Discussion in 'Marvel's The Avengers' started by Obi-Ron, May 8, 2009.
Are they still making an Ant-Man feature, or what? I haven't seen any mention of it recently.
We dunno. Maybe they are holding off Antman and just keeping the plan right now on Iron Man 2, Thor, Cap, Avengers.
Thing is the writer's strike hit, and then Edgar Wright committed to doing Scott Pilgrim which I think is much more his speed or at least a natural progression from his previous work.
Maybe we'll still see Antman at some point.
I think Marvel probably wants to stick to the big gunz right now.
Yeah me too. But after seeing Simon Pegg in Star Trek, I'd like him. Didnt Wright say he might be cast?
I think that was speculation based on Pegg & Wright working together previously.
Still, I agree that it seems favorable to strike while the Trek iron is hot.
Marvel studios probably figured that Ant Man was an unsure property.
The amount of money they would make wasn't certain, like it would be with Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, or Avengers,
so they probably put it off to the side because of that.
They might be afraid it would turn out to be another Ghost Rider or Daredevil.
I don't know.
I do want to see Hank Pym's character brought to life on the big screen though.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Funny that there has been no official word, though.
Pegg can't really be credited as a main reason for Trek's success. Keep in mind that Pegg had really the least or smallest amount of screentime of any of the original crew characters in the movie and he only has a few scenes in the movie.
I'm just saying, I worship the ground that Simon Pegg walks on, however Pegg's fan following is more of a niche, cult fan following and Pegg hasn't really proven he can carry a big ass big bug budget superhero movie since other people in Star Trek were doing that.
Not saying I'd be opposed to Pegg having a lead role like that in Antman, just saying you know it can't be because oh he was the new Scotty in Star Trek. Also in Antman, I think Pegg would probably be better suited as a side comic relief type of character like Scotty in Star Trek.
I think we'll see Pym in his own movie if he's popular in Avengers.
The Ant Man poster is so small you can't see it.
I bet they will introduce Ant Man in the Avengers and tell his story in a solo movie after. Because face it, no one is going to want to see an Ant Man movie until they know he's a good character, because based of the name, it would probably sound like a sh***y movie to the genreal public.
I said it before Pegg's version of Ant man is dead though not necessarily Hank Pym..........
Its an obvious and smart move to keep the films heading in the Avengers about the big properties like IM, Cap, and THor.
Then after Avengers hits (and presumedly becomes a hit), take some of the unfamiliar properties like Ant-Man and such and then work it off of the big film. Plus it gives more time to work on a script instead of just rushing the film off to meet a deadline between films.
I'm no expert on how long it takes to make movies, so, hypothetically, if Edgar Wright were to start working on Ant-Man RIGHT NOW, assuming the script doesn't need too much revision, would there be any chance of getting a decent Ant-Man flick leading into the Avengers?
It takes much more then him to work on it, there is the situation of working out all the pre-production, like scouting for shooting locations, signign off on the buisness end. It is obviously a character and film Marvel wants to bring to the theater, but more likely is a property they want to wait and develop with care instead of tossing it out there like Catwoman.
In other words, roughly the same odds as Father Dougal had of becoming Pope?
Nothing ends a perfectly legitimate conversation like a Father Ted reference...
I'm cool with the idea of Edgar Wright making an Ant man film. They need to start on it.
Man, I really hope an Ant-Man movie comes together before Avengers with Edgar Wright attached. I think it could be possible to do a great film that's fairly low budget (at least in comparison to Iron Man 2, Thor, etc), so there wouldn't be as much pressure on making hundreds of millions of dollars from it.
Hot Fuzz, for instance, had a budget of around $13 million, and pulled in $80 million worldwide. $80 million certainly isn't a megablockbuster, but it's still good when it's six times what the movie cost to make. Ant-Man would naturally require a higher budget than Hot Fuzz, but how much higher? Could it get done for $40-$60 million? If so, then even if it does only as well as Hot Fuzz, it'll still turn a $20-$40 million profit. And odds are, it'll make more then that, and maybe even break $100 million (Nick Fury showing up in an ad certainly can't hurt). It certainly won't pull in Dark Knight, Iron Man, or Spider-Man numbers, but I think it could perform respectably.
As for the film itself, I'm dying to see what Edgar Wright could do with it. It could literally be a double whammy. Not just a Marvel movie, but a part of the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy Saga", alongside Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, and The World's End. Shaun of the Dead being his take on zombie movies, Hot Fuzz being his take on action movies, The World's End being his take on alien movies, and Ant-Man being his take on superhero movies (Surely Cornetto makes more than just the three flavors ).
I'm hoping for a film in the style of both of those. A comedic take on superheroes without delving completely into satire. And Ant-Man is the perfect vehicle for it. A superhero with an inferiority complex when stacked up against his peers who literally shrinks? Come on. It practically writes itself! He could be the Rodney Dangerfield of superheroes. The one who doesn't get any respect, because hardly anybody ever notices him in action, so they have no idea what he's accomplished.
And damn it, I'd love to see Simon Pegg as Hank Pym. If he can manage an American accent, then great. But if not, I'd be fine with making him British. Really, who wouldn't want to see Simon Pegg's Ant-Man bouncing off of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America in the Avengers? And I'm sure they could find a role for Nick Frost in the Ant-Man movie.
And at the end of the day, we absolutely must have a scene with Ant-Man hiding in Jan's cleavage. So come on, Marvel. Make it happen!
I like him very much.
Maybe what happened to Merrill Lynch and it being bought out had something to do with it. Maybe the financing wasn't quite there for Ant-Man after 2008.
Maybe they realized an Ant MAn movie would be a bomb.
LOL you are on a roll Obi-Ron between that and the poster joke up above.
While I think that was kind of harsh, I don't really disagree with you. I like Ant-Man and I think Edgar Wright's a genius, but I'm just not sold that you can make an Ant-Man solo movie even at a modest budget into a decent sized hit. Same thing with Hawkeye. Its not that I dislike these characters, but IMHO, Hawkeye and Ant-man aren't good solo characters. I feel they depend on the team setting of books like Avengers. Not saying you should never do solo movies, but I think Avengers would be a much better testing ground for those characters.
Marvel already has their hands full in trying to get these three big movies together anyway. Focus on them before doing Ant-man.
I don't see why not. First let's take Edgar Wright's last film, Hot Fuzz. That made $80 million worldwide. Is there any reason to think that Ant-Man would make less money than Hot Fuzz? It'd certainly capture the Wright fans, and those who like comedic takeoffs of existing genres.
Second, let's take Watchmen, which is a completely unknown comic property. Despite no one ever having heard of Watchmen, that made $185 million, worldwide.
In all probability, Ant-Man can probably turn a level of profit inbetween those two movies. You got the Edgar Wright fans, and people looking for a movie with a quirky comedic feel to it. You got people in the mood to see a super-hero movie, and if it's got a good trailer, then people will go see it. At least a chunk of the same people that gave Watchmen a chance despite never having heard of Dr. Manhattan, simply because it looked like a cool superhero movie. And to top it off, they can milk off of the momentum built up by the other Marvel movies. The advertising campaign letting people know that the Ant-Man movie is also a lead-up to Avengers (like a Nick Fury appearance) would certainly help it.
So yeah, IMO, it could probably get around $100 million. I doubt it'd get to $200 million or more or reach megahit status, but it doesn't have to be a billion dollar film to be successful and make money. Especially if it doesn't have a big budget to begin with (And they could probably get away with a fairly low-budget for Ant-Man).
And Ant-Man, IMO, can carry a movie and does deserve one. He's got something wholly new to bring to the table that Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor don't have to offer, and can give audiences a fun viewing experience that they can't get from the others. I know I'd love to see a comedic superhero movie. One which doesn't delve into the realm of being a parody film.
It'd also be a boon to the Avengers movie, as that movie will introduce both Hank and Janet to the viewing audience. That's precious time that won't be spent in the Avengers movie. There's two things they can do with the Avengers movie if they're introduced, there. They can either give them enough time to get characterization, in which case they'll take away too much time from Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor, or they can shortshrift them, which'll be a disservice to both characters and reduce them to bit players. I say do neither. Give them their own movie to introduce them to the audiences.
As I said, I think it'd be a good idea for Marvel. Is it summer blockbuster material? Probably not. But film studios aren't built on half-a-billion dollar summer blockbusters, alone. They make smaller films with smaller profit margins, too, that're released in months other than the ones which fall in the summertime. And in this layman's opinion, I very much doubt that they'd lose money on Ant-Man. On the contrary, they'll probably end up making a fairly decent profit off it, and serve to further enhance the Avengers movie when it comes out. Layman's opinion, of course.
I think an Ant-Man movie can be successful its all about what kind of Ant-Man movie they make. If it looks cool people will go and see it if they know of the character or not.
Pyms been getting the charcter upgrade by slott in Mighty Avengers his needed for a while and that can oly help.
Plus I think with Nick Fury cameo, Wasp in a supporting role and perhaps ultron as a villain it could be quite good.
This is ridiculous logic. First of all, Hot Fuzz was a small budgeted action comedy from the makers of Shaun of the Dead. Yes there is plenty of reason. There's no reason to assume right now that Ant-Man could make more without some big names attached even then there's no guarantee.
Look at the Punisher movies. Look at Elektra.
Also you can't just make an Ant-man movie the same style as Hot Fuzz.
Watchmen was a gigantic disappointment. It was risky, but it was a huge budgeted movie. Not to mention it had a tremendously big tentpole ad campaign behind it from WB. Seriously, they marketed this movie like it was the sequel to The Dark Knight. There's no way an Ant-Man movie gets promoted like Watchmen. Invalid comparisons.
So what it made $185 million worldwide? Watchmen wasn't completely unknown. It was a highly celebrated and popular graphic novel story. It was talked about in major print magazines. No its not super-mainstream material, but it wasn't completely unknown.
Again this is faulty logic. Edgar Wright's fanbase is more or less a niche, cult fanbase. Its foolish to assume because people will see a Watchmen movie they will see Ant-man as well. Look at the Punisher.
Obviously, people don't seem to see it your way since there is no Ant-man in the pipeline before Avengers.
Since you are saying $100 million, you do think its blockbuster material. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.