Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Jul 17, 2012.
You're not too familiar with Hollywood are you.
Yeah. They don't call it whoever is directing's film out of respect, they do it because that person's name will get asses in the theater and money in their pockets. If they get an A-list director to take over, they'l still call it that person's film, no matter how little creative control they have.
I don't understand why you seem to have such an issue with the way these movies are made, FSM. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I haven't heard that many complaints from the people involved, and quite a few of them have been coming back for multiple movies, so I don't see the problem. Honestly, the movies have been good, and most people involved seem happy or at least content, so I say it is working and they might as well keep doing it.
There isn't any evidence that either:
a) Wright's Ant-Man wouldn't have been like the Ant-Man of the comics (at least relative to the similarities of other characters). The chronology is a bit different in that Hank Pym's experience occurs in the 60s and 70s, but the characterization of Pym and Lang are what you seem to be talking about.
b) The characterization going forward would be significantly different from the characterization under Wright - particularly since Michael Douglas hasn't been fired as far as I know, so any chronological issues remain.
On a side note, Marvel has found a Dr. Strange director, which makes this hunt a little more sad.
To be fair, it is an Ant-Man movie. Unlike heroes like the Hulk, Iron Man, or Captain America, he really is obscure to the general public. And even if you are familiar with him, it's hard to argue that he's just kind of a meh character all around. Sure, he's got brains and was responsible for quite a bit of the metaplot, but with Tony Stark being the father of Ultron, well...
I dunno. I'd, personally, not want to have to be responsible for trying to make "Ant-Man" cool. I can see why a lot of directors would be passing on that opportunity.
Well, to be fair, they didn't complain. I mean Superhero films are on the upswing, and first phase or two of the MCU is pretty successful.. quantifiable, it's a good career move for any director.
But film directors don't get into that business to merely sell out, unless your last name is Ratner. They'd rather inject in their own soul into a film than someone else's. I think the television-model that Marvel is following his becoming more and more obvious as the phases continue.. and I also think that these directors see what I see: that much of the Avenger's success was a novelty thing (seeing heroes form different films together in one film). You can only really have that novelty once, but I guarantee it that Marvel is trying to capture that again. Mackey (who played Falcon in Winter Soldier) said what I said, that that film was actually Avengers 1.5.
I don't think Spielberg, Zemeckis, or the Lucas of old who have brought out all of their great, visionary early blockbusters if their vision rested in the hands of some producer who (seemingly) has no qualifications save for the fact that he likes comic books.
Remember all the work, that went into those early blockbusters, work that stands apart because there was no guarantee that any of it would actually on screen. The filmmakers had to have a lot of faith and hard work and do everything they could to make sure it worked.. bringing every talent to bear on the project. These days, they plan, shoot, and go to post for a crapload of CGI. I think the most impressive thing about the MCU is how good Iron Man's suit looks on film.. I'll give them that. But there's little risk that something won't work.
Has anyone ever made a film without a director?
Just give the script to the actors and tech, then tell them that they'll get paid after they come back with a movie in 2 weeks.
Apparently Wright is wrong too.
Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waiter.
Warners and DC comics have been paying every director in Hollywood to not do Antman.
I'm curious as to which of the Marvel directors you consider A-List, because I don't think any of them are on the same level as Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese, etc..
Is Lucas really an A-list director? He only directs his own movies? He's a slightly less prolific Tarantino in that regard.
Getting to a position where you can self-finance blockbuster movies, and direct nothing but your own movies, is something many directors dream of and very few achieve. Lucas is absolutely an A-list director.
Yeah, but I think the number of movies should be a factor as well. Not that it really matters. Lucas isn't going to direct any more movies, so he's not in any discussion for future A-list directors no matter what.
Although I hear they're looking for an Ant-Man director if he's interested.
I don't think number of movies matters. It's power in the industry and name recognition with the public that are important. James Cameron isn't prolific at all, but he's very much an A-list director.
At this point, I think the name "Ant-Man" is too embarrassing for any real director to want to get involved with.
One site - albeit not a particularly well-established one - is claiming a deal is being worked out for Rawson Marshall Thurber to direct as kind of the last man standing after McKay changed his mind and turned it down and with Fleischer hoping to land Ghostbusters 3.
Three returnees (Favreau, Whedon, and the Russos); three who haven't (Leterrier, Branaugh, and Johnson); and one who probably won't based on his complaints (Alan Taylor). Could be worse, could be much better.
And Favreau was out after Iron Man 2.
I don't think A-list is quite so exclusive - Branaugh and Favreau are up there, I'd say.
Rawson Marshall Thurber has just passed on directing it.
Wow. Did Edgar Wright just call the runner ups and tell them not to take the director job?
Are they all in on some sort of pact/secret?
Wright- Hey guys, if you get offered Ant-Man say "No" they'll screw you over
He still came back as Happy in Iron Man 3, though. So whatever caused him to drop out of directing (money, timing, not getting The Avengers), there doesn't appear to be any animus there.
Separate names with a comma.