Marvel Films The Marvel Studios News and Discussion Thread

Hindsight 20/20, making Kang the main villain of Quantumania was ridiculous. It was a bad move.
 
Last edited:
Maestro216 said:
Because Thanos won. Imagine Thanos lost in GOTG instead of Ronan but Marvel kept hyping him eventually winning. That's Kang before Majors got fired.
Click to expand...
That was a problem I had with Loki, but at least he was the main villain of a phase, not a saga.
 
Ctfxcwatcher said:
I don't know why they just don't recast? They can still do Kang justice IMO if they feel the character is underwhelming. Idk looking back, I think they definitely should've recast Chadwick for BP but Ryan did not want to or he would walk.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm firmly in the "just recast Majors, no one is gonna really care" camp.
 
If they're not recasting him it's because Kang has been an incredibly underwhelming villain, which had nothing to do with Majors, and after everything that happened with the actor they seem to take the opportunity to replace the character too.
 
I have zero interest in Kang. I know close to nothing about the guy, his powers are abstract as hell. Is hard to care, honestly.
They have been failing miserably at creating dynamic storytelling.
 
At this rate they'll have to recast Blade. :o
 
Lost another director? This film ain't happening lol
 
TheVileOne said:
Scott Lang and Hope Van Dyne were never fit to be the main Ant-Man and Wasp of the MCU. We needed Hank Pym and Janet. They are the better characters.
Click to expand...

tbf, that is more on Edgar Wright than Marvel's decision, when he specifically had chose Scott over Hank.
If not for his specific vision for his Ant-Man film (the movie we all know that he ultimately didnt ended up directing it), we could've had the classic Avengers line up in the first movie with Hank and Janet alongside the Big 3.
 
MarvelFan said:
tbf, that is more on Edgar Wright than Marvel's decision, when he specifically had chose Scott over Hank.
If not for his specific vision for his Ant-Man film (the movie we all know that he ultimately didnt ended up directing it), we could've had the classic Avengers line up in the first movie with Hank and Janet alongside the Big 3.
Click to expand...
Edgar Wright who left the project and they were and are no longer beholden to. And frankly, he could've been overruled on that.
 
Frankly, I don't think the Ant-Man films would have been more successful if they had Hank and Janet instead of Scott and Hope. Though Quantumania had disappointing returns, the series did have 3 entries. That's a success. It may not be what some fans may have preferred, but the Ant-Man film series had more success than Ant-Man, the character, ever did in comics. Hank could never keep a solo title in comics. He was always a supporting character. But the MCU had 2 successful Ant-Man films and even if the 3rd one was less successful, still managed a trilogy. So if we are talking personal preference, that's entirely up to you. But in terms of success, it was a good decision that made Marvel Studios money
 
TheVileOne said:
Edgar Wright who left the project and they were and are no longer beholden to. And frankly, he could've been overruled on that.
Click to expand...
Kinda hard to overrule that when Scott is the main character of the movie and Wright had been hired at a time when the MCU hadn't even existed yet. Wright that had been more less attached to Ant-Man as far back as 2000 (when it was originally gonna be made by Artistan). And became attached again when Marvel Studios hired him in 2006. Because this was before Iron Man even came out, he was given creative freedom to do whatever he wanted.

And tbh, it makes sense. Marvel Studios hadn't produced anything, they had no idea how the MCU was gonna take off and it was a real get to bring in Wright who at the time had already released Shaun of the Dead and about to release Hot Fuzz. You got Wright on board, he already had written a script and was invested in the character, makes sense to give him the keys to the car. Had he never been attached, I'm not entirely sure we would have gotten an Ant-Man movie at all.

Side note, The Reign of Marvel Studios book has a chapter on all this. I've touted it before, but the book is a pretty interesting read (if nothing else to read about all the Hollywood and business drama). I recommend it.
 
Last edited:
Venom 1988 said:
Kinda hard to overrule that when Scott is the main character of the movie and Wright had been hired at a time when the MCU hadn't even existed yet. Wright that had been more less attached to Ant-Man as far back as 2000 (when it was originally gonna be made by Artistan). And became attached again when Marvel Studios hired him in 2006. Because this was before Iron Man even came out, he was given creative freedom to do whatever he wanted.

And tbh, it makes sense. Marvel Studios hadn't produced anything, they had no idea how the MCU was gonna take off and it was a real get to bring in Wright who at the time had already released Shaun of the Dead and about to release Hot Fuzz. You got Wright on board, he already had written a script and was invested in the character, makes sense to give him the keys to the car. Had he never been attached, I'm not entirely sure we would have gotten an Ant-Man movie at all.

Side note, The Reign of Marvel Studios book has a chapter on all this. I've touted it before, but the book is a pretty interesting read (if nothing else to read about all the Hollywood and business drama). I recommend it.
Click to expand...

Sure but post 2012, post-Avengers he hadn't filmed anything yet. And it didn't continue to make sense at that point. And he ultimately left the project because he didn't want to make MCU changes. So granting him all that free reign became kind of a waste.

If they stuck with some kind of standalone we're just making an Ant-Man movie not connected to any other franchise, then it would've been fine.
 
TheVileOne said:
Sure but post 2012, post-Avengers he hadn't filmed anything yet. And it didn't continue to make sense at that point. And he ultimately left the project because he didn't want to make MCU changes. So granting him all that free reign became kind of a waste.

If they stuck with some kind of standalone we're just making an Ant-Man movie not connected to any other franchise, then it would've been fine.
Click to expand...
While making seemingly endless changes to the script to make it more connected to the MCU certainly didn't help, it's not the reason why he ended up leaving. He was still willing to play ball and make changes.

What caused him to leave was that Marvel had an in-house writer revise the script based on all the Creative Committee's notes without Wright's knowledge. Wright thought he was working in good faith to address their notes and felt blindsided when they showed him the revised script 2 months before filming.
 
Venom 1988 said:
While making seemingly endless changes to the script to make it more connected to the MCU certainly didn't help, it's not the reason why he ended up leaving. He was still willing to play ball and make changes.

What caused him to leave was that Marvel had an in-house writer revise the script based on all the Creative Committee's notes without Wright's knowledge. Wright thought he was working in good faith to address their notes and felt blindsided when they showed him the revised script 2 months before filming.
Click to expand...

So they granted him creative free reign only to take it away from him at the last second. So it was a foolish decision in the first place.
 
TheVileOne said:
So they granted him creative free reign only to take it away from him at the last second. So it was a foolish decision in the first place.
Click to expand...
It only seems foolish because of all the delays and the suprising success of the MCU. Had they been able to release the movie years earlier (let's say before 2012), we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 

"Why do I have to have a Marvel that's all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that?" Peltz said in the interview, published on Friday. "Why can't I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?"
Asked about Peltz's remarks, a Disney spokesperson responded: "This is exactly why Nelson Peltz shouldn't be anywhere near a creatively driven company."
Click to expand...

Perlmutter still mad that Marvel dared to make Black Panther and Captain Marvel, it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BatsDC
Cable: Casting, Rights, General Discussion!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Johnny Drama
Johnny Drama
S
Evolution of Marvel Studios logo on beginning of films and disc packaging
Replies
16
Views
7K
TheWebbedDevil
T
D
Marvel Studios’ SDCC 2022 Hall H Panel - Predictions & Discussion Thread
10 11 12
Replies
285
Views
21K
psylockolussus
psylockolussus
psylockolussus
  • Poll Poll
Marvel Films Next 1 and Done Marvel Studios film
Replies
19
Views
3K
psylockolussus
psylockolussus
Darkprime
Variety: As Marvel Studios Moves Into Series, TV Unit’s Focus Is Unclear
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
10K
Detective Conan
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,303 (members: 34, guests: 3,269)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,360
Messages
22,092,565
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"