• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Browncoated Avenger!

We all were just waiting for the inevitable Whedon alum to be cast in some role, just which one as which Marvel character.

Does this take the decision out of Edgar Wright's hands about casting for the Ant-Man movie? Was he involved and agreed to Nathan? Ant-Man is on the list still as one of Marvels likely sub-$50m movies. Seems an Ant-Man movie has a better chance as a solo film post-Avengers unlike the other Avenger founders who are all getting a solo first.
 
Cos, obviously, Joss Whedon invented the idea of directors having their own unofficial repertory group of actors who they like working with and often cast.
 
And what about that Majel Barrett lady? How come she kept popping up in STAR TREK . . . ?

And did Margaret Dumont have to be in every other Marx Bros. movie?

Heck, Hitchcock, Woody Allen, and Scorcese all used the same actors over and over again.
 
Or Scorcese and DiCaprio, etc. Directors know the talent they like to work with, and as long as they're good actors themselves, I see no reason to object.

And besides: it's Nathan Fillion. I've enjoyed him in almost everything he's done; and now that he's (at last) got a successful TV show with Castle, he'll actually be a recognizable face for the film. I think he'll make a great Pym.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Does this take the decision out of Edgar Wright's hands about casting for the Ant-Man movie? Was he involved and agreed to Nathan? Ant-Man is on the list still as one of Marvels likely sub-$50m movies. Seems an Ant-Man movie has a better chance as a solo film post-Avengers unlike the other Avenger founders who are all getting a solo first.

Come to think of it, didn't Wright, when asked which of the various Ant-Men the comics have offered up he'd use for his movie, say he intended to have a couple of them in the film, playing on the legacy aspect? If so, he could still get his own actor for the Ant-Man (or Ant-Men) who he wishes to focus on (a comedy is better suited to an Eric O'Grady than it is to a Hank Pym anyway), with Fillion's Pym in a supporting role.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
Nathan Fillion as Hank Pym will probably be great.

Who's starting the pool on how long it'll take the cinematic Pym to hit his wife?

I don't say that entirely facetiously. After Millar's Ultimates and the general preoccupation with it even in the 616 universe, I'm somewhat convinced that's all most people remember about him. Not that they even remember it correctly--one backhand during an emotional breakdown brought on by a supervillain = sadistic domestic abuser, apparently.

Not to say that Millar's characterization was uninteresting, but it was a pretty radical reinterpretation; and I wonder which one they'll go with, if either.
 
Does this take the decision out of Edgar Wright's hands about casting for the Ant-Man movie? Was he involved and agreed to Nathan? Ant-Man is on the list still as one of Marvels likely sub-$50m movies. Seems an Ant-Man movie has a better chance as a solo film post-Avengers unlike the other Avenger founders who are all getting a solo first.

Come to think of it, didn't Wright, when asked which of the various Ant-Men the comics have offered up he'd use for his movie, say he intended to have a couple of them in the film, playing on the legacy aspect? If so, he could still get his own actor for the Ant-Man (or Ant-Men) who he wishes to focus on (a comedy is better suited to an Eric O'Grady than it is to a Hank Pym anyway), with Fillion's Pym in a supporting role.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Edgar said it was to star the Scott whatsit version, whilst also featuring the Pym character.
 
Does this take the decision out of Edgar Wright's hands about casting for the Ant-Man movie? Was he involved and agreed to Nathan? Ant-Man is on the list still as one of Marvels likely sub-$50m movies. Seems an Ant-Man movie has a better chance as a solo film post-Avengers unlike the other Avenger founders who are all getting a solo first.

Come to think of it, didn't Wright, when asked which of the various Ant-Men the comics have offered up he'd use for his movie, say he intended to have a couple of them in the film, playing on the legacy aspect? If so, he could still get his own actor for the Ant-Man (or Ant-Men) who he wishes to focus on (a comedy is better suited to an Eric O'Grady than it is to a Hank Pym anyway), with Fillion's Pym in a supporting role.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Edgar said it was to star the Scott whatsit version, whilst also featuring the Pym character.
Lang, Scott Lang the second Ant-Man. Roman is right now that we are talking about it, forgot myself it was going to have both of the more known(to comic fans anyway) Ant-Men. I believe Lang's older teenage daughter is the current character Stature of Young Avengers.

An Ant-Man movie with both Pym and Lang would likely see a resurrection of Lang who is dead(I forget how). So, yeah maybe Edgar Wright would have carte blanche to cast the Lang role.

Then if it turns into a series have O'Grady(3rd Ant-Man for those who don't know) swipe the upgraded suit at trilogies end. :lol:
 
And what about that Majel Barrett lady? How come she kept popping up in STAR TREK . . . ?

I hear she put out to the franchise creator.

;)

Heck, Hitchcock, Woody Allen, and Scorcese all used the same actors over and over again.

Ya know, I support Joss Whedon as much as the next guy, but did ya seriously just try to elevate him to that club?

:wtf: :lol:
 
I just don't get the Joss Whedon love. My girlfriend has all these Browncoat fans as friends. I've been forced to watch too much Firefly and Castle. I would love to see the Enterprise or the Defiant do a drive-by and drop a couple photon torpedoes into the Firefly.
 
There was a time I used to look forward to EVERY Marvel movie. Yup, even Elektra (hated it, but still looked forward to it at the time and saw it in the theatre).

Whedon killed that, I won't be seeing The Avengers. Which is a shame, I was really looking forward to seeing Hulk (fingers were crossed!), Iron Man and Thor together on the big screen.

Guess the animated DVD's will have to suffice.
 
^^^
Really? I mean REALLY? (do your best SNL impression here folks)

Your hatred, cause it has to be that, is so heavy your going to bail on the payoff of the last 4yrs. REALLY?

Childish is the word I'm looking for here.

I would go if Uwe Boll had somehow been picked, just saying. After all the buildup I'm not letting one director stand in the way.
 
Avengers can still have Hulk. Edward Norton, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top