
On Friday, May 23rd, The Hollywood Reporter reported that director Edgar Wright has left the “Ant Man” film set to be released next year in 2015. According to the statement, the split was due to “…differences in their visions of the film,” so for all intents and purposes, the reason is “creative differences”. Now “creative differences” is a reason that a lot of directors use to leave a given film project. What makes this split more significant are the two things that give it context–the director, and how much time he spent on the project.
Edgar Wright is one of the most creative directors in film today. His “Cornetto” trilogy films are gleeful and original parodies of well-trodden and cliche genres such as the zombie apocalypse, the buddy cop film, and the alien invasion. They were incredibly self-aware about how bad their concepts were but at the same time they were fresh, funny, and full of heart. Wright was also involved in the “Ant-Man” project since its inception back in 2006. Wright has previous comic book film experience as he directed the “Scott Pilgrim” adaptation which was released back in 2010. So you have a director with a distict style and artistic vision, who has previous experience adapting comic books to film and put in almost ten years of time and effort into a film based on a B-list member of The Avengers. “Creative differences” here means “studio interference” which, in comic books, is known as “editorial interference”.
And if that wasn’t enough, Wright’s recent response to the separation seals it. Via io9, Edgar Wright tweeted the following image on Monday May 26th:

For those of you who don’t recognize him, that’s legendary silent film comedian Buster Keaton holding a Cornetto cone. Quote io9:
“Keaton was head of his own independent production company in the 1920s, and made some of the most acclaimed comedy movies of all time as writer, director and actor. He famously signed away his independence to MGM in 1928, which took control of his scripts, wouldn’t let him do his own stunts, and more. The deal not only affected the quality of Keaton’s films, but his happiness as well — he famously called his decision the worst mistake he’d ever made.”
Because Keaton is holding a Cornetto cone, Wright is clearly expressing solidarity with the late director. Like Keaton, Wright sees himself as an independent director who singed up with a major studio and regrets it because they wanted to put his original idea through the wringer to make it more homogenized and appealing to a wider audience.
So why was Wright kicked out of Marvel Studios? Well, it’s because of this.
In an interview with IndieWire, Wright had this to say about how his film would fit into the established Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity:
“I think it’s just doing its own thing in the accepted history but it’s still part of the other movies and always was. In the time I’ve been working on it other things have happened in the other movies that could be affected in this. It is pretty standalone in the way we’re linking it to the others. I like to make it standalone because I think the premise of it needs time. I want to put the crazy premise of it into a real world, which is why I think “Iron Man” really works because it’s a relatively simple universe; it’s relatable. I definitely want to go into finding a streamlined format where you use the origin format to introduce the main character and further adventures can bring other people into it. I’m a big believer in keeping it relatively simple and Marvel agrees on that front.”
There. See that? That’s the exact reason why Disney/Marvel gave him the boot. He wanted his film to be independent of the continuity established in the other films. Why? Money, that’s why.
Comic book continuity is more than just a string of events tied together through a unified narrative. It’s one of the main forms of monetization. If everything is linked together, then a reader is more or less forced to have to buy another issue if he or she wants to figure out what’s happening. In the films of the MCU since “The Avengers” collectively known as “Phase Two”, the characters talk about New York in reference to the aforementioned film. Granted, “The Avengers” made an obscene amount of money and millions upon millions have seen it. And yes, it would make sense for the characters of these films to make mention of the film since every one of them are set in the aftermath of the events of that film. However, if Marvel had it their way, each of the films would be so dependent on the rest of them that the viewer would be forced to watch (read: buy) the previous other film. It hasn’t gotten to that point yet, but trust me, they’ll do it. Fish swim, birds fly, and corporations will do anything they can to make more money.
Of course, that might not be Marvel’s plan. At least not yet. But Wright’s intentions are clear. He wants his film to be completely independent of whatever continuity Marvel may or may not impose. That’s his style. If you’ve watched any of his films, each of them are largely independent of each other in terms of plot, but they share consistent themes and his absurdist sense of humor. Wright obviously objects to to the prospect of conforming to a larger, and corporate mandated, continuity. Such would infringe on his artistic vision. Not only that, but who knows what other mandates and compromises the powers that be at Disney/Marvel were demanding from Wright. So instead of kowtowing to corporate pressure and compromising his artistic integrity, he decided to leave. Sure, he now won’t have any piece of the generous MCU pie, but Wright is obviously a man who won’t put any price on his artistic integrity. Unlike certain other directors.
On Saturday, May 24, “The Avengers” director Joss Whedon tweeted this image:
Joss is clearly showing solidarity with Wright’s plight. But here’s the thing, it’s a hollow gesture. If Joss Whedon really cared, he would’ve stood up for Wright. He would’ve said directly to the powers that be at Disney and Marvel Studios and said “If he goes, I go.” If he really cared. But he didn’t. Why? Self-preservation, plain and simple. Now granted, it’s not an inherently selfish thing. Whedon’s decision could have been out of simple pragmatism. Pragmatism in the fact that he, along with Wright, would’ve been thrown out of Marvel Studios at the same time. Make no mistake. As much money Whedon has made for Disney/Marvel, he’s not an employee, he’s an asset. And the moment he isn’t useful to them, he’s considered persona non grata. You have to understand, Joss Whedon is a lot like Zack Snyder. That comparison might seem inappropriate, but it’s in the context that he, like Snyder, was in the exact same position. “Serentiy” wasn’t a big success and neither was “Sucker Punch”. Quality notwithstanding, both directors were desperate for the opportunity to direct a surefire success of a film. For Snyder, it was “Man of Steel”. For Whedon, it was “The Avengers”. How do you keep someone under control? By giving them something to lose. Both “Man of Steel” and “The Avengers” were mediocre-to-bad films that were created not so much by a singular creative vision, as they were by the demands of the studio executives in order to maximize profit. Whatever creativity these two might of had was squashed underneath the heels and boots of their respective corporate bosses and they’ve been kowtowing to them because they know, or at least believe, that they’ll never have another opportunity like this again.
Again, I’m not so naive to think that filmmaking isn’t a business or that it’s purpose isn’t to make money. But there needs to be something said about artistic integrity. It’s important for artists and their producers to be on the same page when creating a project because the producer is the one who keeps the artist from creating something so self-indulgent that it alienates the audience. George Lucas is the poster boy of a creative type who didn’t have anybody there to say “no”. But in Wright’s case, it certainly isn’t a case of keeping him from alienating anybody. Not when he’s had so much success, financial and critical, for the films he’s made so far. Especially the ones where the studios were willing to allow his artistic vision. I’m talking about “Shawn of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” and “The World’s End”. I’m talking about films that take concepts as cliche and wrote as the zombie apocalypse, the buddy cop film, and the alien invasion with a kind of snark and wit that doesn’t come from any kind of disdain or contempt, but out of genuine love. Mel Brooks said it best, “You have to love the genre you’re parodying.” Most likely, Wright’s film was also a general parody of superhero films as a concept. Sure, the MCU has always had humor present in their films, but none of them are an out-and-out comedy. Wright’s Ant-Man film could have possibly then the world’s first successful superhero comedy. But there’s nobody more humorless than a bunch of corporate suits.
Not only that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Wright wanted to address the elephant in the room in regards to Hank Pym, AKA Ant-Man. What is it, you may ask?

Yep.















