Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)

[number8]

Have you seeen James Gunn's BO numbers pre Galaxy? Super and Tromeo & Juliet weren't exactly blowing up the multiplex.

Yeah, that's my point. He wasn't the main draw, and neither would Edgar Wright had been.

Even if Edgar Wright had stayed on, the trailers would probably focus on marketing Ant-Man as part of the unbeatable Marvel brand more than "From the director of Shaun of the Dead."

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, that's my point. He wasn't the main draw, and neither would Edgar Wright had been.

But given his track record, Wright would most likely make Ant-Man suck less and thus it would at least have better W-O-M. Career-wise, he isn't that far off from where Sam Raimi was before Spider-Man or Peter Jackson was before LOTR.

[Watashi]

I think the Marvel name is a big enough draw that you could attach any no-name director and it will still open decent.

[Grouchy]

I think the Marvel name is a big enough draw that you could attach any no-name director and it will still open decent.

Pretty much.

I hold an odd kind of personal grudge towards Ant-Man. It's the first time I've ever wanted something to flop, or cared one way or the other.

[Henry Gale]

I don't think Marvel ever has or ever will use their directors to market their stuff. I mean, what would they have done early on?

From the director of
Elf and Zathura

IRON MAN

...

From the director of
Unleashed and Transporter 2

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

...

From the director of
Dead Again, Henry V, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

THOR

Even as recent as The Winter Solider they would've been touting directors whose last film work was You, Me and Dupree, despite all the great stuff they did on (the still totally different) Community, Happy Endings and Arrested Development. They saw the potential and went for it.

And I guess that's the best thing you can say about Marvel's track record so far is that they tend to look at the sensibilities, talent and imminent take their directors can bring to the material more than what's necessarily dictated by what's already on their resumés or past box office success, since their brand will do that work for them.

[DavidSeven]

If Guardians proved anything, it's that Marvel can sell these movies with their name, a 90% pre-release tomatometer, and strong word-of-mouth. The director's name is almost immaterial. It also doesn't need to be a highly recognized property and doesn't have to look exactly like their other movies. Just put out a good product, and the brand/word-of-mouth will do the work.

In that regard, Wright would've been a good choice for Ant-Man (assuming the alternative would be some director acting as a Marvel drone that'll pump out a safe and unspectacular product).

I'm hoping Gunn's success here will encourage Marvel to lighten up a bit on the cookie-cutter approach that they've been following thus far. Maybe we'll see less instances of potentially interesting voices like Patty Jenkins and Wright being canned for deviating from the company line.

[Lazlo]

When is a director's name ever really effective in selling a movie to the general public beyond Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Tarantino... could be end of list.... Ant Man will do just fine because of the Marvel logo above the title.

[Irish]

Just put out a good product, and the brand/word-of-mouth will do the work.

Well, that and $100 million in marketing.