The Avengers Would you like to see Giant-Man in Avengers?

[Norm3]

I don't really like Giant Wasp, it makes Giant Man seem less unique.

I agree.

 

[BigThor]

It's like going "hey look at me I'm just as good as him", which is pretty lame imo.

 

[Anubis]

I think you could get the point across of how awesome Wasp is by having her blast a tank into scrap with her sting.

 

[DrCosmic]

I disagree with the numerous claims that Giant/Ant Man would undermine the suspension of disbelief. Excluding the Asgardian Element, the Hulk is far more unrealistic than Ant-Man. The whole notion of the transformation and how it renders him indestructible is well past the realm of possible, as well as having an infinite reserve of energy. With Giant/Ant-Man, he is still mortal and has far more threats posed to him by decreasing or increasing his size.
With that said, the general audiences that see these films have already signed a contract with the creative team: they know that the films are past the realms of realism, and are in the fantastic. But, as a compromise, the films are grounded in some form of reality that is on the far border of it. Truth be told, the entire notion of the superhero is the antithesis of reality: it's an escape from reality. And if someone goes to the film and is upset that it does meet their standard for measuring everyday reality, then they are a moron. Viking Gods, men in robotic armor, soldiers with super regenerative abilities, and unstoppable green beachballs cannot be successfully grounded in reality (if someone tries, it ends up becoming irritating, like the one chap who asked Grant Morrison who inflated the Batmobile's tires.) However, since they are grounded in fantasy, the fantastic elements can be downplayed or subdued, but at the end of the day, it is still the opposite of reality. If there is anything to be gleaned about modern audiences, it is that they enjoy the fantastic: there is a reason why the X-Men films have been doing quite well. People lap up the fantastic.

With the caveat that it is grounded in reality. Versimilitude. Cause and effect. Plausibility. Perhaps I have misjudged you, but this seems like another post that tries to argue that because the general audience accepts fantastic things after 30 minutes of exposition and build up, that they will accept any fantasy under any conditions.

The issue that Giant Man requires more suspension of belief than, say, Hulk or Thor, is mis-stated, I believe. The psuedoscience is as sound as any other, the issue, I believe is that the idea of a giant man brings about images of Gulliver's travels and honey I shrunk the kids. Shrinking and growing stories are usually played for laughs, and even though we may see giant monsters, it's usually to help sell the idea that the hero is outmatched. So seeing a man at supersize... it... well, it doesn't play the same.

 

[Panthro]

A man who grows to over 50 feet or shrinks to the size of an ant can't be seen as overdoing it in a film with a green monster, a Viking god, a WW2 soldier on steroids and a drunken billionaire in a mecha-suit.

I actually heard that Hank Pym & Janet Van Dyne are supposed to appear in the film but no actors have been listed for them so it may not be true.

 

[Anubis]

With the caveat that it is grounded in reality. Versimilitude. Cause and effect. Plausibility. Perhaps I have misjudged you, but this seems like another post that tries to argue that because the general audience accepts fantastic things after 30 minutes of exposition and build up, that they will accept any fantasy under any conditions.

The issue that Giant Man requires more suspension of belief than, say, Hulk or Thor, is mis-stated, I believe. The psuedoscience is as sound as any other, the issue, I believe is that the idea of a giant man brings about images of Gulliver's travels and honey I shrunk the kids. Shrinking and growing stories are usually played for laughs, and even though we may see giant monsters, it's usually to help sell the idea that the hero is outmatched. So seeing a man at supersize... it... well, it doesn't play the same.

I'd say that's boos**t.

 

[chamber-music]

Wait What people are actually saying Giant-Man is too much of a stretch of belief to be in the avengers

 

[Anubis]

I know, it makes no f**king sense.

 

[Rock Sexton]

The psuedoscience is as sound as any other, the issue, I believe is that the idea of a giant man brings about images of Gulliver's travels and honey I shrunk the kids. Shrinking and growing stories are usually played for laughs, and even though we may see giant monsters, it's usually to help sell the idea that the hero is outmatched. So seeing a man at supersize... it... well, it doesn't play the same.

My thoughts too.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'd say that's boos**t.

I mean... I can't disagree. It's not logical. But it is the common perception of giant/shrinking people. It's a gag, (almost?) always played for comedy, and that's what the general populace associates with it. The only way to dispel that is to make a great movie that addresses and overcomes that notion. A movie that is made with no reference to its audience's perception of the subject matter cannot possibly be successful.

 

[Anubis]

Based on what? Do you have any data that supports this s**t you just made up?

 

[DrCosmic]

Based on what? Do you have any data that supports this s**t you just made up?

Data for the fact that it's usually used in comedy (Gulliver's Travels being the most famous example) or that when people see something over and over again it becomes part of their perception?

 

[marcvader]

But those examples were presented comicaly. If its framed within a good story where its not for laughs it can work.

 

[T-CLIPSE]

I voted no,

Although I would find a growing man more plausible than a shrinking man I still agree with the other poster who said it requires a degree of suspension of disbelief that would distract from the already established "universe".

I've got my money on a 50 foot "giant man" looking more silly than awesome and a 6 inch "ant man" even more so.

 

[Anubis]

You people have like, crippled imaginations or something. You should be on disability.

 

[T-CLIPSE]

Well the people at Marvel Studios must have "crippled imaginations or something" too.....you don't see him the movie do you?


Thank you, I'll take my disability check now please.

 

[marcvader]

Not yet.

 

[Rock Sexton]

But those examples were presented comicaly. If its framed within a good story where its not for laughs it can work.

We already have people arguing how powerful a big beast like The Hulk is in the MCU and how to accurately portray it ...... imagine what you're getting into with a man taller than a building. IMO the average movie goer will see something like that and assume he'd be almost impossible to topple. What baddie are you going to get to convince the average audience member otherwise? I also believe the rendering for a character that size would get expensive.

I imagine if it's done and the "giant" aspect of him is pursued in a movie, it'll be quick. In regards to Ant-man, as somebody who grew up with "Honey I Shrunk the Kids", I can't help but think of that movie every time I think of him. To each their own .... I just find the concept corny as hell and name-wise there's only so manly "XXXX-Man" I can take. Spider Man, Super Man, and Batman get away with it because they're etched into the fabric of comic book lore amongst even regular people. I sure hope they don't title the movie Ant-Man. Call it Pym or something.

 

[T-CLIPSE]

I agree, just the name alone sounds corny as hell.....Ant Man, I mean just say it out loud, and the visual image of a man riding on the back of a winged ant would just look comical, silly and evokes child like imagery.

 

[marcvader]

Speaking of G-Man. I wouldn't want him to be as tall as they went with in Ultimates. Definitely keep at around 4-5 stories tall.

 

[cherokeesam]

I think people who think giant people and miniature people would look silly are silly people.

As long as the CG is good, and the story is good, people will buy into anything. And when it's in a story that already features magic, sci-fi, living deities, aliens and all that other razzmatazz, a 50-foot or 6-inch tall dude is just one other element of the fantastical.

 

[DrCosmic]

But those examples were presented comicaly. If its framed within a good story where its not for laughs it can work.

That's like a comedian wearing a clown suit saying "I've got a straight face, so it's not funny." The brain associates things. Size change = comedy to the masses. That's just what it is.

You people have like, crippled imaginations or something. You should be on disability.

Just keep in mind the general audience has crippled imaginations, far more than anyone that posts here. Nearly all of us would eat up X-Men and Spider-Man sans exposition, but for the GA, without that 30 minutes of handholding, they have the same reaction to a film as they did Green Lantern. "Why should I care about this uber person?"

I think people who think giant people and miniature people would look silly are silly people.

As long as the CG is good, and the story is good, people will buy into anything. And when it's in a story that already features magic, sci-fi, living deities, aliens and all that other razzmatazz, a 50-foot or 6-inch tall dude is just one other element of the fantastical.

Well most people are silly, and we need silly people to buy tickets, so we can't just write what works for people who already love the character and presume everyone else will hop on board. Or that if they like apples, they will like oranges just as much, because it's just another fruit - disregarding that different fantastical concepts are preconceived differently.

But you bring up a good point -if the story is good, people will buy into it. My point is that, for the story to be good, it has to acknowledge, confront and subvert the idea that growing/shrinking is usually a comedy gag.

For me, I'd let the character get laughed at a bit. The self depreciation that was in Captain America was misplaced. Patriotism isn't generally a corny concept, especially in the context of World War II (though, they wasted the setting in that film, imho). But that kind of storyline, starting out as a sideshow before becoming a big time hero I think would work well for Ant-Man/Giant-Man. Especially as he's a bit out of place in the action game as a scientist.

To counter the name game, I'd call the movie "The Giant Man and the Wasp." Now it's telling the story, implying the dichotomy between the characters. Many great movie titles do this, they ask questions instead of providing answers.

Edit:

Man, I was just thinking about why this might be difficult for comics fans. We associate size changing with Giant Man, Atom, Goliath, Black Goliath, Apache Chief, Ultraman (and other Japanese Transformations), and stuff.

The masses are just thinking Night at the Museum and B Movies.

 

[cherokeesam]

That's like a comedian wearing a clown suit saying "I've got a straight face, so it's not funny." The brain associates things. Size change = comedy to the masses. That's just what it is.



Just keep in mind the general audience has crippled imaginations, far more than anyone that posts here. Nearly all of us would eat up X-Men and Spider-Man sans exposition, but for the GA, without that 30 minutes of handholding, they have the same reaction to a film as they did Green Lantern. "Why should I care about this uber person?"



Well most people are silly, and we need silly people to buy tickets, so we can't just write what works for people who already love the character and presume everyone else will hop on board. Or that if they like apples, they will like oranges just as much, because it's just another fruit - disregarding that different fantastical concepts are preconceived differently.

But you bring up a good point -if the story is good, people will buy into it. My point is that, for the story to be good, it has to acknowledge, confront and subvert the idea that growing/shrinking is usually a comedy gag.

For me, I'd let the character get laughed at a bit. The self depreciation that was in Captain America was misplaced. Patriotism isn't generally a corny concept, especially in the context of World War II (though, they wasted the setting in that film, imho). But that kind of storyline, starting out as a sideshow before becoming a big time hero I think would work well for Ant-Man/Giant-Man. Especially as he's a bit out of place in the action game as a scientist.

To counter the name game, I'd call the movie "The Giant Man and the Wasp." Now it's telling the story, implying the dichotomy between the characters. Many great movie titles do this, they ask questions instead of providing answers.

Edit:

Man, I was just thinking about why this might be difficult for comics fans. We associate size changing with Giant Man, Atom, Goliath, Black Goliath, Apache Chief, Ultraman (and other Japanese Transformations), and stuff.

The masses are just thinking Night at the Museum and B Movies.

How do you know what the masses are thinking?
Again, as long as they do the CG and the story right, audiences will buy into anything. ANYTHING. This knee-jerk reaction that most people automatically associate giant/miniature people with laughs or bad sci-fi is premature. Back in the 50s and 60s, people associated flying saucer movies with evil alien invasions and abduction fare. In the 70s and 80s, Spielberg took a fresh approach to the genre with CE3K and ET. Did audiences blanch?

Gi(ant)-Man would be groundbreaking and pretty much the first of its kind, in terms of making a serious attempt at a live-action giant. (Or second of its kind, if Bryan Singer's Jack the Giant Killer beats Pym to the punch.) So the truth is, *nobody* knows how audiences would react to a serious film about a giant (or miniature person), because it hasn't been done before.

 

[Rock Sexton]

How do you know what the masses are thinking?
Again, as long as they do the CG and the story right, audiences will buy into anything. ANYTHING. This knee-jerk reaction that most people automatically associate giant/miniature people with laughs or bad sci-fi is premature. Back in the 50s and 60s, people associated flying saucer movies with evil alien invasions and abduction fare. In the 70s and 80s, Spielberg took a fresh approach to the genre with CE3K and ET. Did audiences blanch?

Wait .... you asked DrCosmic how he could possibly know what the masses are thinking and then you follow it up with what audiences will buy into.

Gi(ant)-Man would be groundbreaking and pretty much the first of its kind, in terms of making a serious attempt at a live-action giant. (Or second of its kind, if Bryan Singer's Jack the Giant Killer beats Pym to the punch.) So the truth is, *nobody* knows how audiences would react to a serious film about a giant (or miniature person), because it hasn't been done before.

"Jack the Giant Killer" doesn't have a protagonist who's a giant.

 

[cherokeesam]

Wait .... you asked DrCosmic how he could possibly know what the masses are thinking and then you follow it up with what audiences will buy into.



"Jack the Giant Killer" doesn't have a protagonist who's a giant.

How does "*nobody* knows how audiences would react to a serious film about a giant (or miniature person), because it hasn't been done before" translate to me trying to guess what audiences will buy into....?

Repeated for emphasis: "*NOBODY* knows how audiences would react."