Vaughn Updates THOR and Wright Updates ANT MAN

Now that's what I call a body wax.

Marvel does not need to do comedy. Ant-man should be as serious as possible. Of knock-off movie co can do that ala Superhero.

I wouldn't put Thor in a movie unless it's the ultimate thor...no cape, definetely..

I want the original Thor, but as we've already seen once the character is adapted to the big screen they can take parts from both versions. They more than likely won't adhere strictly to either version. But I think Thor is probably the most ambitious solo adaptation from Marvel and could easily go wrong. Their pockets aren't as deep as the WB's so this could be a big gamble that could impact all of their future productions.
Perhaps holding off on Thor until after he's introduced in the Avengers, seeing how he's received by the public and then decide wether or not to go on a solo project may be the safest route, ala X-Men to Wolverine.
As for AntMan, go with Pym's version first and then if you want to explore the ones that followed, fine. But at least start off with the original. And I'm glad to hear that it won't be overtly comedic.

I'm surprised that Marvel is suddenly in a holding pattern over Thor. I thought they were *this close* to getting the project the green light once the writers' strike was over, and wasn't there an article about Michael Vaughn looking into casting options for the role a while back? I like the idea of casting an unknown, but I think Karl Urban could make a great Thor even though he's not that big of a dude. Hell, why not look into casting Titan from the new (crappy) version of American Gladiators?

“I think you have to respect that it is comic book and silly to be frank, so you have to combine that with a modern style and hopefully come up with something fresh."
I have respect for the director but that comment makes me feel alittle uncomfortable. In all the cases where superhero movies were bad it is because the filmmakers don't take the subject seriously. The Schumacher Batmans, The Shadow, the last two Chris Reeve Supermans, ( and for me, some of the Roger Moore 007s) - in each of these cases and others they took a "This is just funny books, let's be tongue in cheek and silly about this" and IMHO they turned out bad movies.
No matter how bizarre the premise might be, in the context of the world they are in and the storyline, these events have meaning and are serious. Of course there can be humor but it should be appopriate for the setting. It's still early but I hope Mr. Vaughn takes care.
On another note, these frequent reports about movie status and the ideas of the moviemakers are what make Marvel much better at the PR game than DC. Keep 'em comin'.

Roger Moore was da bomb in MOONRAKER and JAWS is the best Bond villain ever. Do an origin story for him and make him go good in another film.
A Moonraker remake could be awesome.

I agree monkeyfoot. That comment makes me a little leery too. Fun is one thing. Silly is another.

I don't think he's talking about "silly" as in not taking it seriously as a movie. I think he realizes the problems inherent in making a movie about someone in a costume fighting crime, and that you have to understand that when you're making the movie. That's what I got out of his comment. Of course, given that it is "holding" (i.e. in Dev Hell), it may be irrelevant what he meant. The movie may never get made.

I agree, fft. I think Bryan Singer had a similar feeling when he made X-Men and had the costumes redesigned so they looked like they actually could exist in the real world. The cover art attached to the article probably is an example of what Vaughn is referring to. I really don't think a movie starring a guy running around without his shirt on and wearing blue spandez pants with boots would be a marketable product to Joe Moviegoer. Comic books make for a fine venue, a cartoon would as well, and even action figures. Not a live-action movie.