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

[DrCosmic]

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.

I've demonstrated what audiences have seen over and over again, and most of us know from experience or Psy 101 how mental association works. The only reason I know what audiences are thinking is because I know what they've seen over and over. What else would they associate it with? This is not a premature judgment. It's just a broad application of a simple principle.

Again, we agree that if the story is right, audiences will buy into it, but again, in this case, the story being right means addressing the audience expectation and association. Know your audience or you will lose them.

I haven't seen CE3K or ET, but you can bet your bottom dollar they address audience expectations of movies. And they drop things that were considered hokey in sci fi, such as... 50 foot tall attackers.

 

[Gamma_Powered_God]

I'd love to see Giant Man in the Avengers sequel. I think they could pull it off without making it look silly.

 

[Hoblin]

I'd love to see Hank Pym. I don't care if he's Giant Man or Ant Man.

lol at people thinking that audiences won't "buy into" a giant man. Audiences will buy into a good move and a good script, a giant man won't ruin anything. I mean, audiences bought into a man dressed as a bat.

 

[cherokeesam]

I've demonstrated what audiences have seen over and over again, and most of us know from experience or Psy 101 how mental association works. The only reason I know what audiences are thinking is because I know what they've seen over and over. What else would they associate it with?

They'd associate it with Giant-Man.

People watching a movie about Giant-Man are only going to reference what they're watching at the time. Or they're obviously going to reference it to the source material, in this case the Avengers comic book.

Other than you and the few others who believe that viewers have a very selective (and very bizarre) range of Suspension of Disbelief (i.e., Viking gods, alien invasions, full-blown magic and gamma-radiated 7-9' tall giants and extradimensional Frost Giants are okay, but a 15-50' tall human giant *isn't*), there's not going to be anybody in the audience who's going to be trying to compare Hank Pym to "Honey I Shrunk/Blew Up the Kids," Gulliver, or Attack of the 50-Foot Woman. (Hell, most of the young people in the audience won't even know about those films.)

 

[DrCosmic]

They'd associate it with Giant-Man.

People watching a movie about Giant-Man are only going to reference what they're watching at the time. Or they're obviously going to reference it to the source material, in this case the Avengers comic book.

I'm sorry man, that's just not how the human brain works. People come with preconceived notions based on their experience, not comic books they've never read, not blank slates.

Other than you and the few others who believe that viewers have a very selective (and very bizarre) range of Suspension of Disbelief (i.e., Viking gods, alien invasions, full-blown magic and gamma-radiated 7-9' tall giants and extradimensional Frost Giants are okay, but a 15-50' tall human giant *isn't*), there's not going to be anybody in the audience who's going to be trying to compare Hank Pym to "Honey I Shrunk/Blew Up the Kids," Gulliver, or Attack of the 50-Foot Woman. (Hell, most of the young people in the audience won't even know about those films.)

You're right, they'd be more along the lines of Night at the Museum and Tinkerbell. Viewers have shown their selective and bizarre range of suspension many times, and filmmakers have catered to it, eschewing full blow magic in a modern context (Thor's "Magic" technology, Sorcerer's apprentice with physics, I think) for instance.

But if you really insist that all fantastical events are equal to the GA, then we may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm sorry man, that's just not how the human brain works. People come with preconceived notions based on their experience, not comic books they've never read, not blank slates.



You're right, they'd be more along the lines of Night at the Museum and Tinkerbell. Viewers have shown their selective and bizarre range of suspension many times, and filmmakers have catered to it, eschewing full blow magic in a modern context (Thor's "Magic" technology, Sorcerer's apprentice with physics, I think) for instance.

But if you really insist that all fantastical events are equal to the GA, then we may just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, but I'm just saying that people recognize that they don't have any sounding board for a groundbreaking film. When people went to see ET, sure, they had a preconceived notion that all flying saucer films are about hostile invaders; but everyone went into the movie (and came out of it) knowing full well that ET was going to stand that stereotype on its head and make aliens cuddly and lovable. Same for movies like Blade Runner, The Matrix, Inception....they just simply don't have precedent, so everyone leaves their expectations at the door. Same will be true for an Ant-Man/Giant-Man movie.

 

[marcvader]

Add to that any trailer for said movie. That will surely set a tone for what is to be expected.

 

[Rock Sexton]

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."

Was that a "fo realz" response? This is your immediate comment to DrCosmic when he was speaking on behalf of the general audience ..... wait for it ....

"Again, as long as they do the CG and the story right, audiences will buy into anything. ANYTHING."

You tell him he doesn't speak for the GA and then you respond that you know what they'll buy into with some generic reason.

And again .... your comparison of Giant Man (who is a PROTAGONIST) to the giants in Jack the Giant Killer (who are ANTAGONISTS) is not even remotely legitimate.

 

[cherokeesam]

Was that a "fo realz" response? This is your immediate comment to DrCosmic when he was speaking on behalf of the general audience ..... wait for it ....

"Again, as long as they do the CG and the story right, audiences will buy into anything. ANYTHING."

You tell him he doesn't speak for the GA and then you respond that you know what they'll buy into with some generic reason.

It's my "generic" and broad response versus DrCosmic's narrow and specific response. You really think I'm going out on a limb by saying that as long as people like the story and the spectacle, they'll be perfectly fine with a movie; versus Dr Cosmic saying that people have a built-in aversion to giants....? That's racist, man. Or giantist.

And again .... your comparison of Giant Man (who is a PROTAGONIST) to the giants in Jack the Giant Killer (who are ANTAGONISTS) is not even remotely legitimate.

Where the hell was I comparing Giant Man to Jack the Giant Killer....? All I said was that Giant Man would be the first instance of a movie that took a *serious* approach to a giant hero. And I said unless Singer's film came out first. So if Singer's film doesn't have a giant hero at all, do you see that just reinforces my point....? Giant Man would be the first of its kind; ergo, nobody knows how audiences would react to it, because we have *no* precedent to draw from.

 

[Rock Sexton]

It's my "generic" and broad response versus DrCosmic's narrow and specific response. You really think I'm going out on a limb by saying that as long as people like the story and the spectacle, they'll be perfectly fine with a movie; versus Dr Cosmic saying that people have a built-in aversion to giants....? That's racist, man. Or giantist.

Yes, you're going out on a limb. You could apply that theory to a movie about a tampon .... because the writing is good right? Giants have typically been B-movie or cartoon material unless they are used as creatures the protagonist defeats.

Where the hell was I comparing Giant Man to Jack the Giant Killer....? All I said was that Giant Man would be the first instance of a movie that took a *serious* approach to a giant hero. And I said unless Singer's film came out first. So if Singer's film doesn't have a giant hero at all, do you see that just reinforces my point....? Giant Man would be the first of its kind; ergo, nobody knows how audiences would react to it, because we have *no* precedent to draw from.

Singer's film doesn't have a "giant" hero though.

Just curious .... Why is it you think they've avoided this concept of a giant protagonist? Has Hollywood been plagued by bad writing for decades when trying to come up with something?

 

[cherokeesam]

Yes, you're going out on a limb. You could apply that theory to a movie about a tampon .... because the writing is good right? Giants have typically been B-movie or cartoon material unless they are used as creatures the protagonist defeats.



Singer's film doesn't have a "giant" hero though.

Just curious .... Why is it you think they've avoided this concept of a giant protagonist? Has Hollywood been plagued by bad writing for decades when trying to come up with something?

Because the fx hasn't been there. I thought that would have been obvious. The fx are available now, for the first time, to make great-looking giant characters (see Shadow of the Colossus if you have any doubts whatsoever).

 

[DrCosmic]

Groundbreaking? I'm not sure that's what a serious Ant-Man film would be. There have been serious grow/shrink stories, they're just no longer treated seriously. The ground was broken a long time ago with the old Gulliver's Travels adaptations, when the grow/shrink motif was taken seriously, unlike now, when the literary classic is just a Jack Black vehicle.

I mean, there must be some way to convince an audience that this is no laughing matter in a short trailer, but just taking the material seriously might bring as many laughs as a straightfaced clown.

Groundbreaking is a tall order. Very few films are considered groundbreaking. Most films are just different (serious/comedic/romantic) takes on things we've all seen before. I don't think any of the Marvel Studios films will qualify as Groundbreaking, except maybe Avengers. Ant-Man won't be the next ET.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Because the fx hasn't been there. I thought that would have been obvious. The fx are available now, for the first time, to make great-looking giant characters (see Shadow of the Colossus if you have any doubts whatsoever).

The EFX haven't been there in the last decade? This is certainly news to me.

 

[DrCosmic]

Wait... isn't the whole SFX industry built on making little models look huge next to normal sized people and vice versa?

I'm being hard on this because I want to see it done right. I don't want to see another flop like 'Cowboys & Aliens' where the filmmakers make a great movie being dead serious, but the audience just writes it off as ridiculous... because it is! The "Well if they'll watch men in powered armor, they'll watch this" logic failed them, as it has so many others that didn't take into account their audience.

Me personally, I would pitch it as the most lighthearted of the Marvel films. Pym would not be a hardcore badass hero at any point, that's not his character anyway, in fact, I'd make him a bit of a woobie. It would center on Pym and Van Dyne's relationship, with Ultron, a cold logical badass villain of Pym's own creation, and Paladin as a secondary villain and romantic rival. The fun would come from the banter between the laid back genius Pym, the frenetic business woman Van Dyne, the sarcastic Foster, the viscous Oedipus Ultron, would be thieves Lang and O'Grady, and the too good to be true Paladin. The special effects, simple ones as they are, would be used to accentuate those relationships, with a climactic return to the shrinking element for Pym to both show that the power and fame hasn't gone to his head, as well as he is clever enough to defeat a villain he cannot overpower.

80M Budget, Spring release just before Avengers 2... but I'm pretty sure that's not what they have planned. They want to do more of a spy movie. -shrug-

 

[cherokeesam]

Wait... isn't the whole SFX industry built on making little models look huge next to normal sized people and vice versa?

I'm being hard on this because I want to see it done right. I don't want to see another flop like 'Cowboys & Aliens' where the filmmakers make a great movie being dead serious, but the audience just writes it off as ridiculous... because it is! The "Well if they'll watch men in powered armor, they'll watch this" logic failed them, as it has so many others that didn't take into account their audience.

Me personally, I would pitch it as the most lighthearted of the Marvel films. Pym would not be a hardcore badass hero at any point, that's not his character anyway, in fact, I'd make him a bit of a woobie. It would center on Pym and Van Dyne's relationship, with Ultron, a cold logical badass villain of Pym's own creation, and Paladin as a secondary villain and romantic rival. The fun would come from the banter between the laid back genius Pym, the frenetic business woman Van Dyne, the sarcastic Foster, the viscous Oedipus Ultron, would be thieves Lang and O'Grady, and the too good to be true Paladin. The special effects, simple ones as they are, would be used to accentuate those relationships, with a climactic return to the shrinking element for Pym to both show that the power and fame hasn't gone to his head, as well as he is clever enough to defeat a villain he cannot overpower.

80M Budget, Spring release just before Avengers 2... but I'm pretty sure that's not what they have planned. They want to do more of a spy movie. -shrug-

I'd be perfectly okay with your approach to Gi(ant)-Man, but I think you've got a few too many characters.....maybe drop O'Grady and Foster, and the rest is golden. And the movie you just described sounds like it's right up Edgar Wright's alley....based on Wright's resume, I strongly doubt he'll play the story straight-faced, but he won't descend into camp that insults the audience's intelligence and respect for the genre.

 

[marcvader]

So are we all agreed then?

 

[cherokeesam]

So are we all agreed then?

I'm agreed that Edgar Wright doesn't have to turn Gi(ant)-Man into a Rick Moranis kiddie comedy to make the story work.

 

[DrCosmic]

So are we all agreed then?

Of course not! What ever would we talk about? t:

I'd be perfectly okay with your approach to Gi(ant)-Man, but I think you've got a few too many characters.....maybe drop O'Grady and Foster, and the rest is golden. And the movie you just described sounds like it's right up Edgar Wright's alley....based on Wright's resume, I strongly doubt he'll play the story straight-faced, but he won't descend into camp that insults the audience's intelligence and respect for the genre.

Hmmm... it has less characters than Thor and Cap (but more than IM and TIH). It works if you let characters be supporting characters instead of trying to make them all that they've ever been in the comics. Let them serve the story, not the other way around.

And you're right that is Edgar Wright's 'thing.' Scott Pilgrim is probably a good tone. Still, the reports that I've heard of his draft are a ways away from the comics, and not connected to the MCU at all anyway.