Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 302
  1. #241
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    355

    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.
    Edgar Wright first signed on to make Ant-Man back in 2006 around the same time as Favreau signed on for Iron Man. The idea of actually doing the Avengers and having a shared universe only began to be taken seriously during the production on Iron Man. In other words, Hank and Jan were off-the-table from literally the very beginning, and Favreau+Wright were the Big Bang to the MCU. Before there was anything, there was Favreau who had an interest in Iron Man and Wright who had interest in Ant-Man.

    In regards to why Marvel decided to do shelf them from the beginning...First, I think the only Avengers they thought of as "essential" were Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and Hulk. Second, Edgar Wright is no Steven Spielberg but he was a very solid choice for a studio that was struggling and only started making their own films because they were in debt (especially since Ant-Man was always going to have a lower budget than the average Iron Man/Cap/Thor film). Third, early MCU directors had a level of auteur influence over their films that we almost never saw again after the success of Iron Man, except occasionally like with Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther. For those reasons, I don't think hiring Edgar Wright and being ok with letting him shelf the Pyms were crazy decisions in the context of the mid 2000's. I don't think the decision to continue Ant-Man after Wright's departure was odd either - by then the MCU Avengers canon had been set (including Ultron whom Whedon was already working on), the film was in production with a script, a deadline, and an expected return on investment.

    In regards to whether or not Disney/Marvel wanted to avoid Hank, I'm doubtful they were. Favreau had to fight Marvel to get Downey in the role of Iron Man. Marvel didn't want him initially due to his history, and Downey is a real person while Hank is fictional (the MCU Hank would have furthermore been a different version from 616 and there is no prerequisite that Hank has to be a wife beater). When Marvel eventually cast Hank Pym, they still cast an A-list actor and gave the character a decent amount of exposure in the marketing. Outside of the MCU, I don't get the impression Disney has a problem with Hank. They still market him for the cartoons and gave him his own trailer for the video game. The truth is that getting angry at fictional characters is to a superhero fan what yelling at athletes through a TV screen is to a sports fan - only the hardcore fans do it while those more casually invested can't find the energy to go that far.

    Here is another reason I suspect at least Wasp would have been in the cards: Black Widow honestly never fully worked as the 'main Avengers girl'. She was always too grounded to feel natural standing next to the Big Three (which wouldn't have been a problem for Carol), and too emotionally detached to fill in the void left by Janet. She isn't colorful enough to sell to kids like you can with Janet or Carol. She wasn't even thought of as a top 10 Avenger until the success of Ultimates - even then, Janet was still 'the main Avengers girl' in that run and Widow was written to be a traitor. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that both Wasp and Captain Marvel got their solos before her, or that she was killed off once the MCU's Wasp and Captain Marvel were established. Even now, I get the sense Feige still sees Wasp and Captain Marvel as stronger long-term IPs than he saw the Black Widow just based on the way he talks about them. If Edgar Wright wasn't the reason that Janet was excluded from the Avengers from the get-go, the only other one I can think of is that late-2000s execs thought a spy in black leather was a safer choice than a bug lady in yellow (Carol was probably off-limits due to her origin having to be reworked). Just my opinion, but I don't see how else Widow could make the cut over them regardless of how good of a character she is - it would be like doing a Justice League film and featuring Black Canary or Huntress as the main female lead over both Wonder Woman and Hawkgirl.

    Ultimately, do I think Feige is losing sleep over not including Hank and Janet in the Avengers? No, but I'm sure he would have done some things differently in the same way that literally every other successful person always has 1 or 2 things they would do differently in hindsight. I suspect including Hank and Janet as founding Avengers is one of those things he would have done differently, even if he is overall happy and proud of his results.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 09-08-2020 at 05:22 PM.

  2. #242
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    In other words, Hank and Jan were off-the-table from literally the very beginning, and Favreau+Wright were the Big Bang to the MCU. Before there was anything, there was Favreau who had an interest in Iron Man and Wright who had interest in Ant-Man.
    The real big bang was David Maisel who in 2003 hatched the entire plot for the MCU. Marvel movies was making bank for Sony and Fox but not enough was going back to Marvel, so Maisel told Marvel to hold on to licenses, promote properties they full own, raise capital to make their own studios.

    In regards to whether or not Disney/Marvel wanted to avoid Hank, I'm doubtful they were. Favreau had to fight Marvel to get Downey in the role of Iron Man.
    Small note: Disney hadn't bought Marvel at this time. It was still MCU, Independent Studio. And the reluctance about RDJ wasn't a moral issue it was about insurance because A) RDJ had a past with alcoholism B) more crucially, never headlined a blockbuster movie before.

    Ultimately, do I think Feige is losing sleep over not including Hank and Janet in the Avengers? No, but I'm sure he would have done some things differently in the same way that literally every other successful person always has 1 or 2 things they would do differently in hindsight. I suspect including Hank and Janet as founding Avengers is one of those things he would have done differently, even if he is overall happy and proud of his results.
    I remember reading somewhere that during the big finale scene of AVENGERS ENDGAME, they wanted to do a scene with Douglas' Hank and Pfeiffer's Janet in costumes alongside Hulk, Iron Man, Thor...aka the O5 from The Avengers #1. It was to be a kind of random shot where they all do action sequence in one moment but they couldn't make it work, they couldn't justify Hank and Janet's presence in that battle scene (which to be honest, I wouldn't have had issues...I mean Howard the Duck was there). Which would have been a cool easter egg.

    In any case my point is that Feige never felt especially strongly about including Hank and Janet as he did about others. For instance the screenwriters of The Avengers 1 at one point wanted to remove Thor and make the villains to be the Iron Monger's kid and have the Avengers form against human bad guys to keep things simple and accessible. But Feige pushed to keep Thor (and so Loki and other cosmic stuff). Likewise, removing Hulk after Norton stepped down would have made sense from a production standpoint, recasting and keeping Hulk and basically going "Hehn...we'll figure it out" about continuity issues isn't looking at things from the purpose of expediency. So if Feige believed a character was important, he'd have pushed for them.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-08-2020 at 05:41 PM.

  3. #243
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The real big bang was David Maisel who in 2003 hatched the entire plot for the MCU. Marvel movies was making bank for Sony and Fox but not enough was going back to Marvel, so Maisel told Marvel to hold on to licenses, promote properties they full own, raise capital to make their own studios.
    I don’t think this contradicts my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Small note: Disney hadn't bought Marvel at this time. It was still MCU, Independent Studio. And the reluctance about RDJ wasn't a moral issue it was about insurance because A) RDJ had a past with alcoholism B) more crucially, never headlined a blockbuster movie before.
    I remember Favreau saying that Marvel (not Disney at the time) thought it would be bad PR. Corporations very rarely make moral decisions. If Hank hypothetically was left out of the Avengers because of the wife-beater thing, the motivation for that would have PR-based too and would’ve had nothing to do with morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I remember reading somewhere that during the big finale scene of AVENGERS ENDGAME, they wanted to do a scene with Douglas' Hank and Pfeiffer's Janet in costumes alongside Hulk, Iron Man, Thor...aka the O5 from The Avengers #1. It was to be a kind of random shot where they all do action sequence in one moment but they couldn't make it work, they couldn't justify Hank and Janet's presence in that battle scene (which to be honest, I wouldn't have had issues...I mean Howard the Duck was there). Which would have been a cool easter egg.

    In any case my point is that Feige never felt especially strongly about including Hank and Janet as he did about others. For instance the screenwriters of The Avengers 1 at one point wanted to remove Thor and make the villains to be the Iron Monger's kid and have the Avengers form against human bad guys to keep things simple and accessible. But Feige pushed to keep Thor (and so Loki and other cosmic stuff). Likewise, removing Hulk after Norton stepped down would have made sense from a production standpoint, recasting and keeping Hulk and basically going "Hehn...we'll figure it out" about continuity issues isn't looking at things from the purpose of expediency. So if Feige believed a character was important, he'd have pushed for them.
    “Important” is a strong word. Was Hal Jordan important to the Justice League, for example? I already admitted that Hank and Janet weren’t important like some of the other characters were (i.e. Hulk) and that the MCU got on just fine. I don’t think this is contradicts the possibility that Feige might have included them from the beginning in hindsight, though. Just like how I suspect Feige is ultimately happy with Hawkeye but would have gone with a more 616-inspired Hawkeye in hindsight.

  4. #244
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I don’t think this contradicts my point.'
    You're right, it doesn't.

    “Important” is a strong word. Was Hal Jordan important to the Justice League, for example?
    A "Green Lantern" is important to the Justice League, just like someone called "The Flash" is important, but it's not at all important or essential they be any specific character behind the mask or ring over another (no matter what Geoff Johns deluded himself into thinking). In the Justice League, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are the only essential and important characters for the team to call itself "Justice League" and it matters that those three be Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Diana Prince for the team-up to feel legit. But nobody else is on the same level.

    In the case of The Avengers, the Big Three has always been Thor, Tony, Cap. I suppose Hulk is a fourth (and nowadays Carol is a fifth). But historically those three have been what you need for an Avengers team to feel like an Avengers team (sure there are times where one or two of them aren't in the team for an extended period but in general that's the consistent throughline).

    I don’t think this is contradicts the possibility that Feige might have included them from the beginning in hindsight, though. Just like how I suspect Feige is ultimately happy with Hawkeye but would have gone with a more 616-inspired Hawkeye in hindsight.
    True. The MCU has always been a very contingent thing that makes it look like it was planned all along. If the Garfield Spider-Man movies were better or commercially successful for instance, you would have no Tom Holland. Even then the deal with Sony was a last minute thing that directly affected CIVIL WAR.

    The MCU drew on both 616 and Ultimate titles for inspiration, and in Ultimate Marvel, Hank and Janet are founding members but are even worse as a couple than 616. Ultimate Marvel comics were passed around Hollywood and among investors as "proof-of-concept" and as basic "start-from-here" intros to the characters. So that probably colored a lot of sentiments against Hank and Janet from the get-go. Imagine the conversations among corporate types, "So this bug guy beats his wife and uses insect repellent against her and this is someone we are gonna sell toys over?"

    I think if EARTHS MIGHTIEST HEROES aired in the 2000s instead of Ultimate Marvel hitting the stands, maybe that would have worked out better for Hank and Jan.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-09-2020 at 05:23 AM.

  5. #245
    Astonishing Member pageturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    Hank is a victim of changing morals.

    He started out as an older man with a much younger woman. That has not aged well.

    His changing names and evolving powers, as much as I like them has been a hinderance in some ways.

    The slap that lives forever has never been put to rest. Instead he was sent to jail, made bipolar, suffering from in inferiority complex, been turned into someone who was advocate for battered women and then forgotten about.

    It is hard to keep him on top of the pile when he is constantly being remade and reset.

  6. #246
    Mighty Member Ra-El's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    I'm not a huge expert on Hank Pym, but I think the writers don't hate him, as much as they just don't care about him. When was the last time a writer or artist have come forward and declared him their favorite or to at least be a fan of the character?
    I'm not a fan of the character, but if I was, my preference would be to see him benched until someone have a story to tell about him that don't involved Hank Pym as the punching bag to the rest of Marvel characters.

    It would be interesting what would happen if Marvel ever decides to give Hank a solo, for example, one that actually treats the character as a heroic figure instead of broken guy and an "example". Let's say that a great creative team, like Morrison and Sharp, or Hickman and Ribic, or Priest and Samnee, decides to take over the character and just tell a good story with him. They don't try to excuse what he have done, but they don't spend any time showing the character suffering because of it, they just tell very good and exciting stories about Hank Pym having adventures.

    How would the comic be received? I can see some backlashing, a lot actually. The hot takes of how "abuser get a solo, but his victm don't", or how "Marvel is turning wife beater into a hero". But I also can see how a lot of people would just be happy to see a fresh take on the character.
    Last edited by Ra-El; 09-09-2020 at 08:39 AM.

  7. #247
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ra-El View Post
    I'm not a huge expert on Hank Pym, but I think the writers don't hate him, as much as they just don't care about him. When was the last time a writer or artist have come forward and declared him their favorite or to at least be a fan of the character?
    I'm not a fan of the character, but if I was, my preference would be to see him benched until someone have a story to tell about him that don't involved Hank Pym as the punching bag to the rest of Marvel characters.

    It would be interesting what would happen if Marvel ever decides to give Hank a solo, for example, one that actually treats the character as a heroic figure instead of broken guy and an "example". Let's say that a great creative team, like Morrison and Sharp, or Hickman and Ribic, or Priest and Samnee, decides to take over the character and just tell a good story with him. They don't try to excuse what he have done, but they don't spend any time showing the character suffering because of it, they just tell very good and exciting stories about Hank Pym having adventures.

    How would the comic be received? I can see some backlashing, a lot actually. The hot takes of how "abuser get a solo, but his victm don't", or how "Marvel is turning wife beater into a hero". But I also can see how a lot of people would just be happy to see a fresh take on the character.
    Slott's Mighty Avengers was pretty close to being a Hank solo book. And it did treat him like a very heroic figure... though Slott also took every jab possible he could at the Hank character. If Bendis brought about this notion that Hank wasn't necessarily the most respected hero among their piers, Slott actually doubled down on it. Though he balanced it out by also writing one of the most capable Hanks we've ever seen.

  8. #248
    Kinky Lil' Canine Snoop Dogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    9,645

    Default

    A lot of writers, mainly the continuity nerds like Slott and Spencer, love Hank because his history makes him way more interesting than the average goober. He is like a delicious pastry of potential for writers. He's never going to be gone forever and writers will never stop writing about his troubled past because that's the good shit that makes him special.
    Quote Originally Posted by ???
    The world has changed, and so have I.

  9. #249
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop Dogg View Post
    A lot of writers, mainly the continuity nerds like Slott and Spencer, love Hank because his history makes him way more interesting than the average goober. He is like a delicious pastry of potential for writers. He's never going to be gone forever and writers will never stop writing about his troubled past because that's the good shit that makes him special.
    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.

  10. #250
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    55,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop Dogg View Post
    A lot of writers, mainly the continuity nerds like Slott and Spencer, love Hank because his history makes him way more interesting than the average goober. He is like a delicious pastry of potential for writers. He's never going to be gone forever and writers will never stop writing about his troubled past because that's the good shit that makes him special.
    Don't forget about Mark Waid.

    I can't think the real Hank Pym is less interesting then a fake Ultron Hank Pym, but that's just me.

  11. #251
    Extraordinary Member TheCape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Venezuela
    Posts
    7,861

    Default

    That just reminds me how weird is Spencer's Hank...or Pymtron i guest, Secret Empire got really weird halfway into it.
    Last edited by TheCape; 09-09-2020 at 11:18 AM.
    "Wow. You made Spider-Man sad, congratulations. I stabbed The Hulk last week"
    Wolverine, Venom Annual # 1 (2018)
    Nobody does it better by Jeff Loveness

    "I am Thou, Thou Art I"
    Persona

  12. #252
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCape View Post
    That juat reminds me how weird is Spencer's Hank...or Pymtron i guest, Secret Empire got really weird halfway into it.
    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.

  13. #253
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You're right, it doesn't.



    A "Green Lantern" is important to the Justice League, just like someone called "The Flash" is important, but it's not at all important or essential they be any specific character behind the mask or ring over another (no matter what Geoff Johns deluded himself into thinking). In the Justice League, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are the only essential and important characters for the team to call itself "Justice League" and it matters that those three be Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Diana Prince for the team-up to feel legit. But nobody else is on the same level.

    In the case of The Avengers, the Big Three has always been Thor, Tony, Cap. I suppose Hulk is a fourth (and nowadays Carol is a fifth). But historically those three have been what you need for an Avengers team to feel like an Avengers team (sure there are times where one or two of them aren't in the team for an extended period but in general that's the consistent throughline).



    True. The MCU has always been a very contingent thing that makes it look like it was planned all along. If the Garfield Spider-Man movies were better or commercially successful for instance, you would have no Tom Holland. Even then the deal with Sony was a last minute thing that directly affected CIVIL WAR.

    The MCU drew on both 616 and Ultimate titles for inspiration, and in Ultimate Marvel, Hank and Janet are founding members but are even worse as a couple than 616. Ultimate Marvel comics were passed around Hollywood and among investors as "proof-of-concept" and as basic "start-from-here" intros to the characters. So that probably colored a lot of sentiments against Hank and Janet from the get-go. Imagine the conversations among corporate types, "So this bug guy beats his wife and uses insect repellent against her and this is someone we are gonna sell toys over?"

    I think if EARTHS MIGHTIEST HEROES aired in the 2000s instead of Ultimate Marvel hitting the stands, maybe that would have worked out better for Hank and Jan.
    I did a bit of digging into this. It looks as though we first found out Hank and Jan wouldn't be in The Avengers back in 2010 during Comic Con:

    Edgar Wright has claimed responsibility for the absence of Ant-Man from the Avengers movie.

    Director Joss Whedon indicated at Comic-Con International that the character would not appear as a part of the cast for his forthcoming ensemble film.

    Scott Pilgrim director Wright - who is working on a script for an Ant-Man film - indicated to Cinema Blend that he asked for the character not to be included.

    "I talked to [Marvel Studios President] Kevin Feige about that a while back where we just discussed about whether [Ant-Man] would be in The Avengers." said Wright

    "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. And my film is very much an introduction to that character, and so it wasn’t something where it felt right to introduce him in that film.

    "Maybe if I do the solo Ant-Man film and maybe there’s a later Avengers then they could draft him in later. But it didn’t work with the kind of angle that we were going to do with the origin that I’d written."

    Wright is reportedly working on a second draft of the Ant-Man script following the completion of Scott Pilgrim vs the World.
    https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a2...-wouldnt-work/
    Also I know this isn't as definitive as the above, but the only reason Whedon gave for why Age of Ultron didn't have Hank is that "Edgar had him first".

    “Of all the heat I’ve ever taken, not having Hank Pym was one of the bigger things. But the fact of the matter was, Edgar had him first and by virtue of what Edgar was doing, there was no way for me to use him in this. I also thought it was a bridge too far. Ultron needs to be the brainchild of the Avengers, and in the world of the Avengers and the MCU, Tony Stark is that guy. Banner has elements of that guy – we don’t really think of him as being as irresponsible as Tony Stark, but the motherf***er tested gamma radiation on himself, with really terrible, way-worse-than-Tony-Stark results.

    https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/joss-w...ers-age-ultron
    Figures. It seems like that is the best explanation based on what we know. I don't know if we have anything that even alludes to Marvel/Disney avoiding Hank due to the controversy. It may or may not have been a secondary factor, but that still seems like speculation at best.

  14. #254
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I did a bit of digging into this. It looks as though we first found out Hank and Jan wouldn't be in The Avengers back in 2010 during Comic Con:



    Also I know this isn't as definitive as the above, but the only reason Whedon gave for why Age of Ultron didn't have Hank is that "Edgar had him first".



    Figures. It seems like that is the best explanation based on what we know. I don't know if we have anything that even alludes to Marvel/Disney avoiding Hank due to the controversy. It may or may not have been a secondary factor, but that still seems like speculation at best.
    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.

    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.

  15. #255
    Astonishing Member Mutant God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post

    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.
    Actually that might be a good thing for Hank, The Pym children will continue his legacy of helping people.

    Skeeter: Hey time traveling O5 members of the X-Men We don't take kindly to people who create a time paradox around here!

    Bartender: Now calm down Skeeter they aint hurtin nobody.

    Skeeter: No! I wanna know som'in from the "O5" How come you cant go back to your own timeline in the first place and how come when Reed Richards "fixed" the universe you wasnt put back and how come the changes that happn to you dont happn to your present day selves?

    Bartender: Skeeter I dont want trouble

Posting Permissions

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