f13.net

I figure it is time this movie had a separate thread.

We have a new director (Peyton Reed) - and one more rewrite underway (by Adam McKay).  I'm not too experienced with either guy's work.  It sounds like they had their work cut out for them - especially with the limited time frame until film release. 

So, given the guy doing the script re-write, I am assuming this will end up being a fairly comedic oriented heist caper with a super-powers twist, instead of the somewhat serious heist caper the original one was supposed to be?

This has been described as a comedic script from the start - specifically, Wright called it an adventure story with comedic elements back at SD Comic Con in 2006.

Well, to be fair you could also describe Oceans Eleven as a "Comic Heist Movie", but since it was more serious then comic in focus, while still having plenty of comedy in it, I wouldnt go that far.

I am getting the vibe that this was supposed to be something like Oceans, but with the super-powers angle.   The new script writer makes me think they are going to lean too far towards the comedy angle, and not in a good way (like Pink Panther comedy caperish).   I am expecting this to be Stupid Funny, not Smart Funny, but time will tell.

So in other news Ryan Renoylds cast as Ant-Man?  :awesome_for_real:

Oh God, Green Lantern was awful.

Wasn't his fault though.

Reynolds is typecast in my mind as the smarmy douchebag college acquaintance. I just can't look at that actor with any other lens.

There is a lot about this movie that I think is a mistake - primarily casting a 70 year old as Hank Pym.  You're effectively limiting this character that is the center of a lot of Marvel history.  Yes, they can work around it, but it will always bug me that Ultron is not Pym's work, that Pym is not a peer of Stark, etc...

However, I am not worried about the direction they're heading with regards to the comic angle.  I trust both Wright's original instincts, and I trust that the revisions Feige and crew are requiring are aimed at making it fit within the MCU.  At this point, I have lower expectations for this film than I have had for any other Marvel film, but I still expect it to fit in the MCU - and that means not being silly.

Paul Rudd has had a hand in the rewrite of Ant-man it seems - which is something I like hearing.  Rudd is one of those actors that does best when he personalizes his material... and I like the interest in making this work long term.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69166 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69166)

That typecasting will make for a perfect Deadpool

Iron Man is also a comedic adventure. I'm not expecting this to be any funnier than iron man.

Hudson Hawk with the second half replaced by heist themed explosions.

That was what we were hearing about the script before the rewrites.   I think one of the major goals of the rewrites was to make it 'more Marvel' with bigger action - at least that is what I get from reading between the lnes on interviews.  We'll see what we get.

Paul Rudd can do a lot with what on paper is a bland script, I doubt this will be less funny than iron man.

If only Edgar Wright had made Ant-Man in tone like Hot Fuzz.   :awesome_for_real:

I don't see them trying anything that ambitious with these films for the foreseeable future.

The furthest they'll go is a CA2 'felt a bit different for the first 30 minutes but actually exactly the same formula as the others' model.

GOTG was a huge risk from a character standpoint, antman should be more in line with iron man with a bit more of a lean to comedy.  The next big risk will be Dr Strange with the introduction of magic.

All I know is that I don't know enough.  There are enough warning signs to say this could be a disaster, and there are enough positive signs to say it could be excellent. 

In the end, I'm looking at Marvel's record so far and choosing to believe that this is going to be a film I enjoy, even if it is unlikely to be my favorite Marvel film.

I think is can be assumed that there is enough testing with marvel pre-release to know if the movie is good or not.  In fact it was a not so secret that there would be a GOTG2 already planned based on initial impressions before release.

So I think the real question is, would they flat out cancel a stinker rather than let it hurt the brand?

I think that at this point, if it was clearly and truly awful, then yes they would kill it and just absorb that hit.

They're developing the kind of brand recognition usually reserved for like, Pixar.

Well Adam McKay is being courted to direct a Marvel movie again.  He's the one that was originally replacing Wright but had to back out due to other commitments.  He's alsonthe one that rewrote the script with Paul Rudd.  With that in mind it should give some hope for Ant-Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xInh3VhAWs8

First real trailer is up.  Actually looks pretty good to me so far. 

I had the entirely opposite reaction as you. Very dubious so far.

Same here.  I think the super hero fatigue is setting in because while I'm sure it will be a fun movie I just don't see what an ant man story can bring to the table that we haven't already seen.

Not looking like a good movie. I got the impression it's going to be as good as the Green Lantern was.   

Hard to tell one way or the other from this trailer. Rudd gets about a line and a half of dialogue. One shot of him shrinking and a couple shots of a flying ant. Everything else in the trailer could have been taken from just about any other movie. Maybe the special effects still need a lot of work, but in that case it might have been better not to put out a trailer yet, let alone hype it up twice with the 8 second teaser.

Rudd looks drugged the entire time.  Lily Evangaline Fail.  Which I didn't think possible.

We'll see.

Not quite the home run the GOTG trailer was.  Guess I'm middle of the road.

I was expecting it to be more overtly comedic rather than serious with quips.

I think the trailer is setting you up as a fake out. All serious serious serious... then "HUH?" Next trailer will likely be a bit more fun. I thought it looked good though. I especially like the costume.

It's gotta get a few points for taking the piss out of its own name.

I'm pretty happy Michael Douglas is doing his one-octave higher than normal Liberace voice.

I'm optimistic. I was surprised to see how in-shape Rudd was in that one shot, geez. Michael Douglas looks great with a beard. The effects seem like they'll be interesting, but we'll see how it plays out -- I don't expect it to be *bad*.

I think it's going to be funnier than it is letting on. Which, really, in today's movie climate, I don't think you could make a superhero movie where the character's weakness is a predilection for spousal abuse. I wonder if they'll even work that in.

Well, since Corey Stoll is going to be Yellowjacket, I'm pretty sure Ant-Man won't be smacking his bitch up. Hank Pym was the wife-beater as Yellowjacket, not Scott Lang.

I wasn't blown away by the trailer but considering my interest in the film took a severe tumble the moment Edgar Wright left, it was better than I'd expected. It mostly reminded me of the current Flash TV series with a better FX budget, though. Let's hope they skimp on the melodrama.

I'm betting the spousal abuse does make it on screen as something he did wrong in the past.  I just get that vibe from what I've seen and heard, although there has been no direct reference to it as far as I know...

The costume looks good, that's about it.

I fully expect Douglas's Pym to have the past spousal abuse. They're going to make Lang morally unassailable to fit in with the current MCU climate -- the man who breaks the law for the right reasons. I imagine he'll be in Avengers 3 or tied into some other property where there won't be any teamwork friction because of some moral fault.

Hell even Tony Stark's moral failings seem less to do with lashing out and more to do with withdrawing into self. On second thought, I feel like I have a weak argument here.

Makes sense to me. I think they've let us accept and understand their failings because we can see ourselves in them, rather than just because they're evil. Tony drinks to deal with his issues, and even though drinking makes him kind of an asshole, he's not 100% a dick. (Although I got tired of drunk Tony around the middle of IM2 and was ready for sober Tony to happen. I think they've made it clear they're not going to follow up on that, though....)

It really grates me when people talk about Pym. His moral failing is going crazy. This is the same guy who had a split personality (YellowJacket) kill himself (Giant Man) because he was jealous of himself.

I think it is safe to say that the killing of himself will not make it into the MCU, although they did come close to it on the animated Avengers show. 

However, I would no be shocked if Pym turns out to be a villain in this movie...

Yeah, that wasn't my point. If people want to talk about Pym's "dark side" they should talk about how he's nuts, and how his supposed friends stood by and did nothing to help him.

Some new images released. I'm liking this one:

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/87998.jpg)

Paul Rudd's serious expression offset by the fact his costume is hanging on a wire hanger over a bath tub.  :drill:

Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdKf3MneyI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdKf3MneyI)

Thomas the Tank Engine moment is pretty golden.

Yeah, that and the Yellowjacket costume were pretty awesome. MUCH better trailer.

Agreed, this has been upgraded from I'll watch when it hits cable to I might pay to watch this on-demand.

The Ant Man costume is the best once since the main armor in Iron Man 1.  Looking forward to this.

So, three weeks until release and the marketing machine is picking up.  My son picked up a kids magazine with an article about it which has got him excited. What I noticed was

I'm betting they do it in the final act of this movie as a 'surprise' that wins the day for the heroes.

I'm still waiting for Marvel to reveal that Pym Particle growth is actually the entire universe (except the target) shrinking.

I really wonder how this will do. I think A2 took a little bit of the luster off of these Marvel films and in commercials this look pretty bad to me.

I'm not saying it will bomb - Marvel movies aren't bombing, period. But it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being one of the worst-performing ones.

I think it will at least do Thor and Capt. America levels.  It's not gonna be Guardians, that's for sure.  I think, if the movie is good, word of mouth will be it's biggest ally.  That said, I'll be seeing it.

I'm guessing critically it will be a shit show, but it will still make fuck loads of money then be overshadowed by whatever is next in line and we'll all forget about it like Thor 2.

There's not a lot of competition around its release. You've got Terminator a couple weeks earlier, and Mission Impossible a couple weeks later. It opens alongside Trainwreck which could do ok, and a week after Minions which will be big, but neither target the same audience. Pixels will probably tank the week after.

If they can pull off a super hero movie with a tree and a talking raccoon as two of the main breakout stars I will give antman a chance.

My only hope for antman is that it's a LOT stronger on comedy than they are letting out in the trailers.  If this tries to be a serious movie, it's gonna suck teeny tiny ant balls.

The main difference there is those two are actually likeable.


Maybe this is a sleeper hit, but I don't feel it. Like with GotG, people were all 'what is this shit?' when they heard about it, but after that first trailer pretty much everyone was buying what they were selling. With Antman, I don't feel or see any of that anticipation that other Marvel Movies brought.

Word is that there are 2 end credit scenes for Ant-Man, so don't leave early. 

Which trailers? There's been plenty of comedy in the latest ones and the 'preview' that's being shown before Jurassic Park. It's just not really good comedy.

The Thomas scene was a nice little bit of comedy but... yeah the rest has felt more heh jokes rather than actual laughter. It looks like it'll probably be worth a watch on streaming. I'll probably try to see it in cinemas since it costs literally peanuts where I live and I'm unimaginative about my free time.

There have been a few comedic sequences shown in the trailers.  It looks like the kind of stuff I'd expect to see Paul Rudd do.

To further define what I was talking about, here's the awful jokes I can remember:

* Trope joke of "show me how to punch" and woman actually punches him instead of his hand. Oh those minxy, unpredictable women!  :oh_i_see:
* "I want to to break in to someplace and steal some stuff" line. Maybe it's just that it's been overplayed but it's "heh" not "AND THAT GUY'S ARM!" laughs.
* Predictable joke as buddy is driving him out of jail where buddy has lost woman, home and parents but, "Hey at least I've got my van!"
* Predictable joke from buddy, "Nothing freaks me out" - proceeds to freak out when Ant-Man is on his shoulder.
* lame "don't drop me" joke as he's riding ants.

Compared to some of Rocket's stuff in GoG and early Marvel it's terribly stale and low-quality. It's not enticing me to go see it, and I'll give it a go miss until/ unless I hear it was amazing.

...Are you seriously judging the humor content of an entire feature film from the impressionistic shit they can fit into a trailer?

And aggressively defending said judgment?

I have no idea whether this film is funny. I can tell they want me to think it has a lighter or more humorous touch, that's all.

How many of the great funny touches in Guardians of the Galaxy could have been compressed into a trailer? How many would you want to have had compressed into a trailer?

What the fuck is wrong with people, seriously? Trailers are trailers.  They're good sometimes, bad sometimes, and the good and bad are only sometimes related to the actual content of the actual film. Making judgments about trailers is making judgments about fucking advertisements. It's like deciding how the beer tastes based on whether you like the ad for it.

They're bad jokes. I was listing the bad jokes and I was expanding on an earlier post out of Saturday night boredom. Nobody's aggressively doing anything here except you.

Psycho.  :why_so_serious:

It is entirely appropriate to be small minded about this movie.

GoG looked amusing. This does not. I don't get "Marvel even made a raccoon and tree man movie do well." A talking raccoon and tree hint at a wacky, interesting movie.

It's true that these are only trailers, but the point of the trailer is to sell people on the movie. And it's much more common for the trailer to be better than the movie than the reverse. People don't really seem excited for this - in the grand scheme of Marvel things it doesn't seem important - it's not about Thanos or Loki or other big stuff. (A problem these movies are starting to have is that the ones about the throw-away villains feel like throw-away movies - Ultron just treading water, for example) But it also doesn't look particularly interesting as a movie standing alone.

One thing I noticed with Ultron, and also with Ant-Man, is that a lot of the praise is less about the movie itself and more how it fits into Marvel stuff. A lot of the early word about Ant-Man is focused on cameos and post-credit scenes and such - it seems like a problem to me when the best part of the movie is the part that teases a different, better movie. Similarly a lot of critics who praised (or excused) Ultron thought a strong point was that it set up a lot of future movies.

With a movie like Guardians the advance word was "I had fun at this movie", whereas with Ant-Man the advance word is more "I had fun imagining implied future movies."

Who knows. Maybe it will be excellent.

I don't think there was any real early praise about how Ant Man fit into the MCU. That's partly why they had to recently put out posters referencing various Avengers. The early marketing did nothing to show it as being part of the Marvel films.

the 2 post credits scenes have leaked. a little Google work will help you find them. Nothing too exciting, but they are spoiler is ...

Imho marvel need more films that are not about Thanos or Loki.

Well they did a good job making them likeable they could have very easily failed badly with either of those and the movie would have had much less impact than it did.

Well. The point is that they made a GOOD movie with those characters. It could have gone very very poorly.

I think this does Thor level business when all is said and done.  Not a top tier Marvel hit, but a cash cow by common standards.

In GoG the main bad-guy was just the errand-boy of Thanos. In Age of Ultron you know that the Avengers are going to fight Thanos in future movies. In both cases the bad guys feel throw-away to me - they're just filler until we meet the real boss bad guy.

Maybe Ant-Man will be better in this regard in that you don't really expect him to be fighting Thanos so there's no sense that the villain is just wasting time until the real villain shows up.

I think Marvel has handled Thanos very poorly in general. He's not really impressive, imposing, cool looking or sinister, and by constantly teasing him and announcing future movies he'll be in it takes away from the current movies. Before Age of Ultron came out we already knew that the Avengers would have two movies fighting Thanos - I don't see why we need to know that. We can always suppose that there will be more of a successful franchise, but revealing bits of the plot just make the current "phase" feel irrelevant.

I find myself agreeing with you for once.  :why_so_serious:

One of the major problems I had with GotG - a film I otherwise thought was great - was the presence of Thanos and, more specifically, his lack of reaction to Ronan taking the infinity gem for himself. Everyone in the Galaxy is apparently afraid of Thanos and what he's able to do but we, the audience (and non comic readers) are still left wondering why because we've only been told that he's a terrifyingly unstoppable force - we just haven't seen any evidence that he deserves this reputation.

Other than the fact everyone is scared of him?  Loki was obviously afraid of him and Ronan backed down from him until he got his hands on an infinity gem. 

That's not really evidence tho.

Also, Disney are making a promise they are not likely to be able to deliver on within their stock action movie serial format.

When Thanos finally does show up I don't imagine he is going to be any more awesome than HYDRA, Ronan, Loki, or Ultron. I expect people will be wondering why it was necessary to build expectations over six years.

That depends on how many Avengers he kills.

That's telling us, not showing us.

Compare Darth Vader in ANH. Second time we see him, he interrogates and then kills the rebel captain easily - with one hand.  Shortly afterwards, he uses the Force to choke the shit out of an insolent officer. We, the audience, see that Vader is not someone you give backchat to or otherwise fuck with. Yet we also see he's not in command but is second to Tarkin. Do we get told why? No - we eventually see that Tarkin is a man who is more than prepared to order the destruction of a planet with millions of people just to make a point.

Ronan stood up to Thanos and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their pet rodent. You want us to believe that Thanos is someone who deserves the fear he inspires then we should have seen him slap that motherfucker down. He even got betrayed by Nebula. And Gamora.

Yeah, it has all been tell and not show for Thanos. He actually hasn't done a damn thing to make him seem scary or threatening, really. We don't really know much about his motives (movie-wise), and in retrospect all the stuff about the Infinity Stones doesn't even make sense. (He'll "do it himself" now, but that doesn't really clarify what he was doing before. Why give Loki one of the stones? Did he give Loki one of the stones? Why not just go get the stones himself? The one Star-Lord found was not exactly heavily defended or difficult to find. Is he trying to binge-watch something on his DVR and doesn't want to distract from that?)   The only reason his brief appearance have created some anticipation is that comic-book fans know what the guy is all about. He doesn't even look all that imposing in the films.

I think you can lay that all down to "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S PLANNING." I mean, he's supposed to be a mystery in the context of the movies and a scary one at that. He's gathering the Infinity Gems but we don't know why, nor do we know whether Ronan's use or non-use of the Gem would have fallen into his plans or not. Thanos may not have given a shit if Ronan used the stones to destroy the Nova Corps since he obviously figured he'd be able to take it from the "impudent whelp" whenever he wanted.

I'm not saying that the Thanos parts haven't been all tell and no show BUT... we also don't know what the end game is, so we can't really say that the use of the gems hasn't been part of his plan. Hell, he gave one of the stones that he had to Loki to go fuck some shit up on Earth, so he obviously didn't have a problem with Ronan fucking some shit up on Xandar.

You folks have no imagination and no faith.

Marvel has done a lot in the movies and on TV. None of it sucks. Some is awesome. Everything is part of a huge plan. It iisn't a highly detailed plan, and they tweak it a lot, but the major beats are planned carefully.

They have a plan for Thanos. They're very aware of how hard it is to make a villain like him trump an Ultra or Ronan with gem. They also need to make him a bigger threat than the mystic foes in Dr. Strange. If they dhow that threat now in full detail, it would have no punch in three years when Infinity War comes.

Be patient and expect the same quality we've seen in the main storyline when it comes time for these teases to pay off.

 :oh_i_see:

You're entirely missing the point but thanks for playing.

Awesome point and something Hollywood, not just Marvel has been lacking in the last few years. We're getting lots of exposition, little action. Comics movies I give a bit of leeway to because they are primarily exposition devices alongside exaggerated pictures.

However, you clarified for me something I hadn't fully realized was a problem. I'd known that something about Thanatos as the 'big bad' was off and hadn't thought about it to really come to a conclusion. There's lots of exposition about how he's a big baddie, little evidence beyond a few muggy scenes where people cower for no real reason. As a viewer I have no reason to care about why this guy matters than I've been told to. 

This is exactly why Mad Max is the best action movie made in at least a decade.

Short.  Quippy.  Doesn't actually involve anything to support your position.  f13 at its finest. 

The point I'm responding to seems to be: They keep showing Thanos and not showing why he is a threat - he looks like a lame duck.

That is what is behind comments like "all tell and no show", "should have seen him slap them down", etc... 

If they show what he can do now, it lacks punch when he is the main villain later.  This is pretty basic stuff that has been used in TV for decades.  Tried and true.  Complaining a tease isn't the full frontal is what misses the point.

I don't think there's any way to prove an opinion.

As much as I love the Marvel films... they've dropped the ball a bit on Thanos so far.

It's easy to drop the ball on Thanos. He's no where near as awesome a villain as a lot of people think he is to begin with. He's a less interesting Darkseid.

Wow.  That's bad.

I don't even remotely agree with that.

If you mean Thanos, I agree.  He's got way more character depth than Darkseid.

Movie Thanos has less depth than Stan Lee cameos.

With that, I am a true believer.

Yeah, he forgot "Emo" in there.

Darkseid wants to conquer all life, feeding on the despair. Thanatos is in love with death.  :awesome_for_real:

See, both of them sound retarded.

I know all about Thanos now, but all I know about DS was what Smallville taught me.  Which I assume was mostly bollocks.

THANOS. Not Thanatos.

Also, we don't know what Thanos is in the movies. There's simply not enough information other than he's supposed to be a bad ass evil thingie but we don't know why or how. He is literally rumors and whispers.

How narcissistic of him.  :why_so_serious:

 :facepalm:

He looks like a lame duck because in GotG that's how he came across. Watch it again. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbR4TlgwM50) Ronan isn't actually afraid of Thanos - certainly not enough to make demands of him nor to refrain from killing the Chitauri guy. There's no deference, no respect, no fear.  In the second scene, it's even worse - Ronan defies Thanos to his face and basically gets away with it, leaving Thanos spluttering. "Boy, you should reconsider?"  Well why? Why should he reconsider? Because you're big and purple? Why should we, the audience, think "Shit! Ronan's really in for it now!"

But you want to talk back to basics then fine.  Opening scene of The Godfather. Fantastic film, way above and beyond comic books but the interplay of that scene is quite basic. Vito Corleone commands respect and Bonasera is humble before him, even when scolded. He submits, kisses Corleones hand, offers anything he wants. We don't need to see Corleone do anything to know that he's a man who commands respect and fear because of the reaction of the man he's talking to.

Or, more comic book like, take the Empire Strikes Back: we already have a film to establish how bad ass Vader is. We're vaguely aware of the Emperor but when we see him, the giant hologram head, Vader cannot bow low enough. This fearsome monster kowtows before another - so how powerful must the man be who has the monster on a leash. He doesn't stand there doing his nails saying "Yep, whatever, you skinny little white ass punk!"

Even Voldemort was more fearsome than what we saw of Thanos in GotG. You had several films of hearing about him (or not - everyone was too afraid to say his name), you meet some of his loyal servants and see how nasty and cruel they so know that if they worship Voldermort, he must be bad. When he does turn up in the fourth film, people start dying on screen. More significantly, by the last films, his loyal servants - previously arrogant and proud - are fucking terrified of him and terrified of failing him. Because he commands respect and fear.

In Marvel films, nearest comparison is probably Red Skull. You get a hint of his power and ruthlessness when he's searching for the Tesseract but you also see that everyone else is in his thrall and afraid of him.

So the basics are - if you're not going to show us even a fraction of what someone can do then show us how people react to him. So far, Thanos has done fuck all, his daughters have betrayed him and Ronan stood up to him and threatened him. With no repercussions. To go back a little on what I was saying, perhaps they would have been better off telling and not showing and not letting us see Thanos at all in GotG - leave at as more of the rumours and whispers Haemish mentioned. That would have at least preserved some mystery about him rather than letting us get the impression that he is lame fucking duck because he just impotently sits there. Shit, they could have made him laugh at Ronan's threat and that would have left a better impression.

So you can be all the fanboy you want and tell me to be patient and have faith but don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining. From a movie-goers perspective, I don't think there's evidence that Thanos currently deserves the reputation ascribed to him nor see any evidence as to why he might be the focus of the next two Avengers films.

I think they're just building up the threat of the Infinity Stones more than the threat of Thanos himself. The real challenge is going to be concluding that storyline in any sort of satisfying way given the power level of the Stones..

Voldemort is a great example.  Since the books were always written with an end game, it gives them great opportunity to build who Voldemort is, why people should be afraid of him and even introduce bits of him while still having a protagonist for each book.

Marvel however has never had that type of end game because they want their films to all stand alone rather than be a strict series like potter was.  Unfortunately when you do that you can't build up a cohesive world and where by the end of potter you hate voldemort before you've even met him.  With marvel, you will still likely be trying to figure out who the fuck thanos is and why you should care when he appears on screen.

... and if you folks were posting about Voldemort after Chamber of Secrets or Prisoner of Azkaban, you'd be saying, "What a fucking loser of a villain.  He dies before the books even start when he tries to kill a kid.  Then he lives in someone's head... until he dies because the guy he is living in touches the kid.  Then they have him as some kind of spirit possessing a girl ... why the heck didn't he possess the kid that killed him rather than a little girl?  And once he possesses her and hears over and over how Harry killed him - why doesn't he just poison Harry?"

Ronan has a freaking Infinity Gem when he gives Thanos the finger.  He can destroy worlds with a touch and he knows it.  He flips off Thanos because he's suddenly one of the most powerful beings in the universe.  And when he does - and everyone else is watching him in fear - Thanos stares him down and tells him off. 

And doesn't this discussion belong in the Marvel thread, not the Ant-man thread where we're unlikely to see GotG, Thanos, etc...?

I have no idea what DS was like on Smallville, I only know of him from the Justice League cartoons (where he is voiced by Michael Ironside, which helps A LOT). His man thing is he is a self important asshole who wants to unmake reality in order to remake it in his image, as that would obviously be superior. He already rules his own planet, has millions if not billions of blindly loyal followers and generally has the ability to do what ever the fuck he wants more or less. He is who they throw at the Justice League whenever they want the League to actually lose (at least temporarily).

In every bit of media I've seen Thanos in so far, he's like a budget version of DS, with a even sillier goal. 'Do whatever it takes to make death love me' .  :why_so_serious:

I don't think they're trying to play Thanos up as the scary bad at this point.  They're just letting audiences know he has a hand in all the bad stuff going on.  When they're ready to show he's tough, they'll do so.

You're confusing how scary you thought voldemort was with how well he was set up in those movies.  You may nitpick and say you don't think he was that big or bad but by the second movie you already got a good idea that he was supposed to be scary and the people in the world were afraid of him.  In marvel thanos has gotten nothing but minor lipservice and everyone who's had interactions with him thus far don't seem all that scared.  Gamora ditched him, ronan gave him the finger and nebula went awol too.

 Right now the audience doesn't know who thanos is and has no reason to be scared or think he is a threat because he hasn't been treated like one.  They have, how many movies to establish him? I think just GOTG2 and then it's straight into AV3, maybe Dr strange...

We know exactly what Thanos is going to do - he's going to try to destroy the world / galaxy / universe.

The only difference between him and other villains in terms of plans is that other villains maybe only wanted to destroy one planet, but Thanos will want to destroy a bunch. But the greater universe outside of Earth isn't very well established in the movies, so I don't know that trying to destroy a bunch of planets is really that much more meaningful than wanting to destroy just a few.

It's hard to raise the stakes when the Earth or some Earth-like planet was already at stake in a half-dozen movies. The volume is already dialed to 11.

My biggest complaint though is that it's just hard to take these current villains seriously when you know they are just the henchmen or strictly lesser than an upcoming villain. It's fine if not every villain is the strongest villain in the universe, but it's weird when that guy is making a cameo in every movie. It's like saying "don't pay too much attention to this movie, the real action is coming later."

I know that Wilson Fisk isn't as strong as Thanos but Daredevil worked. But I don't think it would work nearly as well if there was a scene of Fisk reporting to Thanos. In Daredevil Fisk was the villain, not just a villain.

In comics you have stories where the world is at threat contrasted with smaller, personal stories. You need both or the big stories lose impact. Thor was a smaller story, as was Iron Man. But now almost every movie involves some existential threat. Hell, even Agents of SHIELD had an existential threat from what I understand. (Magic crystals destroying humanity or some shit)

In that regard I have hope for Ant-Man.

From James Gunn's Facebook:

Ant-Man may just be my favorite Marvel film since Jon Favreau’s Iron Man (well, maybe excluding one film to which I’m partial). Honestly, the movie is a complete blast! I was so happy after seeing it. It’s never boring for a second and it’s hilarious and warm throughout. It doesn’t get caught up in the webbing of its own science-fiction concept like so many movies do these days, remaining simple and elegant. It’s a part of the Marvel universe without being ruled by that fact. Paul Rudd is nuanced and charming and funny and is a surprisingly natural fit as a modern superhero (side-fact – Paul must be a nice guy, because he and I dated the same girl in college, and yet I still love him). Michael Peña KILLS IT – this movie is going to make him a huge star. My old pal Judy Greer (she was Deadly Girl to my Minute Man in The Specials (film) many moons ago) is great in a small role. And Michael Douglas is awesome. I think all of Peyton Reed’s years directing have led him to making something as deft and nimble and joyous as this; he did an incredible job. And, despite Edgar Wright’s parting from Marvel, his spirit is felt through the entire project, and there is no doubt everyone owes him a huge debt of gratitude. I left the theater incredibly happy. So often I see movies by people I love which are just okay – it’s great to love a movie as much as I love the people who made it.

You know, it's posts like this one that stop people from actually debating Comic shit with you.  You're so blind, you don't see the point being made, nor read what people are writing, nor even attempt to debate honestly.  This is a horrible, horrible kneejerk post from a fanboi and will be disregarded as such.  It's also shameful how little you seem to know about Harry Potter.  I eagerly await our discussions on Dragonriders of Berk.

 :grin:

I think Ronan was planning on destroying multiple planets given a chance. That said, only 4 of 11 Marvel movies have stakes that high. Two of them are Avengers movies which makes it understandable. Particularly in movies where you can only bring these all these heroes together so often, you aren't going to have them stopping bank robberies. Thor 2 probably could have done without it, but that wasn't a particularly good movie overall anyway. Ant Man and Civil War don't sound like they involve world ending threats either. Dr. Strange might, but I'm guessing Black Panther won't.  Point being you might be overstating that issue a bit.

Ironwood, you're confusing a mirror with a window.  I stand by what I said. 

But if you stand by a mirror or a window, you can see through neither.

CHECKMATE.  QED.

What if the mirror is rubber and the window is glue?

Then I pull out my sticks and stones.

You'd make crappy glass products.

I came here to see if Ant-man was good or bad.  Instead I see this.

THANKS OBAMA

Watched it a couple days ago. The answer is that it's ok. Probably middle of the pack for me as far as Marvel movies go. When you think about it, this is one of the few MCU heroes who actually has powers beyond super strength, flight, or shootinng/throwing weapons, and they do a good job showing a wide range of uses for controlling ants in addition to being able to make things shrink or grow. There's also a good sense of scale in the way a lot of the scenes are filmed. As far as the humor goes, it's more charming than funny. There's nothing that's going to make you laugh out loud, but it's not really trying to be a comedy as hard as one might think from the trailers (largely limited to when Michael Peña and his crew are on screen).

This is the Marvel movie that benefits most from Imax 3D.  If you hate 3D, don't see it in that format, but it has a lot of stuff in it that really can capitalize upon what 3D can offer, especially in IMAX.

Just got back.  It's a fine addition to the MCU.  Fits somewhere into the middle of the pack. 

It's entertaining.

I really hate it when people are like "the good parts are clearly left over from Wright and the bad parts from the new guy." We just don't know who did what - that's very unfair. For all we knew it sucked and the new guy is responsible for all the good stuff.

Also Scott Pilgrim was fucking terrible and The World's End wasn't great either, so attributing everything good to Wright seems like a stretch. He directed a single great movie 11 years ago. (Which he didn't write)

He wrote Shaun of the Dead along with Pegg. And did the same with Hot Fuzz, and again with World's End.


 :roll:

This is one of these divisive ones, so take your rolling eyes to fuck.

Scott Pilgrim was one of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

 :roll:

Pilgrim was awful retro 80's bait for late twenty-somethings to lose their shit over.

Well, it worked on me.

It worked on a lot of people.  As I said, it's divisive.

Which is fine.  We're allowed to like different movies.

There you go being all heretical again.

I read recently that Wright wanted Ant-Man to be an ant that transforms into a man.  That's reason enough to be glad he left the project, IMO.

So this was fun.  Not GoTG fun, but pretty entertaining on its own.  Michael Peña is fucking hilarious, even if he already played basically the same guy in Observe and Report and East bound and down.

This was good. In the Marvel pantheon, I'd rank it slightly above the first Captain America, and right below Iron Man. Everybody involved was pretty good in it, though I will admit that Corey Stoll's Darren Cross may have been the least developed of all the bad guys in the MCU. I thought the character development for Hank and Hope Pym and Scott Lang were all pretty solid and the actors did a good job with them. Michael Peña had most of the humor with Paul Rudd being the straight man which I think worked really well. Absolutely stay through all the credits for the scene at the end. The effects were fantastic and I imagine the 3D might have made them a lot better but fuck 3D.

Favorite part was

So not awful, but feel free to wait for the DVD release or whatever?

Regarding the end credit scene:

As for wait for DVD release, if you like the other Marvel movies, there's no reason not to see this one. It's a good fun action movie with some heart and a little humor.

There's not a whole lot of note coming out in the next couple months and I think it's one of the rare movies that works well in 3D so in that respect I think it's worth seeing in the theater.

My non-spoiler comments:
1.) I rank this pretty low in the Marvel rankings, but I still think all Marvel studios materials are rewatch worthy. 
2.) You could see parts that came from the original script and parts that were Marvel added.  It was pretty clear.  I think this would have been a great movie outside the MCU, and they could have taken out some of the original script stuff and made a great MCU movie, but walking the middle left it feeling a bit schizophrenic. 
3.) Cross was a bad version of Obadiah Stane.

For the spectacle, I'd see it in Imax 3D.  The special effects are fun to watch, although some of it makes absolutely no sense and needed to be better set up. 

You could clearly hear the rave and the people lining up outside to get in when Scott first gets to the apartment.

I actually liked this a lot.  Not as good as Cap 2 or GotG, of course.  My only real complaint is the villain needed a bit more work. 

I'm surprised our resident Marvell guy is so eager to shit on antman.  It was a good movie as far as superhero movies go and easily better than some other marvel fare(mostly the sequels)

I think they wanted to go deeper into the particle side effects as well as cross but time did not permit and they weren't going to bloat an already risky property to an above average runtime.

Even in the comics antman stretches logic to the breaking point with its super science. Even dr strange is more believable because the on hurdle you need to leap in your mind is "a wizard did it" so I think that's why this one will suffer a bit on the Internet with people picking it apart.

For a split-second even I found myself wondering about the logistics of going sub-atomic if the Pym Particles are supposed to just reduce the space between molecules or whatever the explanation was.

Calling something worthy of rewatching is shitting on it? This movie had a few more flaws than the other Marvel movies, but it was also a fun spectacle.  It walked two paths that both were nice, but walking both took a bit away from each. I'd rather they made a standalone Ant-man or a mainstream Ant-man that was less Sean of the Dead, but that is like being stuck with the New York Strip rather than the Porterhouse or Ribeye.

It's quite good. Not extraordinary or anything, but entertaining. I think it shows how well-oiled the Marvel machine is at this point, and I don't mean that in a bad way--they're smart about how to steal the DNA of another kind of film just enough to make each new film good. It's a contrast to the Iron Man films, which have been pure star vehicles. I do totally see what people are saying about the Edgar-Wright parts--if you've seen the movie, you can REALLY see which parts were his in conception. Not enough to make me think "that would have been better or worse", but different.

I think they're slowly building up to something like Agents of Atlas--a revelation that there were truly secret 'superheroes' at an earlier date, somewhere between Peggy Carter and the first Iron Man. I kind of like that.

About the

I find myself liking it more the more I think about it and rewatch parts. I think it was a smart move on Marvel's part to close out Phase 2 with what I imagine will be a one-off movie (earliest opening in the schedule is end of 2019 and there are probably much higher priorities than an Ant Man 2). Aside from a couple cameos and the post-credits scene, this is very much a stand-alone movie. There's no Thanos, no Infinity Stones, no Nick Fury or Coulson. It's one of the only movies in the MCU that didn't feel like part of it was either a build-up or pay-off to stuff in other movies. As much as I like the interconnectivity of the MCU, and even though Ant Man is obviously going to be in Civil War, it's nice to have a break from the bigger picture stuff especially since we're getting what is essentially another Avengers movie next.

Decent movie.  Definitely worth seeing.

--Dave

This was better than it has any right to be. I think the movie had one thing I'd change.

Villain dying at the end. Seriously wasn't the best part of the film was seeing the satisfying end to a villain I could see more. They could still sorta bring him back for latter use but yeah the movie tied itself up too neatly.

He wasn't a villain worth keeping around for more, he was basically exactly the same villain as the first IM.  Certainly no Loki.

This is currently Marvel's biggest problem - a slew of one-note charisma-vaccuums in place of a decent, relatable villain, and one they half addressed in AoU by making the bad guy... RDJ.
And although Ronan the Accuser was pretty one-note, at least he was fun.

He was also a made up villain for the movie.  They basically just made him the insane Hank Pym Yellow Jacket persona.

I, sadly, think the plan is to bring Cross back when they bring back the first Wasp.  They at least kept that door open with the vague death.

I doubt they'll bring Cross back. He really is Stane Volume 2. And really, this is what the MCU needs most in Phase 3: more compelling antagonists. I think the Red Skull deserves some credit for being not terrible, but so far Loki is the only one with any degree of motivational complexity and layered characterization. This might be a problem with the source universe, actually--the more iconic, exaggerated setting of DC Comics creates more iconic villain-hero dualities.

In the Marvel Universe, someone like Spider-Man mostly faces costumed guys who are kind of sort of schlubs and guys like he is in one sense or another, trying to make a score or make a small point or to get out from under heel. They're all kind of interesting but also kind of interchangeable: the Shocker, the Scorpion, Jack O'Lantern, the Vulture, Doctor Octopus, Electro, Mysterio, etc. are mostly interesting for their gimmick, not their personalities or motivations. Avengers-level bad guys are also kind of a mess, for the most part--Kang's motivations shift with every story and introduce endless time-travel bullshit muddles to boot; Ultron is just a Dalek with a daddy complex; ridiculously overpowered assholes like Nefaria or Graviton; or guys with good but impossibly comic-booky kinds of motivations like Thanos. Zemo and the Masters of Evil might have potential--the 'rival team' thing is a fun kind of story, but looks like Zemo gets thrown away a bit in "Civil War" and besides on the level of personal motivation, he's sort of a low-rent Doctor Doom with daddy problems (modern-day) or a low-rent Red Skull who should learn to stay away from glue (Nazi era).

It's a real issue for Marvel Studios--I hope they're making it a focus in Phase 3. Charismatic actors can only do so much to fix script-level and even genre-level problems.


The one suspension of disbelief moment I couldn't help but feel during the film was someone shooting a flying ant but not shooting Ant-Man while flying on the ant. I don't think bullets can hit a flying ant and not hit a man sitting on the flying ant. Just saying.

He'd make a good addition to a Masters of Evil team if they ever decide to go that route. I doubt they'd bring him back as a villain for another solo Ant Man movie (and again if they even do one it would be at least 4 1/2 years away).

Actually, depending on how they handle Zemo in Civil War he's probably the best bet right now for an ongoing post-Thanos threat. There are some interesting aspects to his character, and at least in the comics he has ties to a lot of other villains (works with Fixer frequently even outside the Masters of Evil, created Vermin, founded the Thunderbolts, etc...).

I thought it was Mentallo who has the bro relationship with the Fixer. (Sorry, that was really a geek too far.)

Overall I thought it was great and a nice break from the over-the-top-ness of most recent comic movies.

I liked it; will buy on BluRay.

When they went all "quantam realm," I expected the Microverse to show up. Which would be all kinds of awesome, and has some precedence in the comics, as Wasp was thought dead after Secret Invasion but had actually shrunk into the Microverse.

Mentallo and Fixer had a partnership/rivalry but Fixer was one of Zemo's main guys in the Masters of Evil and in forming the Thunderbolts, and was also the only one that stuck with Zemo after the Thunderbolts turned on him.

Marvel has better heroes than DC, but far worse villains.  Before the current slate of marvel movies, if you asked me to name marvel villains I would say Magneto, Blob, Toad and the blue skinned shapeshifter.  Even AFTER the movies, I can still only remember Loki.  They are wise to not let villains try to carry movies ala the various Batman movies.

Even prior to the movies the marvel A-list villains were slim pickings.  Of the top of my head the ones most non hardcore fans might know were:

Magneto
Dr. Doom
Red Skull
Venom
The guy with the gold glove.
That racist asian one.
"Was the hulk a bad guy? I think I saw him fight the avengers once."

And that's just about it.  Of those choices they already wrote off the mandarin and red skull because of terrible writers with no forethought and the rest the MCU doesn't have access to.

The villain problem is usually a time problem.

If you want depth in a character, you need the screen time to develop it.  If you're developing that depth with villain screen time, that leaves less screen time to develop the heroes, for bang-wiz special effects, etc... 

If you're not going to give the villains screen time to develop depth, then they have to be caricatures if you want to avoid them being non-descript generic tools that people barely remember.

Cross needed more time on screen to develop into anything more than one of Wright's typical villains.  When has he written a deep villain?  Hot Fuzz, Sean of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim, World's End.... The bad guys are melodrama bad villains - they have the depth of an ice cube tray.  I think they'd have been a bit better served to just embrace the melodrama nature fully and leave out the "Pym particles driving him mad" and "daddy issues" components.  A businessman with no morale compass that pushed Pym out to steal the research would have been quite believable and enough of a villain. 

As for Marvel's well known villains prior to 2008: If it made it to major film or to generations of Spidey cartoons, the character would have decent visibility to a reasonable number of fans outside of the comic book readers.  If you were a kid in the 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s - there was a Spiderman cartoon in syndication for part of your youth.

Marvel's premiere villains are all out on loan to other studios, and of those, only Magneto has been served well. Doom written by someone who wasn't a flailing idiot would be amazing.

To be fair, Wright doesn't so much write bad guys as developed characters, more that he writes antagostic concepts - Shaun of the Dead is about arrested development juxtaposed literally with a Zombie breakout, Hot Fuzz is about small town cultural vanity and community awareness/neighbourhood watchism taken to extremes and World's End is about the loss of youth and the inability to embrace change, even when the change is functionally imperceptable. Scott Pilgrim is a different matter but that's an adaptation of O'Malley's writing and any under development in that film can be ascribed to cramming 6 book's worth of exposition into 2 hours of film.

100% correct - but here they needed a character villain.  The more I think about it, the more I wish they'd gone in the opposite direction with the writers: Have someone wright a Marvel flick and then ask Wright to script doctor to add his angle to certain scenes, rather than have his vision underlying an entire film that was tweaked to make it more mainstream.

I still WTF at how they handled the Mandarin. They took that goofy ass villain, made him legitimately menacing, then just tossed it all aside for a quick laugh.

...and then revealed that the menacing figure we thought was out there was really out there and was pissed off about being treated like a joke.

I thought the whole Mandarin reveal was brilliant. Not the Guy Pearce/Killian version, obviously (again, the actual bad guy is a non-entity designed to die in a boss-battle), but Trevor Slattery is just a wonderful creation as both 'The Mandarin' and his actual self - taking a villain as utterly absurd as The Mandarin and turning the whole thing on its head - that they've since revealed that the real-life actual Shia La... sorry, Mandarin is aware of all this and pissed off about it is just gravy.

I would love to see the For Real Mandarin in a future movie. (And again played by Ben Kingsley.)

Given the box office and the plethora of characters they want to get into films, I kind of doubt we'll see a sequel to explore this stuff.  However, I would not be surprised to see them recast Pym and use the character on TV (Douglas might do an episode of TV?) to continue these threads.

I'm on Team Trevor too. I think it's the only way to handle the woefully bad orientalism of the original villain--subvert it.

Though I wish the puppetmaster in the shadows had been more interesting than Killian, who was just kind of dull and generic.

I know a lot of people dislike AICN, but they have an interview with Reed in which he breaks down how he came on board and confirms where a lot of the film elements originate - all of which lines up with what I was thinking about what came from Wright, what came from Rudd and what came from the Marvel Machine (McKay and Reed included there): http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72397 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/72397)

There is only the slimmest chance that the mandarin will reappear. Yes they gave a hint to there being a real mastermind but it was relegated to a dvd extra and never addressed again.  Marvel is not in the habit of closing any potential doors anymore but outside of a new iron man movie where would he even fit?

It could fit into where they seem to be going with Daredevil fairly easily.

--Dave

That would be a tough fit.  Let alone that Mandarin would destroy Daredevil.  Daredevil has enough villains where that would just be putting Mandarin in to have him there.  We still have villains like Typhoid Mary that I would love to see on the show.

Oh, for pete's sake, the "Microverse" is not a licensed property, only the Micronauts are. It's like the "Dire Wraiths" which had fuckall to do with the toy Rom and therefore are Marvel originals for them to do with as they please.

Fuck, it's not even like the company that made the Micronauts (the coolest toys ever) is anything but a corporate ghost anyway. Even if whatever lawyers think they hold the paper belonging to Mego thought that "Microverse" belonged to them, just call it (as they did) "quantum realm", and problem solved for good. Shrinking heroes for both DC and Marvel have been bouncing around on atoms since the 1950s and before.

JJ Abrams was trying to make a Micronauts movie like a couple of years ago.  So the IP and shit is still locked up somewhere.

What the fuck is a micronaut?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Micronauts-1.jpg)

Whoever holds the licensing rights is around to some extent because IDW just licensed the right to do Micronauts and Rom comics.

The toys have been remade under license too. Just not sure who is actually holding Mego's rights now. But in any event, Marvel doesn't have to do any licensing at all to have a "quantum realm" matter in the MCU. Heck, it had people going into the "Microverse" before Micronauts--the Hulk very famously fell in love and got married to a green Microverse queen who ruled a fantasy-medieval microworld, and the Fantastic Four had a bad guy who came from a microscopic realm.

Love the Micronauts!  Collected the comics and had the Baron Kharza action figure as a kid.  Its limbs were attached by magnetic ball sockets so you could pull them off.  Really wanted an Acroyer figure, he was my favorite.  The artwork in that series was amazing.

AHEM.

Anyway, never cared much for ROM but I do hope any Micronauts movie is good, though I doubt it actually will be released.

Comics.  :why_so_serious:

Don't be dissing the Microverse, dog.

I still have a Baron Karza in my action-fig collection. Those toys were the fucking bomb.

Saw this: thought it was a bit flat up to the third act, where things actually happened. Michael Douglas was solid.

Also, although Cross was underdeveloped, I think Corey Stoll did a great job in concentrating an unsettling need for approval into his acting. If only Pym had given Cross a hug, things would have turned out differently.

Did I have a micro-stroke during the Mandarin parts?  I don't remember that.

Don't quite know what to make of this.

I thought we were still talking about the Ant Man movie.

I was.  I went to see it today.  I really don't know what to make of it.

It didn't hold together at all well.

Did you see a goddamned Mandarin?  I didn't.  Or, I don't think I did.

I saw a tangelo but no mandarin.   :why_so_serious:

Wait, I'm lost. Where does this Mandarin stuff come from?

There is a poor shot of it out there on the interwebs... it is big as the 10 rings reference in IM2. Non issue except that they'Re keeping the 10 rings concept alive. The only way it would matter is if the theory that Mandarin will turn out to be a lack of Thanos and the rings are Thanos tech... I don't buy it, but it would be a way to capitalize on all the references ...

No, I didn't.  Nor did I understand the two separate references to how Pym Particles had messed with Cross's mind, despite him never, ever, ever actually having any Pym Particles until the very fucking end.  It made shit all sense.

This was a very odd movie that I'm STILL trying to decide if I liked.  The ending was good, but it took so fucking long to get there and most of the film could have been quite easily cut and no-one would notice.

Hell, if they'd just shown me an hour of Evangeline and then the end bit, I'd have been happy.

need this in movie

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/829607/daily/83/antmen.jpg)

OK, I get it now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It made perfect sense.  Cross had been playing with Pym Particles for potentially YEARS, they were just tinted yellow and not red for "GI Joe" badguy style identification.

All of that, I agree to, but it could have been presented better.

Edit: Woops, wrong thread.

I finally saw this today. I was pleasantly surprised. The trailers and other hype didn't look promising, but the movie turned out to be a lot of fun.

Having Borombon play over the MARVEL graphic was noticeable. And enjoyable.

I liked how they fit Hank Pym's backstory in, with Shield and Howard Stark.
Also the fate of Pym's wife.
Of course I didn't analyze the movie as I was watching it, or I would have realized earlier on that the "quantum realm" could have been called "Chekov's quantum realm". But, I didn't have that thought until Lang was in it.

I was so glad to learn that there were more gags in store than just the Thomas train colliding with YJ. It was funny, but the trailer was so hammy, that I worried they'd put the only joke in it.

Foreshadowing to possible Giant Man appearances? The blue pill got used to embiggen an ant and a toy, it's just a matter of time till they use it on Scott. Or Hope.
This is assuming that we see these characters again, which I hope we will. Either in the Avengers, or some of the other P3 films, or (I hope) a sequel.

Evangeline Lilly will be a great fit as a Marvel super hero.

Speaking of the Avengers, I wasn't spoiled that Anthony Mackie would be in this, so that was another fun surprise.

Scott Lang is next seen in Civil War.  Hope Van Dyne is confirmed to return, but not in Civil War.  She'll appear elsewhere.  Best guess so far is in Black Panther, but there could be a tie between the quantum realm and Dr. Strange, so anything is possible.

Finally saw this. I enjoyed it, except for the interminable fight scene at the end, which was about a week and a half too long, and quite dull.

Problem was they lots of cool heist bits and the whole burgular Macguyver thing going on at the beginning, then at the end he just punches things a lot and uses chekov's quantum realm reference to win.

But it was fun I guess.

We were bored so we rented it. It was much better than I expected. Like by a factor of five. I was definitely better than IM3 and Cap2.

Cap 2 ?  Really ?  Hmmm.

I had the same reaction as you, Ironwood, but I didn't want to disparage someone's wrong opinion.  :why_so_serious:

Everyone has different marvel tastes tho. I was bored of iron man after the first film.

I loved Winter Soldier but it is a different kind of movie than Ant Man, which I also enjoyed. I would be hard pressed to say one was better. It would really depend on one's mood.

IM1>IM3>IM2.

I'm not sure it is a different kind of movie. Just Ant man was funnier but CA2 had better stunts. Probably marginally preferred CA2 because the inevitable-marvel-ending worked better with the serious business CA2 first half.

CA1, for instance, was better than either.

CA2 > GotG > IM > Daredevil > AM > Avengers >  CA > Thor > JJ  > A:AoU > MA0S > Thor 2 > IH >  IM 3 > Shorts > IM 2  > AC

Only one I would avoid rewatching at this point is Season 1 of Agent Carter.

Ant-man and above are the ones I would seek out to rewatch when bored, but Ant-man will likely drop off the rewatch level once I see it again.

I am perplexed.

You thought Agent Carter was worse than Shield, Thor 2 or IM2&3 ?

All of marvels tv properties are garbage. Just had a plug into agent of shield caught the beginning of an episode where coulson is rambling about "not detaining all inhumans, but totally detaining all inhumans until they find a cure for there powers"

For which I said  :awesome_for_real:  :oh_i_see:  :uhrr: and cut it off. Netflix doesn't count, anything not produced by them shouldn't have lasted longer than season one. Even there cartoon offerings are pretty pathetic and useless drivel for toddlers. Disney and fanboys are prompting agent carter and agent of shield up not quality.

Thor 2 and Ironman 2 remain thee worst movies of the franchise as long as nothing hits those lows in theater we're ok....

Is that Daredevil the TV series? Cause otherwise :ye_gods:

Their.

Yes.  I enjoy MAOS, Thor 2, and IM 2 & 3 more than some others.  Agent Carter just dragged on for me and felt disjointed.  I'll certainly watch Season 2, but Season 1 was a disappointment for me.

I've got to agree. I couldn't watch one episode of Agent Carter without my mind wandering. Agents of Shield doesn't even keep the 12 year old's attention anymore, he just uses it as an excuse to avoid bedtime by 30 mins.

I loved Agent Carter and it was a big hit here.

But it was very British, so who knows.

I thought Agent Carter was pretty good. As far as MCU stuff goes though it is the least concerned with superheroes, even more so than the first season of Agents of SHIELD. In that respect I can maybe see why some people thought it was boring.

I liked Agent Carter because Hayley Atwell and Jarvis had good chemistry and she's hot as hell. It was weaker than first season of AOS though.

I thought it was definitely better than the first half of AoS, at least til they started heading towards the Cap 2 stuff.