We got Ant-Man movie

November 2015, directed by Edgar Wright.

While we wait, enjoy the insanity of this old thread:

Hank "Ant Man" Pym in Marvel Comix Sex Scandal SHOCKA!

feige gettin' cocky now

remember when we all thought comic book movies would eventually go away

we were so young

"My my, hey hey comic book movies here to stay/ It's better to burn out than to forget your utility belt, Batman" - Neil Young

look out batman there's a killer croc comin up the river

Give it time.

remember when we all thought comic book movies would eventually go away

no one thought this

Comic book movies never have gone away and never will; they're just currently based on actual comic book characters.

I mean: http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm

At which point were we supposed to think "oh I guess comic book adaptations aren't a thing anymore"?

i'm talking like, 2001, 2002

i may have been 14 but i certainly thought it was a fad

LOL at "Annie" having a higher lifetime gross than "Spawn" or "The Crow."

Almost immediately after superheroes rose to prominence in comic books, they were adapted into Saturday movie serials aimed at young children, starting with Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941). Serials such as Batman (1943), The Phantom (1943), Captain America (1944), and Superman (1948) followed.

i'm talking like, 2001, 2002

i may have been 14 but i certainly thought it was a fad

― I have done bad. I love my pj's. (zachlyon), Tuesday, 16 October 2012 13:55 (2 hours ago) Permalink

And it was covered like it was a fad by USA Today, EW, Time Magazine et al.

"could it get to the point where we might see a Watchmen movie someday?"

clearly zachylon was using the the royal "we" so lets move on

are they going to include pym in avengers 2?

I was being serious. It was thought to be a fad and covered like one.

The script has been written by Wright and Joe Cornish, who plan to include Henry Pym and Scott Lang as major characters, with Pym as Ant-Man in the 1960s in Tales to Astonish style, and a flashforward to Lang as Ant-Man's successor in modern day.

I don't really know much about Ant Man, but I will see this because I like everything Edgar Wright has done so far.

wright's been a little stuck in his "manchild proves self to woman in outlandish scenario" motif so i'm glad the plot doesn't blatantly feel like another rehash of that. also glad cornish is involved. attack the block was so good.

Henry Pym is one of the original Marvel assholes; he's had several mental breakdowns, including a chemically-induced alternate personality and severe delusions of inadequacy that devolved to the point where he smacked his wife for disagreeing that building a robot to attack the Avengers so that he could swoop in and save the day was a terrible idea.

He's lately been portrayed as a dude attempting to repair the shambles of his reputation and is therefore super white-knighty.

there's still another Pegg/Frost joint to come before this xpost

Henry Pym is one of the original Marvel assholes; he's had several mental breakdowns, including a chemically-induced alternate personality and severe delusions of inadequacy that devolved to the point where he smacked his wife for disagreeing that building a robot to attack the Avengers so that he could swoop in and save the day was a terrible idea.

thought you were talking about a real life person, maybe a Marvel executive, for most of this sentence and it confused me terribly when the robot part came up.

hahahahaha

"this could be a real guy, I think he's still talking about a real guy... -- okay, the Avengers, I was wrong

See, that's what it sounds like when I talk about DC's current output.

attack the block was so good.

I love this movie so much, it's on Starz all of the time now and I'm always tempted to watch it again.

oh it is? OnDemand too?

Henry Pym is one of the original Marvel assholes

there were like 200 issues of the avengers and years and years of ant man solo strips before jim shooter decided pym was a wifebeating asshole - before that he was yr typical marvel scientist-genius dude like reed richards (tho' yeah, he did change costumes/superhero identity a few times)

wait when did the Yellowjacket personality switch happen?

Yellowjacket appeared in 1968. Shooter might have made him a wife beater, but he made Ultron way back when and was generally unstable for roughly 15 years before beating up Janet.

yellowjacket switch was the result of a lab accident, and mental instability isn't necess the same thing as assholism, imho. i think it's the combo of 'original' and 'asshole' in djp's post that i'm quibbling w/, really - for at least the first seven or so years of his 'career' pym was a p straight-edge superhero type, is what i'm trying to say (and as the very first 'man in the anthill' story predates p much all other marvel heroes, he can claim to be the original original, which is maybe why i retain some affection for him as a character, and kind've hate the wifebeating plotline). no big deal, tho.

That's pretty much my recollection of him too -- generic superhero/scientist until Shooter threw that big deux ex machina into his personality. Englehart made him a bit more hotheaded iirc, but I don't remember any "wow, this guy's as unstable as the molecules in Ben Grimm's shorts"* moments.

*simultaneously proud of and appalled at myself

Regardless of what you think of the wife-beating plotline, Christos Cage has used Pym quite well in the current (though soon-to-be-cancelled, sadly) Avengers Academy book: the beating and Pym's mental problem aren't swept under the rug, but neither are they treated as his only defining traits, as some other writers have done in the past.

The asshole thing seemed to me a logical evolution of a dude with short man syndrome taking the overcompensation too far. Within the first few years of the Avengers he is overcompensating like nobody's business (Goliath, anyone?), and the mental instability and multiple personalities are nascent but obvious.

But it's no big deal, however we each see it. The wife-beating issue was one of the first handful of comics I ever bought, which probably colored my perception of him from the get-go. I'm likely reading the older stuff and seeing all the prior problems as logically leading to the character as I first remember him.

Pym in Avengers Academy is pretty great; comes across as someone who really wants to do good but clearly is driven by past mistakes

Def agree that it's p silly to be too invested in the 'true' character of a corporately owned comic bk character, and wld concede that w/out the slide into instability, he's a fairly undistinguished character (tho I liked the bantering hank-jan relationship that p much went by the wayside after the tales to astonish run finished)

So Feige is saying the usual cagey things about the next batch of movies and in particular:

Writer-director Edgar Wright has been developing the project since before the first Iron Man. “Frankly, now we have to re-write it to put it a little bit more into the [Marvel Cinematic Universe] because it was written before it existed,” Feige said.

Wright, who appeared last night at an EW CapeTown Film Festival double-screening of his movies Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, also brought his test reel of an action sequence from the movie. In it, we get a clear example of how being small can still be a fearsome way to fight....

Shooting is set for next year, but they still need to cast the main character. “We’ve talked about various names over the past eight years but as you can imagine they keep changing as time goes by,” says Feige. “But towards the end of this year, we’ll buckle down and start casting and start refining the script, which is great and which is very Edgar. He has done a great job being incredibly true to the comics but is putting his own spin on it, so we’ll be drawing on multiple mythologies for this one.”

where is my George Clooney Dr. Strange movie goddammit

Yeah, I wouldn't hold your breath there.

http://kesseljunkie.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/batmangeorgeclooney.jpg

would it help if we reassured him that Dr. Strange does not have nipples

That would be pretty ... strange if he didn't.

where is my George Clooney Dr. Strange movie goddammit

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, May 3, 2013 4:22 PM

I'd rather fantasize about directors on this one than actors.

clooney's too earthbound to play strange imo

If anyone's gonna be Dr. strange it should be - dare I say it? - FRANCO.

cillian murphy with stache imo

http://wpc.4d27.edgecastcdn.net/004D27/Editorial/CillianMurphyClash/Cillian+Murphy+Clash+2.jpg

Wasn't Patrick Dempsey lobbying for the part at some point?

depp obv

NO

We got Ant-costume

http://badassdigest.com/2013/10/02/edgar-wright-tweets-a-look-at-the-ant-man-costume/

bad ass digest

lol.

We got Ant-Man

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/ant-man-casting-paul-rudd-to-star-as-hank-pym-in-edgar-wright-film/

Why is Frost making fun of Ant-Man? We need people who have respect for Ant-Man to do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWX4GUYGQXQ

I have to admit the only thing that sticks in the mind about Hank Pym's personality is the wife beating.

Ultimate Ant Man doing disco moves in The Wasp's vagina while miniaturised. <shudder>

Hank Pym is a dick, he created Goliath because he got made to feel inadequate by the big boys in the Avengers, then Goliath because reasons, then Yellowjacket so he could kidnap his wife and force her to marry him. Then Goliath and Yellowjacket simultaneously. Then the Wasp.

Despite this, he is maybe the most importantant character in the Marvel U according to Bendis' "Marvel U without Hank Pym" list: http://brianmichaelbendis.tumblr.com/post/49489930167/so-would-you-consider-sharing-those-ideas-as-to-how

Of course, none of this matters because this is the Scott Lang Ant-Man costume so the working assumption is that this is Scott Lang.

We got...

....Michael Douglas as Hank Pym?

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/michael-douglas-ant-man-1201052848/

That's a strange choice. Unless they're planning on ultimately sidelining Hank Pym altgother (which, given his apparent lack of involvement in the filmic MU's Ultron, seems to be the case).

weird, but he is gonna be a mentor to see Rudd's Scott Lang I assume

I'd assume in the movie Pym is just gonna be a scientist who comes up with Pym particles (or whatever the shrinking/growing stuff will be called in it), and Lang will the be the one who actually uses them for superheroics. Making Pym into an (ex-)Ant-Man too sounds overtly complicated for one movie, though I'm sure they'll include some small nod at the fans that acknowledges Pym's larger role in the comics... Just like the Thor movie had a nod acknowledging Dr. Donald Blake, even though they didn't actually include the whole Donald Blake story from the comics.

I think it would be interesting if they worked Pym's scumbaggery into the story somehow. Brilliant scientist, developed these particles/abilities, but was personally too much of an asshole/wife beater to be the hero himself. Found in Lang a human outlet for the heroism that is in there somewhere except he's not willing or able to express it.

michael douglas would seem well cast for that scenario

i dont wanna go see a fun comic book movie about a guy who likes tuning up his old lady

I hope the movie opens with Michael Douglas recreating Geoff Johns's infamous "Your turn!" Ant Man/Wasp scene.

They could play on Lang being a reformed criminal and have a double redemption for hero and mentor.

xp oh god noooooo

We got Ant-Man minus Wright: http://www.newsarama.com/21206-edgar-wright-marvel-part-ways-on-2015-s-ant-man.html

Whoa, that's kinda big. Hasn't he been talking about doing this forever?

Yeah, damn.

Yo wtf

And it's kinda weird to see too since this'll be the next film after Age of Ultron by about two and a half months and presumably important in setting things going for the next phase as such...then again maybe they're hoping that even if this screws up a bit then they can coast on the presumed Ultron afterburners.

conspiracy theory - maybe guardians of the galaxy is getting torn up by focus groups and studio is panicking and getting their damn dirty ape hands all over ant man

That...makes no sense?

Oh no they've gotten to Ned too

*is possessed*

nah i can see mj's point. this seemed to possibly be in line w/ guardians, a 'different' kind of comic book movie, and maybe early rxn to guardians is scaring marvel. maybe there's only so much deviation from house style marvel can stomach and wright couldn't rein it in that much. either way whatever interest i had in this was just drastically reduced.

yeah what balls said.

yep, balls otm, esp that last sentence.

The word from people on the crew is Wright got booted for being REALLY behind schedule and being ineffective at righting the ship and getting it back on track. Production has been bleeding money for a month and Marvel got fed up with him and they lost their confidence in his ability to manage a production of this size.

Ugh this is a bummer

feel like if two writers of community can handle a cap movie wright'd probably be fine at antman

ohhhh that's where they were from!!! man they did a great job

Directors, not writers

still, I wouldn't have expected two guys from Happy Endings to put out a top-tier superhero movie

Paul Rudd looked a bit rundown on SNL. Perhaps this is partly why.

Russos were directors on Arrested Development, directors and exec producers on Community, and had made at least two feature films before

I mean yeah if they have the wright approved script and all the visual aesthetic established this could still be good, but I'm kinda dubious some hires hand thrown in at the last second will show the same confidence and wit when it comes to a footage of character shrinking and growing in the blink of an eye.

hired hand, rather.

The most exciting thing about this movie was that it involved a power we've never seen, and a director whose previous work suggested he could display it in an inspired way

I admit, nice touch from Whedon

https://twitter.com/josswhedon/statuses/470141319831363584

<3

didn't know what that was so i searched and found the lol worst article of all time jfc cinemablend

if you can't trust anonymous reddit commenters who can you trust

if you can't trust anonymous rebutters on latino-review who can you

Not true. AT ALL.

The prep on this film has been forever and it was impossible to be behind schedule because the entire production was out on hiatus by Marvel for duration of the script's rewrite. Families left homes to work on the movie in Atlanta and were now suddenly in limbo.

So about the rewrite...

About 3 months ago, Marvel had notes. The meat of the notes were about the core morality of the piece, must include franchise characters. etc., These notes came from the big four at Marvel. Joe Cornish and Edgar Wright did two drafts to try and answer the notes without compromising their vision.

6 weeks ago Marvel took the script off them and gave the writing assignment to two very low credit writers. One of the writers were from Marvel's in house writing team. Edgar stayed cool, agreed to stay on the project, and read the draft.

The script came in this week and was completely undone. Poorer, homogenized, and not Edgar's vision. Edgar met with Marvel on Friday to formally exit and the announcement went out directly after.

Edgar & Joe were upset by the sudden, out of nowhere lack of faith in them as filmmakers. Fiege had always batted for them but this felt like it came from the higher ups.

Where does this leave the cast? Well, it is believed they don't have the option to walk like Edgar did.

sic where is that from?

latino-review.com

Scratch Adam McKay off the list of replacements for Ant-Man helmer Edgar Wright.

Negotiations began with McKay in earnest on Friday but the Anchorman director abruptly decided against taking the job on the film, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. The decision is said to be his alone.

A director search had been underway to helm the Marvel superhero tentpole since Wright officially exited the project on May 23. The film is set to star Paul Rudd as the title hero.

We're the Millers director Rawson Marshall Thurber and Zombieland's Ruben Fleischer were also in contention along with McKay to get the directing job, THR had earlier reported.

probably a good thing, McKay hasn't really done anything effects-oriented ever and has only done as much action as is in The Other Guys. the Zombieland guy seems like a good fit, that movie had a nice visual flair to it.

otoh it sucked

How hard can this be? The dudes who did Captain America 2 were best known for "Community." Thor 2 guy was also TV anono. Just hire some chump and save the budget for the FX team.

Kinda depressingly otm. The Feige/Quesada/Bendis et al brain trust exert more influence on these films than their individual directors. It would be interesting to see what an auteur with a particular visual style would bring to any of these films, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Maybe a Dr. Strange movie would be more stylized, more Craig Russellesque as it were...

Jim Rash & Nat Faxon should do it

i think we know who the men for the job are

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514sGy2oc3L._SL290_.jpg

Why not?

How hard can this be? The dudes who did Captain America 2 were best known for "Community." Thor 2 guy was also TV anono. Just hire some chump and save the budget for the FX team.

Have you ever seen anything directed by Wright?

also alan taylor is kind of the opposite of a TV anono

Anono in the sense that he is not known as a film director, nor as a selling-point name a la Wright. He's a guy who gets it done, and there are lots of people like him, especially in TV. Hell, anyone who handled an episode of Game of Thrones could likely handle Ant-man. And the unlikely hodgepodge of people behind several of these superhero movies already ranges from genre auteurs like Raimi to competent technicians like Joe Johnston to Kenneth Branagh to fucking Jon Favreau. I mean, jeez, Shane Black directed Iron Man 3. Shane Black! Seriously, if this motley crue could all pull it off, plus the aforementioned, then anyone can.

BTW, Iron Man 3 had 1,834 credited visual effects crewmembers, something like 10 fewer than Avatar. When I saw that movie, it scrambled my brain wondering just what a director actually does when so much of his film is a massively complicated effects sequence. The irony being, I guess, that many of the most notable sequences of Iron Man 3 were those with RDJ just doofing around, sans suit.

and trevor slattery bumbling about

and gwenyth Paltrow consciously unpeppering

does seem that marvel's nu spooreero line is best thought of as the creation of its producers, with the director as a higher-up among an army of hired-hand technicians

he tells the fx ppl what to create. ideally.

there's storyboards, animatics, etc etc

its not like they all just go off by themselves, all 1,834, and vote on what to do.

When I saw that movie, it scrambled my brain wondering just what a director actually does when so much of his film is a massively complicated effects sequence.

It's worth looking at the extras on the Pacific Rim DVD for some insight into this - Guillermo del Toro is super-hands-on with the effects team and it's easy to get a sense of how vital his input is into making the CGI and effects sequences what they are.

I think that Iron Man 3 - again, as an extreme - hired something like 15 different FX houses, spread around the world, working more or less independently. Which is one thing, if you have Del Toro overseeing it. Or Cameron. Del Toro and Cameron geek out on that. I bet the guys storyboard in their sleep. But again, Shane Black? Not sure that guy had a particular vision for Iron Man 3's final melee, really.

Iron Man 3 is probably the only superhero movie of the past 15 years I'd call "fun"

Shane Black did a competent job IMO

I think that Iron Man 3 - again, as an extreme - hired something like 15 different FX houses, spread around the world, working more or less independently. Which is one thing, if you have Del Toro overseeing it. Or Cameron. Del Toro and Cameron geek out on that. I bet the guys storyboard in their sleep. But again, Shane Black? Not sure that guy had a particular vision for Iron Man 3's final melee, really.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, June 1, 2014 5:15 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...why

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000948/

i think this guy might have some experience working on action movies

I just mean he had very little credited director experience, and the other credit was "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang," which was awesome, but really script driven and no indication at all that the guy who made it would be the guy for a multi-million dollar effects-driven superhero movie. And no, writing "Lethal Weapon" and "Last Boy Scout," neither of which were FX-heavy beyond practical guns and explosions, would not make me think him suited, either. I mean, I think he did a great job! Better than Favreau, for sure. But I never would have figured the reclusive writer of '80s action staples would pull that off, let alone be tapped in the first place, though I have a strong hunch RDJ hooked him up.

But then, I would have figured the CGI-minded genius behind several Pixar hits would have done OK with a human cartoon like "John Carter," so who knows? Again, H'Wood is stuffed with untapped talents.

Well, Iron Man was always about RDJ, so in a way Shane Black was the completely right choice. And he did an awesome job, though the final setpiece is not good at all. But the sequence with the falling people, that was great!

falling people sequence was turribl. generally not a good movie generally. liked the first one, but that's about it.

Man, I can barely recall these movies. Was falling people where he helped the people falling from the plane and then helped the plane? Or was that Superman?

yet another movie thread taken over by JiC not making any sense and everyone else trying to figure out what the point of any of this is

Do I take over threads? Sorry about that. I thought it was called "posting." You all are welcome to return to talking the ins and outs about a director-less movie currently not being made.

Honestly, not sure what your issue is. Who knew it was controversial to claim these Marvel movies are FX-driven and that the director is not as important as the FX-team? Anyway, point was always easy to discern: given past credits and successes, any competent director could likely helm Ant-man.

Which directors do you think could have directed each of Wright's previous films and have them have the same character?

Josh, where are you getting this idea that directors simply hand over their movies to the FX guys and essentially relinquish control over huge chunks of their movies? It's simply not true that "the director is not as important as the FX team". Directors work in close collaboration with their effects teams to get the results they want. Would you say directors aren't as important as directors of photography because DPs can make a huge decisions on how scenes are lit, framed and shot?

Here's Shane Black discussing his experience with Iron Man 3:

Shane, this is your first film in eight years, and the biggest film of your career. Were you ready for what lay ahead?
Black: I was prepared. I'd been warned in advance that there would be a tutorial involved where people would walk me through a process that had been tried and true. I've learned a lot about special effects in this room and what's required and how desperate they are for us to do what we do so we can turn it over and they can start the process of rendering it. Along the way, animatics and storyboard people would take it to an animatic and then that would be a pre-viz that I could approve and along the way it was the most elaborate storyboard staff at my disposal. Everything we could think of could be rendered. It's not a movie where you can walk onto the set and say, "What are we doing today?" You're collapsing a building. Let's start with floor one. You have to have so rigorously laid out in advance everything you're going to do and that's what these people are good at.

No-one's disputing Marvel movies are FX-driven but given how different the tone of Iron Man 3 is to Favreau's movies you'd have to be nuts to suggest directors don't have an important role to play. Edgar Wright has a very distinct style and I'm 100% sure his Ant-Man would have been a different movie to the one that will be made by Marvel's second choice.

not to mention that Wright and Joe Cornish have been working on the script for a decade (although that's probably mostly out the window now)

I never said the director didn't play an important role (obv.), or that distinctive writers like Wright or Black don't bring something cool to their projects. It's that as far as billion dollar enterprises go, making the movies "good" or "distinctive" or "original" goes second to having them make tons of money. Which, hey, may be why Wright was fired. The Shane Black quote perfectly illustrates my point: he really didn't know much about FX, but they walked him through a "tried and true" tutorial, he learned a lot and pulled it off. And again, I liked his Iron Man 3 a lot, better than the other two! But that's a critical judgement on my part. The studio, I assume, likes anything that makes a lot of money, the more the merrier, and I think they care more about a director who can get the work done on time and on budget than one with any particular vision or voice. Those may be bonuses, and it makes me like the movies more, personally, but my point is just about any competent director could be quickly brought up to speed. I never said a non-Wright "Ant-man" would be as good, or would not be different, just that it could easily be done by any number of directors, which was my response to the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

there's a difference between knowing how FX is done and having a creative vision about how you want it to play out.

The studio, I assume, likes anything that makes a lot of money, the more the merrier, and I think they care more about a director who can get the work done on time and on budget than one with any particular vision or voice.

I don't think there's as much clear water between vision & voice and billion-dollar franchises as you do. Here's some quotes from Marvel's Kevin Feige:

"There are five things I can point to in the bones of this movie that are 100% solely Shane Black," says Feige. "It has as many, if not more, visual-effects shots than Avengers, but at the same time it has this awesome sort of 80s action-movie overlay, especially with some of the action that Tony and Rhodey find themselves in."

I will say that we bring in different film-makers because we want that outside voice, that unique viewpoint to come into each of the movies, so they can stand alone and have a value in their own right. We want directors to believe they can do a better job.

I never said a non-Wright "Ant-man" would be as good, or would not be different, just that it could easily be done by any number of directors, which was my response to the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

Doesn't Marvel's 'apparent difficulty' that suggest that maybe it's not as easy as you think it is?

s1ocki otm

Doesn't Marvel's 'apparent difficulty' that suggest that maybe it's not as easy as you think it is?

Well, I imagine there are a lot of factors at work here at this point, not least schedule.

s1ocki otm

Absolutely! But just to use Shane Black as an example again, if someone told me at any time in the previous decade that Shane Black was going to make a huge superhero sequel, I would have raised an eyebrow. But he did a great job! And he had a vision for the film, at least tonally. But the film's success I think was still largely due, beyond RDJ, to the FX, because if they failed, the film would have failed, and as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

Here's another good example. Gary Ross was best known as a writer, then moved into directing with "Pleasantville," which was very visual but still very script-driven. Then he did "Secretariat," which was very traditional. So two movies down, and he gets tapped to direct the first "Hunger Games" movie, a huge property handled by a well-regarded writer/director with no track record when it comes to action movies. The film comes out, it gets good reviews, it's a huge hit - fait accompli. For the second movie they picked a relatively unknown director who did an even better job, but the only thing I remember reading in the lead-up was that the effects were much better. And of course it was a big hit, too. Or the "Harry Potter" movies: huge property, huge endeavor, first two made by a competent hack, third by an auteur, fourth by a guy best known for "Four Weddings and a Funeral," and every one after that, the next four, by David Yates, a TV guy who had never done a huge, FX-driven film, or any theatrical film, afaict. And not only did he do a great job, there was absolutely no drop-off in quality. That the world had already been established so well by books and previous films certainly helped, but probably also that he was not the sort to get in the way. Those last four HP films are great, and he did a great job, but I'm not sure there's anything particular about his approach that helped make them great. Mostly his competence, his ability not to make them worse. Would Alfonso Cuaron have made them differently? Sure. But they didn't leave me wishing Cuaron had made them instead.

the apparent difficulty finding a director who can do it.

it's been five days since they boned the dude that spent eight years working on this, can't believe the movie isn't on VOD yet

Well, I wouldn't exactly say he spent the last 8 years working on it, considering he did manage to write, direct or produce several movies in the interim.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here. Is it that competent directors who understand screenwriting are hired to make marquee movies and then those movies are successful at the box office but that you, Josh in Chicago, might not have personally chosen those directors to make those movies if you were in charge?

Also, something something something FX something?

But the film's success I think was still largely due, beyond RDJ, to the FX, because if they failed, the film would have failed, and as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

quoted for boneheadedness

I'm all ears: why is that boneheaded? Do you think IM3's FXs looked good because of Shane Black's vision? Would the film have done well if the FX looked like crap? How much credit does Shane Black deserve for the quality of the FX?

xpost It's really not that complicated: it's that writer/directors with vision may make these movies better, but that these franchises, Marvel or otherwise, have a long track record of directors with very little experience in this milieu doing more than adequate jobs. Given there are exponentially more directors in the latter camp than the former, one would think finding a substitute director to make these movies would not be so difficult. It's totally fair to point out it's only been a week. At the same time, with a cast and a release date on the calendar, plus all the other Marvel movies being juggled, they don't have a lot of time to dither.

I don't get why you all think I think the directors who made a lot of these movies were the wrong pick, or that I somehow wouldn't prefer Wright, who I've been a fan of since Spaced.

Actually, I'm starting to get confused what this pseudo counter-argument even is myself. That Edgar Wright has spend so much time on Ant-man, and he is such a formidable director, that no one can replace him?

so your stupid point is... other directors... can direct... movies?

Off topic, but just want to mention that Bruno Delbonnel is absolutely crucial in making The Half Blood Prince as good as it is. And somebody somewhere chose to have that film focus on Snape and Malfoy, which was also absolutely the right choice, could as well have been Yates?

Yes, that is my stupid point. That apparently any director can do it.

no

I don't get why you all think I think the directors who made a lot of these movies were the wrong pick, or that I somehow wouldn't prefer Wright, who I've been a fan of since Spaced.

Because you're doing a very poor job of explaining your point.

Do you think IM3's FXs looked good because of Shane Black's vision?

yes

Would the film have done well if the FX looked like crap?

Marvel have the budget to hire top-of-the-line effects houses to create a consistently high quality for their FX. The chances of the FX looking like crap were very slim because the studio hired competent professionals to support the creative decisions which are ultimately the responsibility of the director. You might as well ask if the film would have done well if the DP had left the cap on the lens when they shot the live-action sequences.

How much credit does Shane Black deserve for the quality of the FX?

74%

"how the fx looks" is only one of many metrics for judging a movie, and a fairly minor one at this point in cinema history

"finding a new director for ant-man at this point is like finding a new bride because you already rented the church"

as much as the director oversees their construction, he really can't do more than say "do it again, but better."

Josh, I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this comment - could you explain your understanding of how directors oversee the construction of and direct the action during CGI sequences differs from your understanding of what they do during live-action sequences?

I'll try. If an actor, say, blinks during a take, or gives a strange reading, or bounces on a wire wrong, you can just yell cut and have them do it again. Or even if you need to bring an actor back to reshoot something, you call them back in, or have them even do it remotely. It takes work, but it's more or less immediately re-shootable. But if, after months of rendering, Iron Man's final battle comes back looking terrible, it's not so simple. Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the technology, it takes days of rendering, and hundreds of people at work, sometimes multiple effects crews. And in the end, it could still come back looking "fake," or otherwise not up to snuff. And all the while, the deadline and/or budget is looming. It's obviously vital that the acting be good, or suitable, but so much of these films is acting or reacting around things that are not there, because they take an immense deal of time and money and effort to create. But Robert Downey Jr. in front of a green screen, no so much. Or at least, much less so. Good actors are the ultimate practical effect. So sticking with Iron Man 3, granted, I only saw it the once, but as I noted upthread, I was blown away by the complexity of the final showdown, of which I imagine 90% (at least) was stuff that was created in a computer. So Shane Black writes the script, and the FX team can tell him it's doable. He can approve the animatics and storyboards. He can shoot his actors where they are supposed to be, and saying what they are supposed to say. But all those bangs and whistles that he devised, it's out of his hands how good they look. He's at the mercy of the immense FX teams. Who, famously, are in the midst of a simmering labor debate for that very reason, iirc.

I mean, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but everything from the angles to the editing of these elaborate sequels are pretty locked well in advance, not unlike a strictly animated Pixar film. There are still DPs and editors and lenses, in a virtual sense, but none of those things can trick a fickle audience into accepting something artificial as real. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. Clearly often it really doesn't matter. But back to my "Hunger Games" example, I heard lots of complaints that the CGI mutant dogs looked terrible. Less no or even no complains with the apes in the second movie. And there are lots of blockbusters with terrible acting, but sort of accept that in a way that we do not accept fake giant robots.

Sequences, not sequels.

ya but dude

someone has to visualize what HAPPENS in these sequences

it's not down to like, the individual techs doing the shading and stuff, any more than a practical action sequence is down to the guy who looks after the props

For sure, they have to be visualized, and for sure, the director is the one in charge, in the end. But I always imagined these immense CG worlds as almost a parallel virtual movie being made at the same time the actual movie is being made. I wonder how much tweaking can be done once the sequence has been set in motion, as such.

Thanks for your reply, Josh.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the technology

I think that's basically what you're doing. There is so much concept work, pre-visualisation, animatic creation etc before a final render that the chances of the finished version of a shot being an unexpected surprise are pretty slim.

But all those bangs and whistles that he devised, it's out of his hands how good they look. He's at the mercy of the immense FX teams.

It's not really any more out of his hands than any practical effect, or how well the sets are built and dressed, or how good the costumes look, or how effective the focus-pulling is. Filmmakers hire the crew they think will best support them in making the movie they see in their heads. FX crews are just a part of that process.

Would you say Shane Black is less responsible for the outcome of the Iron Man 3 finale than, say, John Lasseter was for the outcome of Toy Story?

Or Ang Lee for the outcome of Life of Pi?

We got Ant-Man movie thread sidetrack.

Josh if we all just say yes you're right can we go back to talk about something else?

I can never understand people who pop up on a thread just to tell other people to stop posting on a thread. I may be boring or stupid or even wrong, but I'd like to think I am almost always civil.

Yes but you can be a little...let's say tendentious.

They put one of their posts on the thread, you put ten of yours on the thread. That's the Chicago way.

OK. But a bomb thrower I am not.

The John Lasseter/Shane Black question is actually a really interesting one. I'd flip the hypothetical and ask if Shane Black could successfully direct a Pixar movie. I don't know. I always assumed it required a relatively unique perspective and skill set, not just a vision, but I don't know.

The Ang Lee question I'd argue ie easier to answer, and gets to the idea of authorship/auteurship. That is, I don't think that movie ever would have been made without Ang Lee, and certainly not made the way it was by someone else, probably radically so. But many (though not all) of these Marvel movies are being made no matter what. The property comes first, and then it's a matter of finding the right pegs to slot in the right holes. If anything, Lee's "Hulk" may have doomed future radical artistic comic book visions. What I love about Black's contributions to Iron Man 3 is that it really lifts all the sections of the movie that were not flying and shooting and exploding. I imagine Wright would have done the same for "Ant-man."

But anyway, it's a free forum, and I'm not a dick, but if you all want me to take some time away, I can do that, too.

Dude I'm not saying go away

I'm saying you've been posting about this for like 12 hours and we're nowhere. Like I kinda wanna light up a cigarette and put on my white vest like Ed Harris in Apollo 13 and yell WORK THE PROBLEM. LET'S NOT MAKE THINGS WORSE BY GUESSING

anyway

seriously, you're smart you contribute a lot to a lot of threads and you have good things to say...but you've made you're point like 10 million times over on this particular issue and it's kinda tiring?

*your

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUIPXBOoDe0/UungGw-2rWI/AAAAAAAAAsE/nm58iAxp_ig/s1600/TOM_HANKS_CAST_AWAY_ED_HARRIS_APOLLO_13_similarity.png

teal & orange

the problem with ang lee's Hulk wasn't that it was a radical take. the problem was that it was forced and obvious and also sucked.

Adult Pi Patel: So which Hulk story do you prefer?
Writer: The one with the tiger. That's the better story.
Adult Pi Patel: Thank you. And so it goes with Go-wait. You didn't even see Ang's Hulk, did you?
Writer: It looked really bad.

The only truly unforgiveable misstep in Lee's Hulk was the use of comic book-style page-flippy scene transitions. If that had taken root as an in-house style, I would most assuredly not be a fan of the current gen Marvel films. Leave that shit to Creepshow, full stop.

iirc the scooby doo fight was pretty unforgiveable

I was under the impression that Ant Man is hardly an obvious Spiderman/Wolverine type candidate for Marvel movie blockbusterhood, and that the reason it got greenlit, as opposed to, say, more saleable Marvel heroes, was that Wright and Cornish had a unique take on it that would have placed the movie in a more leftfield space than Iron Man or Avengers or Captain America. And that therefore, minus Wright and Cornish, what you have is a not-massively-saleable Marvel hero starring in a movie now absent the unique twist (Wright and Cornish) that got it commissioned.

ya cuz seriously like... ant-man? who gives a fuck

I think the only thing that made me WANT to see Ant Man at all was Edgar Wright's involvement. I'm not really clamoring for that movie otherwise, tbh

get amy heckerling to direct

remember back when scuttlebutt was this would be a pixar thing? that was a good look

had no idea this guy was the original villian:

http://eclectikrelaxation.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/a035scu.jpg

what if we dust off old Sid & Marty Kroft

I was under the impression that Ant Man is hardly an obvious Spiderman/Wolverine type candidate for Marvel movie blockbusterhood, and that the reason it got greenlit, as opposed to, say, more saleable Marvel heroes, was that Wright and Cornish had a unique take on it that would have placed the movie in a more leftfield space than Iron Man or Avengers or Captain America. And that therefore, minus Wright and Cornish, what you have is a not-massively-saleable Marvel hero starring in a movie now absent the unique twist (Wright and Cornish) that got it commissioned.

Yes, with the addition that their take was probably slightly inspired by (Walking Dead creator) Kirkman’s Irredeemable Ant-Man series.

I'm saying you've been posting about this for like 12 hours and we're nowhere.

L O L

the funniest thing about what this awful thread has become is that even the best disney-marvel movies (which i enjoy + are the only big actioners i watch or care about anymore) are almost universally terrible action movies

the first iron man made like a trillion dollars and no one gave half a shit about the climactic war machine fight! the action is there bc it's expected, but ask anyone why they liked literally any of these movies and they'll start talking about the characters and the humor

it's not just Marvel though, American action movies in general have been largely garbage for like forever

hmph we have an action movie poll thread that says otherwise

Winter Soldier was a pretty credible action flick in my book

i agree! it was a very nice surprise
what action movie poll?

the first iron man made like a trillion dollars and no one gave half a shit about the climactic war machine fight! the action is there bc it's expected, but ask anyone why they liked literally any of these movies and they'll start talking about the characters and the humor

― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:12 PM (1 hour ago)

sure, but i'd say the same of 48 hrs, lethal weapon and die hard.

ok? that doesn't go against anything i'm saying

well, i'd say those are universally great action movies, but ymmv

oh i see. sure, but i still don't think the action or the FX in general are ever the reason these movies are popular. audiences want and expect to see big action setpieces during summer but they aren't really under any pressure to actually be good, or to be specifically anything. but if the characters/humor/'little things' fail, the movie probably will too. JiC keeps banging on about how directors are interchangeable and the FX crews are the real... factors? i guess? but i think the opposite's been true with these movies.

well not really, i still can't figure out what josh thinks FX crews actually control, just pointing out the FX doesn't really stand to fail the movie more than any other technical factor

the editor is really the most important person on the set because if he accidentally inserts a picture of a hamburger every five seconds the movie will probably fail

it depends, does it have a kind of cheese on it?

If you don't think the action in die hard is great then I don't know what to do with you

I was going to say

the editor is really the most important person on the set because if he accidentally inserts a picture of a hamburger every five seconds the movie will probably fail

WARHOL! thou shouldst be living at this hour....

sure, action in die hard is great, but strip the characters and humor and i wouldn't care much - nor, i doubt, would have the millions who forked over ticket money

^^^ hall of fame level RONG

rly? bruce willis did as much of the work as the slam-bang action, imo. not more, but not much less.

jfc

this is what happens when a thread dies, it literally sucks all of the surrounding wrongness into it, forever feeding on itself

we have reached the black hole, folks

shrug person

It's true that the characters, lots of good humor, and memorable performances solidified Die Hard as a great movie overall, but in terms of action storytelling, it was a total gamechanger, and if you watch it now it's compelling and exciting still, even though it's been ripped off ad infinitum in the last 25(!) years. "shoot the glass!" is as great a moment as "Hans! bubby!"

sure, but i'd say the same of 48 hrs, lethal weapon and die hard.

― riot grillz (contenderizer), Thursday, June 5, 2014 6:39 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Die Hard's action scenes are great. McTiernan knew how to stage shit back then.

Peyton Reed directing, Adam McKay contributing to the script

For a second I thought you meant for Die Hard.

Die Hard reboot, w/Seth Organ as McLane.

Seth ROGAN, stupid phone.

bahahahaha

lol

C.Grisso and McCain Make a Porno

Apparently David Wain was in the running. Missed opportunity or bullet dodged?

I guess this is a stupid question, but could Paul Rudd theoretically walk?

It's a good question - no one's said anything definitively

I thought you meant in the context of the movie and I'm all "Well he'll be a shitty Ant-Man if he can't."

McKay's involvement might be for Rudd's benefit

keep singing this thread title to "Arab Money"

Reed is obv a great choice for someone to direct a bright, zippy adventure with a knowing, zing-y tone, but poor fucker's going to be struggling against a confused Frankenscript.

sure, action in die hard is great, but strip the characters and humor and i wouldn't care much - nor, i doubt, would have the millions who forked over ticket money

― riot grillz (contenderizer), Friday, June 6, 2014 12:27 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, and if the movie didn't have a cameraman i wouldnt care either

something to think about

YOURE something to think about

We got Ant-Man poster

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SCmXyF7l--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/lbhn8sejc0tzx0j1p9h2.jpg

No Bee, no credibility

no crawling out of Wasp's vagina wiping his face, no credibility

full face mask, that doesnt seem right.

Hmm - also looking kinda Giant-Mannish there as well...

how'd they get paul rubb so small

We got . . . Paul Rudd in a hoodie.

https://twitter.com/boomUK/status/501784666119364609/photo/1

This is irritating.

http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2015/01/02/ant-man-ant-sized-teaser-marvel-paul-rudd/

We got full-sized short Ant-Man teaser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ent7BoDR1yE

Wow. I wonder what they'll come up with on their second day of filming.

lol, so we had a miniatured pre-tease to get us excited about seeing the same thing in full size, which turns out to be nothing more than a brief advertisement for the imminent unveiling of a damn teaser trailer? i repeat, lol.

entire film shoulda been shot from ant-perspective

Every frame of "Captain America:" http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m01y6rPEPb1qhtovio1_1280.jpg

http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/Ant-Man-poster-550x814.jpg

they kinda need to chill with this "hey! he's real small!" shit. getting tired already.

"So why is he called Ant-Man?"

"Because of his six legs and his amazing mandibles."

"Oh okay."

they kinda need to chill with this "hey! he's real small!" shit. getting tired already.

― shmup....smug....shmub....shmug.... (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:20 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can only imagine the movie will take a sharp left turn from this, providing a bevy of smart gags and gimmick-free plotting sprinkled judiciously with well-choreographed action

i put a fair amount of trust in marvel to deliver a worthwhile popcorn movie; they have a helluva track record.

or: they hand out magnifying glasses at the theater door

I was really annoyed when the ad campaign for "The Incredible Shrinking Woman" spent so much time playing up how small she was getting; like, sure she's small but what was her take on the Iran hostage crisis?

it's not clever marketing is what i'm saying

poster made me lol, clever enough for me

i mean c'mon a poster with a tiny guy and grand font, it's cute

It accurately depicts the level of interest I have in an Ant-Man movie.

you really like the title?

there's the off-chance I'll see this cuz Lol Rudd, poster's good enough for me. I'm not really all in w these Marvel U movies but none of the ones I've seen have been outright bad/unwatchable/offensive (which is more than I can say for the DC movies)

or: they hand out magnifying glasses at the theater door

― difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl),

lol

and then if the movie is terrible you wait til the lights come up and burn holes in the screen with your magnifying glasses

Never read the comic, what's the big deal about a tiny guy? And can't he also turn giant?

half the joke is that marvel's well out of characters that are a "big deal"

I mean, what advantage is there to being ant sized, vs. 100 feet tall?

espionage stuff, element of surprise, etc. i also read somewhere that in the movie the becomes stronger when he's tiny.

i won't really know my degree of enthusiasm until i've seen a real-deal trailer but i'm still excited about the sfx possibilities

fight scenes where one of the fighters keeps changing size, sometimes shot from his pov, sometimes from theirs, you could have SO much fun with that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-pFrplmexo

I mean, what advantage is there to being ant sized, vs. 100 feet tall?

http://www.maragos.org/avengers71.jpg

For those of you unfamiliar with the character, the original Ant Man is Henry Pym, a scientist in the Bruce Banner/Hulk and Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic mold. Pym's great discovery is "Pym Particles" which can be applied to make anyone or thing covered in Pym particles super big or super small and, through similarly ill-defined foofaraw, capable of controlling that growth. Pym also comes up with a way to talk to ants through his headset, which is convenient.
The character's origin hearkens back to when the Marvel line was primarily WEIRD TALES so Pym was pre-superhero era. He was one of the founding members of The Avengers and created Ultron, about whom you'll hear a whole lot more in the next Avengers movie. As you rightly point out, he would be better served by being huge not small in many circumstances and they ran with that idea, rechristening the character Goliath and giving him a really terrible costume. Pym was so generally underused that most comic book readers primarily remember him for hitting his wife, the superhero The Wasp.
http://www.comicvine.com/articles/off-my-mind-is-hank-pym-a-wife-beater-or-did-he-ge/1100-143296/
There have been a bunch of other "Ant Men" including a particularly scummy one for the Ultimates universe and a thief who took over the persona. I'm pretty sure the movie is the Hank Pym character but who knows where they're slotting the continuity.

hope they don't lose that walkign footage from the teaser

wrong, forks - paul rudd is playing "petty thief" scott lang with michael douglas as his mentor pym who turns him into the new ant-man

with corey stoll as darren cross, an earlier mentee who bought the company and plans to do nutty stuff as yellowjacket

there seems to be some hank pym/howard stark connection to tie this to the whole marvel universe

Supposedly that's being played up in Agent Carter.

fight scenes where one of the fighters keeps changing size, sometimes shot from his pov, sometimes from theirs, you could have SO much fun with that

― da croupier, Tuesday, January 6, 2015 6:57 PM

There was a very early FF/Avengers crossover where both teams were trying to wrangle the Hulk, and Pym kept shrinking to avoid his punches, then regrowing and sucker punching him from behind. But back then he had to pop a pill every time he wanted to change sizes, so he had one hand in his mouth for the entire scene. Unfortunately no good POV shifts.

wrong, forks - paul rudd is playing "petty thief" scott lang with michael douglas as his mentor pym who turns him into the new ant-man
― da croupier, Wednesday, January 7, 2015

anyways, the scott lang antman is not a bad run or character arc; plenty of meat to pick on that bone.

Also sets up pym as the inadvertent bad guy/ultron creator for avengers 2

I believe they're changing it up in the movie version; Tony Stark creates Ultron.

that would make sense for pathos' sake and is in character with RDJ incarnation.

I don't know if it'll embed, but here's the first trailer btw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xInh3VhAWs8

OK, no kidding, that trailer seems like a POS on every level.

Wow, that's a lot of T&O.

Huh

Nice to see Grady Tripp again.

guardians of the galaxy proved that marvel can do great stuff with resolutely lower-tier characters, but the first trailer for gotg was way, way more engaging than this. is it too late to get Edgar Wright back?

also, the 'lol codenames' stuff in this was done a lot better with gotg's 'you may know me by another name... STAR-LORD' / 'who?' exchange

the tonal shift was unsatisfying and i wish there was more fighting and less insect-flying, but it's a teaser

guardians of the galaxy proved that marvel James Gunn can do great stuff with resolutely lower-tier characters

the tonal shift was unsatisfying and i wish there was more fighting and less insect-flying,

I wished there was 0 fighting and more than .3 of a joke

by fighting i really mean "visual displays of his power in action," as the alternative appeared to be people glowering in dimly lit rooms

then yes

I'm completely agnostic about this trailer

If he has the proportional strength and resilience of an ant he shouldn't need to do the trademark marvel knee-and-fist-on-ground landing he does at 1:20, he could land on his head and be fine. I'm out.

Looks a lot blander than it should be, but I'm not going to judge based just on this.

also I still kind of wish this movie was about Eric O'Grady

I can't wait to watch a little man fly a CGI bee.

New leaked image: https://honeyishrunkthekids.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/disney-s-hollywood-studios_honey-i-shrunk-the-kids-movie-set1.jpg

Srsly does marvel really think "he can straddle a fly" is the selling point

Fingers crossed they have way more fun in the actual movie and this is the "from the people who brought you marvel more marvel" trailer, but urgh

I like Paul Rudd, because he is likeable, but when was the last time he acted dramatically? Just his face alone seems tonally wrong. GotG proved me so wrong, but that trailer was undeniably a spark of fun and entertainment and good timing. This is a total stiff, and no better than the mini one with just shots of people walking.

I've been super impressed with marvel to date but I do worry its going to be like the Simpsons where they accomplished amazing things for a show in its seventh season but then went on for 25+. Fatigue may be unavoidable.

But he rides a fly.

I like Paul Rudd, because he is likeable, but when was the last time he acted dramatically?

chris pratt was mainly known for being the doughy, funny guy from parks and rec before gotg, to be fair

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Prince_Avalanche_Official_Poster.jpeg

xpost But Chris Pratt plays a big goof in GotG, too. I doubt the Rudd character is some smug, sarcastic hipster bro, but who knows?

prince avalanche not an especially good movie btw

I think I thought it was passably good, but can't really remember.

I think Rudd has shown the chops over the last 20 years to stand among the Chris triumvirate in this thespian pantheon we call marvel

Also for a dude ten years older than Pratt, Rudd still lookin good

Paul Rudd is usually one of the best things (and often the best thing) in movies starring Paul Rudd.

I enjoyed Our Idiot Brother but he really carried the whole thing

trailer really made me wish Edgar Wright was still involved. so much ambivalence & just blah here's a movie

wtf @ wasting a goddam *teaser *with so much exposition

Would much prefer to see glib Rudd than mopey Rudd

This is Marvel. You will get to sample both varieties of Rudd, I promise.

I guess I had unreasonably high expectations of this teaser.

Man, I totally laughed at Rudd's 'Huh.' Mostly because it's the Rudd of the David Wain movies, which is my favorite Rudd.

But I've learned I ride solo on these roads.

bluh, pretty dull trailer all things considered, feels like a misstep. eric o'grady comedy non-hero asshole with superheroes movie would've been dumb potentially, but would have at least added something different to the lineup.

rudd says like one and a half words in this and yall are dissecting it like star wars 7

it's about what he doesn't say man

It's about the ants that he doesn't ride, knowhutimean?

Yellowjacket costume looks pretty good:

http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/styles/tout_image_612x380/public/i/2015/04/09/smp-ant-man_0.jpg?itok=BJdCYMGX

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/09/ant-man-preview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdKf3MneyI

serious trailer is serious

Not a fan of the full face helmets but w.e.

i remain unconvinced

xxp Evangeline Lilly cold-cocking Paul Rudd, the Thomas the Tank Engine gag and a bunch of one-liners is "serious?"

vast majority of this is serious business; lilly cold-cock fits into the serious business mode, thomas tank engine setpiece is the heavily market-tested leave em laughing lead-in to dodging lasers with a COSMIC PUNCH
prior trailers have made this look like character study and midrange light comedy with action; this one has more heft

career making turn for paul rudd you heard it here first this guy's gonna be BIG

er

In the comics, wasn't Yellowjacket simply Pym's alter ego for a while? And IIRC there was some female villain later on who used the name and the suit. So who's this new Yellowjacket dude supposed to be? Why can't they use classic Ant-Man villains, like Egghead?

https://extremisreviews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/egghead.jpg

last question kind of answers itself

Yeah, I can't think of many non-Ultron Ant Man nemeses that aren't lame, so that probably necessitated the creation of a new villain.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/deadmorrison66/tumblr_lo91gzKYt21qecrdeo1_500.gif

Why can't they use classic Ant-Man villains, like Egghead?

i don't believe the schizo wife-beating Ant-Man/Giant-Man/Yellowjacket would play well in the current MCU

Wait, so Michael Douglas is Pym and Paul Rudd is some bloke called Scott? Is this based on some Earth X shit I don't know about?

The film looks like a laugh.

He's Scott Lang, one of the leading Ant-Men since 1979.

Though I know him mainly from this storyline:

Lang was even briefly hired by the Fantastic Four when Reed Richards was missing and presumed dead to serve as their technical consultant,[19] helping them deal with such foes as the Dark Raider[volume & issue needed] — an alternate psychotic Reed Richards who'd failed to save his world from Galactus — until Reed was recovered from the past where he'd been trapped thanks to Hyperstorm.[volume & issue needed] Also serving with the Fantastic Four at this time was Kristoff Vernard, the heir of Doctor Doom and himself a technical genius. Lang and Kristoff often clashed, the younger man being very arrogant and disparaging of Lang's abilities. He did, however. design a new Ant-Man outfit which Lang took full advantage of.[volume & issue needed] Much to Lang's annoyance, Kristoff also became close to his daughter Cassie who took a liking to him.

Other highlights:

He then battled Odd John's mutated insects, and encountered Biotron of the Micronauts.[7]

As Lang, he attempted to stop the Raiders at a Dallas electronics engineers convention.[9]

He accidentally shrank Spider-Man and battled the Scarlet Beetle.[17] He also battled Dragonfly.[18]

Lang played an important role in helping Mister Fantastic cure the Hulk when he was suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease

lol comics

Worth noting that Scarlet Beetle is not a costumed rogue but rather exactly what is advertised on the tin:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/11/117763/3313985-ohotmu+avengers+%231+-+page+26.jpg

They should have gone the same route with Yellow Jacket actually, I wouldn't mind the absence of Egghead so much in that case.

so is evangeline lilly the wasp?

Presumably, but not Janet Van Dyne, from what I understand? Knowing the comics backstories of these characters is sometimes a confusing hindrance (see: pretty much every episode of Arrow and The Flash when I try to explain to my girlfriend what I think I know about the characters and their relationships with one another).

She's Hope Van Dyne, so I guess she's Michael Douglas's daughter

I think my first experience with Ant Man was Scott Lang! His daughter was/is one of the Young Avengers, too.

Cassie Lang also died and came back to life

I don't know why the denizens of the Marvel Universe even call it "dying" anymore. It's like a long nap underground.

PAD made great use of this in X-Factor after Banshee died; Siryn was basically like "look he's an X-Man, he's going to come back to life any day now" and refused to mourn him or even be particularly upset about her father dying. It was pretty funny.

If it wasn't clear, my Egghead comment was a joke... I don't know any good Ant-Man villains from the comic books either. Though my theory with the movie is that Yellowjacket is revealed not to be the big bad, just his henchman, and in the end Pym turns out to be the baddie all along. He's been a villain (of a sort) in the comics more than once, and it's hard to imagine Michael Douglas playing a proper Obi-Wan type of character, bad guy is more his style.

Yeah, tbh I could sorta see that, though it's maybe a bit close to Batman Begins and the first Iron Man (and, admittedly, a million other action thrillers).

Michael Douglas has a bit of a "Hugo Man of A Thousand Faces" thing going on in that trailer
http://bavatuesdays.com/files/2009/09/hugo_man.jpg

He then battled Odd John's mutated insects, and encountered Biotron of the Micronauts

Why would they use Biotron and not Bug? Why, Marvel?! Why?

http://www.mantlestudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bug_glider.jpg

rights issues.

Whedon on Wright's Ant-Man:

When asked six weeks later if he had anything else to say about Wright’s departure, at first Whedon replied, “No.” And then he kept talking.

“Only that I don’t get it,” he said with a sigh. “I thought the script was not only the best script that Marvel had ever had, but the most Marvel script I’d read. I had no interest in Ant-Man. [Then] I read the script, and was like, Of course! This is so good! It reminded me of the books when I read them. Irreverent and funny and could make what was small large, and vice versa. I don’t know where things went wrong. But I was very sad. Because I thought, This is a no-brainer. This is Marvel getting it exactly right. Whatever dissonance that came, whatever it was, I don’t understand why it was bigger than a marriage that seemed so right. But I’m not going to say it was definitely all Marvel, or Edgar’s gone mad! I felt like they would complement each other by the ways that they were different. And, uh, somethin’ happened.”

;_;

made even more annoying by the rumours that marvel have done some reshoots to bring the script closer in line to what wright wanted in the first place (make scott lang more of a rogue at the start, basically)

saw a new trailer that seems to deflate all of the concerns about humorlessness in the script; I particularly liked this exchange (paraphrased):

PYM: Scott, are you ready to become Ant Man?
LANG: Absolutely, my days of stealing stuff are behind me; anything you need me to do.
PYM: I need you to steal some stuff.
LANG: *slightly resigned nod* ...Yeah, makes sense.

I've figured all along that the more serious tone in the early trailers was to ease the minds of anyone who might get worked up about this not being a 'real' superhero movie. The more recent footage definitely betrays a lighter tone (I got a good laugh from the deadpan shot, in the midst of a fierce battle between a shrunken Ant Man and Yellowjacket, of the model train they're riding on kinda pathetically falling off the track).

Yeah, the model train shot is amazing. It's especially good because it's actually surprising, we've been told that the ant-men will have normal strength, but because we've seen blockbusters before, we fully expect internal rules to break if the plot needs it. But nah. Tilt.

whoa whoa whoa michael peña is in this?

Man, the buzz surrounding this. Everywhere I turn, it's Ant-man this and Ant-man, that. All Ant-man, all the time. It's exhausting.

I don't get the joke in the thread title but it's all I can think about when I see anything related to Ant Man

come anticipate ANT-MAN: THEY FLY @ U FACE

Ant-Man: You Never Him

Why does Kanye say "We got Ant-Man" in "Gold Digger"?

Is it true Ant-Man got sonned by Egghead in an AOL beef

Fuck watching an Ant-Man

One thing I like is that it looks like it won't have a city-destroying climax.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/44cb35c915ceedb7a671768a695b3e82/tumblr_nmr2g0BbnO1tz1rtao1_500.gif

ant man can I get your wife janet email why because she look intersting

guys this is good

SPOILER Michael Peña kills it in every scene SPOILER

but p much everyone brings A game, including Wood Harris sadly underused as Black Cop.

i'll save further comment til it opens.

WE GOT ANT MAN MOVIE

i want a lil plush michael peña tbrr

Weak, weak. The traces of Wright that managed to survive the sausage making process make the rest of it even sadder. The funny parts weren't funny, the action parts weren't exciting, the MCU continuity scenes spliced in were clumsy as fuck. The only heat generated was between E. Lilly and M. Douglas, who both delivered legit "I love you, dad/daughter, but I'd be happy to kick you to death right here and now" vibes.

I hope marvelcorp ruthlessly kills on screen any movie headliner that manages to bomb at the box office

that first scene has to be the worst first scene i've ever seen in a comic book movie. don't you mention my wife again you so and so! he's not a threat unless we make him one....*MARVEL LOGO*...

ooh, riveting....

i mean it was enjoyable...but it is kinda funny how SMALL this movie felt.

also had no clue that that was Lost Kate until the movie was almost over. she could have been anyone.

also, so many people must have died in that huge explosion. there is no way they all got out of that building.

also, no way that cop was ant man's best friend showing him cartwheel video at the end.

also, more than one minute of sub-atomic land would have been nice.

^^Ant-Man, what the fuck is wrong with you?

this was pretty fun - i kinda enjoyed the smallness of it relative to the increasingly cosmic scale of other marvel movies, and some of the micro-scale action was genuinely inventive. for real though they need to stop making movies about industrialists fighting over control of powerful technology - it's beyond tired now.

wonder how long it'll be before details about how and why edgar wright was fired start to leak out. there are bits of this which still bear his stamp but, like wmc says, the mcu-shoehorn scenes are genuinely painful (poor michael pena having to play excited about the 'jumping, swinging, crawling on walls!' guy) and add nothing at all to the movie. even worse was the civil war setup after the credits - were they really trying to set up a whole new status quo for the marvel universe in like 45 seconds?

everyone seems pretty open that Wright walked, not was fired, over MCU-shoehorning of content and tone

the avengers-infiltration scene sticks out so badly it probably wouldn't be any less jarring if peyton reed showed up on screen beforehand and explained that agreeing to its inclusion was what won him the director's chair

it kinda weirded me out that, between this movie and interstellar, we've now had two movies in less than a year which feature climactic scenes where a father is trapped in some trippy dimension tied to his daughter's bedroom

So basically this sounds like an ep of Agents of SHIELD.

nah, the inventiveness of the tiny-world sequences alone raise it above that level. it's enjoyable, just kinda haunted by the ghost of edgar wright - I think even if you didn't know for sure going in that there was some serious rewriting going on it'd be easy enough to intuit it for yourself

everyone seems pretty open that Wright walked, not was fired, over MCU-shoehorning of content and tone

I'm not sure what the distinction is though, unless Marvel weren't that serious about the shoehorning and he over-reacted? I'm not saying that you're saying that's the case, just that's the only way I can see there being a difference between "fired by Marvel" and "walked because he didn't want to do what Marvel told him to".

okay i had to google edgar wright and yeah that would have been cool if he had directed this. would have been more madcap anyway. the bromedy madcap moments in this never really took off for me.

i still have never seen that scott pilgrim movie. i think for a long time i thought it was one of those garden state infinite playlist movies.

AF - they didn't want or set out to get rid of him, he totally could have stayed and made a compromised version if he'd chosen to; he preferred not to suddenly not make the film he'd been developing for years before the "MCU" was a thing.

Neil hamburger now part of the marvel cinematic universe. (!!!)

Agent Kington morelike

Garrett Morris cameo was a deep, deep in-joke. Can't imagine more than 5% of the audience got that.

xp right, but he surely had some communication or negotiation with the MCU, it wasn't a letter left on the sofa, there'd have been some "I'm uncomfortable with this" / "Well we'd rather you got comfortable with this".

??? There's a huge difference between walking away from a job and being fired from it!

This was totally fun and funny. Y'all crazy. My gf said this might've been her favorite of the Marvel movies so far. Absent the MCU tie-in scenes (which are nowhere near as incongruous as you guys are suggesting), this is a movie that I'm sure would appeal to a broad audience that might otherwise be unfamiliar with the MCU. And that might be disinclined to see a movie called Ant-Man.

A little boilerplate around the edges, but Rudd and Peña were great and most of the rest of the cast and bit players (Neil Hamburger! Avon Barksdale!) were solid, and most of the size changing set pieces were a blast and occasionally straight-up amazing. The audience I saw it with was way into it. I hope it gets some decent word of mouth.

i stand with old lunch

really enjoyed this, certainly more enjoyable than the last avengers film and more in line with the first Thor and Captain America films that stuck to a story and saw it through to the end without spending 75% of the time blowing the shit out of cities or something.

I liked this a lot! much more fun to have a low-key, less OTT superhero flick, that wasn't completely drenched in pathos for 140 minutes (yeah there were a few moments obv). MIchael Pena was hilarious (as was T.I.).

Bobby Cannavale "I did it for you" line at the end kinda comes from nowhere and is unintentionally funny given the way he's treated Lang for the first two hours but hey - I'm glad the final fight, instead of destroying all of a downtown metropolitan area, just destroyed the inside of a couple's house.

holy lols at the gigantic Tank Engine and spider too.

it was an ant, man

xpost were you high when you viewed Y/N bc there is no spider

Freudian slip.

This movie was fine. Didn't seem like there was a lot of thought/effort put into it, though. I was more blown away by the fact that this is the third mom Judy Greer has played this summer. Yeah, she's 40, but she must feel like Meryl Streep said she felt when one year every offer she got was for a witch role.

or like how Paul Giamatti feels when every offer he's gotten this year is a hated white music figure

not too badly done, though the guy's vocal impression is pretty poor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuvfJPx0Mk

i loled!

yeah but how do you go to all that trouble and still get the voice so wrong

true of so many internet videos, sadly. It's like those (fantastic) "recut" trailers for the Shining ("Shining") and Jaws ("Must Love Jaws"). They're fucking brilliant in the edits, the music cues and the script, but the latter has a convincing "trailer voice" and the former sounds like someone doing an impression of a trailer voice. I figure it's just some goofball like me who hit on the idea and got excited and made it happen, can't ever really hold it against them for not also being a really talented voice actor.

yeah but phone a friend!

The voice clearly seemed a bit parodic and not necessarily meant to be a direct impression. Pretty good!

We got Ant-Man sequel. Via Marvel itself:

Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.

can't help reading 'ant-man and the wasp' to the tune of 'bennie and the jets'

Loved this. Hilarious and fun Saturday afternoon flick.

Enjoyable enough, in a not really very funny way.

But Marvel really don't have any plot for their solo character movies than 'hero fights evil version of self', do they?

I enjoyed this quite a bit, and thought it was pretty funny. Suspect all the flashes of invention (of which there were plenty) were hangovers from Wright.

I liked how all it took for Scott's ex and her boyfriend to forgive him and reinstate him as a parent was for him to bring an armoured laser toting maniac and a giant ant into their daughter's bedroom.

Bobby Cannevale's "I did it for *you*" to Rudd a little on the homoerotic side in delivery

y did nobody mention martin donovan in this?!

Didnt recognise him Until the end credits, felt a bit silly

Michael Douglas, John Slatterly, and Martin Donovan together at last!

This was fine but it didnt earn any of its attempted emotional beats

Peña's closing monologue is insufficiently celebrated.

not by me. i want him to get his own movie tbqh

Peña stated that he modeled Luis' vocal style and positive outlook on life "on a friend of a friend", saying, "That's just the way he talks and the cadence. He's got this grin on the entire time and he doesn't care. He's the kind of guy where you're like 'Hey, what'd you do this weekend?' and he's like 'I went to jail, dawg,' with a smile on his face. Not a lot of people do that.

I love this

<3 pena is the best