Doctor Strange In the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

I'm not sure I would call people like James Gunn, Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi or the Russo Brothers exactly directors for hire on their Marvel films, as they really shaped the identity of those films, and they would have been very different with other directors attached. However, I will agree that they would have been made by other directors if those guys had not signed on. When they did that, they accepted the responsibility to work within Marvel's system and get their films done on a schedule that Disney set at the outset. Derrickson was hired to do this before Endgame came out, which I remember because some people here held the view that that announcement spoiled the return of the character in Endgame. I don't agree with that assertion, but he's been on the film for a while. I also 100% believe that the plan has been in place for the movie to come out in May 2021 long before Marvel announced it to the world publicly at Comic-Con. Derrickson also delivered the first film on time so he should know the realities of Marvel's business obligations and production timeline.

Also, Doctor Strange has now appeared in more films without the involvement of Scott Derrickson than the one he did direct. Taika Waititi did the scene with him in Ragnarok, and of course the Russos directed both Infinity War (which featured him heavily) and Endgame (which was less by the nature of the storytelling, but still gave him a couple significant moments.) So I really don't see someone else directing the next one being an inherent problem.

 

[Joe Wong]

I'm not sure I would call people like James Gunn, Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi or the Russo Brothers exactly directors for hire on their Marvel films, as they really shaped the identity of those films, and they would have been very different with other directors attached. However, I will agree that they would have been made by other directors if those guys had not signed on. When they did that, they accepted the responsibility to work within Marvel's system and get their films done on a schedule that Disney set at the outset. Derrickson was hired to do this before Endgame came out, which I remember because some people here held the view that that announcement spoiled the return of the character in Endgame. I don't agree with that assertion, but he's been on the film for a while. I also 100% believe that the plan has been in place for the movie to come out in May 2021 long before Marvel announced it to the world publicly at Comic-Con. Derrickson also delivered the first film on time so he should know the realities of Marvel's business obligations and production timeline.

Also, Doctor Strange has now appeared in more films without the involvement of Scott Derrickson than the one he did direct. Taika Waititi did the scene with him in Ragnarok, and of course the Russos directed both Infinity War (which featured him heavily) and Endgame (which was less by the nature of the storytelling, but still gave him a couple significant moments.) So I really don't see someone else directing the next one being an inherent problem.

Agree with you, Jake.

I also like to think of it as, Feige/Marvel know the long game - ie., where they want to end up, like the Infinity Saga - but the director and/or writer(s) of an individual film can come up with their own spin or ideas. If Feige likes your ideas, he'll let you go with it, as long as the wider MCU implications or world-building is not lost.

Case in point: Whedon's first Avengers was very well done. Age of Ultron, however, felt a bit clunky with the Thor stuff having to include the Infinity Stones. I believe Whedon didn't want to include that, at least in the main body of the film, but had to compromise to fit the MCU.

Such long-range planning can pay off very well. Eg. the lifting the hammer scene early in Ultron was a great scene, individually, but paid off even better in Endgame. I wonder if Feige had that payoff in mind when they were making Ultron?

And, of course, one of the great elements of restraint was in not having Cap say the classic "Avengers, assemble!" too early in the MCU, and hence waste its power by the time of Endgame. Fans were eagerly awaiting it, and it was teased at the end of Ultron. But the portals scene that culminated in that line is one of the great moments I've experienced in cinema-going.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm not sure I would call people like James Gunn, Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi or the Russo Brothers exactly directors for hire on their Marvel films, as they really shaped the identity of those films, and they would have been very different with other directors attached.

I agree about Gunn, Coogler, and Waititi.

But the Russo brothers come from television. They know how to be team players. They're excellent at what they do, but they thrive in a collaborative environment like Marvel Studios. I think it's very likely that if they hadn't been hired, we would still have, at minimum, versions of The Winter Soldier and Civil War, albeit probably not executed as deftly as the Russos did.

With Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, and Thor: Ragnarok I think Marvel had less of a concrete idea of what they wanted the movies to be. That left more room for auteurs to step in and and really define the movies in their own images.

I would guess that the problem with Multiverse of Madness is similar to the one that Edgar Wright face with the first Ant-Man: Kevin Feige needed the movie to do some heavy lifting for the MCU franchise as a whole, and the directors ideas didn't mesh with those scaffolding demands. We know "WandaVision" rolls into Multiverse of Madness, so that probably meant that Derrickson had less autonomy than he had on the first Doctor Strange.

Also, Doctor Strange has now appeared in more films without the involvement of Scott Derrickson than the one he did direct. Taika Waititi did the scene with him in Ragnarok, and of course the Russos directed both Infinity War (which featured him heavily) and Endgame (which was less by the nature of the storytelling, but still gave him a couple significant moments.) So I really don't see someone else directing the next one being an inherent problem.

I agree with you here. Doctor Strange as a franchise isn't as well defined as, say, Iron Man was after the first movie. Other than certain standing sets, and the visual effects of how magic works in the MCU, things are pretty wide open.

 

[Jake Lipson]

But the Russo brothers come from television. They know how to be team players. They're excellent at what they do, but they thrive in a collaborative environment like Marvel Studios. I think it's very likely that if they hadn't been hired, we would still have, at minimum, versions of The Winter Soldier and Civil War, albeit probably not executed as deftly as the Russos did.

I absolutely agree with this. Marvel would have made some version of the movies that the Russos made with or without their involvement. They were clearly looking at concluding things with Thanos as soon as The Avengers ended with the credits tag of him. However, I still wouldn't call them directors for hire -- at least not after Winter Soldier -- because they were able to make the movies their own. They might have started out as directors for hire in the beginning when they came in as replacements for Joe Johnston on the Captain America sequel, but they certainly were not that by the time they got to Endgame. A director for hire is much more like what Marvel got with Alan Taylor for The Dark World, where he came in and shot the movie for them but it was found in the editing process and there was not a strong visionary sense throughout.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I think it's easy to underestimate the contributions of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely to the Infinity Saga, too. They wrote seven of the films, and their collaborations with the Russos are among the best so far.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think it's easy to underestimate the contributions of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely to the Infinity Saga, too.

Absolutely. I don't mean to diminish their significance at all. But what I mean is that I got the sense that the Russos were more collaborative with them in terms of working together to shape the storytelling than Alan Taylor was on The Dark World, where it seems like his job was just to shoot the next piece of the MCU puzzle. That's not what the Russos did.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Alan Taylor is a better filmmaker than he’s being given credit for. The problem with Thor 2 was that they went into production with a fixed date and a weak script, and kept tinkering throughout. What’s there isn’t unwatchable, but I don’t think it speaks to Taylor’s capabilities. I don’t think the issue is that Taylor was a director for hire; they all are. The problem was probably more than they had a notion of Thor as being this god-like character who spoke with the full weight of an awesome mythology, but that approach wasn’t as well received as Whedon’s more approachable take from Avengers. And then you had Whedon brought in to fiddle with a script that was already in the process of being shot, but having to work within the confines of cast already on hand and sets already in place and schedule locked in. And I would imagine that if you could talk to Feige off the record, he’d take ownership of that film’s shortcomings.

In the interest of full disclosure I worked on a project Taylor was on 20 years ago and while I only met him very very briefly, it was easy to see that he had the respect and loyalty of his crew and ran a good ship.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Alan Taylor is a better filmmaker than he’s being given credit for. The problem with Thor 2 was that they went into production with a fixed date and a weak script, and kept tinkering throughout. What’s there isn’t unwatchable, but I don’t think it speaks to Taylor’s capabilities.

I loved his episodes of "Game of Thrones", but the two feature films of his I've seen haven't impressed me.

The Dark World is one of my least favorite MCU movies, but in a way I'm grateful for it. I don't think we would have gotten Thor: Ragnarok if The Dark World hadn't fizzled.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't mean to disparage Taylor. He has directed a lot of great TV, including the pilot for Mad Men, which is brilliantly done. I also don't think The Dark World is a bad movie at all; it's just kind of there and much less distinctive than most of Marvel's titles. To my great surprise, the Asgard sequences in Endgame retroactively made The Dark World better. But I do think that a huge studio tentpole blockbuster might not be the arena for which Taylor's talents are best suited.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Random wish list item for who could replace Derrickson:

There was an unsubstantiated rumor a while back during the period in which James Gunn was temporarily fired that Marvel was considering Travis Knight to replace him on Guardians 3. This rumor roughly coincided with the release of Bumblebee, which Knight directed. Obviously, that didn't pan out, and Guardians 3 ended up in the only hands it should be in. Knight then became attached to direct the Uncharted movie for Sony with Tom Holland, but just dropped out of that due to scheduling issues surrounding Holland's commitment to Spider-Man.

Theoretically, his departure from Uncharted means that Knight might be available again. He did a fantastic job on Bumblebee and an even better one on Kubo and the Two Strings, which was scary and intense in a still-appropriate-for-family-audiences kind of way and also displayed an awesome sense of visual imagination.

Perhaps Marvel should circle back to him and see if he's interested. Just to be clear, this isn't a rumor I heard or anything -- it's just what I would check out if I were them, which I'm not, and I don't claim to have any insider knowledge whatsoever on this. It's just an idea that would make sense to me with a great director who has proven his capability on big films of this nature and recently seems to have become available. If it happens, I called it here first and I would be totally on board with that.

 

[Jake Lipson]

This is a genuine surprise: Sam Raimi is in negotiations to direct, which would be a return to a film based on a Marvel character, after the original pre-MCU Spider-Man trilogy with Tobey (edit for spelling) Maguire.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/doctor-strange-2-sam-raimi-1203475309/

 

[Sam Favate]

I'd love to see Raimi direct this. Brilliant choice.

BTW, that Variety article says Rachel McAdams will not be returning.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

McGuire

Maguire.

 

[TravisR]

Sam Raimi!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

BTW, that Variety article says Rachel McAdams will not be returning.

I think I’m okay with that. I think her character was important to the first film, but it’s hard for me to imagine how she’d fit into a follow-up film without either changing her character in some way to be involved in superheroics, or having her as the sassy, self sufficient but worrying partner like the role of Pepper Potts, which we’ve already seen before.

Serialized storytelling generally works best when the needs of the story dictate everything else; it generally works less well when the approach is to keep the talent involved even when the story doesn’t support that involvement.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The interesting thing about Raimi is it would seem at first glance to point to the movie leaning more into the horror genre, rather than less. Certainly, he's not a choice Feige would make if he's just looking for someone to deliver the company product on time and on budget.

I think I’m okay with that. I think her character was important to the first film, but it’s hard for me to imagine how she’d fit into a follow-up film without either changing her character in some way to be involved in superheroics, or having her as the sassy, self sufficient but worrying partner like the role of Pepper Potts, which we’ve already seen before.

Also, unlike Pepper Potts, she's not really a character that's integral to the mythos. Pepper Potts has been a part of Iron Man's story since 1963. The Christine Palmer iteration of Night Nurse isn't especially iconic, and most of her history was with the X-Men, not Doctor Strange.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Certainly, he's not a choice Feige would make if he's just looking for someone to deliver the company product on time and on budget.

Tell that to Sony circa 2007.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Tell that to Sony circa 2007.

I believe Marvel Studios is competent enough to learn from Sony's mistakes.

 

[dpippel]

Raimi? I'm all for it.

 

[TravisR]

The Christine Palmer iteration of Night Nurse isn't especially iconic, and most of her history was with the X-Men, not Doctor Strange.

I am interested in seeing any movie that adapts any of the Night Nurse comics. I also hope that one of Sony's Spidey spin-off movies is Hypno Hustler.

(Look them both up, they're pretty funny.)