Disney thinks they are too big to fail!

[AJBopp]

Did you hear of the numerous stories of Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard, Jon Favreau , Louis Leterrier, Ava DuVernay, Patty Jenkins , Alan Taylor and Edgar Wright about how Disney ruins things. It is a common knowledge in the world of movies that hardly anyone takes Disney seriously at least in their life-action movies.

None of the movies originally attached to those directors that has actually been made ended up being ruined, though, so you might want to rethink that line of debate.

[jetengine]

None of the movies originally attached to those directors that has actually been made ended up being ruined, though, so you might want to rethink that line of debate.

Infact all the stuff people liked about Ant-man werent in the Edgar Wright version.

[Powerboy]

Did you hear of the numerous stories of Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard, Jon Favreau , Louis Leterrier, Ava DuVernay, Patty Jenkins , Alan Taylor and Edgar Wright about how Disney ruins things. It is a common knowledge in the world of movies that hardly anyone takes Disney seriously at least in their life-action movies.

Do you ever read the stuff you say people said or do you just glance and then rewrite it in your mind to fit your biases?

I already posted the actual quote from Adam Driver that had nothing to do with what you claimed he said. There were just misleading titles by biased people but when you get to what he said, it's nothing of the sort.

Now we have your claim that, apparently, nobody (Patty Jenkins was an example you gave) takes Disney movies and specific ally the MCU as anything but a joke. Hmm, instead of just saying she said something, let's look up and quote what she act u ally said.

“I don’t know…I think that sometimes Marvel goes for more fun and DC goes to make a more serious film, but I think there are shades of gray in all of it. Like I think Doctor Strange is a more serious film, [while] Suicide Squad was particularly un-light. There are all over the place, I think there is maybe slightly more consistency in the tone in the Marvel films, recently, but I don’t think that will always stay the same way. I love them both, I will never stop being grateful to Marvel for wanting me to make their movie. That’s not an obvious choice, I met them and hit it off and had great conversations about it. At the time it seemed like they could go a lot of different ways and they wanted to go the way I wanted to go. Then things shifted and they realized they needed to go another way to fit into their universe so that wasn’t something that I find myself suited for. It was a more peaceful departure, but I’ve always had fond memories of them and I respect what they do.”

[WebLurker]

Already had someone explain what depth is. Didn’t want to do that on this thread. Have you understood the difference between into the spidervese and the Disney films? It relates to Disney and their failure that they passed on the people from that project. Disney is so into the money, Disney can't see when a unique things comes along to develop. (into the spiderverse).

Disney never had the film rights to Spider-Man before the Sony deal and that was only for a select number of MCU projects.

It went over the top after Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron.

I don't understand the sentence.

How much drama is used for Thor Ragnarok?

Well, Valkyrie's backstory was drama, Oden was taken seriously throughout, the dark history of Asgard wasn't for laughs, so, there was some.

The drama expectancy of Ragnarok should be one that is off TDK or X2.

That makes no sense. (You really remind me of another poster; he/she was obsessed with this same idea.)

Anything below that is generically bad, unless this is when you choose not to stack Disney films against another film.

That's not how the Force works.

TDK/X2 Disney will never green-lit those movies. why did they green-lit a movie called Ragnarok?

Remember that Disney also green-lit Winter Soldier and had to sign off on the Pixar stuff.

Did you hear of the numerous stories of Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard, Jon Favreau , Louis Leterrier, Ava DuVernay, Patty Jenkins , Alan Taylor and Edgar Wright about how Disney ruins things. It is a common knowledge in the world of movies that hardly anyone takes Disney seriously at least in their life-action movies.

As others have pointed out, there's little (if any) basis in fact regarding that train of thought.

[JKtheMac]

Infact all the stuff people liked about Ant-man werent in the Edgar Wright version.

Nonsense. The stand out humour scene in Ant-Man, the incongruous narration scene (which was even replicated in Ant Man 2 because it is what the audience expected) was straight out of EWs playbook. The fact he and Cornish still have a share of the screenwriter credits is testament to how much of their work remains in the movie. It is also obvious from the lower quality of Ant-Man 2, where the humour defaults to standard hollywood fare. I am sure some people think a giant ant that plays the drums is hilarious. <face palm>

The split was not really even an argument, it was a choice. Wright’s script was not the way Feige wanted to tell an Ant-Man story and called in other writers for another draft. Probably making it a little more standard popcorn rather than the quirky style Wright is famous for. This kind of thing happens all of the time with scripts, but the difference here was the writer is a writer/director with a unified vision. Wright has no interest in being a ‘director for hire’ so he pulled out.

The fact that Wright has made statements about not watching the movie is pretty standard. The best way to deflect questions about how the movie turned out and to not get dragged into a slanging match is to dissociate with the project and move on. Sure there was probably disappointment and even anger along the way, these are passionate projects. I suspect now that Thor Ragnarok has proven itself as popular, that Feige might have been more open to the idea of a more zany British movie, but back then this would have felt more risky and Hollywood tries to avoid risk as much as possible.

[Midvillian1322]

Nonsense. The stand out humour scene in Ant-Man, the incongruous narration scene (which was even replicated in Ant Man 2 because it is what the audience expected) was straight out of EWs playbook. The fact he and Cornish still have a share of the screenwriter credit is testament to how much of their work remains in the movie. It is also obvious from the lower quality of Ant-Man 2, where the humour defaultsto standard hollywood fare.

Let's not forget who did the rewrites that they did do. Adam McKay is nothing to sneeze at. Antman 2 had a better villian was weaker in some places though. But as far as the reception it got it wasnt some huge drop off it was still pretty well liked.

[JKtheMac]

Let's not forget who did the rewrites that they did do. Adam McKay is nothing to sneeze at. Antman 2 had a better villian was weaker in some places though. But as far as the reception it got it wasnt some huge drop off it was still pretty well liked.

Very different though. To be honest I was always sceptical that EW would be a good fit for Marvel, and wasn’t surprised at all when he left the project. Personally I think it would have been a very different movie but here is what Reed says, explaining why EW and Cornish still have a credit:

"I came on about the same time as Adam McKay and Paul Rudd were beginning to write the script," he says. "I had gone back and read all of Edgar and Joe's scripts, which were terrific, and it was Edgar and Joe's idea to make it a heist film in terms of its structure and its tone. It was also their idea to create a mentor/pupil dynamic between Hank Pym and Scott Lang, just to tee off [Marvel comic it's based on] number 47, To Steal An Ant-man. That was all Edgar and Joe."

People love to imagine what the EW movie would be like, but we will never know. He pulled out far too early. They always say he was working on it for 8 years, but he made 3 movies in those 8 years, so it’s probably more like 3 passes at a script. He wasn’t involved in the production at all.

The overall structure and tone apparently remains, but who knows exactly what the script was like and how Wright would have developed it.

Most importantly for this thread. The fact a writer director didn’t want to work on a movie where the script was being reworked is totally irrelevant to any argument about the output of the MCU. It neither suggests EW’s movie would have been better or worse, just different. EW’s script would have changed too if he had stayed on the project as writer with Cornish. So we have no way of comparing the two projects. Joe Cornish is himself a great comic talent. Their final draft would have been at the least witty and wry.

[Midvillian1322]

Very different though. To be honest I was always sceptical that EW would be a good fit for Marvel, and wasn’t surprised at all when he left the project. Personally I think it would have been a very different movie but here is what Reed says, explaining why EW and Cornish still have a credit:

"I came on about the same time as Adam McKay and Paul Rudd were beginning to write the script," he says. "I had gone back and read all of Edgar and Joe's scripts, which were terrific, and it was Edgar and Joe's idea to make it a heist film in terms of its structure and its tone. It was also their idea to create a mentor/pupil dynamic between Hank Pym and Scott Lang, just to tee off [Marvel comic it's based on] number 47, To Steal An Ant-man. That was all Edgar and Joe."

People love to imagine what the EW movie would be like, but we will never know. He pulled out far too early. They always say he was working on it for 8 years, but he made 3 movies in those 8 years, so it’s probably more like 3 passes at a script. He wasn’t involved in the production at all.

The overall structure and tone apparently remains, but who knows exactly what the script was like and how Wright would have developed it.

Most importantly for this thread. The fact a writer director didn’t want to work on a movie where the script was being reworked is totally irrelevant to any argument about the output of the MCU. It neither suggests EW’s movie would have been better or worse, just different. EW’s script would have changed too if he had stayed on the project as writer with Cornish. So we have no way of comparing the two projects. Joe Cornish is himself a great comic talent. Their final draft would have been at the least witty and wry.

Exactly if Antman had came out bad you could say Disneys studio meddling ruined the movie but the final product was a hit that was liked by critics and audiences. We dont know if EW would have been better or worse. We do know what we got was good. Did we ever get a definitive reason why EW dropped out. I remember the rumor being he didnt wanna include the world building scenes like the one with Falcon(Which was a fun scene and set up Antmans civil war appearance). Cause if that's true it's silly to be upset. I mean I guess maybe since he started the script before the MCU gravy train he had different expectations. But people like James Gun and the Russos have confirmed that Marvel gives them a ton of freedom but says you got to include this this and that. In GOTG he had to work the Stones and Thanos into the story. But he got to make a wacky colorful space comedy, that was basically about abuse and trauma.

[Rincewind]

Nonsense. The stand out humour scene in Ant-Man, the incongruous narration scene (which was even replicated in Ant Man 2 because it is what the audience expected) was straight out of EWs playbook. The fact he and Cornish still have a share of the screenwriter credits is testament to how much of their work remains in the movie. It is also obvious from the lower quality of Ant-Man 2, where the humour defaults to standard hollywood fare. I am sure some people think a giant ant that plays the drums is hilarious. <face palm>

The split was not really even an argument, it was a choice. Wright’s script was not the way Feige wanted to tell an Ant-Man story and called in other writers for another draft. Probably making it a little more standard popcorn rather than the quirky style Wright is famous for. This kind of thing happens all of the time with scripts, but the difference here was the writer is a writer/director with a unified vision. Wright has no interest in being a ‘director for hire’ so he pulled out.

The fact that Wright has made statements about not watching the movie is pretty standard. The best way to deflect questions about how the movie turned out and to not get dragged into a slanging match is to dissociate with the project and move on. Sure there was probably disappointment and even anger along the way, these are passionate projects. I suspect now that Thor Ragnarok has proven itself as popular, that Feige might have been more open to the idea of a more zany British movie, but back then this would have felt more risky and Hollywood tries to avoid risk as much as possible.

The problem is that unless someone directly involved in Antman sits down for an interview and discusses who brought what idea, we'll never really know what each person contributed.

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015...right-version/

For the record, Luis narration was from Peton Reed, Thomas the Tank Engine fight was Edgar Wright.

[Star_Jammer]

Antman running across the barrel of a gun was Wright, too, as that was revealed as test footage when he was announced as director, IIRC.

[JKtheMac]

Exactly if Antman had came out bad you could say Disneys studio meddling ruined the movie but the final product was a hit that was liked by critics and audiences. We dont know if EW would have been better or worse. We do know what we got was good. Did we ever get a definitive reason why EW dropped out. I remember the rumor being he didnt wanna include the world building scenes like the one with Falcon(Which was a fun scene and set up Antmans civil war appearance). Cause if that's true it's silly to be upset. I mean I guess maybe since he started the script before the MCU gravy train he had different expectations. But people like James Gun and the Russos have confirmed that Marvel gives them a ton of freedom but says you got to include this this and that. In GOTG he had to work the Stones and Thanos into the story. But he got to make a wacky colorful space comedy, that was basically about abuse and trauma.

His official reason was he didn’t want to be ‘just’ a director for hire. As far as I can tell he never even read the next script. It was the principle, not the details.

[JKtheMac]

The problem is that unless someone directly involved in Antman sits down for an interview and discusses who brought what idea, we'll never really know what each person contributed.

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015...right-version/

For the record, Luis narration was from Peton Reed, Thomas the Tank Engine fight was Edgar Wright.

I am not talking about the ‘pitch scenes’ I am talking about the way the story is told overall in the first movie. The tone is narrational. Think Guy Ritchie or indeed EW’s own SotD. Being from the UK I am well aware of the Radio Times interview indeed I quoted it above. But we need to be careful with that interview because it talks in specifics not generalisations.

For example they mention in that interview that the stealing of the suit was informed by their consulting, but it doesn’t go into detail as to whether the scene itself was always there and if it was a similar tone without the specific details. In the final cut, that scene is narrational in tone. It has a British heist movie feel. Very casual and cool. How much of that was Wright and Cornish?

The final movie has lots of cine-literate touches. To my ear, even after a couple of extra rewrites I can even still hear Cornish’s unique comedic voice. Partly, because I have always been a huge fan of Adam and Joe.

[Rincewind]

I am not talking about the ‘pitch scenes’ I am talking about the way the story is told overall in the first movie. The tone is narrational. Think Guy Ritchie or indeed EW’s own SotD. Being from the UK I am well aware of the Radio Times interview indeed I quoted it above. But we need to be careful with that interview because it talks in specifics not generalisations.

For example they mention in that interview that the stealing of the suit was informed by their consulting, but it doesn’t go into detail as to whether the scene itself was always there and if it was a similar tone without the specific details. In the final cut, that scene is narrational in tone. It has a British heist movie feel. Very casual and cool. How much of that was Wright and Cornish?

The final movie has lots of cine-literate touches. To my ear, even after a couple of extra rewrites I can even still hear Cornish’s unique comedic voice. Partly, because I have always been a huge fan of Adam and Joe.

Nope, reread what you originally posted. You were not talking about tone. You were talking about specific scenes. And you said they used it in the sequel (the one that Edgar Wright was in no way involved in. The narration scene by Luis was the most well liked scene. And it was added after EW left.

[Totoro Man]

The problem is that unless someone directly involved in Antman sits down for an interview and discusses who brought what idea, we'll never really know what each person contributed.

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015...right-version/

For the record, Luis narration was from Peton Reed, Thomas the Tank Engine fight was Edgar Wright.

that much was obvious the first time I saw the trailer - the Thomas the Tank Engine joke is something that an American director/writer probably wouldn't have even thought of.

which is why I'm skeptical when people declare that all of the things people liked about "Ant Man" happened after Wright left. it's like some people are attempting to eradicate his influence on the film altogether. yes, his influence was more in the shape of broad ideas - and he left very early on. but it's still noticeable.

it's curious, because in the past I've seen people actually make personal attacks against Edgar Wright on this forum in defense of the MCU. it's a bit strange, to be honest. I could see how some people don't like Edgar Wright's style... but some of the past criticisms of Wright here were so savage that they actually moved into the realm of libel and got deleted by moderators.

[Midvillian1322]

that much was obvious the first time I saw the trailer - the Thomas the Tank Engine joke is something that an American director/writer probably wouldn't have even thought of.

which is why I'm skeptical when people declare that all of the things people liked about "Ant Man" happened after Wright left. it's like some people are attempting to eradicate his influence on the film altogether. yes, his influence was more in the shape of broad ideas - and he left very early on. but it's still noticeable.

it's curious, because in the past I've seen people actually make personal attacks against Edgar Wright on this forum in defense of the MCU. it's a bit strange, to be honest. I could see how some people don't like Edgar Wright's style... but some of the past criticisms of Wright here were so savage that they actually moved into the realm of libel and got deleted by moderators.

What are you talking about. I've never seen anyone go hard on Wright, so I'm curious what people might have said. Must have been deleted before I saw it. Baby driver got alot of love on here.