia-dacosta-director-1202992213/

[@therealsilvermane]

Interesting choice, Nia Dacosta. Along with filmmakers like Chloe Zhao and Destin Daniel Cretin, Marvel Studios's Phase Four is being helmed in part by uber-talented indie directors who have made more thought-provoking films in the past. Is it a decision to get quality storytelling cheap, or is Marvel Studios trying to make their films go a little deeper going forward? I haven't seen Little Woods and none of us have seen the new Candyman, but from the trailers, DaCosta's style seems to have a darker more serious tone. 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

 

Quote

Justin Kroll: "Marvel is known for switching up its directors on its popular franchises..."

It is? Or is it due to events leading to actions taken?

• Iron Man 1 & 2: Jon Favreau
• Avengers 1 & 2: Joss Whedon
• Guardians 1 & 2: James Gunn
• Ant-Man 1 & 2: Peyron Reed
• Spider-Man 1 & 2: Jon Watts

Parted over creative differences or wanting to direct other films:

• Iron Man 3: Jon Favreau bowed out leading to Downey reaching out to Shane Black to direct
• Thor 2: Kenneth Branagh
• Thor 2: Patty Jenkins
• Ant-Man: Edgar Wright
• Black Panther: Ava DuVernay (dropped out right before announcement)
• Doctor Strange 2: Scott Derrickson

Edited August 6, 2020 by Bosco685

[theCapraAegagrus]

Killing off the title character would be "quality storytelling".

[@therealsilvermane]

27 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Killing off the title character would be "quality storytelling".

[@therealsilvermane]

45 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

It is? Or is it due to events leading to actions taken?

• Iron Man 1 & 2: Jon Favreau
• Avengers 1 & 2: Joss Whedon
• Guardians 1 & 2: James Gunn
• Ant-Man 1 & 2: Peyron Reed
• Spider-Man 1 & 2: Jon Watts

Parted over creative differences or wanting to direct other films:

• Iron Man 3: Jon Favreau bowed out leading to Downey reaching out to Shane Black to direct
• Thor 2: Kenneth Branagh
• Thor 2: Patty Jenkins
• Ant-Man: Edgar Wright
• Black Panther: Ava DuVernay (dropped out right before announcement)
• Doctor Strange 2: Scott Derrickson

So in other words Marvel is known for switching up its directors?

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

So in other words Marvel is known for switching up its directors?

In your own legend-building mind.

"Feige had this all mapped out decades ago and knew exactly what characters, directors, creative crews and scripts he wanted. Including the amazing Civil War which though the Russo brothers talked him into it of course he already knew this years ago and just went along with their pitch to make them feel like it was their idea..."

[@therealsilvermane]

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

In your own legend-building mind.

"Feige had this all mapped out decades ago and knew exactly what characters, directors, creative crews and scripts he wanted. Including the amazing Civil War which though the Russo brothers talked him into it of course he already knew this years ago and just went along with their pitch to make them feel like it was their idea..."

Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios have created, improvised, and adapted as they went along. That applied to the making of Iron Man, and it applied to the building of the MCU. If that meant switching up directors for whatever reason, including fresh perspectives or a change of direction, then they did it and still do it.

[Bosco685]

13 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios have created, improvised, and adapted as they went along. That applied to the making of Iron Man, and it applied to the building of the MCU. If that meant switching up directors for whatever reason, including fresh perspectives or a change of direction, then they did it and still do it.

Let the real MCU history play out versus making up narratives to boost your assumed legend even less factual. There is no doubt what the original visionary that established the MCU business case (David Maisel), Kevin Feige and the MCU overall team created is amazing. Attempting to enhanced this further with non-factual details is legend-building.

Favreau actually declined to work on Iron Man 3, forcing RDJ to reach out to Shane Black. That's the fact. Not a planned action as part of 'keeping it fresh'.

[@therealsilvermane]

33 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Let the real MCU history play out versus making up narratives to boost your assumed legend even less factual. There is no doubt what the original visionary that established the MCU business case (David Maisel), Kevin Feige and the MCU overall team created is amazing. Attempting to enhanced this further with non-factual details is legend-building.

Favreau actually declined to work on Iron Man 3, forcing RDJ to reach out to Shane Black. That's the fact. Not a planned action as part of 'keeping it fresh'.

I'm merely repeating what Kevin Feige said of the Marvel process. They set a goal(including more specifically a finish date) and reach that goal by any means necessary. This was obvious to me when I watched Iron Man the first time. Narratively, it seemed a bit of a mess to me and I thought, "did they just make this movie up as they went along?" Kevin Feige confirms that they did.

And legend building? Marvel Studios' record speaks for itself. I just state the obvious.

I'm fully aware some directors like Favreau walked away from helming MCU sequels. But there were just as many switch ups when a change of tone or style was needed. And it doesn't have to be planned 10 years in advance as you sarcastically suggest I or the article writer is saying. Joe Johnston wasn't brought back for Winter Soldier for a reason, even though he had one more film on his contract. The switch to Taika Waititi for Thor Ragnarok was done because boring Thor needed a fresh perspective. And if a filmmaker walks away of their own accord, then it's an opportunity to change things up and experiment with a new direction, like where the Russo Brothers took Avengers after Joss Whedon left. Scott Derrickson himself "walked away" because he didn't agree with the different perspective Marvel wanted to take Stephen Strange. "Keeping it fresh" can take many forms. And regarding Captain Marvel, since that's what we're here to talk about, switching director duties to a fresh talent like Nia DaCosta confirms to me that Marvel wants to take Carol Danvers' modern journey to a more complex place than her more light hearted adventure we saw from 30 years ago. Not unlike what Marvel Studios did with Captain America.

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'm merely repeating what Kevin Feige said of the Marvel process. They set a goal(including more specifically a finish date) and reach that goal by any means necessary. This was obvious to me when I watched Iron Man the first time. Narratively, it seemed a bit of a mess to me and I thought, "did they just make this movie up as they went along?" Kevin Feige confirms that they did.

And legend building? Marvel Studios' record speaks for itself. I just state the obvious.

I'm fully aware some directors like Favreau walked away from helming MCU sequels. But there were just as many switch ups when a change of tone or style was needed. And it doesn't have to be planned 10 years in advance as you sarcastically suggest I or the article writer is saying. Joe Johnston wasn't brought back for Winter Soldier for a reason, even though he had one more film on his contract. The switch to Taika Waititi for Thor Ragnarok was done because boring Thor needed a fresh perspective. And if a filmmaker walks away of their own accord, then it's an opportunity to change things up and experiment with a new direction, like where the Russo Brothers took Avengers after Joss Whedon left. Scott Derrickson himself "walked away" because he didn't agree with the different perspective Marvel wanted to take Stephen Strange. "Keeping it fresh" can take many forms. And regarding Captain Marvel, since that's what we're here to talk about, switching director duties to a fresh talent like Nia DaCosta confirms to me that Marvel wants to take Carol Danvers' modern journey to a more complex place than her more light hearted adventure we saw from 30 years ago. Not unlike what Marvel Studios did with Captain America.

YOU have been one that has tried to force the narrative everything being done within the MCU was all part of a planned roadmap and style. So yes, it is easy to be sarcastic with someone that blindly loyal to a legend being crafted.

Ohhh - so now the comparison of Captain Marvel and Captain America's film journeys line up when it fits a narrative you are trying to push? That's fantastic. Because only a page back you were noting how there was not story approach link.

 

[Bosco685]

Now this is cool.

 

[paperheart]

12 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

So in other words Marvel is known for switching up its directors?

how awful it would have been for Duverney to direct BP, perfectly happy to have had her krap the bed with A Wrinkle in Time instead.  WB has no problem picking up sloppy seconds from MCU.

Edited August 7, 2020 by paperheart

[Bosco685]

11 hours ago, paperheart said:

how awful it would have been for Duverney to direct BP, perfectly happy to have had her krap the bed with A Wrinkle in Time instead.  WB has no problem picking up sloppy seconds from MCU.

[Bosco685]

Now this is an example of a fanatical MCU fan that detracts from the news, ignoring the fact this 'indie director' is critically acclaimed already with such a limited list of films.