@wishiwassuperman said:
Haven't got time to read the article at the moment, but it's certainly an interesting move. I'm gonna guess AoU will have tie-ins otherwise no one other than CB fanboys would even care about an Ant-Man movie. Looks like it's about 2 weeks after MoS2, would that be about right? My guess; they don't have the confidence to take it on directly, but want to keep it close enough to AoU so that people care (assuming they tie them together of course and have some sort of teaser in AoU to Ant-Man) so have gambled and figure that MoS2 will do it's big dash so to speak in the first couple of weeks, then they can get a solid release out of it. Not necessarily a bad strategy but IMO the move to even make the film is a gamble - this could be another Daredevil or Jonah Hex...
Another guess is that Ant-Man coming in is so they can continue the Avengers franchise without Tony Stark - RDJ so far is only doing this one last film (at least, that was the last I heard anyway) which one would expect will end Iron Man's involvement - so they need another tech based guy on the team, and Pym is the obvious choice to keep it true to the comics (as true as CBMs get anyway). If he only has the ability to shrink though it's going to fail IMO - he needs to have the ability to grow as well otherwise the general audience will be "stupidest hero ever". Even then it may stretch people a bit.
(see what I did there....)
I don't think that the lack of confidence in the character was the issue (I mean they did take on Iron Man in 2008, remember? :P), I think Bond 24 being released on the same day (November 6) was the problem... Moving the release date closer to Avengers 2 is a smart move - they know Age of Ultron will make a lot of money and they know fans will be eager to see another Marvel movie soon afterwards (look at how much Iron Man 3 made) - if Guardians of the Galaxy is a success, Marvel doesn't need to worry about the lack of popularity regarding new properties, the audience just want to see a Marvel movie. I think that Ant-Man being released 2-3 weeks after Superman/Batman is ALSO a smart move... Sure, Superman/Batman will make a lot of cash but Ant-Man is certainly a way to add to Marvel's bank account AND Ant-Man will definitely take attention away from MoS 2 even if it's just for a day.
As for Ant-Man being introduced to get rid of Tony Stark; hell to the no.
RDJ signed a 2-picture deal with Marvel for Avengers 2 and 3. Also, why would they get rid of an Avenger and just immediately add a new one? It's a stupid idea... Marvel knows if they kill off RDJ/Iron Man then fans will be pissed - also if they were to replace Iron Man with a relatively similar character, then that would cause even more backlash.
Valid - however it can't be denied that taking a relatively unknown character is always a risk - this certainly improves their chances by keeping it close to a known and successful property. Keep in mind Ant-Man is one of those characters that is really only known by CB fans. Iron Man may not have been at the top of their list of characters when they made the 1st film - but he was still an established and known character by the GP (but certainly not like Spiderman of course). IMO (and I realise it's just that - opinion) Ant-Man as a character is equivalent to a Jonah Hex or Daredevil in terms of GP awareness. Hell, I wasn't even really aware of who the character was until I got into the Avengers, and I've grown up around comic books my whole life. As an obsessed DC fanboy, I still knew Hulk, Spiderman, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the X-Men, Fantastic Four and I even knew about Black Panther and Daredevil - Ant-Man was an unknown character to me until I finally decided to read an Avengers comic book (and I wasn't a reader of the others either). So from that list, they've all got movies now (except one, although there are rumors I believe) which all made sense to me - although I do remember thinking Daredevil was a weird move since he never seemed like a popular or well known character to me (and lets not start on Elektra). My point being the move is a good move for them so they can ensure a strong link between the films which I think is necessary for it to be remotely successful, and that it's positioned well after MoS2 (which we agree on).
Guardians of the Galaxy hasn't been a hit yet, so I think it's too soon to say that this puts to rest the fears of unknown/unpopular properties (I know you said IF - but others have seemed to think this is going to be a hit already - of course using pro wrestlers is ALWAYS a good move). Again, people on this board for example care - but does the GP? I haven't heard about GOTG in the normal mainstream media personally, which suggests that like some other films - the GP doesn't care. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has gotten more press - I think because it links directly to the Avengers. Still - it's got Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper attached which brings some mainstream popularity/credibility to it for the GP to be interested when it comes out - I also reckon when I start seeing trailers it'll have "from the company that brought you The Avengers..." or something like that so again the GP will care. There's some dodgy handy-cam version going around the net which makes the film a bit of a joke - background music from hooked on a feeling and it basically looks like some weird, kid friendly alien movie - Rocket Raccoon doesn't help with this either. At the moment, personally I'm not impressed and I'm not convinced this will be overly successful.
As for RDJ - like I said, last I had heard Avengers 2 was going to be his last film - if they managed to get him to sign on for a 3rd installment, then obviously he isn't going anywhere - yet. Still though I don't think he'll be the character for much longer - he seems to be a bit tired of it, which I think can be seen in Iron Man 3 - he just didn't give quite the same effort about it to me.
Log in to comment