Also, what he fights in the second movie aren’t robotic suits, they’re just straight up robots.
Maybe, though you can already kinda see the shows budget strain when Palmer’s suit is flying around for a few seconds. I’m kinda skeptical they’ll be able to pull of miniaturization without looking super-goofy.
I think they were wise to limit the more blatant comic book stuff. Audiences have become used to blockbuster level special effects for their superheroes. Trying to do the samething on the budget of a CW show is just going to look silly.
This is the sort of logic where, when Harry Potter succeeded, studio heads greenlit Eragon and The Golden Compass as films and later were surprised that the results didn’t match up to the expected revenues.
Having a formula for success doesn’t mean that you’ll have a success if you follow the formula. My mom followed the formulas on the back of food packaging and the result of that was that her Mac n’ Cheese could be anything from a watery soup to a chunky glue. Success doesn’t just involve following the right steps, it also requires proper competence of all the parties involved and strong execution.
Copycatting on a trending bandwagon is always suspect, but the examples you gave were different authors, different universes, different studios.
This is one company, one universe, and one very obvious, strategic long-term plan. So this isn’t like they’re jumping in blind because the water is warm. They have proven that they have a fairly good idea how to calibrate their heroes and titles for maximum audience satisfaction. They’ve gotta fail at some point, I guess, but that isn’t quite a foregone conclusion yet.
Huh. This post makes equal amounts of sense whether you read it straight or as sarcasm.
In retrospect, I realize that I should have expected people to think that I was saying that Marvel was doing this, since I gave the example of a “movie studio” behaving in this way. But my intention was to cast doubt on the posters in this thread who seemed to think that the movie will be good simply because it shares superficial similarities with Iron Man or Guardians of the Galaxy.
I don’t think that the movie was the effect of Marvel jumping onto their own bandwagon. But I don’t believe that comparisons with other movies, directed, written, and acted by other people, is reasonable.
For years, Scott Lang’s shtick in the comics including flying around on a winged ant. Ants are part of his gimmick.
That’s true, but you have to admit that the Marvel production line has excellent quality control. And I mean that unironically.
From what I understand, Ant Man was not part of the planned slate for Marvel’s big plan, originally, but Edgar Wright persisted, convincing them to do it. Then Edgar leaves over creative differences, but as they’ve committed to it they make the movie anyway, with slightly less confidence in its necessity and where it fits into everything.
I would pretty much guarantee there will never be an Ant Man 2, but he will be an additional character in the Avengers subsequent line-up.
Eh, Ironman 2, Ed Nortons Hulk are fairly pedestrian.
True, but they were early in the run, and even they weren’t nearly as bad as they could have been.
Marvel has made some movies that weren’t great, but even those were half-decent.
Eric Bana’s turn as the Hulk wasn’t half-decent.
The only “decent” think about Ironman 2 was the momentary glimpse of Scarlett Johansson in her underwear. Can’t think of any for the Hulk.
The thing is with Guardians theyt knew that the premise was ridculous and people were sceptical, so they produced a tight, well made movie. In Ant Man, that motivation is missing after Guardians.
Me, too. I haven’t been to a Marvel film since Iron Man, iirc, but I’ll probably try to catch this one.
I wasn’t planning on seeing this one, but now I might.
I’m going to cringe if they do what they nearly always do in fiction with ants (or bees), and refer to individuals as “he” and “him”. My husband once said, “I think that I shall never see/A bee I can describe as he.”
Are you suggesting Marvel’s strategy for this movie was “eh, release any old crap. We don’t need to produce a well-made movie this time around, people will watch anything after GotG”? It seems silly to say “make a good movie that increases our brand penetration and earns us buckets of cash” was intentionally left off the agenda for Ant-Man.
That doesn’t really seem to be their style, and it’s premature to dismiss this movie based on their current track record.
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.
Agreed. Although GotG was a bit more fantastical. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
I don’t see what’s so funny. There something wrong with being Antman? I mean, what’s the joke? I don’t see what’s so–