Just Imagine Joss Whedon's Spider-Man

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Based on trailers and clips that we have seen up to this point I'm thankful that Webb is directing. Frankly, I would be shocked if TASM isn't a better film. I do think the Avengers will be great, but more in a swashbuckling/comicbook way. In it's epic scope. But in terms of character development and pathos, I don't think Avengers will touch TASM. I don't think TDKR will.

[Leenie]

Joss Whedon's Spider-Man ... WHY OH WHY did someone have to mention this? I want this movie now! Haha.

The #1 thing that I absolutely loved about The Avengers is how relentlessly comic book-y it is, while still being epic and awesome. Whedon knows his stuff, and I know he would do our favorite webslinger justice. I wouldn't question it.

Gah, I'm even thinking about how awesome Dr. Horrible turned out. Granted, I wouldn't want Spidey to have a musical (... Or do I? Whedon could pull it off, lol), but a Spider-Man movie with a similar, witty tone would be oh so wonderful and charming. And perfect for Spider-Man.

[mightiest_mortal]

errrrr no.

Much as I love Avengers, I really just don't think Spider-man would suit his writing style and tropes... at all. He works much better with ensemble casts anyway also.

[The Morningstar]

haha looking at the previous posts in this thread. You utter, utter failures! Come back and eat some crow why don't ya.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

Based on trailers and clips that we have seen up to this point I'm thankful that Webb is directing. Frankly, I would be shocked if TASM isn't a better film. I do think the Avengers will be great, but more in a swashbuckling/comicbook way. In it's epic scope. But in terms of character development and pathos, I don't think Avengers will touch TASM. I don't think TDKR will.

Lol.

[OctaviusINC]

Man, reading the beginning of this thread is too good.

"I wouldn't let Whedon near a comic book movie."

You didn't and yet he made one. A great one, mind you.

I think Whedon could do a decent Spidey film if given the chance. I feel his humor is very quick witted and suitable for Spider-man. Though I love the Raimi films, his humor was very hit or miss. He's got the double life high school drama aspect down with his work on Buffy. The horror aspect of his previous projects could lead to a frightening villain. Avengers proved that he could do awesome high octane action.

But I like what I've seen from Webb for the most part.

[Excelsior.]

LOL LOL

LOL at this thread. Oh man. The amount crow eating is glorious.

[Bruce Malone]

I think joss whedon would have actually been the perfect director for spider-man. Probably a better match than the avengers if you think about it.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

LOL LOL

LOL at this thread. Oh man. The amount crow eating is glorious.

Indeed. Embarassing.

Whedon's style is perfectly comic book. Spider-Man might have been the best fit as well. I can imagine a film series with the tone of early Buffy. It has all of the youth, humour and angst that would work well for this property.

Oh well, he made his mark in the genre with Avengers, and while I have my reservations about Webb's film from the trailers, he's an interesting choice and there's every chance he'll deliver.

[Avenger]

Spidey delivering Whedon dialogue would be pure gold.

[DACrowe]

I've said since Serenity (way back in 2005!) that Joss would be great for Spidey. He'd bring out the humor of the character and his world without making it campy. Kind of like he just did with Avengers. He also could have brought out the teen angst/soap opera in a less soapy way than the Raimi trilogy like he did on shows like Buffy. That's something he can't do on Avengers.

Oh well. I think it's for the best for Joss. TASM is going to likely underperform, so it's good for him to get material that allowed him to make one of the most successful films of all time instead of risking more disappointment. Just saying.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by brianbuck

Oh, please God no.

Joss Wheadons' level of suckage is galactic in scope. Hawking, Einstein and Emmett Brown would be unable to calculate it even if they had Data to help them out.

I'd just as soon not have him anywhere near any Marvel character.

I mean, I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer a few times. I felt brain cells die. And don't get me started on the musical episode. That was a crime against culture.

Originally Posted by Judge Holden

Just imagine Joss Whedon's Spider-Man? I'd rather not, thanks.

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Whedon is quite possibly the most overrated writer/director in Hollywood.

It sucks he got Avengers. Thank God Spidey was spared.

I just read the first page and found these nuggets.

[The Morningstar]

Hilarious aren't they?

I was never a fan of Buffy, Angel and what not. I just couldn't get into them. But it was clear the guy had talent. Loved Firefly and Serenity, and obviously Avengers.

I think most of the people who were trashing Whedon when he got the nod for Avengers were just ignorant idiots who were angry that Spielberg or some other big name director didn't get the job.

[henzINNIT]

Whedon is one of the most pssionately hated figures on the internet in places, I assume because some people can't stand that he's loved by others.

[OP84CC82]

Eh, I'm glad the way things turned out. I think TASM might even be better than Avengers.

[Picard Sisko]

I think Whedon did a really good job with the Avengers, but that was really a popcorn film. He didn't do anything with character development, and actually introduced plot holes for the convenience of the movie. For example, Banner can suddenly turn into the Hulk whenever he wants to instantly? "I'm always angry!" Then he quickly saves everyone after this immediate transformation which was never explained. And what about Thor coming out of nowhere? And Black Widow is not a superhero, yet the movie practically tries to make her one. *Captain America giving her a boost so she can fly on one of those aliens*

Spider-Man is more about the story, and character development (as shown in Spider-Man 2).

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I think Whedon did a really good job with the Avengers, but that was really a popcorn film. He didn't do anything with character development, and actually introduced plot holes for the convenience of the movie. For example, Banner can suddenly turn into the Hulk whenever he wants to instantly? "I'm always angry!" Then he quickly saves everyone after this immediate transformation which was never explained. And what about Thor coming out of nowhere? And Black Widow is not a superhero, yet the movie practically tries to make her one. *Captain America giving her a boost so she can fly on one of those aliens*

Spider-Man is more about the story, and character development (as shown in Spider-Man 2).

Disagree entirely. Being a group film, individual character arcs don't take centre stage, but every character has their own issues within the film that are dealt with by being part of the team. It's pretty genius in its structure actually.

Iron Man sheds some of his ego, inspired by Rogers' old fashioned heroism and embraces a more selfless and team oriented mindstate. Stark's care-free approach to life has a profound impact on Banner, who finally strikes a healthy balance between himself and Hulk by learning not to repress the other side. Captain America is validated by the end of the film when he is not only appreciated by the other team members as a leader, but by the public as a hero as well. He is still a man out of time, but the world still needs him. Thor reflects on his naive hunger for war, profoundly affected by the mortality of Caulson. Black Widow develops a consciouss, and admits to the truth in her interogation of Loki. Amongst the other heroes, she sees an opportunity to wipe the "red from her ledger".

More than just a group of egos clashing, each character has their own unique struggle that is rectified by being in the group. By interacting with eachother, everyone becomes a better person.

The Hulk thing isn't really a plot hole. I think maybe it could have been clearer, but Hulk in the hellicarrier is a repressed beast under the influence of Loki's magic, whereas Hulk in the final scenes is a willlingly unleashed and embraced character. Vastly different contexts. It's not a plot hole, it's a character development.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Disagree entirely. Being a group film, individual character arcs don't take centre stage, but every character has their own issues within the film that are dealt with by being part of the team. It's pretty genius in its structure actually.

Iron Man sheds some of his ego, inspired by Rogers' old fashioned heroism and embraces a more selfless and team oriented mindstate. Stark's care-free approach to life has a profound impact on Banner, who finally strikes a healthy balance between himself and Hulk by learning not to repress the other side. Captain America is validated by the end of the film when he is not only appreciated by the other team members as a leader, but by the public as a hero as well. He is still a man out of time, but the world still needs him. Thor reflects on his naive hunger for war, profoundly affected by the mortality of Caulson. Black Widow develops a consciouss, and admits to the truth in her interogation of Loki. Amongst the other heroes, she sees an opportunity to wipe the "red from her ledger".

More than just a group of egos clashing, each character has their own unique struggle that is rectified by being in the group. By interacting with eachother, everyone becomes a better person.

The Hulk thing isn't really a plot hole. I think maybe it could have been clearer, but Hulk in the hellicarrier is a repressed beast under the influence of Loki's magic, whereas Hulk in the final scenes is a willlingly unleashed and embraced character. Vastly different contexts. It's not a plot hole, it's a character development.

Character development or not, its still a plot hole. I know cinema studies and New Media majors that all agree on this. The Avengers is a Studio popcorn film, and that's just what it is. Did anything in the film happen unexpectedly? When Black Widow was tied to her seat, you know she is going to break free and kick everyone's butt. This movie was great, but it was severely overhyped.

[OP84CC82]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

For example, Banner can suddenly turn into the Hulk whenever he wants to instantly? "I'm always angry!" Then he quickly saves everyone after this immediate transformation which was never explained. And what about Thor coming out of nowhere?

At the end of The Incredible Hulk, Banner's eyes flash green while at the same time, he smiles. I think that was supposed to indicate that he finally took control of the Hulk. And after Thor takes Loki to the mountain after breaking him out of the Hellicarrier, Loki asks him how much dark magic Odin had to conjure up to send him to Earth, meaning that Thor was transported to Earth by Odin.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Character development or not, its still a plot hole. I know cinema studies and New Media majors that all agree on this. The Avengers is a Studio popcorn film, and that's just what it is. Did anything in the film happen unexpectedly? When Black Widow was tied to her seat, you know she is going to break free and kick everyone's butt. This movie was great, but it was severely overhyped.

I just told you how the plot made it clear that Loki was manipulating Hulk in the first appearence and not in the second. How is that a plot hole?

Banner saying he's "always angry" informs the audience that the only thing that really keeps the Hulk contained is Banner's reluctance and repression of it. Like you said, it's a popcorn film, it's pretty simple stuff.

Can you find a better example for nothing unexpected than "the superhero beats up the bad guys"? It's like saying Spider-Man is predictable because he suits up and defeats his opponents too. You clearly didn't expect the reveal about Banner and his true relationship with Hulk, but you have seemingly written that off as a plot hole. Not predictable enough for you?

What cinema studies course did you attend? I must avoid it.

[Picard Sisko]

The fact that he says "I'm always angry" and suddenly turns into the Hulk instantly at the right time is just too convenient. Doesn't it take longer for him to transform?

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

The fact that he says "I'm always angry" and suddenly turns into the Hulk instantly at the right time is just too convenient. Doesn't it take longer for him to transform?

Clearly not when he's not repressing it.

[Abudefduf]

Eh... After seeing The Avengers, I still wouldn't want a Whedon's Spider-Man. BUT, because yes there's a but, he'd probably make a very interesting Black Cat.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I think Whedon did a really good job with the Avengers, but that was really a popcorn film. He didn't do anything with character development, and actually introduced plot holes for the convenience of the movie. For example, Banner can suddenly turn into the Hulk whenever he wants to instantly? "I'm always angry!" Then he quickly saves everyone after this immediate transformation which was never explained. And what about Thor coming out of nowhere? And Black Widow is not a superhero, yet the movie practically tries to make her one. *Captain America giving her a boost so she can fly on one of those aliens*

Spider-Man is more about the story, and character development (as shown in Spider-Man 2).

Jumping ahead of ourselves are we? ASM is also a studio committee film. Let's not think it's the moon until we see it.

As for TA, Whedon wasn't allowed to delve into the dark sides of his characters for the first film, but he clearly developed them in a more witty way than almost any film in the genre to date.

[The Question]

I can imagine Joss Whedon's Spider-Man.

It's called Buffy The Vampire Slayer.