66
Marvel calls for more reshoots on ‘Captain America: Brave New World’ after failed test screening
(www.worldofreel.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
66 points (95.8% liked)
movies
1919 readers
246 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looked up the director, and can't say I have seen anything beyond Cloverfield Paradox, which didn't wow me. So maybe hiring someone who didn't really do any work for 4 years didn't make an interesting movie? This whole project seems like someone hated Falcon and Winter Soldier and vowed to make it so terrible that no one will ever watch it again.
It seemed like an easy bunt of a movie: Make a 90s political thriller (like they did with Winter Soldier) and call it a day. Yet here we are, a lackluster release. Just scrap it for taxes.
One of the problems Disney has is that they want total control over their movies so they only hire directors who will churn out product and not push back.
Those kind of directors seldom make good movies.
They still hire some solid directors and then end up with a movie where the best parts are the director's vision and the worst parts are those that he execs stuffed in, like most movies.
That's kind of what I'm saying. Any director working for them has to be OK with the studio taking their movie and fucking around with it, they don't get to kick up a fuss.
That automatically excludes a whole bunch of really talented directors who actually might make something worth watching if the studio wasn't so meddlesome.
Which all so sad since the movie that started it all was completely left alone and up to the director.
Taiki Waititi? Sam Raimi? James Gunn?
I mean I get what you're going for, but I would say that they've given the reign to some directors who are definitely allowed a little bit of freedom (in Waititi's case probably too much), and whose films outside of Disney are generally well regarded and are not considered directors who "churn out product."
As David Cross proved with the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie after making fun of Patton Oswalt for being in Ratatouille: everybody needs a big paycheck once in a while.
They get more slack. But you can practically see the moment the Disney executive walks into the room, in Dr Strange 2, and starts making decisions over Raimi's head.
Waititi figured out how to go with the flow and still churn good stuff in Love and Thunder. But so much of what he did was a deliberate subversion of Disney tropes, it's like he hoodwinked the producers.
On the flip side, his series "Reservation Dogs" feels like something Disney would have put out thirty years ago, but has completely forgotten how to do anymore.
And because I'm in the mood to fight, I'm going to say Guardians (particularly 3) is highly overrated.
Big ups for Reservation Dogs, agreed. I actually also agree about the Guardians movies being overrated, but they're still fun little romps. Gunn's most subversive days are long past.
Oh, I absolutely do not begrudge anyone getting a paycheck, we all need to eat.
I don't think any of the directors you mentioned would push back against studio interference though. There are directors who will trade control for a paycheck and there are ones who won't. The ones who won't often make more interesting movies.
That's because there's only one other film since. He might have been working on thus since, I suppose, but what I don't get is how anyone saw the mediocre Cloverfield Paradox and thought "that's our guy!" However, I suppose that's why they call him the "director" in the article as he's just the frontman.