Ant-Man Is A Secret Agent Not In ‘The Avengers’

Published 4 years ago by

ant man Ant Man Is A Secret Agent Not In The Avengers

One of the many Marvel Studios projects in development – one that’s seemingly been delayed over and over again – is that of Edgar Wright’s adaptation of Ant-Man. Perhaps a questionable property to be made into a big budget solo film, Ant-Man has the potential to offer a unique super hero story, while having the chance to increase his popularity and bankability through through a stint The Avengers movie.

We know Ant-Man is coming after The Avengers so many thought, like us, that the character could be introduced in the epic team-up flick as a way to make mainstream audiences more aware of the shrinkable hero. That however, is not the case and Ant-Man will be its own separate origin story, separate from The Avengers.

Cinema Blend had a chance to speak with the British comedy master, Edgar Wright, a few weeks back and touched on whether or not Ant-Man would have a part in The Avengers since he was not mentioned or included on stage for the Marvel Studios Comic-Con panel.

“I talked to Kevin Feige about that a while back where we just discussed about whether he would be in The Avengers. The thing is, the script that I’ve written, you know, whether it’s next or not I don’t know, the chronology of it or the way it works wouldn’t really fit in with what they do. And my film is very much an introduction to that character, and so it wasn’t something where it felt right to introduce him in that film. Maybe if I do the solo Ant-Man film and maybe there’s a later Avengers then they could draft him in later. But it didn’t work with the kind of the angle that we were going to do with the origin that I’d written.”

From Wright’s words, he doesn’t know whether or not Ant-Man could be his next project, so we could be stuck waiting until 2013 for Ant-Man if Marvel sticks with him and his script (which they should). Since it’s been in development for years and never made its way into theaters before The Avengers, Ant-Man likely won’t be included and if that’s the case, it puts an end to the rumors of Wasp and Ant-Man being a part of The Avengers initial roster. There’s still a chance that Wasp could be included but we’ll have to wait and see.

There are certainly enough characters for director Joss Whedon to work with so they don’t need to include Ant-Man right off the bat, even if he was a part of the original rosters in The Avengers and Ultimates comic books.

the avengers cast comic con 2010 570x380 Ant Man Is A Secret Agent Not In The Avengers

The cast of The Avengers too big for Ant-Man?

With Ant-Man being introduced entirely on his own, what type of movie will that offer and what balance of comedy will it include? Vanity Fair put up an interview a few days ago with Edgar Wright to discuss Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, among other things, and they also took advantage of the opportunity to ask about his Marvel movie. The first (and very fair) question; Is it actually going to happen?

“I hope so, yeah. I’ve written a script, and once Scott Pilgrim is done I’m going to work on a second draft. It’s something I’ve been passionate about for awhile.”

Wright’s a busy man and he’s been known to plan his projects years in advance as we just saw with Scott Pilgrim. But how long is Marvel going to wait for this movie? And with Pilgrim failing at the box office in its opening weekend, despite fanboy buzz and positive reviews, does Wright want to keep pushing it aside to work on other projects?

Continue to page 2 for Edgar Wright’s description of the Ant-Man movie and why it’ll be “bad-ass.”

« 1 2»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: ant-man, the avengers

55 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Well, that sounds stupid. But granted it’s Edgar Wright, I’ll end up loving the movie either way.

  2. i hope that he has hi own flm as ant-man,and becomes giant-man,and is giantman in the avengers. if he can come up with a tech that alows him to shrink it would be cool to see him in the avengers creating his tech to alow him to grow.

  3. didnt somewhere, wright said that his antman movie focused on scott lang and not hank pym?

    and also, they never said hank pym was in the movie, so not just ant man, so there could be a brief pre-antman hank pym cameo in the avengers. just hoping lol.

    but they have to put him in the sequel (if there is one, which there prob will be) because ultron would make such a badass villain!

  4. ya maybe giantman is in the avengers and not ant man lol heres to hoping………. again

  5. Well my interest in both movies has now just seriously plummeted into the depths of despair.

    Typical Hollywood CRAP artists wanting to rewrite their own stupid origins and disrespecting the original mainstream source material.

    • While I’m still sitting by waiting for Avengers, Ant Man has me uneasy now.

  6. Well I read plenty of times that his Ant-Man will be focused on Scott Lang and not Hank Pym, I don’t know if its true but i read it

  7. i know im gonna catch some slag for this but ant man is not that interesting of a character he gets small and controls ants and hes a dick to his wife i have never liked him in the avengers im kinda glad hes not included in the avengers

  8. Really though there hasn’t been allot of fan wrangling over this I’m really not interested in composing article size comments on the issue! It makes me wonder now what they have in store for “The Avengers,” antagonist wise though. I would have thought the character would have been an integral part but perhaps “Avengers” #1 isn’t the comic they’re developing either. Looks like Marvel themselves might be looser in the story composing, more than I thought anyway. A very interesting article Rob. Thanks for bringing this to us, especially on a Sunday. Just goes to show you, you can’t take your eye off ScreenRant if you want to keep up with the entertainment side of life…

    • Thanks! :)

      • Your welcome Rob. I’ve wanted to read this story for quite awhile now. I’ve been keeping an eye on Mr. Wright’s on line comments since the first major article here about his involvement with the character. It’s really nice to get an update.

  9. I don’t have a lot of knowledge of Ant-Man’s background or history, but from what I’ve gathered on him I think it’s best if he’s introduced on his own. With as unique an ability as he has, it should really be explained some before throwing him in with the group of already established characters. To the unfamiliar audience, Ant-Man could end up being a distraction because people will be like “Who was that shrinking guy? He seems kinda lame.” whereas if you knew his backstory it wouldn’t be as strange.

    • He already is an established character. Has been for a very long time. Why don’t you(google) him and find out.

      • Is that what you’re going to tell EVERY SINGLE MOVIEGOER? If you tried to read my post accurately you’d see I stated that I’ve done a little background on him which is probably more than about 95% of movie going audiences would do. Wouldn’t you consider Ironman, Thor and Captain America “established character[s]“? They still got and are getting their own origin stories (and their abilities are a bit more plausible than controling ants and shrinking). Hell, even Batman (likely the most widely known comic character) got an origin story five years ago.

  10. Certainly makes me more interested in Antman reading his description upset though if it’s not Hank Pym I can’t think of many people in marvel I care less about than Scott Lang.

    • There is only one Ant-Man as far as I’m concerned and his name is Henry Pym.

      Scott Lang is an imposter and should die a terrible death never to be ressurected again.

      • agreed!

      • @X-Guest I totally agree. Scott Lang shouldn’t be focused on at all. Especially being the fact that he isn’t even the inventor of the tech.

  11. The rest of the Avengers will also be just as unfamiliar as Ant-Man if you have never read the Avengers.

    He is a founding member of The Avengers along with the Wasp. He’s been around since the very early sixties. Anyone who has ever read the Avengers comic books knows who Ant-Man is.

    It seems kind of strange this film is setting up an open ended anything goes continuity.

    • Yeah they’re keeping all their options open! Lack of confidence on which way the “Avenger” franchise should turn? Really seems like it. Unsure of general audience reception? Definitely with adult audiences just look at “Watchmen’s” B.O. reception. Allot of ways to fail? Seems that way…

    • @”Anyone who has ever read the Avengers comic books knows who Ant-Man is.”

      That’s just it though, this their adaptating films for the general audience, who haven’t (in all likely hood) read the comics. Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America are already being established with their own films to introduce the general audience to the characters. If they throw in Ant-man, the casual moviegoers won’t know who he is. I’ll pretty much be just like “Chiguy” described above. If a film came before ‘The Avengers”, then it would be a completely different issue.

      • So I guess the casual moviegoers out there all knew who Scott Pilgrim and characters from Kick Ass were before seeing the film?

        C’mon if a movie is good enough it’ll sell itself. Not all movie audiences are as stupid as you make them out to be.

        • Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass didn’t get the wide mainstream success that Marvel will be going for with a film like this. Those movies were made for a specific audience and there’s nothing wrong with that.

          Listen, I’m not saying Ant-man is a bad character, but he is unique with his abilities. It’s not something you just drop in to the middle of widely known characters. Like someone said in a previous thread, imagine how silly a character like Longshot would have looked in one of the X-Men movies.

          • Longshot was NOT an original founding member of the X-Men.

            I realize this movie isn’t really following any of the original mainstream source material but Ant-Man and Wasp are founding members of the Avengers.

            I’ve been reading Avengers since 1975 and Ant-Man & Wasp have been around since 1962. I’m sure if they wanted to write the characters into the script they could have.

            The plausibility of powers isn’t an issue when you compare their powers next to the other founding members. It’s a great balance. MARVEL have not been getting it wrong for the last five decades.

            Call me old school and looking at this through rose colored glasses but my expectation for an Avengers origin movie with ALL the original founding members is obviously shot to pieces.

            Gee I wonder how fans would react if DC/WB made a JLA movie minus two of their original founding members?

            • “I’ve been reading Avengers since 1975 and Ant-Man & Wasp have been around since 1962.”

              Realize that you are in the minority in that though. Ant-Man and the Wasp aren’t widely known outside of fans of the comics. Pleasing a movie audience is much different than pleasing a comic book audience.

              And my point regarding Longshot wasn’t as a founding member of the X-Men, it was that his ability is unique and without some background it could be a distraction to those unfamiliar with the character.

              • “Pleasing a movie audience is much different than pleasing a comic book audience”.

                Yes in way one way you’re right – a movie going audience has no idea they are being short changed with compromise and will accept whatever is thrown up on screen.

                A comic book audience knows their characters and shouldn’t have to put up compromises. We have every right to expect faithful and accurate adaptations that capture not just the essence of the books but respects the original mainstream source material to some degree.

                I DON’T mean I want to see a panel by panel reconstruction of Avengers issue#1 either, just ALL of the founding members represented.

                I would say at least 50% of audiences at a super hero flicks are made up of comic book readers familiar with the characters they are seeing on screen, so I don’t think we are in the minority. Are you suggesting fans from the 60′s, 70′s, 80′s,…etc…etc….don’t go to the cinema?

                The other 50% are there for the ride, the entertainment factor in seeing a film. What you are suggesting is that movie studios should compromise a comic book’s authenticity, characters, history, popularity and continuity for the sake of the commercial dollar.

                The commercial dollar is at greater risk when these films aren’t done right.

                You’ve obviously got your opinions. That’s fair enough but I don’t think Ant-Man & Wasp would be a distraction to those unfamiliar with their characters. :-)

                • I’m not attacking your fanhood or anything, I’m just simply stating that movie studios aren’t making these movies to please or appease the comic book fan community, they’re looking to maximize profits. Point out the last comic book movie that was “true to the source material”. They all take what they call artistic liberties when putting these stories to film. I’m not saying it’s right or even the best way to go, but that’s what they do. And more to the point, there’s only so many superheros you can fit into one 2 hour movie. Comic books have an advantage on movies in that regard. A lot of people are already concerned with the size of the cast already. The bottom line is how bad to you want to see your favorite comic book put up on the big screen? If you want it on there, sacrifices are going to have to be made since the studios are looking for their best interest as well.

                  Please believe me that I don’t fault you for your opinions, I truly believe it’s the fans like you who have made it possible for the comic book movies like The Avengers and Ant-Man to be made in introduced to a wider audience like myself. :D

                  • @ chiguy

                    I see your point too and appreciate your feedback.

                    I still think the 5 original founding members of the Avengers would be better suited than the over crowded cast we currently have.

                    As you say, there are only so many super heroes you can effectively fit into a two hour film. :-)

                    Ah movies I thought that were pretty close or true to the source material includes “Sin City” and “Hellboy”, in essence “Batman Begins” and “TDK”, and in faithful adaptation “IM1″, “TIH” and “Watchmen”.

                    As I said to Matt K in above post, we all go to watch movies where we don’t always know anything about the story, characters or plots and we still enjoy them.

                    Okay not always but most times we do. At least I do. It’s the anticipation of being entertained by something I’m not familiar with which is exciting and satisfying if the movie is well done.

                    An audience not familiar with Ant-Man or Wasp could still empathize with them if carefully scripted is all I’m saying. Peace! :-)

        • @”So I guess the casual moviegoers out there all knew who Scott Pilgrim and characters from Kick Ass were before seeing the film?”

          That doesn’t help your point at all. Both of those were’t exactly a success (especially Scott Pilgrim) at the box-office.

          • So those movies weren’t exactly a success because people were not familiar with the characters???? or was it bad directing, poor scripts, aimed at a young demographic or aimed at only those familiar with the comic books????

            • Both films were praised (at least from what I’ve read) from most of the fans, but still weren’t a success.

              • That tells you that fanboys alone can’t garuntee a success.

                • Movie studios deem a movie’s success by the profit it makes.

                  Did “Kick Ass” make a profit?

                  Will “Scott Pilgrim” make a profit?

                • Scott Pilgrim didn’t fail,it ended up being “Scott Pilgrim V.S. The Expendables” and Scott Pilgrim lost but did it fail? NO

                  • Financially it failed.

              • @ Matt K

                My point is we all go to watch movies where we don’t always know anything about the story, characters or plots and we still enjoy them.

                Okay not always but most times we do. At least I do. It’s the anticipation of being entertained by something I’m not familiar with which is exciting and satisfying if the movie is well done.

                An audience not familiar with Ant-Man or Wasp could still empathize with them if carefully scripted is all I’m saying. Peace! :-)

  12. they better add him in the sequel if there is one because………. I WANT ULTRON!!!!!

  13. Thanks for the article Rob. Not exactly what I wanted to happen, so I’m a little disappointed.

    As founding members, I was really hoping to see Antman and the Wasp in this first installment.

    • I’m sure it would end up fine, remember the most successful of Marvel Superhero team films, X-Men, the first film missed many of the characters which they later included in the following movies, included in these characters were two of the originals (Beast and Angel), and the first two films still turned out fine without them. In a way I like the idea of the Avengers saga having a build-up into their surreality.

      • i agree with you, the start of the avengers shouldnt be all of them, the trilogy of the movies should build up to what the avengers really is.

      • Yeah Fox did a real fine job. That’s why they’ll have no Angel or Ice Man in “First Class.” Why they’re dragging their feet on an X-4 story. Why the continuities of Juggernaut, Mystique, Nightcrawler, Rogue, and Sabretooth are messed up. Killing off three of the five lead characters in “X3.” That would be like J.J. Abrams killing off Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the next Star Trek film leaving Uhura, Scott, and Sulu to carry on. Ask anyone just how that would go over…

  14. Im not really surprised that Scott Pilgrim vs The World is not getting many viewers. The premise is just a bit too out of the ordinary for a Superhero or COmedy film, I cant work out from the trailer if its more superhero or more comedy, because it cant be a precise split between the two because that confuses the films identity if you ask me. Maybe its stretched its genres out a bit too much that people just don’t know what they’re going to get from it. And with films like the Expendables and Toy Story 3 out in cinemas, people would more rather pay a ticket for something where they know roughly what they’re going to get. There’s just simply too much competition. Saying that, I’m sure that Scott Pilgrim would be one of those films where once you see it, u’ll ask why you never saw it sooner.

  15. i would love to see hank pym in the avengers as giantman,and ultron as well. i also hope that the leader makes it into the film because he was in the hulk and they left him hangin. i also want to see the skrull make it into the sequels,and maybe even absorbing man,and winter soldier.but the must that have to be in the avengers are hank pym giantman,wasp,ultron,and leader. the other would just be iceing on the cake.

  16. @ X Guest 1

    “There is only one Ant-Man as far as I’m concerned and his name is Henry Pym.

    Scott Lang is an imposter and should die a terrible death never to be ressurected again.”

    I thought Scott Lang did die a horrible death in an explosion caused by the Zombie Flanders…er…I mean the zombie Jack of Hearts which kickstarted the stroy line Avengers Disassembled.

    • @ greenknight333

      I believe you are correct. :-)

  17. I am so done with Edgar Wright….It may have been a good idea to let him do the script duties and direction of Ant-Man but it seems that he’s pratically reinventing the character for the screen and and straying from BOTH characters in the comics..the cool thing is the fact that he’s not only smaller but in control of not only ants but all types of insects as well..he can also go inside machines,robots and is one of the few extremely smart scientists in Marvel’s universe..to make him some sort of “secret agent”,is ridiculous….his character is scientist first, fighterr second-to make him an agent well then you might as well call him Macgyver..

  18. Actually magnetic while I loved both batman begins and tdk neither were very faithful at all. They were pretty far off from the source but they were great films despite that.

    IM was pretty different as well but not as much as begins and tdk.

    • Hi Daniel

      I know what you mean. I meant in terms of capturing the essence, the intrinsic nature or fundamental quality of the Batman character and not in actually following the source material.

      I think we’ve had this conversation before have we not? :-)

  19. I know I’ve had this conversation before just not sure if it was with you.

    All I know is that both Nolan films took alot of creative liberties with a lot of things not only did everything look far differant in the film than they do comics but most of the characters were changed alot. The actors were excellant but both Raas and Gordan for instance had everything changed from their origins to even even in some cases their personalitys. Bruces origins were true to the comics but very little else was they even made up characters that didn’t need to exist.

    Either way I’m not a comic book movie purist I encourage creative liberties I think copying a comic to much makes the film lack a bit in quality not only will the mainstream audience not get it but some comic fans like my self will be annoyed with watching it thinking we read this story word for word did we really need an exact copy? I like to see a fresh take on an old story see some things change to spice it up and give it new life. Not so much with a comic like watchmen I’m more refering to ongoing comics.

    Look at it this way comics like Avengers or Batman have thousands of continuitys what would it hurt to have a new one for film? I mean if your a batman fan we got the Detective comics and Batman long going series that are the official time line and even they can’t keep it straight we have had time line alterations so many times I can’t even keep track. In some time lines Bruce has a daughter lol. Of course then we have the one shots where some one wants to write a stand alone Bat story that isn’t part of official continuity. So they write one shots like The Joker, Killing Joke, or the recent Kevin Smith books. Theses are their own stand alone worlds where they can take tons of creative liberties and no one complains. That’s how I view the films. Marvel has multiple continuing series that are not connected and change things they have the regular universe and an ultimate universe and we can all safely say they are very much not the same. Don’t even get me started on xmen they had like 6 titles at one point lol. I just view the films like that so changes don’t bother me. For clarification purposes Killing Joke was eventually added to the official time line because it was so good but wasn’t originally meant to be.

    I like the sound of this Antman story it sounds kind of cool. The only way I will watch it is if it’s Hank though if it really is Scott I’ll give it a skip. Creative changes are cool but there are some that people won’t accept. I know Scott was Antman but we want Hank he Is the iconic antman. That’s like making a Batman story but instead of Bruce it’s about a guy who’s parents die and he creates the mantle of the Bat and that mans name is Jean Paul Vally.

  20. i find it quite odd that Marvel would even exclude AntMan/Giantman or Wasp from the film considering that the new cartoon coming out this fall and every piece of related Avengers animation has both of those characters..I’m sure there will be a few scratching their heads at the initial screening when the film comes out wondering where those characters are..check out the teaser at marvel.com to see what i’m talkin about

  21. If you’re gonna do an Avengers movie, DO IT RIGHT . Hawkeye and Black Widow ARE NOT a part of the original team . Hank and Jan are. If the scriptwriters are as talented as they say they are , it shouldn’t be a stretch to have the Classic Five (plus 1 ?) in the movie. Hawkeye shoots arrows, and Black Widow has no super powers at all. So, what makes it easier to portay THEM than Ant-Man and Wasp ? They are not a part of the original team….so WHY are they in this movie? In sequels,yeah, I can see that . but NOT in the origin movie.
    It is claimed that an Ant-Man/Wasp movie is coming. What better way to introduce them to the folks who don’t know them than in a successful upcoming Hollywood blockbuster ?? Maybe THIS is just the vehicle they mneed to MAKE them more popular….and it will guarantee the success of the upcoming Ant-Man movie to boot !! To my knowledge, there are no upcoming solo movies for Hawkeye of The Black Widow in the works…so what’s the difference between THEM and using 2 characters who actually BELONG in the movie…and who SHOULD BE THERE ??
    lEAVE IT TO Hollywood to always screw things up…. !!

  22. oh, and one more thing . Scott Lang is a wanna-be nobody .A minor character in Marvel history . He was never in the original Ant-Man/ Giant -Man series in Tales To Astonish. He shouldn’t even be CONSIDERED in making an Ant Man movie. He’s just NOT THAT IMPORTANT .

  23. Jim Carey as Ant-Man!!

    • Although The Number 23 wasn’t a very good movie, I liked Jim Carrey’s acting in it and it showed me that he can play in serious acting roles. And his Comedic roles lately have been lackluster so maybe it’s time for a change of pace.

  24. actully it would be interesting, but Hank is more of a doctor, he could be an intelligent scientest who gets roped into shield.