Jump to content

A Marvel Fanboy

Is Feige the Greatest/Most Legendary Filmaker in History?

Recommended Posts

Kevin Feige

 

became the president of Marvel Studios at the age of just 34, and has made it the mostly talked, successful & profitable studio on planet Earth of the past 10 years;

created cinematic universe, the greatest invention and game changer in Hollywood blockbuster/franchise making history;

produced 22 films "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes in a row, grossing  $18.6 billions worldwide, and counting; the regime of Marvel seems to last forever.

 

Only comparable names in film history are Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney, and maybe Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Chaplin.

 

If not, how many more successes and wonders Marvel has to pull off so that Feige can be considered "greatest"?

  • Like 2
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







I appreciate Feige for what he's done for the industry, but I hesitate to place him on the same pedestal as Hitchcock and Spielberg, and even modern blockbuster auteurs like Nolan and Peele, because Feige has never directed a movie before. He's only in the producing chair. Yeah, he deserves credit for telling directors they're allowed to do certain cool things in their Marvel films. But the notion that Feige can create iconic cinematic stories from stratch the way Hitchcock and Speilberg could is an unproven statement at best. Maybe I'll jump on the 'yes' train when/if Feige makes his directorial debut.

  • Like 1
  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, Slambros said:

He's only in the producing chair.

I know you probably don't mean it this way, but there is nothing 'only' about being a producer.  Especially in an era where producers are getting closer to the old days of Hollywood of clout and power.

 

I absolutely get what you were saying, and I largely agree.  Just... I disagree with that side point pretty strongly. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Porthos said:

but there is nothing 'only' about being a producer

Only in the sense he compete with Chaplin, Spielberg, Disney, Kurosawa, John Ford, Kubrick, Lucas, Hitchcock, etc... that did seat in many chairs.

 

Maybe Feige would be there, but I think he would need success outside one box.

 

Would like to hear the argument has of why Cecil B. Demille or John Ford are not even making the maybe comparable to Kevin Feige list.

 

He is certainly getting up there, greatest being quite vague and taking giant affair like the credential you cite into consideration.

 

There is some arguments listed I am really not so sure about.

 

He obviously didn't create the cinematic universe, it is almost has old has movies are, I am not sure it is the greatest invention in blockbuster History has for a game change will see, it is not like it was reproduced successfully by anyone, Planet of the Apes giant toys sales were a game changer because of how easy to reproduce it was, but this ?

  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 hours ago, Barnack said:

Only in the sense he compete with Chaplin, Spielberg, Disney, Kurosawa, John Ford, Kubrick, Lucas, Hitchcock, etc... that did seat in many chairs.

 

Maybe Feige would be there, but I think he would need success outside one box.

 

Would like to hear the argument has of why Cecil B. Demille or John Ford are not even making the maybe comparable to Kevin Feige list.

 

He is certainly getting up there, greatest being quite vague and taking giant affair like the credential you cite into consideration.

 

There is some arguments listed I am really not so sure about.

 

He obviously didn't create the cinematic universe, it is almost has old has movies are, I am not sure it is the greatest invention in blockbuster History has for a game change will see, it is not like it was reproduced successfully by anyone, Planet of the Apes giant toys sales were a game changer because of how easy to reproduce it was, but this ?

I was just to name a few.  To me it seems Feige is the more commercially successfully one. None of their works had been a more dominant position than MCU has been. no?

 

didnt MCU changed how studios plan franchise/sequels? thus game changing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2019 at 2:19 AM, firedeep said:

Kevin Feige

 

became the president of Marvel Studios at the age of just 34, and has made it the mostly talked, successful & profitable studio on planet Earth of the past 10 years;

created cinematic universe, the greatest invention and game changer in Hollywood blockbuster/franchise making history;

produced 22 films "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes in a row, grossing  $18.6 billions worldwide, and counting; the regime of Marvel seems to last forever.

 

Only comparable names in film history are Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney, and maybe Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Chaplin.

 

If not, how many more successes and wonders Marvel has to pull off so that Feige can be considered "greatest"?

I think this is an unfair question as Feige has never directed a film before. However I think him and Jason Blum are going to be icons in the industry due to their ability of finding and cultivating talent both behind and in front of the camera. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, firedeep said:

I was just to name a few.  To me it seems Feige is the more commercially successfully one. None of their works had been a more dominant position than MCU has been. no?

 

didnt MCU changed how studios plan franchise/sequels? thus game changing.

There is a lot of filmmaker involved in the MCU (that would be like giving full credit for Indiana Jones to Georges Lucas and none to Spielberg making him quite the candidate).

 

It did change how studios planned franchise-sequels for a little while, but because it seem to never have worked for anyone else I am not sure how game changing it will be, a bit like Titanic didn;t change stuff much despite the attempts to reproduce it's success, better wait a little 25 year's to judge something like that I feel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 4/16/2019 at 5:29 AM, firedeep said:

I was just to name a few.  To me it seems Feige is the more commercially successfully one. None of their works had been a more dominant position than MCU has been. no?

 

didnt MCU changed how studios plan franchise/sequels? thus game changing.

Some of the franchises/sequels were seemingly doing it before phase one even got to Thor & Cap. Post-Phase One & beyond, think about what the other ones are that aren't necessarily superhero-related. You've only got LEGO and Universal monster falsestarts.

On 4/16/2019 at 11:16 AM, Reddroast said:

I think this is an unfair question as Feige has never directed a film before. However I think him and Jason Blum are going to be icons in the industry due to their ability of finding and cultivating talent both behind and in front of the camera. 

Blum looks at Feige's cheapest movie and thinks to himself...I could've gotten 10+ releases outta that. Plus, even though horror is his bread & butter, it's apparent that's not what his production company limits to.

Like Disney's other studios, Feige only has to deal with Marvel movies a few times a year. 

On 4/16/2019 at 12:00 PM, Barnack said:

There is a lot of filmmaker involved in the MCU (that would be like giving full credit for Indiana Jones to Georges Lucas and none to Spielberg making him quite the candidate).

 

It did change how studios planned franchise-sequels for a little while, but because it seem to never have worked for anyone else I am not sure how game changing it will be, a bit like Titanic didn't change stuff much despite the attempts to reproduce it's success, better wait a little 25 year's to judge something like that I feel.

Titanic isn't a good example because it's the last highest grossing movie (without even adjusting for inflation) of its kind and Hollywood is in no rush to aim for a movie like that to be that successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, 2kt09 said:

Titanic isn't a good example because it's the last highest grossing movie (without even adjusting for inflation) of its kind and Hollywood is in no rush to aim for a movie like that to be that successful.

 

Hollywood did try to reproduce and made some high budget romance movie set in historical epic moments/setting, Pearl Harbor and co. Executing and making them work did seem to be really hard, combined with the really high cost, it did not catch on.

 

Will see for that how studio plan for extreme long and vast universe shift (the many sequel planned did start after Potter-Twilight and some others high profile didn't at an high cost), it was the case for a while from the Arthurian movie universe too many others, but from what I gather it mostly failed all around, so it is possible that like for Titanic the high cost/difficult to land make it a model that will not stay around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



21 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Hollywood did try to reproduce and made some high budget romance movie set in historical epic moments/setting, Pearl Harbor and co. Executing and making them work did seem to be really hard, combined with the really high cost, it did not catch on.

 

Will see for that how studio plan for extreme long and vast universe shift (the many sequel planned did start after Potter-Twilight and some others high profile didn't at an high cost), it was the case for a while from the Arthurian movie universe too many others, but from what I gather it mostly failed all around, so it is possible that like for Titanic the high cost/difficult to land make it a model that will not stay around.

lol Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay eventually then goes on to make one of the actual game-changing franchises from that decade.

 

It's just now a more impossible task to get audiences to watch a drama

(no military-based good guys/bad guys + army of villains) with the single hook, big spectacle being the disaster.

No car stunts. No crazy animals. No aliens. No world ending stakes.   

Edited by 2kt09
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Well I am not sure to follow, what is lol about Pearl Harbor ?

 

The same happened with Avatar, the easier part to use did caught for a while (3D), the giant space epic (John Carter and others) was a different story.

 

6 minutes ago, 2kt09 said:

It's just now a more impossible task to get audiences to watch a drama

Titanic was in 1997

Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Well I am not sure to follow, what is lol about Pearl Harbor ?

  

The same happened with Avatar, the easier part to use did caught for a while (3D), the giant space epic (John Carter and others) was a different story.

 

Titanic was in 1997

Pearl Harbor is still soldiers in the midst of war + the general territory that comes with Michael Bay.

 

1997 was 22 years ago. 

Edited by 2kt09
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, 2kt09 said:

1997 was 22 years ago. 

Well exactly, when I use to show that making billions of dollar does not necessarily create a game changer if it is hard to reproduce has an example, I am not sure why we would talk about not versus the decades that occurred, innovation that caught on are usually easy to reproduce (like the cheap horror now)

 

5 minutes ago, 2kt09 said:

Pearl Harbor is still soldiers in the midst of war + the general territory that comes with Michael Bay.

And (Gone with the wind was also during the war for a part of it) ? Big disaster / war events will be the first reflex for the copycat I would think, I am still unsure to follow you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



13 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Well exactly, when I use to show that making billions of dollar does not necessarily create a game changer if it is hard to reproduce has an example, I am not sure why we would talk about not versus the decades that occurred, innovation that caught on are usually easy to reproduce (like the cheap horror now)

 

And (Gone with the wind was also during the war for a part of it) ? Big disaster / war events will be the first reflex for the copycat I would think, I am still unsure to follow you.

Titanic is hard to reproduce because the modern game changers involve all things I said Titanic doesn't have:

military-based good guys/bad guys, army of villains, car stunts, crazy animals, aliens, wold ending stakes

 

It's currently impossible to get the same kind of audience pull for that kind of movie compared to fantasy-driven superpowered characters and has been impossible for 22 years. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.