Commenting on the Critics with Simon Columb…
Variety’s Maane Khatchatourian covers James Gunn’s Facebook comments regarding shared movie universe building:
“The director implies that franchises like “Star Wars,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and even “Transformers” and “Twilight” are in the clear because they were conceived as single films and only grew into movie series following audience demand. “But these days studios are trying to grow trees without a strong seed,” he wrote. “Execs and producers and sometimes even directors are focused on the big picture, without perfecting the task directly in front of them — making a great movie.”
Read Gunn’s full comments here.
It is interesting how James Gunn, director of Guardians of the Galaxy, has criticised the one thing that ensured the success of his film. Of course, had Guardians of the Galaxy been produced by a different studio without the connections to the Marvel universe, it would’ve been considerably less of a smash at the box office – akin to Sci-fi fare The Green Lantern, a film without any connection to the DC Universe established at the time by Chris Nolan and The Dark Knight universe. Of course, that’s not to say one is better than the other, simply that the genre hasn’t had a wall-to-wall success-rate until the Marvel-universe-connected Guardians of the Galaxy.
But I do agree with his sentiments. Why not go further and imagine a world whereby safe blockbuster filmmaking wasn’t the first preference for the current crop of innovative filmmakers. Consider the talents we’ve lost to the ‘universes’ created. Gareth Edwards, creator of Monsters and Godzilla, now attached to a Star Wars spin-off. J.J. Abrams, the man behind 1980’s throwback Super 8, lost to the dark side for the foreseeable future, with two Star Trek films under his belt. Joss Whedon, whose brain concocted the space-western Serenity and Firefly, now glued to the Marvel Universe like a lucky charm they’ll never release until Avengers: Infinity War – Part II is released in May 2019. Intelligent, visionary filmmakers lost to the vacuum of guaranteed box-office explosions.
Imagine if Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Peter Jackson released Duel, THX 1138 and Bad Taste now – would they be wooed by the universe-building safety-net created? Would we even see them dream up Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones? Would they have the confidence to adapt the epic Lord of the Rings and technologically ground-breaking Jurassic Park?
The foundations of our modern era are rooted in the history, boldly created, by influential filmmakers who (without realising perhaps) created a franchise. Someone had to dream up the heroes and mesmerising landscapes that provided our childhood with so many repeated viewings. What would Gareth Edwards, Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams make if they were given the creative freedom to develop their own ideas? Why can’t Marvel and Disney fund these artists creative endeavours? Considering the auteur filmmaking of Christopher Nolan with Interstellar and Inception, a little gamble might set the path for the future – and may change this repetitive rut, once and for all.
Luke Owen says
I would argue on a few points:
Guardians of the Galaxy would have been a success even without the Marvel connection, because it was the word of mouth and positive reviews that spurred on its success. The movie took just under half a million at the box office this week alone. People still want to see it because it’s a great movie, not because it’s a Marvel movie. So, yes the Marvel branding gave it an early push, but it was the quality of the movie that made it a true success.
And we’re not losing directors to the franchise machine. Joss Whedon made Much Ado About Nothing while editing Avengers. If he wanted to go off and make a film with his friends, he could do so. They have the option to go off and make other passion projects, so long as they can fit into their schedule and they want to do it enough. J.J. has other projects on the go outside of Star Wars in the TV world.
Simon says
I would agree that it may have made a lot of money, but it is part of the universe and therefore IRON MAN fans will hunt it out as, lets be honest, its the next sequel of the Marvel series. That opening weekend was HUGE, and at least 80% down to its connections to Marvel – the longevity at the box office, fair enough, is down to the popularity of the film.
I think a small film with his friends, filmed at his house, very few studios wouldn’t do. Whedon could’ve funded it himself (did he?) – hardly a new series or a potential franchise unto itself. What about a Whedon or Abrams Sci-Fi adventure film WITHOUT its connections to Disney? That’d be nice to see!
Luke Owen says
But, the big question is – do they want to? If Whedon, Gunn, the Russos are happy to play in the Marvel sandbox, then why should they go off to do other ventures? Maybe five, ten years down the line they will do, but for now they seem happy in their place. If not, they would be pitching ideas to studios with the backing of, “hey – I directed Captain America and it made a boat load of money”.
Perhaps I’m just looking at this as a life long comic book fan – this is a golden era of cinema for me, because all the films I’ve wanted to see since I was a kid are finally getting made. I’d much rather see James Gunn direct Guardians of the Galaxy 2 than do another studio mandate script and write another Scooby Doo movie.
Ash Simp says
We can’t have more directors with Christopher Nolan’s licence to do what he wants until they pass the franchise test. Once Gunn, Whedon and all the other talented directors smash the box office with these franchise films they will get their creative freedom. But for now they seem to be enjoying making the blockbusters and I for enjoy blockbusters being made by talented and creative film makers and not explosion artists.
Simon says
I can see that, and in many respects, it is an interesting ‘test’ to see if they can handle a big movie. It’s just a shame that they aren’t creating new series and franchises with their own heroes and villains. I reckon, the last thing they’d want to do after a big blockbuster is make another (E.g. Whedon moving onto MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING). I also don’t think a Marvel film will be losing any money any time soon – it’s a guaranteed hit because of the in-built audience so it’s not exactly an accurate test in any case.
Ash Simp says
Well the difference can be seen in both critical and commercial reception to GotG and Thor: TDW. In terms of the test, you can look at the future career of James Gunn and Alan Taylor. James Gunn is about to do a sequel to a project he loved, write and direct these characters he helped bring to life and take them anywhere he wants them to go. He has much more freedom than you make out. Whereas Taylor is doing Terminator: Genyisyis, I wonder how much creative freedom he has over that project.
Rich B says
I feel the author missed the entire point of Gunn’s post, which was that studios and directors need to concentrate on making a good movie before they start expanding their universe.
Kyle Posey says
Yeah that was my take away as well.
Simon says
Thanks Kyle – check out the previous reply for my answer.
Simon says
“But I do agree with his sentiments. Why not go further…” hence, I go further. I see his point about how the initial movie needs to be great (and I agree), but my point is how the shared universe stops filmmakers from making a unique movie that has its own potential to spawn a shared universe (a-la Star Wars). Lucas didn’t create Star Wars in 1977 as part of a franchise and the worry would be that, had Lucas been around now, after THX 1138, would he have simply joined a franchise rather than create one of the most successful series of all time?
Kyle Posey says
Ok yeah I see what you’re saying about setting up a shared universe from the start may distract a director from possible moving on. But I see the decision to start a universe as a definite studio decision. So I think James Gunn was talking about making an actual good film before you pull the trigger on the shared universe. One of the new universes coming up that I think he may be talking about is Universal’s monsters. It sounds like a bad idea to me, and they don’t even have a single film for it yet, good or bad.
cdrbly327 says
Some “great” movies don’t need that though (I’m directly thinking of “The Matrix”). If someone comes up with a viable original blockbuster that is a smashing success it seems studios force a sequel. To that end, I say creative success is a double edged sword. When does “Chef 2” get made?