Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
"I didn't. He had some development in First Class but was promptly forgotten in Do FP. He was barely there in that movie. It is not like Wolverine was the sole character in the original trilogy either. Other people got some screentime, such as Rogue, Iceman and Pyro. The thing is that Wolverine was still unmistenkenly the main character and almost every movie is about him somehow."
Well, a bit less so in DoFP (Xavier and Mystique get much more focus later in the movie) and not at all in First Class (he only has a cameo). But yeah, otherwise I agree. Don't get me wrong, that pissed me off too. You have no idea how mad I was when they killed Cyclop offscreen.
"That is the thing. Why is Ant-Man the title character when the story is clearly not about him. It was the writers/directors choice to make a story that is so much about Pym and Hope but, nonetheless, give the antagonism to Scott even though he was clearly not the best guy for the whole."
Eeeee... He was the title character because the film was supposed to be about Antman? You know, the guy from the comic, who actually was the main character? Also, technically Scott had his arc too.
"Hope should have been the Wasp (Or Ant-Woman) immediately because the movie made painfully clear that she was the most suited person for the job. There is literally no compelling reason for why she shouldn't. The only argument is that Pym is worried for her, but that is not a good argument."
No it's not a good argument, but it's understandable from his point of view. And from a scenaristic point of view, they couldn't make the movie about Wasp or Ant-Woman because this was a movie adaptation of ANTMAN. I know it's not necessarly a bad thing to take liberty on the source material, but you guys are pushing it. Are you also going to complain about Amazing Spider-Man not being about Gwen being Spider-Woman rather than about Peter because Gwen was a more interesting character?
"I never said she was a feminist icon. I said she was an independent woman, which she is. The fact she si a vicious Vamp doesn't chage the fact her characterization and development is not intrinsically tied to the men around her"
You implied it. You essentially talked about her being an indepenant woman like if it was a good thing for feminism. Don't feel like it was in that case. Last time I checked "Strong Independant Woman" was just as bad of a stereotype as the rest.
edited 8th Aug '15 9:25:43 AM by Theokal3
Well Mystique is better for feminism than the Enchantress whose early characterization revolved around 'if i evil hard enough, will Thor bang me?'
I mean, yes, she's a villain but women can be villains too. And well-written women are a win for everybody.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI can understand why someone would make a movie about Ant-Man. What I can't understand is why they wouldn't also want to prominently feature the Wasp as well.
edited 8th Aug '15 9:35:43 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!The problem with Ant-Man, as much as I like it as a film, is that Edgar Wright chose to tell a story about fathers and daughters struggling to sustain a relationship, but then wrote near to nothing exploring the view point or struggles of the women in this equation. Adam Mc Kay has said that he triple Hope's screen time from Wright's original draft and added in the entire explanation of what happened to Janet himself. It follows the painful trend of women having no agency or focus within stories about them. Presumably the original film would have been Scott and Hank bonding over how they have little time with their daughters while said daughters have little or no presence in that conflict.
In a story about rebuilding a relationship between a father and a daughter, you expect the father and the daughter to be the protagonists, and if the father isn't protagonist material, surely, surely you would make the daughter the protagonist rather than displacing her with a different father? It's an amazing amount of effort going into not telling a story about a woman's struggle.
That said, the final film does give Hope some good material and allowed her to be frustrated that so much effort was taking place to keep her out of an active role. She got to call the old man out and finally be trusted with information of why she's mourning over her own mother and be trusted with the agency she deserves. And, best of all, Hank is portrayed as a right prickcock for keeping this autonomy from her.
Hank may not be able to trust the world with the implications of what he knows, but through the film he learns to trust his daughter with it. It's not about what you're comfortable with Hank, it's about what's respectful.
Honestly, Hank being a well intentioned cockdick is my favourite thing about the film.
@Theokal3 Why is it so important to you that Ant-Man gets adapted instead of Wasp?
Our argument was that it made farmore narrative sense (and was more socially concious) to adapt The Wasp than Scott Lang, but you are yet to justify why Ant-man is more important other than it's what the original writer intended?
@Khantalas from the last page. It looks like the entire Spider-Corps are going to survive the Secret Wars, so that means the main Marvel Universe is going to have five Spider-mans, two (current) spider-women, a spider-girl and a spider-pig. All coexisting (Also Silk). Also, Spider-man (India) seems really interesting, I should maybe pick up the Spider-corps book when it goes into print.
edited 8th Aug '15 9:52:13 AM by Whowho
Marvel had a script they'd been sitting on forever and they wanted to get it done.
The new writer tried to hope-ify the movie without needing to make huge rewrites that would delay the movie.
I think they should have put Wasp in the suit for the finale.
You could argue this diminishes Scott's triumph in his own movie but I offer the counterpoint that I wanted to see the Wasp.
Although given the WIP Wasp suit they had... yikes. Tough call.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers@ the Iron Man 3 comments from a couple of pages back.
I love Iron Man 3 and I will always love Iron Man 3, because Tony going through PTSD was done really well, IMO, and frankly, I thought that the Mandarin twist was genius.
Shane Black did a great job, and critical consensus is with him. Iron Man 3 is just as good a movie as much as Ant-Man and Age of Ultron are.
edited 8th Aug '15 9:52:00 AM by higherbrainpattern
Hope would have made the film 5 minutes long if she was in the suit, and there'd be no Scott Lang and his crew and daughter, who I liked a lot.
This probably could have been fixed by making Hope The Muscle to Lang's Brains. You know, make the security so impenetrable that even the Pym's can't figure out a way through it, so they need to call in the one amazing thief who somehow managed to get through a similar security system before. The climax could have been Wasp showing up to save the day after the whole father-daughter bonding stuff, that would have been cool.
I also liked Iron Man 3. My brain is too bleh to make a numerical list of some sort but I'm sure its in the top 5 in my brain list of things that are MCU movies
Forever liveblogging the AvengersThe race track set piece is with out doubt in my mind the second best set piece in the Iron Man series.
I know it would have been really unprofessional of MARVEL to have thrown away Edgar's script, once he left or at an earlier date, but damn, that original draft does not sound pretty. Michael Pena's role was barely even in that draft! Considering Edgar had been working on this project since 2006, I think it would have been reasonable for Marvel at some point to admit their vision was different from Edger's. But still, Edgar gave us a strong characterisation for a Hank Pym, and gave the MCU a really engaging villain fora change, so it's not all wasted effort.
Seriously. Cranky Pym is amazing.
I just more things to happen at him that he'll disapprove of in a sort of grumbling way.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersHere's a crazy idea: literally just sub out Scott for Hope.
Forget Hope's characterization in the existing film. It's pretty bog-standard "sensible, stoic women constantly exasperated by the men in her life but cools towards them because sensible, stoic women aren't attractive." Literally just make her Scott.
She broke things off with her father—perhaps because she was disgusted with his selfishness. She builds her own life, tries Robin Hood-ing, gets caught, goes to jail, ends up on the rocks with her ex-wife, daughter, and their family. After trying to go legit, she finds out about this great target, this rich old dude with some sort of super-security only she could crack. She breaks into the place and—shock! It's her dad's house! The get is her dad's old super-suit! He threatens to press charges unless she hangs around and uses her heist skills to save him from his own mistakes, namely, that the super-science he created is about to fall into the wrong hands. He trains her to use the Ant-Man suit for this purpose. And so on and so forth.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies."Well Mystique is better for feminism than the Enchantress whose early characterization revolved around 'if i evil hard enough, will Thor bang me?'"
Best summary of the Enchantress ever.
"I mean, yes, she's a villain but women can be villains too. And well-written women are a win for everybody."
Yeah I know. Azula is a major example of this.
@Whowho: A pretty reasonable question, I admit. To be honest, I would have rather a movie with both of them, but I didn't think that was possible. So I am glad they at least included her as a side-character in the movie, because honestly I didn't expect them to do that. Antman was a priority over Wasp because he came first and was the one who gave her powers, so it makes sense to introduce him first: for the same reason you can't introduce Robin before Batman. That's the pragmatic reason. Now, on a personal point of view? It's because I felt like of the two, Antman was the most in the need of a good adaptation. You could make an argument she suffered it too, but overall Antman is the one who is seen as a Memetic Loser, and I REALLY wanted this movie to make him awesome. And you can't deny the movie delivered when it came to this.
"I love Iron Man 3 and I will always love Iron Man 3, because Tony going through PTSD was done really well, IMO, and frankly, I thought that the Mandarin twist was genius.
Shane Black did a great job, and critical consensus is with him. Iron Man 3 is just as good a movie as much as Ant-Man and Age of Ultron are."
I honestly don't blame you for liking the twist, because objectively it was clever and something people wouldn't see coming. But personally I disliked it because no matter how clever it is, it was used to avoid adapting a villain I had been hoping to see in an Iron Man movie since day 1. Even a good twist is worthless when it lets you disappointed by the end result.
edited 8th Aug '15 10:06:17 AM by Theokal3
Iron Man 3 also gets a lot of praise due to the Mandarin twist. I guess its a risk that paid off?
It also literally paid off in that it made all the money.
I don't think Marvel is weeping 'oh if only we had not done it the way we done did it'
Forever liveblogging the AvengersBecause, you know, there didn't used to be more than one Spider-Man.
Right, some of us want a Ben Reilly movie!
[gets booed]
@Wack'd: I think the whole Scott Lang thing was because 1) it was what Edgar Wright wanted and he had already cast it by that point and 2) by the end of the day, Marvel still wanted to make an "Ant-Man" film and knew that making Hope the main character would change that.
Peyton Reed and Adam McKay and Paul Rudd (who rewrote the script) knew pretty much that the lack of female characters was pretty bad, so they rewrite Hope's role to be much bigger, but that also showed the gaping hole in the plot, which is that Hope's role would have been better as Ant-Man (or the Wasp). But at that point, it's either go with Scott Lang or go home, so they went with Lang, gave Hope her own character arc (something not even in the original Wright script, I believe), and then gave a hint towards her becoming the Wasp in the future.
It's not the most ideal solution, but it's better than what it would have been. Hopefully, the next Ant-Man movie will be called Ant-Man & the Wasp and then, like, the poster will have Hope cross out "Ant-Man" as a joke.
But personally I disliked it because no matter how clever it is, it was used to avoid adapting a villain I had been hoping to see in an Iron Man movie since day 1.
If you believe the One-Shots are canon, they could still adapt the Mandarin in some movie. I don't know if there are any plans to make another Iron Man movie, but they could.
edited 8th Aug '15 10:18:42 AM by alliterator
"Sure he walks around in armor and speaks in the third person, but his relief efforts have been great!"
Forever liveblogging the Avengers

They could have send Kitty back with Wolverine if they were really concerned about that. Though even worse was how Magneto was included into the story. He got broken out of prison for the sole purpose to f... everything up after it.