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

[david icke]

Yup and it is. Look at JJ Abrams a brilliant guy to be sure. He directed tons of tv but look how much progress he made between film number one and two. But I bey you his third film is even better than his 2nd. So yes I'd argue that one more film is significant when it's 2 vs 1. especially when his only film was 5 years ago.

Was there really that much creative progress between his 1st movie and second? I don't think there was. He made the best MI film with his first film, and made the best Star Trek film with his second, he was already there with the first film, if he had been given Star Trek back when he got MI, I think he could've pulled off the same quality of ST movie. He just had a bigger budget for ST, so the movie was bigger, yes, MI would have given him some practical experience, but the guy had enough behind him with Lost and Alias. Look at the pilot of Lost, it's basically a movie.

edit: The real difference is that somneone trusted him with his second movie to give him a bigger budget movie, same as what is happening here with Whedon.
and as for the 5yr gap, it's hardly an issue when the guy has been writing, directing and producing a challenging sci-fi show on television in the intervening time.

edit: i think folk are being a bit sniffy about tv work, look at James Cameron's sci-fi tv show, I quite liked Dark Angel, but it was not in the same league as Buffy or Angel, a lot of highly regarded film directors would struggle doing the kind of work Whedon has done on tv.

 

[J.Howlett]

Anyone know the answer to this question; which studio is distributing The Avengers flick?

 

[terry78]

Paramount probably. But if it gets all settled, it could be Disney or Touchstone.

 

[J.Howlett]

It's not settled?

 

[DocHoliday]

Was there really that much creative progress between his 1st movie and second? I don't think there was. He made the best MI film with his first film, and made the best Star Trek film with his second, he was already there with the first film, if he had been given Star Trek back when he got MI, I think he could've pulled off the same quality of ST movie. He just had a bigger budget for ST, so the movie was bigger, yes, MI would have given him some practical experience, but the guy had enough behind him with Lost and Alias. Look at the pilot of Lost, it's basically a movie.

edit: The real difference is that somneone trusted him with his second movie to give him a bigger budget movie, same as what is happening here with Whedon.
and as for the 5yr gap, it's hardly an issue when the guy has been writing, directing and producing a challenging sci-fi show on television in the intervening time.

edit: i think folk are being a bit sniffy about tv work, look at James Cameron's sci-fi tv show, I quite liked Dark Angel, but it was not in the same league as Buffy or Angel, a lot of highly regarded film directors would struggle doing the kind of work Whedon has done on tv.

I'd say 2nd best. I love the first. De Palma made a spooky spy thriller. I think the third is solid and the 2nd is crap... But hey to each his own. Clearly I disagree with you on Whedon's level of directorial "experience".

 

[Dark Raven]

I'd say 2nd best. I love the first. De Palma made a spooky spy thriller. I think the third is solid and the 2nd is crap... But hey to each his own. Clearly I disagree with you on Whedon's level of directorial "experience".

De Palma might've made a spooky spy thriller but it wasn't anything like the Mission Impossible concept but more a one-man Tom Cruise show. De Palma might be more experienced as a director, but Abrams understood the team concept of MI, so I think it was the better movie.

 

[mclay18]

It's not settled?

FilmNerdJamie (Jamie Williams) posted a bit on February on IESB on how Disney wants to sabotage Paramount's deal with Marvel to distribute and market the rest of Marvel's movies.

http://iesb.net/index.php?option=co...e-mouse&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73

 

[Retroman]

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.

Spielberg and Abrams aren't in the same league imo though i'd have been happy with either.

The 'A list' directors command a big salary and want a certain amount of creative control on their projects which might be a deciding factor in how Marvel picks their directors.

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.

Sure he can direct large groups of people but it's another thing to do that with a starstudded cast, big budget and all the demands and pressures that come with that. That's one of the reasons i would have gone for an A lister.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

My reaction to Whedon directing The Avengers:

[YT]P3ALwKeSEYs[/YT]

 

[david icke]

Clearly I disagree with you on Whedon's level of directorial "experience".

I'm not sure that you do actually. By the logic you are applying to both Whedon and JJ Abrams, JJA should not have been capable of directing a blockbuster like 'Star Trek' after only having one movie under his belt.

You could say JJA and Whedon are comparable in tv diretcing experience, but you could also say whedon has more hands on experience in the field of sci-fi/fantasy. JJA only directed the pilot for Lost iirc, and took very little to do with the show after the 1st series.

 

[DocHoliday]

De Palma might've made a spooky spy thriller but it wasn't anything like the Mission Impossible concept but more a one-man Tom Cruise show. De Palma might be more experienced as a director, but Abrams understood the team concept of MI, so I think it was the better movie.

Team at beginning. Ethan Hunt made another team in the most famous scene in the film. Luther was on the train doing his thing and other team members turning on him in that scene. So at least they weren't AWOL after the big breaking in scene....They were missing in M:I 3 during the climax. Listen I like M:I 3 but I just disagree that it's the "best". I loved that first film didn't have rocket launchers or jets shooting missiles at a bridge. You know James Bond type stuff (which I love...for James Bond). Anyway lol back to Avengers.

I'm not sure that you do actually. By the logic you are applying to both Whedon and JJ Abrams, JJA should not have been capable of directing a blockbuster like 'Star Trek' after only having one movie under his belt.

You could say JJA and Whedon are comparable in tv diretcing experience, but you could also say whedon has more hands on experience in the field of sci-fi/fantasy. JJA only directed the pilot for Lost iirc, and took very little to do with the show after the 1st series.

I love Serenity, I love Firefly, Buffy and Angel....but there isn't anything he has done that is as cinematic as the LOST pilot. But yeah I do believe that Star Trek would maybe have not had been as good if it had been Abrams first film. You know man, you learn. I get that TV is good practice. But I mean it's like jumping from MLS to the Premier League. Was going to use a baseball analogy but I see you are from Scotland.

 

[david icke]

I love Serenity, I love Firefly, Buffy and Angel....but there isn't anything he has done that is as cinematic as the LOST pilot. But yeah I do believe that Star Trek would maybe have not had been as good if it had been Abrams first film. You know man, you learn. I get that TV is good practice. But I mean it's like jumping from MLS to the Premier League. Was going to use a baseball analogy but I see you are from Scotland.

Yeah, but comapring the Lost pilot to any episode of Buffy is a little unfair, the Lost pilot had a couple of million behind it. I'll have to look that up to remember, but it may have been even more than a couple of million. edit: Yeah, the pilot alone cost between 10mil and 14mil, so a bit of an exception when it comes to a tv episode.
Look at what Whedon got out of a 40mil budget with Serenity though, that space battle scene was pretty sharp on the big screen for a movie of that budget, that could've been a highlight from a 150mil sci-fi movie easy.
So, imagine what he could have gotten out of Star Trek's 150mil budget if given the chance. He might've made a better one than Abrams.

edit: If you want to count the Lost pilot as a movie, ok, but I will count 'Becoming ' parts 1 and 2 as a superhero movie, just of a lower budget, but no less grand for it.

edit: So i think my point still stands, you saying Whedon is not qualified to direct Avengers, as he only has Serenity to his name filmwise, is the same as if you had the same about Abrams with MI going into Star Trek.

and as for baseball, that's ok, you can use whatever Charlie Brown little league to Wrigley fields league analogy you want, but it still comes down to someone standing alone in a field with a bat or a catcher's glove, and how well he can swing and hit or catch, if he is good enough, he can keep up with all the heavy hitters/spitball pitchers, all the attendant hoo-haa of the bigger stadium, crowd and pressure won't mean a thing to a focused artist.

 

[DocHoliday]

True.... but not every AAA prospect ends up being Albert Pujols either. I say the LOST pilot is more cinematic than Serenity (which I did enjoy). When someone is called up there is a learning curve. They don't usually reach their potential until being at it for a while. Sure they faced fast pitching in AAA but that doesn't mean they can hit a 95 MPH fastball. Not saying they can't just saying there is an adjustment period.

Listen bro, I am not trying to attack Joss Whedon. But am I questioning Whedon's ability to hit big league pitching out of the gate after being sent back down to the minors (tv)? Yes. Contrary to what it seems like you think, I actually like Whedon as a writer and think he is a decent director. I think he is probably better with dialog than Abrams but as far as directing is concerned I think JJ Abrams is leagues ahead of him.

Also impressed with your baseball knowledge. I didn't think Europeans cared for it. In fact it is slowly declining in USA.

 

[david icke]

True.... but not every AAA prospect ends up being Albert Pujols either. I say the LOST pilot is more cinematic than Serenity (which I did enjoy). When someone is called up there is a learning curve. They don't usually reach their potential until being at it for a while. Sure they faced fast pitching in AAA but that doesn't mean they can hit a 95 MPH fastball. Not saying they can't just saying there is an adjustment period.

Listen bro, I am not trying to attack Joss Whedon. But am I questioning Whedon's ability to hit big league pitching out of the gate after being sent back down to the minors (tv)? Yes. Contrary to what it seems like you think, I actually like Whedon as a writer and think he is a decent director. I think he is probably better with dialog than Abrams but as far as directing is concerned I think JJ Abrams is leagues ahead of him.

Also impressed with your baseball knowledge. I didn't think Europeans cared for it. In fact it is slowly declining in USA.

Ok, I have to disagree, I thought Serenity was a bonafide, pretty good, sci-fi movie, I only really enjoyed a couple of eps of the show, and was quite impressed with the movie when I went to see it. I don't think it was any less cinematic than the Lost pilot, but I respect your opinion and will leave it at that.

edit: ok, but i will say one more thing, columbo style...I do think it is a harder task to make a 40mil space movie look like it can sit in the same league as a 100mil-150mil space movie, than it is to make a 10-14mil tv pilot look 'cinematic'.
Especially when the tv pilot is set on a tropical island with all that lovely landscape to take care of your beautiful wide open cinematic shots.
Making a whole movie feel like it is set in space and set on other worlds is no mean feat for 40mil, and I think he pulled it off very well.
I mean, it wasn't like Pitch Black, where it could have basically been said to have taken place in the desert, this was a bona fide Star Warsian, universe spanning movie. I'm honestly a little stumped as to how the Lost pilot could look more cinematic than some of things in that movie like the long tracking shot at the beginning on the ship and the space battle, but ok.


btw, I don't know much about baseball, what I typed up there was from reading Peanuts books, knowing Wrigley fields from the Blues Brothers, and I did have a great computer game when I was a kid called 'World Series Baseball'. I did not know it was in decline in the states, sorry to hear that, I suppose it is the type of game that takes patience to watch sometimes, and kids nowadays have so much else to choose from to occupy their time.
and yeah, i understand your analogy about the pitching and leagues, cheers.

 

[DocHoliday]

Yeah, man I don't want you to think I am anti-Whedon or anything. I want him to do well. Not only as a guy who enjoyed a lot of his previous work but as a fan of all the characters in The Avengers. I genuinely am rooting for him. And I do like Serenity. My favorite visuals in that film are when they are on the bleached out looking planet where the Reavers were made. I did like the tracking shot too though.

Baseball's ratings have been down for a while. Football is killing it and less and less kids are playing it on the Little League level. It still does so so in the ratings but you can tell that it is eventually going to become a niche sport. I mean it isn't ever going to be MLS bad (Americans who do like soccer are smart enough to realize MLS is inferior.)

 

[Doctor Jones]

The hell are you talking about baseball and football for? I first thought you were using it as some metaphor.

 

[DocHoliday]

The hell are you talking about baseball and football for? I first thought you were using it as some metaphor.

I was using sports as an analogy. Sorry if I lost you.

 

[Evil Twin]

Arguably an inaccurate analogy with the drift to sports economics as baseball's paid attendance and revenues are at all time highs. But, that's topic drift.

I do think it's fair to say that The Avengers will be Whedon's most challenging project in terms of logistics and egos in some respects. OTOH, Whedon will also have more resources than he's ever had before. He'll be able to afford top notch storyboarders, cinematographer, special effects people, and fight choreographers. Whedon strikes me as someone who knows how to delegate given his experience as a show runner, so I'm not as worried about the scale of the project being more than he can handle as some here.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

Although I love Whedon as a choice, my only concern is him injecting too much humor into the project (there's always been a decent amount of humor in his projects). I wouldn't mind it when they're just hanging out, because it would show the great chemistry the team has, but I don't want them cracking wise in the middle of fights.

 

[rashad]

 

[SpiderByte]

STAN LEE ON WHEDON DIRECTING AVENGERS:

I think it's wonderful. The man is so talented. He's really great. He's gonna do a good job.

Well, that settles it. I trust Stan Lee, 500%. If he says it's a good idea then damn straight it's a good idea.

 

[lixdexia]

STAN LEE ON WHEDON DIRECTING AVENGERS:



Well, that settles it. I trust Stan Lee, 500%. If he says it's a good idea then damn straight it's a good idea.

that is a TERRIBLE plan. liking stan lee is fine, but if marvel sold **** on a stick he'd tell you it was the single greatest food ever. he is quite possibly the least objective source ever

 

[KBX]

that is a TERRIBLE plan. liking stan lee is fine, but if marvel sold **** on a stick he'd tell you it was the single greatest food ever. he is quite possibly the least objective source ever

Well if marvel sold it, its one thing, but if Stan mother ****ing Lee told be that the **** on the stick is the single greatest food ever, you better believe I will like it!

 

[terry78]

I don't agree with that perception of Whedon up there, satire or not. I think he's proven himself in regards of knowing the dynamics of the Marvelverse.

 

[Rock Sexton]

STAN LEE ON WHEDON DIRECTING AVENGERS:



Well, that settles it. I trust Stan Lee, 500%. If he says it's a good idea then damn straight it's a good idea.

Seriously ... I don't mind optimism ... but what doesn't Stan like? It's almost getting comical at this point the way he's been glowing about every single move whether leading man or director. I take it with a grain of salt.