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.
What initially delayed it? If it was them, then their chance to do their voice kinda passed. By this point, Marvel Studios is a machine running forward.
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.
What initially delayed it? If it was them, then their chance to do their voice kinda passed. By this point, Marvel Studios is a machine running forward.
M
The overwhelming success of Iron Man.
Marvel decided to prioritize Thor and Cap and finally Avengers. After that it became harder to find a slot for it, Wright moved on to other projects and sequels became the priority, until this third round of movies. But yeah Marvel is very different than it was in 06. It's not an indie studio trying to figure out what's going to work anymore and I'm sure as they build their brand they know exactly what they want out of one of their movies, which they probably didn't 8 years ago.
So far for me the only misstep Marvel/Disney has made was Iron Man 3 and that made $400 million so I will trust who they chose as a director.
I'd say that Iron Man 3 is more divisive than a misstep. Personally I think it's the best movie Marvel has made (it's not in my Top 5 list only because I think IM and Avengers had more impact on me) and it's great because of a strong director presence. It feels like Shane Black's movie more than a Marvel movie. It made a ton of money but I think Marvel is aware of the "love it or hate it" attitude toward the movie. Maybe they didn't want to risk that kind of reaction on an unproven property, especially when they already have a similar risk coming up with GotG. If it's a flop then Marvel risks losing market share 2 years in a row.
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.
What initially delayed it? If it was them, then their chance to do their voice kinda passed. By this point, Marvel Studios is a machine running forward.
M
The overwhelming success of Iron Man.
Marvel decided to prioritize Thor and Cap and finally Avengers. After that it became harder to find a slot for it, Wright moved on to other projects and sequels became the priority, until this third round of movies. But yeah Marvel is very different than it was in 06. It's not an indie studio trying to figure out what's going to work anymore and I'm sure as they build their brand they know exactly what they want out of one of their movies, which they probably didn't 8 years ago.
It's my understanding that at least one delay was due to Wright - he asked permission from Marvel to make World's End first, apparently because someone involved in the production/business end of that film was sick with cancer. Since Marvel allowed this, it sounds like they really did want him to direct the film, so there must have been a fairly big disagreement for things to end the way they did.
All the comedy directors being bandied about has me worried. I love Anchorman, but I have no interest in a director of that film or similar ones taking on Ant Man. Even if it is more comedic than most Marvel films, I think directors used to aiming for punchlines rather than setting up humorous situations is the wrong way to go.
I talked to a friend about the exit of Wright, and I don't see a "bad guy" in this situation.
Wright fought for this project, nurtured it, likely felt it was "his" baby. Then, Marvel had a string of uber-successful films, and wanted to bring Ant-Man into that shared universe. Yeah, this likely hampered Wright's vision (though the feeling of ownership was likely a big factor in how hampered he actually was), and he decided it wasn't going to get any better.
When Wright signed on, Marvel had not established themselves or their film-universe. It was a different time. Now, of course, everyone that gets involved in a Marvel film should understand that they are not a whole unto themselves, but a part of a tapestry. Had Ant-Man moved forward more quickly, a more "individual" film would have been fine... but it didn't, for lots of reasons, and now the status quo has changed.
I don't see a bad guy in this, just a new era with new rules.
I talked to a friend about the exit of Wright, and I don't see a "bad guy" in this situation.
Wright fought for this project, nurtured it, likely felt it was "his" baby. Then, Marvel had a string of uber-successful films, and wanted to bring Ant-Man into that shared universe. Yeah, this likely hampered Wright's vision (though the feeling of ownership was likely a big factor in how hampered he actually was), and he decided it wasn't going to get any better.
When Wright signed on, Marvel had not established themselves or their film-universe. It was a different time. Now, of course, everyone that gets involved in a Marvel film should understand that they are not a whole unto themselves, but a part of a tapestry. Had Ant-Man moved forward more quickly, a more "individual" film would have been fine... but it didn't, for lots of reasons, and now the status quo has changed.
I don't see a bad guy in this, just a new era with new rules.
I completely agree. Even when I first heard about Wright's departure, I didn't see either side as a bad guy. I enjoy Wright's work, but truthfully (aside from the X-Men franchise) the Marvel Studios movies are the only comic book movies I really care for nowadays. Part of that is the shared universe.
What initially delayed it? If it was them, then their chance to do their voice kinda passed. By this point, Marvel Studios is a machine running forward.
M
Wright delayed Ant Man bc he was making World's End, which I'm glad he did.
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.
Which movie was homogenized much? Winter Soldier? I thought that was as good or better than the Avengers. Thor The Dark World? I enjoyed the heck out of that one and thought it was an impressive improvement on the first Thor (which was still pretty darned good). In fact I'm hard pressed to think of any serious missteps Marvel Studios has made in the last near decade. They may not be perfect but the quality of stuff they are cranking out is better than the average superhero movie. I think Kevin Fieige and his gang have earned a little fanboy good will by this point. I like Edgar Wright but maybe Marvel felt like this property had languished for long enough and needed to get moving.
So, Peyton Reed (director of The Break up, Bring It On, Back to the Future: the Animated Series, & The Weird Al Show; to name a few) is hired as the replacement director. This'll be...interesting.
I was very excited about this movie until they said Hank was going to be an 70 year old and Scott Lang is going to be Ant Man. I've always hated Lang never liked him as Ant Man no matter who Hank thinks he is at the time he will always be Ant Man. And to me Hank is the far superior character of the two.
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
I was very excited about this movie until they said Hank was going to be an 70 year old and Scott Lang is going to be Ant Man. I've always hated Lang never liked him as Ant Man no matter who Hank thinks he is at the time he will always be Ant Man. And to me Hank is the far superior character of the two.
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
Of course, those familiar names could just be placeholders. The actual characters in the movie could be very different from the ones we know. It could be that this Scott Lang is one you'll like better than the one from the comics.
I was very excited about this movie until they said Hank was going to be an 70 year old and Scott Lang is going to be Ant Man. I've always hated Lang never liked him as Ant Man no matter who Hank thinks he is at the time he will always be Ant Man. And to me Hank is the far superior character of the two.
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
Grayson might've started the role, but he was a horrible Robin. Its hard not picturing Grayson as Nightwing. Todd was a failure, & Drake was probably the best, though its easy to see he's following the same path as Grayson. Drake is too good to be Robin.
I've always found Allen extremely boring. In fact, it wasn't until his death did he feel important to the lore. West was so incredible as Flash, I thought it was a huge leap back returning Allen to the role.
I was very excited about this movie until they said Hank was going to be an 70 year old and Scott Lang is going to be Ant Man. I've always hated Lang never liked him as Ant Man no matter who Hank thinks he is at the time he will always be Ant Man. And to me Hank is the far superior character of the two.
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
Grayson might've started the role, but he was a horrible Robin. Its hard not picturing Grayson as Nightwing. Todd was a failure, & Drake was probably the best, though its easy to see he's following the same path as Grayson. Drake is too good to be Robin.
I've always found Allen extremely boring. In fact, it wasn't until his death did he feel important to the lore. West was so incredible as Flash, I thought it was a huge leap back returning Allen to the role.
M
WTF?
"Grayson ... was a horrible Robin."???
Once again your lack of historical perspective betrays you.
I was very excited about this movie until they said Hank was going to be an 70 year old and Scott Lang is going to be Ant Man. I've always hated Lang never liked him as Ant Man no matter who Hank thinks he is at the time he will always be Ant Man. And to me Hank is the far superior character of the two.
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
Grayson might've started the role, but he was a horrible Robin. Its hard not picturing Grayson as Nightwing. Todd was a failure, & Drake was probably the best, though its easy to see he's following the same path as Grayson. Drake is too good to be Robin.
I've always found Allen extremely boring. In fact, it wasn't until his death did he feel important to the lore. West was so incredible as Flash, I thought it was a huge leap back returning Allen to the role.
M
WTF?
"Grayson ... was a horrible Robin."???
Once again your lack of historical perspective betrays you.
Actually, I meant that as a compliment. He's too good to be Robin. Grayson, like Drake, is meant for so much more then the Robin role.
Actually, I meant that as a compliment. He's too good to be Robin. Grayson, like Drake, is meant for so much more then the Robin role.
M
Once he grew up.
And he's been grown up the whole time you've been reading comics.
But he was a great Robin when he was a kid.
I think his Robin was a good sidekick, but a bad partner. As Nightwing, Grayson is no sidekick, but a definitive partner.
M
But some of that is surely due to the time those stories were written in. We were never going to get a complex Robin in the '50s and '60s, no matter who was in the costume. I haven't read enough '70s Batman to have an informed opinion, but what I have read either shows Grayson working fine as Robin, or, more often, beginning to pull away from Batman as he gets older.
I think the best way to judge them is their original concept and origin. In that regard, I feel like Grayson makes the most sense as a partner. Batman taking a fellow orphan under his wing feels like a better story to me than Jason Todd caught stealing the Batmobile's hubcaps, or Tim Drake basically applying for the job. They're not horrible origins, but they feel too removed from the basic concept to have as much punch.
So, Peyton Reed (director of The Break up, Bring It On, Back to the Future: the Animated Series, & The Weird Al Show; to name a few) is hired as the replacement director. This'll be...interesting.
M
Reed was originally slated to direct Fantastic Four, back when it was still a '60s period piece. He described it as being like "A Hard Day's Night", so he at least has some original ideas for the genre. Not sure if they're good ideas, but I guess we'll see.
Reed was originally slated to direct Fantastic Four, back when it was still a '60s period piece. He described it as being like "A Hard Day's Night", so he at least has some original ideas for the genre. Not sure if they're good ideas, but I guess we'll see.
Reed was originally slated to direct Fantastic Four, back when it was still a '60s period piece. He described it as being like "A Hard Day's Night", so he at least has some original ideas for the genre. Not sure if they're good ideas, but I guess we'll see.
I think I would like to have seen that.
Yeah, even if it had turned out to be a mess, it would have at least been an ambitious mess.
Reed was originally slated to direct Fantastic Four, back when it was still a '60s period piece. He described it as being like "A Hard Day's Night", so he at least has some original ideas for the genre. Not sure if they're good ideas, but I guess we'll see.
I think I would like to have seen that.
Yeah, even if it had turned out to be a mess, it would have at least been an ambitious mess.
Actually, I meant that as a compliment. He's too good to be Robin. Grayson, like Drake, is meant for so much more then the Robin role.
M
Once he grew up.
And he's been grown up the whole time you've been reading comics.
But he was a great Robin when he was a kid.
I think his Robin was a good sidekick, but a bad partner. As Nightwing, Grayson is no sidekick, but a definitive partner.
M
But some of that is surely due to the time those stories were written in. We were never going to get a complex Robin in the '50s and '60s, no matter who was in the costume. I haven't read enough '70s Batman to have an informed opinion, but what I have read either shows Grayson working fine as Robin, or, more often, beginning to pull away from Batman as he gets older.
I think the best way to judge them is their original concept and origin. In that regard, I feel like Grayson makes the most sense as a partner. Batman taking a fellow orphan under his wing feels like a better story to me than Jason Todd caught stealing the Batmobile's hubcaps, or Tim Drake basically applying for the job. They're not horrible origins, but they feel too removed from the basic concept to have as much punch.
Actually, since Grayson's origin is very similar to Batman's, I never really cared for it. At least with (the revised) Todd origin, Batman attempted to rehabilitate & guide a loss soul. With Drake, he might have 'applied for the job,' but that showed me he sees this as his life the same way Batman does.
Actually, since Grayson's origin is very similar to Batman's, I never really cared for it. At least with (the revised) Todd origin, Batman attempted to rehabilitate & guide a loss soul. With Drake, he might have 'applied for the job,' but that showed me he sees this as his life the same way Batman does.
Actually, since Grayson's origin is very similar to Batman's, I never really cared for it. At least with (the revised) Todd origin, Batman attempted to rehabilitate & guide a loss soul. With Drake, he might have 'applied for the job,' but that showed me he sees this as his life the same way Batman does.
Actually, since Grayson's origin is very similar to Batman's, I never really cared for it. At least with (the revised) Todd origin, Batman attempted to rehabilitate & guide a loss soul. With Drake, he might have 'applied for the job,' but that showed me he sees this as his life the same way Batman does.
Comments
M
Marvel decided to prioritize Thor and Cap and finally Avengers. After that it became harder to find a slot for it, Wright moved on to other projects and sequels became the priority, until this third round of movies. But yeah Marvel is very different than it was in 06. It's not an indie studio trying to figure out what's going to work anymore and I'm sure as they build their brand they know exactly what they want out of one of their movies, which they probably didn't 8 years ago.
All the comedy directors being bandied about has me worried. I love Anchorman, but I have no interest in a director of that film or similar ones taking on Ant Man. Even if it is more comedic than most Marvel films, I think directors used to aiming for punchlines rather than setting up humorous situations is the wrong way to go.
Wright fought for this project, nurtured it, likely felt it was "his" baby. Then, Marvel had a string of uber-successful films, and wanted to bring Ant-Man into that shared universe. Yeah, this likely hampered Wright's vision (though the feeling of ownership was likely a big factor in how hampered he actually was), and he decided it wasn't going to get any better.
When Wright signed on, Marvel had not established themselves or their film-universe. It was a different time. Now, of course, everyone that gets involved in a Marvel film should understand that they are not a whole unto themselves, but a part of a tapestry. Had Ant-Man moved forward more quickly, a more "individual" film would have been fine... but it didn't, for lots of reasons, and now the status quo has changed.
I don't see a bad guy in this, just a new era with new rules.
M
M
To me this is like if the first Robin was Tim or Jason or if the first Flash was Wally. Will be the first Marvel Studios movie I won't see.
I've always found Allen extremely boring. In fact, it wasn't until his death did he feel important to the lore. West was so incredible as Flash, I thought it was a huge leap back returning Allen to the role.
M
"Grayson ... was a horrible Robin."???
Once again your lack of historical perspective betrays you.
M
And he's been grown up the whole time you've been reading comics.
But he was a great Robin when he was a kid.
M
I think the best way to judge them is their original concept and origin. In that regard, I feel like Grayson makes the most sense as a partner. Batman taking a fellow orphan under his wing feels like a better story to me than Jason Todd caught stealing the Batmobile's hubcaps, or Tim Drake basically applying for the job. They're not horrible origins, but they feel too removed from the basic concept to have as much punch.
M
...we're chanting Batman's most known aliases?!
M
They seem to be having a lot of fun.