Out of the MCU heroes? IM was nothing compared to Hulk. He had way more pop culture exposure than IM.

So it is kind of safe to say he was a nobody for the most part. He had a cartoon in the 1990s before the film. I don't even think he was even in that failed late 90s Avengers cartoon outside of one episode. He was in that 90s Hulk cartoon too. IM didn't have a lot of exposure really. His cartoon being the biggest thing. So maybe that got a lot of viewership?

What an IGNORANT statement...

Maybe not hugely known but I wouldn't say the character was exactly a no name or anything. Plus billionaire playboy type of character who builds cool stuff and has a cool suit of armor and saves the world. Pretty easy to market if done right (which it obviously has been). A character like Ant Man is way more niche and to me a harder sell to the general public. Rudd playing the character should help though as he's relatively popular.

I was really into movies. But didn't know Iron Man at all. Knew The Hulk. Only knew Thor as Vincent D'Onfrio.

My only exposure to X-Men pre-movie was the cartoon on Fox.

I can imagine Paul Rudd warning his friend away from this one. This seems to be going off the rails and McKay doesn't strike me as having the kind of talent to shape something great out of what we've heard so far.

Could Marvel just nix this whole movie? Is there anything in here that would affect Phase 3?

Yeah, outside of comic book circles, Iron Man and Thor weren't that well known. I didn't know of Iron Man before the movie announcement, and Thor from Adventures in Babysitting. I did know of Captain America and the Hulk, but the Hulk was mostly because of the TV series.

The recent Marvel/Avengers special on ABC noted that when Marvel launched its own studio, the media was calling Iron Man and their other properties "B-list superheroes". I think this is one of the articles referenced:
http://www.mtv.com/news/1552639/iron...o-make-it-big/

Yeah, we have a skewed perspective of how much the general public actually knows about superheroes. We're all nerds here. We're all posting on a dvd message board, and that makes us nerds by default. So we all know superheroes, but do you really think soccer moms had any clue who Iron Man was before 2008? Hell no. Iron Man is a household name now, but he sure as hell was not before 2008.

I'm not sure why there's always a debate about this as it seems pretty obvious that Iron Man sits somewhere that isn't as popular or famous as Spider-Man or Batman but certainly more known then something like Ant-Man.

And it's clear to me that Iron Man is significantly more marketable and a more interesting concept, so relating the two in that regard seems pretty way off too. If the Batman, Superman, Spiderman is A list, Iron Man B, then Ant-Man is C.

I never said Iron Man isn't more marketable than Ant-Man. Someone earlier put those words in my mouth, but I never actually said it. I definitely agree Iron Man is more marketable.

My original comment was regarding someone who said Ant-Man is a big risk, and the only thing I ever said is that Iron Man was also a big risk. Every superhero movie that isn't Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or X-Men (with Wolverine carrying the X-franchise on his shoulders...) has been a spectacular failure. Green Lantern, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, etc were all spectacular failures.

So yes, Iron Man was indeed a big risk. No "B-list" superhero before Iron Man ever had a successful movie. (Well I suppose maybe Blade, but that has more to do with vampires being super-popular than it actually being a superhero comic book movie. I bet 95% of the people that watched Blade didn't know he was a Marvel Comics character.)

I still disagree, I don't think Iron Man was that huge of a risk given a fairly interesting concept and the bit of recognition that the character had. And far less of a risk back then versus Ant-Man now. Maybe risky for Marvel Studios at the time given the finances, but I don't think a movie based on the character itself was that big.

And I don't think some of your examples were spectacular failures at all, unless you and I differ on what that means. Fantastic Four was good enough to warrant a sequel and the first movie actually made more money then X-Men First Class, The Wolverine, or both Hulk movies and not far off from the first X-Men. Ghost Rider also made enough to warrant a sequel, and Daredevil did still make over $100 mil. While they weren't huge hits and were mediocre critically, they weren't really bombs by any means.

You take that back!

Whedon came from TV, but he's a bit more iconoclastic. He's a "auteur," who also wrote and acted as showrunner too. It's clear that Marvel gave him more legroom with his work than they did some of the others-the "story by Zak Penn & Joss Whedon" credit means that he must've come onto something preexisting and made some changes. You can certainly see bits of many of the directors who come on board-Branagh's visual extravagances, pageantry, the King Lear-style narrative, Shane Black's slight irreverence and rapid-fire dialogue, Johnston's retro stylings-but they all have to work within the Marvel paradigm and can only do so much. Big franchises aren't know for wanting anyone around who changes up the formula. The Bond franchise is an excellent comparison point, though this one has-so far-had a little more legroom.

Green Lantern was DC, BTW .

Ant-man is not a character that I feel can carry a big time movie. Plus he is not well known....at all.

Is Joss defacing churches now? Alien3, that goofy line about toads in the first X-Men, and now this. He needs to be stopped.

Something about this project must be toxic. This is really bad news for Marvel.

I dunno, motherfucker. Seems like they were really giddy about this for years.

It's odd how Feige hasn't said anything. He's like the production face of Marvel. Whedon's photo of support to Wright. Gunn's little letter or whatever. Wtf is going on?

How does Marvel feel about those 2 "quietly" supporting Wright?

The WGA gave Zak Penn credit only because he was attached to the product before Marvel hiring Whedon and had already written numerous drafts. Whedon threw every Penn created out the window and rebuilt the story from the ground up.

based on what? Edgar and Feige disagreeing about the script and Wright leaving? This film was going to be a part of the MCU, and if Wright was unwilling to put in certain things, then it was best for both parties to go their separate ways.

Feige has to worry about the entire MCU, Marvel has a large timeline with all of it's properties. Like Gunn said, not every relationship works out.

Wright leaving, the supposed tapped director never appearing, and then McKay dropping out after serious talks? Something is up.

Well #2 was reported by the always reliable 'source'. McKay dropped out due to other commitments. Could be as McKay said, or something else 'normal'. (Such as he doesn't feel there is enough time to come in and put his stamp on the movie with how much Time is left before principal shooting starts.

paging Mr. Ratner....

Best for both parties? But what about the audience?

Which raises an interesting question, if its worth making a Marvel Studios movie that's completely detached from the rest of the MCU.

That other director that was mentioned in the running for the gig has also turned it down. He has a unique name that I can't recall.

He's also a damn silly character that doesn't fit with the current crop of A-list movie heroes. How the hell would they sell this to the mainstream anyway? It's an ant-man!
I'm not surprised it's falling apart.