Ditto.
Ant-Man: Info, Pics, Rumors, Casting and Details till release
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
Ditto.
Shaun of the Dead is great but I think I prefer Hot Fuzz more.
I need to watch that again, I liked Shaun and World's End (tho not as much) but I didn't get Hot Fuzz at all.
I grew up on big, dumb action movies so I absolutely loved Hot Fuzz. It's a weird mix - the first half is slow-paced British comedy and the second half becomes the action film it wishes to parody - but I love it. I've seen that movie so many times.
It's a mash up of the Cozy Mystery and the action flick.
Adam McKay tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/GhostPanther/status/472823583236845568
He doesnt exactly say that he is out. Just not sure if he can move his other projects.
^^^
That tweet is probably just putting out a diplomatic reason for why he passed. From Variety on Saturday:
That tweet is probably just putting out a diplomatic reason for why he passed. From Variety on Saturday:
Same here. I love that movie.
Hot Fuzz is a gem.
Sad to hear Edgar Wright's off this picture. My enthusiasm for the film dropped considerably when I heard he left the project, but now with McKay passing... I'm starting to worry Ant-Man is going to be a total rush job in order to meet a deadline for its script to fit into the Marvel Cinematic Mosaic.
Marvel's track record thus far has to be considered, and I'm holding judgment until we can see it... but my expectations have bottomed out considerably on a film I was really looking forward to.
I'm really surprised its taking them this long to find a replacement.
This is actually pretty simple.
There has always been a huge difference between the production of television shows (one hour dramas with interlocking or continuing stories) than with movies.
I might argue that Mike Vejar is the greatest Star Trek director ever but most people would say who? Just look at the episodes he's done and my case is made for me.
But the difference is that this is television, and directors on television are hired guns, and have much more limited creative impact on how it turns out (though they do have some, and you can see just how distinct and professional Vejar's style is) because most of the actual creative decisions are left to the writers, and moreso, the producers, who are also looking ahead to future seasons as well as the bottom line. Vejar and other directors like him only get paid to deal with the task at hand. That's why Spielberg would have never direct an episode of Deep Space Nine even if we found out he loved the show.
So.. with Marvel Studios using the television model, with them treating their MCU as basically a serialized set of films and it's really Disney and Feighy who make all the decisions, it's no wonder at all that directors who care about their own merits as filmmakers are not willing (any longer) to work on these films. This trend will continue.
Sure, some big A-List directors did work on Marvel films.. after all, this was all kind of new and exciting, but now they are starting to see that it is not their films. The thing about movies is that, up until now, most films that come out are not considered the producer's films, or even the studios films (despite the fact that the studios own them), thy are respectfully considered the director's films: hence when we see "A Steven Spielberg Film" when he directs a picture, not when he merely produces it.
Who ever ends up directing Ant-Man has to know that, despite any lip service they might see in the credits, it's not going to be his or her film, it's going to be Disney's... and Feighy's. Feighy is pissing on the legs of the directors of his franchise without even the courtesy of calling it rain.
I mean, you can't set up a deadline ahead of time, even a logo, hire a director, have that director leave, try to get a new director to join in, have that fail, keep the same deadline for the film's release, and then call it the person's film of whoever does end up directing it.
What a joke. I'm glad you guys are figuring it out.
There has always been a huge difference between the production of television shows (one hour dramas with interlocking or continuing stories) than with movies.
I might argue that Mike Vejar is the greatest Star Trek director ever but most people would say who? Just look at the episodes he's done and my case is made for me.
But the difference is that this is television, and directors on television are hired guns, and have much more limited creative impact on how it turns out (though they do have some, and you can see just how distinct and professional Vejar's style is) because most of the actual creative decisions are left to the writers, and moreso, the producers, who are also looking ahead to future seasons as well as the bottom line. Vejar and other directors like him only get paid to deal with the task at hand. That's why Spielberg would have never direct an episode of Deep Space Nine even if we found out he loved the show.
So.. with Marvel Studios using the television model, with them treating their MCU as basically a serialized set of films and it's really Disney and Feighy who make all the decisions, it's no wonder at all that directors who care about their own merits as filmmakers are not willing (any longer) to work on these films. This trend will continue.
Sure, some big A-List directors did work on Marvel films.. after all, this was all kind of new and exciting, but now they are starting to see that it is not their films. The thing about movies is that, up until now, most films that come out are not considered the producer's films, or even the studios films (despite the fact that the studios own them), thy are respectfully considered the director's films: hence when we see "A Steven Spielberg Film" when he directs a picture, not when he merely produces it.
Who ever ends up directing Ant-Man has to know that, despite any lip service they might see in the credits, it's not going to be his or her film, it's going to be Disney's... and Feighy's. Feighy is pissing on the legs of the directors of his franchise without even the courtesy of calling it rain.
I mean, you can't set up a deadline ahead of time, even a logo, hire a director, have that director leave, try to get a new director to join in, have that fail, keep the same deadline for the film's release, and then call it the person's film of whoever does end up directing it.
What a joke. I'm glad you guys are figuring it out.
Last edited:
McKay didn't take the job because it wasn't the Wright thing to do.
I'll be here all night, everybody.
I'll be here all night, everybody.
I know they still have some time before this has to go before cameras but it was silly of them to state in the release that they had a director as Wright was leaving when clearly they didn't. They had a short list and it seems that list is now all but exhausted.
What next?
What next?
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.
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.
and
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.
