Ant-Man The best way that Marvel can fix this

[Rock Sexton]

I'm not acting like they have no clue what's good and what's bad for their franchises. I'm acting like it's possible for them to make a mistake. They are not infallible. I'm not saying they definitely did make a mistake. It's entirely possible that this was the best decision to make for this project. It could be that Wright was on the wrong track with this one and they needed a fresh set of eyes. But it is possible that Marvel were making bad calls on this project and that Wrights way of doing it was better, because no one, not Kevin Feige, not Edgar Wright, not even Joss Whedon, my favorite writer of all time, is infallible. Everyone is capable of making a bad call. Everyone is capable of falling into bad habits, even after establishing a good track record for themselves. Assuming that Marvel was in the right and that they are incapable of making a bad call is unfair to Edgar Wright, it is disingenuous as we currently have no idea what calls were made by whom, and it gives content creators a free pass from criticism, which always inevitably leads to bad art.

The fact is, we don't know what happened. Maybe Marvel was right. Maybe Wright was right. Maybe they were both right. Maybe they were both wrong. We don't know. But assuming anything right now is unfair to both parties involved, and it has no basis in fact.

What's fact is Wright is gone and Marvel is moving on. Time to move the discussion elsewhere.

 

[TheVision]

^^ TheQuestion You gotta pick a side, saying both might be right/wrong is a cop out to me. Youre either for the good of the MCU or youre for Edgar Wright. Dont know why youd doubt Feiges call with his excellent track record.

 

[The Question]

^^ TheQuestion You gotta pick a side, saying both might be right/wrong is a cop out to me. Youre either for the good of the MCU or youre for Edgar Wrights vision. Dont know why youd doubt Feiges call with his excellent track record.

That's nonsense. We can't pick a side because we don't know what the sides are fighting over. We don't know what they disagreed about. Until we know that, we have no way of even considering who might have made the right call. We have no way of even knowing if Wright's vision wasn't good for the MCU, or if Marvel would have been correct in thinking that Wright's vision would have been bad for the MCU, or if Wright would have been correct in thinking that the MCU was bad for his vision, or if that's even what they disagreed over. And it's entirely possible that neither of them made the right call. It is quite common for both parties in a disagreement to be stubborn and wrongheaded about it.

Also, I don't know why you'd doubt Edgar Wright's call with his excellent track record. Why is Feige's track record more valuable?

 

[samsnee]

If Ant-man causes this much debate, imagine if it was for a superhero people actually cared about.

 

[Keyser Soze]

That's nonsense. We can't pick a side because we don't know what the sides are fighting over. We don't know what they disagreed about. Until we know that, we have no way of even considering who might have made the right call. We have no way of even knowing if Wright's vision wasn't good for the MCU, or if Marvel would have been correct in thinking that Wright's vision would have been bad for the MCU, or if Wright would have been correct in thinking that the MCU was bad for his vision, or if that's even what they disagreed over. And it's entirely possible that neither of them made the right call. It is quite common for both parties in a disagreement to be stubborn and wrongheaded about it.

Also, I don't know why you'd doubt Edgar Wright's call with his excellent track record. Why is Feige's track record more valuable?

Well said. It's not as simple as "siding with the good of the MCU" or "siding with Edgar Wright," as I'm sure both sides have a case to make about what acts in the better interests of the MCU. The studio perspective may be that what's best for the studio is stability, conformity, and minimalising risk by sticking with the (incredibly successful and profitable) formula. The Wright perspective may be that what's best for the studio is creativity, that a big part of the studio's success has been giving directors the space to come with interesting, diverse films, and that taking risks has paid off for them before. I'm not commenting on who's correct, or even saying that this is definitely what each side represented, just pointing out that both sides ultimately have the goal of making the best film possible.... just possibly with conflicting ideas on what is going to produce the best film possible.

 

[TheVision]

^^ Taking risks is fine, new ideas are welcomed but they have to stay inside the MCUs basic guidelines. Simple as that.

Also, I don't know why you'd doubt Edgar Wright's call with his excellent track record. Why is Feige's track record more valuable?

Wrights track record for flops?

If you have to ask me why Feiges track record is more valuable, you really arent paying attention to Marvels films at all.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Wrights track record for flops?

If you have to ask me why Feiges track record is more valuable, you really arent paying attention to Marvels films at all.

You know who also had track records for flops? Joss Whedon. Shane Black. Good thing Marvel Studios never put any trust in them, there's no way they could have directed the MCU's two biggest box office smashes to date.

 

[The Question]

^^ Taking risks is fine, new ideas are welcomed but they have to stay inside the MCUs basic guidelines. Simple as that.

We don't know that Wright was going outside of the MCUs basic guidelines.

I mean, by your measure, what are the MCUs basic guidelines and what evidence is there that Wright was going outside of them.

Wrights track record for flops?

Of the five major motion pictures he has written, only one of them didn't make a profit. The other four made twice to three times their budgets back. So his track record is that 80% of the films he's written weren't flops.

If you have to ask me why Feiges track record is more valuable, you really arent paying attention to Marvels films at all.

I have been paying attention, and yet I still don't see how Feige's track record is more valuable. Explain it to me.

 

[TheVision]

^^ Well, flops or no, Feige wasnt assured Wrights film would be good enough. What dont people understand about this? Just because Joss and Shane worked out well, doesnt mean Edgar would. James Gunn said it all and he knows.

TheQuestion: Youre telling me you have ZERO clue about Marvels track record for successful films internationally? Youre actually saying that?

Also EDGAR WRIGHT IS OUT!!

End of discussion.

 

[The Question]

^^ Well, flops or no, Feige wasnt assured Wrights film would be good enough. What dont people understand about this? Just because Joss and Shane worked out well, doesnt mean Edgar would.

We understand that. Our point is that we don't know for certain if we was right in that assessment. We have no reason to assume to know who was right about what. We don't even know for certain if it was a disagreement between Feige and Wright.

James Gunn said it all and he knows.

Gunn's statement was nice, and I truly hope that it was correct. But it was very vague, and it also sounded like the kind of thing someone would say in order to support their friend while also not pissing off their boss, so we don't know for certain if that statement was 100% accurate.

TheQuestion: Youre telling me you have ZERO clue about Marvels track record for successful films internationally? Youre actually saying that?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Also EDGAR WRIGHT IS OUT!!

End of discussion.

Nice job moving the goal posts.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Nice job moving the goal posts.

While I don't agree with Vision's "END OF DISCUSSION! I GET THE LAST WORD! WINNER! WINNER! CHICKEN DINNER!" approach to raising the point, I do think it's valid to consider that discussion of Edgar Wright's departure be focused on the thread with that title, and in this one we focus more on what Marvel's plans moving forward should be.

 

[The Question]

While I don't agree with Vision's "END OF DISCUSSION! I GET THE LAST WORD! WINNER! WINNER! CHICKEN DINNER!" approach to raising the point, I do think it's valid to consider that discussion of Edgar Wright's departure be focused on the thread with that title, and in this one we focus more on what Marvel's plans moving forward should be.

That's true, I agree.

I think they should pick the most recent draft of the script and stick with it. That's the best plan at the moment.

 

[TheVision]

Guys, really, its over, we all know it. Youre just beating a dead horse now.

Im just trying to save you the stress of pushing this on and on. If you really want to pick it apart forever, go ahead. I'm done with it.

 

[The Question]

Guys, really, its over, we all know it. Youre just beating a dead horse now.

Im just trying to save you the stress of pushing this on and on. If you really want to pick it apart forever, go ahead. I'm done with it.

Well, that's very gracious of you. We'll just agree that you lost the argument and we'll all move on. Sounds great.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think the dilemma, moving forward, is how to proceed with a movie which Kevin Feige has gone on record as saying wouldn't even exist without Edgar Wright's involvement. If they plan on keeping it as the film to launch Phase 3 on the slate for July 2015, Marvel first need to think about how this film's existence continues to be justified in his absence, and walk the fine balance between changing enough that Wright's shadow doesn't linger over the production, and not straying too far away from whatever vision for the story Wright had that made them find this story worth telling in the first place.

 

[DrCosmic]

Whatever the reason, it was for the best, because things werent working out. And they had a helluva long time to get things in order.

Again, until very recently, things were working out, so, maybe it's not for the best. Maybe someone made a bad call.

article says it was a mix. Wright and Cornish were handed rewrites to their script, at the last minute. those rewrites completely changed the movie. and some department heads left because they sensed a delay in production. as much as I like Ant-Man, I can't fault Wright in being insulted by having his movie yanked out from under him.

I give a lot of credence to that rumor too. Especially since Marvel Studios has strong armed other directors out of their creativity in the past.

But it's not HIS movie.


Now I understand perfectly that, after 8 years, you'll feel a certain way about and project and will want it done a certain way. And to have things change to where you can no longer make it the way you want would want to make some one leave the project all together, but he had to know that it wasn't his project to do as he pleased anyway.

It has nothing to do with 8 years. When an artist makes something good they put a lot of themselves into it, it becomes their baby. When the other parent doesn't allow them custody, and says 'it's not your baby cuz legal reasons' then that hurts, and it doesn't make it any less a product of the director (or writer, or actor, or painter or singer's) heart mind and soul.

That's art vs commerce. You don't own the work, it's just your baby that someone else owns.

It's been 8 years.
Marvel didn't just discover who Wright was at the last minute.

What is it you think that Marvel discovered about Wright? Does your theory conflict with all the rumors we've heard so far?

Tit for tat. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Wright knew how Marvel Studios did business as well. They need team players who can be flexible as this business is rather fluid. They don't need any auteur prima donna's who think they are the last word when it comes to these films.

Personally, I'm apt to trust Fiege's judgment 10X more than ANY of the writer's/directors/actors that MS has hired. The studio is the auteur here.

The studio keeps experiencing that when it gives the directors freedom, and makes them the auteur it gets Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America 2. When it doesn't, it gets Thor, Captain America 1, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and Thor 2. They do need "autuer prima donnas" like Black, Gunn and Whedon, they need more of those guys involved. If that means they can't do last minute rewrites and renege on the approval they gave creative directors previously, then maybe they're demanding too much flexibility in some cases to get films on par with the best they've done so far. I thought they'd learned by now, but it sounds like they're okay making mediocre movies so long as the universe-spanning story remains as they have forseen it up until 2028 based on their own limited ideas. Too bad. Our loss.

^^ TheQuestion You gotta pick a side, saying both might be right/wrong is a cop out to me. Youre either for the good of the MCU or youre for Edgar Wright. Dont know why youd doubt Feiges call with his excellent track record.

Because he makes bad calls sometimes, because he's a human being. Because Wright is not the first talented successful artist who felt jilted at how Marvel treated them. Because there's no proof that Edgar Wright's vision was not for the good of the MCU, but there is evidence to the contrary since both Feige and Wright were excited about Wright's vision.

If Ant-man causes this much debate, imagine if it was for a superhero people actually cared about.

Awww, lol!

Guys, really, its over, we all know it. Youre just beating a dead horse now.

Im just trying to save you the stress of pushing this on and on. If you really want to pick it apart forever, go ahead. I'm done with it.

Wait, didn't you just make a rallying cry to choose sides, like, an hour ago? Like not choosing sides was a cop out, but now it's over?

Okay, sure, as long as we understand that the new director will still be working under Wrights 60's Pym/To Steal An Ant-Man vision that Marvel has always been excited about and is the only reason they're making this movie at all. Source

We're choosing a director to continue in Wright's footsteps. So you're right, either way you slice it, the idea of Wright's story and plot and vision being a odds with Marvel and Feige is a dead horse.

The problem, from Marvel's perspective is that they need a director (and senior crew) for Wright's Ant-Man. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think the dilemma, moving forward, is how to proceed with a movie which Kevin Feige has gone on record as saying wouldn't even exist without Edgar Wright's involvement. If they plan on keeping it as the film to launch Phase 3 on the slate for July 2015, Marvel first need to think about how this film's existence continues to be justified in his absence, and walk the fine balance between changing enough that Wright's shadow doesn't linger over the production, and not straying too far away from whatever vision for the story Wright had that made them find this story worth telling in the first place.

Well, they're going to keep all the stuff they loved from Wright's vision, and simply find another director who is as excited about it as they were. They already have the final script and were willing to see Wright leave if he didn't like it. Finding such a director who is both talented an immediately available for the next year may be a challenge, but the goal seems to be pretty clear, which is why, I think, they don't need a great delay. They probably feel they can just pull another talented TV director and be done with it. Or they may have already planned a successor in case Wright didn't like being told to shoot something he didn't agree to. That way they can have some of Wright's spirit/heart/vision, without having any pushback from him if they want to do something kiddy or commercial or take away time from the film's theme/message in order to set up plot points for Avengers 3.

 

[TheVision]

Me reading this topic:

 

[Mysteryman]

I eagerly await the announcement of the new director.

 

[jmc]

Well, they're going to keep all the stuff they loved from Wright's vision, and simply find another director who is as excited about it as they were. They already have the final script and were willing to see Wright leave if he didn't like it. Finding such a director who is both talented an immediately available for the next year may be a challenge, but the goal seems to be pretty clear, which is why, I think, they don't need a great delay. They probably feel they can just pull another talented TV director and be done with it. Or they may have already planned a successor in case Wright didn't like being told to shoot something he didn't agree to. That way they can have some of Wright's spirit/heart/vision, without having any pushback from him if they want to do something kiddy or commercial or take away time from the film's theme/message in order to set up plot points for Avengers 3.

I don't think it's quite that simple, even if a director who was as enthusiastic as Wright was comes one board he's going to find himself well behind the eight ball in terms of preparation, hell said director himself might not like the way the script looks. The easiest solution is another TV director, which is probably the way Marvel should be heading regardless.

 

[TheVision]

Maybe Marvel should just hire cool, flexible filmmakers who arent snotty divas. Thats the best way to go.

 

[The Question]

Maybe Marvel should just hire cool, flexible filmmakers who arent snotty divas. Thats the best way to go.

Well, as far as I can tell, they haven't hired any snotty dices yet, so I don't see that as being a problem.

 

[jmc]

Maybe Marvel should just hire cool, flexible filmmakers who arent snotty divas. Thats the best way to go.

Just because an artist has a vision that clashes with someone else doesn't make them snotty divas or inflexible. From personal experience I know what it's like when one side of a creative endeavour is not willing to let go of their particular interpretation, where no amount of flexibility from my part was going to overcome the other party wanting things done their way. It's one thing to be accommodating and make concessions, but when it comes to the point of being nothing more than a puppet because they can't themselves do the creative work that's when someone is likely to leave, because sometimes the creative person sees things the other person doesn't. If Marvel want to avoid it being a partnership then they should hire people who will just point the camera and shoot the script, essentially they should hire full time directors to make their movies.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Just because an artist has a vision that clashes with someone else doesn't make them snotty divas or inflexible. From personal experience I know what it's like when one side of a creative endeavour is not willing to let go of their particular interpretation, where no amount of flexibility from my part was going to overcome the other party wanting things done their way. It's one thing to be accommodating and make concessions, but when it comes to the point of being nothing more than a puppet because they can't themselves do the creative work that's when someone is likely to leave, because sometimes the creative person sees things the other person doesn't. If Marvel want to avoid it being a partnership then they should hire people who will just point the camera and shoot the script, essentially they should hire full time directors to make their movies.

Do you have proof of directors being nothing but puppets at the MCU?

 

[Human Torch]

TheQuestion: Youre telling me you have ZERO clue about Marvels track record for successful films internationally? Youre actually saying that?

Apparently from what I've seen,the big thing he thinks marvel's masterstoke was so far,is IM3's Mandarin.

Which was promptly overridden in a One Shot (to fan delight everywhere) he still refuses to acknowledge as canonical.

And that's all you really need to know to see where The Question comes from on the topic.

Also EDGAR WRIGHT IS OUT!!

End of discussion.

I still love reading those words.t: