GOTG VOL. 3 Director James Gunn Believes "There Is Such A Thing As Superhero Fatigue"

@mountainman - why is it so hard for these filmmakers to understand that? They’re supposed to be the brains behind all of this and have so many resources for creative teams. I dont get why Ant Man couldn’t have been better. Why couldn’t Shazam be better. How hard is it to make a good movie lol. Why can’t they just look to movies that have WORKED like Winter Soldier.

@mountainman - The passing of the teachings. Richard Donnor (director of Reeve's Superman) told that to Kevin Feige, then Kevin Feige passed that down to Gunn and every MCU director.

Its not Superhero movie fatigue, just average to shit movie fatigue. Like Gunn says most audiences are here for the character and story not the meaningless spectacle. This applies to every movie genre, not just superhero.

@Frshcoupe - Gunn addresses this in the actual article. There's no single formula or genre that works for every film. His upcoming Superman Legacy film is not just going to be Gotg with new faces, its going to be a completely different film and tone. That is why every MCU movie isn't just a copy/paste Russo Brother's marvel film.

Shazam 2 and Antman 3 sucked because in all the interviews the directors wanted to focus on "bigger spectacle" and "world building" because they now had bigger budgets. All the rich story telling and character arcs of the previous films were abandoned to set up new worlds, crossovers, and potential sequels.

@mountainman - Endgame was a celebration, an apotheosis. Imo it was one of the best fan-services I've ever seen onscreen so it gets a major pass to me. But I agree on all others.

Also that's precisely why I loved Loki's finale. It was mind boggling and I can think of many cbms that could have similar endings that would've enhanced them.

@Fogs - I don't dislike Endgame like some do. The first time I saw it in theaters, I was a kid again. The portals, Cap weilding Mjolnir, Valkerie flying by, Ant Man punching a leviathon, Spiderman awkwardly trying to cross the battlefield. A lot of good there. I think that movies like that - huge culminating events so to speak - can get away with the spectacle over character. But EVERY superhero movie doesn't need the end of the world threat/giant CGI army and or sky beam to fight at the end.

@mountainman - that’s why I wanna give a blue beetle a chance because of the story is great, then they’ve done a good job.

@mountainman - I loved Endgame. Every single second of It.

@mountainman - "But EVERY superhero movie doesn't need the end of the world threat/giant CGI army and or sky beam to fight at the end"
This ^^^

@StSteven - Good Casino Royale analogy. Considering the Brosnan films were feeling a bit too outdated for the current film scene it was a breath of fresh air.

In a sense that's what Batman Begins, Iron Man, Winter Soldier and GoTG were to me. Fantastical but still having excellent character moments.

@mountainman @Fogs - And to be fair, pretty much EVERY popular movie genre has gone through this type of thing: westerns, buddy cop movies of the 80's, action movies of the 90's, rom coms throughout all of recorded history, etc. It's just that superhero movies are the big money makers in Hollywood right now so they get the most scrutiny.

Hell, look at horror movies: how many different ways can you do a slasher film but they still keep cranking them out and people still go. But they don't usually have the visibility that SH movies currently do, so you don't see the same level of scrutiny (no one's talking about "horror film fatigue" as far as I know). And when someone DOES come up with a novel horror movie it's suddenly elevated and lauded as something special (recent examples that come to mind are "M3gan", "Smile", and for me personally "Willy's Wonderland" because Nic Cage vs. Chucky Cheese is all you need to say).

And it's a double-edged sword for SH movies right now, because if they stick too closely to the "Marvel formula" people complain about just that. However if they go too far outside of that formula (i.e. "Eternals") people complain about that as well. Which puts those filmmakers in a tricky position of "make it the same, but different, ya know?". And often they don't really know just HOW far outside of "the same" that they can go until the movie is released and the response from the critics and/or the BO says that they went too far. I don't really envy that aspect of the job.

@mountainman - Yeah, agreed. I liked "She-Hulk" quite a bit, but then again I had expected it to be pretty much as it was, which to me was a fun, light-hearted SH show that advanced the MCU in a few notable ways here and there (such as introducing new characters esp. DD). My little daughters also enjoyed it (apart from the sex stuff that we shielded their eyes for a coupe of times).

"Eternals" I was a little underwhelmed by, but I REALLY enjoyed the "meta" aspect of it, meaning the whole "meaning of life" part, which I know may have turned off some folks (especially those who want all the SH *pow pow* that they can get) and slowed the movie down a bit. I'm one of those people who likes to consider topics like the nature of intelligence and evolution (which is probably why I have a PhD in Comp. Sci and a minor in Psychology and currently work primarily with Machine Learning and AI), so that aspect of it really appealed to me. But again, I can understand why it could be boring for others (pretty sure my wife and kids were NOT paying attention to that movie at all).

I haven't seen "AM:Q" yet, so I really can't say what I think of it. But from what I've read so far, I think I can probably sum it up as such: Folks were expecting "Ant-Man 3" and instead got "Quantum Realm 1", which isn't what people were expecting, but it was necessary (at least from Marvel's perspective) to set up the rest of the Multiverse Saga. We had already been introduced to the Multiverse through "Loki", "DS:MoM", and "SM:NWH", so the audience was pretty used to the concept to the Multiverse (hell, even the late-night talk show hosts make jokes about the Multiverse these days). So the next step was to properly pull Kang into the mix and set him up, and given his history in the comics with the QR (or "Microverse" if I recall what it was called in the comics correctly), "AM3" seemed like the most plausible place to do it, especially given the intro to the QR in "AM2". Makes sense to me. And by necessity then, doing so would necessitate a shift in tone for "AM:Q" to up the stakes. So no more Thomas the Trains or giant ants playing the drums for this movie. But, again, I haven't seen it yet, so I might be just talking out of my ass. 😊.

My last point on this topic is a point that I've made a couple of time previously over the last year or two and now I see other folks making similar points: The MCU has literally become the cinematic version of a comic book store, and I think that that was NOT an accident (although I've never heard Feige explicitly say that that was his master plan). And just like literally no one walks into a comic store and buys EVERY Marvel title they have there, I'm sure that Marvel was planning on how the more they expand the MCU, the more the fans will migrate toward the "titles" of choice. Like, for me as a kid I was a Spidey fan first and foremost, followed by "X-___". I don't recall ever actually buying an Avengers title. And I was also into GR, Punisher, etc. I guess I was drawn to more of the conflicted-type of characters vs. the Cap/Thor type. But that's me.

So now as the MCU continues its gradual expansion, while I'm still able to keep up with everything they're putting out, I can see myself eventually gravitating more toward the movies/shows that are like the ones I mentioned above if time/capacity becomes an issue. Hell, I still haven't gotten past the first episode of "Andor" yet and I know what I great show it is. "Had we but world enough and time". 😊

@GhostDog - It is new for someone in his position.
Kevin Feige keeps showing logos, announcing 27 proyects per year.

@TheHumanSpider2
@GeneralZod

I don’t think it’s new in the sense that Feige knows this. I don’t think the guy is a fool. However, I do think the corporate factor has manifested itself in him and phase 4 got a little ”cruise control” ish. They upped the means of production and forgot what made those first 3 phases special.

I’m off of the belief that when he appointed Alonso as head of all physical post production, vfx, and animation right after Endgame that he took a backseat of sorts. That being said, would I be surprised if he thought upping the quantity to match the demands of Chapek and Disney+ took a toll, no.

I love the first 3 phases and I think those films really were about story and character for the most part. Here’s hoping they get back to that with 5. Ant Man felt like a bell rung that Feige can’t ignore and these reports of Lessing the output hopefully means he’s heard the noise.

@GeneralZod - Gunn didn’t call out MCU specifically. That same argument could be made against the Transformer films, some DCEU entries (like Shazam 2 most recently), the Fast and the Furious movies, and more. The studio he’s joining is just as guilty of it as the MCU is.

@GhostDog - He might know this, but he doesnt say it.
That's new.

@Toonstrack - Kevin Feige is the head of Marvel...who am I gonna compare James with?

@TheHumanSpider2 - Zack snyder.

@TheHumanSpider2 - He essentially did, for about 10 years.