Wrights & Wrongs: Caught in the Middle of Marvel's Ant-Man Backlash
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
On your point of people putting franchises/companies on pedestals, I don't think the backlash against Pixar was the idea of a Cars movie; it was that the final products were so underwhelming. But, that's just my opinion.
Any director working on a Marvel project at this point should know ahead of time what they are signing up for. Marvel is thinking about the big picture and there are lots of moving pieces in order for that picture to work. Not knowing the specifics it's impossible to know who fired the first shot in this departure. But to me it sounds like someone that came over to play with Marvel's toys and when they wouldn't let him do everything he wanted, he took his ball and went home.
It's a multi-billion dollar empire Marvel has going right now. Yes they need to be open to new artistic expression and fresh ideas, but they also need to know when to say, "No"
Who knows, best of luck to both parties, may Ant-man be great and Wright's next project be fantastic as well.
It's a multi-billion dollar empire Marvel has going right now. Yes they need to be open to new artistic expression and fresh ideas, but they also need to know when to say, "No"
Who knows, best of luck to both parties, may Ant-man be great and Wright's next project be fantastic as well.
I am not sure I understood you Bob on that last point about planning ahead being a bad thing. To me the exact opposite seems to be the case. Marvel isn't creating 10 different movies here. They are creating 10 movies in episodic format. I really disagree that saying "episode 5 must have these elements in order work with episode 8" will lead to a less interesting final product. It seems to me that in order to create a worthwhile continuity at all you have to have a clear plan or it is just going to collapse under it's own weight.
It was easy to do Avengers 1 because all you needed to do was have a roster of heroes come together and punch things. As fun as Avengers was I see it as weaker than many of the solo outings. It is shallow, all action and very little engaging or interesting story. There are a few great character moments, but that is it. That trick only works once, this time people are going to want something better. This time around there needs to be an actual worthwhile story, and that takes effective planning. Haphazardly throwing together another random group of heroes would end poorly.
It was easy to do Avengers 1 because all you needed to do was have a roster of heroes come together and punch things. As fun as Avengers was I see it as weaker than many of the solo outings. It is shallow, all action and very little engaging or interesting story. There are a few great character moments, but that is it. That trick only works once, this time people are going to want something better. This time around there needs to be an actual worthwhile story, and that takes effective planning. Haphazardly throwing together another random group of heroes would end poorly.
I am not worried about the impact on the MCU. My concern is for the Ant-Man film specifically. The two other films that I am aware of having similar studio involvement conflict were Iron Man 2 and Thor: the Dark World.
Both of those films, while still having some entertainment value, were the weakest entrants into this collective universe since the experiment began. And it would be a shame for the origin of a character to suffer that kind of disappointment.
Edit: That said, I think Edgar Wright is a bit overrated. A large part of popularity of his films was derived from the copious number of pop culture references included in each one. Pull out the "Where's Waldo" aspect of genre nods and the stories just aren't that solid.
Both of those films, while still having some entertainment value, were the weakest entrants into this collective universe since the experiment began. And it would be a shame for the origin of a character to suffer that kind of disappointment.
Edit: That said, I think Edgar Wright is a bit overrated. A large part of popularity of his films was derived from the copious number of pop culture references included in each one. Pull out the "Where's Waldo" aspect of genre nods and the stories just aren't that solid.
Wait, friggin Moviebob got hit by the Blipocalypse? Are you kidding me?Kumagawa Misogi said:Oh just went to you blog
MovieBob has been sacked by the Walt Disney corporation owner of Blip TV.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ahem. Still I'm sure you'll have no problem finding alternate methods of getting Game-Overthinker out there.
The saddest thing I've been taking from this and what concerns me more than just "is AM going to be any good" is that this was his baby long before MCU really got rolling. It was his bizarre vision to bring an unconventional hero to life and he stewed on it for years. Now he's been muscled out of it. More than just simply "corporate roll-over," this guy is being told that his dream is no longer under his control. That's harsh.
Also, if this was going to increase his clout in any significant way, then by that logic Jon Farveau's "Chef" should be a mega-smash based solely on the fact that he anchored the first two Iron Man films - helping elevate a b-list superhero to superstardom and setting the framework to kickstart MCU apparently counts for nothing.
Also, if this was going to increase his clout in any significant way, then by that logic Jon Farveau's "Chef" should be a mega-smash based solely on the fact that he anchored the first two Iron Man films - helping elevate a b-list superhero to superstardom and setting the framework to kickstart MCU apparently counts for nothing.
at the end of the day though, making it so Wright walked was a mistake. In all honesty the Marvel Cinematic Universe is probably a mistake; these films have been getting more and more homogenized by the second with pretty much zero creative identity due to having to adhere to the Universe. Say what you will about the X-Men, Batman, Superman movies but they clearly have their own identity and flair. The MCU movies do NOT. What I hope is that Wright goes to Fox and asks to direct Deadpool. That would be amazing.
Yeah, I'm with Tumedus on this one; the 2 worst Marvel movies (IM2 and Dark World) had the studio meddling with the director. And within the shortlist of new possible directors is Rawson Thurber, of We're the Millers fame, I shit you not.
I don't like the idea of movies serving the continuity, instead of the other way around.
And Marvel is certainly losing a lot by letting Edgar Wright go. He's one of the best film-makers today.
<youtube=3FOzD4Sfgag>
I don't like the idea of movies serving the continuity, instead of the other way around.
And Marvel is certainly losing a lot by letting Edgar Wright go. He's one of the best film-makers today.
<youtube=3FOzD4Sfgag>
See as a fan, I disagree on this being a "fear" and honestly its my "expectation" and even desire that, in a continuity-bound presentation of a story I care about, some direction of that continuity be maintained.MovieBob said:
In comics we have seen that some of the most bizarre and awful storylines exist and were created with NO regard to the universal whole.
Where DC is concerned, what Bob has described is not so clearly descriptive of what they've done in this. Man of Steel was never written with the intent of building toward a Justice League story, in the same way the 3 recent Batman films were never made toward that end. Forcing Man of Steel into that after the fact was a product of corporate marketing interference (which we ALL understand was reactionary to the success of the Avengers,) NOT creative oversight such as that Marvel has shown in this and most every instance. That is the inherent difference. The intent of "cashing in on a franchise model" vs "creative direction for the sake of story cohesion and believability."
IF Edgar Wright is grinding his heels on a specific vision of the film that would sacrifice the continuity built into place, then I'm ok that he has left the project. That, to me, shows a lack of creativity to work with the group as a whole to build something greater than just his vision. I'm not entirely convinced it's that extreme, but we don't know the line beyond which Wright was unwilling to be flexible, so we can't say one way or the other.
I was never going to see Ant Man because of Edgar Wright anyway. I was going to see Ant Man because I want to see his role in this universe and how his story impacts the greater story. And I want to see how much is drawn from the comics and made authentic and believable. (But I'll be honest, Wright's sizzle reel of Ant Man in combat was an exciting tease, so credit due on that!)
I still have not paid any attention to who wrote/directed Winter Solder and I loved it. (Not to say directors don't ever influence my interest, because I'm a huge fan of Gunn and think he's prefect for what he's been brought in to do on GotG. I just don't adhere to the idea that he's the "only" one who could do it any more than I think Wright is the "only" one suited for Ant Man.)
If Feige (and by proxy Whedon where he advises) didn't already have tremendous credibility in the oversight of that continuity as it stands, that would be one thing. But he does (they do.) So I'll trust the decision.
Maybe what Wright would have done would've been great and appealed to specific fans of his, so I understand the disappointment that we'll never know now.
But I can't look at this as unreasonable or even bad in the grander scale of these things.
(Remember, Marvel is the company willing and excited to take chances on things like Ant Man, Rocket Raccoon, etc... while representatives of DC are busy making fun of fans for knowing who Martian Manhunter is.)
It's sad for Edgar Wright's 10 year or so gestation of his Ant-man project, but I'm not too shaken up about the studio meddling aspect. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm also not completely onboard with letting "auteurs" do their unrestricted thing. Take Charlie Kaufmann: as a screenwriter working different directors you get great movies in Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (I didn't put Adaptation here because I got bored with it, it's nowhere near as good as the other two, and I still don't understand the Nick Cage worship). Then, when he gets to almost free reign by being both screenwriter AND director you get Synedoche New York, which is a fine and weird movie but could have usedsome outside input to make it more coherent and less overwhelming. The famous example is George Lucas, but let's not go into that.
Personally, I don't see any loss with Edgar Wright. He's a good film maker but near Burtonesque overvalue. The more I think about it, the less I like Scott Pilgrim, for example. Also, I kind of trust Marvel's odd choices by this point. They've had casting, scripting and directing choices that seemed totally wild and they payed off. Whoever they bring in to replace Wright will probably do a good job.
Personally, I don't see any loss with Edgar Wright. He's a good film maker but near Burtonesque overvalue. The more I think about it, the less I like Scott Pilgrim, for example. Also, I kind of trust Marvel's odd choices by this point. They've had casting, scripting and directing choices that seemed totally wild and they payed off. Whoever they bring in to replace Wright will probably do a good job.
Debatable. He certainly has his own unique flare, but even being as loved by his fans his films don't appeal to the general audience. I presonally like his slap stick comedy, but they don't sell tickets. Scott Pilgram was his highest grossing film of late, and that only made 31m Domestic. His latest only made 26m. For being one of the "best" he certainly doesn't rank up there with Speilberg.RA92 said:
As it stands Write may just be like Jim Carrey. Good, but only if you're in the mood for slap stick. When he starts to do stuff with more depth and breadth like the actual best directors then I might consider your pov. Until then he's just a slap stick director that's made a few cult films that have a rabid fan base.
I think the confusion might be because it is about a month until principal photography begins. They haven't even started with the physical making of the movie yet, so changing the director is not that difficult at this stage.\step1999 said:
OT:
For a guy who loves to talk about how [HEADING=3]COMICS ARE WEIRD[/HEADING] Bob is putting a lot of stock in lightning striking twice with the more slapdash approach. I'm sure there was behind-the-scenes meddling to keep the various properties that led too Avengers in line; we're just getting a peek now that the decision was made farther down the road and in a more public manner. Letting people do their own thing in a variety of comic series/movies/etc, then trying to wrangle everything together at a later date, is the leading cause of retcons. For all it's faults, Ultimates is still my favourite Marvel line precisely because they keep the various authors in check with a vigorous production staff that makes sure one "bold move" doesn't wreck the game for everyone.
I just realised something: Disney is playing the DM for the campaign of the Marvel Universe, guiding a bunch of enthusiastic but unruly players away from setting up a salt trading empire and towards the actual plot.
"one of fandom's favored Precious Snowflakes while Edgar wright most definitely is."
Can't say that the name rings any bells at all... is this another American thing?
Like that comedian guy from Avengers you keep gushing about?
Can't say that the name rings any bells at all... is this another American thing?
Like that comedian guy from Avengers you keep gushing about?