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

[JD]

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.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

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.

 

[AvBaur]

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".

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.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

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.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

 

[Skywalker]

So much for Disney supposedly being pretty hands-off with Marvel. That's what I've always heard about the relationship, anyway.

 

[ATimson]

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.

 

[AvBaur]

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)

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

^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.

 

[Aldo]

^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.

 

[Harvey]

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.

 

[Mister Fandango]

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.

 

[Aldo]

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."

Thank you. At least someone gets it.

 

[Yminale]

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."

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.

 

[kitik]

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.

 

[Aldo]

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.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

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."

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.

Maybe appropriate.. if you like hake having your movies made by suits rather than visionaries

 

[Professor Zoom]

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."

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.

Maybe appropriate.. if you like hake having your movies made by suits rather than visionaries

Your point is getting a little tedious. If you want to be a visionary, don't work for a big corporation. They want to see a return on their 200-300 million dollar investment.

And besides, the visionary might just make one picture for them and then walk away, and they are left to pick up the pieces.

When budgets climb that high, and you have a track record of success, of course, you are going to start to mitigate risk. Of course, you are going to want to make your franchise fit all together.

If you want to work inside the Hollywood system, you are going to be working for suits. That's the reality, and no amount of internet whining is going to change that. It's no longer 1980.

That said, I'm said that Wright left. I like him a lot as a filmmaker, and I'm curious how "far" his vision--if that indeed was the reason for the departure--was away from what corporate wanted.

 

[JD]

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."

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.

Maybe appropriate.. if you like hake having your movies made by suits rather than visionaries

As long as those suits are making movies like The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier then I say let them. I've been happy with those, and I don't appear to be the only one. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I guess if what Wright wanted to do was drastically different from the other Marvel movies in style and tone, then I guess I can kind of see bringing in someone who will do something more in line with what they wanted.
I've actually been pretty impressed with how different each of the movies has been so far.

 

[Bad Bishop]

I think Marvel was finally fed up with Wright taking forever to do this movie. This movie was announced in 2006, before even the first Iron Man!

http://www.superherohype.com/features/91587-exclusive-edgar-wright-talks-ant-man

Could it be that Wright wanted more time and another delay causing Marvel to finally balk?

I attended the Ant-Man presentation at Comic-Con. Learned that this movie was planned as a comedy. When I think of funny superheroes, Mystery Men comes to mind. No thanks. Maybe the differences between Marvel and Wright are about the tone of the film.