Do writers hate Hank Pym Ant-Man?

[Snoop Dogg]

I'll be honest... after the Crossing when Hank essentially got a free pass for his actions because it was revealted that Kang was responsible for his breakdowns, he did become a somewhat more generic character. He's their second string scientist guy who also happens to grow. Not hating on Hank in anyway... but it wasn't until after Avengers Forever, which retcons away Hanks free pass, that Hank started to sort of stand out again. Whether he stood out in a good or a bad guy is an arguable point... but he nonetheless stopped being just a generic second string scientist guy who could grow.

They almost made this mistake again with Skrull Hank in SI but it was correctly shot down.

[Frontier]

Hank is really known for 2 things... hitting his wife, and building a murderous robot which ended up developing a oedipus complex with him.

It's 2 creepy things which potentially leave a bad taste in ones mouth. Hell there's even a skrull demon cat baby out there somewhere with indirect ties to him. They just keep laying it on poor Hank.

...He also invented the Ant-Man suit, the Wasp tech, helped found The Avengers...probably saved the world a few times too.

What neither Feige nor anyone has openly addressed is the need for Ant-Man to be introduced via Scott Lang and not Hank himself. Because there has never really been another case where a legacy has outright usurped the brand from the hero who introduced the franchise. A step that radical can only ever work if the originator has fallen really low in stocks.

Or there's not enough name recognition to where it would matter.

[XPac]

...He also invented the Ant-Man suit, the Wasp tech, helped found The Avengers...probably saved the world a few times too.

Or there's not enough name recognition to where it would matter.

He did those things ... he's just not really known for it. There's a difference.

[Frontier]

He did those things ... he's just not really known for it. There's a difference.

Isn't he though? Unless you're just subjectively looking at this accomplishments I'd say they're as valid as Ultron is.

[XPac]

Isn't he though? Unless you're just subjectively looking at this accomplishments I'd say they're as valid as Ultron is.

I think you examples kind of prove my point.

He created Ant Man, but Scott Lang ended up being Ant Man in the movies. He founded the Avengers, but he was completely left out of the Avenger movies.

If marvel felt these were things he should be more associated with, he would be used differently. Things that rightly he should be more associated with he's instead being handled more as an after thought. I'm not trying to knock the guy ... just saying there's a reason threads like this exist.

[Frontier]

I think you examples kind of prove my point.

He created Ant Man, but Scott Lang ended up being Ant Man in the movies. He founded the Avengers, but he was completely left out of the Avenger movies.

If marvel felt these were things he should be more associated with, he would be used differently. Things that rightly he should be more associated with he's instead being handled more as an after thought. I'm not trying to knock the guy ... just saying there's a reason threads like this exist.

But I think those instances are more circumstantial because of production and timing than just issues with Hank per se. I don't think Widow being made a founding Avenger says anything about the other female Marvel heroes or Wasp, who she basically replaced.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Good bit of sleuthing there. Obviously there are a myriad of reasons, and contingency is a thingk and yeah, I don't have anything like definitive proof about this, so it's speculation on my part. At the same time I don't think there's anything to contradict that. What both Edgar Wright and Joss Whedon allude to is that Wright made Hank a retired old superhero and Scott as the new young Ant-Man, in that scenario, having Hank as the older Ant-Man still be founder of the Avengers would not work anymore.

As Wright says -- "The thing is, the script that I’ve written, whether it’s next or not I don’t know, the chronology of it or the way it works wouldn’t really fit in with what they do."

"The chronology of it" is alluding to Hank being a benched ex-superhero. Introducing Scott Lang as a solo hero makes sense once that bridge has been crossed. Because the entire story of a crook becoming a superhero, the connection with Hank as an ex-Super needs its own story to work and breathe free.

If we are referencing quotes, we have to take into account all of them. Whedon gave “Edgar had [Hank] first” as the first reason for why Hank was MIA. This strongly suggests there was no corporate policy against him using Hank. It’s always possible they would keep it hush-hush, but “Edgar had [Hank] first” would be a straight-up lie then.

We furthermore know the idea to have Lang as Ant-Man and Hank in a mentor role came from Wright (he was a big fan of “To Steal an Ant-Man” growing up and saw the 2015 film as his pet project):

I read all of the existing drafts that Edgar and Joe wrote. It was clearly Edgar and Joe’s idea to make this a heist movie and to sort of loosely base it on Marvel Premiere “To Steal an Ant-Man” that introduced Scott Lang. It was also their idea to create this Hank Pym/Scott Lang, mentor/mentee relationship. And, also, their idea to kind of do a Marvel movie where the third act battle take place in a little girl’s bedroom. Genius. It was great.
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ant-...0relationship.

Anything short of Feige giving a “yes” or “no”, the idea they avoided Hank because of the wife-beater meme is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The idea they avoided Hank due to Wright’s take, however, is believable beyond reasonable doubt.

What neither Feige nor anyone has openly addressed is the need for Ant-Man to be introduced via Scott Lang and not Hank himself. Because there has never really been another case where a legacy has outright usurped the brand from the hero who introduced the franchise. A step that radical can only ever work if the originator has fallen really low in stocks.

What “need” are you talking about? You are constructing that premise to fit your narrative when you word it like that. There is no evidence of anyone at Marvel thinking it was a “need” to avoid Hank as Ant-Man. Neither Hank nor Scott had enough name recognition to where it would matter (to quote Frontier), and neither were ever universally hated to be “low in stocks” (the wife-beater meme hurt Hank a lot, but “low in stock” is a stretch – he was still included in everything and everywhere from comics to video games and cartoons to the two animated Ultimate Avengers films).

Who’s to say the wife-beater part would have still been this strongly associated with Hank in 2020 had he been an Avenger from the beginning? Movies can make a night-and-day difference in how a comic book character is perceived, and the reason the wife-beater thing stuck with fans in the first place is because Hank was more of a blank slate in their minds than Reed Richards or Peter Parker. A strong take on Hank in the MCU combined with the issues of mental health and representation could have washed away the 616 baggage completely for general audiences and a lot of it for comic book fans.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Anything short of Feige giving a “yes” or “no”, the idea they avoided Hank because of the wife-beater meme is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The idea they avoided Hank due to Wright’s take, however, is believable beyond reasonable doubt.

You're right about that.

What “need” are you talking about? You are constructing that premise to fit your narrative when you word it like that. There is no evidence of anyone at Marvel thinking it was a “need” to avoid Hank as Ant-Man.

Well, the decision to go with Scott Lang is definitely a lateral move. Fewer people knew Scott Lang than Hank, early 2000s (in fact he had been killed off in Bendis' NA run).

[Sutekh]

Well, the decision to go with Scott Lang is definitely a lateral move. Fewer people knew Scott Lang than Hank, early 2000s (in fact he had been killed off in Bendis' NA run).

Yeah, Scott was dead at the time (or Cassie, they were taking turns...). And Tony was being pushed in the movies after a run in the comics where he was kinda tainted with getting in a fight with Captain America that resulted in Cap getting assassinated (making him also dead, during some of the time he was being showcased in the MCU, IIRC). Wanda's still not recovered in the comics from 'No More Mutants,' and that has zero impact on the decision to use her in the movies. Etc.

If James Gunn said 'Hey, I've got this fun idea for Thanos' brother Starfox, who's sort of the underachiever of the 'mad titan' fam,' Feige would probably greenlight it, no matter the characters bad reputation (well, so long as it doesn't involve psychic roofie powers...).

Everything I've heard is that Wright had an idea for a movie, and Whedon was told he couldn't use Hank (or Janet) because of it (and it wasn't until Peyton Reed read the script that he found out Janet wasn't even in it!). And, Occam's Razor, I wouldn't bother adding a bunch of conspiratorial baggage, since that sounds perfectly cromulent.

[Mary Jay]

What “need” are you talking about? You are constructing that premise to fit your narrative when you word it like that. There is no evidence of anyone at Marvel thinking it was a “need” to avoid Hank as Ant-Man. Neither Hank nor Scott had enough name recognition to where it would matter (to quote Frontier), and neither were ever universally hated to be “low in stocks” (the wife-beater meme hurt Hank a lot, but “low in stock” is a stretch – he was still included in everything and everywhere from comics to video games and cartoons to the two animated Ultimate Avengers films).

Who’s to say the wife-beater part would have still been this strongly associated with Hank in 2020 had he been an Avenger from the beginning? Movies can make a night-and-day difference in how a comic book character is perceived, and the reason the wife-beater thing stuck with fans in the first place is because Hank was more of a blank slate in their minds than Reed Richards or Peter Parker. A strong take on Hank in the MCU combined with the issues of mental health and representation could have washed away the 616 baggage completely for general audiences and a lot of it for comic book fans.

The theory that Marvel didn't want Hank in the movies because of one incident that happened in comics thirty years ago at that point came from people on the Internet, I would think. They draw conclusions from things they couldn't possibly know about and that contradicted all that even Wright himself, and all the people involved with the MCU had said. That's also when I first saw this thing about Hank being a drunk, which was totally far-fetched and made up, as I had never even seen Hank drunk in all his comic book history (come to think of it, I can't even remember seeing him drink alcohol, period...) Someone says something, and the other picks up on it, and so on. There is just no empyric proof of any of that.

Your second paragraph is very interesting to me. I had never considered such a theory, but I have to agree with you. If they had taken let's say EMH Hank and transfered him to the MCU, I think he could have been a great character. Add a charming actor to play him, and there you go. It worked for RDJ

[Ultimate Captain America]

Yeah, Scott was dead at the time (or Cassie, they were taking turns...). And Tony was being pushed in the movies after a run in the comics where he was kinda tainted with getting in a fight with Captain America that resulted in Cap getting assassinated (making him also dead, during some of the time he was being showcased in the MCU, IIRC). Wanda's still not recovered in the comics from 'No More Mutants,' and that has zero impact on the decision to use her in the movies. Etc.

If James Gunn said 'Hey, I've got this fun idea for Thanos' brother Starfox, who's sort of the underachiever of the 'mad titan' fam,' Feige would probably greenlight it, no matter the characters bad reputation (well, so long as it doesn't involve psychic roofie powers...).

Everything I've heard is that Wright had an idea for a movie, and Whedon was told he couldn't use Hank (or Janet) because of it (and it wasn't until Peyton Reed read the script that he found out Janet wasn't even in it!). And, Occam's Razor, I wouldn't bother adding a bunch of conspiratorial baggage, since that sounds perfectly cromulent.

Thing is, SJW are a big thing. Spread the rumor "Marvel is making a film about a guy that drafted a super registration act and got Captain America killed", or "Marvel is making a film about a woman that left all mutants without powers", and those who don't read comics couldn't care any less. But spread the rumor "Marvel is making a film about a wifebeater", and that will get people to start a Holy War. Not a good thing for marketing. And we are talking about the people that almost fired Gunn for something he said in internet many years in the past, so yes, those things matter for them a lot.

[Jabare]

I will never forget the shade Reed Richards gave him during that Avengers run





feels like Marvel places Hank a tier below Tony and Reed

[XPac]

I will never forget the shade Reed Richards gave him during that Avengers run





feels like Marvel places Hank a tier below Tony and Reed

While I agree Reed is probably a tier above Hank (and probably every other hero) I actually felt that Hank came off above Stark.

Stark built the Avengers a mansion, while Pym had an Infinity Mansion. Stark had jets, while Pym had magical doors. Pyms tech was basically Dr. Who level stuff. To me at least, it seemed way more advanced than stuff Stark often uses.

[Jabare]

oh your not wrong. His use of Pym Particles vs suite of armor is another example, but I feel this instance and Ultron aside. Stark is usually portrayed as more of the big brain by writters. Looka t recent events. It was Reed and Stark in Empyre. Outside of two or three runs in the last 15 years I don't know if Hank is propped up like Tony is. I'm sure the MCU also contributed to this since Ironman was one of the main faces

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In general the two smartest minds in the Marvel Universe are Reed and Doctor Doom. Tony counts as a third behind both. Whether Hank is in the Top 5 or Top 10, is down to subjective preference.

Anyway, head to head here's the list of notable iconic props and inventions they did:

Reed Richards:
-- Unstable Molecules (the material from which the F4 suits are made).
-- The Fantasticar
-- The Universal Translator
-- The Portal to the Negative Zone
among others.

Doctor Doom:
-- His suit of armor.
-- The Time Travel Platform.
-- The Doombots.
-- The miniature molecule shooting stuff on his gloves (that sprout rocks and stuff out of nowhere).
among others.

Tony Stark
-- His suit of armor.
-- The arc reactor tech.
-- Functional, heroic AI
I'd say most of his other inventions are variations on these two.

Hank Pym
-- Pym Particles that allowed him and Janet and Scott to alter their body mass and shrink to subatomic and sub-particle levels.
-- The Ant-Man communicator (that allows him to talk to ants)
-- Ultron

So Tony Stark has fewer variety of inventions compared to Reed, Doom, and Hank. I'd rank Hank lower because Doom and Tony at least have control over their inventions whereas Hank never had control over Ultron.