It seems like much of the discussion and disagreement on this thread over the past couple of days has served to highlight a divide in the fanbase, one that's been apparent to me for some time but has been underlined in this particular case study. There's a rift, and though there may be some overlap here or there, ultimately it seems to boil down to there being two types of fan: fans of creators, and fans of characters.
I'm not going to say that only one side has any validity or that one side is superior, though I know without a doubt which side of the fence I fall on. This is an argument that has also reared its head within the comics medium too. In recent years, at both Marvel and DC, I'd argue that some of the most acclaimed superhero runs, the stories by creators that history will remember among the all-time greats, have been - at the time they've run - mired in controversy and mixed opinions. There are a lot of superhero fans who are fans of character. They view their monthly comics as the reading equivalent of comfort food. All they really want is to have their favourite character in print, largely unchanged and consistent, the status quo maintained, the canon of what came before paid homage to, and nothing retconned. It's the name of the hero on the cover that sells the book, not the name of the creators. The creative team to these people are essentially caretakers whose job it is to preserve the character and make sure no damage is done to them, and as such a creator who "succeeds" is one who does nothing to really draw attention to themselves or make any mark of their own on the character's world. The middle-of-the-road, the competent.
But when a great writer comes onboard a comic title, often he has a bold idea for doing something new, shaking up the status quo and really challenging that hero and his world, casting things in a new light to really get to the core of what makes that character enduring. And there are a lot of fans that don't like this. They don't like shocking new details from a character's past resurfacing, especially if it contradicts the continuity of what came before, or their characters going through major changes that advance them to a different stage of their life. I don't mind it, though, so long as the story is good. More often than not, I won't continue buying a comic just because of the character on the cover... I'm at the stage where I'm more likely to follow creators.
And the same applies for movies. While generally speaking I'm a comic fan and will be more inclined to see a comic book superhero movie than not, it's the actors and especially the directors that can really pique my interest. I've loved Batman for as long as I can remember, but I was skeptical of a new Batman film's chances of exorcising the spirit of Schumacher until they brought the director of Memento onboard. In the case of Iron Man, that was chugging along under my radar until Robert Downey Jr being cast as Tony Stark made me sit up and take notice. But after not being blown away by Iron Man 2, it was Shane Black being attached that got my excitement back up for Iron Man 3. I first got excited for Guardians of the Galaxy as the new James Gunn film, and similarly, Ant-Man was always going to be a guaranteed cinema visit for me as the new Edgar Wright film.
I'm excited by seeing how the vision of a director will merge with the identity of the source material. I love how The Avengers is both a great Marvel film and a great Joss Whedon film. And, in that process of adaptation, I'm willing to accept some deviations from source material, providing that the spirit of the material is preserved. For me, I see there being something of a sliding scale where how good the movie is dictates how many changes to the comics they can get away with. Like, for me, Ang Lee's Hulk wasn't a failure for me because of its deviations from the comics canon. It was a failure for me because it was an underwhelming film. And so, I wasn't worried about some of the changes to Ant-Man for this film, as with Edgar Wright onboard I was confident the film itself would be great. But I'm more a fan of creators than a fan of characters.
DACrowe wrote a very eloquent post in the previous thread where he suggested that Marvel Studios could start moving towards hiring TV directors rather than film directors with their own cult following and established credibility. He argued that TV directors, Marvel Studios might conclude, are more used to just pointing the camera and following instructions rather than muddying the waters with their own creative vision. Middle-of-the-road, competent. And I think that would be very sad indeed, as I've really enjoyed seeing Marvel Studios giving this massive platform to highly-gifted directors who otherwise wouldn't have the box office clout to do a film of this size - Whedon, Wright, Black, Gunn, etc - but I also know that there are many fans who would celebrate this decision, and who see such buzzwords as "innovation" and "bold new take on the character" as annoyances that get in the way of that status-quo-preserving comfort food. There's a school of thought that dictates that these films rise or fall not on the strength of the performances, or the direction, or the plotting, or the cinematography - basically the perimeters with which you'd dictate the success or failure of any film - but rather they rise or fall based on how faithfully they follow the comics, how dutifully they get the overarching Marvel Studios brand from point A to point B in the current "Phase," and how many knowing Easter Eggs from the comics they're able to cram in for the hardcore fans. For these people, character is king, and so long as the film is functional in addressing the wider MCU in these ways, things like who's directing it or the quality of the script are largely immaterial, so of course they are not going to feel any concern over these latest developments. Only if there's some possibility of these director/screenwriter changes resulting in increased comic accuracy does it become a pressing concern.
I fall on the "fan of creators" side, so of course I'm disappointed. I've not been quiet about pointing out that I'm an Edgar Wright fan. But I also love Marvel Studios and am a big supporter of what they've been doing. It's as a fan of both that I'm disappointed by the outcome of Wright leaving Ant-Man.
