Ant-Man The best way that Marvel can fix this

[Mike Murdock]

Yeah, I think that's true. I also think there's nothing to suggest that's true. At a minimum, the "source material" is the Ultimates version rather than the 616 version. I'm really not sure how much that counts.

 

[kaijunexus]

At this rate,Fox's FF reboot that's being lambasted will have more in common with the source material than a Marvel Studio Ant Man film.Who'd have thought?

How is this deviating from the source material? Because Hank Pym isn't the same age as Scott Lang? Because it features a villain taking up the mantle of Yellowjacket?

Of everything that's been revealed about this film, those are the only things I've heard that are different from the 616 comics.

Now, Fantastic Four?

It's hard to say how close it's staying to the source material considering they aren't telling ANYTHING about it. So the statement you made is completely baseless.

 

[Human Torch]

Yeah, I think that's true. I also think there's nothing to suggest that's true. At a minimum, the "source material" is the Ultimates version rather than the 616 version. I'm really not sure how much that counts.

Generally speaking, anything from the Ultimates is inferior.

 

[The Question]

Generally speaking, anything from the Ultimates is inferior.

It's a mixed bag. There's good stuff in there worth borrowing from. Sam Jackson is pretty great.

 

[Human Torch]

It's a mixed bag. There's good stuff in there worth borrowing from. Sam Jackson is pretty great.

Pretty much the only thing people can point to.(And even then,a 616 version would've been just as good)

 

[The Question]

Pretty much the only thing people can point to.(And even then,a 616 version would've been just as good)

SHIELD bringing The Avengers together is pretty narratively useful.

As is tying The Hulk into the attempts to recreate the SSS, as well as being less silly sounding than the nuclear bomb thing.

I thought the Ultimate version of Dr. Doom was perfectly fine, and his first storyline as the villain was pretty entertaining. I think the complaints about that version "ruining" the character are silly.

Sue Storm being a biologist instead of just "Reed's girlfriend" is a vast improvement on the mythos.

Captain America's costume from Ultimates2 looked great.

Making Captain America overtly superhuman is a vast improvement over that pointlessly vague and pedantic "peak human" nonsense.

Most of Ultimate Spider-Man was pretty good. I thought the issue where we saw things from Norman Osborn's perspective was great, and I found the post-Ultimatum retool of the book into a sort of team book with Kitty Pryde, Johnny Storm, and Bobby Drake joining the cast was thoroughly entertaining.

The penultimate issue of Ultimates2, with the huge battle in DC and Tony Stark piloting a giant space warship and all of those mechs and Captain America and The Colonel having a lightsaber duel along the National Mall was just plain fun.

The whole "most of the characters don't actually believe that Thor is really Thor" thing and his having this kind of pagan messianic status, while not perfectly executed most of the time, is a pretty cool take on the character.

I found Mark Millar's run on Ultimate Fantastic Four to be really fun, albeit in a schlocky pulpy kind of way. Not a whole lot of deep thought going on there, but I had fun reading them, and there's nothing about those issues that I'd really call bad.

I thought that Ultimate Red Skull was a neat idea for a character.

I think making the Ultimate FF collectively younger was fine. Not an improvement, but it wasn't worse either.

I really like the idea from Ultimate X-Men of mutants using superhero-esque code names being a way of establishing a subcultural identity for themselves separately from the mainstream human culture that rejected them, instead of just being an extension of the superhero genre conventions. That's a really cool idea that adds a lot of texture to the mythos.

In general, they had a few really good costume redesigns.

Bryan Hitch is a great artist.

As is Mark Bagley.

As are the Kuberts.


That's probably about it. There's plenty about the Ultimate line that wasn't so good, but there are definitely some good ideas there worth mining for the films, as the films have been doing pretty consistently since day one. As long as you selectively pick the good stuff over the bad stuff, you're fine.

 

[Mysteryman]

For me , as long as it is a compelling and entertaining story
I do not care if it deviates from the source material, be it 616, Ultimate universe,
Or even the bible itself .
I heard a conservative film critic say Noah was not entirely biblically accurate but he said it was a pretty good film.
When I go to the movies ,
I want to be to taken on a ride,
Where the storyteller get their ideas and how they interpret those ideas is up to them.

 

[Endeavor]

For me , as long as it is a compelling and entertaining story
I do not care if it deviates from the source material, be it 616, Ultimate universe,
Or even the bible itself .
I heard a conservative film critic say Noah was not entirely biblically accurate but he said it was a pretty good film.
When I go to the movies ,
I want to be to taken on a ride,
Where the storyteller get their ideas and how they interpret those ideas is up to them.

Good points.
The problem is, when you know the source material and how rich it is, to have that swept aside and replaced for something inferior or lackluster is disheartening.

Continuing with your Noah example: I think the biblically accurate Nephilim, and their parents would've been amazing to see on screen. Not only visually, but also the complexity of character interactions with the supernatural and baseline humans.. Much more interesting than the craptastic rock people with weird jerky movements.
Was the movie still watchable and entertaining? Sure. But the other possibilities would've been much better, in my opinion, and it's disheartening that we'll probably never see that now, or at least not for a very long time.

 

[The Question]

Good points.
The problem is, when you know the source material and how rich it is, to have that swept aside and replaced for something inferior or lackluster is disheartening.

Sure, I agree, although I'm not sure that's applicable to either Ant-Man or Fantastic Four.

 

[Endeavor]

Sure, I agree, although I'm not sure that's applicable to either Ant-Man or Fantastic Four.

It's applicable for me in that I consider Lang to be an inferior character when compared to Pym, and to have him brought up to the forefront and end up replacing Pym in The Avengers (which is a likely scenario due to age issue) is a lackluster alternative to what could have been having Pym, in his prime, as an Avenger.

Fantastic Four we'll discuss in that forum if you like. I'm not going to drag that mess in here anymore.

 

[Mike Murdock]

It's a mixed bag. There's good stuff in there worth borrowing from. Sam Jackson is pretty great.

I admittedly don't read any of the Ultimates comics. I do like the concept of Miles Morales and having a young teen Spider-Man (since Peter has aged over time). I also appreciate the guts of killing off Peter Parker.

 

[The Question]

It's applicable for me in that I consider Lang to be an inferior character when compared to Pym, and to have him brought up to the forefront and end up replacing Pym in The Avengers (which is a likely scenario due to age issue) is a lackluster alternative to what could have been having Pym, in his prime, as an Avenger.

I think that a Hank Pym solo film would have absolutely been the lackluster alternative. It would have been a generic superhero film. Scientists discovers thing, uses thing to fight bad guy. Bringing in Scott Lang, making this the first superhero film to address the notion of superhero legacies, making it intergenerational, having two Ant Men in the movie instead of just one, and making the protagonist a down on his luck petty criminal and a single father who has to live up to a heroic legacy, all of that makes for a unique superhero film the likes of which we've never seen before.

 

[Endeavor]

I think that a Hank Pym solo film would have absolutely been the lackluster alternative. It would have been a generic superhero film. Scientists discovers thing, uses thing to fight bad guy. Bringing in Scott Lang, making this the first superhero film to address the notion of superhero legacies, making it intergenerational, having two Ant Men in the movie instead of just one, and making the protagonist a down on his luck petty criminal and a single father who has to live up to a heroic legacy, all of that makes for a unique superhero film the likes of which we've never seen before.

We'll have to agree to disagree about Pym being lackluster or generic...
I like your points about having the Lang story incorporated making for a good story, but that could have been done without making Pym a has-been.
I may not be in love with the Lang character but I don't hate him per se.
It's like the Terry McGinnis example, which has been brought up before. I enjoyed Batman Beyond, but that doesn't mean I want to see McGinnis replace Bruce Wayne in normal contituity, much less have him in the Justice League, alongside contemporary characters, instead of Wayne.

You could've had a story where Pym passes the baton while still in his prime. That's how it was in the comics and it worked there, it was also adapted perfectly in A:EMH. Who's to say it couldn't have been done better in live action?

 

[The Question]

We'll have to agree to disagree about Pym being lackluster or generic...
I like your points about having the Lang story incorporated making for a good story, but that could have been done without making Pym a has-been.
I may not be in love with the Lang character but I don't hate him per se.
It's like the Terry McGinnis example, which has been brought up before. I enjoyed Batman Beyond, but that doesn't mean I want to see McGinnis replace Bruce Wayne in normal contituity, much less have him in the Justice League, alongside contemporary characters, instead of Wayne.

You could've had a story where Pym passes the baton while still in his prime. That's how it was in the comics and it worked there, it was also adapted perfectly in A:EMH. Who's to say it couldn't have been done better in live action?

1: I never said Pym was lackluster. I said that a movie focusing on his origin story would be, because the plot would be too generic.

2: Being old doesn't make someone a has-been. Michael Douglas would certainly disagree with that.

3: Passing the torch with Pym still in his prime would have nowhere near the same impact or gravitas as presenting a Hank Pym with a long history and a huge legacy to live up to. An older Pym simply makes for a better story in this context, and it doesn't diminish the story at all.

 

[Endeavor]

I never said being old was what made him a has-been.
That comes from the few insights we've gotten about the story, from Wright himself, in which he described Pym as having thrown in the towel regarding his superhero career.

The age is only a problem for me in that it limits what can be done with the Pym character in modern time.

 

[The Question]

I never said being old was what made him a has-been.
That comes from the few insights we've gotten about the story, from Wright himself, in which he described Pym as having thrown in the towel regarding his superhero career.

Which makes for a more engaging narrative arc. Lang has the arc of living up to Pym's legacy. Pym has the arc of getting back into the game. It's a more gripping story.

The age is only a problem for me in that it limits what can be done with the Pym character in modern time.

At the end of the day, it makes for a better and more engaging narrative. And that should, in my opinion, win out every time.

The world will not end if Hank Pym doesn't join The Avengers in the modern day in the movie universe.

 

[Mysteryman]

Good points.
The problem is, when you know the source material and how rich it is, to have that swept aside and replaced for something inferior or lackluster is disheartening.

Continuing with your Noah example: I think the biblically accurate Nephilim, and their parents would've been amazing to see on screen. Not only visually, but also the complexity of character interactions with the supernatural and baseline humans.. Much more interesting than the craptastic rock people with weird jerky movements.
Was the movie still watchable and entertaining? Sure. But the other possibilities would've been much better, in my opinion, and it's disheartening that we'll probably never see that now, or at least not for a very long time.

Do we KNOW the Story for Ant Man is inferior or lackluster ?

 

[DA_Champion]

The world will not end if Hank Pym doesn't join The Avengers in the modern day in the movie universe.

It will from the perspective that building up to team-ups is the unifying priority, which seems to be prevailing ideology.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I think Marvel wants a good Ant-Man film over using it as a vehicle for a team-up. Given the risk with Ant-Man, I think that's gotta be the priority. If they wanted Ant-Man solely for a teamup, they should have rejected Edgar Wright's proposal years ago and made him a character like Hawkeye or Black Widow that doesn't have to carry his own film.

The To Steal an Ant-Man story presents a better vehicle for a good story. The passing the torch storyline helps shake up the Marvel formula. For this movie, that's smarter than making sure Hank Pym joins the Avengers (let's face it, the Avengers won't suffer to lack of Pym any more than it's suffered so far).

 

[Human Torch]

Pym is worthy enough to earn his own "origin" film before "passing the torch".

 

[Dyson]

I think that a Hank Pym solo film would have absolutely been the lackluster alternative. It would have been a generic superhero film. Scientists discovers thing, uses thing to fight bad guy. Bringing in Scott Lang, making this the first superhero film to address the notion of superhero legacies, making it intergenerational, having two Ant Men in the movie instead of just one, and making the protagonist a down on his luck petty criminal and a single father who has to live up to a heroic legacy, all of that makes for a unique superhero film the likes of which we've never seen before.

I agree with you. The origins of Ant-Man is quite cool and Hank Pym is an interesting character but the problem is his story on the big screen now would most likely come off as pretty standard. In the growing Marvel Cinematic Universe and in other comic book films we have seen this before like in Iron Man, Batman Begins and Captain America: The First Avenger. Yes, those origin films are fantastic and well done, but what I like about the upcoming Ant-Man film is that we are getting themes we haven't seen before in a MCU film. I think it's pretty cool that we are getting a heist film mixed with a passing-the-legacy-torch film mixed with a film about the importance of family. We wouldn't get that with a Hank Pym / Ant-Man origin film. We would get a standard origin film that is just straight to the point and predictable. The fact that we are getting a different type of Ant-Man film makes it that much cooler.

Plus, I love that Scott Lang is the lead in this film. A criminal and single father who becomes a superhero is more interesting to watch then a genius scientist / inventor (like Tony Stark, Bruce Banner and Bruce Wayne) who creates something special that makes him a superhero. We have watched the latter. This is different and I think we need that for the MCU going forward. It shakes things up. For a film version of Ant-Man, Scott Lang's story is more appealing and interesting, but that said, we are getting Hank Pym as the co-lead in the film and we will get lots of background about him, too.

 

[Lilbaz]

I agree with you. The origins of Ant-Man is quite cool and Hank Pym is an interesting character but the problem is his story on the big screen now would most likely come off as pretty standard. In the growing Marvel Cinematic Universe and in other comic book films we have seen this before like in Iron Man, Batman Begins and Captain America: The First Avenger. Yes, those origin films are fantastic and well done, but what I like about the upcoming Ant-Man film is that we are getting themes we haven't seen before in a MCU film. I think it's pretty cool that we are getting a heist film mixed with a passing-the-legacy-torch film mixed with a film about the importance of family. We wouldn't get that with a Hank Pym / Ant-Man origin film. We would get a standard origin film that is just straight to the point and predictable. The fact that we are getting a different type of Ant-Man film makes it that much cooler.

Plus, I love that Scott Lang is the lead in this film. A criminal and single father who becomes a superhero is more interesting to watch then a genius scientist / inventor (like Tony Stark, Bruce Banner and Bruce Wayne) who creates something special that makes him a superhero. We have watched the latter. This is different and I think we need that for the MCU going forward. It shakes things up. For a film version of Ant-Man, Scott Lang's story is more appealing and interesting, but that said, we are getting Hank Pym as the co-lead in the film and we will get lots of background about him, too.

Have to agree with all that. But will wait till I've actually seen the film before I make a judgement on whether or not it is any good.

 

[The Question]

Pym is worthy enough to earn his own "origin" film before "passing the torch".

Worthy isn't a factor.

 

[Human Torch]

Worthy isn't a factor.

Yes it is.

 

[The Question]

Yes it is.

How?

Having a "pass the torch" movie first instead of an origin movie doesn't reflect on either characters worth. It's simply a matter of what will make the best, most interesting, and most unique film using the components from the source material. A "pass the torch" movie is simply a more interesting place to start.

And really, getting an origin movie is not inherently better than not getting one. It's not a diss to the character to skip over that. He can still have a great story and great moments without that.