The Avengers: Age of Ultron [** SPOILERS FROM POST 599 ONWARD **]

Basically Whedon is saying he didn’t have final cut. That’s pretty crazy after all the money the previous film made. Usually directors of immensely successful films gain total creative control over their sequels. Burton and Nolan were handed blank cheques, where as it seems like Whedon was still being treated like a director-for-hire by Marvel.

Deleted User wrote: »

Snyder has been giving free reign thus far, his hands were all over Man of Steel and Ayer is the last director in the world to be controlled. This is a man famed for beating up his cast and I can't see many suits telling him what it is they want.

Free reign over just 1 movie that we've seen so far. From everything we've seen/heard about BvS and SS, they are taking the first (huge) steps in building a shared universe so lets see how well the unique vision of each DC movie holds up when we're 5 or 6 movies in. It's very easy to say every DC movie in their shared movie universe allowed the director creative vision when there's only 1 movie.

Deleted User wrote: »

Compare the trailers for Batman Vs. Superman and Suicide Squad and they look worlds apart in terms of aesthetic. All of Marvel's films look the same with the same drab cinematography and shooting style which quickly grows old. If DC were going down the route of controlling their directors like Marvel do then I'd expect the trailers to be far more visually similar. DC may eventually try and reign in their directors but when you have them hiring people like Affleck I don't see it happening any time soon.

You can't seriously be using a trailer to support the argument. I'll just point to the recent Fantastic Four trailers as an example of how the first one actually made it look cool and fresh, yet the 2 recent ones have reverted to standard fare. Trailers can be deceptive. Comparing Marvel's 10 (or is more) movie catalog to DC's 1 movie plus 2 trailers and saying DC is being original and creative is not comparing like with like.

Also, the BvS trailer looks visually the same as the MoS. So that's 2 out of the 3 movies that we've seen anything from DC that look visually similar. SS does look like it's not following Synder's distinctive style but it doesn't look like groundbreaking cinema either.

I'm looking forward to both those movies btw and I think both trailers look great but I just don't agree with this notion that DC directors have complete creative freedom when we've only seen 1 movie and the sequel to that has shoehorned as many big name heroes into it in order to quickly set up a Justice League movie.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course the trailer for MoS and BvS look similar given that they are directed by the same person and are obviously going for a similar look. No one expects anything ground breaking from SS, visually I imagine it will keep the grim and grotty look of most of Ayer's work which is a nice change from how Snyder's films look. DC obviously will have certain limits on Ayer and the like but I doubt anywhere as restrictive as those Marvel place on directors.DC are going after directors who have their own distinct style, people like James Wan who is successful enough that he can do his own thing at this stage.

When you look at what Marvel does it's pretty clear from the trailers that all their films have a uniform look, that means that no director can do their own thing. That they got someone like Gunn and didn't let him do his own thing is a shame, could you imagine a Guardians of the Galaxy in which Gunn was allowed to be as out there as he wanted or an Age of Ultron in which Whedon wasn't running every decision by a committee.

Also, it's a little early to say that they have shoehorned in characters as many reports claim that Cyborg and the like will have fleeting appearances which is far preferable to another origin film. Introducing characters in something like Batman Vs. Superman makes sense and allows DC to open up the world a little.

I totally agree with you that the Marvel movies have a uniform style/look. The off world stuff (Thor & GotG) have added a bit of flair to the universe but all the Earth based stuff is very much grounded in a shared universe with a shared visual style. You've no argument from me there.

I just don't get your argument at all though that DC is somehow different in this regard when we have 1 movie and 2 trailers to go by. You even say yourself that BvS is the same style as MoS. Until we actually see a few DC movies come out, we've no way of knowing if the same restrictions that Marvel directors face will rear up in DC movies. How do we know that these 3 movies will not become the template for how DC produces it's movies as the universe expands? The one thing going for your argument is that Synder's style is very distinct so another director would struggle to imitate it. That's not to say though that DC won't start following some sort of "style guide" We simply don't have enough DC movies to judge that yet.

As for the shoehorning comment, it's not hard to connect the dots. DC's brave new launch of Superman did not hit the mark. They were facing either another reboot (after recent GL & Superman flops) or they had to double down. They doubled down by throwing everything they have into the sequel. That's not to say it won't work but bringing Batman (and then Wonder Woman and then Lex Luthor and then Aquaman and then Cyborg and then Flash) into the sequel was a clear sign that DC did not have faith in a solo Superman sequel. You think all those pointless cameos (or fleeting appearances as you put it) were creative decisions by Synder?

Again, I'm not knocking it, I'm looking forward to it but I think it's unfair to hail all this "creativeness" from DC as a breath of fresh air while Marvel are just money men making movies by committee.

Deleted User wrote: »

I really liked how they tried to do something interesting with the character though the decision to go back and retcon him was unfortunate.

Yeah, they really caved to the fan backlash on that one.

Pixar Seabass wrote: »

Don't see how it was any worse than the first one.

Agreed. AoU built on everything that worked in The Avengers but it was missing Loki. Ultron was an interesting baddie, probably the most interesting Marvel have had after Loki, but he was still not at the same level as Loki. The only other criticism I'd have of AoU compared to The Avengers would be that it felt a little bit disjointed in parts, like there was a good bit of material left on the cutting room floor. Pity we'll never see a directors cut.