Avengers Assembled: News and Speculation - - - Part 69

[Bruce Malone]

Whedon is a creator, avengers probably doesn't have as big a place in his heart as his original work due to the fact that it was something he signed on to and not created himself. He likely considers some of his original creations great but not the thing he was just singed up for.

It's sort of a reason you won't see very established directors jump onto other properties, they like to create the worlds themselves.

I think the only reason Disney got him back is they must have offered him the moon when it came to his salary bump up.

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

i won't argue with someone who says they prefer Serenity or Firefly over the Avengers but jeez, "easily his weakest piece"

thoroughly bewildered. do you honestly prefer early Buffy to The Avengers??

Are you referring to the film or television series? I wasn't including the film when talking about his oeuvre of work because he pretty much disowned the project before it even came out due to how it was being treated. As for the the tv series, yeah, I think Buffy is very strong and boasts some great character work and clearly defined, interesting thematics throughout. I recognise the inherent problems in comparing a tv series to a film though given they are different storytelling mediums.

As for the 'rushed production' comment, I stand by it. Whedon admitted that he had very little time to get everything sorted and claimed to be writing, directing and editing the film all at the same time. He said that he enjoyed the pressure and wasn't being hostile towards Marvel when he was speaking but he did make it clear that he came in fairly last minute and was given a very strict deadline. They weren't going to move the release date again to accommodate Whedon. Under the circumstances, it's pretty impressive that Whedon produced something as great as he did.

[Wolvieboy17]

If you're talking subjectively, fine. You can like whatever the hell you want.

But to make a declaritive statement that Avengers is EASILY his weakest, there needs to be some kind of objective reasoning behind that for the statement to have any credibility at all.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Lorus

Are you referring to the film or television series? I wasn't including the film when talking about his oeuvre of work because he pretty much disowned the project before it even came out due to how it was being treated.

The Buffy film is still Whedon's artistic work, whether or not he wants to disown it. As is the case with the wretched Alien Resurrection. It's understandable that Whedon wouldn't want to take the blame for those massive failures, but he got sole writing credits for both the Buffy film and AR, which makes him responsible for those scripts. And then there's Dollhouse. Even allowing for the subjective nature of judgments about quality, claiming that it was better than The Avengers is laughable on its face.


Would you say that The Avengers is weaker than Alien Ressurection or Dollhouse? Or are you pulling the "Whedon didn't like it/the network interfered so it isn't his work" card for those ones, too?

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

If you're talking subjectively, fine. You can like whatever the hell you want.

But to make a declaritive statement that Avengers is EASILY his weakest, there needs to be some kind of objective reasoning behind that for the statement to have any credibility at all.

We're talking about artistic works in which there can be no objective judge of quality. Given that we all understand that, I'd have thought that I could make comments and have everyone appreciate that I don't speak with absolute authority on the matter given that none exists. I do have reasoning behind making my decision which I'm happy to discuss and debate, that's the whole point of these boards. Not many posters have offered much objective reasoning for the Avengers superiority and nobody appears outraged.

The Buffy film is still Whedon's artistic work, whether or not he wants to disown it. As is the case with the wretched Alien Resurrection. It's understandable that Whedon wouldn't want to take the blame for those massive failures, but he got sole writing credits for both the Buffy film and AR, which makes him responsible for those scripts. And then there's Dollhouse. Even allowing for the subjective nature of judgments about quality, claiming that it was better than The Avengers is laughable on its face.


Would you say that The Avengers is weaker than Alien Ressurection or Dollhouse? Or are you pulling the "Whedon didn't like it/the network interfered so it isn't his work" card for those ones, too?

From what I can gather, Whedon disowned the Buffy film because it didn't accurately represent his ideas, hence the show. He refused to associate with the film before any critical reception was received. As such, I don't associate that film with Whedon more than I associate the Avengers with Penn. I have no idea how Alien Resurrection went down but the situation seems similar. If I must clarify then I'll amend the statement to say that I consider Avengers weaker than his television work, Serenity and his Marvel comics.

Dollhouse is not perfect, nothing is, but I think its strengths outweigh its flaws. Season 1's 'Man on the Street', season 2's 'Vows' or the unaired pilot 'Echo' are good examples of the strengths of that show. All written by Whedon. They tackle some interesting themes, provide good characterisation and the subtext is tackled with perhaps a greater degree of nuance, or is less muddled than Avengers. I don't find those statement particularly absurd.

[lixdexia]

edited for douchiness of statement

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Lorus

We're talking about artistic works in which there can be no objective judge of quality. Given that we all understand that, I'd have thought that I could make comments and have everyone appreciate that I don't speak with absolute authority on the matter given that none exists. I do have reasoning behind making my decision which I'm happy to discuss and debate, that's the whole point of these boards. Not many posters have offered much objective reasoning for the Avengers superiority and nobody appears outraged.

Around here, whenever you express an opinion or speculation, everybody automatically assumes you're trying to assert cold hard facts; and therefore, when your opinion or speculation disagrees with their beliefs, you are therefore "wrong."

It's the nature of the 'Hype.

[Wolvieboy17]

No, I think on these forums, whenever someone has an opinion that is particularly strong or extreme, if they DON'T back it up with any real reasoning, a lot of the time they're trolling. It's an unfortunate truth on the Hype.

However, I would like to have a discussion about it so Lorus, I'm curious as to your rationale, particularly with shows like Dollhouse that I think are bigger weaknesses of Whedon's.

I'll start with my reasons why I think Avengers was one of his best, because he managed to perfectly bridge the mediums of comic and film by using all the same skills and writing tools he has utilised in his years of comic writing and managed to make it work on screen. He managed to juggle 5 or more big characters, included some great character moments, some of which are that particular characters greatest moments in any non-comic medium as well as delivering an amazing action finale.

Discuss? :P

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

No, I think on these forums, whenever someone has an opinion that is particularly strong or extreme, if they DON'T back it up with any real reasoning, a lot of the time they're trolling. It's an unfortunate truth on the Hype.

However, I would like to have a discussion about it so Lorus, I'm curious as to your rationale, particularly with shows like Dollhouse that I think are bigger weaknesses of Whedon's.

I'll start with my reasons why I think Avengers was one of his best, because he managed to perfectly bridge the mediums of comic and film by using all the same skills and writing tools he has utilised in his years of comic writing and managed to make it work on screen. He managed to juggle 5 or more big characters, included some great character moments, some of which are that particular characters greatest moments in any non-comic medium as well as delivering an amazing action finale.

Discuss? :P

Well, I think I should start by again stating that I do think the Avengers is a strong piece of work, so when I call it Whedon's weakest I'm not attempting to demean it. I agree with much of what you say about it, however I think there are parts of the craft which he has more deftly handled elsewhere.

Take the character arcs, they are fairly small and perfectly functional within the film, tying into the overall theme of the film. However, they are weakened somewhat by the fact that they don't get much exploration as it were. Take Natasha's arc: she wrestles with her own self delusion about the morality and clinical nature of her world view before actively deciding to involve herself in the world. This is instigated by her interrogation of Loki but there is little exploration of the idea before she concludes her arc in talking to Hawkeye.

His other works, I think, delve into the evolution of the arcs more thoroughly. Serenity, which is a weaker ensemble piece in the sense of equally developed characters but a stronger overall film, takes more time with Mal's development and explores it to a greater degree. His tv ensemble work obvious does this too, but I hesitate to compare the depth of character work over a season of television to one film.

The subtext is murkier in the Avengers as well. The themes of individualism, collectivism, control and identity are there but they don't quite cohere in my mind because they don't appear to have Whedon's full attention. I find that a bit frustrating because it makes some elements seem a bit disjointed. There seems to be a greater degree of streamlining in his other work, Dollhouse, I feel is very strong in this area.

There are also a few awkward moments of storytelling within the Avengers. To an extent, the audience can be blamed for complaining about Stark's supposed regression or the Hulk's level of control because they have misinterpreted the film, but Whedon also bears some level of responsibility for not expressing himself clearly. I must confess that I feel I only understand Banner's character as I do because Whedon used a very similar device in Astonishing X-Men with Cyclops, where it was better expressed.

I'm possibly rambling a bit but hopefully this can open a dialogue which will allow me to streamline my thoughts.

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, I get where you're coming from.

On the topic of subtext and character development, I don't think it's quite fair to compare it with Whedon's television work. In those instances, he has about 12 - 20 hours per season to flesh out his characters, and they are HIS characters right from the get go.

With Avengers, he was picking up other peoples iterations of these characters and his goal was to, along with bringing them all together in a cohesive and engaging story, to make the characters his as well, both things I think he succeeded at. Now, part of this is due to the strong level of communication Marvel has had across all the films as far as maintaining a continuity. But consider the fact that Joss Whedon now has the role of overseeing all of the Marvel properties. He is the one who will be joining the dots, connecting the visions. I think Avengers was just the start of Whedons vision, and with that in mind, I don't think it's fair to judge the extent of the character development we saw. The fact that we saw such great character development in a huge ensemble film like this at all is amazing, but in the scope of the overall MCU story, this is just one comic volume, one episode of an overall 'series' if you will. I don't think there needs to be the same expectation on development. If anything, a lot of the character development was resolved in the final fight, with some character conflicts being resolved from their OWN movies.

The threads left untied seem more than likely to continue in the characters solo movies and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Think of a comic book. How often do you get EVERYTHING resolved in the one volume?

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

So you're saying he had two years to work on the script?

Hired in summer 2010, film releases in 2012....no, that's 2 years to make the entire movie.

[jaymes_e06]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Yeah, I get where you're coming from.

On the topic of subtext and character development, I don't think it's quite fair to compare it with Whedon's television work. In those instances, he has about 12 - 20 hours per season to flesh out his characters, and they are HIS characters right from the get go.

With Avengers, he was picking up other peoples iterations of these characters and his goal was to, along with bringing them all together in a cohesive and engaging story, to make the characters his as well, both things I think he succeeded at. Now, part of this is due to the strong level of communication Marvel has had across all the films as far as maintaining a continuity. But consider the fact that Joss Whedon now has the role of overseeing all of the Marvel properties. He is the one who will be joining the dots, connecting the visions. I think Avengers was just the start of Whedons vision, and with that in mind, I don't think it's fair to judge the extent of the character development we saw. The fact that we saw such great character development in a huge ensemble film like this at all is amazing, but in the scope of the overall MCU story, this is just one comic volume, one episode of an overall 'series' if you will. I don't think there needs to be the same expectation on development. If anything, a lot of the character development was resolved in the final fight, with some character conflicts being resolved from their OWN movies.

The threads left untied seem more than likely to continue in the characters solo movies and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Think of a comic book. How often do you get EVERYTHING resolved in the one volume?

This.

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

Hired in summer 2010, film releases in 2012....no, that's 2 years to make the entire movie.

Which is not entirely unheard of and pretty doable in Hollywood. It's not like he was starting with a whole cast of blank characters he had to flesh out in a 2.5 hour film. Plus, Marvel had plenty of resources and people to help him with anything he needed.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

Which is not entirely unheard of and pretty doable in Hollywood.

I didn't say it's unheard of. It's doable, but as I said earlier, it is a very tight schedule and doesn't allow for very much course correction (see Iron Man 2). Which is why I agree that it's a miracle the movie turned out to be as great as it is, and why I'm very happy that Whedon has more time for the sequel.

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

It's not like he was starting with a whole cast of blank characters he had to flesh out in a 2.5 hour film.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[flickchick85]

I think Avengers is FAR from Whedon's weakest piece (It easily tops Alien Resurrection, the Buffy movie, and maybe also Dollhouse and Dr. Horrible even though I love those), but I do think Buffy The Show, on the whole (not each and every episode, just like not each and every scene in the Avengers is without criticism), was a much bigger and better achievement. I actually still think it's his greatest achievement as a storyteller. BUT, Phase II (& maybe III?) has the potential to be even better if he ends up seeing it all through as one gigantic story. Avengers on it's own is like S1 of any Whedon show - barely scratching the surface of what it could/would become, imo.

[Aztec]

Avengers= weak on any level????

Some people just don't get it...

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Aztec

Avengers= weak on any level????

Some people just don't get it...

At least most of them seem to have dropped the "looks like a TV show/the cinematography is horrible" canard, so I guess we should be grateful.

[metaphysician]

Honestly, I wouldn't buy Buffy being stronger, not as a whole. Bearing in mind that comparing a movie to a TV series is somewhat apples and oranges, Buffy has two positively dreadful seasons, and large chunks of mediocrity. Avengers, by contrast, manages to maintain note-perfect characterization and ( especially ) pacing from beginning to end. Consistency is a major virtue.

[Dark Raven]

Buffy also has quite a few annoying characters, and he was still in the thick of his excessive Whedonisms back then. They've gradually been pruned away so that people can be a bit more normal and not sound so quirky and adding "y" onto the end of everything. Avengers is a more mature and balanced work. Even Dollhouse had pruned away some of those elements, with the only overly quirky character being Topher, who would've been so commonplace back at the time of Buffy.

[Sawyer]

The Avengers just lacks the depth that Buffy often had.

It's Joss making his version of a Michael Bay Transformers movie. Granted, it's considerably better than an actual Michael Bay Transformers movie. But it's just all spectacle.

Now, it's obviously not his worst work, that's just crazy. But it's also not his best.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

The Avengers just lacks the depth that Buffy often had.

It's Joss making his version of a Michael Bay Transformers movie. Granted, it's considerably better than an actual Michael Bay Transformers movie. But it's just all spectacle.

Now, it's obviously not his worst work, that's just crazy. But it's also not his best.

I think it's fair to say I disagree with you on that point.

I can't really speak to whether Buffy was better, since I've never seen it. Maybe it is. I don't think it's fair to categorize Avengers as just a spectacle. Whedon doesn't write those kinds of stories.

[The_Mighty_Thor]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

The Avengers just lacks the depth that Buffy often had.

If your talking about the series then sure. An on going series can go deeper because they have all the time in the world and you know the chatracters and sub plots from previous episodes. If you're talking about the movie then no freakin way. In fact that might be the worst thing that Joss ever wrote.

It's Joss making his version of a Michael Bay Transformers movie. Granted, it's considerably better than an actual Michael Bay Transformers movie. But it's just all spectacle.

There was nothing Micheal Bay about it at all. Not in any way. That's just absurd.

[The Guard]

THE AVENGERS isn’t remotely Whedon’s weakest work. It’s also nowhere near his best, other than action and scale.

Originally Posted by Lorus

The subtext is murkier in the Avengers as well. The themes of individualism, collectivism, control and identity are there but they don't quite cohere in my mind because they don't appear to have Whedon's full attention.

And that is the film’s weakest element…it introduces concepts and themes, but it does little to explore them. Joss Whedon’s a much, much better writer than that.

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Yeah, I get where you're coming from.
The fact that we saw such great character development in a huge ensemble film like this at all is amazing, but in the scope of the overall MCU story, this is just one comic volume, one episode of an overall 'series' if you will. I don't think there needs to be the same expectation on development. If anything, a lot of the character development was resolved in the final fight, with some character

Calling this film’s character development “great” strikes me as serious hyperbole. The character interaction in the film is pretty solid, at least unique.

The actual character development is minimal.

And yes, there’s a difference in the time one has to develop characters in the TV format VS film, but there’s really no difference in the idea of shifting focus from character development to story and action. You either focus on that element as a writer, or you don’t. Whedon chose to focus on humor instead, and let a lot of the weighter and more interesting elements sit on the backburner. And I think he recognizes that.

[Aztec]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

The Avengers just lacks the depth that Buffy often had.

It's Joss making his version of a Michael Bay Transformers movie.

Congrats you've just said the dumbest thing on the internet today!

[Sawyer]

Oh gosh, I've pissed off the fanatics!

Get over yourselves.