Marvel Comics on Film

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#326 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:06 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:13 pm
When that Doctor Strange sequel was announced, he said the intent was to make it psychedelic horror, which in retrospect I should have known was not going to fly with the people who wouldn’t let Edgar Wright do “moderately zany Ant-Man”
Hey, Wright bailing on Ant-Man means we got Baby Driver instead, so I'll accept that trade-off any day of the week.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#327 Post by Finch » Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:33 am

Pity we'll never know if Derrickson's departure was Feige himself deciding Derrickson's ideas didn't sit well with him or if Mssrs Iger and Horn told him to give Derrickson the marching orders. Doctor Strange was one of the two or so Marvel films I genuinely liked, so my own interest in the sequel has now nosedived as well. They could hire someone who in theory is even better suited to the material than Derrickson but any filmmaker short of Spielberg and Cameron wouldn't stand a chance not to have Disney's choices imposed upon them or have the film taken away from them. Marvel prior to the Disney takeover weren't the boldest studio by any stretch of the imagination but under Iger they're likely to be even less adventurous. The huge success of the MCU gives Feige some leeway but it takes only two or three future MCU films to significantly underperform for the leash to be tightened swiftly. And Iger had the nerve to get offended by Scorsese's comments.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#328 Post by tenia » Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:25 am

DarkImbecile wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:13 pm
When that Doctor Strange sequel was announced, he said the intent was to make it psychedelic horror, which in retrospect I should have known was not going to fly with the people who wouldn’t let Edgar Wright do “moderately zany Ant-Man”
IIRC, many thought as soon as this direction was announced "wow, that's surprising, and probably unlikely to stay this way". It seemed even more unlikely considering the issues Fox were having in parallel with their theorically-horror New Mutants fare.
In any case, it seems even Scott Derrickson is not enough of a Yes Man for Disney.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#329 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:24 pm

Of course people thought the same thing about giving the helm to Boden & Fleck but that one still worked out

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#330 Post by Brian C » Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:29 pm

Directors come and go all the time on non-franchise, non-Disney stuff too. Seems like people are jumping to conclusions here just a bit.

At any rate, the notion that Derrickson was “forced out” is not supported by the linked THR article.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#331 Post by willoneill » Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:20 pm

Brian C wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:29 pm
Directors come and go all the time on non-franchise, non-Disney stuff too. Seems like people are jumping to conclusions here just a bit.

At any rate, the notion that Derrickson was “forced out” is not supported by the linked THR article.
We have no idea what happened behind closed doors, but you can't really deny there's a pattern at the Mouse House lately, more so than at any other studio.

User avatar
Moshrom
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:53 am
Location: Canada

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#332 Post by Moshrom » Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:29 pm

A force-out wouldn't be surprising to hear, but a passive-aggressive "we're not a right fit, Scott; we've decided to ask someone else to finish the film" is more likely. All conjecture, of course, until the inevitable tell-all autobiography about navigating the Marvel/Disney autocracy we'll hopefully see in the future. Count me as another who found Dr. Strange (2016) as one of the more interesting films in the franchise. (Although I too wouldn't have known Derrickson's name before this hoopla...)

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#333 Post by Finch » Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:53 pm

Derrickson was by no means a brilliant filmmaker (and as much as I like Edgar Wright's films, Shaun, Hot Fuzz and Baby Driver are pretty good but nothing in Wright's filmography feels like a masterpiece to me, though I keep hoping that something eventually will) but he was one of the more interesting directors working for Marvel. According to people who've paid more attention to the film's development than me until now, Feige and Marvel have been backtracking on Derrickson's "it's going to be a horror film" comments for several weeks, and Derrickson has openly tweeted about his frustrations over having to hit a specific deadline as per Disney's schedule. In all that context, I find it even more mind-boggling that Marvel ever approached Lucrecia Martel to direct something for them (Black Widow, wasn't it?).

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#334 Post by Monterey Jack » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:07 am

Finch wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:53 pm
In all that context, I find it even more mind-boggling that Marvel ever approached Lucrecia Martel to direct something for them (Black Widow, wasn't it?).
In that specific case, it was no doubt a "No matter who we choose, make sure it's a woman!" thing. 8-[

User avatar
BenoitRouilly
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#335 Post by BenoitRouilly » Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:17 pm

"[...] Cinephiles must wake up. It's not a generational struggle, it's destruction of art, present and past, by loosy salesmen."
Cahiers Edito, january 2020 (in French). on the Scorsese Op Ed backlash.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#336 Post by Big Ben » Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:36 pm

At some point though Marvel is going to start running on fumes and will start to see diminishing returns. I'm just not sure how long that will take to happen though.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#337 Post by Rayon Vert » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:11 pm

BenoitRouilly wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:17 pm
by loosy salesmen."
"loosy"?

"by carpet dealers" would be more accurate.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#338 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm

It’s a French colloquialism meaning “haggler,” I suspect BR as (I believe) a native French speaker was trying to approximate it with his translation choice

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#339 Post by tenia » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:45 pm

It's indeed the French for haggler.

User avatar
BenoitRouilly
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#340 Post by BenoitRouilly » Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:14 pm

I suspected "carpet dealers" wouldn't translate well in English. I wasn't sure if "haggler" had the meaning of "petty salesman".
But if you can read it in French all the better :)

User avatar
BenoitRouilly
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#341 Post by BenoitRouilly » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:38 pm

New interview of Vincent Cassel who chimes in on the Scorsese debate : Kombini, 13 jan 2020, 4'30" (FRENCH)

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#342 Post by Big Ben » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:49 pm


User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#343 Post by Monterey Jack » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:43 pm

Is it gonna be the prankish Darkman/Spider-Man 2 Raimi, or the squashed-by-studio-meddling Spider-Man 3 Raimi?

I'd rather see him do something original again.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#344 Post by Finch » Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:24 pm

With it being Disney, who wants to bet against it being the latter? Raimi shouldn't be this much of a surprise as he's done that dreadful Oz film for them.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#345 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:11 am

It's like Tim Burton, making his worst film with the 2010 Alice In Wonderland...then coming back a decade later for another wan live-action Disney remake (Dumbo). Remember when both filmmakers were anarchic, low-budget innovators? Do they need the money that much? Is it that hard to scrounge up $15 or $20 million to make something small, personal and from the heart?

Then again, considering how little Big Eyes and Drag Me To Hell made, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#346 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:13 am

I didn't see it and probably never will but Dumbo looked way better than any of the other live action Disney remakes (though I'm guessing the crows didn't make it)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#347 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:23 am

I actually sort of enjoyed Dumbo (it's certainly not the train wreck that Alice was), but I kept reflecting on how it should have a been a home-run perfect fit for Burton's sensibilities -- it's a movie about a freakish outsider living in a circus, for God's sake! -- and how forgettable it all turned out to be. How you fail to wring any real emotion out of re-staging one of the most heartbreaking scenes in all of Disney animation (the "Baby Mine" song), when, thirty years ago, you made audiences weep at Edward Scissorhands, is beyond me.

That's what I want to see more of from inspired lunatics from Burton and Raimi, eccentric-yet-heartfelt stuff that emits from their own creative ids, not just slapping a new gloss of paint on someone else's creation and cashing a check. You'd have to go back to Corpse Bride to find a Burton movie that was a 100% Burton Movie (even Frankenweenie was a remake of his own short film), and the only Full Raimi movie in the last twenty years was Drag Me To Hell.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#348 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:32 am

It retrospect, I'm glad that Edgar Wright never made Ant-Man, or that Guillermo Del Toro never made the Hobbit movies...these are ferociously innovative and original filmmakers who should never be yoked to someone else's IP. Look at Peter Jackson, who will probably never make another modestly-budgeted original movie again.

Money kills creativity.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#349 Post by Big Ben » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:33 am

I suppose it simply come down to how much control Raimi has over the production. That phrase "A camel is a horse designed by committee" comes to mind. I'm certain Marvel could at least market on his name alone.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#350 Post by Monterey Jack » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:42 am

I mean, Raimi was allowed a great deal of leeway on Spider-Man 2 when the first became a smash hit, and it turned out to be the best and most "Raimi-esque" of the trilogy, but the MCU hasn't exactly been an auteur-friendly machine. The first Thor was a neat fit with director Kenneth Branagh's Shakespearean fetishes, but the second was directed by...the guy who made Terminator: Genisys and a bunch of Game Of Thrones episodes.

That's because the MCU is, at this point, a television series writ large, and most TV shows don't have big-name filmmakers allowed to slather their stylistic tics and recurring thematic ideas on individual episodes, because that'd be distracting watching those episodes back-to-back. Disney wants as consistent a style in these films as possible (same color-timing, same visual F/X, same mediocre, droning scores with no discernable melodies), so to suddenly have a manic, Sam Raimi Dr. Strange would be like biting into a Twinkie, only to find it filled with hot sauce. Yeah, Raimi fans like me might be delighted, but MCU audiences would probably find it weird and confusing. I'd love to see Raimi allowed to go nuts with this property, but I bet he'd be creatively muzzled by the experience.

Post Reply