The Russo's don't even do their action scenes...I don't think he is that great technically and his visual story telling style lacks when it comes to tension and turning the mundane to exceptional. These are superhero movies after all so the last two of these are important. Without this it is hard to build and maintain tension and a sense of wonderment across the entirety of a movie.
Example of this being done well is when Iron Man came out of the elevator in Civil War in Siberia. The scene was just him leaving the elevator (nothing special) but it was done in a way to maintain the narrative tension and to make the mundane exceptional. The sound, the angles, the narrative tropes and refrains, movement, lighting etc were used to achieve this. Lots of use of first person camera angles to maintain the sense of tension.
Look at the way the camera switches back and forth between the viewpoints in this scene.
or here.. long long pause on his face. and then the signature noises with angles and lighting to make the Iron Man suit up new and exciting while still feeling familiar.
or Bucky just stealing a bike ..
Coogler cannot (yet) so this sort of thing. Or chooses not to.
Even the shot framing.. This is just two guys standing but thanks to the directors it is more than that,.
It is for that reason that BP seemed more "special" in Civil War than in his own movie. The same is true of Strange in the Russo's films - even ignoring his fight scenes.
This matters because without the ability to add wonderment you become more reliant on showing "amazing events" to involve the audience.
This is Spielberg doing the same with Indy without modern tech.
Without this ability you can end up making the special look and feel mundane which is how a lot of the (for example) 3rd action filled act in BP felt. It just didn't feel, because it didn't look. as grave a situation as the dialogue told you it was.
Sometimes less it more. BP might have been better served by showing less and yet showing more.
This is an example of how they made Shuri feel more special in 10 seconds than she did in all of BP through the simple tricks of lighting, the music, the pan of the camera and by dwelling on the look on her face.
And it's not just the Russos who do/did this.
You would be hard pressed to find a scene in BP where the visual and action tension progression is the done as well as the top MCU directors do. The emotional narrative and twist in BP was probably the best in the MCU but that is due to his talent as a writer NOT as a director.
Also he is quite young so hasn't yet demonstrated that he has the scope to drive the broader direction of the MCU and Marvel don't seem to be using him like that anyway.
Anyway enough about Coogler. People don't like it if you say anything that detracts from his MCU work. He is good but he needs to improve.
---
Back in the beginning you had Favreau who was instrumental in setting up the initial MCU tone.
Then Wheadon came along and drove the creative direction until the Russos took over.
Gunn was intended as master of the Cosmic but it remains to be seen how they are going to use him now.
The Russos drove the direction the MCU but are now taking time out.
Marvel interspaced the less capable directors' films between the flagship films and audiences didn't seem to mind but a lengthier run from the lower-ranked directors might be more of an issue.
My comments weren't about Coogler so much anyway. I think the Dr. Strange, Ant Man, Captain Marvel etc directors are paint-by-numbers bland or just very poor. Marvel has the production infrastructure to support them but if the MCU wants a breakout hit (NOT just money) like IM, GOTG etc they need better directors. I agree that you don't really want the auteurs whose style might overshadow that of the MCU.
Waititi did a good job with Thor as well but ....
You were reaching with this post
