They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Christopher]

Dream wrote:

---

The problem with a Justice League movie is that Super Friends exists. When people think of JL, they think of how campy and stupid Super Friends was and not the recent more modern JL cartoons.

What people, though? The last Superfriends cartoons aired in 1986, fully 26 years ago, while the main series ran from 1973-82, over three decades ago. The main target demographic for a superhero movie is going to be adolescents and young adults, maybe 15-25 years old. These are people who weren't even alive when Superfriends was on the air, but who would've grown up with the DC Animated Universe in the '90s and '00s.

[Mars]

^ Batman wasn't realistic, any movie featuring a costumed crime fighter isn't.

[Christopher]

^That's misunderstanding the meaning of realism. It's not about being exactly like reality; that would be pointless. If you want reality, go out your front door. Realism in fiction is about taking something unreal and making it feel as though it could be real. The audience may know it isn't something that would happen in the real world, but if you create a sufficient illusion of reality, then they'll willingly suspend disbelief and let themselves imagine it's real for the duration of the experience.

It's like the old saying: "The key is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made."

[Trekker4747]

And movies usually have bit higher standard when it comes to SoD. Superhero movies struggle with this but in recent years have gotten away with it pretty well and good. One of the reasons why I fear an "Ant-Man" movie is because I don't know how they're going to suspend the disbelief enough to make such a concept work in both the minds of the audience and in the more natural/realistic MCU. An alien we think is a Norse God? Sure, we can go with it. A man with a technological suit? You bet! A WW2 super solider (who's strictly no stronger nor physically capable than the max of what a human can so), works. The Hulk is stretchiest bit but cab mostly "work" since The Hulk is so main-stream "A-List" of the Marvel Characters.

But a guy who can will himself to shrink down to subatomic sizes? That's a bit more than I think I can roll with.

Batman Begins went a long way to try and to establish how Batman "could work" in a realistic world and other than accepting the fact that Wayne can pull his stunts off without getting killed, captured, or eventually leaving enough forensic evidence behind to get caught is waved away because of how well the movie establishes him and what he can do.

Superman easily does it too with a hand wave, "Fuck it! He's an alien!" Wonder Woman is a goddess (or demi-goddess) and Aquaman is something of a "god" as well. (Comics have him stronger and more capable since he's from the bottom of the ocean so his ability to survive down there translates to great power on the surface.)

Something being "realistic" doesn't mean "fits in exactly with reality" it's more "how well we make you believe this is real."

[Christopher]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

But a guy who can will himself to shrink down to subatomic sizes? That's a bit more than I think I can roll with.

Hank Pym doesn't use willpower to shrink or grow, he uses a gas or pill containing a type of subatomic particle he discovered and named Pym Particles. They shunt mass to or from another dimension. (In the animated Avengers series, it's depicted more as an energy field.)

And let's not forget, the Hulk changes size by a factor of two or three and gains mass out of nowhere, which should be impossible. What Ant-Man does is simply a more extreme version of the same process.

Also, we've had movies like The Incredible Shriking Man, Fantastic Voyage, InnerSpace, and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids before.

[Nerys Myk]

Christopher wrote:

---

Hank Pym doesn't use willpower to shrink or grow, he uses a gas or pill containing a type of subatomic particle he discovered and named Pym Particles. They shunt mass to or from another dimension. (In the animated Avengers series, it's depicted more as an energy field.)

And let's not forget, the Hulk changes size by a factor of two or three and gains mass out of nowhere, which should be impossible. What Ant-Man does is simply a more extreme version of the same process.

Also, we've had movies like The Incredible Shriking Man, Fantastic Voyage, InnerSpace, and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids before.

I assumed he was referring to the Atom, who uses white dwarf star matter to shrink, not will power.

[barnaclelapse]

Christopher wrote:

---

What people, though? The last Superfriends cartoons aired in 1986, fully 26 years ago, while the main series ran from 1973-82, over three decades ago. The main target demographic for a superhero movie is going to be adolescents and young adults, maybe 15-25 years old. These are people who weren't even alive when Superfriends was on the air, but who would've grown up with the DC Animated Universe in the '90s and '00s.

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy that logic either.

Although a lot of kids know "Superfriends" from what they've seen on stuff like "Family Guy" and various Adult Swim shows. The goddamn Wonder Twins certainly have a weird cult comedy following of a kind.

I don't think that's even remotely enough to influence the perception of a JL movie though.

[Trekker4747]

Christopher wrote:

---

Hank Pym doesn't use willpower to shrink or grow, he uses a gas or pill containing a type of subatomic particle he discovered and named Pym Particles. They shunt mass to or from another dimension. (In the animated Avengers series, it's depicted more as an energy field.)

And let's not forget, the Hulk changes size by a factor of two or three and gains mass out of nowhere, which should be impossible. What Ant-Man does is simply a more extreme version of the same process.

Also, we've had movies like The Incredible Shriking Man, Fantastic Voyage, InnerSpace, and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids before.

Regardless, it's a tougher concept for me to accept, even accepting The Hulk's mass shifting. (Being The Hulk buys him a lot of shrug-off in my book.) As for the other movies you mentioned, different tone of movies (one being a kids/family movie) than what the MCU has been going for.

Aside from all of that, Ant-Man is also a bit of a jackass so I don't know how they're going to get people to root for him in a movie. He's just not a Marvel character I'm enthusiastic about even less so than I was for Iron Man, Thor, or even CA. I find Ant-Man, well, lame.

[Nerys Myk]

The specter of the 60s Batman TV show didn't seem to harm the Batman films too much.

[Nerys Myk]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Regardless, it's a tougher concept for me to accept, even accepting The Hulk's mass shifting. (Being The Hulk buys him a lot of shrug-off in my book.) As for the other movies you mentioned, different tone of movies (one being a kids/family movie) than what the MCU has been going for.

Aside from all of that, Ant-Man is also a bit of a jackass so I don't know how they're going to get people to root for him in a movie. He's just not a Marvel character I'm enthusiastic about even less so than I was for Iron Man, Thor, or even CA. I find Ant-Man, well, lame.

There have been three Ant-Men at Marvel. O'Grady is a jackass. Pym and Lange, not so much.

[CorporalCaptain]

barnaclelapse wrote:

---

I don't think that's even remotely enough to influence the perception of a JL movie though.

My perception growing up was that DC managed to keep the Super Friends brand pretty well segregated from the Justice League brand. It was like they were two different things: one for kids, and one for—older kids.

[Christopher]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

As for the other movies you mentioned, different tone of movies (one being a kids/family movie) than what the MCU has been going for.

I'd hardly say the MCU is going for a single uniform tone. Thor and Captain America felt very different from each other and from something like Iron Man. And next they're doing Guardians of the Galaxy, whose cast includes a talking raccoon and a sentient tree whose dialogue consists solely of "I am Groot." Clearly they're not afraid to mix things up a little. The goal isn't to make everything the same, but to create a broad universe that includes a range of different styles, character types, and even genres. Remember what Whedon said about the Avengers? That these characters didn't belong in the same movie, that it was the clash that made them interesting? The Marvel Universe is one big multi-genre mashup.

Aside from all of that, Ant-Man is also a bit of a jackass so I don't know how they're going to get people to root for him in a movie.

Two words: Tony... Stark.

[Trekker4747]

Tony Stark is a self-centered billionaire playboy. Ant-Man, from what I understand, is a wife-beating, sexist complete and total jackass.

[Nerys Myk]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Tony Stark is a self-centered billionaire playboy. Ant-Man, from what I understand, is a wife-beating, sexist complete and total jackass.

Then your understanding is limited.

[Turtletrekker]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Ant-Man, from what I understand, is a wife-beating, sexist complete and total jackass.

Pym had one instance of hitting Jan, and that was while he was suffering a nervous breakdown. And the one slap, at least the severity of it, wasn't even in the original script. The artist took a little license with the script, and there wasn't time to change the art before publishing. Pym has been one of my favorite characters since the end of Secret Invasion, with his portrayals in Mighty Avengers and Avengers Academy.

Jim Shooter said--
In that story (issue 213, I think), there is a scene in which Hank is supposed to have accidentally struck Jan while throwing his hands up in despair and frustration—making a sort of “get away from me” gesture while not looking at her. Bob Hall, who had been taught by John Buscema to always go for the most extreme action, turned that into a right cross! There was no time to have it redrawn, which, to this day has caused the tragic story of Hank Pym to be known as the “wife-beater” story.

Now, the current Ant-Man, he's a sexist idiot.