Some quick thoughts on Edgar Wright and Ant-Man

So my laptop's back and there's gonna be trouble. As in, I have a flipping ton of stuff to write and not really enough time to write it. (I bought this thing for the purpose of playing video games and I've barely touched my Steam account in weeks)  It doesn't help when a bomb like Edgar Wright's departure from his long gestating Marvel project, a film based off the less known Avenger, Ant-Man, is dropped on me on a Friday afternoon. Yeah, thanks Marvel.

     I'm really bothered by this despite the fact that I've only ever seen one Edgar Wright film and thought it was just okay. (Scott Pilgrim vs The World, for the record) So why am I bothered? Because he's been working on this film for eight flipping years. Seriously, Since about 2006, Edgar Wright was totally telling anyone who would listen that he was totally making an Ant-Man film after he did a couple other things. He was gonna make a cool heist movie thing, he ended up filming a small bit of test footage to properly visualize what style he was going for, and he showed up at comic-con a few times to chat about it, so I'm puzzled by how exactly you put that much effort into a film, and still end up walking away entirely.
     The same goes for Marvel, for that matter, they've been promoting this and working on this and approving this and giving it prime post-Avengers 2 real estate, and yet they let Mr. Wright walk.
    This is all probably way more complicated than any of that, but let's talk for a moment about something I like about Marvel movies. Every Marvel film will, of course, fit certain parameters as a PG-13 action adventure Superhero movie with comedic undertones, but besides that, these movies can go through a variety of change of tones and settings. Compare the Joe Johnston directed WWII-era Captain America: The First Avenger, which is a retro pulpy adventure, with the Russo brothers slick, smart political conspiracy thriller, Captain America: Winter Soldier. They're part of the same franchise, and heck, star the same character, but the two films are so drastically different it's insane. And a lot more of the Marvel movies are like that than you think.
    Compare Thor and Thor: The Dark World. The first Thor, by Kenneth Branagh, is more Shakespearean and more intimate in several ways, the highlights of the film aren't necessarily it's admittedly kinda fun action scenes, but the meaty family drama or Thor's character development throughout the story . Meanwhile, The Dark World, directed by Game of Thrones alum Alan Taylor, is a grander, more fantastic, more gritty take on the same universe. With better action, I'll admit. And while not everyone may like Iron Man 3, I found it fascinating, not least of all because it was an Iron Man film with a Shane Black flavor. If Marvel makes another Iron Man film after the inevitable recasting of Tony Stark, I admit that I'll be interested to see how the new guy does, but imagine if they were to let someone like Martin Cambell take a shot at doing an Iron Man film, or Brad Bird, or Christopher McQuarrie, or pick a name, any name. (I'm personally hoping someone goes completely crazy and lets Guy Ritchie make an Iron Man, I know it makes no sense, but I got the idea into my head due to my initial confusion of who was signed on to direct Iron Man 3, and now I'm stuck convinced that it would be the weirdest/coolest thing ever) Getting something you know in a flavor you don't is fun, which is why I'll be kinda bummed when Edgar Wright's name isn't after the words "directed by" during the end credits in July of '15.
    In short, I don't actually really blame Marvel for this, as with Guardians of the Galaxy, it's clear that they're willing to take a risk, and nor do I blame Mr. Wright,  I understand that, sometimes things fall apart. (though seriously, WHAT HAPPENED?) I just hope, that as Marvel Studios moves forward, we continue to explore things through different perspectives.





And come on, admit it, now you want to see a Guy Ritchie Iron Man film.

Would a Title by any other name be as boring?

Exceptionally quick post today, guys, as my laptop is in the shop, and I kinda wanted to do a different post, but for the moment that's out of my hands. Anyway, let's talk about a pressing issue in Hollywood that's kinda been driving me nuts for awhile: Why do people suck at naming movies?

      Seriously, guys, a movie was just released called "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" just 10 short years after a film called "Spider-Man 2" And Don't think I've forgotten about "The Fast and The Furious" and it's third "oh-so-cleverly-named" sequel "Fast and Furious" This extends to the video game world as well, what was the latest installment in the Tomb Raider franchise dubbed? Simply "Tomb Raider" Thanks, guys, I get it was a reboot, but even lame names like "Tomb Raider: Reborn" or "Tomb Raider: The Island of the Sun Queen" would have been improvements.
      What about it guys? Am I alone on wanting movies to have more thought put in the name and/or coming up with an unforgettable title*? or are you totally content with titles like "Jack Reacher" or "Alex Cross"?  And, bonus question, what makes a good title, in your opinion?





      *The upcoming Tom Cruise movie "Edge of Tomorrow" was originally named "All You Need is Kill" The new name seems to be fine, and descriptive of the actual movie, and of all the examples, I actually like this name a lot.... but guys, we were this close to getting a movie named something as bonkers as "All You Need is Kill" I didn't know how badly I wanted a movie to be named that until the chance was stolen away from me.