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? 
Ant Man - convince me it's not totally lame
- Thread starter Sluis Van Shipyards
- Start date
Cuz it should be better than Slug Man.
harrisonp
Sr Member
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.
GhostMinion
Sr Member
Because nothing can be as bad as the Daredevil movie.
Cephus
Master Member
Elektra.
"Robocop" sounded ridiculous at the time so you never know.
GhostMinion
Sr Member
Hammer3246
Sr Member
I'll disagree. Robocop sounded awesome.
Cheers
Sent from my SM-N915W8 using Tapatalk
Cheers
Sent from my SM-N915W8 using Tapatalk
Paul Andrew
Master Member
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.
So does a talking racoon with a space machine gun.
They've earned enough faith to give it a go, imo.
Probe Droid
Master Member
Agreed, lame. I like Paul Rudd, but this looks unappealing.
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.
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.
JD
Master Member
: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 damn 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 turd. 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.
Mektar
Sr Member
Batman and Robin
JD
Master Member
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.
glunark
Sr Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
