Marvel's Ant-Man

Bullseye1

Confirmed along with GoTG.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=34591

Turtyturd

I think these movies are going to be the ones where Marvel push the genre too far.

Mickeroo

Nice, Edgar Wright's Antman at last!!!

Turtyturd

They also announced the Captain America sequel called....

the Winter Solider. Looking forward to this although it was obvious they were going this direction when Bucky fell from the train.

Mickeroo

Turtyturd wrote: »

They also announced the Captain America sequel called....

the Winter Solider. Looking forward to this although it was obvious they were going this direction when Bucky fell from the train.

Cool, I guess it will be set in the present day so. I know Joe Johnston wanted to do sequels set in WWII (which would have been awesome imo) but I think they're going with someone else, and the shortlist doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Nolfi is the only one of the three that could do a job imo.

paddy kerins

Mickeroo wrote: »

Cool, I guess it will be set in the present day so. I know Joe Johnston wanted to do sequels set in WWII (which would have been awesome imo) but I think they're going with someone else, and the shortlist doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Nolfi is the only one of the three that could do a job imo.

They got the guys who did You, Me and Dupree

Mickeroo

paddy kerins wrote: »

They got the guys who did You, Me and Dupree

Yeah and the one behind the awful Law Abiding Citizen too. That article raises a good point about Marvel and their relationships with directors and that. Makes me wonder will they let Whedon do another Avengers movie.

FlashD

Who the hell is Antman?

Wouldn't they be better off working with a more popular character like Dardevil, I can't understand why Daredevil isn't a popular franchise at this stage, the character and world have similar dark qualities to Batman.

Mickeroo

FlashD wrote: »

Who the hell is Antman?

Wouldn't they be better off working with a more popular character like Dardevil, I can't understand why Daredevil isn't a popular franchise at this stage, the character and world have similar dark qualities to Batman.

He was a founding member of the avengers named Hank Pym along with his wife The Wasp. He can alter his size and has a helmet which can control ants. What's not to like?

He later abandons the Ant man persona and becomes Giant Man.

I've not read much stuff involving him to be honest, but I think the inherent goofiness of the character will play to Wright's strengths. It's Wright getting to do a super-hero film that has me excited more than anything.

pixelburp

So is this the first piece of proof the Superhero stable is beginning to look a bit bare of interesting, new franchises? Granted I don't know that much about the character beyond the fact he's apparently a wife-beater & wears a dorky helmet, but it's hard to get even vaguely interested in a character so blatantly C-list.

Bullseye1

Fans have a love hate relationship with Hank Pym. But he is a founding member of Avengers along with Wasp who should also be in this.

paddy kerins

FlashD wrote: »

Who the hell is Antman?

Wouldn't they be better off working with a more popular character like Dardevil, I can't understand why Daredevil isn't a popular franchise at this stage, the character and world have similar dark qualities to Batman.

Fox own his rights and are trying to get another film off the ground. David Slade was attached to direct but has since walked


Anyway

brianregan09

Marvel are definitly not scraping the barrel here, You're follow on comment proves it Daredevil isn't even owned by Marvel (movie wise) any more Fox has that and X-Men and Fantastic Four too (bastar.ds),

But yeah Antman is a long time coming imo and should have been done before Avengers as in the comics he was a founding member of the Avengers and created Ultron who is an Iconic Avengers Villain, Be interesting to see how the movie turns out though definitly looking forward to seeing it , As for other characters still to make it to the silver screen there is bucket loads

Iron Fist,Luke Cage, Moonknight, Beta ReyBil, Captain Marvel, Alpha flight, Ms Marvel and Sentry to name a few so yeah marvel got some options

WatchWolf

paddy kerins wrote: »

They got the guys who did You, Me and Dupree

They also regularly direct Community which, in fairness, is one of the best shows on TV right now.

pixelburp

brianregan09 wrote: »

Marvel are definitly not scraping the barrel here, You're follow on comment proves it Daredevil isn't even owned by Marvel (movie wise) any more Fox has that and X-Men and Fantastic Four too (bastar.ds),

But yeah Antman is a long time coming imo and should have been done before Avengers as in the comics he was a founding member of the Avengers and created Ultron who is an Iconic Avengers Villain, Be interesting to see how the movie turns out though definitly looking forward to seeing it , As for other characters still to make it to the silver screen there is bucket loads

Iron Fist,Luke Cage, Moonknight, Beta ReyBil, Captain Marvel, Alpha flight, Ms Marvel and Sentry to name a few so yeah marvel got some options

With respect, it's not so much scraping the barrel as it is that few of those heroes would realistically constitute household names & at the end of the day that's what will drive a lot of the success or failure for these movies: getting those with a casual / passing interest in the genre (or not!) into the cinema. Internet fanboys can make all the excited noises, but they still constitute the minority.

I'm sure many of these 'B squad' heroes have tales worth telling don't get me wrong, but films such as John Carter or Green Lantern showed that quality notwithstanding, the lack of a recognizable protagonist can really hurt these kind of movies (or at least make it harder to gain momentum). I would also make the case that not every superhero should be told, Fantastic Four is a good example of that.

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

With respect, it's not so much scraping the barrel as it is that few of those heroes would realistically constitute household names & at the end of the day that's what will drive a lot of the success or failure for these movies: getting those with a casual / passing interest in the genre (or not!) into the cinema. Internet fanboys can make all the excited noises, but they still constitute the minority.

I'm sure many of these 'B squad' heroes have tales worth telling don't get me wrong, but films such as John Carter or Green Lantern showed that quality notwithstanding, the lack of a recognizable protagonist can really hurt these kind of movies (or at least make it harder to gain momentum). I would also make the case that not every superhero should be told, Fantastic Four is a good example of that.

I get what you're saying, but arguably neither Iron Man or Thor were household names either. Really, apart from Spider-man, X-men(mainly wolverine) and Hulk I don't think Marvel have anyone of the same level of universal recognition as Batman or Superman. There's no denying they have a job on their hands thats for sure. Fair play to them for being ambitious though. I would be reasonabley familiar with comics but I hadn't even really heard of Guardians of the Galaxy, and by looking at it they're not exactly taking the easy route with their choice of titles.

I've never liked fantastic four either but its getting another reboot now too, this time by the director of Chronicle.

Nervous Wreck

Totally agree that Fantastic Four should be buried/destroyed rather than rebooted. Antman is very ambitious, in terms of it not being an 'easy option'. I would imagine it'll be either incredible or just the worst thing ever. Don't see there being a middle ground. But it defo has a better chance than Guardians....

johnny_ultimate

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these Marvel films fail spectacularly. Antman might get by if it plays up its ludicrousness and interesting choice of director, but I think Guardians of the Galaxy is a massive risk and will require a serious marketing blitz. You have to remember that The Avengers had a multi-film build up and a whole host of recognisable stars & characters. As pixelburp said, the lesser known characters are nowhere near as safe a bet.

Also, you can never underestimate the potential for audience backlash and overexposure. At some point along the line audiences may well get sick of the whole superhero movie thing, especially now that they're slowly exhausting the iconic ones. A few average or bad films and goodwill can easily turn to hostility. I guess we can only wait and see how the incoming barrage of sequels fare.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but arguably neither Iron Man or Thor were household names either. Really, apart from Spider-man, X-men(mainly wolverine) and Hulk I don't think Marvel have anyone of the same level of universal recognition as Batman or Superman. There's no denying they have a job on their hands thats for sure. Fair play to them for being ambitious though. I would be reasonabley familiar with comics but I hadn't even really heard of Guardians of the Galaxy, and by looking at it they're not exactly taking the easy route with their choice of titles.

I've never liked fantastic four either but its getting another reboot now too, this time by the director of Chronicle.

Well of course it isn't an exact science, but I'd argue Iron Man succeeded mostly through the sheer power of RDJs ad-libbed charisma onscreen, rather than the comic material itself; a lot of the good press for Thor seemed to emphasize the comedy and / or the Shakespearean overtones (at least, that's what made me see it anyway hehe). I also believe that generally what helped most of Marvels films heretofore has been some element of precedent: most if not all have existed either as TV shows or the occasional film. They already had exposure in the public consciousness so names like Thor or Iron Man were already partially marquee. Luke Cage & Moonknight have a larger battle at hand.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

[...]
Also, you can never underestimate the potential for audience backlash and overexposure. At some point along the line audiences may well get sick of the whole superhero movie thing, especially now that they're slowly exhausting the iconic ones. A few average or bad films and goodwill can easily turn to hostility. I guess we can only wait and see how the incoming barrage of sequels fare.

It's only inevitable that audiences will tire of the genre; it's not like it hasn't happened before, whether it was with Cowboy films in the 50s, or Disaster flicks during the 70s.

brianregan09

Green Lantern, John Carter and Fantastic Four are all movie that still have great potential just needed a director that understands the source materiel, and really pushs there ideas (geoff johns on lantern was supposed to have sat bk and not contributed much at all)

brianregan09

brianregan09 wrote: »

Green Lantern, John Carter and Fantastic Four are all movie that still have great potential just needed a director that understands the source materiel, and really pushs there ideas (geoff johns on lantern was supposed to have sat bk and not contributed much at all)

Green Lantern needs the studio to give them some leeway, the schedule for the first film was ridiculous. The fact that actors are obviously reading off of cue cards during pivotal scenes says it all. John Carter was a damn good film, it just needed a better marketing campaign. As for the Fantastic Four, well the first one was quite poor but the sequel was enjoyable throw away nonsense that easily passed 90 minutes. I kinda like that the FF is the one franchise which so far has been aimed squarely at kids and hasn't gone over the 100 minute runtime mark. It's the kind of unoffensive series that is forgotten as soon as the credits end which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

FlashD

pixelburp wrote: »

It's only inevitable that audiences will tire of the genre; it's not like it hasn't happened before, whether it was with Cowboy films in the 50s, or Disaster flicks during the 70s.

Totally true, this all just a phase and they're milking it for all its worth right now.

So long as the top characters can roll out quality films then all the lesser known characters can piggy back off of that but if we get a string of stinkers from the likes of Batman Superman Spiderman then you can expect whole game to come crashing down like a house of cards.

Move on 20 years and everyone will be looking back with nostalgia at the golden era of superheros in cinema history.

Turtyturd

Mickeroo wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but arguably neither Iron Man or Thor were household names either. Really, apart from Spider-man, X-men(mainly wolverine) and Hulk I don't think Marvel have anyone of the same level of universal recognition as Batman or Superman.

To be fair I think Ironman and Thor are on a different level to Ant-Man. If the character cannot hold down a monthly series then chances are they should not be considered when it comes to transferring them onto the big screen.

Zubeneschamali

Turtyturd wrote: »

To be fair I think Ironman and Thor are on a different level to Ant-Man.

I don't think so. The vast, vast majority of people who saw Ironman and Thor had never seen a comic-book featuring either of them.

The difference between these movies and Daredevil/Green Lantern is not that the characters are more well known or iconic, it's just that they were good movies, and Daredevil/Green Lantern weren't.

brianregan09

Exactly what I was aiming for , As long as its a pretty good movie the audience will eat up anything

paddy kerins

Test footage

http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2013/03/19/test-footage-for-marvel-studios-ant-man-leaks-online

OK.. admittedly that did look kinda cool and fun.

Bullseye1

Looks good for a quick mock up.

It definitely has Wright's visual flair to it alright. Thought Scott Pilgrim vs the World was very underrated, but it did give him a chance to show off. Also interesting that Joe Cornish is doing the screenplay (according to IMDB). Attack the Block was a great movie, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes!

Galvasean

brianregan09 wrote: »

Exactly what I was aiming for , As long as its a pretty good movie the audience will eat up anything

Being a good movie didn't save John Carter...

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

Being a good movie didn't save John Carter...

True that but John Carter didn't have the luxury of being part of the Avengers franchise. As long as they make that obvious in the marketing this will make money I reckon.

johnny_ultimate

John Carter was not a good film. At best it was inoffensively mediocre, although I'd say it was even a little worse than that. Regularly surprised it has such a positive reputation around these parts.

Thwip!

Damn Disney are taking it down all over

FlashD

Thwip! wrote: »

Damn Disney are taking it down all over

They got to make up for the bomb that was 'John Carter' ....that's in financial terms! Something like that could run rack & ruin a lesser studio.

pixelburp

I dunno, I saw the footage and while yes it's just a proof of concept, my thoughts haven't changed that much; the whole thing looks so feckin' goofy and silly.

Everyone's suspension of disbelief is different & what makes it crack varies from person to person; for me, it takes a goofy-looking superhero who can shrink and grow at will. Sure, arguably it's as believable as a norse god or raging green giant, but Ant-Man is too much for me - far too Silver-Age. Call me a party-pooper but I just think bringing all these heroes into the 'Avengers' canon might over-egg the superhero pudding.

On the other hand, I am curious to know what Joe Cornish makes of the script (loved Attack of the Block) and Edgar Wright was practically made for directing a comic adaptation, so maybe all is not lost...

Nervous Wreck

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, I saw the footage and while yes it's just a proof of concept, my thoughts haven't changed that much; the whole thing looks so feckin' goofy and silly.

Everyone's suspension of disbelief is different & what makes it crack varies from person to person; for me, it takes a goofy-looking superhero who can shrink and grow at will. Sure, arguably it's as believable as a norse god or raging green giant, but Ant-Man is too much for me - far too Silver-Age. Call me a party-pooper but I just think bringing all these heroes into the 'Avengers' canon might over-egg the superhero pudding.

On the other hand, I am curious to know what Joe Cornish makes of the script (loved Attack of the Block) and Edgar Wright was practically made for directing a comic adaptation, so maybe all is not lost...

Guardians of the Galaxy will be released before Antman; the over egging will be done at that point.

constitutionus

Turtyturd wrote: »

To be fair I think Ironman and Thor are on a different level to Ant-Man. If the character cannot hold down a monthly series then chances are they should not be considered when it comes to transferring them onto the big screen.

thats not necessairly fair.

look at blade, he hasnt held down a series in his life, yet is argueably one of marvels most sucessful film series and led the way for xmen to be made.

i dont expect ant man to be huge, but he could produce a very respectable preformance.

brianregan09

It looks good and this isn't even part of the film this is just a quick tease to give an idea to people what there in for and already i want more and thats a good sign

Galvasean

constitutionus wrote: »

i dont expect ant man to be huge,

no, just giant! :pac:

Skerries

any links to it anymore?

Fysh

Skerries wrote: »

any links to it anymore?

There's a sequence of GIFs illustrating it here, which I guess is the closest you'll get to it for now...

Gbear

I think Thor will probably represent the line beyond which people won't accept silliness.

I really though it would be breathtakingly stupid and nonsensical but it straddled the line beautifully and didn't take itself too seriously which ultimately led to it working fairly well.

Antman sounds like a step too far. Not only does it feel like there's already an overabundance of superhero films but more importantly, I just don't think an idea this silly is likely to work.

The name alone is probably going to be enough to put the bulk of moviegoers off. It doesn't have the same cultural relevance that Spiderman had that gave it a back door into the mainstream.

Overheal

I tried to look online for the footage, and I found this.

All I want to say right now is.... Yes.



Relationship to Mark IV Iron Man armor screams

Thwip!

^I'm very much up for that.....though to be fair, Nathan Fillion is my go to Pym

Mickeroo

Nathan Fillion is everyone's go to every yet to be cast superhero :pac:

Thwip!

Mickeroo wrote: »

Nathan Fillion is everyone's go to every yet to be cast superhero :pac:

Well I wouldn't put him as Flash :P


*That's NPH

Overheal

He really fits in as the voice actor for green lantern tbf

Nervous Wreck

Fillion's running out of time. He needs to be cast as a superhero soon. He's already gotten fairly chunky and, without that kinda role, I don't see that changing. Justlethimbeafuckingsuperheroforfucksake!

Fysh

Fillion's already been a superhero. He was SuperJesus* in Super

* name may be something I just made up right now

JohnnyRyan99

He was also Captain Hammer!

JP Liz V1

Rafe Spall has worked before with Edgar Wright and now seems to be finally landing leading roles might be an option but my own personal favourite would be Devon Sawa