Marvel's Ant-Man

johnny_ultimate

Honestly I felt Iron Man 3 was just as much of a victim of Marvel's enforced mediocrity and 'house style' as any of the others.

Gbear

FunLover18 wrote: »

Yeh but that just mean people paid to see it. A lot of fans came out of it really pissed off with the Mandarin and voiced that opinion vehemently. That sort of reaction is going to go over Marvel heads regardless of how much money it made.

Getting people to see one movie isn't enough, Marvel have to get them to see the next movie and pissing off the fan base by allowing directors to tinker isn't their best interests.

I'm not saying it is the reason, just that it could be a factor

But I don't think that the vast majority of people who watch these films have ever read the comics. I doubt it's really a factor.

Fysh

Gbear wrote: »

But I don't think that the vast majority of people who watch these films have ever read the comics. I doubt it's really a factor.

Exactly.

A certain type of comic fan loves to think that their opinions matter above all else with film adaptations, but superhero comics are doing well if a given single issue sells 100,000 copies. Even allowing for an audience that only reads collected editions, the number of active regular readers is an irrelevance compared to the number of people paying to see the films in cinemas or on home media.

Sadly, in comics as everywhere else there are some fans who'd disagree that the sky was blue if they thought doing so might win them an argument...and that's not counting the collectors who'll bitch about how terrible Series X has been for years while still buying every issue, failing to understand why this just encourages the publisher to keep doing what they're doing.

If fans are convinced Marvel is doing wrong by them, they have one way to show it, which is to stop paying to see the films. As per the numbers above, it's highly unlikely that would make a difference.

expectationlost

so how far had they gotten?

Corholio

expectationlost wrote: »

so how far had they gotten?

Your username is how I feel with this news.

Soft Falling Rain

The Marvel fanboys are out in force elsewhere. Apparently Wright is now out of his depth and couldn't handle a "big studio" production.

God forbid Marvel had any part in this, it's not like they ever strongarmed people out of projects for no other reason than having principles.

Corholio

Looks like Adam McKay (Anchorman 2) looks nailed on to be the new director.

It's amazing how less I care about the film now.

FunLover18

Corholio wrote: »

Looks like Adam McKay (Anchorman 2) looks nailed on to be the new director.

It's amazing how less I care about the film now.

That's a very interesting choice, given that I wouldn't necessarily see him as a director who gives in to studio demands. I was expecting a much smaller name.

The choice of McKay also suggests that the tone is still going to be quite comedic, and he certainly knows how to use Rudd. I just hope it doesn't become an out and out comedy.

Yeti Beast

Too bad McKay has also pulled out! Well, at least according to Bleeding Cool. Rawson Marshall Thurber or Ruben Fleischer were/are the other candidates. This is a train wreck.

brianregan09

They should have just had him in the Original Avengers movie you know like in the comic when he's one of the founder members

brevity

Peyton Reed will direct.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/official-peyton-reed-direct-ant-710013

He previously directed Yes Man...

brevity

brevity wrote: »

Peyton Reed will direct.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/official-peyton-reed-direct-ant-710013

He previously directed Yes Man...

Some what apt that he directed Yes Man considering that his role here is going to amount to little other than being Marvels' yes man.

Soft Falling Rain

They get their replacement finally after at least 3 dismiss them. What a joke, I'd love to know what Rudd and Douglas are thinking right now.

Soft Falling Rain

They get their replacement finally after at least 3 dismiss them. What a joke, I'd love to know what Rudd and Douglas are thinking right now.

Corholio

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

They get their replacement finally after at least 3 dismiss them. What a joke, I'd love to know what Rudd and Douglas are thinking right now.

Douglas:

"I was, very disappointed. I’m a big fan of his movies [and] it’s a very disappointing situation"

He added that Wright’s exit ‘happened very late in the game [and] I don’t think anybody’s quite recovered.

"My heart goes out to Edgar. He’s been involved with the project for a long time, but he’s talented anough that you’ll be hearing a whole lot from him, and I’m sure with a little vengeance"

Dozen Wicked Words

Corholio wrote: »

Douglas:

"I was, very disappointed. I’m a big fan of his movies [and] it’s a very disappointing situation"

He added that Wright’s exit ‘happened very late in the game [and] I don’t think anybody’s quite recovered.

"My heart goes out to Edgar. He’s been involved with the project for a long time, but he’s talented anough that you’ll be hearing a whole lot from him, and I’m sure with a little vengeance"

Michael Douglas went way up in my estimations after reading it, great that he felt strongly enough to comment so openly, not through a friend of a friend source etc but a direct quote. Dare say Wright appreciates it no end.

Corholio

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Michael Douglas went way up in my estimations after reading it, great that he felt strongly enough to comment so openly, not through a friend of a friend source etc but a direct quote. Dare say Wright appreciates it no end.

Yes it was interesting he used the word 'vengeance', definitely sounds like there was quite the friction between Wright and Marvel.

Nervous Wreck

Never really liked Edgar Wright. With the exception of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, I've never gotten much from his work. Disappointing that he left the film, given how much of it was down to him in the first place but otherwise, this news doesn't sour me on teh movie at all.

johnny_ultimate

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

This news doesn't sour me on teh movie at all.

Surely the announcement of a director as bland as Peyton Reed would sour you instead?

Say what you will about Edgar Wright - I have been so-so about as many of his films as I've actually liked, for the record - but he's a distinctive director whose career has been basically been building up to being granted a major geeky franchise (Scott Pilgrim kinda counts, I guess!) along these lines, with Ant Man seemingly a true passion project of his for many years. With Joe Cornish - whose Attack the Block was one of the most refreshingly smart and well crafted genre films of recent times - working on the script with Wright, that was an extra cause for optimism. Wright has now been replaced by a director whose filmography so far is made up of mediocre or sub-mediocre rom-coms: I don't think it's unfair to adjust expectations accordingly. Sadly, it seems as if a filmmaker of his caliber is a perfect fit for the creative but most importantly commercial direction Marvel is trying to steer the film.

Nervous Wreck

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Surely the announcement of a director as bland as Peyton Reed would sour you instead?

Say what you will about Edgar Wright - I have been so-so about as many of his films as I've actually liked, for the record - but he's a distinctive director whose career has been basically been building up to being granted a major geeky franchise (Scott Pilgrim kinda counts, I guess!) along these lines, with Ant Man seemingly a true passion project of his for many years. With Joe Cornish - whose Attack the Block was one of the most refreshingly smart and well crafted genre films of recent times - working on the script with Wright, that was an extra cause for optimism. Wright has now been replaced by a director whose filmography so far is made up of mediocre or sub-mediocre rom-coms: I don't think it's unfair to adjust expectations accordingly. Sadly, it seems as if a filmmaker of his caliber is a perfect fit for the creative but most importantly commercial direction Marvel is trying to steer the film.

Agreed on all points and I'd still very much prefer for Wright to be at the helm (largely due to the amount of time and heart he's put into it already, as well as the awesome test footage that he released a few years back). I guess what I meant to say was, bland director though Reed is so far, I reckon Marvel will get a good movie out of him anyway. I didn't think much of the Russos being announced to direct Cap2 and I was proved supremely wrong on that one. So I'm willing to keep an open mind to Reed. Mostly, I'm just looking forward to seeing Ant-Man on screen (something I never would have even considered possible). At this point, the whole "Stupid Marvel :rolleyes:, should have more respect for Master Wright" ball-licking is just as bad as the so-called "Marvel Fanboys" engaging in the same hyperbole on the opposite side of the fence. Also, with the above comments from Michael Douglas in mind, I really hope he leaves the film too. I fucking hate Michael Douglas.

pixelburp

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Agreed on all points and I'd still very much prefer for Wright to be at the helm (largely due to the amount of time and heart he's put into it already, as well as the awesome test footage that he released a few years back). I guess what I meant to say was, bland director though Reed is so far, I reckon Marvel will get a good movie out of him anyway. I didn't think much of the Russos being announced to direct Cap2 and I was proved supremely wrong on that one. [...]

I enjoyed Cap2 more than I expected to, and the Russos acquitted themselves well to hash together an earthy thriller (having seen their work on Community, I knew they'd adapt to the big-screen without too much trouble, they have an eye for the cinematic), but in terms of actual directorial flourish or creativity, it had nothing going for it. The action scenes were well handled and coherent, beyond that the film could have been directed by Alan Smithee for all the difference it made to the end product's visual identity.

It's not so much about the ball-licking of Edgar Wright, more a continued suspicion that Marvel are jettisoning any individuals that might bring an ounce of creativity to projects, or worse! People who could attempt to deviate from the studio's much-vaunted & publicised Phases. Wright could have brought a unique voice to the Marvel franchise that showed the studio was willing to tinker with their formula a little. Hiring an unknown quantity and someone probably dismissed as a creative soft-touch - however fair or unfair that is - sends out the wrong signals. Marvel want to churn these films out and anyone with a unique vision need not apply.

McSasquatch II

The first official poster has been revealed at Comic Con.

pixelburp

I'm looking forward to a Marvel movie featuring a talking tree and gun-totting raccoon, yet the sight of a tiny guy riding an ant feels really silly. Double standards you say? Never heard of it :pac:

Corholio

Probably sounds silly, but does anyone feel cheated that they are flying ants and not just..........ants :pac:

phasers

The poster reminds me of an Animorphs book.

JP Liz V1

Corey Stoll and Evangeline Lilly roles revealed at Comic-Con

Stoll will be the movie's major villain as Darren Cross, a former protégé of genius scientist Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who has since seized the elder's company.
Cross's jealousy of his mentor leads him to transform into Ant-Man's (Paul Rudd) nemesis Yellowjacket.
Lilly will be portraying Dr Pym's estranged daughter Hope Van Dyne

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a586671/ant-man-corey-stoll-evangeline-lilly-roles-revealed-at-comic-con.html#~oLfzcnf80fOqdI

Loughc

Does anyone else think they missed a trick by not having a villain with a Von Trapp surname. That way he could transform into the supervillian the ant Trapp.

I'll get my coat....

TheGoldenAges

Does that mean Janet Van Dyne (The Wasp) won't be featured? Would have been awesome to see a flashback of that seminal moment in Comic book history where Hank Pym slaps Janet.

McSasquatch II

Think it's been recently confirmed that they're not going with the "domestic abuse" element.

Nervous Wreck

The comics weren't even supposed to go with the domestic abuse element. It was originally planned for a a skrull to be revealed to have been posing as Hank at the time of the slap but they changed writers before the reveal and the new writers just decided to leave it in to make Pym seem 'deep'.

buckybarnes

TheGoldenAges wrote: »

Does that mean Janet Van Dyne (The Wasp) won't be featured? Would have been awesome to see a flashback of that seminal moment in Comic book history where Hank Pym slaps Janet.

It seems like they're erasing Janet from the MCU, despite the fact that she was a founding Avenger, came up with the name for the team and was a huge help in defeating Ultron.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I really don't see how Hank slapping the woman who was the reason he became a superhero and who helped him through numerous mental breakdowns would be in any way awesome. This franchise neglects female characters enough as it is, we really don't need see them being abused on screen.

McSasquatch II

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

The comics weren't even supposed to go with the domestic abuse element. It was originally planned for a a skrull to be revealed to have been posing as Hank at the time of the slap but they changed writers before the reveal and the new writers just decided to leave it in to make Pym seem 'deep'.

Another version of events was that it was initially intended to be an accidental slap from Hank making a "get off me" kinda gesture with his back turned to Janet, but I don't see how that can be accidentally drawn as the slap we know.

Anyway, let's be glad they're not going with the Ultimates version, where Hank attacks Jan with a can of Raid (as well as setting his ants on her)!

TheGoldenAges

buckybarnes wrote: »

It seems like they're erasing Janet from the MCU, despite the fact that she was a founding Avenger, came up with the name for the team and was a huge help in defeating Ultron.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I really don't see how Hank slapping the woman who was the reason he became a superhero and who helped him through numerous mental breakdowns would be in any way awesome. This franchise neglects female characters enough as it is, we really don't need see them being abused on screen.

Fair enough if they don't show the slap, Marvel movies are for a PG-13 audience anyway but erasing her entirely is an awful decision.

FunLover18

buckybarnes wrote: »

It seems like they're erasing Janet from the MCU, despite the fact that she was a founding Avenger, came up with the name for the team and was a huge help in defeating Ultron.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I really don't see how Hank slapping the woman who was the reason he became a superhero and who helped him through numerous mental breakdowns would be in any way awesome. This franchise neglects female characters enough as it is, we really don't need see them being abused on screen.

Depends on the context and how it's portrayed though. I'm not picking on you, just a general observation, but it's odd how everyone is gagging for a female superhero movie knowing that she will get her ass kicked at some point before winning the day, but having her get slapped in a domestic environment (I'm not familiar with the slap in question) is a no-no

Fysh

FunLover18 wrote: »

Depends on the context and how it's portrayed though. I'm not picking on you, just a general observation, but it's odd how everyone is gagging for a female superhero movie knowing that she will get her ass kicked at some point before winning the day, but having her get slapped in a domestic environment (I'm not familiar with the slap in question) is a no-no

You can see the panel here.

As to why people differentiate the cases you mention, it's pretty easy:

One case would be an empowered woman deciding to actively fight against whoever the villain happens to be, while the other would be an on-screen representation of a woman being abused (in a fashion similar to that which is far too common even to this day), primarily so that we can then see what impact this has on the man who abuses her. It's essentially fridging Janet.

Agent Coulson

First look.

brianregan09

Looks like breaking up with Phoebe has taken its toll.....

Seriously though i hope this is a hit, this is the one i feel is the biggest gamble so far

FunLover18

At first I thought those were eyebrow piercings.

Nervous Wreck

brianregan09 wrote: »

Looks like breaking up with Phoebe has taken its toll.....

Seriously though i hope this is a hit, this is the one i feel is the biggest gamble so far

Same. Guardians of the Galaxy could be as out there as it wanted and still get away with it, being a space adventure film. Grounding Ant-Man will be a tough job.

Tommy54

It could be a make or break!

Agent Coulson

Tommy54 wrote: »

It could be a make or break!

In what ways?

ShagNastii

FunLover18 wrote: »

At first I thought those were eyebrow piercings.

They are scars. Am I right?

Nervous Wreck

Agent Coulson wrote: »

In what ways?

If Ant-Man is a success, it will open the doors for Marvel to continue The Avengers as a franchise while allowing certain characters to bow out i.e. have The Avengers continue as a team but with a revolving door for members to come and go as the actors' contracts dictate. So they could cushion the blow of RDJ possibly bowing out by saying "Well, Iron Man has left The Avengers but look, now we've got Ant-Man and Dr. Strange!" etc..

If it fails, well, they can still use Ant-Man in upcoming team-up movies but the future of Ant-Man as a stand-alone franchise would probably go the same route as The Incredible Hulk. I don't think it would break the franchise by any means but it would certainly be the first dent in a long streak of success.

Agent Coulson

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

If Ant-Man is a success, it will open the doors for Marvel to continue The Avengers as a franchise while allowing certain characters to bow out i.e. have The Avengers continue as a team but with a revolving door for members to come and go as the actors' contracts dictate. So they could cushion the blow of RDJ possibly bowing out by saying "Well, Iron Man has left The Avengers but look, now we've got Ant-Man and Dr. Strange!" etc..

If it fails, well, they can still use Ant-Man in upcoming team-up movies but the future of Ant-Man as a stand-alone franchise would probably go the same route as The Incredible Hulk. I don't think it would break the franchise by any means but it would certainly be the first dent in a long streak of success.

I understand the make part for sure.

But the break part is a long stretch to be honest. It might not be as successful as other Marvel movies but it wont be a box office failure even Elektra and the Ghost Rider movies made money. Hell even Howard the Duck broke even way back in the day.

The only Marvel movie to lose money was Punisher: War Zone.

Nothing will stop the Marvel train now they can afford to take a hit or two with Disney behind them. By hit or two I mean having a film make a small profit Ant-man and Doctor Strange might just be those movies.

pixelburp

I think given the unquestioned success with Guardians of the Galaxy, it's hard to see how or where the Marvel train might derail. And given how well Guardians... went down with the average person who doesn't really care about films or comics, I don't think any future failure will be down to the concept alone: I said it myself in this very thread I thought the idea of Ant-Man was just too damn goofy - and in many ways I still do! - but then if a movie featuring a snarky talking space-raccoon and a walking tree can win hearts and minds, why not this?

Ultimately, myself, I think what will eventually kill the great Marvel project will be basic human fatigue: I don't believe people will keep flocking to these variations of the same template. There might be those who miss movie X in the chain, because they're not that pushed, then they'll miss movie Y in the chain, also because they're not that pushed and sure they didn't see X when it came out anyway, so they just won't bother.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

There might be those who miss movie X in the chain, because they're not that pushed, then they'll miss movie Y in the chain, also because they're not that pushed and sure they didn't see X when it came out anyway, so they just won't bother.

I agree that people will get fed up and numbers will drop off, but the movies are not so tightly linked that you have to see all of them.

Even though Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America had their own movies first, and Hawkeye, Coulson, Fury, Black Widow and Loki appeared in them, the box-office shows that many, many people saw and liked the Avengers who had not seen all of those run-up movies.

Tommy54

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

If Ant-Man is a success, it will open the doors for Marvel to continue The Avengers as a franchise while allowing certain characters to bow out i.e. have The Avengers continue as a team but with a revolving door for members to come and go as the actors' contracts dictate. So they could cushion the blow of RDJ possibly bowing out by saying "Well, Iron Man has left The Avengers but look, now we've got Ant-Man and Dr. Strange!" etc..

If it fails, well, they can still use Ant-Man in upcoming team-up movies but the future of Ant-Man as a stand-alone franchise would probably go the same route as The Incredible Hulk. I don't think it would break the franchise by any means but it would certainly be the first dent in a long streak of success.

Exactly my thinking.

FunLover18

ShagNastii wrote: »

They are scars. Am I right?

Yeh seems to be band aids of some sort holding a cut together.

One thing about Ant-Man, I don't see anyway it could end with a giant airship crashing into a city ... although it could end with a "giant" cup of hot coffee falling into an ants nest

Agent Coulson

Hope.

Agent Coulson

Agent Carter

is going to feature in the movie..

spoiler link.