- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Antman was atrocious (spoilers)
Posted on 7/19/15 at 11:51 pm to Fewer Kilometers
Posted on 7/19/15 at 11:51 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
You can see the bones of Wright's movie and what he wanted to do with it, but in no way does the finished product look like one of his films.
What do you think Wright's film would have looked like instead?
I thought the briefcase fight was pure Wright. As was the sub-atomic sequence the train set fight.
quote:
There are two types of Marvel film.
You were pretty adamant that Marvel, over the last few films, should get away from the Infinity Stones. And this film just did that.... Sooooo....?
quote:
The Infinity Stone films and the corporate espionage films. Rarely do they stray from those formats. Ant-Man falls in with Iron Man I, II, and III and Incredible Hulk with the tech/government angle.
No offense, this statement is all over the place.
You say two types of films, Infinity Stones (which is not a style, merely a shared catalyst of events) and corporate espionage. Then you mention a tech-government film.
You really see THAT many similarities between:
Thor
Captain America
Winter Soldier
Ant-Man
Iron Man
Guardians of the Galaxy
Really?
Of course they are going to have shades of each other, they are trying to universe build. But saying that Winter Soldier and Ant-Man and Thor are the same film, that's just being disingenuous. They are vastly different films.
Even First Avenger vs. Winter Solider and Thor vs. Dark World are extremely different. And that's the same characters.
quote:
But what would've made it different is Wright's style of direction and editing.
Different doesn't mean better. We have no idea how Wright's film would have turned out. And it's impossible to say it would be better than Reed's. Simple as that.
This post was edited on 7/19/15 at 11:52 pm
2
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:52 am to Freauxzen
I am not tired of Marvel movies in general because I feel like there's still plenty of room. I just felt like with Avengers 2, and especially with Antman, the writing has gotten too lazy and smarmy.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 1:27 am to Freauxzen
quote:Wright's film would've had Wright's signature editing and direction. This video does a good job of showing what makes Wright unique.
What do you think Wright's film would have looked like instead?
I thought the briefcase fight was pure Wright. As was the sub-atomic sequence the train set fight.
Wright was going to have a final battle in a child's room. The subatomic thing was Reed's.
quote:Iron Man I, II, III, Incredible Hulk, and Ant-Man all have the corporate espionage with links to the government plot. Ant-Man is basically the plot to Iron Man (The ally inside the company who goes bad and takes the tech that was denied him and uses that to further the company. We end up with the hero versus the in-company villain wearing a beefed up version of the hero's super-suit).quote:You say two types of films, Infinity Stones (which is not a style, merely a shared catalyst of events) and corporate espionage. Then you mention a tech-government film.
The Infinity Stone films and the corporate espionage films. Rarely do they stray from those formats. Ant-Man falls in with Iron Man I, II, and III and Incredible Hulk with the tech/government angle.
If you don't see that the majority of the remaining films all center around the search for an Infinity Stone then I can't help you.
quote:We ended up with an average Marvel film. If you're happy with another chapter in an ongoing series that does little to further the plot, then fine. It had a few laughs, Wasp was hot, and we got to see Ant-Man ride an ant. I'd rather see a unique look at superheroes from a director who has a style all his own.
Different doesn't mean better. We have no idea how Wright's film would have turned out. And it's impossible to say it would be better than Reed's. Simple as that.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 1:29 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 2:21 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
I'd rather see a unique look at superheroes from a director who has a style all his own.
Then the Marvel Studios movies really aren't for you. They are all going to feel like the Marvel Universe...but lets circle back to this in a few weeks....also the Wasp was one of the worst parts of the movie, imo.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 2:22 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 6:30 am to athenslife101
Ant-Man was wrote years ago and if i remember correctly, took Wright over five years to finish. So it certainly isnt lazy. Its also why the Avengers stuff is shoe-horned in most likely. When Wright started, there was no Avengers movie yet and certainly no Falcon. Its a guess because we don't know how the original script looked, but i keep hearing 80% of the movie was Wright. Im betting that 20% was all the stuff thrown in to reference the rest of the MCU.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:00 am to RonBurgundy
quote:
also the Wasp was one of the worst parts of the movie, imo.
A waste of a hot actress to make her so bitchy. Maybe in the future they'll make a good team, with her softened up to him a bit. She'll look great in the costume, but that's years away.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:16 am to athenslife101
I don't get the hate. My family and I really enjoyed it. We'll probably see it again in theaters.
Look, Marvel has done several origin stories with mixed results. This movie had the added difficulty of being a quasi-origin story of a super hero that relies on a type of tech that requires a fair amount of exposition just to be understood by the audience. Much like Captain America, I predict a strong shelf life on future Ant Man appearances after an opening act that had it's challenges.
Think about it. Which Marvel Origin stories were executed flawlessly?
Iron Man? Check.
Captain America? Nope. Weak villian.
Thor? Nope. Thor's origin story was saved by the fact that it was also Loki's Origin story.
Hulk? Please.
Ant-Man did the job it was supposed to do. It gave us a highly entertaining movie experience that establishes our hero and showed glimpses of the potential impact our hero can have in the established universe. (It also manages to function as Wasp's Origin as well, which could turn out to be huge for the MCU).
Look, Marvel has done several origin stories with mixed results. This movie had the added difficulty of being a quasi-origin story of a super hero that relies on a type of tech that requires a fair amount of exposition just to be understood by the audience. Much like Captain America, I predict a strong shelf life on future Ant Man appearances after an opening act that had it's challenges.
Think about it. Which Marvel Origin stories were executed flawlessly?
Iron Man? Check.
Captain America? Nope. Weak villian.
Thor? Nope. Thor's origin story was saved by the fact that it was also Loki's Origin story.
Hulk? Please.
Ant-Man did the job it was supposed to do. It gave us a highly entertaining movie experience that establishes our hero and showed glimpses of the potential impact our hero can have in the established universe. (It also manages to function as Wasp's Origin as well, which could turn out to be huge for the MCU).
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:18 am to OMLandshark
quote:
I just think it's bullshite you discount a person's work simply because he's largely worked with another great coworker
I'm not saying he sucks, I'm just saying he's not Scorcese or anything. I mean, directors leave movies ALL THE TIME. It's not that big of a deal. People flipping out over Wright leaving Ant-Man is one of the silliest conniption fits the internet has had in a while.
I just don't view it as a big deal, particularly as they kept most of his script, and his influence was all over the movie. It's not like they started from scratch. Wright got a writer and an executive producer credit. If he thought it was terrible, he would've taken his name off of it (or at least denied a producer credit).
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:24 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
The subatomic thing was Reed's.
And the subatomic sequence might be the best sequence in any Marvel film. I did think Reed resisted the temptation to go full on expressionist, which would've been awesome, but that was a moment of radical, abstract film-making in the middle of a big budget summer blockbuster. It lasted about a minute, and never got completely free form (which I think would've been amazing), but the Microverse was the first time a Marvel film was unafraid to get weird and a little abstract.
It reminded me a lot of the pink elephant sequence from Dumbo, which is my favorite animated sequence in a Disney film ever. There's something wonderfully subversive about a brief moment of form-breaking in a crowd-pleasing film.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:27 am to RonBurgundy
quote:
DFOP had very low stakes.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:28 am to Napoleon
quote:
They explain why. They don't want Stark to get the serum. Then in the second after credits scene you see Falcon tell Captain America that "he knows a guy" Meaning "Hank Pym, who will likely be the Tony Start of the Captain America side in Civil War.
It's obvious they don't want Stark knowing about this.
I dont' think Falcon meant Hank Pym when he said he knows a guy. I think he meant Ant-man. Bucky has that contraption on his arm, and they had it in a vice. Seems to me they can't get it off of him, and it may be something that is controlling him. If you remember, Michael Pena was telling the story of how Falcon is looking for Ant-man. Falcon thinks Ant-man could be used to get inside the thing on Bucky's arm to take it off. Falcon doesn't know Hank Pym. he knows of Ant-man.
Ant-man is in Civil War, not Hank Pym.
There was also a scene where they were talking about super heroes they had and mentioned they had a "wall craweler"
I liked the movie. I think it was more geared for kids though, but i still enjoyed it very much.
The only critique if have of it is that he went from being a thief, to trying on the ant-man suit and practicing in it for a few days and then he was able to control ants and whip Falcon's arse and steal something from the avengers base. He became badass fighting Ant-man in literally a few days.
I thought all of the fighting scenes were great, and i enjoyed the comic relief from Rudd and Pena, as well as the subtle mentions of the avengers and what not.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 9:32 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:37 am to Baloo
quote:
but the Microverse was the first time a Marvel film was unafraid to get weird and a little abstract.
A little test for Dr. Strange i would assume. That one HAS to get weird.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:38 am to TeddyPadillac
I really don't understand how someone could just hate this movie. I mean to me it was just a typical Marvel origins story.
Humor and the typical hero saves the day plot.
I laughed multiple times in the film whether it was at Pena, the heist crew (which I enjoyed TI being cast in), or Rudd's jokes. The train fight was hilarious and extremely well done I thought. There wasn't a soul in the theater I was in who didn't laugh at that.
I also really appreciated the fan service to the Avengers throughout. I know some people didn't really like that, but if the Avenger's existed and you got asked to save the world then I think you would be fair in asking why they aren't doing the job.
Overall I think it was exactly what it was supposed to be, nothing more and nothing less.
Humor and the typical hero saves the day plot.
I laughed multiple times in the film whether it was at Pena, the heist crew (which I enjoyed TI being cast in), or Rudd's jokes. The train fight was hilarious and extremely well done I thought. There wasn't a soul in the theater I was in who didn't laugh at that.
I also really appreciated the fan service to the Avengers throughout. I know some people didn't really like that, but if the Avenger's existed and you got asked to save the world then I think you would be fair in asking why they aren't doing the job.
Overall I think it was exactly what it was supposed to be, nothing more and nothing less.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 9:56 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:41 am to Freauxzen
quote:
A little test for Dr. Strange i would assume. That one HAS to get weird.
If Dr. Strange isn't weird and a little alienating, I'm going to be severely disappointed.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:56 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Think about it. Which Marvel Origin stories were executed flawlessly?
Captain America? Nope. Weak villian.
I agree that the villain wasn't the best, but the origin part of the movie was the best that Marvel has done.
I'd put Steve Rogers jumping on that grenade as one of the high points of superhero movie history.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:19 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
I agree that the villain wasn't the best, but the origin part of the movie was the best that Marvel has done.
I'd put Steve Rogers jumping on that grenade as one of the high points of superhero movie history.
While I've always enjoyed Captain America, the skinny Steve Rogers has to be one of the weirdest and worst looking (as in special effects) humans ever on screen.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:52 am to McCaigBro69
Is anyone else dying to see what would happen if you locked Tony Stark, Rocket Raccoon, and Scott Lang in an inescapable junk yard?
Posted on 7/20/15 at 11:23 am to athenslife101
I liked it. It was better than the first Thor and Captain America. Best character intro movie Marvel has made in a while.
Who cares what the ants look like? Jeeze, you are too picky. It is just a movie.
But Still was awful. Terrible casting choice.
Who cares what the ants look like? Jeeze, you are too picky. It is just a movie.
But Still was awful. Terrible casting choice.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 11:46 am to Baloo
quote:
I'm not saying he sucks, I'm just saying he's not Scorcese or anything. I mean, directors leave movies ALL THE TIME. It's not that big of a deal. People flipping out over Wright leaving Ant-Man is one of the silliest conniption fits the internet has had in a while.
I just don't view it as a big deal, particularly as they kept most of his script, and his influence was all over the movie. It's not like they started from scratch. Wright got a writer and an executive producer credit. If he thought it was terrible, he would've taken his name off of it (or at least denied a producer credit).
Yeah, I agree with this. Marvel and Disney are giving their directors limited freedom on what they can do due to the overall continuity of what they want. I'm sure for instance Whedon had a much more violent and dark Ultron in mind, but Disney wasn't about to let him massacre cities pretty blindly. Wright I have heard is a very controlling director and is meticulous about every detail in his scripts. Wouldn't shock me if Marvel said no to several of his ideas, and I don't think Wright's editing style would particularly work in context to the MCU. All it says to me is they wanted to go in separate directions, which isn't neccarily a bad thing.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 5:32 pm to RedPants
quote:
DFOP had very low stakes.
Everybody(and nobody) Dies!
quote:
“It’s good to see everyone.” The movie banks on the idea that we’ll all feel the same. There’s something like a story here — a gloss on a fan-favorite two-parter from X-Men comics published in 1981 — but it’s really an excuse for a family reunion, as well as the hurried introduction of new characters aimed at some Pokémon-collectorish segment of the audience that just wants to see as many X-Men as possible represented onscreen. If you’ve been waiting for live-action versions of Bishop, Blink, Sunspot, and Warpath, your movie has arrived. If you’d like to see them do more than demonstrate their mutant powers and then die, better luck next sequel.
quote:
But as soon as the Sentinels, a squadron of generic liquid-metal CGI-bots, finish murdering a bunch of new mutants we’ve just met, the clock winds back a few minutes and their deaths are averted, thereby establishing the lowest possible stakes for the rest of the movie. Even the mutant redshirts have nine lives.
quote:
And somehow Wolverine’s mutant healing abilities make him the only man for the job, because his psyche can repair itself after the strain of time travel.
Sure, why not?
The real reason he’s the chosen one, of course, is that the X-Movies have spent three films and two spinoffs building up Jackman’s Wolverine as a character, allowing no one else so much as a quotable line
quote:
I’ll concede that nobody apart from Vaughn has made a better X-Men movie than Singer’s X2, but could no one else be trusted to try? Like maybe a director with a strong visual sensibility, a sense of humor, or some idea of how to stage a dynamic action scene? In a pre–Batman Begins, pre–Iron Man world, the two Singer films felt like breakthroughs because they weren’t actively offensive and didn’t seem ashamed of their source material. But try sitting through them today. They’re dour and sterile, stiffly acted and curiously earthbound, and in the course of two whole movies there’s not one memorable image apart from Rebecca Romijn in blue body paint — although if you liked the scene in 2000’s X-Men where Magneto moves police cars around with his mind, you’ll love the scene in this one where Magneto moves police cars around with his mind.
I could quote the entire review because there are some great points....but DFOP was secretly a terrible movie.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News