Ant-Man Loses Edgar Wright

[RyCy04]

http://time.com/112453/edgar-wright-marvel-ant-man/

This bums me out. The guy has been involved with this this movie since 2006. I am a big fan of the Cornetto trilogy and Scott Pilgrim. That really sucks that something Wright has been passionate about for nearly a decade is all for naught.

Rumors are that Marvel was completely behind Wright but Disney wanted ****** changes. It makes me think that we are going to start to see Marvel movies start heading south if Disney is tinkering with the formula. Same thing possible for Star Wars?

 

[Mr Janny]

He's a super talented filmmaker. I really like his camera work. Example:

 

[bos]

Im not worried about Disney/Marvel. Its a bummer hes out, but I dont think Disney is going to tank one of its hottest products right now.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Maybe now Hollywood can lose Ant-Man because we don't need another fringe superhero franchise. The market is more than saturated the way it is now. I mean no offense to any fans of the franchise, I'm just a little tired of every third movie ad I see being comic book related.

 

[Mr Janny]

Maybe now Hollywood can lose Ant-Man because we don't need another fringe superhero franchise. The market is more than saturated the way it is now. I mean no offense to any fans of the franchise, I'm just a little tired of every third movie ad I see being comic book related.

absolutely agree. The superhero thing is so strange, to me. Yes, there are a few good films in the genre, but my god, does Hollywood churn out a lot of crappy ones.

 

[ripvdub]

Maybe now Hollywood can lose Ant-Man because we don't need another fringe superhero franchise. The market is more than saturated the way it is now. I mean no offense to any fans of the franchise, I'm just a little tired of every third movie ad I see being comic book related.

The reason they are soooo annoying is because they are always the same Xmen, Spider-Man, iron man movies. At least they are trying new characters.

 

[bos]

An Ant-Man series might be more fringe, but the tie in to Avengers is their ultimate goal. Although the Ultron/Hank Pim relation isnt happening unfortunately. Bad timing.

 

[megamanxzero35]

I've heard he was completely behind schedule. I've heard he was too tied to his ****** from 2006 and Marvel's MCU has changed a bunch since then and he wouldn't allow changes. At any rate, its a bummer but I love Marvel's MCU movies so my excitement hasn't died down any.

 

[roundball]

The reason they are soooo annoying is because they are always the same Xmen, Spider-Man, iron man movies. At least they are trying new characters.

That doesn't really change the premise, though. A superhero is a superhero whether it's an ant or a wolverine or a spider or whatever. It's all the same crap, only the costumes are different.

They do beat the franchises to death with sequels, though, but that's becoming true for a lot of movies. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a majority of movies from the past few years are either sequels or remakes.

 

[MNCyGuy]

absolutely agree. The superhero thing is so strange, to me. Yes, there are a few good films in the genre, but my god, does Hollywood churn out a lot of crappy ones.

And this is different than the 80's/90's muscle-bound action star movies or Westerns that came before? I suppose you could say the tie-in to existing character properties, but that's about the only difference between the superhero genre and any other dominant genre of big dumb action movies that came before it. It's not like removing superheroes would clear up the path for a bunch of smart new movies to hit your local multi-plex; that hole would just get filled in with more Fast and Furious or Godzilla type movies.

And really, it is not the fringe movies that are burning out the genre, it's the cash-cow big-name characters that studios can't let go or give a rest. If Ant-man comes out and the reviews suck, it will just quietly die and go away. Maybe you'll get a couple think pieces with titles like "Are Super-heroes Done at the Box Office?". It's the endless reboots, re-starts and stretching out of Batman, Superman, Spider-man, and X-men that really wear thin.

 

[Bret44]

That doesn't really change the premise, though. A superhero is a superhero whether it's an ant or a wolverine or a spider or whatever. It's all the same crap, only the costumes are different.

They do beat the franchises to death with sequels, though, but that's becoming true for a lot of movies. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a majority of movies from the past few years are either sequels or remakes.

You are telling me you aren't beating down the theater doors to watch Fast and Furious 7?

 

[PabloDiablo]

And this is different than the 80's/90's muscle-bound action star movies or Westerns that came before? I suppose you could say the tie-in to existing character properties, but that's about the only difference between the superhero genre and any other dominant genre of big dumb action movies that came before it. It's not like removing superheroes would clear up the path for a bunch of smart new movies to hit your local multi-plex; that hole would just get filled in with more Fast and Furious or Godzilla type movies.

And really, it is not the fringe movies that are burning out the genre, it's the cash-cow big-name characters that studios can't let go or give a rest. If Ant-man comes out and the reviews suck, it will just quietly die and go away. Maybe you'll get a couple think pieces with titles like "Are Super-heroes Done at the Box Office?". It's the endless reboots, re-starts and stretching out of Batman, Superman, Spider-man, and X-men that really wear thin.

Like this:
http://grantland.com/features/comic-book-movies-marvel-x-men-batman-dc-comics/

 

[MNCyGuy]

Like this:
http://grantland.com/features/comic-book-movies-marvel-x-men-batman-dc-comics/

Yea, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking of.