Ant-Man: Info, Pics, Rumors, Casting and Details till release

Joss Whedon doesn't look too happy about it, either: https://twitter.com/josswhedon/status/470141319831363584/photo/1

 

Mmm. I'm not expecting anything original or unique now. Just another bland Marvel superhero movie ala The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World for example.

It'll make money, and it won't be "bad," it'll be an ok movie. But it won't be anything really special.

 

Or we could have another Winter Soldier or Iron Man 3 and have our minds blown. Yeah Marvel is a machine but they deliver a consistent product and sometimes they out do themselves (I'm reminded of Chipotle)

 

I don't know if I'm impressed or scared that I get that picture, probably both.

 

Wright, Pegg and Frost have all retweeted it. This makes me happy.

 

Now Latino Review is saying that Drew Goddard has left the Netflix Daredevil series. What the hell? Or maybe he's leaving Daredevil to take over Ant-Man. Seems unlikely, though.

Edit to add: someone on the Superhero Hype forum is claiming to have inside information that Goddard left because he's about to be handed a major comic book property (not Ant-Man and not a reference to Sinister Six, which he's also attached to).

 

I'm very glad to hear that, actually. Directors have too much power over movies, and those movies usually suffer as a result. Especially when dealing with well-known franchises where they want to "shake things up" or "reimagine" everything, whereas everyone else is just hoping to see a more faithful and/or up-to-date adaptation.

I have no doubt that's what was going on here. No doubt at all.

 

From the Playlist:

 

I understand (to some extent) why it can be appealing, but you have to understand what is lost.

I saw the Winter Soldier again after having some weeks to think about it. Then, the GotG trailer showed, and the whole damn for both, I couldn't help think that this was all about a product - an assembly-line product - rather than a vision. I fear the new Star Wars film may be the made in the same fashion.

But when Lucas made the first Star Wars film, and when Spielberg did his early blockbusters or when Zemeckis and Gale started ironing out a little film called Back to the Future, nothing was certain.. their vision was delicate, anything could break it. All these guys had to constantly reel in their vision according to the realities and limitations of the time and hold onto what was important.. whatever was left, whatever we got to see, that was important.

Now, the studios have the vision, and the ego, and they are the ones laughing all the way to the bank. We are watching a corporate product now. Nothing more. A lot of bright colors devoid of anything. GotG is not a risk.. even though it might seem the riskiest of what Marvel is doing, but I guarantee you that even if it flops, the accountants there can put them all in the black with a little number crunching. And Ant-Man.. it's the same thing.. it all has to fit with Marvel's vision right to a tee, They know what a superhero film looks like. Disney knows what a Star Wars film looks like. It's all corporate.. nothing is truly risky or visionary anymore.

 

"Risky" and "$200 million budgets" don't mix well.

 

But do these movies need to be risky and visionary? There are still surprising new movies that are not part of franchises and can be visionary.

I know that I like current Marvel franchise and I´m happy that I know what I´m getting when I go see a Marvel movie.

 

Sure they do in this case.

Risky in that no one -- I mean the general public - has heard of GotG. And those that have would agree that making a movie starring a raccoon and a tree is risky. But, with a string of successful films, in particular, the Avengers, Marvel Studios can afford to spend some big cash to put these risky projects out there. Even if it "flops" they aren't in the hole for it as deeply as another studio might be. If the film under-performs, the accountants can turn water into wine and make it all look nicey-nice to investors.

It's all a damn product. I person don't think that GotG is ask risky as I made it sound above.. it's got snarkey humor and obvious gags, and, unlike actual risky science fiction films of the past, it doesn't appear to be saying a whole lot.

I remember when Star Wars was risky. I remember how magical it was because of it. I remember how amazing it was, how amazing it looked, and how amazing it felt, when Yoda managed to levitate the X-Wing out of the swamp (cue some awesome music) and the combination of Yoda's performance (he might have been a puppet, but ut was a performance), mixed with the grit of a sea-weed covered ship, and a well-realized effect, and you have cinema magic. But this scene wouldn't impress many of the younger viewers today. This kind of thing.. objects floating around - is seen all the time. CGI, the ability to bring anything to life, has dulled cinema. All the studios can do is turn out crap that is sufficient rather than amazing.

 

I think risky is fine, if it was going to be a solo film. Granted that's what it was when Wright first signed on to make it, and in a way it sucks that he got pulled into the MCU. But he was willing to play ball.

But the MCU has turned into a franchise now. Sure the films are made to stand alone (or at least they should be) but in the end it's all part of the same franchise. I look at the MCU similar to how I look at the James Bond films, both are movie franchise that over the years have involved several different writers and directors. And just like the James Bond franchise, the MCU is a industry where the producers are much more powerful than the directors.

I would have loved to seen an Edgar Wright directed Ant-Man with no constraints. But all that changed when the MCU was formed. And I think with the MCU there should be a single guiding vision which keeps everything in check. If these films are all supposed to take place in the same universe, then I hope they look like they all take place in the same universe.

And now I'm going to say something that is probably the unpopular opinion around here: but I am not the least bit surprised to see that Wright has left the project, nor does it really bother me all that much.

 

Uber-corporate, assembly-line filmmaking far precedes Star Wars, I can assure you of that.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
​

 

.

I was really looking forward to seeing what Wright did with this, so I am really disapointed to see him gone.
I find it kind of weird that they would apparently have such an issue with what Wright apparently wanted to do after they apprently wanted James Gunn to actually go farther with GotG. I read an interview the other day with Gunn, where he said that he originally wrote a more straight forward version, but Feige and Marvel told him to "make it more James Gunn". I have to wonder why "James Gunn" is OK, but apparently "Edgar Wright" is not.

 

Star Wars: A New Hope budget (adjusted for inflation):
$41.71 million.

Average MCU Budget:
$150 - $200 million.

If you want riskier movies, stop watching big budget Hollywood films.

 

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.