Paul Rudd IS Hank Pym
Dec. 18th, 2013 11:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
transemacabreIt appears to be confirmed: Paul Rudd has been cast as Hank Pym in the Ant-Man movie. Since I only know Rudd as Josh from Clueless, I am fairly neutral about this news, but of course I'm hopeful that he will be able to play Hank in all his dorky, and utterly bizarre, glory.
AFAIK neither Janet nor Scott Lang have been cast yet.
Here's my theory about how the MCU is going to go, based on what movies have been greenlit, and what little we know about them:
1. Guardians of the Galaxy is set for an August 2014 release. I think it's pretty obviously going to be Avengers 3, Part 1 -- this is the movie that's really going to set up Thanos for the third Avengers flick.
2. Avengers: Age of Ultron is set for May 2015. Surprise surprise who the main baddie is. The studios keep saying that Hank isn't connected to Ultron in this continuity but I think that's a red herring. They also swore up and down Paul Rudd wasn't going to be Hank, and look what happened.
3. Ant-Man is set for July 2015. Interestingly, the movie's release was moved up a few months from November despite the fact they didn't even have the lead actor until like this week. This suggests to me that Ant-Man is meant to ride the wave of excitement that Avengers: Age of Ultron is going to generate.
4. The next property that seems to have the most momentum is Doctor Strange. That's the one Feige keeps bringing up, anyway. There also seem to be tentative plans for a Black Panther movie and one starring a Marvel heroine (Black Widow seems to be the most likely candidate).
5. Avengers 3, which might be the untitled project with a 2017 release date (just a guess based on the amount of time between Avengers 1 and 2) is going have Thanos as the baddie with, presumably, a modified Infinity Gauntlet story.
6. With the Blade rights have reverted back to Marvel, and the success of the previous Blade trilogy, I'd be surprised if Marvel didn't reboot that franchise as they did with Ghost Rider.
That being said, after Loki, Thanos, and Ultron, the next most iconic Avengers villain would probably be Kang the Conqueror, but putting him onscreen will probably pose a bit of a challenge, just because of his time travel schtick. You could do a Korvac saga with little problem and hell, we've already got the Collector onscreen, so just cast a Carina and go for it.
AFAIK neither Janet nor Scott Lang have been cast yet.
Here's my theory about how the MCU is going to go, based on what movies have been greenlit, and what little we know about them:
1. Guardians of the Galaxy is set for an August 2014 release. I think it's pretty obviously going to be Avengers 3, Part 1 -- this is the movie that's really going to set up Thanos for the third Avengers flick.
2. Avengers: Age of Ultron is set for May 2015. Surprise surprise who the main baddie is. The studios keep saying that Hank isn't connected to Ultron in this continuity but I think that's a red herring. They also swore up and down Paul Rudd wasn't going to be Hank, and look what happened.
3. Ant-Man is set for July 2015. Interestingly, the movie's release was moved up a few months from November despite the fact they didn't even have the lead actor until like this week. This suggests to me that Ant-Man is meant to ride the wave of excitement that Avengers: Age of Ultron is going to generate.
4. The next property that seems to have the most momentum is Doctor Strange. That's the one Feige keeps bringing up, anyway. There also seem to be tentative plans for a Black Panther movie and one starring a Marvel heroine (Black Widow seems to be the most likely candidate).
5. Avengers 3, which might be the untitled project with a 2017 release date (just a guess based on the amount of time between Avengers 1 and 2) is going have Thanos as the baddie with, presumably, a modified Infinity Gauntlet story.
6. With the Blade rights have reverted back to Marvel, and the success of the previous Blade trilogy, I'd be surprised if Marvel didn't reboot that franchise as they did with Ghost Rider.
That being said, after Loki, Thanos, and Ultron, the next most iconic Avengers villain would probably be Kang the Conqueror, but putting him onscreen will probably pose a bit of a challenge, just because of his time travel schtick. You could do a Korvac saga with little problem and hell, we've already got the Collector onscreen, so just cast a Carina and go for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-12-19 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-19 06:11 am (UTC)On the other hand, I get WHY they're making an Ant-Man movie: to set up the epic backstory of Ultron, who's gonna be the baddie of the second Avengers movie. The fairly obscure GOTG are getting a movie for similar reasons, and at least that movie should have two fairly prominent female characters: Gamora and Nebula (also Glenn Close as Nova Prime, who is likely to be a supporting or cameo role).
no subject
Date: 2013-12-25 03:25 am (UTC)As long as you're here, I'm curious as to if you have any Thoughts on a Loki movie. Obviously a large vocal part of the fandom really, really wants it, and Marvel Studios has to be aware he has bankability as a character, enough they might be willing to give it a shot. (Personally I would love it but only if they actually do it RIGHT, you know?)
no subject
Date: 2013-12-25 04:09 am (UTC)It sounds like Baron von Strucker is going to share the villain spotlight with Ultron for Avengers 2, which is surely a bizarre choice -- I've got a TERRIBLE suspicion that Whedon is going to merge Pietro and Wanda with the Fenris twins and substitute Strucker as their father instead of Magneto.
While I'm sure a Loki movie would be money, it'd have to be handled VERY well for me to go see it. It seems like such obvious pandering to the fanbase. Loki is also the sort of character who works better as a villain or a lancer to bounce off a more morally-upright main character (such as Thor or Balder). And why not do Black Panther instead? Or Black Widow and Hawkeye solos? Or a Ms. Marvel movie? Or fuck, a Thunderbolts movie.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-25 04:38 am (UTC)GemsStones in other movies if that's the case, or if they'll all just be tossed in there together.I'm really, really interested to see where they take the twins since basically anything X-Men or mutant related is completely off the table for legality. I'll have to read up on Strucker; he's not a character I'm previously familiar with.
There are totally a ton of actualfax heroes I'd much rather see them do first before letting Loki have one, don't get me wrong. Black Widow needs her own damn movie, stat, and I would die of squee if Carol got a film (T'Challa would be fantastic too, but I'm definitely coming in at this point with the urging for MORE WIMMINS PLZ). It's still a subject that's interesting for me to discuss with other Marvel/MCU fans though because I'd like to hear other people's thoughts...and like I said, it at least financially makes enough sense that it's not totally crazy to see the studio at least considering it. Imho Loki has enough to him as a character he could carry a storyline on his own, as he has for at least brief mini-arcs in the comics before...it'd be really interesting (wow I just keep using that one lame word over and over again, don't I?) because presumably they would have to do him as, at best an antihero protagonist, if not an outright villain-who-happens-to-be-the-only-guy-available-who-can-fix-this. Which would just be cool to see in a mainstream film, overall. A character in the spotlight who's outright morally ambiguous. (Also a Loki film could be an avenue for them to intro Amora and Skurge, who I would just love to see in the MCU overall.)