Talk:Ant-Man (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Official credits

I was asked if I could get the official onscreen credits. Per Disney, here are those for the actors and the top crew, with executive producers divided per title screen verbatim. I guess "Young Pym" means Ant-Man in flashback on the missile?

• Scott Lang / Ant-Man PAUL RUDD
• Dr Hank Pym MICHAEL DOUGLAS
• Hope van Dyne EVANGELINE LILLY
• Darren Cross / Yellowjacket COREY STOLL
• Paxton BOBBY CANNAVALE
• Maggie Lang JUDY GREER
• Cassie Lang ABBY RYDER FORTSON
• Luis MICHAEL PEÑA
• Kurt DAVID DASTMALCHIAN
• Dave TIP “T I ” HARRIS
• Gale WOOD HARRIS
• Peggy Carter HAYLEY ATWELL
• Howard Stark JOHN SLATTERY
• Mitchell Carson MARTIN DONOVAN
• Car Driver GARRETT MORRIS
• Dale GREGG TURKINGTON
• Hydra Buyer ROD HALLETT
• Frank JOE CHREST
• Buyers JOE BUCARO III, JEAN LOUISA KELLY
• Young Pym DAX GRIFFIN
• Spanish Woman NORMA ALVAREZ
• Young Daughter DARCIE ISABELLA COTTRELL
• Ravers TEDDY WILLIAMS, CAROL ANNE WATTS, CHUCK DAVID WILLIS, DIANA CHIRITESCU
• Pool BBQ Dad NEKO PARHAM
• Pool BBQ Mom ONIRA TARES
• Pool BBQ Kids KYLEN DAVIS, ZAMANI WILDER
• Pym Tech Gate Guard JIM R COLEMAN
• Pym Tech Security Guards DESMOND PHILLIPS, AARON SAXTON
• EMT MICHAEL A COOK
• Gorgeous Blonde RICKI NOEL LANDER
• Superior Officer RUS BLACKWELL
• Ice Cream Store Customer JOHNNY PEMBERTON
• Ernesto NICHOLAS BARRERA
• Carlos CARLOS AVILES
• Emily LYNDSI LAROSE
• Peachy ROBERT CRAYTON
• Cop on Speaker AJANI PERKINS
• Alpha Guard JESSEJAMES LOCORRIERE
• Beta Guard ZACK DUHAME
• Vault Guards KEVIN LACZ, MICHAEL TRISLER
• Armed Guards DANIEL STEVENS, ALEX CHANSKY, CLAY DONAHUE FONTENOT, MICHAEL JAMORSKI, CASEY PIERETTI
• Lab Guards ANTAL KALIK, ADAM HART, REUBEN LANGDON, TODD SCHNEIDER
• Lab Tech KEVIN BUTTIMER
• Ignacio DANNY VASQUEZ
• Writer ANNA AKANA
• Bartender STAN LEE
• Hideous Rabbit TOM KENNY
• Helicopter Pilots RICK AVERY, ERIK BETTS

Crew

• Directed by PEYTON REED
• Screenplay by EDGAR WRIGHT & JOE CORNISH and ADAM MCKAY & PAUL RUDD
• Story by EDGAR WRIGHT & JOE CORNISH
• Produced by KEVIN FEIGE, p g a
• Executive Producer LOUIS D’ESPOSITO
• Executive Producer ALAN FINE
• Executive Producers VICTORIA ALONSO, MICHAEL GRILLO
• Executive Producers STAN LEE, EDGAR WRIGHT
• Co-Producers BRAD WINDERBAUM, DAVID J GRANT
• Director of Photography RUSSELL CARPENTER, ASC
• Production Designer SHEPHERD FRANKEL
• Edited by DAN LEBENTAL, ACE, COLBY PARKER, JR , ACE
• Costume Designer SAMMY SHELDON DIFFER
• Visual Effects Supervisor JAKE MORRISON
• Music by CHRISTOPHE BECK
• Music Supervisor DAVE JORDAN
• Casting by SARAH HALLEY FINN, C S A

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, this set of credits — which is precisely what's onscreen down to "Ant-Man will return" and "This project was completed with assistance from the Georgia Film, Music & Digital Entertainment Office, a division of the Georgia Department of Economic Development" — doesn't include the based-on credits for Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Larry Lieber that definitely appeared onscreen at the press screening. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: so as we asked above, we are correct in saying Jordi Molla, didn't appear?? And I know for sure the "based on credits" appeared before the mid-credit scene when the credits were appearing on that red background. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: "Young Pym" is the actor in the 1989 flashback whose face was digitally replaced. I can find a source if you need it. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@DinoSlider: We've got one already! Look in the post-production section. :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither Jordi Molla nor Hayley Lovitt appear to be credited, no. But who knows? Like bodybuilder / Hulk 3D-model basis Steve Romm, who's cited with a newspaper article at The Avengers (2012 film), some RS details may still emerge.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That is odd about Lovitt because I know she was in the credits when I saw it at a midnight showing. I remember because when I saw her name, I grabbed my phone to write it down to remember. But with Molla, I don't remember even seeing him in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the film for the second time and can confirm that Lovitt is credited in the crawl between Young Pym and Spanish Woman. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I would say, "In she goes!" Was her character in the credits "Wasp" or "Janet" or "Janet Van Dyne"? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves, I believe it was "Janet Van Dyne / Wasp" but it could have been "Janet Van Dyne / The Wasp". Almost 100% sure it was name slash codename. Hopefully someone else can confirm. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that it was either "Janet van Dyne / Wasp" or "Janet van Dyne / The Wasp", but it has been a while now since I saw it and I can't remember which it was. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

218.191.191.160 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC) www.thisav.com

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sock (tock talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2015 Paul Rudd under cast not linked to his paste on Wikipedia

[Rudd] Greg4hobbit (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He is already linked as a screenwriter. Each person is only linked once in the infobox. Reach Out to the Truth 23:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

67.86.158.134 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What's the request here? Rusted AutoParts 02:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Sokovia Accords

Infrmation regarding the second post-credits scene and the mention of the accords therein was reversed with the following statement: "/Film uses the term "likely", Movieweb first says "may be" and in later articles doesn't give any attribution to where the information came from. Please wait for something more concrete and use the talk page first next time". Before I response to the accords itself some sentence with respect to the talk page process.

I added information which in my eyes was concrete enough to added. After it was pointed out that I cited the wrong source I responded by adding other sources to support my claim. After the above cited response to my second edit I'm willing to discuss the issue at the talk page. So while I'm willing to react to responses I'm unwilling to use the talk page first to make my case without to the ability to use the article page first for some edits. At least two edits should be allowed for editors to react to edit responses before the accusation of edit warring is raised or an edit war starts.

I think the information that the accords mentioned in the second post credits scene are not speculative. Evidences (emphasis added):

1. Dash Film source: "Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and and Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) discuss what to do next, revealing that they can’t call Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) because of “the Accords,” referencing the Sokovia Accords that have been put in place following the events of The Avengers: Age of Ultron[...]."
2. 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source: "And this is follow-up up by a plaque that may be The Sokovia Accords, which are the Accords Steve Rogers reveals during the Ant-Man stinger that won't allow Tony Stark to help them."
3. 2015-08-28 MovieWeb source: "Going off the Ant-Man post-credit scene, which finds Falcon and Captain America trying to free The Winter Solider's bionic arm from a vice, the Superhero Registration Act is being called the Sokovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War, and they ask each individual superhero to be accountable for their actions."

As the wording of the stressed verbs shows the accords are not mentioned as something speculative but something of the past and present it is fair to say the accords are real and not speculative. Further evidence comes from Marvel President Kevin Feige. He revealed that the post-credit sequence was footage shot by Anthony and Joe Russo from Captain America: Civil War. This reinforces the Dash Film source and 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source because thus we know the accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene are real i.e. are already part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Conclusion: The accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene aren't speculative, but real and concrete and should be therefore added as The Sokovia Accords. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This all seems like WP:SYNTH to me, since Dash Film, whatever that is, and MovieWeb don't attribute this information to a named source and are only speculating. We don't publish speculation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, expressed my sentiments exactly. As for the talk page procedure, I suggested using it first because your edits on this subject have been removed twice now so its obviously contentious. So instead of unstabliizing the page, lets discuss first as it will probably come back here anyway.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, why does it matter what the name of the accords are? It doesn't help the viewer understand the content any better, because we still link to Cap Civil War (it would correctly be the Plot section, but that doesn't exist yet). And they don't state that in the scene, so even if the reliable sources claim as such, it's not really a necessary inclusion here, because it will further detailed and clarified in the Cap CW plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the name The Sokovia Accords as a background information in the style of the notes section in Avengers: Age of Ultron i.e. more precise the Hulkbuster reference. As Favre1fan93 notes pointedly that the accords will further detailed and clarified in the Captain America Civil War plot, the issue of The Sokovia Accords is (for me) resolved. Thanks for the thoughts and inputs of all involved. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

Rotten Tomatoes rating has increased to 80% The Bog King (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Normally, a "change X to Y" format is mandatory, but because it was so clear the change that was needed, I ignored it this once. Please remember to use this format in the future. Also, the change you wanted is located at Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0478970. Also something to remember for the future. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 03:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Something useful

Douglas' interview with Marvel. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar sentiments to the quote we already have for him in the cast section on why he chose to be in a superhero film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

More than vs. over

Really? We're going to fight over that? Versus001 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Time to update Ant-Man's Rotten Tomatoes score on its wiki page and on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page

Can someone please update Ant-Man's Rotten Tomatoes score to 80% fresh out of 240 reviews on its Critical response sub-section on its reception page and on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe page on the Critical response sub-section of the Reception section? Thanks.

Does it really matter? Anyone can join Rotten Tomatoes (I did) and the views there are just the OPINIONS of the people in the street. Surely the box office receipts are a better indicator? (83.37.123.24 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC))

Wrong

The talk up for the Yellowjacket suit talks of shrinking the distance between atoms. We have photos of atoms and there is often no space between atoms in matter. It is the space inside atoms that would be shrunk, as atoms are almost all empty space. To quote: "A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space."

Ant Man goes sub-atomic as in smaller than an atom. To quote: For a typical human of 70 kg, there are almost 7x10^27 atoms (that's a 7 followed by 27 zeros!) Another way of saying this is "seven billion billion billion." No matter how much space he takes out of his atoms, Ant Man could never become smaller than an atom with all those atoms in him.

If a two hundred pound man is shrunk down to ant size, he would still weigh two hundred pounds so no flying ant could carry him and he could not make great leaps either.(83.37.123.24 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC))

GA nomination

This is just a friendly reminder that the article has to be nominated for GA by January 8, 2016, to keep the retention of the films good topic. However, I know the film is still in theaters, but is there anything holding us back from nominating now? Beyond the small adjustments to whatever gross the film is still taking in, the box office section is pretty much set, with the final China release and data coming in the past few weeks; we have info on a home media release; we have info on a sequel, plus a confirmation for one; and we have some accolades. I don't see the issue of nominating now with concerns to article stability or content coverage. Other's thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not see any reason to not nominate the article now and see what comes up. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Too soon. I would wait until the home media release since things like DVD and Blu-Ray sales aren't yet available. It could also gain more accolades. Films also are known to fail at GAN when still in theaters. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SNUGGUMS.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know and remember from Age of Ultron's nominations. Just wanted to present it here to see thoughts. No problem on my end waiting until mid-December. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes template

The Rotten Tomatoes score in the Critical response section is supposedly updated with the site's information, but the current score in 79% based on 248 reviews, while the article states the score is 80% based on 241 reviews. Is there a way to fix that? 187.74.55.171 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noting ;) Katástasi (κατάσταση) 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested source

• Kevin Feige on connection between Ant-Man and Doctor Strange: [1]. Hula Hup (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ant-Man (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here goes:

• No dab links.
• Images are fine. The two fair use images both have specific purposes; the movie poster and the special effects demonstration.
• Lead: Would it be possible to add a few of the highlights or a general tone to demonstrate the critic's positive reviews?
• "he reveals that Janet, known as the Wasp, disappeared into a subatomic quantum realm to disable a Soviet nuclear missile." - it's been a few months since I last saw Ant-Man, but if I recall properly she disappeared into the subatomic quantum realm while disabling the missile - it wasn't the disappearance that caused the missile to be disabled, which this currently reads as.
• Is it worth mentioning Sam Wilson is the Falcon?
• "He's a guy trying to create a new life for himself and find redemption." Needs a direct cite since it's a quote.
• Likewise, "capable, strong, and kick-ass", needs a cite after the comma.
• "infinitely more capable of actually being a superhero" needs a cite after the following comma.
• "the next generation of Ant-Man's suit" same again
• The cites after "An SFPD officer" can be moved to the following punctuation - and do you need three to cover that point?
• Same issue with the cites after "Lang's former cellmate"
• "not that much more" needs a cite after the comma
• You don't need to link Edgar Wright in the quote box under development since he's linked in the text.
• Spotted a couple more quotes that need direct cites - I'll stop listing them, but you'll need to go through and double check the article for them

Going to take a break there. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Miyagawa. I have gone through the article and made the changes you brought up, including moving up direct cites for all the quotes I could find. Let us know if you find anymore quotes that need citing, or if there is anything else we need to do. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to question slightly your asking to put cites after direct quotes. I am quite confident that all the quote material are sourced by the next proceeding ref, and this is not me trying to say I don't think quote material should be cited. To me, it looks incorrect to have the same refs used in multiple times a row and is unnecessarily excessive, when the one occurrence can cover all the material. I think readers are competent enough to know that material between ref tags should all be cited by the ending tag. If it's not, then we have an issue, but we don't in this case. I'll wait for your response to my questioning before I got back and revert those specific changes Adam made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Are you still reviewing this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, completely missed both yours and Adam's edits here. According to WP:MINREF, direct quotations need to be cited. I understand where your coming from, but certainly from my experience across various levels of article, the interpretation that is commonly used is that the quotes should be cited at the next punctuation mark. Now that technically isn't a policy, and so the citation work here with quotes doesn't need to be completed for Good Article - so by all means stop doing them (and I'll stop checking for them). However, I'm certain that if you wanted to push forward and take this to FA then the same issue will get raised there as well. Miyagawa (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also forgot to say - sorry for the delay in completing the review, I'll aim to get this sorted over the weekend and then hopefully we can get this article signed off shortly afterwards. Certainly there's nothing major that'll stop this from being a GA, just the usual few niggles here and there that all nominated articles tend to have (mine included). Miyagawa (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies Miyagawa. I see what you are saying with WP:MINREF, but looking just below that is WP:CITEDENSE, and I believe that is what I was talking about. As such, I am going to undo the changes Adam did in adding the tags to the direct quotes, as long as the same ref is the only one that comes at the end of the sentence(s). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's finish off that review:

• The image caption under cast; you don't need to link the actor's names there as they're already in the text.
• Under Pre-production - the cite following "featuring the first appearance of Scott Lang" needs to be moved to the next punctuation mark.

I think that's it. There's a couple of lines that I wouldn't have worded that way, but they're not grammatically wrong so I'm not inclined to suggest that you change them. It's a very interesting article - I had no idea they used macro photography for the film, I had presumed that was all CGI. Anyway, once those last two points are tidied, ping me here and I'll come back and pass this for GA. Sorry again for the delay, I'd just presumed due to the size that it'd be a bigger review task than it ultimately was, but everyone who worked on this has done a very good job. Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done! @Miyagawa: Thanks for taking the time to review this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy that it meets the GA criteria (it was never far off anyway, and just needed a few tweaks). Promoting now. Miyagawa (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Miyagawa! Appreciate you taking the time to review and pass it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Revert of my ref to Ant-Man and the Wasp

• Why to my Revert: no reason given for User:TriiipleThreat's Revert of Ant-Man
• Why my edit: the IMDb page can be a clearing house for release date, news etc DadaNeem (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You already posed the question on my talk page. See my response there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• TriiipleThreat is correct. IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Additionally, the release date is already reliability sourced in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Budget

I am editing the budget to reflect the amount that was actually spent on the production, which was made in Georgia for principal photography and in the UK for visual effects work on a budget of $142 million. The film spent $106 million in Georgia. And in the UK it spent £23,683,575 ($36 million) The UK portion of the spend information is also contained in the actual filings for the production company, but they are summarized in a Forbes Contributor article. The credibility of the contributor has been established and this particular article has been deemed a reliable source in the RSNB. For the dollar amount, I used the historical exchange rate calculator at the Measuringworth site, which was 1.53 for 2015, when the VFX spending primarily occurred. Depauldem (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has been pushing his version of films' budgets on several other talk pages without finding consensus, including for using Forbes user-generated content. Let's wait until his issues are resolved. He's already spreading the same discussion across four other pages and now seems intent on taking the very same issues to a fifth. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, User:Chrisw80. Did I make a valid edit backed up by sources? What issue has to be resolved here? The sources show what the film spent. Period. I get reverted because he disagrees with me in another place. Is that really protocol? PS--the Forbes article was ruled reliable and he even conceded this point Despite this, he is again suggesting its not reliable. Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

First, "The sources show what the film spent. Period" is exactly what the four or five other pages are discussing. Standard journalistic sources are not agreeing with your definition of "budget" and Wikipedia uses standard, normal figures cited in secondary journalistic sources.

Details of tax rebates, etc. belong in the article body, not the infobox. Since you appear not to have noticed, no one touched your article-body edit at Maleficent (film), nor would anyone object to a similarly neutral edit in the article body here. Your recurring infobox analysis in multiple articles, however, is still very much under discussion and it is inappropriate to add it to this infobox when no consensus has been reached for adding it to other infoboxes.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this all in one place. I will start a new topic in Avengers Age of Ultron asking what the budget is. Sound good?Depauldem (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely welcome the idea, though aren't we already discussing the topic there?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Cameo by Garrett Morris - The Original Ant-Man!

Oddly missing from the "also appearing" section of the cast , is Garrett Morris.( Seen reacting when Ant-Man smashes onto the roof of his car. ). Garrett Morris originally portrayed Ant-Man , perhaps for the first time in live action , on a Saturday Night Live sketch on March 17,1979. Thus his inclusion in the film , and perhaps one of the nerdiest / funniest back references to a character they could make! 75.104.163.28 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

His cameo is in the cast section already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Edger Wright never seeing the film

Does anyone think it will be interesting to put information about Edgar Wright never seeing the film because it tried to put some information about it and it got removed. Bob3458 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it’s interesting in a gossipy sort of way but it’s not of any encyclopedic value.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think if it did go somewhere his article we be the better place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)