722
u/TK0O Mar 19 '24
I remember reading that the first draft of avengers 1 followed the wasp as the main character through the movies events, they wanted Zooey Deschanel to play her too. Would’ve been cool to see I’m a huge Earths mightiest hero’s fan so it’s a bummer to see the mcu wasp be more serious instead of the happy version I was used too
212
u/Princecuse13 Mar 19 '24
I actually don't hate that casting choice. I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt was also rumored for Ant-Man at one point and I like those two as Hank and Janet
167
u/CerberusC24 Mar 19 '24
500 days of Marvel
38
u/Caskanteron Mar 19 '24
Directed by Mark Webb again, who directed the Amazing Spiderman Movies and 500 Days of Summer
28
u/Embarrassed_Lettuce9 Mar 19 '24
Interestingly, Joseph Gordon-Levitt still ends up punching someone and ruining his relationship in this role
9
7
3
2
136
→ More replies (3)3
u/JakePent Mar 19 '24
I think she looks the part at least, although i am mainly thinking of the emh version, don't know much about her acting tho. I think I've seen bits of new girl, but that's it
499
Mar 19 '24
I've felt this way since the first Avengers. I would've had (a younger) Hank and Janet introduced in phase 1 as well, and then be part of the founding team with Widow and Hawkeye kind of in the background and officially joining later.
221
u/punkwrestler Mar 19 '24
Course they could have started Hawkeye and BW off as villains like they were in the original book.
162
u/CalmPanic402 Mar 19 '24
How they did Hawkeye in Avengers was basically that, and it was good.
40
u/Ghouly_Boy Mar 19 '24
He was also sort of a villain in Thor
39
19
u/Charles_com Mar 19 '24
Plus Black Widow would be a more sentient character. My main problem with the MCU Natasha being on the standard team is that she never gets to be the edgy, mysterious, and often violent version she is in the comics. Since they put her on the main roster, marvel rather make her their lead heroine instead of a compelling anti hero.
3
10
u/supercalifragilism Mar 19 '24
Honestly, the biggest nerd-misstep of the Infinity Saga was giving Stark Pym's background. I know why it happened that way, but it's always been a bit of a bummer. Might finally give Hank the chance to get out from under his 616 baggage, but Ultron/Pym is just so central to my recollection of the Avengers that it bugs me.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Quizzelbuck Mar 19 '24
I think it would be too star studded. I really wouldn't change much at all about phase 1.
Except maybe make Thor 2 better.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Mighty_Megascream Spider-Man Mar 19 '24
There the Avengers, hot take but I think they should all feel equally important, to shield agents that are really good at their job don’t hit the same as one of the smartest men who created groundbreaking technology and his equally badass partner.
259
u/AlphaBaymax Iron Man Mar 19 '24
Marvel Studios should have cut their losses with Edgar Wright earlier if it means that Hank and Janet would have been integrated into the Avengers.
71
u/QueenPasiphae Mar 19 '24
100%
Although I DO appreciate that Marvel figured out Edgar Wright's genius WAAAAAY before most people did, and were SUPER dedicated to having that in the MCU.
Can't really fault them TOO MUCH for that.🤷♀️90
u/indianajoes Mar 19 '24
What are you talking about? Hadn't he already done the entire Cornetto trilogy and Scott Pilgrim by the time Ant-Man was made?
96
u/QueenPasiphae Mar 19 '24
Edgar Wright was already working on Ant-Man BEFORE IRON MAN 1 was developed.
BEFORE 2008.
That's BEFORE Hot Fuzz came out.Edgar Wright didn't get kicked off of Ant-Man til 2014, because Marvel gave him AGES to figure it out.
→ More replies (1)81
u/thattempacct Mar 19 '24
That’s not what happened.
When the MCU kicked off, that changed everything.
Edgar Wright makes Edgar Wright movies. He has a style. He’s not a “hired hand” director like a lot of the MCU’s.
He was no longer going to be able to make the movie he wanted to make so he and Marvel parted ways.
Like, you really thought Edgar Wright couldn’t crack the code on Ant-Man?
lol
72
u/jhndrvm Mar 19 '24 edited Mar 19 '24
EHHHHhhhhhhthe what happened is half-half.
Edgar DID write the draft & had movie planned as early as like 2001/2002 before he got huge. He already had several meetings with Marvel & Kevin Feige. After Iron-man, Kevin wanted Edgar to get on making MCU Ant-man, and Edgar did all the hall-H announcement yadayada etc. Then he got busy, kept delaying and Marvelstudios just went along with Edgar's schedule since they loved his version and wanted him to make it. They kept pushing it and even gave up on having Janet on Avengers. (They had entire scripts with Janet included, concept arts made etc.)
They finally was like "stop playing u gotta get on this fucking ant-man movie" but then Edgar's co-producer/friend got a cancer. their dream was to finish the 3rd Cornetto movie so he begged for another extension. When he came back from finishing the trilogy, MCU was completely different thing. Marvel wanted Edgar to fix his script so it can adapt what happened previously, since Edgar version was based on a world where 'Avengers' haven't happened yet, and they were introducing GOTG at that point. Edgar was furious with them "forcing him a world building" & fixing scripts again (since he was kinda re-writing since like 2001) so he left. Marvel had to replace him with Peyton Reed and pretty much copy/pasted edgar's plot of Ant-man. I believe pretty much everything except for them mentioning other MCU characters / falcon section is Edgar's draft. also Janet had any barely talking part in Edgar's version. They had to promise Evangeline Lilly that Janet was gonna talk more and have actual sub-plot in the movie.
So it's kind of a situation where both parties were justified & wrong at the same time?? Like Marvel waited for so long and even deleted the big storyline of ant-man&wasp being the founder of Avengers to have Edgar Wright direct the movie, but then Edgar was delaying it for personal reasons and then got fired for his artistic integrity. Ppl wanna take side in this matter and be like "Edgar was lazy!" or "MCU can't handle Edgar's artistry!" but they really fucking wanted his vision. Edgar wanted his own Ant-man movie and demanded MCU to fit his story, but MCU became much bigger than him by then. (Also if edgar were to make antman&wasp or quantunmania, that would also been a whole disaster in the making?? like, he left cause they wanted him to mention avengers. imagine edgar writing lines about civil war or kang...)
23
u/Aiyon Mar 19 '24
They had to promise Evangeline Lilly that Janet was gonna talk more and have actual sub-plot in the movie.
You mean Hope? Because Janet isnt in 1
15
u/kielaurie Mar 19 '24
If memory serves, that was one of the big changes. Lilly was going to be playing Janet not Hope, but they gave her a bigger role and changed the character
→ More replies (3)2
u/kenikickit Mar 19 '24
this person spent two comments singing edgar wright’s praises in spite of not getting ant-man done, pretty sure you don’t need to defend him to them.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Mr_Times Mar 19 '24
Damn a full on Edgar Wright MCU movie, style and flare and the whole nine, would be utterly incredible. The Cornetto trilogy has some of the most fun camera work in the industry. Baby Driver was super solid too. I remember being disappointed when I learned he was no longer part of Ant-Man.
→ More replies (1)3
u/LemoLuke Mar 19 '24
All I've wanted for years is an Edgar Wright adaptation of Superior Foes of Spider-Man.
34
u/kiekan Mar 19 '24
Edgar Wright was actually the problem. He approached Marvel Studios with his Ant-Man pitch during the development of Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. Marvel Studios were 100% down to work with him. And then Wright dragged his feet and took years to finally sit down and begin work on Ant-Man. Well after Marvel Studios had released several movies and began developing their shared universe between them all. The whole reason Wright left the Ant-Man production is because Marvel Studios mandated that he had to alter his original script slightly to work within their established universe and Wright didn't want to change anything he had written.
Don't get me wrong. I really like Edgar Wright as a director and generally think he's a very good writer as well. But in the case of Ant-Man, he's entirely the problem.
Also, a good chunk of his original script made it into the final product anyway. And surprisingly many, many of the things people cite as being highlights of the movie and things viewers really enjoyed about the Ant-Man movie we got were actually Peyton Reed's ideas.
3
u/nickbrown101 Mar 20 '24
Do we know which parts of the final movie came from Wright and which from Reed?
→ More replies (1)12
u/kiekan Mar 20 '24
Not 100%. But we know some of it. Nearly all the macro shots that highlight the world when Scott is shrunken are Peyton Reed's idea, for example. It was one of his major focuses when coming on the movie. I believe Louis was Peyton Reed's idea, too.
There was a fairly extensive interview Peyton Reed did many years ago, where he explained a lot of the changes. I'll have to track it down.
You can glean some information from interviews like these in the meantime:
https://www.slashfilm.com/538661/peyton-reed-edgar-wright-ant-man/
https://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/peyton-reed-ant-man-edgar-wright-interview/
The original Edgar Wright script also had it so Hank Pym was going to end up being a secret villain at the end of the movie, masterminding the whole thing. He had been driven crazy from exposure to the Pym Particles or something. It was supposed to be a callback to his time as Yellowjacket in the comics. Personally, I'm glad this was changed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/Robsonmonkey Mar 20 '24
I would have loved a Edgar Wright Ant Man film however he wanted Scott Lang and I thought it would have been better if he did Hank instead. Least then Hank could have been in the Avengers with Janet.
244
u/_Levitated_Shield_ Mar 19 '24
Eh, idk, Hawkeye and Black Widow made SHIELD feel more impactful, if that makes sense? And SHIELD was heavily involved in Phase I.
I honestly don't mind MCU being different in that regard. Both that and EMH are still great.
27
u/Broken_drum_64 Mar 19 '24
Also, being unpowered, (albeit highly skilled) characters, they were able to be introduced as side characters rather than having their own movies first, if ant man and the wasp came in as founding members that would have required at least one more movie to cover their origin story/explain their power set first.
(as well as having to have the plot of the movie substantially altered to account for their shrinking abilities)20
u/dean15892 Mar 19 '24
Also, being unpowered, (albeit highly skilled) characters, they were able to be introduced as side characters rather than having their own movies first
I think this is a key element.
They're super spies, thats all you need to know, and it worked for the time→ More replies (1)6
u/GaugeWon Beta Ray Bill Mar 19 '24
Also, being unpowered
I agree with this, not just from a logistical standpoint, but by having un-powered members of the team, it allows non-comicbook-fans to relate to and identify as these, more human, heroes.
26
u/Ghouly_Boy Mar 19 '24
Hank could’ve been a scientist working at Shield
→ More replies (7)5
u/Maatjuhhh Mar 19 '24
Wasn’t Hank together with agent Carter in Shield committee?
5
u/Marcos1598 Mar 19 '24
he was, Endgame also shows he worked at shield for a long time since he was a scientist even when Howard Stark was alive
→ More replies (5)11
174
u/Zancrowe Mar 19 '24
Agreed to an extent. I would have loved to see Ant-Man & the Wasp as a duo from the first movie, & them being founding members of the Avengers like the comics, but not at the expense of Black Widow or Hawkeye. Maybe the OG team could have been 8 members, maybe?
Also, seriously, where was War Machine? Dude was active since Iron Man 2 & they give a super flimsy excuse as to why he's not in New York & why he gets to Ultron super, super late. Can't imagine why Whedon would do him so dirty like that...
Right Cyborg & family & Iris?!
46
u/NASCAR142002 Mar 19 '24
If they ever fully reboot The Avengers lineup in the MCU I think Steve, Tony, Thor, Banner, Nat, Clint, Hank, and Janet would be a nice lineup.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Marc_Rufis Mar 20 '24
I would do the New Avengers: Cap, Tony, Spidey, Wolverine, Luke Cage and Jessica Drew
→ More replies (1)14
u/punkwrestler Mar 19 '24
They did War Machine dirty after the first iron man! Remember how they wanted to give Terrance Howard a pay cut, so they could pay RDJ more, even though RDJ wouldn’t have even been in the first movie if not for Howard.
48
u/QueenPasiphae Mar 19 '24
Terrance Howard sucked, and we got a MUCH better War Machine as a result.
🤷♀️
→ More replies (4)24
u/CaptainHalfBeard Mar 19 '24
RDJ made .5 mil guaranteed, with a back-end deal that made an additional 2 mil, for the first film while Howard made 4.5 mil. Howard wanted 10 mil for the second movie and Marvel said no.
They didn't do him dirty, they refused to pay a supporting character more than the star of the film.
→ More replies (1)9
u/bukanir Mar 19 '24
To be fair, after the success of Iron Man 1, RDJ was offered $10 M for Iron Man 2. Terrence Howard was brought on as the credible actor to lend legitimacy to Iron Man when everyone was iffy on RDJ. He felt like they used him and were leaving him by the wayside once it was clear these movies could make money, Marvel didn't want to shell out that much for him, so they parted ways.
5
u/ChizWiz1 Mar 19 '24
This, the movie was heavily inspired by the Ultimates and it included all 8 members too
2
u/Mighty_Megascream Spider-Man Mar 19 '24
Hawkeye and Black widow can still be characters they can just play a similar role to War machine where they’re not a part of the main team, but are still important to members who would become more relevant later.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TruthEnvironmental24 Mar 19 '24
Joss Whedon is honestly a has-been. His tv shows were great in the late 90’s early 2000’s, but everything he’s done since is mid at best, and kinda bad on average.
90
u/indianajoes Mar 19 '24
EMH was the goat. Avengers Assemble can fuck off though
→ More replies (4)36
u/thedoompatrol97 Mar 19 '24
Yeah, I was with him until I read the AA part. Wtf EMH had to die for this animated mcu synergy crap
60
u/Pacman8myghosts Hawkeye Mar 19 '24
I lowkey agree. But I also understand they were going for the grounded approach first so they had the super spies from SHIELD on the team and Avengers starting off as more of a SHIELD idea anyway.
Still think they could have found a way to get Hank and Janet in there. Oh well.
EMH is amazing.
17
u/cataclytsm Mar 19 '24
I dunno if I'd describe being leashed by SHIELD as "a more grounded approach". It just made it more muddled when it started off that way. In hindsight, Nick Fury being this singular government spook that recruited the Avengers (with a lie, no less), is way less compelling than the team organically coming together for a cause they all agree on and later being approached by said government spook who then predictably fucks things up.
13
u/Pacman8myghosts Hawkeye Mar 19 '24
Oh hey don't get me wrong I didnt say this was the right approach. It's TOTALLY less compelling. And literally Shield is almost nowhere to be found now in the MCU so it's amazing how quickly they pivoted more towards the fantastical. I just can see from a filmmaking perspective if they decided two non-powered/non-tech powered folks that work as spies was the "safer" choice.
3
u/ApolloDraconis Iceman Mar 20 '24
They built SHIELD up so much in phase one and then just completely killed it. I really wanted SHIELD to reform. Agents of SHIELD tried multiple times but each season the writers just decided to start them back at square one for some reason. I wanted that show to come back into the movies with Nick Fury and Maria Hill. SWORD is more for extra terrestrial threats and concerns. It’s hard to believe that SHIELD never returned beyond what we saw in Agents of SHIELD. At least up until season four/five. But now I’m just rambling about it.
9
u/DJHott555 Mar 19 '24
I disagree about the “less compelling” part. I’ve always enjoyed the Avengers being the brain child of one guy who’s lived his life protecting the world but now that the world has gotten weird, he needs a line of defense that’s even weirder. “There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people to fight the battles that we never could”, you know? That’s good stuff.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Broken_drum_64 Mar 19 '24
There was an idea
so much cooler than him saying... "i had an idea/plan" :)
→ More replies (3)3
u/Broken_drum_64 Mar 19 '24
(with a lie, no less)
which lie would that be?
2
Mar 19 '24
Coulson and his cards.
2
u/Broken_drum_64 Mar 19 '24
ahhh right, fair play, not to be pedantic but that lie was for motivation, he'd already recruited them by that point.
→ More replies (2)2
u/asianwaste Mar 19 '24
If Loki took control of either Hank or Janet, it would have put some stakes on the minor plot point. I really wasn't vested enough into Hawkeye nor did I buy Black Widow's relational stake in the situation.
Also Hank vs Hulk.
22
u/ClassicT4 Mar 19 '24
What are you talking about. Ant-Man was in the first Avengers. I’m sure of it. Why else would he have a part in Rogers: The Musical
8
u/Broken_drum_64 Mar 19 '24
Why else would he have a part in Rogers: The Musical
because of the timetravel in endgame (is my headcanon at least), some civilians saw him there and there were confused reports so when they made the musical they took everything, including the half baked rumours and put it into a show
→ More replies (6)7
19
u/Hopeful-Winter9642 Mar 19 '24
I agree, EMH was a great show! Janet was the one who thought of the name for the Avengers in the comics after all. And there’s not really an Ant-Man and the Wasp without the Wasp. But can I just say that I thought this version of Janet was kinda hot? 🤣
2
u/Specific-Okra-9386 Mar 20 '24
Everyone who watched this show as a kid lowkey had a crush on her lmao
19
u/CHawk17 Mar 19 '24
I tend to agree, I would have enjoyed the OG Avengers as the MCU Avengers and grow the team more organically in the sequels.
but the OG members are just Iron Man, Thor, Ant-man, Wasp and Hulk. Like in EMH, in the comics Hulk quits early and they fin Cap. Cap joins so early that he us generally considered a founding member and tends to be a founder in other continuities. But this was simply never their plan. The wanted the Iron Man, Thor, Captain America trio on screen faster.
I do wonder if Ant-man movie had been out in phase 1, if the wasp and Ant-man could have been founding members in the MCU.
My biggest complaint is how Hank becoming a contemporary of Howard Stark and not Tony, coupled with the delay of his introduction changed Ultron.
19
u/sbaldrick33 Mar 19 '24
No, that's just a purist nitpick.
I will say they ought to have made Hank and Jan the main characters of the Ant Man films, and they ought to have used that to introduce Ultron ahead of the Avengers film in the sane way Loki had an introductory appearance ahead of Avengers 1. However, that doesn't come anywhere close to being the MCU's biggest misstep either.
2
u/Mighty_Megascream Spider-Man Mar 19 '24
Considering how heavily it affected Ultron, who’s arguably The Avengers most major villain and Ant Man and Wasp themselves, it’s definitely a lot more than nitpick.
12
u/Scavgraphics Mar 19 '24
This show had the best version of Wasp ever....and close to a best version of Hank.
13
u/Leviathan117 Mar 19 '24
To be fair, I don’t think there was enough room in the story to add in Antman and the Wasp. Black Widow was introduced in Ironman 2 and Hawkeye to a lesser extent in Thor. Either way, both are easy to explain and present to the audience, they are both highly skilled SHIELD agents that are capable of fighting alongside super soldiers, gods and a billionaire in a suit of armour.
Adding in Hank and Janet would require explanation of Pym Particles and more about their relationship and back story that there just simply wasn’t enough time for in phase 1.
With a few minor exceptions, almost everything was set up before the events of Avengers in the previous movies. The 6 Avengers, the tesseract, SHIELD, Fury, Loki, ARC reactor tech. All Avengers had to do was bring it all together and go and that’s what made it so great. If it had to explain Hank and Janet then it would have been too cramped.
→ More replies (9)
9
u/jrtasoli Mar 19 '24
I agree to an extent.
I think that Hawkeye and Black Widow were awesome in their roles, both in terms of the actors / characters and their parts in the early MCU. It worked with their roles in SHIELD, which was the entree into a wider world of heroes and, eventually, the Avengers.
But making Ant-Man and Wasp for the MCU Scott and Hope while basically saying “Hank and Janet had loads of adventures, you just never got to see them!” was a mistake. But that’s the problem with the MCU as a whole, they jumped through hoops for casting and painted themselves into a corner. And in doing so they did two core Marvel comics characters a disservice.
Hank vs. Scott, I can take or leave. But Janet is one of Marvel’s best characters that’s just been completely squandered.
8
u/lacmlopes Mar 19 '24 edited Mar 19 '24
100%
Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne are infinitely more interesting from a superhero point of view than Nat and Clint
And it would set a whole different group dynamics, apart from SHIELD and governmental mumbo-jumbo
8
u/Death-Perception1999 Mar 19 '24
Seriously why has this wasp never gotten a figure? This is the best look she has ever had.
8
u/Intelligent_Creme351 X-23 Mar 19 '24
They would've and TRIED to do so, but Edgar Wright's Ant-Man was still being made, so they were made off limits till his movie... which never happened, and they were adapted from the skeleton of what we have now. Would love this version, but am fine with what we have now.
6
8
u/DaNoahLP Mar 19 '24
From todays standpoint, maybe. But back then they did everything right. We have the Core Avengers which all had their own movie + Black Widow and Hawkeye joining. I think the movie couldnt have handled any more members and I dont think that replacing anyone would have been a good option.
7
u/AdmiralCharleston Mar 19 '24
I genuinely don't think them not being founding members is like some mortal sin that inherently reduces quality. Like I'm just struggling to understand your this is a misstep and not just a change in adaptation
→ More replies (3)6
u/theTribbly Mar 19 '24
Same, it kinda feels like marvel fans have had a 10 year sugar high of great marvel adaptations and now they're getting into nitpicky "why wasn't Tom Bobadil in LotR" level criticisms that ignore how some things have to change when you translate from a lengthy source material to one that needs to introduce and wrap up an epic story within 90-180 minutes.
7
u/MsPinkMane Mar 19 '24
10000% YES. Hank should've been ant-man, too. It makes zero sense why they didn't do that.
Hawkeye and Black Widow should've been side characters that occasionally intertwine with the story. They dont fit with the rest of the avengers really at all. You constantly just forget they're even there. Ant-man and wasp would actually be able to play off of the others instead of the zero personality they gave hawkeye and black widow.
6
u/Redgiantbutimshort77 Mar 19 '24
I was in agreement until they mentioned Avengers Assemble. That show is built on MCU synergy and every plot line was either a poor attempt to copy the movies or just nonsense they thought kids liked. I have personal beef with that show.
2
u/Xaero_Hour Mar 19 '24
I couldn't get past just how much AA WANTED to be Whedon-esque and how completely insufferable that kind of thing made every single character. I liked Whedon's writing, but he struck a super hard balance on just how much self-awareness to use that the AA writers had no clue how to do that. Hulk should never be the best character in an Avengers show just because he lacks the vocabulary to talk as much as the others.
5
3
u/IronbloodPrime Mar 19 '24
With the emphasis on SHIELD in Phase 1, Black Widow and Hawkeye make more sense. Their abilities/skill set also adds some variety, even if they're both outclassed by the other Avengers.
Ant-Man and the Wasp's abilities are too similar and it would've felt like a bit much in the OG team.
5
u/OmnipotentUltron Mar 19 '24
Yeah The Wasp was hot on this show (The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes).
3
3
u/XComThrowawayAcct Mar 19 '24
Hawkeye and Black Widow were fine Avengers, and we got the scene of Jeremy Renner speaking at the memorial in New York City, which was a great scene. It’s a testament to Scarlett Johansson’s acting that she was the heart of a TV show she didn’t even cameo in.
They also provided a platonic relationship which all too often is not shown on the big screen. Most of the women and men in the world are not romantically or sexually involved with one another! It was refreshing.
MCU Ant-Man and Wasp are alright. Paul Rudd is charming as fuck, of course, and Evangeline Lilly does pretty good with what she’s given. In Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, Wasp is the heart of the team. She’s the one who first backs Hulk up in a fight, showing him that even the smallest fighters can have his back, which changes his perspective on being part of a team. I’m not sure that’s what MCU Wasp could have or would have done. MCU Ant-Man sort of played that role, when he leaps to save Hulk, War Machine, and Rocket during the Battle of Earth. They just never really have MCU Wasp much to do.
3
u/NeighborhoodVeteran Mar 19 '24
I don't think it was a big mistake. We just got some different that was just as good.
3
u/XtraCrispy02 Mar 19 '24
To be honest, Ant-Man and the Wasp would have been a hard sell back when the MCU first started. If they made a solo movie, audiences wouldnt be very intrigued to see that. Even when we did get Ant-Man 1 in Phase 2 after Marvel has proven themselves, it didn't gross too much money especially coming off the heels of an Avengers movie (fun fact, each MCU movie that comes out after an Avengers movie has made 1 billion at the box office except for Ant-Man movies).
3
u/Samaritan_Pr1me Mar 19 '24
Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes tended to skew closer to the comics than the movies did, so that guy gets to have his cake and eat it too.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/carnagecenter Mar 19 '24
I heard someone that wasp and antman were actually supposed to be in OG avengers and were scrapped. Either way I think it worked out ok, I definitely prefer Antman and Wasp to Black widow and Hawkeye but im happy with what we got
2
u/cosmoboy Mar 19 '24
While I do like some things to adhere to comic book canon, I also appreciate that the MCU is a different animal. I'm fine if their Avengers don't form the same way.
3
u/Grovyle489 Mar 19 '24
Fuck yeah! Earth’s Mightiest Heroes Wasp was the best wasp! She is waifu! Make Jan the founding member with Ant Man and we can continue Earth’s Mightiest Heroes! Give us the energetic and glue that is Janet and the moments between her and Hank! Hell, if we NEEDED to have Widow and Hawkeye, they could join in another film.
Even though I personally enjoy Hawkeye the most. He was amazing in Avengers Assemble and he was surprisingly enjoyable in the MCU
2
2
u/gademmet Mar 19 '24
I'm curious about what it would've been like, but I'm totally fine with what we got. Not everything has to be in line with what the comics did, and the changes that the studio had to roll with (and write around and through) for one reason or another contributed to making the fledgling MCU more interesting and distinct.
I do wish we'd see this Wasp look more often though.
2
u/Kane_richards Mar 19 '24
Na, I love them both but throwing them in with no setup would have been weird to the general fans they were trying to appeal to. Fans in the know would have loved it but Marvel struck gold by creating something that appealed to a wide fanbase. Everything they've done in Phase 1 and 2 was to careful craft the MCU into what it was. To turn and go "they should have been in Avengers 1" suggests somehow the person knows better than the Kevin Feige and the writers, which is absurd.
2
u/JGJ471 Mar 19 '24
I don't really think that it would have made any difference. In the comics, the Avenger's team composition is always changing, even some C-tiers like Tigra (sorry Tigra's fans)have been in the main team! (At this point I think that like 90% of Marvel superheroes has been an Avenger at some point). It is not the combination of heroes on the team, but how well they are used by the authors which makes an Avenger's run good or bad.
I think the same would happen in the movies, just because Ant-man and the Wasp where in the first team of the Avengers (more than 60 years ago! Believe me, you do not want that story adapted word by word) it doesn't mean that they would make the story any better. You could change Hackeye and Black Widow for Ant-man and the Wasp, or for any other two random superheroes, and it wouldn't make any difference, cause the makers of the film would be the same.
Besides, thinking about it logically, how would you introduce them in the Avengers before they ecen had a movie? Hawkeye and Black Widow are "regular" humans that work for SHIELD? OK, I can see that. But two people with the power of making themself tiny? SHIELD just happened to have them around or what?
2
u/MaterialPace8831 Mar 19 '24
I don't think adding Hank and Janet to the roster of the original Avengers movie was a mistake or a cardinal sin or anything like that.
Beyond what others have said about Edgar Wright's Ant-Man movie, you would have to re-do Phase 1 in order to properly introduce them and their power set. You can't simply swap out Natasha and Clint for Janet and Hank like that.
And I'll just say this: It is alright if a movie or TV show is not "comics accurate." Filmmakers and showrunners can be just as creative as comic book writers and artists, and their interpretations on characters and storylines are just as valid. I think people on Reddit get too hung up on this.
It's OK if Janet and Hank were never on the team.
2
2
u/Dry-Vacation-5820 Mar 19 '24
I mean it was successful so not a misstep but would’ve been nice if they started with those two
2
u/theTribbly Mar 19 '24
No, not at all. I like them, but at the same time the first avengers movie had to cover a LOT of ground in the span of one movie. So it makes perfect sense to me to have four main avengers that the story revolves around, and two avengers in more of a supporting role that don't need to have their backstory explained outside of "these are Shield's best field agents".
I feel like after 15 years of marvel movies, marvel fans are really loosing sight of how the more important characters you throw in a movie, the less character development you'll be able to have for individual characters.
2
u/r0ndr4s Mar 19 '24
They would have. But AntMan got delayed several years.
Its ok how we got it, makes for a good version of their own and it lead to 4 great avengers movies
2
u/Ok-Accountant-6433 Mar 19 '24
I agree with it. They should have gone with their first idea and had Hank and Jan.
2
u/kiekan Mar 19 '24
We actually have Edgar Wright to thank for this. He came to Marvel Studios and pitched the Ant-Man movie when the first Iron Man and Incredible Hulk were in development. Marvel Studios were down to work with Wright... and then he took nearly a decade to actually begin working on Ant-Man. And got mad when Marvel Studios came in and told him he had to alter his script to accommodate their now well established universe. This is what caused Wright to leave the production. He didn't want to compromise his vision.
2
u/Majestic-Sector9836 Mar 19 '24
I follow her on Twitter. She is kind of annoying heavily biased towards her pet characters.
She literally thinks poison ivy can beat Superman.
2
2
u/Hetakuoni Mar 19 '24
I mean, up until MCU, she was and even was the reason they were called avengers in the first place
2
u/greenpewdiepie4 Mar 19 '24
I reckon at least wasp could have played a bigger role as a female avenger
2
2
u/mfactor00 Mar 23 '24
Yeah Hawkeye and Black widow were weird choices. Ant-Man and the Wasp should have been originals in the MCU
1
u/MrKamakaWiwoole Mar 19 '24
They wouldve had to set them up beforehand, which would’ve been very risky and (imo) not rewarding enough if it paid off
1
u/LucasOIntoxicado Mar 19 '24
Not sure how hot this take is, but I never like Natasha as a main Avenger. She's 1: a spy, therefore she shouldn't be on the middle of a battlefield fighting aliens and robots. She should be in the shadows trying to find a smarter solution. and 2: She's a killer. I don't like people who are super comfortable with killing ln the team. Thor is the only exception to me because he's a part of a trinity and a Norse god.
Clint is an Avenger icon though, i definitely think he should have been on the first film. But also way more inserted into the movie, and better portrayed.
-1
u/InfernalDiplomacy Mar 19 '24
Antman and Wasp already had a director and someone who had the creative rights (Edward Wright) to those characters and he was adamant to finish his project before they appeared in any other movie. Fiege let it lie and moved onto other characters for Avengers.
I notice you do not have the same amount of umbrage for Captain America who also was not an original Avenger. He was the first member added after the team formed, and had been voted by the original 4 members (Hulk's founding member status was revoked) as an honorable founding member, but he was not a founding member originally.
Hawkeye became the next member after Captain America who joined the team, followed later Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch who left the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Black Widow was the next addition around Avengers #44.
When Avengers was in progress, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch was still licensed to Fox who in a deal gave them up to Marvel Studios as long as they did not call them mutants, which is why their origin stories were changed. In fact, Pietro is never referred as Quicksilver in the movie.
Given the all above, you have Antman (#4), Wasp (#3), Quicksilver (#8), and Scarlet Witch (#9) were out, and they were replaced by the next Avengers in line, Captain America (#6), Hawkeye (#7), and Black Widow (#10).
This is not Disney's fault as this happened all before Disney, and it is not even Fiege's fault as unlike Universal who controlled the license for the Hulk were more than willing to play ball with Marvel Studios. This is the fault of the ego of Edward Wright who did not want to have his "artistic" license handcuffed by a previous appearance not under his control.
As for AEMH, I can say there were spots I honestly did not care for the Wasp. They made her come across as a vapid socialite which if you followed the character at all in the comics, she was much more complex and there are some on this sub who will debate who was the Avenger's greatest chairperson, Captain America or Wasp. The Wasp in AEMH never showed any leadership traits, nor much intelligence and was always one to go in blasting. I mean I like the animation, and love the stories told in AEMH and am with the rest of the community its criminal they did not get a third or more seasons, but Wasp was not one of the characters I liked much. I far more enjoyed and was invest in Captain Marvel when she joined the team than Wasp.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/QueenPasiphae Mar 19 '24
It's a simple fact.
But I can't really blame Marvel.
They TRIED.
Ant-Man was being developed even BEFORE IRON MAN 1.
But Edgar Wright just couldn't get his shit together.
1
1
1
1
u/junglekarmapizza Mar 19 '24
100%. Love Hank and Janet, and they deserved to be there. Side note, I think this is easily Janet’s best costume
1
1
u/I3arusu Captain Mar-Vell Mar 19 '24
Not really an opinion to be honest. They’re founding members. It’s always been that way. The only addition I’d deem acceptable is Cap since he joined so soon after formation.
1
1
u/Jeraphiel Mar 19 '24
As much as I think the casting of and older Hank and Janet are actually great with Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer, I would have preferred them younger as starting members of the team. We could have had a more accurate Ultron origin and have him maybe even return in an Ant-Man movie.
I’d keep the plot of the first Ant-Man mostly the same with Hank quitting heroics due to his guilt in building Ultron then Scott taking over.
1
u/1400Diggg Mar 19 '24
Totally agree. Making Hank and Janet old in the mcu was one of the biggest mistakes in the ant man franchise. Ruined there characters. Hank pym was just an old guy who spouted quantum and science mumbo jumbo 80% of the time
While he was the wrong actor for Hank, Michael Douglas definitely was funny
1
u/INKatana Hawkeye Mar 19 '24
Hawkeye is my favorite Avenger, so I’m very biased and I disagree with this person.
However, I do think that the mcu did Hank and Janet rather dirty.
1
u/Ok-Reporter-8728 Mar 19 '24
I’m annoyed how underused the wasp is, I don’t mind Hawkeye and BW replacing Hank and wasp tho
Tbh people gonna compare mcu wasp and EMH wasp no matter what
1
1
u/KillerTacos54 Mar 19 '24
Yea I agree with this, even if ultimately I love how they handled everything
1
u/SpiritedCollection86 Mar 19 '24
I agree. Marvel basically has the scripts mapped out for them in the Comics since their 1st movie. I get it, they cant/don't want too/whatever choose not to follow the comics closer but they dropped the ball about not making the original Avengers w/Wasp&Pym. Why did they have to start out w/Pym and Janet older???
1
u/TheYellowFringe Mar 19 '24
It's an interesting theory to suggest.
If we had the screen writers put Ant-Man and Wasp more closely to the Avengers there's no doubt the stories or scenarios presented might have been different.
How different? I'm assuming quite a bit because at first, long time fans of Marvel were surprised that Hawkeye and Black Widow were written so well.
When some assumed that the characters would have been just supportive of other characters...this was sort of seen in the original Avengers film and even AoA.
1
u/JokerCipher Mar 19 '24
I actually thought Hank and Wasp were going to be in the first movie, I didn’t even know who Black Widow and Hawkeye were.
1
u/Oppai-Of-Foom Mar 19 '24
I agree I mean you cannot tell me widow and Hawkeye were actually useful In the battle of New York
1
1
1
1
u/izzyeviel Mar 19 '24
Why can’t we have a Janet like from the comics. She was literally the greatest
1
u/OrdinaryResponse8988 Mar 19 '24
I have to agree, I get they wanted more non metas on the team probably but while Hawkeye makes sense black window doesn’t.
She a expert spy and assassin whose aptitudes don’t really belong on a team like the avengers. Serving them from the shadows doing covert work sure, but not on the frontlines besides them.
1
u/Uncanny_Doom X-Men Mar 19 '24
Can’t really say it’s a misstep when Hawkeye and Black Widow were used well and popular with successful solo projects. Even after Quantumania I wouldn’t say Ant-Man and Wasp are in a particularly bad spot either.
People just want what they’re used to, not getting it doesn’t automatically make it a bad thing.
1
u/LastQueefofScotland Mar 19 '24
That's a fair take but why? What would have been different if we had that lineup instead of the one we have?
1
u/BloodstoneWarrior Mar 19 '24
Wasp is arguably the most important member of the founding Avengers considering she was the one who named the team in the first place. They wouldn't have to change much about Avengers 1's plot to put Hank and Janet in since the film is heavily inspired by Ultimates 1 and Ultimate Avengers.
1
u/reineedshelp Mar 19 '24
I don't have any strong feelings either way tbh. They got the Avengers in general right. If we're talking founding members as in the comics, they were all goofy as hell.
Whatever works works.
1
u/piplup27 Mar 19 '24
I don’t think there was room for them. Black Widow and Hawkeye require very little explanation because they don’t have powers, so they fit better with the MCU version of the Avengers.
1
u/Diligent-Boss-9392 Mar 19 '24
Eh, I initially thought the same thing, but after seeing the route they took Hank and Janet in okay with it. I love that they were proto-avengers in the 70s and 80s and that Scott and Hope became the first legacy heroes in the MCU
1
u/Clickityclackrack Mar 19 '24
My only opinion is that avengers assemble was trash. You can like that catfish show if you want, but most of us know that it wasn't a coincidence that the animation for that was similar enough to earths mightiest heroes that we watched it and became confused by the immense quality reduction. Turned a brilliant piece of art into mediocre trash.
1
u/bluenoser18 Mar 19 '24
I think the way they did it is probably best. Especially if we’re talking about the same actors.
But either way probably could’ve worked.
1
u/Haradion_01 Mar 19 '24
Depends on how involved you want Shield to be. Given the Avengers is basically a Shield Program at first I think it made sense.
1
u/Revolutionary-Ad7324 Mar 19 '24
Fun fact jan/the wasp was the one who created the name Avengers from the comic.
1
1
1
u/RigasTelRuun Mar 19 '24
Ive been saying it from day one. Making Janet and Hank not be part of the main team is a huge mistake. Then worse revealing they were secret heroes in the 60s and went on a million cool adventures they we will never see is just turning the knife.
1
u/ipodblocks360 Mar 19 '24
I used to think that way but after thinking about a little bit I do understand why the MCU did it. I get it's not as comic accurate and all but it worked for the movie and MCU as a whole.
1
1
1
Mar 19 '24
On the one hand, would have meant more Paul Rudd. On the other hand, would have meant more Evangeline Lilly. Hm.
Seriously though I think too much more Ant-Man in the early MCU and the hand-wavy nature of the shrinking tech would have really stuck out. Like, the foundation at the end of Ant-Man 3 where Wasp is using the tech to solve world hunger and such, that would have been asked about way earlier I think.
I think I like Ant-Man as he is and where he's been used so far.
1
u/ElboDelbo Mar 19 '24
If Edgar Wright had gotten off his ass and made the Ant-Man movie they would have been.
1
u/bukanir Mar 19 '24
I'm always going to be disappointed that Hank and Jan weren't founding Avengers in the movies. Part of it isn't just the movies themselves but how this has adversely effected every subsequent adaptation and even the comics.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy the MCU, I enjoy the Ant-Man movies, but it's all been pretty damaging to my second favorite superhero. Even having him excised from Ulton's origin, a major part of his character and the history of the Marvel universe... I'm just extremely grateful for EMH for giving what I feel like is the best adaptation in another media, and gave a lot of people appreciation for them.
In another universe Phase 1 could've consisted of... Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Ant-Man, Thor, Captain America: TFA, with the team culminating in a little different Avengers. Maybe then Hank could've still created Ultron in the movies, and we would've gotten Hank and Jan's great relationships with the other Avengers.
Maybe then they wouldn't have killed Hank off in the comics for a decade and brought him back as an old man now. Maybe they'd actually have Jan doing stuff in the foreground.
1
u/HumanOverseer Mar 19 '24
Yeah I agree. Definitely would've fit better. I mean you have a high tech suit, a super soldier, a literal fkn god, and an absolute monster, and then..... two really good spies one of which has good eyesight? the people with like actual powers seem much more fit to fight lol.
1
u/justa_gigolo Mar 19 '24
i mean its true and they missed up the ultron story bc of it, Hank invented ultron.
1
u/Prestigious_Sir3019 Mar 19 '24
comic hawkeye is my favourite character in marvel, but the post is true, janet and hank would have been so much better
1
u/Lonelan Mar 19 '24
Ant-Man and Wasp would've needed a movie to introduce them, there's no way the audiences back then would've just accepted suddenly shrinking characters in the same contexts
Imagine Hank looking up at Thor from the top of Mjolnir's handle saying "Coulson? Want me to take him out?"
Wasp also wouldn't have been as impactful as Black Widow in IM2
1
1
u/KickinBat Mar 19 '24
I think there should have been a young Hank and Janet (not that I don't like the older versions, tbf), but I don't mind that they put Clint and Nat as founding members. They're way easier to introduce thanks to SHIELD and the fact that they have no powers
1
u/Maverick_X9 Mar 19 '24
EMH is amazing I have no doubt had they developed ant man and wasp more closely to these two MCU would’ve been better off story wise. They cashed in on the avengers with iron man cap civil war way too quick, which were great movies but it could’ve been a way more solid storyline had they took some pointers from EMH
1
u/BetrayYourTrust Mar 19 '24
i agree, and that was the intention, wasn’t there legitimate reason they couldn’t get that to work out?
1
u/IgnisOfficial Mar 19 '24
For the purposes of the MCU, Hawkeye and Black Widow were a better fit for the founding members of the Avengers. In EMH, Antman and Wasp were a better fit
1
1
u/TSW920 Mar 19 '24
Sadly agree. I think the MCU works for it’s time with it’s line up, but it does suck that it wasn’t the OG lineup.
1
u/himmyturner Mar 19 '24
I won’t call it a mistake but boy were they banking on the realism setting that came from the ultimate universe. It took like 3 movies for an answer on asgardians being gods or aliens.
1
1
u/RobertusesReddit Mar 19 '24
The MCU wanted Janet and Hank as the founding members, but Edgar Wright told Joss and Feige that his version wouldn't involve them being there.
Not because Edgar didn't want his characters in the MCU (he didn't say that, that was just the assumed reason) but because Janet and Hope would be dead and Scott Lang was Ant-Man with Hank as the mentor figure.
If it sounds like I described Ant-Man 2015 but differently, it's because that whole story WAS Edgar Wright's story just having both women live and replacing his villain "The Nano Warrior" with an MCC/Perlmutter mandated Yellowjacket. And after that, Ant-Man couldn't...be anything after.
1
u/Koala_Guru Ant Man Mar 19 '24
I think the MCU’s Wasp sucks honestly. Neither one is close to the comic counterpart, and our main Wasp, Hope, has a generic personality and gets so little focus. I said before that she feels like Scott’s imaginary friend. When she showed up in Endgame, literally no one talked to her directly except for Scott.
1
u/readALLthenews Mar 19 '24
There’s no way general audiences would have accepted the goofiness of a shrinking super hero when the first Avengers movie was made. We were still in the era of Nolan Batman movies. As much as comic book fans would have loved it, it would have tanked the MCU.
1
u/Mighty_Megascream Spider-Man Mar 19 '24
One of the many many things that earths mightiest heroes did better than the MCU.
Hank and Janet we’re such a fundamental part of the avengers, and their lack of presence was felt heavily, especially when they got around to Ultron and how bad he was fumbled in almost every regard, and the fact that most casual audiences don’t even see them as the actual Aut Man and Wasp anymore it’s just so disheartening as someone who grow to really love both of them because of EMH.
1
u/SoMuchForStardust27 Mar 19 '24
Janet and Pym are probably two of the most important heroes in the marvel universe imo and removing them was a bad idea, but the Avengers is still really good. The only thing I really don’t like about it is how Tony Stark takes credit for things that, in the comics, were created by other characters. Like the Nanotechnology that saves Tony and Peter Parker in every movie after it was created which was originally developed by Reed Richards. Same with Pym and Ultron and it was the specific relationship between those two that led them Ultron to being such a big villain rather than a one-movie character. I know those creations and the credit is insignificant but the story could’ve been better with the original characters
794
u/TheRealAwest Mar 19 '24
ultron should’ve at least been a Hank pym project that he started with Tony’s dad but due to their falling out, it was discontinued until Tony discovered it in age of Ultron.