Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Jul 17, 2012.
James Gunn posted this on his Facebook page...
To me it sounds like the same thing, whether they want "less Wright" or "more Gunn" Marvel knows what they're looking for and are steering the filmmakers toward that. (Assuming "less Wright" is even close to correct here)
It's too bad that this project has been so long in gestation. I think if Wright had gotten it moving sooner we might not be in this boat.
There is only so much accountants can do. The flop that was John Carter was a BIG punch in the gut for the studio. For the bottom line. Accountants, regardless of what the story is, don't just wave magic wands and make failure disappear.
They actually make success disappear. Never get points on net. Always gross.
GotG IS a risk.
I think I see what you're saying. They went into GotG expecting something in James Gunn's style, but they didn't get that, and they asked him to change it and he did. Now they went into Ant-Man with expecting one thing, but Wright gave them something else, and unlike Gunn, Wright didn't want to change what he was doing.
If the reports are accurate, Feige was on board with what Wright developed, but the Disney brass intervened and demanded changes.
Well, Feige was reportedly the one who fought for Wright's version of things. It was the Disney higher-ups who didn't like what Wright and Cornish were doing. Chances are, the Marvel folks never changed their minds about Wright's vision for Ant-Man, but they're no longer the ones calling the shots since they've been bought by Disney.
I keep forgetting about Disney in there. I know the parent company can be a pain in these kind of things even if they're tying to be hands off for the most part. Eventually their ways kind of seeps in regardless.
Yeah, Marvel doesn't previously have a reputation for corporate thinking. The movies often ended up homogenized, but this was something else. It being Disney makes quite a bit of sense. You would think that Marvel had earned some flexibility here (much like Pixar had earned flexibility), so it's a shame that they didn't get it here.
I would love to read what Edgar Wright's version was compared to what the final one would be.
So much for Disney supposedly being pretty hands-off with Marvel. That's what I've always heard about the relationship, anyway.
I'd heard that about Marvel-the-comic-book-company. I don't recall hearing anything either way about their involvement in Marvel-the-movie-studio.
It's also been over four years since the acquisition. Disney is allowed to change their approach, for better or for worse.
I wouldn't be surprised if the massive success of the last couple of MCU movies was the reason for this. Disney used to be content to let Marvel do their thing and produce one mid-range blockbuster after another, but now that they're routinely making those >600 million-dollar hits, they're scared of breaking that winning streak and therefore less willing to take risks. (ignoring that said success mainly came from taking those exact risks in the first place)
^It's more about the assembly-line philosophy of how these films are being made, combined with the fact that the creative decisions are being handed down from the top. It's an awful trend. We wouldn't have A New Hope, Back to the Future, or Raiders of the Lost Ark turn out to be timeless films if they were made with the same methodology.
Apples and oranges. Each of those films you mention was the first in it's series. Not only that each film wasn't originally made with a sequel in mind (with perhaps the exception of Star Wars, but even then Lucas wasn't thinking that far ahead).
If you want a more accurate comparison, you have to compare the MCU to the James Bond films. Both are producer controlled series that critics often describe as "assembly line" products just as you do.
Raiders was made with several sequels in mind. As I recall, Paramount had a five picture deal from the start, although I am sure it's more complicated than I remember.
Considering these movies are supposed to all be related and similar in feel, allowing directors to do whatever they want is, honestly, a bad thing. Especially since nearly every single one of them would want to make it their movie, with their vision, and more likely than not wanting to "reimagine" it so that it's "hip and edgy."
Personally, I'd much rather have control in the writer's hands than anyone's (seeing as how a movie is, really, their vision coming to life), though I can see why the producers need to keep things in line for something like the MCU.
Thank you. At least someone gets it.
I have a feeling that this is why Wright was fired. He had vision but it didn't fit with the MCU. In that case what Disney did was appropriate.
You guys may be correct, but you sure can't blame Wright for not wanting to work on something that was no longer his vision of the character and movie.
He was a victim of a changing vision, it's really unfortunate, but it happens.
Maybe appropriate.. if you like hake having your movies made by suits rather than visionaries
Separate names with a comma.