re: Ant-Man Director: Peyton Reed (Darren Cross will be the villian)

quote:

---

There is no reality in which the switch from Wright to Reed is seen as a good thing.

---

What if Wright wanted to take the character in a completely different direction? What if we didn't want to stick to the core o Ant-man? What if he made it too absurd, too "British?" What if his version just wasn't going to gel with the Avengers?

Wright is a fine film maker that seemed like a good choice. But there are PLENTY of scenarios where maybe Wright wasn't as good a choice as we thought.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either. At least, we have 0 evidence one way or the other. Is Wright more accomplished than Reed? Sure. But we don't have any information about what this all means, certainly not enough to paint with broad strokes.

quote:

---

This isn't the end of Marvel Studios, but it is by far their biggest set-back ever.

---

Fair enough. But it's a small set back and as important as Ant-Man is in the comics, I just don't think that level will translate to film. They've already phased out his important in creating Ultron.

Would be awesome if DC gave Wright creative control over a franchise and he Nolan'd it.

We are really scraping the bottom of the Super Hero barrel.

Ant-Man is actually pretty important character in the Avengers universe. Pretty interesting too.

quote:

---

Scott Pilgrim VS The World

He didn't create it. It's based on a comic series.
The cast couldn't have been more different than his other movies.
Not about Britain. Not based in Britain.

---

Scott Pilgrim is your defense? if anything it's just proof that so far, Wright isn't batting 1.000 outside of that very small subset of films per the three points. This isn't to debate Edgar Wright, fine film maker that he is, it's about saying

"MARVEL IS DONE!"

"IT'S OVER!"

I just find that a little beyond ridiculous.

quote:

---

Ant-Man is actually pretty important character in the Avengers universe. Pretty interesting too.

---

Hank Pym is an important character yes, remember they aren't using him as "The Ant-Man." Granted that's quite sad because Pym is awesome. Because of that and the Ultron change, I doubt that translates well to the MCU, that's all.


I think it also depends on which way they take it.

So Phase 1 and Phase 2 focused on Hulk, IM, Thor, and Cap...all had solo movies to support 2 bigger team films. Narratives crossed movies, etc. Without SHIELD as a connection does that happen in Phase 3?

If Strange and Ant-Man are the first solo films, do they become primary characters of Phase 3...or are we still going to find ways to make this about Cap, IM and Thor...?

I think that's where my reaction comes from. I just don't see Ant-Man being primary (as much as he is in the comics). So this is kind of like GotG...if that ends up terrible. I mean, Eh, Oh well. Or if they did a solo Black Widow movie that stunk. Would it really have derailed the universe all that much?

quote:

---

The average movie fan doesn't even know who Ant-Man is. Even if it's bad, Marvel will not be affected by it. If it's good, it's just a bonus, IMO.

---

Which was clearly their approach with GotG. It was an extremely smart move to make:
It let them go into Marvel's Galactic Universe
It's a property no one is familiar with
It has a completely different tone
It brings in some ridiculous elements like a talking raccoon.

If it works, Marvel looks creative, smart, etc. If it stinks...oh well. The main universe is unaffected and we'll never hear from Groot again on the screen.

quote:

---

He said that it was the beginning of their decline.

---

Yeah and that's still ridiculous. Decline of what? He's one of those that say most of Marvel's movies aren't that good to begin with.

quote:

---

Which is just as ridiculous as insinuating that this is a good thing because Ant-Man might have been Wright's first bad movie.

---

Did anyone say this was a good thing? It CAN be a good thing. It CAN be a great thing. It CAN also be the worst thing Marvel has done yet, yes.

quote:

---

They're going with a director who is a straight rom-com/sit-com director.

---

And the Russo brothers had only directed a strange TV sitcom and some other smaller projects...?

Granted, you don't often strike gold twice, but still.

quote:

---

Wright is the master of the visually interesting and appealing feature with experience in directing with special effects.

---

Woah, slow down. He's good, but Master he is not yet.

quote:

---

But in this case we are going to get a lesser product.

---

I didn't know you had seen the final film. Damn, must have some good connections.

Hook us up?

quote:

---

And the pool of great directors from which they can pull from has been greatly diminished.

---

Uh what? You mean there are no more directors out there anywhere? Like once we lose the youngest of our feature film directors... what are we going to do!??!? All the directors are gone!!!!

It's the end of movies as we know it.



We didn't listen!

quote:

---

I love Scott Pilgrim vs the World but he strayed from the source material quite a bit sometimes and I think he might have wanted to stray too far with Ant-Man and Marvel wasn't having it.

---

And that can be ok in a singular movie, but in the process of building a universe...eh.

I always wonder how these.. "creative differences," discussions work. I mean, was there no compromise that could exist? What plot point or change can be so drastic for someone to just leave. The script is Wright's, and Marvel knew that...they must have read it before.

Just odd all around.

quote:

---

Uh what? You mean there are no more directors out there anywhere? Like once we lose the youngest of our feature film directors... what are we going to do!??!? All the directors are gone!!!!

---

Once again you ignore what has been said and reply by being an a-hole.