Ant-Man Edgar Wright Leaves Ant-Man!!

[Mysteryman]

Mary mother of God-

I have been looking forward to this film for YEARS. And now, when we were closer than we've ever been, it's just gone. I am dumbfounded.

I mean, yes, the movie will still be made. It's the Edgar Wright making it part I'm referring to.

Jesus God, I feel like I just lost a pet or something. I have no idea how to process this.

That is the saddest part for me .
We will never see Edgar Wrights Vision for Ant Man .

 

[Keyser Soze]

That is the saddest part for me .
We will never see Edgar Wrights Vision for Ant Man .

Deja vu?

 

[The Question]

We might have might have a better idea what happened once we see the film.

Maybe? Definitely if we have the opportunity to compare it with Wright's script. If they're mostly the same, it's probably the schedule thing. If there are major changes, it could be either.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Maybe? Definitely if we have the opportunity to compare it with Wright's script.

Maybe they should scrap the movie and instead make a movie about the process of trying to get this movie made. It'd be packed with twists-and-turns!

 

[The Question]

Maybe they should scrap the movie and instead make a movie about the process of trying to get this movie made. It'd be packed with twists-and-turns!

Man, Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg should make a movie about the perilous journey of making an ultimately doomed big budget comic book adaptation. That **** would be hilarious.

 

[Mysteryman]

You never know, Wright might end up doing just that .

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Based on Joss Whedon's tweet and rumors about Feige, these weren't Marvel execs, this was all Disney.

That's not surprising. I just wonder what Wright was gonna do with the characters that had them all "this is unacceptable!". I hope it wasn't something as tame as "Scott Lang is a thief".

Unlike some passionate fanboys, I didn't have my heart set on Ant Man being in The Avengers (and MCU Tony Stark creating Ultron makes perfect sense). That's why I was intrigued by Michael Douglas being an older Hank Pym. He's a charismatic and talented actor/star. How could that be a bad thing for the Hank Pym character to be played by him?

I worry that they are going to basically make the same movie Wright was going to but without the heart he was going to bring to it. I will be so sad if Disney ****s up the MCU because of the short-sighted greed of their executives.

 

[The Question]

That's not surprising. I just wonder what Wright was gonna do with the characters that had them all "this is unacceptable!". I hope it wasn't something as tame as "Scott Lang is a thief".

Unlike some passionate fanboys, I didn't have my heart set on Ant Man being in The Avengers (and MCU Tony Stark creating Ultron makes perfect sense). That's why I was intrigued by Michael Douglas being an older Hank Pym. He's a charismatic and talented actor/star. How could that be a bad thing for the Hank Pym character to be played by him?

I worry that they are going to basically make the same movie Wright was going to but without the heart he was going to bring to it. I will be so sad if Disney ****s up the MCU because of the short-sighted greed of their executives.

It might have just been an overall style/tone thing. Like, Wright may have wanted to make the film really stylized and weird and not have the climax of the movie be a big expensive action sequence but instead be something else more creative, and Disney was all "NO STICK TO FORMULA YOU SWINE." I could see that being a thing.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Just asking really quickly again: Is anyone other than Faraci stating that Whedon's gone after AoU over Wright-gate?

I haven't heard a single thing about it until today.

LOL, oh wrong thread.

It's spreading!

 

[terry78]

Thats how it isif you're wanting to make it in Hollywood, you gotta sacrifice some **** to get the **** made that you want unless your name is Spielberg.

 

[cherokeesam]

Are you being ironic Endeavor?

If not, please consider for one second that Edgar & Joe worked on this for YEARS & YEARS, this is their baby,

How the hell are Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne "their" babies....? Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish didn't invent them: Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, John Byrne and David Michelinie did. Decades ago. They are characters from the pages of a Marvel Comics book titled, coincidentally enough, "The Avengers." They are *not* characters that Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish invented to do their usual cult-classic send-ups/homages to film genres.

Edgar Wright's vision was obvious enough. What does Edgar Wright do best? What is he known for? Quirky, witty comedies that lightheartedly poke fun at some of Edgar's favorite genres, like actioners, horror, anime, and superheroes. So in 2006, Edgar & Joe set out to do to the superhero genre what they did to the other genres in their previous movies. This was back in the pre-MCU days, when Marvel Entertainment was still ****ing their properties to anybody who wanted to buy them. Nobody cared about a character named Ant-Man, and yeah, a quirky comedy about a dysfunctional superhero with a silly name sounded like fun.

The only thing is, Wright dragged his feet and, meanwhile, The Avengers became a multi-billion dollar thing. Suddenly, characters like Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne were no longer peripheral and incidental --- they were *essential* to the evolving storyline of the lucrative centerpiece of the MCU, The Avengers. Wright's vision of a standalone film that took great liberties with the source material was suddenly no longer in keeping with the company mantra of connectivity. The things Wright wanted to do (and *not* to do) with Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne were suddenly interfering with and delaying plotlines and character arcs for The Avengers --- the group that these three characters have always....always....been forever linked to.

"Ant-Man" is, quite simply, a movie that never should have happened in the first place. It is a solo standalone movie about a character(s) who are not now, and have never been, solo or standalone. There has never been an "Ant-Man" comic that headlined either Hank Pym or Scott Lang. The only comic book ever bearing that imprint involved a *third* Ant-Man, Eric O'Grady, who isn't even remotely part of Edgar Wright's story.

Making a standalone movie about Hank Pym and/or Scott Lang, and then cutting off their obvious ties to The Avengers is like making a standalone movie about Cyclops and cutting off all ties to the X-Men. It's like making a movie about Johnny Storm, then refusing to connect him to the Fantastic Four at all. It's like making a biopic of Kobe Bryant without ever once referencing the fact that he played for the Lakers.

Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne and Scott Lang always deserved to be introduced in The Avengers --- you know, the title which remains to this day the only place you can find these characters in the comics. Edgar Wright's little lark of a movie put a major kink in that, and it's clear that Wright's refusal to work them into The Avengers and into the MCU proper has been the sticking point from the very beginning. All these rewrites that Marvel kept sending back over the years aren't proof of the Big Bad Corporation trying to stifle creativity; it's proof that a filmmaker took someone else's intellectual property and tried to make it into something the owners disagreed with, then stubbornly refused to compromise.

No, Hank and Scott and Janet are not Edgar Wright's "babies." They are Avengers. That's where they've always belonged.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Considering Marvel's track record, I am surprised (though actually not that much) that people are willing to lay the blame here solely on Disney.

There are already a number of directors and actors not willing to work with them anymore, Favreau wont direct for them again, Howard, Norton and Rourke wont ever act for them again and its obvious Taylor and Branagh will never come back either. This isnt anything new and its why Marvel's movies will never feel that special IMO. Dont get me wrong plenty of them have been good, very much so in fact, but they always have something missing that makes them special IMO.

Wright was the only reason I was interested in this as i'm not an Ant-Man fan, only ever read his character when he has been in other heroes stories. So my interest in this movie now is pretty much zero.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Man, some stupid-ass posts in this thread. I swear if Joss Whedon were to walk off Age of Ultron and cut ties with Marvel tomorrow, the Marvel teat-nibblers would be tripping over themselves to be first to post, "Good riddance!" "Marvel are better off without him!" "I never liked him anyway, always thought he was a hack!"

I know some of the EXACT people on here who would be saying it as well.

 

[Boom]

If the reports regarding Wright's departure are true, then they'd probably be better served delaying the production.

 

[KangConquers]

How the hell are Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne "their" babies....? Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish didn't invent them: Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, John Byrne and David Michelinie did. Decades ago. They are characters from the pages of a Marvel Comics book titled, coincidentally enough, "The Avengers." They are *not* characters that Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish invented to do their usual cult-classic send-ups/homages to film genres.

Edgar Wright's vision was obvious enough. What does Edgar Wright do best? What is he known for? Quirky, witty comedies that lightheartedly poke fun at some of Edgar's favorite genres, like actioners, horror, anime, and superheroes. So in 2006, Edgar & Joe set out to do to the superhero genre what they did to the other genres in their previous movies. This was back in the pre-MCU days, when Marvel Entertainment was still ****ing their properties to anybody who wanted to buy them. Nobody cared about a character named Ant-Man, and yeah, a quirky comedy about a dysfunctional superhero with a silly name sounded like fun.

The only thing is, Wright dragged his feet and, meanwhile, The Avengers became a multi-billion dollar thing. Suddenly, characters like Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne were no longer peripheral and incidental --- they were *essential* to the evolving storyline of the lucrative centerpiece of the MCU, The Avengers. Wright's vision of a standalone film that took great liberties with the source material was suddenly no longer in keeping with the company mantra of connectivity. The things Wright wanted to do (and *not* to do) with Hank Pym, Scott Lang and Janet Van Dyne were suddenly interfering with and delaying plotlines and character arcs for The Avengers --- the group that these three characters have always....always....been forever linked to.

"Ant-Man" is, quite simply, a movie that never should have happened in the first place. It is a solo standalone movie about a character(s) who are not now, and have never been, solo or standalone. There has never been an "Ant-Man" comic that headlined either Hank Pym or Scott Lang. The only comic book ever bearing that imprint involved a *third* Ant-Man, Eric O'Grady, who isn't even remotely part of Edgar Wright's story.

Making a standalone movie about Hank Pym and/or Scott Lang, and then cutting off their obvious ties to The Avengers is like making a standalone movie about Cyclops and cutting off all ties to the X-Men. It's like making a movie about Johnny Storm, then refusing to connect him to the Fantastic Four at all. It's like making a biopic of Kobe Bryant without ever once referencing the fact that he played for the Lakers.

Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne and Scott Lang always deserved to be introduced in The Avengers --- you know, the title which remains to this day the only place you can find these characters in the comics. Edgar Wright's little lark of a movie put a major kink in that, and it's clear that Wright's refusal to work them into The Avengers and into the MCU proper has been the sticking point from the very beginning. All these rewrites that Marvel kept sending back over the years aren't proof of the Big Bad Corporation trying to stifle creativity; it's proof that a filmmaker took someone else's intellectual property and tried to make it into something the owners disagreed with, then stubbornly refused to compromise.

No, Hank and Scott and Janet are not Edgar Wright's "babies." They are Avengers. That's where they've always belonged.

While Ant-Man never took off the way other characters did, saying he was originally an Avenger is false. He was a solo character, and in fact, many of the early Avengers villains (The Black Knight, Whirlwind, Egghead) were his solo villains.

He, like Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Nick Fury, Doctor Strange and many many many other characters didn't start out with eponymous comic books. Instead he had about 35 issues worth of monthly appearances in the anthology Tales to Astonish. There, his origin, back story, and rogues gallery was developed.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

There are already a number of directors and actors not willing to work with them anymore, Favreau wont direct for them again, Howard, Norton and Rourke wont ever act for them again and its obvious Taylor and Branagh will never come back either. This isnt anything new and its why Marvel's movies will never feel that special IMO. Dont get me wrong plenty of them have been good, very much so in fact, but they always have something missing that makes them special IMO.

I've seen nothing to indicate that Branagh's split with Marvel has been anything other than amicable and he has been cordial with them since. It was always clear to me given the kind of director that I perceive him to be that he's not a sequel guy, and Marvel was going with a different direction anyway.

 

[jonathancrane]

I have not read any reports of bad blood between Branagh and Marvel. As for Favreau, he still acts for them. If there was bad blood, he sure as hell would not be acting for them. Rourke's character was killed off in IM2...even if he was on perfect terms with the studio, there is/was no way to bring his character back. Howard, on the other hand, was a meh Rhodey; Cheadle is a lot better. Howard's found films more suitable for him...such as Movie 43, as someone on this forum once said (to great hilarity.)

 

[KangConquers]

I've seen nothing to indicate that Branagh's split with Marvel has been anything other than amicable and he has been cordial with them since. It was always clear to me given the kind of director that I perceive him to be that he's not a sequel guy, and Marvel was going with a different direction anyway.

From what I can tell, he wanted to take a break, and they wanted him to start working on the sequel immediately.

 

[Tony Stark]

Man, some stupid-ass posts in this thread. I swear if Joss Whedon were to walk off Age of Ultron and cut ties with Marvel tomorrow, the Marvel teat-nibblers would be tripping over themselves to be first to post, "Good riddance!" "Marvel are better off without him!" "I never liked him anyway, always thought he was a hack!"

No one saying that. You are the one saying that Winter Soldier is your favorite Marvel film after Avengers. That films wouldn't have happened had they not fired Joe Johnston.

Sometimes things don't work out, and none of us know what happened.

 

[Boom]

Was Johnson ever attached to CA2?

 

[Sawyer]

Doubt it.

 

[Tony Stark]

I have not read any reports of bad blood between Branagh and Marvel. As for Favreau, he still acts for them. If there was bad blood, he sure as hell would not be acting for them. Rourke's character was killed off in IM2...even if he was on perfect terms with the studio, there is/was no way to bring his character back. Howard, on the other hand, was a meh Rhodey; Cheadle is a lot better. Howard's found films more suitable for him...such as Movie 43, as someone on this forum once said (to great hilarity.)

People make **** up, and then it goes viral. People start believing their own BS. It's much more sexy and interesting to believe the BS, then to believe that it's a business, and sometimes people agree to part ways and go onto other things.

 

[Dr. Evil]

So how accurate is THR's Borys Kit? He has some big Marvel news that has nothing to do with Ant Man.

 

[Tony Stark]

Was Johnson ever attached to CA2?

No he was not brought back that's the point. The same thing happened with him that happened to Branagh and with Favreau after IM2. If they bring back Johnston, you don't get the Russo Bros, you don't get TWS.

 

[Tony Stark]

So how accurate is THR's Borys Kit? He has some big Marvel news that has nothing to do with Ant Man.

I have no idea. What did they say?