Edgar Wright Leaves Ant-Man!! - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
AVEIT, unless you can prove turmoil happened on other production, you can't just ASSUME it happened. So, that seems argumentative to me and unfounded. I mean, the Russos were hired for Cap 3. So to say something like, for example, Marvel squashed their ideas and fought with him tooth and nail without actual facts or reports I think is just writing your own narrative for the sake of preserving your own opinion. We have nothing that says Gunn, the Russos, Whedon, etc. have been stiffled creatively by Marvel. Absolutely nothing to say that. So, I think arguing that this is a likely scenario, despite evidence, is faulty.

AVEIT, I agree with you on many things. But on the current subject of Marvel, you're far too blinded to see clearly. That is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
This is an order....not a suggestion.....

Stop the petty arguing.

Stop calling people names.

If you can't discuss things civilly...then DO NOT POST AT ALL.
 
AVEIT, unless you can prove turmoil happened on other production, you can't just ASSUME it happened. So, that seems argumentative to me and unfounded. I mean, the Russos were hired for Cap 3. So to say something like, for example, Marvel squashed their ideas and fought with him tooth and nail without actual facts or reports I think is just writing your own narrative for the sake of preserving your own opinion. We have nothing that says Gunn, the Russos, Whedon, etc. have been stiffled creatively by Marvel. Absolutely nothing to say that. So, I think arguing that this is a likely scenario, despite evidence, is faulty.

I never said turmoil happened with the Russo's, Gunn or Whedon SF :huh:. All indications point to those productions going swimmingly (though with Whedon I cant help but feel he was not let off the leash much with TA, but that is speculation) But we know it did happen on TIH, IM2, TDW and now Ant-Man.

AVEIT, I agree with you on many things. But on the current subject of Marvel, you're far too blinded to see clearly. That is my opinion.

Thats fair enough SF, but I am praising Marvel in the GOTG and TWS threads. And I havent really commented either way on Avengers 2. I give them praise when they deserve it, and criticism when I think they deserve that. Normally I just post my feelings and move on, but certain people take it upon themselves to turn into something more and I duly oblige back. If people didnt respond to my posts, which are not geared towards them but the subject at hand, I wouldnt reply either, unless people want to have a civil discussion, which I am always down for.

You and have disagreed on a lot of things in the past, but not once has it turned into what it does with some of these other guys. I am content to have a civil discussion with people I disagree with, but some people just want to turn it into a 'Marvel vs The world' kinda thing.
 
I never said turmoil happened with the Russo's, Gunn or Whedon SF :huh:. All indications point to those productions going swimmingly (though with Whedon I cant help but feel he was not let off the leash much with TA, but that is speculation) But we know it did happen on TIH, IM2, TDW and now Ant-Man.

We only know Whedon was forced to use Loki as the villain and Black Widow needed to be a member. I can't recall anything else they mandated to Whedon. But, he made all that work. I won't disagree on the above projects you named, but I will argue in the cases of TIH and IM2, both projects were very early in the MCU establishment. Marvel was still finding its identity. Also, in the case of TIH, it was following a Hulk film most people hated. I think those 2 had more circumstances that can be explained for why Marvel was a bit more involved. Heck, for all the hating IM3 gets, it is clear they let Shane Black run with the project fairly freely.

Thats fair enough SF, but I am praising Marvel in the GOTG and TWS threads. And I havent really commented either way on Avengers 2. I give them praise when they deserve it, and criticism when I think they deserve that. Normally I just post my feelings and move on, but certain people take it upon themselves to turn into something more and I duly oblige back. If people didnt respond to my posts, which are not geared towards them but the subject at hand, I wouldnt reply either, unless people want to have a civil discussion, which I am always down for.

You and have disagreed on a lot of things in the past, but not once has it turned into what it does with some of these other guys. I am content to have a civil discussion with people I disagree with, but some people just want to turn it into a 'Marvel vs The world' kinda thing.

Agreed, and I don't think we should make it a poster vs poster type thing. We should always keep it content only. That said, I just don't see good reason to assume negativity on projects like Dr. Strange before we have anything outside of a director right now. Ant-Man, I can see why people are skeptical on the project, and I don't really blame anyone for it. I just don't see what about, say Cap 3 or Dr. Strange or really any of phase 3 at this point, would be able to be seen as truly negative or signs of meddling. It is simply too early in the process to tell. Sure, Ant-Man has been troubled. Taylor was reigned in, but the 3 projects after TDW all had little to no meddling or negativity. Hence why I don't understand the assumptions on Dr. Strange.
 
We only know Whedon was forced to use Loki as the villain and Black Widow needed to be a member. I can't recall anything else they mandated to Whedon. But, he made all that work. I won't disagree on the above projects you named, but I will argue in the cases of TIH and IM2, both projects were very early in the MCU establishment. Marvel was still finding its identity. Also, in the case of TIH, it was following a Hulk film most people hated. I think those 2 had more circumstances that can be explained for why Marvel was a bit more involved. Heck, for all the hating IM3 gets, it is clear they let Shane Black run with the project fairly freely.

Whedon made it work I agree, I loved the movie, but you can tell he was reined in more than in, say, Serenity, were he had total freedom. I can accept that for TA as it was the 1st movie of those characters as a team, but if AOU is in the same vein I think we will know why.

TIH was just stupid to me, and it didnt even help them in the end anyway, they have pretty much forgot about the movie being part of the MCU, just watch the latest GOTG trailer for that.

With IM2, the 1st movie was a raging success because they pretty much left Fav's alone, yet they decide to mess with that formula for the sequel? Doesnt make sense, I agree they were both early for the studio, and I had hoped they had learned their lesson from them, then TDW and now Ant-Man have happened.

As for IM3, it just feels like any other MCU to me apart from a couple of Shane Blackisms like the twist.

Agreed, and I don't think we should make it a poster vs poster type thing. We should always keep it content only. That said, I just don't see good reason to assume negativity on projects like Dr. Strange before we have anything outside of a director right now. Ant-Man, I can see why people are skeptical on the project, and I don't really blame anyone for it. I just don't see what about, say Cap 3 or Dr. Strange or really any of phase 3 at this point, would be able to be seen as truly negative or signs of meddling. It is simply too early in the process to tell. Sure, Ant-Man has been troubled. Taylor was reigned in, but the 3 projects after TDW all had little to no meddling or negativity. Hence why I don't understand the assumptions on Dr. Strange.

Cap 3 I havent commented on, not since I saw Cap 2 way back in April anyhow, and then it was only speculation on what I would like to see.

With Doc Strange, as with any project, the director is the 1st point of excitement in any movie, this one didnt get me excited, and just seemed like a choice they could easily control. That was all I said in the Doc Strange thread (never mentioned anything else about the movie, just talked about the director) and would have been happy to leave it at that, but then I got called a troll which I obviously wanted to defend myself against.
 
We only know Whedon was forced to use Loki as the villain and Black Widow needed to be a member. I can't recall anything else they mandated to Whedon.

IIRC, aliens were a required part of the story, but he suggested the Chitauri specifically and the idea that they were being led by Thanos.
 
What I assumed about the way Marvel worked was, they talk to directors, tell them specific things that need to be included in the films first then give them room to do their thing within those guidelines. No director will be able to dictate what these films will be like from A-Z. Its not about a power struggle, its just what needs to be done to keep the MCU on the right track. Esp if theyve got it loosely mapped out already.
 
What I assumed about the way Marvel worked was, they talk to directors, tell them specific things that need to be included in the films first then give them room to do their thing within those guidelines. No director will be able to dictate what these films will be like from A-Z. Its not about a power struggle, its just what needs to be done to keep the MCU on the right track. Esp if theyve got it loosely mapped out already.

Boom. You hit the nail on the head. I think Wright kept fighting to have his "Ant-Man" version be a stand-alone film and not truly part of the MCU.
 
Yeah, but that vision had to be accepted at some point, and some of it still remains .
it is very unlikely that they fought Edgar Wright tooth and nail for 8 years .
They have retained his cast and basic story line .
It probably became a deadline issue in the end .
When all is said done ,
BOTH sides could not make it work.
 


I think he means because that when they say---"From the studio that brought you..."-----they don't include IH.

Except the studio that brought us IH was Universal and they never include hulk in those promos because they don't want to promote a movie that was released by another studio (even though they actually MADE the movie)
 
^But they have no problem promoting Iron Man, Thor and Captain America which were all released by Paramount. Its the same situation as TIH, but lets face it, Marvel have pretty much forgotten the movie exists.
 
^But they have no problem promoting Iron Man, Thor and Captain America which were all released by Paramount. Its the same situation as TIH, but lets face it, Marvel have pretty much forgotten the movie exists.

No, Marvel Studios are owned by Disney who also owns Paramount---so when they promote the movies originally released by paramount---they are promoting something from one of the other branches of current Disney Umbrella.

But Universal has never been part of the Disney umbrella or subsidiary branches of Disney and for that reason and probably legal reasons as well they don't mention it.
 
I just watched the trailer you guys are talking about and my take on Hulk's exclusion is simply because the Hulk is the least successful MCU film. No one knows anything about Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel obviously wants to build on brand recognition to get butts in seats. Combined with TIH's under-performance at the box office and virtually no actor continuity (the main character was recast and the only character from the film to appear elsewhere in the MCU is RDJ), the film is probably more or less forgotten by general audiences. Why would you tout that as part of your sales pitch for getting people to see Guardians of the Galaxy? On the contrary, highlight the films everybody knows.

But TIH is still part of the MCU continuity. In Avengers Bruce Banner made specific reference to a scene from the film - that funny enough didn't even make the final cut but was part of the deleted scenes on the DVD - the scene where he tries to commit suicide and Hulk won't let him. Banner's reveal of his ability to control the Hulk in Avengers is very consistent with the ending of TIH.
 
Actually watching the trailer for Guardians has gotten me really excited for that film. I think Rocket is gonna totally own.
 
No, Marvel Studios are owned by Disney who also owns Paramount---so when they promote the movies originally released by paramount---they are promoting something from one of the other branches of current Disney Umbrella.

But Universal has never been part of the Disney umbrella or subsidiary branches of Disney and for that reason and probably legal reasons as well they don't mention it.
Paramount is not owned by Disney; it's a completely separate studio. Paramount was the original studio that financed Phase 1 of the MCU. After Disney bought Marvel, Paramount started selling distribution and marketing rights to all Marvel MCU films back to Disney, with IM3 being the last one with any Paramount markings. The rights to the Incredible Hulk are a bit murky since Disney got the film rights but not the distribution rights.

http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2013/07/the-incredible-hulk-disney-probably.html
 
Paramount is not owned by Disney; it's a completely separate studio. Paramount was the original studio that financed Phase 1 of the MCU. After Disney bought Marvel, Paramount started selling distribution and marketing rights to all Marvel MCU films back to Disney, with IM3 being the last one with any Paramount markings. The rights to the Incredible Hulk are a bit murky since Disney got the film rights but not the distribution rights.

http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2013/07/the-incredible-hulk-disney-probably.html

:up: Paramount is its own studio, its not owned by Disney. I think as another poster said the reason no mention of TIH is made in the promotional materials is because it wasnt that successful. It is a shame the way its just left out of that stuff though. Despite my problems with it, its certainly not a bad film and certainly not the worst MCU film either.
 
But TIH is still part of the MCU continuity. In Avengers Bruce Banner made specific reference to a scene from the film - that funny enough didn't even make the final cut but was part of the deleted scenes on the DVD - the scene where he tries to commit suicide and Hulk won't let him. Banner's reveal of his ability to control the Hulk in Avengers is very consistent with the ending of TIH.

yeah plus Banner mentions breaking Harlem, which is directly referencing the end battle in TIH
 
TIH isn't being ignored. They made plenty of references to the film's events and characters, even in Agents of SHIELD.
 
TIH isn't being ignored. They made plenty of references to the film's events and characters, even in Agents of SHIELD.

Thats true, in the universe at least it still gets mentioned, its just in the marketing promo's it gets no mention, like they dont want to be associated with it, at least thats what it seems like.
 
If TIH had done better at the box office, it would have gotten a mention in the GoTG promos. But it's the lowest grossing MCU film so it doesn't, and when it comes to MCU solo films people think of IM, Thor, and Cap more than TIH.

As for other marketing, that MCU documentary that aired on ABC earlier this year did talk about TIH.
 
I think ignoring TIH in the marketing material has more to do with Marvel wanting the audience to associate Ruffalo and not Ed Norton with Bruce Banner/Hulk.
 
I think ignoring TIH in the marketing material has more to do with Marvel wanting the audience to associate Ruffalo and not Ed Norton with Bruce Banner/Hulk.

^^This.

All the promotional stuff referencing all the films from Phase 1 doesn't seem to try and erase TIH but just the fact that Norton played Banner originally.

But reading all these messages and made me realise that I would love to read an unauthorised account of the MS story. Surely someone out there is working on it documenting the rise of MS and the not-so-nice things that happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"