Marvel's Ant-Man: July 17, 2015 (1 Viewer)

[dpippel]

It'll be very interesting to see where this one goes.

 

[Sam Favate]

Has everyone seen this? It's an ant-size preview of Ant Man. For the full version, you have to watch the premiere of Marvel's Agent Carter on Tuesday. I don't know who is doing the marketing for Marvel these days, but moves like this are genius.

 

[Ejanss]

Has everyone seen this? It's an ant-size preview of Ant Man. For the full version, you have to watch the premiere of Marvel's Agent Carter on Tuesday.

Okay, so I stand corrected: Maybe there WILL actually be male viewers tuning into Agent Carter. At least for the first episode.
(Unless they just wait for YouTube, like with SHIELD's Avengers 2 promo.)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm a male, last time I checked. I'm very interested in watching "Agent Carter" - I loved her character in the first Captain America movie, and perhaps even more than that, I loved the period atmosphere and vibe of the Marvel one-shot. I understand that not every show is to everyone's tastes and I think that's ok, but to make blanket statements about "Agent Carter" specifically (or shows with strong female characters in general) as being unappealing to all male audiences, I find that offensive.

 

[Ejanss]

I understand that not every show is to everyone's tastes and I think that's ok, but to make blanket statements about "Agent Carter" specifically (or shows with strong female characters in general) as being unappealing to all male audiences, I find that offensive.

If you like it, that's fine--Better you than me.

But the fact is, it's been a vicious spiral for network TV over the last twenty years since cable and home-theater:
Networks find out guys don't watch network TV--At least not during scheduled times, and it's largely female audiences that "have" to have their Tuesday night rituals for The Voice, since male audiences tend to opt for more in-control options like cable channels, home theater and gaming, and Tivo any interesting program for later watching. More female audiences mean attracting more female-oriented advertising, which means more situations of "what women want" (strong persecuted district attorneys, strong persecuted doctors, in-command bounty hunters and criminal psychologists), and fewer male demographics, which mean more female shows for female advertisers, etc., etc.
It would be misogynistic to go further and say why women want to, or why networks believe women want to, see themselves in humorless empowered kick-ass fantasies (eg., "And they call us guys 'geeks'..."), the fact is, the content is spiraling inwards, and leaving less option for males who want to watch a more diverse range of unplanned television. They thought we "didn't want to watch", and now we're getting our wish.

Leaving out a lot of discussion that should be on the TV thread, it still feels like the empty teasing promise of the first season of SHIELD, where we'll get a little Marvel window-dressing, but otherwise just a generic series that's completely self-contained from the movies driving it....Except when they have an exclusive preview of the next movie, of course.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

All I'm suggesting is perhaps it's not right to make blanket statements about what men like to watch (or what women like to watch, for that matter). You have your set of personal preferences in what you watch, and I have mine - and I would never think to tell you that what you like is "wrong" or that you shouldn't like it. I would simply ask for the same courtesy in return. While I don't agree with your reasons for not liking what's on TV right now, that's your opinion and I would never attempt to take it from you. Again, I would just like the same courtesy in return, instead of coming away with the sense that I'm being told that what I like is wrong or that I'm wrong to like it.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I'm a male, last time I checked. I'm very interested in watching "Agent Carter" - I loved her character in the first Captain America movie, and perhaps even more than that, I loved the period atmosphere and vibe of the Marvel one-shot. I understand that not every show is to everyone's tastes and I think that's ok, but to make blanket statements about "Agent Carter" specifically (or shows with strong female characters in general) as being unappealing to all male audiences, I find that offensive.

Same here. Don't know what he's on about. But it's always something, isn't it?

 

[Sean Bryan]

All I'm suggesting is perhaps it's not right to make blanket statements about what men like to watch (or what women like to watch, for that matter). You have your set of personal preferences in what you watch, and I have mine - and I would never think to tell you that what you like is "wrong" or that you shouldn't like it. I would simply ask for the same courtesy in return. While I don't agree with your reasons for not liking what's on TV right now, that's your opinion and I would never attempt to take it from you. Again, I would just like the same courtesy in return, instead of coming away with the sense that I'm being told that what I like is wrong or that I'm wrong to like it.

Insanity! That's not the way it works on the Internet. The Internet is a place to be educated about why the things you like aren't any good. Anyway, back to Ant-Man, I agree that Marvel has been doing some clever stuff with their marketing. I'm looking forward to the trailer.

 

[Ejanss]

Insanity! That's not the way it works on the Internet. The Internet is a place to be educated about why the things you like aren't any good.

Hey, I said there was nothing wrong with his watching it--Last I heard, "You'll be sor-reee!" was not a statement of malice.

Anyway, back to Ant-Man, I agree that Marvel has been doing some clever stuff with their marketing. I'm looking forward to the trailer.

And lets us get over the shock that Yellowjacket (ie. the enemy, not the Pym Yellowjacket...or maybe it turns out to be?) now apparently has extra cyber-appendages.

(And please, let YJ not turn out to be an over-the-edge Pym still angsting about Janet...Didn't we already get something like that in a Disney superhero movie?)

 

[Sean Bryan]

In this movie Yellowjacket is Darren Cross played by Corey Stoll.

The Yellowjacket suit looks bad-ass!

 

[Sean Bryan]

The teaser looks cool. But I wonder, is it too late to change the name?

 

[Chris Will]

I thought it looked incredibly cheesy and it had me laughing when it was over, especially when he shrunk and rode other bugs. The first thing I said to my wife was that maybe this comic book movies fad should end if this is what it is coming to.

I don't and have never been a comic book reader so I am unfamiliar with all these characters outside of the movies. This one seems to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

I had similar feelings when the first teaser for Gaurdians was released and it turned out good so, we shall see. At this point though, I don't see myself paying to see this in theaters.

 

[Ejanss]

The teaser looks cool. But I wonder, is it too late to change the name?

For obligatory "Self-ridicule, to placate the non-fans" line (qv. Darcy in the Thor movies), it was either that, or "What do I do, beat up on the ants?"

Here, they made the more tasteful and fan-friendly choice.


Still, this didn't seem to be the SDCC trailer that nobody outside the con ever got a look at. ("You act like it was only your balls that'd been shrunk.")

I thought it looked incredibly cheesy and it had me laughing when it was over, especially when he shrunk and rode other bugs. The first thing I said to my wife was that maybe this comic book movies fad should end if this is what it is coming to.

I don't and have never been a comic book reader so I am unfamiliar with all these characters outside of the movies.

APPARENTLY.




He's got a long (and rather dark) Marvel history, and let's just say, he ain't Garrett Morris in the SNL sketch.


(Actually, Stan Lee had wanted to do a completely different movie--one that looked a lot more like what non-fans are probably thinking--back in the New World Pictures days, so when the idea of doing an Avengers movie came up, and fans said, "But what about Hank & Janet?", Marvel could say, "Look, we've got a memo here in our files!"

And unsung credit to Edgar Wright for taking the whole thing seriously--They would have never figured out a good movie without him.)

 

[Chris Will]

Well, we don't know if the movie is good yet. Like I said, we'll see.


Thanks for the video, at least I know a little back story now, still not sold on the idea as a whole. Just seems very silly to me but, I guess all super heroes are to a degree.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I really like the look of the film, but that's not a surprise since Peyton Reed has always been a visually talented director.

What worries me is the screenplay credit: the only people credited are Adam McKay, whose prior screenwriting resume consists entirely of stupid comedies and who was brought in mere weeks before production started, and franchise star Paul Rudd. It just reeks of a script written on the fly, with each day's pages written the night before. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Ejanss]

I really like the look of the film, but that's not a surprise since Peyton Reed has always been a visually talented director.

What worries me is the screenplay credit: the only people credited are Adam McKay, whose prior screenwriting resume consists entirely of stupid comedies and who was brought in mere weeks before production started, and franchise star Paul Rudd. It just reeks of a script written on the fly, with each day's pages written the night before. I hope I'm wrong.

I hope so too, as they had to move very quickly from an interested Edgar Wright having to leave the project, to appointing an outside director who would deliver an already late project on time and keep it closer to Phase 2/3 interests.

Peyton Reed's name seems to have been lying around since the days when he was supposed to do a "retro tongue-in-cheek" Fantastic Four for Fox, so I'm a bit nervous (but hey, Chris Evans was in FF too, and he moved over to Marvel nicely).


If we want to picture what a "rushed, pointless" Marvel movie made for its own sake without any larger interest looks like, we already have Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 for those, and I'm satisfied this doesn't quite look like that edge of the cliff yet. They know they have to work overtime getting us to take Douglas and Rudd as seriously as the comics do, while T:tDW and IM3 were coasting in on franchise overconfidence.

Any other studio handling this would have played up Rudd and deployed the Green Lantern goof-camp lifeboats early.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I agree with you about Thor: The Dark World feeling like a franchise placeholder, but I wouldn't put Iron Man 3 in that category. I have my problems with it, mainly with how the humor ran amuck over the storytelling, but I think it's exactly the film Shane Black and Marvel wanted it to be. If they had another year to work on it, I think it would basically be the same film.

The danger with having a vast interconnected universe is that the temptation arises for the lower-profile films to just serve the purpose of laying the groundwork for the big event films. That's a surefire way to undermine your brand; every film has to be self-justifying.

 

[TravisR]

What worries me is the screenplay credit: the only people credited are Adam McKay, whose prior screenwriting resume consists entirely of stupid comedies...

I think McKay was the head writer at SNL for a while too. Plus, he was in talks a few years ago to direct an adaptation of Garth Ennis' brilliant The Boys comic book so it seems like he's been trying to branch out into the comic book movie world.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I don't know... that wasn't much of a teaser. It's an ant movie, but all I heard were crickets.

 

[Sean Bryan]

What worries me is the screenplay credit: the only people credited are Adam McKay, whose prior screenwriting resume consists entirely of stupid comedies and who was brought in mere weeks before production started, and franchise star Paul Rudd. It just reeks of a script written on the fly, with each day's pages written the night before. I hope I'm wrong.

My understanding is that McKay was offered the director's chair, and he was interested but wasn't available based on the timeframe. He was, however, available enough to do the re-write of the script with Rudd. And I'm also of the understanding that the script maintains most of Wright's original script but incorporates the notes that Marvel wanted and Wright didn't.