Ant-Man Peyton Reed to direct, Adam McKay to rewrite Ant-man

[TheVision]

^^ That cinemablend article says it all in a fair, honest way. Agree 100%

 

[samsnee]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Believe-Marvel-Then-Believe-Peyton-Reed-Ant-Man-43366.html

Good article. It's an interesting take. I just hope Marvel doesn't lose sight of keeping each franchise different enough if they are really taking an episodic approach like television.

 

[Dyson]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Believe-Marvel-Then-Believe-Peyton-Reed-Ant-Man-43366.html

Yep, this I agree with 100%.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Good article. It's an interesting take. I just hope Marvel doesn't lose sight of keeping each franchise different enough if they are really taking an episodic approach like television.

Once again ....

IM3 - Buddy Cop
CA:TWS - Political Thriller
Ant-Man - Crime/Heist

Why would they lose sight? Hell they just hired a director for Dr. Strange and he's got a background in those creepy paranormal films.

 

[babykhris]

Or maybe McKay wanted a BETTER Marvel property to direct, but as writer he's in the Marvel system.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I don't doubt that McKay simply has too much on his plate to try and tackle something like this without prep time. But coming on as a writer gets his foot in the door. I hope they give him something down the road.

Good piece from CB btw.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Interesting. And they're not moving the release date. So one has to assume the re-writes will happen as they start filming in order to make the release date.

I keep looking for it, but I can't find anything that says McKay is "going to rewrite" the Ant-Man script as opposed to being the person who already did the rewrite. My initial impression when I read Marvel's announcement was the latter. I thought it explained why they thought McKay was going to take over the directing. But it's obviously vague, so it could be interpreted either way.

Anyway, I'm glad they got a director. I'll wait and see when we get more information. I don't like that description, though. It sounds overcooked. Like they're throwing too many things at the wall to see what sticks. But it's too early to say anything for sure.

 

[PacificBoy]

Once again ....

IM3 - Buddy Cop
CA:TWS - Political Thriller
Ant-Man - Crime/Heist

Why would they lose sight? Hell they just hired a director for Dr. Strange and he's got a background in those creepy paranormal films.

Not to mention:

CA:FA - period piece
Thor - Shakespearean lite

Only T:TDW and IM2 didn't have much of an identity.

 

[seishin87]

Well I can't say I saw this coming at all but I approve. Interestingly I actually saw Bring it On in theaters way back in the day when I went on a group date, other than that I haven't really seen much of Reed's work but after the Russo's and TWS I'm not worried. Pretty much these are Marvel films, the trailers sell the movies with the whole "from the studio that brought you..." line rather than "from the director of...". The fact that Reed actually pitched an idea for Fantastic Four way back in the day is kinda cool so I'm sure we'll get something special. I'm sure Wright will still get some kind of creative credit/acknowledgment in the end but over all any fears or worries about the fate of this production have been put to rest for me. I guess now it's just the wait till the first teaser/trailer.

So phase 3 is shaping up nicely so far, Ant-Man, Cap 3, Dr. Strange, and possibly Thor 3 and Avengers 3 for sure is a given. I wonder what else we'll see, more new characters/properties? Black Panther or Ms. Marvel/GoTG2, or maybe Iron Man 4, Hulk 2 or perhaps a Nick Fury/Black Widow/Hawkeye/SHIELD prequel(pre Iron-man/Avengers) movie? Would be nice to get 7 films for phase 3.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Not to mention:

CA:FA - period piece
Thor - Shakespearean lite

Only T:TDW and IM2 didn't have much of an identity.

How did Thor:TDW not have an identity? It was the most stylized and out there of any movie so far. It's essentially Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars. I agree about Iron Man 2, though.

 

[BoredGuy]

^yeah but the TDW recipe was:
1 part LotR, 1 part Star Wars, 3 parts water, add ice and a hint of Limey British backdrop

s**t was watered down, and should've used one of those inspirations more thoroughly

so far the movies where Marvel talks at length about the genre conventions theyre shooting for seem to turn out the best, like they did with Cap 2 and IM3

 

[Rock Sexton]

How did Thor:TDW not have an identity? It was the most stylized and out there of any movie so far. It's essentially Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars. I agree about Iron Man 2, though.

Honestly, I didn't know how to define it. For me personally it's not quite as clear-clut as the genres of the other films since it's trying to mesh fantasy with Star Wars.

I think comparing it to LOTR isn't quite kosher just yet (as Boredguy said it was watered down), but I hope they finally try to go that route in terms of vibe for the third film. They need an all-out adventure.

 

[TheVision]

Thor 2 was one wacky film. I hated the bland villain so that didnt help. It didnt feel like the director had any idea what he was doing to be honest. The reason films like Avengers and Cap 2 are so great is because you can tell Joss/The Russos truly know/love/RESPECT the characters. The most important thing is for the filmmakers to actually be fans of Marvel Comics for real and to bring these heroes to life in a cinematic way and not treat them (and the audience) like idiots.

 

[Paradox1]

How did Thor:TDW not have an identity? It was the most stylized and out there of any movie so far. It's essentially Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars. I agree about Iron Man 2, though.

Tdw is easily their worst film. Proves one thing though crap films can make a lot of money.

 

[BatsDC]

TDW was in the unfortunate position of being in-between two pretty damn good Marvel Studios films, Winter Soldier especially. It was by no means terrible, but given the standards set for it, it is kinda looked back on as the weakest.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I'll go along with ^this. I would upgrade Cap2 to "great" though.

Oh, and i just want to say that Bring it On is the Citizen Kane of cheerleader movies.

 

[Paradox1]

TDW was in the unfortunate position of being in-between two pretty damn good Marvel Studios films, Winter Soldier especially. It was by no means terrible, but given the standards set for it, it is kinda looked back on as the weakest.

It's It's one of those movies as time goes by that is just gonna get worse. Like X-Men the last stand, spider-man 3, f4, I don't think anyone is going to grow an appreciation for it Like Blade Runner or Dune.

 

[BatsDC]

It's not been as terribly received as any of those movies though. Thor itself wasn't exactly the strongest of films, so there wasn't some huge expectation of it to do wonders. X-Men and Spidey in particular were rolling off of sequels that were very well received. I think TDW will hold up just fine, especially if Thor 3 turns out great.

I see it as more of a misstep than a screw-up.

 

[TheVision]

Yeah a misstep, its still entertaining enough, just not a strong follow up that really made THOR a kickass hero like w/ Cap 2. Hopefully Joss will correct that in AOU and help the character come back stronger than ever.

 

[BoredGuy]

Yeah I think that's a large part of why that movie was so disappointing
It was supposed to be the X2, the Cap:TWS, it was supposed to vault Thor to that next level of notoriety and fandom

instead, we got a film that reinforces all the Loki love because he stole the damn show, and let down Thor fans who wanted better for the character

 

[Rock Sexton]

Tdw is easily their worst film. Proves one thing though crap films can make a lot of money.

It wasn't crap. It was disjointed early and then the 3rd act got a tad silly. However, it is a movie that proof of how the international box office is making up for movies that are far from complete.

TDW was in the unfortunate position of being in-between two pretty damn good Marvel Studios films, Winter Soldier especially. It was by no means terrible, but given the standards set for it, it is kinda looked back on as the weakest.

After seeing CA:TWS it made me look a back at T:TDW and become sour about what came of it. The flaws became way more glaring.

They really need to get on the ball about giving us the "adventure" the franchise deserves.

 

[TheVision]

Thor 3 needs to put THOR in the spotlight and not even deal much with Loki if possible. As much as I love Tom in that role, the series is called THOR, not LOKI.

Its funny that the brother character who felt so neglected ended up being the star of the franchise.

 

[BatsDC]

Part of the problem with the TDW was that it was a case of "We need to get another Thor film out before the Avengers 2" than a case of "We have a fantastic idea for a great follow up to Thor". Nobody had a great idea or vision of where to take the character, so they dumped him in a standard action plot that, arguably, didn't take the character anywhere. IM3 and TWS both had a vision of where the characters should go, and there's clear progression in both. Alan Taylor wasn't hired because he had a vision for Thor, unfortunately. That I suppose is Marvel's one downfall - unless they find directors with great ideas for characters, they're often stuck dumping them in standard action/sci-fi movies (IM2, TDW) which whilst not terrible, especially in TDW's case, makes their output look a lot less impressive than it could if TDW had been on par with IM3 and TWS.

 

[Dyson]

Anyway... back to Marvel's "Ant-Man"...

 

[BatsDC]

Yeah, Ant-Man.

Was anyone else really hyped by the synopsis that was released? I know it really isn't much but the fact it sounds pretty good and unique (the heist angle) alongside the fact that things are getting back on track has really rekindled my interest in the film.