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

[Marsden]

...
The bolded part is basically where I'm at. Until such a time as an unadulterated disaster or one so mixed by fandom that you can't escape that there's some massive stink I'm going to continue to give Ant-Man the benefit of the doubt.

Me, too. I'm not a fan of Edgar Wright, tho I have nothing against him, either, but I really don't see his leaving as that big of a deal for the movie. I realize replacing a director is a "big deal" for any movie, but I'm think this will kill it, I might enjoy it more after all. But I'd still like to see a comparison script or something in the future just to see where he would have wanted to go with it.

 

[Ethros]

Kevin Feige on Edgar Wright Ant-Man exit: Marvel's not a big evil studio

"We said, 'Let's do this together and put out a statement'. What do we say? 'Creative differences'. I said, 'That's what they always say and no-one ever believes it'. Edgar said, 'But in this case, it's true'."



"The Marvel movies are very collaborative, and I think they are more collaborative than what he had been used to. And I totally respect that," Feige commented.

"[But] the notion that Marvel was scared, the vision was too good, too far out for Marvel is not true. And I don't want to talk too much about that, because I think our movies speak to that.

"Go look at Iron Man 3; go look at The Winter Soldier; go see Guardians of the Galaxy later this month. It would have to be really out there to be too out there for us."

Click on the link for more

 

[Jax]

Kevin can say whatever he wants but it stinks big time and you can't see anything but the studio being the problem here because its not the first time they have been accused of getting in the way. Didn't Jon Favreau mention how Iron Man 2 was rushed and rewrote numerous times against his wishes and was one of the reasons he didn't do 3. Also something similar with both Thor movies and the directors being unpleased with how Marvel does things.

 

[Mister Fandango]

Again, most film directors are just spoiled brats who've had their way for entirely too long. Marvel clearly has a vision in store for their assorted franchises and want their movies made along a certain line. Directors often want to be "edgy" and "mix things up" so that they can "put their own mark on it." That's not what Marvel wants with their films, and it's entirely within their rights to enforce that.

Basically, they don't want "artistes." They want professionals. Unfortunately, most consider themselves the former and don't understand the latter whatsoever.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ And they're probably in UNIONS! Always getting in the way of the job creators....

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Again, most film directors are just spoiled brats who've had their way for entirely too long. Marvel clearly has a vision in store for their assorted franchises and want their movies made along a certain line. Directors often want to be "edgy" and "mix things up" so that they can "put their own mark on it." That's not what Marvel wants with their films, and it's entirely within their rights to enforce that.

Basically, they don't want "artistes." They want professionals. Unfortunately, most consider themselves the former and don't understand the latter whatsoever.

You ae correct, but that's exactly what's wrong. Star Wars, Jaws, Back to the Future, Close Encounters, Back to the Future, etc, were all the early blockbusters, and they all were the fragile visions of filmmakers, and they had to hold onto that vision while being given a limited budget. The studio trusted the filmmakers and they delivered, while a studio had to have faith that these visions could work.

It sickens me that the great directors are the hired guns to the suits. The studios all know what their big films will look like now, the charmless behemoths of CGI that are meant to keep the studios in the black. No charm, no creativity, nothing that I'm enthusiastic about.

 

[Mr Light]

In the usual practice, the director of a film is god.

But the Marvel movies are more like a tv series (where directors have almost no say in the larger story) of interconnecting pieces. So the director of an individual film is never going to be the final word on anything.

 

[Mister Fandango]

That isn't the case here.

These movies aren't edgy or iffy concepts developed from start to finish by a small group of creative minds. These movies are, instead, mass produced comic books translated to film, sharing a single universe, a single meta storyline, and the same characters. They don't exist in a bubble where "artistic vision" has any merit.

Hell, they're closer to a television series than any of the movies you mentioned.

If the spoiled brat directors want to create something that's their own vision, hey, they can create something that's their own vision. These Marvel movies, however, are not their vision.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I see your point that there's a formula in play but you take such glee in it. Did a director sleep with your wife or something?

 

[Ethros]

It's a just a shame we'll never really know why. Like exact details.
Or at least not for another 10-20 years or something when it all eventually comes out.


Unless after its release Edgar Wright says something like "that wasn't bad but what I was gonna do was..." But I'd imagine he'll keep schtum

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It may very well be a better "Marvel film" when it's all said and done. Still, I can't help but think it would've been more interesting otherwise. I think if it was something other than "Ant-Man" there'd be more of a case for bringing it in line.

I wonder at what point the movies will be mainstream enough to allow for side stories. The Marvel comics aren't so monolithic as to not allow for some experimentation here-and-there. Maybe that's what TV is for, I suppose.

 

[Mister Fandango]

I see your point that there's a formula in play but you take such glee in it. Did a director sleep with your wife or something?

Just tired of directors taking beloved franchises and shitting all over them for all of the aforementioned reasons. Whereas if you let a company or group of individuals with long-term investment have a crack at it, they tend to turn out much better. As Marvel has proven multiple times now.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I see your point that there's a formula in play but you take such glee in it. Did a director sleep with your wife or something?

Just tired of directors taking beloved franchises and shitting all over them for all of the aforementioned reasons. Whereas if you let a company or group of individuals with long-term investment have a crack at it, they tend to turn out much better. As Marvel has proven multiple times now.

Marvel's a bit unique in the relationship between the studio and the "franchise".

 

[Professor Zoom]

I see your point that there's a formula in play but you take such glee in it. Did a director sleep with your wife or something?

Just tired of directors taking beloved franchises and shitting all over them for all of the aforementioned reasons.

Like who? Must be a long list if you're tired of it.

 

[Mister Fandango]

Michael Bay, for starters.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Michael Bay, for starters.

For someone who is tired of directors shitting over franchises, are you having troubles of thinking of names?

That's one.

One who has actually MADE a franchise. While they are tremendously bad movies (ok, to be honest, I wasn't able to finish the first one, so... I can't speak to the rest), he has made four and they have made a pile of cash. So SOMEONE is coming out to see the franchise that was for all intents and purposes dead.

I don't really see how he's "shitting" on that particular franchise.

But, even if we can say he's shitting on the franchise, is that it?

 

[wulfio]

That isn't the case here.

These movies aren't edgy or iffy concepts developed from start to finish by a small group of creative minds. These movies are, instead, mass produced comic books translated to film, sharing a single universe, a single meta storyline, and the same characters. They don't exist in a bubble where "artistic vision" has any merit.

Hell, they're closer to a television series than any of the movies you mentioned.

If the spoiled brat directors want to create something that's their own vision, hey, they can create something that's their own vision. These Marvel movies, however, are not their vision.

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that 100%. There really isn't a formula to what they're doing now. Cap 2 was more of a spy thriller with a more serious tone than what marvel has done up till then. Guardians is a complete departure from typical marvel movies. And Dr. Strange is reportedly going to be a darker movie dealing with the supernatural. Who knows what else they've got planned for phase 3 and beyond. Based on the directors they've been looking at for Ant Man, this will also be a departure from the "formula" they've been using for Phase 1.

But I will agree that these are marvels vision and not necessarily the directors. They just seem to hire directors who's style and vision are in line for the movie they are making, rather than hiring a director and letting him create his vision.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Michael Bay, for starters.

For someone who is tired of directors shitting over franchises, are you having troubles of thinking of names?

That's one.

One who has actually MADE a franchise. While they are tremendously bad movies (ok, to be honest, I wasn't able to finish the first one, so... I can't speak to the rest), he has made four and they have made a pile of cash. So SOMEONE is coming out to see the franchise that was for all intents and purposes dead.

I don't really see how he's "shitting" on that particular franchise.

But, even if we can say he's shitting on the franchise, is that it?

I really have no strong feelings one way or the other about the Transformer movies, but I'll point out that the Transformers franchise already existed, Bay didn't make it.

However, it's really the only example I can think of as far as franchises that were "ruined" (in someone's opinion) by someone other than the creator of the franchise (so you can't pick George Lucas). I suppose there are people who will argue Star Trek. I don't know. Anyone out there still hate the Mission Impossible films?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Michael Bay, for starters.

For someone who is tired of directors shitting over franchises, are you having troubles of thinking of names?

That's one.

One who has actually MADE a franchise. While they are tremendously bad movies (ok, to be honest, I wasn't able to finish the first one, so... I can't speak to the rest), he has made four and they have made a pile of cash. So SOMEONE is coming out to see the franchise that was for all intents and purposes dead.

I don't really see how he's "shitting" on that particular franchise.

But, even if we can say he's shitting on the franchise, is that it?

I really have no strong feelings one way or the other about the Transformer movies, but I'll point out that the Transformers franchise already existed, Bay didn't make it.

True, he didn't make it. He did turn a toy and cartoon show--was there even one on at the time of the first movie?--into a billion dollar franchise. Reinvigorating it, putting it back into the public's mind.

Maybe I don't understand what "shitting on a franchise" means.

However, it's really the only example I can think of as far as franchises that were "ruined" (in someone's opinion) by someone other than the creator of the franchise (so you can't pick George Lucas). I suppose there are people who will argue Star Trek. I don't know. Anyone out there still hate the Mission Impossible films?

But, what is ruined? What does it mean? Just because we don't like it? But a LOT of people seem to like it.

If I had to say an example, maybe Seth Rogen's Green Hornet. That was an awful version of the Hornet. Certainly didn't help launch the film franchise they wanted. And then relatedly, The Lone Ranger? They both characters that have been around for awhile that failed to launch, and were both movies that failed creatively and at the box office. But did those directors "shit" on their franchises? Like, did they not care about the movies there were making?

Like I don't think either director set out to make a bad movie.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Maybe I don't understand what "shitting on a franchise" means.

I literally have no strong feelings about the Transformers franchise, so I shouldn't speak for Mr. Fandango, but I would imagine that, if you think studio profit is the way to measure it, then, yes, you don't understand what he meant by "shitting on a franchise." I think a subjective view of quality is a more likely explanation.

I agree that none of them set out to make a bad movie. I would hope that's a given.