Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, you're a fan, then?

Why don't you keep your bs contained to the single thread.

I'm just glad this film is getting such praise from people who usually disagree.

If what you are saying is that you like the film then maybe you should post something about the film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some numbers!

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/ant-man-and-the-wasp-box-office-opening-weekend-1202866829/

Early Friday estimates says $87 mil domestic.

First ant man opened with 57 as a comparison and ended up with 519 mil globally.

Rotten Tomatoes is currently sitting at around 86%.

It's looking like Antman and the Wasp has real potential to outperform Justice League which made under 95 mil domestic on it's opening weekend.

Saw it on Friday night.

It's a pleasant, low key movie strolling along on chuckle-worthy jokes and some sweet moments here and there, generally between Scott and his daughter or Hope. The weaker points are the action scenes, except where enlivened by some humor. I loved Ghost. Hannah John-Kamen was really engaging and her being gorgeous doesn't hurt either but her darker character arc felt disjointed from the rest of the movie.

It seems very clear to me that this movie's performance shows Infinity War, and probably also Black Panther, created huge appetite for more MCU despite the same people having already spent money going to the theater for two other MCU movies already this year. Big contrast to Solo's performance, despite being a similar, smaller scope film relative to its immediate predecessor.

 Manchu wrote:

It seems very clear to me that this movie's performance shows Infinity War, and probably also Black Panther, created huge appetite for more MCU despite the same people having already spent money going to the theater for two other MCU movies already this year. Big contrast to Solo's performance, despite being a similar, smaller scope film relative to its immediate predecessor.

I was listening to a Podcast that mentioned something about this I agree with.

Marvel movies are always moving forward telling a narrative that builds. When you watch one you are seeing in one capacity or another "what happens next" and always gives some bit towards the next "what happens next".

The problem with Rogue One, Solo, and the other proposed side movies is they all go back. Their stakes don't really mean anything because we know where these characters ultimately end up. Solo and Chewie and Lando are all FINE because we saw them 6-15 years later when they all were fine. A Obi Wan Movie is going to end with Obi being fine. Because it can't end any other way. Ultimately we as an audience might see a fun ride or a neat story but it adds little to nothing to the over all narrative.

Marvel on the other hand is like watching the next episode of a beloved TV series you tune into each week or binge watch when a new season drops. One episode ends and we all want to see what happens next. By never really going backwards and at worst going sideways to tell a story that is parallel (Dr Strange for example, or how Iron Man 2 and Thor are happening more or less simultaneously, both of which still add something to the over all story going forward) we are always treated to the next chapter in a sprawling narrative.

There's some qualified truth to that. Heavily qualified. Look, nobody ever really thought Luke Skywalker might die in ANH. The movie is not great because you have no idea what is going to happen. In fact, it's probably so enjoyable because you have a strong sense of what you feel should happen and it is satisfying to see that play out. Similarly, in a MCU film, we all know that despite setbacks we're going to enjoy seeing the heroes pull through in a climactic third act. So I don't think anybody really is going to see MCU movies because "anything might happen" or NOT seeing a SW movie because there's no chance the title character will die at the end. But MCU movies do tell an ONGOING story, overall, rather than constantly going backwards, like serving up a whole movie about Tony Stark's adventures as an 8 year old or something. And naturally, when we hear a story we like with characters we like, we want to know what happens next. Although we also like to know what happened before.

That said, when we see a frustrating story that undermines characters we would like to find entertaining or inspiring, it's hard to care about what happens next, or what happened before, or about the setting generally.

 Manchu wrote:
Similarly, in a MCU film, we all know that despite setbacks we're going to enjoy seeing the heroes pull through in a climactic third act.

, of course.

 Manchu wrote:
There's some qualified truth to that. Heavily qualified. Look, nobody ever really thought Luke Skywalker might die in ANH. The movie is not great because you have no idea what is going to happen. In fact, it's probably so enjoyable because you have a strong sense of what you feel should happen and it is satisfying to see that play out. Similarly, in a MCU film, we all know that despite setbacks we're going to enjoy seeing the heroes pull through in a climactic third act. So I don't think anybody really is going to see MCU movies because "anything might happen" or NOT seeing a SW movie because there's no chance the title character will die at the end. But MCU movies do tell an ONGOING story, overall, rather than constantly going backwards, like serving up a whole movie about Tony Stark's adventures as an 8 year old or something. And naturally, when we hear a story we like with characters we like, we want to know what happens next. Although we also like to know what happened before.

That said, when we see a frustrating story that undermines characters we would like to find entertaining or inspiring, it's hard to care about what happens next, or what happened before, or about the setting generally.

It's less about whether the characters are going to die and more about where the movie is going to leave them.

Nobody expected Luke to ever die in 4 5 6, but it was still big when he lost a hand even though it was replaced 5 minutes later. Similarly, anyone with even a bit of Captain America knowledge knows that Bucky is the winter soldier. It was still fun seeing it all unfold on the screen and watching him regain his mind over the course of several films.

The stakes are less about deaths and more about the actual events of their lives. Solo has a little love story element for Solo in it. Well... who cares? He never ends up with her. There is no love story element they could possibly put in that movie that anyone could fully care about because we already saw his love story that actually matters.

I expect my Marvel narrative to end with the heroes on top. But I also expect them to end with the heroes effected by the events of the film. Either growth of their skill or personal growth (Cap has clearly had modern military training between Avengers and Winter Soldier, Bucky regaining his mind) or being fundamentally effected by the events that happened (Tony Stark has PTSD in IM 3 because of the battle of NY, War Machine is crippled because of that time they blew up an air port). So far thats been true pretty much every time. Each narrative chapter has a impact on the chapters that shows up in what comes next.

I didn't expect Solo to have any risk of dieing in Solo. But I also knew who he was going to end up being. And ultimately the Solo movie didn't show me anything particularly compelling about how he got there. It was a fun movie. I LIKE Solo. But I also think it was mostly pointless in the scheme of SW movies.

Likewise, a movie about Rhodeys pre IM military career isn't going to show me anything even close to as interesting as where hes going. Neither would a movie about how Scott Lang got his amazing burglary skills and ultimately arrested the first time. Nor a movie about Dr. Strange's amazing rise to best surgeon ever. They could be good, really well made movies, but they would also be equally pointless.

When I sit down with someone whos never seen a Marvel film I am going to start them at the beginning and show them IM 1 and work our way through them in basically order of release.

When I sit down to show someone starwars I show them 4 5 and 6. I tell them to never bother with 1 2 and 3, and Rogue 1 and Solo are 100% optional if they feel like it.

That is what makes each Marvel release refreshing instead of something we get burned out on. I'm moving forward with the universe. I am seeing what happens to these people and how it's going to effect them. Even if I know they all live at the end.

@John: That's an example of exactly what you quoted on a bigger scale than usual.

@Lance: Sure you knew what Han was like in ANH. But you didn't know why he was like that. The events of Solo had consequences for his character. You don't need to see Solo to understand or enjoy ANH, or vice versa. I haven't watched most of the MCU movies (including both Antman and Civil War) but I understood and enjoyed Antman and The Wasp. Frankly, the characters aren't all that complex. While an actual MCU fan will enjoy this movie, having seen all the other movies, perhaps multiple times, and fully engaged with all of the hype around the franchise, I can walk in with none of that, without being a fan at all, and enjoy it. But that's not why Antman and The Wasp is exceeding projections. The reason there is very simply that rather than producing some kind of fatigue or liquidating the audience's annual cinema budget, Black Panther and Infinity War unified and electrified the fans as well people who may not be fans but are caught up in the excitement and all these people wanted more MCU, even if it's a much smaller, more intimate scale with a laid back tone.

which leads to

FWIW, Rogue 1 was pretty good, precisely because it dovetailed exactly into the opening of the first SW movie. If I wanted someone to watch SW, I'd have them watch the Clone Wars TV show, then Rogue 1, then SW & ESB. Done.

 Manchu wrote:

@Lance: Sure you knew what Han was like in ANH. But you didn't know why he was like that. The events of Solo had consequences for his character. You don't need to see Solo to understand or enjoy ANH, or vice versa. I haven't watched most of the MCU movies (including both Antman and Civil War) but I understood and enjoyed Antman and The Wasp. Frankly, the characters aren't all that complex. While an actual MCU fan will enjoy this movie, having seen all the other movies, perhaps multiple times, and fully engaged with all of the hype around the franchise, I can walk in with none of that, without being a fan at all, and enjoy it. But that's not why Antman and The Wasp is exceeding projections. The reason there is very simply that rather than producing some kind of fatigue or liquidating the audience's annual cinema budget, Black Panther and Infinity War unified and electrified the fans as well people who may not be fans but are caught up in the excitement and all these people wanted more MCU, even if it's a much smaller, more intimate scale with a laid back tone.

I do not at all disagree that seeing good movies makes people want to see more of those good movies.

(You should ABSOLUTELY see Civil War BTW. I think it's easily one of the top 5 out of the 20 released so far).

I am just saying you can't compare Antman to Solo based solely on that apples to apples.

When I look at why AM&TW appears to be a success I see

1) Well made fun movie
2) A narrative that has built to it with the next chapters already on the way
3) Good Marketing
4) Good release time (Who really gives a gak about the Purge? I have no idea whats coming out next week)

When I look at why solo failed I see

1) A heavily reported on troubled development
2) A prequel that gives me low expectations of giving much of a gak of what happens in the movie. Especially since it's 100% disconnected from the narrative that I know is coming around the corner (Ep 9. The 2 new trilogies)
3) Poor marketing
4) A bad release time (surrounded by 2 of what will be the biggest most talked about movies this year)

There are a lot of factors to both. The general audience being heavily divided on the last entry in SW means you have a bunch of people who are excited for what comes next and a bunch of people who are not with SW. But none of that matters because Solo has nothing to do with what happens next. It just sits in it's own little box occupying a space all on it's own.

Anyway. Less SW talk. More Ant Man.

AM&TW shows definitively that Solo's performance is not a matter of generalized franchise fatigue (in contrast to anti-TLJ sentiment, specifically) or the even more bizarre notion that people can/will only see two films per year. People will go to the cinema to see movies they are excited about, even if they are smaller scale pictures with lesser known characters and even of they follow closely on huge event pictures. AM&TW clearly demonstrates as much. The clear truth is that a pleasant little film like this can perform well beyond expectations thanks to the tremendous approval of audiences regarding the franchise tentpole, Infinity War, plus almost equally positive response to another franchise entry right before.

I think Disney 100% nailed the de-ageing technology in this film.

It's been looking better and better with each entry and what they showed this time around in flashbacks was really amazing.

 Lance845 wrote:
I think Disney 100% nailed the de-ageing technology in this film.

It's been looking better and better with each entry and what they showed this time around in flashbacks was really amazing.

It's worth noting that they did cheat a bit. The young Bill Foster was played by Laurence Fishburne's son, Langston.
But the work they did for Douglas and Pfeiffer was great.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I think Disney 100% nailed the de-ageing technology in this film.

It's been looking better and better with each entry and what they showed this time around in flashbacks was really amazing.

It's worth noting that they did cheat a bit. The young Bill Foster was played by Laurence Fishburne's son, Langston.
But the work they did for Douglas and Pfeiffer was great.

Spoiler:

I'd love to learn more about what Janet was doing all those years in the Quantum Realm. There has got to be a story behind her new abilities and the sword-thing she was carrying.

Saw this very early Sat morning (9:30am session - who goes to the movies at 9:30am???). Had a blast, lots of good stuff in there. It's not a fantastic film, but it was thoroughly entertaining throughout with some great jokes, good action, great FX and good performances.

Ghost was amazing, and her FX were out of this world. The slow shot of her getting back, taking off the suit, and slowly getting into that chamber was incredible. Told so much about the character with nothing said, and the way she would phase in and out, sometimes showing her ahead of where she was, doing something she hadn't let done, and then reversing that, repeating that, it was just an inspired FX concept realised so perfectly on screen.

And then that mid-credits scene! All three of them? Did not see that coming. Scott's got an interesting plotline to resolve for Avengers 4.

 Manchu wrote:
But MCU movies do tell an ONGOING story, overall, rather than constantly going backwards, like serving up a whole movie about Tony Stark's adventures as an 8 year old or something.

Well... Captain Marvel is mostly an extended flashback to her origin in the 90's... but that (like The First Avenger) might just be a necessary anomaly. I'm sure present day will bookend the film, or at least end it.

I really liked Ghost, too. She was definitely my favorite part and I thought she easily stole every scene where she had lines.

Just saw it this afternoon, and thought it was great! Interesting story, good action sequences, good chemistry between the characters, just an all-around good movie.

I want to talk about what I think might end up happening in Avengers 4, based on the post credits scene, casting news, and set photos. So much (potential) spoilers....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Similarly, in a MCU film, we all know that despite setbacks we're going to enjoy seeing the heroes pull through in a climactic third act.

Spoiler:

... aside from Infinity War

, of course.

Not sure what you mean. You haven't seen the climatic third act yet, what you saw was just the set up. Avengers 4 will likely disappoint a lot of people who aren't familiar with the decades-old storyline and/or haven't grasped the implications of the complete macguffin.

Apart from actor changes and retirements, comic book rules absolutely apply, and obviously they're going to scrape up a win by the end. The challenge is getting them there in an interesting fashion, same with insect heroes 3 (assuming it isn't also resolved in A4)

Merging thread:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/765794.page

So, my thoughts on Ant-Man and the Wasp.

After the sheer spectacle and enormity of Infinity War, A&W served as the perfect palette cleanser movie.

It's stripped back, and reminds us why the MCU is doing so well - it's just a good story, neatly packaged. No planet shaking consequences. No near immortal bad guy. It's very much back to basics. Not even a cross movie cameo (I don't think? Pretty sure there's not. May be misremembering).

Whilst one benefits from having seen Ant-Man and Civil War to really know, you can enjoy this without having all the details. Scott is under house arrest, and they say why. That's enough for the casual viewer to be brought up to necessary speed.

And for me, that's all very important for the MCU to come. Once Avengers 4 is done, I think it will need a time to chill and relax. Scale back the adventures. A&W shows that they're still very capable of pulling that off.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's stripped back, and reminds us why the MCU is doing so well - it's just a good story, neatly packaged.

Exactly. Each story is it's own thing, first. If it might reference other parts of the universe, that's OK, but not at the expense of the story being told. It avoids important screen time and breaking the story in order to fit in with a larger plot.

The other thing that they have been doing really well are the little recaps that are specific to the characters involved. It was great seeing Bucky in Black Panther, because we saw that's where he was sent after Civil War, but he wasn't part of that story until it went *back* to Wakanda for Avengers 3. Same the various recaps in Thor: Ragnarok recapping CW for Banner, who we hadn't seen since the end of Avengers 2. And so on. If you've only been following one character thread, or skipping some of the non-Avengers movies, it's really easy to keep on top of things.

It all boils down to having excellent writing. That's what's making the difference

I liked it, but its far from my favorite MCU film. I was hoping they'd do more with Ghost. Overall fun film, but I wish it had more to say.

Ghost was the best part but also tonally at odds with the rest of the film.

I loved it. The fact that there was no real villain, that it was just one woman trying to heal and a doctor trying to help her made it feel less like a typical super hero movie. It felt like it had way more heart than most Marvel movies. It really felt unique. It may have actually been one of my favorites that Marvel put out. Which I’m sure nobody expected to see/hear anyone say about Paul Rudd’s Antman.

I rented this on-demand and so was able to watch it a few times and I have to be honest I thought it was great. I liked the first one a lot too and this was a really good sequel. Aside from minor inconsistencies in placement between switching cameras, I thought it was an all around really good Marvel film. I have to be honest the Ant-man storyline and supporting cast is might be my favorite after Guardians of the Galaxy. And the best part about them, especially the last film, is how little the stakes are compared to other Marvel films. No huge impending disaster, no massive alien armies, no destruction of a major city (take notice WB). Sure these things are in other Marvel films, especially Infinity War, but it’s a nice break to be into a film where if they fail, maybe only two people die or are lost forever. Walton Goggins wasn’t some mastermind and for once I enjoyed one of his characters. I was even impressed with Hanna Kamen. Michael Peña annoys me in just about every film he is in but I tolerated him more in this one. Actually I liked his story about where Scott was, but then again, more for the characters acting out the scene.

But the movie had me the moment the pigeons entered the scene, and I loved the little touches like Scott’s eyes when he pulled the plug and seeing how pissed Ghost was, or the call from his daughter during Lawrence Fishburns rant. But most of all the chase scenes with the shrinking cars. Scott’s suit flipping out was a great touch too. And I don’t know where they found the little actress who plays Scott’s daughter but she pretty much steals any scene she is in. I imagine 20 years from now we’ll all know her name. And I love how Michael Douglas hates all of his former partners and refuses to give them any credit.

It’s amazing how many Marvel films there have been and how Marvel is still able to tell a great story that is both compartmentalized and part of a bigger story. It would have been nice to see WB pull it off too but I guess it shows how difficult it is to do. I really think Marvel keeps raising the standards to where the bar keeps getting raised to where one could be too critical of a film yet forget how amazing the universe they are building is. Because they all link I can’t say I really dislike any Marvel film, although I hold some up higher than others. Even Iron Man 3. It gets a lot of slack, but it’s the only film we’ve seen a character deal with PTSD. It would have been better to actually have The Mandarin as the main villain but oh well. But I have to give Marvel respect to not only throwing that into the mix, but Tony’s drinking in the previous film.

The greatest thing about the Marvel movies is how human the heros feel, versus DC where they are something else.

Anyway, fun film and I hope we get a part 3, and that Ant Man and Wasp become official Avengers.

I would agree that Ghost was the best part of the movie. I liked it as well.

I also enjoyed it and agree that the stakes being smaller helps. They are all about keeping and maintaining your family and friend connections in a world gone mad.

Older Ant-man (Michael Douglas) shows us the downside of being a hero and what can happen to you if you fail to keep and maintain those important connections. Then, we see the new Ant-man have to try and avoid and rectify the mistakes of the old Ant-man.

Good stuff.