They realized when directors get to have their own visions they succeed. Marvel got such a high point because they obviously had bare minimum rules but they let the directors be themselves. Guardians wouldnt have ever worked without letting a director really play around
Hah hah. Nope.
Ang Lee had “his own vision” in the Hulk movie, for example, and it was terrible. Batman v Superman was pretty much Zack Snyder’s vision, and it was a big disappointment for the audience, that drew viewers away.
Studios of course can’t let all directors “have their own vision”, they have to supervise and intervene when necessary. First step shall be ALWAYS reach an agreement with the director about what the movie should be, and respect those agreements.
Marvel doesn’t have “minimal rules” at all. They have had their share of problems with directors.
Joss Whedon left in bad terms because Marvel changed many things from his movie, a big part of the development was left in the cutting room, they forced him to add that Thor “well of the Gods” thing that felt rather forced.
Alan Taylor (Thor: The Dark World) was kicked out of the editing room and that was a big thing for a while (see how the movie turned out). And then you have the departure of Edgar Wright.
They also brought Rick & Morty creator to add more jokes to Doctor Strange after the movie was already shot, John Spaihts (horror director) was seemingly OK with that, but that shows they didn’t stick with the original vision for one reason or antoher.
I’m absolutely sure Marvel doesn’t have “minimal rules”, but lately they’ve been careful about which directors they choose, and above all, they reach an agreement with them before they start working in the film.
They def have minimal rules set. They’ve talked about storylines/themes and characters that were nonos.
BvS wasn’t Zack Snyder’s vision. He didn’t want to do the movie in the first place. The studio was the one that insisted on putting Man of Steel into a shared universe. They also insisted on BvS instead to MOS2 which Snyder actually wanted to do. Also his vision of the movie, the Ultimate Cut, got butchered by the studio because they wanted a shorter run time.
Give me a new Constantine movie…you cowards.
Ang Lee Hulk is actually a pretty good movie. It’s better then Iron Man 2 or 3. Better then Dark World to.
Man of Steel didn’t work much either. The audience was really lukewarm.
And it’s obviously Snyder was truly invested in the project, it was his baby, that much that he keeps on posting about what were sus plans for Justice League and forward, three years after the movie.
Constantine/Hellblazer works better as a tv series.
It wasn’t. Audience didn’t like it, and it barely broke even. So, giving all the control to the director is not the way to go if you want your movie franchises to thrive.
Audiences not liking has really nothing to do with it being good or not. Audiences dislike.plenty of things that are very good while liking plenty of things that are fucking garbage.
Argue the movies merits, not it’s box office take. I really dont give a shit about a movies box office take when it comes to wether something is good or not.
If you’re trying to do a big feat such as creating a row of adaptions of your superhero properties (that is what WB intends), you need the financial success. Otherwise, it will show the audience is not interested and your future projects will end up bombing. Movies is a BUSINESS.
DC heroes are an ASSET. You can’t let it spoil by giving the keys to all directors to do pet projects and turn your round hoping everything will be ok; you need to supervise and try to guarantee that the movie will be succesful; like, PROFITABLE. Otherwise your future projects will have to be cancelled and your whole “Worlds of DC” line will likely be doomed.
I disagree. I found Ang Lee’s Hulk incredibly boring and everything that happened in the movie unengaging. I don’t see how it’s better than Iron Man 3.
Duh movies are a business, but I’m not so I don’t really care about that shit. I said it was a good movie, I didn’t say it was a successful one.
[quote=“Hawkingbird, post:3854, topic:148382”]
I disagree. I found Ang Lee’s Hulk incredibly boring and everything that happened in the movie unengaging. I don’t see how it’s better than Iron Man 3.[/quote] Cool bro.
That’s what most fanboys say but you know, the ONLY thing that matters is how much money the movie makesl.
Why? Because whether a movie is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is highly subjective.
Exhibit A: you think Hulk is a big movie “so they should keep producing movies like this, giving the directors all the control”, while most people thought it was bad.
That was the same mentality of the Snyder-fanboys that thought Batman v Superman was a masterpiece and WB “should let him continue his vision”, without taking into account that financially he was running the DC Universe to the ground.
There was no way DC movies could have survived that.
Box office success is what really matters, specially in the very beginning, so we can have a thriving franchise that expands and ramifies into more interesting and diverse ways (see the X-Men movie franchise).
sigh you are such a condescending dick head.
It’s just fucking amazing to me that I can simply say one movie is good and better then a couple of others and that somehow lumps me in with having said a bunch of other shit I never fucking said while calling me a fucking fanboy the whole time.
You sir can eat shit. Fucking asshole.
X-2 and Logan are literally the only good x-men movies.
And X-2 isn’t even that good. The supporting cast of Alan Cumming and Brian Cox fucking carry that movie. Without them it’s barely watchable.
Logan, despite some questionable directions the movie took (killing off Xavier for example) is still a solid movie that holds up without the need of the rest of the extremely shitty X-men cinematic universe.
X-Men: First Class.
X-Men: Days of Future Past.
All of them excellent.
X-Men 1 and The Wolverine were decent.
Then you have the blunders X-Men 3, Wolverine Origins and Apocalypse.
You can be entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t change the fact movies like The Hulk weren’t well recieved by the audience. That’s why they didn’t have sequels.
You simply can’t build a franchise on a stravaganzza movie with no limits to whatever the director decides. You definitely need supervision and course-correction from the studio, that’s how a franchise is built.
You have an extremely low set bar when it comes to what you consider “excellent”
Deadpool is great but it’s not an x-men movie. Having x-men featured does not make it an x-men movie.
Deadpool 2 pales in comparison to 1. I don’t see it as a good movie. It’s “watchable” but not good.
First class and Days of Future Past are bad movies carried by an awesome cast.
The first x-men movie is bad and has aged even worse.
I never said any of those things asshole, i never said it was well received (no duh it wasnt) and i never said it birthed a franchise, or was capable of it, obviously bot because it didnt. Your arguing with a ghost.
I said it was a good movie.
Anyway, the movies made good money and the audience like them, that means they’re doing something right at least.
Batman v Superman was a Snyder-led “director product”, had bad reviews, underperformed (according to WB expectations) and the audience disliked them, that’s why Justice League, the follow-up movie, sunk in box office.