Ant-Man #1 Review: In Which Alex Interviews HIMSELF!

Last night I was angry. Not “something made me a little mad” angry but, “ready to go take my comic to the shooting range” angry. The cause was Ant-Man #1. 

Alex, you might ask: Why did this comic book piss you off so much?

Ant Man as Scott Lang was a great character. He had really made up for his sketchy past over the last couple of years, and FF really spent some good time looking to redeem the character for some of his past actions as a prisoner. If Scott Lang is anything, he’s surely not stupid. The character has dug himself out of hell again and again fighting for what he thinks is the right thing.

I guess I am interviewing myself then?

So can you just answer the question?

Alright, alright. It’s complicated!

Isn’t everything complicated that has to do with superhero comics?

Yes, but this is more complicated than most. Sometimes a writer has a spin on a pre-established character that is so incredibly different, it actually ends up invalidating the last work via the extreme difference in tone. Ant-Man #1 had a completely different version of Scott Lang than we had been seeing over the past couple of years. The comic even integrated Cassie Lang back to the Ant Man world with little character focus.

Cassie Lang isn’t the only thing that seems wrong about this version of Lang. He’s more-or-less a loser in this new series. He speaks in a speech pattern on the verge of being childlike, which is completely annoying.

But you still like the comic?

It’s not a bad series by any means thus far. Ramon Rosanas’ pencils are lovely in the tale. If this version of Lang was completely divorced from any of the previous continuity and just simply taken as a separate character, this likely wouldn’t be a bad issue either. It has a plot that is quite well constructed and amusing. It’s interesting to see the business side of the Marvel Universe play out in this specific manner.

Why do you have to be such a pretentious d.....

Ok, hear me out. Scott Lang’s relationship with Darla Deering was really special in FF, in fact, it was one of the highlights of that series. Stripping that away from him is a pretty huge mistake. Going back to square one with all these people is just disheartening. Continuity is not something that just can be bent according to every writer that plays in this world.

I can sort of see your point now.

It’s not like these creators are trying to disregard what happened previously. Author Nick Spencer took lots of time trying to tie the comic back into Lang’s past. The original issue where Lang debuted is both referenced and retold in this story, but that doesn’t make it so the past 20 years or so automatically didn’t happen. Avengers: Children’s Crusade and the FF #1 had this character that was devastated by the death of his daughter hell bent on killing Dr. Doom, and FF was the exploration into the psyche of Lang. Which sort of showed how in the last issue of FF, how Lang finally decided not to kill Dr. Doom out of being at peace with Lang’s own emotions. That’s emotional maturity that shows a character who has definitely been through some hell.

So what exactly does Ant-Man #1 actually do to get us both started on this wild goose chase?

Well the first couple of pages of the comic are actually...fine. It’s that clever part of the series that I mentioned earlier. The problem lies in the way Ant-Man is presented to the audience in a job interview that he shouldn’t be at for a man who is downright slimy: Tony Stark. Ant Man starts babbling like an idiot, shows up to an interview IN costume, and brings a double-sided resume. The most offensive part of the comic is when he says: I BEEN TO PRISON. Ant Man would never use grammar that poorly, he knows better.

I know it sounds nitpicky, but it’s the little things that really start to add up here. the childlike narration makes Lang comes off as one huge oaf. In addition to Cassie being resurrected, she also seems younger. It’s weird that the events of a great Marvel Comic, Young Avengers is just straight up not being referenced here. It just seems wrong.

You were telling me earlier that Scott was an Avenger?

Yes. Scott is making one huge enormous mistake here that’s highlighted in a scene where he goes back to his ugly apartment. He just doesn’t seem to be using his resources correctly. This guy is not a down-on-his-luck loser; he’s a hero who’s brought down the likes of Doctor Doom. It just seemingly is a clear regression of the hero. Darla Deering and FF isn’t a part of his life that can just be undone. In fact, there is actually a reference to that moment in Avengers history.

Wait, there’s another Ant Man who’s more of a dick isn’t there?

Are you really going there?

Yes.

Eric O’Grady is a shadier Ant Man, he’s even told lies about Scott to try to make him look bad. He’s backstabbed friends, lies, cheated, swindled and stolen. He’s the version of Ant Man that would have been accurately depicted by this comic book. Yet, the weirdness of it all is that the upcoming film has Scott Lang in it. That version of Lang is sounding an awful lot like the version of a certain upcoming film of the same name, which has also seemingly made some amendments to continuity as well. At the moment, it’s hard to discern whether Marvel is fundamentally changing the nature of the character to service the film, or if something else is happening with the character, however it should be mentioned because of certain things that the comics have done to better reflect the Marvel Cinematic Universe like in Fear Itself: Battle Scars.

Wait, is that the one where the Marvel Comics Universe turns white Nick Fury into Black Fury just to be more like the films?

I am going to go in the corner and cry now.