Ant-Man The best way that Marvel can fix this

[Mike Murdock]

Except I don't think anyone's given examples of the particular hit they're referring to.

 

[The Question]

do you want to see Pym being a young (30-40+) costumed superhero interacting with the Avengers?

I'd be perfectly fine with it, but it's also not a deal breaker. In theory, I could go either way.

At this point, however, with what's already been established, I think it would be a bad move to change course for that now. Doing so would only result in bad writing, and I don't see any gains in attempting it.

So basically, I could go either way, but since we've already started going one way it makes no sense to backpedal now.

If you say no, why?

I gave two answers to the last question, and I'll explain my reasoning for both of them.

My first answer was that in general, I could go either way. My reasoning is simply that things do inevitably change over the course of adaptation, and I'm okay with that. This is doubly true for long running serialized works like superhero comics that have no defined or self contained narrative. You've got 50+ years of continuity and you have to whittle that down to a few hours of movie. Things are going to get shuffled around in that process. That is not only fine, that's actually necessary. If you don't make the changes you need to make in order to get this mountain of source material to fit into a two hour film, then you'll inevitably get something that is bland, genericized, and disconnected from the heart of the character.

While being a member of The Avengers and a founder of the team is a part of Ant-Man's history in the comics, it's not the only thing he has going for him. His complicated relationship with his wife, his struggles with mental illness, his struggle to leave behind a positive legacy, his idealism and how that conflicts with the harsh realities of his life and the world he lives in, and his tenuous relationships with those who have been inspired by or effected by his works. These are the things that make the character who he is, and while his membership on The Avengers has historically been one way that those themes have manifested, there are other vehicles through which to tell that story. Wether or not we literally see him being a member of The Avengers in his prime isn't as important as how effectively we tell the story of who he is.


My second answer is that at this juncture, it would be a bad idea to change course. My reasoning for that is simple, we're too far along the track we're on. A script where Hank Pym is a veteran superhero who's been active since the 1960s and is passing the torch to Scott Lang has been written and is prepped to start shooting in a matter of weeks. Hank Pym already was not a founding Avenger, and there's already well into filming a movie that introduces Ultron without him. It's too late to change our minds, and I don't see anything gained from doing so.

Do you honestly know the character?

I know the character very well. I'm a big fan of Hank Pym, I find him fascinating.

This, by the way, is something that I have a problem with, this implication that if you're a true Hank Pym fan then you'll be outraged over the changes being made.

It's a perfect example of a logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It's used in two contexts, but the one that's relevant here is to discredit a group member's differing viewpoint or lifestyle by claiming that they don't truly belong to the group. The example given on Wikipedia:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

It's nonsense. Being a fan of a character doesn't demand that one be bothered by changes made to that character in an adaptation any more than being Scottish demands that one not put sugar on their porridge. I'm a Hank Pym fan and I find Edgwar Wright's new take on the character exciting. Deal with it.

Do you really think his main appeal is being Ultron's dad?

No. If I did, I'd be more bothered about Age of Ultron than I am, which is not at all.

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?

As with any hypothetical, I'd need the exact context to say anything for sure, but as a general rule?

Yes. Absolutely.

Adaptation should not be about translating every banal detail from the source material as accurately as possible. It should be about finding the heart of a piece and finding a way to bring it to life in a new medium. Making changes will be necessary, not only because new mediums require new approaches, but because the artist has to put their own spin on the material to make the act of adaptation at all worthwhile. There's no point to adapting something if you're not bringing anything new to the table, and an artist has to focus on the things that they find meaningful about the original work and find a way to articulate those things on film in their own voice, or else the end product will be lifeless.

Ultimately, we have to come to terms with the fact that none of us own these characters. Even Marvel and Disney, who own them in the legal sense, do not own them in the artist sense. These characters belong to everyone who has read their stories and been moved by them, and we're all drawn to different aspects of them. Batman, and the way in which Grant Morrison writes the character, is a perfect example of this.

Morrison is enamored with the icon of The Batman. What he finds beautiful is what Batman represents. The idea of a man so noble and so skilled who can face any obstacle and always win, can approach any problem and always have the right answer, that moves him. He was a kid who grew up in poverty in a neighborhood full of crime and addiction, raised by two idealistic political radicals who never managed to fix the world no matter how hard they tried in a house that was right down the street from a nuclear missile base. He lived with crime, hopelessness, and atomic Armageddon looming overhead for his whole childhood, and the thing that helped him sleep at night were those American comic books about the people who were strong enough to stop the bomb. And so he writes Batman as a paragon human, like the heroes of the ancient Greeks, as a love letter to his childhood.

Me, personally, I don't get anything out of that Batman. I find it dull, even a little silly. What draws me to Batman is his flawed humanity. I see a person, not that dissimilar from most, who lives with pain and anger and fear every day, who spends his days wading hip deep through despair, and who makes it through by relying on the people in his life and by never giving up. As a kid who grew up lonely and afraid of things much more abstract than the hardships Morrison faced, it's that very human internal struggle that appeals to me. That's the Batman I want to read, and that's the Batman I would like to write.

And the thing is, Morrison's take on Batman is completely valid. Just like my take on Batman is completely valid. Neither of our perspectives are any more valid than the other, they're just what we find moving. And Grant Morrison has every right in the world to write Batman how he wants to write Batman. It may not be my favorite approach, but it's just as capable of producing high quality art as my approach, and despite my biases I've still found some of Morrison's Batman stories to be wonderful works of literature.

Through engaging these alternate perspectives on things that mean so much to us, we not only broaden our understanding on these characters and properties, as well as on art and literature in general, but we also exercise our empathy. Being able to see something that you know intimately through the eyes of experiences not your own and understand the things to be valued in it that are different from the things you value in it makes one a better person all around.

And, in my experience, it's when an artist puts their own spin on a work that emphasizes what they find meaningful about it that the true heart of the piece, the thing that defines it on a basic, almost spiritual level, is best realized. And that, I think, is true faithfulness to the source material.

 

[Human Torch]

Except I don't think anyone's given examples of the particular hit they're referring to.

Well,I think it goes without saying the creation of Ultron is Pym's Stairway to Heaven,but it looks like a cover band will be playing that one.t:

 

[The Question]

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."

But that's not the answer I'm looking for.

I'm going to step off of the analogy because over extending a metaphor will only end in confusion.

I understand that you love Hank Pym, that you grew up with him and there are certain Hank Pym stories you consider a masterpiece and that you want to see him on screen. My question is, why do you consider him as a young man fighting alongside The Avengers to be an acceptable way of adapting him, and why do you consider him as an old man and a veteran superhero who's been active since the 1960s and is ready to pass the torch on to a successor an unacceptable way to adapt him? What is good about the former and what is bad about the latter?

 

[Mike Murdock]

While being a member of The Avengers and a founder of the team is a part of Ant-Man's history in the comics, it's not the only thing he has going for him. His complicated relationship with his wife, his struggles with mental illness, his struggle to leave behind a positive legacy, his idealism and how that conflicts with the harsh realities of his life and the world he lives in, and his tenuous relationships with those who have been inspired by or effected by his works. These are the things that make the character who he is, and while his membership on The Avengers has historically been one way that those themes have manifested, there are other vehicles through which to tell that story. Wether or not we literally see him being a member of The Avengers in his prime isn't as important as how effectively we tell the story of who he is.

I'd add to this that having an older Hank Pym is a great way to explore those concepts (because you have the access to the past so as to give him an opportunity to go through and overcome all those things), particularly with an actor of the caliber of Michael Douglas.

Well,I think it goes without saying the creation of Ultron is Pym's Stairway to Heaven,but it looks like a cover band will be playing that one.t:

Well, that's not a small point, though. Hank Pym as Ultron's creator works particularly well because Pym had been established for quite some time. In the movie universe, even if Ant-Man had appeared shortly before Avengers 2 (let's say instead of Thor: TDW), that still would have nowhere near the impact on the audience that it would have if Tony Stark made Ultron, for example (although better than if HYDRA makes him or something like that). Given this, what does a young Hank Pym offer outside of Ultron?

Now it may just be personality, and that's fine (I honestly don't have a dog in this fight). Is there something interesting about the way he acts that would mesh better with Downey's Stark, Ruffalo's Banner, Evans's Rogers, etc. than Lang would?

 

[Ant-manic]

I want to see Pym's origins as a young man, interacting with other current Avengers and being ''relevant''.

I want to see Scott Lang in live-action. i don't care if he doesn't interact with the current Avengers. i did want him to make a cameo at Stark Industries, though. Pym is relevant to the Marvel Universe old or not; from i understood of Wright's plans. and he wasn't planning to disappear after the first Ant-man movie. he might have turned up in a similar capacity to Selvig. he might have interacted with the other Avengers. but it'd be Michael Douglas interacting with them; not some young actor.

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?

i don't if it means that i won't get to see Scott Lang in the Ant-Man movie.

If you say no, why?

i realize that there isn't going to be any meeting of the minds here. i want Scott Lang. i'll take him however i can get him. i was hoping that Pym and Lang would be cast with similarly-aged actors. it wasn't because i like Pym or care about him being in the MCU. i just think it would have led to less division on the boards. and, like i said, i don't really care about Ant-Man interacting w/ the other Avengers. the Scott Lang version didn't mind hanging out w/ members of the team. but he was reluctant to join/wanted to keep his identity hidden for the sake of his daughter.

Do you honestly know the character?

i've researched Pym extensively. i was saying that he was bipolar a decade before they made it canon. but there's literally nothing that i like about him. and i'm not factoring in the trumped up reputation of being ok with hitting females. i just belong to a different target audience. to me, Pym is the Professor on Gilligan's Island or from the 'My 3 Sons' universe. he's all starched lab coat, seriousness, pipe, aryan ideal, commie fighting, trophy wife-having, etc. he's from an era of comics that didn't recognize my existence. i could never be Henry Pym. there's not much there for me to relate to. mind you, i have nothing against him personally. i like that he exists. i recognize his place within the mythos. but he's everything that i don't want in an Ant-Man; made even more evident by Scott being a lot of what i do want in an Ant-Man.

i like that Scott isn't A-list. i don't think Ant-Man should be an icon. i like that he's an average guy who has managed to network enough that he can show up at Avengers mansion unannounced or feels comfortable enough to walk around the Baxter building in his pajamas. Scott Lang, as ant-man, is the ultimate fanboy fantasy. because he's never had an ongoing, his quirks and character traits have gone overlooked. Scott is a bonafied geek (film, sci fi, comic books, etc). he has horror movie posters and a millenim falcon model in his living room (there was a Raiders of the Lost Ark poster there too). his daughter plays with ROM and Hulk toys. Scott knew exactly who the time-displaced Whizzer was when he encountered him. he was one of the only people to buy & listen to Rick Jones' music. he's one of the few to hang out at the Watcher's house. he's hand replaced the Hulk's DNA. he's buddies with She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel. he was in the same secret fraternity that Doctor Strange belonged to. he just has so many cool roots in the Marvel Univers; outside of being just a genuinely nice dude. and all of it started w/ him doing time.

He's not just a wifebeater or Ultron's daddy.

you're right. and, unfortunately, i think people focus on that because he's not very interesting. he could be. someone like Waid could make him interesting. but, generally, they just play up the Ultron stuff or try to present him as mentally unstable.

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?

of course not. his appeal is that he's a silver age hero and founding Avenger. he's the guy that's not Tony Stark or the Hulk. he's supposed to be the everyman or what passes for it in a group of mansion-dwelling gods and supergeniuses.

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?

undoubtedly

 

[JJ01]

I'd be perfectly fine with it, but it's also not a deal breaker. In theory, I could go either way.

At this point, however, with what's already been established, I think it would be a bad move to change course for that now. Doing so would only result in bad writing, and I don't see any gains in attempting it.

So basically, I could go either way, but since we've already started going one way it makes no sense to backpedal now.



I gave two answers to the last question, and I'll explain my reasoning for both of them.

My first answer was that in general, I could go either way. My reasoning is simply that things do inevitably change over the course of adaptation, and I'm okay with that. This is doubly true for long running realized works like superhero comics that have no defined or self contained narrative. You've got 50+ years of continuity and you have to whittle that down to a few hours of movie. Things are going to get shuffled around in that process. That is not only fine, that's actually necessary. If you don't make the changes you need to make in order to get this mountain of source material to fit into a two hour film, then you'll inevitably get something that is bland, genericized, and disconnected from the heart of the character.

While being a member of The Avengers and a founder of the team is a part of Ant-Man's history in the comics, it's not the only thing he has going for him. His complicated relationship with his wife, his struggles with mental illness, his struggle to leave behind a positive legacy, his idealism and how that conflicts with the harsh realities of his life and the world he lives in, and his tenuous relationships with those who have been inspired by or effected by his works. These are the things that make the character who he is, and while his membership on The Avengers has historically been one way that those themes have manifested, there are other vehicles through which to tell that story. Wether or not we literally see him being a member of The Avengers in his prime isn't as important as how effectively we tell the story of who he is.


My second answer is that at this juncture, it would be a bad idea to change course. My reasoning for that is simple, we're too far along the track we're on. A script where Hank Pym is a veteran superhero who's been active since the 1960s and is passing the torch to Scott Lang has been written and is prepped to start shooting in a matter of weeks. Hank Pym already was not a founding Avenger, and there's already well into filming a movie that introduces Ultron without him. It's too late to change our minds, and I don't see anything gained from doing so.



I know the character very well. I'm a big fan of Hank Pym, I find him fascinating.

This, by the way, is something that I have a problem with, this implication that if you're a true Hank Pym fan then you'll be outraged over the changes being made.

It's a perfect example of a logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It's used in two contexts, but the one that's relevant here is to discredit a group member's differing viewpoint or lifestyle by claiming that they don't truly belong to the group. The example given on Wikipedia:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

It's nonsense. Being a fan of a character doesn't demand that one be bothered bothered by changed made to that character in an adaptation any more than being Scottish demands that one not put sugar on their porridge. I'm a Hank Pym fan and I find Edgwar Wright's new take on the character exciting. Deal with it.



No. If I did, I'd be more bothered about Age of Ultron than I am, which is not at all.



As with any hypothetical, I'd need the exact context to say anything for sure, but as a general rule?

Yes. Absolutely.

Adaptation should not be about translating every banal detail from the source material as accurately as possible. It should be about finding the heart of a piece and finding a way to bring it to life in a new medium. Making changes will be necessary, not only because new mediums require new approaches, but because the artist has to put their own spin on the material to make the act of adaptation at all worthwhile. There's no point to adapting something if you're not bringing anything new to the table, and an artist has to focus on the things that they find meaningful about the original work and find a way to articulate those things on film in their own voice, or else the end product will be lifeless.

Ultimately, we have to come to terms with the fact that none of us own these characters. Even Marvel and Disney, who own them in the legal sense, do not own them in the artist sense. These characters belong to everyone who has read their stories and been moved by theme, and we're all drawn to different aspects of them. Batman, and the way in which Grant Morrison writes the character, is a perfect example of this.

Morrison is enamored with the icon of The Batman. What he finds beautiful is what Batman represents. The idea of a man so noble and so skilled who can face any obstacle and always win, can approach any problem and always have the right answer, that moves him. He was a kid who grew up in poverty in a neighborhood full of crime and addiction, raised by two idealistic political radicals who never managed to fix the world no matter how hard they tried in a house that was right down the street from a nuclear missile base. He lived with crime, hopelessness, and atomic Armageddon looming overhead for his whole childhood, and the thing that helped him sleep at night were those American comic books about the people who were strong enough to stop the bomb. And so he writes Batman as a paragon human, like the heroes of the ancient Greeks, as a love letter to hid childhood.

Me, personally, I don't get anything out of that Batman. I find it dull, even a little silly. What draws me to Batman is his flawed humanity. I see a person, not that dissimilar from most, who lives with pain and anger and fear every day, who spends his days wading hip deep through despair, and who makes it through by relying on the people in his life and by never giving up. As a kid who grew up lonely and afraid of things much more abstract than the hardships Morrison faced, it's that very human internal struggle that appeals to me. That's the Batman I want to read, and that's the Batman I would like to write.

And the thing is, Morrison's take on Batman is completely valid. Just like my take on Batman is completely valid. Neither of our perspectives are any more valid than the other, they're just what we find moving. And Grant Morrison has every right in the world to write Batman how he wants to write Batman. It may not be my favorite approach, but it's just as capable of producing high quality art as my approach, and despite my biases I've still found some of Morrison's Batman stories to be wonderful works of literature.

Through engaging these alternate perspectives on things that mean so much to us, we not only broaden our understanding on these characters and properties, as well as on art and literature in general, but we also exercise our empathy. Being able to see something that you know intimately through the eyes of experiences not your own and understand the things to be valued in it that are different from the things you value in it makes one a better person all around.

And, in my experience, it's when an artist puts their own spin on a work that emphasizes what they find meaningful about it that the true heart of the piece, the things that defines it on a basic, almost spiritual level, is best realized. And that, I think, is true faithfulness to the source material.

Yes, at this point, thinking Marvel will scrap everything for the sake of including young Pym in the present time of the MCU is ridiculous. Unless Marvel decides going that way, but I don't see it happening. Now I said ''let's put that aside for a moment and answer'', and I mean let's pretend Wright's vision does not exist. If you read my comments, you'd notice that in red vs blue game, I side with green (whatever that means). To say I'm a bigger Pym fan than you or anyone else, would be stupid. I want you to tell me a short description of Hank Pym, please. Simple and short, but good enough that would make anyone slightly interested in the character.

I agree, changes make things more interesting. Let me give you an example. At first, I didn't like the Mandarin twist, possibly for not being ''MY MANDARIN''. However, the movie is still good. The plot twist is clever as hell, and while I didn't appreciate wasting a talent like Kingsley in such manner, I understood the point they were trying to make. However, Marvel just decided to scrap Killian's Mandarin and imply that, yeah, turns out there's a real Mandarin out there. Many people think it was done solely to please fans, but is that true? What's more likely? That they decided to imply there's a ''real'' Mandarin out there when they can easily imply Killian is alive (after all, he IS the Mandarin) because they turned Kingsley's character into a joke while also wasting the actor or that they decided to please a bunch of enraged online fans? What's easier to sell? shirtless Aldrich Killian or something that visually resembles the Mandarin? Because if they really decided to please the fans, then it's good to know the MCU's shape is at my hands and I can start complaining about things I don't like. Now, the point I want to reach is this: due to the movies being part of a larger cinematic universe and the sole point of such universe is to collect coins for Marvel, drastic and interesting changes to their source material are hard to accept. We don't know why Wright left. We can only assume and speculate. But if I were to assume, then I'd say Wright left because Marvel's revised script is nothing like we were promised and nothing like his vision. Sure, chances of Old Pym and Lang being there are high. They can't simply get rid of the actors. That's not possible, I think. The only thing I'm concerned is the script not being that good and resulting into a movie and big screen debut for Ant-Man that is ''less than ideal'' for lack of a better term.

 

[Ant-manic]

Well, that's not a small point, though. Hank Pym as Ultron's creator works particularly well because Pym had been established for quite some time. In the movie universe, even if Ant-Man had appeared shortly before Avengers 2 (let's say instead of Thor: TDW), that still would have nowhere near the impact on the audience that it would have if Tony Stark made Ultron, for example (although better than if HYDRA makes him or something like that). Given this, what does a young Hank Pym offer outside of Ultron?

hopefully, that will be explored in the Agent Carter tv series or elsewhere.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I hope so too. If not, then a one-shot. Hell, I still think a prequel movie instead of a sequel movie is a good possibility. The age difference opens up a whole new era for Marvel.

JJ01, I disagree with the Mandarin's role "wasting" Kingsley. I don't think a lesser actor would have been able to pull off what he did with that character.

 

[JJ01]

I want to see Scott Lang in live-action. i don't care if he doesn't interact with the current Avengers. i did want him to make a cameo at Stark Industries, though. Pym is relevant to the Marvel Universe old or not; from i understood of Wright's plans. and he wasn't planning to disappear after the first Ant-man movie. he might have turned up in a similar capacity to Selvig. he might have interacted with the other Avengers. but it'd be Michael Douglas interacting with them; not some young actor.



i don't if it means that i won't get to see Scott Lang in the Ant-Man movie.



i realize that there isn't going to be any meeting of the minds here. i want Scott Lang. i'll take him however i can get him. i was hoping that Pym and Lang would be cast with similarly-aged actors. it wasn't because i like Pym or care about him being in the MCU. i just think it would have led to less division on the boards. and, like i said, i don't really care about Ant-Man interacting w/ the other Avengers. the Scott Lang version didn't mind hanging out w/ members of the team. but he was reluctant to join/wanted to keep his identity hidden for the sake of his daughter.



i've researched Pym extensively. i was saying that he was bipolar a decade before they made it canon. but there's literally nothing that i like about him. and i'm not factoring in the trumped up reputation of being ok with hitting females. i just belong to a different target audience. to me, Pym is the Professor on Gilligan's Island or from the 'My 3 Sons' universe. he's all starched lab coat, seriousness, pipe, aryan ideal, commie fighting, trophy wife-having, etc. he's from an era of comics that didn't recognize my existence. i could never be Henry Pym. there's not much there for me to relate to. mind you, i have nothing against him personally. i like that he exists. i recognize his place within the mythos. but he's everything that i don't want in an Ant-Man; made even more evident by Scott being a lot of what i do want in an Ant-Man.

i like that Scott isn't A-list. i don't think Ant-Man should be an icon. i like that he's an average guy who has managed to network enough that he can show up at Avengers mansion unannounced or feels comfortable enough to walk around the Baxter building in his pajamas. Scott Lang, as ant-man, is the ultimate fanboy fantasy. because he's never had an ongoing, his quirks and character traits have gone overlooked. Scott is a bonafied geek (film, sci fi, comic books, etc). he has horror movie posters and a millenim falcon model in his living room (there was a Raiders of the Lost Ark poster there too). his daughter plays with ROM and Hulk toys. Scott knew exactly who the time-displaced Whizzer was when he encountered him. he was one of the only people to buy & listen to Rick Jones' music. he's one of the few to hang out at the Watcher's house. he's hand replaced the Hulk's DNA. he's buddies with She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel. he was in the same secret fraternity that Doctor Strange belonged to. he just has so many cool roots in the Marvel Univers; outside of being just a genuinely nice dude. and all of it started w/ him doing time.



you're right. and, unfortunately, i think people focus on that because he's not very interesting. he could be. someone like Waid could make him interesting. but, generally, they just play up the Ultron stuff or try to present him as mentally unstable.



of course not. his appeal is that he's a silver age hero and founding Avenger. he's the guy that's not Tony Stark or the Hulk. he's supposed to be the everyman or what passes for it in a group of mansion-dwelling gods and supergeniuses.



undoubtedly

See, now, Pym for me is a character with every trait and sign of becoming a villain. He's ridiculed, he's a ''failed'' scientist, his wife was killed and he screws up all the time. But he does not become a villain. He thrives to be a good man, a hero. To make the impossible possible. That's really interesting and I'd dare to say many people on this planet can relate to that. It doesn't matter if the whole world thinks sees you as a joke, you can still be the hero they need. But Lang is interesting too. I don't know much about him, so I can't really talk about him. But it'd be nice to see him in the MCU too. There's no such thing as lame character. It's just writers not knowing what to do with them. If there's really an answer as to why I want to see Pym in the movies, is because I like him as character and he would be a great addition to the MCU for the description I wrote. I'd love Marvel pushing him as hard as their other movie characters with more appearances in comics, cartoons, games and such.

 

[The Question]

Yes, at this point, thinking Marvel will scrap everything for the sake of including young Pym in the present time of the MCU is ridiculous. Unless Marvel decides going that way, but I don't see it happening. Now I said ''let's put that aside for a moment and answer'', and I mean let's pretend Wright's vision does not exist. If you read my comments, you'd notice that in red vs blue game, I side with green (whatever that means). To say I'm a bigger Pym fan than you or anyone else, would be stupid. I want you to tell me a short description of Hank Pym, please. Simple and short, but good enough that would make anyone slightly interested in the character.

Hank Pym is an idealist who lives in a cynical world. He wants to leave a better world for the next generation, a world free of hunger and fear hatred, and he must live in a time and place that both refuses that vision and actively and viscously punishes him for seeking it. The callous retribution of the world he tried to help has damaged his livelihood and taken people away from him, leaving him struggling and alone.

But not only does the world fail to live up to his ideals, but oftentimes he himself fails to live up to his ideals. He gets angry. He gets jealous. He struggles with anxiety and depression. He makes mistakes. And when he makes those mistakes, people get hurt. And he has to live with that.

And yet he keeps going.

I agree, changes make things more interesting. Let me give you an example. At first, I didn't like the Mandarin twist, possibly for not being ''MY MANDARIN''. However, the movie is still good. The plot twist is clever as hell, and while I didn't appreciate wasting a talent like Kingsley in such manner, I understood the point they were trying to make. However, Marvel just decided to scrap Killian's Mandarin and imply that, yeah, turns out there's a real Mandarin out there. Many people think it was done solely to please fans, but is that true? What's more likely? That they decided to imply there's a ''real'' Mandarin out there when they can easily imply Killian is alive (after all, he IS the Mandarin) because they turned Kingsley's character into a joke while also wasting the actor or that they decided to please a bunch of enraged online fans? What's easier to sell? shirtless Aldrich Killian or something that visually resembles the Mandarin? Because if they really decided to please the fans, then it's good to know the MCU's shape is at my hands and I can start complaining about things I don't like.

I'm kind of confused about this part about The Mandarin here. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up.

I don't see how any feelings of Marvel having "wasted" Kingsley have anything to do with the reveal in All Hail to the King, because either way Kingsley won't be playing the real Mandarin. And I'm really not sure what their ability to "sell" The Mandarin has anything to do with anything. Are you implying that they changed their minds because they regretted the reveal for artistic reasons? For financial ones? I don't get it.

Also, I don't see how Kingsely was wasted as an actor. Comedy is just as valid a use of his skills as drama, and he for to to both in that film. Seems to me that they were making full use of his talents.

Now, the point I want to reach is this: due to the movies being part of a larger cinematic universe and the sole point of such universe is to collect coins for Marvel, drastic and interesting changes to their source material are hard to accept.

Why? And in what context?

We don't know why Wright left. We can only assume and speculate. But if I were to assume, then I'd say Wright left because Marvel's revised script is nothing like we were promised and nothing like his vision. Sure, chances of Old Pym and Lang being there are high. They can't simply get rid of the actors. That's not possible, I think. The only thing I'm concerned is the script not being that good and resulting into a movie and big screen debut for Ant-Man that is ''less than ideal'' for lack of a better term.

I agree with this.

 

[JJ01]

He makes mistakes. And when he makes those mistakes, people get hurt. And he has to live with that.

And yet he keeps going

Exactly. Good to see you know the character.

I'm kind of confused about this part about The Mandarin here. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing it up.


I don't see how any feelings of Marvel having "wasted" Kingsley have anything to do with the reveal in All Hail to the King, because either way Kingsley won't be playing the real Mandarin. And I'm really not sure what their ability to "sell" The Mandarin has anything to do with anything. Are you implying that they changed their minds because they regretted the reveal for artistic reasons? For financial ones? I don't get it.

Also, I don't see how Kingsely was wasted as an actor. Comedy is just as valid a use of his skills as drama, and he for to to both in that film. Seems to me that they were making full use of his talents.

Why? And in what context?

The point is, the MCU is a business. It's hard to make creative changes and alterations, no matter how good they are. Let's assume Marvel wants to use the Mandarin in future movies and this is why they left the implication in AHTK. What's easier to sell to kids? Aldrich Killian or something that visually resembles the Mandarin? These are not audiobooks. These are movies. I guess I just wanted to see Kingsley's version of the Mandarin, not something comedic. If I wanted to see a comedy, I'd watch a sitcom.

 

[JJ01]

I hope so too. If not, then a one-shot. Hell, I still think a prequel movie instead of a sequel movie is a good possibility. The age difference opens up a whole new era for Marvel.

JJ01, I disagree with the Mandarin's role "wasting" Kingsley. I don't think a lesser actor would have been able to pull off what he did with that character.

I guess it's a matter of opinions here. I was excited to see Kingsley turning the MCU's Mandarin into something fresh and interesting, not something comedic. ''Wasted'' is probably not the best term, I suppose.

 

[The Question]

The point is, the MCU is a business. It's hard to make creative changes and alterations, no matter how good they are. Let's assume Marvel wants to use the Mandarin in future movies and this is why they left the implication in AHTK. What's easier to sell to kids? Aldrich Killian or something that visually resembles the Mandarin? These are not audiobooks. These are movies.

That might be the reason, but if it is, it isn't a good reason and I don't agree with it.

I don't think that's the reason, though. If it were, they wouldn't have gone with Shane Black's idea in the first place. Sticking it in a one shot really feels like a misguided attempt at throwing a bone to the fans to me.

I guess I just wanted to see Kingsley's version of the Mandarin, not something comedic. If I wanted to see a comedy, I'd watch a sitcom.

Well, you saw both.

And I think dramas need a little comedy. I also thing that comedies need a little drama.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, you did get to see it. He wasn't played up straight comedic, that was a twist. Up until that point, you got to see Kingsley's version of the Mandarin as a quite impressive character. The twist, of course, was that it was just a character.

ETA: Beaten to it.

 

[JJ01]

That might be the reason, but if it is, it isn't a good reason and I don't agree with it.

I don't think that's the reason, though. If it were, they wouldn't have gone with Shane Black's idea in the first place. Sticking it in a one shot really feels like a misguided attempt at throwing a bone to the fans to me.

See, now this is the part I love. Marvel agreed on Black's plot twist, just so Black wouldn't quit. Black quitting would mean they would have to deal with RDJ and I don't think they really want to piss him off. So they went with Black's vision and decided they would change it later on with AHTK. I swear I didn't smoke weed, but it makes sense to me.

 

[The Question]

See, now this is the part I love. Marvel agreed on Black's plot twist, just so Black wouldn't quit. Black quitting would mean they would have to deal with RDJ and I don't think they really want to piss him off. So they went with Black's vision and decided they would change it later on with AHTK. I swear I didn't smoke weed, but it makes sense to me.

Yeah, but not that many people besides hardcore fans saw the one shot, so it really only makes sense if it was made for those people.

 

[Ant-manic]

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.

hard to answer because none of us have details on the current story. i just think it makes sense for movie-Janet to be the estranged surrogate (or biological) daughter of movie-Pym. it makes Pym choosing to "sponsor" Lang seem a bit poetic; even moreso if Janet then becomes the Wasp. because you have this super-scientist/former adventurer who can do things beyond human imagination. but maybe he fell short as a father. when we meet him in the later stages of his life, he's now using that mad science to make up for not being the father that Janet needed. and, likewise, Scott is using his second chance at life to do right by his own daughter. i'm not a writer. so the parallel might not be evident. but i'm thinking that Pym, if he's like the comic book version, would have been obsessed with his science or being Ant-man; to the detriment of his daughter. and Lang would have been in prison during at least part of Cassie's formative years. but there'd still be enough time left to repair things. and Pym, a widower and perhaps an imperfect father, would want to aid someone he sees as having a broken family.

 

[Ant-manic]

I guess it's a matter of opinions here. I was excited to see Kingsley turning the MCU's Mandarin into something fresh and interesting, not something comedic. ''Wasted'' is probably not the best term, I suppose.

but what would that have even looked like? a lot of people say that they wanted to see Kingsley's Mandarin as the real deal. but what do you think would have happened; had he been the real Mandarin? would it have ended any differently from what we got? would old man Kingsley fight Stark while juiced up on extremis? would he have just fired a gun at him until being taken out with a repulsor blast? i think everyone's expecting some special effects fight with alien rings blasting away. but the rings would have to be set up earlier in the movie. and they would logically have nothing to do with extremis. and Kingsley isn't exactly physical combatant material.

 

[Mike Murdock]

^ Well, it would obviously have been an entirely different storyline, imo.

See, now this is the part I love. Marvel agreed on Black's plot twist, just so Black wouldn't quit. Black quitting would mean they would have to deal with RDJ and I don't think they really want to piss him off. So they went with Black's vision and decided they would change it later on with AHTK. I swear I didn't smoke weed, but it makes sense to me.

I disagree with that. I think they went with Black's idea because it was a more interesting idea thematically and dramatically. However, they also thought it would be cool to throw a bone to fans as well because having a real Mandarin out there doesn't detract from the themes of Iron Man 3, but will make some people happy. That's why I disagree with The Question's characterization of it as a "misguided" attempt to throw a bone to the fans. I think everyone's been generally happy with the One-Shot and it helped take the edge of some of the criticism of Iron Man 3, allowing people to judge the movie on its own terms instead of their preconceived ideas.

BTW, one thing that I would like to hear from those who want Pym instead of Lang is a story idea. To me, the life of a flawed Cold War hero meets a former criminal needing to save his daughter and they both get redeemed in the process (a gross simplification and possibly a mischaracterization, but the impression I got of the story) is a cool idea. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that this could be the story for Ant-Man 2, but I'm wondering how we'll get to an Ant-Man 2 at that point. Marvel has always operated under the idea that you tell the best story you can right away because you can't count on a second chance. The other reason for preferring Pym seems to be it would make for a cool fan moment in Avengers 3. But I haven't seen the argument why Pym would be better than Lang for the actual movie beyond that fan moment. Is there something about his character or personality that pulls him ahead of Lang or is it just history that he was there first?

hard to answer because none of us have details on the current story.

OK (I cut your post for length). I was trying to figure out if we're in agreement. I think we are.

 

[Ant-manic]

I hope so too. If not, then a one-shot. Hell, I still think a prequel movie instead of a sequel movie is a good possibility. The age difference opens up a whole new era for Marvel.

JJ01, I disagree with the Mandarin's role "wasting" Kingsley. I don't think a lesser actor would have been able to pull off what he did with that character.

i wouldn't rule out the prequel. it'd be very easy to set up. and it would draw interest just by defying expectations; the sequel being the prequel. Rudd is in his 40s. he's in Robert Downey jr territory. who knows if he's even interested in doing sequels? i doubt that Wright sold him on that idea; considering that he only had a one-and-done story in mind. i'm not opposed to the idea. i just want to see a live-action Scott Lang; at least once.

 

[The Question]

I disagree with that. I think they went with Black's idea because it was a more interesting idea thematically and dramatically. However, they also thought it would be cool to throw a bone to fans as well because having a real Mandarin out there doesn't detract from the themes of Iron Man 3, but will make some people happy. That's why I disagree with The Question's characterization of it as a "misguided" attempt to throw a bone to the fans. I think everyone's been generally happy with the One-Shot and it helped take the edge of some of the criticism of Iron Man 3, allowing people to judge the movie on its own terms instead of their preconceived ideas.

I think it's misguided because it feeds into the fandom's sense of entitlement. A trend in comic book fans is that they want everything just so, even if it's not good for art, and they have a hard time wrapping their heads around the notion that you can make big changes to a character and still stay 100% true to what that character is all about. The fandom would be better off if we all collectively got over that. Learning to live with Aldrich Killian as the true Mandarin of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would have helped with that.

I also think it kind of detracts from one of the themes of Iron Man 3, specifically the one about the image of The Mandarin being a cultivated amalgamation of stereotypes to prey on the fears of white middle class America in order to manipulate the system. Having there be a "real" Mandarin who embodies those traits unironically kind of lessens the impact of that statement.

 

[Ant-manic]

BTW, one thing that I would like to hear from those who want Pym instead of Lang is a story idea. To me, the life of a flawed Cold War hero meets a former criminal needing to save his daughter and they both get redeemed in the process (a gross simplification and possibly a mischaracterization, but the impression I got of the story) is a cool idea. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that this could be the story for Ant-Man 2, but I'm wondering how we'll get to an Ant-Man 2 at that point. Marvel has always operated under the idea that you tell the best story you can right away because you can't count on a second chance. The other reason for preferring Pym seems to be it would make for a cool fan moment in Avengers 3. But I haven't seen the argument why Pym would be better than Lang for the actual movie beyond that fan moment. Is there something about his character or personality that pulls him ahead of Lang or is it just history that he was there first?

disclaimer: i'm horribly biased.

i think Pym would easily be ahead of Lang in story potential IF...

they hadn't already presented Tony Stark and Banner as polymaths. if Stark, as he was in the early comics, was more businessman/engineer than know-it-all there'd be plenty of room for Hank to be that guy.

if Banner were less of a pitiable perfect foil to Stark, there'd be tons of room for Hank to come in an do his thing

we weren't already getting couples like Black Widow and Hawkeye or, in a different way, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver there'd be a very obvious demand for Hank and Jan


as of right now, i think Pym is as necessary to the team as War Machine.

 

[The Question]

Also, for everyone who has a problem with Pym not being a founding member of The Avengers, I propose a compromise:

If you recall, "The Avengers Initiative" was a program SHIELD had set up before The Avengers formed as a team. Clearly, the concept of The Avengers existed before the team actually came together. Well, what if the team that came together in the film wasn't the first team SHIELD brought together under The Avengers Initiative? What if it wasn't a new program that Fury created himself, but an old program that he was reviving?

Let's say that back in the late 1950s, SHIELD brought together a covert team of super humans under The Avengers Initiative. This team would be comprised of the members of the Agents of ATLAS, Marvel Boy, Venus, Gorilla Man, etc., or the Golden Age Avengers as they were originally known before they were incorporated into the mainstream Marvel Universe. So there was another Avengers team that predates the one from the movies, they just never went public. In that context, Hank Pym could have been a founding member of the original Avengers.

 

[Ant-manic]

I think it's misguided because it feeds into the fandom's sense of entitlement. A trend in comic book fans is that they want everything just so, even if it's not good for art, and they have a hard time wrapping their heads around the notion that you can make big changes to a character and still stay 100% true to what that character is all about. The fandom would be better off if we all collectively got over that. Learning to live with Aldrich Killian as the true Mandarin of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would have helped with that.

I also think it kind of detracts from one of the themes of Iron Man 3, specifically the one about the image of The Mandarin being a cultivated amalgamation of stereotypes to prey on the fears of white middle class America in order to manipulate the system. Having there be a "real" Mandarin who embodies those traits unironically kind of lessens the impact of that statement.

i'm truly surprised that they didn't try to sneak in a few hints that maybe Killian was into chinese culture or had some kind of warrior mantra that he lived by. i think it would have helped people absorb the fact that he was the self-professed Mandarin all along. the dragon tattoo was a nice add. but i think most people were already ******** by that point. like right when they reveal Trevor to be an actor, they could have quickly flashed to Killian playing with a chinese finger trap (ok, not that silly).