Ant-Man Edgar Wright Leaves Ant-Man!! - Part 1

[Dark Raven]

If only there were a Marvel show on at all times of the year. Maybe when AOS season 2 finishes, a different show starts up in the summer, taking us to September.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Edit: Clark says 10 straight for first half of season two, 8 for Agent Carter and 12 for second half.

 

[Paradox1]

Less executive meddling. Less of an emphasis on ratings. Commercial free. One straight season of a reasonable length as opposed to trying to stretch it for 20+ episodes with re-runs intermixed between new episodes.

It isn't about being able to be more adult, but there is far more BS to deal with on one of the networks.

If it was on another network it's likely cancelled but since AbC is owned by Disney. As I've read the higher ups pushed for a second season while the execs at ABC pondered it's fate.

I don't see the premium channels taking on a Comic property that isn't targeting adults. Punisher, and Blade would be my top two candidates from Marvels stable. Hbo is probably off limits because it's owned by Warner so I doubt it's competitor is bringing them anything.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Punisher and Blade would both fit Netflix as the Netflix shows (most of them, but not all of them) are adult oriented.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If it was on another network it's likely cancelled but since AbC is owned by Disney. As I've read the higher ups pushed for a second season while the execs at ABC pondered it's fate.

I don't see the premium channels taking on a Comic property that isn't targeting adults. Punisher, and Blade would be my top two candidates from Marvels stable. Hbo is probably off limits because it's owned by Warner so I doubt it's competitor is bringing them anything.

Netflix took them, and I'm fine with it.

 

[chamber-music]

Feige said that? When? And more importantly: why?? How the heck does he figure that T'Challa is in any way even remotely similar to Thor?

I think it was the whole prince of an advanced yet retro kingdom kingdom thing.

 

[BoredGuy]

I could see that
maybe instead, you introduce him in America, as a foreign dignitary who is secretly following a wanted criminal, quietly going out as a vigilante at night to track down the man who murdered his King (T'chaka), then explore Wakanda in a sequel.

IDK, they can find ways around similarities there

 

[samsnee]

If only there were a Marvel show on at all times of the year. Maybe when AOS season 2 finishes, a different show starts up in the summer, taking us to September.

God no. Honestly, it would burn out the general audience. Yes, I realize they have a choice to watch or not, but creatively, I don't think it makes sense.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

30 weeks of Marvel on television. Non stop. I need something for the other 26 weeks. Make it happen MS/ABC

 

[Webfoot Hero]

30 weeks of Marvel on television. Non stop. I need something for the other 26 weeks. Make it happen MS/ABC

There's only 52 weeks in a year so you'd be overlapping them with your math.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

BoredGuy, who is that in your avatar?

 

[Mike Murdock]

If it was on another network it's likely cancelled but since AbC is owned by Disney. As I've read the higher ups pushed for a second season while the execs at ABC pondered it's fate.

AoS had great ratings among the target demos (not spectacular overall, of course, although generally second among dramas at the timeslot). People who predict these things said it was certain to be renewed for quite some time. The only real doubt was due to how well it did at first. The ratings drop is what people point to, not the ratings in the demographics group.

 

[Paradox1]

AoS had great ratings among the target demos (not spectacular overall, of course, although generally second among dramas at the timeslot). People who predict these things said it was certain to be renewed for quite some time. The only real doubt was due to how well it did at first. The ratings drop is what people point to, not the ratings in the demographics group.

According to articles written at the time it was in real danger of being cancelled. Which is all I really said how it does in ratings I didn't follow in the slightest.

 

[Mike Murdock]

You said that, if it were on another network, it would be likely canceled. Those in the know disagreed. Sure, there were plenty of articles that agreed with you, but that doesn't mean those people knew what they were talking about. If ABC considered cancelling after the first season, they were either making a poor decision or thought they had some really good pilot that could do significantly better.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

There's only 52 weeks in a year so you'd be overlapping them with your math.

lol, yeah you're right

 

[cherokeesam]

BoredGuy, who is that in your avatar?

That's Alison Brie, for sure, but I have no idea where it's from.







....sweet mother of mayhem, that's hot.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

lol, yeah you're right

 

[BoredGuy]

That's Alison Brie, for sure, but I have no idea where it's from.



....sweet mother of mayhem, that's hot.

LOL I actually just found the source, it's from a comedy central webseries, (somewhat unfortunately) titled "Hot Sl*ts", but it's pretty funny, and there's lots o' Brie cleavage.... Brievage, if you will.

 

[metaphysician]

AoS had great ratings among the target demos (not spectacular overall, of course, although generally second among dramas at the timeslot). People who predict these things said it was certain to be renewed for quite some time. The only real doubt was due to how well it did at first. The ratings drop is what people point to, not the ratings in the demographics group.

Its also important to remember that Agents of SHIELD was scheduled to go head-to-head with the biggest ratings juggernaut in broadcast TV: NCIS. Sure, it might not have the same demographic focus, but its ratings are insane.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

TV By the Numbers

Agents of SHIELD had a 1.19 "Renew/Cancel Index" according to the site, which meant that its ratings in the coveted 18-49 age demographic were 19% better than ABC's network average. Using that measure, it was the network's 6th highest rated scripted show out of 25 that the site tracked.

The 18-49 demographic is the one that the advertisers really care about, because kids don't make any money and older people are considered to be set in their ways.

AoS was one of just a handful of shows that actually had a median viewer age squarely within that 18-49 demo. The average AoS viewer is 38, which sounds old until you compare it to everything else. NCIS is a ratings juggernaut but the median age of its viewers is about 60. The same goes for many other prime time TV shows, which are most popular with people in their mid to late 50s.

Until recently, I had no idea that mainstream TV audiences had gotten that old. At 29, I don't keep up with any new shows anymore aside from Agents of SHIELD, preferring movies on DVD/Blu-Ray and semi-binging on Netflix instead. Apparently, such viewing habits are much more common with young people.

I also didn't actually watch most of AoS live, preferring to DVR the entire season. DVR is interesting because it isn't accounted for in traditional Nielsen ratings, but it is tracked. Everything the DVR user does, from watching to rewinding and pausing, is recorded as data. I don't know how much advertisers care about DVR compared to live viewing, since a DVR user can just fast forward through all of the commercials. However, I do remember stopping for a few interesting commercials while watching my AoS episodes. Other people have probably done the same.

According to other articles I've seen, AoS was one of the most DVR'd shows on TV.

It's basically a magnet for young and technologically savvy viewers, so it had a LOT going for it besides its Nielsen ratings (which never even became "bad," just a lot lower than the sky-high ratings for the show's premiere). The one bad thing you could say about AoS's performance was that it was allegedly an expensive show to produce, but no solid numbers have actually come out on that.

So the show has been pretty safe for a while. I trust numbers like that over vague and often click-baity articles that just offered speculation about whether the show would be canceled or not.

 

[chamber-music]

Simon Pegg speaks about Ant-Man

"I Feel lucky that I got to read Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish’s Ant-Man script," Simon Pegg posted to Twitter earlier this week, following Marvel's announcement that Peyton Reed would take over Ant-Man directing duties. "Daring, fun, funny, and hugely exciting; shame we won't see it," he added.

During a recent video interview with Sky Movies, the English actor further expressed his thoughts on Marvel and Wright's unexpected departure. "I think it’s a terrible shame," he said (via HeyUGuys). "I get why perhaps it’s happened. Maybe they want a particular thing in line with a particular other thing, but if you hire a director who has a particular vision, you’ve got to expect him or her to make a such and such film. An Edgar Wright film. That’s what that script was and it was interesting. The characters had a real journey. I can’t really say too much about it because obviously it’s not my thing, but it’s their loss."

Sounds like a case of Marvel and Edgar not being able to reconcile a vision of Ant-Man planned for a pre-MCU with a version in the MCU.

 

[Mysteryman]

Pegg has a point .
If you hire Edgar Wright .
You should expect an Edgar Wright film.

 

[Dark Raven]

But if you work with Marvel, you should also expect a film connected to the rest of the MCU.

 

[elgaz]

I can see both sides of the argument.

Directors obviously want to put their personal stamp on a film; they work in a creative business and the top 10% of Directors are in the top 10% because they don't churn out factory direct-to-DVD stories or regurgitate what others do. They take pride and passion in what they do, and put their mark on their work.

Is Wright in the top 10%? I don't know. Maybe some would say he is, others would say he isn't. He's certainly a creative and unique Director though.

However, we are dealing with a shared film universe here, which is a fairly unique scenario for all involved. Most directors don't enter a film with that creative handcuff on them. Whatever Ant-Man film is made has to be able to blend into the overall MCU in terms of aesthetics, chronology, tone, and even basic character references. That isn't just for Marvel's benefit, it's for ours - if a film stands out like a sore thumb and doesn't work within the shared universe, it harms the overall effect and ultimately we the viewers aren't as satisfied.

That's not to say the two are mutually exclusive. Marvel up to this point has generally managed to maintain cohesion within the MCU, whilst also allowing Directors enough free rein to still make their chosen Marvel film in the personal style they want to. I think it's very much a 50%/50% thing. It seems however that Edgar Wright's particular vision for Ant-Man simply didn't achieve that balance and him and Marvel couldn't work things out.

There's no right or wrong here. Respect has to be given to Wright for sticking to his beliefs in his work. But respect should also be given to Marvel for sticking to their belief in their work (the MCU) and for trying to keep it cohesive for everyone involved.

There's no bad guy; it just didn't work out. End of story. Find a new director, with talent, and the story picks up again.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I sorta look at it like this...

"If you want to be an Indie Artist... and be fully in control of your own creation, do Indie Movies, If you want to adapt beloved stories/novels/comics be prepared to do it justice, and not process necessarily YOUR vision, but the vision of those who created/own said characters."

Some obviously have more leway (the more they've been done, the easier it is to do a new take on them) Batman and Superman are great examples of this)