Joss Whedon leading on "Avengers" short list of directors [Archive]

craigdbfan

04-01-2010, 02:50 AM

IESB Exclusive: Leading Contender in Line to Direct THE AVENGERS... !!!NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE!!! (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8898:iesb-exclusive-leading-contender-in-line-to-direct-the-avengers-not-an-april-fools-joke&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73)

http://www.iesb.net/images/stories/avengers_alex_ross_01.jpg

Yes, we know, April Fools Day jokes are going up faster than Jesse James can Heil Hitler, but we've got some real news to throw into the mix, so THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOLS DAY JOKE, real news!!
THE AVENGERS will be the culmination of everything Marvel Entertainment has been working towards, bringing together their biggest and brightest superheroes on the big screen including Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and Hulk.

Director Louis Leterrier has thrown his hat into the ring as wanting to bring Earth's mightiest heroes together under one tentpole but we are hearing it will not be his cross to bear. Leterrier mentioned a short list of directors recently that Marvel was looking at, he didn't know who else was on the list but IESB has found out one other member.

The same sources that spilled the beans to IESB about Spider-Man 4 being put on an indefinite hold back in December, have revealed that another leading contender on that short list to direct THE AVENGERSfilm is none other than Joss Whedon.

Whedon, who was previously writing and directing WB's long gestating Wonder Woman film, has a history with the Marvel brand as a comic book writer. His run of the Astonishing X-Men was one of Marvel's best selling lines and was nominated for several Eisner Awards. He was also the second writer on the Runaways line for Marvel and wrote short stories for Stan Lee Meets Spider-Man.

Whedon is currently working on Cabin in the Woods on which he is writing and producing starring Thor himself Chris Hemsworth directed by Cloverfield writer Drew Goddard.

Zak Penn is writing THE AVENGERS screenplay.

We will be calling Whedon's and studio reps for confirmation/denial/no comment in the morning. Take it as a rumor for now until further confirmation.

I can't believe Joss Whedon was unable to get into our San Diego Comic-Con party The Wrath of Con last year, the fire marshall shut down the line! Please don't hold it against us! I mean, who really cares if the roof would have caved with more guests.

THE AVENGERS has a scheduled release date of May 4, 2012.

ImWithTeamConan

04-01-2010, 03:22 AM

If this is an April Fools Joke I will not be pleased because Whedon would be AMAZING.

dsfjr1190

04-01-2010, 03:55 AM

I'm not taking any news seriously today. At all.

I'll wait for April 2nd to come around before I even consider the possibility of this being true.

[A]

04-01-2010, 04:01 AM

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really hope this is an april fools joke--whatever it's called. I really do.

Ace of Knaves

04-01-2010, 04:08 AM

Agreed [A]

Whedon is overrated. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is shoite. And i don't know why Serenity is a cult favourite. Thought that was crap too.

Silvermoth

04-01-2010, 05:27 AM

I smell bull***t.

Shame though, it would certainly be interesting. Not my first choice but better than Leterrier. I really do think "The Avengers" should have it's own distinct flavour compared to the origin films.

mclay18

04-01-2010, 09:15 AM

If this is an April Fools Joke I will not be pleased because Whedon would be AMAZING.

Same. I'll wait until tomorrow to see if it's a joke or not.

If it isn't, then Marvel is onto something really good. Whedon knows how to direct action and maintain a huge cast writing-wise. The thing is, will he do it after the drama he went through on WW? And would he want to?

Whedon is overrated. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is shoite. And i don't know why Serenity is a cult favourite. Thought that was crap too.

Buffy the movie is absolute crap, but I loved the show. Angel had its moments. Firefly and Dollhouse are about as far removed from Buffy and Angel as you can get. I couldn't get into Dollhouse though, it's the only Whedon show that hasn't clicked for me.

Please actually see Whedon's shows (and Firefly in context of "Serenity") before you say "overrated." It makes you look ignorant and stupid.

Ace of Knaves

04-01-2010, 09:17 AM

I have seen Whedon's shows... otherwise i wouldn't say anything about them. I think they are crap.

Deaths Head II

04-01-2010, 09:38 AM

I would love to have Whedon work on the Avengers film. I think Astonishing X-Men and Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog are both amazing.

I hope he gets picked and writes a new Zak Penn-less script.

FaT_tONle

04-01-2010, 10:09 AM

Maybe he just needs a budget to work with. I was never into his TV shows but the same goes for most TV shows personally. It's not like Marvel is giving whoever they bring in 100% creative control, so maybe he is the perfect guy that can balance all the egos out.

Iron_Stark

04-01-2010, 11:46 AM

I hope this is an April Fools joke.

I wouldn't want Wasp and Black Widow to end up saving the day.

DocHoliday

04-01-2010, 12:30 PM

If he was just writing it, I could deal. Not sure about him directing though. I should do Runaways. That would be right up his alley. I like his previous work (sans Dollhouse) but I am not sure if he has the directing pedigree to take on Avengers.

TheVileOne

04-01-2010, 04:50 PM

Whedon can't handle a project of this magnitude.

And honestly, I don't believe the studio will get behind him. Look what happened with Wonder Woman. This is a movie that's going to be probably over $200 million and supposed to be huge.

The other thing is, Whedon is just more or less a cult favorite. He doesn't have any legit clout going into this.

ImWithTeamConan

04-01-2010, 06:04 PM

I think this is a Marvel type of choice. Marvel has never gone the obvious route when picking directors. Favreau for Iron Man? Branagh for Thor?

But they always made sense. This makes sense to me. Whedon has connections to the company, he's adept at juggling groups of characters, he knows how to pull your heart strings (and if he ever had a good budget I believe he'd pull off great action too, he did in Astonishing X-Men), and he'll give us a different angle on these characters.

Without knowing who else is on that short list, Whedon is my pick. I love Serenity/Firefly, hate Buffy, love Angel. That's where I'm coming from.

Deaths Head II

04-01-2010, 06:05 PM

And honestly, I don't believe the studio will get behind him. Look what happened with Wonder Woman.

If Whedon is indeed on the list, then I'm pretty sure Marvel Studios is obviously willing to get behind him.

At least if Whedon was to direct, that would mean he would probably be involved with the script. We would be almost guaranteed to have great character interaction and moments. I don't know if he can handle directing such a big project, but every director has starts somewhere. Marvel Studios has yet to hire a Stephen Spielberg or Peter Jackson and I doubt they're going to break that pattern with Avengers.

Besides, the story is the most important thing for me so I'll probably be fine if Whedon doesn't completely blow my mind with his skill at directing a summer action film. People complain about the action in Iron Man and the Nolan Batman films and those are my favorite super hero films. Character interaction and development is what I care about most. I'd rather have a Whedon film then some other director who can make big explosions but uses Zak Penn's script.

Jake Cassidy

04-01-2010, 06:07 PM

I have seen Whedon's shows... otherwise i wouldn't say anything about them. I think they are crap.

So you didn't like Buffy but you watched Angel, which was made by the exact same people. Than you watched Firefly, which is understandable since it's different from Buffy/Angel. Didn't like it, but still saw Serenity. That doesn't make much sense. :woot:

Silvermoth

04-01-2010, 06:14 PM

I wouldn't want Wasp and Black Widow to end up saving the day.

Why not?

TheVileOne

04-01-2010, 06:16 PM

I think this is a Marvel type of choice. Marvel has never gone the obvious route when picking directors. Favreau for Iron Man? Branagh for Thor?

All those guys had more credentials, experience, and chops at handling bigger movies than Whedon currently does.

But they always made sense. This makes sense to me. Whedon has connections to the company, he's adept at juggling groups of characters, he knows how to pull your heart strings (and if he ever had a good budget I believe he'd pull off great action too, he did in Astonishing X-Men), and he'll give us a different angle on these characters.

Is he really though? He did a long-running cult TV series. And he did a short-lived one and a movie based on it that didn't make any money. Can he really handle doing Avengers?

People claimed because of the familial aspects of Barbershop that Tim Story could do Fantastic Four.

Also, his run on Astonishing X-men is overrated.

ImWithTeamConan

04-01-2010, 06:39 PM

Yeah but Tim Story came from straight comedies with no hint of action. And to be honest, I don't know how much of Fantastic Four is Story's fault and how much is Fox.

People don't dig Whedon's work, I can understand that. But I think his sensibilities work for a movie like this, and I can honestly see Marvel being interested in him. Avengers needs to be a home run, not a single. I really believe Whedon could knock it out of the park.

TheVileOne

04-01-2010, 06:44 PM

What sensibilities?

bunk

04-01-2010, 06:47 PM

It might not be bad if Whedon was doing some work on the script. He hasn't really progressed much as a director though.

flickchick85

04-01-2010, 08:18 PM

Actually, I prefer Joss The Director over Joss The Writer. I mean, I like him as a writer most of the time, but his dialogue does often grate on me (even though his long-term plotting and character arcs were amazing). That said, in everything I've ever seen that he directed, the direction in particular was glorious. I'm talking everything from the classic Buffy episodes he did (particularly "Hush," "Restless," "The Body," and "Once More, With Feeling") to Dr. Horrible to Serenity. Even if you've never liked his writing style, you'd be hard-pressed to deny that the guy has shown some seriously impressive directorial flair over the years.

If this isn't an April Fools joke, I consider it a great possibility.

And random tidbit: Chris Hemsworth is one of the stars of Whedon's latest film (as a writer/producer).

bosef982

04-01-2010, 09:31 PM

All those guys had more credentials, experience, and chops at handling bigger movies than Whedon currently does.

Is he really though? He did a long-running cult TV series. And he did a short-lived one and a movie based on it that didn't make any money. Can he really handle doing Avengers?

People claimed because of the familial aspects of Barbershop that Tim Story could do Fantastic Four.

Also, his run on Astonishing X-men is overrated.

If you're not a fan of Astonishing, you're not going to like him as a pick.

However, for most, Whedon's Astonishing run is one of the high points of the past two decades of X-Men stories, and showcases his inexplicably amazing ability to synchornize characters with great drama and great moments.

While the choice of screenwriter bothers me, Whedon's got my vote.

bosef982

04-01-2010, 09:32 PM

I hope this is an April Fools joke.

I wouldn't want Wasp and Black Widow to end up saving the day.

Wow, that's only just a little really sexist.

Saint

04-01-2010, 09:50 PM

I'd prefer him on X-Men by a wide margin, but I'll take what I can get (If this isn't a prank, anyway). The news would be better if it also specified that he's giving Penn the boot and writing his own script.

Strange to see so much Whedon-hate. Joss is the boss. That said, I'd be more comfortable if he had already done some Avengers work. My confidence in Joss Whedon is near total, but I'm also aware that sometimes great writers don't always click with certain properties--for example, Brubaker (who is a God among men) just didn't fit with X-Men too well. I think Joss Whedon is a perfect fit for a lot of stuff, but I never considered him for the Avengers--so even with all my (completely heterosexual!) Whedon-love, there is some uncertainty there.

Regardless, better him than Louis Leterrier.

bunk

04-01-2010, 09:54 PM

Yes, he would be better than Leterrier.

flickchick85

04-01-2010, 10:11 PM

Regardless, better him than Louis Leterrier.
SO agreed. Leterrier can do fine with action, but he's s*** with actors and the other stuff that truly matters. Also, while I realize it's not entirely his fault, I hate the CGI in his films, too. TIH and Titans both have this video game look that I hate. Serenity had a fraction of the Titans budget, but the photography/fx were much more vibrant and alive.

mclay18

04-01-2010, 10:12 PM

Strange to see so much Whedon-hate. Joss is the boss.

Here, here. Whedon's also had experience dealing with green-screen elements and CGI-intensive sequences with his experience on "Firefly" and Serenity. And he's a director who likes to work on a budget and get it done on time. Along with his track record, that's something Marvel will like a lot (considering that the budget is going to be around $200M at the minimum, with the CGI and stars involved).

If you guys still don't like him, then don't rain on the parade if he is chosen to helm The Avengers. Complain after you see the movie, not before.

Deaths Head II

04-01-2010, 10:36 PM

Strange to see so much Whedon-hate. Joss is the boss.

I don't get it either. I haven't watched all of Whedon's stuff but I love what I've seen. Astonishing X-Men is what got me back into reading X-Men again and I consider it to definitely be one of the best X-Men runs of all time.

I agree that you can't really tell how well Whedon will mesh with the Avengers. I didn't like Brubaker's X-men run either.

And yeah, he is better then LL. The only reason I would want LL back is if he got Norton to rewriter Penn's script again. But if Whedon is picked he'll probably write his own script or make some rewrites at the very least.

Saint

04-01-2010, 10:37 PM

Yes, he would be better than Leterrier.

Bunk, I perceive a deep void where enthusiasm should be, haha.

flickchick85

04-01-2010, 10:45 PM

I wonder if his feelings on The Avengers have changed in the last 5 years, though. I wouldn't want anyone doing this who wasn't thrilled with the project, and last we heard, he wasn't.

So even if he really is near the top of the wish list, there's a strong chance he won't be interested.

Saint

04-01-2010, 10:52 PM

I wonder if his feelings on The Avengers have changed in the last 5 years, though. I wouldn't want anyone doing this who wasn't thrilled with the project, and last we heard, he wasn't.

Agreed.

Iron_Stark

04-01-2010, 11:12 PM

Why not?

Because this movie is about the Big 3, Hulk and Nick Fury.

Wow, that's only just a little really sexist.

No it's not.

I don't want RDJ, Hemsworth, Norton and Evans take a back seat role to Wheadon's girl power.

Deaths Head II

04-01-2010, 11:20 PM

Because this movie is about the Big 3, Hulk and Nick Fury.

So it's only about the male characters. Gotcha.

Astonishing X-Men gave one of the most badass interpretations of the male X-Men I've ever seen (aside from Wolverine, but thats because Whedon was willing to have some fun with him unlike most modern writers). Whedon's take on Cyclops is my favorite of all time. Why people act like Whedon making a strong female character automatically makes her overshadow every other character is beyond me. Especially seeing how female characters are usually treated in super hero stories.

mclay18

04-01-2010, 11:38 PM

So even if he really is near the top of the wish list, there's a strong chance he won't be interested.

He might change his mind if Marvel gives him enough creative control, and who wouldn't want to pass up the opportunity to work with RDJ, Norton, Evans and Hemsworth? Hell, if I was Whedon and if Marvel offered me the gig to do this, I'd jump on it pronto.

And the payday and recognition Whedon would get for the project would really allow him to see his pet projects move to completion. And if Whedon does get the gig, I'd almost bet money that he'll cast a few of his collaborators (aka actors) alongside the mainstays. Amy Acker and Nathan Fillion, anyone?

mclay18

04-01-2010, 11:43 PM

I don't want RDJ, Hemsworth, Norton and Evans take a back seat role to Wheadon's girl power.

Who said Whedon's works were exclusively "Girl Power"? Joss is a feminist and he writes solid female characters, but two of his shows ("Firefly" and "Angel") were led by a mostly male cast, albeit women played a key role in both of them. He can certainly write a male-centric Avengers, he has it in him.

ImWithTeamConan

04-02-2010, 12:19 AM

If Joss were to sign on as only director and not have access to major script rewrites then a lot my fears would be relieved (too much comedy, females taking the charge over the males).

Deaths Head II

04-02-2010, 12:21 AM

You'd seriously rather have Zak Penn's script be mostly untouched?

Plus I doubt Whedon would like to direct something he didn't write. Especially something from that hack Zak Penn.

flickchick85

04-02-2010, 12:33 AM

You'd seriously rather have Zak Penn's script be mostly untouched?

Plus I doubt Whedon would like to direct something he didn't write. Especially something from that hack Zak Penn.
Haha, I was about to respond with the same thing. As I said earlier, Whedon's dialogue grates on me sometimes, but at least it's creative, and he's about 10x the writer that Zak Penn is. I'd feel much better if Whedon did get a revision to Penn's screenplay to be honest, because Penn is my single worst fear about this movie. Whedon wouldn't turn it into a comedy for crying out loud, and he wouldn't make Black Widow or Wasp the main characters. That's just ridiculous.

But to be clear, I'd feel better with ANYONE revising Penn's script. I shudder at the prospect of it going untouched.

Jake Cassidy

04-02-2010, 12:45 AM

And if Whedon does get the gig, I'd almost bet money that he'll cast a few of his collaborators (aka actors) alongside the mainstays. Amy Acker and Nathan Fillion, anyone?

Wasp and Hawkeye. :woot:

Jake Cassidy

04-02-2010, 12:46 AM

SO agreed. Leterrier can do fine with action, but he's s*** with actors and the other stuff that truly matters. Also, while I realize it's not entirely his fault, I hate the CGI in his films, too. TIH and Titans both have this video game look that I hate. Serenity had a fraction of the Titans budget, but the photography/fx were much more vibrant and alive.

Serenity is awesome. :yay:

marvelrobbins

04-02-2010, 12:47 AM

As a huge fan of Buffy/Angel,Firefly/Serenity,and Dollhouse I like this Idea.
Remember the Cure storyline from X-Men the Last stand was taken from his
work on The astonshing X-Men.And remember his shows were really
ensemble shows.He Is used to working with several Characters.Him doing It
increases the chance of Wasp and Ant-Man being used.And may I suggest
the possabilty of Amy Acker as The Wasp.

Saint

04-02-2010, 12:48 AM

Double post.

Saint

04-02-2010, 12:49 AM

Haha, this "Whedon will make it all about the girls" junk is hilarious. All Whedon has ever done is give his female characters the level of attention male characters get everywhere.

Really, what an absurd complaint. I mean, you know that Angel was about a dude, right? And the main character in Serenity was a dude? Whedon writes prominent male characters as easily as female ones. Hell, he picked up Astonishing X-Men and made Cyclops the coolest guy on the team. The book could have been titled "Cyclops: The Path to Awesomeness."

What's more, would some prominent female characters really kill us? I'm not talking about the role of the women eclipsing the men, but the role of women in comic book movies is, in fact, ridiculously sad. I get a headache whenever the female lead in a film is described as a "Love interest," and this is pretty much the situation for all female characters in all comic book movies, everywhere. "Love interest" doesn't describe a character, it describes a plot device, and the way these characters are used is often creatively bankrupt. It's not a weakness that Whedon can write women who are actually worth watching.

Deaths Head II

04-02-2010, 12:57 AM

Plus, it looks like the Avengers will probably only have one female main character. And now some people are demanding she takes a back seat to everyone, even Nick Fury (who isn't even an actual member of the team).

flickchick85

04-02-2010, 12:58 AM

marvelrobbins

04-02-2010, 01:11 AM

Joss on the project most likely means he would do some work on the script.
His work on Angel and FIrefly/Serenity shows he can do male characters.
Plus Buffy was always like a Comic Book more than many TV Shows based on
comics.Plus If this would mean nathan Fillion could end up In a part that
would be great.If Warner Brothers would have supported him and not Joel Silver Wonder Woman probally would have gotten made by now Instead after he left nothing has happened.Plus Even If Black Widow Is the only major
female Character In the film with him Involved she would have a decent part.

Silvermoth

04-02-2010, 04:19 AM

If Joss were to sign on as only director and not have access to major script rewrites then a lot my fears would be relieved (too much comedy, females taking the charge over the males).

Ah...you're not for real right? You're having a laugh. Either that or you're actually from the 1920s.

djkris

04-02-2010, 08:47 AM

I like this possibility. If anything, Whedon has proved that he can have believable characters doing unbelievable things, all while having great interactions with each other.

david icke

04-02-2010, 10:30 AM

What sensibilities?

The guy created and oversaw the first ongoing live action superhero(yes, buffy is a superhero show) tv show that is as good as any ongoing comicbook series has ever been. Up until that point all we had was cheesey crap like Lois and Clark and Batman, or non-ongoing stuff like the Incredible hulk that had very little in the way of fantasy/cb elements.

Buffy and Angel are both awesome superhero shows, as good as any comicbook. I would to see what this guy could do with a big budget superhero movie.
He could take a pass at the script as well, they allowed Ed Norton to re-write Zac Penn's Hulk script, so why wouldn't they let Whedon re-write his Avengers to his liking?

I did not like the tv show Firelfy much, I thought it had a couple of good episodes, but the movie was better I thought. It proved he can handle directing a movie. This would be a step up. He should be given the chance to do a big budget superhero flick like this, it would be a safe gamble I think. A safer gamble then giving Thor to Branagh, considering the state of his terrible attempt at fantasy/sci-fi filmaking with MS's Frankenstein.

Doctor Jones

04-02-2010, 11:22 AM

Eh..... all I can say is better than LL.

WillardNation

04-02-2010, 12:17 PM

*subscribes*

bunk

04-02-2010, 06:55 PM

Bunk, I perceive a deep void where enthusiasm should be, haha.

Ha, probably. I'm really just not that familar; I haven't seen a single episode of Buffy. Serenity is actually a very well made movie though, especially given the budget, and fact that it has to be accessible to people who know the universe, as well as those that do not. I would not take these things for granted…as some apparently do. I'm still trying to figure out how Wonder Woman falling apart is somehow evidence Whedon should not be involved.

FilmNerdJamie

04-02-2010, 08:22 PM

IESB Scoop Confirmed: Joss Whedon On Short-List To Direct The Avengers! (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8912:iesb-scoop-confirmed-joss-whedon-on-short-list-to-direct-the-avengers&catid=41:news&Itemid=71)

louiebling$

04-02-2010, 08:46 PM

Whedon doesn't excite me

Son of Coul

04-02-2010, 09:05 PM

Haven't really seen his stuff, so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem his style suits Avengers. But if Marvel's interested, I am too.

Project862006

04-02-2010, 09:20 PM

i loved Serenity a very unappreciated movie imo

flickchick85

04-02-2010, 09:49 PM

The UK Paper The Guardian published a piece on why they think Whedon would be a good choice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/01/comic-film-adaptations-joss-whedon

Though I have to say, I think they left off the best argument in his favor: his strength with ensembles. The guy works miracles in that department - the ensembles in his shows were the true key to why people got so attached to them - they always felt like family after almost no time at all. Each member got plenty of chances to shine and proved essential to the core. No one was left underdeveloped.

I think that particular trait is not only invaluable in a project like this, but also quite hard to find in most big directors, as it's usually considered a "lighting in a bottle," all-about-the-special-chemistry, "we lucked out" quality that's hard to pull off twice. He's pulled it off 3 times.

Sawyer

04-02-2010, 09:50 PM

As much as I love Whedon, I really dont think this would be a good fit. I'd much rather he do something in the X-universe, but this? I just cant see it.

Then again, I cant really see any director being a good fit at this point, so I'm going to be surprised no matter what.

Saint

04-03-2010, 12:31 AM

I'm still trying to figure out how Wonder Woman falling apart is somehow evidence Whedon should not be involved.

You and me both.

ImWithTeamConan

04-03-2010, 06:25 AM

I don't think his humor would fit in Avengers, and I can't see Marvel telling him "hey come rewrite Penn altogether we'll wait".

I'm not opposed to him putting a bit of a shine on the script, I just don't want him to do a major dialogue overhaul. I would be fine with him as just director.

Kent

04-03-2010, 07:44 AM

I love Whedon, but mostly for his writing... which I'm assuming won't be a part of this to any greater extent. Doesn't mean he can't be good of course...
...certainly I'd rather take a gamble on Whedon than going with Louis Leterrier

Doctor Jones

04-03-2010, 07:49 AM

Iron_Stark

04-03-2010, 08:28 AM

I really wish he would stay away from anything Iron Man related.

lixdexia

04-03-2010, 10:19 AM

Agreed. Whedon doesn't excite me much, but if he directed, I won't be throwing any fits of rage. I'll still be excited as hell for this movie. I think he can do it, but maybe he could be our best choice. I should stop dreaming of Abrams or Spielberg doing this. Those two were too unrealistic. But dammit, who wouldn't want to see Spielberg tackle a comic book film, or this kind of thing?
this guy.

whedon being considered is fantastic news! i really hope he gets the job because i feel he could provide ample "moments" and screen time from all of the principles and avoid making it feel like cap and the avengers or ironman and the avengers

mclay18

04-03-2010, 10:27 AM

Haven't really seen his stuff, so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem his style suits Avengers.

His strength with ensembles is one of the key elements why he is good for the job (all of his previous projects used an ensemble cast of 6-7 people at least). And judging by his directorial work on "Buffy" and Serenity, the guy can do some really good action without spastic editing.

I'd be thrilled if Whedon was just directing -- but I highly doubt he'll leave Penn's script untouched. He'll probably do a polish and rewrite some stuff, but I don't think he'll do a page one rewrite (which he'll want to do if he does direct the thing).

And comedic timing. He knows how to pull off comedy brilliantly.

lixdexia

04-03-2010, 10:32 AM

yeah, but since it was written by zak penn that doesn't strike me as a bad thing...

mclay18

04-03-2010, 11:13 AM

I really wish he would stay away from anything Iron Man related.

How on earth is Whedon going to stay away from Iron Man-related stuff? RDJ and Iron Man are going to be in The Avengers, for chrissakes.

The approach Favreau did for the first two IM movies is pretty much on the same level Whedon would probably approach it. I can't believe a lot of fans are treating Whedon with so much disdain, even though he's only one of the few directors Marvel wants to direct this movie.

And after seeing the disaster that was Clash of the Titans yesterday, I'd rather have Whedon or any of the other guys on the list. Just not Louis Letterier, whose solid work TIH was a fluke.

Son of Coul

04-03-2010, 11:35 AM

How on earth is Whedon going to stay away from Iron Man-related stuff? RDJ and Iron Man are going to be in The Avengers, for chrissakes.
Exactly, he was saying he doesn't want him to direct Avengers because it would involve him doing a movie with Iron Man.

mclay18

04-03-2010, 11:50 AM

All this whining about Whedon directing The Avengers is premature. For all we know, Marvel could look at the opening b.o. gross for Clash of the Titans and give Letterier the gig.

I hope they give a good director the keys to The Avengers. I'm just hoping it won't be Letterier.

topdog1

04-03-2010, 11:53 AM

Serenity is one of the top three Sci-Fi movies ever made.

I'd rather turn Whedon loose on a X-Franchise but I think he'd be great on Avengers. Good to see Marvel thinking correctly and finding the best fit and best minds for their properties.

KangConquers

04-03-2010, 12:03 PM

ugh...I'm...skeptical...but who knows.

KangConquers

04-03-2010, 12:05 PM

WillardNation

04-03-2010, 12:46 PM

After reading Joey Ernand's opinion on Latino Review....

Hmm. Well, I love Whedon when he's "on" ("Firefly/Serenity") and want more out of him when he's off ("Dollhouse"). But I'd say more often than not, the man's proven that he's one of the best genre people around. Moreover, he's flirted with big screen comic book properties more often than I can count. His brief brush with "Wonder Woman" a few years back is probably the most famous example, but he's sniffed around everything from "X-men" to "Batman" as well. And he wrote "X-men" comics, for the love of Pete! The stuff he did with those icons is widely regarded as some of the best stories Marvel has ever done.

That said, I'm not a hundred percent sold on him as a director. He's definitely good with actors, but some of his shot compositions in "Serenity" left a little to be desired. Granted, that flick had a way smaller budget than "Avengers" ever will, so maybe Whedon can shine when given a bigger sandbox.

That's not to say I don't want him for the gig. If anyone's gonna get it right, it's him. In this case, understanding the characters is just as important as shooting awesome action scenes, and if anyone GETS superheroes and team dynamics, its Joss Whedon. He's certainly a better choice than Louis Leterrier. I enjoyed his Hulk movie just fine, but as a director I feel that while he's alright at staging action, he gets a little too edit-happy and said action suffers because of it.

I'm totally on board with Whedon.

KangConquers

04-03-2010, 01:21 PM

After reading Joey Ernand's opinion on Latino Review....

I'm totally on board with Whedon.

I'm very 50/50...yes he's written some of the best comics of the last 15 years, but writing a comic and directing a movie are two different beasts.

Figs

04-03-2010, 01:21 PM

I don't have anything against Whedon but he's only directed one movie...the rest were TV episodes.

I don't care how much experience he has with comics, that does not mean he would be a great director.

If he is the one that directs The Avengers I won't have a problem with it really but that script had better be ****ing good.

Saint

04-03-2010, 02:31 PM

I don't have anything against Whedon but he's only directed one movie...the rest were TV episodes.

I don't care how much experience he has with comics, that does not mean he would be a great director.
It's actually the great movie he directed that suggests he would be a great director.

TheFuture

04-03-2010, 04:30 PM

I love Whedon, Buffy and Angel are my favourite shows of all time. Here's a few reasons why this will work.

He gets the best out of his actors and actresses.
He will produce great scenes that are character dominated. There's no better bloke to direct egos clashing than Whedon.
He has done some excellent action scenes on the smallest of budgets, imagine what he'll do with The Avengers.
He will get the best out of the female actresses. Whedon doesn't need a whole film to make a female character look like a million bucks, all he needs is one scene. I guarantee that you'll fall in love with Wasp in the first scene she's in.
He will deliver with the emotional scenes. The only time I've ever balled my eyes out watching TV or films is when I watched Buffy and Angel.

Whedon will kick ****ing ass.

Doctor Jones

04-03-2010, 04:36 PM

Aztec

04-03-2010, 04:44 PM

TheFuture

04-03-2010, 04:52 PM

Sawyer

04-03-2010, 05:17 PM

People still want the Wasp? Ugh...

Or Ant Man for that matter. Double ugh...

Please for the love of God, focus it on those four guys and their formation. It's more than enough story to set up the first film. Not to mention the threat they have to face. It will be too convulted if they do more than four.

We don't need to cram more Marvel universe into this thing. It's enough. I want to see a good film based on a comic, not a fanboy's wet dream come true.

If that were the case, then Samuel L. Jackson shouldn't be in this playing Nick Fury.

If they serve the story (not to mention the fact that they were both part of the original team before Cap himself), then I'm all for Janet and Pym appearing. Of course, they'll play a smaller role than the other four, just because they havent appeared in their own film yet. They'll be supporting, most likely.

louiebling$

04-03-2010, 05:19 PM

Hank and Janet are founding members they deserve to be in the lineup way more that Fury/Black Widow/War Machine.

Hell Janet is the Heart of the Avengers

louiebling$

04-03-2010, 05:19 PM

Hank and Janet are founding members they deserve to be in the lineup way more that Fury/Black Widow/War Machine.

Hell Janet is the Heart of the Avengers

flickchick85

04-03-2010, 05:46 PM

I'm very 50/50...yes he's written some of the best comics of the last 15 years, but writing a comic and directing a movie are two different beasts.
...and he's proven he can do both well. :huh:

Or did you not like Serenity?

Son of Coul

04-03-2010, 06:25 PM

Well, having 4 established characters as it is will be a tall order. There has never been an action film that has had so many eastablished or big characters. Truth be known the film will probably just be a tour de force with very few meaty scenes, hence why LL would be on the short list. So they might as well throw Janet and Hank in there. There would be no other female lead other than BW.
I've seen this reasoning before and think it's terrible. By saying this, you're basically saying they should say "**** it, it's too hard to make this movie good, let's just cram lots of action scenes and characters instead" after they've done so much meticulous and hard work to make the five movies preceding it that helped build up to it. How about before giving up on a character-heavy actual good movie, they actually try it first?

Project862006

04-03-2010, 07:35 PM

so would nathan fillion be hank if whedon directs lol

Sawyer

04-03-2010, 08:00 PM

so would nathan fillion be hank if whedon directs lol

Or Neil Patrick Harris...

mclay18

04-03-2010, 09:21 PM

I want an actual film director who's made something substantial. Kathryn Bigelow or Riddly Scott or someone.

As good as Bigelow and Scott are, they'll be out of consideration for one of the following: a) their asking price will either be too high or b) they'll turn it down. Especially Bigelow, she's not the kind of person who wants to direct big-budget tentpoles.

Marvel is definitely looking for a solid commercial director, not the arty ones. Arty directors who've gone commercial have had mixed results movie-wise.

KangConquers

04-03-2010, 10:37 PM

People still want the Wasp? Ugh...

Or Ant Man for that matter. Double ugh...

Please for the love of God, focus it on those four guys and their formation. It's more than enough story to set up the first film. Not to mention the threat they have to face. It will be too convulted if they do more than four.

We don't need to cram more Marvel universe into this thing. It's enough. I want to see a good film based on a comic, not a fanboy's wet dream come true.

The whole "THOSE FOUR" guys thing is the epitome of fanboyism for one reason...Hulk isn't an important avenger...he's best as a loner character and if anyone thinks he's going to be a permanent part of the team, they're in for a surprise.

I see Hulk as the enemy, then teaming up with the avengers for the last 15-25 minutes, then doing his 3 mile leaps and leaving the team. I do not see him popping up as a full time member; his movie was very modestly receied and he's a very expensive character to put on the big screen...it's just not worth it.

Deaths Head II

04-04-2010, 12:39 AM

People still want the Wasp? Ugh...

Or Ant Man for that matter. Double ugh...

Please for the love of God, focus it on those four guys and their formation. It's more than enough story to set up the first film. Not to mention the threat they have to face. It will be too convulted if they do more than four.

We don't need to cram more Marvel universe into this thing. It's enough. I want to see a good film based on a comic, not a fanboy's wet dream come true.

Yeah, we can't have two of the founding members crowding up the film. Especially one that is often considered to be the heart of the Avengers. That's just silly.

Ant Man and Wasp deserve to be in the film more then Black Widow, War Machine, Nick Fury (who isn't even a member), and even the Hulk (who lasted on the team for two issues).

FaT_tONle

04-04-2010, 08:06 AM

If Norton comes back I believe Hulk will have a major role and won't simply go away for 45 minutes somewhere in the second act. He could be the motive for the villains for most of the film. It's sort of redundant but I couldn't think of a better weapon. If he's just a diversion then fine, but I am sure they will come up with something more than that for Hulk and Banner. It's a big name character and he needs as much screen time as the big three, considering this may be his last appearance in a while.

Doctor Jones

04-04-2010, 09:21 AM

Doctor Jones

04-04-2010, 09:27 AM

If that were the case, then Samuel L. Jackson shouldn't be in this playing Nick Fury.

If they serve the story (not to mention the fact that they were both part of the original team before Cap himself), then I'm all for Janet and Pym appearing. Of course, they'll play a smaller role than the other four, just because they havent appeared in their own film yet. They'll be supporting, most likely.

I have no problem with that. Given that they are building up his character and that he seems to be forming the team in bits over these Marvel films. And he'll take an active part and he's already set up. Then you've got to set up Cap being resurected and him dealing with the changing times and realizing he is the leader, Stark probably dealing with him thinking he would be the best member to lead the team and accepting Cap as their leader, where the butt heads, become friends, etc. And Thor whatever the hell he is going to do. If Loki is the villain I expect another story. Hulk could work as the good guy or bad guy. It depends. But it's more than enough to set up. This is plenty of story that you can't throw aside after a few scenes. The characterization of all these guys and forming is integral to the forming of the team. They shouldn't be a fully feldged team right off. They all have their baggage that they have to come to terms with. I don't need to see Hawkeye, ****ing Ant Man or Wasp, or War Machine anywhere near this film. I could do without Black Widow too.

There's plenty of story here. Haven't we learned what happens when something becomes too convulted? I want them to handle this carefully. Not to stuff in as many characters as possible. I started writing an Avengers screenplay and it's already difficult with the four characters in it. I included Pym too. This could be a distaster if handled wrong. It's better to go the safe way and dial down on the characters. If we get sequels, brings in Hawkeye and such. Let's develop the forming of the four first and then worry avbout the other stuff later. I think if they make the right choice and how it's handled, well handled if it is, people will be thankful for it.

bunk

04-04-2010, 10:31 AM

TheFuture

04-04-2010, 11:58 AM

Who said Pym *has* to be Ant Man? Why can't he be Giant Man?

DocHoliday

04-04-2010, 12:24 PM

I say bring in Wasp and Antman in Avengers 2. That way they could have already been introduced in their own film and could be more than just background characters.

DocHoliday

04-04-2010, 12:51 PM

Like Whedon a lot but let's be real, here. Serenity I loved as well (mainly because I adored Firefly) but...it's very TV level directing. I'm not saying he isn't capable of more. For example M:I 3 was good but still didn't make Abrams reach his true potential.

Whedon's specialty is certainly not action and that's never what set him above the pack of the other tv guys. It was the scripts. For Avengers it should be the best and most diverse action we have seen in ANY superhero movie, which I'm just not sure Whedon is capable of. Am I holding Avengers to a higher standard as far as action is concerned? Absolutely, because it is the culmination of all the movie we have/will see.

If you are telling me that he is going to write the script, than fantastic. I can't think of a much better guy to WRITE ensemble scripts in the fantasy genre. If he gets the job and re-writes the script he will undoubtedly deliver on the character bits. I am not saying he isn't capable of making awesome action scenes if he does get the job. I am just saying we haven't really seen anything that indicates he can.

As for the making the female characters outshine the males, he won't. Simply because there are no female characters that we know of that could outshine Iron Man/Thor/Cap/Hulk. But I will say the very thought of Hawkeye and Black Widow teaming up, with Whedon level banter puts a smile on my face.

Deaths Head II

04-04-2010, 01:30 PM

I think just the imagry of two characters that are the size of ants is incredibly stupid looking.

Avengers Assemble! They go off and I see two characters the size of pees running off. It's laughable. This is the ****ing Borrowers here. I can't take that seriously. I wouldn't mind seeing Pym appear as a scientist. But ****ing Ant Man. Nope.

You do realize Pym has had a ****load of identities? Most that have him turning huge and powerful? Giant Man? Goliath? Yellowjacket? He was even just Dr. Pym in the comics for a while and shrunk things other them himself so he could keep a whole arsenal in his pocket. That was actually my favorite identity of his since it made him more of an adventurer rather then a super hero, but they'll probably go with Giant Man over all of his other identities, even Ant Man.

Sawyer

04-04-2010, 01:35 PM

I wouldn't mind if Pym and Janet were just, like, SHIELD analysts or something.

lixdexia

04-04-2010, 01:42 PM

i'm not saying it has to be hank and jan, but there need to be a couple of other heroes on the team if just to show how the big 3 are a cut above even other avengers; the best of the best

DocHoliday

04-04-2010, 01:49 PM

i'm not saying it has to be hank and jan, but there need to be a couple of other heroes on the team if just to show how the big 3 are a cut above even other avengers; the best of the best

I feel you. I say put in Black Widow and Hawkeye. They already have Black Widow established from IM2, so at least hey'd only have to add one more role. And that is assuming Hawkeye doesn't cameo in Thor or Cap.

lixdexia

04-04-2010, 01:56 PM

I feel you. I say put in Black Widow and Hawkeye. They already have Black Widow established from IM2, so at least hey'd only have to add one more role. And that is assuming Hawkeye doesn't cameo in Thor or Cap.
i could like that. i'm sure they will use black widow given the deal they signed johanson to, and hawkeye is my favorite avenger outside the big 3. i would like to see hank in some kind of capacity though, because if they make an avengers 2 the villian HAS to be ultron for me.

KangConquers

04-04-2010, 03:48 PM

Do you even like The Avengers?

This...he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on the teams history; he seems to think Hulk is way more important to the Avengers long term than he is.

The Avengers top villain is created by Pym, mirroring Pym's personality without Pym's sense of guilt. He's incredibly important to the Avengers, and the second you try to downplay him long term, you ruin many of the greatest avengers stories.

DocHoliday

04-04-2010, 03:57 PM

I am cool with the Pyms just want them to show up in Avengers 2 and after the Edgar Wright flick.

Doctor Jones

04-04-2010, 05:01 PM

Who said Pym *has* to be Ant Man? Why can't he be Giant Man?

Yes, becuase a man the size of Godzilla is even better. :dry:

Deaths Head II

04-04-2010, 07:38 PM

Yes, becuase a man the size of Godzilla is even better. :dry:

I'm starting to agree with the people questioning whether or not you like The Avengers at all. You do realize how many size changers have been on the team? Aside from even Pym and Janet?

KangConquers

04-04-2010, 09:10 PM

I'm starting to agree with the people questioning whether or not you like The Avengers at all. You do realize how many size changers have been on the team? Aside from even Pym and Janet?

meh...don't try to sway him...he thinks the Avengers are Cap, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk.

FaT_tONle

04-04-2010, 09:19 PM

I don't think Ultron will be the villain, so I am okay if they miss the cut. The sequels are where they can shine, once some of the heavy hitters move on.

KangConquers

04-05-2010, 09:37 AM

Like the Hulk...:woot:

Philly Phanboy

04-05-2010, 12:02 PM

Whedon'e ties with Marvel all but guarantees he'll get one of their future projects but I don't see the Avengers being a good fit. Maybe directing Dr. Strange would be more up his alley?

Son of Coul

04-05-2010, 12:11 PM

Whedon has worked with Marvel Comics on several occasions over the years, including his celebrated work on "Astonishing X-Men (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/astonishing-x-men)" alongside John Cassaday (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/john-cassaday) and his take over of Brian K. Vaughan's (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/brian-k-vaughan) "Runaways (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/runaways)." Additionally, he has plenty of experience working in television and film on "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/buffy-the-vampire-slayer)," "Angel (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/angel)" and 2005's "Serenity (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/serenity)," among other projects.

But despite his credentials, it's unclear that Whedon would even want to direct "The Avengers," as he has previously stated that it's not a project that particularly interests him.

"The Avengers to me is tough," Whedon said in a 2005 interview with In Focus (http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm) discovered by Ain't It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44491). "I wouldn't approach The Avengers, I wouldn't approach the Fantastic Four (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/fantastic-four). The X-Men (http://splashpage.mtv.com/tag/x-men) are all born of pain, and pain is where I hang my hat."

So while it seems that Whedon really is a candidate to direct "The Avengers," the real question is whether or not it's actually a job he wants. Stay tuned to Splash Page as more news develops.SOURCE (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/05/joss-whedon-avengers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+splashpage+%28MTV+Splash+Page +Blog%29&utm_content=Twitter)

TheFuture

04-05-2010, 01:08 PM

Yes, becuase a man the size of Godzilla is even better. :dry:

You just don't want either characters near the Avengers film do you? If you can't see how much Hank could contribute to the dynamic of the group then I can't help you.

KangConquers

04-05-2010, 03:29 PM

As good as Bigelow and Scott are, they'll be out of consideration for one of the following: a) their asking price will either be too high or b) they'll turn it down. Especially Bigelow, she's not the kind of person who wants to direct big-budget tentpoles.

Marvel is definitely looking for a solid commercial director, not the arty ones. Arty directors who've gone commercial have had mixed results movie-wise.

How is Joss Whedon, a director who's only film has scooped a measley 25 million, and Louis Letterier who's Hulk film bombed, more commercial than Riddly Scott, who's movies have made well over a billion dollars combined, and who's movie Gladiator made damn near Half a billion alone?

Just because a director is artistic doesn't mean they can't put asses in seats.

Son of Coul

04-05-2010, 03:43 PM

Some people here don't seem to know what it means when a movie "bombs." It's when the movie takes in less money than its budget, not when it wasn't raved about or ill-recieved or if you didn't like it. For example, TIH made more than $100 mil back, almost double it budget. More, if you count DVD/BD sales. I hate being the guy that corrects people, but that one bugs me.

lixdexia

04-05-2010, 03:43 PM

How is Joss Whedon, a director who's only film has scooped a measley 25 million, and Louis Letterier who's Hulk film bombed, more commercial than Riddly Scott, who's movies have made well over a billion dollars combined, and who's movie Gladiator made damn near Half a billion alone?

Just because a director is artistic doesn't mean they can't put asses in seats.
indeed sometimes they can, but they're going to cost more to do it. that's what he meant be economical, that the salary said directors would demand would be out of the price range marvel is most likely considering. the more they spend to produce the film the less of the box office is income. and tbh, you could probably direct this and movie and it'd still be a hit, so there's no real need to attach a name director to this thing for draw.

Abraham

04-05-2010, 07:04 PM

http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/marvel_poster_captain_america__thor__iron_man_and_ hulk1.jpg
(http://chud.com/articles/articles/23252/1/THE-AVENGERS-COULD-ASSEMBLE-FOR-JOSS-WHEDON/Page1.html)
THE AVENGERS COULD ASSEMBLE FOR JOSS WHEDON

IESB probably should have timed their scoop better; the site reported (http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8898:iesb-exclusive-leading-contender-in-line-to-direct-the-avengers-not-an-april-fools-joke&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73%22)that Joss Whedon was at the head of the 'short list' of Avengers directors on April 1st, a day when the movie webs become paralyzed with unfunny fake stories. Many folks dismissed it.

But it was a legit scoop, and a follow-up by the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/04/its-whedon-weekend-actually-when-is-it-not.html) reveals that there have been talks between Whedon and Marvel about directing the superhero team up movie. But it's hard to tell how serious Marvel is, as they've proven that their method is bring people in, talk with them, leak the info online and then make their decisions based on the feedback from the web. John Krasinski had the Captain America role until the web got uppity about it, and Marvel threw out a whole bunch of names to get our reactions.

I hope that the deal doesn't get done. I like Whedon's work, but he feels wrong for The Avengers; the movie needs someone who will get the interpersonal bickering of the team but also take the adventure seriously. The Avengers is an all-star team concept, and these guys don't get together because of any real shared interests or likes, but rather because they're all the biggest at what they do. There's comedy in that concept - it's a workplace concept, at its heart, as opposed to the familial grouping of the Fantastic Four or the oppressed minority grouping of the X-Men. But I fear that Whedon would go too far in that direction - and since Marvel seems to be happy to let their movies get written on set, the impact of a director will be major in every area of storytelling.

Of course this is exactly what Whedon needs. He has name recognition, but it's limited. Being the guy behind one of the biggest movies of the coming decade would open him up to a whole new audience.

It'll be interesting to see where this all goes in the months ahead.

JeanVitchier

04-05-2010, 07:53 PM

Silvermoth

04-05-2010, 08:18 PM

flickchick85

04-05-2010, 08:56 PM

I think David Goyer should be considered for the directing job of the Avengers movie, clearly since his epic success with Dark Knight. The Batman and Blade movie were epic. Therefore Avengers will epic with him directing. My two cents.
But Goyer has never directed a decent movie. His directorial efforts have been epically awful, actually. So no offense, but no thanks. :down

Deaths Head II

04-05-2010, 10:03 PM

I disagree with that article, particularly about the part of Whedon not taking the story seriously enough. Whedon can be lighthearted but he can change the tone of the story on a dime and deliver powerful dramatic moments. Dr. Horrible was a comedy for most of the film and then it turned super serious at the very end. Astonishing X-Men had a lot of fun with the interactions between members but things got really serious really quickly when they needed to.

Actually, according to Mark Millar a film has to make twice it's budget to break even. That is why "Superman Returns" was considered a flop.

This is true. A film usually has to double it's budget to make up for things like advertising and distribution.

I think David Goyer should be considered for the directing job of the Avengers movie, clearly since his epic success with Dark Knight. The Batman and Blade movie were epic. Therefore Avengers will epic with him directing. My two cents.

God no. All of the films Goyer directed were trash. I think he's pretty much hit and miss as a writer but as a director he just plain sucks.

Evil Twin

04-05-2010, 11:58 PM

I'm kind of hit and miss on Whedon, but I do think something like The Avengers needs a guy in charge with a strong vision and ability to put a strong screenplay together. It very well could turn into screenplay death by committee otherwise.

Now, whether Whedon has the right vision for the job is another question, but he'd certainly bring focus to the project.

The Chris

04-06-2010, 12:07 AM

I think anyone who doesn't think that Whedon can make the adventure go from light hearted to serious should watch Serenity. I was surprised to see where that movie went at times.

Oh and David Goyer is a horrible director. Blade Trinity was bad, The Unborn was my personal worst movie of 2009. He needs a good director to fix his scripts. He can't do it himself.

KangConquers

04-06-2010, 09:16 AM

Actually, according to Mark Millar a film has to make twice it's budget to break even. That is why "Superman Returns" was considered a flop.

Yeah, you only get half of every ticket you sell.

Thus, Hulk was a bomb.

Saint

04-06-2010, 04:59 PM

I think anyone who doesn't think that Whedon can make the adventure go from light hearted to serious should watch Serenity.
Or anything else Whedon's done, for that matter. The sixth season of Buffy was so dark it was pitch black.

Doctor Jones

04-06-2010, 05:18 PM

You just don't want either characters near the Avengers film do you? If you can't see how much Hank could contribute to the dynamic of the group then I can't help you.

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film.

bunk

04-06-2010, 05:28 PM

Yeah, you only get half of every ticket you sell.

Thus, Hulk was a bomb.

Actually, according to Mark Millar a film has to make twice it's budget to break even. That is why "Superman Returns" was considered a flop.

Is that really how you would define "flop" and "bomb"?
It doesn't seem very useful to describe a movie that makes 130—or 200 million as having bombed. That's a ****load of money. I wouldn't put quite so much emphasis on the cost. What if a movie only needed 5 million more to be in the black. Suddenly it's no longer a "bomb" with 5 million more? That hardly makes sense. it's not so cut and dry.

lixdexia

04-06-2010, 06:40 PM

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film. i understand your thinking there, but i'd like to point out that by the time the avengers comes out those four characters will have had 10+ hrs of film in which to develop. it's not like the avengers will start them from scratch, most of their development should be done by that point and they can deal with character progression, which shouldn't need quite so much time.

Son of Coul

04-06-2010, 06:48 PM

Actually, I'd say it should.

Deaths Head II

04-06-2010, 06:56 PM

Is that really how you would define "flop" and "bomb"?
It doesn't seem very useful to describe a movie that makes 130—or 200 million as having bombed. That's a ****load of money. I wouldn't put quite so much emphasis on the cost. What if a movie only needed 5 million more to be in the black. Suddenly it's no longer a "bomb" with 5 million more? That hardly makes sense. it's not so cut and dry.

Thats how studios define "flop." Studios put a lot of emphasis on the cost because if they invest and expect to make a profit. Otherwise we'd be getting a SR sequel or a TIH sequel pre-Avengers. And yes, it isn't not so cut and dry. The idea is that a film generally has to make around double it's budget to make it's money back. It's not like 5 million more or less is going to make a film a flop or a success. But one thing that also should be considered is DVD sales and merchandising, because from what I hear those end up being the way most big budget films make their money.

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film.

I only want Hank and Janet because they were founders of the team and they are two of the biggest figures on the team after the big three. I think they deserve to be in the team more then the other Avengers that will probably be in the film like Hawkeye, Black Widow, and War Machine.

Plus, I agree with the idea that there should be some lesser members to show how big of a deal Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and Hulk really are.

Doctor Jones

04-06-2010, 07:34 PM

Son of Coul

04-06-2010, 07:39 PM

I agree, there'll be plenty of time for the Pyms in the sequel. And like I've said, forcing the Pyms into this can put some creative restrictions on Wright's Ant-Man solo movie.

lixdexia

04-06-2010, 07:43 PM

I just wouldn't mind seeing Fury, IM, Cap, Thor and Hulk forming as the team first. I think it would work that way. That's four separate character arcs you have to develop over the course of a film. That is not easy to do.
i doubt hulk gets near as much time as the others, i also doubt he has much more impact on the team than that of an antagonist. fury is a supporting role and won't need or get the same as the big three, but that's the amount of time i picture hank and jan taking up as well. i think we're all in agreement that the film should focus mainly on thor, cap, and tony though.

Iron_Stark

04-06-2010, 08:21 PM

Yeah, you only get half of every ticket you sell.

Thus, Hulk was a bomb.

Hulk was hardly a bomb.

i doubt hulk gets near as much time as the others, i also doubt he has much more impact on the team than that of an antagonist. fury is a supporting role and won't need or get the same as the big three, but that's the amount of time i picture hank and jan taking up as well. i think we're all in agreement that the film should focus mainly on thor, cap, and tony though.

And Banner

Deaths Head II

04-06-2010, 09:09 PM

I agree, there'll be plenty of time for the Pyms in the sequel. And like I've said, forcing the Pyms into this can put some creative restrictions on Wright's Ant-Man solo movie.

Since Wright is doing Scott Lang instead I think they're actually pretty free to do what they want with the Pyms. And besides, they'll probably set up any appearance with Wright's Ant-Man in mind.

I think the Pyms should have a supporting role. They can appear as scientists working with Fury on the sidelines and if they're really bold maybe at the end Pym shows off his new Ant-Man suit and helps the team in some way. I would just rather Ant-Man and Wasp be there as the team is created. In the comics, they're the ones who thought up of the idea of the Avengers in the first place. They deserve some role, even if it's only as scientists.

FaT_tONle

04-06-2010, 11:59 PM

Hulk was hardly a bomb.

And Banner

Marvel barely broke even on TIH. It was pretty well documented in Marvel's financial quotes following the Disney buy out, and while the situation wasn't dire, it wasn't nearly as good as was led on (the economy aside). Paramount ate nearly 10% of the gross. Couple that with the money owed to their investors whose resources allowed the studio to go independent and fund the movies. Take out the theatre cuts to boot and a 150 million dollar budget, and they may have found themselves in the red for that matter. Now with DVD, Blue-ray, toys and other merchandise, I am sure they ended up somewhere in the green, but that is not saying a lot. You guys can overplay TIH as a successful movie and a modest hit for Marvel all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Maybe Hulk's role in Avengers will reinvigorate the character and garner future movies, but he will likely be relegated to a supporting player in the universe from there on if we are lucky. And TIH2 certainly won't take precedent over IM3, Avengers sequels, or even Thor/Cap sequels if those do better than Hulk. Not to mention Norton is not even 100% confirmed. If Marvel is happy with those numbers then so be it. All I know is that Avengers can and should be a billion dollar franchise, so if they end up with 750-800 million and they are partying like it's their Avatar, well I guess there is good reason why they are so cheap to begin with.

Kent

04-07-2010, 07:12 AM

Kent

04-07-2010, 07:12 AM

Double post. *bah*

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 08:01 AM

Batman and Robin cost 130 million and went on to gross 240 WW. Guess that ain't a bomb either...

jadejaws

04-07-2010, 08:04 AM

Will people please learn what a "bomb" is? TIH was not a bomb. It was financial disappointment I'm sure, but that's not what a bomb is. A bomb is a movie where the costs greatly exceed the revenue.

For instance... Kevin Costner's "The Postman" cost around 80 mille to produce and market, but didn't even gross 20 mille worldwide. That is a bomb.

I think we also have to ask ourselves if we know exactly what Marvel was expecting for TIH after 2003's Greek Tragedy. If you remember correctly, the first trailer for it didn't come out until late March or early April 2008. Not to mention the fact that it wasn't really marketed well after that point either. Why wouldn't a company market the hell out of movie who had a previous film version failure 5 years earlier? Because they literally had no idea how it would be received. Their sole purpose was to re-introduce the character for the Avengers. They knew it would turn a small profit through media and toy sales (Hulk hands part 2) but it's debatable as to how they actually believed the movie would turn out. Their publicized reactions to it's opening weekend were close to "shock" and they then announced it was a success once it surpassed Ang's movie by $1. My guess is that they didn't believe it would get there.

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 08:48 AM

I don't buy that ^^^. They went through the trouble of rebooting in hopes that they'd make 1$ more than Ang's? And it literally was a dollar more when you do the adjustments. They wanted to not only re-introduce the character for Avengers, but they hoped it would spawn a franchise. I am sure Hulk would have had no trouble fitting into Avengers had they just put him in. Maybe even Bana would have came back. Not saying it wasn't an opportunity to make a quick buck, but their expectations could not have possibly been that low.

OB12

04-07-2010, 08:49 AM

Batman and Robin cost 130 million and went on to gross 240 WW. Guess that ain't a bomb either...

In fact, no I wouldn't consider Batman and Robin a bomb, a terrible movie . . . yes. There is a distinction that needs to be made, just because a movie is generally considered to be bad, doesn't mean it can't be a financial success. I think TIH was a modest success, perhaps missing the box office numbers that Marvel hoped for but I would be very surprised if they consider it a bomb. It wasn't successful enough to automatically warrant a sequel, but the fact that we hear musings about one after Avengers indicates that they want to bring TIH back to the big screen.

On the topic of Whedon, I would be fine with him taking on this project. I watched a little of Buffy and Angel and they were entertaining. It would be interesting to see what he could do with this epic movie. That said, I don't think it will be Whedon.

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 08:56 AM

I agree with that in terms of what is a bomb versus a critical failure. But the fact that we don't appear to getting Hulk movies anytime soon, and Avengers could be the final appearance for a while; it's like Batman making the cut in a JLA movie (which we almost got with George Miller), but not getting additional solo movies (so negate TDK and BB3 if Begins performed similarly to Hulk). So yeah it's not the same critical failure as B&R, but it's still the same result.

OB12

04-07-2010, 09:05 AM

KangConquers

04-07-2010, 10:19 AM

I sort of laugh at the big distinction people make between the Ang Lee Hulk and TIH. They were roughly the same in terms of critical reaction and box office success. It wasn't a critically acclaimed mega movie, nor a smash hit. It barely made it's money back, if it did at all, and just as many critics said it was thin and without any characterization as said they enjoyed watching the Hulk and Abomination fight.

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 10:34 AM

Studios invest in these tentpoles with the idea that they will spark at least a sequel, with a trilogy being more desirable. Look at the 2011 slate. Every movie is a 2nd, third, or fourth installment. No doubt Marvel wants to see Cap or Thor become their Wolverine with 5-6 major appearances. I am sure they envisioned at least one sequel to TIH outside of Avengers. If Cap/Thor don't do IM type numbers and fail to establish individual franchises then the same can be said for those, but at least those are staple Avengers characters that will appear in more than two films. I see no reason why Marvel will deliever more Hulk movies when they can invest in cheaper C-listers that have yet to graze the big screen.

Deaths Head II

04-07-2010, 10:44 AM

I think you are assuming that a lack of movement on TIH2 means that TIH is viewed as a poor showing for the character. I don't think that is the case at all. What does Marvel gain by putting another Hulk movie out prior to Avengers? The character is set up pretty good for inclusion in the team-up and Marvel has Cap and Thor, who need to be established yet, so messing with another Hulk movie seems a bit needless. We got IM2 because the original was a bonafide smash hit, but TIH was a modest success that received largely favorable reviews and is positioned correctly for Avengers as is. If there is no talk of a TIH2 a year after Avengers, then there is reason to be worried.

I think it was fairly obvious TIH was begging for a sequel pre-Avengers with the way they set up The Leader and hinted that Banner could control the Hulk now. The Avengers appearance will even completely change the meaning of the ending because now it'll be used as a hint that Hulk turned evil.

And honestly, if they were going to hold off so long on the sequel they should have held off on the first film too. It's chronologically set after Iron Man 2 even. One of the main things I feel held the film back was the fact general audiences hated the first film, but for some reason they decided to have the Hulk be one of the first Marvel Studios films out. And in the middle of a busy summer too. Despite what fanboys claim, reboots do have to occur a decent amount of time after the last unsuccessful film. Most people I know assumed TIH was a sequel to a movie they hated and the ones that didn't still said something along the lines of "I already saw a Hulk movie in theaters and it sucked."

KangConquers

04-07-2010, 10:47 AM

OB12

04-07-2010, 11:19 AM

I think it was fairly obvious TIH was begging for a sequel pre-Avengers with the way they set up The Leader and hinted that Banner could control the Hulk now. The Avengers appearance will even completely change the meaning of the ending because now it'll be used as a hint that Hulk turned evil.

And honestly, if they were going to hold off so long on the sequel they should have held off on the first film too. It's chronologically set after Iron Man 2 even. One of the main things I feel held the film back was the fact general audiences hated the first film, but for some reason they decided to have the Hulk be one of the first Marvel Studios films out. And in the middle of a busy summer too. Despite what fanboys claim, reboots do have to occur a decent amount of time after the last unsuccessful film. Most people I know assumed TIH was a sequel to a movie they hated and the ones that didn't still said something along the lines of "I already saw a Hulk movie in theaters and it sucked."

Obviously, TIH is set up for sequels, LL and Norton have said as much but I don't think it was necessarily a foregone conclusion that the sequel would come before Avengers. Think about it, if they TIH2 and they made Hulk the hero again, then his turn as a villian in Avengers would seem a little jarring unless they did a direct bridge with Loki appering in TIH2. The way they did it left it ambiguous so that if TIH was a huge hit that demanded a sequel, they could. Now the ending can be interpreted as Banner is possibly being controlled so that Hulk can serve as a first act villian in Avengers. It was certainly a hedge as was the fact that Norton may or may not be contracted for future films. Marvel was unsure but hopeful of TIH's success. What they got was a movie that tonally more in-line with the Marvel universe, a decent box office take, and a generally warm reception from fans.

OB12

04-07-2010, 11:25 AM

Exactly. And I hate that all the Hulk fans seem to think Hulk will be the main character of Avengers; he'll be taking a backseat to the Big 3 characters, guaranteed.

Hulk definitely won't be the main character, but will certainly be part of the puzzle and he may even have a pivotal role in the outcome of the movie.

Son of Coul

04-07-2010, 11:59 AM

Exactly. And I hate that all the Hulk fans seem to think Hulk will be the main character of Avengers; he'll be taking a backseat to the Big 3 characters, guaranteed.
I think you're exaggerating a bit here. I haven't seen one Hulk fan claim they think he'll be the main character, just a pivotal role in getting the Avengers formed. Which is how it should be, like the books.

KangConquers

04-07-2010, 12:21 PM

That's fine...but anyone who thinks he's a long term part of the Avengers film franchise is sorely mistaken.

Professor Hulk walking around Avengers mansion would be 20 times cornier than Ant-Man or Wasp.

Son of Coul

04-07-2010, 12:37 PM

Indeed. I think he could ditch them after the first movie, wanting to be alone or whatever. The Hulk could be a very exciting aspect of the movie with how powerful and dangerous he is, but with repetition the character would lose its impact. With the Pyms, though they are a big part of the team, they could be put off till the sequel. I mean, Cap is an enormous part of the Avengers but he wasn't thawed out until four issues in. With Hulk, because he's integral not so much to the team in the long run, but the team's formation, it's now or never.

And I personally hope other incarnations of the Hulk never come near the movies. I like it with the Jekyll/Hyde angle rather than a million personalities and all this trippy stuff. I think it takes away from the character's uniqueness.

KangConquers

04-07-2010, 12:48 PM

OB12

04-07-2010, 12:50 PM

Yeah, I think for the most part, Hulk is a one shot deal in Avengers. He does something heroic at a pivotal moment to turn the tide for the Avengers, then at the conclusion he jumps off to seclusion only to be pursued in Hulk sequels by the Leader. I wouldn't mind if he came back briefly in Avengers 3 to help the team deal with Ultron or something, but he certainly shouldn't be hanging out with the team.

TheVileOne

04-07-2010, 05:23 PM

Marvel barely broke even on TIH. It was pretty well documented in Marvel's financial quotes following the Disney buy out, and while the situation wasn't dire, it wasn't nearly as good as was led on (the economy aside). Paramount ate nearly 10% of the gross. Couple that with the money owed to their investors whose resources allowed the studio to go independent and fund the movies. Take out the theatre cuts to boot and a 150 million dollar budget, and they may have found themselves in the red for that matter. Now with DVD, Blue-ray, toys and other merchandise, I am sure they ended up somewhere in the green, but that is not saying a lot. You guys can overplay TIH as a successful movie and a modest hit for Marvel all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Maybe Hulk's role in Avengers will reinvigorate the character and garner future movies, but he will likely be relegated to a supporting player in the universe from there on if we are lucky. And TIH2 certainly won't take precedent over IM3, Avengers sequels, or even Thor/Cap sequels if those do better than Hulk. Not to mention Norton is not even 100% confirmed. If Marvel is happy with those numbers then so be it. All I know is that Avengers can and should be a billion dollar franchise, so if they end up with 750-800 million and they are partying like it's their Avatar, well I guess there is good reason why they are so cheap to begin with.
Paramount didn't distribute Incredible Hulk, Universal did. Did Paramount give Marvel a financing loan for the movie though?

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 05:33 PM

I don't know what the original financing deal was and what happened to it after the merger. Probably became null and void once Disney started footing the bills. I doubt the money came from Paramount otherwise they probably would have just leased it out to them or another major studio.

TheVileOne

04-07-2010, 05:45 PM

But why did you say Paramount ate 10%? Did you mean Universal?

I think the original financing deal was with Merrill Lynch in 2006. Since that time and the economy crash I think Merrill Lynch was having troubles. I think that and the writer's strike was probably the cause of the delays in these movies a little while back.

FaT_tONle

04-07-2010, 07:29 PM

The Paramount thing was an obvious mistake. Universal probably took in the same cut though. They didn't market the movie for free. Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America during the crisis. I don't know if Marvel was really short on cash when Thor was going into production or whether Bank of America was increasing Marvel's interest rates or whatever, but I doubt they were going to loan more money out to Marvel (assuming they needed it) at a time when they were buying out the joint. It could have facilitated the Disney take over.

Obviously, TIH is set up for sequels, LL and Norton have said as much but I don't think it was necessarily a foregone conclusion that the sequel would come before Avengers. Think about it, if they TIH2 and they made Hulk the hero again, then his turn as a villian in Avengers would seem a little jarring unless they did a direct bridge with Loki appering in TIH2. The way they did it left it ambiguous so that if TIH was a huge hit that demanded a sequel, they could. Now the ending can be interpreted as Banner is possibly being controlled so that Hulk can serve as a first act villian in Avengers. It was certainly a hedge as was the fact that Norton may or may not be contracted for future films. Marvel was unsure but hopeful of TIH's success. What they got was a movie that tonally more in-line with the Marvel universe, a decent box office take, and a generally warm reception from fans.

IM2 did not have to take place before TIH. They were rather flexible as far as the timeline. We didn't need a Fury meeting in IM2, or a "Not interested in your (Avenger team)" scene with Stark/Fury. It could have taken place after TIH2 for that matter, and all the pre-Avengers Fury stuff could have remained behind the scenes or post-credit. All we know for sure is that IM took place before TIH. Before IM2 actually plays out the way it will, it could have gone either way. The second it was evident that TIH was not going to be a sequel, it made sense to have IM2 happen before TIH in the timeline to elaborate on the formation, the behind the scenes stuff, and Fury's ultimate role in the process.

Deaths Head II

04-07-2010, 10:12 PM

I want them to use Avengers to drum up interest in TIH 2...that said I don't think it should be all about the Hulk...I think Hulk should leave the team after Avengers 1 and TIH 2 should pick up right after Hulk leaves the Avengers.

That's how I feel too. Avengers would be good publicity for Hulk, but he's not a team player. It's kind of funny, because the Hulk's series got cancelled after 6 issues before he showed up in Avengers. Then after quitting the Avengers his popularity really started to take off. It would be kind of funny if history repeats itself with the movies.

FaT_tONle

04-08-2010, 02:14 AM

Yeah but I don't think 2 major feature films compare to six introduction issues. I like the view point and the irony though...

jadejaws

04-08-2010, 09:38 AM

Obviously, TIH is set up for sequels, LL and Norton have said as much but I don't think it was necessarily a foregone conclusion that the sequel would come before Avengers. Think about it, if they TIH2 and they made Hulk the hero again, then his turn as a villian in Avengers would seem a little jarring unless they did a direct bridge with Loki appering in TIH2. The way they did it left it ambiguous so that if TIH was a huge hit that demanded a sequel, they could. Now the ending can be interpreted as Banner is possibly being controlled so that Hulk can serve as a first act villian in Avengers. It was certainly a hedge as was the fact that Norton may or may not be contracted for future films. Marvel was unsure but hopeful of TIH's success. What they got was a movie that tonally more in-line with the Marvel universe, a decent box office take, and a generally warm reception from fans.

Good post! That was exactly how I saw it.

OB12

04-08-2010, 10:42 AM

IM2 did not have to take place before TIH. They were rather flexible as far as the timeline. We didn't need a Fury meeting in IM2, or a "Not interested in your (Avenger team)" scene with Stark/Fury. It could have taken place after TIH2 for that matter, and all the pre-Avengers Fury stuff could have remained behind the scenes or post-credit. All we know for sure is that IM took place before TIH. Before IM2 actually plays out the way it will, it could have gone either way. The second it was evident that TIH was not going to be a sequel, it made sense to have IM2 happen before TIH in the timeline to elaborate on the formation, the behind the scenes stuff, and Fury's ultimate role in the process.

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here. What does IM2's place in the timeline have to do with Hulk sequels? All I am saying is that I don't believe that Marvel had it in the plan to do a Hulk sequel prior to Avengers. I think with IM and Hulk being released in the same year, they were prepared to do a sequel for one of the two but not both and since IM did so well and since Hulk has already been on the big screen twice, it was a better idea to do an IM sequel.

AVEITWITHJAMON

04-10-2010, 06:14 PM

Count me in as someone who would seriously approve of Whedon getting the gig, I absolutely loved Firefly and Serenity and he is really good at doing characters and as Serenity proved can do a pretty damn good action scene as well, I think he would be the perfect choice as character interaction seems to be his strong point.

FaT_tONle

04-10-2010, 08:17 PM

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here. What does IM2's place in the timeline have to do with Hulk sequels? All I am saying is that I don't believe that Marvel had it in the plan to do a Hulk sequel prior to Avengers. I think with IM and Hulk being released in the same year, they were prepared to do a sequel for one of the two but not both and since IM did so well and since Hulk has already been on the big screen twice, it was a better idea to do an IM sequel.

I don't know if I agree with that. Say the strike didn't happen, there was a good chance Thor would have been out in 2009. 2010 latest. They could have snuck in TIH2 in 2011 along with Cap if that were the case. Maybe even Fury/Ant-Man could have been made prior to Avengers. I am not saying they weren't trying to fast track Avengers; originally they wanted it rushed out by 2011. But it was pretty evident that it had to go to 2012 or later unless they wanted to hapass it. If TIH had made money, I am sure a sequel would have preceded Ant-Man and Nicky Fury solo films and been out prior to Avengers had they stuck to the rigid schedule.

holtz11

04-13-2010, 03:56 PM

According to Nikki Finke, it's almost a done deal. Joss Whedon directs the Avengers. (http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/)

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 04:03 PM

Not great news if you ask me... Great writer but nothing he has ever done yells "great action director".

craigdbfan

04-13-2010, 04:05 PM

Joss Whedon In Final Negotiations For "The Avengers" (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/13/joss-whedon-in-final-negotiations-to-direct-the-avengers/)

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/avengersstatue.jpg

On April Fool’s Day, IESB had the bad timing to report that Joss Whedon was on the shorlist to direct The Avengers for Marvel. Really bad timing for that scoop — while Whedon is the sort of guy a lot of fans would like to see on this film, there was too much reason to be skeptical when it ran on April 1. (Memo to webmasters: April 1 fake scoops are idiotic, unless they’re really funny or done as well as the Film School Rejects site ‘revamp.’) The LA Times confirmed that shortlist a few days later, but even then it was tough to tell if the studio was serious, or just spitballing in the same way it seemed to do with the Captain America casting.
Either way, things are evidently serious now, as there’s a report that Whedon is in final talks to direct the film.
Deadline has a piece on the deal, but doesn’t offer any more info.
Whedon is a ballsy choice, but will the identity of the director really matter from the perspective of the mainstream? Probably not. A great many people won’t think ‘this movie is from the guy behind Buffy and Firefly and that movie Serenity.’ They’ll hopefully think, ‘holy ****, this movie has Iron Man and Thor and Captain America? I’m so in!’ Making the film look like a good prospect has a lot more to do with the success of Thor and Captain America than it does the choice of director.
Making it a good movie — that’s a different story. While Whedon has his shortcomings, there will be serious editorial oversight from Kevin Feige, Jon Favreau and others at Marvel. Furthermore, I think Whedon managed Serenity really well. That film was made on a relatively small budget, had many characters and several setpieces, and it worked. I came into it not having seen moment one of Firefly and the film turned me on to the series. I can see him going to town with The Avengers.

Chewy

04-13-2010, 04:20 PM

I just spent ten minutes logging in, ten minutes loading this page, ten minutes loading the "New Reply" page, and ten minutes waiting for my reply to be posted just to say that I think this is an interesting choice.

rashad

04-13-2010, 04:29 PM

Seems like a cool choice. My expectations still remain low for this film however.

marvelrobbins

04-13-2010, 04:29 PM

Great news.He IS a comic book fan unlike some who do films.While more a
X-Men fan than Avengers.He will probally do some work on the script.Buffy
and Angel were basiclly comic book shows but created for TV without
being in COmics.He can work with enselmbes.Go back and watch Serenity
If you any doudt.And If this means some of his regular actors might show up
provided hawkeye,Wasp and Ant-Man/Giant Man make It Into the film so
much the better{Nathan FillIon would be great as hawkeye,and Amy Acker
would be good as wasp)

Remember Jon Favreru with Iron Man and Kenneth branagh with Thor would
not be the first choices to do big films like that.Joss Is a more likely choice
than them.

mclay18

04-13-2010, 04:30 PM

Whedon is a GREAT choice. And he can do wonders on a budget.

Marvel, thank god you did not pick Letterier. My head would've exploded.

metr0man

04-13-2010, 04:36 PM

Wow, you Avengers fans are in for a treat.

Nobody does geek ensemble like Joss, nobody. I wouldn't consider him the right fit for say Iron Man, or Captain America, as far as solo films goes, but the man knows how to do iconic groups. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Ast. X-Men, Runaways, the list goes on and on.

But it remains to be seen how much influence he has on the script. if Zak Penn is writing it, well, that's very hit and miss.

(I say you Avengers fans, because even though I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm not really a fan of super-groups, same with Justice League, i'm more of an Iron Man fan than an Avengers fan).

DACrowe

04-13-2010, 04:37 PM

Buffy=campy, forgettable, but solid fun.

Firefly=brilliant, amazinng, superb show.

Serenity=Best Science Fiction film of the last decade (yes better than Avatar).

A guy who has a great a touch for action/drama/comedy and who knows how to use an ensemble cast masterfully. Firefly/Serenity is far better than anything the X-Men franchise has ever produced.

Good choice.

DACrowe

04-13-2010, 04:43 PM

powerbomb1411

04-13-2010, 04:49 PM

His run on Astonishing sucked and he has a good track record of shows being canceled or being on the brink of getting canceled.

This has bad news written all over it for me.

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 04:50 PM

Sounds interesting. Marvel's done a fantastic job getting their **** together early for every one of their projects so far, even the Cap casting despite how long it may have seemed, and it's looking to pay off big time.

Raiden

04-13-2010, 04:50 PM

The good thing is that Joss Whedon has created some very good TV shows, like Buffy, and he's a comic book fan & writer (I like his Astonishing X-Men). The problem, though, is that Whedon isn't known to be a good movie director, and his movie Serenity (based on his cancelled show Firefly) felt more like a made-for-TV movie than a big-screen blockbuster. The Avengers is Marvel's ultimate dream, one that is built up by Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, and Capt. America and will be the first "cross-over" superhero movie ever. Marvel must consider very carefully whom they want to helm this tremendous project, and I can't help but feel that they could've done better. I hope Marvel really knows what they're doing.

Chewy

04-13-2010, 04:53 PM

Whedon is going to "rework" Penn's script
Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the Incredible Hulk will soon start taking orders from Joss Whedon.

Marvel Studios is wrapping up a deal for Whedon to helm "The Avengers," which assembles the superheroes in one pic on May 4, 2012, that Paramount will distrib. Whedon will also rework Zak Penn's script.

Whedon, a favorite among fanboys, most recently penned the script for "Cabin in the Woods," a horror pic that he is also producing for MGM. Pic co-stars Chris Hemsworth, who plays the hammer-wielding Thor.

The creator of series like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," "Firefly" and more recently "Dollhouse," all for Fox, has been close to helming a superhero pic before, namely "Wonder Woman" for Joel Silver at Warner Bros., but Whedon wound up ankling the project due to creative issues.

He directed episodes of those series, and recently helmed an episode of Fox's "Glee." "Serenity" is his sole film directing credit. The sci-fi western, distribbed by Universal in 2005, was based on the short-lived "Firefly."

"The Avengers" extends Whedon's long relationship with Marvel. He wrote for the comicbook company's "Astonishing X-Men" series.

"The Avengers" would star Robert Downey Jr. (as Iron Man), Chris Evans (Captain America), Hemsworth (Thor) and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury). Edward Norton may also return as the Hulk.

"Iron Man 2" bows May 7, followed by "Thor" on May 6, 2011, and "The First Avenger: Captain America" on July 22, 2011. Paramount will distrib.
SOURCE (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017689.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm)

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 04:57 PM

I love everything Joss has done (sans Dollhouse). Yet I just don't see him having the vision to the action. I hope I am wrong because I do like the guy.

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 04:58 PM

Not surprising, most of the time directors will do this uncredited. Especially these movies, I don't think they're ever just adapted exactly from the script.

batboy99

04-13-2010, 04:59 PM

Iceman

04-13-2010, 05:00 PM

Well this could have been a lot worse!

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 05:03 PM

As long as it's not Nic Cage.

craigdbfan

04-13-2010, 05:06 PM

I'm happy with this decision.

There is no denying Whedon is great with team ensembles and the action, performances and stories he can do with them is masterful indeed.

If ever there was someone more fitted for a team movie like this it has to be Whedon.

While I didn't want him for Spider-Man, I 100% approve of this director for the Avengers. :up:

Can't wait until 2012.

Figs

04-13-2010, 05:10 PM

I've only seen a hand full of episodes of Buffy so I can't really judge him as a good or bad director.

I just hope the script is outstanding and he doesn't throw any godawful melodrama as seen in Buffy.

Iron_Stark

04-13-2010, 05:15 PM

Well g-dammit.:doh: He better not screw this up.

TheVileOne

04-13-2010, 05:30 PM

This is a big move for Whedon. I hope he can handle the pressure and working on what really should be one of if not the biggest and most important movie of all time.

samsnee

04-13-2010, 05:32 PM

Isn't he the one that wrote the line "What happens to a toad when struck by lightning?" in X-men?

lixdexia

04-13-2010, 05:33 PM

no announcement about any marvel movie has ever gotten me this excited :D if there is one guy who can balance this movie it's joss whedon! WHOOO!!!!!!

samsnee

04-13-2010, 05:37 PM

Isn't he the one that wrote the line "What happens to a toad when struck by lightning?" in X-men?

david icke

04-13-2010, 05:44 PM

Yeah, this is the best news for the film, as I said way back on the thread, I'm a big fan of both Angel and Buffy, and I enjoyed the Serenity movie, despite not being that into Firefly. In no way did I think it seemed like a 'made for tv' movie, it felt like a bona-fide full on sci-fi movie when I saw it at the flicks. Apparently he had a low budget for the film, and it did not show, so it will be extremely interesting to see what he does with a big budget extravanganza like this, but, one thing will be guaranteed, he will get the characters right, and will focus on the personal intimate details of drama, he won't get lost in the sfx and toybox he has been given.
This is the guy who stood up at the Marvel writer's conference on Civil War and told them all that there *had* to be a clear winner, so's not to pussyfoot around with the story and the fans, when basically everyone else was pussyfooting around with their pussyfootian ideas for an ending. He will not shortchange the fanswith any half baked notions, and it's extremely good news he will be re-doing the script.

and for anyone who is unfamiliar with Buffy/Angel(the two greatest live-action superhero tv shows ever), and wants to get a taste of what he can do with a limited budget in the genre with a movie length story, take a look at 'Becomng parts 1 and 2', which is better than most superhero movies. It's the two part ending to s2 of Buffy and deals with Angel and Buffy's origins in flashback while giving us the grand finale to season2 with Angel vs Buffy. He wrote and Directed both eps.
Of course it's best if you watch the whole of s2, but you can fill in the blanks easily enough if you are a fan of ongoing comicbook arcs, and have experience of missing some issues here and there, especially if you lived in the prehistoric age of the undependable newsagent/stand for your books.

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 05:45 PM

Whedon has a specific style. Even when it's pre-established characters. Also his tone in his other stuff is almost meta. I really just prefer Joss when he is working with his own characters and universe.

TheVileOne

04-13-2010, 05:45 PM

Yes he did, but the story goes "oh she said it wrong, it was meant to be like muttered under your breath and not stated by shakespeare blah blah blah"

So I guess Singer and co. missed the intent or whatever. Whatever, Singer took the blame for that line in the audio commentary for X-men.

Randal Graves

04-13-2010, 05:47 PM

Isn't he the one that wrote the line "What happens to a toad when struck by lightning?" in X-men?
Yep. :funny:

Philly Phanboy

04-13-2010, 05:57 PM

Whedon is going to "rework" Penn's script

SOURCE (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017689.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm)

That's a good news bad news situation if ever there was one.

No doubt he'll vastly improve on Penn's script but Whedon's flaky track record with him losing the Wonder Woman movie because of his delays and his glacier slow release during writing for Runaways, I really wouldn't expect this movie to make the 2012 timetable now.

david icke

04-13-2010, 05:58 PM

Yes he did write that Toad line! lol, But you know what happens to every great writer who does one humdinger in his career... the same thing as everything else!
The only other line I know from X-Men that is his is the 'You're a dick' '...Ok!' exchange between Wolverine and Cyclops, so he got a good one in there, the same as everything else! he wrote! apart from that toad line!

edit: and as for getting it in on time, he will, he was occupied with other things when doing the WW treatment, and admitted he had trouble with defining the character for the screen, so that took up a lot of time too. Here, he has no such problem with the characters already established in their onscreen personas. It will simply be a matter of him arranging and conducting the music.

Saint

04-13-2010, 05:59 PM

I like that some people are saying that Whedon's AXM was no good; such comments help me easily identify whose opinions to ignore.

I'm happy to see Whedon finally land the sort of gig he deserves, and to be involved in a comic book movie period--even though I would have preferred him on a handful of other properties. As I said at the beginning of this thread, my Whedon-confidence is near total, but there's always the chance that a certain property won't click with a certain creator, and I'd never thought of Joss as an Avengers man, so there is some degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to expect greatness.

flickchick85

04-13-2010, 06:01 PM

Buffy was one of the least "forgettable" shows ever created. WTF at some of these comments. Also, that show was melodramatic because it was the coming-of-age story of a 16-year-old girl. As the character aged/matured, so did the show. It's kind of like Harry Potter in that way, actually.

But despite being extremely different in tone to this (AND his other projects, for the record) the show also showcased some of Joss's strengths that are gonna be vital to The Avengers: Balancing the fantastical universe/plot elements with emotional realism, maintaining high stakes and drama while keeping a sense of fun, and most importantly - nailing the elements of a strong ensemble of characters. Actually, the ensemble dynamics are pretty much the strongest aspects of his body of work. He basically works miracles in that department, which is the #1 trait that makes him a great fit for this project.

IMO, this is a far more encouraging choice than Letterier, and I'm now about 10x more excited for this movie.

Lunar_Wolf

04-13-2010, 06:03 PM

I'm in mix about this. I like it, but on the other hand I really don't know if I do.

Gunga Diner

04-13-2010, 06:06 PM

I don't understand how this is anything but good news.

I wasn't excited for the Avengers because I was worried that it was gonna be 2 meaningless hours of superheroes punching things. Not like I'm against that. But now it'll have a centralized story, internal conflicts, and a real talent with his own sensibilities and voice calling the shots. I finally can safely say that the Avengers will be a movie about interesting characters with a strong story. God knows he's good with ensemble casts.

The Avengers movie officially has a soul.

Sawyer

04-13-2010, 06:06 PM

An odd choice for Avengers, but I'm good with it. :up:

I love Whedon and though I would rather see him meddle in the X-Men film universe (since it reallllly needs someone good to handle it), I think he'll do a great job.

mclay18

04-13-2010, 06:12 PM

No doubt he'll vastly improve on Penn's script but Whedon's flaky track record with him losing the Wonder Woman movie because of his delays and his glacier slow release during writing for Runaways, I really wouldn't expect this movie to make the 2012 timetable now.

Um, Whedon wanted to get the ball rolling on WW -- but it was WB execs and Joel Silver who were dragging their feet around. Whedon really wanted to get cracking on the script, and he did two detailed outlines before he bailed out on the project.

And back when Whedon worked as a script doctor and seven years ago, he was frontrunning three shows at once (Firefly, Angel, and Buffy). The guy is used to high-pressure, quick writing on a deadline.

People are forgetting that The Avengers is supposed to come out May 4, 2012. Right now is April 2010 -- there is plenty of time for Whedon to crank out several rewrites for Marvel before diving into pre-production and principal photography.

bunk

04-13-2010, 06:17 PM

I'm pretty optimistic at this point. I want the guy who cares about characters more than he does explosions. That's what this movie needs. And it doesn't hurt to have somebody who can actually improve the script rather than just change it.

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 06:23 PM

This is a big move for Whedon. I hope he can handle the pressure and working on what really should be one of if not the biggest and most important movie of all time.
One of if not the biggest overstatement of all time?

Yellow Cyclone

04-13-2010, 06:27 PM

:doh::down

KangConquers

04-13-2010, 06:29 PM

IMO, this is a far more encouraging choice than Letterier, and I'm now about 10x more excited for this movie.

Being a better director than Letterier is like being faster in a foot race than Charles Xavier...it's not a big accomplishment.

Saint

04-13-2010, 06:29 PM

Raiden

04-13-2010, 06:32 PM

IMO, this is a far more encouraging choice than Letterier, and I'm now about 10x more excited for this movie.

I'm also glad it's not Letterier; I know that Letterier tried to lobby for the job but Marvel have come to a smart conclusion that he'd be wrong director for the job. Although I like TIH, I don't think characterization and working on an ensemble are his strengths, and both are needed in a movie like The Avengers. While I have my reservation about Whedon, he should be able to make sure the superheroes are represented accurately and won't be lost in midst of so many characters.

TikkiEXX

04-13-2010, 06:36 PM

well i liked Buffy, i loved Angel, and i really dug Firefly. i think this could really work.

Figs

04-13-2010, 06:37 PM

I like that some people are saying that Whedon's AXM was no good; such comments help me easily identify whose opinions to ignore.

What does AXM stand for again?

One of if not the biggest overstatement of all time?

Not sure if this is correct but I think TheVileOne might have meant one of the biggest comic films. If that's the case I have to agree with him. As for biggest film overall, not so much.

FlickChick85, I wasn't meaning to talk **** about Buffy. I also didn't know she was 16, I thought she was in college. From what one of my coworkers told me earlier today, both that show and Angel were pretty good. I was worried at first but I trust my coworker's judgement and opinions so i'll definitely give Whedon a chance.

04-13-2010, 06:42 PM

People have been overstating The Avengers since day one. Yes, it's a big movie, but it's just a movie and it's really not that different then any other big blockbuster.

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 06:43 PM

Not sure if this is correct but I think TheVileOne might have meant one of the biggest comic films. If that's the case I have to agree with him. As for biggest film overall, not so much.
If that's the case I agree. Just thought it was a comically geeky thing to say taking it the other way. I actually think these Marvel Studios movies are kind of like the modern day version of the Universal Monster movies of the 20's-50's. (In fact if Marvel could get Deadpool rights back, he could be the Abbot & Costello installments of these)

Saint

04-13-2010, 06:44 PM

What does AXM stand for again?
Astonishing X-Men.

FlickChick85, I wasn't meaning to talk **** about Buffy. I also didn't know she was 16, I thought she was in college.
Both true; she's sixteen in the first season; she starts college in the fourth season.

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 06:46 PM

She was 16 when it started I believe and 23 when it ended. As far as being a better director than Leterrier, not so sure. Technically I think LL is better. He can movie his camera far better. Not saying I think LL was right for Avengers just that he is taking a beating for his movies that have been messed with a lot.

Compi716

04-13-2010, 06:47 PM

Whedon's not a bad choice. I've never really watched Firefly or Buffy, but I did love his Astonishing X-Men.

Hopefully he brings the same team-dynamic atmosphere to The Avengers.

KangConquers

04-13-2010, 06:56 PM

People have been overstating The Avengers since day one. Yes, it's a big movie, but it's just a movie and it's really not that different then any other big blockbuster.

The only thing I could see it being biggest of is biggest budget ever.

That said, I also see it placing the top 20 grossing movies of all time.

echostation

04-13-2010, 06:57 PM

My pick would've been Matthew Vaughn... He would have been fantastic, Whedon's not bad... I think it'll really depend on how Thor and Captain America go to see how good Branagh and Johnston are with comic book films... if their films are amazing then I think Marvel may have made a mistake, but Whedon's a decent enough choice

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 07:01 PM

Although I am unsure of Whedon's film directing ability, I will say that he'll handle the big baddie well. Whether it be Skrulls and Hulk or Loki and Hulk.

Gabe99

04-13-2010, 07:03 PM

From Deadline:
Whedon To Direct Marvel's 'The Avengers' (http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/)

From Heat Vision:
Joss Whedon directing 'Avengers'? (http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/04/joss-whedon-directing-avengers.html)

From Variety:
Whedon to head 'Avengers' (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017689.html?categoryid=10&cs=1)

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 07:16 PM

Again I will hope for the best...and hope the effects guys can really shape the action scenes. I have little doubt that he can do something interesting in the writing portion. Hell it might be the intriguing choice Edward Norton needed to commit.

Raiden

04-13-2010, 07:19 PM

I'm happy that Whedon will rewrite Zak "X3" Penn's script; I think he will do a better job with it.

Nivek

04-13-2010, 07:28 PM

I don't believe it yet. Probably the best guy out there to take on a group of super powered beings. I would love it, but like the Norton casting as Bruce Banner, I'll wait till it's Official before I start praising Marvel for bringing a good director in to direct the Uber film (and dammit, if Joss is in the Directors seat, awesomeness).

marvelrobbins

04-13-2010, 07:30 PM

I agree with that the only good films he was Involved with were X2 and The Incredible Hulk.Edward Norton rewrote his Incredible Hulk script and Bryan Singer brough others to work on the X2 script.Remember Joss received an oscar nomination for Toy Story.

SpiderByte

04-13-2010, 07:31 PM

I'd be happier with Leterrier, but this is awesome too.

And to everyone who's going to ask me why I like Leterrier: He really seems to want to get involved with the character's actions, the way they feel. He let Edward Norton show some ideas about how the Hulk could look, and Leterrier made absolutely sure everything was perfect. TIH was five kinds of badass.

Whedon's good too, but Leterrier would dig deeper.

roach

04-13-2010, 07:34 PM

Not a fan of the Buffy stuff nor Firefly..didnt like his AXM (sorry but it took too long to come out and i dropped it because i couldnt remember what had happened)....taking a wait and see attitude

SpiderByte

04-13-2010, 07:35 PM

Wait, Whedon did Toy Story?

I *****ing LOVED Toy Story when I was a kid!

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 07:42 PM

There was 8 writers on Toy Story don't give Joss credit for it if you are going to discount Zak Penn's effort on X2.

marvelrobbins

04-13-2010, 07:47 PM

He was one of the Writers of Toy Story.

samsnee

04-13-2010, 07:55 PM

Letterier would have been a safe bet. I thought TIH and Clash were well handled, and it was the studio that really messed the latter up.

With Whedon, it can either be really good (AXM) or really bad (lightning hits a toad).

Deaths Head II

04-13-2010, 07:58 PM

**** YES.

I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl right now.

SpiderByte

04-13-2010, 07:58 PM

Well, that changes everything.

One of the main problems with Avengers was that it would be hard to juggle all the main characters around while still giving them each enough interaction and character development. Toy Story has, what, seven central characters, along with tons of minor characters.

This film will be totalepicawesomebadasscoolwina-palooza.

OptimusPrime114

04-13-2010, 08:13 PM

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 08:14 PM

He was one of the Writers of Toy Story.

I get that much. I am saying why give Whedon the credit of being 1 of 8 writers if they are going to discredit Zak Penn's credit on X2 for the same thing. I think people come down on Zak Penn too hard. You know what I mean? Like the Incredible Hulk was only good because of Norton, x2 was only good because of the other writers, but Xmen3 and FF were bad because of him. Just unfair on all counts.

flickchick85

04-13-2010, 08:39 PM

Being a better director than Letterier is like being faster in a foot race than Charles Xavier...it's not a big accomplishment.
Haha, true, I was just making the comparison since Letterier seemed like a very real possibility. Otherwise, it's not worth comparing.

FlickChick85, I wasn't meaning to talk **** about Buffy. I also didn't know she was 16, I thought she was in college.
No worries, I didn't mean to come across personally offended, either. I just tend to jump to Buffy's defense because about 3 years ago, I had the exact same attitude that so many people seem to have, based on what few episodes I'd seen of it - that the whole thing was just damned silly. Then my college roommate made me actually take the time to watch it all, and my eyes were opened to how great and literate the show really was, beneath what it appeared to be on the surface. So now when people say things similar to the way I once felt about the show, my knee-jerk reaction is to chalk it up to the same ignorance of the series that I used to be guilty of myself. :)

Also, if this gets finalized and more people want to get to know his work as a director (which I actual prefer over his writing, though I do like them both), then they should check out Serenity (obviously), the Firefly episodes he directed (the Pilot, also called "Serenity," and "Objects in Space"), and the classic Buffy episodes he directed, like "Hush" (4x10), "Restless" (4x22), and "The Body" (5x16).

lixdexia

04-13-2010, 08:52 PM

I get that much. I am saying why give Whedon the credit of being 1 of 8 writers if they are going to discredit Zak Penn's credit on X2 for the same thing. I think people come down on Zak Penn too hard. You know what I mean? Like the Incredible Hulk was only good because of Norton, x2 was only good because of the other writers, but Xmen3 and FF were bad because of him. Just unfair on all counts....you're penn, aren't you?:oldrazz:

Haha, true, I was just making the comparison since Letterier seemed like a very real possibility. Otherwise, it's not worth comparing.

No worries, I didn't mean to come across personally offended, either. I just tend to jump to Buffy's defense because about 3 years ago, I had the exact same attitude that so many people seem to have, based on what few episodes I'd seen of it - that the whole thing was just damned silly. Then my college roommate made me actually take the time to watch it all, and my eyes were opened to how great and literate the show really was, beneath what it appeared to be on the surface. So now when people say things similar to the way I once felt about the show, my knee-jerk reaction is to chalk it up to the same ignorance of the series that I used to be guilty of myself. :)

Also, if this gets finalized and more people want to get to know his work as a director (which I actual prefer over his writing, though I do like them both), then they should check out Serenity (obviously), the Firefly episodes he directed (the Pilot, also called "Serenity," and "Objects in Space"), and the classic Buffy episodes he directed, like "Hush" (4x10), "Restless" (4x22), and "The Body" (5x16).
buffy is so awesome that i got 3 credits of "critical thinking" just by discussing the show:awesome:

the peak of whedon awesomeness for me though (and proof that he can do more than just strong female leads) is angel season 5. if can balance the big 3 (and that other guy) as well as he balanced angel, spike, gunn and wesley (although not in a directorial capacity admitedly) then this movie will avoid the "(insert your choice of the big 3 here) and the avengers" feel that has loomed over the idea of an avengers movie for me since it's first mention.

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 08:54 PM

Not in the least. I just hate fanboy antics. Especially when in a single post someone uses the same judgement for someone and against someone else.

roach

04-13-2010, 08:58 PM

well I watched Buffy and it didnt do anything for me

Figs

04-13-2010, 09:08 PM

No worries, I didn't mean to come across personally offended, either. I just tend to jump to Buffy's defense because about 3 years ago, I had the exact same attitude that so many people seem to have, based on what few episodes I'd seen of it - that the whole thing was just damned silly. Then my college roommate made me actually take the time to watch it all, and my eyes were opened to how great and literate the show really was, beneath what it appeared to be on the surface. So now when people say things similar to the way I once felt about the show, my knee-jerk reaction is to chalk it up to the same ignorance of the series that I used to be guilty of myself.

You didn't come across offended, I was just letting you know I wasn't trying to bash anything.

Another key thing in regards to Buffy is that my gf said she caught a few episodes when it was on and said it was pretty good. My gf isn't into girly/romance stuff so that's also a good sign that I might like that show. She liked Angel more though but that's because she likes Boreanaz and she got me into the show Bones last year.

Thanks for the reply Saint. I can't believe I didn't figure that out but I never got around to reading AXM.

Son of Coul

04-13-2010, 09:11 PM

I just watched Dr. Horrible and think he's more than capable of getting into the characters as long as he doesn't try to inflict too much of his own apparent style into the movie.

Chewy

04-13-2010, 09:14 PM

The most important thing Whedon brings to this table and the thing that makes me confidant about the pick is his ability to handle ensemble casts.

lixdexia

04-13-2010, 09:22 PM

Not in the least. I just hate fanboy antics. Especially when in a single post someone uses the same judgement for someone and against someone else.
i know, i was just poking fun at your fervent defense of penn. i understand and support your sentiment.

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 09:22 PM

My big question about Whedon is his technical skill with a camera not his penmanship (which Marvel would be smart to watch carefully). He doesn't use a lot of wide angle and his camera is a bit stationary. I did like the opening shot of Serenity a lot though.

DocHoliday

04-13-2010, 09:26 PM

i know, i was just poking fun at your fervent defense of penn. i understand and support your sentiment.

Oh I figured. Besides you have a Hawkeye avatar, you must have a ton of logic.

roach

04-13-2010, 09:29 PM

My only concern is that Whedon/Avengers doesnt live up to the high bar set by the other films

Deaths Head II

04-13-2010, 09:34 PM

Not a fan of the Buffy stuff nor Firefly..didnt like his AXM (sorry but it took too long to come out and i dropped it because i couldnt remember what had happened)....taking a wait and see attitude

They have these things called Trade paperbacks. You should look into it.

Seriously though, Astonishing was one of those stories that felt like it was meant to be all at once. The whole run is pretty much one self-contained story. I strongly recommend checking out the collected books. But I'm one of those guys who waits for the tradepaper backs on every book because honestly I can't collect single issue books anymore.

04-13-2010, 09:37 PM

Whedon excels at character driven ensembles.

04-13-2010, 09:37 PM

Whedon excels at character driven ensembles.

Nirvana

04-13-2010, 09:41 PM

I'm honestly not terribly familair with his work outside of Serenity and a few episodes of Firefly. I think he'll do good. Too bad they couldn't have gotten any of the other four current directors to take the helm.

roach

04-13-2010, 09:44 PM

They have these things called Trade paperbacks. You should look into it.

Seriously though, Astonishing was one of those stories that felt like it was meant to be all at once. The whole run is pretty much one self-contained story. I strongly recommend checking out the collected books. But I'm one of those guys who waits for the tradepaper backs on every book because honestly I can't collect single issue books anymore.

i just dont have the desire to do that now