Marvel's Ant-Man: July 17, 2015 (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

Maybe we can hope that the Marvel movies, like the Bond movies, aren't "directed" as much as they are "produced." But either way, a big blow to expectations.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It seems like Marvel's really forgetting the lesson that made it successful in the first place: Hire the right filmmakers for the job, and trust them.So far, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has been the only Phase 2 film to knock it out of the park. And as much as I love some of their work, you look at the slate of Phase 2 directors and compare it to the Phase 1 directors, it really points in a certain direction. Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston and Joss Whedon were all established film directors with a degree of clout in their own right. They knew hiring Branagh that his Thor wasn't going to be like anybody else's Thor, and that Johnston's Captain America wasn't going to be like anybody else's Captain America.Compare that to the Phase 2 directors: Shane Black, Alan Taylor, the Russo brothers and James Gunn have all never had a run away big screen success where they sat in the director's chair. Shane Black was an exciting choice that would definitely make his own kind of movie, but he had the advantage of a close relationship with Marvel's most bankable star. Taylor and the Russos had the virtue of extensive television work that prioritizes matching the work of others and bringing the production in on time and on budget. Gunn came from the indie world, so the roughly $150 million budget he had for Guardians of the Galaxy must feel like a very very big sandbox.The overall effect is that they mostly traded creative visionaries for competent workmen who can keep the ship on time and on course. In each case, the Phase 2 directors had less leverage than the Phase 1 directors they replaced. Perhaps that was an inevitable evolution, much like any new and insanely successful enterprise.

 

[TravisR]

It seems like Marvel's really forgetting the lesson that made it successful in the first place: Hire the right filmmakers for the job, and trust them.

I agree but in all fairness to Marvel, it's possible that Wright wanted to do things that they just thought were wrong (artistically or commercially) and no middle ground could be met so they made the decision that they felt was best for the movie rather than being overly cautious or only worried about the box office grosses.

 

[Ejanss]

Compare that to the Phase 2 directors: Shane Black, Alan Taylor, the Russo brothers and James Gunn have all never had a run away big screen success where they sat in the director's chair. Shane Black was an exciting choice that would definitely make his own kind of movie, but he had the advantage of a close relationship with Marvel's most bankable star. Taylor and the Russos had the virtue of extensive television work that prioritizes matching the work of others and bringing the production in on time and on budget. Gunn came from the indie world, so the roughly $150 million budget he had for Guardians of the Galaxy must feel like a very very big sandbox.

Although IM3 and Thor 2 are now widely considered the two worst movies in the MCU (leaving aside the Fox and Universal films), either for putting the solo sequels on an assembly line without moving the story canon along, or (in Black's case), being thoroughly unversed in the Marvel-verse, and just cribbing what it thinks a superhero movie is from Warner/DC's movies. And as for "Scooby-Doo" Gunn and the Guardians, that's a.....BIG wild card at this point.

Hopefully, the "Fan labor of love" machinery's been set in place, and they know how not to make something goofy and lazy as Warner/DC might--trying too hard to "sell" the character, as they sank Green Lantern with--and Wright's put the road map up for whoever now takes the wheel to treat the character straightforwardly.
At best, we won't be getting too much of Wright's Britcom-ish touches to be too distracting in the canon story, although it would have been a nice bonus.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I agree but in all fairness to Marvel, it's possible that Wright wanted to do things that they just thought were wrong (artistically or commercially) and no middle ground could be met so they made the decision that they felt was best for the movie rather than being overly cautious or only worried about the box office grosses.

Kevin Feige is the real driving creative force behind the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he does have to keep his eye on all of the moving parts while the director only has to worry about his one. But just as one can lose sight of the forest for the trees, I'm afraid Feige might be in danger of losing sight of the trees for the forest. For Marvel's success to continue, each movie needs to work as a stand-alone effort. It's not enough to just move the ball down the field. If I were Marvel, I'd be very cautious about vetoing something for a movie now because you're worried about the consequences four or five movies down the line. Because if the movie you're making now doesn't work, you're going to have a lot less interesting in that movie four or five down the line.

Although IM3 and Thor 2 are now widely considered the two worst movies in the MCU (leaving aside the Fox and Universal films), either for putting the solo sequels on an assembly line without moving the story canon along, or (in Black's case), being thoroughly unversed in the Marvel-verse, and just cribbing what it thinks a superhero movie is from Warner/DC's movies.

The paragraph you quoted was not an endorsement of either film. I called Shane Black "an exciting choice", and I do believe that, but the movie didn't have the weight it needed to ground the story and make you really care about it. And while Thor 2 had a lot of fun character beats, it was really weight down by its reliance on its own hastily created mythology. The Thor mythology of the MCU really doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, since the various elements are introduced only as they're needed for plot points. As a reason, I have real trouble investing in that one too.And with that said, the directors who I had the least faith in ahead of the Phase 2 movies, the Russo brothers, made head and shoulders the best film of the three.

 

[Sam Favate]

Although IM3 and Thor 2 are now widely considered the two worst movies in the MCU (leaving aside the Fox and Universal films), either for putting the solo sequels on an assembly line without moving the story canon along, or (in Black's case), being thoroughly unversed in the Marvel-verse, and just cribbing what it thinks a superhero movie is from Warner/DC's movies.

I disagree. I think consensus - certainly critical consensus - is that Iron Man 2 is the weakest of all the films, possibly followed by the Incredible Hulk. IM3 and Thor 2, while not perfect, were good entries in the series. I recently re-watched Thor 2 and I found it very enjoyable.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Yes, I strongly disagree that Iron Man 3 is "widely considered" one of the worst MCU entries. Seems the main complaints are from comic purists who didn't like the way the Mandarin character was handled and hate the movie for it. And then there are those who weren't wild about the lighter, fun tone of the movie (especially since it's marketing made it look like it would be a more somber affair). But there are many who hold it as one of Marvel's best. If anything, it's a "different strokes for different folks" thing at worst. But I'd say it IS well regarded by the general audience.So far, I see Phase Two as having a really good entry that has comic fans divided but was well liked by the general audience, an "okay" entry that is disappointing because it could have been so much more (though it was still entertaining), and a fantastic entry that is arguably the best film of both phases. On deck, we have what seems to be their riskiest entry yet, but Guardians really seems to have generated lots of positive buzz from their two trailers. Creating and maintaining an interconnected "cinematic universe" is no simple feat. I know some worry that "studio interference" may have negatively impacted the quality of films like Iron Man 2, The Dark World, and The Incredible Hulk. But that same studio direction also gave us Iron Man, The Avengers, and The Winter Soldier. The Winter Soldier is HIGLY connected to the cinematic universe and very significant for future stories. That didn't happen without collaboration between the Russos and Feige. As for Ant-Man and Wright, I've heard different rumors. One was that Wright, who likes to work at his own pace, was having difficulty moving forward within the time frame necessary for the film's release. After waiting for him to be ready to work on this film for the better part of a decade, Marvel couldn't allow more "dilly dallying" now that an actual production was supposed to be under way. So they let him go. Fiege was rumored to be in Wright's corner, but the decision came from higher up. Another rumor was that Marvel gave Wright notes on the script and it wasn't addressed satisfactorily. So Marvel had some else do a rewrite, and Wright walked because he wasn't happy with that. I'm sure there are other rumors as well, the truth about what happens might not be known for a while, if ever. I think some directors can work well with a collaborative process and others can't. Whedon, the Russos, and Gunn have all talked about how making these films is a collaboration and that process works well with them. I suspect Wright probably isn't one who works well in that kind of system and as it got closer to production time that became more apparent to all involved, so a decision was made. But who knows.

 

[Sean Bryan]

This was a nice quote from James Gunn on working with Marvel:

For James and Kevin: Was there ever a time when you had very opposing visions on a scene or character and how did you resolve that issue?James Gunn: Every day. But the great thing about Kevin and me working together is that neither one of us have big egos about what we're doing. What's important is always creating the best movie possible, not getting what we want just because we think we're right. The truth is we agree 99% of the time. Those times that we don't, we talk about it, argue about it. Usually one of us wins the argument (our editors Fred Raskin and Craig Wood are often a part of these). In those times no one wins we screen both versions and see what the audiences think. But, again, this has been over relatively minor stuff. Also, I trust Kevin on a lot of big issues and I think he trusts me a lot when it comes to comedy and character stuff. It's a really fun and enlivening partnership.

I'd imagine that a director who does have a "big ego" would have more difficulty working within this cinematic universe.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Interestingly, I just came across this comment from James Gunn regarding Wright's departure.

"Sometimes you have friends in a relationship. You love each of them dearly as individuals and think they’re amazing people. When they talk to you about their troubles, you do everything you can to support them, to keep them together, because if you love them both so much doesn’t it make sense they should love each other? But little by little you realize, at heart, they aren’t meant to be together – not because there’s anything wrong with either of them, but they just don’t have personalities that mesh in a comfortable way. They don’t make each other happy. Although it’s sad to see them split, when they do, you’re surprisingly relieved, and excited to see where their lives take them next.It’s easy to try to make one party “right” and another party “wrong” when a breakup happens, but it often isn’t that simple. Or perhaps it’s even more simple than that – not everyone belongs in a relationship together. It doesn’t mean they’re not wonderful people.And that’s true of both Edgar Wright and Marvel. One of them isn’t a person, but I think you get what I mean." - James Gunn

So my guess is that the collaboration required to work on a film such as this wasn't something that worked for Wright.

 

[Nigel P]

Joss Whedon is good people.

 

[TravisR]

I guess the upside to me is that Edgar Wright can keep making his own movies rather than adding a piece to a company's universe. The downside is that having made a Marvel movie- which would have likely been a hit and definitely the biggest grossing movie he's ever made- would have gotten him bigger budgets for his own stuff.

 

[Brett_M]

I disagree. I think consensus - certainly critical consensus - is that Iron Man 2 is the weakest of all the films, possibly followed by the Incredible Hulk. IM3 and Thor 2, while not perfect, were good entries in the series. I recently re-watched Thor 2 and I found it very enjoyable.

I agree wholeheartedly. I loved IM3 and really liked Thor 2.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I must be the only one who really enjoys Iron Man 2. I'd easily rank it above both Thor movies as well as Iron Man 3.The Hollywood Reporter: Adam McKay in Talks to Direct 'Ant-Man'The director of mostly Will Ferrell movies, including both Anchorman movies, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Step Brothers and The Other Guys. His past working relationship with Ant-Man star Paul Rudd may have given him the edge.I can't say the choice thrills me. I thought The Other Guys was a disastrous failure of a movie, while Anchorman and Talladega Nights were both fun collections of jokes strung together with skeletal plot backbones.EDIT: Or, nevermind: Adam McKay says "thanks, but no thanks" to Marvel's Ant-Man

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm glad it's not Adam McKay. Never seen anything of his that I liked.

This may not be a popular opinion, but I'm not heartbroken over Wright's departure either. I suppose we'll never know the exact reason for the departure, but it seems to be over the script. Since Wright has been involved since before there was a Marvel MCU, and now this movie is scheduled to open Phase 3, I wouldn't be shocked if the issue had to do with Marvel wanting a movie that fit into their grand scheme (either with involving characters from other films, or starting or continuing plots that stretch between other movies), while Wright wanted more of a standalone.

One of the things I enjoy most about the Marvel movies is how interconnected they all are. It's what keeps me interested in seeing movies with characters I've never heard of, knowing that it's all part of a larger tapestry. I almost view the Marvel films as more of a giant television show of which each film is an episode. To me, I think of the movies like this:

Iron Man = Marvel 1
Incredible Hulk = Marvel 2
Iron Man 2 = Marvel 3
Thor = Marvel 4
Captain America: The First Avenger = Marvel 5
The Avengers = Marvel 6
Iron Man 3 = Marvel 7
Thor: The Dark World = Marvel 8
Captain America: The Winter Soldier = Marvel 9
Guardians Of The Galaxy = Marvel 10
The Avengers: Age Of Ultron = Marvel 11

So if Wright wasn't interested in making "Ant-Man" as Marvel 11, honestly, I wasn't as interested in seeing "Ant-Man" as a stand-alone.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This may not be a popular opinion, but I'm not heartbroken over Wright's departure either. I suppose we'll never know the exact reason for the departure, but it seems to be over the script.

Whatever the movie does turn out to be will have to compete with everybody's imaginings of how great Wright's Ant-Man would have been.Unless it turns out to be an absolute home run, it'll never live up to the hypothetical, composed of each fanboy's desires of what the film should have been.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I must be the only one who really enjoys Iron Man 2. I'd easily rank it above both Thor movies as well as Iron Man 3.

Not the only one although I would not put IM2 easily above the Thor movies as I liked those also but definitely super easily above IM3 and a little better than IM1.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Kevin Fiege opens up about Wright's departure:

When it was revealed that Marvel Studios and Edgar Wright had parted ways over Ant-Man, a few different reports surfaced which very much painted the former as the bad guys. Some fans declared that this was a sign that Disney were finally sticking their nose into Marvel's business, while others claimed that the movie could not and should not be made without Wright. Talking to Empire Online, Feige had this to say about people having this new perception of a studio who could previously do no wrong. "I don’t know if we ever thought of ourselves as invincible, quite the opposite. If you start thinking you’re invincible you start making bad decisions. We think we’re very vincible, and worry all the time! No, it’s much more personal than that."

As for the decision to no longer bring Ant-Man to the big screen with the Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz filmmaker, Feige reiterated: "We’ve been with Edgar for eight years, we saw the premiere of a number of his films in this very theatre. The biggest disappointment to me is not that he will not be making the movie. It was determined by him and by us that that would not be the best thing for the movie. The disappointing thing for me is not being able to make a movie with him, right now; it’s just the personal relationship. And it was amicable and we sat in a room together and said this isn’t working. I just wish I or he had figured that out somewhere in the eight years leading up to it. He was nervous about what the perception would be, and I said to Edgar ‘Don’t worry about it, because the perception will be that the evil studio squashes the innocent filmmaker’. That will be the perception no matter what, and that is the perception, but it’s much more complicated than that." As it turns out, that was the perception that the majority had when this news was revealed, but Feige makes it clear that he isn't letting it get to them as he's used to this sort of over the top reaction to such things from long before he was in charge of Marvel's own movie studio.

"Again to me, it’s reading in the early days of online fandom with Ain’t It Cool News back in 1999 that Bryan Singer was a terrible choice for X-Men and Hugh Jackman is way too tall to be Wolverine" he added. "We’re very thick-skinned and we’re use to the second-guessing and the colour commentary during the process. We’ve done what we’ve always done, which is block it out and make the best movie possible because it always comes down to the end product, when the lights go down on opening night and the clean slate appears and what is the experience of the movie. And clearly we believe that we’re on the road now with Peyton Reed to the best version of ‘Ant-Man’ that could have existed." As for whether or not Marvel have enough time to make Ant-Man with a new director attached, the producer dismissed rumours that the release date will need to be altered or that the production is in any sort of trouble. "Our schedule is not that dissimilar right now from Iron Man 3 and the original Avengers. And Ant-Man is not that visually complicated as either of those two films."

Talk then turned to what makes Yes Man director Peyton Reed the right choice to direct the movie in Wright's absence, Feige talked more about his good qualities and how the filmmaker is going about working with what was there before Wright's departure and what has changed since. He also revealed when exactly shooting begins. "When Edgar left this project, we talked about a number of different filmmakers and had few a few meetings with a few filmmakers and ending up reaching out to Peyton knowing that Peyton is not a slam dunk. He’s not just, ‘Oh, a movie, I’ll take it’. He had to be convinced that the big bad studio hadn’t squashed the filmmaker, that we were doing what was right for the movie. He read all the previous drafts and everything that had been created and is elevating it, and really having a clear vision of his own to bring this to life. The cast is incredibly engaged and we’re starting on August 18."

"Well, it’s not worth, right now, going into that in super-specifics," Feige added when talk turned to the actual creative reasons for Wright's departure. "I wish it wasn’t as late in the day as it was, but it just had become clear that there was an impasse that we had never reached before. We’ve worked with lots of unbelievable talented filmmakers like Edgar before, and of course there are disagreements along the way." He finished by discussing Marvel's previous collaboration with directors, perhaps going some way to explain why some have decided not to work with them again.

"There’s always been disagreements, whether big or small; that’s the collaborative nature of filmmaking and in particular the collaborative nature at Marvel that has producers, not just me, that are very involved and very opinionated. We had always found a way around it, a way to battle through it and emerge on the other side with a better product. At no point do we hire filmmakers who do everything we say, and at no point do we hire filmmakers that we let just do anything they want. There is always a middle ground that we find, and it just became clear that both of us was just being too polite over the past eight years I guess! Then it was clear that, ‘Oh you’re really not gonna stop talking about that note?’ ‘Oh, you’re really not gonna do that note?’ Alright this isn’t working."

 

[Sean Bryan]

First real look at some conceptual art and design work for Ant-Man!

 

[Ejanss]

So, looks like Michael Douglas is still the "older" Henry Pym?

 

[Sean Bryan]

Production started yesterday, and Marvel has released the first official picture of Rudd.

Also, they have announced that John Slattery is a member of the cast (presumably returning to the role of the older Howard Stark in flashbacks).