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

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm spending all my negativity on the awful Fantastic Four mess. I have none to spare for anything else.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I share your concerns. But Marvel's surprised us a lot and I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here. I actually remember guys like Favreau, Whedon and the Russo brothers getting trashed by fans. Favreau the director of Zathura? Comedy directors for Cap? Whedon was accused of being a cheap yes man TV director. Yet those films all turned out to be arguably Marvel's three greatest successes. Meanwhile people praised the director choice of Shane Black up and down and then crucified the guy when he did something bold with the canon.

I think some guys work well with Marvel and others don't. They're not necessarily looking for the biggest names or the best resume. They're looking for the right fit for their vision. It seems to me that Edgar Wright took too long to make his film and the film he wanted to make simply no longer fit with that vision.

If Marvel didn't care about adding Hank Pym and co. to the MCU mythology I'm sure they would've given Wright the keys to the kingdom. But let's face it - the connected universe is one of the coolest things about what Marvel is doing. And given the fact that they will probably never reclaim their premier franchises like Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four - they can't afford to dilute their brand by treating the characters they do have as throwaway material. Pym is actually a pretty key figure in the Marvel Universe.

What gives me hope here on this project is this: McKay and Reed both seem to be big comic geeks. McKay referred to Kirby/Lee as his Lennon/McCartney. And I loved the description of what Reed had planned for Fantastic Four but never saw the light of day when the reins were handed to Tim Story to run that franchise into the ground.

I'm not saying Ant-Man will be a great film. But I'm more than willing to give it a chance. I'm rooting for it actually especially after all the overboard fanboy outrage over Edgar Wright's departure.

You make some good points, but Peyton Reed and Scott Derrickson just dont bring even the slightest bit of excitement to me, yet Gunn, Whedon, Black, Branagh and few others did. Only really The Russo's were an unknown entity to me.

Yep, saw your posts in the other threads, you're just being a negative minded person at the moment, and I don't blame you for that and with all your concerns BUT you're dealing with MARVEL, when was the last time they've deliver a BAD Film? Let that sink in.........none! IM2, TIH, TDW (opinion-based but in the eyes of the general public it was a success BO Wise).

So box office is an indicator of quality now? Those 3 movies were average at best.

QUOTE=The.Brotherhood;29025673]You're focusing too much on the negative ends when at the end of the day everything is positive with this film MOVING FORWARD and this will be the first film AFTER the AVENGERS: AOU, last movie that did that? IM3, how it turned out? a BILLION+ my friend.

Just sit back, relax and enjoy as the MCU unfolds upon us all.[/QUOTE]

Again because IM3 made the money it did that means its a good movie? Take The Avengers out of the equation and I doubt IM3 would have made even near 1 billion. TA gave it and the other phase 2 movies a big boost BO wise. Doesnt make them good movies, TWS excluded because that is a good movie.

That's funny
Favreau, Leterrier, Russos... none brought any excitement amongst, well, pretty much anyone
And Whedon, Gunn, Taylor, and Branagh only had heat amongst geeks and movie-philes

AVEIT, I agreed with your early negativity on TDW, but this is a bit much

But thats my point, the phase 3 directors dont even have geek credibility, Whedon, Black, Gunn, Taylor, Branagh. Peyton Reed and Scott Derrickson area big step down from even the phase 1 directors, a phase in which the MCU was in its infancy, they havent moved on and advanced it seems and in my eyes thats not a good thing.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Eh its all subjective. Your giving Lego Movie the same score as AS2 and Robocop is dramatic proof of this. No point in worrying about movies going into production yet, and after cap2 there's at least some reason to be optimistic about a questionable director. Dr Strange could certainly work out with the right script and cast. Same with Ant-Man. Complaining about it at length at this point doesn't make much sense. Let's see how GotG turns out and go from there.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You may not like Derrickson, AVEIT, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have credibility. He has a pretty strong following in horror fan circles, which I would say could be called a movie-phile niche.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Really? Because I had barely heard of him before this announcement, TDTESS is my only exposure to him, and that was awful. I heard Sinister is good, but not amazing.

But I can only judge what I see of him. I would be more than happy for both and him and Reed to prove me wrong, but as of right now neither appointment elicits any excitement from me.

In terms of director choices, Phase 3 is the poorest one yet IMO. But Phase 2 had some exciting directors involved and only 1 out of the 3 movies has been more than average IMO, so who knows?

 

[Keyser Soze]

^Really? Because I had barely heard of him before this announcement, TDTESS is my only exposure to him, and that was awful. I heard Sinister is good, but not amazing.

But I can only judge what I see of him. I would be more than happy for both and him and Reed to prove me wrong, but as of right now neither appointment elicits any excitement from me.

In terms of director choices, Phase 3 is the poorest one yet IMO. But Phase 2 had some exciting directors involved and only 1 out of the 3 movies has been more than average IMO, so who knows?

It's fair enough to not be a fan and it's absolutely correct that you can only judge based on what you've seen. On a subjective level from my perspective I've seen both Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose and would say both are very good, certainly a cut above the typical dross that passes for horror these days, but not great. I'd certainly heard of him, though, and was already aware of his popularity. I was just pointing out that not being a fan of someone is not the same as them objectively having no credibility or reputation in film fan circles.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's fair enough to not be a fan and it's absolutely correct that you can only judge based on what you've seen. On a subjective level from my perspective I've seen both Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose and would say both are very good, certainly a cut above the typical dross that passes for horror these days, but not great. I'd certainly heard of him, though, and was already aware of his popularity. I was just pointing out that not being a fan of someone is not the same as them objectively having no credibility or reputation in film fan circles.

Fair enough, you make some good points. Personally I havent even heard his name in horror fan circles though. Which brings me back to my original point of the Phase 3 directors so far being a step down from the previous 2 phases.

But again, I was excited about Black and Taylor, and both movies from them (though its general knowledge now Marvel take a huge part of the the blame for TDW) were average, and the phase 2 directors (Russo's) I knew the least about and was the least excited for delivered the best phase 2 movie so far, so you never know.

Reed and Derrickson havent seemed to elicit the excitment in geek circles that previous directors for MCU movies have though. And i'm not just talking about myself.

 

[kosh33]

That's funny
Favreau, Leterrier, Russos... none brought any excitement amongst, well, pretty much anyone
And Whedon, Gunn, Taylor, and Branagh only had heat amongst geeks and movie-philes

AVEIT, I agreed with your early negativity on TDW, but this is a bit much

Agreed.. i knew Favreau as the actor from friends, Whedon from Buffy, and Branagh from the Harry potter movies.. never heard of the others when they were announced..
i go to see movies for the stories and the characters and not because of the directors..

 

[kosh33]

Eh its all subjective. Your giving Lego Movie the same score as AS2 and Robocop is dramatic proof of this. No point in worrying about movies going into production yet, and after cap2 there's at least some reason to be optimistic about a questionable director. Dr Strange could certainly work out with the right script and cast. Same with Ant-Man. Complaining about it at length at this point doesn't make much sense. Let's see how GotG turns out and go from there.

good points.. if only more people were this sensible in the boards

 

[DA_Champion]

i go to see movies for the stories and the characters and not because of the directors..

The screenwriter and the director are the two most important involved in any movie.

 

[chamber-music]

I would like to see Reed and McKay upping the lighter one liner side of Pym's personality.

 

[kosh33]

The screenwriter and the director are the two most important involved in any movie.

I am not saying they are not..
i just said i dont go see a movie just because someone well-known is directing it or has written the story

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The screenwriter and the director are the two most important involved in any movie.

Directors and writers are the reasons I go and see half the movies I do.

 

[DA_Champion]

Directors and writers are the reasons I go and see half the movies I do.

Me too.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

The screenwriter and the director are the two most important involved in any movie.

Except that a large number of screenwriters are involved in any single project. Have you ever looked into how many rewrites go into a typical script?

And frankly, unless he's Spielberg or Scorsese or one of a handful of others who command final cut, the director isn't as important as you'd like to think. For every guy who calls all the shots and has his vision perfectly fulfilled, there are dozens who are micromanaged by the producers who put up the cash for the project in the first place.

More often than not the director is the guy who calls the shots onset but has limited input into the artistic direction of the picture.

 

[DA_Champion]

Except that a large number of screenwriters are involved in any single project. Have you ever looked into how many rewrites go into a typical script?

And frankly, unless he's Spielberg or Scorsese or one of a handful of others who command final cut, the director isn't as important as you'd like to think. For every guy who calls all the shots and has his vision perfectly fulfilled, there are dozens who are micromanaged by the producers who put up the cash for the project in the first place.

More often than not the director is the guy who calls the shots onset but has limited input into the artistic direction of the picture.

The movies that have no artistic vision are often good, virtually never great.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

The movies that have no artistic vision are often good, but never great.

And who exactly gets to judge which film has "artistic vision" and which one does not? You? lol. Sorry, but no.

 

[DA_Champion]

And who exactly gets to judge which film has "artistic vision" and which one does not? You? lol. Sorry, but no.

I'm not inventing any new concepts here. What I'm saying is already pretty well-established -- it was well-established before I was born.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Right.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not inventing any new concepts here. What I'm saying is already pretty well-established -- it was well-established before I was born.

Agreed, directors are possibly the most important part of any film project. There are many films I have watched simply because a certain director did it, and many movies I would have watched if a certain director wasnt attached and it would have be me missing out on some quality movies.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Agreed, actors are possibly the most important part of any film project. There are many films I have watched simply because a certain actor did it, and many movies I would have watched if a certain actor wasnt attached and it would have be me missing out on some quality movies.

 

[Mike Murdock]

The movies that have no artistic vision are often good, virtually never great.

But why is it the director who needs the artistic vision? Why not the producer? Or, more accurately, why can't everyone with a shared artistic vision work? Why does it have to be the director's vision?

 

[TheVision]

I think there are films that dont have "artistic vision" or stylized visions that are great. There are also ones that do have that and arent great. Its about the story first, you can stylize the hell out of a movie but if the basic structure/story/characters suck it wont help. The best movies have a nice balance of all of it.

Ant-Man sounds like it has a very fun plot/story. Im not really familiar with Peyton Reeds stuff, but I assume he'll make it visually interesting to add to the mix. I dont need a highly artistic auteur piece to enjoy this, just a well told/acted/directed/scored movie.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I think there are films that dont have "artistic vision" or stylized visions that are great. There are also ones that do have that and arent great. Its about the story first, you can stylize the hell out of a movie but if the basic structure/story/characters suck it wont help. The best movies have a nice balance of all of it.

Ant-Man sounds like it has a very fun plot/story. Im not really familiar with Peyton Reeds stuff, but I assume he'll make it visually interesting to add to the mix. I dont need a highly artistic auteur piece to enjoy this, just a well told/acted/directed/scored movie.

Marvel has never once had a huge headlining auteur in it's MCU. Look where it's at. That's because this is a studio built on a collective vision.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The movies that have no artistic vision are often good, virtually never great.

I normally would agree with auteur theory, but the MCU is different because it is not run like a film franchise. The method Marvel is using is more similar to that of a TV show, in which your showrunner and writers are more important than your directors. For this reason, I don't think Auteur Theory really applies to what Marvel Studios is doing. Just with a bigger budget and extended screentime. Sure, some MCU films turn out better than others, but every TV also has poor episodes every now and then. Even great ones.