Ant-Man and The Wasp

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that this version of an Ant-Man sequel shouldn't have been made at all. I found it pointless. They should have waited until post Avengers 4, to do a chronological Ant-Man 2. Now, with the box office numbers, it might be quite a while until Ant-Man 3, if at all.

So, you're just put out that this was released after IW? If this isn't a chronological AM2, what is? You even said yourself the movie "was fine" so is this just nitpicking over a release date? It perfectly followed up the events of both Ant Man and CW, with only the mid-credit scene linking it to IW. I'm not sure what you think a post Avengers 4 movie gets you that you felt having it post IW was pointless.

Sure, it's not the best the MCU have produced but it was enjoyable, funny in parts, had a good "baddie" and some fun action. Not sure either why you've brought up the BO numbers twice now? Looks like it's doing fine on that front, especially considering the weird staggered release dates due to the World Cup. I agree with other posters comments that not every MCU movie needs to be a billion dollar hit. They have their "big guns" and they have the smaller scale heroes (no pun intended) such as Strange and Ant Man that do fine in their own right but also serve the purpose to fill out the universe and support the bigger arcs. Based on Homecoming, I'd even add Spiderman to that list of supporting players whose solo outings are fun but a bit by the numbers. Spiderman and Strange in particular I think worked better in IW than in their own movies.

nix

Yeah box office wise its already beating the first Ant man

Frank O. Pinion

Penn wrote: »

The May release is always reserved for their biggest release that year. All the Avengers movies, CA: Civil War, GOTG 2, all the Iron Man movies. No way they would have ever given that slot to AM&TW and had IW later in the summer.

There was a six month gap between Doctor Strange and GotG 2. It could have been released February 2017, (like Black Panther this year), and probably have made more money.

Bacchus wrote:

So, you're just put out that this was released after IW?

No, not if there were better narrative reasons to do so.

Bacchus wrote:

If this isn't a chronological AM2, what is?

Ugh...it's non-chronological to the MCU itself, and didn't have to be.

Bacchus wrote:

You even said yourself the movie "was fine"

Compared to the quality of MCU films in general, it was fine, meh, ok, average, whatever, etc.

Bacchus wrote:

is this just nitpicking over a release date?

Again, no...my points aren't hard to understand, I don't think, but yet, you seem to misunderstand them and constantly feel the need to put words in my mouth? It's a Paul Rudd superhero movie...this whole topic is fluff.

Bacchus wrote:

I'm not sure what you think a post Avengers 4 movie gets you that you felt having it post IW was pointless.

A chronological to the MCU, post Avengers 4, Ant-Man sequel, would be a much different film to this.

Bacchus wrote:

Not sure either why you've brought up the BO numbers twice now?

I mentioned it in my first post, then responded to further discussion on it. Usually how a forum works.

Bacchus wrote:

I agree with other posters comments that not every MCU movie needs to be a billion dollar hit.

I also agree with that, but this film won't even get anywhere close to a billion dollars.

nix wrote: »

Yeah box office wise its already beating the first Ant man

Ant-Man: $519,311,965
Ant-Man and The Wasp: $430,795,820

I guess you're talking about domestically in America and Canada? Doesn't matter if it flops elsewhere, (I'm not saying it is a flop).

nix

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Ant-Man: $519,311,965
Ant-Man and The Wasp: $430,795,820

I guess you're talking about domestically in America and Canada? Doesn't matter if it flops elsewhere, (I'm not saying it is a flop).

Thats Ant-Mans full run, the sequel is only out in some countries, it will beat it. Which would mean its a success, reason im pointing this out, is you commented that it was doing poorly and would be awhile before we see part 3, its not even out in China yet :pac::rolleyes:

Notorious

Frank O. Pinion wrote:

Ugh...it's non-chronological to the MCU itself, and didn't have to be.

Does that really matter though? Would it have been a better film if it was released before IW? Would it have had more context or made more sense? I don’t think so.

Thought it was a very enjoyable film and it was exactly what I expected. Antman seems to have a format of being funny and fun; a lot more lighthearted than the Avengers (I’ve never read the graphic novel, but I assume they’re similar). It built on the original Antman film and it improved on it. Some great laugh out loud moments too.

Johnmb

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Ugh...it's non-chronological to the MCU itself, and didn't have to be.

Previous films in the MCU have not been in chronological order and it didn't impact their narratives, why is it such a big deal with this one?

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

No, not if there were better narrative reasons to do so.

I'll come back to this one below...

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Ugh...it's non-chronological to the MCU itself, and didn't have to be.

So, part of the issue is you don't like that AMaW was told out of sequence (as in, the release date for this is post IW, but it is set pre IW). As I pointed out, that is inconsequential as the movie is completely separate to IW, with only a mid-credit scene to tie them together. It's the nitpickiest of nitpicky reasons to not like a movie.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Compared to the quality of MCU films in general, it was fine, meh, ok, average, whatever, etc.

Yeah, no real argument there from me. I found it enjoyable, and I think it will feed in well to Avengers 4, but it's not an A-list MCU movie for sure.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Again, no...my points aren't hard to understand, I don't think, but yet, you seem to misunderstand them and constantly feel the need to put words in my mouth? It's a Paul Rudd superhero movie...this whole topic is fluff.

No, I understand them. There's a couple of different strands but the one I was referencing there was your annoyance over the release date. I've put not words in your mouth. You said this movie could have been put out in the last two years, not months after IW, and been better. You also said in this same post (see quoted bit above) that "Ugh...it's non-chronological to the MCU itself, and didn't have to be". And finally, the first bit I quoted above (which was in response to me asking if you were "put out that this was released after IW"), you said "not if there were better narrative reasons to do so". To me, that all reads that you would have received THIS movie better if it was released at any time prior to IW so that the MCU timeline order would have matched the real world chronology. I just asked was that the case and you're saying "no" but your other comments suggest otherwise.

So, you either want THIS AMaW released any time before IW because that somehow makes the movie better even though it is isolated from IW (mid-credit scene aside).

Or... you want the hypothetically better AMaW movie set after Avengers 4 instead of this... which brings me to...

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

A chronological to the MCU, post Avengers 4, Ant-Man sequel, would be a much different film to this.

Of course it would be. That's not what I asked. You seem convinced a post Avengers 4 AMaW movie would be far more worthwhile. I just want to understand why you think this? Your argument basically is that a hypothetical, never happened, AMaW movie set after Avengers 4 would be better than what we got because... reasons (we don't even know what happens in Avengers 4 btw). It's a very convenient position to take as no-one can prove or disprove it. What's to say post Avengers 4 is a terrible time for an AMaW movie? Maybe Wasp has a role to play in Avengers 4, so the setup was needed here? There's already a LOT of speculation that the quantum realm will play a big role in Avengers 4. Why is that pointless, but an AMaW set post Avengers 4 not?

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I mentioned it in my first post, then responded to further discussion on it. Usually how a forum works.

Condescending attitude aside, fair enough. I think you are being overly down on the BO figures though.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I also agree with that, but this film won't even get anywhere close to a billion dollars.

Why the "but..."? You were agreeing with me, I agree with you here too. There is no "but". A lot of MCU movies don't get close to a billion, who cares.

Frank O. Pinion

I didn't not like the film because of the release date, release date aside, this exact film released anywhere would have still been bland to me. The chronology issue is a separate point, that I was just highlighting didn't seem to matter that much, besides Disney's/Marvel's/Feige's "plan". Also, a non-chronological sequel for GotG worked, I'm not saying it's never needed. Again, compared to the narrative of IW, Ant-Man 2 just felt mediocre and pointless, to me.

Why do I think an Ant-Man sequel would be better post Avengers 4? Because of this film. It would have to be more worthwhile than this film, or it would be even more pointless.

I said "but" it won't make a billion dollars, because you were the first one to bring up the "billion dollar" number. And actually, lately, most MCU films do get close to a billion. Of their last 10 films, since 2015, all have made over $800million, except Doctor Strange and the...two Ant-Man films.

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I didn't not like the film because of the release date, release date aside, this exact film released anywhere would have still been bland to me.

Grand so, thanks for clarifying... I hope you understand why it would look like that that was the case though. You made several comments about the timing of the release having an impact on how you perceived the movie... e.g.

Ant-Man and The Wasp could have been released anywhere the past two years, since Civil War, and been fine, but 2/3 months after IW, and it felt so...average.

(Only quoting that to demonstrate why I perceived your view the way I did)

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

The chronology issue is a separate point, that I was just highlighting didn't seem to matter that much, besides Disney's/Marvel's/Feige's "plan". Also, a non-chronological sequel for GotG worked, I'm not saying it's never needed. Again, compared to the narrative of IW, Ant-Man 2 just felt mediocre and pointless, to me.

Ok, so it's NOT that big a deal then, grand. Again, it just looked, from reading your original posts and replies that the chronology was a real bugbear for you.

BTW, the chronology and the release date are inextricably connected, they are not entirely separate points. A pre-IW release date resolves your point about the chronology.

And yes of course, compared to IW, AMaW is in a totally different league. There's no comparing the two and I don't think anyone disagrees with you there. I still don't see how that makes AMaW pointless though. It's a point I've asked you about a couple of times now, but you're sticking to your safe answer of a hypothetical "more worthwhile" movie post Avengers 4....

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Why do I think an Ant-Man sequel would be better post Avengers 4? Because of this film. It would have to be more worthwhile than this film, or it would be even more pointless.

Can you say more about why you thought it was pointless given that it followed up quite well as a sequel to AM and CW, introduced the Wasp (even though she's been dusted), introduce a new super powered human in Janet (also dusted), set up the quantum realm for Avengers 4 (heavy speculation it has a roll to play), and left Scott in there (further setup for Avengers 4 one would suspect).

Personally, I thought it was a good link between where we last saw the characters and setting them up for where they need to be in Avengers 4 and beyond (Scott initially, but one would assume the snap gets reversed and the others come back into play).

In terms of the continuity of AMaW in the grander MCU, the one thing I don't think they did well enough was to explain how the events of IW just skipped them by. Fine, the events of AMaW were set before that, but then it just jumps to the moment of the snap. They just skipped over what they were up to while New York was under attack. Not even a reference to it. Not a major issue, but we were told we'd find out why AntMan and Wasp weren't in IW with this... we didn't.

macslash

Frank O. Pinion

Bacchus wrote: »

Grand so, thanks for clarifying... I hope you understand why it would look like that that was the case though. You made several comments about the timing of the release having an impact on how you perceived the movie... e.g.

(Only quoting that to demonstrate why I perceived your view the way I did)

Ok, so it's NOT that big a deal then, grand. Again, it just looked, from reading your original posts and replies that the chronology was a real bugbear for you.

BTW, the chronology and the release date are inextricably connected, they are not entirely separate points. A pre-IW release date resolves your point about the chronology.

And yes of course, compared to IW, AMaW is in a totally different league. There's no comparing the two and I don't think anyone disagrees with you there. I still don't see how that makes AMaW pointless though. It's a point I've asked you about a couple of times now, but you're sticking to your safe answer of a hypothetical "more worthwhile" movie post Avengers 4....

Can you say more about why you thought it was pointless given that it followed up quite well as a sequel to AM and CW, introduced the Wasp (even though she's been dusted), introduce a new super powered human in Janet (also dusted), set up the quantum realm for Avengers 4 (heavy speculation it has a roll to play), and left Scott in there (further setup for Avengers 4 one would suspect).

Personally, I thought it was a good link between where we last saw the characters and setting them up for where they need to be in Avengers 4 and beyond (Scott initially, but one would assume the snap gets reversed and the others come back into play).

In terms of the continuity of AMaW in the grander MCU, the one thing I don't think they did well enough was to explain how the events of IW just skipped them by. Fine, the events of AMaW were set before that, but then it just jumps to the moment of the snap. They just skipped over what they were up to while New York was under attack. Not even a reference to it. Not a major issue, but we were told we'd find out why AntMan and Wasp weren't in IW with this... we didn't.

"Grand so...okay, grand". Yes, one's point or opinion becomes clear, when you don't just assume things and jump to incorrect conclusions.

And no, I can't say anymore about why it's pointless, because yes, you have asked me about a couple of times now, and I've answered, but apparently my answer is "safe".

Bacchus wrote:

So, you're just put out that this was released after IW?
So, part of the issue is you don't like that AMaW was told out of sequence

So, ...I think the actual safe thing to do, is to not further waste my time with someone who argues their point this way, framing the other person's points incorrectly in the form of questions. It's tiring.

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

"Grand so...okay, grand". Yes, one's point or opinion becomes clear, when you don't just assume things and jump to incorrect conclusions.

Nope. Your clarification contradicts previous comments. I merely accepted your clarification and moved on. You responded quite condescendingly.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

And no, I can't say anymore about why it's pointless, because yes, you have asked me about a couple of times now, and I've answered, but apparently my answer is "safe".

Well you haven't actually given one single reason why it's pointless except that you think a movie that will never exist would have been more worthwhile. This is also despite the several points I raised that demonstrate AMaW is quite a relevant movie in setting up Avengers 4. So yes, it is safe of you to just say this movie is pointless, yet give no indication as to why that is, nor why a post Avengers 4 movie would not be pointless.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

So, ...I think the actual safe thing to do, is to not further waste my time with someone who argues their point this way, framing the other person's points incorrectly in the form of questions. It's tiring.

Probably the most sense you've made in this thread TBH.

smokingman

So is Michelle Pfeiffer

a mutant now?
Is this the way they're going to introduce mutant abilities for future movies after what she did with Ghost at the end?

Frank O. Pinion

I'm going to do the unsafe thing...

Bacchus wrote: »

Nope. Your clarification contradicts previous comments.

My clarification contradicts your understanding of my points and opinions. There is a difference.

Bacchus wrote:

Well you haven't actually given one single reason why it's pointless except that you think a movie that will never exist would have been more worthwhile. This is also despite the several points I raised that demonstrate AMaW is quite a relevant movie in setting up Avengers 4. So yes, it is safe of you to just say this movie is pointless, yet give no indication as to why that is, nor why a post Avengers 4 movie would not be pointless.

I felt it was pointless, because its main narrative doesn't seem to matter much in the grand scale of the MCU, the whole thing could have been told better in a One-Shot, if they still made those. If its mid-credits scene, was a IW mid-credits scene, Avengers 4 would have still been "set up", without this pointless film. They didn't need this film to set up Avengers 4, and what we actually did see for most of the two hours didn't matter, regarding Avengers 4, hence pointless.

Bacchus wrote:

You responded quite condescendingly.

Bacchus wrote:

Probably the most sense you've made in this thread TBH.

Yeah...who's being condescending? Glad you agree it's a waste of time arguing with someone who responds like you, and that it's tiring.

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I'm going to do the unsafe thing...


My clarification contradicts your understanding of my points and opinions. There is a difference.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I felt it was pointless, because its main narrative doesn't seem to matter much in the grand scale of the MCU, the whole thing could have been told better in a One-Shot, if they still made those. If its mid-credits scene, was a IW mid-credits scene, Avengers 4 would have still been "set up", without this pointless film. They didn't need this film to set up Avengers 4, and what we actually did see for most of the two hours didn't matter, regarding Avengers 4, hence pointless.

It was a one-shot though (well, as one-shot as you can get in the MCU now). The story was self contained but followed up on AM and CW, and it has wider implications for the MCU going forward (without being in your face about it). I think this is the first time you've said "why" you felt this was pointless btw, which is appreciated (though I disagree with the reason). This film isn't a set up to Avengers 4. IW was a set up to Avengers 4. This was a "one shot" movie that added fresh elements to the MCU, which will in turn have an impact on Avengers 4. It's not a direct setup though. That doesn't make it pointless, and in fact there's HEAVY speculation that the quantum realm stuff in AMaW will have a big impact in Avengers 4 so it's anything BUT pointless.

As for the mid-credit scene. It's a mid-credits scene FFS, is it really worth getting hung up about? It jumps forward from the events of AMaW to sync up with IW and was a neat tie-in. What's actually wrong with that? That mid-credit scene wouldn't have worked at the end of IW.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Yeah...who's being condescending? Glad you agree it's a waste of time arguing with someone who responds like you, and that it's tiring.

I've being trying to just discuss the comments you made (which I disagreed with) and posed questions to you for clarification without being rude. I've no interest in getting into a petty school yard squabble. I agreed with you the conversation was getting tiring. If we can leave behind the whole release date / chronology stuff (cause I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on that), I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Bacchus

smokingman wrote: »

So is Michelle Pfeiffer

a mutant now?
Is this the way they're going to introduce mutant abilities for future movies after what she did with Ghost at the end?

Nah, looks like she just has... powers... because... quantum realm reasons. It'll be interesting to see how big a role she plays in the MCU going forward. She could be potentially very powerful. Wonder will Scott be affected by his stint in the quantum realm too?

pjohnson

So it was released out of order but it wasn't released out of order. Ok Frank.

Captain Marvel wont be for you anyway.

Frank O. Pinion

I obviously meant One-Shot like in length, 5-15 minutes would have told anything worthwhile. You're the one that said this film "is quite a relevant movie in setting up Avengers 4", and then just said "this film isn't a set up to Avengers 4". That's contradicting.

I'm not "hung up" about the mid-credits scene. My enjoyment and opinion of this film, is separate from it. It's a separate discussion, that I was just saying how it could be changed, and still worked.

pjohnson wrote: »

So it was released out of order but it wasn't released out of order. Ok Frank.

Captain Marvel wont be for you anyway.

If you actually read the discussion, you would have read I'm looking forward to Captain Marvel and its setting.

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I obviously meant One-Shot like in length, 5-15 minutes would have told anything worthwhile. You're the one that said this film "is quite a relevant movie in setting up Avengers 4", and then just said "this film isn't a set up to Avengers 4". That's contradicting.

I'm not "hung up" about the mid-credits scene. My enjoyment and opinion of this film, is separate from it. It's a separate discussion, that I was just saying how it could be changed, and still worked.

No it wasn't obvious that's what you meant by one-shot. It's not obvious at all that you meant you'd rather this blockbuster MCU movie be released as a 5-15 minute short.

My comment was not contradictory. It's relevant to Avengers 4 but the movie is not a direct setup to Avengers 4. IW is the setup for Avengers 4. AMaW stands up independently as far as MCU movies go but there are elements introduced here that will have an impact on future MCU movies including Avengers 4.

On the mid credit scene, actually yeah it could work in IW if AMaW came before it but the way it was shown after AMaW was just fine too.

Frank O. Pinion

One-Shots are known as short MCU films, what else would I have meant? You're just looking for something to argue against now.

Bacchus

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

One-Shots are known as short MCU films, what else would I have meant? You're just looking for something to argue against now.

I'm really not. I think I'm gonna just bow out of this conversation now. Take care.

p to the e

Thought it was middling.

Good bits:

• Paul Rudd keeps his dopey reaction look to the usual high calibre.
• Similar to the first, the effects look great. Apparently they used something called a Frazier lens. Who knew?!
• Walter Goggins and Michael Pena provide decent comic relief.
• I nearly died laughing when Laurence Fishburne says to Michael Douglas, "I'm gonna fire up your tunnel!".

Bad Bits:

• The villain just didn't seem that villainous and she seemed to be straight out of "The Big Book of British Smiles".
• Michael Douglas tries his best but spends most of the time just trying not to die.
• Some of the comedy seems very forced.
• The whole thing seemed like it's a filler before the next Avengers.

homerun_homer

What a very forgettable and bland film. It gets by on Rudd's charm and Pena's enthusiasm, but take away the poxy bad guys (either or both sets of them) and you simply have a film where

they figure out something small to use their maguffin machine and get the mother back. End of.

There was nothing dynamic in the action or the personalities of the ghost in particular.

It was no way what I hoped it would be, a film that filled you in on where Ant Man was during Infinity War. The excuse that he was under house arrest is no good as there was no reference made to the events of IW throughout. It's the time between the film's end and the mid-credit scene that I want filled in.

Overall it was a totally phoned in Marvel movie, more like an earlier movie in the franchise, which is a big shame as they are fun characters to be around and fun action sequences to be had. Just not so much in this film.

GavRedKing

I was assuming in the post credit scenes or the end of this film they might make a nod towards Captain Marvel.

On that note, the 8 or so months between this and the new Captain Marvel movie must be the longest between a Marvel money in some time, it certainly feels like theres a Marvel movie out every 3 or so months now a days but we've to wait until March for Captain Marvel, again, a film that will build up Captain Marvel and should see the end of it or post credit scenes lead up to the end of A:IW and Thanos snap which in turn has a very swift turn around until the 2nd part of A:IW.

homerun_homer

GavRedKing wrote: »

I was assuming in the post credit scenes or the end of this film they might make a nod towards Captain Marvel.

Not a spoiler, but no nod.

Basq

GavRedKing wrote: »

On that note, the 8 or so months between this and the new Captain Marvel movie must be the longest between a Marvel money in some time, it certainly feels like theres a Marvel movie out every 3 or so months now a days but we've to wait until March for Captain Marvel, again, a film that will build up Captain Marvel and should see the end of it or post credit scenes lead up to the end of A:IW and Thanos snap which in turn has a very swift turn around until the 2nd part of A:IW.

Venom is Marvel also.. albeit more standalone than in the MCU.

Frank O. Pinion

Basq wrote: »

Venom is Marvel also.. albeit more standalone than in the MCU.

Pretty obvious they were strictly talking about gaps between MCU films, not Fox/Sony Marvel films.

HandsomeBob

Got around to seeing it today. Was grand. Don't really know how else to describe it. Nothing out of the ordinary but I'm still fascinated at how tech and the quantam realm will play a role going forward.

TerrorFirmer

This actually was better than I expected.... but not a patch on the first one and ultimately it is fairly flat, Paul Rudd really carries it though and there are some great individual laughs. One of the weaker Marvel films but still worth seeing, even if only for Paul Rudd's performance.

Mitch Connor

"Don't laugh... i'd be a great partner"

HEART...MELTED.

Normally I hate children in movies but damn is that little girl able to pull on the heart strings!