Ant-Man Yellowjacket

[JtheDreamer]

Nolan's Joker would have to disagree.
No backstory, no evolution, no nuance no nothing and that's hell of a vilain.
The point is there is no textbook to write a proper character for that matter. Some things work in the context of a film, other don't and those things that work probably won't in a different film.

 

[JtheDreamer]

What works about the Joker though is that he's basically a "force of nature" type of character. Joker's not really a character, but he's not supposed to be. He's a force that Batman has to overcome. It's like a natural disaster, you can't reason with it or talk your way out of it, there's no emotion or humanity to appeal to.

What works about the Joker is that the story doesn't try to provide context for him. The story of the Dark Knight is Bruce trying to overcome this force of evil, this embodiment of everything he opposes, without succumbing to it. It's not about the Joker, it's about what he represents, the way his ideals are the antithesis to Batman's.

It's not that way with Cross. He's not a huge force for the hero to overcome, he's a rich guy that's a dick for the sake of it. He's not the antithesis to Ant Man, he's just a jerk who wants money.

Now you're making excuses.

 

[Supa]

Now you're making excuses.

For what? Cross doesn't represent some deeper conflict, he doesn't raise any interesting questions about the hero or his morals and ideals.

Cross also doesn't develop or stand out in any way next to other evil for the sake of evil bad guys like Red Skull or Malekith or Ronan. He's not relatable or very human. He's not a tragic villain that falls from grace, nor is he an interesting example of power corrupting good men. There's no context or point of reference that makes Cross seem good. Cross is just an evil jerk for the sake of it the whole movie, and we've gotten enough of those in the MCU. At least Red Skull and Thanos and Ronan have some other-worldliness to them, and some visual appeal. Cross spends most of the movie as a bald evil guy in a business suit, and the Yellowjacket armor only really sticks out because of the four laser arms on the back. It's just some glowing back armor that looks like something from any number of video games.

He's not an interesting villain. There's nothing more to his character than him being evil.

 

[The Guard]

Nolan's Joker would have to disagree.
No backstory, no evolution, no nuance no nothing and that's hell of a vilain.
The point is there is no textbook to write a proper character for that matter. Some things work in the context of a film, other don't and those things that work probably won't in a different film.

The Joker has like three possible backstories as well as a very visible unfolding rise to power in his story, and as for no nuance...really? Not gonna touch that with a ten foot clown pole. He actually does kind of evolve, at least in terms of the nature of his plans and his relevance in Gotham. The dude starts the film as a bank robber and ends up a social terrorist, and gets there gradually, which was an intentional evolution by the filmmakers. The film also explores the Joker's motivations, ideology and how he impacts the evolution of other characters. The Joker is not in any objective sense a poorly written character.

 

[JKKS085]

The Joker has like three possible backstories as well as a very visible unfolding rise to power in his story, and as for no nuance...really? Not gonna touch that with a ten foot clown pole. He actually does kind of evolve, at least in terms of the nature of his plans and his relevance in Gotham. The dude starts the film as a bank robber and ends up a social terrorist, and gets there gradually, which was an intentional evolution by the filmmakers. The film also explores the Joker's motivations, ideology and how he impacts the evolution of other characters. The Joker is not in any objective sense a poorly written character.

Which is not what I meant at all just to be clear.
Three possible backstories means no actual backstory. His rise to power is in absolute no different than Cross being able to master the Pym particle stuff throughout the film (other than a way better execution in the case of the Joker of course). That's the traditionnal vilain masterplan in motion. The Joker doesn't start off as a bank robber he's already that social terrorist that decided to hit the mob for a reason that unfolds later in the film but he doesn't get there gradually no. He's already there. At the beginning he's not a small time criminal robbing a bank for money, he's introduced as the vilain he's going to be for the entire film. Or we've seen an entirely different movie.
Now that doesn't imply that Yellowjacket is a vilain remotely as compelling and memorable as the Joker just that the things you pointed out (evolution and backstory) are not things that necessarily make for a better vilain.

 

[The Guard]

Which is not what I meant at all just to be clear.
Three possible backstories means no actual backstory.

Except that there were three of them, and they were in the film, leading to additional character development and exploration, regardless of their basis in reality. Whether they were real is irrelevant. They still count as interesting character development for the character.

His rise to power is in absolute no different than Cross being able to master the Pym particle stuff throughout the film (other than a way better execution in the case of the Joker of course).

Cross was already in power at the start of ANT-MAN. The Joker rose to power through a series of schemes and events that we actually saw during the film. There's a huge difference between the two approaches. And yes, The Joker was executed and handled far better.

That's the traditionnal vilain masterplan in motion. The Joker doesn't start off as a bank robber he's already that social terrorist that decided to hit the mob for a reason that unfolds later in the film but he doesn't get there gradually no. He's already there. At the beginning he's not a small time criminal robbing a bank for money, he's introduced as the vilain he's going to be for the entire film. Or we've seen an entirely different movie.

At the start of the film, The Joker is clearly considered mostly just a bank robber in Gotham circles. By the police, Batman, the mob and the criminals who work for him. He absolutely does gradually evolve his identity and his role among the people of Gotham and his threat level during the course of the film. He goes from a bank robber, to a seemingly freelance assassin, to a gangster of sorts, to a gang boss, to a full on citywide terrorist. There's a clear evolution of his character.

Now that doesn't imply that Yellowjacket is a vilain remotely as compelling and memorable as the Joker just that the things you pointed out (evolution and backstory) are not things that necessarily make for a better vilain.

Character evolution and backstory flesh out characters, give them texture and relevance, and generally make for better overall character portrayals.

 

[Loki882]

Part of the problem with Cross is that we don't really spend much time with him and Hank's relationship. It's a case of "telling and not showing." We're TOLD that they once had this father/son type of dynamic, and that Hank "saw something" in Cross that reminded Hank o himself and scared him. But we don't really get to SEE any of that, so it's hard to really care. Also, we don't really get a good sense of what kind of person he was before. Was he always crazy (which is kind of lame/generic) or is it the Pym Particles making him that way (which came out of nowhere and is poorly explained)? The movie doesn't clarify a lot of this, so we're left trying to fill in the blanks, which is just sloppy writing. And his whole "grudge"/plan is just generic in general, and we've seen it before in these movies.

Also, there's nothing between him and Scott to make them truly "enemies," so the fight at the en, as cool as it was visually, loses some dramatic weight as a result. It'd have been more fitting if he'd fought Hank or even Hope. He has much more of a connection to them.

 

[terry78]

^Well, he's pissed at Scott by association since Hank trusted him with his secret, a lowlife thief, before him.

 

[gdw]

For what? Cross doesn't represent some deeper conflict, he doesn't raise any interesting questions about the hero or his morals and ideals.

Cross also doesn't develop or stand out in any way next to other evil for the sake of evil bad guys like Red Skull or Malekith or Ronan. He's not relatable or very human. He's not a tragic villain that falls from grace, nor is he an interesting example of power corrupting good men. There's no context or point of reference that makes Cross seem good. Cross is just an evil jerk for the sake of it the whole movie, and we've gotten enough of those in the MCU. At least Red Skull and Thanos and Ronan have some other-worldliness to them, and some visual appeal. Cross spends most of the movie as a bald evil guy in a business suit, and the Yellowjacket armor only really sticks out because of the four laser arms on the back. It's just some glowing back armor that looks like something from any number of video games.

He's not an interesting villain. There's nothing more to his character than him being evil.

Um, Cross is the literal living embodiment of Pym's creations turning against him.

Not just taking his tech and using it against him, but Cross is, himself, a creation of Pym's, being his protege.
Cross is the embodiment of Pym's professional/scientific failure, even failing humanity.

Cross IS Pym's failure.
Add to that the parenting parallels, and his use of Hope to vote Hank out, Cross also serves to emphasize/"complement" Hank's failure as a parent, mirroring, and amplifying, his failing Hope.

 

[gdw]

Part of the problem with Cross is that we don't really spend much time with him and Hank's relationship. It's a case of "telling and not showing." We're TOLD that they once had this father/son type of dynamic, and that Hank "saw something" in Cross that reminded Hank o himself and scared him. But we don't really get to SEE any of that, so it's hard to really care. Also, we don't really get a good sense of what kind of person he was before. Was he always crazy (which is kind of lame/generic) or is it the Pym Particles making him that way (which came out of nowhere and is poorly explained)? The movie doesn't clarify a lot of this, so we're left trying to fill in the blanks, which is just sloppy writing. And his whole "grudge"/plan is just generic in general, and we've seen it before in these movies.

Also, there's nothing between him and Scott to make them truly "enemies," so the fight at the en, as cool as it was visually, loses some dramatic weight as a result. It'd have been more fitting if he'd fought Hank or even Hope. He has much more of a connection to them.

Yes, I agree with the telling vs showing criticism here. Interesting considering the use of flashbacks for exposition, that there was really none used for showing the Hank/Hope history, and the Hank/Darren history.

That said, the above, along with the Pym Particles head messing may NOT have been sloppy writing, but rather editing sacrifices. The kind usually made to satisfy producers short attention spans, and their projection of such onto audiences.

The Cross/Lang "conflict" was certainly not as inherently personal as the Pym/Cross conflict, I agree, but I think that, as others have said, the jealousy/projection aspect is a valid, and satisfying, character conflict for Cross and Lang for me.
Then, of course, Cross making it personal for Lang when he goes after his daughter.
Not as much depth, I guess, as they could get from what they had (but didn't go so far to show) with the Pym and Cross history, but it was satisfying none the less.

Over all, I found the movie to be strong enough, and entertaining enough, on it's own, that it was not cut down by not exploring some character avenues as well as they could have/should have. Especially considering the film's production history, and the likely hood of final edit compromises.

 

[gdw]

The Pym particles messing with Cross' brain doesn't make much sense either. It's only referenced twice in the movie and doesn't lead anywhere. Hank says he can't wear the suit because of this, but you could just as easily say he was too old to wear it anyway.

And with Cross, we don't get to see him before the particles messed with his brain. There's never a scene with a good Cross or a sane Cross. The first things he does in the movie are;
* Proclaim he wants Hank to give the government the formula to use
* Set up a press conference to pitch the idea of a way that he won't have to be bound by the laws of man or something similar
* Shrink a guy into pink matter and throw him in a toilet.

That's our introduction to the character of Cross. His mind being affected by particles is more of an excuse for laziness than anything significant or character development. Without any context, or comparison, the line is just meaningless.

I gotta agree. It does however sounds like, from the elements still in the final film, and interviews with the actors and production team during filming, this was all things that were put into the character/story, but may not have made it all the way through post production intact.

 

[metaphysician]

Cross was definitely one of the MCU's better villains. A good arc and complex motivations, plus an excellent design. Unfortuantly, he still suffered from the agonizing refusal to put any sort of investment into the villain's story whatsoever that has plagued so many Marvel films. Basically, if it doesn't progress the plot, Cross doesn't get a chance to do much of anything to make him memorable. [BLACKOUT]And the decision to kill him off makes this even worse. Sure they can bring him back if they want, but why is Marvel so intent on not leaving the villains alive?[/BLACKOUT]

[BLACKOUT]I think you should go back and count surviving villains. Marvel has a *far* better track record than any of the competition.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[terry78]

Basically every single one of Marvel's villains demises leave room open because no body was found.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Also, there's nothing between him and Scott to make them truly "enemies," so the fight at the en, as cool as it was visually, loses some dramatic weight as a result. It'd have been more fitting if he'd fought Hank or even Hope. He has much more of a connection to them.

On my part, I found it refreshing that Cross and Lang didn't have some sort of contrived backstory. I suspect it would have made things too cutesy and pat had they done so.

 

[metaphysician]

Basically every single one of Marvel's villains demises leave room open because no body was found.

I wouldn't *quite* go that far, but a lot of them do leave wiggle room, yes.

 

[MynAmeIsedDie90]

[BLACKOUT]I think you should go back and count surviving villains. Marvel has a *far* better track record than any of the competition.[/BLACKOUT]

Dead - Stane, Whiplash, Killian, Malekith, Kurse, Pierce, Baron von Strucker, Ronan, Ultron, Arnim Zola, Korath

Alive - Abomination, Loki, Thanos, Crossbones, Klaw, Nebula, Hammer

? - Red skull, Cross

 

[Loki882]

^Well, he's pissed at Scott by association since Hank trusted him with his secret, a lowlife thief, before him.

Ok I guess? That's pretty much the MOST basic kind of "connection" possible, not particularly compelling. Nor does it make for the stuff of truly interesting conflict. It kind of ties into the whole "Scott Lang feels superfluous in his own movie" reaction that I've been having.

 

[Loki882]

Yes, I agree with the telling vs showing criticism here. Interesting considering the use of flashbacks for exposition, that there was really none used for showing the Hank/Hope history, and the Hank/Darren history.

That said, the above, along with the Pym Particles head messing may NOT have been sloppy writing, but rather editing sacrifices. The kind usually made to satisfy producers short attention spans, and their projection of such onto audiences.

The Cross/Lang "conflict" was certainly not as inherently personal as the Pym/Cross conflict, I agree, but I think that, as others have said, the jealousy/projection aspect is a valid, and satisfying, character conflict for Cross and Lang for me.
Then, of course, Cross making it personal for Lang when he goes after his daughter.
Not as much depth, I guess, as they could get from what they had (but didn't go so far to show) with the Pym and Cross history, but it was satisfying none the less.

Over all, I found the movie to be strong enough, and entertaining enough, on it's own, that it was not cut down by not exploring some character avenues as well as they could have/should have. Especially considering the film's production history, and the likely hood of final edit compromises.

Yeah. I mean flashbacks can be kind of "easy" when it comes to building connections, but at least it's something. Give me something between Hank and "pre-crazy" Cross showing what their relationship was like, or what kind of guy Cross was pre-Pym Particles. Show me something about how Hank and Hope became estranged, aside from vague "Hank was sad." Give me something to latch onto.

 

[metaphysician]

Dead - Stane, Whiplash, Killian, Malekith, Kurse, Pierce, Baron von Strucker, Ronan, Ultron, Arnim Zola, Korath

Alive - Abomination, Loki, Thanos, Crossbones, Klaw, Nebula, Hammer

? - Red skull, Cross

Winter Soldier should also be in the Alive column. Also, I'd move both Ultron and Arnim Zola to the ? column, as they could both return in some form without much difficulty.

 

[samsnee]

Watched it again. Cross gives off more of a Lex Luthor vibe than Jesse in the BvS trailer.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Ok I guess? That's pretty much the MOST basic kind of "connection" possible, not particularly compelling. Nor does it make for the stuff of truly interesting conflict. It kind of ties into the whole "Scott Lang feels superfluous in his own movie" reaction that I've been having.

Seriously? Cross is a genius, he's wprked hard all his life to earn the respect of his idol, who then turnsaroun and entrusts all hi secrets to a criminal he met just few dys ago? Youdon'tthink that's enougheaon fr him to hat Scott?

Yeah. I mean flashbacks can be kind of "easy" when it comes to building connections, but at least it's something. Give me something between Hank and "pre-crazy" Cross showing what their relationship was like, or what kind of guy Cross was pre-Pym Particles. Show me something about how Hank and Hope became estranged, aside from vague "Hank was sad." Give me something to latch onto.

At least here we agree. We didn't get glimpse of the first half of Cross' arc. "Show, Don't Tell" and all that jazz.

 

[The Guard]

​

Watched it again. Cross gives off more of a Lex Luthor vibe than Jesse in the BvS trailer.

Lex Luthor is a one note, barely contained psycho?

Oh. Its because Cross is bald and wears a suit.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Scientist businessman

 

[Loki882]

He comes across more as a mash-up of Obadiah Stane, Justin Hammer, Loki, and Aldrich Killian to me, only not done as well as any of those (and that's saying something since I didn't find Hammer or Killain to be particularly compelling villains either).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I liked Cross as a bad guy. He was fine. The actors performance was fine. But I thought it would've been better if we actually saw the Cross Particles driving him over the edge and his becoming crazy was a gradual thing as opposed to being nuts the first time we saw him.

Hope says the Cross Particles have driven him insane but we don't see any evidence of this because not only were there are no scenes of him experimenting on himself but we also establish that he couldn't even figure out how to shrink organic living creatures without killing them, so he obviously couldn't have been experimenting on himself before (or he'd be dead). That seemed like sloppy writing to me.