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

[KurtW95]

They're not going to do that. They got a great actor to play Pym, they're not going to turn around and make him play a relatively minor character from the comics who's been dead for years in continuity.

But he's way too old to play Hank, and van Dyne can easily be given a bigger part as Hank's mentor.

[HsssH]

I don't particularly have a horse in this race (don't care about Wright and MCU is hit and miss for me) but while reading news about this development I noticed one interesting thing:

DC comics editors are know to micromanage their books which often ends up with creators leaving due to "creative differences". In essence same thing happened here (and has happened before for Marvel movies). Now the funny thing is when it happens on DC's side we hear bloody murder complaints for months, but in this case there are lots of "its Marvel's property, they can do what they want" posts. I'm not saying that one or another is wrong, just find it interesting how two companies are treated in very similar situations.

[Austin316]

I don't particularly have a horse in this race (don't care about Wright and MCU is hit and miss for me) but while reading news about this development I noticed one interesting thing:

DC comics editors are know to micromanage their books which often ends up with creators leaving due to "creative differences". In essence same thing happened here (and has happened before for Marvel movies). Now the funny thing is when it happens on DC's side we hear bloody murder complaints for months, but in this case there are lots of "its Marvel's property, they can do what they want" posts. I'm not saying that one or another is wrong, just find it interesting how two companies are treated in very similar situations.

Well the difference there is that with DC we've got first hand accounts of how editorial treats its writers and artists while at least this situation is all speculation. As I said a few pages ago, people shouldn't get caught up on "creative differences", that's a generic phrase used so as not to bring negativity or blame to the table. For all we know Edgar could have had a mental break down, because he's a director known to wear his heart on his sleeve, and told people to go **** themselves, but it's not like either would come out and say that, no, they'd say it was creative differences. Also, there are just as many posts blaming Marvel as there are saying it's Marvel's right.

[DebkoX]

Both agreed to depart, it simply wasn't working. Whilst Wright has been on this for a very long time, it just didn't work out so both agreed to split. It's not nice, seeing as this was his film but that's the nature of the industry.

Now, replacements. I'm not sure who can be picked, Jon Favreau maybe? I'd take Sam raimi also.

[Carabas]

I don't particularly have a horse in this race (don't care about Wright and MCU is hit and miss for me) but while reading news about this development I noticed one interesting thing:

DC comics editors are know to micromanage their books which often ends up with creators leaving due to "creative differences". In essence same thing happened here (and has happened before for Marvel movies). Now the funny thing is when it happens on DC's side we hear bloody murder complaints for months, but in this case there are lots of "its Marvel's property, they can do what they want" posts. I'm not saying that one or another is wrong, just find it interesting how two companies are treated in very similar situations.

The difference is that it happens like several times per month at DC. It's not even remotely as common at Marvel.

[Eamo71]

No one can replace Downey Jr as Iron Man for me now. Just can't. Even when i read the character in Comics, i now picture Downey. Sure anyone technically can be replaced, but for me that's always going to be my Iron Man.

hey Downey's agent get off the board you huckster!! ;-)

[Zeitgeist]

Like other speculation, this could be false. One commenter on Reddit posted the following: "The word from people on the crew is Wright got booted for being REALLY behind schedule and being ineffective at righting the ship and getting it back on track. Production has been bleeding money for a month and Marvel got fed up with him and they lost their confidence in his ability to manage a production of this size."

Hmm, interesting.

Overall though, it seems people are a bit too quick blame Marvel here, or even Disney (because apparently Disney ruins everything - except The Winter Soldier).
It could be any number of things. It's a waste of time to point fingers at one side or the other at this stage. Better that they cut their losses then tried to force a square peg in a round hole either way.

[kalorama]

Also, there are just as many posts blaming Marvel as there are saying it's Marvel's right.

I don't think anyone is actually saying Marvel is "right" per se; it's more a case of people saying that Marvel/Disney isn't automatically wrong, simply because they're a big faceless corporation and Wright is a scruffy indie director. The simple reality is that we don't know enough about what really happened to actually have any clue who--if anyone--is right or wrong here.

But he's way too old to play Hank, and van Dyne can easily be given a bigger part as Hank's mentor.

He's not way too old to play n old Hank.

[DebkoX]

Here comes the scare-mongering.

[regnak]

Like other speculation, this could be false. One commenter on Reddit posted the following: "The word from people on the crew is Wright got booted for being REALLY behind schedule and being ineffective at righting the ship and getting it back on track. Production has been bleeding money for a month and Marvel got fed up with him and they lost their confidence in his ability to manage a production of this size."

That sounds quite logical.

[DebkoX]

I think that is possible.

[Austin316]

I don't think anyone is actually saying Marvel is "right" per se; it's more a case of people saying that Marvel/Disney isn't automatically wrong, simply because they're a big faceless corporation and Wright is a scruffy indie director. The simple reality is that we don't know enough about what really happened to actually have any clue who--if anyone--is right or wrong here.

Sorry, I didn't mean people were saying Marvel ARE right, but that it is THEIR right, I do feel there is a distinction there. Rather than praising Marvel's decision, there are people going "may not like it but if it wasn't working it's Marvel's right to change it."

[Gordon]

Just a friendly reminder to keep the language at a PG-13 level. Less cussin'. and more content and all that.

~~Gordon

Language, people, language. We don''t mind a bit of swearing when it's not directed at a poster or creator, and isn't being used to heat up an argument, but keep it dialed back. Posters are being sent off the ice for profanity and I would prefer not to add to their number.

~~Gordon

[Brian from Canada]

I'm not saying that one or another is wrong, just find it interesting how two companies are treated in very similar situations.

The difference is that DC's editorial conflicts have become inflated since the reboot, as if to prove the New 52 initiative was invalid.
(Proof: compare the reaction of treatment between Jim Shooter on Legion Of Super-Heroes to Rob Leifeld on Hawkman or George Perez on Superman.)
Marvel is soft balled here on CBR by its reporters, while almost every criticism has been directed at DC — valid or not.

What's very funny is how Warner's cinematic differences are treated differently from Marvel's.
For a long while, WB got the benefit of the doubt once the film actually went into production (especially given the starting moves).
Now, with Man Of Steel 2, the studio's being ridiculed for wanting more time to make a better movie — something Paramount did with both Star Trek: Into Darkness and G.I. Joe: Retaliation with far less complaint.
(In the case of Star Trek, it's because they wanted a fuller script, and in the case of G.I. Joe they wanted better effects and more Duke.)

[Brian from Canada]

Kenneth Branagh, who was huuuge in the 90s as a director/actor, also did Thor. I mention it and general audiences are surprised to hear it, even though he's off the Marvel projects now.

Branagh was hired because of his Shakespearean pedigree: Thor was promoted with mention of its Shakespearen overtones when it comes to the family dynamic.
However, Branagh is also an actor, and there was no way his schedule could keep up with Marvel's demands for a franchise, which is why it was never announced he was signed for a sequel.
Branagh has appeared in My Week With Marilyn and two runs of Wallander — not to mention the Olympics, and a run of "that Scottish play" on stage — before acting/directing Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, all of which could barely be done if he had to get everything lined up for the Thor sequel.

Also, some may recognise Alan Taylor, director or Thor 2, as the director on TV Shows like SatC and GoT.

Taylor was hired specifically for his work on Game Of Thrones — it's mentioned multiple times in the announcement.
Game Of Thrones gives him pedigree, given that they are both medieval-themed.

The same goes for Joe Johnston, who's previous work focus on glories of the past (The Rocketeer, October Sky) and Joss Whedon (who writes comic books and is a hero to geeks everywhere).
Shane Black had already worked with Robert Downey Jr. (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and had a history of writing action stories (Lethal Weapon 3, Lethal Weapon 4, Last Action Hero).

This explains why Edgar Wright was considered for Ant-Man: quirky character, director known to work with quirky heroes.

Outside of maybe hiring Jon Favreau to direct Iron Man, nothing Marvel Studios has done hasn't been thought of with connection to what those people have done in the past.
Even the stars aren't chosen at random, so it's a mistake to think that these are experiments in the full sense of the word.