‘Ant-Man’: Kevin Feige Talks Edgar Wright’s Departure

Published 4 months ago by

Ant Man Art Marvel Comics Helmet Ant Man: Kevin Feige Talks Edgar Wrights Departure

In one of this year’s biggest and most shocking celebrity breakups (sorry, Olivia Munn and Joel Kinnaman, you’ve been upstaged), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World director Edgar Wright departed Marvel Studios’ Ant-Man after eight years in development. The split left many fans who had been eagerly awaiting the movie understandably confused, since Wright’s talent for mixing action with humor seemed like a perfect fit for the Marvel family.

Ant-Man is now back in track with Peyton Reed (Yes Man) signed on as the new director, but in the absence of precise details regarding Wright’s departure there has been a flurry of speculation as to what went wrong, particularly in light of the fact that Wright isn’t the first director to depart from a Marvel project. Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn has insisted that neither party is right or wrong and that the reality of the situation was that “not everyone belongs in a relationship together. It doesn’t mean they’re not wonderful people.” That hasn’t stopped fans from theorizing, however, that Marvel was too rigid and controlling within the relationship and ended up driving Wright away.

In a recent discussion about what Reed will bring to the table in the revamped version of Ant-Man, Marvel president Kevin Feige made reference to the public perception of Marvel as an “evil studio” that wanted to water down Wright’s creative vision. The Guardian reports that Feige touched upon the subject again at a recent screening of footage from Guardians of the Galaxy, and insisted that the breakup really was for the best.

“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.

“We said let’s do this together and put out a statement. What do we say? ‘Creative differences’. I said: ‘That’s what they always say and no-one ever believes it.’ Edgar said: ‘But in this case it’s true … ‘”

“The biggest disappointment for me is just the relationship, because I like Edgar very, very much and we were very close for many many years.”

Kevin Feige and Robert Downey Jr Ant Man: Kevin Feige Talks Edgar Wrights Departure

It’s easy to throw around blame from an outsider perspective, but without seeing a copy of the various script drafts or sitting in on meetings between Wright and the producers at Marvel, it’s impossible to say for certain whether his vision of the film would have been a great and fitting addition to the Marvel universe, or whether the creative struggles would have turned it into a total disaster. Feige said that a significant problem was the fact that “Marvel movies are very collaborative, and I think they are more collaborative than what [Wright] had been used to.” He then clarified that this didn’t necessarily mean that Wright’s ideas were rejected for not being “safe” enough.

“The notion that Marvel was scared, the vision was too good, too far out for Marvel is not true. 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… The perception that the big evil studio was too scared at the outside-the-box creative vision is just not the case.”

Feige is right in saying that Guardians of the Galaxy – which features a talking space raccoon and an eight-foot tall sentient tree voiced by Vin Diesel – doesn’t really fit well with the narrative of Marvel refusing to give a green light to anything too weird or risky. Wright’s departure does seem to to have deflated some of the fan anticipation for Ant-Man, but Feige insisted that recent redrafts have left the movie’s script “in the best shape it’s ever been,” just in time for the production start date of August 18th.

For more of Kevin Feige’s thoughts and feelings on the breakup with Edgar Wright, be sure to check out his new album, “Edgar”.

Ant-Man is scheduled for release on July 17th, 2015.

Source: The Guardian

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: ant-man

95 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. lol, yeah, go look at Iron Man 3. That’s a perfect example of thinking outside the box. I, for one, am glad Wright is gone. I don’t like his movies and I don’t like what I’ve heard about Ant Man. Maybe this movie will be a little better now, but I have a feeling this will be Marvel’s lowest grossing movie in the MCU.

    • Iron Man 3 was a great film, we discussed this endlessly on another thread a couple days ago.

      • Yeah I’m so glad that lethal weapon 5 finally came out too

        • I would watch the hell out of a Lethal Weapon 5 if it came out now. Not sure what you’re getting at with this…

          • There is a Lethal Weapon 5..

            • There most certainly is not. The franchise ended with Lethal Weapon 4.

                • Boom. I told you there was.

                  • lol solid evidence

                  • I stand horrifically corrected. Well played.

                    • I respectfully accept your surrender good sir. Lethal Weapon 5 was regrettable by the entire creative team.

                    • For some reason I cant reply to Big Fudges replay to you, so i’ll just put this here:

                      The LW5 creative team isn’t as regrettable about LW5 as i’m sure they are about Lethal Weapon 6!

                      Can’t find Youtube video of it, it was part of this most recent season of Always Sunny.

      • saying it was a great film doesn’t make it true. Winter Soldier was great and it’s reviews are leagues ahead of IM3. Audience review on rotten tomatoes for IM3 and TWS are 79% and 94% respectively. You can keep going on about how inventive it was and how modern and appropriate to our world it was, but you can’t call it great and also call TWS great. TWS was by far a better film. Stop calling it great. It wasn’t.

        • Same goes for you dude just because you say its bad doesn’t mean everyone does, I’m not really a fan of it but if Eric can’t say its great, YOU can’t say it bad.

          • It’s amusing how people love to point out how silly the party scene in IM2 is. Yet in IM3 there’s fire breathing baddies, a kid sidekick, a kung fu super soldier Pepper Potts, a lame Air Force One skydive formation scene, Tony MacGyver Stark with christmas ornaments, and a completely ill-defined main antagonist that was basically only pissed about being stood up … or something inane like that. Not to mention, the entire shrapnel removal ending completely negates the entire plot of the second movie where the palladium from the core is POISONING him to death. Perhaps then would have been the time to think of surgery… I suppose those Chinese doctors were booked until then or maybe they were waiting for all of Marvel Studios’ integrity to go down the drain.

            IM3 sure is thinking outside of Marvel Studios’ painfully safe box and into the realm of 90s comic movie camp.

            • Thank you! I dont know you but i already admire you for stating almkst everything i have written about IM3.the single biggest problem is that in 1 minute they completely erase 2 movies worth of plot by saying “oh we removed the shaprnel with surgry”

              • YEEEEES! To both of you, that was the biggest pitfall of the whole movie. Mandarin aside, how is it that in just a few years medical science has progressed far enough to FINALLY be able to remove his shrapnel? Yet another example of why the movie can’t be great.

                • yeeees to all three of you, IM3 was a GREAT disappointment!!

                  • I’m not saying this makes it a good movie, but the point of the shrapnel being removed was that it was a part of him. He allowed himself to be defined by the arc reactor, because he was afraid of going without it. Removing the arc reactor was a somewhat risky surgery and it was like removing a part of himself.

                    That’s why he removes it and says “I am Iron Man,” because it’s not the arc reactor that makes him Iron Man, it’s because of the hero he becomes due to acts such as the the sacrifice play at the end of Avengers.

                    So it fits in the plot of the other movies and it still makes sense… It just might not be as successful of a scene as they maybe intended…

                    • 5aucy, please but back your yoda avatar, I always cracked up when i saw yoda and it read 5aucy on the side, a saucy yoda is the funniest thing I can imagine

                    • How’s that?

                  • There are not enough cuss words in the world to describe Iron Man 3. Loopholes, ridiculous plot twists, the girlfriend turned sci-fi hero, having all those suits all along—It was just a bad movie. It was trying hard to be everything. I don’t know why the studio is proud of it. I guess the money it made is enough to say it was great. Therefore, I’m putting it up there with Bay’s Transformers. I’ll judge Ant-Man when it comes out. For now, let me just say: Iron Man 3 sucks, so if you’ll compare it to that…

              • I think the point wasn’t that it couldn’t be done, it was that Tony was too scared to let go of it. He was convinced that the arc reactor and the other technology was what made him Iron Man. He came to realize in the course of the movie that it was his genius that made him Iron Man, something that was innate about him as a person. That realization gave him the courage to develop the surgical procedure and have the arc reactor removed.

                “You can take away my house, all my tricks and toys, but there’s one thing you can never take away from me: I am Iron Man.”

                • Oh, I should have read this first. That is way more direct and succinct than what I wrote above.

                  • I actually really appreciated your response, you pulled in things like the self-sacrifice in Avengers that I left out.

                    I have to begrudgingly agree that the scene was not as successful as it should have been. I attribute part of that, at least, to RDJ’s continuing place with Marvel being pretty tenuous at the time and they had to add it at the last minute in case he didn’t come back.

                    • IM3 isn’t without its issues but overall I really enjoyed it.

                      Thanks to yourself & 5aucy for your quality insights.

                      ;-)

            • Fire-breathing barely happened and was largely irrelevant. The kid sidekick was far less annoying than the vast majority of kid sidekicks, and was also a way for Tony to kind of look back and see himself at that age. Considering that the whole film was about Tony’s development as a person, this was an appropriate issue to tackle. If you think Tony is incapable of making fragmentation grenades, electro-gauntlets and gas-powered guns out of what he has around him, you clearly don’t know Stark.

              The antagonist, as I’ve said before, was extremely well-defined. The goal of his plan was not kill the president or wreak havok (or even kill Tony), those were the means to his end, which was fueling the War on Terror in order to ensure demand for his Extremis soldiers. It’s a spin on a very real form of villainy in our world, in which the powers-that-be create the threats they can then fight (bin Laden, WMDs in Iraq, etc.), keeping people in a state of fear that allows their arms industries to turn a massive profit. If it’s well-defined enough for the real world, you bet it’s well-defined enough for a comic book one.

              I’ll concede the point on the heart surgery. That was rushed, but you also have to remember the context. At the time, it was entirely possible this was RDJ’s last ride, so they had to wrap up his story somehow.

              • I honestly think the movie tried to be too smart in some areas. I appreciate that, but it rubs some people the wrong way. The Mandarin twist was a smart twist if it wasn’t playing with a long storied villain (I’m fine with it, but I understand why it offended some people).

                • +100!

                  Wadyano? You’re not just 5aucy..you’re smart! lol ;-)

                  I love the Mandarin twist..it’s funny though because if I suddenly put my CB Fanboy hat on, it makes me mad that The Great & Terrifying Mandarin was treated like that. So for this film, I leave my Fanboy hat in the closet. Makes for a much better film experience!

                  The Keebler Kid Helper is wonderful; actually made for some of the film’s funniest moments while also being an excellent lens thru which to view Tony’s past, present & future anxieties, fears &, ultimately, his indomitable spirit of…Iron! lol

                  He is..Stark-Guiver (of Titanium Gold Alloy!)

            • “the entire shrapnel removal ending completely negates the entire plot of the second movie where the palladium from the core is POISONING him to death. Perhaps then would have been the time to think of surgery”

              Nice!

        • The Winter Soldier was great. It’s my favorite entry in the franchise to date, and one of my superhero films period. It’s greatness, however, has no bearing whatsoever on Iron Man 3. They were different films, each of which had a cutting message about the world we all live in.

          You couldn’t respond intelligently to my arguments before, and now your trying to cloud the issue by raising an irrelevant comparison. It’s like saying The Godfather isn’t great because The Godfather: Part II was better. It doesn’t make sense.

          • That is definitely not an unfair comparison mate, just like comparing The Godfather and Godfather Prt II isn’t unfair. If people something is great, and them something better comes out, the the bar for “great” has been raised. What makes you say Oneiros can’t intelligently respond? It’s not like he’s rolan lol.

            • It is unfair, because greatness is not a Highlander, there can be more than one entity that inhabits that term. Something can be ‘greater’ than another, but it does nothing to impeach the greatness of anything else.

              He could not adequately address my points on the film the other day, ergo he could not respond. He is far from rolan, however.

              • lol Sorry I didn’t sit on the comments section all day and craft a nice response for you. You said we weren’t going to convince each other of the other’s point of view, so I didn’t bother to respond. Just because I DIDN’T respond, doesn’t mean I CAN’T respond, and to say I can’t respond intelligently is just you being snide. Convincing people that IM3 is masturbatory crap that was literally conceived while Shane Black was on the John is not my top priority. You keep fighting the good fight though and EAD.

                • To be fair to my esteemed colleague above, if you engage with someone in a debate and then withdraw from it without addressing their counterpoints, it’s easy to assume a surrender.

                  Your last two sentences there are hyperbolic at best. Iron Man 3 was neither the best nor the worst entry in the MCU. Just because it didn’t go your way doesn’t mean it was bad.

                  • Didn’t go my way? Putting comic book canon, the Mandarin issue, and my personal problem with how PTSD was portrayed, there are so many plot holes and let downs in that movie that I don’t see how it can be considered good. Why was Rhodey able to use the suit once he got in it but the president couldn’t do jack when he was just hanging there? I think the first thing I learned playing Mortal Kombat was button mashing. The president should have at least been able to play some AC/DC. Rhodey jumped in and powered it right up. They just removed the shrapnel from Tony’s chest at the end as if it was something he could have done the whole time but chose not to. We barely got to see any of his other suits. they just flew around in the background and we got a close up of like 3 of them for that many seconds. If he had the Iron Legion the whole time, why did he not have Jarvis activate them after he challeneged the Mandarin, a terrorist who has already proven his ability to pull of surprise bombings? Pretty un-Tony Stark when compared to how he’s been portrayed before. Again inexplicably ignoring how Iron Man has been portrayed thus far, all of his suits are trapped under the house and somehow don’t have enough firepower to blast through rubble? Are you joking? YET AGAIN contrary to how slick and prepared and inovative Tony is, he has no contingency plan for getting separated from his tech? Tony Stark, who has an answer for eveything as Cap put it in Avengers, doesn’t have a contingency plan for that? Now, I know that not every movie can be dependent on the other Avengers, but where the F*** was SHIELD? Nothing like kidnapping the American president to attract their attention, right? Nothing like bombing American cities to catch the solitary eye of Nick Fury, right? Go ahead and like this ridiculous piece of garbage if you want, but I’d like to see your counterpoints for all that.

                    • Putting comic book canon, the Mandarin issue, and my personal problem with how PTSD was portrayed aside***

                    • Very well, here goes.

                      AIM redesigned the Iron Patriot suit, so they probably had it rigged to not do anything with the president inside. President Ellis, furthermore, has never had any experience with the operation of an Iron Man armor. Rhodey, however, has been piloting both War Machine and Iron Patriot, as well as being best friends with the guy who developed the technology. Presumably, he knows something about how they work and was able to reclaim his own armor. It was a matter of expertise, not brute-force button-mashing.

                      I addressed the issue of the Tony’s arc reactor in an earlier post, please refer to that for my perspective on the topic.

                      We saw loads of Tony’s other suits. And to be honest, this is an aesthetic quibble that doesn’t really make a difference to the narrative.

                      I’ll agree that it wasn’t terribly smart to don the experimental armor after challenging the Mandarin. That said, Stark is a genius inventor, not a tactician. It was pretty obvious the missile strike caught him completely off guard. And who knows how much rubble was piled on top of the Iron Legion? It’s possible blasting their way out might have caused even more damage to the armors themselves, given that any explosions would take place in a very confined space with a ton of collapsible rubble above, but I don’t know, I’m just spitballing on that one.

                      As far as SHIELD goes, the president was only kidnapped for the space of a few hours before Tony and Rhodey tracked him down. Even for SHIELD, that’s not much time to get a response organized.

                      SHIELD has a global security mandate, as evidenced by their operations and their oversight by the World Security Council. The Mandarin bombings were entirely acts of domestic terrorism, and therefore something for the FBI, NSA and other organizations to handle.It didn’t fall within SHIELD’s mission As Rhodey said “No, it’s not, frankly. It’s American business.” As was also made evident, they had bigger things like Project Insight to get off the ground that would make threats like the Mandarin disappear in an instant (or so they hoped).

                      If you’ll notice, SHIELD was, in fact, monitoring the attacks and collecting data on them, JARVIS pulled SHIELD intel for Tony. The Agents of SHIELD pilot also made it clear that they were aware, at least after the fact, of Extremis and its applications. Tracking the Mandarin down, however, was the job of American counter-terrorism.

                    • But, again, Ellis was completely helpless? You can’t just assume stuff like that. Stories are supposed to explain that stuff. And that still doesn’t explain how Rhodey could just turn it on without a problem. What, they redesigned it to not do anything with the president inside but Rhodey still can? That doesn’t make any sense! No matter how much experience he has in it. He doesn’t rewire it or fix a bug or something to get it working again. He just gets in!

                      You have a nice idea there, but that wasn’t explained or clearly alluded to in the movie. The audience can come up with any scenario or train of thought they want to explain away that sort of thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge mistake. Why wasn’t it an option to come up with that surgery when he was being poisoned? It’s just lazy storytelling.

                      I know we saw loads of the suits, but I did mention that some of my gripes were disappointments too and that’s one of them. They spent so much time marketing his Iron legion and then the finale was underwhelming.

                      The big problem with “blasting their way out might have caused even more damage to the armors themselves” is that they did exactly that at the end of the movie to come help him fight. They blasted their way out and were fine. And it’s again inexplicably ignoring the way Iron Man has been portrayed before. He took a shot from Thor’s hammer quite a few times but some rocks are too much for his armor? No. It was yet another example of lazy storytelling.

                      So Agents of SHIELD saved IM3 from another plot hole. Great. So just like they did with All Hail the King, Marvel had to bail out that movie. Would it have been too much to have Maria Hill there at the end? Tony could’ve been like, “Oh thanks for the help Agent No Show,” and she could have responded with, “Well you seemed to have it all under control. Fury has faith in you guys. We didn’t see the need to intervene.” Done! Plot hole covered. I get the whole global mandate thing, but that argument has a huge globe shaped hole in it called the globe. If the global mandate allows them to operate all over the globe and THE GLOBE is their jurisdiction, America is part of that global jurisdiction. Therefore, it was not just an American problem. It was just a cop-out.

                      Here’s a new one: they just glossed over curing Pepper of Extremis. How exactly did that happen and why wasn’t there a cure for all the exploding people on Agents of Shield? I mean, if you’re going to bring up how AoS addressed some IM3 plot holes, I should be allowed to point out a movie to TV plot hole.

                    • I admit, it’s thin. Based on how things have been portrayed in the Iron Man films, however, I think I made a logical interpretation of the events as they happened. If Tony’s suits were coded to him, the Patriot armor could have been coded to Rhodey and, therefore, been operable by him. Ellis, however, by all rights had no business in that suit. It’s also possible Jarvis cracked AIM’s control over it, but that’s likewise reaching.

                      Tony himself says: “So if I were to wrap this up tight with a bow, or whatever… I guess I’d say, my armor? It was never a distraction, or a hobby. It was a cocoon. And now? I’m a changed man. You can take away my house, all my tricks and toys. But one thing you can’t take away? I am Iron Man.” That’s him saying he realizes now he doesn’t his armor or technology to be a hero. Prior to that, i.e. Iron Man 2, he was still in the ‘cocoon’ and wasn’t ready to give up the arc reactor. He was unwilling to consider the option of removing it. Like in the first one, when he Obadiah Stane that ‘this one stays with me.’ He was willing to consider any option for upgrading or replacing it with better technology, but removing it from his body was not an option he could have accepted at the time.

                      I accept that you can be personally disappointed with how the Iron Legion was portrayed, can’t argue with that.

                      As for the Legion being trapped under rubble, Jarvis informed Tony that ‘the cranes had arrived’. In other words, outside equipment had arrived to clear the rubble away. When we see the Legion take off, it’s after most of the debris has been removed. Maybe I’m misremembering, but I don’t think the Legion has to punch its way out of Malibu, they just take flight.

                      When I say that SHIELD has a global mandate, that implies a response to global threats – threats to the entire globe, not one nation. That’s why individual nations have their own militaries and intelligence agencies. SHIELD responds to things like the Chitauri, Mjolnir and the Destroyer coming to Earth, crazy science gone rogue and threatening multiple nations, etc. A terrorist exclusively attacking the United States falls under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.

                      Centipede wasn’t trying to purge Extremis, they were trying to weaponize it. I imagine that takes a very different process to achieve. Also, Centipede and its Hydra overseers did not have the experience with Extremis Tony did, and it’s unlikely he would have been willing to give them a consultation on it like he did for Maya. The Agents of SHIELD point I made, though, was secondary to SHIELD being shown in Iron Man 3 to be monitoring the Mandarin attacks. It stands to reason they were assisting the U.S. in hunting him down. I agree, though, that a Maria Hill/Nick Fury/Jasper Sitwell cameo at the end would have been a fantastic touch.

                    • I’m with Mike on all these points. The way I’ve looked at these issues is the same…

                      - The armor was coded to Rhodes (and also Savin after AIM highjacked it)

                      - It’s easy to surmise that after the events of fighting with Killian and Clean Slate Protocol, that Stark (one of smartest Marvel characters) would find a cure for the EXTREMIS virus.

                      - Easy to assume that before events of IM 3 (IM and IM2) Stark has found the arc reactor to be representative of who he is and a part of him. The part that makes him and the suit connect. So he never bothers trying to remove it. However, at the end of IM3 he basically tells us that he doesn’t need the suit to be IM. It was a cocoon. Now he is ready to move on so he invests in top scientists/doctors to help remove the reactor and shrapnel.

                      -The Iron Legion was buried deep beneath unstable rubble on the side of a cliff where a cleaning crew was. Having them blast out of there could have injured people. Or destroyed the suits themselves. Once the rubble was cleared JARVIS brings them out.

                      -The Iron Legion was foreshadowing Stark’s use of it in AoU, led by Ultron. I’m sure the MCU didn’t want to show too much Iron Legion because they planned on having Stark use it in AoU. Thus, why we didn’t see a ton of it in IM3

                      -The President being kidnapped happened over the course of a few less than a day. I’m sure there were Shield agents looking for Mandarin. But, Stark is smarter than every SHIELD agent and operation thus it is he who locates “Mandarin.”

                      -AoS stories are supposed to be happening concurrently with the movies. HYDRA is trying to build upon Extremis from plot of IM3. Tony would have a tougher time locating HYDRA operations and Extremis experiments as HYDRA is super deep undercover. Plus, Extremis was not the ongoing plot for the entirety of AoS. That plot line moved to the background of the show. Stark may have been around during that time but we don’t see it.

                    • I agree with Oneiros about how very many illogical, lazy, and/or simply badly conceived/expressed ideas were in this movie.

                    • @Achareon

                      You continue to make incendiary statements without backing them up. That’s not in the spirit of the debate Mike, Oneiros and Clay are engaging in. Please, as someone who is enjoying reading the perspectives that are emerging in this thread, don’t tread on them.

                    • Keaneros…

                      I said I agreed with Oneiros’s points and his stated conclusion about the movie. HOW is that incendiary? Oh, you mean where I said that people did not simply dislike the movie for the ONE very specific reason that lovers of the movie harp on constantly as not being a good reason for such dislike? That is responding to ALL of those who outright ignore the other points that I and many others have given on other, earlier threads and Oneiros continues to give on this one. Still not seeing the place where I’m setting a fire… Ah–got it. You MUST mean where I pointed out this same thing about people having other reasons for disliking the movie besides the twist, after which Clay responded with the EXACT same point that I had commented on…almost as if he were marking his territory like a dog (or is that the spirit that you’re enjoying so much?). Clearly, it COULD NOT be when I pointed out that those who liked the movie are allowed to express their opinions as are those who did NOT like the movie.

                      What is YOUR opinion about this topic (and/or the one the article actually covers)? You’d do better providing that than jumping on me.

                      Incendiary, indeed.

                    • Well in The Winter Soldier we found out that SHIELD was infiltrated by HYDRA, and with the Helicarriers were targeting both President Ellis and Tony Stark, I would imagine that had something to do with SHIELD’s lack of involvement

                    • @ Mike
                      Well, my main point about a lot of this is that fans can come up with explanations, but they weren’t explained or explained well in the movie so I don’t think those invented explanations can be used to justify the movie. Ellis in the suit, Tony’s surgery, the Iron Legion…all of it can be explained from your personal perspective, but not an unbiased one.
                      So maybe his surgery was about the cocoon thing. That still doesn’t explain why doctors couldn’t remove the shrapnel in the first movie, before he actually became Iron Man, or why, if it was always an option, nobody suggested it to him in IM2. If Pepper had said, “Tony, have surgery. Get it removed,” and he was adamant about keeping it, then I’d agree with you. But that didn’t happen. It’s not like he was wrestling with the decision during IM3 and then finally decided to do it at the end. His whole realization was summed up in 3 minutes of screen time. That’s not good story telling.
                      Maybe some cranes came to remove the rubble. That sounds kinda familiar so I’ll go with that. But you’re telling me that he built a suit that has a hydrolic hump on it’s back for apparently the sole purpose of propping things up, but he didn’t build one that can dig? He didn’t build one that can help miners or save people from tragic spelunking accidents, but he built one so fragile it falls apart when it dinks it foot on a steel beam. I’m sorry, but if that’s the kind of Iron Man people like, then I feel so bad for whoever makes the next movie.
                      The bottom line is that after the Avengers came out everyone, including me, was so stoked for this movie that the excitement alone was enough for most to gloss over these gaping plot holes. Because this movie rode the wave of Avengers popularity, everyone watched this movie through rose tinted glasses and nobody is willing to admit that. They just grasp at any possible thread to hold on to in order to keep thinking this movie was good. I would bet a bottle of Macallan 18 that Whedon wrote some lines in Avengers 2 to completely negates IM3. Why? Because I would bet another bottle that, despite what he said publicly, Whedon hated this movie too. I bet that in Avengers 2 Tony says something like, “I thought I could be Iron Man without being in the suit, but I was wrong. I thought I could protect people without it, but I was wrong.” Keep enjoying this movie. I’m glad Iron Man is so popular because, as a fan of the comics, it’s nice to see people appreciate a character I also appreciate. But I set my bar higher than Iron Man slapstick.

                    • @Oneiros

                      …and here is our impasse. I don’t believe good stories have to spell everything out for you in precise detail. I think that, if you’re paying attention to a character, you can understand their motives and actions without dialogue having to explicitly tell you exactly what those are every time. That’s what getting to know these characters is all about. My conclusions are based solely on what has happened in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, they stand to reason even if they aren’t explained with precise detail.

                      When Tony returned from Afghanistan, he already had the arc reactor and was fine with having this built-in power source. He only really let Pepper, Rhodey and Obadiah know about it and it seemed harmless so why would they, none of whom are medical professional, suggest he have it removed? Later, in Iron Man 2, Tony kept his poisoning a secret, so nobody could be around to tell him to get rid of it. He was clearly so grappled up in being Iron Man that he would want to stop. He felt it was the on.y real good he’d ever done. The cocoon line was plenty of explanation to indicate why he was finally ready, but I admit it was rushed because of the possibility of this being RDJ’s last movie.

                      I agree that the humor with the armor was pretty slapstick. It was the one part of the film I didn’t enjoy. I recognize the movie’s flaw, because every story has them.

                      I expect Whedon will have Tony realize he has to be Iron Man again, but not to undo Iron Man 3. It will be because that’s the kind of arc Phase 2 is all about. At the end of every Phase 2 film, the heroes have pulled back from their hero roles for personal reasons (Iron Man for Pepper, Thor for Jane and preserving his morality, Captain America to find and help Bucky, Black. Widow to rebuild her life), but I would be sorely disappointed if the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron doesn’t show them they can’t quit, they can’t retire, they have to keep going. Because, as Nick Fury said, the world needs them. That won’t invalidate Iron Man 3, it will fulfill its storyline and all the other films, too. Tony will still have learned he’s a real hero like his fellow Avengers, and he’ll take that knowledge and confidence going forward.

                    • @Mike:

                      “I don’t believe good stories have to spell everything out for you in precise detail…if you’re paying attention.. you can understand without dialogue…(or) explicitly tell(ing)you…exactly (what’s going on) That’s what getting to know these characters is all about. (Some things)…stand to reason even if they aren’t explained with precise detail.”

                      That’s both an excellent & very contentious point. Lots of ppl need things to be explained & pointed out, often to a fault. It’s one of the frustrations I have with many ppl who don’t care much for “Man of Steel”. IN that film, not only do detractors want certain things explained (Why doesn’t Zod just take another planet? How does the Scout Ship have Superman’s Suit?…etc), they don’t even catch the explanations for some things that are plainly there!

                      The only thing that’s a justified problem in Iron Man 3 is they don’t show us Happy getting Randy with his Nursy. lol

                      That’s it that’s all, end of “Downtown Abbey’s” wingman status! lol
                      “Hold on! Halt, who goes there? Show us your badge or we will kill you!”

                      I now always wear my Guest Security Badge when at Top Secret facilities! lol

                      ;-)

                      PS: IM3 is a very good movie & on my list of movies to watch every Christmas!

                  • Archaeon…

                    How am I marking territory. You are the one who has responded negatively about the movie to at least 3 different people who liked the movie. If anything, you are finding a way to “mark territory” by “marking” anyone who thinks its positive to let them know how much you dislike it.

                    You get to respond to people saying you don’t like it but I can’t respond back that people do like it? Didn’t know you have sole rights respond your opposing view.

                    Geez, I guess you truly did mark your territory.

                    • Clay…

                      Considering that (including me) YOU also responded to three different people (though, in support of the movie), I guess we BOTH were marking our respective territories. THAT, however, was the least important point in my above response.

                      I have NO problem with someone liking (or even loving) IM3…I will, therefore, feel no worry about someone having a problem with my despising the movie. As such, I will continue to express my dislike of the movie any time the issue comes up…especially when I feel a balanced (or, at least, balancing) opinion is needed.

                      Oh, and for the record, while I found IM3 to be irritating tripe, I found MoS to be an excellent film.

                      Toodles…
                      :D

              • dude you sound like such a tool

        • Just because captain America 2 is better, does not mean that iron man 3 is not great. Both are great, just one better than the other.

        • People hated Iron Man 3 because of The Mandarin not being the villain promised in the trailers. I loved it, myself. Easily my favorite Iron Man movie.

          • Some did, indeed. Others hated it simply because it was a bad movie.

            • Others loved it simply because it was a good movie.

    • I think it will probably do better than Thor 1, but it’ll be on the lower end for sure.

    • Iron man 3 was an epic movie for exactly that reason. It took risks. It went outside the box. It was damn creative, not some comic book copy. Get over it.

      • Iron Man 3 was garbage. Only the dumb masses liked it.

        • In my experience, it’s only a butthurt minority that hates it.

          • +1000

            They’re butt hurts pretty bad too… because they’re a damn vocal minority

          • IM3 was crap…pure, unadulterated crap…and not even because of its twist (although that certainly did not help). It was simply a badly conceived, badly made movie. The ONLY saving grace it has is that RDJ was as entertaining as always.

            That’s not a hurt rear…it is simply a different opinion. For those of us who found it a silly, stupid waste, it is THE opinion. You and those who enjoyed it are welcome to your own.

            • No, Iron Man 3 was pretty good despite people complaining about the twist.

              Man of Steel, on the other hand, was poorly made, unadulterated crap. That’s just my opinion, you’re welcome to your own.

              • Agree, Iron Man 3 was definitely better than Man of Steel.

                Man of Steel was pretty good though. Well, up until the world engine drill thing came into play.

                The fight between Supes and Faora and the other dude was really cool.(I’m not big into DC so don’t remember the names)

          • Exactly!!

            Finally someone who got it right!!

          • THIS!!! Seriously, keep crying about the Mandarin bait and switch, butthurts. Get over it and accept it for what it was…it fooled you and you didn’t see it coming, so you hate it. I like to be surprised by films. Pleasantly surprised, not horror movie surprised that the guy you saw in the first 15 minutes turns out to be the killer-surprised. It was a good film. It was a change of pace for he MCU. It was the first film to follow one of the biggest box office successes of all time, and it proved it (Marvel) hadn’t lost a step.

            • Good point. I agree with you.

              Bottom line is, a frustrating number of ppl on the Winterwebs (available in other seasons) are so busy saturating themselves with any & all 411 on movies they wanna see (& don’t too); articles, breaking stories, Rumor Spitballs, trailers, plot synopsis of the anykind variety…& for what? IN part so they can actually avoid simply being surprised. Why? Because many ppl see being surprised as some abhorrent weakness, a strategic failure in the “Knowing exactly what’s going on here -more than you!” variety. Anything surprising must then be WRONG or stupid for any number of reasons that are in fact so very clearly personal that their attempts to justify their butthurt becomes a joke you wish you’d missed. Granted, they don’t know who they are because they’re such pathologically, overly literal & pseudo-rational ppl that exchanges with them becomes eliptical & excruciating, never mind pointless.

              But, we know who they are. And that’s enough.

              Really, ’nuff said.

      • ¿Epic?¿Where? IM 3 is pretty flawed. Entertaining, but ultimately a disapointment.

      • it doesnt have to be straight outta a comic book, you can think outside the box, but you have to do it good and deliver. Honestly it didn’t, biggest letdown after thor 1…for me at least.

  2. Movie will still be awesome marketing will blow up in spring 2015 too

  3. Considering the fact that both parties left on good terms, I think the overall quality of the movie will ultimately unaffected. As for the “wow factor”, that remains to be seen. They have a solid cast they are building so that alone should propel the move forward. As for Wright himself, I am kind of glad he’s gone. I thought At Worlds End was a sorry excuse for an end to the magic him, Pegg and Frost created. I lost my faith in the guy as a film maker. But we will always talk about Ant-Man in a “what if?” scenario, even if it blows audiences away.

    • Yep, it’ll forever be put in the same file as Bryan Singer’s X-Men: The Last Stand, del Toro’s The Hobbit and a Godfather: Part III with Robert Duvall.

      • :D

        Don’t forget James Cameron Spidey!

        B

    • At Worlds End was the Pirates sequel wasnt it? Haha, I loved The Worlds End and even if you didnt it made you lose faith in him? I still think he is one of the most creative guys in the Business and its a shame he’s gone but I trust Marvel for the most part.

      • It shows how much I cared for it if I can’t even get the name right. But it was just disappointing. He just didn’t do anything new, he got Martin Freeman and made Pegg and Frost play different kind of characters. It was just very bland all around.

        • Agreed. He kinda used to be creative but Wolrd’s End wasn’t very funny. I think he’s just a flash in the pan.

  4. For more of Kevin Feige’s thoughts and feelings on the breakup with Edgar Wright, be sure to check out his new album, “Edgar”. Hahahaha

  5. Iron man 3 was garbage IMO , and nothing wright “maybe” did could be as bad as the awfulness that was Ben Kingsley in IM3, I don’t trust Kevin Feige, one of these days his bubble will burst and someone’s gonna come out with a lot of dirt on that guy. I’ll still go see all the films for support, but I will never trust Feige again.

  6. My god, this film is every company’s Worst PR Nightmare. Hell, the entire marketing for this film is practically “Damage Control.”

    Funny how they talk that they left in “good terms” when I’m sure they had something to do with Wright’s picture of Buster Keaton being removed.

    • I hate being a total Grinch, but that’s the thing that’s nagging me as well.

      I’ll grant we don’t know the whole story. Feige’s version of events may very well be true, but it’s also not like Marvel is going to paint themselves as the “bad-guys” in any statement they release even if it turned out they were.

      Also, it’s not as if Wright could call them out if this story is false; in all likelihood they probably have him sewn up tight with about 15 different types of non-disclosure agreements. So basically, Marvel can say whatever they want in this case.

      Though it is probably better that Wright just keep his mouth shut and move on; as much as I’d love to hear his side of things, publicly complaining about your former employer is a bit unprofessional. :/

    • Dunno what picture of keaton you’re talking about, but I do think you’re on to something, and if they really left in “good terms”, I was wondering towards the end of the article if they we’re goona smooch it over with saying they’ll at least work together on something else in the future, you would think that being friends for 7-8 years would do that…but nope.

      Still feel the same way as BS89 and go see all the films for support though.

  7. All I got from this article is that American film producer and President of Marvel studios, Kevin Feige, is secretly a covert operative for the British Empire. You may have not noticed it, but in his quote he used the British form of the word “realized.” I’m onto you, Mr. Feige and firing an English film director like Edgar Wright and then in turn hiring an American director (Peyton Reed) will not cover your tracks. OR, maybe you picked the director of such hits as Bring it on to helm this franchise because you want it to fail so the British can officially invade Hollywood. I’m onto you Benedict Cumberbatch…

    Hail Hydra.

    • And most of Avengers 2 is being filmed in LONDON! Pretty soon everyone in Hollywood will be sipping tea and warm beer through crooked teeth and saying things like CHEERIO. This must be stopped.

      • And we’ll be taking the lift up to our flat. What will happen to my friend Robert, the police officer? He’ll be mocked! Bobby the bobby. Bobby the bobby. OH THE HUMANITY!

        • hilarious!

  8. I was a little disappointed to hear of Wright’s departure. Working on the script all that time, just to see someone else take over and receive all the credit in the end. It’s sad. Marvel needs directors who really know and enjoy the source material. That’s what made Winter Soldier so good. The Russo brothers never directed a big-budget action film in their lives before that, but they read and understood the comics very well. It gave them that X factor that allowed to make the film stand out from other Marvel films, even outshining The Avengers in some ways.
    I’m not going to say that Marvel made a huge mistake by letting him walk and now Ant-Man will be total crap. Obviously we can’t know that, as we have very little details on the film so far. It was definitely disconcerting to hear, but perhaps it was the right decision. We shall see.

  9. I have to hand it to Oneiros and Eric for derailing this discussion of Ant-Man and turning it into yets another installment in the endless battle between people who liked and people who disliked Iron Man 3.

    People who liked it: That’s great, go watch it again and stop letting the haters get under your skin.

    People who hated it: Let it go. It’s just a movie, you’re the minority, and Marvel already gave you All Hail the King to make up for it. Stop with the whining.

    Now that that’s settled, how about this Ant-Man movie? Creative shakeups like this at the 11th hour always make me feel nervous about a production, but it could still work out.

    • Haha I was gonna say something about that because my original comment did mention Wright and Ant Man just as much as IM3. Anyway, I’m not sure how well it will work. The Scott Lang story line was apparently Wright’s idea and not what Marvel originally wanted to do. Without Wright, Marvel may try to sideline some of his ideas for theirs and convolute the story. I’m not a big fan of Wright, but him backing out so late in the game will only hurt the movie.

      • I’ve always felt that, if you’re going to make a movie about a character, you should make it about the most classic or iconic version of that character. Lang, at least to me, is not that. It would be like if the original Raimi Spider-Man movie was about Miles Morales.

        Given that this has been gestating for eight years, though, if Marvel hasn’t figured out how to integrate it into the MCU by now, they really need to up their game. I just hope enough of the original focus remains and that the new guys like Reed don’t try to put their own ‘stamp’ on it, to the point that it becomes a schizophrenic narrative like so many movies that have too many cooks in the kitchen.

        • The idea to make Lang the main protagonist was Wright’s idea. I agree with you that it seemed a strange (and not well-received from fans) idea to have, to say the least.

          As for your comment about Marvel integrating the story of Ant-Man into the MCU… I get the feeling that they’d been trying to do just that, and maybe that came in conflict with what Wright had in mind, and he wouldn’t budge from his first idea. From the beginning we’ve heard of this movie as a ‘stand-alone’ movie, and that may have been the ‘creative differences’ causing Marvel and Wright to part ways.

    • Well, it’s not really the 11th hour, since they hadn’t started filming yet.

      But thank you for bringing the thread back to what it was supposed to be about! :)

      As for my two cents, I’m still looking forward to the movie. I don’t expect it to be as great as CA: TWS was, but I’m sure it’ll be fine. I thrust Marvel to make the story coherent with the rest of the MCU.

      I would have been a lot more excited about this movie if it had been about the real and first Ant-Man, and not this boring Lang that not a lot of people care about, but I won’t get into that once more. I think people know my opinion on that by now ;)

  10. “For more of Kevin Feige’s thoughts and feelings on the breakup with Edgar Wright, be sure to check out his new album, “Edgar”.”

    I am really confused by this because I can’t find any information on either of them putting out an album called “Edgar.”

    • I know what you mean. I was confused as well.

      It’s over there! Near that corner, in the $ollar bin! Enjoy. Plays better with Tea & scones, by the drink. Ignore Feige there; he’s undercover for the Danish. lol

  11. Iron Man 3 was a gamble, because the risky approach was “let’s make every cast member talk all ‘hip’ and awkward like Justin Hammer”.

  12. I personally love Edgar Wrights movies. I don’t understand how Marvel expects anyone to believe that Marvel directors are anything but glorified cinematographers. Do it their or way or don’t do it all. That’s why the first iron man was so amazing. I also stand by the Incredible Hulk, also before Disney, has one of the best films Marvel has released. They started strong heading towards serious origin stories that could work for fans and newcomers. But after Disney took over the creative process seems to be their decision, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is let go. They all follow a formula now. You can tell the Russos were given a little more free reign than previous directors, but imagine, if you will, the movie they could have made not answering to some strange board of old people who decide how the movie needs to be.

  13. I think the problem was on the tone that Egar Wright intended for the film. Regardless of what Kevin Fiege says, Marvel studios tend to use the Iron Man approach . The exception being incredible Hulk , with mixed results, means that we won’t get anything radically different anytime soon…