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

[TheVision]

There, C Lee said it best. I dont think theres much else I can say about this except just going over the same territory again and again as I have been.

 

[Human Torch]

I'm getting about goddamned tired of this blanket "blind fanboy" crap you people are happily painting the forum with when in truth it's only a tiny handful of chuckleheads that it really applies to.

I wouldn't mind if most of us "blind Marvel devotees" didn't call Marvel out on IM 3's Mandarin.And if we get Old Man Pym,(as we probably will )you can bet your bonnet I'm going to be just as irate.

I guess the real crime is acknowledging Marvel has a (perhaps slightly less than) impeccable record for pleasing fans,particularly in comparison with other studios.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I can't directly embed the actual tweet because it has a bad swear in it, but did anyone else see that James Gunn posted this on Twitter:

"Waking up to a bee swarm of complete BS rumors on all sides. Happy Thursday!"

Do we think he's talking about the Edgar Wright/Marvel situation?

 

[Dr. Evil]

I can't directly embed the actual tweet because it has a bad swear in it, but did anyone else see that James Gunn posted this on Twitter:

"Waking up to a bee swarm of complete BS rumors on all sides. Happy Thursday!"

Do we think he's talking about the Edgar Wright/Marvel situation?

He's talking about the rumor of him replacing Wright.

 

[Mysteryman]

CBM posted a bogus story about Gunn replacing Wright and then quickly deleted it from their site.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah, it makes sense then that that's what Gunn would be talking about.

 

[Ant-manic]

I wouldn't mind if most of us "blind Marvel devotees" didn't call Marvel out on IM 3's Mandarin.And if we get Old Man Pym,(as we probably will )you can bet your bonnet I'm going to be just as irate.

as an older person, you should welcome the representation.

 

[Ant-manic]

I feel, if you want to do a character YOUR way and not the way the GUYS PAYING THE BILLS wants.....then go create your own character and find your independant backing to do it.

and i feel, it's stupid to tell an artist that you like his work, commission a work of art, and then (at the last minute) hand him a coloring book.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

apples and oranges. Filmmaking is a collaborative endeavor, unlike painting or sculpture. Everything from the characters to the script to the costuming to the art direction (etc) involves the input of other people. that goes quadruple for a big budget cbm.

and the "coloring book" quip makes no sense regardless of the context. (oh, and btw Michaelangelo got a ton of notes while he was painting the Sistine Chapel. Nature of the artist-for-hire biz)

 

[Ant-manic]

apples and oranges. Filmmaking is a collaborative endeavor, unlike painting or sculpture. Everything from the characters to the script to the costuming to the art direction (etc) involves the input of other people. that goes quadruple for a big budget cbm.

so was it the art direction or the costuming that got Wright to leave?

 

[Human Torch]

as an older person, you should welcome the representation.

What makes you think I'm in my 70's?

Either you're trying (and failing miserably) at being a wize *** or you're a 15 y/o who thinks people in their 30's is ancient.

 

[The Question]

I wouldn't mind if most of us "blind Marvel devotees" didn't call Marvel out on IM 3's Mandarin.And if we get Old Man Pym,(as we probably will )you can bet your bonnet I'm going to be just as irate.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You wouldn't mind that people are accusing people of being blind Marvel devotees if you and others hadn't criticized the portrayal of The Mandarin in Iron Man 3? Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying to I just don't get it.

 

[Mike Murdock]

All Wright could have had in the script was "Henry Pym was once a colleague of Howard Stark" and boom, there's the connection to the MCU. I guess Marvel wanted more that that.

Well, if I had a choice, I would do two things (maybe three), one is kind of big. The big thing is pretty straight forward. I'm seeing Hank Pym as a 60s Cold Warrior. However, rather than the CIA, why not make him an agent of SHIELD? To me, that would make the most sense (or start with CIA and get recruited by SHIELD). Doing this, they could even tie him into the post-Winter Soldier world since his entire legacy has been discredited by the fall of SHIELD.

The more subtle thing would be the ending. Rather than have him recruited by SHIELD, since SHIELD is now gone, Lang should get a job working for Stark. They don't even need Downey Jr. to appear, Gwyneth Paltrow would do a fine job. He already has a Stark connection, so it makes sense.

The third possible thing. Not sure how necessary this is. But they have to steal something. The "what" doesn't seem so important. Could it be an infinity stone?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

so was it the art direction or the costuming that got Wright to leave?

I've heard rumors it was the make-up departement. Wright wanted Douglas to look like 80 but the make up artists weren't able to de-age his face THAT much

 

[jmc]

There are plenty of multi-million dollar franchises that I have little to no interest in, but one of the biggest thing that makes Marvel Studios' output a cut above being soulless cash cows is that it strikes that balance between consistency and diversity. The films have a general mood and model that they adhere to, yes, but they can span across multiple genres and, when at their very best, give great directors the chance to make films on a massive scale that still manage to feel personal. I loved how Joss Whedon managed to simultaneously make The Avengers an accessible standalone film, a sequel for every solo franchise, and a spiritual sequel to his own Serenity, while anyone - like me - who's been a fan of Shane Black for years likely had a big goofy grin on their face as they saw how he managed to sneak all his usual motifs into Iron Man 3. This is the studio that has been praised by directors, writers, actors etc as being the big studio that manages to feel like a little independent studio in how it nurtures its creative talent. This is the studio that reportedly gave back James Gunn's first draft for Guardians of the Galaxy, with Feige telling him that they wanted it to be "MORE James Gunn."

That's one of the things that I respect most about Marvel Studios. And I'd be sad if there was any trend towards moving away from that. But I'm not sure there is. It could just be that how Wright was approaching the film was tipping that balance I mentioned above too far askew. Maybe they were just an ill-fit. It doesn't make Marvel Studios bad, or Wright or his planned vision for the film bad. Without first-hand accounts we can't really comment.

I can give Marvel credit for consistency, they've yet to make a bad movie. The problem is their set up doesn't really allow for great story telling, just acceptable storytelling, that's where the big disconnect is between their movies and me. I looked at Xmen DoFP the other week and saw a film that was made with genuine love, sometimes you can feel the effort the director has placed in a film and that was a prime example. I've only seen that twice, maybe 3 times in the MCU, and it's no surprise those were also the most critically acclaimed movies of the series. Marvel's vision, to me anyway, comes across hollow in that there's more emphasis on the universe being cohesive as opposed to trying to tell really strong stories with a solid emotional core and interesting characters. It one thing to have all these character, but you're kinda wasting your time if you only want them to do certain things. I love Winter Soldier, but after DoFP it comes across as a really good action movie that merely dabbles in some slightly heavier themes, it's basically a James Bond film. Marvel can have a vision, that's their call, but that vision I believe comes at a cost unless they get lucky with a director whose vision is the same as theirs. This is why I believe Marvel should just hire TV directors to do their films, because if you want to serialize these type of films you may as well just hire people who know how to work in that mold.

 

[Human Torch]

I've heard rumors it was the make-up departement. Wright wanted Douglas to look like 80 but the make up artists weren't able to de-age his face THAT much

 

[DrCosmic]

I guess the real crime is acknowledging Marvel has a (perhaps slightly less than) impeccable record for pleasing fans,particularly in comparison with other studios.

Everyone acknowledges this, but you don't see it. But you don't like to be called blind. Makes you hard to to talk to.

Jeopardizing the MCU which we all love should be our main concern. Theyre never going to give complete free reign to a filmmaker just for the sake of their artistic vision. Its Marvel Studios, these movies are multi million dollar franchises, its not Miramax indie arthouse stuff.

Nothing jeopardizes the MCU, even if IM2 hadn't had that SHIELD-heavy (sub?)-plot or if Loki had died or if Marvel had stuck to their guns about the Avengers roster. Neither did giving in or not giving on those particular issues give the artists complete free reign or make them art house movies.

So since the MCU is going to be intact no matter what, is it always a good idea to jeopardize a film's quality in order to, basically, promote the next Avengers film? That answer basically comes down to: did you love Iron Man 2, and Thor 2? If so, you may not perceive differences in quality in a way that would make you care about lost movie quality.

I think there are genuinely people who would choose the former. And that's the divide I've talked about before: there are some who, ultimately, see adherence to canon and being a functional component in the MCU meta-story as the top priority, while others, like me, ultimately see making the best FILM possible as the top priority. And for the most part the two sides get along just fine because Marvel Studios has been so good at pleasing both. It's only at times like this, where decisions are made which potentially jeopardize the project's quality as a film in order to protect its quality as part of the MCU machine, that the rift between the two factions becomes more overt.

Indeed. I think they lucked out with Gunn, Black and Whedon for various reasons. I think because the gave Gunn all of space to play with, there are no rules outside of how he handles Thanos, which he has gotten into discussions with Marvel about, but that's all the mandates he has. He can do pretty much whatever he wants, so when he brought it in, Whedon was like: go crazy, and Feige didn't at all try to counteract that, because, why? What's the problem if some alien planet doesn't fit in with the Avengers, or if they kill off Drax or anything really? Doesn't stop anything at all.

Black, I think, because of the RDJ bond, there really wasn't anything they could stop Black from doing with RDJ's support, and RDJ wanted and Tony Stark movie and he got it. I think the needs for an evil malfunctioning robot and brain slot were small enough, and the movie big enough, that Black couldn't feel robbed by them. It wasn't like he got saddled with a huge subplot like Favreau did in IM2. It's not like he got his editing room taken over like Favrea in IM2. Or the big emotional scene gutted like Taylor in Thor 2. In fact, it was in direct response to the criticism of IM2 for being meddled in that they left IM3 largely alone, promising no SHIELD presence. So Black got lucky based on how they mishandled IM2.

Whedon, they put him in a position of power, almost instantly. Remember he was coming of Wonder Woman and proved he knew how to walk away if a studio was jerking him around. They knew they needed Whedon, that he was not expendable and they acted like it, and they have been much, much, much better off for it.

With Wright, no more a prima dona than anyone else, when they finally decided to move forward, despite the script detail questions still in Marvel's mind, they treated Wright as expendable, because he was, they already had the Wright script. They had major requirements because he's kicking off Phase 3, requirements that would not have been able to have been given to him until recently, and, timeline-wise, he's in the middle of SHIELD's past, which, thanks to two different TV series, now has it's own set of brand new narrative and thematic requirements. So he doesn't really have his own sandbox, like Gunn, he doesn't have them avoiding giving him limitations like Black and he doesn't have power/leverage like Whedon.

If they're going to hire another great director, including those from TV they need to treat them like the other great directors, either give them power/defer to them like they do Whedon, intentionally try not to ask much of them like Black or give them a space they can go crazy with and not hurt the MCU, like they did Gunn. Hiring directors with vision to keep their vision to themselves is like hiring a ninja to slice pizza. You hired a NINJA, don't be surprised when he starts throwing ninja stars around the Pizza Hut.

Marvel, if they want to continue to supremely prioritize the Phase/Avengers marketing cycle, can't hire great directors to play 'positions' either in the timeline or on the Avengers team. They need to get hungry guys who will make an inferior movie if need be to pay the bills and make a name for themselves. They need to get by the book guys who aren't going to come up with very many interesting (and thus potentially conflicting) ideas in the first place, and aren't going to hang on to those interesting ideas. Or, be honest and upfront about what you need from them, ask for what you actually got from Wright, you need them to develop a great story and then pass it off to a filmmaker who will take that great story and allow it to be diluted for the good of the universe, but still be good. Or they could hire guys like the directors from Community who enjoy taking anything and making it good from DnD games to Batman parodies to situational comedy. Getting directors from Premium Channel shows like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad is bringing in guys that aren't used to putting down good ideas for the good of a story they may never see. But guys from network TV are always getting trash and being told to make gold out of it, it's how they work, and it shows in how the Russos took the Algorithm and put it into the center of a great story that was originally supposed to be about, y'know The Winter Soldier. Basically, you want guys who are used to having execs say no.

And if they do get another Wright saying that they want to do Ant-Man, no matter how good the pitch sounds, offer them something with it's own corner, and let them go crazy. Of course, they didn't know the 60s was going to be so full 8 years ago, so maybe Marvel just couldn't help but pull the wool out from under Wright. Corporations are inherently psychotic after all.

 

[Paradox1]

I can give Marvel credit for consistency, they've yet to make a bad movie. The problem is their set up doesn't really allow for great story telling, just acceptable storytelling, that's where the big disconnect is between their movies and me. I looked at Xmen DoFP the other week and saw a film that was made with genuine love, sometimes you can feel the effort the director has placed in a film and that was a prime example. I've only seen that twice, maybe 3 times in the MCU, and it's no surprise those were also the most critically acclaimed movies of the series. Marvel's vision, to me anyway, comes across hollow in that there's more emphasis on the universe being cohesive as opposed to trying to tell really strong stories with a solid emotional core and interesting characters. It one thing to have all these character, but you're kinda wasting your time if you only want them to do certain things. I love Winter Soldier, but after DoFP it comes across as a really good action movie that merely dabbles in some slightly heavier themes, it's basically a James Bond film. Marvel can have a vision, that's their call, but that vision I believe comes at a cost unless they get lucky with a director whose vision is the same as theirs. This is why I believe Marvel should just hire TV directors to do their films, because if you want to serialize these type of films you may as well just hire people who know how to work in that mold.

I agree with most of what is said here. An article I read about the Wright departure made a similar comparison to the Bond films. The vision for films is in the hands of people outside of directors and writers.

 

[Dark Raven]

I've heard rumors it was the make-up departement. Wright wanted Douglas to look like 80 but the make up artists weren't able to de-age his face THAT much

I've heard that Wright wanted Michael Douglas to play Hank in the 1960s, with Kirk Douglas as the present day Hank.

 

[DrCosmic]

I feel, if you want to do a character YOUR way and not the way the GUYS PAYING THE BILLS wants.....then go create your own character and find your independant backing to do it.

This is true, but that means something different with Marvel than it does any other movie studio today. I think the filmmaking community has caught on by now, especially after Taylor and Wright so close together. This'll make it harder for them to get Gunns and Blacks and Whedons and such, but I suspect they'll still be able to get one for Dr. Strange.

I think we'll see more network TV directors, who are used to the Marvel Studios level of executive oversight, and if Cap 2 is any indication, that'll work out best for everyone involved.

 

[jmc]

This is true, but that means something different with Marvel than it does any other movie studio today. I think the filmmaking community has caught on by now, especially after Taylor and Wright so close together. This'll make it harder for them to get Gunns and Blacks and Whedons and such, but I suspect they'll still be able to get one for Dr. Strange.

I think we'll see more network TV directors, who are used to the Marvel Studios level of executive oversight, and if Cap 2 is any indication, that'll work out best for everyone involved.

That probably will be the best for everyone. It won't surprise me if you'll never hear a big name director attached again to a Marvel movie in the coming years.

 

[Ant-manic]

What makes you think I'm in my 70's?

the entitlement and unwillingness to compromise?

 

[Ant-manic]

Well, if I had a choice, I would do two things (maybe three), one is kind of big. The big thing is pretty straight forward. I'm seeing Hank Pym as a 60s Cold Warrior. However, rather than the CIA, why not make him an agent of SHIELD? To me, that would make the most sense (or start with CIA and get recruited by SHIELD). Doing this, they could even tie him into the post-Winter Soldier world since his entire legacy has been discredited by the fall of SHIELD.

either would work. personally, i think it'd be a nice touch to have Pym be one of the heroes that bailed on S.H.I.E.L.D; maybe suspecting some form of corruption (i.e. Hydra). they'd paint him as paranoid. but he'd be one of the ones that saw the bad things coming.

 

[an_ewok]

the entitlement and unwillingness to compromise?

Those are both traits unconstrained by age.

 

[Ant-manic]

Those are both traits unconstrained by age.

are you his mom?