Jump to content

Talk:Ant-Man (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suzuku (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 7 April 2014 (→‎Development of). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, I think I found a source that settles this: [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As no strong evidence was shown with Big Talk's involvement, it has been removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, the waiting game's over already. Paul Rudd has been cast as Ant-Man. [2] --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, she has long been rumored for the part.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yup! Added here. Part is still unconfirmed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

release date pushed up.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Might be reasonable but might be incorrect. Why chance it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would they shoot test footage of the non-action parts? Unlikely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Development of

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

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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ant-Man_(film)&oldid=603108696"