Ant-Man Who should direct Ant-man?

[an_ewok]

Michelle Maclaren.

 

[Ultron-5]

Edgar Wright is my top choice.

 

[bubbadoom]

Marvel should probably cancel this film now. It's Scott Lang instead of Hank Pym. Pym was horribly aged and even Pym is a B-list hero who's only interesting when he's on the Avengers and not as a solo hero.

Marvel mentioned having scripts for Captain Marvel and Blade and Feige has mentioned being a fan of Black Panther. Why not use one of them since they're far more popular heroes and none seem likely to appear in Phase 3?

I remember Feige once saying that Ant-Man was only being made since it was Edgar Wright. Now that he's gone, what's the draw for a potential audience for a character who audiences may have trouble taking seriously?

As far as I can recall, none of the Ant-Men have had great runs on the comics like the above three. Christopher Priest's Black Panther, Marv Wolfman's Tomb of Dracula and all three books starring Carol Danvers (Claremont, Reed and DeConnick) are well-regarded by fans. I can't think of a single great, essential solo Hank Pym work since Stan Lee's Tales to Astonish. Nearly all of his stories since 1965 have just been Avengers titles. Hell, he even lost his own book to Hulk at that time. Now when Ultron is no longer part of his character arc, he's not really needed for any role.


Amongst the other choices, BP has been a member of the Avengers for decades and was part of the team during the Kurt Busiek run along with Jonathan Hickman's current Avengers work, Captain Marvel was part of the team during Kurt Busiek's run and even became the field leader under Bendis and now Blade was the most recent Ronin and just joined the Avengers a short while ago. Any of these three can fit. Alternately, I wouldn't mind a solo film for War Machine or Black Widow.

Phase 3 right now is

Ant-Man
Cap 3
Doctor Strange
Thor 3
Hulk 2
Avengers 3

Why not bump off Ant-Man and give fans a character that we really want?

Because they have already invested millions and have announced a release date - too late to turn back now - if they can pull off Guardians they can pull this off...it may not be done Wright, but it will be done...

 

[The Question]

Marvel should probably cancel this film now. It's Scott Lang instead of Hank Pym. Pym was horribly aged and even Pym is a B-list hero who's only interesting when he's on the Avengers and not as a solo hero.

Marvel mentioned having scripts for Captain Marvel and Blade and Feige has mentioned being a fan of Black Panther. Why not use one of them since they're far more popular heroes and none seem likely to appear in Phase 3?

I remember Feige once saying that Ant-Man was only being made since it was Edgar Wright. Now that he's gone, what's the draw for a potential audience for a character who audiences may have trouble taking seriously?

As far as I can recall, none of the Ant-Men have had great runs on the comics like the above three. Christopher Priest's Black Panther, Marv Wolfman's Tomb of Dracula and all three books starring Carol Danvers (Claremont, Reed and DeConnick) are well-regarded by fans. I can't think of a single great, essential solo Hank Pym work since Stan Lee's Tales to Astonish. Nearly all of his stories since 1965 have just been Avengers titles. Hell, he even lost his own book to Hulk at that time. Now when Ultron is no longer part of his character arc, he's not really needed for any role.


Amongst the other choices, BP has been a member of the Avengers for decades and was part of the team during the Kurt Busiek run along with Jonathan Hickman's current Avengers work, Captain Marvel was part of the team during Kurt Busiek's run and even became the field leader under Bendis and now Blade was the most recent Ronin and just joined the Avengers a short while ago. Any of these three can fit. Alternately, I wouldn't mind a solo film for War Machine or Black Widow.

Phase 3 right now is

Ant-Man
Cap 3
Doctor Strange
Thor 3
Hulk 2
Avengers 3

Why not bump off Ant-Man and give fans a character that we really want?

Because fans are entitled and unimaginative whiners who are afraid of new things and wouldn't know a good movie if it smacked them on the ass?

Maybe?

 

[Dasher10]

Because they have already invested millions and have announced a release date - too late to turn back now - if they can pull off Guardians they can pull this off...it may not be done Wright, but it will be done...

More like thousands. They only got Rudd and Douglass under contract, they didn't start shooting yet and probably don't owe them anything.

From what I hear, the execs at Disney wanted a generic summer blockbuster and wanted the film to feel more homogenized to the point where it was no longer a heist movie since Scott Lang was no longer a thief. Keep in mind that allegedly, Whedon and Fiege liked Wright's version better so they may use their power as producers to keep this film from being as bad as it looks like it'll be. For one, Whedon and Fiege learned their lesson from Thor: The Dark World when compromising Alan Taylor's vision led to a movie that's in serious need of a director's cut and the complaints of most fans were the same as those of the director, which is probably why the Russos were able to make a film that was more of a thriller than a superhero film and James Gunn is being given free reign with an obscure property.

So when you have a movie where the executives are clearly not agreeing on how to run things (and Marvel has taken plenty of risks but hasn't flopped once yet) then you'll either have a jumbled nonsensical mess that's the result of too many ideas but no concrete vision or you'll have a film designed by committee that most viewers will sleep through.

Keep in mind that if the current film gets made and then wins at the box office, it doesn't matter how risky previous films were, the lesson to be learned is, "play it safe." So no matter what Feige and Whedon want to do with a potential film starring a character like Black Panther or Captain Marvel, it won't be made because of Disney's fears over race or gender hurting the movie at the box office. Also, we'll never get another Blade film because a hard R film with a black lead will be too much of a risk.

If Ant-Man fails, then the moral of the story is that audiences are tired of superheroes and Marvel Studios gets gutted by Disney.

So no matter what happens, Marvel loses in a very big way.



Now as a counterpoint, for all the people on the Fantastic Four boards wanting Fox to fire Josh Trank and Simon Kinberg at a late stage in production, Fox is wisely choosing to stay the course because most last minute changes result in an inferior product and they learned their lesson from X-Men: Origins. The last thing that I want to see is Alan Horn become the new Tom Rothman and Feige would be wise to just cancel production altogether. We're getting Guardians of the Galaxy later this year. We're getting Doctor Strange in 2016. Marvel should focus on a hero with a strong fanbase for 2015 and not release a new film while Avengers is still playing in theaters.

 

[Dasher10]

Because fans are entitled and unimaginative whiners who are afraid of new things and wouldn't know a good movie if it smacked them on the ass?

Maybe?

So films without heart or vision, produced by studio bosses rather than film execs are "god movies?" I'm guessing that you hate most movies that "fans" like and instead like X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3? My point is that Kevin Feige and Joss Whedon had vision, they liked what Wright was doing and Alan Horn wanted Scott Lang to jsut be an ordinary man who gains a special suit with no personality.

That's not a good film. That's mediocre at best and will probably fail at the box office.

 

[The Question]

So films without heart or vision, produced by studio bosses rather than film execs are "god movies?" I'm guessing that you hate most movies that "fans" like and instead like X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3? My point is that Kevin Feige and Joss Whedon had vision, they liked what Wright was doing and Alan Horn wanted Scott Lang to jsut be an ordinary man who gains a special suit with no personality.

That's not a good film. That's mediocre at best and will probably fail at the box office.

I believe we misunderstood one another. I apologize.

 

[samsnee]

God why do these threads always get hijacked by long winded posts? It's who do you want to see direct Ant-man. Not what should Marvel do now.

 

[Mysteryman]

Rumors seem to suggest that Marvel/Disney already has somebody in mind .
The decision may have already been made.

 

[KangConquers]

I'm calling it. Michael Grossman.

 

[KangConquers]

Marvel should probably cancel this film now. It's Scott Lang instead of Hank Pym. Pym was horribly aged and even Pym is a B-list hero who's only interesting when he's on the Avengers and not as a solo hero.

Marvel mentioned having scripts for Captain Marvel and Blade and Feige has mentioned being a fan of Black Panther. Why not use one of them since they're far more popular heroes and none seem likely to appear in Phase 3?

I remember Feige once saying that Ant-Man was only being made since it was Edgar Wright. Now that he's gone, what's the draw for a potential audience for a character who audiences may have trouble taking seriously?

As far as I can recall, none of the Ant-Men have had great runs on the comics like the above three. Christopher Priest's Black Panther, Marv Wolfman's Tomb of Dracula and all three books starring Carol Danvers (Claremont, Reed and DeConnick) are well-regarded by fans. I can't think of a single great, essential solo Hank Pym work since Stan Lee's Tales to Astonish. Nearly all of his stories since 1965 have just been Avengers titles. Hell, he even lost his own book to Hulk at that time. Now when Ultron is no longer part of his character arc, he's not really needed for any role.


Amongst the other choices, BP has been a member of the Avengers for decades and was part of the team during the Kurt Busiek run along with Jonathan Hickman's current Avengers work, Captain Marvel was part of the team during Kurt Busiek's run and even became the field leader under Bendis and now Blade was the most recent Ronin and just joined the Avengers a short while ago. Any of these three can fit. Alternately, I wouldn't mind a solo film for War Machine or Black Widow.

Phase 3 right now is

Ant-Man
Cap 3
Doctor Strange
Thor 3
Hulk 2
Avengers 3

Why not bump off Ant-Man and give fans a character that we really want?

 

[Bert]

Levine will start shooting his Xmas comedy with Rogen and JGL very soon. Think for Andrew it would be too complicated to make his live action debut after 6-8 weeks of pre-production.



Len Wiseman?

Len Wiseman? On behalf of everyone, barf. That guy shouldn't be allowed near any MCU films or be making any more films at all, period.

 

[weezerspider]

Edgar Wright

 

[KangConquers]

More like thousands. They only got Rudd and Douglass under contract, they didn't start shooting yet and probably don't owe them anything.

From what I hear, the execs at Disney wanted a generic summer blockbuster and wanted the film to feel more homogenized to the point where it was no longer a heist movie since Scott Lang was no longer a thief. Keep in mind that allegedly, Whedon and Fiege liked Wright's version better so they may use their power as producers to keep this film from being as bad as it looks like it'll be. For one, Whedon and Fiege learned their lesson from Thor: The Dark World when compromising Alan Taylor's vision led to a movie that's in serious need of a director's cut and the complaints of most fans were the same as those of the director, which is probably why the Russos were able to make a film that was more of a thriller than a superhero film and James Gunn is being given free reign with an obscure property.

So when you have a movie where the executives are clearly not agreeing on how to run things (and Marvel has taken plenty of risks but hasn't flopped once yet) then you'll either have a jumbled nonsensical mess that's the result of too many ideas but no concrete vision or you'll have a film designed by committee that most viewers will sleep through.

Keep in mind that if the current film gets made and then wins at the box office, it doesn't matter how risky previous films were, the lesson to be learned is, "play it safe." So no matter what Feige and Whedon want to do with a potential film starring a character like Black Panther or Captain Marvel, it won't be made because of Disney's fears over race or gender hurting the movie at the box office. Also, we'll never get another Blade film because a hard R film with a black lead will be too much of a risk.

If Ant-Man fails, then the moral of the story is that audiences are tired of superheroes and Marvel Studios gets gutted by Disney.

So no matter what happens, Marvel loses in a very big way.



Now as a counterpoint, for all the people on the Fantastic Four boards wanting Fox to fire Josh Trank and Simon Kinberg at a late stage in production, Fox is wisely choosing to stay the course because most last minute changes result in an inferior product and they learned their lesson from X-Men: Origins. The last thing that I want to see is Alan Horn become the new Tom Rothman and Feige would be wise to just cancel production altogether. We're getting Guardians of the Galaxy later this year. We're getting Doctor Strange in 2016. Marvel should focus on a hero with a strong fanbase for 2015 and not release a new film while Avengers is still playing in theaters.

Reserving studio space, hiring costumers, caterers, effects companies, setting up housing, paying union dues, fitting actors for wardrobe, securing equipment for filming? Every $150-200 M blockbuster has a population the size of small town working for it, that's set up months in advanced. Ant-Man was probably due to shoot in 3 months. Do you really think they're only "Several thousand in?"

I'd say they're at minimum, $35-40 M into Ant-Man. So no, they're not going to drop the project. And after Box office Receipts totaling $5 Billion since Disney purchased Marvel (probably closer to $7 Billion by the time Ant-Man drops), even if Ant-Man is a colossal, Green Lantern sized turd, Marvel will not be "gutted."

 

[bubbadoom]

Reserving studio space, hiring costumers, caterers, effects companies, setting up housing, paying union dues, fitting actors for wardrobe, securing equipment for filming? Every $150-200 M blockbuster has a population the size of small town working for it, that's set up months in advanced. Ant-Man was probably due to shoot in 3 months. Do you really think they're only "Several thousand in?"

I'd say they're at minimum, $35-40 M into Ant-Man. So no, they're not going to drop the project. And after Box office Receipts totaling $5 Billion since Disney purchased Marvel (probably closer to $7 Billion by the time Ant-Man drops), even if Ant-Man is a colossal, Green Lantern sized turd, Marvel will not be "gutted."

Do we have any idea what ANT MAN's budget was going to be? I would think on the $150 million side, if not a little smaller, but still I agree that they are several million in at this point - maybe not 10's of millions, but certainly more than thousands...

 

[Doc Ock]

Edgar Wright I think?

It's going to be a while before I recover.

 

[KangConquers]

Do we have any idea what ANT MAN's budget was going to be? I would think on the $150 million side, if not a little smaller, but still I agree that they are several million in at this point - maybe not 10's of millions, but certainly more than thousands...

I imagine somewhere between $140-170 M, judging by all solo movies not starring Iron Man.


The fact that some reports indicate that people working on the movie have been in Georgia for 3 months, waiting on this final script, is indicative of major spending. Keep in mind, a big part of why Hollywood blockbusters cost so much is the people; you have to pay salaries, house, and feed, hundreds of people, and have thousands working on the film. It's like a little town/ village.

If they've had even a skeletal crew of 100 people they've been feeding and housing for the last 3 months, and they've built sets, designed costumes (which can cost $10,000 a pop), etc then I'd say that they're probably several Million in, and yes, probably at the very least, past $10 M.

 

[Shikamaru]

Is there even a point to continuing this?

Feige stated multiple times the film is only happening because Wright wants it to happen. They marketed this mostly on Wright. They made accommodations within the universe to fit his vision of Ant-Man. Even with a rewrite and new director, the overall product is still bound to be heavily Wright-envisioned, especially when it comes to the story elements (Lang as Ant-Man, Old Man Pym, etc.).

It feels like they're solely continuing this project due to production having already started and not wanting to taint the Marvel image by shelving the film. It comes off like Marvel is continuing a film they have no desire to continue (at least narratively). A mentality that always leads to disaster.

I would scrap the whole thing and introduce Hank and Janet in the Avengers whenever there's room to naturally fit them in. Which could be anywhere from Phase 3 to Phase 2000). With Wright gone, there's nothing preventing them from doing that now.

 

[chamber-music]

Reserving studio space, hiring costumers, caterers, effects companies, setting up housing, paying union dues, fitting actors for wardrobe, securing equipment for filming? Every $150-200 M blockbuster has a population the size of small town working for it, that's set up months in advanced. Ant-Man was probably due to shoot in 3 months. Do you really think they're only "Several thousand in?"

I'd say they're at minimum, $35-40 M into Ant-Man. So no, they're not going to drop the project. And after Box office Receipts totaling $5 Billion since Disney purchased Marvel (probably closer to $7 Billion by the time Ant-Man drops), even if Ant-Man is a colossal, Green Lantern sized turd, Marvel will not be "gutted."

Exactly

Do people not understand how movie making works?

 

[Mike Murdock]

I hope whoever they cast, it's somebody who is relatively similar in tone to Wright and also doesn't have the goal to completely overhaul it. Obviously, it's already changed significantly to accommodate Disney (which drove Wright from the project if rumors are to be believed), but I don't want to lose what seemed to be unique about this project.

 

[Xeno-noesis]

This is a tricky situation, being so close to production and trying to find a director willing to take over someone's script, work, and vision. Ant-Man likely won't be getting any big names...it will probably be from in-house or someone they've worked with already. However, they may be able to snag a creative up-and-comer that wants such a huge opportunity to make a name for him/her self.

I'm placing my bet on Joe Johnston. He knows the game Disney wants to play and has already worked for Marvel. Yes, he has mostly duds, but he is serviceable and fits the bill.

My (very) short-list:

Joe Johnston - Honey I Shrunk The Kids and CA:TFA
Michael Davis - Shoot 'Em Up
Ruben Fleischer - Zombieland and various comedies

For wishful thinking, I think this property would be outstanding with Sam Raimi at the helm. He is big-time though and would want his own stamp on the production and it's a little late in the game for that. If they were willing to eat the cost to date and return the release back to November, who knows?

 

[Mike Murdock]

I'd actually be fine with all those names. Joe Johnson for The First Avenger, though, not for Honey I Shrunk the Kids (to me, that's just being gimmicky).

 

[bubbadoom]

Joe Johnson has done some of the best comic book movies - CA:TFA and the Rocketeer - but I don't think he has the sense of humor this will need.

Ruben Fleischer's Zombieland is probably the right tone for ANT MAN, so I think he would be a good choice.

But as far as a body of work goes, I still go back to John Landis - his Animal House and American Werewolf seem the most "Wright" like of any of the directors suggested.

 

[DocHoliday]

Just throwing some names out there: Greg Mottola, Barry Sonnenfield, Martin Brest...just throwing action comedy or comedy guys out there. Not the best choices but Brest has stepped into this type of situation before (Stallone Beverly Hills Cop fiasco). Sonnonfield can do good work when he has a good script. I don't think these guys are the ideal choices just that they might be the likely type of name.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I guess someone of the Apatow crowd is also a very real possibility