Marvel's Ant Man (2015)

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I have, but what you don't get about my point is the Edgar Wright thing shouldn't even come into it.

They should just enjoy or criticise the movie for what it is. If they notice Edgar Wright's touch in it, that's certainly something to observe, but not something to get over obsessed about, or judge the movie solely on that. Because if they do it just becomes apparent they went into the movie thinking about the whole Edgar Wright thing.

Nah man think of it like this.

Let's both admit that Edgar Wright has a very distinct style. The look of his movies is unique, right? Like, you can tell by his editing style and his cinematography and jokes and smash cuts, the whole thing. Edgar Wright movies are Edgar Wright movies.

So comparatively let's use another artist who's style is VERY distinct. Like, someone who when you look at their work you say "oh that's clearly so and so's work." Let's say Picasso because it's the simplest comparison.

So Picasso does this really abstract style. Cubism or something.

So we've got another artist who comes along and does a cubist piece. If a critic came out and lambasted it and said "this is garbage. It's not Picasso. Imagine if Picasso did this?" That'd be utter bullshit and really unfair. Which I think is what you're saying.

But the reality of it is this.

Picasso opts to paint a grand picture, a real heart project. A labor of love. He outlines how he will create this masterpiece. He develops the lines, the shadowing, what it means, the lighting, the composition. He works on this piece for EIGHT YEARS. Its got his heart and soul on the canvas.

Then, through all kinds of creative dickery, the art museum that would house this work of art says "you need to draw this too in there. And these colors as well. And also need to take out this."

Unwilling to compromise his vision nor his artistic integrity, Picasso hangs up this canvas. The art museum however, hires another painter (an artist who can not paint in Picassos style) to simply paint over Picassos lines. They take his colors. They take his shading. they put a new coat of paint on it, sure, but they keep all the REALLY good brush strokes.

In the end, you get a painting that - while nice to look at, sure - is inarguably a pale imitation of what the art was going to be. You had an artist working to his fullest to create something special, but end with another attempting to imitate Picassos unique style.

Ant man is moving on up, while Minions is getting crapped on.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Aaaannnnd there it is again. So much sass and wit.

If in between trying to get the last word in, you want to talk about feces and bowel movements , then have at it. Would fit right in with your sh1tposting. 👆

Hey man if you don't care, you don't care. You don't have to "prove" you don't care to us.

Originally posted by Quincy
Nah man think of it like this.

Let's both admit that Edgar Wright has a very distinct style. The look of his movies is unique, right? Like, you can tell by his editing style and his cinematography and jokes and smash cuts, the whole thing. Edgar Wright movies are Edgar Wright movies.

So comparatively let's use another artist who's style is VERY distinct. Like, someone who when you look at their work you say "oh that's clearly so and so's work." Let's say Picasso because it's the simplest comparison.

So Picasso does this really abstract style. Cubism or something.

So we've got another artist who comes along and does a cubist piece. If a critic came out and lambasted it and said "this is garbage. It's not Picasso. Imagine if Picasso did this?" That'd be utter bullshit and really unfair. Which I think is what you're saying.

But the reality of it is this.

Picasso opts to paint a grand picture, a real heart project. A labor of love. He outlines how he will create this masterpiece. He develops the lines, the shadowing, what it means, the lighting, the composition. He works on this piece for EIGHT YEARS. Its got his heart and soul on the canvas.

Then, through all kinds of creative dickery, the art museum that would house this work of art says "you need to draw this too in there. And these colors as well. And also need to take out this."

Unwilling to compromise his vision nor his artistic integrity, Picasso hangs up this canvas. The art museum however, hires another painter (an artist who can not paint in Picassos style) to simply paint over Picassos lines. They take his colors. They take his shading. they put a new coat of paint on it, sure, but they keep all the REALLY good brush strokes.

In the end, you get a painting that - while nice to look at, sure - is inarguably a pale imitation of what the art was going to be. You had an artist working to his fullest to create something special, but end with another attempting to imitate Picassos unique style.

Ha, at comparing Wright to Picasso. Anyhow going with your example.

You missed a few things.

"Picasso opts to paint a grand picture, a real heart project. A labor of love. He outlines how he will create this masterpiece. He develops the lines, the shadowing, what it means, the lighting, the composition. He works on this piece for EIGHT YEARS. Its got his heart and soul on the canvas."

This project was first thought to take a few years to complete. Instead Picasso put this "heart felt" project on hold multiple times and goes and paints other paintings in the mean time. By the time he actually devotes himself to finally completing the painting, the art museum has expanded and changed. They mention that since it took him 8 years to complete (and its still not complete), there is a new movement in art which consists of using bright colors. They ask if he incorporates this just a bit into his painting. He refuses and storms off. Bitterly consorting his fellow friend painters to never work for this art museum as well. A childish tantrum of sorts.
The art museum would have never asked picasso to do this if he actually devoted his time and effort to complete this project in time. Instead of putting it on hold and venturing to other projects.

Anyhow in the end Wrights "quirky indie" isolated movie style wasnt suited for this type of film.

Hey man that post isn't a re-telling of the story of how Ant-Man got made. You misunderstand. There's a whole giant can of worms that we can go into when it comes to Marvel and Wright falling out.

Regardless of how you want to describe Edgar Wright leaving the project (I presume you aren't the creative type) His name will come up in reviews because

Peyton Reed tries to tell Edgar Wright style jokes in an Edgar Wright style way while not being Edgar Wright.

Imagine if the guy who wrote the jokes and created the style got to tell the jokes and then use said style? That's pretty basic to follow.

And a critic stating that fact while also giving Ant-Man a decent review does not make them the "Edgar Wright Defense Force?"

Originally posted by Quincy
Hey man that post isn't a re-telling of the story of how Ant-Man got made. You misunderstand. There's a whole giant can of worms that we can go into when it comes to Marvel and Wright falling out.

Regardless of how you want to describe Edgar Wright leaving the project (I presume you aren't the creative type) His name will come up in reviews because

Peyton Reed tries to tell Edgar Wright style jokes in an Edgar Wright style way while not being Edgar Wright.

Imagine if the guy who wrote the jokes and created the style got to tell the jokes and then use said style? That's pretty basic to follow.

TBH im not a big fan of Wright in the first place. His niche comedy movies were ok but not worth a second watch. Dont get the cult following either. (And yes im aware all his movies are in the same universe with easter eggs and hints hidden in them that connect each one...yawn)

Maybe thats why i dont feel wright was a big lose or anything, like some others that are his obsessed fans, and are making a big deal out of him not directing antman.
Ill watch it and if the jokes and movie fall flat then I will criticize those things accordingly.

What really?? Not even a second watch? That surprises me. His stories are so layered I still catch new jokes on 5th and 6th re-watches

Originally posted by Quincy
What really?? Not even a second watch? That surprises me. His stories are so layered I still catch new jokes on 5th and 6th re-watches

Actually I lied. I watched Shaun of the dead 2 1/2 times. the second and 1/2 times was when there was nothing else on. Im not saying they were bad or anything. They were amusing, but I just dont see the devoted cult following his moves get, is all im saying.

Oh that's easy man, it's his unmatched use of visual humor

Originally posted by Quincy
Oh that's easy man, it's his unmatched use of visual humor

Thats cool if you enjoy his movies. Im sure there are layers and layers of clever quips , jokes, etc. Just that his movies were good but not AMAZING to me. Not enough for me to watch intricately for every morsel of humor he included especially with more than a few viewings.

Its like if you date a girl you are not too attracted too. You wont really care to much to learn all her hobbies , interests, likes or what makes her smile, etc.

mhmm

That was well put

Originally posted by Quincy
mhmm

That was well put

Thanks 🙂

Originally posted by Inhuman
Thanks 🙂

.......

...

...

Originally posted by Quincy
What really?? Not even a second watch? That surprises me. His stories are so layered I still catch new jokes on 5th and 6th re-watches

I agree. Hot Fuzz was insanely awesome. I didn't expect anything from that movie.

just got back from watching this. Liked it alot. Very fun flick and Paul Rudd, i thought, did an excellent job. Some very corny stuff in there that seems very convoluted but, overall, fun summer movie. There's even a nodd to Interstellar, ha!

Just saw this movie and it's awesome. It definitely has weaknesses, but it's so fun you don't care about them much.

Spoiler:
Also it leaves open the possibility of hank pym's wife coming out of the quantum state as her young self

Also

Spoiler:
the Spider-Man reference was cool

When that was reference?...i missed it.

here's some easter eggs.....Spoilers for those that are yet to see the movie

http://www.etonline.com/news/168140_13_ant_man_easter_eggs_and_marvel_references/