I'm not sure if anyone caught it earlier, but the test footage for ANT-MAN that was released last year during Comic-Con Interntional, it was finally leaked online via a cellphone camera during the event.
Sorry, this was about 10 hours ago and it has since been removed, but last year there was a storyboard done of a pretty faithful recreation of what the minute long short showed. There are some slight differences, he flips out of the vent, his change is with an instanteous flash, its close. Live-action, the costume looked rather Daredevil-ish and the helmet(which covered the entire facial area) looked somewhat like Ripcord's from GI JOE, but all gray. It didn't look bad at all.
Anyway, here's the storyboard. I'd link the test footage but I can't find it anymore.
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/09/27/edgar-wrights-ant-man-test-reel-recreated-in-fan-made-video/
I'm gonna be honest man... I don't think anyone cares about Ant-man at this point (and this from the guy whose title used to be AntmanAnext). They haven't cast a single actor for the film, the script details are sketchy at best, and the movie isn't even going to START filming until 2015. We've still got Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, AND Avengers 2 to get through first.
I care about an Ant-man movie, largely because it's being made by Edgar Wright.
Yeah if this comes out as a highly stylish action comedy, I think it could be fantastic. He's a great choice for such a silly character. The teaser I saw didn't give me much of a reaction but it wasn't really showing much.
Yo guys missed my point... it's not that I'm dismissing this because it's antman, I'm dismissing it because there's nothing new to talk about. IIRC, the subject of the test footage WAS brought up already in another thread, and nothing new about the movie has been revealed since that point. There's no sense in making a thread that's just going to be 3 pages back by the time actual new starts coming out.
New news... is new news.
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/marvel-officially-names-paul-rudd-as-ant-man-1200980005/
I wonder if this means we'll get a AOU or MAOS cameo...
This has potential! Paul Rudd can do love able schmuck or smarmy d-bag well. I just wonder which direction they'll go with this. Also I hope we get some news about Janet Van Dyne soon.
After watching 'the end of the world' I'm a lot more excited about it.
It's official-ish: Paul Rudd is Scott Lang, and Michael Douglas is playing Hank Pym. Boom. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=50250 (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=50250)
Quote from: Talavar on January 13, 2014, 08:37:32 PM
It's official-ish: Paul Rudd is Scott Lang, and Michael Douglas is playing Hank Pym. Boom. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=50250 (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=50250)
I'm very thrilled with the news because I felt that Paul Rudd was a better fit for Scott Lang as character then anyone else. Michael Douglas as Hank Pym totally works for me because I pictured Pym among the young scientists that Howard Stark and Peggy Carter sign up for S.H.I.E.L.D. during it's post war years. So it's possible we will see young Pym cameo in Captain America: Winter Soldier deep within the labs working with insect communication in flashback (maybe never saying a word) using an unknown actor and later show up being played by Douglas in modern day hanging with Tony Stark working on some A.I. project (possibly the new brain of Iron Man 2.0 since Tony doesn't want to wear the armor anymore) which leads to Ultron in AoU.
I would assume that the Ant-Man movie would then focus on Lang (who is probably working as a lab assistant) stealing Pym's old hardware to save his daughter which brings both versions of Ant-Man (err.. Ant-Men?) head to head. Probably getting flashbacks of Pym's early experiments with his communication helmet and Pym particles while Lang is coming to grips with controlling the unusual functions of the "suit" he stole from the lab. It allows Pym to dub him the new Ant-Man by the end of the movie and leave room for Giant-Man or Goliath to be created as a future S.H.I.E.L.D. agent in later films.
Just my 2 cents.
- CQ
So I do think that Lang and Pym both being in the movie is cool, and I dig it if Hank's being used as the mentor character to pass down the legacy to Lang, but Micheal Douglas as Hank? I'm having trouble picturing it.
Bah...bah...and bah. I'll post a more eloquent response later (class prep madness at the moment!), but I can't say I'm thrilled with this. I don't care about Scott Lang period (not that I don't like the character, but I just really don't have any interest in him), and Douglass seems like a really poor fit for Hank. I really want to be excited about this film, but this news makes it more difficult.
I like it. At best, Hank Pym has a troubled history, and Michael Douglas is an actor capable of representing at least a hint of that. I also like that we're seeing a legacy character enter the Marvel universe. To be fair, neither Hank Pym nor Scott Lang have ever been favourites of mine; I'm mainly interested in Ant-man because of Edgar Wright. This legacy introduction (in some form) definitely increases my interest.
Well I'm a big fan of both Hank and Scott, so on one hand I'm very happy to have them in the film...but Douglas is really old to be playing Pym. It pretty much takes him off the table as a significant super hero character. I'd have preferred someone younger that could potentially be Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Dr. Pym in an Avengers movie. Anyway we'll see how this plays out.
I've always had an odd feeling for Wright's Ant-Man film. I have this feeling it's not going to feel like the other Marvel movies.
Quote from: Podmark on January 14, 2014, 05:57:33 AM
Well I'm a big fan of both Hank and Scott, so on one hand I'm very happy to have them in the film...but Douglas is really old to be playing Pym. It pretty much takes him off the table as a significant super hero character. I'd have preferred someone younger that could potentially be Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Dr. Pym in an Avengers movie. Anyway we'll see how this plays out.
Yeah, My first thought was we wouldn't get to see Pym in his costumed identities... however Douglas is playing the aged and retired version of Hank Pym. In one of Edgar Wright's interviews awhile back said he had planned for telling the legacy of Pym and his whole discovery of the insect world through the eyes of two characters. I assumed that it was Ant-Man and Wasp but apparently it might be in flashbacks of Pym discovering his particles and then through Lang taking his inventions and making him a full on superhero who eventually joins The Avengers in Phase Three. I doubt that we will be seeing Douglas wearing anything other then a lab coat but I'm pretty sure that there is an actor who has been picked to play Young Pym who has yet to be announced (I'm taking bets it's Cameron Douglas, his son who is an actor and looks very much like him, who might don the lab coat and an early version of the costume in flashbacks to give background of his early years as Ant-Man).
From the news sources I've been looking over.. Douglas was given Variety magazine buzz to be a villain just before the holidays and then it was quickly retracted upon the announcement of him as Pym. Makes me wonder if they will play up Pym becoming very unstable after discovering his work has been stolen and goes after Lang calling himself Yellowjacket (not wearing some costume but using inventions from around the lab). I think that would cover Pym's whole hero gone over the edge angle using two of his most well known namesakes without addressing the slap heard around the world. Course that makes you wonder how they will address Wasp's character since she is listed among the cast in scripts that Wright talked about.
- CQ
The Michael Douglas announcement blows me away. I like his work, but I just don't see how he's fit into the project...as Ant-Man. But...Kelsey Grammar made a good Beast so I'm willing to see what happens.
But Kelsey Grammar was a great fit for Beast. He's urbane, sophisticated, and yet he's got the physical presence to be intimidating.
Michael Douglas doesn't seem terribly good for Hank Pym to me. I could be wrong, but that's my initial impression.
I confess that I know very little about Pym's character. Besides his age, why doesn't Douglas seem like a good fit?
I read a pretty great post about Hank Pym, and why it's not a good idea to have Michael Douglas as him.... Don't quite remember where it's from, but I'll break down the main points...
4 reasons why Hank Pym is memorable:
1. He's a founding member of the Avengers
2. He's got Janet Van Dyne, the Wasp as an on-again/off-again love interest and partner
3. He made Ultron, which in turn leads to a whole lot of other Avengers Lore
4. Unfortunately he's also remembered for spousal abuse
Now, let's fit these points into the current marvel cinematic framework:
1. Too late for that, and even if they retcon Michael Douglas into being a part of SHIELD, it may be a little late.
2. This is where things get iffy. The Avengers need more of a female presence, and she is a charter member. Well, let's look at the possibilities,
A. Jan is Michael's age, and we know in Hollywood, that would probably make her a background character. Not gonna happen.
B. Jan is much younger than Michael, and it's a bit creepy.
C. Jan now become's Paul Rudd's love interest and the whole lore of Ant-man and the Wasp is changed, She becomes a one size fits all accessory, and not a character in her own right.
3. It's already been revealed that Ultron (the villain for Avengers 2) wasn't made by Hank Pym, this just trivializes Hank's contributions further... So I guess it's OK to have an old guy in the role?
4. This is a touchy subject, and although it could've been a driving issue for character growth (like Tony's alcoholism) it probably won't be addressed in the movie. Similarity Tony's drinking was kind of sidelined in IM3 making his pride and arrogance his main character flaw, and in some sense his greatest strength too (for entertainment purposes.)
Focusing mainly on Scott Lang, I guess they can look at the main theme of Redemption. From being a crook with a good heart to being a family friendly superhero is a lot more palatable than a semi-schizophrenic wife beating scientist.
Unfortunately, I think this decision makes us lose the opportunity for The Wasp to enter into the marvel cinematic universe.
Well, at least we have the Scarlet Which, so that's one new female Avenger anyway, although I am sad to not see Wasp as well.
I think we'll still have Janet, but her relationship to Hank will obviously be different ... maybe a younger scientist or lab assistant? As if Marvel are going to turn down the opportunity to launch another superhero via the Ant-Man film.
Regarding Michael Douglas ... the guy is great actor, and I'm glad he's onboard. From what I understand, the Ant-Man character is essentially going to be split in half ... Douglas will play the super scientist, Rudd will be the costumed hero. I'm intrigued as to how all the pieces are going to fit, but I trust Edgar Wright to make it work.
Yeah they'll have to change The Wasp because it just wouldn't make sense for Michael Douglas to be with a young beautiful woman.
Quote from: BWPS on January 21, 2014, 12:16:02 PM
Yeah they'll have to change The Wasp because it just wouldn't make sense for Michael Douglas to be with a young beautiful woman.
Confirmed: Catherine Zeta Jones as the wasp. :lol:
Here's a thought:
Avengers 2 comes out before Ant-man, right? What is the possibility of Ant-man being a prequel to Avengers 2? Pym could still make Ultron, SHIELD put Ultron in storage and for one reason or another Ultron gets free and it's up to the Avengers to stop him. The Ant-man movie could be about how Pym created Ant-man and how Scott got a whole of it, while all of this is going on Pym is working/ creating Ultron in the background. Almost like they showed Cap's shield in the Iron Man movies. Plus it would hype up the Ant-man movie while keeping the comics purist somewhat happy
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 05, 2014, 10:25:14 PM
Avengers 2 comes out before Ant-man, right?
Ant-Man is slated to come out on 17th of July 2015... and Avengers: Age Of Ultron comes out on 1st of May 2015. Sooo, that's a negative... Avengers 2 comes out first and followed by Ant-Man just a few months afterward.
- CQ
Quote from: crimsonquill on February 06, 2014, 01:44:25 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 05, 2014, 10:25:14 PM
Avengers 2 comes out before Ant-man, right?
Ant-Man is slated to come out on 17th of July 2015... and Avengers: Age Of Ultron comes out on 1st of May 2015. Sooo, that's a negative... Avengers 2 comes out first and followed by Ant-Man just a few months afterward.
- CQ
Which is exactly what he's saying.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on February 06, 2014, 07:32:41 AM
Quote from: crimsonquill on February 06, 2014, 01:44:25 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 05, 2014, 10:25:14 PM
Avengers 2 comes out before Ant-man, right?
Ant-Man is slated to come out on 17th of July 2015... and Avengers: Age Of Ultron comes out on 1st of May 2015. Sooo, that's a negative... Avengers 2 comes out first and followed by Ant-Man just a few months afterward.
- CQ
Which is exactly what he's saying.
Oh, Ooops.. I guess I misread it the first time around while I was still half-awake and drugged up on cold medicine. >.< Sorry, JeyNyce and Cat.
I just remember Joss Whedon being very clear that Ant-Man/Pym would NOT appear IN Avengers 2.. but that doesn't mean he will be a background character in Captain America 2 (during a flashback maybe) or having a post-credit cameo somewhere before then. Course he could very much be lying and making sure it's a surprise appearance when he does appear before Ant-Man.
- CQ
So, what do you guys think of the new costume?
Spoiler
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/0/6063/3705971-1395192284_antman2.jpg)
Spoiler
The helmet doesn't look too bad, but I'll wait until I see the whole costume before I form any real opinion.
Agreed CB.
I wouldn't worry about Michael Douglas being a fit. He's a versatile actor, not a typecast one. His recent performance as Liberace and past ones in Ghost And The Darkness and Falling Down for example give enough credibility that he can stretch and has the chops to assimilate a character properly. I think this movie will be a hit. I think it probably sway from the source material and earn disfavor naturally from the comic community. Personally it makes me think of Blade. Part of what made Blade so successful was it was something out of left field and that left a lot of room for interpretation. And that one dug Marvel out of bankruptcy and kicked of the whole Marvel movie trend we have now. That's sort of made of straw I know, but in the same vein so is making failure presumptions about a film centered around Ant-Man.
My fear is less that I don't think I'd enjoy a film about Antman (my original username was ANTMANanext after all), my only concern is that this thing has been in limbo for like, 5 years. When fans jump up and shout "It's progressing!" when they make a logo, I think I'm justified in having a fair amount of concern.
I think your just seeing it from the wrong vantage point. Marvel Studios plans it's movies in advance and releases them accordingly to where they need to be placed to line up the Cinematic Universe's structure. Kevin Feige often has gone into great detail on that. Ant-Man is exactly where it needs to be and when. On our end of the spectrum however we live in the digital age and are recipients of the 24 hours news cycle, also as I've mentioned before we're inherently spoiled consumers with both high expectations and " now " desires ingrained. It should all be a click away and without interruptions is what we have been taught. It should all be fair. The thing is like most films, we heard about Ant-Man way in advance. As far as I recall the first time I heard it dropped was in a Stan Lee interview, who also mentioned S.H.I.E.L.D., Dr.Strange and Power Pack among others at the time. Speculative news articles exploded on the internet immediately after. So in reality " limbo " was actually " on hold " until the time was right to finish and unveil the film. I have hard time believing it would not come out soon as well, aside from that at this stage any relative merch is already in production and now waiting for the film but more the understanding that this film is the prelude to Avengers 2 being that it explains how Ultron came to be so A2 doesn't have to focus on that much like how the first Avengers movie's cast were introduced previously allowing it to focus on it's own storyline. The release date could be subject to change but I think that's just normal. The first X-Men went through it even though it was released earlier than originally decided (coinciding with the toy and game manufacturers wanting to get a jump on the market) which of course was pleasing to people anticipating it rather than the disappointment they would have felt if it came to light they would have to wait longer, again a harder task in this day in age since we're alerted to things far sooner than we should be and often muddled with misleading news that's often only concerned with trending. This makes it " seem " like films are moving along slowly. I don't think you have to worry, at base I feel they would get it out in due time if anything just because of the importance of Avengers 2 and the fact it hinges on the Ant-Man film already being in place.
It wasn't in "limbo" because of concerns over the quality (has Edgar Wright ever had his name on an inferior product?) ... more likely concerns over how the character was going to fit into a connected series of films and whether anyone was likely to go and see a film about a lower-tier character.
Due to their financial success, Marvel are obviously willing to take more of a risk on Ant-Man and Guardians of The Galaxy as they expand their brand past the core Avengers ... I'm actually looking forward to these two films because I think Edgar Wright and James Gunn are really talented.
Quote from: SickAlice on May 06, 2014, 12:38:02 AM
I think your just seeing it from the wrong vantage point. Marvel Studios plans it's movies in advance and releases them accordingly to where they need to be placed to line up the Cinematic Universe's structure. Kevin Feige often has gone into great detail on that. Ant-Man is exactly where it needs to be and when. On our end of the spectrum however we live in the digital age and are recipients of the 24 hours news cycle, also as I've mentioned before we're inherently spoiled consumers with both high expectations and " now " desires ingrained. It should all be a click away and without interruptions is what we have been taught. It should all be fair. The thing is like most films, we heard about Ant-Man way in advance. As far as I recall the first time I heard it dropped was in a Stan Lee interview, who also mentioned S.H.I.E.L.D., Dr.Strange and Power Pack among others at the time. Speculative news articles exploded on the internet immediately after. So in reality " limbo " was actually " on hold " until the time was right to finish and unveil the film. I have hard time believing it would not come out soon as well, aside from that at this stage any relative merch is already in production and now waiting for the film but more the understanding that this film is the prelude to Avengers 2 being that it explains how Ultron came to be so A2 doesn't have to focus on that much like how the first Avengers movie's cast were introduced previously allowing it to focus on it's own storyline. The release date could be subject to change but I think that's just normal. The first X-Men went through it even though it was released earlier than originally decided (coinciding with the toy and game manufacturers wanting to get a jump on the market) which of course was pleasing to people anticipating it rather than the disappointment they would have felt if it came to light they would have to wait longer, again a harder task in this day in age since we're alerted to things far sooner than we should be and often muddled with misleading news that's often only concerned with trending. This makes it " seem " like films are moving along slowly. I don't think you have to worry, at base I feel they would get it out in due time if anything just because of the importance of Avengers 2 and the fact it hinges on the Ant-Man film already being in place.
Again, I point back to the fact that they made a big deal about a logo and some test footage they never released. If it's "on hold," you don't jump up and down at conventions saying "we have test footage!" We know a Doctor Strange movie is coming, we know a third Cap movie is coming, but are those filmmakers going to cons going "look at my test footage for a movie we won't even start on for a few years!" No, they aren't. Yes, now that things are actually moving I'm excited, but I still have a lot of pessimism from back when people reopened the then-dead Antman movie thread because someone made a logo.
I know that Marvel sold the rights to every cool hero,but a movie about Ant-man is just :blink: .I mean half of the people is gona be: WHO the heck is that guy??
Can't imagine that people will be more confused than they were for Scott Pilgrim & that movie seemed to do well.
You don't always need A-List characters to make a successful movie. You just need a decent script & the right director. Hopefully Ant-man has both.
Quote from: MJB on May 07, 2014, 08:31:37 AM
Can't imagine that people will be more confused than they were for Scott Pilgrim & that movie seemed to do well.
You don't always need A-List characters to make a successful movie. You just need a decent script & the right director. Hopefully Ant-man has both.
Agreed.Sadly Marvel sold all of their A-list charachters so now they make movies about Z-list charachters.Since from Marvel I only read Punisher,does Ant-man have/had a comic?Was it good?
Quote from: Spade on May 07, 2014, 05:34:36 AM
I know that Marvel sold the rights to every cool hero,but a movie about Ant-man is just :blink: .I mean half of the people is gona be: WHO the heck is that guy??
Half the general population were already "who the heck is that guy?" for Iron Man, and that seemed to work out pretty well. Meanwhile, Amazing Spider-man 2 is a hot mess of a film, and opened worse than Captain America. I'll take good movies over "cool" characters any day.
Quote from: Talavar on May 07, 2014, 01:36:05 PM
Quote from: Spade on May 07, 2014, 05:34:36 AM
I know that Marvel sold the rights to every cool hero,but a movie about Ant-man is just :blink: .I mean half of the people is gona be: WHO the heck is that guy??
Half the general population were already "who the heck is that guy?" for Iron Man, and that seemed to work out pretty well. Meanwhile, Amazing Spider-man 2 is a hot mess of a film, and opened worse than Captain America. I'll take good movies over "cool" characters any day.
Well ofcourse everyone likes a good movie,I was just noting that Ant-man isnt the most well known Marvel charachter.To quote a review I heard : Avengers assemble all of Marvels greatest heroes,EXCEPT Spiderman,Fantastic Four and X-man.
Spade, I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be great to see Marvel get control of those characters again. The Fantastic Four really need to come home. Can y'all imagine how amazing the Galactus story could be if actually done well?
Anyway, yeah, I've got faith in Marvel. They've earned the benefit of my doubt, so here's hoping that they'll turn out something great with this movie.
Honestly Im going into this with no expectations at all,because I know almost nothing about charachter.Like I said from Marvel,right now Im only reading Pumisher.Another guy that should have got a movie before Ant-man BTW :D
I would say 'watch Avengers: EMH,' but that show didn't treat poor Hank too well in the end. The first several episodes with him, though, they really capture the character. Hank Pym really is a great character, a founding member of the Avengers, and a really neat part of the Marvel Universe. Like Aquaman, however, he's had some unfortunate stories told about him and took a long time to recover from those (if he has, I don't read modern mainstream books).
Quote from: Spade on May 07, 2014, 06:34:55 PM
Honestly Im going into this with no expectations at all,because I know almost nothing about charachter.Like I said from Marvel,right now Im only reading Pumisher.Another guy that should have got a movie before Ant-man BTW :D
Uh, he did. 3 times. The Punisher, starring Dolph Lundgren in 1989, The Punisher, starring Thomas Jane in 2004, and Punisher: War Zone, starring Ray Stevenson in 2008. Granted, none of those are great movies, but Marvel only recently reclaimed the Punisher licence. Given three bad movies, 2 of them within a decade, them giving a little time for the Punisher movie franchise to lay fallow isn't a bad idea.
Quote from: Talavar on May 08, 2014, 01:19:53 AM
Quote from: Spade on May 07, 2014, 06:34:55 PM
Honestly Im going into this with no expectations at all,because I know almost nothing about charachter.Like I said from Marvel,right now Im only reading Pumisher.Another guy that should have got a movie before Ant-man BTW :D
Uh, he did. 3 times. The Punisher, starring Dolph Lundgren in 1989, The Punisher, starring Thomas Jane in 2004, and Punisher: War Zone, starring Ray Stevenson in 2008. Granted, none of those are great movies, but Marvel only recently reclaimed the Punisher licence. Given three bad movies, 2 of them within a decade, them giving a little time for the Punisher movie franchise to lay fallow isn't a bad idea.
I actually think Punisher would work well on TV. Would fit in well with the Netflix shows.
Yeah, you're probably right, Pod. The Punisher is one character that doesn't need much more budget than the average action show.
Personally I would love to see the Punisher show up on both Agents of SHEILD season two & some if the Netflix shows before getting his own special or something.
That would be neat MJB!
Quote from: Podmark on May 08, 2014, 02:55:37 AM
Quote from: Talavar on May 08, 2014, 01:19:53 AM
Quote from: Spade on May 07, 2014, 06:34:55 PM
Honestly Im going into this with no expectations at all,because I know almost nothing about charachter.Like I said from Marvel,right now Im only reading Pumisher.Another guy that should have got a movie before Ant-man BTW :D
Uh, he did. 3 times. The Punisher, starring Dolph Lundgren in 1989, The Punisher, starring Thomas Jane in 2004, and Punisher: War Zone, starring Ray Stevenson in 2008. Granted, none of those are great movies, but Marvel only recently reclaimed the Punisher licence. Given three bad movies, 2 of them within a decade, them giving a little time for the Punisher movie franchise to lay fallow isn't a bad idea.
I actually think Punisher would work well on TV. Would fit in well with the Netflix shows.
I meant in the Marvel cinematic universe.Movie from 2004 was the one I watched,It was cool.There really vas a version with Dolph Lundgren in the 80s?
Although back then everything was with Dolph Lundgren... :unsure:
This news is a month out of date, but there have apparently been some major shake ups and the film won't be shooting as planned. Apparently one of the main guys behind the films wanted to keep it separate from the movie universe, which is a major no-no.
http://furiousfanboys.com/2014/05/edgar-wright-confirmed-to-have-left-ant-man-over-script-changes/
Horrible news. Edgar Wright was the main reason I was looking forward to this. A real shame they couldn't work something out.
He apparently wanted a stand alone film and when Marvel made last minute changes to the script to bring it into the universe, he walked.
Yeah, one wonders just what changes were made. It hardly seems like it could have been enough to warrant this, but you never know. I wasn't excited about this film, but now I'm just hoping it doesn't do any damage to the Marvel juggernaut.
I'm shocked we didn't discuss this here - it was all over the interwebs. Without Wright, the reasons to actually do an Ant-man film seem to have departed. I had thought (hoped) Marvel would end up quietly shelving it, and adding a more interesting film to Phase 3 (like maybe Captain Marvel, or Dr. Strange), but it seems like they're going ahead with it.
I don't blame most directors leaving it. Without Wright,, this could be Marvel's first flop (In a critical and financial way anyway, Thor 2 and IM 3 sucked but both raked in a lot of money)
And who do you think will be most blamed if it does?
I really don't have any interest without Wright directing ... and this was the Marvel film I was looking forward to the most :/
I'm sorry, but I think him leaving over Marvel's decision to include it in the greater MCU is a bit petty.
I think by now the universe Marvel has built is pretty established, and any creators getting involved with it should know that they won't be given complete creative control.
Of course I have no idea what Wright and other Marvel dropouts (Ed Norton, Terrence Howard) feel. Is it really soul crushing to labor under Marvel? We know things in the comic industry have been pretty bad in the past, but I think Hollywood has some safeguards in place.
Anyway, I'm still pumped for Ant-Man.
Quote from: detourne_me on July 03, 2014, 12:40:56 PM
I'm sorry, but I think him leaving over Marvel's decision to include it in the greater MCU is a bit petty.
I think by now the universe Marvel has built is pretty established, and any creators getting involved with it should know that they won't be given complete creative control.
Of course I have no idea what Wright and other Marvel dropouts (Ed Norton, Terrence Howard) feel. Is it really soul crushing to labor under Marvel? We know things in the comic industry have been pretty bad in the past, but I think Hollywood has some safeguards in place.
Anyway, I'm still pumped for Ant-Man.
I think directors have left for different reasons than actors (whose reasons are various). For the directors, most aren't used/don't like having to toe company policy when making a film. Marvel wants all these films to be part of a cohesive whole, so they need to keep a firm hand on directorial decision making. That has its ups and downs - it keeps the movies safe from stupid, directorial whims (bat-nipples, for example), but scares away a lot of more unique voices.
Yes, but because of Marvel's tight grip, most of their movies have been formulaic and repetitive. Just look at Thor 2, and IM 3. Thank The One Above All that Cap 3 was freaking great.
Honestly, what I find frustrating is that Wright could have had the movie that he wanted back in Phase 1, but it just never got off the ground. Clearly Feige was behind the film then, so I do not understand what took so long for Antman to get moving... It wasn't until Marvel finally started pushing the film into production (presumably at the behest of Whedon, who wanted to have Wasp for Avengers) that we saw more from the film than a logo and some test footage.
So yeah, much as I can sympathise with Wright, every other filmmaker in Phase 1 was able to get their project off the ground. Much as he kept pushing for it at cons and the like, as far as we know there was not finalized script, no attempt to start casting actors, nothing. And that is as much on him as it is on Marvel.
Quote from: trebean on July 03, 2014, 03:42:54 PM
Yes, but because of Marvel's tight grip, most of their movies have been formulaic and repetitive. Just look at Thor 2, and IM 3. Thank The One Above All that Cap 3 was freaking great.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Marvel's tight grip has produced the best run of superhero movies yet made, with most of them head and shoulders above the competition. Whether one likes them or not, I can't see how either Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 can be seen as formulaic or repetitive. Neither is an origin story, which have been done to death admittedly, neither makes use of a villain already done (or even rather similar, such as another man in power armour for Iron Man), and both have major changes in the status quos for the characters involved. That, and Cap 3 hasn't been made yet.
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2014, 04:14:47 PM
Quote from: trebean on July 03, 2014, 03:42:54 PM
Yes, but because of Marvel's tight grip, most of their movies have been formulaic and repetitive. Just look at Thor 2, and IM 3. Thank The One Above All that Cap 3 was freaking great.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Marvel's tight grip has produced the best run of superhero movies yet made, with most of them head and shoulders above the competition. Whether one likes them or not, I can't see how either Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 can be seen as formulaic or repetitive. Neither is an origin story, which have been done to death admittedly, neither makes use of a villain already done (or even rather similar, such as another man in power armour for Iron Man), and both have major changes in the status quos for the characters involved. That, and Cap 3 hasn't been made yet.
Do'h, CAP 2! I MEANT CAP 2!.
Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 non formulaic? You have to look at the bigger picture here. Both are plagued with horrendously forced jokes and side characters, both have character "development" that never went anywhere (Yes, Tony's panic attack had as much relevance as Thor and Jane's I guess somewhat of a relationship?) The movies final act start to detoriate once given more thought (Like, why did Tony even blew up all his suits at the end? Did it stand for something? It must just have been a spurnof the moment seeing as how he builds ULTRON later on.)While I do agree that it's loads better than most ( Well, subjectively anyway, other than IM, Avengers, and Cap 2 most of what they release isn't that great) why do they always feel the need to add in unnecessary characters and moments (lest, for the cheapest of excuses COMEDY) it just kills the mood and stops everythingto a deadhalt. Boring Exposition? Here have a naked guy COMEDY!! Nonsensical Character arc that does nothing tp the plot or the character later on? Don't mind that just cherish this sickeningly sweet AAAAWWWW moment between Tony and this kid. Wait, you're gonna execute a brilliant clever plan that nobody ever saw coming (sarcasm) and finish this brilliance by hurling your hammer at the dust particle energy substance just to look EPIC!? Genius!!Wait Wait Wait, you're gonna tell me the world's smartest rich guy who literally has an army of robo suits with a simple command come to him instead stubbornly use a malfunctioning Prototype from what we've seen can withstand intense pressure yet fail to blast through a barn door? YOU'RE LIKE TAKING THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY IN MY NEURAL CORTEX AND PLACING IT ON THIS PAPER!
I do not hate these films, it's just that I don't think Marvel is thaaat good.
Quote from: trebean on July 03, 2014, 06:10:09 PM
Quote from: Talavar on July 03, 2014, 04:14:47 PM
Quote from: trebean on July 03, 2014, 03:42:54 PM
Yes, but because of Marvel's tight grip, most of their movies have been formulaic and repetitive. Just look at Thor 2, and IM 3. Thank The One Above All that Cap 3 was freaking great.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Marvel's tight grip has produced the best run of superhero movies yet made, with most of them head and shoulders above the competition. Whether one likes them or not, I can't see how either Thor 2 or Iron Man 3 can be seen as formulaic or repetitive. Neither is an origin story, which have been done to death admittedly, neither makes use of a villain already done (or even rather similar, such as another man in power armour for Iron Man), and both have major changes in the status quos for the characters involved. That, and Cap 3 hasn't been made yet.
Do'h, CAP 2! I MEANT CAP 2!.
Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 non formulaic? You have to look at the bigger picture here. Both are plagued with horrendously forced jokes and side characters, both have character "development" that never went anywhere (Yes, Tony's panic attack had as much relevance as Thor and Jane's I guess somewhat of a relationship?) The movies final act start to detoriate once given more thought (Like, why did Tony even blew up all his suits at the end? Did it stand for something? It must just have been a spurnof the moment seeing as how he builds ULTRON later on.)While I do agree that it's loads better than most ( Well, subjectively anyway, other than IM, Avengers, and Cap 2 most of what they release isn't that great) why do they always feel the need to add in unnecessary characters and moments (lest, for the cheapest of excuses COMEDY) it just kills the mood and stops everythingto a deadhalt. Boring Exposition? Here have a naked guy COMEDY!! Nonsensical Character arc that does nothing tp the plot or the character later on? Don't mind that just cherish this sickeningly sweet AAAAWWWW moment between Tony and this kid. Wait, you're gonna execute a brilliant clever plan that nobody ever saw coming (sarcasm) and finish this brilliance by hurling your hammer at the dust particle energy substance just to look EPIC!? Genius!!Wait Wait Wait, you're gonna tell me the world's smartest rich guy who literally has an army of robo suits with a simple command come to him instead stubbornly use a malfunctioning Prototype from what we've seen can withstand intense pressure yet fail to blast through a barn door? YOU'RE LIKE TAKING THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY IN MY NEURAL CORTEX AND PLACING IT ON THIS PAPER!
I do not hate these films, it's just that I don't think Marvel is thaaat good.
Rather than go through this argument again (there is an entire thread about the MCU after all, where most of your above issues have been hashed out already), I'll simply say I disagree with this in its entirety, and hope that Marvel continues making movies that appeal to my taste rather than to yours.
Yeah, far be it for me to defend Iron Man 3, which I felt was entertaining but pretty mediocre (and I agree with pretty much all of your criticisms thereof), but I'm definitely with Tal here about Thor 2. In fact, to put the two films in the same league seems to me a rather grave disservice to the God of Thunder. :)
I wonder what role, if any, Marvel's meddling had in the unevenness of Iron Man 2. On the whole though, I'd say the proof is in the pudding. Obviously what Marvel is doing is working. Yeah, there have been a few missteps, but the whole of the cinematic universe they've created is still darn impressive and basically unprecedented.
Which I think is part of the problem. Comic book writers and novel writers sometimes, are used to writing in a shared universe where sometimes care needs to be taken to match things up with what is going on elsewhere. Film writers are not. They are used to doing their own thing, even when adapting stuff. This shared Marvelverse is just a foreign idea to many. It should be no surprise that some would find it even offensive. They can't do whatever they want to do because it wouldn't fit into the rest of the established/planned universe.
But I feel that it's great for viewers at least and want more.
My guess is simply that there were things in the script that contradicted the Marvelverse, plus they wanted to to put some things in that lead towards Avengers 3 and those things did not fit with what the writer wanted. For example, he might not like having magic, or aliens forced on him, both of which are possible, since they are a part of the Marvelverse.
Quote from: Tomato on July 03, 2014, 04:04:00 PM
Honestly, what I find frustrating is that Wright could have had the movie that he wanted back in Phase 1, but it just never got off the ground.
I believe I've heard that Wright wasn't ready, and was busy with other projects.
I've never heard what exactly were his reasons for leaving but I'm sure it will be interesting. Anyway new director is Peyton Reed and the script is still based on Wright's version. I believe that the release is unchanged at this point.
I like Ant-Man (any of them) but I've never been that excited for this film. Part of that is that I keep expecting them to make more comedy than their previous films, and that doesn't sound too appealing. Additionally I just don't see the potential of Ant-Man as a leading film star. It seems to me a better choice would be to introduce Pym (or Lang) as a team member in Avengers - though numbers hurt that idea.
Actually I take the above back - I could totally see a comedic film based around the Eric O'Grady Ant-Man. That'd be awesome!
Yeah, I haven't been terribly excited about this one since we got more information about it a while back. I just don't care about Scott Lang at all, (I don't dislike him, I just don't care about him) so an Ant-Man movie that's not really about Hank Pym being Ant-Man just doesn't interest me much. Too me, it's a shame that the script isn't changing, as this is a good opportunity to do something different.
An additional point to my previous comment, Ant-Man has rarely been a solo character. Pym did have a solo run early in his existence but he's mostly known for his role on the Avengers. Lang I don't think has ever had a solo run, and O'Grady had one for a while before shifting to being a team character as well.
When deciding which characters to make a solo move about it would seem to me that Ant-Man would be lower on the list. Not that there isn't material to use, and I'm sure a great movie could be made about the character, but it's a slightly odd choice to me.
Quote from: Podmark on July 04, 2014, 03:36:24 AM
An additional point to my previous comment, Ant-Man has rarely been a solo character. Pym did have a solo run early in his existence but he's mostly known for his role on the Avengers. Lang I don't think has ever had a solo run, and O'Grady had one for a while before shifting to being a team character as well.
When deciding which characters to make a solo move about it would seem to me that Ant-Man would be lower on the list. Not that there isn't material to use, and I'm sure a great movie could be made about the character, but it's a slightly odd choice to me.
I don't disagree, Pod, but I think he could work really well visually on the big screen. If WB had any brains in their suits, they'd make an Atom movie to beat Marvel to the punch. The Atom would certainly work better as a solo character and could get up to all kinds of neat stuff. He even has a small rogue's gallery, unlike Ant-Man.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 04, 2014, 03:44:05 AM
Quote from: Podmark on July 04, 2014, 03:36:24 AM
An additional point to my previous comment, Ant-Man has rarely been a solo character. Pym did have a solo run early in his existence but he's mostly known for his role on the Avengers. Lang I don't think has ever had a solo run, and O'Grady had one for a while before shifting to being a team character as well.
When deciding which characters to make a solo move about it would seem to me that Ant-Man would be lower on the list. Not that there isn't material to use, and I'm sure a great movie could be made about the character, but it's a slightly odd choice to me.
I don't disagree, Pod, but I think he could work really well visually on the big screen. If WB had any brains in their suits, they'd make an Atom movie to beat Marvel to the punch. The Atom would certainly work better as a solo character and could get up to all kinds of neat stuff. He even has a small rogue's gallery, unlike Ant-Man.
Now that you've mentioned it. Who is Antman fighting in this movie?
Antman has a few villains of his own, or that originated with him... Ultron is perhaps the most well known, but Whirlwind started as an Ant-man villain as well, as did Egghead. Admittedly they're kind of... bottom of the barrel, but if they can make Batroc the Leaper into a credible threat, I'd be interested in seeing what they can do with Whirlwind.
Yeah, Egg-Fu, wasn't it? Anyway, he and Whirlwind are the ones that came to mind for me. If they had gone about this with better planning, they could have introduced Ultron in an Ant-Man movie and then brought him back for Avengers...though that might not work too well, considering how well the Ant-Man movie did.
Whirlwind could certainly be worth seeing on film, but he's really only got the charisma to be a secondary villain, methinks.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 04, 2014, 05:13:47 PM
Yeah, Egg-Fu, wasn't it?
Egg-Fu is a Wonder Woman villain :P
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 04, 2014, 05:13:47 PM
Yeah, Egg-Fu, wasn't it? Anyway, he and Whirlwind are the ones that came to mind for me. If they had gone about this with better planning, they could have introduced Ultron in an Ant-Man movie and then brought him back for Avengers...though that might not work too well, considering how well the Ant-Man movie did.
Whirlwind could certainly be worth seeing on film, but he's really only got the charisma to be a secondary villain, methinks.
Wot? :huh:
Tre, I was saying that it would be cool to introduce Ultron in an Ant-Man movie, but it could backfire if the film didn't perform well, since folks would then be unfamiliar with the villain when The Avengers rolled around.
Wouldn't introducing AIM work well in an Ant-Man movie? They could even have some goofy beekeeper outfits too. (If only as an homage to the comics, in movie they could be used to combat an insect infestation)
QuoteNow that you've mentioned it. Who is Antman fighting in this movie?
Cross Technological Enterprises (Darren Cross, maybe some kind of interpretation of Crossfire?) and a version of Yellowjacket are rumoured to be the bad guys.
Quote from: detourne_me on July 05, 2014, 05:22:11 AM
Wouldn't introducing AIM work well in an Ant-Man movie? They could even have some goofy beekeeper outfits too. (If only as an homage to the comics, in movie they could be used to combat an insect infestation)
AIM was already (poorly) introduced in Iron Man 3.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 05, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
AIM was already (poorly) introduced in Iron Man 3.
I'm sure AIM could be revamped in some fashion since it was just a brain-trust or HIVE mind of scientists being led by Aldrich Killian. I would assume that Killian's group of Extremis soldiers and his plans with the false Mandarian made him part of a radical faction of AIM. Much like Hydra, I would have assumed the remaining founders went on to form other scientific research companies with different experiments to develop.. maybe one of those projects (Project: MODOK?) could show up in Agents Of SHIELD or Iron Man 4?
- CQ
Certainly it could and I do hope to see that at some point.
http://screenrant.com/ant-man-comic-con-poster/
Hmm...I don't quite know what to think about that poster. I wonder if it will grab the public properly.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 25, 2014, 06:06:56 PM
Hmm...I don't quite know what to think about that poster. I wonder if it will grab the public properly.
I think that Marvel Studio's track record, alone, will pull in more than enough fans. :P
Well, they certainly have built up plenty of good will, haven't they. :)
Marvel has announced the villain for the Ant-Man film: Darren Cross (cousin of Crossfire and villain of Scott Lang's origin) who will take up the identity of Yellowjacket. He will be played by Corey Stoll.
Also Evangeline Lilly will be playing Hank Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyne (a villain named Red Queen in MC2).
Both these were heavily rumored.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=54394
Yeah, if Guardians of the Galaxy has shown me anything, it is that the public actually sees Marvel as a brand and get excited for characters they have never heard of. This could create something interesting, if one of marvels less popular (not Ant-Man specifically) character has a really good film, they could end up having to way up their profile in the comics. See Blade as an example.
Filming begins! And the thread wasn't even on the 3rd page.
http://marvel.com/news/movies/2014/8/18/23096/production_begins_on_marvels_ant-man
So, for some reason I thought Paul Rudd was John Krasinski (The Office). And I became super excited! I guess the real Paul Rudd will do.
I wonder how this movie is going to tied in with the Avengers and all the other shows in the MCU? I'm thinking that somebody from Agents might make an appearance in the movie.
Quote from: lugaru on July 28, 2014, 11:55:01 AM
Yeah, if Guardians of the Galaxy has shown me anything, it is that the public actually sees Marvel as a brand and get excited for characters they have never heard of. This could create something interesting, if one of marvels less popular (not Ant-Man specifically) character has a really good film, they could end up having to way up their profile in the comics. See Blade as an example.
As a real life example my boss mentioned the Guardians movie to me and said he had no idea who the characters were or what it was about, but since it was a Marvel film, it had to be good and he was planning to see it.
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 19, 2014, 11:03:21 PM
I wonder how this movie is going to tied in with the Avengers and all the other shows in the MCU? I'm thinking that somebody from Agents might make an appearance in the movie.
I think someone earlier in the thread said that Edgar Wright quit BECAUSE Marvel wanted to connect it to the cinematic universe, which it originally wasn't. Don't know if that was confirmed or not, but it's hard to see them doing a Disney/Marvel produced movie and NOT being connected.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on August 20, 2014, 02:07:53 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 19, 2014, 11:03:21 PM
I wonder how this movie is going to tied in with the Avengers and all the other shows in the MCU? I'm thinking that somebody from Agents might make an appearance in the movie.
I think someone earlier in the thread said that Edgar Wright quit BECAUSE Marvel wanted to connect it to the cinematic universe, which it originally wasn't. Don't know if that was confirmed or not, but it's hard to see them doing a Disney/Marvel produced movie and NOT being connected.
That's the rumour going around, yes - that Wright quit because he resented studio input on things like ties to the larger MCU.
So, have anyone seen the teaser/trailer yet? It looked...
... totally boring. :thumbdown:
You don't have a hero called Ant-Man and then put together a dour, po-faced, super serious trailer to introduce him to audiences. He doesn't live in Gotham City. He rides a flying ant. It's a goofy concept. You can crack a smile.
Coupled with that, you have that recurring bland Marvel visual style, where it looks like they could be walking around the featureless techno set of Iron Man or Agents of SHIELD, and Paul Rudd looking disinterested. "Is it too late to change the name?" Scott Lang asked, emotionlessly.
I know the trailer is only 2-minutes of the finished product but if it is indicative of the tone of the film, this is going to be a step down (critically if not financially) after Marvel upped its ante with Guardians of The Galaxy.
I also hate to be the one who says it, but seriously, can you imagine Edgar Wright's trailer for this film? That would have been exciting and kinetic and funny. Even James Gunn (if "Guardians..." is any indication) could have turned out something that inspired the imagination.
It's not what I was expecting, but it wasn't bad.
I think it was suppose to be serious at first and then joke on it self when Rudd asked "is it too late to change the name?"
I'm going to hold judgement on it because it was just a teaser, trailer. I will probably go see it just because it's a Marvel movie and I will be expecting easter eggs.
Wasn't blown away by the teaser, but it was OK. Looking forward to the full trailer.
Well,Im sceptical at best.
That dubstep just didn't belong: * bum bum dum bum bum bum dum bum BWOOOOOoooooooooorrrrrshhh bum bum dum bum *
Looked meh, though it looked more like backstory than the meat (I hope). What little action I caught looked like they were going the espionage route, closer to O' Grady which would explain why the new series pushed the same theme. I dunno. It qualifies under " I want an attempt at a movie based on every character, be damned how it turns out " for me. People cried for this one. When rumor had it might not see light a remember fans exploded and rallied, rationalizing how essential the film would be. So sometimes you can get it all but as they say they can't all be zingers. Or who knows. Maybe the finished product will really be something. For the trailer though I'll say at least it didn't get me excited. Then again I watched that after the Avengers 2 one so I may be taking it in through the looking glass.
Nothing about the trailer excited me. I'll hold judgement for the full trailer but I'm not looking forward to this movie based on the teaser.
I thought this was a surprisingly bland trailer, really one of the most disappointing I'd ever seen.
But I'm not really worried about the movie just yet. Although my expectations have never been especially high for Ant-Man.
And the villan is apparently Yellowjacket.Just wow...
First of all, that's something we've known for months(almost a year, even), so acting like that's new information somehow is a little silly. Second, the villain is not Hank Pym, it's Darren Cross, a character pulled straight from Scott Lang's origin story in the comics. Yes, he never wore that costume in the comics (he was just some jerk bubusinessman) but given that this is a superhero film, having a supervillain is kind of a necessity. And given the film's focus on legacy, their use of another of Pym's identities makes sense, even if it is a bit cheap.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% behind this film, and the trailer is just boring as hell... but complaining about Yellowjacket being the villain is just nitpicky and cheap, especially given how vocally you've bashed Marvel films in the past.
Not complaining,just saying.Cuz honestly I dont really care that much whos gona be the "big bad" of Ant-man.
I have breaking news!!!
Hank Pym's Ant-Man costume revealed!http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/15/ant-man-hank-pym-costume-revealed-sort-of (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/15/ant-man-hank-pym-costume-revealed-sort-of)
Spoiler
Hehe, sorry I couldn't resist.
Just checking to see if anyone's checked it out yet.
Saw it a few nights ago and was pretty happy with it, overall. Actually, considering what we've known before, I don't really have any complaints about it at all. It wasn't overwhelmingly the greatest movie of the year, but I thought it was a good change of pace for Marvel and a nice watch.
Spoiler
The Falcon "cameo" was a good touch. I was glad to see they used Haley Atwell(Captain America Triology) and John Slattery(Iron Man 2) reprising roles. Also liked the small Spider-Man Easter Egg towards the end. "We got this guy that crawls, that climbs, that swings". Additionally, I thought the mid-credits and post-credit scenes were two of the better ones in all the films. Curious how Cap and Falcon caught WS though. Had his hand in a vice grip. The comedy was good and timely. The story was fairly basic, but wasn't disappointed by it. Michael Pena was genius. The lip-syncing parts were hilarious. Gotta say it would have been cool if he used one of the enlargement disk to turn giant-sized. But I'm thinking they wanted to wait for Civil War or a sequel for it(and Wasp). Overall, like I said, it was a fun watch. In my opinion.
I have tickets for tomorrow. First movie in a loooong time I've seen opening weekend.
Yeah this movie is so funny. The stakes are lower and it's an origin story so it's definitely a different experience than Age of Ultron, but still a good one.
Spoiler
I didn't like the Falcon scene. While the fight itself was sweet, he just broke into the Avengers base very quickly while breaking into Pym corp took the entire plot of the movie. Surely The Avengers are more secure than that. It made it seem shoehorned in just to tie in with the universe.
Great movie though, I missed the final scene unfortunately. I figured the first credits scene was the only one. I really want to see that now!
We just saw it last night, and we were really impressed! I, as y'all probably already know, wasn't really excited about this, nor did I have a lot of hope for it. Hank Pym is my Ant-Man, and I really couldn't care less about Scott Lang. That being said, even though I went in a bit resistant, it was so well made, and just so genuinely FUN that it won me over. It's funny, exciting, and charming. It's absolutely worth watching. It's certainly not the best of the Marvel movies, and while I imagine some of the humor might be a bit grating for me on multiple watchings, sitting in a theater with a bunch of folks having a good time, I had a blast. We laughed and laughed, and yet the movie still has heart and still tells a good superhero story. The constant back and forth between serious and silly, underscoring the underlying ridiculousness of a battle to the death that is taking place at ant-size, is great fun.
I still wish they had just told a Hank Pym / Janet Van Dyne story, but I realize some things will change in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Go see it. It's definitely worth it.
With Ant-Man, Marvel continues to set themselves miles beyond DC. Not only are all their movies well made and fun, they have a whole range of sub-genres. We've got superhero fantasy with Thor, superhero spy with Cap, and now superhero heist with Ant-Man. It's great! There's something for everyone, and they keep things fresh.
See, I'm the opposite. While I do feel like we've closed off the mcu for Hank and Janet, in a time where DC seems to be trying to remove legacy characters(Wally, Garth, Troia) because it's "too difficult" to explain, here we have Marvel making an entire movie about a hero passing the torch. And above all, they didn't need 5 movies to get there.
As I think you know about me, 'Mato, I don't mind passing the torch at all. I think that's the direction they should go en masse (and with an actual plan :P), but it offends my sense of order that Hank and Jan, two founding Avengers, now had their adventures in the 60s instead of with the Avengers in the MCU.
I still enjoyed the movie, but I just wish we could have seen the Avengers just a bit more fully realized. Nonetheless, that's a very faint complaint given how perfectly they've adapted (and at times, even transcended!) the source material throughout the MCU.
I saw it on the weekend. I really enjoyed it. I echo earlier comments that it might not hold up on repeat viewings or be viewed as one of the best, but for now I'm satisfied with it. Lots of laughs, (I agree with comments that Michael Pena was hilarious; he was the kind of comic relief that could have gotten annoying, but never did for me) lots of thrilling action scenes, and a real sense of spectacle any time size changing and special effects happened. Loved how well the film made use of the whole size changing motif. I love the Ant-Man movie costume; I feel it and the new comic costume have made most of the previous Ant-Man costumes plain by comparison.
I'm a pretty big fan of Scott Lang, so I really enjoyed seeing him adapted and adapted well. Paul Rudd was likeable and sympathetic in the role, and Cassie was adorable. I was very impressed with Michael Douglas as Hank Pym. I was skeptical of casting such a recognizable older actor from day one but he was convincing and compelling and I bought him as Hank Pym. I agree with anyone who says the villain was stock, but for me he was passable.
Spoiler
Really liked the Falcon sequence. It was a really exciting, well rounded fight, and really did feel like a Marvel Team-Up kind of moment right out of the comics. Loved the part with the tank. Such a great gag and really shows how smart and resourceful Hank was with his size changing powers, along with the throwing discs. I feel like this movie made its best possible effort to discourage any dismissal of Ant Man as "lame".
I was glad we got to see the Wasp in action briefly, and the Spider-Man reference was a nice touch. Really like both post-credits scenes, and I look forward to seeing where both go.
Got to see it over the weekend. I have to admit that I walked in to the theater annoyed that Lang was Ant-Man instead of Pym, but I ended up really enjoying it. I appreciated the easter eggs as well.
Spoiler
I really liked when Darren Cross sarcastically referred to the Ant-Man legends as "Tales to Astonish". And, of course, the end credits scene really paves the way for Civil War
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 19, 2015, 07:23:34 PM
As I think you know about me, 'Mato, I don't mind passing the torch at all. I think that's the direction they should go en masse (and with an actual plan :P), but it offends my sense of order that Hank and Jan, two founding Avengers, now had their adventures in the 60s instead of with the Avengers in the MCU.
I'm expecting that maybe we might see the adventures of Ant-Man I and Wasp I of the MCU within a mini-series (like Agent Carter) or more flashbacks told during future movies if Hank reappears.
If they don't address it within TV or movies, I'm sure that Marvel Comics might fill in that time gap with a comic series that takes place in the lost years of SHIELD.
- CQ
I saw it over the weekend and really enjoyed it. I think the acting was really pretty good, which isn't surprising, given the cast. Both my girlfriend and I thought Peña's voice-overs were hilarious.
And, as noted, the scope of the movie set the right mood for what they were doing. In one sense, it was a caper flick, not a racing-to-prevent-the-apocalypse mega-drama. So, the humor, the time spent on planning the heist, and the intensity of character interaction were all pretty much in proportion, IMO.
I want to comment on BWPS' point, since the same thing occurred to me in the movie.
Quote from: BWPS on July 19, 2015, 06:24:40 PM
Spoiler
I didn't like the Falcon scene. While the fight itself was sweet, he just broke into the Avengers base very quickly while breaking into Pym corp took the entire plot of the movie. Surely The Avengers are more secure than that. It made it seem shoehorned in just to tie in with the universe.
Spoiler
This bothered me for a minute near the end when I was sort of summarizing the story arc in my head. But, a pretty sensible rationalization works for me: PymCorp security has been designed with the idea of tiny intruders in mind. Why? Because Darren Cross is aware of the technology and suspects that Pym still has the suit. In contrast, Stark (or whoever) didn't have much reason to expect ant-sized intruders breaking in. And, we don't know for certain, but the bit of tech stolen from the Avengers' facility wasn't necessarily their most important tech and wasn't necessarily in the most secure area.
Quote from: stumpy on July 23, 2015, 07:41:54 AM
I saw it over the weekend and really enjoyed it. I think the acting was really pretty good, which isn't surprising, given the cast. Both my girlfriend and I thought Peña's voice-overs were hilarious.
And, as noted, the scope of the movie set the right mood for what they were doing. In one sense, it was a caper flick, not a racing-to-prevent-the-apocalypse mega-drama. So, the humor, the time spent on planning the heist, and the intensity of character interaction were all pretty much in proportion, IMO.
Proportional... I get it! Good one, Stumpy!
LOL. I wish I were that clever, Shogunn2517.
BTW, did anyone think that there wasn't much reaction from Cross to the deception...
Spoiler
when it became clear that Hope was working with Hank Pym to stymie Cross?
@stumpy
Spoiler
I think he already knew. His dialogue... "I wasn't ready to kill you yet" indicates that he already had an idea of what was going on, especially since it seems like it was his plan to capture the Ant-Man suit from the beginning. Furthermore, the way he spoke about Pym to Hope... it felt more like someone trying to convince someone else of their viewpoint, rather than a person talking to someone who agreed with them.
Agreed 'Mato, my thoughts too.
Captain Awesome, you're right, Douglass just did such a good job, it is hard to hold anything against him.
Apparently there's a whole scene with Pym in the Ant-Man suit that got cut from the final version of the film... apparently it clashed a bit too much with the tone of the film, but it was totally edited and polished and all that. It'll be something to look forward to on the disc.