Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 2 & 3 thread.

Cuz, while we have an "Age Of Ultron", one, we don't have one for discussing the splinter films.

So, to start it off, looks like Paul Rudd might be Ant-Man.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/30162/paul-rudd-in-talks-for-marvel-s-ant-man

I thought Simon Pegg was supposed to be Ant-Man. Not that I'm waiting for this film with bated breath or anything....

No, that was debunked by Pegg himself the very next day the rumor came out.

And the villain in Star Trek Into Darkness is "John Harrison" and not at all Khan...

Multiple sources are confirming the casting of Rudd as official.

Who out there is clamoring for an Ant-Man movie?

Just because people want an Avengers movie doesn't mean they want every Marvel property in existance to be a movie.

I suppose any superhero property done well has the potential to be a very entertaining movie.

Still, Ant-Man's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down there on the list of comic adaptations I'm hoping to see on the big screen.

Exactly.

Why dig the bottom of the barrel when there are still plenty of popular characters they could make a movie of that might actually lure people to the theatre?

I'll give Marvel's cinematics the benefit of the doubt after their successes so far: So I'll assume they wanted to do Ant Man because someone had a really good idea for an Ant Man movie.

Who was clamoring for an Iron Man movie?


Well, I was, but I'm a prophetic genius, but who else?

Personally, I think they are making an Ant-Man movie to give the finger to DC, who can't manage to put together a Wonder Woman movie despite the iconic nature of that character and who (outside of films involving Chris Nolan) are pretty much about 50-50 in making movies about their big guns, Superman and Batman. [With Batman 1989, Batman Forever, Superman I and II being on the good side, and Batman Returns and Superman Returns being alrightish and Batman & Robin, and Superman IV being bad.]

Batman Returns is my favorite of the 80's ones.
And I like Superman III.

Linking the Age Of Ultron thread to this for ease.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/avengers-2-title.100452/

So, Michael Douglas is going to be Hank Pym, which means Paul Rudd is going to be Scott Lang.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/michael-douglas-ant-man-1201052848/

Discuss.

When linking it, it mentions Pym is the villain, which could yet tie into into AoU, and possibly get some fanbois to untwist one set of knickers, although prolly only to fish out a new pair to twist anew.

Interesting . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...astrophe-alan-moore-comics-watchmen?CMP=fb_gu

I'll just leave this here.

I disagree with just about everything he says, I think he's old and bitter, and a bit of a hypocrite, and the last three "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen", books, particularly the last one, were the real disaster.

I totally disagree with Moore. Many of today's comic readers are astonishingly literate people and I'd bet very few of them are guided in life by the sometimes simplistic themes in comic books. Indeed, when you consider that comic books often (1) promote constructive values (perseverance, justice, bravery, fair play, honesty, etc.) and (2) engage in thoughtful debate on modern issues, it seems much more likely that readers are affected positively by reading them.

If Moore wants to use his genius, let him show us a more nuanced and realistic world by writing the comic books scripts for The Spectacularly Skillful Diplomat, Tim Patterson, Peaceful Conflict Resolution Specialist, and The Amazing Consensus Builder.

In the meantime, for a guy who made a career from writing comics that pushed the boundaries of the genre, he's sounding like a hypocrite. If Moore is the neo-Wortham, I have little use for him...

Moore can be very hypocritical - he's bitched about his characters being misused for commercial reasons, yet V for Vendetta was birthed from wishing to keep the rights to a character.

I do agree with him on the reliance on the superhero archetype, they rarely come with nuances. Take Iron Man 3, in it the President was involved in some dubious dealings and it just got ignored beyond it being of use by The Mandarin. They can take on shadowy government departments, because they tie into a sense of paranoia, but openly go against the President? Only bad guys do that, with the exception of when a known bad guy works themselves in charge, because then you are questioning something more trusted.

The new millennium, along with ever accelerating advances in technology, has got us getting our various comfort blankets out, Linus style, so I can really agree with the challenge on this. Moore isn't above nostalgia, most of his works are seeped in it, but he wields it to new ideas and concepts. Rather than a comfort blanket, he uses nostalgia as a probe, a mirror or a weapon.

And I think a lot of his contempt is aimed at the Marvel/DC worlds rather than comics in general, something like Invincible has the protagonist grow and adopt new tactics, from deciding to kill villains to trying rational debate with them and finding an alternative to beating the crap out of one another, which sometimes brings him into direct conflict with the government, allies and even family.

^^ I wasn't aware of Vendetta's backstory. What was the character Moore tried to hold on to?

The "Century" ones? I really enjoyed them, mashed together so many references in a rather fun way and setting up a potential storyline where the good guys make themselves an antichrist...

Tackled questions on immortality (Quatermaine and his heroin addiction), wartime morality and dehumanisation (Orlando going bloodcrazy) whilst providing some of the densest crossing of genres ever. I mean, mixing Slow Chocolate Autopsy, Get Carter, Performance and Harry Potter is the work of a man whose mind is probably made of peyote these days.

Part comic, part cultural reference Where's Wally. Practically a puzzle book and a couple of days worth looking up things on Wiki on top of the story itself.

It wasn't Moore, it was the publishers. I cannot recall exactly, but there was a character who went about a Guy Fawkes mask - sound familiar? - and Moore was brought in to do a story for in order for the rights to be continued. Now I don't recall what changed so that it morphed into what we eventually got, but it's genesis wasn't exactly high minded.

Sorry, I thought it imploded in on itself.

Deathlok coming to S.H.I.E.L.D.

http://superherohype.com/news/288657-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-makes-deathlok-plans#/slide/1

Oh, NOW they're starting to add cool characters?
Dammit, now I gotta go back, and catch up on the fuggin' thing.

He's also bitched about the idea of other people doing sequels to The Watchmen, complaining that its wrong to use other people's characters, nevermind that Moore himself borrowed the characters for The Watchmen from a defunct line of comics.

I'll save you some time if you want:

Ah, okay, thanks.

So, it looks to me at least, how they're going to get around Robert Downey's contract being expired, and Tony Stark's arc more or less being completed by IM3, is to have Johansson/Black Widow be the next emerging star of the franchise.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/30879/marvel-s-feige-on-a-black-widow-film

Who are we to disagree with a demigod of the genre. But... come on. It's escapism from reality? Really now?! Of course he also seems to suffer from some kind of historical short sightedness. I mean, it's not exactly excapism from the complexities of modern life alone. I like to compare all those superheroes to classical legends (boosted by modern marketing of course). Theseus, Heracles, Achilleus, Samson... what were they if not superheroes?