Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Kevin Feige Explains Why 'Ant-Man' Was "Not Working" With Edgar Wright, Says Movie Now "In The Best Shape It's Ever Been"

News
by Kevin Jagernauth
July 18, 2014 9:25 AM
11 Comments
  • |
Ant-Man, Edgar Wright

It would seem that as Kevin Feige continues on the promotional run for "Guardians Of The Galaxy," it has also turned into the "Ant-Man" apology and don't-worry-it's-gonna-be-good-tour as well. Earlier this week, Feige stood up for the new choice of director Peyton Reed, and said the upcoming movie will be the "best version" possible. It's a sentiment he repeats for The Guardian, while also expanding on Edgar Wright's departure and essentially putting forth that the filmmaker wanted more of his personal imprint on the project, which goes against the general vibe of Marvel productions.

"We sat round a table and we realised it was not working. A part of me wishes we could have figured that out in the eight years we were working on it. But better for us and for Edgar that we figure it out then, and not move it through production," Feige explained, adding: "The Marvel movies are very collaborative, and I think they are more collaborative than what he had been used to. And I totally respect that."

The Marvel honcho confirms it truly was "creative differences" that forced Wright off the movie, but Feige wants people to know that what went down had nothing to do with the vision of the movie being too adventurous for the studio. "[But] the notion that Marvel was scared, the vision was too good, too far out for Marvel is not true," he said. "And I don't want to talk too much about that because I think our movies speak to that. Go look at 'Iron Man 3;' go look at 'The Winter Soldier;' go see 'Guardians of the Galaxy' later this month. It would have to be really out there to be too out there for us."

And it's a valid point by Feige, but it only makes the specific reasons for Wright's exit all the more curious. More to come we're sure... "Ant-Man" arrives on July 17, 2015.

News
  • |

More: Ant-Man, Kevin Feige, Marvel

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

11 Comments

  • Miles Pieri | July 22, 2014 4:27 PMReply

    When Wright started work on this film, the Marvel Cinematic Universe was little more than a vague sketch. Over time, with the films increasingly becoming interlinked, it's pretty obvious that the studio's vision for Ant-Man would change, to accommodate the other parts of the MCU. Wright and Joe Cornish may well have wanted to stick with their original plan, and understandably so. If that's the case, it was probably inevitable that things would end up this way.
    Look on the bright side. Now we get an Ant-Man movie (which will probably include a little bit of that Wright/Cornish style, at that) AND a new Edgar Wright film.

  • James M. | July 18, 2014 3:55 PMReply

    Yet again, Feige fails to actually explain why they dropped Edgar Wright. Feige's song-and-dance routine isn't fooling anyone: they were scared of Wright's vision, but don't have the balls to say so. Sad.

  • Cassie Lang | July 18, 2014 2:38 PMReply

    Bulls---!

  • Ugh | July 18, 2014 11:50 AMReply

    Marvel probably wanted Edgar Wright to blandly shoot the film without character so it looks like the next episode in a long running TV series. It still just reads as "Wright wanted to do something original. We at Marvel like originality...as long as all those original ideas are gone by the 30 minute marker so we can go to making the same movie we've done 10 times now"

  • mo | July 18, 2014 2:50 PM

    Totally agree.
    There's a huge difference between "too far out" in terms of the story and "too far out" in terms of how to shoot/edit a movie. Wright clearly wanted to actually direct the movie instead of ticking off the Marvel TV show shot list.

  • Fong | July 18, 2014 12:06 PM

    Can't wait until the Lucas bashers realize the same thing once the new "Star Wars" film get four or five movies deep.

  • Brian Marino | July 18, 2014 9:59 AMReply

    This still sounds a heck of a lot different than their earlier statements of how badly they wanted "Wright's vision" and how they were changing things to "fit his vision" and how Ant-Man was only happening because Wright petitioned for it so hard and wanted his story made. Still feels pointless to me to be making it without Wright.

    He basically worked his butt off to get it to a production stage then suddenly Marvel was interested in it enough to want it to be their stupid product. I love the Marvel movies but this was atrocious behavior and proves right everyone who says their movies are boring for their house style.

    At least we'll get a bit of Wright in the action scenes because he pre-vized them.

  • Emperor Zerg Rush | July 18, 2014 3:27 PM

    Well said. Now suddenly it's "Eight years in planning" gone to pot because Wright wouldn't play ball to their specifications. Eight years ago Marvel Studios was busy sticking their heads in the sand and their thumbs up their asses hoping that then in the works Iron Man would help propel them to the place they needed to be for any of the other films to be made at all. Now that they've suckled on that teat of success and adoration, anyone daring to remain an auteur is likely viewed as someone looking to throw a wrench in their cash machine.

  • Jonathan | July 18, 2014 9:51 AMReply

    Doesn't seem too curious. Wright has a very potent and powerful mise-en-scene and directorial style, and Marvel wants to make movies that have a stylistic through-line where they can click in and click out directors as needed without disrupting the style of their movies. I'm sick of comic book movies and think most of what they do is bland and mediocre, but, from a business standpoint, it makes total sense. Wright's a sharp guy. I doubt he even blames them much for that. (Although, similar to what Feige said, I bet he's pissed it took them this long to figure that out.)

  • buddy | July 18, 2014 4:21 PM

    James, 'mise-en-scene' is neither the same as 'directorial style' nor a vague term. It means simply and exactly the physical elements that make up the composition of a scene. I think you may be equating 'pretentious' with 'I don't understand'.

  • James M. | July 18, 2014 3:57 PM

    Jonathan, your use of "mise-en-scene" and "directorial style" is redundant. Mise-en-scene is not only a pretentious term, but a vague one, and should be dropped from every film lover's vocabulary.

Email Updates