So, Hank is no longer a contemporary of Tony & Bruce. Stark now builds Ultron. Ugh. Okay, movie universe is not the same as comic universe. Movie universe is not the same as comic universe, movie universe is not the same as comic universe, repeat...
I feel like we covered this with another comic book movie universe. Tactical wear v. spandex. ;)
Really disappointed that Hank Pym is not the main Ant Man because in my opinion he's the only true Ant Man and now we get freaking Lang who I hate and never liked as Ant Man. Hank Pym is basically the Bruce Wayne from Batman Beyond.
That's crazy! He was involved for like 6 years, how could anyone involved not know what everyone's intentions were? This has slashed my interest by 75-90%. If Paul Rudd leaves I'm out entirely.
I could care less who directs this...I just want an Ant-Man flick.
As someone who doesn't care for the Ant-man character, Edgar Wright was really the only draw for me, but it was a huge draw. Unless his co-writer Joe Cornish takes over I can't imagine giving this movie another thought until I can see it for free on Netflix.
I hear he wanted to do a stand-alone film but Team Disney / Marvel want Ant-Man to fit into the larger picture. Wright's Scott Pilgrim was a masterpiece, and this is a blow to the film he's been attached to now for what... 7 years or so? But in the end, maybe he wasn't.... the Wright man for the job?
9 times out 10 I have no idea who directs the movies I see. Unless it's a big, big name I'm pretty oblivious.
See, I rarely go to the theater to see something without knowing something about or by the director. I like to have an idea of the kind of storytelling approach the movie will have. Most directors are consistent in their approach, or at least it evolves slowly over time. Edgar Wright understood how to merge meaningful character arcs with pop culture absurdism better than anyone since maybe Ivan Reitman in his prime. I can't trust that another director coming in so late in the game will be able to balance the tone of Wright and Cornish's script with the same kind of nuance.
I am probably wrong and Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man are going to makes several hundred million dollars each.
I think however that these two movies are the stretches by Marvel and may not get the wider movie audience support that more well known characters get.
Even before the movies were released, the adult who read comics as a kid knew who Iron Man, Capt America, and Thor was. Even people who did not read comics probably had a vague idea on one or two of them. A lot of people who have been reading comics regularly for years have no idea who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, and Ant Man is not a A list type character with a lot of name recogniton or a large backlog of solid comic stories behind him.
Kudos to the studio for taking a chance with these properties. I hope they do well. I fear they could end up being under achievers that along with studios increasing the Super Hero movie output causes the general public opinion to go against comic book movies.
I know all the big news is about Wright leaving, but I'm not worried. I'm not surprised its having script problems, but until we see something (trailers, commercials, something) I don't think there's anything to worry about. Thor 2 had some behind the scenes issues and that (to me) turned out just fine.
That is a bummer. But, I suppose, even when you are passionate and have put a lot of time into someone else's property, it is still a lot of work on someone else's property. Hopefully the replacement does well, and Wright moves onto something original and good (or does a fantastic movie of The Boys-- I know that was happening at some point, not sure if it is dead or just in limbo).
Since they state the reason as creative differences, I'm inclined like most to assume Wright's vision was a little too idiosyncratic to fit with the assembly line process the Marvel films.
I don't have a problem with that process, as it's produced a very consistent string of films, but if they were going to allow some individuality, Ant Man would seem like the film to do that with. If they want to attract name directors, I'd think it would be smart to let at least a few films play under different rules, but I guess they're determined to have everything connect and fit with the formula.
I'm sure it'll be fine, and since the majority of people going to see it won't know who's directing it, they'll never know they might be missing out on something unique. Hell, I actually pay attention to things like directors, and as I type this, I realize I couldn't tell you who directed Dark World or Winter Soldier.
Since they state the reason as creative differences, I'm inclined like most to assume Wright's vision was a little too idiosyncratic to fit with the assembly line process the Marvel films.
I don't have a problem with that process, as it's produced a very consistent string of films, but if they were going to allow some individuality, Ant Man would seem like the film to do that with. If they want to attract name directors, I'd think it would be smart to let at least a few films play under different rules, but I guess they're determined to have everything connect and fit with the formula.
I'm sure it'll be fine, and since the majority of people going to see it won't know who's directing it, they'll never know they might be missing out on something unique. Hell, I actually pay attention to things like directors, and as I type this, I realize I couldn't tell you who directed Dark World or Winter Soldier.
It may be that he ended up being too quirky but, to be fair, I don't agree with the premise that the prior Marvel Studio films have lacked individual voices. Sure, there may be some things to make them have some consistency from film to film, but not to the point that I would consider it an assembly line. I find Iron Man 3 to be a very different looking and feeling film than Thor: The Dark Age. Avengers and Winter Soldier felt and looked very different to me as well. And I can only judge by trailers, but so far Guardians also likes quite individual, quirky and different than what has come before.
Since they state the reason as creative differences, I'm inclined like most to assume Wright's vision was a little too idiosyncratic to fit with the assembly line process the Marvel films.
I don't have a problem with that process, as it's produced a very consistent string of films, but if they were going to allow some individuality, Ant Man would seem like the film to do that with. If they want to attract name directors, I'd think it would be smart to let at least a few films play under different rules, but I guess they're determined to have everything connect and fit with the formula.
I'm sure it'll be fine, and since the majority of people going to see it won't know who's directing it, they'll never know they might be missing out on something unique. Hell, I actually pay attention to things like directors, and as I type this, I realize I couldn't tell you who directed Dark World or Winter Soldier.
It may be that he ended up being too quirky but, to be fair, I don't agree with the premise that the prior Marvel Studio films have lacked individual voices. Sure, there may be some things to make them have some consistency from film to film, but not to the point that I would consider it an assembly line. I find Iron Man 3 to be a very different looking and feeling film than Thor: The Dark Age. Avengers and Winter Soldier felt and looked very different to me as well. And I can only judge by trailers, but so far Guardians also likes quite individual, quirky and different than what has come before.
The films themselves do each have their own distinct style, but they rarely feel like a style set by a director. I didn't walk out of the first Thor thinking "Thank goodness Kenneth Branagh directed that, because no one else could have done that film." They feel distinct in the way that a television show may have a different director every week, but each episode will match the tone and feel of the previous.
The one exception for me is Iron Man 3, which felt like a Shane Black film, and played with the rules in a way I haven't seen from the other films. Perhaps Iron Man 1, also, but it's hard to say, since it was the first, and there were no rules or formats to play with. In hindsight, though, it has a relaxed playfulness the later films lack. Iron Man 2, for me, is a full-on display of assembly-line filmmaking, and thankfully they pulled back a little after that, allowing the later films to stand on their own a little more.
AICN first reported and now Variety has confirmed that Anchorman director Adam McKay is in "advanced talks" with Marvel Studios to replace edgar Wright as the director of Ant-Man. McKay has worked with Ant-Man star Paul Rudd on the Anchorman movies and has tackled the action-comedy genre before with The Other Guys.
Update #1: It now sounds like Rawson Thurber (We're the Millers) is the frontrunner to replace Edgar Wright on Ant-Man.
This latest update comes from The Wrap. The site points out that Zombieland director Ruben Fleischer, who is also up for the gig, just had a baby with his wife "and may be reluctant to take a demanding gig that will require such a big commitment." Plus, he's also being considered to direct Ghostbusters 3 for Sony.
I've been reading a couple of updates on the situation with the directors on this film, and it seems to be confirmed that Marvel Studios wanted the film to fall more in line with their overall plans for all of the Marvel movies, rather than allow the director to have his way with the film. I'll admit that I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I generally feel that the director is the main creative force on any picture and needs to be given enough freedom to realize his vision of what the finished product should be. On the other hand, Marvel's movies thus far have been quite appealing to me, suggesting that perhaps they know better than the directors how to put together a satisfying product, at least in this case. I'm also not crazy about the comedic overtones I keep hearing about this film having (or the fact that they keep touting the Big Comedy each proposed director has recently filmed as a reason to bring him on to this film), so if Marvel tones those down, I'll likely be grateful.
I may wind up siding with Marvel's decisions on dropping Edgar Wright, in spite of all he's done to make this project viable in the first place.
I've been reading a couple of updates on the situation with the directors on this film, and it seems to be confirmed that Marvel Studios wanted the film to fall more in line with their overall plans for all of the Marvel movies, rather than allow the director to have his way with the film. I'll admit that I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I generally feel that the director is the main creative force on any picture and needs to be given enough freedom to realize his vision of what the finished product should be. On the other hand, Marvel's movies thus far have been quite appealing to me, suggesting that perhaps they know better than the directors how to put together a satisfying product, at least in this case. I'm also not crazy about the comedic overtones I keep hearing about this film having (or the fact that they keep touting the Big Comedy each proposed director has recently filmed as a reason to bring him on to this film), so if Marvel tones those down, I'll likely be grateful.
I may wind up siding with Marvel's decisions on dropping Edgar Wright, in spite of all he's done to make this project viable in the first place.
I can see your point about directors & agree under most circumstances. I do think this is a huge exception. Marvel Studios is building a specific universe & directors being hired know that. They also know that Marvel is creating a certain tone with its movies. They can choose whether or not to come onboard in the beginning of production.
I'm really hoping this isn't the Green Hornet movie of the Marvel Studios universe.
I've been reading a couple of updates on the situation with the directors on this film, and it seems to be confirmed that Marvel Studios wanted the film to fall more in line with their overall plans for all of the Marvel movies, rather than allow the director to have his way with the film. I'll admit that I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I generally feel that the director is the main creative force on any picture and needs to be given enough freedom to realize his vision of what the finished product should be. On the other hand, Marvel's movies thus far have been quite appealing to me, suggesting that perhaps they know better than the directors how to put together a satisfying product, at least in this case. I'm also not crazy about the comedic overtones I keep hearing about this film having (or the fact that they keep touting the Big Comedy each proposed director has recently filmed as a reason to bring him on to this film), so if Marvel tones those down, I'll likely be grateful.
I may wind up siding with Marvel's decisions on dropping Edgar Wright, in spite of all he's done to make this project viable in the first place.
I can see your point about directors & agree under most circumstances. I do think this is a huge exception. Marvel Studios is building a specific universe & directors being hired know that. They also know that Marvel is creating a certain tone with its movies. They can choose whether or not to come onboard in the beginning of production.
I'm really hoping this isn't the Green Hornet movie of the Marvel Studios universe.
I've been reading a couple of updates on the situation with the directors on this film, and it seems to be confirmed that Marvel Studios wanted the film to fall more in line with their overall plans for all of the Marvel movies, rather than allow the director to have his way with the film. I'll admit that I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I generally feel that the director is the main creative force on any picture and needs to be given enough freedom to realize his vision of what the finished product should be. On the other hand, Marvel's movies thus far have been quite appealing to me, suggesting that perhaps they know better than the directors how to put together a satisfying product, at least in this case. I'm also not crazy about the comedic overtones I keep hearing about this film having (or the fact that they keep touting the Big Comedy each proposed director has recently filmed as a reason to bring him on to this film), so if Marvel tones those down, I'll likely be grateful.
I may wind up siding with Marvel's decisions on dropping Edgar Wright, in spite of all he's done to make this project viable in the first place.
I can see your point about directors & agree under most circumstances. I do think this is a huge exception. Marvel Studios is building a specific universe & directors being hired know that. They also know that Marvel is creating a certain tone with its movies. They can choose whether or not to come onboard in the beginning of production.
I'm really hoping this isn't the Green Hornet movie of the Marvel Studios universe.
I can see your point about directors & agree under most circumstances. I do think this is a huge exception. Marvel Studios is building a specific universe & directors being hired know that. They also know that Marvel is creating a certain tone with its movies. They can choose whether or not to come onboard in the beginning of production.
Wright and Cornish had been working on Ant Man since 2006, long before the tone was established and then turned into homogenised mush.
Comments
M
Wasp or somebody else?
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=53020
I think however that these two movies are the stretches by Marvel and may not get the wider movie audience support that more well known characters get.
Even before the movies were released, the adult who read comics as a kid knew who Iron Man, Capt America, and Thor was. Even people who did not read comics probably had a vague idea on one or two of them. A lot of people who have been reading comics regularly for years have no idea who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, and Ant Man is not a A list type character with a lot of name recogniton or a large backlog of solid comic stories behind him.
Kudos to the studio for taking a chance with these properties. I hope they do well. I fear they could end up being under achievers that along with studios increasing the Super Hero movie output causes the general public opinion to go against comic book movies.
I don't have a problem with that process, as it's produced a very consistent string of films, but if they were going to allow some individuality, Ant Man would seem like the film to do that with. If they want to attract name directors, I'd think it would be smart to let at least a few films play under different rules, but I guess they're determined to have everything connect and fit with the formula.
I'm sure it'll be fine, and since the majority of people going to see it won't know who's directing it, they'll never know they might be missing out on something unique. Hell, I actually pay attention to things like directors, and as I type this, I realize I couldn't tell you who directed Dark World or Winter Soldier.
The one exception for me is Iron Man 3, which felt like a Shane Black film, and played with the rules in a way I haven't seen from the other films. Perhaps Iron Man 1, also, but it's hard to say, since it was the first, and there were no rules or formats to play with. In hindsight, though, it has a relaxed playfulness the later films lack. Iron Man 2, for me, is a full-on display of assembly-line filmmaking, and thankfully they pulled back a little after that, allowing the later films to stand on their own a little more.
UPDATE: Adam McKay just dropped out.
I may wind up siding with Marvel's decisions on dropping Edgar Wright, in spite of all he's done to make this project viable in the first place.
I'm really hoping this isn't the Green Hornet movie of the Marvel Studios universe.
M