Marvel's Ant-Man

pmasterson95

I agree and cant help but notice people mentioning how different this finale was compared to the generic MCU

city being destroyed approach

of a finale.

I wonder how Ant-Man will fare out when hes thrown in with the generic Avengers formula? I fear a lot of the strengths of this movie will be lost. Which would be a major shame.

jd007

"That is one seriously ugly dog!"

:pac:

FunLover18

Brow wrote:

Wondering if somebody could clear up an issue I have regarding the villain (spoilers as a warning)

It's definitely a weak link and even the director has trouble explaining it but in the scene where they first successfully shrink the lamb Cross is unprotected and exposed to the particles. Also if he's been using that little gun to kill others who disagree he's also exposing himself so I suppose the audience just has to take it for granted. But the thought occurred to me as well and I'm not overly satisfied with my own explanation. I would have liked to see the deterioration.

Mitch Connor

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I agree and cant help but notice people mentioning how different this finale was compared to the generic MCU

city being destroyed approach

of a finale.

I wonder how Ant-Man will fare out when hes thrown in with the generic Avengers formula? I fear a lot of the strengths of this movie will be lost. Which would be a major shame.

well he does have super strength when small, so in terms of a physical beat down he could dish it out better than Hawkeye or Black Widow, similar to Captain America.

I would also assume they may introduce his supersize ability at some point.

EDIT: it not being Pym as Ant Man is a weak point imo - as Lang doesn't have the genius of Pym, which is a major point of the ant man character that I would be familiar with. That said, I have no other exposure to Lang as Ant Man so maybe he has his own traits that make him suitable.

OK.. I'm just back from this and.. I have to say.. I didn't think it was that great.

Paul Rudd is very likeable and he does make a pretty decent leading man. But...

There was absolutely no sense of dread, there was no sense of danger. There's the fight sequence towards the end, which was featured in the trailer so no spoilers, in which Yellow Suit fights Ant-Man and, sure it's funny when you see the scale, but it just takes away from the action. Once was funny. But it kept doing it. And doing it. And doing it. Yes, we get it, they're small.

You know what I would love? I mean really love? For Marvel to have a villain. A proper villain. We just haven't had that yet so far in the MCU movie releases - Loki came closest, but so far none of them have seemed that... villainous.

The Hawkman (or whatever his name is)'s screentime actually took away from it a lot and the mentioning of the Avengers.

. It just reminded you that this is just a tiny cog and a stepping stone as opposed to something that can stand on it's own.

It was all SHIELD this, HYDRA that, Avengers, Avengers

You know what I really like about DC? That, based on the trailers of Batman vs Superman, what people do in previous movies have consequences. In this.. it's not the case.

It's mentioned that the Avengers dropped a city, but that was it.

Also what I would have loved to have seen is exactly what Edgar Wright would have done with it, if he had had his way. During the credits I noticed that Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish (who did the fantastic and underappreciated Attack the Block) had screenwriter credits, but I'd be interested to know how much of their original script carried across, once Wright left the production.

FunLover18

Mitch Connor wrote:

EDIT: it not being Pym as Ant Man is a weak point imo - as Lang doesn't have the genius of Pym, which is a major point of the ant man character that I would be familiar with. That said, I have no other exposure to Lang as Ant Man so maybe he has his own traits that make him suitable.

I think they did well to establish Lang as a clever individual even if not as intelligent as Pym or Stark, the quick mention of his masters and the scene with the safe showed he's pretty clever and resourceful. I think if they made the right move not going with the genius scientist given that we already have Stark and Banner. Lang is the most normal ordinary Joe we've yet seen in the MCU and I think it'll add an interesting dimension to the group.

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hawkman (or whatever his name is)'s screentime actually took away from it a lot and the mentioning of the Avengers.

. It just reminded you that this is just a tiny cog and a stepping stone as opposed to something that can stand on it's own.

It was all SHIELD this, HYDRA that, Avengers, Avengers

You know what I really like about DC? That, based on the trailers of Batman vs Superman, what people do in previous movies have consequences. In this.. it's not the case.

It's mentioned that the Avengers dropped a city, but that was it.

It never ceases to amuse me how people can in the same post have a moan at how connected the Marvel movies are with one linking in to the other but DC release a trailer showing how their first movie affected the events in the 2nd movie and it's genius.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post btw, it's just when people hail DC for the very things they dislike about the MCU before they've even released a second movie in their own universe, it comes across as total DC fanboy-ism.

Carlos Orange

Bacchus wrote: »

It never ceases to amuse me how people can in the same post have a moan at how connected the Marvel movies are with one linking in to the other but DC release a trailer showing how their first movie affected the events in the 2nd movie and it's genius.

I think the difference is that the link between the 2 Superman films has consequence to the story in a way the Antman links to the MCU don't really. Then again I have mixed feelings about a DC character feeling the same way about the first film as I do. Probably because it reminds me I hated Man of Steel. Plus DC don't have a cinematic universe so much as a sequel.

Bacchus

psinno wrote: »

I think the difference is that the link between the 2 Superman films has consequence to the story in a way the Antman links to the MCU don't really. Then again I have mixed feelings about a DC character feeling the same way about the first film as I do. Probably because it reminds me I hated Man of Steel. Plus DC don't have a cinematic universe so much as a sequel.

... and the events in The Avengers has consequences that are felt in Iron Man 3. Winter Soldier shook up the landscape of the entire MCU with this thread of Hydra running through AoU & Ant-Man. You either like that or lump it but I don't think anyone should kid themselves that DC are doing anything different. I stand to be corrected when we get 4 or 5 movies into their DCCU but nothing points to that so far.

Also, Ant-Man standing quite separately to the main MCU plot (the infinity stones) is surely what a lot of people have been hoping for (a movie that stands on its own within an expanded movie universe). I've said it before but when it comes to creating a shared universe there are some fans that just can't be pleased. This movie is too tied in to the other movies, this one isn't tied in enough. Will there ever be one that satisfies everyone? I look forward to what DC can come up with but in time, I'm expecting the exact same type of complaints that we're getting about the MCU now.

Not really though. It's only comparable if in Avengers 3 or a later MCU movie that the Avengers are brought to task for the damage they did to that city and also to New York. Nobody is being held accountable. That's the good thing about DC - Superman is. It's like ---- oh, it's OK. It was only a nameless Eastern European city. They destroyed two cities and yet nobody has brought them up on it. There doesn't feel like there's any consequences for their actions.

Anyway, regardless of all of that, Ant-Man could have and should have been better. Edgar Wright's departure destroyed it, I think. Does anyone know just how much of the original script (if any) carried through?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really though. It's only comparable if in Avengers 3 or a later MCU movie that the Avengers are brought to task for the damage they did to that city and also to New York. Nobody is being held accountable. That's the good thing about DC - Superman is. It's like ---- oh, it's OK. It was only a nameless Eastern European city. They destroyed two cities and yet nobody has brought them up on it. There doesn't feel like there's any consequences for their actions.

That's just a different plot though, there is consequences just not the same ones.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's just a different plot though, there is consequences just not the same ones.

Indeed. In both instances, The Avengers battled to save the cities. Very little, if any, property damage was caused by them. In MoS, Superman actively throws his foe through buildings. He's held accountable because he is accountable.

The movies don't have consequences? Te events of Iron Man (obviously) affect te events of Iron Man 2. The events of IM2 affect te rest of the MCU (if for nothing else by establishing War Machine). The events of Thor directly affect the plot of The Avengers (as stated by Nick Fury). The Avengers affects IM3 (Tony's ptsd, which effectively lays the groundwork for his characters motivation in AoU, and Tony's motivations in AoU are basically the crux of the whole film). Cap2 shifts the position of SHIELD in the whole MCU, Thor2 and GotG bring more Infinity Stones and Thanos closer to the mix, AoU sets up the New Avengers as well as establishing Tony's departure from the team and Ant-Man, if it does nothing else, adds a new character to the roster.

Gway with the "nothing has consequences" crap.

Bowlardo

Saw it tonight and loved it. hilarious and total off that wall. it was complete non sense but it was great craic.

cloud493

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really though. It's only comparable if in Avengers 3 or a later MCU movie that the Avengers are brought to task for the damage they did to that city and also to New York. Nobody is being held accountable. That's the good thing about DC - Superman is. It's like ---- oh, it's OK. It was only a nameless Eastern European city. They destroyed two cities and yet nobody has brought them up on it. There doesn't feel like there's any consequences for their actions.

Anyway, regardless of all of that, Ant-Man could have and should have been better. Edgar Wright's departure destroyed it, I think. Does anyone know just how much of the original script (if any) carried through?

But thats kinda the point of the civil war, super hero registration act, them being held responsible for what they do, etc.

RedemptionZ

Deleted User wrote: »

OK.. I'm just back from this and.. I have to say.. I didn't think it was that great.

You know what I would love? I mean really love? For Marvel to have a villain. A proper villain. We just haven't had that yet so far in the MCU movie releases - Loki came closest, but so far none of them have seemed that... villainous.

Thanos? Hasn't had that much screentime yet but I assume he'll be fairly villainous.

pmasterson95

Mitch Connor wrote: »

well he does have super strength when small, so in terms of a physical beat down he could dish it out better than Hawkeye or Black Widow, similar to Captain America.

I would also assume they may introduce his supersize ability at some point.

EDIT: it not being Pym as Ant Man is a weak point imo - as Lang doesn't have the genius of Pym, which is a major point of the ant man character that I would be familiar with. That said, I have no other exposure to Lang as Ant Man so maybe he has his own traits that make him suitable.

Oh I get Ant-Man will definitely bring something to the team. I just meant the charm of this movie wont fit into Marvels generic films when Ant-Man ends up in them.

Re edit. From comics I dont remember Lang being around too long. It was Pym then Hawkeye/Goliath then Lang before his daughter became Stature.

Jon Stark

cloud493 wrote: »

But thats kinda the point of the civil war, super hero registration act, them being held responsible for what they do, etc.

As far as I know the registration act in the MCU is born out something that goes wrong specifically in the next Captain America.

The events in the previous films won't be the catalyst for the act.

Mitch Connor

Jon Stark wrote: »

As far as I know the registration act in the MCU is born out something that goes wrong specifically in the next Captain America.

The events in the previous films won't be the catalyst for the act.

I would guess there is a breaking point reached in the Cap3 movie - so that its story can be understood in isolation - but the ground work is already being laid for the calls for the registration act. The battle of new york being one, but also the Iron Man/Hulk fight in AoU; with Shield/Avengers getting a bad rep because of it, and needing to 'lay low'. I think it could and should have been a bigger and more forcefull part of the story, but it was there. Same with the senate hearings at the end of Avengers 1 - they have laid the political and PR ground work for a registration act to link back into the actions of previous movies.

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really though. It's only comparable if in Avengers 3 or a later MCU movie that the Avengers are brought to task for the damage they did to that city and also to New York. Nobody is being held accountable. That's the good thing about DC - Superman is. It's like ---- oh, it's OK. It was only a nameless Eastern European city. They destroyed two cities and yet nobody has brought them up on it. There doesn't feel like there's any consequences for their actions.

Different scenarios though. In Avengers, the superheros are... heroes. They saved the world from an invasion. Only Thor was considered an external threat (speaking of consequences, SHIELD arming themselves with alien weapons is a direct result of the Thor movie) but he too is a hero. In BvS, Superman made his first public appearance to the world as one of the two superbeings that destroyed a city. It's a different context. Also, we will have the upcoming Civil War movie now that will likely deal with the fallout of years of superhero destruction.

Jon Stark wrote: »

As far as I know the registration act in the MCU is born out something that goes wrong specifically in the next Captain America.

The events in the previous films won't be the catalyst for the act.

Where you did you get this info from? Until we see the movie we don't know exactly but it's pretty clear that the events of the Phase 1 & 2 movies are building to this registration act coming about. AoU already started planting the seeds for it with the Cap vs IM brawl, Hulk going nuts and the general IM trying to protect the world.

Bacchus

Speaking of Civil War actually (and getting back on topic), in Ant-Man we now have a super-hero with a secret identity! Hawkeye kinda does too I guess and DareDevil from the TV show but that's about it I think.

cloud493

Well technically

superhero registration act thing is even kinda hinted at the end of the first avengers, when that politician says they need to be held responsible for the destruction of the city.

pmasterson95

Bacchus wrote: »

Speaking of Civil War actually (and getting back on topic), in Ant-Man we now have a super-hero with a secret identity! Hawkeye kinda does too I guess and DareDevil from the TV show but that's about it I think.

Well,

Spiderman will be joining MCU soon.
They could also add more I guess

Whens the Black Panther movie out? Will T'Challa have joined the MCU by the time of the registration?
They could also introduce Iron Fist in Daredevil.
From the comics
They could also have Stark intoduce Ragnarok (Thors clone) to give that side some power but I think thats unlikely

Did anyone else catch the

Spiderman reference

during Ant-Man?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Did anyone else catch the

Spiderman reference

during Ant-Man?

Yeah, it wasn't exactly subtle. I was kind of expecting (hoping) the after credits scene to be in relation to that.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah, it wasn't exactly subtle. I was kind of expecting (hoping) the after credits scene to be in relation to that.

I thought the after credits scene was super disappointing. Also they're no long after credits. They've now become mid-credits.

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought the after credits scene was super disappointing. Also they're no long after credits. They've now become mid-credits.

Weren't there one of each?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought the after credits scene was super disappointing. Also they're no long after credits. They've now become mid-credits.

psinno wrote: »

Weren't there one of each?

Yeah there was another at the very end too.

Was there?

Ara shite. Left too soon. To Google!

Is this a new thing? Having two credit sequences? It's my first experience of Marvel doing this!

PhiloCypher

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there?

Ara shite. Left too soon. To Google!

Is this a new thing? Having two credit sequences? It's my first experience of Marvel doing this!

Did you not read up on the film at all prior to release ? , I don't spoil the Stingers for myself but I always go in knowing how many there will be.

Either people are increasingly apathetic about hanging around to catch these post credits scenes(they do vary in quality) or Marvel is great at pulling in newbies who aren't aware of their practices. As invariably the cinema empties almost completely while I sit waiting patiently for the teaser I know is coming. Maybe I have too much time on my hands and they have too little who knows haha

Agent Coulson

There was maybe 40/50 people at my screening and I was the only one to wait till the end to catch the end scene everyone else left after the mid credit one.

Slydice

Saw it this evening. Really enjoyed that. So funny :-)

Definitely stay to the very end of the credits!

AMKC

Seen it this evening. Much better than I thought it would be. Well worth going to the cinema to see. Who thought watching ants and a man the same size as them could be so much fun. Look forward to the next one. Only one part that annoyed me that the part with his friend saying "he was told this and she said who said so on" that part was annoying. Otherwise really good and funny too.

fisgon

There I was, watching season 3 of The Wire, again, the ep where Avon Barksdale gets out of prison and is telling Stringer Bell, "I want my corners man, I want dem corners!"

Then I go to see Antman, and there's Avon again, this time as Bobby Cannavale's partner. He's a cop! Bizarre! Very limited role.

Antman itself is entertaining enough, likable, a lot of that shrinking/growing stuff is a lot of fun. Quality light entertainment, formulaic but solid. some nice scenes (though I had no idea about the hidden last scene after the credits and was out of there too soon).

MillField

Seen this yesterday evening. Was a little skeptical going into it as I'm not hugely into Marvel movies but I really enjoyed it. Had plenty of good action sequences and funny moments. Kept me interested throughout which I can't say for many movies.

pah

AMKC wrote: »

Only one part that annoyed me that the part with his friend saying "he was told this and she said who said so on" that part was annoying.

Thought this was quite funny, part of Penas charm and edited very well IMO

Chip Whitley

Deleted User wrote: »

Also what I would have loved to have seen is exactly what Edgar Wright would have done with it, if he had had his way. During the credits I noticed that Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish (who did the fantastic and underappreciated Attack the Block) had screenwriter credits, but I'd be interested to know how much of their original script carried across, once Wright left the production.

Just listening to the Empire podcast now with Peyton Reed, the director, and he basically said that from Edgar and Joe's script they kept:

Hank Pym as the mentor and Scott Lang as the pupil... they kept the whole 'heist' storyline and structure and they kept the final battle in Scott's daughters' bedroom on the Thomas the Tank Engine playset.

Things added afterwards were:

the 'tip' scenes with Michael Pena's character where he narrates the funny flashbacks... the scene where Scott breaks in and steals the suit was originally very straight-forward but they adapted it to make him far more resourceful and intelligent... the scene at the Avengers base with Falcon was added... the trip that Scott takes to 'Quantum Realm' was added, along with the flashback scene and story for the first Wasp Janet Pym...

No mention so far of who added the

SHIELD

and

HYDRA

aspects.

Hmm. Going by that ...

I wonder whether Wright wanted to do no mention of other movies and have it as a standalone. Just going by the fact that all of those aspects were added in after

Also

I'd have loved to have seen how Wright would have handled those particular scenes from his original draft.

Potential-Monke

Went to see this yesterday evening, and while i was expecting it to be good, i was very surprised at exactly how good it was. I was hooked from start to finish, and it is definitely one of the funnier Marvel films. Paul Rudd was perfect in the role, and i don't think anyone could have done it better. While i'd have to sit down and watch most of the Marvel films again, this is definitely a contender for my favourite so far. Highly recommended! And maybe the first one i could give a perfect 10 to!

Agent Coulson

Marvel Announces Ant-Man Sequel: Ant-Man and The Wasp. Scott Lang and Hope Van Dyne are Slated to return July 6th, 2018.

http://marvel.com/news/movies/25244/marvel_studios_phase_3_update?linkId=17794833

Nervous Wreck

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Marvel Announces Ant-Man Sequel: Ant-Man and The Wasp. Scott Lang and Hope Van Dyne are Slated to return July 6th, 2018.

http://marvel.com/news/movies/25244/marvel_studios_phase_3_update?linkId=17794833

Great news! The more we see of Lang, the better, imo!

humanji

Hopefully it'll be a small (no pun intended) story like the last one, instead of trying to add them to an epic story. As most people have said in this and other threads, when the whole world is in danger it stops being exciting because we know it's going to end well.

Nervous Wreck

DVD/Blu Ray on 17th November.

MilesMorales1

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

DVD/Blu Ray on 17th November.

Amazon says the 30th? Plus the 17th is a Tuesday.

Nervous Wreck

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Amazon says the 30th? Plus the 17th is a Tuesday.

Going by the Ant-Mant official Twitter page; likely specific to the USA though so 30th is probably right!

IvaBigWun

Seems to be released in some parts of the world on DVD/Blu Ray in the past day or so. Looking forward to giving this a watch.

Paul Rudd as a super hero, an 80% score on Rotten Tomatoes and eye candy in the form of Evangeline Lilly is a no brainer as far as a popcorn flick goes.

Walter E GO

Really liked this movie. Hope they do more sequels.

jones

Watched this over the weekend on bluray and I thought it was good without being "great".

I love Paul Rudd and basically all the Marvel movies so far so i was looking forward to watching this. But something about Ant-Man just didn't do it for me - like the first avengers Iron Man or Captain America WS did. I think its decent and definitely not the worst marvel film in the world but I thought its a long way off the best Marvel can deliver.

7/10 for me