Will Joss actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER?

[henzINNIT]

I believe he was sincere in his intentions, but I'm not sure Marvel will go for it.

Your thoughts?

[dbxkilla]

i think by smaller he means no alien invasion or city wide battle just the avengers vs some really tough villain

[Artistsean]

where was this interview from?
link?

[Gabe99]

From Collider:
Editorial: Marvel Needs to Re-Hire Joss Whedon for THE AVENGERS 2

Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg

“Marvel needs to re-hire Joss Whedon for The Avengers 2.” How does this require an editorial? It’s such an obvious statement. Not only did the movie have the most successful opening-weekend gross of all-time, but it was also successful among critics. Why would you risk losing a single piece? Why jeopardize a formula that delivered such a resounding commercial and critical success? What studio would do such a thing?

Marvel would. Their hit-it-and-quit-it relationship with directors has served them well in terms of keeping costs down and making the productions run smoothly. No one rocks the boat, no one gets a pay bump for the sequel, and no director becomes bigger than the property he is directing. From a business standpoint, it’s a sensible trend. But it’s a trend that shouldn’t continue when it comes to The Avengers franchise.

[cherokeesam]

Before you ask whether or not Joss will actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER, you need to ask if Joss will actually make Avengers 2....period.

There's a lot of variables to bringing Joss back for Avengers 2. It's nowhere close to being a "given." Joss *has* become bigger than the property, so first and foremost, the ball is going to be in *his* court. He has to decide if he even wants to do Avengers 2, or if he'd like to seize the moment to chase after some personal projects that he might not have been able to fund before. Then, the ball goes back to Feige, and they have to decide if *they* want Joss back, or if they want to continue their past strategy of going after directors that don't have a lot of dollar signs attached to their names.

[psylockolussus]

Well I hope there will be more villains. Like at least 3.

The Avengers only had Loki.

[Silvermoth]

I think he just means it will be more personal. Loki is personal for Thor and Hawkeye but not so much for anyone else I guess.

Think about the first and second season of Buffy. Angelus was a way better villian not because of his power but because of his effect on Buffy. I would say it will be that sort of thing.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Well I hope there will be more villains. Like at least 3.

The Avengers only had Loki.

Because more villains always works out so well.

[DrCosmic]

^Zing.

Originally Posted by Silvermoth

I think he just means it will be more personal. Loki is personal for Thor and Hawkeye but not so much for anyone else I guess.

Think about the first and second season of Buffy. Angelus was a way better villian not because of his power but because of his effect on Buffy. I would say it will be that sort of thing.

He probably means smaller and more personal, like he said. I'm thinking he's thinking an Empire Strikes Back-type of follow up. It'll still have a lot of action and sci-fi and all that, but the climax won't be a grand battle, it'll be a small personal battle. I like that, and that has potential to be more satisfying if earned well than trying to go bigger than a metropolitan invasion, which you will then need to top again. As long as the stakes remain high, the battle doesn't need to have the same scale, I believe.

If we see Ultron, I bet it'll be a single unit capable of taking down the whole team physically and mentally, not an army of Ultrons that will overwhelm by sheer numbers.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

Because more villains always works out so well.

No because this isn't Spider-Man or Batman. Avengers is a team of superheroes and I would prefer if they fight with multiple villains and not just Loki.

[DrCosmic]

Whenever you have more than two villains, they become thin, especially in an ensemble movie, where you have to give storyline to a team of superheroes and then on top of that, to a team of supervillains. Someone ends up looking thin story-wise and the whole movie becomes weak. It being Avengers doesn't give them magical powers to make screentime out of thin air. It'll run into the same exact problems Spidey and Batman had, and quicker, because it is a team of superheroes.

[PunyGod]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.

Agreed. I said before this guy should be making all the Marvel films from now on as far I'm concerned. And this is coming from someone who is not even a Whedon fan. Avengers was just that good.

Also I wouldn't put too much stock in this "smaller" business. Director's always say things like that. I still remember when Lucas said Ep2 would just be a simple little love story.

[Silvermoth]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

He probably means smaller and more personal, like he said. I'm thinking he's thinking an Empire Strikes Back-type of follow up. It'll still have a lot of action and sci-fi and all that, but the climax won't be a grand battle, it'll be a small personal battle. I like that, and that has potential to be more satisfying if earned well than trying to go bigger than a metropolitan invasion, which you will then need to top again. As long as the stakes remain high, the battle doesn't need to have the same scale, I believe.

If we see Ultron, I bet it'll be a single unit capable of taking down the whole team physically and mentally, not an army of Ultrons that will overwhelm by sheer numbers.

sooooo...precisely what I said

[Closerframe]

Smaller could just mean more personal. As someone suggested, it could just mean the plot doesn't involve another alien invasion or a city getting leveled. I think introducing multiple villains would be best because Loki, being related to Thor, seemed more like a rehash of what we already saw in Thor only more furious. I'd like Ultron, Red Skull, and possibly Vision to make an appearance. And I wanna see how they're going to explain Thor's return this time because the only reason he showed up in The Avengers was because he wanted to stop his brother and reclaim the Cosmic Cube.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Silvermoth

sooooo...precisely what I said

I guess... when you said 'just' I thought you were trying to say that it wasn't going to actually be smaller in scope.

[L0ngsh0t]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Whedon can do what he wants.

I'll be ready with a big tub of popcorn.

Marvel would be suicidal to risk losing Whedon. Pay that man. He's earned it.

This is the problem with movie franchise, the reason movie franchises often run stale after a few movies and is dreadfully undermining the Batman franchise by forcing a reboot after 3 films when a reboot is not needed.

There are so many talented directors/writers/actors/prodcuers in Hollywood....Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Kevin Fiege has a lot of vision, I'm sure if they feel Joss can do it again they will bring him back....But they've shown to be pretty calculating when it comes to keeping the franchise fresh. John Faveru made them 1.5 billion dollars with 2 Iron Man movies and while the decision might be have been mutual it's not like Marvel was begging him to come back....they get it....they know what they are doing....if the passion isn't there they are going to find a new guy with a new vision to keep the franchise fresh so they don't have to reboot

DC should take note.....no need to reboot Batman again, just continue to make good movies

[MarvelKnight]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

I believe he was sincere in his intentions, but I'm not sure Marvel will go for it.

Your thoughts?

With the success of The Avengers, I believe they'll be more than willing to let that man do whatever he wants.

[AvengeME]

I think Ultron or Kang fit a more personal scale. But I would stay away from time travel so leave out Kang. Ultron with Vision would work well. Have Vision be this crazy AI that knows each Avenger inside and out and gets loose to perform his own "missions" as he sees fit. Ultron would be this greater robot/AI threat designed not just by Pym but collaboratively by many scientists, not to rip off completely from Terminator. Vision would try to stop this from happening independently, but the Avengers cannot trust him and do not understand his true motives. That alone could be a plot for the Ant-Man movie but I don't think Marvel will give that project the budget to portray all that stuff while at the same time exploring Ant-Man and the nanotechnology.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by MarvelKnight

With the success of The Avengers, I believe they'll be more than willing to let that man do whatever he wants.

Without a doubt. He'll probably have to give some sort of movie precedent. So, basically he'll say Empire Strikes Back and then they'll be like 'okay, cool.' Chances are he wouldn't be saying it if he didn't already know he could do it.

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

This is the problem with movie franchise, the reason movie franchises often run stale after a few movies and is dreadfully undermining the Batman franchise by forcing a reboot after 3 films when a reboot is not needed.

There are so many talented directors/writers/actors/prodcuers in Hollywood....Why is Joss Whedon the only one that can pull of the Avengers? He did a marvelously fantastic job with Avengers and I sincerely hope he comes back for a sequel.....but he's not the only one who can do this.

Kevin Fiege has a lot of vision, I'm sure if they feel Joss can do it again they will bring him back....But they've shown to be pretty calculating when it comes to keeping the franchise fresh. John Faveru made them 1.5 billion dollars with 2 Iron Man movies and while the decision might be have been mutual it's not like Marvel was begging him to come back....they get it....they know what they are doing....if the passion isn't there they are going to find a new guy with a new vision to keep the franchise fresh so they don't have to reboot

DC should take note.....no need to reboot Batman again, just continue to make good movies

Oftentimes, filmmakers want to tell a story. Stories have endings. If the ending is hard enough, there's nowhere else to go, plus there's nothing else to say without rehashing a movie you've already made. At that point, a reboot is needed. That's what's happening with Batman. That won't happen with Avengers, but we're not going to get 'filler' movies that don't move towards a satisfying conclusion.

And let's be real. Not only is Whedon passionate, but he's the only director who loves (and writes) comics, has extensive experience managing large casts, and most importantly, is a proven success with the Avengers movies, and wants to do more. What good would getting another director do, anyway?

[Alexei Belyakov]

As many have already brought up, Empire Strikes Back is kinda movie Whedon was hinting at by saying "smaller & more personal." This will be a Thanos trilogy. Part I was a glorious victory for these guys, Part II will be dark times.

[natey2k4]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

As many have already brought up, Empire Strikes Back is kinda movie Whedon was hinting at by saying "smaller & more personal." This will be a Thanos trilogy. Part I was a glorious victory for these guys, Part II will be dark times.

Exactly how I picture it.

Part 1 is an amazing victory, part 2 will see something horrible happen, and part 3 with be the final battle where the Avenger stand tall over Thanos.

I could see something where the Hulk leaves the team (because he thinks they don't trust him or SHIELD pisses him off) leaving them shorthanded in a battle which will cause either a death or someone being held hostage.

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Maybe have one be captured (Captain America sacrificing himself to save the others?). I think this would work well -- as you would have Hawkeye and Black Widow convince Hulk to help to try and rescue Captain America (say from Loki, The Other, and their army), while Iron Man and Thor have an epic war with Thanos.

[L0ngsh0t]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Without a doubt. He'll probably have to give some sort of movie precedent. So, basically he'll say Empire Strikes Back and then they'll be like 'okay, cool.' Chances are he wouldn't be saying it if he didn't already know he could do it.



Oftentimes, filmmakers want to tell a story. Stories have endings. If the ending is hard enough, there's nowhere else to go, plus there's nothing else to say without rehashing a movie you've already made. At that point, a reboot is needed. That's what's happening with Batman. That won't happen with Avengers, but we're not going to get 'filler' movies that don't move towards a satisfying conclusion.

And let's be real. Not only is Whedon passionate, but he's the only director who loves (and writes) comics, has extensive experience managing large casts, and most importantly, is a proven success with the Avengers movies, and wants to do more. What good would getting another director do, anyway?

I'm not saying they should replace Whedon, actually the opposite-he did a fantastic job if he's got the passion to continue it I am all for it. I don't think he's the only one that can tell a good Avengers story.

On to Batman. I'm A-OK with this being Nolan's "story" but it's not like he's the only one that can tell a good Batman story....it's called a story arc or character arc and Batman has many of those over the years....Am I supposed to believe there are no other challenges? That Batman has nothing else to learn? That there are no more supervillains in Gotham? I'm not buying it and also another origin story to sit through is gonna be awful.

[souNdwAve89]

Originally Posted by natey2k4

Exactly how I picture it.

Part 1 is an amazing victory, part 2 will see something horrible happen, and part 3 with be the final battle where the Avenger stand tall over Thanos.

I could see something where the Hulk leaves the team (because he thinks they don't trust him or SHIELD pisses him off) leaving them shorthanded in a battle which will cause either a death or someone being held hostage.

To kill off Hawkeye or Black Widow, they'd need a lot of screen time in an upcoming film as well as Avengers 2 to make the people care. Out of the other 3 (Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America) you can't really kill them.

Maybe have one be captured (Captain America sacrificing himself to save the others?). I think this would work well -- as you would have Hawkeye and Black Widow convince Hulk to help to try and rescue Captain America (say from Loki, The Other, and their army), while Iron Man and Thor have an epic war with Thanos.

Yeah, a lot of people in the audience gasped or said "oh no..." when Coulson died. Even though he didn't have a huge role, he was a known character throughout MCU movies. I believe killing off Black Widow and Hawkeye or one of the two gives more room to add another character.

[DACrowe]

I think Whedon coming back is a must. If he wants to leave after that, I can understand (see how burned Raimi was on Spidey in SM3). However, he can follow TA up with a more emotionally gripping and intimate film.

One thing I'd like to see in TA2 is them behave more like a team. It's not Whedon if they aren't squabbling, but instead of being a "time-bomb" they should be a very dysfunctional family that works. And then Thanos should come along and completely destroy them. We're talking dark themes about death, mortality and even nihilism that should effect each character differently. Even if they "win," at the end of the film they're still badly hurting and not gloriously triumphant like the first film (i.e. Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future Part II, The Dark Knight, etc. etc.)

Then, the third film can be them perhaps falling apart again in a grander scale after spending two movies of them together (Civil War? perhaps) and the testing of the whole "initiative" from the start. That's how I'd like to see the trilogy play out.