Goonie
Sr Member
It's going to be tiny in comparison...
Ant-Man
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
It's going to be tiny in comparison...
JD
Master Member
I'm not as sold as most are here. I tend to prefer the (cough) smaller hero against the marquee hero and Ant Man is not a big name hero at all.
This just looks like something Marvel Studios could do in their sleep... it looks rote and by-the-book. Douglas looks like he phoned this one in (based on the little bit we see here), and Rudd while I love him in much of what he's done just doesn't feel like a superhero to me... I'm just accustomed to getting more laughs from him than I expect him to throw a punch. But, I could also see how Rudd could end up being a huge part of why this works for me.
I hate to say it, but this is just so generic that I expect to see Zach Snyder's name attached to it: obvious joke set-ups, female bad ass, loser-type becomes the hero and villain that mirrors the hero.... oh, and the prerequisite bald bad guy.
Marvel seems to be trying to put up some larger names (Rudd, Douglas and even Lilly) for this than we might usually see from a Marvel flick... that could be for a few reasons - I just hope it isn't because of weaker material.
I still have a huge amount of respect and faith for what Marvel's done and while I have concerns about this one, I'm still going to see it and I still look forward to it.
This just looks like something Marvel Studios could do in their sleep... it looks rote and by-the-book. Douglas looks like he phoned this one in (based on the little bit we see here), and Rudd while I love him in much of what he's done just doesn't feel like a superhero to me... I'm just accustomed to getting more laughs from him than I expect him to throw a punch. But, I could also see how Rudd could end up being a huge part of why this works for me.
I hate to say it, but this is just so generic that I expect to see Zach Snyder's name attached to it: obvious joke set-ups, female bad ass, loser-type becomes the hero and villain that mirrors the hero.... oh, and the prerequisite bald bad guy.
Marvel seems to be trying to put up some larger names (Rudd, Douglas and even Lilly) for this than we might usually see from a Marvel flick... that could be for a few reasons - I just hope it isn't because of weaker material.
I still have a huge amount of respect and faith for what Marvel's done and while I have concerns about this one, I'm still going to see it and I still look forward to it.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Or Sam Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman...
JD
Master Member
Two (then) has-beens and an A-list minor character? Besides, the first Iron Man is a much different animal than what the Marvel films have evolved into.
...and yeah, Douglas is a has-been, too. Rudd isn't an action star (and more known for comedy/dramedy as of late). I'm not without an understanding to your point.... but, I do stand by my thoughts.
- - - Updated - - -
Two (then) has-beens and an A-list minor character? Besides, the first Iron Man is a much different animal than what the Marvel films have evolved into.
...and yeah, Douglas is a has-been, too. Rudd isn't an action star (and more known for comedy/dramedy as of late). I'm not without an understanding to your point.... but, I do stand by my thoughts.
Father
Sr Member
I don't think anyone thought of RDJ as an action star either.
Is Bridges or Paltrow the other has-been?
Bridges has always been pretty steady. I think Paltrow was just not busy... hardly a has been.
I think most would agree Iron Man was not a flagship Marvel title, but it became hugely mainstream after the movie hit the theaters.
I don't think they're trying to achieve what Iron Man did with Ant-Man. I think this is a spring board for the character into the MCU. I can't imagine they're this movie with the hopes of shattering any box office records.
JD
Master Member
All that I said about Ant Man and it's the bits about the actors that folks have issue with?
I considered Bridges as a (then) has-been - he's definitely (become?) much more highly regarded. Interesting... seems that much to my surprise, neither Paltrow nor Bridges were all that busy just prior to Iron Man's release. Downey was pretty off the radar (although still working regularly)... Without a doubt, none where really action stars.
The first Iron Man was definitely a different animal than what Marvel's evolved into (but, still the credit's of the three main stars leading up to Iron Man don't lie: Bridges and Paltrow had few credits the year or two leading up to IM). Marvel's done a very good job of lining up more well known actors for supporting roles (which, arguably Douglas/Lilly fit right into) with strong up-and-coming talent reserved for the leads (you could argue Evan was known and his supporting actors were lesser known - at least in the first CA movie - and well, Hugo Weaving as the baddie) - but, the exception proves the rule
As I said, I definitely understand the points made in these posts - just as I still stand by mine.
Regardless of the actors, I still think this looks terribly by-the-books and much too "stock comic book movie" than I expect from Marvel at this point in the game.
cboath
Master Member
Downey was fresh off his last rehab stint and they couldn't get insurance due his past issues. He was still a top level talent, just one that people (insurance companies) were reluctant to work with at that juncture.
I don't recall Bridges being that low either. Seems he's always been highly regarded. He's earned that status of works when he wants to.
I don't recall Bridges being that low either. Seems he's always been highly regarded. He's earned that status of works when he wants to.
JD
Master Member
The IMdb doesn't lie... their credits in that time frame isn't all that "top level."
Arguably, Downey's last "top level" role prior to IM, was A Scanner Darkly (two years prior to IM). Bridges had one movie credit the year prior to IM and had a handful prior to that, but nothing notable.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Yes, a user edited resource couldn't possibly be flawed
I'd wager more people had heard of RDJ, Bridges, and Paltrow before IM than people had heard of Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans before their respective movies. I guess it comes down to whether you consider someone having heard of your name before making you a big name. Lilly hasn't done anything since Lost but **** off Hobbit purists, Michael Douglas is more well known for his marriage than his acting these past several years. Frankly if I looked at it through the filter you seem to be using I'd be inclined to say Paul Rudd is the biggest current name of the three you mentioned.
Bottom line is this isn't the first time they've used a cast that includes actors that have been around the block.
I'd wager more people had heard of RDJ, Bridges, and Paltrow before IM than people had heard of Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans before their respective movies. I guess it comes down to whether you consider someone having heard of your name before making you a big name. Lilly hasn't done anything since Lost but **** off Hobbit purists, Michael Douglas is more well known for his marriage than his acting these past several years. Frankly if I looked at it through the filter you seem to be using I'd be inclined to say Paul Rudd is the biggest current name of the three you mentioned.
Bottom line is this isn't the first time they've used a cast that includes actors that have been around the block.
Father
Sr Member
I think the argument here is, just because an actor hasn't been in a movie in a couple years, does that really make them a has-been?
When I think has-been I think of someone who had a good run, was a popular name for a period, and is now doing Sci-Fi original movies and direct to DVD B movies.
I don't think Paltrow or Bridges even come close to fitting that mold. Even RDJ didn't really have a slump... he just went off the radar for a period.
Now... actors like Val Kilmer or Steven Segal or Chevy Chase... arguably even Eddie Murphy? Has-beens in my book. Murphy is a wild card because his voice still has some value because of Shrek but as a live-action actor his time has passed.
When I think has-been I think of someone who had a good run, was a popular name for a period, and is now doing Sci-Fi original movies and direct to DVD B movies.
I don't think Paltrow or Bridges even come close to fitting that mold. Even RDJ didn't really have a slump... he just went off the radar for a period.
Now... actors like Val Kilmer or Steven Segal or Chevy Chase... arguably even Eddie Murphy? Has-beens in my book. Murphy is a wild card because his voice still has some value because of Shrek but as a live-action actor his time has passed.
Every kid could be batman or Iron man with enough time and money (in their head at least). Thor and GOTG is just cool. Ant-Man? Is there pictures floating around of a Marvel producer killing someone? Is this a black mail type of movie that they sere forced to make?
Rant off. Marvel knows how to make a quality movie. Im sure Antman will be a well made movie and hopefully do well in the box office. I did laugh when Thomas the train went off the rails.....give them a point for originality using Thomas as a villain.
Rant off. Marvel knows how to make a quality movie. Im sure Antman will be a well made movie and hopefully do well in the box office. I did laugh when Thomas the train went off the rails.....give them a point for originality using Thomas as a villain.
JD
Master Member
I'm not sure why a couple of folks take my use of the term "has-been" so literally - especially when there are plenty of other aspects of the Ant Man trailer worth discussing. Maybe I shoud've used the term "been around the block" rather than has-been - they're practically interchangeable to me.
Let me just say this: I am looking forward to this and will wait in line with money in hand despite this trailer looking like a by-the-numbers movie that Marvel could do in their sleep. I hope I'm wrong - but, it looks rote and a little too calculated... especially after the amazing ride we've had up until now.
Maybe that's what you need to introduce a hero like Ant Man (who really precedes many characters in the Marvel Universe - including Iron Man and Thor).
One could argue Douglas' history as an actor far outweighs his "marital fame." Your Lilly argument is just a joke, as those flicks have made a ton of money (and the last was well received - 76% favorable on RT and a 7.6 on the user-weighted IMdb)... but, yes - she doesn't have a lot of credits and the bickering a small (but loud) group of Hobbit purists is laughable.
...and yes, based on their respective track records, Paul Rudd is a much more known, recognizable and more a commodity at this point in his career than Downey was at his point in his career when Iron Man came out. (Of course, Rudd also has the baggage of Anchorman 2 and some real stinkers out there).
My glasses are clean, thanks - do you need some windex?
The Reddit thread for this trailer is full of folks that are judging this much, much harsher than I am...
Sorry I type too much. This is just a trailer... I can't wait to see the movie.
Let me just say this: I am looking forward to this and will wait in line with money in hand despite this trailer looking like a by-the-numbers movie that Marvel could do in their sleep. I hope I'm wrong - but, it looks rote and a little too calculated... especially after the amazing ride we've had up until now.
Maybe that's what you need to introduce a hero like Ant Man (who really precedes many characters in the Marvel Universe - including Iron Man and Thor).
Yes, I'm sure someone went into the IMdb and erased all of Downey, Paltrow and Bridges entries for the years prior to Iron Man's release. :facepalmYes, a user edited resource couldn't possibly be flawed
I don't think I've said anything contrary; I don't disagree that more people have heard of Downey, Paltrow and Bridges over Evans and Hemsworth. Just like more people have heard of Rudd, Douglas and Lilly than Evans, Hemsworth, Pratt and others prior to their Marvel debuts. That was (just one of) my point(s) in my original post.
One could argue Douglas' history as an actor far outweighs his "marital fame." Your Lilly argument is just a joke, as those flicks have made a ton of money (and the last was well received - 76% favorable on RT and a 7.6 on the user-weighted IMdb)... but, yes - she doesn't have a lot of credits and the bickering a small (but loud) group of Hobbit purists is laughable.
...and yes, based on their respective track records, Paul Rudd is a much more known, recognizable and more a commodity at this point in his career than Downey was at his point in his career when Iron Man came out. (Of course, Rudd also has the baggage of Anchorman 2 and some real stinkers out there).
My glasses are clean, thanks - do you need some windex?
I think that's pretty much the definition... but, it's all a matter of personal opinion.
I believe it's a matter of opinion and person interpretation on just what exactly a has-been is...
The Reddit thread for this trailer is full of folks that are judging this much, much harsher than I am...
Of course, there are some that are loving, it too .
Sorry I type too much.
This is just a trailer... I can't wait to see the movie.
Last edited:
Father
Sr Member
Had Marvel hired the same people to do the Ant-Man trailer that did Terminator Genesis, you wouldn't have to see the movie because what's left to see.
So, although this trailer might give the movie a generic feel, and Marvel may in fact only be making this movie to satisfy/reset a time limit on the rights to the [character] property, I think Marvel has built up a strong enough track record that we might actually like the movie better than the trailer. I know everyone here hates it when a trailer isn't as good as the movie these days but I think we'll survive this summer with another great addition to the MCU.
YAY!!
So, although this trailer might give the movie a generic feel, and Marvel may in fact only be making this movie to satisfy/reset a time limit on the rights to the [character] property, I think Marvel has built up a strong enough track record that we might actually like the movie better than the trailer. I know everyone here hates it when a trailer isn't as good as the movie these days but I think we'll survive this summer with another great addition to the MCU.
YAY!!
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Not what I'm suggesting. You said IMdb doesn't lie. If I go and edit the IMdb page of Star Wars to say that Luke was played by Roseanne Barr then it does lie. There's a difference between suggesting a user-edited website isn't infallible and suggesting that particular portions of it are incorrect.
Iron Man starred a name actor with name supporters. Incredible Hulk starred a name actor with name supporters. Ant-Man will star a name actor with name supporters.
Thor starred a no-name actor with name supporters. Captain America starred a no-name actor with name supporters. Guardians starred a no-name actor with name supporters.
Marvel seems to be batting .500 with name leads verses no-name leads. To me this would seem to suggest that "put[ting] up some larger names...than we might usually see from a Marvel flick..." is a flawed conclusion since putting up a large name for lead is a coin flip with Marvel films.
Yes, and one could argue he hasn't done anything notable since Wall Street and is a "has been" by the same metric you've used for other actors in this thread.
It was a joke, but the Hobbit films weren't good and the third one having decent reviews is the same as saying that "Revenge of the Sith" is the best prequel; it's true but it's not exactly a compliment. Transformers films make a lot of money too, money doesn't always equal quality.
Completely agree with what you said about Rudd though.
Funny what Reddit is saying. Hopefully they also noticed that Iron Man is Batman with power armor, no fighting skills, and a drinking problem.
Hell, theres just no pleasing some people is there?! "Marvel" is literally a marvel at producing high quality entertainment shows and movies! "Daredevil" anyone? I'd argue its really all the trailers that have become "generic" in their release format rather than the product they advertise. Beat for beat. I thought this one actually offered more in the way of humour than most of the past Marvel films, and thats why Rudd was such a good choice. Ant Man??? Thats everyones whos not a comic fans reaction, so they are cleverly playing that angle up. And what can you really tell except that as always the effects looked superb, the tech looks spot on for a MCU film and the rest of it highly recommendable. Yes it may feel the same as all thats gone it before BUT its based on a COMIC !!!! What are you look for from this kind of film, Shakespeare in the Park???? What do you really expect? And as regards all this talk about "has been" actors, I'd suggest anyone whose over retirement age in the real world is a "has been" when you think about. The fact that many of these actors are still working on the big pictures like this is geniunely good news, because they are still turning in mostly strong performances and they do add a certain familair credibility to roles that would have been theirs in the past. I could go on but I won't. If you can't make your arguement in a paragraph you've already lost your way. Unlike Marvel so far.
JD
Master Member
So you're saying we should all throw objectivity and the ability to have and rationalize coherent thoughts about something should be thrown out the window and we should just let everyone rest on their laurels? Sorry, I'm not a "sheeple" and I like to have free through and form my opinion based on what I'm actually seeing (and I've clearly stated that I will see this and I still have much hope for it).
Even if this is a just a run of the mill superhero flick, with "has been" actors and by-the-numbers filmmaking - based on Marvel's track record (and even the trailer still feels quality - if generic) it still should be solid entertainment - the problem is I expect more from Marvel.
...and maybe that's part of the issue. Maybe Marvel has set the bar so high that expectations are that much higher for me. But, that's also a reason for Marvel to try that much harder and not release something that's just "routine" for them.
I don't care if its based on a comic. Thor, Cap and Guardians were all based on comics - and they've amazingly set a new bar for superhero movies.
Even if this is a just a run of the mill superhero flick, with "has been" actors and by-the-numbers filmmaking - based on Marvel's track record (and even the trailer still feels quality - if generic) it still should be solid entertainment - the problem is I expect more from Marvel.
...and maybe that's part of the issue. Maybe Marvel has set the bar so high that expectations are that much higher for me. But, that's also a reason for Marvel to try that much harder and not release something that's just "routine" for them.
I don't care if its based on a comic. Thor, Cap and Guardians were all based on comics - and they've amazingly set a new bar for superhero movies.
