That's right! I was trying to remember where I saw him last. I feel like he popped up somewhere else since then...





That wasn't my impression from the discussions back when it was announced, but I really have no idea. I suppose as long as Hank gets a good showing in Avengers, I won't really care what they do in a separate Ant-Man movie. I do gather it will likely be more humorous than the average hero flick, no matter who the main character is... But that's really just an impression I have based on the director.





Jarvis is so much better than the idea of generic staff/government employees running around in the background of a SHIELD provided headquarters.


I loaned a coworker my set of Firefly after he and his wife got hooked on Buffy. He loved it, but was disappointed it ended so soon. So I loaned him Serenity... and then he was pissed at how it ended. He'd have rather imagined they were all still out there flying then getting endings to certain characters.





I don't know... actors seem to get burned out playing Superheroes pretty quickly. Christopher Reeve did it the longest, and he is held up as the poster-child for getting typecast. While I'm not surprised that Sam Jackson agreed (nobody is going to "only" see him as Nick Fury, and I'm sure most of his appearances will be "Mace Windu" sized), I'm a bit surprised that Evans signed on to 9 Cap appearances. Hell, Sean Connery and Roger Moore only managed 7 films each as James Bond.





I've only seen a couple of Smith films, and I liked them... although it was in a "this is really good for what it is" kind of way. Early Sam Raimi films had that same kind of vibe, but he made a much smoother transition into big budget Hollywood.





My understanding is that action is often shot by a second unit director, and so studios nowadays hire the main director for his overall vision for the project, and rely on hiring a skilled second director to help him stage and get the kind of shots he needs. It seems to be a good plan, since the guys who are great with action and FX aren't always the greatest at getting performances out of actors or hitting all the right story beats, and vice-versa.

I think a lot of comic fans feel that Warners has redeemed themselves forever with The Dark Knight. I wasn't nearly that enamored with it (though I liked it... it just wasn't some religious experience for me.)





You'd think at the very least, it wouldn't be any more expensive than those "Punisher" movies that came out in recent years. Maybe a bit, since arrow effects are probably trickier than putting blanks in a gun... but it seems like you'd be right about it being reasonably affordable.





Yeah, I remember hearing about that. Seemed a little too high-concept for an introductory movie, but sounded like a fun graphic novel idea.