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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's looking better for D'Esposito everyday.

The guy has a list of first assistant director credits a mile long, and the shorts he did seemed pretty competent. It seems weird that he hasn't been able to tackle a bigger project yet. He also has a lot of producer credits as well though, maybe he's has no interest in helimg a fulkl length pic. Who knows?
 
Here's the thing.

Marvel has already selected the cast, the script, the sets, and everything is storboarded. This is a job for director in name only (DINO), and according to a lot of fans here Marvel are experts, as such the movie will be great guaranteed, probably better than what Wright wanted to make.

Therefore, by that logic, this should be seen as a golden opportunity for aspiring directors. They don't need to hit the ground running, they're walking onto a rolling carpet.

Directing is not that simple, and it would also be naive to think Wright had no input into the cast chosen.
 
Directing is not that simple, and it would also be naive to think Wright had no input into the cast chosen.

It's certainly not, but in this case it should be substantially easier than starting a project from scratch.
 
Dude, stop antagonizing the Marvel Studios fans. Okay, we get it: you're not a fan of the way they make movies. That is a fine opinion, but provoking the fans for thinking Marvel might still produce a quality movie, or make a film that is better for the MCU than Wright would have isn't constructive. Please, lighten the attitude. This is not the first post of yours in here to do this.

Damn shame McKay said no. We would be the first to have every post related to any of his movies had he been director.
 
Not that I think Louis D'Esposito is a bad choice, he might be very good actually. But the question is, he does he want to direct a feature movie?
 
Yeah...with Fleisher's new born situation it's looking more and more like he's gonna pass as well. Production is gonna have to be delayed I would think. At least, minimally.
 
Article this excerpt comes from is already irrelevant now, but...

http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/wll-risky-ant-man-be-marvels-waterloo-or-greatest-triumph/
Setting McKay as director pushes the perception of this movie more towards, say, The Green Hornet than something like Captain America: Winter Soldier.
A comedy director would automatically suggest the film should be taken less seriously than a film from the guys most famous for their part in making stuff like Arrested Development, Community and Happy Endings? Okay, Deadline... :whatever:
 
It's certainly not, but in this case it should be substantially easier than starting a project from scratch.

Will all the work Edgar et al put into this make it a far easier job to make a good film? Probably yes, Guaranteed great though? absolutely not.
 
Ant-Man was probably going to be more comedic anyway. I mean is deadline going to crap on GOTG because Gunn worked on Scooby Doo and Movie 43?
 
Its funny but the day Wright left I thought Fleischer would be a good option, so I hope he gets the gig based on that, but it seems a few directors just arent keen on doing this movie.
 
Ant-Man was probably going to be more comedic anyway. I mean is deadline going to crap on GOTG because Gunn worked on Scooby Doo and Movie 43?

They should crap on it because Wrights replacements are lesser directors than him, this whole "now it's going to be a comedy" thing doesn't make sense considering Wright was always a comedic director himself.
 
Its funny but the day Wright left I thought Fleischer would be a good option, so I hope he gets the gig based on that, but it seems a few directors just arent keen on doing this movie.

I like Fleischer, he was top of the world before Gangster Squad hit.
 
They should crap on it because Wrights replacements are lesser directors than him, this whole "now it's going to be a comedy" thing doesn't make sense considering Wright was always a comedic director himself.

Exactly. I always thought Ant-Man was going to be more comedic than most Marvel's films. I'm bummed that Wright isn't doing this but lets not ignore his style and the types of films he usually does.
 
They should crap on it because Wrights replacements are lesser directors than him, this whole "now it's going to be a comedy" thing doesn't make sense considering Wright was always a comedic director himself.

It was always said to have comedic elements, but, like everyone before has said, look how the Russo's turned out. Their biggest claim to fame was Community...a show that was consistently on the bubble in spite of it's greatness, and NONE of us were expecting that. :o
 
Exactly. I always thought Ant-Man was going to be more comedic than most Marvel's films. I'm bummed that Wright isn't doing this but lets not ignore his style and the types of films he usually does.

Wright exudes style. Whether you liked Scott Pilgrim or not, you have to admit is was dripping with uniqueness.
 
That's the problem, Despite Wrights unmatched talent, he's never had a genuine commercial hit on his hands, certainly not in the vein of superhero movie territory. It's probably easier to let someone like Joss Whedon (who also never had a hit before Avengers) or Shane Black run wild because the films they were directing were more or less surefire hits, or at the very least far far less a risk than an Ant Man film. So while i kind of understand the mindset of Marvel, they might have just shot themselves in the foot, purely because of the negativity surrounding the decision.

I was genuinely surprised myself that they gave Edgar Wright the freedom to make something so niche yet so expensive. I actually respected Marvel for that.
 
I loved Scott Pilgrim. Too bad nobody saw it.

I adored it, and honestly that seemed to be the general consensus, until it became cool to hate on it. I didn't real all the books, but it sure seems like they jumped off the pages to me. It was that quirky style I had hoped was being brought to Ant Man. Now we'll just have to wait and see. I hope they at least keep the effects similar, just polished.
 
I adored it, and honestly that seemed to be the general consensus, until it became cool to hate on it. I didn't real all the books, but it sure seems like they jumped off the pages to me. It was that quirky style I had hoped was being brought to Ant Man. Now we'll just have to wait and see. I hope they at least keep the effects similar, just polished.

There were a lot of differences in the comic, but frankly that is a prime example of how best to adapt a GN/comic book property. Keep the spirit of the source material and respect it while putting your own mark on the film and changing it around so it works as a film as opposed to an accurate adaptation. I could watch that film anytime.
 
That's the problem, Despite Wrights unmatched talent, he's never had a genuine commercial hit on his hands, certainly not in the vein of superhero movie territory. It's probably easier to let someone like Joss Whedon (who also never had a hit before Avengers) or Shane Black run wild because the films they were directing were more or less surefire hits, or at the very least far far less a risk than an Ant Man film. So while i kind of understand the mindset of Marvel, they might have just shot themselves in the foot, purely because of the negativity surrounding the decision.

I was genuinely surprised myself that they gave Edgar Wright the freedom to make something so niche yet so expensive. I actually respected Marvel for that.

But Marvel tends to act like their brand cures all. With a property like Ant Man, I'm not so sure. I was telling my old lady about the movie the other day, and she literally interrupted me to say, "Wait a minute...Ant Man?" Then I had to go into detail about who he is an why he's important, but that's about as general an audience reaction to this as you're gonna get. She sees these movies for me because she know I enjoy them, and it gives us something to discuss after, but the entire premise to her was so outlandish. My response was, "More outlandish than a man dressed as a bat, or a man that flies and shoots lasers out of his eyes, or a band of heroes consisting of a frozen Captain America, a Greek thunder god, the Hulk, and a man wearing a billion dollar technological suit, and this is the one that's outlandish?!" Her reply? "Well...yeah...he's called Ant Man for God's sake." That's your general public reaction right there.
 
There were a lot of differences in the comic, but frankly that is a prime example of how best to adapt a GN/comic book property. Keep the spirit of the source material and respect it while putting your own mark on the film and changing it around so it works as a film as opposed to an accurate adaptation. I could watch that film anytime.

Agreed. I hate that it became cool to bad mouth Scott Pilgrim and Michael Cera. Does he have more than one character? Not that I've seen so for unless you count Youth in Revolt, but that wasn't like he was clearly Micharl Cera playing a French guy. He's still better than he's given credit for. I haven't caught any of his festival showings so far though.
 
I like Fleischer, he was top of the world before Gangster Squad hit.

Yep, and personally I quite liked Gangster Squad, it was certainly better than the RT rating it got. Plus Zombieland is just superb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,092,450
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"