The Avengers Roll of the Pyms in Avengers

[chris moore]

But we know that Hank and Jan arent the only growing and shrinking people in the Marvel universe.

WE know that. But Joe-movie-goer won't. I'm all for sticking to the source material and being faithful to the characters history. But these also have to be good, believable (within the realms of superpowers of course) films with solid story telling and minimal mcguffins

Making the spider that bit Peter genetically modified rather than radioactive - completely okay because radiation was such a radical, unknown hot topic back in the 60's that it being the source of his abilities was fine for them. Nowadays if you stuck that in a movie, despite everyone knowing Spider-Man and knowing it was a radioactive spider, the non-comic fan audience would turn to the buddy they came with and say "the only thing you're getting if that happened is cancer", or "how the hell did a tiny spider not get instantly fried from falling into a radiation beam?"

Hank and Jan purposefully exposing themselves to an exotic and newly discovered particle would be one of those occasions. The audience would wonder why the hell the guy who's supposed to be a genius just bombarded himself with a particle beam on a quiet Sunday afternoon for no other reason than because he wondered what would happen. And the Avengers film just won't have the time to go through a sequence of testing and board ethics and things. How long did it take for Hollow man to get to the point where he actually strapped himself down to test it on himself?

Considering Hank and Jan aren't the most well known of the Avengers, outside of the fanbase, tweaking the method by which they become exposed to Pym particles is a small continuity issue. Blasting your girlfriend so she can walk down the Ant Hill with you is just bad scripting. Like I said before, Stark doing what he did to himself was because the situation demanded it. Its not like he was sitting all healthy in his lab one day and said "hey, you know what Jarvis, I wonder if I can get my heart to run on a tiny version of that thing my Dad built in the 70's. Lets crack me open and have a go shall we?"

 

[Anubis]

Actually, it was a spray that allowed him to shift and add mass from an alternate dimension.

That's the problem with realism. You get people trying to cram unnecessary crap into things that don't need it in the first place. Just like Black Widow, they're heroes, who have already been around , but didn't get they're own movie. That's all the people will see, that's all they need to get.

 

[marcvader]

Agreed Not every character has to have they're origin shown on screen or explained in detail. They can be pre existing or be on board with the initiative before Stark. Don't see it as an issue.

 

[chris moore]

I'm fine with them being established heroes, possibly recruited by Fury immediately after whatever gave them their powers (accident or design, exposure or explosion). I do think powered heroes need a bit of exposition on what made them them. Black Widow however is non-powered and just highly trained. We know how you get highly trained... by training. And therefore it becomes superfluous to give her a detailed background or even more info. But you have a Giant bloke and tiny woman with wings suddenyl walk in the briefing room, and the audience is going to go "Wow, impressive. How'd they get like that then? Who're they?"

 

[Anubis]

Technically she is powered. She's just as powered as Captain America is, plus she's over 70.

 

[OB12]

I agree. You need to give these characters some exposition. This is why I am against having Namor and the android Human Torch as Invaders in Cap. When you have powered characters you have to explain that somehow, and especially in Cap, chewing up valuable screen time on these things is probably not a good thing to do. I actually don't think that the Pyms should be heroes in Avengers, just scientists, and their turn as powered humans should be foreshadowed. Set up the fact that Pym is close to a scientific breakthrough during Avengers but have the payoff come in an Ant-Man movie, where either by design or accident, they are given their powers.

 

[marcvader]

I personally don't need everything explained. I accept them as I would any other character regardless of wether they have powers. If anything if they're written interestingly enough I'll want to see them in they're solo afterwards where you can find out the whole story.

 

[chris moore]

Hank and Jan aren't two characters who have much prominence out side of the comics like Cap, Iron Man, Thor of Hulk. For their solo movie to work, to be able to have 2hrs of focus on them alone, we have to care about them first, and I think the Avengers movie is the perfect vehicle for that. Their solo movie would work well as a spin-off of the Avengers. Exploration of the shrinking aspect of their powers to have a movie about stealth and spy work.

But if their sole role in the Avengers is either background scientist cameos or the two white coats that give a two minute presentation on something at the team mission briefing... well then we aren't likely to really give a crap about them. If they're heroes in the Avengers, then we will need some kind of explanation (even if just a dossier being read on them) in order to explain who they are so the non-comic audience isn't left wondering where the hell the giant guy and insect lady came from.
The fantastic needs explaining - even if only brief. The human just needs to be there, and to do what they do well

 

[marcvader]

Of course they won't appear out of thin air. They most certainly be introduced to Tony or Steve and the audienc by whomever maybe interupting their testing or training. I'm saying no time is needed to give them origins. That can be shown later.

 

[chris moore]

Yes, but if we don't have some significant time to establish their importance, their powers, their relationship etc, then it would make it tougher to sell a solo movie to non-comic fans.

As an X-Men fan I would probably go to see a Colossus solo movie for the sake of it. But if you weren't a comic book fan and went to see the X-Men trilogy, would you then really give two craps about a 2hr movie solely about a guy you saw have three lines and throw Wolverine across the room twice? That's a lotta millions to throw at a very unfamiliar character who you basically know bugger all about and who had a very non-part in two other movies.

 

[marcvader]

Ok how many lines did Colosus have and who did they cast? You can't compare him with a husband and wife hero team anyways.

 

[chris moore]

Its still comparable to having, say, an Agent Coulson movie. Or a Jamie Madrox movie. One had virtually no lines but is a big household name now. The other had an extended part second time round, but doesn't currently have enough celebrity status to carry a solo/duo movie playing a virtually unknown comic character. You could increase the roles of either in subsequent ensemble movies in order to increase the characters lovability and/or the actors prominence to the point where both character and actor are established enough to carry a solo feature. But you can't really relegate Hank and Jan to virtual background status, thus necessitating the casting of a daytime soap actor hoping to move into films and then expect both character and actor to have enough weight to make a successful, and profitable, solo/duo movie.

I'm sure none of us want an X2/X3 beast situation where the character's involvement in the former was so fleeting that they were able to recast for the larger role in the latter. Even more so in the case of a team movie preceding a solo one, you wouldn't want someone low key being hired for the Hank or Jan roles simply because they are going to be minimal screen time scientists only to have them recast for the solo movie because the limited fame of the characters requires a celebrity presence to draw in interest.

Rachel Dawes being an exception to that "rule" of course, as her recasting didn't harm Dark Knight one bit. But then she was a secondary character in both