Taika Waititi agreed to Thor because he “was poor”
Taika Waititi wasn't all that interested in Thor, but he had mouths to feed when Marvel came calling
Aux News Thor
Marvel’s habit of poaching talented young writer-directors for their films has gone from something largely positive (cultivating diverse up-and-coming artists) to something seen as negative (wasting years of the lives of potential new auteurs on paint-by-the-numbers franchise filmmaking). Taika Waititi was an early example of this—Thor: Ragnarok was widely praised, but Thor: Love & Thunder was far less critically acclaimed, and now Waititi is very willing to let the studio move on without him. In fact, he never meant to get involved with Marvel at all.
“You know what? I had no interest in doing one of those films,” he said in a new interview on the SmartLess podcast. “It wasn’t on my plan for my career as an auteur. But I was poor and I’d just had a second child, and I thought, ‘You know what, this would be a great opportunity to feed these children.’”
Not only did he only take the meeting out of pure necessity, but he also had some disdain for the character to begin with: Thor “was probably the least popular franchise,” and he “never read Thor comics as a kid. That was the comic I’d pick up and be like ‘Ugh.’ And then I did some research on it, and I read one full comic, all 18 pages, or however long they are. I was still baffled by this character.”
Waititi ended up pitching Thor as an agoraphobic billionaire space prince, which was received well because “I think there was no place left for them to go with” the story. “I thought, ‘Well, they’ve called me in, this is really the bottom of the barrel,” he said.
Despite the fact that the fans “hated” Waititi’s hiring and thought he would “ruin” Thor, Ragnarok ended up being a huge success. And despite being ambivalent about Marvel to begin with, Waititi has nothing but good things to say about Kevin Feige and the studio now. “They’re good at keeping everyone in their lane, and making sure they don’t veer off into something else that doesn’t feel Marvel,” he said. “So they bring people in who are good at story and making great characters and bring something unique, and then they’ll keep it within the Marvel [style].”
152 Comments
It wasn’t on my plan for my career as an auteur.I really, really like Waititi, but referring to yourself as “an auteur” is something only an asshole would say. Success getting to his head.
Just given his sense of humor… I think I can give him the benefit of the doubt that that was pretty tongue in cheek?
I was listening to the podcast today. Jason Bateman, Will Arnett, and Sean Hayes are hosting a fun and silly podcast. I feel most people don’t go on there taking it very seriously or overthinking their answers.Plus Marvel has gone on record of purposely looking for directors that wouldn’t think of themselves a “Marvel Movie” type of director.
i mean he is one.
An asshole or an auteur?Or both?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
An authole.
dealer’s choice!
Literally what he is.
Yeah, his films aren’t meant to be commercial crowd pleasers. He just makes what he wants to make and managed to stumble into bigger name recognition.
Yeah. The guy who made Eagle vs Shark, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, What We Do in the Shadows, and Jojo Rabbit definitely gets to call himself an auteur if he wants, jokingly or not.
Lifetime pass for making Eagle versus Shark and WWDITS for me.
Calling someone an asshole because he had a vision for his career is something only an asshole would do.
I’ve just read several definitions of “auteur”, and it just seems to refer to directors that make movies that are personal. I too thought it was a compliment, maybe because people who use the term do erroneously use it that way, in the same way people get “ironic” wrong.
The word auteur seems to have gotten a bad rap recently with people talking about “the auteur myth”, the idea being that no one’s really an auteur because film making is intrinsically collaborative.
It’s a valid point of view, but equally as valid is I know a Spielberg film when I see one, I know a Tarantino film when I see one, and I know a Waititi film when I see one.
It reminds me a lot of the term “toxic masculinity,” where people hear an academic term or concept outside of an academic setting and either piece together an erroneous definition from context (just the other day I got a reply from someone who apparently thought that I was saying that all masculinity IS toxic) or read an oversimplified definition without the nuance or larger historical context. So then they start to form arguments under the assumption that the context they’re missing doesn’t exist.(Which doesn’t mean valid academic criticisms or disagreements about the terms “toxic masculinity” or “auteur” don’t exist, but it’s extremely unlikely you’ll find them in an internet comment section.)
I think the term picked up a bit of baggage because of stuff like the discourse around high-art-low-art dichotomy (especially with the rise of megafranchises); abusive creators getting cover because “they’re the artist”; etc.It’s hard in online discourse to separate the basic meaning of a term from the weight people attach to it – see also the endless debate over what “art” even means.
I used to like him but he is so smug and self important. He’s made a handful of good films and now thinks he’s gods gift. He’s talked down the Thor stuff constantly, even if it is ‘tongue in cheek’.
I think it;s super hard not to sound like an asshole. H’wood is so competitive for moenyh, projects, reecognitioon that ya just have to relentlessly sell yourself and hype yourself to get the projects you want. It eventually seeps into your persona;.
“He’s talked down the Thor stuff constantly, even if it is ‘tongue in cheek’.”
So? What’s better? You want him to lie? Fuck off.
Hey, go fuck yourself, k?
His next sentence is about how he sold out about as hard as he could, so I think it’s pretty tongue in cheek :). Him knowing nothing about the character and not being that interested in the comics does track with Love & Thunder tho. It kind of took the best elements of two whole arcs of comics and just splashed them on the screen. Ragnorok was better because he kind of made a lot of it up from whole cloth and it was a new direction for the character. L&T was a huge disappointment for folks who’d seen Thor going through some serious shit in IW and Endgame, and were ready for that more serious take; it kind of just regressed Thor, and it didn’t really make much of Portman either, given that the Mighty Thor lasted hundreds of issues and was a fantastic breath of fresh air in the comics.
Marvel’s habit of poaching talented young writer-directors for their films has gone from something largely positive (cultivating diverse up-and-coming artists) to something seen as negative (wasting years of the lives of potential new auteurs on paint-by-the-numbers franchise filmmaking).Brace yourself for MCU diehards to lecture you on how, actually, no one is forcing these young writer-directors to take on giant movies, which are a great opportunity for up-and-coming artists to produce work that will actually be seen by a large audience and make a lot of money, which are goals that every artist inherently strives for.FWIW I think there’s something to be said for that argument. Clearly Taika Waititi is using his mainstream cache to fuel his passion projects. But for every Taika, you have someone like Alan Taylor, who whiffed it with Dark World and then Terminator: Genisys, and seems to have been relegated back to TV. Or you have the writing/directing duo of Ryan Fleck & Anna Boden, who worked on the first Captain Marvel and didn’t return for the sequel, apparently so they could work on two mini-series.I’m looking at the careers of a lot of these indie/auteur upcoming writer/director types that get swept up by the Marvel Studio machine, and I wonder how many of them who don’t seem to pursue theatrical feature directing careers do so because they’re just more interested in other things, and how many of them are struggling (for whatever reason) to get the projects they’re passionate about made.
the russo’s themselves are even a great example. they were an interesting choice and had done good work on tv, obviously elevated the mcu, and everything they’ve made since has been the worst stuff of their career.
“obviously elevated the mcu”
I’m sorry, what?
Good point! The Russo’s are an interesting case. I don’t know if you can argue that Marvel wasted years of their lives, and they’ve been given opportunities to work on multiple big projects with no existing IP attached. For example, their project for Amazon had an enormous price tag. I’m not sure they have anyone to blame but themselves.
“But for every Taika, you have someone like Alan Taylor”
No, you don’t, because Alan Taylor is not a “young writer-director”, he’s a TV director who is in his 60s.
Brace yourself for that shit to not happen, bruh.
Haven’t been on AVC in a while, huh?
I’m not the one whose prediction hasn’t borne out, dude.The diehards tend to care more about the content than the process. Better luck next time.
Chill.
Guy who said dumb thing and then tried to condescend to the person who pointed out that it was dumb now wants to chill.
No, I just want the guy who chose to be an asshole for no reason and add absolutely nothing to the conversation to chill.
Then shut the fuck up with your failed trolling, dork.
You’re responsible for your own actions, you easily-triggered weirdo.
I’m not the one who fantasized about upsetting people and then got all in his feels when someone pointed out that he failed.
“Haven’t been on AVC in a while, huh?” = all in my feels, eh? Noted.Please go away.ETA: Your lack of reading comprehension continues to astound me. I didn’t fantasize about upsetting people. I “fantasized” that the article we’re commenting on would upset people, just like the majority of articles that express even *mild* criticism of Marvel Studios and their movies/practices/etc. seems to upset people every single time. I don’t know why that upset you so much, but if you think that was my goal, then I succeeded actually.
No, that was just you trying to act like I was an idiot despite your trolling prediction failing.Take the L, dickhead.
I haven’t seen you comment on any AVC articles in a while, so I’m not even sure why you took what I wrote as acting like you were an idiot. When the Variety article about Marvel’s woes was published, weirdo MCU fanbois came out the woodwork to complain about “the media.” I’m pointing out something I’ve observed, and you’re declaring victory after all of a couple hours.You’re being an asshole for absolutely no fuckin’ reason. Go the fuck away.
You’re being an asshole for absolutely no fuckin’ reason. Oh, there’s a reason. It’s a transparently stupid one, but there’s technically a “reason.”
Who tf is this dude?
Gotta say, your username does not check out.
He said, with no self awareness.
Okay, I wait with bated breath for your projection to become reality, Avril Lavigne.
Whoa! Huge slam on Avril Lavigne out of nowhere!
It was a slam at an adult man who spells the word “boi.”
Says the dude who tried to white knight straw MCU fans and refused to admit he was wrong after being condescending af.
Found the incel.
You looked in a mirror?
Using the jargon is a dead giveaway, son.
Learned it from you, bruh. Learned it from you.
Awesome, Avril. You fished your wish.
Prepare for this argument to go on for actual days.I have no idea why it would or should, mind you, but fighting randos online – for absolutely no reason – is a cheap and easy way to stave off existential dread, apparently, in this weird hellscape that is 2023. I just find it generally preferable when the folks who do it say something like, “Yeah, I just dig fighting online.” Honesty is generally best.
ETA: Take the L, dickhead.See? Some dudes just like fighting, and they actually think they’re “winning” something. What that thing actually is is…figured out later, I guess?::goes back to existential dread, having become accustomed to the temperature::
I’m guilty of it too, especially when I didn’t start nothin’. And my seasonal depression is kicking in? I’m ready to fight!
See? Fuckin’ HONESTY! It’s refreshing!I’m definitely guilty of it as well, particularly when someone makes an attempt to draw a hard line in what is essentially a child’s sandbox. It’s like, “The fuck are you on about?”
The thing that baffles me about comments like “take the L” is the implication that there are definite, inarguable wins and losses in the Having Opinions About Things arena. You had a take, they had a take. Unless you misreported the population of Paraguay, it’s unlikely either person was More Correct.
Dire nerds don’t like putting their opinions out there – lack of self-confidence – nor are they great at understanding that there are people out there not exactly like them. So instead they present their opinions as “fact”, which make it easier to deal with others and not expose themselves: there are people who agree with them, and there are those who are simply wrong. They think saying “That’s just your OPINION” is the be-all, end-all of arguments, and absolutely lose their shit if you go “Of course. That’s why I said it. Who else’s would it be?”
It similarly baffles me when people try to “win” an argument by acting like they’ve already won(“Is that all you got?”).
Yep. This.Dude’s still trying today, still angling for points on that good ol’ invisible scoreboard. I’d like those folks to ask (and, ideally, answer) one question: what is gotten out of it?But nah. That level of self awareness is always, somehow, a bridge too far.
As a grey, I. am. here. for. it. We trolls coming up outta the ground like Dennis Leary!
Yeah, I remember both of you dudes flaming me for saying that people who groom minors are worse than people who review old content to find offensive material. Like, hundreds of messages because I said that shit.Spare me your affected maturity, son.
Take the L, dickhead, something I repeatedly told myself after spending money to watch Taika destroy a hero and his universe in “Thor: Love and Thunder”.
I think that’s the only MCU movie I’ve heard ZERO good things about. Like, NONE. None good things. I’ve avoided it as a result.
You are acting wisely… Please continue and never watch that atrocity.
So you think “here come the complainers” was adding to the conversation?
Oooooooh. You summoned two comments. Fucking amazing.
To some degree I think these directors probably know what’s going on, and see “directed a Marvel movie” as something that will help their career continue, even if it’s not as a big-budget director. Marvel trusted me with a $150 million budget, the movie made a lot of money, so yes, you can hire me for endless numbers of smaller films because I will probably do a good job.
Yup. The unfortunately stupid calculus that studios all over the industry make is to just write down your name and the amount of money your last project made. If they like that number they are more likely to let you have a crack at making more money. I saw it all the goddam time when I worked at Sony.
Yeah, I agree that’s what the directors are probably thinking. I just think it’s notable that other than Taika Waititi and Scott Derrickson, most of them haven’t been hired for endless smaller films. For the most part, they seem to go to TV* (which is fine if that’s what they want to do!); have a project or two “in development” and not much else; or go ahead and embrace big budget filmmaking like James Gunn and the Russos. I’m sure every project is different and different directors feel differently about whether directing a big ol’ MCU movie turned out to be a net positive (I don’t think it’s hurt anyone’s career), but I’d still love to pick their brains.*I keep picking on TV because TV is still a writer’s medium, where the writers, producers, and showrunner have final say, not the director.
I think even your post shows it’s difficult to generalize. As you note, some Marvel directors have gone on to continue making big blockbuster projects. Some have done medium-sized films like JoJo Rabbit. Some have primarily done TV. And of course the argument depends on a counterfactual — what careers the directors would have absent the choice to direct a Marvel movie — that we can’t ever really know.I think overall the evidence tends to suggest that directing a Marvel movie is a positive for directors. Perhaps the best evidence of that is that talented directors who have made exciting films, and who have a strong interest in bettering their careers, keep signing on to do it.
I think big IP is the only way for so many creators to remain in film when everything interesting and original is increasingly happening in the TV/streaming space. And back when Waititi got involved in Marvel that was still a bulletproof endeavor. I think recent embarrassments will have a lot of up and coming talent just skip big IP projects entirely, unless the money is truly life-changing.
I think it’s a stretch to consider Alan Taylor’s career some kind of cautionary tale. True, he hasn’t directed a blockbuster movie in a while, but just in the last three years he’s served as director for some pretty prominent projects: The Many Saints of Newark, the Interview with the Vampire series, and Blue Eye Samurai. Also, Thor: The Dark World and Terminator Genesys are lousy, and widely seen as lousy by fans. The Many Saints of Newark is similar. I don’t think that quality can be placed solely, or even primarily, at Taylor’s feet. But there’s no guarantee that your career will continue to rise if the work you’re responsible for is not very good. Taylor seems to be doing quite well, despite some misfires.
Also, Taylor’s no kind of auteur. He’s not a writer/director like Watiti, Coogler, and many others Marvel drafted. He’s just a better-than-average working TV director (like the Russos) who got a shot at the big time and it didn’t work out, so he got “sent back to the minors.” (see also: Mimi Leder, Tommy Schlamme.)
I will not stand by while you besmirch the good, hilarious name of Tommy Schlamme.
Something that might be worth a try: Just come in and make your point. Don’t preface your point by pre-emptively predicting someone else’s point to make fun of it (especially in this case when you make fun of the point and then make the case for it actually being valid). Just make your point.
I never have a doubt that if a headline mentions the MCU, you’ll have weighed in with all the things that are wrong with and bad about the MCU, and you never fail to turn up. You’re always on the case. And that’s great, really. Consistency is good. It’s just funny that this turned into a whole thread where you opened with some nonsensical (de)bait and then pretended like your hands were clean when someone “trolled” you about it.
Also, before you go to your deep well of tricks and call me an MCU fanboi: I literally don’t give a shit why Taika Waititi decided to make Ragnarok. It was better than all the Thors that came before it, and Love and Thunder wasn’t so horrible to erase that goodwill (though it’s a close-run thing) – mostly because Blanchett served so many looks and chewed so much scenery as Hela… but also because Thor shouldn’t be Shakespeare.
I never have a doubt that if a headline mentions the MCU, you’ll have weighed in with all the things that are wrong with and bad about the MCU, and you never fail to turn up. You’re always on the case. I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
I guess I’ll take up the “MCU diehard” role for this, but not to argue the merits of whether idea that Marvel poaching “young writer-directors” is a good or bad thing, but instead just point out the idea itself is absolute bullshit. The first MCU directors were Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, Joss Whedon, and Shane Black. All of them (with the arguable exception of Leterrier) were already well established in their careers by the time Feige came knocking and also all in their 40’s or older. Hell, Alan Taylor was in his early 50’s when he directed Dark World and he had a pretty extensive career before that direct prestige dramas on TV. Marvel definitely started to branch out from mid Phase 2 onward, but they still hire plenty of veterans for new projects too. This narrative that Marvel only scoops up bright-eyed auteurs and then throws them into a corporately-mandated meat grinder is pretty laughable.
The first MCU directors were Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, Joss Whedon, and Shane Black. I also recall their names having been given more promotional weight than directors who came after. More of a marriage of creator and property than what we have now.I specifically remember people (me included) going nuts that the Rocketeer guy was doing a period-piece Captain America flick.
file this under “duh-doy”
It felt out of his wheelhouse even at the time. His earlier films were SO indie that it felt like he was only taking Ragnarok for the paycheck. The fact that it was actually good proved he’s an adept storyteller no matter the size of his budget. I’ve always rooted for him – he seems like a decent fellow.
it’s also a good example of the mcu house method working really well, because he was happily hands-off when it came to the fight scenes.
I enjoyed Ragnarok, but lets be clear, coming from the original Thor and The Dark World, both of which were rather dour trecks with relatively unappealing characters (save for Loki), you could really only go up from there.
In my opinion, we saw what Taiki unrestrained would do with the character, and we got Love & Thunder, which was terrible. I like Taika, but he has a lane to where if he veers off just slightly, it’s a damn disaster. Ragnarok was good fortune meeting low expectations, Love & Thunder was high expectations meeting the limits of someones’ creativity.
people also forget ‘oh wicked hulk in this one, how did he get to that planet?’ was a big selling point.
Waititi has nothing but good things to say about Kevin Feige and the studio now. “They’re good at keeping everyone in their lane, and making sure they don’t veer off into something else that doesn’t feel Marvel,” he said.Yes, good things…
“Hi. We’re McDonalds. We hired Wolfgang Puck to assemble Big Macs in the back of our shops – LOOK HOW HORT-KYOOOZEEN WE ARE NOW!”
what in latrell sprewell?!
He can’t have been that poor since he walked away from doing What We Do In The Shadows for FX to do Thor and left it to Jemaine Clement to be showrunner on his own.
My guess is he made more from Thor than he would have for a basic cable spin off of a cult classic movie.Besides which, Thor came out in 2017 and WWditS premiered 14 months later. After his Marvel movie, he probably had his choice of projects.
Thor was out before WWDiTS was even announced.
I don’t think anyone’s complaint about Love and Thunder was that it was too “by the numbers”. Most of the issues I saw expressed by folks were based on how much it went full Taika Waititi, without having ENOUGH to rein it in. That, and the constant last minute tinkering that led to changing visual effects so they look barely finished by the end of the film.That said, I thought it was mostly fine.
I think it had both Waititi problems (too much of his quirkiness and joke style, which I like in limited doses) and Marvel problems (a plot that muddled with unnecessary characters and storylines).
Marvel problems (a plot that muddled with unnecessary characters and storylines).To be fair to Marvel, but when you introduce Gorr the God Butcher, you’ve have to give him…gods to butcher. That necessitates introducing many new characters for a heretofore unseen villain that has apparently been slaughtering gods while Thor and Co. were away dealing with Thanos. Given that we hadn’t dealt with the Marvel iteration of the Pantheon, bringing in Zeus (and during the end credits, Hercules) was a narrative necessity brought about by utilizing Gorr.
Now, was Gorr a Taika choice or Marvel choice? Who knows. But once he was decided to be the villain, I’m sure there were ways from Taika to craft a story that felt narratively strong without a smorgasbord of new characters being introduced.
Also, I’m certain that Heimdall’s son was a Taika idea, akin to Aquaman accidentally sitting on the Lasso of Truth during Justice League (which was undoubtedly a Joss Whedon idea). The latter landed, the former didn’t.
I totally agree with you that you need to see the God Butcher butchering gods, but one things that stands out is that we largely didn’t. We see Gorr kill a god in his introductory scene. There’s apparently a campaign of butchering that’s been going on, but it mostly occurs offscreen.The whole sequence you describe, where Thor gets introduced to the pantheon? Gorr doesn’t slaughter any of those gods, or even attempt to do so. It’s entertaining enough — Russell Crowe playing an amoral lout is always fun. Him flicking Thor’s clothes off was a funny clip for the trailer. But it’s basically a big diversion.
I totally agree with you that you need to see the God Butcher butchering gods, but one things that stands out is that we largely didn’t. We see Gorr kill a god in his introductory scene. There’s apparently a campaign of butchering that’s been going on, but it mostly occurs offscreen.True, but then you run up into the very problem you initially stated: who are all of these new characters and why are they relevant?
Again, this isn’t defending Marvel (or whomever decided on Gorr as the villain), but if you have a limited amount of time to introduce these characters and make them relevant to both Gorr as a character and the narrative as a whole, you run into an inevitable time-crunch. Part of this is Marvel’s doing, but another part of this is the narrative restrictions that a 2-hour movie presents you.
Because of that, you either end up with the empty slaughtering of no-name gods we have no emotional connection to (because, time-wise, they have to be given short-shrift in order to get them introduced), or you remove plot points involving characters we do know and have a connection with, even if they aren’t being slaughtered by the main villain. It, in terms of the structure of the movie, is a balancing act that can’t really be done without taking away from the other. Either you spend a significant amount of time on Gorr, then face complaints that not enough time was given to characters and plot points people want answered (such as what has Thor and Co. have been doing since Endgame), or you focus on those questions and leave Gorr as a underdeveloped villain and threat.
The much bigger issue (that extends far beyond Love & Thunder), has been Marvel’s dedication to the Monster/villain-of-the-week format when it comes to villains that aren’t tasked with being the overarching big bad for a given phase. It works when the villain (and their power-level) is relatively localized to the entities/characters they have a connection with. Stane, Killmonger, and Vulture are good examples. However, when they take villains who are exponentially more powerful and fundamentally existential threats, and dispose of them in the course of a 2- 2.5 movie, it completely falls apart because there’s simply not enough time to make them both relevant to the characters (where you often have a team-up instead of a singular battle) and a threat level that warrants the combination of multiple, individually powerful good guys. The most notable example of this is Ultron, but you can put Gorr up there as well (and to a lesser extent, Dormammu, who it’s clear they didn’t know what to do with and realized too late that he’s too powerful).
This I blame on Marvel. There’s no reason why, even within the confines of the Phase X -through-Z paradigm, that they can’t have individual series of movies that follow a singular villain over two or three movies that doesn’t have to be the overarching big bad. Gorr deserved at least two movies. Ultron deserved at least two movies (or should’ve been an individual big bad for an entire Phase). The issues you speak about (which I agree with), would be rectified if Marvel would be willing to give more time to individual villains, and not necessarily try to strike platinum again with the Thanos-treatment. Unfortunately, we’ve now crossed into the realm of multiversal-level threats and outright quantum and time travel, so now everything has to be so grand.
The whole sequence you describe, where Thor gets introduced to the pantheon? Gorr doesn’t slaughter any of those gods, or even attempt to do so. It’s entertaining enough — Russell Crowe playing an amoral lout is always fun. Him flicking Thor’s clothes off was a funny clip for the trailer. But it’s basically a big diversion.Narratively, it’s not a diversion.
Thor and Co. go there because it’s the last remaining pantheon of Gods that Gorr hasn’t slaughtered. Thor tries to warn them, he gets laughed off, then apparently kills Zeus. This, narratively, is necessary. Why? Because if Thor doesn’t go there, then the expectation is that Gorr has apparently succeeded, and the only “God” left is Thor. However, we know that’s not the case because Sif has let us know it’s not the case.
Now, the fundamental issue (and this is squarely on Marvel), is that we haven’t been sufficiently introduced to the concept of non-Asgardian “Gods” before this movie. Thus, they had to scramble to not only do so, but make Gorr both a big enough threat (and show the other Gods to be both sufficiently strong and weak) to where Thor would have to intercede. So, going to Omnipotence City, where we see the last holdouts of the Gods, is necessary because otherwise we’d be left not knowing who exactly these Gods are, where they’re at, and why this blade being wielded by Gorr is so damned dangerous.
It’s admittedly messy, but it’s completely necessary. However, the biggest diversion is the entire subplot with Jane and Mjolnir. Not only is she (nor Mjolnir) at all relevant to Gorr’s plotline, but her being present is actually what allows Gorr to get Stormbreaker and thus get to Eternity. In other words, had she succumbed to her cancer at the beginning of the movie, pretty much everything that happened would’ve still happened, yet we would’ve had more time with Gorr, Omnipotence City, the other Gods he killed, and the struggle between Thor and Gorr.
In all, Love & Thunder was a completely unnecessary movie. There hasn’t been a 4th movie in any of the MCU single-character series (there’s been the Iron Man trilogy, the OG Captain American trilogy, Dr. Strange currently has two movies, Ant Man has a trilogy, and you can probably count The Marvels as the 2nd movie in a Captain Marvel trilogy), and for good reason (a teatrology is often narratively unwieldy). The only strand with 4 has been The Avengers (which doesn’t count), and Thor, which stands out with just how bad and unnecessary it was (especially since the 1st two films are forgettable themselves). From Natalie Portman coming back to play a character nobody needed to see, to the bad CGI, a completely wasted Christian Bale and villain, and exposing Taika’s worst tendencies when given $250m and a loose leash. It strikes me as a movie needed to fill in a calendar spot, and nothing more.
I don’t agree that the Marvel villains need multiple-movie arcs to be effective. Most Marvel movies are at least as long as The Dark Knight, Star Wars, Silence of the Lambs, Misery, Training Day, No Country for Old Men, or Inglorious Basterds. If you can’t create an effective villain in three hours, six more hours won’t help.Marvel doesn’t create effectively villains because it prioritizes characters quipping, and effective villains conflict with that tone. Thor:Love and Thunder is primarily trying to tell two stories: (a) a confrontation with Gorr; (b) Jane Foster gains Thor’s powers and then dies, having reunited with Thor. To tell that story, we didn’t need Korg, Valkyrie, two screeching goats, a bunch of kidnapped kids, or Gorr’s daughter (especially when Gorr’s motivation is that she is dead). All those characters primarily serve to make the movie lighter and to provide more opportunities for characters to riff.If you like Omnipotence City as a fun setting and plot point, that’s great. (I liked it too.) So have Gorr attack the city, since he’s the God Butcher, and have the climax of the movie happen there. Then Zeus can be not just comic relief, but a real character who is actually involved in the events of the story in a meaningful way.
I don’t agree that the Marvel villains need multiple-movie arcs to be effective. Most Marvel movies are at least as long as The Dark Knight, Star Wars, Silence of the Lambs, Misery, Training Day, No Country for Old Men, or Inglorious Basterds. If you can’t create an effective villain in three hours, six more hours won’t help.Gotta disagree with you slightly on this one.
Of the movies you listed, only the superhero movie involves characters that the majority of the audience had some connection with prior (The Dark Knight), therefore, you don’t have preconceived expectations of questions being answered about the happenings of the main characters. Further, aside from Star Wars, the threat level of those villains is localized to the reference point of the protagonist and their immediate allies.Hannibal Lecter and Annie Wilkes are merely serial killers with the limitations that being regular humans have. Alonzo Harris is a corrupt cop who isn’t even in control of the circumstances he’s in (he’s running a series of gambits against a non-localized villain, the Russian mafia). Anton Chigurh, although a ruthless and relentless killer, show he’s just as frail as any another human, merely more determined. Hans Landa, for all his hatred of Jews and his villanous desires, is still a cog in a much larger wheel of villains who pose greater threats to a larger number of people. Gorr, however, is a much larger threat with a goal that’s attainable and exists far in excess of his incidental relationship to Thor (and Thor is merely a conduit to access the Bifrost). In other words, you don’t need multiple movies to develop a localized threat (although you can, it just rarely works), but a threat on the scale of Gorr would benefit by multiple movies (or even just more time within the same movie devoted to him).That being said. you’re right in general about the length of time necessary to create an effective villain, but if you look at the major Marvel villains who weren’t effective, the common refrain that I hear (and feel myself) is that not enough time was given to flesh out their motivations and show them as being a threat that can’t simply be resolved in the last 15 minutes. You only have a limited amount of time on the screen, and unlike some of the other movies (such as Multiverse of Madness and Quantumania) Love & Thunder didn’t have a prior TV series to establish the villain or their motivations. Not saying that MoM or Quantumania were good, but because of their respective TV series, the audience wasn’t going in blind when it came to Scarlet Witch being batshit crazy and more powerful than we last saw her in Endgame, or wondering exactly who this black guy is with strange powers in the Quantum Realm who exists across timelines.
Marvel doesn’t create effectively villains because it prioritizes characters quipping, and effective villains conflict with that tone. Thor:Love and Thunder is primarily trying to tell two stories: (a) a confrontation with Gorr; (b) Jane Foster gains Thor’s powers and then dies, having reunited with Thor. To tell that story, we didn’t need Korg, Valkyrie, two screeching goats, a bunch of kidnapped kids, or Gorr’s daughter (especially when Gorr’s motivation is that she is dead). All those characters primarily serve to make the movie lighter and to provide more opportunities for characters to riff.I agree with you in general, but specifically, I’d lay this more on Taika than Marvel. Having watched plenty of his other films and productions, he’s a naturally quippy guy whose innate tendency, even in otherwise serious situations, is to go the lighthearted route. In that vein, he’s similar to Joss Whedon. The fact that Marvel wants to keep the movies in general lighthearted isn’t intrinsically a bad thing, but when it leads to tonal whiplash, it become a bad thing. However, it would be a bit naive to think that after the resounding success of Ragnarok that they didn’t let Taika run wild with this movie (aside from The Russo brothers and Ryan Coogler, he probably had the longest leash of any MCU director).
To your point about the characters, Korg and Valkyrie are part of the Ragnarok posse, so they’d be in the movie regardless. No one liked the goats (and those are clearly a Taika-decision). As someone else said, the kidnapped kids were originally going to be sacrificed in order to get to Eternity, but Marvel stepped in and had it toned down (now the kids were merely used to lure Thor to the Shadow Realm). Gorr’s daughter was his motivation for butchering gods, not because she’s dead (he doesn’t want to bring her back until the end of the movie), but because the God he prayed to did nothing to stop her from dying (which is why he kills him in his opening scene). Take away the daughter as motivation, and you basically have an empty killing machine who is targeting Gods (and Thor) because…reasons. That’s fine, but it’s really difficult to do an empty killing machine well (you mentioned No Country for Old Men and Anton Chigurh, whose a rare exception), and Marvel clearly wants their villains to have a personal connection to at least one of the heroes (even The High Evolutionary from GotG had a direct connection to Rocket Racoon, and he was cartoonishly evil). If you like Omnipotence City as a fun setting and plot point, that’s great. (I liked it too.) So have Gorr attack the city, since he’s the God Butcher, and have the climax of the movie happen there. Then Zeus can be not just comic relief, but a real character who is actually involved in the events of the story in a meaningful way.I absolutely agree with you, but then you run into a problem (which admittedly could’ve been resolved with essentially rewriting the entire script) of where that fight would’ve fit in.
As the story was structured, the attack on New Asgard comes before Omnipotence City, and Thor learns that Jane is sick before the New Asgard attack happens. The attack happens, Gorr escapes, and Thor and Jane reunite. They now have a problem. Do they follow Gorr? Valkyrie deduces its a trap. However, Thor and Valkyrie (and neither us nor Jane) know about Omnipotence City, and they want to do two things: get help and warn the other Gods.
Because of that structure, in order to fit a Gorr attack on Omnipotence City, something has to be removed, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense within that act of the movie. If you plotline with the kids is kept, they need to be energized with Zeus’ Lightning Bolt to defend against Gorr in the Shadow Realm in Act 3. Take out the kids, then you have to find another way for Gorr to access Eternity, which then pushes against other plot points.
If Gorr attacks Omnipotence City before New Asgard, now the Jane and Mjolnir plotline doesn’t fit in. I don’t mind this, since I think it’s the one truly unnecessary plotline that added nothing to the movie aside from bad nostalgia and Taika wanting to work with Natalie Portman and see her in the Lady Thor outfit. However, if we go with that, you now have the question of how would Thor find out about the attack? It’s Lady Sif who tells him that Gorr is going to New Asgard. We don’t know if she knows about Omnipotence City (lets assume she does), but narratively, her connection with New Asgard is more poignant than her introducing Omnipotence City (which, as far as I remember, hadn’t been mentioned in any of the previous movies). This can be rectified by having a scene in Omnipotence City earlier in the movie without any reference to Thor, Valkyrie, or Lady Sif knowing about (something akin to showing how fat, slovenly, and decadent Zeus has gotten in the eons he’s been ruler without having to battle).
If you go that route, you then run into a problem (this is Marvel’s doing) of having to maintain Zeus being an asshole, but also getting injured to the point where, at the end of the movie, he sends Hercules to get revenge by killing Thor. You could cut that plot thread, but Marvel clearly has plans for Hercules and some future Thor movie/battle, so they’d keep it in against your wishes. If Thor helps Omnipotence City and Zeus rebuff Gorr, Zeus being an asshole doesn’t make sense (because, in the current movie, Zeus doesn’t want Thor in Omnipotence City because he believes that Gorr will end up tracking Thor there, and he doesn’t want to battle). You’d have to change his motivations for being an asshole to Thor, which would require a rewrite of that entire section, along with it pushing against other scenes.
If it’s the climax of the movie, there are two current plot points that no longer make sense: Jane and Mjolnir, and Gorr utilizing the Asgardian kids as a lure to get to Eternity. As I said before, even if you take out Jane and Mjolnir, Gorr getting to Eternity is the goal. Why? Because as it stands (and this is where the changes are getting into full-on rewrite territory), Gorr needs Stormbreaker (to access the Bifrost) to get to Eternity. So, putting Omnipotence City at the climax raises the question of why would Gorr go there without Thor being there, why would Thor be there if he knows the Asgardian kids aren’t safe, and where would the attack on New Asgard fit in? If you take out the entirety of the Asgardian kids, you know have to find a way for Gorr to not only get Stormbreaker, but for Thor to somehow defeat him/convince him to not wish for Eternity to kill all Gods. This almost necessitates a 2nd-powerful entity to help. Why? Because if Gorr beat Thor who wielded Stormbreaker, which we know is more powerful than Mjolnir, where is Thor going to get the powerup needed to defeat him, let alone summoning the Bifrost to catch up to him, since Gorr would go directly to Eternity? Who is that 2nd entity? Gorr effortlessly beats Valkyrie, so you have Jane as Thor with Mjolnir. But wait, we’ve already cut her out of the movie. So who is there?
The only change that makes sense is a rewrite of Gorr’s ultimate goal: getting to Eternity and wishing that all Gods were dead. This isn’t at all like his comic-book counterpoint, but let’s assume we’re sticking with it since they gave a lot of his characterization and powers to Hela. Take out Eternity, and have it be that Gorr wants to physically kill all gods himself. Even if you do that, you now raise the question of how exactly has Thor, Valkyrie, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and other people not noticed that hundreds, if not thousands, of gods have been disappearing in the years that have passed between Endgame and L&T. It would make some of the most powerful and well-connected people within the Thor-side of the MCU look like absolute idiots (spending their time taking pictures at a damn ice cream shop and recognizing their fellow Gods are being slaughtered across the realms).
Even if you somehow explain that away, you run back into the issue I stated above with Zeus and Hercules. How can Thor, Valkyrie, and whomever else defending Omnipotence City, result in Zeus being antagonistic towards Thor and sending Hercules after him? Something has to give, and my guess would be the motivations of Zeus and Hercules being absolutely mangled (in other words, I hate you because you saved my life, Thor, and I’m sending my son to kill you because…you saved my life). Maybe he’s angry because Thor made him look weak in front of the other gods, but if Zeus is a such a pushover that he needs Thor’s help, why would Gorr save Omnipotence City for the climax? It goes against one of the central tenets of storytelling: save the most difficult battle for the end. Zeus as a pushover would be a prime target early on, not the climax. If Zeus is too strong, you then raise the question of why would Thor need to help them? Zeus isn’t the only God in Omnipotence City: we see hundreds if not thousands. You’d have to build Gorr up as a threat, and the gods of Omnipotence City as competent, for it to make a suitable climactic battle.
All in all, I’ve spent more time thinking about a bad movie than I ever expected, but it was fun getting the creative juices flowing. Take care.
Disagree on no-one needing to see Portman, but only because the Mighty Thor in the comics (i.e. the character she was notionally playing) was absolutely fucking awesome. She was a great POV character with the power of Thor, it was a really cool story for Thor (called the Odinson) to figure out why he was no longer worthy of Mjolnir which would have dovetailed really well with where he was post-Endgame, and she was also sort of a mystery to all the other heroes in Marvel. She was rad. Pretty much none of that showed up in L&T, and all of it could have been awesome. Also so much more opportunity for Valkarie as a character, but what the hell. Just a bunch of jokes and some stuff that looked cool on screen.
Some of the early storyboards made it look like Gorr was going to be a God Butcher… and that someone would’ve had to have been sacrificed (oh look Asgardian kids) to open the path to Eternity. I think a lot of the film got cut to lighten the tone considering early interviews made it seem like Gorr was going to be terrifying. At the very least, we know they cut out a decent amount of pantheon related stuff considering Bast’s presence was marketed prior to the film’s release and Lena Heady’s role got cut entirely.
It was too campy. Ragnarok was great, though. Jeff Goldblum and the Mark Mothersbaugh soundtrack went a long way.
He has not done anything of quality since Wilderpeople. The third best Thor movie, JoJo, which felt he was just trolling everyone who watched it. His acting performances, are disasters. Someone taking on a project just for the paycheck is nothing surprising. He has shown ability for talent, he seems to have fallen into this rut of taking on a project treating 1/3 of with intent and earnestness, and then seeming to want to just mess around with the remaining 2/3rds. I dont know if he is lost creatively or just in a “i dont care pay me my money” phase or what.
I imagine his divorce was also expensive.I suspect that is part of what fueled Hugh Jackman to slide back towards Wolverine.
I had no idea they were even married!
*golf clap*
I think he is maybe spread a bit thin now, but I thought thor 3 was pretty great, jojo kinda meh. Res dogs which he was “co-creator” / producer on is I think wonderful though.
#humblebrag
NBD
I’m all for aiming for a career as a filmmaker and having that career made up mostly of auteur projects. But AIMING to be an auteur? Like making that your goal? UGH. Is there any argument in favor of that approach that ISN’T wrapped up in egomaniacal control freak neuroses?
Respectfully, how is that different than any other art form apart from the special name? He wants to make prestigious art. Lots of artists do. It’s not particularly pretentious. It’s putting the cart before the horse, sure, but not in a pretentious way.
The idea of wanting your self-expression to be “prestigious” is worthy of scorn. But I don’t think that’s his goal. Nor do I think it’s the goal of a lot of auteurs. Some? Yeah, sure. Getting into the entertainment industry does often carry with it some measure of seeking fame or respect. But with auteurs it’s about having the end result more perfectly reflect your artistic sensibility. And while I respect that desire, the fact is that filmmaking is too collaborative an art and too complicated a task (with some exceptions for experimental stuff like Mothlight or whatever) to expect that kind of perfection. If you can’t embrace the messiness of making a film, don’t fucking make films. It’s a hyperbolic position that I don’t full-throated endorse despite writing it out here but it IS one that I mostly believe. What reason could any filmmaker have, KNOWING that filmmaking IS collaborative and inherently not friendly to a perfect reflection of an artist’s vision, to get into filmmaking? If that’s what you want, be a fucking painter. Be a fucking novelist. There are other forms of self-expression that better suit that kind of singular approach.Again, despite the language being used here I’m not as passionately anti-auteur as it might seem. I LIKE many hyphenates. I just happen to think that the mentality from which they come and which they engender is aggravatingly self-involved and self-important. As a side concern I also happen to think that MOST hyphenates fail to balance the needs of both directing and writing duties and that most hyphenates should leave one or the other job to another person. Mostly the writing since IMO the majority of hyphenates are talented visualists but shit writers. (All right, maybe not “shit”. But certainly weaker writers than visualists.)
This is all just an INCREDIBLE amount of take for the circumstances…
Here’s how life works: You – you, personally – get to set your own goals. You get to determine your own motivations. So does everybody else. You – personally – get to have all sorts of opinions about what makes someone else pretentious or an asshole or successful or a failure. And because the Internet exists, you even get to share those opinions with the entire world (of people who shouldn’t even be visiting this shell of its former self). But please, for the love of all that is thunder, TRY to have a take that outlived Kurt Cobain!
“The idea of wanting your self-expression to be “prestigious” is worthy of scorn.”
Why, may I ask, should someone subject their “self-expression” to the opinions of the masses if they don’t want it to be worthy of prestige? You wanna self-express in your basement? Go ahead. Noise ordinance starts at 9pm, and that distortion pedal is probably gonna be a bit much for your neighbors on a weeknight, but as long as you wrap it up by 9:15, you’ll probably be fine. Once you decided you’re writing for consumption, you goddamn well better be doing it with an eye toward doing something that might impress several other people.Try this on for size: The next time you get the instinct to click reply a publish a screed about someone else’s motivations and their purity and whether or not they have met your personal standards for how they should approach their own career, 1) go to their Wikipedia page, 2) see if they have an “Awards and Nominations” section, and 3) see if it’s all visible as is or if you need to scroll to get to the bottom of it. Case in point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taika_Waititi#Awards_and_nominations
This guy might not be the one to hang your “he’s in the wrong field” takes on, buddy.
As opposed to your incredible amount of take in response?Impressing others is not the point of making art. It’s fine if that’s something you want to care about but it’s not the purpose. That’s not opinion, that’s fucking fact. Self-expression is self EXPRESSION. Not self-aggrandizement or self-regard or self-glorification. Kinda in the definition of the word.Why do you think it’s relevant that Waititi has awards and nominations? That makes him an esteemed artist but it does nothing to counter the argument that seeking out auteur status is worthy of my derision. (And do I think he or anyone who loves his work, INCLUDING ME, gives a shit about my derision for auteur status? Not particularly!)It’s also worth pointing out, as others have done, that Waititi may very well have been using the term ironically. It wouldn’t at all surprise me given his sensibility. Doesn’t stop me from disdaining the whole fucking concept of auteurism.
“As opposed to your incredible amount of take in response?’
Dude, shut the fuck up.
Don’t try to make this about me when it’s obvious that everything centers around what you think.
“Impressing others is not the point of making art. It’s fine if that’s something you want to care about but it’s not the purpose. That’s not opinion, that’s fucking fact.”[Emphasis mine.]
Strongly asserted; dead-ass wrong. The idea that there is a, one, singular point of making art is fucking stupid on its face. A fabric woven wholly in your mind. The amount of art that was created solely or primarily to impress the guy/gal down the street that the artist was too shy to approach would fill volumes.
“Why do you think it’s relevant that Waititi has awards and nominations?”
I think if you 1) had a Wikipedia page, and 2) had similar accolades and recognition from your peers, you’d understand exactly why I think it’s relevant. Your biggest contribution to the arts is almost certainly commenting on the work and motivations of others, which is why you either didn’t grasp my point or refused to engage in good faith. You’re Tawmy from Nashua, calling into Sportstalk 103 to complain about Mac Jones’ failure to beat Cover 2 on 3rd down…
But I’ll play along:
Either Taika Waititi’s motivations for making art actually align with your “fucking facts” (again, on Earth, we recognize them as poorly considered opinions) or they don’t. We can decide to take what he wrote at face value or we can assume he’s being tongue-in-cheek or we can assume that he set out to be an auteur or accept that it may have happened by accident. Either way, you’re at the center of that narrative because you put yourself there. You’re not at the center of the narrative when we have a conversation that includes professionals’ critical evaluation of his body of work. So, again, have your opinions. Swing ‘em around on the Internet. Just consider whether or not multiple voting bodies who work in the arts might have publicly declared that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Once you step out here in the public domain, your sword and shield should really be more sturdy than what you’re offering here.Not that complicated.
“it does nothing to counter the argument that seeking out auteur status is worthy of my derision.”
See, look at you, back at the center of a narrative about someone else’s career!
“(And do I think he or anyone who loves his work, INCLUDING ME, gives a shit about my derision for auteur status? Not particularly!)““It’s also worth pointing out, as others have done, that Waititi may very well have been using the term ironically. It wouldn’t at all surprise me given his sensibility. Doesn’t stop me from disdaining the whole fucking concept of auteurism.”The real reason why no one should give a shit about what you think – in this case – is that what you think is rooted in nothing more firm than the circular (il)logic taking place between your ears. “He’s in the wrong line of work! I love his work! Maybe he didn’t mean it! I view his irony with derision!” Come on, necgray, we have company! Put some pants on!
I’ll go out the same door I came in:
This was poorly thought out on your part. Your take died in the 90s. It’s not about you when “it” is why someone else does what they do to great acclaim. If this is your only avenue for self-expression, that’s unfortunate.
I think people have the wrong idea about what an auteur is. Having control over the all elements of a production doesn’t necessarily mean you micromanage. It more often means that you hire cinematographers, art directors, etc. that you trust to execute your vision. Aiming to be an auteur just means you want creative freedom. I think the term has gotten an air of self importance in the public imagination, but I think that’s mostly a symptom of some auteurs being bankrolled by big studios and letting it go to their heads.
But in this specific case it means a writer-director. I understand that “auteur” as a theory goes beyond the more modern practical idea of a hyphenate. Hitchcock is often considered an auteur even though he didn’t write his own films. I can’t speak to anyone else’s conception of the term. For me, Waititi is a writer-director as auteur and I don’t like writer-directors conceptually. I like him, I like Wes Anderson, I like a great deal of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s work. There are plenty of writer-directors in the horror world and that’s my favorite genre. Individually there are a lot of “auteurs” I like. But the concept of a writer-director, of someone whose need to control the end product is so great that they feel they MUST take on both very important and disparate jobs to fulfill their “artistic vision”, rubs me wrong. And strikes me as incredibly egomaniacal. (Which, for the record, is a word with more negative connotations than it actually deserves. If you’re going to be an auteur you need a lot of confidence, which can be well served by egomania.)
Why does it mean writer-director in this specific case? I’m not sure I understand. I think Waititi means that he wasn’t interested in making studio pictures as a director for hire. Although that doesn’t necessarily preclude you from being an auteur, it is the most likely outcome until you get some real clout.Your concept of a writer-director is a personal take on it that I don’t think is implied by the term. What’s wrong with someone wanting to direct what they write (or write what they direct)? You use the term egomaniacal, but you could just as easily say ambitious. Tarantino is a great example of someone who’s scripts are much better when he directs them. Anderson is a guy who really benefits form a strong writing partner.I don’t agree that writing and directing are that disparate. They’re both concerned with story, tone, dialogue, and a whole lot of other similar things. There may be a few skills the are specific to each, but they overlap considerably. It really depends on what kind of movie you’re making. The style and substance are inseparable, and success is much more likely when all the elements are in tune with each other.A writer could wait years for a good director to take on their script, and a director could wait just as long to find a script that aligns with their own sensibilities. Sometimes it just makes sense to do both things. I don’t see anything inherently negative in it.
Heads up: wall of text coming. Feel free to ignore if it’s a bit much. But you asked and I’m answering.It means that in this specific case because he’s specifically a writer-director. Intrinsic to his hesitation to take on a Marvel role is the fact that they have tight control over their narratives. Obviously that’s something he accepted and got over. I don’t think he would have accepted the gig if they had demanded he direct from a script NOT written or co-written by him. A position I understand but don’t personally like. I prefer the separation. Yes, I agree that he meant “director for hire” but I believe the core reason he didn’t want that was inherently related to his desire to be writer.What’s “wrong” with someone wanting to perform both roles? Well, for a start that means two jobs being done by one person. For a no budget indie that’s understandable. You might not be able to pay two people. For projects with any kind of money having a hyphenate means someone isn’t working who could be. And while I’m obviously a devotee of the art of film, I’m also a devotee of labor in the arts. There are all sorts of arguments to be had, and I’ve had them, about how reasonable it is to curtail someone else’s creative spark because of the practical concerns of employment. Fine. It’s not an argument I entirely disagree with. But you asked what’s “wrong” and that’s one of the things I find “wrong”. (This is very influenced by the fact that I teach screenwriting classes and would very much like my students to have a future.) Second, I don’t agree with your assertions about the amount of overlap between the positions NOR the likelihood of success. Yeah, as a director you are obviously concerned with the storytelling. But your idea of the story is deeply influenced by the practical realities of production and the visualization elements required. Whereas when you are the writer you are ONLY concerned with the storytelling. You do have to write with a recognition that it’s an audio-visual medium but you don’t have to realize anything. The disciplines are not the same. The work you do isn’t the same. It’s fair to say that you share concerns but that’s EVERYONE who works on a film. You might as well say that the art department and the electrical department overlap. That’s fundamentally true but it’s not an argument in favor of the utility of a set dresser-grip. (And again, on smaller budget films people often multitask. Needs must.) And when you say “success”, what do YOU mean? The world is full of failed hyphenates so you can’t mean financial success. Artistic success? In what way? Hyphenates might aim for a “successful” directed realization of their writing but my position is that it’s quite rare for a film by a hyphenate to fully serve both the writing and the directing. Tarantino, for example, is a woefully self-indulgent writer. As director he doesn’t have to edit himself at all, and he fucking *should*. Same for Charlie Kaufman, whose directorial impulse seems to be “I wrote it so it should go in.” Thank goodness Michel Gondry was around to rein him in on Eternal Sunshine. Kevin Smith has been rightly criticized over the years for having a very workmanlike, even *dull*, directorial style. Well yeah, the dude is a fucking screenwriter who directed out of necessity. I don’t doubt that these hyphenates are pretty generally happy with their output. If the measure of success is their personal satisfaction, of fucking course they’re successful. If that’s the metric then it’s really not worth talking about as an argument for or against.FWIW, the style and substance ARE separable. As demonstrated by the existence of fine stories realized by shit directors and visually intriguing realizations of shit stories. YMMV on Clooney as an artist or source of wisdom but I think this quote underscores the point: “It’s possible for me to make a bad movie out of a good script, but I can’t make a good movie from a bad script.” I don’t know that I entirely agree with the second half of his quote but I think the point is made. Ultraviolet is a really well-made action flick but it’s incredibly stupid.On your last point I actually wholeheartedly agree and that’s where I am generally least likely to get shirty about things. I understand personally all too well the frustration of being a writer who nobody will direct or a director with no material. I will say that the former is fucking infuriatingly more common than the latter. Every asshole thinks they can write a script. Every shitbird with money who calls themselves a “producer” has some shitty half-baked story idea they can pay someone to direct. For whatever reason you’re MUCH less likely to find director dilettantes than writer dilettantes. So yeah, I get it, especially from the writer’s side. Maybe there’s a director out there who could inform me of how it is on their end but I have my fucking doubts that there are directors desperate for screenplays. Having said that, the more power/influence you have the less I appreciate this position. If you CAN consistently get a director on board for your material or get scripts from screenwriters to direct you SHOULD. If only for the labor reason mentioned a thousand paragraphs ago.
A wall of text is what I live for.I don’t mean to be flippant, but knowing that you teach screenwriting explains your point of view completely.I think Waititi wanting input on the Thor script was mostly so he could make sure he wasn’t directing something he was completely uninterested in. This was one of the instances where it made sense for him to do both. I suppose he could have gotten someone he trusts to write the script for him, but if he’s also a writer, why not a save a lot of time and just write something he likes himself instead of going back and forth with another person?I understand your concerns from a labour point of view, but I consider that a different matter entirely.I think if a writer is more concerned with the practical realities of production there’s a greater chance their script will be picked up. We’ve all heard of unfilmable scripts that spend years on the blacklist or never get made at all. The disciplines aren’t the same, but it’s not like they have nothing in common at all. They come at story from different perspectives, but they shape it in the same way. They both change lines, move scenes around, interpret motivation, etc. The fact that one of them didn’t have to consider whether they could afford a location for more than a week doesn’t change the fundamentals in my view. In contrast, there’s not really much beyond practical concerns for the art and electrical departments to discuss. They don’t really collaborate so much as coexist.To be clear, I didn’t mean that awriter/director is likely to have more success than a writer and a director, but rather that a writer/director has the artistic and practical concerns in harmony (at least they should) whereas this isn’t necessarily true of a writer and director. I guess I meanta successful partnership. I know Tarantino hated Natural Born Killers, because of the changes Oliver Stone made. I think on a pure numbers level, there are probably more failed movies made by writer and director teams than there are by writer/directors (only because the latter is much less common). You give a bunch of examples of failed multi-hyphenates, and I could reply with examples of successful ones, but the fact that some have failed doesn’t mean no one should do it. It’s interesting that you chose people who started as writers (two of them should have remained just that).But I wasn’t so much concerned with whether someone can be successful as a writer/director. I was more interested in why you attribute egomania to wanting to control something that you put a lot of work into. It seems to me that most writer/directors are working on films that are very personal*. If you’re going to put so much of yourself into something, it’s totally reasonable that you would want to write and direct.If a cinematographer works on a bad movie, they can say “but it looks good.” If a sound mixer works on a bad movie they can say “but it sounds good.” (and often they can say this with an Oscar in hand). If a special effects worker works on a bad movie… well you get the point. If a writer works on a bad movie they can say “but the script was good.” If a director works on a bad movie what can they say?*In the case of Thor Ragnarok, I think Waititi probably saw the first two movies, didn’t like the comics, saw how tight a reign Marvel keeps on its directors, saw who Marvel offered up to write it for him, and took the safe (and eventually successful) path of writing it himself. I think he wanted to ensure he wasn’t hitching himself to a giant turkey totally out of his control.
I don’t think acknowledging the bias that comes from my position as an arts educator with a focus on screenwriting is flippant at all! It’s definitely influential. It is worth interrogating my parenthetical admission of this position but I don’t want to give potential shit-talkers too much ammo. I only mention it at all here because your response was refreshingly free of the kind of acrimony and/or dismissal I sometimes get. (Essentially the parenthetical boils down to a concern that my position will be seen as the *sole* reason that I believe what I do, which is untrue. I came to dislike/disapprove auteur theory and hyphenates long before I became a prof.)I don’t know that I can separate the labor matter from the entirety of the conversation. Honestly, if we were a society that believed in and enacted Universal Basic Income I wouldn’t give two shits about writer-directors. …. well, that’s probably not 100% true. I’d probably still have a negative view of them but I wouldn’t be quite so quick to get pissy about it. In this specific case maybe it’s a good thing for Waititi that he did both. He claims he took the job because it paid well and he had kids to feed. But I have some doubts about the veracity of that claim. After all, he walked away from the TV version of What We Do in the Shadows to do Thor so he couldn’t have been destitute.For me, if you aren’t able to communicate your vision as the writer to a director then you have failed. That’s the whole point of being a screenwriter. You’re telling a story to an audience of potential collaborators. You’re inviting others to come make this work with you. I think a writer who feels like they HAVE to direct the script themselves lacks the trust and collaborative spirit that makes film worth doing at all. Again, there are other forms of art that don’t require nearly as much collaboration. If you’re a director who only wants to make your own stories, then again you lack the trust and collaborative spirit that makes film worth doing. And to delve briefly into my snarkier side, who the fuck do you think you are that your precious artistic vision is just SOOOOO mind-blowingly unique that NO OTHER WRITER/DIRECTOR could handle it? This is the angry, unfair core of my dislike for the whole auteur theory and hyphenate thing. It’s why I tend to attribute the desire to do both to egomania. And to be clear, I think this about actor-directors, actor-writers, cinematographer-directors, etc. Taking on multiple roles because of some idea of artistically “pure” vision makes me want to shake that person until they become particles. Again, if you don’t trust collaborators to see your vision through, don’t make films. There. Are. Other. Mediums.What’s funny about the “bad movie” topic is how infrequently screenwriters get *credit* for a movie being good when it’s good. There are obviously exceptions but directors almost always get the bulk of the credit when a movie turns out well. If it doesn’t, there are plenty of excuses they can give. The script wasn’t up to snuff. Studio interference. I didn’t have the budget I needed. I think the position that really struggles to excuse a bad movie is producer. The director and writer might have the biggest artistic influence but nothing gets done without someone paying for it. Even then, they often have the convenient excuse of “It made money.” It’s only when a movie is both bad AND a flop that producers take real flack.
I think what our different viewpoints boil down to is that you see screenwriting as something entirely apart from directing, and I don’t. What are your thoughts on directors who make their own storyboards? I think it’s sort of similar, and I’d be interested to know whether you consider that something that should be done with collaborators as well.You’ve made me think about my own biases. I work primarily as an editor (mostly for non-fiction stuff), and for me anything that comes before the edit is basically the same. It’s all just planning to get to the stage where you have footage to work with. So whether it’s writing, storyboarding, composing a shot, motivating an actor, etc. anything where a creative decision is being made at some point goes through the director. My main contact on how to interpret footage is often the director (occasionally a producer on short form stuff). Even when the director hasn’t written the script, it’s their interpretation that I need to go by, so if the director also wrote the script there’s functionally no difference to me.You say that film is only worth doing if you’re willing to collaborate in every aspect (paraphrasing), and while I think this is mostly true, I don’t think it’s the only way to do it. There are cases where a director is so interested in another aspect of filmmaking (for example Kurosawa editing his own films), and at the same time good at it, that I think it’s permissible to take on a little more. Kurosawa is an example where him actually editing himself was probably more for saving time than anything else. Why put an intermediary in when you already have such a strong vision? Just doing it yourself instead of telling someone else to do it.I think Kurosawa is a good answer to your question “who the fuck do you think you are that your precious artistic vision is just SOOOOO mind-blowingly unique that NO OTHER WRITER/DIRECTOR could handle it?” I agree with you that most multi-hyphenates probably aren’t as good at it, but they’ll never know unless they try (or keep trying until one film is finally the auteur masterpiece?).I’d like to address your concept of auteurs and auteur theory. Auteur theory, to me, is simply the belief that some directors make films with more of a personal angle. If you watch a few of their films, you’ll start to notice that their pet themes keep reoccurring, and the films will be richer for it. The idea of the auteur itself has grown from this theory and taken on a life of its own. I think it’s mostly because of difficult art films of the 60’s and 70’s that were critically accalimed, but considered “self-indulgent” contrasted with genre pictures that didn’t get as much critical attention even though they were solidly directed. The term auteur has taken on a snobby self-important quality that I don’t think was originally intended by the auteur theory.I should say that I agree with you about screenwriters never getting any credit. I feel like a big reason for TV’s golden age is that a bunch of good writers finally found a place where they could get the respect and control that they wanted.
My conception of an auteur isn’t significantly different from your own. I think in practical terms what most often happens is that someone with that distinct and personal a vision becomes a hyphenate, especially contemporaneously. I do think there are directors working in this day and age who could be called auteurs who are NOT hyphenates. I just also think it doesn’t happen much because it doesn’t have to. Most directors who want to write get to. You see it much less the other way around (because screenwriters are the red-headed stepchildren of industry creatives) but you still do see it.I would say that the difference really comes down to the part of the conversation we didn’t get into much, which is division of labor. I see the screenwriter and director as very much separate jobs. That’s partly due to the semantic reality. If a director was inherently a screenwriter we wouldn’t have two different words for what they do. Outside of semantics those positions have their own unions, get paid different rates, get credited differently (opening credit crawls might say “Written and Directed by” but the end credits will separate them), etc. I’m not inherently against anyone doing multiple jobs. On small budget pictures it’s often a necessity. The bigger the production the more I become against it. Because of labor. For me having a rigorous labor market in the film and TV industry trumps anyone’s particular specific vision. I don’t CARE if you’re an artiste, I care that two people get health insurance (or credits towards same) and a paycheck instead of just one. I do genuinely understand that that’s a separate matter for most people but it’s not for me. For me it’s central.You bring up an interesting example in Kurosawa. Interesting because yes, the man was a ridiculously talented filmmaker. And he was good at editing. But I would question whether it was actually *necessary* for him to edit his own movies. He did it, and kudos to him. But did he need to? I’m sure HE thought he needed to. I’m not convinced, personally. I’ve never thought that anyone is so masterful and distinct in their art that ONLY THEY can do it. Generally I’m not a proponent of the uniqueness of artists, with rare exception.
I think you see directors becoming screenwriters more than screenwriters becoming directors because directors have to deal with scripts. They have to know them inside and out, and they have to be aware of how and why they are constructed the way that they are. Maybe they don’t get down to the nitty gritty details that screenwriters do, but it’s fair to say that a director is usually pretty familiar with how a script works on a story level. Screenwriters don’t really have to be familiar with what directors do in the same way. Or at least they don’t literally deal with the product that the director has produced. Of course, this might then follow that editors should become directors, since they have the same relationship with what a director produces. I guess the other skill that directors need to have that (generally) writers and editors don’t is the ability to command large groups of people, and I think this is why a lot of writers and editors don’t end up directing.I believe that everyone, not just artists, is unique. Of course, uniqueness alone isn’t always something that interests me, but I think it’s one of the more important elements of art (at least in the long run). When you ask if it’s necessary for Kurosawa to edit his own films, I have to ask, necessary to what? If he had someone else edit his films, I’m sure they would still be very good, but are we just looking for a good product, or a specific unique vision? I think this is the main conflict in making cinema.I used to be one of those people who would rather see an imaginative failure than a success that plays it safe. These days I’m not so bothered with the failures. I’d rather see something that’s successful, regardless of how clever it is (but I have a wife and kids, so I don’t see as many movies as I used to). But I still appreciate that people are swinging for the fences, because it’s all worth it when one of those swings is a success. I think you would agree that committee filmmaking generally produces bland results. Where is the line drawn? I don’t think that a director letting someone else take over certain aspects of production is going to yield an objectively worse film, but I don’t think that’s something that can even be judged objectively. If part of the artistic vision is that the artist write and direct (or any other combination) I say let them. I’m here for the vision, whether it be worthwhile or not (of course I’m not always literally here for it, but I support it nonetheless so that visions I am here for be supported as well).The fact that filmmaking is so tied up in commerce in way that few other arts are shouldn’t dictate the sort of artistic input it has. That just seems to be giving in to an unjust system. I know you’ve said that film is a uniquely collaborative art, and that those who don’t want to embrace this should try painting or writing a novel. But I see this as letting financial concerns constrict the sort of movies that can be made. I don’t think you’re wrong to be concerned about whether your students can get jobs, and I suppose overall that is more important than some guy being able to make a movie the way he wants to. I’m not sure it’s so black in white when applied in real life, though.
Literally all “auteur” means is that he wants to be a writer-director who conceives his own projects, rather than a director-for-hire. It’s like being a “singer-songwriter” rather than a “pop star.”Why exactly are you taking it so personally?
Literally that’s not what it means. I know the term “literally” has taken on its opposite meaning in recent years but I’m using the original definition and you’re wrong.I take it as personally as I take any discussion of the act of filmmaking. I engage in it and I teach it. Of course I give a shit. Why do YOU give a shit that I give a shit? What is it to you?
A filmmaker, usually a director, who exercises creative control over his or her works and has a strong personal style.
A creative artist, especially a film director, seen as having a specific, recognisable artistic vision, and who is seen as the single or preeminent author of his works.A filmmaker who has a personal style and keeps creative control over his or her works.You’re wrong, and if you’re teaching anything else, you’re a bad teacher.
I care because self-important doofuses like you who get angry on the Internet because they are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) are funny to me.
None of those three definitions is what you wrote initially. You can be an auteur and NOT conceive your own projects. You can be an auteur who is hired onto a project.You must make yourself laugh quite heartily.
I’m sorry but you being unable to admit you’re wrong doesn’t make you write. You can bleat “nuh-uh,” but facts are facts.
Yes. Facts are facts. And the fact is that the literal word you literally wrote doesn’t literally mean what you literally said it does. And you subsequently posting three dictionary definitions, none of which match what you wrote, only supports my point. That’s a very thorough self-own, friend.
You doubling down on willful ignronace is not a winning tactic.
Likewise.Same time tomorrow or are we done here?
“Same time tomorrow or are we done here?”
Hopefully you’re done.
I honestly don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing by standing by objectively wrong statements.
“I take it as personally as I take any discussion of the act of filmmaking. I engage in it and I teach it.”
I feel bad for anyone who pays to listen to your bullshit.
“But AIMING to be an auteur? Like making that your goal? UGH.’
Yeah, what kind of jerk *aims* to make personal films with creative control?
Taika Waititi’s filmmaking will age about as well as fanny packs.
Fanny packs have more use than you ever will.
That may be the case, but you still probably wouldn’t be caugfht dead associated with one. HAHA YAKS MAKE FUN NOIZE SEXUALLY OBJECTIFY MEN MURDER GODS IM A HERO HURRDURR.That’s you, the typical “woke” MCU fan who hasn’t set foot inside a comic book store in their life. GTFO fake nerd. Your trolling of trolls bores me to death. There’s a reason nobody pulls your sorry ass out of the Kinja greays after years of desperately trying for relevance. Let this sink in Robo Duck. Nobody gives a fuck what you or I thinks. Your arrogance is laughable. Championing dead progressive outlets like it’s your fucking job. Pathetic. AV Club is just another tombstone in the quickly resolving culture war. Sensibility will out. Die in a fire.
Dude looks coked out to the nines in that header pic. LOL
What a mercenary weirdo, I always take all my jobs because I fucking love Thor so much.
We normies call that “a job.”
His constant Elon face was the first clue but I was completely over him the first time seeing him in an interview. Insufferable.
kill yourself, loser
lmao it takes more than luck to succeed in Hollywood. So you’re saying young artists trying to break into the fold shouldn’t take big tentpole films. Are you high?
I’m shocked by how dumb this is. Of course unestablished artists should take on large blockbusters. I’m sure community theatre gets tiring.
Waititi’s a bit of a twat isn’t he. Left his wife and kids for some talentless pop strumpet. Pretty overrated.
Wow, you’re absolutely pathetic, you judgmental fucking loser.
Hello there the first Mrs Waititi!
“Marvel’s habit of poaching talented young writer-directors”Poaching from whom? These are not employees at a rival company they’re hiring away—these are ostensibly free agents hired to work on specific, particular projects.
“It was horrible because I did not care and was just cashing a check”. What every film financier wants to hear.