Talk:Ant-Man (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copy and paste move

This was copy and pasted into mainspace by Prince of Peas (talk · contribs). See this diff -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Pym and Lang (early draft)

Is there any actual need of start the article stating that Lang and Pym are gonna appear in the movie when there's not even an official synopsis yet?

Don't think so; you're talking about Wright's elevator pitch treatment from like 5 years ago, not even connected to the MCU, and two or three new drafts were written after that. There's like 85% chances that statement is wrong.

That would be the equivalent of saying "Rambo IV is gonna be about Rambo teaching modern soldiers to fight without technology" just in the beginning of the article, when that was only one of the movie ideas that were considered in the very beginning.

Please, don't say anything about the story or characters yet, not until an official synopsis or details are released. Keep those details on the "Production - Development" section and refer to them as early ideas, not confirmed things for the actual movie that will come out. So far, I think the "based on the Ant-Man property" would be just perfect to describe the movie, as we know it for sure, no matter how ambiguous it sounds, it's completely accurate and infallible. Magegg (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A few things; the content is verfied by a reliable source. The age of the content is of no consequence unless refuted by other newer reliable sources. Intentionally omitting this sort of information is WP:POV editing. If it turns out not be the case, we'll change it. Remember Nothing on Wikipedia is written in stone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, it's not something you necessarily want or even need in the leading statement of the article, especially given the age of it, and number of drafts written since then. By all means, keep it in the article, but mention that it was a pitch from however many years ago it was. That's a true statement, not a point of view. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Its necessary as Ant-Man is an ambiguous title given to multiple characters. Also it wasn't a pitch it is part of the script. Drafting is just a part of the writing process, fine-tuning the screenplay. It's not like they threw out the whole thing. So again, we can update the article as new information becomes available. Right now the lead is both verifiable and up-to-date with the information that is available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But given the age of the source, the information is less reliable. It was a part of a script that's been rewritten a number of times now. So again, we should move the information out of the lead, and wait for an official synopsis. The lead isn't so much up-to-date as out-of-date. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Its up-to-date in the fact that there is no newer information. Especially considering Wright said, "We wanted it to be about the guy who steals the suit," which suggests it is a central component and something less likely to change. If for some reason it turns out not to be case, we'll change it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For example, the Westgate shopping mall shooting says there are 67 deaths, the investigation is not yet complete and the death toll can still rise. If it does, the article we will be updated. This is the nature of Wikipedia.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul Rudd has not been cast as Henry Pym/Ant-Man

Paul Rudd is only in Early Talks to play the character, he has not been officially confirmed as both the Variety and The Wrap's articles state. Npabebangin (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is a repeat of Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen for Avengers:Age of Ultron in that, hey okay, these 2 are in talks but nothing can be confirmed so just be patient and it will pan out, which it did. Therefore, while there are those sources, I am content for another round of the waiting game for Paul Rudd as Ant-Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly like that situation. Someone was quick to add that Rudd was cast as Ant-Man, but I went and quickly deleted the cast section, and re-wrote what had been written that he "signed on" to star. Nothing is confirmed right now. Npabebangin (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the waiting game's over already. Paul Rudd has been cast as Ant-Man. [1] --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BUT, Marvel just said "Ant-Man", not Henry Pym or Scott Lang. And I made a note of that in the article. So we must see how this plays out now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has any doubts or tries to argue which one they are from another source reporting on the Marvel announcement, IGN explicitly mentions the fact that which Ant-Man Rudd will be was not stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, IGN is commentating/speculating based on Marvel's press release, not on any other other source telling them this. Furthermore, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap specifically state that Rudd is playing Pym. Richiekim (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Those THR and Wrap sources were before the decision was finalized (albeit one day) as they state he was only in "early negotiations". So the question becomes would it be synthesis if you combined those sources as none state all-together that he has been cast and that role is Henry Pym?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Until we get something more concrete, perhaps we can add something like "Although Marvel did not specify which Ant-Man Rudd would play, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap have reported that he will play Henry Pym." Richiekim (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Slight correction for accuracy; "Although Marvel did not specify which Ant-Man Rudd would play, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap have reported that he was in negotiations to play Henry Pym." This or we can just leave it be until something more concrete comes along.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually THR is backtracking a bit their latest article says "Marvel's announcement makes no mention of which Ant-Man hero Rudd will play, the original (Dr. Hank Pym, the scientist) or one introduced in the late 1970s, a reformed thief names Scott Lang."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I say we wait until we get more concrete info, though I don't want this to become another Renner situation. Marvel clearly did not specify which Ant-Man, and we still don't know any idea of the plot, or if they are still working with Pym and Lang being in the film together. But if we do have to add anything, we can just use The Wrap source already on the page and your wording Triiiple. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If TriiipleThreat is right, and the sources that did say it would be Pym are going back on their word, then it's not verifiable to say that Rudd has been cast as Pym. Besides, the last information we were given on the plot said it would feature Pym, and then flash-forward to Lang, which does infer that Lang will be the main character. That was an old script though, so, who knows... We should wait. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episode

I'm not really sure why TriipleThreat is reverting my edit that the Avengers EMH episode features both Pym and Lang, considering: 1)multiple sources say that Pym and Lang will be in the film and 2)I have included a ref from /Film noting the use of both characters in the EMH episode, which is a reliable source. I don't know if you've seen the episode in question, Triiple, but both Pym AND Lang play important roles in this episode, so your assertion that Lang is the only noteworthy thing about the episode is not true. Richiekim (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the episode but establishing Pym as part of the film is not notable or new per multiple sources. Pym as shown in the article has already long been thought to be included. The notable aspect is that it introduces Lang, who aside from being in Wright's comic book collection hasnt been mentioned since the early draft.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't still see the rationale of not including the fact that Pym is in the episode in the article. Yes, multiple sources have said that Pym will be in the film, but the average user who reads this article will get the incorrect impression that Lang was the main focus of the episode, when that is demonstratively not true. What is the harm in including that Pym and Lang are both featured in this particular episode? Richiekim (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about the episode, it's about film. So the focus of the information should be the relation of the episode to the film and we've already established Pym. If readers want to know more about the episode they can click the link.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the film is supposed to be about both Pym and Lang, I don't see how including this info will cause the article to lose its focus. You seem to focus on the fact that there are more references about Pym than on Lang being a bad thing. Could it be because Pym is the first and most well known version of the Ant-Man character? Look at the bottom of the page: it's Pym, not Lang that has his own template. Also, here's another article that notes that Pym and Lang are featured in the episode and how that could relate to the film. Richiekim (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a news site, we focus on the notable aspects or the article becomes an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information. Pym has been "featured" in many episodes by this point in the series. This particular episode is noted for introducing Lang. It's curious that Wright choose this one. Pym being featured in an episode of Avengers: EMH? In other news, dog bites man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I put forth a compromise that both mentions Pym and the introduction of Lang.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

release date pushed up.

confirmed by Marvel.com 98.110.5.128 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Michael Pena

Before anyone else tries to add Michael Pena. The Wrap, which broke the story, also says that Marvel is denying that he is in negotiations.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I readded it. Marvel undoubtedly will deny any reports, but I don't see why we can't add it, using "The Wrap reported". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well, just playing it safe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern. In my opinion, all these casting reports, considered "exclusives" by the reputable sites, will always be denied by Marvel, because they only let the information out when they want you to know. I don't see the harm in having it as we do, and we can alter it if need by and it does not pan out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we expand to mention Marvel's denial? I'm sure the information will change soon, but in the meantime... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point, unless it gets to a Vin Diesel-isn't-Groot-but-he-is, level (as seen on the Guardians page). I think the IGN article reporting on the Wrap report summed up my thinking nicely: "(Marvel, as always, has denied the report.)" I think this happens regularly, so I don't see why this is any different. But I wouldn't oppose that addition if it came to that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way, Erik's idea is safe but as he also said "the information will change soon". Also its not about Verifiability vs. Truth, its about Verifiability vs. Rumor. It can be a fine line, especially since Marvel tends to deal with everything with the same callous indifference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see why it would not be worth a mention. I wasn't aware that this was Marvel's default reaction (especially instead of "no comment"). Curious, were there any similar reports that were denied by Marvel and really were not true? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Vin Diesel in Guardians of the Galaxy is one as Favre1fan mentioned. But I believe that was more of a case of Diesel jumping the gun before the deal was done. Just today Marvel also denied meeting with Johnny Depp about Dr. Strange (It should be noted that Variety edited this story to be more uncertain after originally posting it).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's tricky, but I think up until now we've been doing everything fine. There is a line between a rumor (Depp) and a report (Pena, Diesel), and for reports, we always preface the statement by doing "In (date), (source) reported X". Even if the source does not say it, Marvel never really confirms anything until they "announce" the news. Like with Rudd for example; Variety reported on the negotiations (which Marvel did not confirm at the time) and then Marvel announced the casting the next day (which is uncharacteristically close to the initial report for them). Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also what do you two think of Jones/Howard info, the source in the article says "According to Variety" and Variety says they have been "mentioned" but no offer has been made?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking this in similar light to Variety stating that JGL and Rudd were being considered for the lead. It has the same reporting type in my opinion, so I think it is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, It seems that Collider has debunked the rumors of Rashida and Howard's inclusion in Ant-Man. I think solidifying this notion is that Howard has recently been cast as the female lead in Jurassic World which will be released a month before Ant-Man is released. How could Howard star in both films when it seems as though they're filming schedules would be so close together. It's not possible. 71.188.18.94 (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mentioned" could be by anyone, official or not. It sounds like a synonym for "rumored". That coupled with the Collider article, it seems pretty dubious.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the Collider source, I say we hold off on Jones and Howard for now. Most news sources are talking about them, but they all have different opinions (unlike Pena), so it is hard to gauge. But I agree, it sound like rumor. Wasn't Jones' name brought up a while back too that was just a rumor? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she has long been rumored for the part.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This source indicates that Michael Pena has nabbed the role he was in early talks for, is this confirmation that he is indeed part of the cast? 71.188.16.34 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup! Added here. Part is still unconfirmed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I was just making sure. Some websites are completely overlooking that part for some unknown reason. I don't understand why. Screenrant, CBM, ect seem to be leaving that portion out. BUT, THR can also be dis-honest with their announcements, as an example. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Though I appreciate the ability to verify every single little minute fact and supposition in this article, it would be nice if the article was actually longer than the list of references.

If the movie is as badly written, composed and directed as this wiki page, I won't be seeing it. Let's hope Marvel kicks ass with this movie as they have the previous ones, because I would have to hate to honestly compare it to it's wiki page. 173.65.234.244 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't even started filming yet, it's only in pre-production. The article will of course grow as more information comes to light.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Genres

Regarding this edit by Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs), claiming that the inclusion of the genre categories (in this case Category:Heist films and Category:Science fiction action films) violates WP:SUBJECTIVE because the information stems from the word of the filmmakers. However, these are not effusive opinions as described by WP:SUBJECTIVE, it would be one-thing if the producer said it is the greatest film of all-time and based on that we included the film at List of films considered the best, but that is not the case. If the producer says he is making a heist film then he is making a heist film, as the only requirement is that there be a heist central to the plot. This isn't subjective at all as the filmmakers are fully in control of film's plot. They can make whatever kind of film they like.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is subjective as the film has not been released and if we are talking about things like genres, (which we are), and we don't even have a plot description in we can't tell how much of the film takes place as a heist film. You also continue to add science fiction action back in as well when there is no source for that in the article whatsoever. Wait until the film is released, then feel free to add genres in once you have them from third-party sources who have actually seen the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We have explicit verification from the filmmakers that it is both a "heist film" and an "action-adventure" film based on reasons described above. We also have enough sourced info regarding the plot to justify the science-fiction genre as it incorporates elements of science like; "scientist", "technology", "change size", "invented substance", etc. in a work of fiction. Some WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that these are categories, we can be more flexible here than with the opening sentence. :) I think that the "heist movie" statement is sufficient for verifying one category. As for the "action" one, it seems like the statements related to statements that could be considered outdated. A lot of science fiction films have some degree of action in them but perhaps not enough to be outright action; Minority Report comes to mind as one of them. Could we do the heist one but not the action one for now? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: Given that it is also a superhero film wouldn't "action" be reasonable when coupled with the director's comments?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Might be reasonable but might be incorrect. Why chance it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The test footage that Wright shot featured Ant-Man beating up some bad guys, so I think that would safely be considered "action" Richiekim (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Would they shoot test footage of the non-action parts? Unlikely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the test footage, it was done to showcase the shrinking CGI, so they very well could have done a part with out action. So I think Richie has a point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be a better showcase without action? Only then does your point make a strong tell. Seems like if they want to showcase something, they choose the most action-y part since that makes the better visual. Maybe that's what they did. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The director called it the film an "action and special effects bonanza" and an "action-adventure". I think "action" is pretty clear and considering the subject matter is obvious.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The director said that in 2006. Don't get me wrong, it's likely, but I don't think that the categorization should be contingent on that older statement. It's still quite some time before this film's release, so I think we will be able to verify it, and then we can have the category permanently. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We need third party sources discussing things like genre either way, as genre falls under WP:SUBJECTIVE. A staff can describe their product in any way they want to promote it to a select audience, but we need third-party sources who have seen a final product to really give an idea what it is, and not just have ourselves give a "best guess". Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The author and publication of the source is independent of the subject, this known as a secondary source and is the crux of Wikipedia. Most secondary sources are based on direct research of a Primary source. In this case its an interview of a primary source. This is journalism at its heart. Again if the filmmakers intend to make a sci-fi action heist film, who is to stop them. Yes, they change their mind and decide to go into a different direction but at that time Wikipedia can also change to reflect it. We base our information on what is currently available. Remember nothing in Wikipedia is written in stone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should just break the rules. We need expert sources, and we don't use film-makers own opinions. Simple as that. I've been in several arguements on wikipedia with peopel placing genres on wikipedia on films before they come out and the genres always change dramatically after the film is released.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not breaking the rules, the information passes WP:V, and its not breaking WP:SUBJECTIVE as its not an effusive opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

British American?

Is it really necessary to label the film as "British-American?", especially since it's extremely likely that the film will feature a predominantly American setting/cast. There's are numerous films on Wikipedia that feature a British production company that don't list the nationality or label it as American, since it's being distributed by an American studio (for example Big Talk Productions' own Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which is explicitly labeled as an American film). I mean, why not label Iron Man 3 as a Chinese-American superhero film since a Chinese company (DMG Entertainment) co-produced the film with Marvel Studios? Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree we need to change that. Koala15 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD states: "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." while Template:Infobox film#Country has some info, as well as in the area describing how to handle that parameter in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the answer is more complicated than that and is a bit random. To qualify as a British film, a film must either pass the "culture test" administered by the British Film Institute, fall under one of the government's co-production agreements or the European convention for co-productions. This is usually done to qualify for British tax reliefs. Since Scott Pilgrim was shot in Canada, it wouldn't have effected the budget so the studio probably didn't even bother to apply. Since Big Talk is British as is the director, screenwriters and two of the co-producers, it might have been worth it for them to apply in this case since they planned to shoot Ant-Man in the UK.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The cast doesn’t matter, it’s the production company that defines the nationality. Take the 1931 Frankenstein for example, based on an originally English screenplay, starring predominantly British actors, directed by an Englishman. Since it was produced by an American company it's considered an American movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.99.133 (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Big Talk has been involved in several productions that were only cited as American. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a good example of one shot and based in Canada but it's a Universal Production. Not an British one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the article citing Big Talk says it's Nira Park and Wright co-producing. It mentions that Park is the co-producer and works for Big Talk, but doesn't say that Big Talk is a production company on this film. I think countries should be removed until this film has more production notice. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been three days and I have not heard any objections, I will assume consensus and remove British. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Three days, is not enough time to close a discussion most RFCs last at least a week. But to the point there is as much verification for British as American as it is based on the same assumptions. So to be fair that should removed as well until we have more concrete verification for any nationality.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am readding all of this information because a) a formal RfC was not requested, and we have been somewhat discussing this and b) agreeing with TriiipleThreat three days is not enough time for you to close a discussion and assume consensus, which I'd say we don't have now. And because of that, we should use the WP:STATUSQUO which includes British and Big Talk on this page, until such a time that consensus is made in this discussion, or Andrzejbanas would like further input and requests an RfC, as that seems to be what they were intending. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no real request for discussion as there is no mention of Big Talk's involvement in the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been a bit. If there's no source for Big Talk's dirct involvement, then I'll remove it tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We haven't come to any consensus either way, so you should not remove the info, per WP:STATUSQUO. Just because the conversation has become dormant, doesn't mean that your opinion won. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I found a source that settles this: [2] Big Talk is listed as a production company (along with the fake Pym Particles Production) as well as Nira Park as a producer. (I don't know about this credibility though as site, after looking into it.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Favre, It's not my opinion, no one has provided a source for Big Talk's involvement, so uncited material should be removed. Also, WP:STATUSQUO is part of an essay, not a rule and involves reverts, not the removal of cited or uncited material. Can you tell me what makes this casting site a reliable source? It doesn't state how it's information is gathered nor does it seem to have any major tie-ins with any film production companies. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been almost ten days and no one has added a citation concerning Big Talk's involvements. I'll remove it tomorrow if there are no further changes. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As no strong evidence was shown with Big Talk's involvement, it has been removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Stoll sources and what it means for others in talks

Before this gets out of hand, The Wrap report does NOT confirm Lilly and Pena have been cast. It states "In addition to Stoll, whose role is being kept under wraps, “Ant-Man” is expected to co-star Evangeline Lilly, Michael Pena and Patrick Wilson." (my emphasis). This is not a confirmation, and we DO have confirmation from Pena that he is still in talk. I'm not "reading too much into sources," as some say, with this. If the source states they are "expected" to co-star, then that obviously means they have not been cast yet. Variety says the same thing: "Patrick Wilson, Michael Pena and Evangeline Lilly are also in talks to join the cast." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wouldn't have suggested otherwise. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Development of

This is stupid. Once again trying to fix something that does not need fixing. Suzuku (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was this moved? Can someone please move it back or approach an admin to do so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Suzuku, no need to be rude. Two very high profile films also in pre-production, Star Wars Episode VII and Jurassic World, both have "Development of" in their article titles. Ant-Man is in the same place as Star Wars: it's still casting. Why differentiate? I think Erik put it best of Star Wars VII's talk page.

“ Generally speaking, we should not have a stand-alone article until filming has started, per the notability guidelines for future films. This is because if filming starts, an actual film is mostly guaranteed. Before then, films in development can still fall apart. Even this one could; it would not be the first franchise film to not get off the ground right away. The Batman and Superman reboots took decades to come around, with different creative efforts throughout. Since we are doing a stand-alone article here, presumably based on the level of detail (though much could be culled), the question is if it is accurate to make it a film article. Before, this article did not say "is an upcoming film", did not use the film infobox, did not have the film-related categories, etc. It was treated as a historical article. Of course, because fans are excited, they assume that this is going to happen and try to make it a film article. The "Development of" part of the article title was an attempt at that historical presentation. ”

If consensus disagrees with me, that's okay, but I think this is a very valid point. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Added note: I apologize for not consulting the talk page first. I think I took "be bold" a bit too literally. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel this was a very bold move on your part just out of the blue, with out the chance to discuss on the talk page. Changing the title to something drastic as this (versus just a simple change) should at least be brought up for discussion before it is implemented. While you cited the quote from the developmental page of Star Wars, that does not necessarily apply to this, or every other film at a similar state this film is in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, far too rash. I made a bad judgment call, and I apologize for that. I'm not usually the type not to discuss something first, so I'm not sure what was going through my mind. Clearly my moving was a mistake. I'm completely in favour of reverting it to Ant-Man (film). Corvoe (speak to me) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of this, but not the wording. "Development of [film]" seems a little weird. There was an article for The Avengers well before began production (I think at the time that was a very rare occurrence, unlike now. But it was under the title "The Avengers film project". I think this wording (or something similar) would be better suited to articles such as this (e.g. "Ant-Man film project"). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, making the move is kinda pointless now considering that filming is slated to begin imminently (in the summer), making the change moot. Richiekim (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If Ant-Man (film) had been created in 2006 (which it was not), then the title up until filming could have been this, because it has had a long development period. But not now, when filming is about to start, and the page was moved from incubation once it was a definite that the film was being made, and passed WP:GNG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Can we please get some !votes for this: either a Support to move back to Ant-Man (film) and continue this discussion if moving to Development of... is warranted; or Oppose leave it as is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the initial page mover, realizing his mistake. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Suzuku (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 revisit

I think we should restore the "Development of" prefix. With Wright, who has been attached since 2006, exiting the project, we really need to drop the pretense that this is an actual film. Like WP:NFF says, "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no 'sure thing' production." We need to treat this topic as a historical compilation of news without the highly misleading film infobox and cast section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. If we hid the infobox, move the image to the development section, and change the cast section to a "Casting" section, with a little rework, I think it would be good to make the change. However, Marvel does say that this will not effect production, and they are actively looking for a replacement, and production is on schedule. If we don't rush into this, how about we give it until the beginning of June? Maybe more will come to light on this, and we will get more info in either direction if a delay is happening or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose this. Most sources state that Marvel is already looking for a director and the film is still proceeding as scheduled. Unless production haults, I see no reason to change here and would be overly reactionary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this. In my opinion, film articles shouldn't be made until filming has begun, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, unless the film is very high profile, like the Avengers was. But in reality, that's difficult to judge. So, I think creating articles for these films is probably okay, so long as there is enough reliably sourced information - which in this case, there is - and so long as they have the "Development of" title. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose this, since its supposed to begin filming in June a director will probably be announced soon. And if we don't get an announcement by July/August maybe we can do this. Koala15 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this article from the Hollywood Reporter, it looks like Ant-Man may be in more trouble than we first thought.Richiekim (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

They are saying that production was supposed to start at the end of July. I say we wait until then before making a move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Favre1fan93 has a good point. It's looking bad so far, but right now it says they fear that production will start late, not that it will. I'd say, unless we hear of a delay, that we should leave it until July 28, the scheduled start date. It's looking grim, though. We'll just keep our eyes peeled and see what we can find. Personally, I'd say we should shift the "Cast" into "Casting" anyway, just until the cast actually grows. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove crew members from info box.

The actors haven't left, but several sources state that Marvel also need to replace some "key crew members", which could mean the composer, cinematographer, etc. [3]. Should we delete them until we hear more?

The infobox should stay the same unless provided with specific names, "key crew members" is to vague of a term to be useful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I only suggested this they are frequent collaborators with Wright. Bill Pope has been his go to cinematographer for awhile. Steven Price composed all his movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.61 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But we don't have any indication that they have indeed left. So until we do, they stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

'Lego Movie' directors pull themselves out of contention

Here's the source. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, but we don't have a source to ever say they were in contention, so this is not really necessary. If we added this, then we could add X, Y and Z other directors who also self removed themselves from the project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Prelim footage

Seeing Richie's removed post got me thinking, should we start the filming section off by saying that prelim footage was shot to be show at Comic-Con, using the Variety source? We don't know exactly when it was shot, but we could word it to state that it was done in time for Comic-Con in July 2014. Or is this similar to when Wright did the screen test in October 2013? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so as it doesn't appear to be a part of the principal photography / filming stage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Variety would use such a misleading title when the article states that film is scheduled to begin next week.-Richiekim (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, from what we've heard, it's actually two weeks. We have both Reed and Feige saying the 18th. The only thing I did use it for was the additional writers hired. Also, I messaged Triiiple and pinged your Richie, but is archiving working for you? I could not archive that Variety source before. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox/lead/bullet cast

As I'm reading the press release, Rudd, Douglas and Lilly should be in the infobox, lead and have a bullet. Stoll I'm iffy on for his bullet, since he was listed with the other actors who are unknowns, but we do have some info for him to warrant one. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as Stoll was at Comic-con, where Feige clearly named him the villain (this is probably misderection, but still indicates an important role) I think we can be confident that he will get billing, and so he should be in the infobox and lead, and get a bullet. The rest we can't really comment on until we get more info, so I think they should be kept to prose at the bottom of the cast section, and perhaps something about their announcement in the production section? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast

Here's a Variety article that states Lilly, Pena and Stoll are in the cast. Should be enough to add them to the cast section, correct? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source from The Wrap claiming she is indeed cast (speaking of Lilly). 98.110.8.213 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's enough to add to the cast section. Do it up. This should've been done months ago, but, I digress.

The Variety source seems to be the best to use, along with which ever was the initial stating she was in talks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we safely say that John Slattery is coming back as the older Howard Stark? Seeing as he already appeared as such in Iron Man 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Marvel has recast actors as different characters before, so we can't assume he will be reprising the role, but based on recent character/plot rumours, I'd say it is very likely. We can't add that Slattery is playing Stark until we have actual confirmation, but I think we can expect some soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Production writers

Here's a source claiming that 2 more writers will be in the film. 71.188.21.34 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, source traces back to Latino Review, an unreliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Then here's an OFFICIAL source 2601:C:780:234:307D:1FB5:1A8A:36A3 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That source only said they were being considered, and regardless, a Variety source appeared confirming, which is already on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Development split?

Do we have enough info to warrant a split to an article just about the development of the film? Would we lose too much from this page, to thus make this bare? Thought please. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What were you thinking of keeping here? It would really depend on if this page still worked without the info, and if the new page was complete enough to be a standalone article. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking around, I don't think the section is substantially larger than most good film article sections. It would really need to be considerably larger to justify the split (it currently all fits on my screen at once). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dave Callaham as Production Writer on the film

Here's the source. Should be added to the article 2601:C:780:234:A524:A8B3:EB8B:2493 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wright and Cornish not credited for Screenplay?

I'm confused here.. where's the source for this information? 2601:C:780:234:1179:13E7:EA6F:CDD1 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you confused that there is a source saying they are and it is not here, or that there is no source stating they aren't so it should be added? We have not received an official log credit from Marvel regarding the writing credits, but most have all stated that Wright and Cornish no longer have screenplay credit. They may receive story credit, per writers' guild policies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I was confused as to why their script credit was replaced with those two production writers that were brought on board, because what Peyton Reed said they were really going to push Edgar's vision for the film, because of story boarding and pre-production being in full swing before they even chose Peyton to direct. Yeah, you may be right about them getting story credit. It's a bummer, the film's script has like 4 new (excluding Cornish and Wright) writers on it including a 'production' screenwriter (David Callaham). 2601:C:780:234:1179:13E7:EA6F:CDD1 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Film considered part of Phase 3

Marvel has not listed the film as a part of their Phase 3.source In addition at the Q and A following the announcement it is being reported that Kevin Feige said the Film would be the end of Phase 2, but sources are needed for a direct quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.148.237 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Will take care of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Peggy Carter?

According to Project Casting, Marvel Studios is casting for a stand-in for Hayley Attwell. I'm wondering if this source is notable and reliable enough for inclusion. Richiekim (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Adam just added it, but I'm wondering about reliability as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is definitely reliable in terms of casting calls. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything we can use to tell? IE another article or such? The "About" for the site was not helpful at all to determine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look around the site, and some of the other news and advice stuff is making me think they put a lot more effort into the site than some casting scam site or something. In fact, I read an article about watching out for casting scams, and it all sounded like pretty good advice to me. Also, they refer to New Life Casting in the article, which is "the only extras casting agency in Fayette County, Georgia" and I believe that Ant-Man is actually being made there. On their Facebook page they also refer to a "marvelous movie". - adamstom97 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Project Casting in my estimation is not a reliable source. It is not journalistic or scholarly, and no evidence any editorial oversight. The information could very well be true, but we cannot use this particular site to verify it. We should until something more reliable comes around.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Supporting roles revealed, another actor joins the cast.

Here's the source. 2601:C:780:234:98D5:5A6E:B6EC:B25E (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rudd given screen writing credit?

Shouldn't Paul Rudd be given a screen writing credit since he worked with McKay on rewriting the script? Here are two sources backing the claim that Rudd worked with McKay on the script. source 1, source 2 2601:C:780:234:98D5:5A6E:B6EC:B25E (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people help write scripts, but they don't necessarily get credited for it. We can only give Rudd screen writing credit if he actually receives it officially, even though we know that he has worked on the script. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Even so, it should still be noted on the page that Rudd spent 6 full weeks with McKay to rewrite Edgar's script. 2601:C:780:234:98D5:5A6E:B6EC:B25E (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is, in the production section, where we have it aourced, along with quotes and the like. We don't deny that it happened, and it is on the page, but we can't give him official screen writing credit ourselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Official writing credit is still TBD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Lilly CNN

In this article, Lilly mentions that Hope is behind the heist as well as Pym and Lang, and she refers to Pym and Wasp as the founders of The Avengers. Is any of this usable/useful? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

She could be referring to the comics regarding the founding of the Avengers. About the heist, that's info better suited for the eventual plot section. All we need is a very basic description of the character for the cast.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing credits

According to this article, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Andrew Barrer, Gabriel Ferrari and Adam McKay are credited as writers. Would this source be sufficient to use to credit them as screenwriters? Richiekim (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to say wait on this (much like AoU and Hawkeye). This seems like the source wrangling together all persons who have been associated with having potentially contributed to this script, not officially stating. We have from Marvel the most recent casting from Stitch that writing credits are still TBD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

New trailer had a billing block with writing credits

When I watched it during AC, I saw it had a billing block, but the YouTube version doesn't have it. I was able to gather the screenplay is Adam Reed and Paul Rudd. If anyone can find this, that would be great!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hank not Ant-Man

The quote on the pages says that his suit was hung up and the Lang is the only one.wearing it. So why is Pym listed as "Hank Pym / Ant-Man" if he isn't Ant-Man in the film?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we don't see him be Ant-Man in the film, he will be referred to, either by himself or by others, as the original Ant-Man. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a source that states Pym will be known (or formerly known) as Ant-Man. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Since the GA-topic wants this page and Age of Altron's page peer reviewed, when do people think we should put them in for that?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sooner than later, because we want to get those done before Cap Civil War begins filming, thus we'd have a third article we'd have to peer review, versus just waiting for the grace period. I'll start them up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cannavale interview

Here is an interview with Cannavale. Not sure if anything can be used (didn't believe so but maybe someone can work it out). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much there either.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but figured I'd share if others didn't see it first, or if they could find anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Cannavale interview with some potential stuff, perhaps the bit about his character fighting a 50-foot ant? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassie Lang officialy confirmed thru Ant-Man tie in comics

So, Marvel did an Prequel Infinite Comic for Ant-Man which details how Scott lost his job and got to prision, in there its confirmed by Judy Greer character that their daughter is still named Cassie as the 616 universe, so should we update this?

Yes, this wouldn't be the first time that we have used a tie-in comic as a source. -adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if we had a reliable WP:THIRDPARTY source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man production timeline

Vulture just posted an article chronicling the timeline on the production of Ant-Man. I figure this may be of use to this article. Richiekim (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit about the Artisan deal and a little from when the apparent dispute began. We had most of this info in already. I wonder if the author used the article as a starting point for their article... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Feige interview

Is anything from this interview usable? Perhaps a paraphrase of the explanation for the phase placement? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can use some of it. We can probably stick it in after the Oct 2014 info that revealed it would be the end of Phase 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

A minor edit I made to the article was reverted here, without comment, by Adamstom.97. The user should know very well that reverting edits without explanation is a form of rudeness, and contrary to the standards expected on Wikipedia (among other things, it encourages people to simply revert back). The only reason I made the edit was to remove the unnecessary use of ampersands, which should not be used in place of "and" without a specific reason. Would you care to give one, Adamstom.97? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, it is the proper way to do it, so leave it alone. And please, stop calling me out on talk pages whenever you feel I have wronged you. If you have a particular issue with me, which it seems like you do, then come over to my talk page and we can discuss it there. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not a proper explanation and it doesn't impress me. If there were actually a good reason to use ampersands then you ought to be able to explain easily what it is: that would be the polite and sensible response a responsible person would make. Simply telling other people to agree with you, without giving a reason, doesn't work here. I'm not concerned one way or the other with whether you have "wronged" me, as you suppose, I only care about the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Oh, and I've just looked through the talk archive; there's no discussion there about ampersands). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If you really "cared" about the article rather than whether I have "wronged" you or not, then you would change your tone and behaviour. As for this, I have already explained it to you (as per usual), but I will do so again if I must: this is the proper to do it, i.e. when official credits are released, we follow them. That is why we haven't mentioned every writer that has worked on the film, and why there was that whole issue over whether Wright and Cornish would receive writing credit. We go on the official credits, and in the official writing credits for this film, the "&"s and "and"s are used very specifically. So stop being so condescending and pretentious, with your "it doesn't impress me" or "that would be the polite and sensible response a responsible person would make", and actually aim to improve the article(s) that you claim to care about by not wasting perfectly-in-the-right editors' time. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So now you're complaining about my tone and behavior? Really? You explained nothing before; you've given an explanation now, however. Thank you (though you could simply have done so at the outset and spared yourself this entire discussion). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Empire Magazine

It seems that in the latest issue of Empire Magazine there is some interesting/useful information about Wright leaving, the development of the script, changes made by Reed, McKay, Rudd, etc. Is there a way that we usually approach this (i.e. wait for a reliable source to relay the info, or cite the magazine itself)? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Either, if you have a copy you can site the magazine itself (issue #, page #, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's some info from Comic Book Resources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Official website update

Marvel's official Ant-Man website has underwent a major update, including new info about how Pym Particles works. Perhaps we could work this into the article, for example change the vague description of Scott Lang acquiring "an invented substance". Richiekim (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Running time for Ant-Man revealed from Stictch Kingdom

It was just revealed via Stitch Kingdom on Twiitter that Ant-Man is 1 hour and 57 minutes long: https://mobile.twitter.com/stitchkingdom/status/613060021744758784 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.79.49 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Although Stitch Kingdom is a source that we use often in our articles, this twitter account has not been verified (with a blue tick), so we can't use it as a source on Wikipedia, unfortunately. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can IMDb be considered a reliable source? They list the running time as 115 minutes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/ Also, a Google search for "ant-man film runtime" provides the same response. - rmaynardjr (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Martin Donovan and Gregg Turkington roles in Ant-Man

I want to thank Wikipedia for doing the right thing and finally revealing the roles that Martin Donovan and Gregg Turkington play in Ant- Man. I feel it is an honorable thing that they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntManLang (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Falcon is in Ant-Man!

A new TV spot revealed Falcon himself will appear in Ant-Man. Please add Anthony Mackie to the cast section on the Ant-Man page. Here's the TV spot for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLK7LVCOsLg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9060:D700:35D3:97F5:5202:467B (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source.(I know, CBM is not a source) but the YouTube video could be. Npamusic (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, despite it being a trailer, that shortly clip looks like AoU footage, not something new. We'll wait for a better source if it does turn out to be true anyway. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand the hesitancy, but I'm pretty sure Falcon didn't suit up in AoU (with the exception of the last part with the New Avengers), unless it came from a delete scene or something.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is more evidence to prove Falcon is in Ant-Man, the cast listing at the British Board of Film Classification lists Anthony Mackie's name in the cast listing at this link: http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/ant-man-2015, plus even an earlier TV spot shows Ant-Man going up against Falcon by shrinking himself and hiding on his gun: http://comicbook.com/2015/06/30/which-avenger-is-in-ant-man-/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:9060:D700:D9FC:B051:322A:B210 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the bbfc.co.uk one. The question now is what kind of role is he playing in the film.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

He was in three scenes; 1 substantial speaking/action scene, a narrated scene and the post-credit scene.

Source for content of the film

While I don't necessarily feel this needs mention outside of the (eventual) plot (but maybe someone else will), here is a source from Reed stating that the term and/or place in the film, the quantum realm, is the MCU version of the Marvel microverse. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes consensus

I personally am not a fan of the auto-generating Rotten Tomatoes bot. It is often delayed, the ordering of the information is off, and the title in the consensus is not in italics. I don't know what's wrong with simply doing it manually like every other page, but it seems all the Marvel film pages need it. Anyone else want it gone? TropicAces (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack details

FYI, details about the film soundtrack have been released. If anyone wants to make a separate Wiki page for the soundtrack, feel free. Richiekim (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Cannavale

Saw the film last night — it's great fun, and Rudd and everyone is terrific. The audience at a NY screening loved it and applauded. There's a mid-credits scene and and post-credits scene.

The details in the Wikipedia article are pretty on-target — send this sucker to GA review once the plot gets in! — except that Bobby Cannavale as Paxton is in no way, shape or form a friend of Scott's throughout the vast bulk of the film. We might want to look at those citations and see if they actually use the word "friend," and whether that's from Marvel or from an article writer speculating or using shorthand. Or we could just wait a couple days till it comes out.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The ScreenCrush source (#28) has the interviewer asking "You play Scott Lang’s buddy, right?" to which Bobby replies "Yeah...", so I think we'll need to keep that description for now. Sock (tock talk) 18:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For GA stuff, we have to wait until Home Media stuff is released and the Box Office settles down before it covers the complete scope and stability GA criteria.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okey-doke. It really is a great article. I wish I'd had time to contribute, but clearly, it was in the hands of a lot of good editors! --Tenebrae (talk)

Article for VFX section

I've always been awful with sections on visual effects, but I thought this NPR article might be a good source to add some info to the "post-production" section. Sock (tock talk) 11:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

here's another article that could be added. source. Npamusic (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mackie in billing?

So I just came back from watching the film, and Mackie was pretty high up in the "visual" credits, before Wood Harris, as well as the scrolling ones. Should we maybe make him a bullet entry? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, if we can find interviews or comments with him about appearing in this film, sure. If not, it's kinda fruitless and goes against the standard formula for no real reason. Sock (tock talk) 11:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I can move some of the info in the post-production section about his appearance up with him in the cast. Pinging TriiipleThreat, Richiekim and Adamstom.97 to see what they think. This may be a situation like CapTFA where Atwell was added to the block for the home media. But I think if we all agree, we can do it now, and the see what happens then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dax Griffin as Young Hank Pym.

Here's a source for his inclusion. Seems as though they did with Dax/Michael the same thing they did with Atwell/The Old Woman in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Npamusic (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixing a Typo that was in the cited source?

I spotted this typo while reading the article today: ""[Reed] wanted to be sure that he was wasn’t just inheriting something or following someone else’s lead.". I checked on the cited source and the "was wasn't" typo is in the original source. Do we add a [sic] to that to indicate the error is not on WP's part, or do we just fix it? I would WP:FIXIT but I wasn't sure what WP's policy on that was. CrataegusBrainerdii (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I didn't get an answer on this I went ahead and fixed the typo in accordance with the guidelines at MOS:QUOTE. Hope this is okay. CrataegusBrainerdii (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jordi Molla cut from the film?

Was he cut from the film? I don't remember seeing him in the film at all. Npamusic (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Anyone else remember seeing him or from the credits? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2015

End of third paragraph: when steals a device from the Avengers' headquarters, should read when stealing a device

PGath (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done seems to have been taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ant-man will return

In the future section, maybe it would be good to tell that after the Captain America sequence,"Ant-Man will return" is flashed across the screen. 81.250.117.233 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It is already stated that sequels or prequels could be made, and if anything that sentence means that Scott will appear in Civil War (which is confirmed).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Christophe Beck interview

If anyone wants to add some stuff, here's an interview with Beck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot section - paragraph layout

I guess I'll start this up. Feel free to comment here and state why a 700 word plot has to be comprised of 7 paragraphs, three of which are not even two full lines on my screen, and not a concise, condensed 5 paragraphs (both examples excluding the last for the post-credits content). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks are determined not by volume but by topic. Didn't you learn this in English writing class?Kurzon (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the only one that may need separation is the first, with the 1989 and present day info. Otherwise, the current layout works fine for what we are attempting to do here. Also pinging @Tenebrae and DisuseKid: who edited this content as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurzon, your snide tone will get you nowhere. While I can see how dividing the paragraphs up between the '89 and present portions makes sense, I see no reason to separate him returning from the quantum realm and Paxton covering for him etc. It's all part of the conclusion. Sock (tock talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with User:Sock: A topic can be parsed finely or broadly, depending on flow, choppiness, logic and many other factors. And frankly, I've made my living as a journalist and book author for over 35 years, and while I no longer take "English writing class[es]" — as opposed to Armenian writing classes, I guess — I've taught classes on journalism, feature writing and interviewing techniques. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Rudd cast-list text

RE: "who acquires a suit that allows him to shrink in size but increase in strength." I see there are four cites for this, which aside from being too many are now obviated by the primary-source plot of the movie, which makes clear he doesn't increase in strength, but retains the strength of his full-grown self. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought it did increase in strength, and Pym explains this when he says how the molecules expand and such? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope tells Scott something about "You'll shrink in size but you'll still have the strength of a 200-pound man," and though Rudd in real life clearly isn't 200 pounds, characters in movies are often bigger than in real life; I know Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt in the Mission: Impossible movies isn't supposed to be just 5'5" or whatever he is. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

she actually states hell retain his human sized strength, but the force of said strength with be like getting hit by a 200 pound person/man. Npamusic (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So it sounds like "retain" his strength is more accurate than "increase" his strength. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

FX Guide

The FX Guide article is out if anyone wants to take a stab at adding it to the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I added some stuff about Yellowjacket but there's plenty more.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and make a stab at some stuff. Thanks Triiiple. With this out, I get the odd feeling we still need a bit more for AoU from their article, that that went by the wayside a bit there.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudos to the editors

Just have to say again what an incredible job the WikiProject:Comics editors and others did on this article. It's a shining example of a comics-movie entry. And I'm not patting my own back, since I did virtually nothing on it — everyone else was so good, I'm reduced to fixing italics! Bravo, colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk)

Likewise to those who worked on the plot summary. Its rare that get such a well-written concise plot so early into a film's release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jane van Dyne cast?

Here's the sources source 1 and source 2. No blue tick though. I haven't seen the film yet or credits. Npamusic (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If we had, the Twitter for now could maybe be used. She just appears in full suit, with her eyes covered, and no talking. So she's more of just a "body" not really an actor for the role. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The actress claims she had lines that were cut (they went with a Michael Douglas voice-over instead). She also posed for the photograph shown near the end of the movie, but her hat obscured most of her face. It seems like they went out of their way to show as little of her as possible so they could cast someone else later. I don't recall if she was in the credits. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Same situation as Damion Poiter w/ Thanos. Her twitter and fb post are deleted but her excerpt from fb states: "Well, I've had to keep my mouth shut about this for a number of months now. The official release date is tomorrow, but a lot of theaters have it today! I play The Wasp (the original Avenger! The one who NAMED the Avengers!), Janet Van Dyne, in Ant-Man. I believe Marvel has since decided to give Janet a much bigger role in the MCU of film (my own belief/speculation, you know how Marvel keeps things secret), with many speculating on who might play her. Because of this you miiiiight not recognize me in the film, as I am in FULL Wasp attire including helmet with yellow tinted eye glass. And my lines were cut to conceal my voice. But I'm still in this super awesome film! With this amazingly iconic Marvel credit and a really cool scene I got to shoot w Michael Douglas. And a little photo shoot that shows at the end of the film. I have seen this film, and it is SERIOUSLY FUNNY. If you aren't a comic fan, trust me, you will still enjoy this one. ‪#‎Antman‬ ‪#‎marvel‬ ‪#‎janetvandyne‬ ‪#‎MCU‬ ‪#‎iamjanet." Npamusic (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DinoSlider: She was credited in the film, but like Npa stated above, it is very much a Poiter / Thanos situation. They wanted to show Janet in the film, but are waiting to cast the "big name" actress for the role. How this actress would have had lines originally in this situation, I'm not sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they will give actors lines that are never intended to be used. Based on her credits, she clearly has a SAG card, so it probably has something to do with the union rules. Since you can't give specific direction to an extra, they were going to have to pay her as an actor anyway, so I really don't think it made a difference if she had lines or not. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: was Janet named in the film? Or just referred to as Hope's mother? I don't recall.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I can say with almost 100% certainty that Pym yelled "Janet!" while they were on the side of the missile, if nothing else. I'd have to watch the film again, which I intend to do some time this week anyway. If anyone beats me to it, let me know. Sock (tock talk) 15:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think Mitch Carson might have referred to her by name in the opening sequence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought she was referred in the film by name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

In several places the word "vile" is used instead of "vial"...it should refer to a vial of Cross particles...

Vile is a word for reprehensible, foul, or despicable...

Please edit the page to replace instances of "vile" with "vial"

Argentpanda (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good catch!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

...yup. That was my bad. Thanks for the catch! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening weekend at box office

I do understand why my edit in the Ant-Man article was removed. However, Box Office Mojo updated their article on the film's opening weekend with the actual total. [4] Deadline also updated the grosses to actual totals in a new article. There's only one typo in the beginning where they say it made $57.1 million. [5] Is it all right if we include this article and change the gross back to $57.2 million? If we can't do the latter, then may we at least do the former? We could also include both of the links I've provided in the post alongside the current Deadline article that talks about the estimated opening weekend grosses And1987 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the change. Thanks for finding the new article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

San Quentin State Prison

Is it really necessary mention San Quentin State Prison by name. While Lang being sent to prison is pivotal, the fact that it is San Quentin is not. The prison is only identified by its sign once in the film and is never spoken nor referenced again. Calling out it by name only adds to the length of the plot summary and is the exact type of "technical detail" that WP:FILMPLOT suggest to avoid. BTW saying that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay is no reason to make a revert. Its sound advice that should be considered.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem with being informative and listing the name of the prison, as multiple other plot films do. There's only 611 words now, so that's well under the 700 word max too. It also only "adds to the length of the plot summary" by about three words, which is not much. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not about the exact word count, but the reasoning why we have a word count in the first place. We can make the entire plot summary more "informative" if we wish but doing so will make the plot summary overly excessive. There's no reason to drag out this arbitrary instance. Going from one word to four words is excessive. If we were to do this to in other instances, then it would be over the word count.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Richiekim and Rusted AutoParts: who edited the content and @Favre1fan93, Kurzon, Tenebrae, and Sock: who all participated in the previous plot related thread.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning is to give the sense of where the film takes place, which is what the other MCU articles do in their plot summaries. The film is mainly set in and around San Francisco. The Golden Gate Bridge is visible when Luis drives Scott from prison, and I believe their apartment is located in the Tenderloin. Since San Quentin is directly mentioned in the film, I though this would be best way to insert the film's setting in the Bay Area for the plot summary. Richiekim (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

San Quentin houses inmates from all over California so it doesn't give readers any better understanding of where Lang resides.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that its not particularly notable, and for being a technical detail not mentioned any other time in the film, I think it doesn't have to be included. If it was Seagate Prison (where Luke Cage was held), then it should probably be named. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This mindset confuses me. I have no problem with excluding the name of the prison, but why should the Seagate Prison or, in the case of Guardians, the Kyln be specifically mentioned, but not a real-world prison? They seem equally notable (or non-notable, rather) to me. Sock (tock talk) 23:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because in those cases it is notable what the prison was. Here, I had no idea what the prison was / never noticed what it was called, all that mattered was that he was in prison and got released. For Guardians, not only was the Kyln named visually and clearly on screen, it was talked about quite a bit and was featured as a specific place rather than a generic prison. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, both the Kyln and Seagate have connections to the comics, thus imply further development of places from the comics in the MCU. That was what I was trying to say. Much like in AoU it is kind of noteworthy they mention Wakanda. If it was say just South Africa, not so much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Development subsections

I feel as though I've brought this up before, but with my recent edit, it got me thinking, is there anything we can subsection out here to like "Writing" for example, like previous MCU articles have done? Just a thought. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Although looking at the section it seems like it could use a subsection, the problem that we have had for a while is that it isn't as clear cut with this one as it is for some of the others. For instance, the writing has always been something we have pretty easily managed to group together, but for this one it is spread out through both the development and pre-production sections, with a whole lot of new information coming out after McKay and Rudd took over. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I thinks it's fine the way they are.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)