Ant-Man The best way that Marvel can fix this

[Loki882]

-Get a decent director to replace Wright.
-Do not try and go back and completely rewrite the movie/make massive changes. That very rarely works, especially when they have a limited timeframe.
-If you're going to make major changes, then push back the release date. Don't try to rush things.
-Get all of the actors onboard with any potential changes.

 

[Shikamaru]

I'm not surprised. it's the same ugliness folks were spewing before there was any casting news for this movie. I remember how everyone assumed Rudd would be Pym; as if it couldn't be any other way. it's why I don't feel sympathy for anyone hurt over Pym being older. my viewpoint, as a Scott Lang fan, was never even considered. Scott has been Ant-Man since before I was born. he has a legitimate claim to the title. and I'm glad that they chose Scott. I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the Avengers. Hank wasn't Ant-Man very long when he joined the Avengers. I'm perfectly ok w/ Scott not joining the Avengers. he's interesting enough to go it alone.

There's so many misconceptions here that I don't even know where to begin.

First, "[insert character name] was Ant-Man before I was born" applies to both Hank and Scott. I don't see your point. Is that supposed to persuade people one way or another?

Second, you actually got offended by people assuming Rudd would be Pym? Where's the logic in that? It's a completely normal assumption given Hank is far more well known. That's not people being *****, that's people assuming what they think is the most realistic scenario based on the real-life facts. It would be like getting offended that people never considered the possibility of Jay Garrick or Bart Allen to star in the Flash film as opposed to the universally known Barry and Wally. The fact that you took offense in something like that is just sad IMO.

Third, you're under the impression people want Hank to strictly adhere to the Ant-Man persona. That's not true. What guys like me and Human Torch want is Hank Pym. That includes Ant-Man, Giant Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc. I don't mind Hank giving his Ant-Man persona to Lang after Hank's already been incorporated into the Avengers and MCU mythos by extension.

 

[DrCosmic]

-Get a decent director to replace Wright.
-Do not try and go back and completely rewrite the movie/make massive changes. That very rarely works, especially when they have a limited timeframe.
-If you're going to make major changes, then push back the release date. Don't try to rush things.
-Get all of the actors onboard with any potential changes.

This basically. The best way (financially, creatively) for Marvel to fix this is to find a director that both loves Wright's script and keeps the interest of the actors involved.

That's where the re write people work their magic.

Look,if their so intent on filming To Steal An Ant Man,(Which should've been saved for "Ant Man 3" should they get that far) there's no reason Pym has to be 70 y/o.He wasn't in the original story!Move Douglas to a smaller,yet respectable role (as Vernon Van Dyne,most likely) and you can more or less use the same script as a framework.

Yeah... scriptwriters don't do magic. They work, and trying to do a lot of work in a little bit of time equals suckitude.

Their intent is to make a great superhero movie that's fresh and exciting. Using TSAAM does that. Casting Michael Douglass in a major role, however old he is this decade, does that. Stretching out Hank Pym's origin and battle against, I dunno, Egghead, over 2 hours doesn't really do that unless you were already going to see the movie anyway.

Removing 'old Pym' would be a mistake, in my view. There is now a surfeit of superhero films, and in the crowded market, each film needs it's own take that makes it stand out. Marvel cannot release a film based on the well trodden path of hero origin - villain reveal - hero v villain fight.

What Wright's Ant-Man had going for it (for the general audience) was, firstly, Wright. Secondly it had an interesting story about an older superhero who was out of the game, a younger criminal who needed to become a hero, and the meeting of the two to win and gain some redemption. The former has gone, the latter (hopefully) remains.

The elements reminiscent of Obi-Wan training Luke or Zorro passing on the mantle, added to the 'to steal an ant-man' narrative of the little guy going against a big corporation to save his daughter (the David and Goliath analogy) made a compelling stand alone story. Further to that, the idea of an elder statesman scientist being introduced to the MCU, a guy that Banner and Stark could both look up to, adds more dimensions to the universe. The universe would then contain a good cross section of heroes, from the older ones who have mentoring roles (Pym, Fury, Odin), through the heroes at their prime (Barton, Romanov, Stark, Banner, Cap and Thor) to the young, new heroes just discovering what they are capable of (the Maximovs, Lang, maybe Vision).

That idea is what I was looking forward to, this film was going to be a new angle on the superhero film, one that looked at the idea of legacy, and passing on a torch. I'm disspointed it won't be directed by Wright, but I'm hoping the ideas that were hinted at are borne out and that we get an interesting, self contained narrative with strong characters performed by top drawer actors.

Well said. The movie idea is so promising, and allows them to do Ant-Man without making Iron Man-lite (but with shrinking instead of ubertech!). That's likely why Marvel was excited and patient with the idea and why they specifically noted they would not push back the release date for a 'retool.'

There's so many misconceptions here that I don't even know where to begin.

First, "[insert character name] was Ant-Man before I was born" applies to both Hank and Scott. I don't see your point. Is that supposed to persuade people one way or another?

Second, you actually got offended by people assuming Rudd would be Pym? Where's the logic in that? It's a completely normal assumption given Hank is far more well known. That's not people being *****, that's people assuming what they think is the most realistic scenario based on the real-life facts. It would be like getting offended that people never considered the possibility of Jay Garrick or Bart Allen to star in the Flash film as opposed to the universally known Barry and Wally. The fact that you took offense in something like that is just sad IMO.

Third, you're under the impression people want Hank to strictly adhere to the Ant-Man persona. That's not true. What guys like me and Human Torch want is Hank Pym. That includes Ant-Man, Giant Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc. I don't mind Hank giving his Ant-Man persona to Lang after Hank's already been incorporated into the Avengers and MCU mythos by extension.

A couple notes, what had me rolling my eyes and logging off about this issue, was the complete rejection of the only news we ever had: 60's pym and to steal and ant-man. To conclude that Hank would be the typical superhero character then is not using the known facts, it's very selective. It's the same thing with the idea that Marvel was 'tired of waiting' or 'doesn't like Wrights' vision' despite all evidence to the contrary and no support for that viewpoint. It is not a reasonable assumption. It seems a staunch dedication to the ideal fanboy adaptation, and nothing else, no matter what.

And no one has answered the Question:

Why do you want to see young Hank Pym suit up with the Avengers?

 

[Human Torch]

There's so many misconceptions here that I don't even know where to begin.

First, "[insert character name] was Ant-Man before I was born" applies to both Hank and Scott. I don't see your point. Is that supposed to persuade people one way or another?

Second, you actually got offended by people assuming Rudd would be Pym? Where's the logic in that? It's a completely normal assumption given Hank is far more well known. That's not people being *****, that's people assuming what they think is the most realistic scenario based on the real-life facts. It would be like getting offended that people never considered the possibility of Jay Garrick or Bart Allen to star in the Flash film as opposed to the universally known Barry and Wally. The fact that you took offense in something like that is just sad IMO.

Third, you're under the impression people want Hank to strictly adhere to the Ant-Man persona. That's not true. What guys like me and Human Torch want is Hank Pym. That includes Ant-Man, Giant Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc. I don't mind Hank giving his Ant-Man persona to Lang after Hank's already been incorporated into the Avengers and MCU mythos by extension.

Well said.

 

[Human Torch]

Removing 'old Pym' would be a mistake, in my view. There is now a surfeit of superhero films, and in the crowded market, each film needs it's own take that makes it stand out. Marvel cannot release a film based on the well trodden path of hero origin - villain reveal - hero v villain fight.

What Wright's Ant-Man had going for it (for the general audience) was, firstly, Wright. Secondly it had an interesting story about an older superhero who was out of the game, a younger criminal who needed to become a hero, and the meeting of the two to win and gain some redemption. The former has gone, the latter (hopefully) remains.

The elements reminiscent of Obi-Wan training Luke or Zorro passing on the mantle, added to the 'to steal an ant-man' narrative of the little guy going against a big corporation to save his daughter (the David and Goliath analogy) made a compelling stand alone story. Further to that, the idea of an elder statesman scientist being introduced to the MCU, a guy that Banner and Stark could both look up to, adds more dimensions to the universe. The universe would then contain a good cross section of heroes, from the older ones who have mentoring roles (Pym, Fury, Odin), through the heroes at their prime (Barton, Romanov, Stark, Banner, Cap and Thor) to the young, new heroes just discovering what they are capable of (the Maximovs, Lang, maybe Vision).
a
That idea is what I was looking forward to, this film was going to be a new angle on the superhero film, one that looked at the idea of legacy,nd passing on a torch. I'm disspointed it won't be directed by Wright, but I'm hoping the ideas that were hinted at are borne out and that we get an interesting, self contained narrative with strong characters performed by top drawer actors.

The passing the torch concept generally works when you care about the "mentor" involved.From what we've been hearing,nobody "cares" about Pym in the first place.(apparently,98.9% of the people in the world were only interested in the film because of Wright)

 

[The Question]

The passing the torch concept generally works when you care about the "mentor" involved.From what we've been hearing,nobody "cares" about Pym in the first place.(apparently,98.9% of the people in the world were only interested in the film because of Wright)

That's not how getting the audience to care about a character in a movie works.

You get the audience to care by writing and directing and acting the character really well in the movie, not by having some pre-existing interest in the character. That's how 90% of movies operate.

 

[Human Torch]

Yeah... scriptwriters don't do magic. They work, and trying to do a lot of work in a little bit of time equals suckitude.

I wouldn't have a problem with them pushing the film back to a late fall/early winter release.After a decade of delays,a few more months shouldn't make a heck of a difference.
But script revisions happen all the time.Sometimes during shooting.It's not always the drama people are making it out to be.

Their intent is to make a great superhero movie that's fresh and exciting. Using TSAAM does that. Casting Michael Douglass in a major role, however old he is this decade, does that. Stretching out Hank Pym's origin and battle against, I dunno, Egghead, over 2 hours doesn't really do that unless you were already going to see the movie anyway.

Again people are acting as if a costumed crime fighter that can shrink (and grow) at will is old hat.Correct me if I'm wrong,but the last time the shrinking concept was even attempted was Honey,I shrunk the kids,back in the late 80's.There really doesn't need to be this drastic sales pitch to legitimize the movie.If people will go to see GotG,Ant Man should be,by comparison,a safe bet.

And no one has answered the Question:

Why do you want to see young Hank Pym suit up with the Avengers?

Well,since "He was young and an Avenger in the comics" and "I like Pym better and think his story deserves to be told from the beginning." isn't justifiable reasons for you and Question,I'll refrain from answering.

 

[Ant-manic]

There's so many misconceptions here that I don't even know where to begin.

First, "[insert character name] was Ant-Man before I was born" applies to both Hank and Scott. I don't see your point. Is that supposed to persuade people one way or another?

Second, you actually got offended by people assuming Rudd would be Pym? Where's the logic in that? It's a completely normal assumption given Hank is far more well known. That's not people being *****, that's people assuming what they think is the most realistic scenario based on the real-life facts. It would be like getting offended that people never considered the possibility of Jay Garrick or Bart Allen to star in the Flash film as opposed to the universally known Barry and Wally. The fact that you took offense in something like that is just sad IMO.

poor analogy. Ant-Man ain't near as popular as the Flash. and Scott would be Wally in that scenario (but w/ more claim to the identity since Pym gave up on it).

Third, you're under the impression people want Hank to strictly adhere to the Ant-Man persona. That's not true. What guys like me and Human Torch want is Hank Pym. That includes Ant-Man, Giant Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc. I don't mind Hank giving his Ant-Man persona to Lang after Hank's already been incorporated into the Avengers and MCU mythos by extension.

if he's just going to give it up, there's not point in him using the identity. that's why Scott is better. he was created specifically to become Ant-Man. he never became Giant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Wasp, etc. if you're going to call the movie 'Ant-Man,' why the hell would you use someone who flip flops between costumed identities? are you going to call the next movie Ant-Man; the Rise of Yellowjacket? you folks are really overestimating the story potential w/ that guy.

comic book Scott Lang doesn't impress you; i get it. but you haven't met movie Scott Lang yet. he's whatever the writers want him to be. and he has the advantage of only being associated with Ant-Man; if being known at all. if i were making this movie and weren't an Ant-man fan, i would logically gravitate towards Scott or Eric; over Hank. there are no expectations of the first two. angry fans aren't going to crawl out of the woodwork and badmouth the film because their ages or off or they didn't create Ultron.

 

[Ant-manic]

Well,since "He was young and an Avenger in the comics" and "I like Pym better and think his story deserves to be told from the beginning." isn't justifiable reasons for you and Question,I'll refrain from answering.

Part I
why do you like Pym better?

Part II
do you really want his story to be told from the beginning? because that's what Wright had planned. sounds to me more like you wanted his story to be told from the middle (being an Avenger) and then transporting stuff from further on down the line (Ultron) into that middle. founder status is already off the table. Hank wasn't Ant-Man for very long. all of his big accomplishments (the stuff that people remember him for)were as Yellowjacket or Goliath, irrc. the other stuff has been duplicated by Scott. and were you planning to include or exclude Maria Trovayna? sounds unimportant until you realize how much the time period/setting informed his creation.

 

[Human Torch]

Basically,if Ant Man fails as a movie,there will be no way to determine why it's failed.

People wanted to see Wright's "vision"
People didn't want Old Man Pym/Lang
The concept is too "goofy" to begin with
The character is too obscure to the GA

That's the only reason why it may be best to let things cool for a while,then approach it with a "cooler head" and fold the character(s) into the MCU with a better plan during the next phase.

 

[The Question]

I wouldn't have a problem with them pushing the film back to a late fall/early winter release.
But script revisions happen all the time.Sometimes during shooting.It's not always the drama people are making it out to be.

There are script revisions and then there are script revisions.

The kind of script revisions that happen during filming usually entail polishing the dialogue or adding in a bit of exposition if some of the concepts aren't coming across. They do not entail rewriting characters entirely and restructuring the plot. Whenever those kinds of script revisions are made weeks before or during filming, the end product is **** nine hundred and ninety nine times out of one thousand.

Again people are acting as if a costumed crime fighter that can shrink (and grow) at will is old hat.Correct me if I'm wrong,but the last time the shrinking concept was even attempted was Honey,I shrunk the kids,back in the late 80's.There really doesn't need to be this drastic sales pitch to legitimize the movie.If people will go to see GotG,Ant Man should be,by comparison,a safe bet.

How his powers work has nothing to do with wether or not the movie comes of as derivative. What makes a movie fresh and exciting isn't what power the hero has, it's the plot and the characters and the theme and the narrative structure. If a movie works off of the same stock superhero movie formula as dozens of films before it, it doesn't matter what the hero's powers are, it's still a derivative film. Green Lantern's powers are unique and had never been seen on film before, but the movie was still cliche and formulaic because it stuck to what every superhero film had done in the past instead of doing something original with the concept.

Well,since "He was young and an Avenger in the comics" and "I like Pym better and think his story deserves to be told from the beginning." isn't justifiable reasons for you and Question,I'll refrain from answering.

The question we are asking is "Why does his having been young and an Avenger in the comics matter/Why do you like Pym better and think his story deserves to be told from the beginning?"

Just stating that you think that doesn't answer the question of why you think that?

"Why do you always wear that ratty old band T-shirt?"
"Because I always wear this ratty old band T-shirt."

Not an answer.

 

[Ant-manic]

Basically,if Ant Man fails as a movie,there will be no way to determine why it's failed.

so what? ........................

 

[Human Torch]

so what? ........................

So nothing.Doesn't matter to me.But I'm sure the studio will be somewhat interested.That's why they seem to have limited faith in the project to begin with.

 

[The Question]

Basically,if Ant Man fails as a movie,there will be no way to determine why it's failed.

That's not true. We'll watch the movie, we'll observe how people reacted to it, we'll assess what we can of it's production, and we'll figure it out. Figuring out why movies fail is super easy.

People wanted to see Wright's "vision"
People didn't want Old Man Pym/Lang
The concept is too "goofy" to begin with
The character is too obscure to the GA

All of these scenarios only look at it from our perspective, not the GAs perspective. I mean, the last one kind of does, but its looking at the GA the way that fans do.

It's possible that the movie might fail because replacing directors at the 11th hour often doesn't lead to good results and it's production will be enough of a cluster**** that the movie simply won't be any good.

That's the only reason why it may be best to let things cool for a while,then approach it with a "cooler head" and fold the character(s) into the MCU with a better plan during the next phase.

I think the current plan is really quite good.

So nothing.Doesn't matter to me.But I'm sure the studio will be somewhat interested.That's why they seem to have limited faith in the project to begin with.

What evidence is there of that?

 

[Ant-manic]

Changing Michael Douglas's character to Janet's father seems to create an unnecessary superfluity that would probably weigh down the story. I think Wright's concept (even if heavily rewritten) has a lot of potential as an exciting, different story. Maybe if this were three or four years ago, it wouldn't have been the one I would have written, but that's not the important question. The important question is whether it's a good story.

sounds pretty clever to me. they created a parallel between Hank and Scott; them both being imperfect parents. and we might have speculated that she was going to be his daughter. but it might have been a case of him watching out for Janet after her father's death. that is what happened in the books. she wasn't calling him daddy. but he did remind her of her father. he was "two decades" her senior. he did refer to her as a child. Wright didn't just do whatever he wanted w/ the material. there's more evidence to support him being overly respectful (ex. setting things during the Cold War).

 

[Jammat]

The passing the torch concept generally works when you care about the "mentor" involved.From what we've been hearing,nobody "cares" about Pym in the first place.(apparently,98.9% of the people in the world were only interested in the film because of Wright)

Again, I go back to Star Wars. Nobody cared about Obi Wan before they saw the film (because no-one even knew about him) but in the hands of a truly great actor in Alec Guinness, we did care. I am hopeful it will be the same with Douglass' Pym.

How his powers work has nothing to do with wether or not the movie comes of as derivative. What makes a movie fresh and exciting isn't what power the her has, it's the plot and the characters and the theme and the narrative structure. If a movie works off of the same stock superhero movie formula as dozens of films before it, it doesn't matter what the hero's powers are, it's still a derivative film. Green Lantern's powers are unique and had never been seen on film before, but the movie was still cliche and formulaic because it stuck to what ever superhero film had done in the past instead of doing something original with the concept.

I agree entirely with this post, for the superhero genre not to grow stale (which with 4 to 6 released a year from various studios, it could well do) it's not enough to have an orginal power set, you need to tell a different story each time.

 

[Ant-manic]

So nothing.Doesn't matter to me.But I'm sure the studio will be somewhat interested.That's why they seem to have limited faith in the project to begin with.

imagine you're not a comic book fan and you are one of many people that gets to chime in on why the movie didn't work. do you seriously think someone's going to say, "well, i think it's that the fans wanted Hank Pym instead of Scott Lang. and Michael Douglas certainly shouldn't have been in the movie."

 

[Ant-manic]

Again, I go back to Star Wars. Nobody cared about Obi Wan before they saw the film (because no-one even knew about him) but in the hands of a truly great actor in Alec Guinness, we did care. I am hopeful it will be the same with Douglass' Pym.

the casting of Douglas is what removed all doubt from my mind that they could make Ant-Man interesting to the general audience. i watched 'Traffic' for the first time over the weekend. really good movie. Michael Douglas plays one of the main characters; yet doesn't really have as much dialogue as you might expect of a lead. but he absolutely killed it. his presence elevates the material; just like it did in 'Falling Down.' i wish that Douglas was a lot younger (and playing Lang), sure. but i'll take him as is too.

 

[Ant-manic]

I just want to see this in live action

we already did in the teaser.

 

[Ant-manic]

Removing 'old Pym' would be a mistake, in my view. There is now a surfeit of superhero films, and in the crowded market, each film needs it's own take that makes it stand out. Marvel cannot release a film based on the well trodden path of hero origin - villain reveal - hero v villain fight.

What Wright's Ant-Man had going for it (for the general audience) was, firstly, Wright. Secondly it had an interesting story about an older superhero who was out of the game, a younger criminal who needed to become a hero, and the meeting of the two to win and gain some redemption. The former has gone, the latter (hopefully) remains.

The elements reminiscent of Obi-Wan training Luke or Zorro passing on the mantle, added to the 'to steal an ant-man' narrative of the little guy going against a big corporation to save his daughter (the David and Goliath analogy) made a compelling stand alone story. Further to that, the idea of an elder statesman scientist being introduced to the MCU, a guy that Banner and Stark could both look up to, adds more dimensions to the universe. The universe would then contain a good cross section of heroes, from the older ones who have mentoring roles (Pym, Fury, Odin), through the heroes at their prime (Barton, Romanov, Stark, Banner, Cap and Thor) to the young, new heroes just discovering what they are capable of (the Maximovs, Lang, maybe Vision).

That idea is what I was looking forward to, this film was going to be a new angle on the superhero film, one that looked at the idea of legacy, and passing on a torch. I'm disspointed it won't be directed by Wright, but I'm hoping the ideas that were hinted at are borne out and that we get an interesting, self contained narrative with strong characters performed by top drawer actors.

^brilliant post

 

[Ant-manic]

^ Presumably, for some people, they grew up with Hank Pym, so they expect or are used to him as "the" Ant-Man character.

which has always struck me as strange. because Pym stopped being Ant-Man in 1963. logically, the majority would have grown up with Scott Lang being "the" Ant-Man. that's the only reason that Wright knew about him. i guess it's always possible that some people stopped reading comics in the 60s. that'd be an easy way to avoid Scott. otherwise, how'd they miss the Siege of Avengers mansion? or that long Fantastic Four run where Scott was a member? or that issue with Ant-Man perched upon a arrow? that one has won a number of cover contests.

 

[JJ01]

To those people who ask why do other people want Pym young and suiting up with the Avengers: it's simple.

I can't speak for every Pymfan since I just like the character but not the point I would say ''just so it's like in the comics''. That's why I'm ok with Ultron being created by someone else, even Stark, but for that, I already prepared my eyes for the inevitable eye-roll fest. Every single character that appears in the MCU gets a huge boost, from comics, to games, to television, etc.

When I saw this image, I laughed really hard. 75 years of Marvel (brought to you by the TALENTED Greg Lang) and only movie characters, with the exception of Carol Danvers who is being shoved down everyone's throat, Sam Alexander, Black Bolt and Spider-Man which I suppose it would be a crime not including him. Not even their first family made the cut. After Original Sin, they will release several new titles, including one for Deathlok. It's safe to assume Lang will get one due to his movie coming out the next year. That's what I wanted for Pym. And as they said before, ''movies should influence comic books'', so will they make Pym old in the comics just so it mirrors the movie version? No, of course we don't know. But then again, nobody here knows anything, as this is pure discussion and speculation.

I want to see Pym's origins as a young man, interacting with other current Avengers and being ''relevant''. To those who are fine with old Pym and Wright's vision, let's put that aside for a moment and answer, do you want to see Pym being a young (30-40+) costumed superhero interacting with the Avengers? If you say no, why? Do you honestly know the character? He's not just a wifebeater or Ultron's daddy. There's more than that and it's quite simple. I don't mind seeing Lang taking the mantle, as it's clear he's been Ant-Man for longer, and if Wright really left Marvel because they wanted to include as many MCU references as possible, then I don't really know what to think about Marvel's revised script. I don't dislike the character, because I don't know him that much and I'm open to his inclusion in the MCU. So I repeat,

To those who are fine with old Pym and Wright's vision, let's put that aside for a moment and answer, do you want to see Pym being a young (30-40+) costumed superhero interacting with the Avengers? If you say no, why? Do you honestly know the character? Do you really think his main appeal is being Ultron's dad? Would you be ok if something drastic happens to the current MCU Avengers for the sake of someone else's vision, granted, it's ''better'' than going by a more ''faithful'' adaptation?

 

[Mike Murdock]

sounds pretty clever to me. they created a parallel between Hank and Scott; them both being imperfect parents. and we might have speculated that she was going to be his daughter. but it might have been a case of him watching out for Janet after her father's death. that is what happened in the books. she wasn't calling him daddy. but he did remind her of her father. he was "two decades" her senior. he did refer to her as a child. Wright didn't just do whatever he wanted w/ the material. there's more evidence to support him being overly respectful (ex. setting things during the Cold War).

Is it clever with the current story or if they were to make Michael Douglas Janet's father and have a young Hank Pym? It seems in that scenario, your whole point would go out the window then, but I'll admit I could be missing something.

which has always struck me as strange. because Pym stopped being Ant-Man in 1963. logically, the majority would have grown up with Scott Lang being "the" Ant-Man. that's the only reason that Wright knew about him. i guess it's always possible that some people stopped reading comics in the 60s. that'd be an easy way to avoid Scott. otherwise, how'd they miss the Siege of Avengers mansion? or that long Fantastic Four run where Scott was a member? or that issue with Ant-Man perched upon a arrow? that one has won a number of cover contests.

That's a fair point. It's also people just grew up with the "idea" of Hank Pym as Ant-Man rather than the pre-1963 comics. It's also possible they're used to the Ultimates version, I have no idea. Interestingly enough, this version of Ant-Man is possibly the first movie character to borrow more from the 616 universe than the Ultimates version.

 

[Human Torch]

To those who are fine with old Pym and Wright's vision, let's put that aside for a moment and answer, do you want to see Pym being a young (30-40+) costumed superhero interacting with the Avengers? If you say no, why? Do you honestly know the character? He's not just a wifebeater or Ultron's daddy. There's more than that and it's quite simple. I don't mind seeing Lang taking the mantle, as it's clear he's been Ant-Man for longer, and if Wright really left Marvel because they wanted to include as many MCU references as possible, then I don't really know what to think about Marvel's revised script. I don't dislike the character, because I don't know him that much and I'm open to his inclusion in the MCU. So I repeat,

To those who are fine with old Pym and Wright's vision, let's put that aside for a moment and answer, do you want to see Pym being a young (30-40+) costumed superhero interacting with the Avengers? If you say no, why? Do you honestly know the character? Do you really think his main appeal is being Ultron's dad? Would you be ok if something drastic happens to the current MCU Avengers for the sake of someone else's vision, granted, it's ''better'' than going by more a ''faithful'' adaptation?

For whatever reason,that's not a valid question.Only "Why yoo want Pym in Avengers fore?" is a valid question it seems.

And I'm sure the answer you'll get is the same "'Cause It's 'different'" variations we've been hearing.

 

[Human Torch]

"Why do you always wear that ratty old band T-shirt?"
"Because I always wear this ratty old band T-shirt."

Not an answer.

That's not the answer you're getting.Based on your analogy,the answer you're getting is "'Cause I love the band who's logo is on the shirt.I grew up with their music.This one particular hit they have is a masterpiece of musical craftsmanship.I'd love to see them on tour again,if only for a one time show."