THOR: THE DARK WORLD Director Alan Taylor Says There's A "Taylor Cut" Where Loki Lives And More

@ShimmyShimmyYA - really at most i hear something about it every other year

@BlackBeltJones - sure do, better start running!

@marvel72 - I enjoyed the movie and really loved any and all scenes in Asgard in the movie, but yeah the comedy bits were off and not needed.
But there was a lot issues with this movie just cause they never had a clear vision for Thor's journey from the beginning

@Spock0Clock - that I didn’t know, thanks for the lesson. I still don’t understand getting mad at the director solely. Of course there’s blame to go around to everyone, but they take most of the blame while the corporations get none it’s backwards.

It’s like being a fan of an organization over the players. No one watches the owner so why would I be a fan of them?

@MyCoolYoung - I'm not mad at directors exactly, but I guess I'm just not that sympathetic to them either (at least not by impulse). If there's a specific issue where a director fought for a good idea and a studio overruled them, and it sank the movie, then okay. Let's talk about it. But often, the nastiest fights don't even really matter much to the final movie, in my experience.

For example, after writing and directing my favorite Star Trek movie (Wrath of Khan), Nicholas Meyer left Star Trek because he was disgusted that they would bring Spock back from the dead in the next movie. He said it cheapened the death, and okay, it's a legitimate complaint. But then he later came back to write and direct Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, which is a damn good Star Trek movie, too.

What good came from throwing a fit about Spock's return? What good did it do to walk away from the franchise? I get the human reaction of being overruled and not feeling listened to, but that's the kind of stuff that just feels childish and egotistical with 30 years of hindsight. The ability to artfully compromise and to make the best of a bad situation are qualities that I've come to admire more than "artistic integrity" (in the Fountainhead sense).

When Snyder kept insisting that his version of DC characters were somehow better or grown up or more smarter than other people's work: your work has to back that up. And in his case, we got a movie that was unreleasable to theaters, disjointed, uneven, and just sort of okay. People can argue about whether it was "better" than Whedon's material, but the truth is they were both mixed bags that fell short of what a Justice League should have been.

On some level, I'm happy to hear about Snyder or Taylor or Ayer or Trank's intentions, but I'd also love to hear Feige or Geoff Johns or Whedon's intentions laid out clearly at the different stages of development, too. That's all inside baseball stuff that can be interesting. But these movies are big investments and collaborations. Producers aren't out of line to want the final product to reflect their priorities, too. Taylor and Ayer both imply that their versions have inherently more merit or artistic value than the studio's final cuts, but I just don't see it that way. Producers and executives and editors are all a part of this creative process, too. Their contributions aren't necessarily lesser to me.

@Spock0Clock - it’s really hard to rebuttal you when you lay it out so detailed and correctly.

I do believe it’s a collaboration that’s why I say blame should be spread evenly around. Joss caught a lot of flack for the justice league even after it got leaked that wb wanted to keep the relEase date for bonuses then we see the Snyder cut and it was the same basic movie just compressed it crazy ways at times.

I’m not even saying the movies would be better because I doubt it. I’m just saying why do we tend to attack the directors but never give any blame to the others in the collaborative process

@Spock0Clock - "Oooooooouuuuuur" pamphlets. 😉