Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ant-Man' started by samsnee, Jun 7, 2014.
If you dont think this is funny you deserve a scissor kick
How Marvel Became the Envy (and Scourge) of Hollywood
Ike Perlmutter has become one of the town's most feared (and frugal) moguls. Now, as "Guardians of the Galaxy" takes the $6 billion-grossing brand in a new and risky direction, insiders open up about the never-seen executive's ironfisted style and the underside of a superhero empire.
Peyton Reed talks more about Ant Man at SDCC
To me it sounds like MARVEL is giving him all the help/support he needs to make this movie great.
The more I listen to him, the more I like him. He's DEFINITELY a comic book junkee and you can see his head is just percolating with the chance to try to salvage this thing.
I've been saying this all along, but Marvel has one helluva creative crew and "campus" for these directors to tap into ...... so it makes a directorial change a little bit easier than in other studio projects, especially since the FX and storyboards were in place.
Peyton seems like a cool dude. Hes got that comic geek/punk rock attitude. Im thrilled about Ant Man. He said "Honey I Shrunk The Kids X 1000". Thats awesome. FX have come a long way since that movie. Also people seem to think AM is gonna be a comedy, sounds like itll be as funny as the other films. Humorous in spots but not a laugh riot. Its a super hero movie.
People thought that Captain America the Winter Soldier was going to be a comedy because of the directors and we all saw that get flipped on its head.
^^ True! Ive learned to not assume anything with these movies. They always seem to pull the rug out from your feet and exceed expectations
HAHAHA, but in all seriousness, yah I agree with you guys, The Russo Bros. turned the scene into a 360 degree legit film.
I get the vibe that Peyton Reed has the same DNA as Gunn in terms of passion (the guy just celebrated his 20th Comic Con Anniv.) and he's the type of a collaborative director.
The main reason that I'm backing up this guy is because he has Kevin Feige guiding him through all of this. It's not just an Ant-Man film, it's a MCU-Ant-Man film.
Though, I think there's a little more evidence to support the fact that this may be more of a "comedy" than the other MCU movies. Every director Marvel were rumored to seek after Wright's departure were steeped in comedic chops... Adam McKay included. If Iron Man and even The Avengers were action-comedies, maybe Ant-Man is more of a comedy-action movie. Again, that's conjecture, albeit based on some evidence, and we won't know for sure till much later in the marketing cycle.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, though. "Serious" and "dramatic" and "comedic" are not indicators of quality, despite what some (not all, obviously, but some) fervent DC fans might think. There are tons of so called serious films that are crap. And tons of comedies that are masterpieces. IMO Anchorman is one.
Here's to us getting the best Ant-Man movie possible. Ball's in your court, Mr. Reed.
I dont want a comedy, I want an Ant Man film with some humor in it. It should be just like the other MCU films. It should be organic to the story not just thrown in for the hell of it. I dont expect Hank Pym and Scott are gonna bust into a rendition of Afternoon Delight in a scene etc.
Yea, same here. I would prefer a comedic tone over a straight-up comedy. But I'm just saying that there is evidence that they're looking to take a more comedic route than usual with this one. Even if that's case, though, it could work out excellently. It's not like they'll have Brick killing a guy or anything.
Payton Reed says the tone is the same as the other Marvel films. It has comedy like all of Marvel's films but isn't more comedic than anything we have seen before.
I have no worries about this movie. It'll be hilarious and new
Box office success is not a good indication of whether a film is good or bad, otherwise, people will point to Bayformers. If a film has enough reason to be criticized, then it isn't good, simply put.
Also, where's the logic in that comparison? Just because IM3 did well after Avengers, it doesn't mean that the next film after Age of Ultron will do just as well. That's like saying my business will make money again at the same time it did last year because it did so last year.
People will go see Ant Man because it'll look like another fun Marvel sci fi adventure. Its called Ant Man fer cryin out loud.
Marvel has now successfully made themselves THE name in comic book entertainment. Much like Pixar can put out a film like Ratatouille and know that it doesn't have to be as successful as Toy Story, and people are going to see it just because of the brand name.
The big problem for Ant Man is that with the exception of TDW, all of the phase 2 films raised the bar, especially GOTG and TDW, and they are going to need to bring their A-game.
They have a great cast, they just need to bring it all together.
TDW definitely raised the bar despite mixed reviews.
I think it's worth considering too that Marvel originally considered Peyton Reed for Guardians. He's not just some schmoe they pulled out of thin air while scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Also, I think the way Marvel supports their characters, their stories, their films these days, even if it's a bit of a dud, it won't mean the end of the character, the actors, the world etc... Look at Agents of SHIELD. When they want to support something, they'll support it.
What mixed reviews? It got 89% on Rotten Tomatoes.
TDW got 65% and TWS got 89%... unless you meant TWS.
If anyone is curious about what Peyton Reed & Doug Petrie's (Daredevil) version of Fantastic Four would have been like...
I'm not getting what is "underside" and really scandalous about this. Not to mention...I mean...Jon Favreau did come back for Iron Man 2. He still worked on Iron Man 3 too.
All I'm really getting here is Marvel has their own way of doing things, and honestly...I don't see a problem with it. Marvel is the company that is changing the game and all the other studios are trying to follow their example and come in second. Clearly they did something right with their model.
in regards to all the discussions/debates/complaints in the Ant-Man forum.
ANT-MAN is at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes
Do you guys think that a Peyton Reed helmed sequel could be anything more than underwhelming?
I loved the movie and I'm not some Wright fanatic but this was a repurposed Wright movie and it was handled very well but I wonder how good a sequel will be without any of his direct influence?
Is what Peyton Reed did anything more than taking Hamburger Helper and adding his own vegetable, cheese and spice medley to elevate the meal?