Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 302
  1. #226
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Jay View Post
    616 Hank may be hated by some, but not as much so as the 1610 version, which can be regarded as an all-around despicable guy. One of the problems is that some people can't make the difference between the two universes and hate 616 Pym by transfert. Prior to the UU, there was not much hate for the character. He was included in a lot of story lines, part of teams, given as much spotlight as other characters. The UU has done more disservice to 616 Hank than anything else IMO.

    I loved EMH Hank, that's what got me to be a huge fan of the character in the first place. He's not that different than how he was written in early comics, pretty much up to the 21st century. The only negative critics I ever heard about EMH Hank was that he was a bit boring. If people were to start reading older comic books, with an unbiased mentality, and put aside the freaking UU, it would be a nice start. Anf if Marvel was to stop painting Hank in a light that they THINK people see him and actually write him according to canon, that could also be a good idea. Humpfreys did this with his Avengers A.I. book, where he wrote Hank basically according to established canon (a flawed man trying to do the best he can and help others as much as he can) and, while the book didn't really sell great due to lack of MCU characters in it, I liked it a lot.

    So I think saying Hank Pym is "highly disliked" is in fact part of the problem. Marvel sees this and think "Oh, everybody REALLY dislike Hank Pym, so we'll make him dislikable for ever"... when it's just not true.
    Good points. UU definitely made Hank's PR even worse. Especially since many Millenial fans started reading Marvel through Ultimate.

    I think what works about Hank Pym is that he is a genuine breath of fresh air among superheroes. Can we think of any other scientist superheroes that doesn't have a genuine inclination towards being a superhero or towards seeing himself as one? Tony Stark loves being Iron Man, Peter Parker loves being Spider-Man (he says he doesn't, but he is full of shit). They both have an inner fighter in them and embrace the symbolism that comes with their superhero personas. Reed Richards is similar to Hank in the sense he would rather use his powers as little as possible, but Reed doesn't have the aversion to fighting that Hank does. Reed is also an adventurer in the Indiana Jones sense and likes that feeling of danger a bit (therefore still making him an action hero). Hank is genuinely neither of that. Watching someone like that interact with the other Avengers is very interesting. For example, one of Hank's best moments in EMH is when he pulls out the Tree of Life and Loki loses Odin's power - proving he doesn't have to play offense to be valuable to the team.

    Hank and Tony also make a far more fitting science duo for the Avengers than Bruce and Tony ever did. Hank is a left-wing pacifist scientist with a background in the public sector who can't tell self-defense apart from offense...and Tony is a right-wing warmonger scientist with a background in the private sector who can't tell offense apart from self-defense. Not only is this a very deep and complex dynamic you can explore (arguably better than any 'Science Bros' angle in the MCU), but it even gives value to Hank both as an Avenger and as someone who can balance out Tony's worst traits (and vice versa). Also if we are strictly talking the EMH versions, we should keep in mind that version of Iron Man wasn't very good. The writers mostly used him as a plot device and didn't really know what to do with him. His best scenes were usually when he was able to play off Cap or Hank - this makes EMH a show where Hank for once carried Iron Man than the other way around (I'm talking story-wise and not ratings-wise).

    Lastly, Hank can potentially do a lot for diversity as he is bipolar. A bipolar superhero portrayed well can genuinely be empowering to a lot of people in those shoes.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 09-07-2020 at 10:30 PM.

  2. #227
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    A silver lining to the current cloudiness is that when he is kicking around, but nobody has a particular idea for him, Hank tends to get crapped on pretty casually (not as much as Wanda, but still...). It's probably for the best that if nobody's got a burning plotline around to use him in, he's 'safely' dead and can't really be dumped on for the event-of-the-week.

    It's weird that there's this select group of unpopular characters that it's 'okay' to have bad things happen to. Wanda. Hank. Starfox. Jack of Hearts. Dr. Druid. Sometimes US Agent or D-Man. Be written as a jerk (or just unpopular, or have a problematic power) once, and it's like you become fair game to get fridged forever more.

  3. #228
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    A silver lining to the current cloudiness is that when he is kicking around, but nobody has a particular idea for him, Hank tends to get crapped on pretty casually (not as much as Wanda, but still...). It's probably for the best that if nobody's got a burning plotline around to use him in, he's 'safely' dead and can't really be dumped on for the event-of-the-week.

    It's weird that there's this select group of unpopular characters that it's 'okay' to have bad things happen to. Wanda. Hank. Starfox. Jack of Hearts. Dr. Druid. Sometimes US Agent or D-Man. Be written as a jerk (or just unpopular, or have a problematic power) once, and it's like you become fair game to get fridged forever more.
    I do think there are certain characters that marvel writers will sort of make fun of. I think the idea that certain characters in the minds of certain writers have sort of gotten the label of "losers" and end up on the butt of a lot of characters jokes. Pym at times qualifies .... Druid and Dman almost exclusive are used in that role.

    I wouldn't necessarily put Wanda in that role. Yes she at times is disrespected but I don't think they are intentionally making fun of her like say Dman. I think we're more supposed to legit sympathie with her than flat out laugh at what a loser she is.

    Pym I think is in the middlbe between Wanda and Dman. SOMETIMES we're supposed to feel he's a tragic character... and sometimes we're supposed to feel he's a complete loser.

  4. #229
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    A silver lining to the current cloudiness is that when he is kicking around, but nobody has a particular idea for him, Hank tends to get crapped on pretty casually (not as much as Wanda, but still...). It's probably for the best that if nobody's got a burning plotline around to use him in, he's 'safely' dead and can't really be dumped on for the event-of-the-week.

    It's weird that there's this select group of unpopular characters that it's 'okay' to have bad things happen to. Wanda. Hank. Starfox. Jack of Hearts. Dr. Druid. Sometimes US Agent or D-Man. Be written as a jerk (or just unpopular, or have a problematic power) once, and it's like you become fair game to get fridged forever more.
    With Hank, the issue is that a) He was never a very prominent superhero, B) even before "the slap" he was not a regular active Avenger, C) Roy Thomas never knew what to do with Hank so he made him the "punching-bag" Avenger i.e. the one who made Ultron, the one who was so insecure he invented Yellowjacket as a "bad-boy" persona and that just made A) worse.

    Hank Pym's downfall in "The Trial of Yellowjacket" was by far the most significant thing that ever happened to him. It's certainly the best story he was part of, and it defined him as the "superhero cautionary tale" in the MU, the one guy who shows that being a superhero doesn't mean you will be redeemed for the stuff you do in your personal life. A lot of people will point out the fact that he was a founder of the Avengers...but Hulk was also a founder and he walked out after a few issues, his wife Janet van Dyne was not only a co-founder but she came up with the team name and cared more about being an Avenger than he did (and she also funded the team with her wealth, alongside Stark).

    And the truth is that Hank Pym redemption stories come at the expense of Janet in a glorious example of double standards. In the MCU, Hank Pym was displaced as Ant-Man in favor of Scott Lang. And many Hank fans feel bad about that...but again why did Janet van Dyne have to be replaced with Hope van Dyne? She never did anything to deserve that. In the two Ant-Man movies, Janet is either this lost lenore missing woman in the first, or a late-act arriving voice from beyond. She got far less to do in the introduction to her character than Hank did. So much time is spent prepping up and fretting about Hank's redemption than ensuring Janet recovers the buildup and character-heat she got back in the 80s when she was leader of the Avengers during Stern's run (until UNDER SIEGE that is).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I think what works about Hank Pym is that he is a genuine breath of fresh air among superheroes. Can we think of any other scientist superheroes that doesn't have a genuine inclination towards being a superhero or towards seeing himself as one? Tony Stark loves being Iron Man, Peter Parker loves being Spider-Man (he says he doesn't, but he is full of shit). They both have an inner fighter in them and embrace the symbolism that comes with their superhero personas. Reed Richards is similar to Hank in the sense he would rather use his powers as little as possible, but Reed doesn't have the aversion to fighting that Hank does. Reed is also an adventurer in the Indiana Jones sense and likes that feeling of danger a bit (therefore still making him an action hero). Hank is genuinely neither of that. Watching someone like that interact with the other Avengers is very interesting.
    Hank works best as a former superhero. Either as a dude who failed spectacularly and works as a "cautionary tale" who provides a shoulder for the wayward supe to lean on and so on, or as the Mentor in the Ant-Man movies. Both confirm the intentions of "The Trial of Yellowjacket" namely that Hank Pym never liked being an Avenger, wasn't satisfied being one, became a worse person trying to fit in that mould, and he'd be happier and less dangerous to people around him, if he quit being a superhero.

    That's what makes Hank a unique character in comics. He's someone who became a worse person after becoming a superhero and that's a very rare and unique take in comics. He'd be better off as a civilian.

    Hank is a left-wing pacifist scientist
    Which version are we talking about? Because the original Hank Pym was a Cold Warrior (as was Reed and Tony). The nearest thing to a "left-wing scientist" in the Marvel Silver Age is Professor X (and even he was a FBI informant back then). In later eras, Peter Parker would qualify somewhat until Slott's Parker Industries where his company did business with China which years from now is going to be marked as a major embarrassment for collaborating with a totalitarian nation. I'd say T'Challa qualifies as a pacifist scientist but as a monarch (and now constitutional monarch) he doesn't anymore. These days Bruce Banner/Immortal Hulk is the left-wing pacifist scientist which fits because he was in real-life a counter-cultural icon among the anti-war left of the '60s but even Banner was willing to create nuclear weapons for Uncle Sam (that accident that gave him powers...he was still involved in testing that device for a government defense project).
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-08-2020 at 05:47 AM.

  5. #230
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    And the truth is that Hank Pym redemption stories come at the expense of Janet in a glorious example of double standards. In the MCU, Hank Pym was displaced as Ant-Man in favor of Scott Lang. And many Hank fans feel bad about that...but again why did Janet van Dyne have to be replaced with Hope van Dyne? She never did anything to deserve that. In the two Ant-Man movies, Janet is either this lost lenore missing woman in the first, or a late-act arriving voice from beyond. She got far less to do in the introduction to her character than Hank did. So much time is spent prepping up and fretting about Hank's redemption than ensuring Janet recovers the buildup and character-heat she got back in the 80s when she was leader of the Avengers during Stern's run (until UNDER SIEGE that is).
    Jan was excluded from the MCU because Edgar Wright made them both off-limits very early on. We know this because Whedon wanted to use The Wasp in the first Avengers film but Marvel said no due to that reason. If Feige knew in hindsight how the Edgar Wright situation would have played out, both Hank and Jan would have most definitely been founding Avengers in the MCU.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Which version are we talking about? Because the original Hank Pym was a Cold Warrior (as was Reed and Tony). The nearest thing to a "left-wing scientist" in the Marvel Silver Age is Professor X (and even he was a FBI informant back then). In later eras, Peter Parker would qualify somewhat until Slott's Parker Industries where his company did business with China which years from now is going to be marked as a major embarrassment for collaborating with a totalitarian nation. I'd say T'Challa qualifies as a pacifist scientist but as a monarch (and now constitutional monarch) he doesn't anymore. These days Bruce Banner/Immortal Hulk is the left-wing pacifist scientist which fits because he was in real-life a counter-cultural icon among the anti-war left of the '60s but even Banner was willing to create nuclear weapons for Uncle Sam (that accident that gave him powers...he was still involved in testing that device for a government defense project).
    Mary Jay and I were specifically talking about the EMH version. He was very much a left-wing pacifist and total contrast to Iron Man. I would argue that show is tangible proof that you can make Hank Pym work and even be memorable without any of the toxic baggage he has in the comics. All the reviews I read said something among the lines of "I never cared much for Hank Pym, but this version was amazing" or "Hank Pym was one of the best parts". The closest critique you can find is that he is maybe not as fun as his 616 counterpart.

    Tony and Hank's Science Bros dynamic is also much better done in the show than it was between Banner and Tony in the MCU for the reasons I already stated. Granted that shows generally have more screentime than movies do, but Hank arguably always fit that role better than Bruce. Also keep in mind the EMH version of Iron Man was honestly not that good. The show never knew what to do with Tony and used him more as a plot device (hence he was the only main Avenger to not have a big character arc in Season 1). His best scenes were when he was playing off of Cap or Hank. Hank elevating Iron Man story-wise is practically unheard of (you would expect it to be the other way around) but it did happen on this one occasion.

    Even the differences you point out exist between Hank and Jan were used to their advantage. Hank not being as natural of a fit for the Avengers as Jan is what caused a growing rift between them (much more healthy of a reason for them to go their separate ways than the toxic stuff in 616). Hank also took the longest hiatus from the team, which is consistent with what Season 1 established about him. The writers were fully aware of Hank's on-and-off history with the Avengers in 616 and actually used it to the character's benefit instead of being dismissive towards him.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 09-08-2020 at 08:14 AM.

  6. #231
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    Jan was excluded from the MCU because Edgar Wright made them both off-limits very early on. We know this because Whedon wanted to use The Wasp in the first Avengers film but Marvel said no due to that reason. If Feige knew in hindsight how the Edgar Wright situation would have played out, both Hank and Jan would have most definitely been founding Avengers in the MCU.
    Yeah, and it's because of Wright that we have a practical OC who has taken Jan's position as the main Wasp away from her (and contributed to that happening in the comics as well).
    Mary Jay and I were specifically talking about the EMH version. He was very much a left-wing pacifist and total contrast to Iron Man. I would argue that show is tangible proof that you can make Hank Pym work and even be memorable without any of the toxic baggage he has in the comics. All the reviews I read said something among the lines of "I never cared much for Hank Pym, but this version was amazing" of "Hank Pym was one of the best parts". The closest critique you can find is that he is maybe not as fun as his 616 counterpart.
    EMH made me a fan of Hank Pym. They even managed to adapt his mental instability as Yellowjacket without needing to go as far as the comics did.
    Tony and Hank's Science Bros dynamic is also much better done in the show than it was between Banner and Tony in the MCU for the reasons I already stated. Granted that shows generally have more screentime than movies do, but Hank arguably always fit that role better than Bruce. Also keep in mind the EMH version of Iron Man was honestly not that good. The show never knew what to do with Tony and used him more as a plot device (hence he was the only main Avenger to not have a big character arc in Season 1). His best scenes were when he was playing off of Cap or Hank. Hank elevating Iron Man story-wise is practically unheard of (you would expect it to be the other way around) but it did happen on this one occasion.
    I definitely think the Tony/Hank dynamic was more complex than the Tony and Bruce dynamic in the movies.

    Tony's character arc in season 1 was learning to migrate from being a loner to leading a team, despite being a very flawed and often ineffectual leader.

  7. #232
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Yeah, and it's because of Wright that we have a practical OC who has taken Jan's position as the main Wasp away from her (and contributed to that happening in the comics as well).

    EMH made me a fan of Hank Pym. They even managed to adapt his mental instability as Yellowjacket without needing to go as far as the comics did.

    I definitely think the Tony/Hank dynamic was more complex than the Tony and Bruce dynamic in the movies.
    I give the MCU props for how they worked around not having Hank and Jan there from the beginning, but you can tell their absence cast a shadow they were never able to fully fill in.

    -The story for The Avengers wrote in a third scientist to close off the Chitauri portal. In Marvel's perfect world, Hank and Jan would have closed the portal instead of Selvig and Widow.

    -The second Avengers film featured Ultron which was a Pym creation. Delegating Ultron to Tony wasn't a horrible idea, but how exactly did Banner help in creating Ultron? Banner specializes in gamma radiation and not in nanotech like Pym does. The explanation to how Banner contributed to Ultron boils down to "he's a scientist, duh".

    -The plan to defeat Thanos revolved around the Pym Particles. Also, how did Tony figure out time travel? Quantum physics was never Tony's speciality, but it was one of Pym's.

    If anything, Pym's absence in the MCU (and to a lesser extent Reed Richards') led to a more toxic portrayal of intelligence. Moreso than any Avengers comic, the MCU kinda implies scientists are just naturally smarter than everyone and can pull anything out of their butts just because they're scientists. Having Hank there from the beginning would have significantly reduced that problem.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 09-08-2020 at 09:47 AM.

  8. #233
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I give the MCU props for how they worked around not having Hank and Jan there from the beginning, but you can tell their absence cast a shadow they were never able to fully fill in.

    -The story for The Avengers wrote in a third scientist to close off the Chitauri portal. In Marvel's perfect world, Hank and Jan would have closed the portal instead of Selvig and Widow.

    -The second Avengers film featured Ultron which was a Pym creation. Delegating Ultron to Tony wasn't a horrible idea, but how exactly did Banner help in creating Ultron? Banner specializes in gamma radiation and not in nanotech like Pym does. The explanation to how Banner contributed to Ultron boils down to "he's a scientist, duh".

    -The plan to defeat Thanos revolved around the Pym Particles. Also, how did Tony figure out time travel? Quantum physics was never Tony's speciality, but it was one of Pym's.

    If anything, Pym's absence in the MCU (and to a lesser extent Reed Richards') led to a more toxic portrayal of intelligence. Moreso than any Avengers comic, the MCU kinda implies scientists are just naturally smarter than everyone and can pull anything out of their butts just because they're scientists. Having Hank there from the beginning would have significantly reduced that problem.
    They also took Jan's contribution of The Avengers name and gave it to Carol (in a very hamfisted way in my opinion), even though it never comes up again even when Carol actually meets The Avengers in Endgame.

  9. #234
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I give the MCU props for how they worked around not having Hank and Jan there from the beginning, but you can tell their absence cast a shadow they were never able to fully fill in.

    -The story for The Avengers wrote in a third scientist to close off the Chitauri portal. In Marvel's perfect world, Hank and Jan would have closed the portal instead of Selvig and Widow.

    -The second Avengers film featured Ultron which was a Pym creation. Delegating Ultron to Tony wasn't a horrible idea, but how exactly did Banner help in creating Ultron? Banner specializes in gamma radiation and not in nanotech like Pym does. The explanation to how Banner contributed to Ultron boils down to "he's a scientist, duh".

    -The plan to defeat Thanos revolved around the Pym Particles. Also, how did Tony figure out time travel? Quantum physics was never Tony's speciality, but it was one of Pym's.

    If anything, Pym's absence in the MCU (and to a lesser extent Reed Richards') led to a more toxic portrayal of intelligence. Moreso than any Avengers comic, the MCU kinda implies scientists are just naturally smarter than everyone and can pull anything out of their butts just because they're scientists. Having Hank there from the beginning would have significantly reduced that problem.
    That's pretty insightful on the MCU and how Hank's absence was filled by others.

    At the same time I don't entirely buy the "Edgar Wright tied our hands" excuse. If Feige believed that Hank Pym and Janet were essential to the Avengers he would never have allowed Wright to hoard on to those characters. Remember, that Hulk had to be recast after Norton walked away and Feige had to recast and quickly reintroduce him in Avengers 2012. Hawkeye had a small cameo in Thor 1 but also had to be reintroduced quickly. Likewise, Peyton Reed wasn't informed or consulted about Scott Lang turning Giant Man in CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. So if Feige wanted to, he could have featured Hank and Janet.

    Likewise, Edgar Wright all along was going to feature Scott Lang as Ant-Man. He never had intentions of using Hank and Janet. So the decision to shift Ant-Man away from Hank to Scott Lang was made very early, agreed on by Feige and Wright, and even after Wright stepped down, they still stuck to that. So I think the simple answer is that Feige didn't want Hank's baggage in the comics to be tied to the MCU even in tangential fashion (and Disney might not appreciate that it takes a quick search to put "wife-beater" next to a character they are promoting as lead, as opposed to supporting character).

    As such I think I am fair in arguing that "redeeming Hank" has come at the price of Janet.

  10. #235
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's pretty insightful on the MCU and how Hank's absence was filled by others.

    At the same time I don't entirely buy the "Edgar Wright tied our hands" excuse. If Feige believed that Hank Pym and Janet were essential to the Avengers he would never have allowed Wright to hoard on to those characters. Remember, that Hulk had to be recast after Norton walked away and Feige had to recast and quickly reintroduce him in Avengers 2012. Hawkeye had a small cameo in Thor 1 but also had to be reintroduced quickly. Likewise, Peyton Reed wasn't informed or consulted about Scott Lang turning Giant Man in CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. So if Feige wanted to, he could have featured Hank and Janet.

    Likewise, Edgar Wright all along was going to feature Scott Lang as Ant-Man. He never had intentions of using Hank and Janet. So the decision to shift Ant-Man away from Hank to Scott Lang was made very early, agreed on by Feige and Wright, and even after Wright stepped down, they still stuck to that. So I think the simple answer is that Feige didn't want Hank's baggage in the comics to be tied to the MCU even in tangential fashion (and Disney might not appreciate that it takes a quick search to put "wife-beater" next to a character they are promoting as lead, as opposed to supporting character).

    As such I think I am fair in arguing that "redeeming Hank" has come at the price of Janet.
    I think the amount of focus Hank actually got in the Ant-Man films shows his baggage wasn't that big an issue in terms of working him in the films as far as Feige and the filmmakers were concerned, especially when Peyton Reed put more emphasis on Hank and actually kept him alive compared to what Wright supposedly had planned originally.

    And that also led to them re-establishing Janet as the original Wasp and giving credit to her that would not have been the case with the Edgar Wright films. Hope wasn't even that important in the original script for Wright's Ant-Man, as far as I recall.

  11. #236
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I think the amount of focus Hank actually got in the Ant-Man films shows his baggage wasn't that big an issue in terms of working him in the films as far as Feige and the filmmakers were concerned, especially when Peyton Reed put more emphasis on Hank and actually kept him alive compared to what Wright supposedly had planned originally.

    And that also led to them re-establishing Janet as the original Wasp and giving credit to her that would not have been the case with the Edgar Wright films. Hope wasn't even that important in the original script for Wright's Ant-Man, as far as I recall.
    Hope van Dyne wasn't even there in Edgar Wright's version I think. It was entirely Hank and Scott. Looking up on google, it seems Edgar Wright like the original Hank Pym "Tales to Astonish" stories and he grew up reading Michelinie's original stories with Scott Lang. Hope van Dyne was added after Feige decided to bring in Wasp and they realized they couldn't use Janet because Hank was aged up, so they brought in a Defalco/Frenz character from the MC2 Universe (aka Spider-Girl continuity).

    The fact is that from very early on Feige and others at Marvel decided to bench Hank and Janet and there was never a situation where Hank and Janet as founding Avengers was really on the table. Edgar Wright was going to have gone with Scott Lang and the Ant-Man movie that got made seems in a lot of cases, very similar (in story terms) to the one he pitched (obviously Wright's style would have been different).

  12. #237
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Hope van Dyne wasn't even there in Edgar Wright's version I think. It was entirely Hank and Scott. Looking up on google, it seems Edgar Wright like the original Hank Pym "Tales to Astonish" stories and he grew up reading Michelinie's original stories with Scott Lang. Hope van Dyne was added after Feige decided to bring in Wasp and they realized they couldn't use Janet because Hank was aged up, so they brought in a Defalco/Frenz character from the MC2 Universe (aka Spider-Girl continuity).

    The fact is that from very early on Feige and others at Marvel decided to bench Hank and Janet and there was never a situation where Hank and Janet as founding Avengers was really on the table. Edgar Wright was going to have gone with Scott Lang and the Ant-Man movie that got made seems in a lot of cases, very similar (in story terms) to the one he pitched (obviously Wright's style would have been different).
    My understanding was Hope Van Dyne was going to be in the movie but in a drastically different (and reduced) role from the final product. I think adding Wasp definitely came in from the production side compared to what Wright had planned.

    I think Reed was more of a Tales to Astonish fan than Wright was, whose first comic was Scott's debut, but I may need to look that up again.

    I don't think Feige and Marvel were planning to bench Hank and Janet so much as working around what Wright wanted to do.

  13. #238
    Astonishing Member Mary Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Microverse
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypestyle View Post
    so is comics Hank going to be turned into MCU Hank? Maybe a trip to another dimension (quantum realm) to live out several decades, then come back to the 616 Earth a changed man?
    Man, I really hope not. Enough MCU synergy! It's bad enough that I see posts about the new Avengers game on Instagram and people are like "look at this, they made Pym a young man in this game"...! Dude, he's always been like that in the comics.

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    I'm assuming if Rick Remender didn't leave marvel he would have resolved the story at some point.

    But maybe the idea is to retire the character for a bit. Scott Lang is sort of taking up the slack as the growing/shrinking scientist guy... maybe they can temporarily retire Hank until someone has a new take on him. A break might be what he needs for the time being. A sort of reset.
    Scott Lang is an electrical engineer, not a scientist. He's not supposed to understand all that stuff. Not to denigrate the character, but turning him into a scientist la Pym or Stark is just OOC. And it's been over five years since Rage of Ultron. I think it's enough of a break, personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    My understanding was Hope Van Dyne was going to be in the movie but in a drastically different (and reduced) role from the final product. I think adding Wasp definitely came in from the production side compared to what Wright had planned.

    I think Reed was more of a Tales to Astonish fan than Wright was, whose first comic was Scott's debut, but I may need to look that up again.

    I don't think Feige and Marvel were planning to bench Hank and Janet so much as working around what Wright wanted to do.
    That's what I heard also. Hope was there just to be "the girlfriend" for Lang. Apparently he needed Lang to go out with Pym's daughter, thus having Hank be an old man.

    IIRC, by the time Wright dropped off, the preproduction was too advanced to change too much. The main cast was already under contract. Feige had to go with what was already signed.
    "You don't raise yourself by stepping on somebody else"

    Currently looking for a pull list... Does near-mint West Coast Avengers count?

    #givebackthesuit
    #stopstealinghisstuff

  14. #239
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Jay View Post
    IIRC, by the time Wright dropped off, the preproduction was too advanced to change too much. The main cast was already under contract. Feige had to go with what was already signed.
    Obviously if Feige wanted Hank and Janet from the get-go he could have insisted from the start.

  15. #240
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Obviously if Feige wanted Hank and Janet from the get-go he could have insisted from the start.
    I think it was more just trying to make something work out of the situation they were handed with Wright's Ant-Man.

    I think it's because of Feige and Reed we got Hank and Janet as much as we did in the movies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •