Black Panther or Ant-Man?

Black Panther or Ant-Man?

  • Black Panther

  • Ant-Man

  • Both


Results are only viewable after voting.
Right back atcha.

Which none meant for you.

You're kidding yourself if you think RDJ won't be in Avengers 2. What writer, producer, marketer, actor or filmmaker would ever agree to that, and for what reason?
I think you miss the word "Possibility". RDJ has a contract with Marvel Studios for 4 movies - 3 IM movies and the Avengers. If RDJ is going to be in the Avengers 2, it would need new contract. That "Possbility" comes in when the contract negotiation talks fail.

I myself am rooting for RDJ still appearing in the sequel. Iron Man has always been my favorite Marvel character and without RDJ, something is definitely going to be missing.

Is it just me, or did you just say he's a scientist, and then point out that he doesn't wear a labcoat, as though that's proof of something?

But, for storytelling purposes, two scientists seems optimum. Two sided conflicts, two person relationship development. The Stark-Banner scenes and relationship wouldn't have meant as much if there was a third guy in there chiming in.
"Applied Scientist" is more or less, an engineer.

Did you ever see Tony Stark wearing a labcoat in IM, IM2, and the Avengers? Have you ever seen an R & D laboratory scientist in a drug company without his or her labcoat at work? Tony is an engineer & computer scientist to be exact. Not a lab scientist. Stark invents stuff on other people's ideas (including the arc reactor) for practical intent, not just out of scientific curiosity like Pym will be. Of course Stark's aptitude for science is still off the chart.

Read on these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

Basing on the real world, just 2 scientists aren't enough. In the real world, scientist specializes. We know in general what Stark is focused on, and Banner seems to be more a generalist plus his recognized mastery on Radiation. Pym could represent the biology and chemistry side. You know why in IM2 Stark couldn't help himself of metal poisoning and SHIELD needs to come to the rescue? Because he's not good chemistry and really bad in biology.

Or Pym could represent Reed Richards of the MCU, the master of all science. But that would put off some classic Marvel readership so bio-chem mastery is fine for me.

That's what I find most odd about some of these arguments, they're not about making the film better, but about giving favorite characters the same kind of attention they've had over 40 years of comics.
Marvel's favorite characters. It's not up to fans that Marvel will attempt to make Ant-Man movie but their own confidence of the material.
 
Which none meant for you.

True, but *is* your mind open to the very real possibility that Pym won't be in the MCU?

I think you miss the word "Possibility". RDJ has a contract with Marvel Studios for 4 movies - 3 IM movies and the Avengers. If RDJ is going to be in the Avengers 2, it would need new contract. That "Possbility" comes in when the contract negotiation talks fail.

I myself am rooting for RDJ still appearing in the sequel. Iron Man has always been my favorite Marvel character and without RDJ, something is definitely going to be missing.
RDJ's profit sharing just netted him 50M for a character he loves to play. I don't really see a reasonable possibility of either party backing away from such a deal. If we eliminate the need for reason, then it's a possibility that Tobey Maguire will be cast as Iron Man for Avengers 2, y'know?

I didn't know he had a four movie deal, where did you get that from?


"Applied Scientist" is more or less, an engineer.

Did you ever see Tony Stark wearing a labcoat in IM, IM2, and the Avengers? Have you ever seen an R & D laboratory scientist in a drug company without his or her labcoat at work? Tony is an engineer & computer scientist to be exact. Not a lab scientist. Stark invents stuff on other people's ideas (including the arc reactor) for practical intent, not just out of scientific curiosity like Pym will be. Of course Stark's aptitude for science is still off the chart.

Read on these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

Basing on the real world, just 2 scientists aren't enough. In the real world, scientist specializes. We know in general what Stark is focused on, and Banner seems to be more a generalist plus his recognized mastery on Radiation. Pym could represent the biology and chemistry side. You know why in IM2 Stark couldn't help himself of metal poisoning and SHIELD needs to come to the rescue? Because he's not good chemistry and really bad in biology.

Or Pym could represent Reed Richards of the MCU, the master of all science. But that would put off some classic Marvel readership so bio-chem mastery is fine for me.

Marvel's favorite characters. It's not up to fans that Marvel will attempt to make Ant-Man movie but their own confidence of the material.
Marvel doesn't have favorite characters. They just have characters that make them money. And you keep saying Stark is a scientist and then getting on this lab coat and saying he's not a lab scientist. As though that's relevant. He's a scientist - whom we repeatedly see in the lab. We agree on this, Wikipedia agrees, and we both keep saying it, there's no use trying to pull a disagreement out of thin air.

Banner's already been established as the biology and chemistry guy in the Incredible Hulk. Pym is not needed - because it's not real life, it's really just one or two scenes in a movie where the Avengers deal with a science problem. Having a guy who has all the answers makes for a bad scene, who cares if it off puts old marvel fans, it makes for a bad movie.
 
Last edited:
True, but *is* your mind open to the very real possibility that Pym won't be in the MCU?

Sure. On the reverse, you don't seem to be.

I didn't know he had a four movie deal, where did you get that from?

See Tony Stark section on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film)

Please read news which Feige said he could replace RDJ in further IM movies and RDJ countered that suggestion. Though, I don't want to waste my time scouring the internet.

Marvel doesn't have favorite characters. They just have characters that make them money. And you keep saying Stark is a scientist and then getting on this lab coat and saying he's not a lab scientist. As though that's relevant. He's a scientist - whom we repeatedly see in the lab. We agree on this, Wikipedia agrees, and we both keep saying it, there's no use trying to pull a disagreement out of thin air.

Banner's already been established as the biology and chemistry guy in the Incredible Hulk. Pym is not needed - because it's not real life, it's really just one or two scenes in a movie where the Avengers deal with a science problem. Having a guy who has all the answers makes for a bad scene, who cares if it off puts old marvel fans, it makes for a bad movie.

Marvel have characters that they would like to market. I get that. Pym seems to be favorite among the next batch of characters.

And Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. Ctrl + F for the word "scientist" in Wiki's Tony Stark page and you won't find any context directly toward Tony Stark. On the other hand, search for the word "engineer", you will have the sentence "A billionaire playboy, industrialist and ingenious engineer" - which is what Tony Stark is. For extra credit, go to Wiki's Reed Richards and Henry Pym pages. See the difference by yourself.

Banner was not established as a bio-chem expert. He's a radiation expert as spoken in the Avengers. I don't know why you're almost hell bent against another character in the MCU especially when it's up to them to make the character works on screen and our thing is just to relax and watch the show. I don't believe Pym will be gary stu in the MCU, not with his comicbook history.
 
Since when has Ant-Man been one of "Marvel's favorite characters"? He's been a B-list Avenger for decades, and the Avengers themselves have only very recently moved out of the B-list of popularity as a whole.
 
Personally I think two biochemists in Pym and Banner would actually be okay. One kind of gung ho about scientific advancements, and one a bit more cautious.
 
Since when has Ant-Man been one of "Marvel's favorite characters"? He's been a B-list Avenger for decades, and the Avengers themselves have only very recently moved out of the B-list of popularity as a whole.

Verbatim, eh? Why did I made character plural? So I forgot to prefix "One of " to the sentece, I was going to edit my post but I said what the heck.. this is just a post on message board. Then I remember you guys like to pick words and sentences facetiously... Fair game because the mistake is mine.

One of Marvel's favorite characters, because why would Marvel go through the lengths to giving the character a movie? Because they believe in the character more than bunch of B to Z listers left in the basket. Marvel also don't care if Avengers was the B-team once. It's the top dog now with top dog solo members and conveniently Marvel still retains the top dog movie rights.
 
Actually, I think the only reason Marvel is interested in giving him a movie is because Edgar Wright happens to be interested in it. If not, I suspect they wouldn't even bother. As for other options, I can easily riff off a list of characters who'd be much better prospects for movies ( either due to their concept being an easier sell, a stronger characterization, more usable story arcs to draw from, or just plain being popular ); there's little to say for an Ant-Man movie compared with a Dr Strange, Heroes for Hire, or even Ms Marvel film.
 
Sure. On the reverse, you don't seem to be.

It seems a remote possibility. It would require deception on the part of the filmmakers for it to be true. I reject the notions because they are based on hopes instead of facts. People keep wishing/hoping that Disney or Marvel or anyone would step in and make Wright do the movie that they, as fans would want, with little to no justification for why Disney/Marvel/Feige/whoever would want the same thing.

I also accept the reality that on the whole, it is better for the storyline that Pym not be like he is in the comics, where he is a founding member, and the be-all-end-all scientist, and supplant the Avengers with an Ant-Man focus episode guest starring the Avengers. Where Marvel uses the popularity of Avengers to sell Ant-Man, instead of the other way around. I recognize that sacrificing story to elevate characters just makes for a poor experience for all involved.

See Tony Stark section on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film)

Please read news which Feige said he could replace RDJ in further IM movies and RDJ countered that suggestion. Though, I don't want to waste my time scouring the internet.
I did, and it specifically says that we don't know how many films he's contacted for (so where did you get four?) and that talk of recasting is premature. There's still no room to reasonably not expect him to be in Avengers 2.

Marvel have characters that they would like to market. I get that. Pym seems to be favorite among the next batch of characters.

And Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. Ctrl + F for the word "scientist" in Wiki's Tony Stark page and you won't find any context directly toward Tony Stark. On the other hand, search for the word "engineer", you will have the sentence "A billionaire playboy, industrialist and ingenious engineer" - which is what Tony Stark is. For extra credit, go to Wiki's Reed Richards and Henry Pym pages. See the difference by yourself.

Banner was not established as a bio-chem expert. He's a radiation expert as spoken in the Avengers. I don't know why you're almost hell bent against another character in the MCU especially when it's up to them to make the character works on screen and our thing is just to relax and watch the show. I don't believe Pym will be gary stu in the MCU, not with his comicbook history.
According to Wikipedia, engineers are scientists. This makes sense, because Applied Scientists are scientists. Just like ice cream is cream, Native Americans are Americans and Ant-Men are men.

I hope you don't think that the comic book rationalization for Pym's Scientist Supreme title makes sense. It does not. Being *only* a scientist does not make you *more* of a scientist than someone who is a scientist as well as something else. It just means you're less versatile. Just like if all I do is play basketball, that doesn't make me more of a basketball player than Micheal Jordan because he also plays baseball.

To reiterate my last post: Banner was established as a biochem expert in the 2008 film called The Incredible Hulk, which is still in continuity, right?

As for me, I'm not hell bent against anything. I'm looking forward to more heroes being the MCU. I just reject the idea that Ant-Man is inherently appealing, because that's false. I reject the idea that we can intro Ant-Man and his powers in an Avengers film because mathematically, something has to give. I reject the idea that Pym will be MCU because I've been told repeatedly by filmmakers that he will not be, and I choose not to hang my hat on a reference that was intentionally excised from Thor.

I look forward, personally, to Wright's Ant-Man, which will finally allow everyone to dig Pym the way his fans do, instead of fallaciously assuming everyone will love everything about Pym because others do - others who liked Pym before he was like that. I recognize the Scientist Supreme as fan service, a bone thrown to Pym fans, not as something that attracts others to be interested in Pym.

[opinion]Long story short, if you want to know how I feel about the issues, ask, but I generally just say what I think works and is going to happen. What would I like to happen? I would like Ant-Man to have come out in 2009 or 2010 and been an underdog rudolph the red nosed reindeer type story that won over the audience to this underdog superhero, so that he'd be ready and raring to go for Avengers.

Since that didn't happen, and he wasn't in Avengers, I don't want to see what the Avengers built be undermined to try and retcon things into being like they are in comics. I think that's sloppy irresponsible storytelling that turns off people in comics who are heavily invested, so of course it will skewer the much more fickle general audience.

I also value Wright's writing over Ant-Man's comics history. Since Wright has proven to be great entertainment and Ant-Man has not. If Wright wants to make him a period piece, I remain confident that I will enjoy that more than a more 'faithful' adaptation - especially since a period piece is actually more faithful to the character who came out at that time, something many fans forget during these adaptations.

But all that is just my opinion and desire. It has no bearing on what will or should happen.[/opinion]

Anyway, I could rant on this all day, but long story short: Tony is a scientist, so Pym doesn't *add* anything to those scenes, and I want more heroes in the MCU, but not at the cost of good movies. It has to be just as amazing to the random movie goer who doesn't even like comic books as it is to me, or it will fail.
 
Actually, I think the only reason Marvel is interested in giving him a movie is because Edgar Wright happens to be interested in it. If not, I suspect they wouldn't even bother. As for other options, I can easily riff off a list of characters who'd be much better prospects for movies ( either due to their concept being an easier sell, a stronger characterization, more usable story arcs to draw from, or just plain being popular ); there's little to say for an Ant-Man movie compared with a Dr Strange, Heroes for Hire, or even Ms Marvel film.

It was. Edgar Wright's script calls for Scott Lang to be the main protagonist, a relatively forgotten character who has been dead for sometimes and just has been resurrected recently. But the prospect of Avengers 2 and Ultron as the main antagonist seem to up the ante.
 
It seems a remote possibility. It would require deception on the part of the filmmakers for it to be true. I reject the notions because they are based on hopes instead of facts. People keep wishing/hoping that Disney or Marvel or anyone would step in and make Wright do the movie that they, as fans would want, with little to no justification for why Disney/Marvel/Feige/whoever would want the same thing.

Zero knowledge on that. Let's not over-speculate on what they're doing now and next.

I did, and it specifically says that we don't know how many films he's contacted for (so where did you get four?) and that talk of recasting is premature.
CTRL + F "four-movies" that's all I could say.

Also Google/Bing articles of Feige comments about doing IM sequels like James Bond and RDJ "possible being irate" response to it.

According to Wikipedia, engineers are scientists. This makes sense, because Applied Scientists are scientists. Just like ice cream is cream, Native Americans are Americans and Ant-Men are men.
NS. But why would there is a definitive occupational term of an Engineer and a Scientist? Why would there's a degree of Bachelor/Master of Engineering instead of just Bachelor/Master of Science? You know, you might just made Engineering professionals irate by clumping Engineers and Scientists together.

I hope you don't think that the comic book rationalization for Pym's Scientist Supreme title makes sense. It does not. Being *only* a scientist does not make you *more* of a scientist than someone who is a scientist as well as something else. It just means you're less versatile. Just like if all I do is play basketball, that doesn't make me more of a basketball player than Micheal Jordan because he also plays baseball.
I view MCU is a separate entity from the comic book stories. So everything that happens in the comics has no bearing on what will happen in the movies. Nope, even Scientist Supreme don't mean anything to me. It's just that Marvel acknowledge that Pym is one of the science geniuses and if Marvel want to make a movie on Pym that would be the main theme of it.

Jordan sucks in everything else outside of playing basketball and don't rebuke the real world idea of specialization. Simply said I don't get the idea what you want to put across.

To reiterate my last post: Banner was established as a biochem expert in the 2008 film called The Incredible Hulk, which is still in continuity, right?
I don't recall that Banner is an absolute expert when he need to call in Sterns to help for the cure. And it seems out of the 5 Avengers prequel movies, TIH is red headed step child - continuity broken when most of actors/characters from that movie won't be called in to go for future MCU movies.

As for me, I'm not hell bent against anything. I'm looking forward to more heroes being the MCU. I just reject the idea that Ant-Man is inherently appealing, because that's false. I reject the idea that we can intro Ant-Man and his powers in an Avengers film because mathematically, something has to give. I reject the idea that Pym will be MCU because I've been told repeatedly by filmmakers that he will not be, and I choose not to hang my hat on a reference that was intentionally excised from Thor.

I look forward, personally, to Wright's Ant-Man, which will finally allow everyone to dig Pym the way his fans do, instead of fallaciously assuming everyone will love everything about Pym because others do - others who liked Pym before he was like that. I recognize the Scientist Supreme as fan service, a bone thrown to Pym fans, not as something that attracts others to be interested in Pym.

[opinion]Long story short, if you want to know how I feel about the issues, ask, but I generally just say what I think works and is going to happen. What would I like to happen? I would like Ant-Man to have come out in 2009 or 2010 and been an underdog rudolph the red nosed reindeer type story that won over the audience to this underdog superhero, so that he'd be ready and raring to go for Avengers.

Since that didn't happen, and he wasn't in Avengers, I don't want to see what the Avengers built be undermined to try and retcon things into being like they are in comics. I think that's sloppy irresponsible storytelling that turns off people in comics who are heavily invested, so of course it will skewer the much more fickle general audience.

I also value Wright's writing over Ant-Man's comics history. Since Wright has proven to be great entertainment and Ant-Man has not. If Wright wants to make him a period piece, I remain confident that I will enjoy that more than a more 'faithful' adaptation - especially since a period piece is actually more faithful to the character who came out at that time, something many fans forget during these adaptations.
[/opinion]

Now you're the one who's on the wishing/hoping mode there. :yay:

Anyway, I could rant on this all day, but long story short: Tony is a scientist, so Pym doesn't *add* anything to those scenes, and I want more heroes in the MCU, but not at the cost of good movies. It has to be just as amazing to the random movie goer who doesn't even like comic books as it is to me, or it will fail.
Why do say Pym won't add anything whereas you and I haven't seen the movie Ant-Man yet?

Long story short too... it's not your movie. It's Marvel movie. Don't attempt to advise Marvel of what good movies are. Sit, wait and relax.
 
Last edited:
Zero knowledge on that. Let's not over-speculate on what they're doing now and next.

So we can finally take them at their word on the 60s spy standalone Ant-Man film? Yay.

CTRL + F "four-movies" that's all I could say.

Also Google/Bing articles of Feige comments about doing IM sequels like James Bond and RDJ "possible being irate" response to it.

I've already googled such articles and Ctrl F for 'four movies' and nothing supports that statement.

NS. But why would there is a definitive occupational term of an Engineer and a Scientist? Why would there's a degree of Bachelor/Master of Engineering instead of just Bachelor/Master of Science? You know, you might just made Engineering professionals irate by clumping Engineers and Scientists together.

I didn't do anything, wikipedia did. If you want to get hung up on the academics of it, that's fine, but Tony Stark personally applying what he learns in the lab doesn't take away from the fact that he was working there. No amount of internet backflips will change that. This is some more of that Scientist Supreme semantics.

I view MCU is a separate entity from the comic book stories. So everything that happens in the comics has no bearing on what will happen in the movies. Nope, even Scientist Supreme don't mean anything to me. It's just that Marvel acknowledge that Pym is one of the science geniuses and if Marvel want to make a movie on Pym that would be the main theme of it.

Jordan sucks in everything else outside of playing basketball and don't rebuke the real world idea of specialization. Simply said I don't get the idea what you want to put across.

Remember how I started the paragraph off with what's wrong with Scientist Supreme? That's the point I was talking about. You agree with me here, so it's funny that this is the place where you are unable to find my point, perhaps because you are overly prepared to disagree.

I don't recall that Banner is an absolute expert when he need to call in Sterns to help for the cure. And it seems out of the 5 Avengers prequel movies, TIH is red headed step child - continuity broken when most of actors/characters from that movie won't be called in to go for future MCU movies.

Recasting isn't breaking continuity, though. And as red-headed as it is, they still are taking that tack with the character's development, where Banner has control of Hulk.

Now you're the one who's on the wishing/hoping mode there. :yay:

The difference is, I don't take that and make any presumption that Marvel wants the same thing, or that it will happen. At all.

Why do say Pym won't add anything whereas you and I haven't seen the movie Ant-Man yet?

Because I know the character that's being adapted, and everything about him, being a scientist, being a biochemist, being strong, being stealthy, being self-loathing, all of those things that he is, there's already TWO members on the team who are that.

It's not some magic, some mystery, where magical character attributes will come out of nowhere. We can go down the list and see the redundancies. There's a reason they made him a dirtbag anti-villain in Ultimates, and it served the story well, because other than Ultron, nano-sized setpieces and power ranger style building superimposes, he has nothing to offer, that's not already offered my multiple other characters.

Long story short too... it's not your movie. It's Marvel movie. Don't attempt to advise Marvel of what good movies are. Sit, wait and relax.

So... unsubscribe from the forums, basically? Or only say things that are supportive? Is that your advice to me? Are you going to do the same? This is another time where I'm going with what the filmmakers say ("We love to hear from fans") as opposed to wishful fan thinking ("please be quiet because I disagree with you")
 
So we can finally take them at their word on the 60s spy standalone Ant-Man film? Yay.

:cwink:

Well see what the movie will be about coming out of the third (or more) draft.

I've already googled such articles and Ctrl F for 'four movies' and nothing supports that statement.

"Four-movies" (mind the hyphen), search under RDJ inside Wiki page for The Avengers (2012 film).

You don't google enough, or you choose not to google it right.

I didn't do anything, wikipedia did. If you want to get hung up on the academics of it, that's fine, but Tony Stark personally applying what he learns in the lab doesn't take away from the fact that he was working there. No amount of internet backflips will change that. This is some more of that Scientist Supreme semantics.

Wikipedia have the most succinct description of Tony Stark as an engineer yet you choose to ignore it, rolleyes.

Remember how I started the paragraph off with what's wrong with Scientist Supreme? That's the point I was talking about. You agree with me here, so it's funny that this is the place where you are unable to find my point, perhaps because you are overly prepared to disagree.

Scientist Supreme is Marvel's way of saying that Pym is one of the best scientists in the 616-verse. It's canon and no other writers/editors have challenged against Dan Slott's Secret Avengers story so far. Which has no bearing to MCU Pym, yet Marvel will stay with the basic premise in the Ant-Man movie: Pym cannot be made as not a brilliant scientist.

Recasting isn't breaking continuity, though. And as red-headed as it is, they still are taking that tack with the character's development, where Banner has control of Hulk.

What did SLJ's Fury said to Tony Stark at the end of "Iron Man" ? Something like "You're not the only superhero out there"? Clearly the same thing can be said to Banner as "You're not the only genius out there". Dynamics inside TIH or any MCU movies will be broken as there are more MCU movies. More characters, more wonders, more discovery just like Tony Stark found out his world is (pseudo)realistic anymore.

Because I know the character that's being adapted, and everything about him, being a scientist, being a biochemist, being strong, being stealthy, being self-loathing, all of those things that he is, there's already TWO members on the team who are that.

It's not some magic, some mystery, where magical character attributes will come out of nowhere. We can go down the list and see the redundancies. There's a reason they made him a dirtbag anti-villain in Ultimates, and it served the story well, because other than Ultron, nano-sized setpieces and power ranger style building superimposes, he has nothing to offer, that's not already offered my multiple other characters.

Not our job to over-think how Marvel is gonna put another scientist (whether it's Pym, Scott Lang, T'Challa, etc) inside the MCU.

Again, inside the MCU. Not 616, not Ultimate, not Zombieverse.

So... unsubscribe from the forums, basically? Or only say things that are supportive? Is that your advice to me? Are you going to do the same? This is another time where I'm going with what the filmmakers say ("We love to hear from fans") as opposed to wishful fan thinking ("please be quiet because I disagree with you")

I don't think Marvel Studios will hear any of our ideas if they're set on to make a movie their way. Yes? :yay:
 
:cwink:

Well see what the movie will be about coming out of the third (or more) draft.

So... you can speculate about the third draft, but when I do it, it's 'overspeculating?' How does that make any sense?

"Four-movies" (mind the hyphen), search under RDJ inside Wiki page for The Avengers (2012 film).

You don't google enough, or you choose not to google it right.

Ah, it does say "four-picture" deal on wikipedia. The source it links to doesn't contain that information, and its found nowhere else on the internet. I find that suspect, but I'm not about to delve into the talk and flag it for lacking a source, so

[qutoe]Wikipedia have the most succinct description of Tony Stark as an engineer yet you choose to ignore it, rolleyes.[/quote]

If I ignored it, then how could my point that engineers are scientists possibly apply to him? Why would I say anything about engineers being scientists if Tony wasn't an Engineer?

Scientist Supreme is Marvel's way of saying that Pym is one of the best scientists in the 616-verse. It's canon and no other writers/editors have challenged against Dan Slott's Secret Avengers story so far. Which has no bearing to MCU Pym, yet Marvel will stay with the basic premise in the Ant-Man movie: Pym cannot be made as not a brilliant scientist.

Agreed.

What did SLJ's Fury said to Tony Stark at the end of "Iron Man" ? Something like "You're not the only superhero out there"? Clearly the same thing can be said to Banner as "You're not the only genius out there". Dynamics inside TIH or any MCU movies will be broken as there are more MCU movies. More characters, more wonders, more discovery just like Tony Stark found out his world is (pseudo)realistic anymore.

What are you saying here? By dynamics, do you mean continuity? What exactly do you think got 'broken' in The Avengers? Because the characters still function and act the same, with natural growth from their previous appearances.

Not our job to over-think how Marvel is gonna put another scientist (whether it's Pym, Scott Lang, T'Challa, etc) inside the MCU.

Again, inside the MCU. Not 616, not Ultimate, not Zombieverse.

I don't think Marvel Studios will hear any of our ideas if they're set on to make a movie their way. Yes? :yay:

What is our job then? Enlighten me. Because this sounds like a really sad attempt to quiet your opposition. Why are you posting on this forum?

And to start a post with guessing that the 60s spy basis of Wright's screenplay has been excised and end it with telling me not to over think? That's blatant self-contradiction. Then you compound by talking about multiple drafts, but they're making movies 'their way.' If they were set on everything they wanted, why would they need to write multiple drafts? You're way, way out on a limb on this one, buddy.
 
what are you 2 debating Im too lazy to read the whole back and forth
 
You know, while there is a distinction between a scientist and an engineer, in practice, nobody in the GA is going to make that distinction. Hell, neither do the comics themselves.
 
what are you 2 debating Im too lazy to read the whole back and forth

Dude... who knows? I've basically been arguing the same general points with chiefchirpa (and previously cherokeesam) across multiple threads that revolve around my understanding of Pym being A) not in the MCU and B) not needed/redundant/dead weight in the Avengers franchise

This, as you can imagine leads to all sorts of shenanigans, currently, in reference to my statements that Pym is not needed scientifically, he's trying to prove that Stark is not a scientist and Banner is not an expert. Failing that, he's trying to say I'm over thinking and should just be quiet. -shrug-

You know, while there is a distinction between a scientist and an engineer, in practice, nobody in the GA is going to make that distinction. Hell, neither do the comics themselves.

Exactamente.
 
Last edited:
well, just to throw my 2 cents in, I think Pym should be in the MCU but I think he should be in The Avengers and doesnt require his own solo film
I think it'd be cool to have Banner, Stark, and Pym bantering about scientific stuff.
 
I really don't see them being able to make people care about Pym and his powers in twenty minutes of screen time, and I don't see them having even that much to spare with all the other characters. Introducing a character with powers in Avengers just seems like a really bad idea. Same idea with the lab banter, it cuts out a one-on-one character development scene and then you have to find time for it somewhere else. There's lots of time constraints where scenes that are just there to be cool have to be cut.
 
I really don't see them being able to make people care about Pym and his powers in twenty minutes of screen time, and I don't see them having even that much to spare with all the other characters. Introducing a character with powers in Avengers just seems like a really bad idea. Same idea with the lab banter, it cuts out a one-on-one character development scene and then you have to find time for it somewhere else. There's lots of time constraints where scenes that are just there to be cool have to be cut.

They introduced Hawkeye and Black Widow successfully, even with limited screen time to work with. (Yes, they previously appeared in Thor and IM2, but those brief cameos can't be offered as examples of real "intros" or backstory....those cameos did nothing to show who the characters were, beyond generic SHIELD badasses.) I strongly disagree that heroes with powers require any more backstory than those without powers. "This is Ant-Man....he shrinks." "This is Wasp....she shrinks, too. And flies around." "This is Vision. He's an android who can phase through walls." "This is Quicksilver. He's fast....real fast."


Give audiences more credit for picking up on things, and getting into the story easily enough. Even kids can understand a superhero's (or villain's) powers without having to go into thirty minutes of exposition.
 
I really don't see them being able to make people care about Pym and his powers in twenty minutes of screen time, and I don't see them having even that much to spare with all the other characters. Introducing a character with powers in Avengers just seems like a really bad idea. Same idea with the lab banter, it cuts out a one-on-one character development scene and then you have to find time for it somewhere else. There's lots of time constraints where scenes that are just there to be cool have to be cut.

Scientists have different areas of emphasis. Just because Banner and Stark are scientists doesn't mean Pym doesn't offer something new. Yes, he is another big brain, but he has a different specialty: subatomic particles. He can easily be worked into the plot in a way that is not redundant and engaging. All it takes is quality writing, and if they get Joss back or someone talented on board, easily can be done without an Ant-Man solo. That said, I'd like him to get a solo before coming on board.
 
They introduced Hawkeye and Black Widow successfully, even with limited screen time to work with. (Yes, they previously appeared in Thor and IM2, but those brief cameos can't be offered as examples of real "intros" or backstory....those cameos did nothing to show who the characters were, beyond generic SHIELD badasses.) I strongly disagree that heroes with powers require any more backstory than those without powers. "This is Ant-Man....he shrinks." "This is Wasp....she shrinks, too. And flies around." "This is Vision. He's an android who can phase through walls." "This is Quicksilver. He's fast....real fast."


Give audiences more credit for picking up on things, and getting into the story easily enough. Even kids can understand a superhero's (or villain's) powers without having to go into thirty minutes of exposition.
I'll disagree
1) Hawkeye was not really introduced successfully. One of the common complaints about the Avengers is that Hawkeye, while badass, didnt have a good story
2) Due to 1 I think that heroes, especially in Ant-Man's case, do need a little more exposition. Not 30 mins worth, but a little more than SHIELD agents. And even if they don't need it, I think explaining a character a little is better than just thinking "People will pick up on everything" and just going about the business
 
Scientists have different areas of emphasis. Just because Banner and Stark are scientists doesn't mean Pym doesn't offer something new. Yes, he is another big brain, but he has a different specialty: subatomic particles. He can easily be worked into the plot in a way that is not redundant and engaging. All it takes is quality writing, and if they get Joss back or someone talented on board, easily can be done without an Ant-Man solo. That said, I'd like him to get a solo before coming on board.

That doesn't really respond to the comment you quoted, but the comment before that one. Yes, if they worked subatomic particles into the storyline, that would give him a reason to be there, but the problem I referred to would remain. Screen time, screen time quality.

They introduced Hawkeye and Black Widow successfully, even with limited screen time to work with. (Yes, they previously appeared in Thor and IM2, but those brief cameos can't be offered as examples of real "intros" or backstory....those cameos did nothing to show who the characters were, beyond generic SHIELD badasses.) I strongly disagree that heroes with powers require any more backstory than those without powers. "This is Ant-Man....he shrinks." "This is Wasp....she shrinks, too. And flies around." "This is Vision. He's an android who can phase through walls." "This is Quicksilver. He's fast....real fast."


Give audiences more credit for picking up on things, and getting into the story easily enough. Even kids can understand a superhero's (or villain's) powers without having to go into thirty minutes of exposition.

You think I'm not giving the audience credit? Let's get down to it then, because this particular point is one that I strongly believe you're way off on.

I give the audience credit for picking up on things. More than you, I think. Audiences pick up on when something is contrived, silly, juvenille, or arbitrary, as many things in comics are. If it is one of those things, they don't *care* about it. They ask themselves why should I care if this hero wins. They'll dislike it, no matter how easy to understand it is, because they pick up on subtext. That's why origin stories take 30 minutes, to get the audience to buy into it, not to understand it. Many comics fans disagree, because they already buy into the characters emotionally, and simply cannot fathom how someone can't instantly love Ant-Man or whoever, as soon as their powers are explained or shown. These fans, I believe, are naive, and blinded to non-fan perspectives by their own love for the characters.

As for credit, I wish you would give the filmmakers a great deal of credit for dilligently and often brilliantly pulling the audience into these characters. The reason you see thirty and forty minute origin stories is that the filmmakers are attaching motivation, internal conflict, metaphor and most importantly limits and implicity rules to these superhuman abilities. This way, the audience not only cares about the abilities, and how they're used, but the film has tension because the audience knows, visually, what the powers can and cannot do. This has happened in every single superhero film, even the ones that you love. This is what did not happen in Green Lantern, Catwoman, Batman and Robin and even Spider-Man 3. Without this tension and emotional buy in, superhuman characters are just deus ex machinas, who can win any bout by pulling a new ability out of their behind, and indeed, that is what usually happens in bad superhero movies.

This is why you will never see superhuman abilities handled so glibly "This is Wonder Man, he shoots ionic energy" in any successful live action superhero film or television show. You will see this on cartoons, where the audience is either immature or simply does not expect to be brought into the characters emotionally. Here, characters are two dimensional at the very best - emotionally, though they are also physically two dimensional. That is where all that is required is an intellectual understanding, since there is no emotional buy in to be had, because you don't need to recoup half a billion dollars, so even if no jaded cynical adults buy into it, you still can sell toy commercials and make your money back.

I also wish you would give an even greater amount of credit to Joss Whedon for making a masterpiece out of what could have easily been a clusterf---, or Iron Man and Friends. When you talk about adding scientists, ignoring how brilliant it was to have exactly two scientists so that the lab scene became a place for a plot-crucial friendship to develop, I think you're more concerned with having characters the way you want than actually having a good film, or respecting how much it took to make the film the way it was. But if you don't respect the filmmakers creating the same magic you had when reading comics as an innocent child in millions of cynical jaded adults, and you don't respect the craftsmanship it took to put just six heroes into Avengers and give them all their due, then of course you'd disagree that heroes with powers don't require any more backstory than those without. Of course you'd think 'the more scientists, the better.' Of course you'd think bowmen and luchadore agents were generic agents. Of course you wouldn't count the badass (your words) introductions of characters as real "intros" (and add those quotes to it). Of course you'd think the audience could hear "This is vision, he's an android who can phase through walls" an actually be interested to learn more rather than wondering why he didn't just phase through whatever attack he got hit with and drop a pencil in the bad guy's heart.

I would suggest either writing a script, or reading a book on scriptwriting. I think it would take care of this misbelief that all the audience needs is an intellectual understanding.
 
Selfishly, I want to see T'Challa on screen. He was my favorite super hero growing up, and I have been hoping for a Black Panther movie since Wesley Snipes kept talking about it in the 90s.

Hank may fit better into the universe that Marvel Studios has established, and he certainly deserves to be featured in an Avengers film given his historical importance to the team in the comics. And yes, I want to see him, Tony and Bruce discussing/debating some scientific topic.

Ultimately, I'm hoping both characters get their shot...the Black Panther in his own film(s), and both he and Hank in a future Avengers movie.
 
I'll disagree
1) Hawkeye was not really introduced successfully. One of the common complaints about the Avengers is that Hawkeye, while badass, didnt have a good story

I wouldn't say he didn't have a good story. He didn't really have a story. He was under control most of the movie and when he wasn't it was time to fight. There really wasn't much time for characterization, and that's fine with me.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"