Hollywood Reporter: Edgar Wright just left Ant-Man

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't Latinoreview usually wrong about all this shit?

But if that's true then damn, to hell with marvel. Ripping up what was likely a god-tier script

Honor and shame, shot themselves in the foot etc. etc.
 
Wright kept pushing it back anyway. I don't think there's a single marvel movie that's been in production for as long as this one.
Personally, it seems to be case of Wright just not wanting to do the film any more and backtracking.

Let's not assume that Marvel is automatically the bad guy here. Sometimes, directors can be wrong. We just don't know.
 
Oh fuck everything!
fuck-everything-o.gif
 
Oh damn, this was my most hyped super hero movie in ages. This hurts bad.

I felt like Cap, GOTG, and Ant-Man would make Marvel more interesting. Lost one big part of it for me.
 
I don't care that much to be perfectly forthright.

The character was always a pretty dull one for me.

He can turn small and talk to ants? Seriously? This is supposed to be exciting?

There are better characters out there for Marvel to focus on.
 
I don't think I'll ever understand the staunch, devoted, almost fanatical obsessions that some people have for Wright. As far as directing is concerned, I don't find him to be that great. Scott Pilgrim, for example, was a disappointment for me.

But then again, I never paid much attention to any of the directors for Marvel films. As long as they deliver the goods and not Uwe-Boll tier, I don't really care who directs the film.
 
Replicant said:
I don't think I'll ever understand the staunch, devoted, almost fanatical obsessions that some people have for Wright. As far as directing is concerned, I don't find him to be that great. Scott Pilgrim, for example, was a disappointment for me.
Click to expand...

But the Cornetto Trilogy is fantastic, and tonally what they were going for with Ant-Man it made absolute sense to have Wright on board. Also, most liked Pilgrim, meaning he hasn't had a stinker yet. To say his directorial debut was Shaun of the Dead... not many directors have that kind of a track record.

If you want an example of what happens without Wright, go watch Paul.
 
Replicant said:
I don't think I'll ever understand the staunch, devoted, almost fanatical obsessions that some people have for Wright. As far as directing is concerned, I don't find him to be that great. Scott Pilgrim, for example, was a disappointment for me.
Click to expand...

Subjective taste aside, he has an insanely good track record for directing. His Cornetto trilogy ranks from 89% to 91% to RT. His worst rated film still hangs at 84%. His films are generally revered as cult classics, and regularly screened as marathons at cinemas. Its not surprising that people were expecting greatness with him making a comic book films.
 
Reminds me of Natalie Portman getting angry that Patty Jenkins, original director for Thor 2, got canned over "creative differences".

Maybe they can hook up Robert Downey Jr.'s friend Mel Gibson and have him do Ant-Man (lol, although he'd do a great job). Speaking of which Marvel/Disney even tried to cheap out on Avengers 2, and of course the MCU has been missing Edward Norton as well.

WB/DC should pick some of these people up.
 
The sum is greater than it's parts.

Marvel studios did not get this far by giving directors unlimited amounts of creative freedom. They have their vision and continuity that got them to here in the first place. They gave Wright a un-marvelish amount of freedom so far. Beyond that it still seems weird to me that we go GotG > AoU > Ant-Man instead of the other way around. Seems to me that Marvel has been very compliant with Wright. Furthermore things like things like Scott Lang being the main protagonist seems off for Marvel studios like it would be off to start with [spoilered for people who don't read Captain America]
Bucky as Captain America
. There is just a too big of an industry behind it all to deviate so much for the initial vision that it doesn't surprise me Wright was let go. The Marvel Studios movies have never been about the director but about fitting in the continuity. They simply can't afford to start giving directors unlimited amounts of freedom, and thats fine if that is the the strategy that got them here.
 
FeD.nL said:
The sum is greater than it's parts.

Marvel studios did not get this far by giving directors unlimited amounts of creative freedom. They have their vision and continuity that got them to here in the first place. They gave Wright a un-marvelish amount of freedom so far. Beyond that it still seems weird to me that we go GotG > AoU > Ant-Man instead of the other way around. Seems to me that Marvel has been very compliant with Wright. Furthermore things like things like Scott Lang being the main protagonist seems off for Marvel studios like it would be off to start with [spoilered for people who don't read Captain America]
Bucky as Captain America
. There is just a too big of an industry behind it all to deviate so much for the initial vision that it doesn't surprise me Wright was let go. The Marvel Studios movies have never been about the director but about fitting in the continuity. They simply can't afford to start giving directors unlimited amounts of freedom, and thats fine if that is the the strategy that got them here.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty blatantly clear they never intended Pym's story to play out exactly as it does in the comics, hence this;

watch-the-teaser-trailer-for-avengers-sequel-age-of-ultron-that-debuted-at-comic-con.jpg
Click to expand...
(Age of Ultron teaser where the Iron-Man helmet resembles the Ultron head)
They're not above changing details of the comic to fit the films, hence why we don't get a real Donald Blake alter-ego for Thor.
 
This is certainly going to be a costly exit for both sides. Not just financially but in terms of how both are seen about town. There's a reason that Thor 2 and Capt America 2 (which I both enjoyed I have to say) were directed by former TV helmers.

Feige obviously wants to switch to a TV production style chain of command where the producers and writers are ranked 'higher' than the director. Marvel are clearly operating a policy where a 'showrunner' (Feige in this equation) controls the artistic vision of the output (films and TV) and his word/vision is louder than any director they hire. Clearly it's a case of the director having to tow the party line or you’re fucking replaced ASAP.

Marvel is not, and never will be, a place for auteurs on any level. Apparently even Shane Black was more of an 'creative editor' on Iron Man 3 rather than a director controlling all aspects of the production. I imagine the same would have been true of Whedon on The Avengers.

Not so at WB. While Warners have clearly fallen behind in the comic book movies 'cold war' it's clear that they have taken a more auteur driven approach to their DC properties. In short Marvel may have been crushing it of late but that comes at a cost. Marvel will never have directors like Edgar Wright or even Chris Nolan adapting their work because it runs against how they do business.

FeD.nL said:
TThe Marvel Studios movies have never been about the director but about fitting in the continuity. They simply can't afford to start giving directors unlimited amounts of freedom, and thats fine if that is the the strategy that got them here.
Click to expand...

This. 100% this.
 
Meh. I was never excited about Wright directing the movie in the first place. I didn't care for Scott Pilgrim. Found it boring. Not that I thought Wright would do a bad job, I just have more faith in Marvel in general.

I'm still watching the movie regardless.
 
LosDaddie said:
Meh. I was never excited about Wright directing the movie in the first place. I didn't care for Scott Pilgrim. Found it boring. Not that I thought Wright would do a bad job, I just have more faith in Marvel in general.

I'm still watching the movie regardless.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel.
 
Defenestrated Donut said:
Latino-Review claims scoop:
Click to expand...

This kinda sounds unbelievable to me. I get that they'd want Edgar Wright to make the movie fit in with the continuity of the universe, but trying to have him direct a movie based on a script by a couple of bad writers after waiting eight years for him to become available sounds dumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How Kevin Costner Lost Hollywood
2
57
217
Insane Metal replied
Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
278
Men_in_Boxes replied
Why You (Probably) Won't See Iko Uwais in Hollywood Movies Anymore
23
1K
bender replied
Feels Bad, Man
2
56
923
Redneckerz replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Is the La Forge Maneuver still considered the finest piece of stunt work in Hollywood history?
1
342
EviLore replied
Top Bottom