Ant Man - convince me it's not totally lame

Ok I have no idea what Ant Man is besides the trailers that shows him shrinking down and it says he can control ants. Most likely if you could do that a spider or some other insect is just going to eat you. So why should I see this?

 

Cuz it should be better than Slug Man.

 

Because he has the potential to become Giant Man, and the film may peel back further layers to show things that have gone on in the past of the MCU. Maybe we will see that Hank Pym has been engineering tech since the 60s and worked with Stark Sr, maybe he worked as Ant-Man in a secret "Avengers" style team. I think it could be a good movie as well as great connective tissue for the bigger universe that is in play.

 

Because nothing can be as bad as the Daredevil movie.

 

Elektra.

 

"Robocop" sounded ridiculous at the time so you never know.

 

*. YOUR ABSOLUTLEY RIGHT! :lol

I stand corrected.

 

I'll disagree. Robocop sounded awesome.

Cheers

Sent from my SM-N915W8 using Tapatalk

 

It sounds totally stupid on its face.

So does a talking racoon with a space machine gun.

They've earned enough faith to give it a go, imo.

 

Agreed, lame. I like Paul Rudd, but this looks unappealing.

 

But does Mac make an appearance in this?

 

Catwoman

 

I hope it fails. Just like I hoped The Lone Ranger and Green Lantern would fail a few years ago.

Certain movies are examples of the studios ignoring the public's lack of interest and assuming they can manufacture a hit at will. I like seeing that arrogant attitude fail as much as possible.

 

:facepalm I'm not sure why anyone would hope someone else's hard work would fail... especially seeing that these are comic book movies and not the work of someone evil or something sinister. Based on the buzz and early word, I didn't expect to like Green Lantern (and I didn't much), I didn't expect much from The Lone Ranger (I actually found the last third of the movie to be incredibly fun) - but, yes both were flops... I just don't get why you would hope for them to fail - either of them could have been the start to great franchises and enormous amount of entertainment had they been better films with success -- so why do you not want to be entertained and wish for others and their hard work to fail? That's silly and childish.

I disliked Man of Steel (a lot) - but, even I am holding out hope that Batman vs Superman will be a great film that will entertain me to no end. I don't like the way DC is making films and creating their cinematic universe... but, I am still waiting with bated breath and with some sliver of hope that it amazes me. Despite personal misgivings, I'd much rather have a positive outlook rather than wish bad things on other people and their hard work.

As far as Ant Man, I think Marvel's track record stands for itself. They've managed to pull gold out of thin air... I don't think anyone expected Guardians of the Galaxy to work (when you boil it down to the basics, it's a wonder any of these flicks did as well they did and what they've managed to do is pretty * amazing).

Kevin Feige on Ant-Man: "The truth is, there is so much in Ant-Man: introducing a new hero, introducing a very important part of technology in the Marvel universe, the Pym particles. Ant-Man getting on the Avengers' radar in this film and even – this is the weirdest part, you shouldn't really talk about it because it won't be apparent for years – but the whole notion of the quantum realm and the whole notion of going to places that are so out there, they are almost mind-bendingly hard to fathom. It all plays into Phase Three."

So, it would seem that while Ant-Man is a silly concept (let's not forget that the original Ant-Man was a founding and long time member of the comic book Avengers) and we're getting yet another origin story that looks all-too similar to what we expect from Marvel, this movie will have some lasting impact in the MCU. Plus, Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily...

 

It's not about wanting creative people's work to fail.

I want those creative people to be successful. But I want them to be employed doing projects that the public wants to see, instead of whatever fits a corporation's no-risk 5-year plan.


Maybe Ant-Man is a great movie. It's certainly possible.

But if it is, it won't be due to the Ant-Man franchise itself bringing so much quality. Those same creative juices could have been directed at some other concept for a good result too.

 

I will likely see it, but I am not itching for it. One of these days MCU will turn out a real *. When they do, let's hope it is on a movie that does not disrupt the flow they have given us to date. I was surprised by Gaurdians, I knew nothing about what to expect there. Up until that point, I knew all the other characters and was pleased with what I had seen.

 

Batman and Robin

 

So you want creative people to make movies that only the public (meaning you) want to see? You don't want them to be... I don't know, creative, maybe? Like I mentioned in my post, Guardians was not on anyone's radar - yet, it's arguably one of the best Marvel movies. Had they not taken a risk and gone off the grid, we might never have had that movie... and here we go again with Ant-Man another blip on nobody's radar - and not taking the safe route with another Iron Man movie.

...and that's nonsense about a "no-risk" plan. There's no such thing as no risk (take a look at the movies you mentioned), Ant-Man is a risky idea for Marvel, he's (basically) an unknown character and... well, it's ANT-Man. Not Iron Man, not Thor, not a name hero. Most folks are laughing about this one (but, in the end if the buzz is good... they'll see it).

Making movies that the public wants to see is much more of no-risk plan. Ant-Man has been talked about since 2003 and in development since 2006... so this is well outside that "no-risk 5-year plan."

You can look at my initial response to the Ant-Man trailer... it looked rote, like something Marvel might do in their sleep - you know: no-risk. But, as I see more of it, I am becoming more and more curious about this movie. I'm still bummed that Edgar Wright isn't on board... but I just have a feeling that this is going to be a fun flick and I am looking forward to spending my money to see it.

I still think it's childish to wish failure on other people's hard work because they're not making a movie tailored to your (or, cough, "the public's") specific tastes. The reasons why Green Lantern and The Lone Ranger failed are numerous - heck, GL could have been DC's Iron Man had it been done right. (...and Iron Man was simply luck and hard work - it's not unreasonable to see that Tony Stark/Iron Man is akin to Hal Jordan/Green Lantern in their respective comic universes).

If someone could cater to the "public's taste" on a regular basis they'd be raking in the bucks. As it is, even the big boys that do it on a regular basis (hi, Apple) also fail on a regular basis and even they don't simply stop being creative or stop trying to push the envelope. Yes, every company has a plan and none of those plan's are risk free.

 

I am a member of the public, I want to see ant-man.

My introduction to marvel comics was mainly though the black and white reprints of the micronauts, that came with the british star wars comics, and when they came to earth the first marvel hero they interacted with was ant man.

 

bottom line, if you are not a comic geek you are not excited about this

 

The 1990 Italian Captain America.

 

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel for untouched superhero IP, arn't we?

 

One of the founding members of the Avengers. Yes, definitely "scraping the barrel". Not. Yes, it's a tad risky and possibly unappealing to some. So what? You only want to see big budget films about heroes that are already known widely? You can do that. Dont watch Ant Man.

 

*, did I miss the poll?

 

Oh *, lot of hurt feelings here...

I can't say I care for Ant-Man, but it looks OK...However the cute train crash trailer, does that mean that any mini-sized item could kill these guys? I mean I'm assuming ANt-man will have the crush-proofness of, let's say, a COW KILLER ANT...which pretty much equals 100 PSI of crushing power.

I mean seriously, have you ever tried crushing a COW KILLER ANT? It's tough guys...

 

God forbid we see a movie about a largely unknown hero that we haven't been clubbed over the head with for 10 yrs! Personally I'm looking forward to this, and just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from: I forced myself to sit through The Avengers (once) I haven't seen IM3, ThorDW, AoU or GoTG and I have no plans to see them.

 

BigDaddy, you owe yourself at least one viewing of Guardians of the Galaxy. While it's not the most original thing and it might be full of popcorn movie cliches, it is a fun ride. Thor Dark World is fun, too - if not a bit more predictable.

 

Taste is subjective,so it's useless to argue about it.This person likes this,that person likes that...big deal.
Why don't we give eachother room to breathe,and put that wasted energy to good use by start crafting our fandom? opcorn

 

I'd rather sit through another Transformers movie than see GOTG again. ThorDW I fell asleep during. And IM3 is where I started to lose confidence in the Marvel movie machine. So much so that I have not seen AoU yet and will also skip Ant-Man.

 

I'm going to give Ant Man a shot only because I like the character, and I don't want to toss out the baby with the bath water. I really enjoyed both Captain America films and I'm looking forward to Civil War. I might even rent AoU just to be up to speed for Civil War. For the record this is the only way I could be forced to watch any Transformers "film" again...

 

I must not be part of the public since I'm watching the movie, already got my tickets. All this talk about creating movies that 'the public wants' is just silly, Marvel's in the business of developing new franchises. They're not going to make the same mistake of being overly reliant on a single character (Spidey) for most of the last 3 decades. Look at their Phase 3 slate and that says it all, the company does not want to depend on the Avengers Big 4 especially when talent contracts are expiring after Infinity Wars.

I will admit that the marketing effort for Ant-Man has lacked focus, surprising for a Disney distributed film. The campaign started with unlikely hero, moved to father-daughter relationships, then to comedy, then to blatantly banking on the Avengers connection more recently. There's no denying this movie is gonna rely heavily on reviews to drive viewers, but GotG was able to pull it off and that was an even more obscure IP and with far less of an Avengers connection than Ant-Man.

 

Holy crap, someone would rather see TF 2 and 4???:wacko

 

I see your Elektra and Catwoman and raise you TWO Ghost Riders.

 

This is the only MCU film that I have absolutely no interest in seeing. I love the Marvel films but this character just seems completely underwhelming.

 

I would say by the way the train topples that it didn't have much of an effect on Yellowjacket, his cowering/shielding was probably just a reflex because the power of the suit isn't second nature to him yet. With the way we've seen Scott fight human enemies while small I would assume that some degree of enhanced durability comes along with the shrinking powers.

 

Making Ant-Man is a risky move in the same way that making 10 Spider-Man shows in 10 years would be risky. It's risky in the commercial/marketing sense. It's risking over-saturation of a known "safe" product, the comic book movie. It's not Spider-Man or Iron Man but it's a comic book movie from the Marvel brand that ties into their larger picture. It's not risky. Tomorrowland was risky.

As for wishing failure on hard work - No big budget movie exists without creative people doing a lot of hard work. That doesn't mean every big budget movie should succeed. I don't want to be subjected to an endless string of Twilight movies. Do you? There is a finite amount of stuff the industry is going to make. If there is no pressure against the wrong stuff then they won't make enough of the right stuff. Look at how many comic-book movies have been made in the last decade and how many more are in the works. Look at how much money has been sunk into all that. Imagine if ALL THAT was devoted to variations on the teenager/vampire chick flick theme. The over-saturation of projects like this has gotten ridiculous.

The reason why I might refer to Ant-Man in particular as "the wrong stuff" before I've even seen the movie is self-evident. This thread exists and nobody is wondering why. They ARE scraping the bottom of the barrel for comic hero franchises. It might be a good movie. But that's almost irrelevant to my feelings about the genre right now.

I don't want Ant-Man to fail for its own sake. I want the resources set aside for Ant-Man#2 &3 to get diverted to something else.

 

I really wouldn't call making an Ant-Man movie scraping the barrel, granted that he's not that well known to the general public but neither were the Guardians of the Galaxy, I never actually ever heard of GotG until I saw an episode of one of the animated Avengers shows that had them in one episode. If Marvel was really scraping the barrel they have plenty more older and more obscure characters than Ant-Man, a character who's a founding member of the Avengers in the comics and in the animated Avengers series that was on before Avengers Assemble. If Marvel were truly scraping the barrel then they might have trotted out characters like ROM the Space Knight, Moon Knight, Stingray, Torpedo, Captain Ultra, and list goes on.

 

The only thing I'm not liking about Ant Man is he wasn't involved in the creation of Ultron. I am really looking forward to this. There is a lot more there than just a guy who shrinks and commands ants. I don't think they scrape the barrel with their movies, that's what Agents of Shield is for.

 

Yeah that got to me too, all it would take was ONE mention that the "defense program" they were working on had been pioneered by Howard Stark and Hank Pym in the 60s but it had been mothballed waiting for technology to catch up to their vision. I felt that would have given a nice bit of connective tissue and appeased the fans of the original origin.

 

How about Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Doctor Strange and Jessica Jones? Because they're all getting their own movie in the next 4 years.

Really done with this whole "comic book superhero updated to be modern and edgy" thing, personally.

 

I don't see what is explicitly "modern,real, and edgy" about any of those characters save for JJ maybe. Do you mean superhero movies as a whole?

 

Yeah, just in general.

 

gotcha, are you just not a fan or would you rather have golden/silver age characterization? (not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious)
I like certain characters when they are "gritty enough" but not soooo grounded in reality. I am not a huge fan of the Nolan Bat trilogy, it just got to be too real and I wanted a little bit of comics in my comic movie, but I will say that in general I prefer Batman to be a little more real and not the infallible Batgod but not as far as Nolan took it. I'm hoping that the inclusion of Flash and GL in the DCCU will poke some holes in the "dark, gritty" blanket that has been over DC properties for a while.

 

I agree there. That sounded totally ridiculous, but somehow a talking racoon still seems more plausible than a person the size of an ant. :lol It just seems like a really useless power. What are you going to do with ants? Raid picnics and give people with allergies anaphylactic shock?

 

Part of it is just weariness. We've had so many Thor, Iron Man, Batman, Avengers, Spider-Man, The Hulk, Superman, etc. movies in the last 7-some-odd years that i'm just over it, not to mention all the TV Shows like Arrow and Flash. Now they're announcing all these origin stories for yet more characters plotted out on a release schedule stretching into 2020, it feels like they're just cashing in on a trend. Hey, maybe i'm * off all the Ant Man and Jessica Jones fans, i'm not trying to. I'm just over it.

 

The only thing that would make me watch another Marvel movie (aside from GOTG 2) would be Howard The Duck done right.

 

or a Norse god superhero

 

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, but I'm looking forward to Ant Man. I think it looks really fun. And Riceball, I'd watch a ROM movie.

 

That's where I'm coming from. I'm just sick of the comic superhero genre across the board, no matter how they vary it.

The standard-issue response to this is "Then you don't have to go see the movies. Problem solved. Some of us do want to see them." I get that. In normal circumstances I agree.

But the sheer volume of comic movies lately, the sequels, the compilations, the gigantic size of the budgets each time . . . this has consumed the industry. It's too much. We only see what they have made. We don't see what other interesting movies might have gotten done instead.