Ant-Man

Details On The Ant-Man Movie

As just about anyone who's read even the most passing of film news in the past year is aware, The Avengers is going to be a huge movie event in 2012, and its list of spin-off films continue to grow. Adding on to that pile, is the team's de facto leader, Henry Pym, aka: Ant-Man. While the project had been on the back-burner for a few years at this point, it became a lot more real when the film's would-be director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, and the upcoming Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) laid down a bit of info on how the film will take shape. While Wright is best known for comedies that parody familiar film genres, don't expect this film to be one long joke.

While the film is still in early planning stages with the full script not set be completed until Wright has put the finishing touches on Scott Pilgrim, the framework for the film's direction seems to already be set. Ant-Man is actually an extremely intriguing project, but there were definitely fears that the film would be going down the comedy route. However, it seems that while the film will contain comedy elements, it will be centered in the proper context of existing superhero films. According to Wright:

Besides the connection to the Avengers storyline, there is actually a lot of raw material in his own story to make an entertaining movie. Unlike most super-powered heroes, Henry Pym's powers to grow extremely small or large were the result of a deliberate experiment of his own making. His romance with Janet van Dyne, aka: The Wasp (currently rumored to be played by Eva Longoria,) is also a source of an original dynamic where Pym bestows similar powers on her, as their relationship evolves into a superhero partnership, as well. Add Pym's tendencies toward multiple personality disorder with his brasher Yellowjacket persona, and you have the elements for a really original comic book film.

Here's hoping for sake of consistency, that we see Henry Pym in The Avengers, established as one of the founding members of the team. It would not only save the spin-off film some work in introducing him, but would properly canonize the film within the same "universe." Such a thing could be extremely critical when movie-goers decide if they want to spend money to see the film or not.

As of now, Ant-Man is tentatively listed for a release sometime in 2012. (Although a 2012 release seems unlikely and plans could change very quickly.)

Source: G4

Why are they calling it Ant-Man if they are throwing in that other stuff? That was the problem with Ant-Man. It never worked as a stand alone feature, but they were able to keep the character (Henry Pym) going in the Avengers (which during most of its run had mostly second string members as the regulars, excepting Captain America) by constantly changing his costume and powers. First he was Ant Man, then Giant Man, then something else. I think they have a loser on their hands no matter who the director is.

Ive said it before in another thread where this was mentioned, that I have never heard of Ant Man. But that pic you posted Jrs reminds me of Ant Bully

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

when Edgar Wright was atached to it i thought Marvel are thinking outside the box and i think its gonna work if he's saying its gonna have the same humour amount as Iron Man.

I have to say this was my most anticipated Marvel films hands down until a couple day's ago when Edgar Wright dropped out.

Now I'm just sad because it's going to be even longer before we get to see a new Edgar Wright movie...

__________________

^ This.

Only reason to care about this movie now gone. All that's left now is for Paul Rudd to drop out and be replaced by Jeremy Renner or someone equally boring.

Edgar Wright dropped out because they forced several re-writes on him, including dropping what he'd written entirely to make it more in line with the rest of the Marvel films. I get that they want their movies to all exist in the same "universe" but this showed very little confidence in a fantastic director who could have made something brilliant for them, and was a bad move. I don't know what this will be like, now.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Its worrying for the future of the franchise because it won't have much personality to it as well as much variety with different directors and visionaries adding their own ideas.

I agree with you, I was gutted when I found out Edgar Wright had pulled out of this project. Im still hopeful we get a great film, time will tell.

The soap opera of reported directors in...then out, is my current obsession

from IGN

BY JARED LARSON

"The search for Ant-Man's new director has finally ended.

Marvel officially announced today that Peyton Reed -- best known for Jim Carrey's Yes Man and cheerleader comedy Bring It On -- will be replacing Edgar Wright as director. Marvel also revealed that Adam McKay (Anchorman, Talladega Nights), who was recently rumored to be in the running to direct, is rewriting the film, though Marvel's exact terminology is "contributing to the film's script." "

I wondered how much was completed before Wright left and what they will use of it if any? I don't know what an average lead time is for movies, but one year doesn't seem like much. If this movie turns out great, then I can only imagine that "Fury Road" will be a mind scrambler.

I'm not sure it makes sense that everyone's just automatically taking Wright's side here. I love his stuff, too, and wanted him to direct this, but Marvel's films have to fit together now. What if he simply refused to accommodate that? I wouldn't jeopardize everything they've got going to keep a director, even one like Wright.

Of course, it's entire possibly that Marvel was being pedantic in their rewrites, but we don't really know.

Even if Wright wanted to veer strongly away from their (ridiculous) plan, what would be the down side? Anything with Marvel in front of it is easy money right now. Even if it was drastically different in tone from the franchise, it would still make money just having the attachment to The Avengers brand.

Worse case if they'd let him make it his way, this film doesn't make $900 million.

I'm not sure why you call their plan ridiculous--Marvel's films have been incredibly well received, and incredibly profitable, so they've got plenty of reason to want to continue on their current path.

The downside would be breaking chronology, which is one of the biggest things these films have going for them. Comic books are a niche interest, probably in no small part because they have a convoluted chronology with deaths, resurrections, reversals, reboots, and all sorts of other things that make them opaque to all but the most dedicated fans. Films based on comic books, however, have found a much wider audience, and I think that's at least in part because they've put a lot of time into minimizing this and creating clear arcs. Marvel's films have consequence right now, and that matters a lot, especially in stories where characters already seem invincible.

Sure, their next handful of films will make money no matter what. But they can make more or less, and they can either pave roads for future films, or burn bridges behind them. Maybe Wright wanted to change a lot that would harm future plans. I can't really say what the exact down side might be, because we have zero idea what he wanted to do. But it's easy to imagine all sorts of things that would throw a wrench into what has been, so far, a well-oiled machine.

Other than Iron-Man and The Avengers what good movie was based on Marvel comics?

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

Spider-man and The Incredible Hulk (with Edward Norton)

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

Yep, but it's been a long time since Spider-Man.

The last 3 marvel movies that I've seen (Thor, Thor 2 and Captain America) were not good at all so I think they could use some change.

Whether or not you personally like them is beside the point (though it seems weird to automatically exclude their two best films when we're only talking about nine total). The question was about what reason Marvel had to want to protect their plan and chronology. And the answer was/is: they've been very well received (the three you listed scored 77%, 65%, and 89% on Rotten Tomatoes), and insanely successful financially. Probably because even people who aren't as impressed with them, like yourself, are still watching them.

I didn't went to the cinema to watch them, I rented them, but I see your point. As a movie fan you can't be happy that a movie that seems different and really good in perspective will not take place because of rich people who wants to make money. And I can say a movie is bad even if it's critically acclaimed, let me rewatch these 3 and I'll give you an argumentation of why they are bad.