Hank Pym?

Discussion in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' started by Artistsean, Jul 21, 2013.

  1. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    By not having as many characters that need an equal share of screen time and development as The Avengers does.

    Yes I am, and it's not ridiculous. Because not only would he be a brand new character, he'd be a brand new character who would have to be a central focus of the plot, since his entire character arc would be tied up in the main conflict of the plot. That's not the same thing as War Machine or Falcon.


    Having the creator of Ultron be someone the audience is already familiar with would streamline the plot tremendously. And in a movie with this many characters already, a streamlined plot os an important thing.
     
    #251
  2. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    So there's never been a movie with more than six main characters? I'm not trying to fight with you but I don't agree with this argument AT ALL. If other Avengers have to have slightly reduced screen time, so be it. I mean it's not like they have solo movies or anything. You may not feel that Pym is essential. That's fine but it's in direct contradiction to all the source material and history. The fact that replacing Pym is a huge derivation from comic history cannot be debated.

    And I know this is a movie not a comic. However, Whedon himself has stressed the importance of being true to the source material while promoting the first Avengers. At least until it was until things became "overcomplicated" and a little challenging...

    But seriously man, I respect your opinion. I'm not looking to start a thread war.
     
    #252
  3. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not all of them do.

    And, again, it's not just about screen time: Most of the audience doesn't know Hank Pym. If they put Tony or Bruce, someone they already know in that role, it will be much more effective, effective in the same way it was effective in the comics, than a new face.

    I'm not debating that. No one's debating that. At least no one smart.

    What I'm debating is wether or not that matters. I don't think it does. It's adapting a story from one heavily serialized medium where stories are told over the course of several years to another where you have to tell everything in 1 /12-2 1/2 hour chunks and they all have to be at least a little stand alone. Things get changed, and sometimes it's absolutely necessary for things to get changed. Sometimes a more faithful adaptation makes a worse movie because of the constraints of the medium. That's the other thing I'm debating. It's entirely possible that this is a change that needed to be made. And that doesn't bother me.

    He's stressed the importance of being faithful to the spirit of the source material. He's also stressed the importance of changing the details if that makes the story better as long as you stay faithful to the spirit of the source material.

    I mean, the first movie already had plenty of changed to the source material. But they were changes that needed to be made to make it a good movie. That's not saying there's anything wrong with how it originally was, that's just saying that it wouldn't make for a good movie due to the constraints of the medium.

    I mean, the movie, and I'm not talking about Avengers lore or the Marvel Universe in general, I'm just talking about the movie... the movie may actually be better without Hank Pym because it makes the story of that movie flow better and makes it more engaging for the audience by using characters they're already familiar with. That doesn't seem possible to you?
     
    #253
  4. pr0xyt0xin

    pr0xyt0xin Shaper Savant

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,162
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think it's pretty safe to say these were the main characters in The Avengers:

    Stark (Iron Man)
    Banner (Hulk)
    Thor
    Rogers (Cap)
    Natasha
    Barton
    Fury
    Loki

    And these were the supporting characters:

    Hill
    Coulson
    Selvig
    The Other
    Chitauri
    SHIELD
    Pepper

    And anyone else was little more than a walk on.

    Now from what I can tell, pretty much all the supporting characters could be replaced with new supporting characters next go around. With the possible exception of Hill. Loki will not appear, being replaced as the primary villain by the obvious Ultron. And Fury will probably get bumped to supporting character. Thus leaving room for at least one new main character and several new supporting characters (half a dozen or so at least). Considering the origin is out of the way and none of the primary Avengers needs to be introduced (Hawkeye/Hulk namely) there is a lot of free time in AoU compared to The Avengers. Why 5-10 minutes of that time can't, literally cannot (Whedon's words) be dedicated to Hank Pym just baffles me.
     
    #254
  5. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because 5-10 minutes wouldn't be enough time if Pym was in the film as the creator of Ultron.
     
    #255
  6. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the moment: no, I do not think that removing Pym from the equation will benefit the movie at all. But I hope I'm wrong. I want to love Avengers II and much as I loved the first one. I have no desire to hate the film or the decisions of the writers/directors. I would love to come to this board two years from now and say that you (and Whedon) were right.But right now, I cannot see how making such huge changes are necessary or beneficial in ANY way. In my experience (Avengers aside) changes from the source material have ALWAYS been for the worse. There are so many terrible comic book movies that are not true (or mostly true) to the original stories. The fact that Marvel studios was trying to be more faithful was why the phase one was so great. This all began to change with Iron Man 3 and the huge liberties taken by Black. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not as optimistic as you - I wish I could be.
     
    #256
  7. pr0xyt0xin

    pr0xyt0xin Shaper Savant

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,162
    Likes Received:
    1
    Most fans would agree it would be plenty if he was co-creator and received a spin-off 6 months later.
     
    #257
  8. Shikamaru

    Shikamaru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    7,775
    Likes Received:
    7
    The problem with Pym not creating Ultron is not a problem that Avengers 2 will have as a film. The problem that stems from that will only come after the film when they finally bring in Hank Pym in the MCU. By bringing him so late into the game and not making him the creator of Ultron, they would have essentially destroyed his full potential and stripped him of his most interesting character arcs.
     
    #258
  9. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's were were findamentally disagree: Changes from the details of the source material are not only not an inherently bad thing, they're usually necessary. Inevitably you have to change things when adapting from one medium to another. The only way being faithful to the source material really matters is when you're being faithful to the spirit of the source material. Changing details is fine as long as what the story is about is the same.

    Yeah, again, this is where we disagree. I loved the changes in Iron Man 3. They stayed true to the spirit of the things they were changing while also making some very necessary improvements (namely making the main villain not a racial caricature). The only things that were changed were the surface details, the core of the characters was portrayed very faithfully in my opinion.

    But it wouldn't be enough for the movie. Character development isn't just for the characters, it's for the movies that they're in. A spin off film six months later doesn't change the fact that in Avengers, 5-10 minutes wouldn't be enough time for a character who's whole character arc is the central plot of the film.
     
    #259
  10. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree to disagree. As someone who's been reading Iron Man for the last 10+ years, Iron Man 3 was about as accurate to the comics as X-Men 3 or X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It may have been a continuation of Iron Man 2 but it did not match the tone or spirt of the source material. I wanted "Iron Man 3" (loosely based upon the comic book character). Instead I got "Robert Downey Jr. starring as himself in Lethal Weapon 5 with a cameo by Marvel's Iron Man armor". However, if that's how you feel I'm afraid we'll NEVER see eye-to-eye. Agree to disagree. :csad:

    EDIT: And the Mandarin hasn't been a racial caricature in ten years.
     
    #260
  11. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    You were bothered that he wasn't in the suit enough?

    I liked that. I like taking a character and putting him in a situation he's not usually in. You get some neat stuff when you do that. I don't see that as being unfaithful to the source material, I see that as doing something new with it.

    He's still got shades of it. His "chi powers" and hell the name alone are still a little racist. Turning him into a white guy certainly is a step forward in the "let's have him not be a racial caricature anymore" thing.
     
    #261
  12. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was one of my biggest complaints. He should have been in the suit a hell of a lot more. Interestingly, I didn't hate making the Mandarin white (although I feel like it's taking political correctness way to far - we shouldn't be bowing to China). Mostly, I hated the comedic tone. It was all humor and no serious moments. Humor is good but Black took it WAY too far. The other things I hated were the unnecessary changes - Iron Patriot instead of War Machine, Tony not getting Extremis, pathetically weak suits, Tony being bloodthirsty, etc. I can forgive the lack of the 10 rings (although they would have been cool). I can forgive changing the Mandarin's race. But I cannot forgive making the film silly. Not funny. Silly. Not every movie should be as serious as The Dark Knight but, for godsake Black, can we get serious for five freaking minutes?

    Iron Man I was amazing.

    Iron Man II was decent.

    Iron Man III felt like a parody of itself built around worshipping RDJ that was made by a film-maker with no understanding of the character and no respect for the source material at all.

    I understand that I'm in the minority here but if Iron Man 3 is the path that Marvel is taking all its movies, I'm done. Iron Man 3 was one of the most disappointing movie experiences of my life. I want fun. Not silly.

    And comic Tony was never the goofy, funny guy. Sarcastic ******* sometimes but never outright silly. Iron Man has always been a relatively deep, deadly serious but not dark, and Sci-Fi heavy comic series. The Iron Man films follow a much different spirit. That was okay for I and II. III took it WAY too far.

    EDIT: This is way off topic. Agree to Disagree on IM3. Something, Something, Hank Pym. 1,2,3 - Go!
     
    #262
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013
  13. T"Challa

    T"Challa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because we know so much about these characters, its easy for us to sit back and play armchair director/screenwriter and say things could be done this way or that way. We need to zoom back and look at this from a broader/general audience perspective. Look at it this way:

    1. Edgar Wright and Joss Whedon have spoken on multiple occasions, we can assume they've read each others scripts. From what we know, Wrights script contains the origins of Scott Lang and Hank Pym and draws inspiration from the 'To Steal an Ant-Man' story line. Its very possible Ultron was never in Edgar Wrights plans. If Wrights movie already has a great intro to Hank Pym , why should Joss cut in and introduce Pym into A2 when he would get much less screen time and character development?

    2. This point has already been made but i'd reiterate it. It makes a lot of sense to tie Ultron to the heroes that the audience already knows and cares about. Cap, Hulk, Thor, IM and SHIELD have been developed over multiple movies. The audience knows their character, their strengths and flaws. Tie the creation of this monster to all of them and it will resonate with the GA much better instead of name dropping Pym or bringing in a new guy no one knows anything about just in the name of staying true to the comics.

    3. Just because the comics wrote it a certain way doesn't mean its the only way to go. Just because something is altered doesnt' necessarily mean its bad. Black Widow and Hawkeye weren't part of the original Avengers, Jarvis wasn't a A.I system. Tony Stark wasn't a snarky mofo, jane wasn't an astrophysicist, Donald Blake doesn't exist. These are all alterations that have worked out just fine. if Joss writes a script that works excellently within the framework of the current MCU and makes a terrific film, whats the problem?
     
    #263
  14. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    It wasn't bowing to China. It was taking a character who was a vilification of East Asian culture incarnate in one individual and removing that aspect of the character while actually criticizing it (through Slattery) and keeping the basics of the character's personality, motivations, and MO intact. That's not taking political correctness way to far, that's taking political correctness (which is I think a more neutral way of saying "basic human decency") exactly as far as it needed to go.

    People of East Asian descent have a hard enough time in Hollywood as it is, they never get leading roles unless it's a martial arts movie. Might as well not delve into the Yellow Peril stereotype as well.

    Okay.

    The movie will be just fine without Hank Pym and it won't suffer from his exclusion at all. Ultron will probably be created by either Tony Stark or SHIELD and the character dynamic between Ultron and Pym will play out between Ultron and whoever builds him in this version. It will be more effective from the filmmaking standpoint to tie Ultron to a character or group already in the films instead of introducing someone new and it will free up much needed screen time for the other characters. It will only bug people who want him in it because that's how it was in the comics.
     
    #264
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013
  15. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    :whatever: To literally everything here.
     
    #265
  16. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    In what way am I wrong?

    I mean, you have to ask yourself, do you think the movie will actually be worse without Hank Pym, or do you want Hank Pym to be there and to create Ultron because that's how it is in the comics?
     
    #266
  17. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have been over this again and again. Agree to vehemently disagree.

    You're the Lex Luthor to my Superman in this argument. Or I can be Luthor. I'm not afraid to be the bad guy. :oldrazz:
     
    #267
  18. cherokeesam

    cherokeesam SHIELD Director Coulson

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,044
    Likes Received:
    0

    Do you remember Miles Dyson in Terminator 2? No? Don't feel bad....most people don't.

    Who was he? Only one of the most important characters in the entire Terminator mythology. Why? Because he created Skynet, the "Ultron," if you will, of that universe, that ultimately launched the robopocalypse on the world. How much screentime did he have in T2? Very little. How much impact did he have on the plot? Huge. Extending on into virtually the entire franchise.

    Hank Pym could fit just as seamlessly into Age of Ultron.
     
    #268
  19. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. And I remember Dyson but that's because I loved the first two Terminator movies growing up. This analogy is borderline perfect.
     
    #269
  20. The Question

    The Question Objectivism doesn't work.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    40,519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except doing it like that removes Ultron's personal connection to The Avengers.

    Also, Skynet was a pre-existing concept from Terminator 1. Not so here.
     
    #270
  21. The Infernal

    The Infernal Mky Mk

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,613
    Likes Received:
    16
    I don't think we'll even see a reference to Pym in AoU. I think that ship has sailed.
     
    #271
  22. pr0xyt0xin

    pr0xyt0xin Shaper Savant

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,162
    Likes Received:
    1
    I mean honestly, I feel like it was enough for say, Nick Fury in IM2. Or, I should say however long Nick Fury was on the screen in IM2 was enough. So Hank could have roughly that amount of screentime. Not to say I'd object to more, but keeping the film under 3 hours and incorporating the rest? I understand some loss must be sustained. Just not 100% loss.
     
    #272
  23. pr0xyt0xin

    pr0xyt0xin Shaper Savant

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,162
    Likes Received:
    1
    we're probably the bad guys lol. We are the ones fighting the status quo. Status quo here being Joss Whedon fans (the defenders of the innocent, if you will) and Marvel's decision.

    Not that we aren't Joss Whedon fans. We are conflicted villains. :dry:
     
    #273
  24. StreetWarrior

    StreetWarrior Respectfully disagreeing.

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    I prefer the term anti-hero. Not quite evil but willing to get our hands dirty. :woot:
     
    #274
  25. cherokeesam

    cherokeesam SHIELD Director Coulson

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,044
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joss Whedon already removed Ultron's personal connection to The Avengers by axing Hank Pym. That's what we've been discussing here for the past week, remember?

    And what does it matter if Skynet/Ultron is a pre-existing concept or not?
     
    #275

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"