Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ant-Man' started by Thread Manager, Jan 7, 2015.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]489735[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]483705[/split]
Yeah I sort of brough that up earlier in a post, the question of how much a director's involvement is seen through their personal styles. With Shane Blackd heavy buddy cop influence being seen in IM3 but the Russos heavy comedy influence not being seen in Cap2.
In the scope of just MCU movies in particular with their directors how much of that directors personal influences are seen within those films generally? Does marvel let the director tap into his or her own vision and personal history more or do they take a more hands on approach and sort of have the director take on "their" (Marvel's) vision for the movie?
I've heard enough good things about Marvel from Joe Johnston, Branagh, Whedon, the Russo brothers, Shane Black, Gunn, and now Peyton Reed and Evangaline Lily, to get the impression that Marvel has certain guidelines they want film makers to follow and certain boxes to be checked by the end of the film. This has, in the past, rubbed some film makers the wrong way (Wright being one of them) but all of the aforementioned people have at some point spoken highly of their experience with Marvel and said that they, by and large, got to make the movie they wanted to.
It's hard to say. If you listen to what Joss Whedon and James Gunn had to say about the production on their films, the answer seems to be that Marvel tends to give their directors relative free reign to be themselves. But then you hear stories about behind-the-back rewrites and reshoots on the set of Thor 2, and this whole Wright debacle.
I guess it probably depends on the director and the project.
Kirsten is beautiful.. what are you guys talking about? :WTF?:
Maybe they give the director free reign... if they like the director's interpretation.
And with this being such a specific and "risky" project I guess it's safe to assume Marvel wanted everything to touch perfectly on their vision.
Side note: I really like how you can see Rudds eyes clearly through the lenses in the mask. It's a nice and simple touch that I wasn't expecting when the mask was on.
We all know how Rudd worked out for Ant Man:
nah that's him practicing Ant-Man's fighting style
Perhaps. But then Guardians was arguably riskier, and while I don't think it's the most James Gunn-y of all James Gunn films, it's definitely a bit outside of the ravel wheelhouse and more inside of Gunn's.
Ant-Man is much more of a straightforward super hero tale than Guardians is. Ultimately, we still don't know what the "creative differences" between Wright and Marvel were.
Also, yeah, the eyes thing is neat.
All this Ant Man talk makes me want to go watch his Parks and Rec episodes
Coming on the heels of the clever promotional material this teaser feels kinda lacklustre.
I feel it should have gone the way of the test footage, showcasing Antman's action choreography and unique use of his powers with some situational humour.
He's also been playing some Air Guitar:
I agree, and that's actually what I thought we were going to get.
Maybe the CGI just wasn't ready. The small bits of CG in the trailer looked rather bland.
Am I the only one that didn't really have any problems with the CG?
The CG looked weirdly out of focus and a bit cartoonish.
Yeah, Guardians was something that I never expected to love. I've never been one for the scifi space epic type film. I think what really sold that film to me was the cast, specifically Pratt, doing a great job. As well as the more outlandish characters of Rocket and Groot being so easy to love.
I've never been too worried for AntMan as a concept not peaking my interest as it's essentially a spy/heist movie which are fun. I think it's another case here of the cast that will really solidify the movie on it being great or just normal. I don't think the movie will turn out bad under any circumstances.
That is sooo weird!
That and it also felt at odds with the dramatic overtones of the rest of the teaser, making its unpolishness stand out more IMO.
Unfortunately the trailer gets a big ol' meh from me.
Part of it comes down to how you define the world bad. If it's wholly generic and boring with nothing that hooks me on any level, I'll probably call it a pretty bad movie.