Marvel Studios Shake-up

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by Jeyl, Sep 3, 2015.

  1. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Anyone else hear about this? I'm looking across the web and all heck broken loose.

    According to Devin Faraci, the 'Marvel Creative Committee', a group responsible for passing notes on how they want the Marvel films to proceed have been disbanded. Apparently the committee has been such a pain in the rear for the actual talent working behind the scenes that Kevin Feige and Disney agreed that enough was enough. So after Civil War and (supposedly) Doctor Strange, Marvel Studios is going to do things differently. I can't say I'm surprised by this sort of action since Phase 2 has more or less been marred with creative troubles for many of their projects. According to Rich Johnston at bleedingcool.com, this comes in the aftermath of Age of Ultron not performing as well as the first Avengers movie. I can sort of see why that is since Joss Whedon has publicly spoken about how displeased he was regarding the 'creative decisions' he was mandated to follow which lead to Ultron's most confusing and criticized moments and criminally short running time.

    The key figure in this committee, who Devin credits as being the man responsible for Marvel Studios in the first place, was Ike Perlmutter. Vanityfair.com reported that Ike's Toy Biz company helped rescue Marvel from Bankruptcy back in the 1900s and had a huge say in how things went. “Disney owns Marvel, but Ike gets to control every budget and everything spent on marketing, down to the penny.” Not bad so far, until you see how he thought the MCU should be handled. In an article written by Carolyn Cox over at themarysue.com, Ike was problematic in a couple of areas. When the Sony email hack occured, he was pretty much the one sole person responsible for Marvel Studios long track record of movies not having much diversity. In one of the leaked emails, Ike outlined why "Female Movies" were bad business and cited Electra, Catwoman and Supergirl as examples. He even mentioned how, despite their importance to their said franchises, the movies were disasters. He never once bothered to explain why the movies were bad in the first place. Other issues? He allegedly made a comment that movie goers wouldn't mind the recast of Rhodes because Tarrance Howard and Don Cheadle "look the same".

    So where does this leave Marvel now? Probably in a better place. Looking back at Kevin Feige's comments regarding how he hoped a female lead movie would happen "sooner rather than later", it all of a sudden make sense now. He wasn't really in charge of that. Here's hoping that with his new role, he'll be able to get things done without all the drama.

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. kegas76

    kegas76 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    836
    That just sounds odd to my ears and makes be feel overly aged.
     
    Riceball likes this.
  3. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Sorry. It's one of my favorite jokes. Anything that happened between 1900-1999 I always label as happening in the 1900s. It throws you off while still being technically correct.
     
  4. Axlotl

    Axlotl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,165
    OMG! :eek

    I say "Great!" Bring on Captain Marvel and Squirrel Girl!
     
    Riceball and harrisonp like this.
  5. Wes R

    Wes R Legendary Member

    Trophy Points:
    6,750
    I'm not surprised someone linked to Toy Biz was still hooked to Marvel, it's what lead them to make a fortune off the Hasbro Marvel toys after Hasbro bought Toy Biz. They trusted the guy to guide them even if he sounded out of touch and clueless. And to be fair Supergirl isn't that bad for an 80s movie lol
     
  6. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    Isn't there a dedicated thread for his proselytizing?:rolleyes
     
  7. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    I assure you that you are safe to bring up what ever you want that's related to the discussion. I've made my point, so let's speculate! Is there anything I missed?
     
    harrisonp likes this.
  8. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    After the gross take of Lucy I wouldn't be surprised if they push for a Black Widow movie now. That's unfortunate because IMO that character's premise will not translate very well to being center-stage for 2 hours. (I think Wolverine has the same problem.)
     
  9. Paul Andrew

    Paul Andrew Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    I think a spy thriller with Black Widow would be rad.
     
  10. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Origins was a complete mess. The Wolverine on the other hand? It was pretty solid. I'm more comfortable watching a movie specifically about him than watching a movie about a team that just so happens to be about him as well.

    Back to Black Widow, ever since the first Avengers movie she's been established as having a very dark and regretful past that she is trying to make amends for. What she did, why she switched sides and why she's more committed to doing good are still things that we haven't really delved into yet. At least not in a meaningful way so long as she's just a supporting character. Even I was scratching my head at why Joss decided to go with the whole 'monster' exchange with Banner. It felt more like he was trying to give her something to say that in the end wouldn't matter all that much. Is anyone really expecting her "I can't have babies so I am a monster" issue to delved at further? I don't think so.

    And if she does get her own movie, I vote for an R rating. The MCU already has Kingpin decapitating people's heads off with a car door. I think Natasha's past should be on the same adult level.
     
  11. Dessa

    Dessa Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    836
    I never saw it as having to do with the baby issue (at least, not directly). I saw her "monster" comment as her saying that they'd taken away what made her "human" (emotions, ability to bear children, etc), so obviously what was left was non-human, or a monster. The babies reference was more because Banner thought that she'd want to be with someone who could give her babies, and she pointed out that she couldn't have them anyway.
     
  12. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    The "monster" thing ties to the "red in her ledger" thing from Cap2, in my opinion. The "I can't have babies" thing has more to do with Banner not wanting to be involved with her if he wants a family (seeing as how they'd just been hanging around with Hawkeye's family). It wasn't "I'm a monster because I can't have babies." I think the monster/red-ledger thing is still pretty rich for story possibilities. It's the classic "mysterious, dark backstory." You could introduce some SHIELD agents who work with her on this issue, rather than having it be the usual Avengers or the Avengers B-Team. Or hell, just have Clint go with her. We've still got HIS backstory to look into, also.


    Anyway, from what I've read about this guy, he was good with money and that's about it. His influence has otherwise been largely negative. And by "Good with money," I mean, apparently, "Legendarily cheap."
     
    Riceball likes this.
  13. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    And that's not the half of it. Remember that vanity article that mentioned how Ike made a comment about recasting Rhodes and how both actors 'look the same'? That comment was directed to Chairman of Disney consumer products Andy Mooney, who had left the position sometime after due to conflicts he had with Ike. And it gets better. According to this ft article which was referenced in the Vanity article linked above,

    "Several lieutenants followed, including three female executives who hired a lawyer to seek individual financial settlements. Separately, another senior female executive filed an internal complaint about Mr Perlmutter, alleging that he made threatening remarks to her. The woman eventually changed jobs at Disney."

    Forget Natasha and Banner, I think we know who the 'real' monster of the MCU was.
     
    Riceball, George and Wes R like this.
  14. batguy

    batguy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,990
    Yeah that guy sounds like a piece of work.


    I guess Natasha Romanov seems like one of the Wolverine or Han Solo type characters to me. Everyone begs for a standalone/origin movie. They give it an honest try and everyone sees the movie. The result is mediocre. It's not BAD but it feels disappointing and the character ends up worse off for it. The character just never works as well in a starring role as he/she did in the supporting roles.
     
    Riceball likes this.
  15. George

    George Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,207
    A new era for Marvel,I hope,and with less reboots for starters.That made me skip lunch...
     

Share This Page