Talk:Ant-Man (film)

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)

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)

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.