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

Status
Not open for further replies.
They better be keen on Edgar Wright. He's the most talented director they have attached to any of their films. I don't mean that as an insult.
 
I'd say Kenneth Branagh is IMO
 
I'd say Kenneth Branagh is IMO

I love a few of Branagh films. I think he is a damn fine filmmaker. But he has also made films that are liquid ****. Not trying to be mean because I do respect the guy's work. Edgar is 2 for 2 and early indications are that Scott Pilgrim will deliver. Also Spaced was brilliant.
 
That tweet is pretty funny. That's the type of thing I do if I was a director or producer. People would hate it.
 
These guys are all pretty much of the same cloth. Wright, Whedon, Abrams...all geeks who managed to score it big and can now use their geek experience to the fullest.
 
Rocketeer, Hidalgo & October Sky are the main reasons that I am fully confident in JJ. When he's doing something he's been in from the start(like those and the Cap movie will be the same way) rather than coming into somone else's franchise or passion project(JP3 & The Wolfman), he delivers. Same thing goes for Honey I Shrunk The Kids(even though that was a family movie - but hey, so were Elf & Zathura). And HISTK also proved that something of his origin could connect with the GA in a vast way since that was a blockbuster hit(again, comparable to Favs on Elf). I dig his style. I don't think there's anyone working in hollywood today who's better at doing period-piece work than JJ.
that's fair enough:yay: i actually like the rocketeer, the pagemaster, and honey i shrunk the kids (though, more for nostalgia than the movies themselves.) but after rewatching the rocketeer recently i have even less faith than when he was announced (it is hilariously goofy, but still pretty fun...plus jennifer conoly) agree to disagree.
 
may have to find it to rewatch...been playing Dark Void and its getting my interest in it up
 
Sorry you didn't like Objects in Space, I thought it was quite good. Several episodes that are worth watching on the serious side was the Pilot for Firefly (ironically titled, "Serenity") that Whedon also wrote and directed and the episode "Ariel" which is actually done like a caper/heist movie similar to an Ocean's movie. He did direct one other episode which is arguably the best episode of the series, "Our Dear Mrs. Renyolds," but it is done mostly as a very, very witty semi-screwball comedy episode. More mature and clever than anything he did on Buffy, but still a bit silly if one is opposed to humor.

But yeah the episodes "Serenity," "Our Dear Mrs. Renyolds," "Ariel," maybe, maybe "War Stories," "The Message" and "Objects in Space" were all very well crafted television episodes and for my money the best sci-fi television produced in the last decade or more (though to be fair the only other sci-fi TV-shows I liked were The Twilight Zone and Lost).

And a head's up on "Objects in Space," the villain was very talky and cerebral as a departure. Most of the villains in Firefly are straightforward thugs. Jubal Early (named after a Civil War officer) was a sociopath with obsessions about existential existence. So, he was going to be a chatty cathy as a change of pace. The other episodes I named, sans "Mrs. Renyolds" that was a great twist on the femme fatale plot device, are more in line of what you might be looking for.

***

Anyway Joe Johnston is a director with a lot of technical talent and prowess who I have yet to see develop into a consistent filmmaker. The Rocketeer was a fun popcorn kids movie that almost outgrew its B-movie genre, but didn't quite make it. The cast was solid (especially Connolly), the music was good and it had a cool style.

October Sky was a brilliant little character drama.

But all his movies of the last decade have been average at best. Jurassic Park III was terrible. Hidalgo was a by-the-numbers studio film that began promisingly but fell apart and was so mediocre it drove Viggo away from star vehicles and mainstream Hollywood, to which he has never looked back. The Wolfman he came in at the last minute with a shaky script. It was honestly better than the other two I mentioned because it had the benefit of having style succeed over substance. And the 2 hour DVD may alleviate the terrible pacing that the studio mandated. But at best it was "okay" and I doubt the extended cut will fix that the finale falls apart on itself or that the love story that is supposed to move the audience at the end is hopelessly wooden.

While "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" and "The Rocketeer" were fun, they were both around 20 years ago. "October Sky" was a great movie. But that was over 10 years ago, as well. Since then he has done three marginal Hollywood movies, each with potential promise (and visual styles) that were unfulfilled.

I'm far more worried about Johnston being unable to regain what made him so interesting a decade ago than Whedon, who is hungry to catch up to his rival (Abrams) with a similar project, a taste for comics and ensemble pieces, and whose previous film while a box office dud showed amazing promise. At least as much, if not more, than The Rocketeer did for Johnston which Cap fanboys are waving like the flag. The difference being Johnston's fan favorite was released 19 years ago, Whedon's is only 5 years old and he seems to be expanding, not contracting.
 
While "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" and "The Rocketeer" were fun, they were both around 20 years ago. "October Sky" was a great movie. But that was over 10 years ago, as well.

Wow, that just made me feel really old.
 
Been away from the internet for a good while, and went on today and heard the news. I am, in a word: delighted.
 
I seriously don't get why people are complaining about Whedon's lack of doing action will hurt the action in this film. When has Branagh done an action film or anything huge? I don't even think he has much experience in action, if any.

I believe Branagh's done a medieval war film. One of the Shakespear ones but I heard it also was well done action-wise.
 
An editorial from io9:

http://io9.com/5518130/why-joss-whedon-should-be-your-new-marvel-movie-overlord


Also, I agree with Doc that people are putting Branagh on too high a pedestal. Yes, the guy's a great filmmaker, and he's certainly made what I consider to be the perfect Hamlet, but he HARDLY has a flawless track record. The guy's made a couple stinkers, both creatively and commercially. And if he does have any experience doing "big action," it's in one of the ones I haven't seen...but I doubt it. His Shakespeare adaptations are usually pretty intimate (while epic at the same time) affairs. The only "action" I've seen from him was sword-fighting, which was great, for the record. And I do think he'll make a wonderful Thor film, but let's not make him into something he's not.
 
and this is how some people view Joss Whedon
 
Hamlet and Henry V alone put Branagh at the very top of the Marvel movie directors IMO. Both are just incredible films. He's certainly made one or two stinkers but Hamlet and Henry V are so high above everything else.
 
Hamlet and Henry V alone put Branagh at the very top of the Marvel movie directors IMO. Both are just incredible films. He's certainly made one or two stinkers but Hamlet and Henry V are so high above everything else.

agreed
 
and this is how some people view Joss Whedon

Except Branagh is no auteur, he does a good Shakespeare I would guess because he has been in and around the theatre productions for most of his adult life, has picked up the best people and soaked up the influence of all the best productions.
He is actually the director I trust least with the franchise he has been handed, his other foray into sci-fi/fantasy, MS's Frankenstein was an unintentionally hilarious piece of rubbish.
My main hope for the Thor movie is that he grew up reading the books, so at least knows the universe and has a personal relationship with the characters already.

and in response to something you said earlier about Faverau not doing Avengers because he did not feel he wanted to, or could, mix the mythology with the sc-fi, but was doing Cowboys and Aliens, which does exactly that....well, no, the point is not the 'mythology' aspect, that can be attributed to any subject matter that is of a certain age and cache. 'Cowboys and Indians' have entered American mythology now, yes,....his concern was with the aspects of Norse mythology, the mysticism and magic...those were the subjects he did not feel he was suited to mix with sci-fi.
Cowboys and Aliens is pure sci-fi like Iron-Man, it's just an alien invasion story set in an earlier period of Earth history.
 
Except Branagh is no auteur, he does a good Shakespeare I would guess because he has been in and around the theatre productions for most of his adult life, has picked up the best people and soaked up the influence of all the best productions.
He is actually the director I trust least with the franchise he has been handed, his other foray into sci-fi/fantasy, MS's Frankenstein was an unintentionally hilarious piece of rubbish.
My main hope for the Thor movie is that he grew up reading the books, so at least knows the universe and has a personal relationship with the characters already.

and in response to something you said earlier about Faverau not doing Avengers because he did not feel he wanted to, or could, mix the mythology with the sc-fi, but was doing Cowboys and Aliens, which does exactly that....well, no, the point is not the 'mythology' aspect, that can be attributed to any subject matter that is of a certain age and cache. 'Cowboys and Indians' have entered American mythology now, yes,....his concern was with the aspects of Norse mythology, the mysticism and magic...those were the subjects he did not feel he was suited to mix with sci-fi.
Cowboys and Aliens is pure sci-fi like Iron-Man, it's just an alien invasion story set in an earlier period of Earth history.

yeah i guess you are right
 
How about Favreau didn't do it because he was UNAVAILABLE??? He took himself out as soon as he signed on for Cowboys. And I am sure he was well aware of Marvel's vision for Avengers from the getgo. But once he was pretty much locked into an IM2/3 after the success of the first, there was no way he would have been able to do all four every two years (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). Most directors take 3 years between franchises and to ask him to do a movie every two years including Avengers would have literally been INSANE. And his work would have been compromised with a schedule like that as he admitted. Now I am well aware that he did express his doubts about Thor mingling with the Avengers, but who didn't? But don't pretend it was a main factor why he took himself off Avengers. I am sure if Marvel offered him enough money he would have done his best with it, but he never wanted the responsibility after he was locked into two more IM movies.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I'm pretty sure Favreau said the only reason he isn't directing Avengers is because he's too busy.
 
I believe Branagh's done a medieval war film. One of the Shakespear ones but I heard it also was well done action-wise.

He did Henry V set in the MIddle Ages during the Hundred Years War.

The aftermath and carnage of the war was well handled and quite moving. But he had almost no budget and the actual battle consisted of a few dozen guys on foot swinging at a few other dozen guys on foot with little of the actual thousands and horseback combat present. This was also before the days of Braveheart so the action would be considered quite dull by today's standards.

His only other major action sequences, not counting Mary Shelly's Frankenstein horror sequences, was in his iteration of Hamlet. While visually magnificent, the sword he films at the end is ridiculously over the top and actually quite cheesy. Sometimes less is more.

I'll put it this way, Whedon's work in Serenity in terms of pure action is far more sophisticated and entertaining than Branagh's work in Henry V and Hamlet. While both are magnificent cinematic achievements and the best film version of Henry V to date--I still have an affinity for Zeferelli's Hamlet, but Branagh's was a masterwork no less--the acction in those films is quite obligatory and byy-the-numbers.

But it s okay because Branagh has "gravitas" I suppose. He has done a number of great films, his best being an adaptation of Bard's "Much Ado About Nothing" aka one of the best romantic comedies on film or stage (yes, hsi best work is a literary romcom). Henry V, Hamlet and I'd argue his remake of "Sleuth" were all quality films. He also has made some real dogs when he tries to separate himself from films based on theatre. His adaptation of Frankenstein was awful.

I think Branagh is an inspired choice for Thor and can pull it off. I have more faith in him than I ever had in Letterer or Johnston. However, my point remains those who diss Whedon for a lack of experience in the genre or action need to realize the same applies to Branagh who is making his first mainstream HOllywood film ever with Thor and the first time where the action has to be more than passable in service to the story.
 
Fanboys are looking for directors that have done avant garde/indie type stuff. That's what we like in our directors, not the mainstream types. Even if the indie guy is balls out obviously not the dude fit for the job. If he's directed a movie where a guy shoots up heroin and afterwards decapitates his cousin that owes him money, suddenly he's a great director.
 
Whedon was set to write/direct Iron Man and Wonder Woman and he was also offered X-Men 3. So it's no surprise that he's directing a superhero movie. It's just that i'd never expect it to be this one.

Avengers is supposed to be Marvel's crown jewel so i always imagined that they would get an A-lister who fits that profile.

For a film that will have such a large ensemble cast/budget you'd think that they would ask a much more experienced (preferably veteran) director who commands respect from the actors. Someone who could deal with egos, constant script alterations, studios politics etc.

Though i've never been a fan of Whedon tv shows i did like Serenity (which was produced for a relatively 'low' budget) and i loved his work on Astonishing X-Men. But for all his tv experience and comic book knowledge he's never done a movie this size so the jury is still really out.:o
 
Aren't so called A-listers always busy? Spielberg, Abrams all would be ideal, but all of them are up to their ears in projects.

Whedon can direct large groups of people as seen in Serenity. All were great characters that you could latch onto and he made it look easy.
 
I wouldnt expect an A list director...just someone with a little more experience
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"