The Avengers Joss Whedon leading on "Avengers" short list of directors

[roach]

My top pic would have been Zack Snyder....but knowing Marvel is skimping on the cash they wouldnt go for him

 

[Raiden]

Maybe Kenneth Branagh. Spielberg. Scott. Someone who can make great films and who can get past their own sensibilities.

Branagh will be working on Thor full-time (including editing and post-production), so I doubt he'd have the time to start pre-production on The Avengers (which they need to do if they want it to meet the 2012 deadline). Neither Spielberg nor Scott will take on The Avengers, because they are not only very expensive to hire, but both directors have a pretty stacked schedule anyway; there's no way they can deliver the movie right on schedule.

 

[mclay18]

How has he ever shown he is more than capable?

People keep bringing up Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Firefly and Serenity.

Err... sorry if that body of work doesn't fill me with confidence about him directing what could be THE biggest comic book movie ever.

You guys were probably saying the same thing about Jon Favreau before the first IM came out. His previous movie was an expensive flop, as is Joe Johnston's. But the thing Whedon also has is geek cred, and he's worked with Marvel before.

This whining and complaining is too premature. Wait until a trailer comes out or wait for the movie to come out before saying "Whedon isn't the right guy for the job." He could very well mess it up, but right now, he's focused on getting the contract locked before he can rewrite or do previz.

 

[roach]

Maybe Kenneth Branagh. Spielberg. Scott. Someone who can make great films and who can get past their own sensibilities.

as much as I am with you against the Wedon option I dont see Spielberg or Scott directing Avengers...Steven doesnt seem the type to follow someones elses work

 

[Deaths Head II]

I also think they want someone to helm the Avengers as a series itself, and Favs or Branaugh have their own series to work on.

 

[FrostBite]

Whether he is perfect for it is a matter of opinion.

Whedon fans will be happy.

People who are not Whedon fans won't be happy.

See personally, i think Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse and Serenity are crap.

And in the case of Firefly and Dollhouse, so do a lot of people seeing as neither of them lasted long.

And i totally wouldn't be surpised if Eliza "can't act her way out of a paper bag" Dushku gets cast as Wasp. And Nathan Fillion gets cast as Hawkeye at the expense of the FAR superior Jeremy Renner.

Yeah, but as I said before, it's kind of that way for any movie. Like, if you don't like a director why would you really be excited by them getting announced? I can't think of anyway to please everyone.

See, I think Buffy (the movie, never seen the TV Show) is pure garbage. I also love Toy Story (which he was one of four writers on,) think that at least those scans posted were entirely B.A., I love Speed, and yet don't really have too much of an affinity for Dollhouse.

Even the Eliza and Nathan comments are like saying "I wouldn't be surprised if Favs casts Vince Vaughn as Tony."

No director is infallible, but I also don't see why this particular one has people in an uproar. Just because a director has trademark things doesn't mean they'll make their way into the movie. I really didn't see all of these Whedonisms you speak of in Speed at all. Just because someone has a liking to do a certain type of work doesn't make them only capable of THAT type of work.

Stephen King generally does horror, as an author he's proven himself capable of other types of genres. Doesn't change the fact that 95% of his work is horror.

I think the Whedon fears are just a tad... blown out of proportion much like the love for him is.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You know why Whedon was chosen? He knows how to deal with the team dynamic more than anyone. I mean a dynamic where each character is a total polar opposite of every other one, they don't always get along, they sometimes each have their own personal agenda, yet in the end they can band together and get the **** done.

Yeah, as a writer, Joss Whedon has a great talent with bringing an ensemble to life. He's also got a real skill for making potentially clunky or cheesy material feel cool and natural, which could come in handy when rewriting the Avengers script.

And as a director, Whedon has shown a talent for really making the most out of underwhelming budgets, so it should be exciting to see what he can come up with using a mammoth budget.

 

[FrostBite]

as much as I am with you against the Wedon option I dont see Spielberg or Scott directing Avengers...Steven doesnt seem the type to follow someones elses work

Sequels maybe not, but following someone else's work... yes. Jurassic Park. Still Spielberg just has lost his... mojo over the past years, but just like Whedon I'd never count him out to make a good film. And yes, I am comparing current day Spielberg to smaller directors as his talent level has seemed to plummet as of late.

 

[kedrell]

Hell no to Snyder. I think that's as bad a choice as Whedon. Vaughn was who I was really pulling for.

 

[baerrtt]

Maybe Kenneth Branagh. Spielberg. Scott. Someone who can make great films and who can get past their own sensibilities.

Spielberg and Scott aside from not being realistic picks are, nowadays especially, quite frankly hit and miss(Branagh's record overall is even less reliable) and imo they're great films are infused with their specific sensibilities. Without his sensibilities coming to the fore with Spielberg you get bland sequels such as the LOST WORLD and KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, with Scott you get....quite frankly aside from GLADIATOR and the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN director's cut I've found pretty much everything else from him in the last 10 years to be uninspired.

 

[kedrell]

Mods, we really need a poll here.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ahhh Kedrell, can't believe i didn't mention him... Matthew Vaughn.

Vaughn should of got this gig.

 

[Paradoxium]

Joss's problem is most of his characters have the same god damn "voice". Anyways, putting him in charge of the Avengers is as brilliant as putting Gordon Brown in charge of your gold reserve.

If they want to take that gamble go a head.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Vaughn has Kick-Ass now.

 

[FrostBite]

If they want to take that gamble go a head.

Well, they already kind of did, three times actually.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Joss's problem is most of his characters have the same god damn "voice". Anyways, putting him in charge of the Avengers is as brilliant as putting Gordon Brown in charge of your gold reserve.

If they want to take that gamble go a head.

This is something i can agree with you on.

Vaughn has Kick-Ass now.

So? A director of his quality deserves something like Avengers.

And after seeing Layer Cake, Stardust and Kick Ass his ability to work with ensembles that include megastars, shoot action scenes, bring great characterization is 10000000000x better than Whedon's.

 

[kedrell]

I have my reservations about Whedon, but I believe Marvel will keep a tight rein on him with Avengers, because this is the project that they've been building toward with multiple movies, and there's no way in hell that they'll let him deviate too far away from the movie. And Whedon, being that he's knowledgable about fanboy stuff and is a comic book writer himself, probably understand the importance of delivering a movie that can very well redefine the superhero landscape on the big screen. He's not going to fk it up by turning The Avengers into the Scoopy Gang a la Buffy.

Why go to extremes? Of course even Whedon's not dumb enough to make it into the Scooby gang. That's not where the danger lies, in swinging for the fences. It's in the little subtle ways and things that really sell a movie and in these things I think some "Whedonisms" as Ace calls them, can slip in. Isn't it better to hire a director who's natural style meshes well with the particular film? For the most part, that seemed to be the way Marvel was choosing it's directors. Want a great Iron Man movie? Hire the guy who thought up Swingers. Want a great Thor movie? Hire Branagh. Want a great Cap movie? Hire the guy who directed the Rocketeer. Want a great Hulk movie? Hire the guy who made Unleashed.

Now put this news in that perspective. Want to make a great Avengers movie? Hire the guy who made....Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Huh? You see it doesn't match.

 

[roach]

Sequels maybe not, but following someone else's work... yes. Jurassic Park. Still Spielberg just has lost his... mojo over the past years, but just like Whedon I'd never count him out to make a good film. And yes, I am comparing current day Spielberg to smaller directors as his talent level has seemed to plummet as of late.

Taking someones book and turning it into a movie is kind of different...and yet he did make some changes to the movie.

However in comparing the Spielberg to Whedon...Spielberg is a GA draw. I dont know anything about Tintin and I am sure the GA doesnt but we will be there when the film opens. I never count Spielburg out because he has and continues to give us greatness on film....Band of Brothers is one of the greatest tv shows ever and he followed it with the equally great Pacific. Whedon isnt a GA draw

 

[terry78]

Joss's problem is most of his characters have the same god damn "voice". Anyways, putting him in charge of the Avengers is as brilliant as putting Gordon Brown in charge of your gold reserve.

If they want to take that gamble go a head.

You're gonna have to stop with the obscure political references. I am a 32 year old black dude from Indiana. I need cruder humor.

 

[roach]

You're gonna have to stop with the obscure political references. I am a 32 year old black dude from Indiana. I need cruder humor.

"a crackhead" works

 

[FrostBite]

Taking someones book and turning it into a movie is kind of different...and yet he did make some changes to the movie.

However in comparing the Spielberg to Whedon...Spielberg is a GA draw. I dont know anything about Tintin and I am sure the GA doesnt but we will be there when the film opens. I never count Spielburg out because he has and continues to give us greatness on film....Band of Brothers is one of the greatest tv shows ever and he followed it with the equally great Pacific. Whedon isnt a GA draw

I'll never succumb to Tintin, NEVER. And he did make changes, including inventing a dinosaur. 6 foot raptors. Way to be about 3 feet too high guys.

I count him out lately, because his greatness is nothing compared to what it once was. As someone else says, when he has passion... boy, he really brings it. But lately, it just seems like he's coasting on his own fame.

 

[Son of Coul]

Why go to extremes? Of course even Whedon's not dumb enough to make it into the Scooby gang. That's not where the danger lies, in swinging for the fences. It's in the little subtle ways and things that really sell a movie and in these things I think some "Whedonisms" as Ace calls them, can slip in. Isn't it better to hire a director who's natural style meshes well with the particular film? For the most part, that seemed to be the way Marvel was choosing it's directors. Want a great Iron Man movie? Hire the guy who thought up Swingers. Want a great Thor movie? Hire Branagh. Want a great Cap movie? Hire the guy who directed the Rocketeer. Want a great Hulk movie? Hire the guy who made Unleashed.

Now put this news in that perspective. Want to make a great Avengers movie? Hire the guy who made....Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Huh? You see it doesn't match.

Or "Want to make a great Avengers movie? Hire the guy who made Astonishing X-Men. Want a great a Iron Man movie? Hire the guy who made... ELF????!!!@#$T$%#"

It works many ways when you phrase it that way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Now put this news in that perspective. Want to make a great Avengers movie? Hire the guy who made....Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Huh? You see it doesn't match.

Yeah, hire the guy who made one of the seminal TV shows of the 90s, a show that has in its way shaped and influenced the television of the past decade as much as The Sopranos. If you keep on saying Buffy was a flop over and over, it won't make it true.

I'd say it matches perfectly. In the same way Favreau was an inspired pick for Iron Man due to being an actor's director and making heavy use of improv on his sets, or Branagh seems to be an inspired pick for Thor due to his affinity for Shakespearian drama, Whedon seems to be an inspired pick for his talent with dialogue, with ensemble casts, with bringing together long-term overarching storylines in excitingly climactic fashion, and for his inventiveness as a director, coming at what could be standard and predictable fare in an off-kilter way that makes it feel fresh and exciting.

 

[baerrtt]

Taking someones book and turning it into a movie is kind of different...and yet he did make some changes to the movie.

However in comparing the Spielberg to Whedon...Spielberg is a GA draw. I dont know anything about Tintin and I am sure the GA doesnt but we will be there when the film opens. I never count Spielburg out because he has and continues to give us greatness on film....Band of Brothers is one of the greatest tv shows ever and he followed it with the equally great Pacific. Whedon isnt a GA draw

Spielberg isn't the guaranteed GA draw he used to be(he could have passed the Indiana Jones sequel onto another director and the audience were still going to turn up for that) and isn't as consistent as he once was (unless you actually enjoyed KOTCS). Besides he had no writing or directing input into BAND OF BROTHERS or THE PACIFIC. He just produced them.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Or "Want to make a great Avengers movie? Hire the guy who made Astonishing X-Men. Want a great a Iron Man movie? Hire the guy who made... ELF????!!!@#$T$%#"

It works many ways when you phrase it that way.

Except Avengers are NOTHING like X-Men...

And he is right.

Favs did Swingers, a film about playboys. *cough*Tony Stark*cough* and cut his action teeth with Zathura.

Branagh is a British thesp with a background in Shakespeare. You don't get more perfect for Thor than that.

See where this is going?