Favreau to POSSIBLY Direct 'The Avengers'!

[thejon93]

Source:
"Hey folks, Harry here - I had been hearing much of what this new "spy" offers via sources on the inside. AND as of this juncture, it looks like most of this is really solid. The AVENGERS move was done with the best hopes of Favreau coming aboard, whether or not anybody will go on record saying that, it is what I've heard for a while now, and I wasn't surprised by its date movement today."
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40410

[WillardNation]

We can only hope

[louiebling$]

The Best news Regarding the Delay :up:

[thejon93]

We can only hope
Well, hope is coming, my friend.
The Best news Regarding the Delay :up:
Damn right.

[jokerface89]

I'm hoping Favreau will Direct the movie he gets the marvel character universe.

[FlawlessVictory]

If he gets the job, that's Iron Man 2 two years after Iron Man and then The Avengers two years after Iron Man 2. More power to him if he can pull it off, but man, talk about working yourself thin! :wow:

[TheComicbookKid]

Unfortunately, Favreau hasn't shown me anything like action-wise that makes giddy to see him handle several characters that all require, imo, different kinds intensity to showcase their powers.

[D-Man22]

^You sound like you want Michael Bay. :hehe: Favereau is the best choice for Avengers currently until we see what the other directors of the upcoming marvel movies can do.

[FaT_tONle]

Avengers should be a character driven film unlike Michael Bay films... I am all for Michael Bay action but you make those sacrifices... Nolan has not impressed me at all with the action in his Batman films, but he more than makes up for it.

[Spider-Vader]

I feel like an oddball because I really like the action in the Nolan Batman movies.

[Artistsean]

This reminds me of Nolan talking about Batman Begins 2, after the success of Batman Begins they asked him about a sequal. He said that if he did a sequal he imagined it going like this: Joker in part 2, with Dent introduced. Part 3 having Dent turn into Two-Face.

Favreau said that he told Marvel studios that Iron Man 3 better be called the Avengers! and I think he said he would like to direct it too.
So lets see if this one comes true too.

[Aluchak]

This reminds me of Nolan talking about Batman Begins 2, after the success of Batman Begins they asked him about a sequal. He said that if he did a sequal he imagined it going like this: Joker in part 2, with Dent introduced. Part 3 having Dent turn into Two-Face.

Favreau said that he told Marvel studios that Iron Man 3 better be called the Avengers! and I think he said he would like to direct it too.
So lets see if this one comes true too.

Nolan said that Dent would be Two-Face in part 3? HA! My friends kept saying 'HARVEY DENT DIED!!!". He didn't die. If he 'died' from the little fall, then why didn't Batman? Why would they get rid of a villain like that so fast? Huh!? He was only on screen for like 10 minutes.
Harvey Dent may of died, but Two-Face didn't.

Anyways, off topic.

I hope Favreau directs Avengers. That would be a nice choice. I wouldn't mind anyone else doing it though.

[Chewy]

Nolan never said that, Goyer did. And Two-Face is dead
Favreau said that he told Marvel studios that Iron Man 3 better be called the Avengers!
This isn't true either. Favreau said Avengers would make a nice third installment and help break the threequel curse, but also said he has a third Iron Man movie with Mandarin planned.

[Spider-Vader]

Nolan said that Dent would be Two-Face in part 3? HA! My friends kept saying 'HARVEY DENT DIED!!!". He didn't die. If he 'died' from the little fall, then why didn't Batman? Why would they get rid of a villain like that so fast? Huh!? He was only on screen for like 10 minutes.
Harvey Dent may of died, but Two-Face didn't.


Bats was wearing armor. Dent wasn't. :ikyn

[sdc10]

Nolan said that Dent would be Two-Face in part 3? HA! My friends kept saying 'HARVEY DENT DIED!!!". He didn't die. If he 'died' from the little fall, then why didn't Batman? Why would they get rid of a villain like that so fast? Huh!? He was only on screen for like 10 minutes.
Harvey Dent may of died, but Two-Face didn't.

Nolan has already gone on record after the films release declaring that harvey dent/two face was dead. There are also countless reasons why bringing him back would just be stupid but again that would be off topic.

[FaT_tONle]

How the hell do you kill off Two-Face in like ten minutes??? I know it's probably been discussed at nauseum over in the Bat forums... but damn... what a waste of a great villain.

[thejon93]

Attention Crazed-Mothers Bringing 'TDK' Talk to an 'Avengers' Thread!
Please, Take it Somewhere Else(a.k.a. "the Bat Boards").

[Spider-ManHero12]

This would be a fantastic move, in my opinion. Favreau really seems to know what he's doing with Iron Man, and I think he has the potential to bring the Avengers to life.

[Gamma Goliath]

this may sound crazy but maybe we need 2 directors favreau for the story and character development, and someone else for the action 'visual arts'.

[SsM]

Bats was wearing armor. Dent wasn't. :ikyn


Bats also had his entire face...

[FrostBite]

this may sound crazy but maybe we need 2 directors favreau for the story and character development, and someone else for the action 'visual arts'.

Favs for the story and LL for the brawls? :woot:

But yes, a few things scare me about Favs with the Avengers (though, I still think he is an excellent choice.)

A) Iron Man is his baby. By this time he'll have had two babies and may expect his third to walk, talk, and act the same. I don't want Avengers to feel like Iron Man. (Nor do I want an favoritism towards the character.) Not saying he isn't capable of making different types of films, but with Stark in the mix it may lead into some temptation to gravitate towards the style of the Iron Man films.

B) Ensemble movie. While Iron Man is an excellent movie, I feel it is excellent because of Stark, not because of the supporting characters. Does Fav's have it in him to balance several strong stories while trying to tell one bigger one?

C) Yes, action. The scenes fit for Iron Man, but they weren't anything... hard hitting or powerful. We are going to have several large and in charge superheroes against some powerful force... please for the love of God we need some masterful action scenes.

I am not saying Favs can't do it, in fact if he is announced as the director I won't be in the least bit disappointed. I'm just voicing concerns.

[LastSunrise1981]

I love the idea of the idea of two directors that a poster mentioned.

If Favs can handle the story and the directing, who would some of your picks be for the action department? I'd say Peter Jackson or even James Cameron could handle the directing the action department.

One things for sure though, whoever directs this film is going to be having some major headaches. We're talking about bringing forth major characters, major villains, and making sure they receive their equal screen time and are developed well.

[FaT_tONle]

Two directors is a little too much. I mean I know Tintin has two directors attached. Maybe they could do something like a Spielberg/Bay although I don't know much input Spielberg has had in the Transformer films. It certainly didn't show at least in my eyes. I don't know, any big time action directors out there that can hold their own in a production like this without getting carried away with names like Jackson or Cameron?

[FrostBite]

Is it just me or... are the names Peter Jackson, Stephen Spielberg, and James Cameron thrown around for every superhero movie?

Favs and LL came out of left field and did an incredible job with Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. I prefer the way Marvel is doing things--getting untapped talent.

[LastSunrise1981]

Is it just me or... are the names Peter Jackson, Stephen Spielberg, and James Cameron thrown around for every superhero movie?

Favs and LL came out of left field and did an incredible job with Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. I prefer the way Marvel is doing things--getting untapped talent.

Cameron and Jackson are great with visuals and character development. Hence why their names are thrown around for directing comic films. As for Favs and LL? I really liked with LL did with the Incredible Hulk and his vision is what I always saw in my head when it came to the Hulk.

But it wouldn't hurt to have someone like Favs to create and mold the story while Jackson fine tunes it and directs the visuals/action.

But I won't lie when I say my dream comic book film would be Jackson directing a Conan or Thor film.

[LastSunrise1981]

Two directors is a little too much. I mean I know Tintin has two directors attached. Maybe they could do something like a Spielberg/Bay although I don't know much input Spielberg has had in the Transformer films. It certainly didn't show at least in my eyes. I don't know, any big time action directors out there that can hold their own in a production like this without getting carried away with names like Jackson or Cameron?

Spielberg has some say in the process. He wanted the Transformers film to concentrate more on the human perspective than the robots and was the one who pushed for Bumblebee to be Sam's guardian.

So he has quite a bit of say in the creative process.

[strikezone89]

I'd wet myself if Favreau directed and the directors of the other supes movies were the producers and had a say in the movie to make sure that there respective hero get recognized

[Chewy]

Branagh & Johnston will be in post when this films - I'm sure they'll have some input. They'll only be a few rooms and/or floors away while this is filming its soundstage portions.

[TheVileOne]

Jackson did a great job with LOTR but a not so great job with KING KONG. So I mean, he can't be the great masterful director of everything.

I hope Favreau is up for it after Iron Man 2 and isn't too tired or burn out. This would basically mean very little to no off time between movies since the plan is to release them two years apart.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't see how Marvel can even think about scheduling this **** this tight... I mean Favs is not involved with Thor or Cap... and now you are going to ask him to work with guys he is barely familiar with a year after wrapping up IM2. Talk about getting overworked. I'd prefer they give him the full three years. I think Jon will need AT LEAST one three year break somewhere in between or otherwise he will wear himself out. Maybe IM3 gets pushed back to 2015 or something, but that's five years after IM2. Not that I have something against Favs... but I didn't he'd do Avengers. Or maybe co-direct with like Letterier handling the action sequences... not that I was THAT impressed by his work in TIH. But I am re-thinking my doubts about two directors myself myself... maybe if there is a guy that can handle the action and CGI aspects alone, that MIGHT be the winning formula.

[TheVileOne]

I'm not sure what you are getting at Fat Tonie.

You do realize that Favreau has already signed on as a producer of Avengers right? So he's already going to be working on it and involved in some capacity. So this not familiar thing is NONSENSE.

Yes its tight. But directors have to do it fight before.

Also, its not confirmed that Favreau will do it. However, if Marvel wants to do it, and Favreau wants to do it that way, what is wrong?

[FaT_tONle]

I am saying he is not going to be familiar with the teams involved with the Cap and Thor projects being that he is not attached as a producer there. Was it that unclear... or was it Vile disagreeing with Tonie for disagreeing with Tonie's sake...

[TheVileOne]

I am saying he is not going to be familiar with the teams involved with the Cap and Thor projects being that he is not attached as a producer there. Was it that unclear... or was it Vile disagreeing with Tonie for disagreeing with Tonie's sake...
No I think its Tonie being belligerent for the sake of being belligerent.

How do you know he's NOT familiar with them? Clearly Favreau has staked a big part of his future in working on these movies so . . . again I'm not sure why are you are being so angry about it.

Favreau wants to be involved with Avengers. He's made a deal to work on Avengers in some capacity. Why do you feel he don't do his part and what is necessary to do things?

[FaT_tONle]

I'm not angry... I just don't see how he can have input in the other solo films while he is still wrapping up post production with IM2. What I imagined they'd do was hire their Avengers director by 2009 and then have him overlook all these projects as a producer or something of that capacity, where he can have some input as far as lead-ins to Avengers. Favreau probably won't have that input with Thor and Cap considering the schedule.

[TheVileOne]

Well for one thing. Cap and Thor aren't even in production yet.

Also, Favreau has already signed on to work on Avengers in some capacity, so . . .

[FaT_tONle]

Well if he's rumored to be directing I'd imagine he'd be involved with Avengers in some capacity. But even as producer that's understandable. I am sure Branagh and Johnson may very well be involved. I am just saying Favreau might be hardpressed incorporating all these guys into one film when he basically has a year and a half to get his **** together. Which is why I thought they'd hire a guy by now that can start prep earlier while he is fresh without having the baggage of being worn out by previous solo projects.

[marcvader]

Wasn't it said somewhere that there was some kind of think tank involving all the Marvel Studios guys as well as Favreau in order to make all the crossingover work and everyone shooting in the same building in Cali therefor knowing what's going on?

[TheVileOne]

If that's the case I think people like Fat Tonie need to chill out. These movies haven't even gotten in front of the cameras yet.

This isn't a Fox/DBE situation here.

[louiebling$]

I am saying he is not going to be familiar with the teams involved with the Cap and Thor projects being that he is not attached as a producer there. Was it that unclear... or was it Vile disagreeing with Tonie for disagreeing with Tonie's sake...
But if another director was hired wouldn't that director also be unfamiliar with the characters as well? Isn't that the same as fav?

[FaT_tONle]

And we have seen what happens what multiple heads in a studio take too much of a hands on approach on a big budget tentpole before... :cwink:

I am a proponent of letting one guy who you trust and knows what he's doing to have NEAR complete creative control, and I want to see his vision unfold as opposed to tidbits of different ideas thrown into one giant mess. And Avengers certainly is not immune to that if recent history taught us anything. If it's just a studio collective effort where no one guy has definitive input of what gets put in and what gets left out then I think the film will fall short.

But if another director was hired wouldn't that director also be unfamiliar with the characters as well? Isn't that the same as fav?

Yeah but if you brought in that guy early while he is free he can take a hands on approach with the aspects of all the solo films that tie into Avengers without having to do a solo film between now and then.

[Aesop Rocks]

Favs for the story and LL for the brawls? :woot:

But yes, a few things scare me about Favs with the Avengers (though, I still think he is an excellent choice.)

A) Iron Man is his baby. By this time he'll have had two babies and may expect his third to walk, talk, and act the same. I don't want Avengers to feel like Iron Man. (Nor do I want an favoritism towards the character.) Not saying he isn't capable of making different types of films, but with Stark in the mix it may lead into some temptation to gravitate towards the style of the Iron Man films.

B) Ensemble movie. While Iron Man is an excellent movie, I feel it is excellent because of Stark, not because of the supporting characters. Does Fav's have it in him to balance several strong stories while trying to tell one bigger one?

C) Yes, action. The scenes fit for Iron Man, but they weren't anything... hard hitting or powerful. We are going to have several large and in charge superheroes against some powerful force... please for the love of God we need some masterful action scenes.

I am not saying Favs can't do it, in fact if he is announced as the director I won't be in the least bit disappointed. I'm just voicing concerns.

In the words of Tony Stark testing out the Mark 2:

"Sometime you have to run before you can walk".

[kedrell]

Wasn't it said somewhere that there was some kind of think tank involving all the Marvel Studios guys as well as Favreau in order to make all the crossingover work and everyone shooting in the same building in Cali therefor knowing what's going on?


Yes, the "brain trust" and IMO, it is a brilliant idea and the only way to go with something like this. Pixar's been doing the exact same thing with their movies for years(even though they're not all really interconnected) and it has served them well. Listen to Brad Bird's commentary on The Incredibles, he talks all about it and found it to be an extremely valuable resource. If it's good enough for Pixar with their track record of excellence, I'd say it's good enough for Marvel.

[TheVileOne]

I think it makes sense if they want to a cohesive cinematic Marvel movie-verse.

I think people are overreacting by saying they won't be able to work with others while this or that is in pre-production.

If Favreau is signed on as exec. producer of Avengers, then Favreau is already looking ahead in some form.

[Angamb]

I don't mind Favreau for the Avengers. I loved Ironman and if Ironman 2 is as good as the first one, he'll be a good director for the team movie.

At the end of the day, he started this new Marvel era, hehe, so would be nice to see him finish the process too.

[CaptainStacy]

Jackson did a great job with LOTR but a not so great job with KING KONG. So I mean, he can't be the great masterful director of everything.


Jackson's King Kong is a work of art.

Sorry there weren't more hot chicks, and explosions in it for you.

[That person]

Branagh & Johnston will be in post when this films - I'm sure they'll have some input. They'll only be a few rooms and/or floors away while this is filming its soundstage portions.
The ignorance of Edgar Wright makes me angry. Don't make me angry; you wouldn't like me when I'm angry:bh:

[SsM]

Jackson's King Kong is a work of art.

Sorry there weren't more hot chicks, and explosions in it for you.

There were hot chicks and explosions in LOTR???

[Spider-Vader]

I'm sure the focus won't be on Stark. I remember hearing that Favreau liked Hulk as a kid more than Iron Man.

[Wiseman]

There were hot chicks and explosions in LOTR???

Orlando Bloom was the hot blonde. I don't remember explosions though

[greenlantern248]

I think Favreau will do great for the Avengers.

I have to comment on the Jackson, Cameron, and Speilberg issue with them being always brought up with superhero films.
Those three are great directors, and really who wouldn't want to see a Peter Jackson's Thor, or Speilberg directing Captain America.
Anyways back on topic

I think what would work is if (and they probably will) Marvel hires the directors of Thor, Cap, TIH and IM ( I know Fav is already signed) as producers to the Avengers so that way who ever the director is can have their imput on the way they did their character.

[CaptainStacy]

There were hot chicks and explosions in LOTR???

I have no idea what the **** you're even asking me.

[Kent]

I have no idea what the **** you're even asking me.

I think he's pointing out the fact that TheVileOne seemed content with the LOTR-flicks even though they were not jammed full with "hot chicks and explosions", thus showing why your assumption that TVO didn't like King Kong due to the absence of said "hot chicks and explosions" seems to be wrong.

[TheVileOne]

It was a ridiculous thing for CaptainStacy to say.

For one thing, LOTR only had one explosion as I recall in Two Towers. I don't remember any other explosions.

And the only really hot chick was Liv Tyler. Besides that the movies were a total sausagefest. So not so well played Cap'n.

[CaptainStacy]

:facepalm

[TheVileOne]

Sorry, don't give me the explosions hot chick ******** with King Kong. I don't think King Kong was terrible. I liked it, I just think it should've remained a movie Jackson was just really passionate about.

[mclay18]

I have to comment on the Jackson, Cameron, and Speilberg issue with them being always brought up with superhero films.
Those three are great directors, and really who wouldn't want to see a Peter Jackson's Thor, or Speilberg directing Captain America.


And their asking price is expensive: for Jackson and Spielberg, they get a huge asking fee and then get 30% of the final profits regardless how well the movie does or fail. That was the main problem of them getting Tin Tin in production, because neither of them refused to lower their upfront cost or renegotiate their backend percentage. (I'm positive Cameron has a similar deal on Avatar.) I'm sure Marvel would love to have someone like Spielberg on board directing one of their tentpole franchises, but the pay (among other things) is out of their range.

With new directors like Favreau and Nolan -- their asking price is practically a bargain compared to the Beard's pay, at least when they first start out on movies like these. (Although I'm sure their asking fee shot up significantly with the success of Iron Man and The Dark Knight respectively.)

[TheVileOne]

Well probably not Nolan at this point. But I imagine that's one reason they went with Leterrier for Incredible Hulk.

[FlawlessVictory]

EXCLUSIVE: Jon Favreau Won't Direct 'Avengers,' Explains 'Iron Man 2' Tie-In Process (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/10/14/exclusive-jon-favreau-wont-direct-avengers-explains-iron-man-2-tie-in-process/)

Posted 1 hr ago by Rick Marshall (http://splashpage.mtv.com/author/rickmarshall/) in Hot Stuff (http://splashpage.mtv.com/category/hot-stuff/), Marvel (http://splashpage.mtv.com/category/marvel/), News (http://splashpage.mtv.com/category/news/), Video (http://splashpage.mtv.com/category/video/)

When MTV News caught up with "Iron Man 2 (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/iron-man-2)" director Jon Favreau (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/jon-favreau) on the set of "Couples Retreat (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?name=movies&id=1623125)," we were determined to get the filmmaker's take on how his much-anticipated sequel would connect with "The Avengers (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/the-avengers)"—even if it took a bumpy ride in a golf cart to make the conversation happen.

Along with confirming that "Incredible Hulk" star Edward Norton won't be appearing in "Iron Man 2" (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/09/28/exclusive-edward-norton-says-potential-return-to-hulk-role-is-purely-a-function-of-time/) and that Favreau won't be directing "The Avengers," the filmmaker shared some thoughts on his approach to making the Marvel movies all tie together.

"We want to reinforce a lot of the stuff we started to tip off," Favreau told MTV News. "'The Avengers' is a much larger concern for Marvel and Kevin Feige, who runs Marvel. They're going to be doing 'Thor' and 'Captain America,' and the way we might start to tease those things in this movie, some of it is stuff that we've discussed [and] some of the stuff you do last-minute as you figure out how that stuff is coming together."

"It's an evolving, amorphous thing," he explained. "If we decide and commit too early, the secret always gets out."

Case in point: the post-credits cameo by Sam Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. chief Nick Fury at the end of "Iron Man." Favreau and the studio went so far to keep the scene a secret that it was even left out of early screenings of the film for press. However, the secret still managed ot get out well before the film premiered.

"As soon as we shot the Nick Fury thing—we had a closed set and nobody was supposed to know about it—a week later somehow it was all over the internet," said Favreau. "It's a little bit of a cat-and-mouse game."

As far as his more direct involvement in "The Avengers" goes, Favreau flat-out denied rumors that he'd direct the superhero team-up extravaganza.

"They'll have to [find a different director], because I'm not going to be available," he explained. "It's something I'm being the executive producer on, so I'll definitely have input and a say."

"It's going to be hard, because I was so involved in creating the world of Iron Man and Iron Man is very much a tech-based hero, and then with 'Avengers' you're going to be introducing some supernatural aspects because of Thor," he continued. "How you mix the two of those works very well in the comic books, but it's going to take a lot of thoughtfulness to make that all work and not blow the reality that we've created."

Favreau also confessed that his focus on a single member of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" might not be the best fit for the team-up film.

"That's why it's good that you have the guys from Marvel like Kevin Feige, who knows the books well and has been involved with the making of all the movies, and he'll be very involved with 'Thor' and 'Cap,'" said Favreau. "You need somebody who has the perspective of all the different franchises to bring them together. I have the myopic vision of just knowing and loving Iron Man."

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/10/14/exclusive-jon-favreau-wont-direct-avengers-explains-iron-man-2-tie-in-process/

[WillardNation]

Well it sucks that he's not gonna direct....

"It's something I'm being the executive producer on, so I'll definitely have input and a say."

but that part still makes me happy.

[DocHoliday]

He probably won't but...if they did this from the set of "Couples Retreat" it might have been before Avengers was bumped. Either way he is directing "cowboys Vs Aliens" so it seems unlikely.

[FlawlessVictory]

This wasn't from the set of "Couples Retreat". It was from a junket for the movie done only a few weeks ago. That's what it says on the MTV site now at least. Strange. Earlier it said, from the set, as how it is quoted in my post, now when you follow the link it reads:

When MTV News caught up with "Iron Man 2 (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/iron-man-2)" director Jon Favreau (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/jon-favreau) at the "Couples Retreat (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?name=movies&id=1623125)" junket a few weeks ago in Bora Bora, we were determined to get the filmmaker's take on how his much-anticipated sequel would connect with "The Avengers (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/the-avengers)"—even if it took a bumpy ride in a golf cart to make the conversation happen.

[Webhead2006]

yea i was just reading the news earlier, though he is due to do a few films now that is likely the reason he doesnt have the time to fully commit to the film. Though who knows between now and when avengers is to go into production he could change his mind. Though another idea would be if joe/kevin/jon/louis co directed avengers all together.

[FaT_tONle]

Good news... outside the Norton debunking. Guess that whole situation will be up in the air for another six months or so. But at least it frees Jon up for IM3, which he can start prepping soon after Cowboys vs Aliens. Wonder who Marvel will brings in now? Better not be Rob Cohen or Stephen Sommers or some clown like that or I'll be pissed. Maybe Wolfgang Peterson, but that's like the bare minimum, unless it's a relative unknown whom we necessarily don't know a lot about but has ability, which is still risky to say the least.

[Chewy]

If Clash of the Titans turns out good I think we'll see Leterrier end up in that chair. He's a good director, he's already involved with and interested in the material, and he apparently had good working relationships with Marvel and Norton.

[FaT_tONle]

I don't trust LL with Avengers. I mean I guess his "director's cut" of TIH may have been a lot better than what we got, but it was rather underwhelming from a character standpoint. I even thought the action would be a lot better but it did not live up to my extremely high expectations. If COTT is decent then maybe, and it's a safe choice, but maybe too safe.

[The Guard]

If he was ever attached to direct, then I will have lost some respect for Favreau. Why the hell would you even become involved in the project if you don't think you can combine these characters together? I'm hoping he's not just trying to distance himself creatively from the project because of the script or something.

[TheVileOne]

I'm sort of disappointed but I understand how Favreau feels. I think its good to know your limits and not stretch yourself too thin. I'm glad we got Favreau back for Iron Man 2, and I hope he would continue on to maybe do a third Iron Man or at least still play Hogan if he would appear in Avengers.

I've lost some respect for Favreau. Why the hell would you even become involved in the project if you don't think you can combine these characters together? I'm hoping he's not just trying to distance himself creatively from the project because of the script or something.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Its almost like you believe directors and filmmakers haven't only served as executive producers on these types of films before.

Favreau has done nothing to lose any respect at all.

[dcHulk]

I don't trust LL with Avengers. I mean I guess his "director's cut" of TIH may have been a lot better than what we got, but it was rather underwhelming from a character standpoint. I even thought the action would be a lot better but it did not live up to my extremely high expectations. If COTT is decent then maybe, and it's a safe choice, but maybe too safe.

As you seem to allude, the apparent lack of character development in TIH was not LL's fault, it was Marvel's. They forced a shorter running time against the advisement of LL and Norton. Because of this, Samson's character was reduced to nothing and Ross's character was slighted, just as examples. As for the action, I don't believe LL was given the green light to do everything he wanted. Yet I still enjoyed every aspect of the action in TIH. When LL brought concepts to Marvel's table before the cameras started rolling, it was said that nothing like it was seen on film before.

That being said, I don't think I would give the job to LL, nor to Favs. All directors of the single films should have creative input; but leave Avengers for a fresh director with a fresh take to combine all characters. Else one character may emerge the dominate, similar to X-men where Wolverine arguably became the focus.

[TheVileOne]

What about Kevin Feige?

David Hayter :D .

[Webhead2006]

personally i did like TIH sure some characters like ross/samson did get the shaft which sucked a bit. But it did like it more then ang lee's Hulk. Hopefully we get a solid director for avengers or maybe they could do co directing between some of the directors who have been on the marvel studios films. I am sre they will pick a wise choice for avengers. I doubt they would pull a ratner here.

[The Guard]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Its almost like you believe directors and filmmakers haven't only served as executive producers on these types of films before.

Favreau has done nothing to lose any respect at all.

Depends. IRON MAN was a good movie, but not a great one. The actors and effects made it what it was, and Favreau served as a capable director. But half my respect for him comes in the fact that he's able to make some pretty out there concepts gel. If he suddenly gets cold feet when combining THOR with IRON MAN after doing stuff like JUMANJI IN SPACE, I do wonder just how capable he is at that.

It was my understanding that he was to direct. He's been talking this film up for several years now. And suddenly "Oh, I don't know...might be too hard to make work". Yeah, not filling me with confidence. I've heard this twice now. From the producer, and from the writer. "It might be too hard to get right" and all that.

[TheVileOne]

Depends. IRON MAN was a good movie, but not a great one. The actors and effects made it what it was, and Favreau served as a capable director. But half my respect for him comes in the fact that he's able to make some pretty out there concepts gel. If he suddenly gets cold feet when combining THOR with IRON MAN after doing stuff like JUMANJI IN SPACE, I do wonder just how capable he is at that.

You do realize he's also doing a Western sci-fi movie right? You aren't giving Favreau enough credit since its clear that he took a major role in the shaping of that story and Tony Stark's character in the movie, his dialogue, and everything else as well. He said he simply worked hard to set up a realistic very tech based world for Iron Man, and I get that he sort of feels that he's probably not the one to gel the concept of the world of Iron Man to the other characters. But he's serving in a capacity because he did help create the world of Iron Man on film so he will help in some way in the Iron Man concepts in an Avengers movie.

It was my understanding that he was to direct. He's been talking this film up for several years now. And suddenly "Oh, I don't know...might be too hard to make work". Yeah, not filling me with confidence. I've heard this twice now. From the producer, and from the writer. "It might be too hard to get right" and all that.

I don't see the big deal. He signed a deal where he would be involved in some capacity. He's done a lot of the brand, I see no reason to doubt him yet. He didn't sign any deal to direct Avengers, he never said definitively he would direct it.

[rashad]

As you seem to allude, the apparent lack of character development in TIH was not LL's fault, it was Marvel's. They forced a shorter running time against the advisement of LL and Norton. Because of this, Samson's character was reduced to nothing and Ross's character was slighted, just as examples. As for the action, I don't believe LL was given the green light to do everything he wanted. Yet I still enjoyed every aspect of the action in TIH. When LL brought concepts to Marvel's table before the cameras started rolling, it was said that nothing like it was seen on film before.

That being said, I don't think I would give the job to LL, nor to Favs. All directors of the single films should have creative input; but leave Avengers for a fresh director with a fresh take to combine all characters. Else one character may emerge the dominate, similar to X-men where Wolverine arguably became the focus.

Iron Man will have 2 films by the time the other characters have one. Most of the general public would probably see The Avengers as an 'Iron Man' film unintentionally.

[Webhead2006]

totally and from now and when avengers would be shooting in 2011 who knows maybe things will be different come im2 release and how long it takes to do that western scifi film and all that.

[Zatara]

yea i was just reading the news earlier, though he is due to do a few films now that is likely the reason he doesnt have the time to fully commit to the film. Though who knows between now and when avengers is to go into production he could change his mind. Though another idea would be if joe/kevin/jon/louis co directed avengers all together.

personally i did like TIH sure some characters like ross/samson did get the shaft which sucked a bit. But it did like it more then ang lee's Hulk. Hopefully we get a solid director for avengers or maybe they could do co directing between some of the directors who have been on the marvel studios films. I am sre they will pick a wise choice for avengers. I doubt they would pull a ratner here.

Too many cooks...

[rashad]

There should never be more than one director on any given film. Epic Fail waiting to happen.

[FaT_tONle]

I hope Avengers doesn't become an Iron Man show. And I don't think box office will affect the story in any way since they need to be filming spring 2011 as it is... barring delays. It's just going to come down to how confident Marvel is with Thor and how they think his solo movie will be received. If they aren't confident then I expect these other characters to take a back seat to Stark on top of shedding some of the more fantastical aspects from the movie. But all Marvel can do is try to make a successful movie. My only suggestion if market the hell out of the DVD's and make people see both Cap/Thor to build that hype up. Otherwise the movie probably won't make much more than an Iron Man movie.

[TheVileOne]

You don't need multiple directors. You need one guy with enough energy and vision to get it to grasp all these concepts and gel them and present them in a feasible way. Easier said than done, but this isn't an episodic movie. Its one big gigantic movie, not FOUR ROOMS.

[Gamma Goliath]

The question is who will direct.

[TheVileOne]

Hopefully not Brett Ratner or Michael Bay.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hopefully not Brett Ratner or Michael Bay.:awesome:

[Carlo Comicus]

http://screenrant.com/the-avengers-director-picks-kofi-30671/

[TheVileOne]

I'm not sure who wrote the article, but its kind of ******** to me.

An Avengers movie needs a love triangle with Thor, Thor's girlfriend, and Pepper Potts? Ex-squeeze me? WTF.

That was a message board post, not an article.

[Katsuro]

There should never be more than one director on any given film. Epic Fail waiting to happen.

Also, I'm pretty sure co-directing a film will get you kicked off the Director's Guild, unless you're an established team, like the Coen brothers or something. It happened to Rodriguez when he gave Miller credit for Sin City.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Ridley Scott for Avengers makes the most sense to me.

He can handle that epic scale, has ensembles in his movies well, is great at telling stories visually.

He would be PERFECT for Avengers.

[FaT_tONle]

Also, I'm pretty sure co-directing a film will get you kicked off the Director's Guild, unless you're an established team, like the Coen brothers or something. It happened to Rodriguez when he gave Miller credit for Sin City.

Tough crowd... Spielberg/Jackson (Tin Tin) get a pass I guess.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah when's this Tintin movie coming out?

Guys, get Ridley Scott, Spielberg, and Jackson out of your heads. They along with James Cameron will never do this movie.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I don't see why not.

Who would of thought a guy like Chris Nolan would do a Batman movie?

[TheVileOne]

Because Nolan before that time was basically a low budget indie filmmaker.

Once again, whenever these movies are getting made, fanboys wish their favorite pet directors get to do it and its always someone like Spielberg, Cameron, Peter Jackson, etc.

They are busy and they aren't going to do it.

Spielberg shouldn't be let near these movies anyway. War of The Worlds and Indy 4 were bad enough.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea I understand what you are saying.

But I didn't say Ridley Scott because he's my favourite pet director. I said him because I think a film like this is right up his alley.

And wasn't he spotted meeting with Feige at the start of the year or something? With comic book films getting taken more seriously these days, it wouldn't surprise me if these so called "higher brow" directors or actors start getting involved.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Tough crowd... Spielberg/Jackson (Tin Tin) get a pass I guess.
It looks like it will be like this:
Tin Tin 1: Spielberg director, Spielberg/Jackson producers. Tin Tin 2: Jackson director, Spielberg/Jackson producers