Inevitably, all comic characters are changed for film adaptation, but director Edgar Wright is already zen about it.
Depending on which comic character you're talking about, there are different degrees to which that hero or villain is destined to be altered. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man -- the larger details of those characters all but have to remain intact because everyone knows them already.
A guy like Hank Pym, on the other hand, is a different story. Yes, he's been around just as long, but no one outside of serious comic fans knows much about him, let alone considers him a favorite. Which makes the job a bit easier for Ant-Man director Edgar Wright, who seems pretty happy to be working with a relative uknown.
I think there's something in that it's a lesser known character, there's hopefully more license. For the one percent of people who are like, "Wait, Hank Pym would never do that!" there's 99 percent going, "Who's Hank Pym?" So, to me, the source material is great but it also frees you up to be like: I'm going to make a movie. The movie is not going to represent 50 years of Marvel comics because that's impossible.
But that's just adaptation in the abstract. There's been some very vocal hubbub over the fact that Avengers 2 will host Ultron as its villain but also be coming out prior to Ant-Man. Thing is, Hank Pym created Ultron. At least he did in the comics. But Joss Whedon has said outright that we shouldn't expect that in the movies.
So is Edgar Wright bothered? Nah! In fact, he's never intended to tell the Ultron story.
It was never in my script. Because even just to sort of set up what Ant-Man does is enough for one movie. It's why I think "Iron Man" is extremely successful because it keeps it really simple. You have one sort of -- the villain comes from the hero's technology. It's simple. So I think why that film really works and why, sometimes, superhero films fail -- or they have mixed results -- because they have to set up a hero and a villain at the same time. And that's really tough. And sometimes it's unbalanced.
Thinking about the first Iron Man movie, it's certainly true that much more attention was paid to Tony Stark than to his villain, Obadiah Stane. So much so that you might have even forgotten Obadiah was the villain.
So we think that imbalance can happen both ways. Focus too much on a hero and your villain becomes forgettable. In any event, it's better for Wright to be crafting his version of Ant-Man from a positive place than find himself bitter because Whedon stole from his bag of tricks.
(via The Huffington Post)