Will Joss actually make Avengers 2 SMALLER?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by 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.

What "trilogy"?

Feige has shown no indication whatsoever that he's interested in limiting the Avengers (or anyone else in the MCU) to a trilogy. He's not even limiting a franchise to the number of films that any given actor is signed for....he's already said that characters will be recast and continuity will remain intact --- even for Iron Man, post-RDJ.

Also, the Avengers has just painted a four-color universe, old school style. There's no need to Nolanize the Avengers to make them grittier and darker. And even though Thanos is a mass murderer, his presentation in the comics by Jim Starlin has always been more Jack Kirby than Frank Miller. Let's leave "dark and gritty" for the street-level crimefighters, where it belongs.

[DrCosmic]

You keep confusing having a trilogy with being limited to a trilogy. Actors are hired for 3, 6 and 9 movie deals. There's a trilogy structure there. And doing a dark second act is not Nolanizing, it's just good storytelling.

Originally Posted by souNdwAve89

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.

I agree too. I don't think Whedon will let go of his girl character though, and Hawkeye, with the least development is the easiest t let go, though they won't let him go without making him beloved first. I also think he may surprise us and kill off one of the big 4 somehow.

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. This is the way I see things going, except for the third film. You can't go from dark to darker, you have to make things happy again. By the time they get to 3, they'll have been through enough together, and been in so much pain while being separated, that infighting really won't make any sense, narratively. Shoehorning civil war in there, especially with only three or four people to a side, seems very unlikely, and not a very good idea.

[shauner111]

Im thinking it'll be smaller like Whedon says. Hawkeye will have a lot more to do in the sequel but i think they should get rid of him at the end. I dont see a Hawkeye solo film, but i do see a Black Widow movie being made after TA2. Possibly featuring Clint Barton & Natasha Romanoff and their history together in Budapest. I'm sure he'll appear in the S.H.I.E.L.D/Nick Fury movie as well.

I wouldn't mind killing him off, possibly Black Widow leaves the team because of his death eventually. Makes room for some characters like Ant-Man to come in.

[Stark Bauer]

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

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.

Off the top of my head, the only writers that could possibly pull off an Avengers 2 is Alan Moore or Warren Ellis. But they are comic book writers.

It would be a BIG MISTAKE to not get Whedon back for 2. In the wrong hands, TA2 could be the next Batman & Robin.

[Silvermoth]

I don't even want to guess who could take Joss's place at the helm of The Avengers because he really is perfect and deserves to go back but if they had to get someone else, the only other person (people) I could think of is one of J J Abrahm's crew.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You keep confusing having a trilogy with being limited to a trilogy. Actors are hired for 3, 6 and 9 movie deals. There's a trilogy structure there. And doing a dark second act is not Nolanizing, it's just good storytelling.

That's not a "trilogy structure," that's a structure that's set up for lawyers and contracts. The "3-6-9" contracts --- and there's no evidence whatsoever that Marvel Studios doesn't do contracts for other numbers --- overlaps multiple franchises, not just one or two. SLJ's contract, in particular, has scattered over several different solo films as well as Avengers, and he's still rumored to have his own Fury and/or SHIELD full movie soon. Nothing in Jackson's contract remotely resembles a trilogy structure.

And doing a dark second act isn't "good storytelling," it's just shamelessly copying other series, because you're too afraid to come up with an original concept. Trilogies are passe....even the franchises that were *considered* trilogies for many years have gone on to further expansion (Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Bourne...), and writers simply don't limit themselves to trilogies anymore (Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, etc.). There's something very 1980s about the concept; and that's not very flattering.

[DrCosmic]

So you consider the heroic story structure shameless copying? Not everything is groundbreaking, most movies, and franchises, Avengers included are just doing the same thing in a new way. What you call unflattering and outdated, everyone else is calling a rocking good time. That's the way Avengers did it. That's the way America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.

You understand that many film franchises that go further start as trilogies. But you don't want to accept that Avengers is going to do the same, and you hang this idea on SLJ who appears in more than one franchise within the MCU not having a trilogy-based contract. We'll just agree to disagree homie.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So you consider the heroic story structure shameless copying? Not everything is groundbreaking, most movies, and franchises, Avengers included are just doing the same thing in a new way. What you call unflattering and outdated, everyone else is calling a rocking good time. That's the way Avengers did it. That's the way America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.

You understand that many film franchises that go further start as trilogies. But you don't want to accept that Avengers is going to do the same, and you hang this idea on SLJ who appears in more than one franchise within the MCU not having a trilogy-based contract. We'll just agree to disagree homie.

Don't take it personally, but I *sincerely* hope you're wrong.

I hope the words "trilogy" and "reboot" don't even exist in Kevin Feige's vocabulary, because some of the business plans that you and some other people here are suggesting would truly put nails in the coffin of Marvel Studios on the eve of their greatest victory.

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit. Rebooting is the law of diminishing returns, and shows an utter lack of faith in your own product: "Yeah, we know this movie will probably suck; but look at it this way....we'll give the franchise to somebody else in a few years, let them take a crack at it, maybe it'll turn out better for you"

[marcvader]

I agree that I hope "reboot" doesn't come anywhere close to the MCU for a looong time.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Don't take it personally, but I *sincerely* hope you're wrong.

I hope the words "trilogy" and "reboot" don't even exist in Kevin Feige's vocabulary, because some of the business plans that you and some other people here are suggesting would truly put nails in the coffin of Marvel Studios on the eve of their greatest victory.

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit. Rebooting is the law of diminishing returns, and shows an utter lack of faith in your own product: "Yeah, we know this movie will probably suck; but look at it this way....we'll give the franchise to somebody else in a few years, let them take a crack at it, maybe it'll turn out better for you"

I wish I could find the switch in your mind that equates trilogies with reboots and turn it off. After Marvel makes their trilogy and then starts on number 4 with the same continuity but a different direction, then maybe you'll finally accept that that ending a story isn't ending/limiting a franchise/universe, but can actually realize the infinite potential in the IP.

Maybe not though, maybe you'll still think the GA would be just as ravenous for the Avengers in all its forms without a solid trilogy to hang it's heart on. -shrug-

[OsGom]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

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

Typically I would agree that one man does not make a franchise and Marvel has been wise not to give any one director or actor too much influence. However, Whedon obviously has a solid grasp of how to make an appealing adaption of The Avengers, something hardly anyone thought was possible.
Since the Marvel strategy thus far has been utilize the heroes’ solo films as vehicles to develop and introduce characters and a unifying plot threads, it would make sense to make Whedon a contributing producer and allow him some creative input. Thus ensuring the films integrity supports the overall vision for the next Avengers sequels but limited to allow the director to competently adapt their own story. Kind of like DC did with Nolan but nowhere near that powerful.

Originally Posted by 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.

This sounds interesting. One of the strengths of the approach Marvel has taken, (ironically what others see as the biggest weakness) is the ability to intoduce characters and plot threads that will culminate in the team film. So potentially Marvel could feature a Baron Zemo in a CA flick, an Enchantress & Executioner in a Thor flick and Titanium Man in IM and then bring them together in A2 as a Masters of Evil.

I'm not saying that's what they SHOULD do. Just pointing out one of the many possibilities with the Marvel format.

[The Question]

I have a question: What would be wrong if it were smaller and smaller meant "less action?"

If it's a very good movie, does it need action?

[AvengeME]

We already had an extra terrestrial threat. I wouldn't return to space or extra dimensions/realms just yet. Something more grounded and of this world would be a nice change of pace from a more cosmic or mystical threat. Some franchises tend to get out of hand when they keep reaching for something bigger and more fantastical.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by The Question

I have a question: What would be wrong if it were smaller and smaller meant "less action?"

If it's a very good movie, does it need action?

It needs action, to be sure. That's the expectation. If we show up to the Notebook with superpowers, we'll be pretty upset.

Does it need as much as The Avengers? No, I don't think so. I think you can have a lot of action and tension and suspense and set up for an explosive TA3, and people won't miss the war scene.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I wish I could find the switch in your mind that equates trilogies with reboots and turn it off. :dry: After Marvel makes their trilogy and then starts on number 4 with the same continuity but a different direction, then maybe you'll finally accept that that ending a story isn't ending/limiting a franchise/universe, but can actually realize the infinite potential in the IP.

Maybe not though, maybe you'll still think the GA would be just as ravenous for the Avengers in all its forms without a solid trilogy to hang it's heart on. -shrug-

That's well and good, as long as the franchise continues on without rebooting....it's just that some people in favor of the trilogy theory are advocating ONLY a trilogy. They believe that you can't possibly have any greater threat than Thanos, so they see the whole franchise essentially wrapping up in Avengers 3 with Thanos, and then either tossing in the reboot, or just simply abandoning the franchise altogether. (Because "obviously", there are no stories left to tell in the Avengers universe after you get done with Thanos. :o)


So, sorry if you weren't one of those people, and if I accused you wrongly. It's just that when I hear people trying to put a finite reach to the Avengers and literally end the series after 5 or 6 years, right as the franchise is in its gold-plated infancy, I just gotta :facepalm:and :wall:

[DrCosmic]

I guess I can see how you would draw that conclusion. I still believe that Thanos is pretty much the ultimate cinematic threat for the Avengers. I also think that after the initial trilogy, Avengers can strike out in a whole new direction, with a blend of new and old characters/actors, taking on less powerful, but perhaps more interesting and challenging foes from Kang to Korvac to Kree to the frikkin Masters of Evil. Maybe it'll be a Quintology. And then after that cycle of contracts, after that 'story arc' they'll do another, as long as interest and quality holds, which isn't guaranteed, of course, but it might happen.

But even if not, there's nothing to be ashamed of in having the most successful trilogy of all time. That's not really facepalm worthy.

I personally imagine it will work like the Fast and Furious franchise, in that even though some actors contracts may expire and they'll go on to other things, their careers will level out and they'll come back to Marvel a film or two later.

[MarvelKnight]

Let's just hope Whedon will actually return to the MCU and Avengers2. If he doesn't, I'm I think the 'smaller, more personal sequel' will be thrown out the window.

[jaqua99]

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.

Ironman and Thor vs Thanos? No lol. Thanos is too powerful. that would suck

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

That's not a "trilogy structure," that's a structure that's set up for lawyers and contracts. The "3-6-9" contracts --- and there's no evidence whatsoever that Marvel Studios doesn't do contracts for other numbers --- overlaps multiple franchises, not just one or two. SLJ's contract, in particular, has scattered over several different solo films as well as Avengers, and he's still rumored to have his own Fury and/or SHIELD full movie soon. Nothing in Jackson's contract remotely resembles a trilogy structure.

And doing a dark second act isn't "good storytelling," it's just shamelessly copying other series, because you're too afraid to come up with an original concept. Trilogies are passe....even the franchises that were *considered* trilogies for many years have gone on to further expansion (Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Bourne...), and writers simply don't limit themselves to trilogies anymore (Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, etc.). There's something very 1980s about the concept; and that's not very flattering.

I dont buy the avengers franchise NOT being a trilogy. And I hope its not. Another actor as Ironman, Thor, etc? To me that won't work. at all.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

I dont buy the avengers franchise NOT being a trilogy. And I hope its not. Another actor as Ironman, Thor, etc? To me that won't work. at all.

So you'd rather just write off the character of Iron Man altogether as soon as RDJ is done a few years from now?

[DrCosmic]

^Some people will. That always happen with recasts, unless it's been so long that people have already written off the original version and want to see a new one.

[baerrtt]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

What "trilogy"?

Feige has shown no indication whatsoever that he's interested in limiting the Avengers (or anyone else in the MCU) to a trilogy. He's not even limiting a franchise to the number of films that any given actor is signed for....he's already said that characters will be recast and continuity will remain intact --- even for Iron Man, post-RDJ.

Also, the Avengers has just painted a four-color universe, old school style. There's no need to Nolanize the Avengers to make them grittier and darker. And even though Thanos is a mass murderer, his presentation in the comics by Jim Starlin has always been more Jack Kirby than Frank Miller. Let's leave "dark and gritty" for the street-level crimefighters, where it belongs.

Whedon gave his comments before the film was released anywhere (in March this year) and if IRON MAN 2 told us anything Marvel's gameplan, as you've suggested, isn't to do darker or gritty when sequels come. Some fans expected and hoped for the Demon in a Bottle storyline to be adapted and Favreau stated upfront that Marvel weren't interested in going down that route with IM.

As far as they're concerned they're making full blown family films where the 'edgiest' things have been solely comedic.

[DrCosmic]

^Hmmm, I dunno, in IM2, he had that whole creeping death thing going on and fought his best friend. He was dealing with his daddy issues. Just because it's not gritty doesn't mean its not darker. IM2 is a great example of a smaller more personal film than IM1. The end fight scene was turned up in scale, but he wasn't flying all over the world fighting terrorists, worried about his company/job, he was just dealing with all his personal stuff, his relationship, his daddy, his disease, his buddy, stuck at his house. I mean, he went to Monaco to get beat up, I guess, but the movie was smaller and more personal.

They are family films, to be sure, but storytelling is still storytelling, and if you want to have an explosive mindblowing number three, then you have to use pacing, and number two has to cut back on something.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

What Marvel Studios needs --- and what they're *showing* --- is vision, not limits. Trilogies and working towards an end is working towards a limit.

I can't put in words how much I agree with that

[baerrtt]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

^Hmmm, I dunno, in IM2, he had that whole creeping death thing going on and fought his best friend. He was dealing with his daddy issues. Just because it's not gritty doesn't mean its not darker. IM2 is a great example of a smaller more personal film than IM1. The end fight scene was turned up in scale, but he wasn't flying all over the world fighting terrorists, worried about his company/job, he was just dealing with all his personal stuff, his relationship, his daddy, his disease, his buddy, stuck at his house. I mean, he went to Monaco to get beat up, I guess, but the movie was smaller and more personal.

They are family films, to be sure, but storytelling is still storytelling, and if you want to have an explosive mindblowing number three, then you have to use pacing, and number two has to cut back on something.

Even though Stark is being poisoned in IM2 the overall tone of the movie (the main reason why I don't like IM2) doesn't really push those conceits. I don't feel Stark's pain at his belief that his dad never loved him, I'm never worried about his condition nor do I care about how he endangers his friendships with Pepper and Rhodes. It's all, imo, executed in such a shallow, nonchalant fashion.