Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy: General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 6

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]462263[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]460591[/split]

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I don't get why people are so fixated on the fin. It's clearly not going to be a fin and they're going for a biker/pirate look. It works and looks fine.

It's Hard to judge with only set photos. They easily could just CG the fin on the head, makes it easier for Rooker to move and act without worrying about heavy head prosthetics. I'll wait for the trailer.

 

[Crimson King]

I'm sorry but I can't take the comment seriously about how much Edgar Wright's fims make when James Gunn's last film made less than a million dollars and Joss Whedon's first film made less than 40 million and his last film made 4 million. Edgar's previous box office is irrelevant. He will make a amazing film and its up to Disney to fill the seats.

It's relevant because the property is largely unknown, as were his previous movies (which didn't sell well enough just based on quality alone). I don't think it's a ridiculous thing to be concerned about at all.

 

[Moridin]

Lets have a look at the other MS directors BO records before their rescpective MS films.

Spoiler

Jon Favreau:
Zathura (2005) - WW $64.3m (Budget - $65m = FLOP)
Elf (2003) - WW $220.4m (Budget - $33m)
Made (2001) - WW $5.4m


Louis Leterrier:
Transporter 2 (2005) - WW $85m (Budget $32m)
Unleashed (2005) - WW $50.8m (Budget $45m = FLOP)


Joe Johnston:
The Wolfman (2010) - WW$139.7m (budget - $150m = FLOP)
Hidalgo (2004) - WW $108m (budget - $100m = FLOP)

Jurassic Park 3 (2001) - WW $368.7m (budget - $93m)
October Sky (1999) - WW $34.6m (budget - $25m = FLOP)
Jumanji (1995) - WW $262.7m (budget - $65m)

The Pagemaster (1994) - US $13.6m
The Rocketeer (1991) - US $46.7m (budget - $35m)
Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989) - WW $222m


Ken Brannagh:
Sleuth (2007) - WW $4.8m
Love's Labour's Lost (2000) - US $299k (budget - $13m = Apparent BOMB but there's no OS #s)
Hamlet (1996) - WW 4.7m (budget $18m = BOMB)

A Midwinter's Tale (1996) US $469k
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) - WW $112m (budget $45m)

Honestly not worth typing them all out, except for "Dead Again" (WW $38m) the rest flopped or barely broke even.


Joss Whedon:
Serenity (2005) - WW $38.8m (budget $39m = FLOP)

Shane Black:
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005) - WW $15.7m (budget $15m FLOP)


Alan Taylor:
Kill the Poor (2003) - ??
Palookaville (1996) - US $365k


Russo Bros.:
You, Me & Dupree (2006) - WW $130m (budget $54m)
Welcome to Collinwood (2002) - WW $336k


James Gunn:
Super (2011) - WW $327k (budget $2.5m = FLOP)
Slither (2006) - WW $12.8m (budget $15m = FLOP)

So yeah, criticising Wright's BO returns is nonsense. Ant Man & GotG will both be heavily marketed with "from the studio that brought you The Avengers".

 

[terry78]

They're gonna have to make sure Ant-Man is released at a normal part of the season though, they can't stick it in a dead month. Iron Man wasn't popular before 2008, but he wasn't Ant-Man either.

 

[Loki882]

Isn't Ant Man coming out in November. There aren't a lot of big blockbusters in that month (I think SW EP 7 comes out in December)?

 

[Crimson King]

Lets have a look at the other MS directors BO records before their rescpective MS films.

So yeah, criticising Wright's BO returns is nonsense. Ant Man & GotG will both be heavily marketed with "from the studio that brought you The Avengers".

With all due respect, it's not nonsense. Like I said before, the fact that it's an unknown character makes this a different case. All of the other directors you mentioned started with something people could identify. The only exception is Gunn, and he has the same worry--although it's slightly less because the source material is freaking awesome and can partially sell itself.

 

[Moridin]

Isn't Ant Man coming out in November. There aren't a lot of big blockbusters in that month (I think SW EP 7 comes out in December)?

So far it's Bond 24, the final Hunger Games & Finding Dori. Star Wars doesn't have a date yet.

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2015/

 

[Mr. Dent]

It's Hard to judge with only set photos. They easily could just CG the fin on the head, makes it easier for Rooker to move and act without worrying about heavy head prosthetics. I'll wait for the trailer.

If it were going to be a fin the mohawk would be thinner and go further down his head at the front and down his back. Meaning they would have CGI markers, and they don't. Only thing they're going to do is remove the paint going up the very bottom of the fake mohawk.

Edgar Wright's latest movie debuted at #4 on the charts, and grossed all of $9 million in its opening weekend. The biggest "blockbuster" he ever put out was Scott Pilgrim, at $47 million worldwide total.

Add to that the fact that he's making a movie about a superhero nobody cares about and who the general public continuously mocks and derides; and on the fanboy end of it add to that the fact that the mythology has been completely rewritten to make Hank Pym a non-Avenger from days gone by, Scott Lang a non-Avenger Ant-Man from the present, Janet Van Dyne non-existent, and the Ultron connection utterly severed. Who is this movie for? The handful of Edgar Wright cultists out there? The world's biggest Scott Lang fan? People who really like ants?

For one thing that statement isn't true, Hot Fuzz made $80m on a $12m budget. And The World's End is looking to make even more than that on a $20m budget. And the film is a british film, so $9m in America for a rated R movie on only 1500 screens is excellent. So you're bastardizing the situation all around. Not to mention box office is hardly an indication of how good a film is. All his films are critically acclaimed, including Scott Pilgrim, which is his least acclaimed. If Marvel has shown anything it's that they don't care about a director's prior box office standings, they just want a good and interesting film made, and the Marvel brand will push the movie to audiences and expose it. in terms of track record Wright is the most accomplished director Marvel has worked with to date.

As for your lower paragraph, it's asinine. The "general public" doesn't think anything of Ant-Man. They don't deride him, they've likely never heard of him. It's the comic community that derides him. Ant-Man is as much a superhero no one cares about as Iron Man was pre-2008 or GotG is now. Or any new movie property for that matter. It's called marketing and branding, and Marvel is THE hottest movie brand right now. So you're contradicting yourself from prior statements you've made on why GotG will be a success. "No one cares" is never a valid excuse until after the movie comes out and it's proven as such.

And Wright is making the Ant-Man film he wants to and feels works best on film. Just as Jon Favreau and Shane Black made the Iron Man films they wanted to, just as Joss made the Avengers film he wanted to. Feige and Marvel believe in Wright's vision and I think they've earned our trust by now. Not to mention to claim that the movie will be redundant and generic...while wanting a straight up Hank Pym movie, which is what would actually be generic and redundant. Singular scientist hero with a love interest creates something yada yada yada. Been done before and at its best in Iron Man. What he is doing here IS actually unique and different from what has been done before, which is pretty much your entire problem with it.

Finally, using the fact Hank and Lang aren't Avengers as a reason for why making the movie is superfluous is probably the most silly thing you said in that post. So was making Iron Man, Thor, and Captain before they were Avengers superfluous? Is making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie superfluous? Is making any new Marvel movie that's not connected to the Avengers superfluous? Not to mention just because he's not an Avenger in his origin story doesn't mean he won't be an Avenger in a future film, and Wright actually hinted at that just last month.

Every post I've seen you make on this whole Hank Pym/Ultron situation has been illy thought out. I think you need to calm down and think about where they're coming from rather than be so starch and stuck on Hank Pym being exactly the same as from the comics.

P.S. Wright said they would be introducing Wasp/Janet in a roundabout way, he never said she wouldn't be in the film at all.

 

[Mr. Dent]

EDIT: Don't know how that happened

 

[mkilban2]

Just to renew my point of thinking tmnt will outgross gotg from the last section..

Dent brought up how the last one didnt do so well and the biggest one was the 1990 film, my thinking is that since this one upcoming is a live action turtles and not an animated tmnt it's going to draw more interest, or that's at least how I see it because I love the live action ones. So granted I'm bias but I'm heavily looking forwatd to guardians, I'm trying not to hype myself up too much and be disappointed but I think it's going to be my favorite of phase 2 based on it being a new property and not a sequel, and I reallyllove the cast, I'm excited to see Pratt work some magic.

Edit: thinking just these past few minutes, I'll probably wait and judge my excitement or desire to see TMNT after I see a trailer or promitional images and stuff, if it looks good then I'll stand by myself thinking it will outgross Gotg, if it looks like crap from the start then I take it back lol. I'm just hoping and being optimistic about it looking good and being what I'm imagining haha

 

[cherokeesam]

For one thing that statement isn't true, Hot Fuzz made $80m on a $12m budget. And The World's End is looking to make even more than that on a $20m budget. And the film is a british film, so $9m in America for a rated R movie on only 1500 screens is excellent. So you're bastardizing the situation all around. Not to mention box office is hardly an indication of how good a film is. All his films are critically acclaimed, including Scott Pilgrim, which is his least acclaimed. If Marvel has shown anything it's that they don't care about a director's prior box office standings, they just want a good and interesting film made, and the Marvel brand will push the movie to audiences and expose it. in terms of track record Wright is the most accomplished director Marvel has worked with to date.

I stand corrected on the Hot Fuzz issue; uncorrected on the rest of your paragraph.

As for your lower paragraph, it's asinine. The "general public" doesn't think anything of Ant-Man. They don't deride him, they've likely never heard of him. It's the comic community that derides him. Ant-Man is as much a superhero no one cares about as Iron Man was pre-2008 or GotG is now. Or any new movie property for that matter. It's called marketing and branding, and Marvel is THE hottest movie brand right now. So you're contradicting yourself from prior statements you've made on why GotG will be a success. "No one cares" is never a valid excuse until after the movie comes out and it's proven as such.

No, there's nothing "asinine" in that paragraph (nor "silly," or "illy thought out"). But thanks for resorting to ad hominem, as usual --- the last refuge of a weak rebuttal.

The difference between Edgar Wright not having a "proven" track record as opposed to Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, Joss Whedon (?) and even Joe Johnston (??) and Kenneth Branagh (???) being in that same boat is simple: the latter group drew Iron Man, Hulk, Avengers, Captain America and Thor on their dance card. Wright got Ant-Man. You can try to defend and pretend all you want, but Ant-Man is already the laughingstock and butt-end of superhero jokes amongst both fanboys and general audiences alike. Nobody faced an uphill battle trying to get iconic and exciting superheroes to the screen; but Wright faces a nearly insurmountable one trying to convince audiences to buy into an (anti)superhero named Ant-Man, whose powers are exactly what the jokesters surmise.

And Wright is making the Ant-Man film he wants to and feels works best on film. Just as Jon Favreau and Shane Black made the Iron Man films they wanted to, just as Joss made the Avengers film he wanted to. Feige and Marvel believe in Wright's vision and I think they've earned our trust by now. Not to mention to claim that the movie will be redundant and generic...while wanting a straight up Hank Pym movie, which is what would actually be generic and redundant. Singular scientist hero with a love interest creates something yada yada yada. Been done before and at its best in Iron Man. What he is doing here IS actually unique and different from what has been done before, which is pretty much your entire problem with it.

Finally, using the fact Hank and Lang aren't Avengers as a reason for why making the movie is superfluous is probably the most silly thing you said in that post. So was making Iron Man, Thor, and Captain before they were Avengers superfluous? Is making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie superfluous? Is making any new Marvel movie that's not connected to the Avengers superfluous? Not to mention just because he's not an Avenger in his origin story doesn't mean he won't be an Avenger in a future film, and Wright actually hinted at that just last month.

Every post I've seen you make on this whole Hank Pym/Ultron situation has been illy thought out. I think you need to calm down and think about where they're coming from rather than be so starch and stuck on Hank Pym being exactly the same as from the comics.

P.S. Wright said they would be introducing Wasp/Janet in a roundabout way, he never said she wouldn't be in the film at all.

Nowhere even close to the mark in any of this, but thanks for trying. My problem with the "ohmahgerd rapin' Hank Pym" has nothing to do with wanting a HANK PYM movie. Far from it. I never wanted an Ant-Man solo movie in the first place. What I DID want, and DO want, is an AUTHENTIC Avenger film --- because that's the reason I got into collecting comics in the first place, that's the reason I signed up for Superhero Hype in the first place, that's the reason why I got on board with Marvel Studios in the first place. AVENGERS.

My beef with the treatment of Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne (don't give me that weaksauce "er...in a roundabout sort of way" dodge from Wright, either) is that they are AVENGERS. CORE AVENGERS. Will every Avenger ever make the MCU roster? Of course not. Would it have been entirely possible that Hank and Janet were considered too controversial and/or iffy for mainstream movie audiences? Of course. Instead, we get them both "er....in a roundabout sort of way." It's like making a Justice League movie with an INO Flash and Wonder Woman who get nerfed and/or utterly marginalized from the group. Or more to the point: taking Martian Manhunter OUT of the Justice League equation altogether, marginalizing him, and giving him a solo movie --- when his only claim to fame is being a member of the Justice League.

That's what they've done to Hank Pym. And/or Scott Lang. And/or Janet Van Dyne, who I'm still willing to bet you 100 Internet bucks isn't part of the MCU at all. Ever.

That's my issue with Hank Pym. That's *always* been my issue with Hank Pym. Because I am an AVENGER fan, first and foremost and evermore, and therefore understand full well how Hank Pym fits into THE AVENGERS. Marvel Studios, including Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright, don't. Period.

 

[Norrin Parker]

I hope that isn't the final look of Yondu the mohawk looks terrible, there's like not texture to it, it looks like a metal bar on his head. I don't need it to be a red fin, but I need it to look good.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

If it were going to be a fin the mohawk would be thinner and go further down his head at the front and down his back. Meaning they would have CGI markers, and they don't. Only thing they're going to do is remove the paint going up the very bottom of the fake mohawk.


For one thing that statement isn't true, Hot Fuzz made $80m on a $12m budget. And The World's End is looking to make even more than that on a $20m budget. And the film is a british film, so $9m in America for a rated R movie on only 1500 screens is excellent. So you're bastardizing the situation all around. Not to mention box office is hardly an indication of how good a film is. All his films are critically acclaimed, including Scott Pilgrim, which is his least acclaimed. If Marvel has shown anything it's that they don't care about a director's prior box office standings, they just want a good and interesting film made, and the Marvel brand will push the movie to audiences and expose it. in terms of track record Wright is the most accomplished director Marvel has worked with to date.

As for your lower paragraph, it's asinine. The "general public" doesn't think anything of Ant-Man. They don't deride him, they've likely never heard of him. It's the comic community that derides him. Ant-Man is as much a superhero no one cares about as Iron Man was pre-2008 or GotG is now. Or any new movie property for that matter. It's called marketing and branding, and Marvel is THE hottest movie brand right now. So you're contradicting yourself from prior statements you've made on why GotG will be a success. "No one cares" is never a valid excuse until after the movie comes out and it's proven as such.

And Wright is making the Ant-Man film he wants to and feels works best on film. Just as Jon Favreau and Shane Black made the Iron Man films they wanted to, just as Joss made the Avengers film he wanted to. Feige and Marvel believe in Wright's vision and I think they've earned our trust by now. Not to mention to claim that the movie will be redundant and generic...while wanting a straight up Hank Pym movie, which is what would actually be generic and redundant. Singular scientist hero with a love interest creates something yada yada yada. Been done before and at its best in Iron Man. What he is doing here IS actually unique and different from what has been done before, which is pretty much your entire problem with it.

Finally, using the fact Hank and Lang aren't Avengers as a reason for why making the movie is superfluous is probably the most silly thing you said in that post. So was making Iron Man, Thor, and Captain before they were Avengers superfluous? Is making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie superfluous? Is making any new Marvel movie that's not connected to the Avengers superfluous? Not to mention just because he's not an Avenger in his origin story doesn't mean he won't be an Avenger in a future film, and Wright actually hinted at that just last month.

Every post I've seen you make on this whole Hank Pym/Ultron situation has been illy thought out. I think you need to calm down and think about where they're coming from rather than be so starch and stuck on Hank Pym being exactly the same as from the comics.

P.S. Wright said they would be introducing Wasp/Janet in a roundabout way, he never said she wouldn't be in the film at all.

/thread

 

[Chewy]

Or more to the point: taking Martian Manhunter OUT of the Justice League equation altogether, marginalizing him, and giving him a solo movie --- when his only claim to fame is being a member of the Justice League.

That's what they've done to Hank Pym. And/or Scott Lang. And/or Janet Van Dyne, who I'm still willing to bet you 100 Internet bucks isn't part of the MCU at all. Ever.

That's my issue with Hank Pym. That's *always* been my issue with Hank Pym. Because I am an AVENGER fan, first and foremost and evermore, and therefore understand full well how Hank Pym fits into THE AVENGERS. Marvel Studios, including Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright, don't. Period.

The addition of Bruce Banner as a major component of the film Avengers renders Hank Pym's personality and character archetype redundant and largely superfluous.

Most of those people are indeed AVENGER fans, and probably recognize, as you do, how Hank Pym fits into the comic Avengers. But this is not the comic Avengers, and Banner is a vital part of the ensemble. So the fit is not the same.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this is doing in a Guardians thread, lol

 

[Starhawk]

Only thing they're going to do is remove the paint going up the very bottom of the fake mohawk.

this makes no sense. Why do that after as opposed to during the filming?
James Gunn has enough respect for the material that i can't see him taking the fin out. Its one thing to give him a different look so he fits in the movie but taking his fin out the character wouldn't even be Yondu.

The character can have a fin and still have a "pirate" look without problem.
If you look at all the other characters they all still contain their main visual trait even though they changed the costumes for the movie's look. Hell he even went as far as having Nebula be the bald version of her.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Wright got Ant-Man. You can try to defend and pretend all you want, but Ant-Man is already the laughingstock and butt-end of superhero jokes amongst both fanboys and general audiences alike.

Hate to break it to you, but the GA has no idea who Hank Pym, Scott Lang, or Ant-Man are. I don't even know how you could logically attempt to explain that they do.

 

[cherokeesam]

Hate to break it to you, but the GA has no idea who Hank Pym, Scott Lang, or Ant-Man are. I don't even know how you could logically attempt to explain that they do.

Maybe because Marvel Studios and Edgar Wright have been talking about him for 7 years now? Maybe because they've shown test footage at SDCC?

Do they really *know* who Hank Pym, Scott Lang, or Ant-Man are? Of course not. Nobody but a comic-book Avenger fan does. But the *name* is out there in pop culture now, and pop culture thinks the concept is actually a joke. In more ways than one.

 

[mkilban2]

Hey Sam,

If you want those core avengers teams that you love so much, guess what? Those comic books you know and love and the stories you wanted to see are still there forever and ever dude! This is the MCU not the comics sorry it disappoints you buddy but I'd say many are very happy with what they're getting.

Also to the other point I think only one or two of 20 friends I could ask (male early 20s who saw Marvel movies) would know of AntMan or ever heard of him. Most people don't look to the future of franchises until they see a trailer

 

[Mr. Dent]

I stand corrected on the Hot Fuzz issue; uncorrected on the rest of your paragraph.

Seeing as the entire crux of that statement was that he's basically never had a hit, when in actuality he's had 3, yes, you stand corrected with all of my paragraph.

No, there's nothing "asinine" in that paragraph (nor "silly," or "illy thought out"). But thanks for resorting to ad hominem, as usual --- the last refuge of a weak rebuttal.

It's not an ad hominem, I'm describing what your post and entire stance on this issue was and is, silly. As everyone else can attest to as well.

The difference between Edgar Wright not having a "proven" track record as opposed to Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, Joss Whedon (?) and even Joe Johnston (??) and Kenneth Branagh (???) being in that same boat is simple: the latter group drew Iron Man, Hulk, Avengers, Captain America and Thor on their dance card. Wright got Ant-Man. You can try to defend and pretend all you want, but Ant-Man is already the laughingstock and butt-end of superhero jokes amongst both fanboys and general audiences alike. Nobody faced an uphill battle trying to get iconic and exciting superheroes to the screen; but Wright faces a nearly insurmountable one trying to convince audiences to buy into an (anti)superhero named Ant-Man, whose powers are exactly what the jokesters surmise.

And the same can be said of GotG. Or any "antihero" film for that matter. And as I said in that post, Edgar Wright has the best track record out of any of the directors Marvel has worked with so far. The **** are you even talking about?? Edgar Wright has a very proven track record of taking wacky ideas and making them into critical and commercial successes. Scott Pilgrim has been his only commercial failure, and it still garnered critical acclaim and a cult following.

The general audience has no preconceived notion of who Ant-Man, Scott Lang, or Hank Pym are. If you actually believe this character has any presence in popculture then you're living in some type of bubble. Edgar Wright has the opportunity to deliver a new take on a superhero film without preconceived notions of the character. Your entire argument pretty much hinges on the idea that Ant-Man is a laughing stock to the general public, an idea that is factually flawed. The couple thousand comic book fans who know who Hank Pym and Ant-Man =/= the general population consisting of tens of millions of people who have no exposure to the character whatsoever.

If you actually read what you're writing then you'll see just how ridiculous you sound. GotG can be a hit despite being even more silly, antihero-y, and unknown than Ant-Man but Ant-Man can't "just cuz Edgar Wright". Right dude.

Nowhere even close to the mark in any of this, but thanks for trying. My problem with the "ohmahgerd rapin' Hank Pym" has nothing to do with wanting a HANK PYM movie. Far from it. I never wanted an Ant-Man solo movie in the first place. What I DID want, and DO want, is an AUTHENTIC Avenger film --- because that's the reason I got into collecting comics in the first place, that's the reason I signed up for Superhero Hype in the first place, that's the reason why I got on board with Marvel Studios in the first place. AVENGERS.

My beef with the treatment of Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne (don't give me that weaksauce "er...in a roundabout sort of way" dodge from Wright, either) is that they are AVENGERS. CORE AVENGERS. Will every Avenger ever make the MCU roster? Of course not. Would it have been entirely possible that Hank and Janet were considered too controversial and/or iffy for mainstream movie audiences? Of course. Instead, we get them both "er....in a roundabout sort of way." It's like making a Justice League movie with an INO Flash and Wonder Woman who get nerfed and/or utterly marginalized from the group. Or more to the point: taking Martian Manhunter OUT of the Justice League equation altogether, marginalizing him, and giving him a solo movie --- when his only claim to fame is being a member of the Justice League.

That's what they've done to Hank Pym. And/or Scott Lang. And/or Janet Van Dyne, who I'm still willing to bet you 100 Internet bucks isn't part of the MCU at all. Ever.

That's my issue with Hank Pym. That's *always* been my issue with Hank Pym. Because I am an AVENGER fan, first and foremost and evermore, and therefore understand full well how Hank Pym fits into THE AVENGERS. Marvel Studios, including Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright, don't. Period.

You clearly don't understand how they fit into the MCU though. This is not the comics, it won't be the same as what you read. Hank Pym's role in the Avengers is already taken by the expanded role of Bruce Banner/Hulk in the MCU, and even Tony himself to a large extent who is more proactive and actually mechanical than his early depictions. Hank is supposed to be a visionary and scientist who wants to bring good with his technology but has inner demons to fight; that role is completely filled by Stark and Banner. Pym would be a completely redundant character in the MCU.

What Edgar Wright is doing works Ant-Man into the MCU in a way that doesn't make him redundant, delivers a unique take on a superhero film, and will also likely keep the essence of Pym's character even if he is older and we won't get all his storylines. I'm sorry, but there are far too many benefits to doing something new and different in the way Wright is planning than just sticking exactly to the comics just because they were founding Avengers in them.

Furthermore, comparing Ant-Man to Wonder Woman and Flash is, at the risk of sounding redundant, silly. Ant-Man is not Wonder Woman or Flash. Those ARE actually iconic characters who are staple marks of DC and the Justice League in general...Ant-Man and Wasp are not. Yes, they were founding Avengers, but are they THE iconic Avengers? No, that right belongs solely to Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America.

And Wasp will come. Whether that's in Ant-Man, Avengers 3 or an Ant-Man sequel, it will happen eventually.

this makes no sense. Why do that after as opposed to during the filming?

Wut. The paint? I don't, maybe because of the way it's shaped? maybe because they decided it's a fake mohawk and they will simply touch it up in post regardless? There are tons of practical reasons why they would CGI the pain off in post rather than trying to get it perfectly aligned onto a fake mohawk.

James Gunn has enough respect for the material that i can't see him taking the fin out. Its one thing to give him a different look so he fits in the movie but taking his fin out the character wouldn't even be Yondu.

The character can have a fin and still have a "pirate" look without problem.
If you look at all the other characters they all still contain their main visual trait even though they changed the costumes for the movie's look. Hell he even went as far as having Nebula be the bald version of her.

I'm not sure what Nebula's "bald version" points to or indicates in this. He kept her bald...cool. I mean, that's not a matter of respecting the source material, if he had her with hair he'd be respecting the source material as well.

And he's already completely changed Yondu's costume. Yondu having a mohawk is about as respectful as we're going to get. It's a substitute for the fin that makes sense. And like I said, if it were going to be a fin the mohawk would be thinner, go further up the front of his head, and you'd see CGI markers going down his back because the fin goes along the length of Yondu's back. You see none of that.

The character is clearly pretty much not Yondu already, just giving him a fin won't change that.

 

[Norrin Parker]

well I hope they do an amazing job in post cause right now the Mohawk is looking awful

 

[Loki882]

We don't know how big the budget for the Ant Man movie will be. If it's a reasonable size, then the movie wouldn't have to be HUGE in order to be successful.

 

[TheFBI]

Why doesnt everyone stop complaing about everything. Just trade pink slips, whoevers wrong quits the forum after the movie comes out. everyone wins

 

[Rock Sexton]

Maybe because Marvel Studios and Edgar Wright have been talking about him for 7 years now? Maybe because they've shown test footage at SDCC?

Do they really *know* who Hank Pym, Scott Lang, or Ant-Man are? Of course not. Nobody but a comic-book Avenger fan does. But the *name* is out there in pop culture now, and pop culture thinks the concept is actually a joke. In more ways than one.

Not even remotely accurate. They've dropped the Ant-Man name on sites like these or at comic-con. That is not representative of the Gen Aud whatsoever.

Calling Ant-Man part of pop culture is probably the most imagined thing I've ever seen you say on here. Iron Man is pop culture. That degenerate Miley Cyrus is pop culture. Ant-Man is not.