Edgar Wright Leaves "Ant-Man" Film Due to Creative Differences

[Hamdinger]

they should have given Wright what he wanted. the worst that could have happened would be Wright falling behind schedule. if the movie had been scrapped, the blame would have fallen on him. instead, it just looks like Marvel effed up. any way you look at it, they hired the guy. they waited until the last minute to introduce script changes. and they picked a short-list of backup directors who aren't interested. the project was already a hard sell. they didn't have to make it worse, imo.

Blame would have fallen on Wright's part but Marvel/Disney would be pissing away 100 Million Dollar or more of a production to massage Wright's ego for what? So us folks on the internet who like the director can post about it? If the guy can't deliver then he needs to be replaced. It's just a business decision. The same decision that has to be made at any job.

[PLG1962]

I could be wrong as I haven't read previous posts but I'm thinking Wright wanted something light hearted where Marvel wanted a standard by the numbers action flick
I think it's a shame Wright is gone as I think it would've been a little like Scott Pilgrim (a film I like)

[chamber-music]

Feige talks with the Hollywood Reporter

Back in 2006, you announced Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man as your initial trio of movies. But then you moved on to Thor, Captain America and Avengers. Why did Ant-Man get sidelined?

FEIGE That Comic-Con 2006 was less than 10 frickin' years ago, but it feels like 50 years ago. That was the first time we had ever gone as our own studio. That Comic-Con was really about us trying to show people we were serious. But it's not quite accurate to say that Ant-Man has been actively in development for all that time. Edgar [Wright] had done a draft, and then nothing happened for two or three or four years. Then he'd do another draft, and another two to three years would go by. It wasn't until two years ago, we said, "Hey, let's make this movie."

Let's talk about what happened last spring. Kevin, you decided the script wasn't right. But other studios have been in the same situation and decided to move forward anyway.

FEIGE Well, we've done that before, and sometimes that can work, and sometimes it's more difficult. But with Edgar, it was mutual. People said, "You guys have been working together for 10 years; why did you only figure it out a couple of months before you started filming?" But that's really not true. We'd been working on it for about nine months, maybe a year at most. And it became apparent to him and to us that the best thing to do was to move on. But because Edgar has a fan base and Marvel has a fan base, there's good and bad that comes with that high profile. And one of the bads is that internal decisions and shuffles get headlines.

[Rogue Star]

Feige talks with the Hollywood Reporter

Thanks for the quote. It seems Edgar wasn't really that invested in the movie, as I suspected.

[kalorama]

Thanks for the quote. It seems Edgar wasn't really that invested in the movie, as I suspected.

Oh, I'm certain he was invested in the movie. But he was only invested in the movie he wanted to make, as opposed to the one Marvel wanted him to make. That seems to be where the disconnect was. The fact that the process happened in stops and starts over several years isn't really indicative of interest level. That's just how Hollywood often works.

[PretenderNX01]

Back in 2006, you announced Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man as your initial trio of movies. But then you moved on to Thor, Captain America and Avengers. Why did Ant-Man get sidelined?

FEIGE That Comic-Con 2006 was less than 10 frickin' years ago, but it feels like 50 years ago. That was the first time we had ever gone as our own studio. That Comic-Con was really about us trying to show people we were serious. But it's not quite accurate to say that Ant-Man has been actively in development for all that time.

And what doesn't show you are serious more than announcing movies you didn't really intend to make?

But you know, Marvel plans all this out.
When Marvel announces a movie like Captian Marvel it will get made but DC announcing Wonder Woman doesn't mean anything. Oh wait, Captain Marvel got pushed back for more Spider-Man but hey we don't know how BvS will go and Wonder Woman lost it's original director so it must be a mess unlike Ant-Man and Thor 2 because: Marvel.

[simbob4000]

It wasn't in active development for ten years, they just had Edgar Wright working on draft after draft until he gave up on something he had spent years on.

[Luke Cage]

I could care less for Edgar Wright. The guy is no visionary. He's a one trick pony with a cult following, who's unwilling to play within the sandbox like everyone else. Ant-Man isn't his property it's Marvel's, and if you aren't able to work with them like a James Gunn, then the problem is with him not Marvel. Gunn got to make the movie he wanted within the structure of the MCU.

[Joker]

No, the problem is editorial oversight. Sometimes it's best to let someone make something without mandating what that something has to be, because there's a franchise to think about.

That's just homogenizing things, and removing individuality. It's interesting, since that's the opposite of what Marvel Comics are doing these days. Ever since Hawkeye lit up by having an individual, unconnected book. DC are doing it now, too.

[simbob4000]

I could care less for Edgar Wright. The guy is no visionary. He's a one trick pony with a cult following, who's unwilling to play within the sandbox like everyone else. Ant-Man isn't his property it's Marvel's, and if you aren't able to work with them like a James Gunn, then the problem is with him not Marvel. Gunn got to make the movie he wanted within the structure of the MCU.

Yeah, his one trick is making fantastic movies...it's a sad one trick to have. If only other directors were one trick ponies like him. The guy Marvel replaced him with doesn't even have that one trick.

[GhostPirate]

And what doesn't show you are serious more than announcing movies you didn't really intend to make?

But you know, Marvel plans all this out.
When Marvel announces a movie like Captian Marvel it will get made but DC announcing Wonder Woman doesn't mean anything. Oh wait, Captain Marvel got pushed back for more Spider-Man but hey we don't know how BvS will go and Wonder Woman lost it's original director so it must be a mess unlike Ant-Man and Thor 2 because: Marvel.

No, because: common sense.

Marvel pushed back 3 movies (not just Captain Marvel) because the studio was able to get rights to Marvel's undisputed flagship character. In addition to the ability to produce the FIRST MARVEL STUDIOS Spider-man feature film and making him a part of the greater, established MCU, they were also provided the opportunity to provide a clearer direction for Sony to pursue with the franchise from there.

What's WB's excuse again? They've had Wonder Woman for decades, and have given consistent lip service to her part of DC's "trinity". Ok. But her FIRST feature lead will be in 2017 or 2018, and BvS, coming out a full year (or two... or more) earlier, will be Batman's 9th time on the marquee (10th if you include Mask of the Phantasm) and Superman's 7th, in addition to the innumerable animated features and tv shows, of both live action and animated variety, both have inspired over the years. But yet Wonder Woman, 1 live action tv series almost 40 years ago and an animated feature almost 10 years ago... which is, by the way, longer than Marvel Studios has been producing CBMs and longer than Carol Danvers has been operating as Captain Marvel. Almost as long as them combined, as a matter of fact.

But yet Marvel has a history of seeing their projects to the screen, no matter how outrageous the concept may seem initially; while DC has back-burnered Wonder Woman projects more than once over the years, and there is a lot riding on how BvS (and maybe SS to an extent) is received in the meantime. Because: Marvel indeed.

Also, I'm not sure if you're drawing the comparisons you intend... I mean, "unlike Thor 2 and Ant-Man"? Thor 2 in generally considered one of the weaker MCU offerings, and Ant-Man has it's fair share of pre-release detractors as well. Are you saying you think Wonder Woman will suffer similarly because of the change in directors on her film, or that you don't believe Thor 2 and/or Ant-Man are/will be bad films and like the direction WW is taking?

[Ceebiro]

It wasn't in active development for ten years, they just had Edgar Wright working on draft after draft until he gave up on something he had spent years on.

Or more correctly Edgar Wright decided to go off and make 3 other films (one of them another comic adaptation) in the time he could have been producing Ant-Man.

Mind you, when he first got involved with Ant-Man, the Marvel Universe as we currently know it wasn't formed. There was no "Marvel" tone in place as we have currently. There was no idea of what a proper Marvel film is and could be and Marvel had yet to push the idea of "it's all connected". There was no shared universe.

And yes, I'm aware of his reasoning about the technology not being there, but color me skeptical on that one. I've seen what the guy could do on a budget, so I'm not sure why he couldn't make Ant-Man work with a budget that would be roughly three times greater than anything he's ever worked with.

[simbob4000]

Or more correctly Edgar Wright decided to go off and make 3 other films (one of them another comic adaptation) in the time he could have been producing Ant-Man.

Mind you, when he first got involved with Ant-Man, the Marvel Universe as we currently know it wasn't formed. There was no "Marvel" tone in place as we have currently. There was no idea of what a proper Marvel film is and could be and Marvel had yet to push the idea of "it's all connected". There was no shared universe.

And yes, I'm aware of his reasoning about the technology not being there, but color me skeptical on that one. I've seen what the guy could do on a budget, so I'm not sure why he couldn't make Ant-Man work with a budget that would be roughly three times greater than anything he's ever worked with.

No, more correctly would be that Ant-Man was delayed once so he could do The Worlds End with someone before they died. Not sure if that person ended up dying or not.

Marvel was pushing the idea of "it's all connected" from the word go. That was like it's whole thing, and we knew that before Iron Man even came out.

[t hedge coke]

Or more correctly Edgar Wright decided to go off and make 3 other films (one of them another comic adaptation) in the time he could have been producing Ant-Man.

Mind you, when he first got involved with Ant-Man, the Marvel Universe as we currently know it wasn't formed. There was no "Marvel" tone in place as we have currently. There was no idea of what a proper Marvel film is and could be and Marvel had yet to push the idea of "it's all connected". There was no shared universe.

And yes, I'm aware of his reasoning about the technology not being there, but color me skeptical on that one. I've seen what the guy could do on a budget, so I'm not sure why he couldn't make Ant-Man work with a budget that would be roughly three times greater than anything he's ever worked with.

Since when was he given greenlight power? Since when was he the word?

He seemed pretty ready to go whenever, and was doing other things because Ant-Man wasn't moving forward. It wasn't a priority for anyone else, whether or not it was for him.

So... he went and made really good movies elsewhere while, it seems to me, waiting for everyone else to get onboard a little more.

He pushed for Ant-Man, Marvel didn't go seek him out.

[Emma's Midriff]

I can't help but feel like there'd be a lot more hype for this movie if Wright was still on it.