|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 2, 2020 16:11:14 GMT
Plus a 'very very different visual template' as well. Hmm, will it be shot by Roger Deakins? 
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 2, 2020 16:42:48 GMT
I certainly hope so. Ant-Man and the Wasp was a let down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 2, 2020 17:18:37 GMT
Ant-Man isn't top tier MCU, and a third more bombastic film isn't really going to change that. I'm glad to see Reed is getting out of his comfort zone, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2020 17:37:28 GMT
I've always been hard on this franchise because I think Ant Man has a lot of potential. I think the first movie does a pretty decent job of tapping into that potential- it's a lot of fun- but the second movie mostly falls flat. I hope they really are mixing it up and this isn't just empty hype.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 2, 2020 18:14:00 GMT
I've always been hard on this franchise because I think Ant Man has a lot of potential. I think the first movie does a pretty decent job of tapping into that potential- it's a lot of fun- but the second movie mostly falls flat. I hope they really are mixing it up and this isn't just empty hype. Everyone seems to think Ant-Man has "more potential," but no one can ever articulate how or why. He grows, he shrinks, and he tells funny jokes in between. It's pretty straightforward. What potential is being lost here? If we were talking about the Hank Pymm character and his connection to Ultron, I could almost agree, but grow/shrink sci-fi dynamics date back to the golden age of sci-fi.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Sept 2, 2020 18:53:46 GMT
I've always been hard on this franchise because I think Ant Man has a lot of potential. I think the first movie does a pretty decent job of tapping into that potential- it's a lot of fun- but the second movie mostly falls flat. I hope they really are mixing it up and this isn't just empty hype. Everyone seems to think Ant-Man has "more potential," but no one can ever articulate how or why. He grows, he shrinks, and he tells funny jokes in between. It's pretty straightforward. What potential is being lost here? If we were talking about the Hank Pymm character and his connection to Ultron, I could almost agree, but grow/shrink sci-fi dynamics date back to the golden age of sci-fi. Exploring the Microverse which is what the second film should have been about. As it is, it's glossed over so we can have a generic villain. Making Hank Pym an old man and not letting him invent Ultron was a mistake as well. They could also do more with Giant Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 2, 2020 19:44:22 GMT
Everyone seems to think Ant-Man has "more potential," but no one can ever articulate how or why. He grows, he shrinks, and he tells funny jokes in between. It's pretty straightforward. What potential is being lost here? If we were talking about the Hank Pymm character and his connection to Ultron, I could almost agree, but grow/shrink sci-fi dynamics date back to the golden age of sci-fi. Exploring the Microverse which is what the second film should have been about. As it is, it's glossed over so we can have a generic villain. Making Hank Pym an old man and not letting him invent Ultron was a mistake as well. They could also do more with Giant Man. Tell me, which features and characters from the microverse are you excited to see? I'm a long time comic book reader who typically found the microverse to be mostly boring and needless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2020 23:09:29 GMT
I've always been hard on this franchise because I think Ant Man has a lot of potential. I think the first movie does a pretty decent job of tapping into that potential- it's a lot of fun- but the second movie mostly falls flat. I hope they really are mixing it up and this isn't just empty hype. Everyone seems to think Ant-Man has "more potential," but no one can ever articulate how or why. He grows, he shrinks, and he tells funny jokes in between. It's pretty straightforward. What potential is being lost here? If we were talking about the Hank Pymm character and his connection to Ultron, I could almost agree, but grow/shrink sci-fi dynamics date back to the golden age of sci-fi. Youre speaking in terms of his powers. This aspect of the character has been adapted quite well. I'm speaking about the quality of the scripts and the tone of the franchise. The approach to Ant Man thus far has been: This is a fun, popcorn family movie with fun broad humor to watch with the younglings on weekends. I believe a less generic approach done by a writer/director with more creative talent, like say Takia Watiti could've turned this wonderfully bizzare character into a cult classic series. The approach is everything. And Reed set a delibrately low bar. If you look at what concepts were left over by Edgar Wright you can see how much more creative potential existed here. That train fight sequence was his, and it's by far the most wildly creative piece of the series. There are fun, creative set pieces in the sequel, but everything around is practically pulled from a Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell movie. Yes, he can still tell jokes in between, but do those jokes have to be about an FBI director trying to learn close up magic? Or a reference to those tired Bud Light Wazzup commercials? I don't mean to be so hard on this series. I do like the first one quite a bit. But the sequel really left me feeling rather disappointed with the treatment of the character. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 3, 2020 2:25:54 GMT
Everyone seems to think Ant-Man has "more potential," but no one can ever articulate how or why. He grows, he shrinks, and he tells funny jokes in between. It's pretty straightforward. What potential is being lost here? If we were talking about the Hank Pymm character and his connection to Ultron, I could almost agree, but grow/shrink sci-fi dynamics date back to the golden age of sci-fi. Youre speaking in terms of his powers. This aspect of the character has been adapted quite well. I'm speaking about the quality of the scripts and the tone of the franchise. The approach to Ant Man thus far has been: This is a fun, popcorn family movie with fun broad humor to watch with the younglings on weekends. I believe a less generic approach done by a writer/director with more creative talent, like say Takia Watiti could've turned this wonderfully bizzare character into a cult classic series. The approach is everything. And Reed set a delibrately low bar. If you look at what concepts were left over by Edgar Wright you can see how much more creative potential existed here. That train fight sequence was his, and it's by far the most wildly creative piece of the series. There are fun, creative set pieces in the sequel, but everything around is practically pulled from a Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell movie. Yes, he can still tell jokes in between, but do those jokes have to be about an FBI director trying to learn close up magic? Or a reference to those tired Bud Light Wazzup commercials? I don't mean to be so hard on this series. I do like the first one quite a bit. But the sequel really left me feeling rather disappointed with the treatment of the character. You’re talking about the creative teams... There isn’t really a lot more to unlock in Ant-Man’s mythology and power set, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 4:46:03 GMT
Youre speaking in terms of his powers. This aspect of the character has been adapted quite well. I'm speaking about the quality of the scripts and the tone of the franchise. The approach to Ant Man thus far has been: This is a fun, popcorn family movie with fun broad humor to watch with the younglings on weekends. I believe a less generic approach done by a writer/director with more creative talent, like say Takia Watiti could've turned this wonderfully bizzare character into a cult classic series. The approach is everything. And Reed set a delibrately low bar. If you look at what concepts were left over by Edgar Wright you can see how much more creative potential existed here. That train fight sequence was his, and it's by far the most wildly creative piece of the series. There are fun, creative set pieces in the sequel, but everything around is practically pulled from a Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell movie. Yes, he can still tell jokes in between, but do those jokes have to be about an FBI director trying to learn close up magic? Or a reference to those tired Bud Light Wazzup commercials? I don't mean to be so hard on this series. I do like the first one quite a bit. But the sequel really left me feeling rather disappointed with the treatment of the character. You’re talking about the creative teams... There isn’t really a lot more to unlock in Ant-Man’s mythology and power set, though. Probably so. I'm not super well versed in his mythos. I think there's more they can do with Giant Man- as far as the action scenes go anyway. Not sure how they could further explore the character of Scott Lang. Something with his daughter most likely. They more or less abandoned his redemption arc in the second movie. As far as plot, I had the thought of further exploring time travel in the third movie since the method of doing so originated in his franchise. Maybe Scott teams up with CGI de-aged Michael Douglas in the 60s? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 3, 2020 15:52:25 GMT
You’re talking about the creative teams... There isn’t really a lot more to unlock in Ant-Man’s mythology and power set, though. Probably so. I'm not super well versed in his mythos. I think there's more they can do with Giant Man- as far as the action scenes go anyway. Not sure how they could further explore the character of Scott Lang. Something with his daughter most likely. They more or less abandoned his redemption arc in the second movie. As far as plot, I had the thought of further exploring time travel in the third movie since the method of doing so originated in his franchise. Maybe Scott teams up with CGI de-aged Michael Douglas in the 60s? I don't know. I see where you're coming from... I hate to be a stickler about this but, Giant-Man is a different character altogether from Ant-Man. It just so happens that the same individual occupied both identities. Giant-Man is separate enough from Ant-Man, Yellow Jacket, Goliath, and Wasp (another identity also used by Hank) as to be another hero altogether. Note that Giant-Man and Ant-Man have separate entries in the Wikipedia. When you see Ant-Man grow to 50 feet in size, that's just Ant-Man --- but bigger. Giant-Man is nearly distinct enough as a character to warrant his own trilogy. Ant-Man is named as such not only because he shrinks but also because he connects to the insect world - Giant-Man typically does not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 16:23:46 GMT
Probably so. I'm not super well versed in his mythos. I think there's more they can do with Giant Man- as far as the action scenes go anyway. Not sure how they could further explore the character of Scott Lang. Something with his daughter most likely. They more or less abandoned his redemption arc in the second movie. As far as plot, I had the thought of further exploring time travel in the third movie since the method of doing so originated in his franchise. Maybe Scott teams up with CGI de-aged Michael Douglas in the 60s? I don't know. I see where you're coming from... I hate to be a stickler about this but, Giant-Man is a different character altogether from Ant-Man. It just so happens that the same individual occupied both identities. Giant-Man is separate enough from Ant-Man, Yellow Jacket, Goliath, and Wasp (another identity also used by Hank) as to be another hero altogether. Note that Giant-Man and Ant-Man have separate entries in the Wikipedia. When you see Ant-Man grow to 50 feet in size, that's just Ant-Man --- but bigger. Giant-Man is nearly distinct enough as a character to warrant his own trilogy. Ant-Man is named as such not only because he shrinks but also because he connects to the insect world - Giant-Man typically does not. Theyve more or less conflated Ant Man and Giant Man though in the movies. I think the odds of seeing a seperate character become Giant Man in his own series are about slim to none. So any unique Giant Man moments/stories from the comics can be used with Scott Lang, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 3, 2020 16:42:59 GMT
I see where you're coming from... I hate to be a stickler about this but, Giant-Man is a different character altogether from Ant-Man. It just so happens that the same individual occupied both identities. Giant-Man is separate enough from Ant-Man, Yellow Jacket, Goliath, and Wasp (another identity also used by Hank) as to be another hero altogether. Note that Giant-Man and Ant-Man have separate entries in the Wikipedia. When you see Ant-Man grow to 50 feet in size, that's just Ant-Man --- but bigger. Giant-Man is nearly distinct enough as a character to warrant his own trilogy. Ant-Man is named as such not only because he shrinks but also because he connects to the insect world - Giant-Man typically does not. Theyve more or less conflated Ant Man and Giant Man though in the movies. I think the odds of seeing a seperate character become Giant Man in his own series are about slim to none. So any unique Giant Man moments/stories from the comics can be used with Scott Lang, no? You're absolutely correct about Marvel's treatment of the character, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of Ant-Man/Giant-Man's future prospects. I think that a more deliberate Giant-Man could be a thing in the MCU. There really isn't a Giant-Man in the MCU now, as we understand him in the comic books. What will they do with the character after the Ant-Man trilogy is over? Start another one? Add a fourth entry? It's not unlikely that they may reinvent the character under one of his other identities, and while Giant-Man is one of many choices, it shouldn't be ruled out altogether. 'Doing more' with Giant-man shouldn't be boiled down to how that power set gets utilized by Ant-Man. I think Ant-Man will run his course as a character because he's so similar to the Wasp. The Wasp and Giant-Man or the Wasp and Goliath make for a more dynamic and effective pairing. I don't see how it could be a foregone conclusion that Marvel Studios will never explore that pairing.
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Sept 3, 2020 16:48:03 GMT
I can't be the only one that likes the small scale Antman films. There are other superheroes and other movies that can be big and grand. 😒
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 3, 2020 17:13:50 GMT
I can't be the only one that likes the small scale Antman films. There are other superheroes and other movies that can be big and grand. 😒 I actually do enjoy both films. I was fully prepared to absolutely hate the first one but I think it's probably one of the funniest MCU installments. And yeah, sometimes less grandeur is perfectly suitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Sept 3, 2020 17:22:58 GMT
I can't be the only one that likes the small scale Antman films. There are other superheroes and other movies that can be big and grand. 😒 I agree. I also want to see more of him summoning an army of ants to attack the villains.
Ant-Man Rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 5, 2020 12:11:29 GMT
Hopefully it ends up being better than the last film.
|
|
