It was met with unfortunate news last week that Edgar Wright backed out of the upcoming Ant Man movie due to script changes that conflicted with his vision. With the internet in a flurry about who will possibly replace him, there have already been rumors abound of who it could be. The honest question is: who could possibly replace someone as definable of a style as Wright, who has continually proven to be a modern whiz at editing and pacing? If your first answer was the guy behind Anchorman and The Other Guys, then there's some bad news. Director Adam McKay, who was rumored to have the part, will NOT be taking on Ant Man for reasons that are only known to those with a basic grasp of logistics. With this news broken, I thought that I would take some time to look at another 20 directors that are so obvious and so unqualified to make a movie that involves the words "Ant" and "Man" in the title that I will save the studio some time. Heed my advice, studios. These are 20 currently working directors who you should not waste your time with when trying to find someone to make your new Ant Man movie. They are likely going to turn you down anyways.
George Lucas
Why Not? - Because while it is true that Mr. Lucas has had a lot of down time since selling his beloved Star Wars franchise, it doesn't seem likely that he is eager to get back behind the camera, especially for a company that he literally just sold out to last year. Also, it doesn't feel advantageous given the unprecedented vitriol that has faced him in recent decades to take on a beloved property of man that is an ant and turn it into the high budget extravaganza that we all know and love. It will only send him further into depression and cause yet more unprecedented hatred. Leave the man alone. He doesn't want you to hate him any further.
Steve McQueen
Why Not? - Because while 12 Years a Slave has recently won Best Picture, nobody wants to bet on a director known for long, drawn out scenery to be responsible for a blockbuster. His penchant for dark and miserable subject matter, or "honest" looks, will make it hard to make this particular film a sell. At best, he will explore how Mr. Ant Man is likely to suffer from physical side effects and have crippling depression. It may make for one of cinema's most compelling, award worthy superhero films in history, but nobody really cares enough about a guy named Ant Man to have this happen. Also, it does seem likely that while J.J. Abrams' Star Wars is multi-racial, the director of this new film isn't going to be black because Disney is super racist when it comes to these things.
Spike Lee
Why Not? - Because of what I just said. Also, with his notorious history of black pride and wanting to empower the community, he is likely to turn a superhero film into a fantastical race war with his penchant dolly shot in tow. As he said in Malcolm X, he will literally "charge the white man" and make things super uncomfortable for audiences everywhere. He may have tried to adapt to whitey's ways with Oldboy, but it only has made him more furious when the film bombed. Don't expect a story about the blackest insect on Earth to be brought to you by this guy anytime soon.
Baz Luhrmann
Why Not? - Because while Luhrmann isn't far removed from big budgeted fare, he doesn't have any interest in your minuscule ants, man. He wants to make the biggest, flashiest spectacle imaginable and after The Great Gatsby proved to be a surefire hit, he may end up working on a sequel long before he gets involved with Marvel (or at least wait until he can buy the rights). Along with his eccentric and somewhat gay body of work, it may be too much for those trying to forget that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 happened and that Hollywood has advanced to the point where gay characters are just as normal as the straight ones. I'm not saying that Luhrmann's visions aren't possible of reaching a wider audience, but this Ant Man will be a flicker on a windshield of a prettier picture. Also, he is antithetical to Edgar Wright when it comes to editing.
Joel Schumacher
Why Not? - Because the poor guy wants to be left alone. Sure, he made Batman & Robin and it sucked, but he's made a lot of other stuff, too. Not arguing if it sucked or not, but the man wants to live in peace. Why must we worry his poor head with the potential for another eccentric, visually displeasing film like Ant Man?
Albert Brooks
Why Not? - Because he is probably too dry and experimental for whatever this Ant Man film is likely to turn into. He is a philosophical comedian set on making culture into a more refined and interesting world through humor. Also, with his intentions seemingly turned more towards acting, it is likely that he won't direct a film that doesn't feature him in the cast. Now we come to the heart of the question: who wants to see Ant Man if Brooks is the lead? Not too many teeny boppers nowadays, that's who. However, with Adam McKay being somehow considered, Brooks is the least far fetched name on this list. Even then, let the man make people laugh with kindness and the lack of having to reduce his personality to numerous press junkets.
Drew Barrymore
Why Not? - Because Hollywood has yet to give women a major studio film for Marvel and it is unlikely that the voice behind Whip It is going to change that. While she has proven to be a promising voice behind the camera by showing plenty of pep and zaz, she isn't the most prolific director out there. Also, she seems more intent on making films such as Blended to possibly fund her next project. What is it going to be? Probably not a film with "Man" in the title. Expect one involving women being awesome and probably grossing a fraction of whatever Ant Man will likely make. It isn't that she's bad. It's just that her films are hard to market. Also, Hollywood is sexist towards female directors.
Gia Coppola
Why Not? - Because it is unlikely that Hollywood executives actually saw the highly enjoyable Palo Alto from the latest Coppola film director. While her debut is massively impressive and distinguished, her work doesn't have the appeal of many testosterone driven counterparts at the cineplex. She is more focused on female angst and making films that speak to a particular isolated feeling. Yes, a man who is an ant is rather isolating, but it doesn't make the moolah that studios would want. Unless Ant Man is an underage drinker in a parking lot, it doesn't seem likely that Coppola's next film will be a major leap. Also, Hollywood is sexist (though you already knew that). In fact, let's just cancel out Roman Coppola, too.
Roman Polanski
Why Not? - Because while everybody loves Chinatown, nobody really cares for his more notorious private life. While it is true that Bryan Singer avoided particular charges and made X-Men: Days of Future Past into a worldwide phenomenon, nobody treats this auteur filmmaker with similar embrace. At best, people will misconstrue Ant Man as an allegory for sexual misconduct. Even if the man makes great films still, nobody is going to give him a franchise simply because he is too old and depressing in subject matter and we don't need yet another Marvel character being associated with the Holocaust.
Lorene Scafaria
Why Not? - Because Hollywood is sexist. Yes, she has written some of the best ensemble films of the past decade, but does Hollywood really care about them? Not really. I bring her up mostly as hope that she will get more work and that the voice behind Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and the good parts of Seeking a Friend for the End of the World will finally become a household name.
Gaspar Noe
Why Not? - Because while Hollywood films enjoy being insensitive to innocent bystanders who are gay, straight, recovering alcoholics, or minorities, they don't want to look at it seriously. Nobody wants the people who suffer from the carnage to have a story because it is too depressing. Also, while Noe is a master in vibrant colors, editing, and the image, the accompanying concepts aren't all that pleasing. This is coming from a man whose films have dived into car crashes, reverse-pregnancies, and rapes. While Ant Man is likely going to be a psychologically traumatic character akin to Enter the Void, nobody wants to film the version where he dies and we still keep the story going.
Harmony Korine
Why Not? - Because while Spring Breakers was a phenomenal hit that featured music from the kids' favorite musician (Skrillex), nobody wants to have repeat success with a guy whose credits include Trash Humpers. He may know how to appeal with kids with boobs, guns, and Gucci Mane, but does he know how to appeal to nerds who waste their time nitpicking over nonsensical contraptions? If anything, Korine is likely to just mess with them way too much, and that is something that Hollywood doesn't want in the age where Joss Whedon is seen as an overlord. Korine may be an applicable choice if Ant Man ever decides to have a sexual fetish, but for now, he is a little overqualified to bring to life the story of something that sounds even stupider than the naysayers of Spring Breakers.
Larry Charles
Why Not? - Because people will be expecting either Sacha Baron Cohen or Bill Maher to pop up and taunt Ant Man in an obnoxiously broad, racist accent. While his comedy tends to reach deeper than that, Charles' sensibilities are overlooked by its surface. For a concept as ridiculous as Ant Man, there needs to be a director who can match and make it more profound. Why not get the guy behind Bruno and The Dictator? He definitely has skills in mining comedy from gays and fascism. Of course, his edginess is likely to hold him back from being a potential candidate, even if he is more qualified than Adam McKay.
Richard Linklater
Why Not? - Because he would take too long making it. While Linklater used to do studio films that were effective box office smashes, he has since returned to his indie roots a changed man. Instead of dealing with big explosions, he'd rather everybody talk things out over the course of many years. This isn't too far fetched, given Ant Man's long and storied career. However, given that the only time people ever "talked things out" in the Marvel universe was in The Avengers (and few people liked that), the choice to get the master of the long form a shot is to bruise Joss Whedon's ego, which nobody wants. No matter what, Linklater's chances are ruined because people have too much affection for their overlord Whedon and can't bare to think that someone else can make an exhaustive conversation happen in a superhero film.
Gareth Evans
Why Not? - Because nobody saw The Raid or The Raid 2 and would be too wimpy to consider the guy who turned in one of the best action scenes of 2014. Also, nobody really knows how a man who is ant will likely break anybody's bones speaking as he himself doesn't actually have bones. The film would be awesome, but given how prudish superhero violence actually is, nobody is going to invest in Evans making an ant fight anything.
Michael Haneke
Why Not? - Because the reality of man turning into an ant is too harsh for Hollywood. Then why make a film out of it? They're hypocrites. Haneke would make the most honest depiction possible, and in one effective single take with the camera mounted to the floor. He has made films about death (Amour) to critical acclaim and he does know how to handle violence (Funny Games... the first one), but still nobody cares for the level of meta or depressing realism that he is likely to take you. Also, he is attached to a movie about flash mobs which sounds way more amazing than a man turning into an ant. You can waste your time on Ant Man, but I want the Haneke flash mob movie. Don't hold him back.
Hayao Miyazaki
Why Not? - Because the acclaimed director isn't coming our of retirement for your dumb movie. While he is a master in anthropomorphism with animals, he isn't all that considerate of insects. He would just make nature the hero and the minuscule ant would end up only being an allegory in one of life's bigger issues. We don't know what, but with the track record of Miyazaki's past few films, they pale in comparison to Marvel's trajectory and won't likely meet their quota. Also, Miyazaki is retired with a body of work exceeding any Marvel movie's quality by entire brackets. Also, Hollywood is super racist and ageist.
Werner Herzog
Why Not? - Because Klaus Kinski is dead and he hates nature way too much to make a movie about ants.
Spike Jonze
Why Not? - Because while apparently being John Malkovich was easy, being an ant is too abstract for him. The guy has traveled to mystical lands, wrote books, and had sex with a phone, and an ant is too abstract for him. He doesn't care for your modern contraptions. He is too busy living in the future and wanting to know what the world is in a post-ant existence. It may sound surreal, but it is more profound and abstract than you could ever imagine. Why not toss it off on his buddy Michel Gondry? That guy will do anything if he can stick pastels over it.
Nicolas Winding Refn
Why Not? - Because Hollywood has yet to embrace Ryan Gosling as both a sexy actor and an artist despite turning in countless amazing roles, including one with Refn. Also, with the vibrant colors and penchant for violence, Refn isn't likely to be a strong pull for audiences who already told him to skip town with the lack of box office for Drive. If Only God Forgives sucked as much as it did, what makes any executive believe that his next film would be more accessible and fun? It may be great, but without Gosling in tow, nobody would really care for a Refn film, let alone one with a man becoming an ant. Also, Hollywood hates color blind people.
Who is your pick to not direct Ant Man?
Comments
Post a Comment