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

[TheVision]

[YT]5A0-u85aAYg[/YT]
[YT]NjAqVWUaGE0[/YT]
If you dont think this is funny you deserve a scissor kick

 

[Gabe99]

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.

When Marvel began financing its own movies, the company made unconventional choices for directors such as Jon Favreau (Iron Man) and Kenneth Branagh (Thor). But both are said to have moved on in large part because Marvel was not willing to make the type of deal directors expect after launching a franchise. Feige now seems increasingly confident in managing the movies himself, relying on fresh directors to execute his vision. "They actually do good things for these filmmakers," says one talent rep. "Who was Shane Black? But Iron Man 3 — totally entertaining."

When it comes to creative decision-making, a source with knowledge of the players says Perlmutter is largely reliant on the soft-spoken Feige, who has found a way to accommodate his boss while getting what he wants. "Kevin never says, 'I would pay you, but Ike won't let me,' " says an exec who has worked on the films. "He's kept to the company line — always loyal to Ike." But Perlmutter's longtime associate Alan Fine, president of Marvel Entertainment, runs the creative committee, and chief counsel David Galluzzi takes the lead on dealmaking.

As the highly detail-oriented man in charge of Marvel's creative strategy, Feige works closely with a team that includes Louis D'Esposito, who runs physical production, and Victoria Alonso, who handles effects and postproduction. The line between creative and production blurs on Marvel films. "Louis understands how films physically get made but with a more creative bent," explains one source. "He has sort of created a situation where he hires people almost apart from the director — a conceptual artist, this and that — because they're part of the Marvel brand." (Production designer Charles Wood, for example, moved from the Thor sequel to Guardians.)

While on most movies the power resides with the director and top stars, at Marvel those players have little influence. "They view the director as executing their vision," says an exec involved with the company. Another says Feige monitors filming so closely that rather than wait for dailies, he's often on set and "sees the takes as the directors see the takes."

Another distinctive Marvel trait is the assumption that a film can be shaped in postproduction, which is Alonso's domain. "If you're a director and 75 percent of the script is good, you have to rely on them to finish and complete the movie," says this observer. An exec with experience on Marvel movies concurs: "The approach is more like animation than live action — 'We can tweak it.' "

Underlying Marvel's success, says one talent rep, is that "they know what their brand is, and they stick to it. … The minute you deviate, like Patty Jenkins [fired in 2011 as director of the Thor sequel], they get rid of you." But this source notes admiringly: "They manage to not just change the outfits of their superheroes. They've actually created a Captain America brand versus a Thor brand versus an Iron Man brand."

The tantalizing question now is whether Marvel can create a Guardians of the Galaxy brand and an Ant-Man brand. "Now they're trying some lesser characters, and it's a little more creatively risky," says an executive with Marvel experience. "But who knows? If you can sell Captain America, maybe you can sell Ant-Man."

 

[TheVision]

Peyton Reed talks more about Ant Man at SDCC

[YT]7-Lbg0V5-bA[/YT]

To me it sounds like MARVEL is giving him all the help/support he needs to make this movie great.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Peyton Reed talks more about Ant Man at SDCC

[YT]7-Lbg0V5-bA[/YT]

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.

 

[TheVision]

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.

 

[Six]

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.

 

[TheVision]

^^ True! Ive learned to not assume anything with these movies. They always seem to pull the rug out from your feet and exceed expectations

 

[The.Brotherhood]

[YT]5A0-u85aAYg[/YT]
[YT]NjAqVWUaGE0[/YT]
If you dont think this is funny you deserve a scissor kick

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.

 

[fixxxer]

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.

 

[TheVision]

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.

 

[fixxxer]

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.

 

[chamber-music]

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.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I have no worries about this movie. It'll be hilarious and new

 

[InJustice]

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).

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.

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.

 

[TheVision]

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.

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

 

[Majik1387]

TDW definitely raised the bar despite mixed reviews.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

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.

 

[TeeKay]

TDW definitely raised the bar despite mixed reviews.

How?

 

[Mike Murdock]

What mixed reviews? It got 89% on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[Dyson]

What mixed reviews? It got 89% on Rotten Tomatoes.

TDW got 65% and TWS got 89%... unless you meant TWS.

 

[Man in the Suit]

If anyone is curious about what Peyton Reed & Doug Petrie's (Daredevil) version of Fantastic Four would have been like...

This weekend a small group of people will come out of Ant-Man, thinking, “What would’ve Edgar Wright’s version been like?” What they should really be asking is, “What would’ve Peyton Reed’s Fantastic Four looked like?” Over a decade ago the director behind Ant-Man, Down with Love, and Bring it On was attached to helm the superhero movie at Fox, before Tim Story (Ride Along) stepped in to helm the forgettable 2005 film.

In the 10 years since that Fantastic Four film the superhero genre has come a long way. Story’s picture is incredibly dated, both as a movie and a comic book adaptation. It’s a goofy and as light as a gum wrapper. With Josh Trank‘s dour reboot coming up, hopefully Fox finally gets these characters right. As much as new interpretations are welcomed, it’s still a little disappointing we’re getting a dark Fantastic Four movie, when the stories themselves are often so much fun. Maybe Trank’s film will be fun its own way, but it doesn’t appear to have the appeal of the comics, which Reed clearly understands.

Ant-Man, tonally, hits the sweet spot — taking its drama and conflicts seriously enough, but also knowing audiences want to see a dude flying around on an Ant. “I think there are a lot of tonal similarities,” Reed says, comparing Ant-Man and the vision he had for Fantastic Four. “Visually, one of the things we always talked about — and this was 2003 — was The Fantastic Four as daytime superheroes. They don’t have secret identities. They’re very much a part of the fabric of Manhattan. In that universe, if you go to New York to the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty or the Baxter Building, it was all a part of that. We talked about it being a ’60s period movie, but Fox at the time was not into it.”

“Audiences don’t want to see period pieces” is one of those studio notes that never ceases to die, so it’s not surprising Fox wasn’t into a Fantastic Four movie set in the 1960s. Reed, however, did have an idea for how to modernize the characters — by make them super stars. “We wanted to do a structure that was like A Hard Day’s Night,” he explains. “At the beginning of a working day in Manhattan, you’re in line at Starbucks and someone runs in, ‘Hey, the Fantastic Four is fighting right around the corner!’ People run out of Starbucks and the camera flies around the corner to this splash page imagery, where the Human Torch is flying, The Thing is fighting, and it’s just chaos. Really, Joss’ first Avengers movie had that feel — it’s broad daylight. There was a time when you just didn’t have the technology, so a lot of those fights took place at night. We thought having it take place in the city during the day would’ve been a lot of fun. They were kind of modern celebrities. There were a lot of different versions of it, but that was a movie I really wanted to make.”

Luckily for Reed, though, if he did make Fantastic Four, he probably never would’ve directed Ant-Man. As Reed calls it, this was a “long con” to get to where he is today. Some of the ideas Reed mentions hadn’t been done around 2005, so it sounds like we would’ve seen a truly original superhero movie. As for the upcoming reboot, Reed is hopeful. “I’m psyched to see Josh Trank’s movie,” he says. “I’m a huge fan of Chronicle. I know nothing about the new Fantastic Four, except for the ads everybody has seen. I hope it’s good. I want all of these movies to be good.”

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/peyton-reeds-fantastic-four.php

 

[TheVileOne]

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.

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.

 

[TheVision]

in regards to all the discussions/debates/complaints in the Ant-Man forum.

ANT-MAN is at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes

 

[Gr0oT]

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?