Ant-Man Michael Douglas is Hank Pym

[smashmode]

Why force a relationship with the Lang and the Wasp just to have her included in the movie?
She can be in the movie without being his love interest.

When have we ever had a solo comic movie without some sort of romantic relationship?

A relationship between The Wasp and Scott Lang's Ant-man makes much more sense than a relationship between Ant-Man and Cassie

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I thought so. But I know hes a bit over-referenced by fanboys when casting for cbms comes up, a la Fillian and Ackles and others. Hes a decent actor who's still waiting for his big film break, the ladies like him, and he bears some resemblance to a young MD. Could work. (Though he might be tired of lesser parts in big movies like MI:3)

I havent seen that generic-looking show hes on now, but I read that its a superhero show masquerading as a spy thriller. For what thats worth.

 

[Endeavor]

When have we ever had a solo comic movie without some sort of romantic relationship?

A relationship between The Wasp and Scott Lang's Ant-man makes much more sense than a relationship between Ant-Man and Cassie

So she HAS to be a love interest because that's what's "the normal"?
I thought what is loved about Marvel's choices are that they're inspired and out of the box.

 

[Endeavor]

I thought so. But I know hes a bit over-referenced by fanboys when casting for cbms comes up, a la Fillian and Ackles and others...

I have to say, I've often dismissed him simply because other people suggest him so much it gets annoying, sort of like Cumberbatch. But after seeing that picture I think it does fit in this case.

 

[Airwings]

How serious do you think Michael Douglas is going to play Pym? I hope there will be some dramatic edge to the character.
Rudd will be a more lighter Lang, right?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

That's what Im assuming. for now anyway.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

The only thing i can say is, from what i've seen lately, and from Iron Man 3.....Marvel has it's days numbered.
Disney is destroying it.
DC is not going much better (which is an understatement, Superman vs Batman has pathetic written all over it).

What baffles me is what goes through the director/producers mind when they pull crap like this?!
Let's think about it......

Fans care about good adaptations, not what character is on the big screen, so, the idea of having 101 villains/characters make no sense.
Non-fans will not care at all because they don't know the comics, they don't even know who is who.
That leaves money reasons..........and that's it.

The more characters/villains, the more toys you have to sell.
Changing white characters to black actors will put black people into theaters
And Michael Douglas will put the old geezers in the seats.....it's all about the money.

Capitalism sucks!!

This doesn't mean it will be a bad movie, that can only be seen when we have some trailer to based on, but as an adaptation.....it is already a complete and utter failure.



And before some political correct poster comes here defending this, this all is not about old actors or black actors, it's about consistency.
Golden rule, don't change thing when you have no valid reason to....or at least, think about what the repercussions it will have.

For example: Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm is borderline pathetic. Nothing against the actor, but to change the guy to black means you need to change Sue too....unless she is not his sister anymore, which means two changes instead of one.

 

[Son of Coul]

For example: Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm is borderline pathetic. Nothing against the actor, but to change the guy to black means you need to change Sue too....unless she is not his sister anymore, which means two changes instead of one.

Ever heard of adoption?

 

[BoredGuy]

Oh god, here we go again


"They cast an old guy?! Sellouts!!!"


it's not at all possible that Edgar Wright has a particular vision for his story, right?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Well at least i can safely ignore THAT guy's posts from now on. Wow.

 

[Ant-manic]

When have we ever had a solo comic movie without some sort of romantic relationship?

A relationship between The Wasp and Scott Lang's Ant-man makes much more sense than a relationship between Ant-Man and Cassie

but why not have this do something different? it's already doing something different with the storytelling. it could also eschew the traditional man/woman set-up. they could have Janet and Scott simply not get along. they are from very different worlds afterall.

 

[Ant-manic]

How serious do you think Michael Douglas is going to play Pym? I hope there will be some dramatic edge to the character.
Rudd will be a more lighter Lang, right?

you'd think. but imagine trying to do that across from an actor like Michael Douglas. i'm expecting the most serious performance that Rudd has ever given. i'm suprised that he'd volunteer for something like this. his fictional kid is dying. so he can't fall back on snarky funny man, this time.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

wtf?

 

[cherokeesam]

And before some political correct poster comes here defending this, this all is not about old actors or black actors, it's about consistency.
Golden rule, don't change thing when you have no valid reason to....or at least, think about what the repercussions it will have.

Marvel *does* have a valid reason to make all the changes it has: the target audience here is a diverse, all-age, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender 21st century cross section of the whole world; instead of a bunch of white pre-teen boys collecting comic books, bubble gum and trading cards in 1962 America.

The MCU needs to look like what our real world looks like....politically, socially, culturally. It doesn't need to look like a bunch of white superheroes fighting Commies and hippies in Kennedy-era Manhattan..

 

[Dark Raven]

If they're making Janet be Scott Lang's love interest, I suppose the next step is to make Cassie Lang be Hank Pym's... unhealthy interest?

Only in the Ultimates....

 

[RockSP]

Changing white characters to black actors will put black people into theaters

Yep. I know when I went to see Batman as a kid it was because Billy Dee Williams was in it as Harvey Dent for 7 whole seconds.

 

[smashmode]

The only thing i can say is, from what i've seen lately, and from Iron Man 3.....Marvel has it's days numbered.
Disney is destroying it.

 

[Human Torch]

The only thing i can say is, from what i've seen lately, and from Iron Man 3.....Marvel has it's days numbered.
Disney is destroying it.
DC is not going much better (which is an understatement, Superman vs Batman has pathetic written all over it).

What baffles me is what goes through the director/producers mind when they pull crap like this?!
Let's think about it......

Fans care about good adaptations, not what character is on the big screen, so, the idea of having 101 villains/characters make no sense.
Non-fans will not care at all because they don't know the comics, they don't even know who is who.
That leaves money reasons..........and that's it.

The more characters/villains, the more toys you have to sell.
Changing white characters to black actors will put black people into theaters
And Michael Douglas will put the old geezers in the seats.....it's all about the money.

Capitalism sucks!!

This doesn't mean it will be a bad movie, that can only be seen when we have some trailer to based on, but as an adaptation.....it is already a complete and utter failure.



And before some political correct poster comes here defending this, this all is not about old actors or black actors, it's about consistency.
Golden rule, don't change thing when you have no valid reason to....or at least, think about what the repercussions it will have.

For example: Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm is borderline pathetic. Nothing against the actor, but to change the guy to black means you need to change Sue too....unless she is not his sister anymore, which means two changes instead of one.

Yeah,but why should we bother to complain when you'll automatically get shouted down as a troll for not instantly and entirely embracing the inane changes made (for whatever reasons,though mostly PC ones).

And you can hardly blame the studios for continuing to make stupid decisions when they can simply log on here and see a multitude gush over how great a job they're doing.

I've said this before but they could make an Aquaman movie with a 4ft albino with a peg leg,and a good 60% would rave what a stroke of genius it was.They're gonna make money no matter what at this point,so it's not surprising the purist voice gets lost in the din.

 

[Tony Stark]

What I love is the people that have to line up every decision in the same column. That if you didn't like the changes to IM3 therefore you have to be against the Ant Man changes, or if you're for the IM3 changes you are a Marvel fanboy and will accept anything they do.

Opinions are subjective, and they don't have to line up like political ideology. I loved IM3, but I have to admit I was a little disappointed in Thor the Dark World. I don't think it was terrible but I think it was a step back. But there were people saying that Thor the Dark World didn't do as well, because people hated Iron Man 3. WTF? Seriously what kind of twisted logic is that?

At the end of the day, I want these movies to be engaging entertaining, and fun, but above all they have to be profitable or they will stop making them.

I don't know if Ant-Man will work as a film or not, but I'm going to allow Edgar Write to make the film he wants to make. If it sucks, then we can have a discussion about weather or not this was the right choice.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

So a fine actor like MBJ - who happens to be black - playing Johnny Storm is the equivalent of a 4ft albino with a peg leg playing Aquaman?

Human Torch, Im sorry, but you are either a troll or an incredibly "inane" person. (Theres another possibility, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one). But thanks for being honest. Just don't pretend to be surprised when your ridiculed for statements like this.

And Id consider brushing up on your communcation/writing skills. There are many ways to be persuasive, to argue even an unpopular point of view. Your "technique" isnt one of them. Thanks for playing though.

 

[Ant-manic]

Yep. I know when I went to see Batman as a kid it was because Billy Dee Williams was in it as Harvey Dent for 7 whole seconds.

i went to see Bob the Goon.

 

[RockSP]

i went to see Bob the Goon.

Any relation to Alice?

 

[Son of Coul]

What I love is the people that have to line up every decision in the same column. That if you didn't like the changes to IM3 therefore you have to be against the Ant Man changes, or if you're for the IM3 changes you are a Marvel fanboy and will accept anything they do.

Opinions are subjective, and they don't have to line up like political ideology. I loved IM3, but I have to admit I was a little disappointed in Thor the Dark World. I don't think it was terrible but I think it was a step back. But there were people saying that Thor the Dark World didn't do as well, because people hated Iron Man 3. WTF? Seriously what kind of twisted logic is that?

At the end of the day, I want these movies to be engaging entertaining, and fun, but above all they have to be profitable or they will stop making them.

I don't know if Ant-Man will work as a film or not, but I'm going to allow Edgar Write to make the film he wants to make. If it sucks, then we can have a discussion about weather or not this was the right choice.

Agreed with all of this, opinions on IM3 and T:TDW included.

 

[TeeKay]

The only thing i can say is, from what i've seen lately, and from Iron Man 3.....Marvel has it's days numbered.
Disney is destroying it.
DC is not going much better (which is an understatement, Superman vs Batman has pathetic written all over it).

Disney has no creative imput in the MCU films. What's funny is that you'll be there opening week-end to see these films. Fans have been waiting for the Batman vs Superman film and suddenly it's pathetic?

What baffles me is what goes through the director/producers mind when they pull crap like this?!
Let's think about it......

Fans care about good adaptations, not what character is on the big screen, so, the idea of having 101 villains/characters make no sense.
Non-fans will not care at all because they don't know the comics, they don't even know who is who.
That leaves money reasons..........and that's it.

Really? No **** Sherlock. Well boo hoo, cry me a river. Seriously dude, you're over-reacting. Ranting won't change nothing. We all know you're gonna be seeing this film one way or another. Yes we know you're pissed off but try being rational about it for God's sake. The way you're reacting is as if this movie is doomed and what-not. I'm willing to wait and see how everything plays out when I watch the film. Calm the **** down.

The more characters/villains, the more toys you have to sell.
Changing white characters to black actors will put black people into theaters
And Michael Douglas will put the old geezers in the seats.....it's all about the money.

Capitalism sucks!!

This doesn't mean it will be a bad movie, that can only be seen when we have some trailer to based on, but as an adaptation.....it is already a complete and utter failure.

And before some political correct poster comes here defending this, this all is not about old actors or black actors, it's about consistency.
Golden rule, don't change thing when you have no valid reason to....or at least, think about what the repercussions it will have.

For example: Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm is borderline pathetic. Nothing against the actor, but to change the guy to black means you need to change Sue too....unless she is not his sister anymore, which means two changes instead of one.

I didn't know you already saw the film to pass such judgement. You know why I like this casting? Because it pretty much guarentess we'll get a good performance in the film. This is important because the film needs to be a good MOVIE first and a good CBM second in my book. This is the same reason I want Jordan for Torch, because he's a good ACTOR. Comic book accuracy is great, but there are changes across the board. I think it's become obvious at this point that there are people who accept 1,000 changes made to X men films, but throw a **** storm when Marvel does it. And the same goes for the group of Marvel fans, albeit smaller, who accept changes from MU but not from Fox, Sony and WB. But what kills me is when people act like these changes will somehow effect the quality of the end product. Like it won't be F4 if Johnny is Black, or won't be Ant Man if Pym is old, even though if we were being 100% comic accurate Pym WOULD be this old in present day.

Stark and Banner, moreover Stark have made Pym in the MCU redundant. Character brings nothing new to the table, fields have already been covered. Another character who hasn't been introduced into the MCU, has the same problems, don't really know what they can do with that particular character. Lang is a different type of hero and not just another Agent or Scientist. We're still getting Pym in the 60's creating the tech, and becoming Ant-man... I just don't see why he needs to be Ant-man is present day, and in the Avengers? I think making Scott Lang take on the mantle is genius. Pym passing the torch will be a great origin, and create an "Ant-man legacy"... if you will.

Michael Douglas is Hank Pym whether you like it or not, so just....

 

[Ant-manic]

the people that are hating on this don't seem to get that they are paying Pym tribute. this is supposed to make up for him not being in the Avengers. instead he's like an elder statesman of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. he's one of the originals/predating the Iron Mans and Hulks. this version of Pym is heads and above more respectable than the comic book character.