Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG
I say soulless because none of the directors are allowed to leave a personal touch on the films. They are directors-for-hire that aren't given creative freedom to make each film stand on their own. What I think is really neat about comic books is that each artist can employ their own unique style with a character and still retain continuity. It keeps things fresh and is one of the reasons these characters have remained relevant for decades, but the Marvel films haven't taken that approach yet; everything is the same. I'm hoping we'll see more risk taking with the fringe characters like Antman and Guardians of the Galaxy.
Apparently we simply see thing differently. I think Marvel has used each director's strengths perfectly and they let them create and leave their mark on every film. If you listen to the commentaries, it's clear each director was given the freedom they needed except Favs on Iron Man 2. I think Marvel learned their lesson from that and even encouraged team play creatively after Iron Man 2. Branagh and Joe Johnston even said as much with Whedon rolling his work right off Thor and being the script doctor on First Avenger. Despite the links, I feel each film has stood well on it's own. Still, a $200 million dollar film can't be treated like a monthly comic book publication. Many chefs are needed to cook that big of a meal.
I guess it's clear I've grown to be passionate about these films. So, when someone takes what I deem as an unfair swipe at them I tend to fire hot. Think of it as if someone takes a shot at your mother, analytical responses become a bit more passionate.
Last thought about Pfister's comments, to me it's like giving press to a losing low level assistant football coach after he sees another team win the Super Bowl and whines about how they did it.