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

[Grommers]

I'm just glad Stan was never a business man and stuck to creating super heroes. I could only imagine some of his business decisions.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Interviewer: "How has Feige kept you involved with the process?"

Stan: "Feige does a phenomenal job sticking his thumb up my ass on the set. I think it's great."

 

[Madelow]

Hello All: I've always felt that Stan Lee is served best with a dash of salt. But, I hope he's right this time. best regards, Madelow.

 

[Son of Coul]

This is also the man who told David Hasselhoff he's the "perfect Nick Fury" and stated Ioan Grufford is the "perfect Mr. Fantastic."

Marvel could release a movie with Spider-Man getting *******d by the Hulk and he'd "think it's just great!" with a smile.

 

[david icke]

Hasslehoff was not perfect , but i think he was better than a lot of people would like to admit.
there are very few actors who are perfect in their sh roles imo, reeve, bale, jackman, evans as the human torch.
stan is just a bit hyperbolic, 'perfect' translates to 'pretty good' in real world terms.
IG was alright as RR, he was as good as the material allowed him to be anyway, with the right material he could have been a lot better.

 

[Iceman]

Hasselhoff has the look for Fury certainly but on the downside he's David Hasselhoff. Who's gonna take the film seriously?

 

[david icke]

Hasselhoff has the look for Fury certainly but on the downside he's David Hasselhoff. Who's gonna take the film seriously?

yeah, that's what i meant, he has the baggage of a bright red car and running around in talking beach trunks, if he had just shown up out of nowhere in the nick fury tv movie, i imagine he would have more fans of the performance than he has. you need to drop the baggage though, to be fair to the actor, hasslehoff is the harder act in this case, i don't dispute that, lol, but he was a far better watch as fury than i imagined he would be.

and back on topic....what exactly did stan say about whedon, 'he's very talented.', he showed some restraint there i think.

 

[lixdexia]

...and running around in talking beach trunks, if he had ...

THAT would have been a fun show!

 

[SpiderByte]

"Avengers Assemble!....in slowwwwwwwwwmooooooooooooooooootionnnnn."

 

[Dark Raven]

After watching Iron Man 2, I think on reflection that maybe Josh Whedon might be suitable for the Avengers. Justin Theroux doesn't seem to have scripted enough of a personal progression for Tony where he ultimately has to make a tough choice about himself in order for the story to be resolved. I know that Whedon can do that, and maybe he will bring that much needed emotional weight to the script. Also, for all the naysayer's criticisms of Whedonesque dialogue, there were times in IM2 when Downey Jr and the cast sounded like they were ad libbing ad nauseum which bordered on Whedon speak anyway. Maybe Whedon could reign some of this in since he knows how to handle ensemble casts.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Why do people keep bringing that up? "Well Whedon can handle ensembles!"

Errr... yea? And? So can countless other directors. Doesn't mean they'd be right for Avengers.

You need more than just the ability to handle ensembles to do Avengers justice.

 

[Dark Raven]

Why do people keep bringing that up? "Well Whedon can handle ensembles!"

Errr... yea? And? So can countless other directors. Doesn't mean they'd be right for Avengers.

You need more than just the ability to handle ensembles to do Avengers justice.

That wasn't the point of my post if you read again. I mentioned that in respect of reigning Downey Jr. It's as if you see that phrase "handling ensembles" and it just triggers an automatic response in you without reading the rest of the post. I didn't mention it as reason he coud do the Avengers justice.

The reason I said Whedon could be suitable is that he knows how to tell a good emotional story that shows a personal progression and isn't just a bunch of stuff that happens. People actually grow and change, and protagonists are in actual danger and have to make difficult personal choices. Justin Theroux didnt quite demonstrate that with his IM2 script. Stark still seemed the same arrogant **** he was at the end of the movie to the beginning, and in fact more arrogant than in IM1 where he developed as a person from cocky weapons dealer to responsible hero.

I feel that Whedon could show the personal development of the Avengers as a team and how they have to deal with their conflicts and eventually be forced to make a hard decision to put aside their personal differences to work together. There would be an actual emotional curve. If Theroux worked on it, stuff will happen, things will get blown up but will you feel you've really lived with those characters through their struggles?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Hmmm well i can understand Stark's ego growing in IM2 without even watching it yet. The guy is now a world famous super hero who everyone loves. Comic book Stark has always had an ego... but underneath he has a heart of gold.

And Whedon's idea of an emotional story is build a character up so that everyone likes them... then kill them off. That's his style... and it's a cheap way of getting emotion out of stories.

 

[Dark Raven]

Hmmm well i can understand Stark's ego growing in IM2 without even watching it yet. The guy is now a world famous super hero who everyone loves. Comic book Stark has always had an ego... but underneath he has a heart of gold.

And Whedon's idea of an emotional story is build a character up so that everyone likes them... then kill them off. That's his style... and it's a cheap way of getting emotion out of stories.

Just watch IM2 first before trying to justify Stark's ego. I don't mind that he develops an ego for the reasons you stated, but he has to grow from there and realize that he has developed one and has almost become again the very person he originally started out as before his eyes were opened in Afghanistan. He needs to realize he has hurt a number of people by his actions and jeopardized their safety, just as it happened in Demon in a Bottle. Even Spider-Man 3, for all its faults and weaknesses, has this element when Peter strikes Mary Jane and realizes what he has become, and decides that he has to change. Stark doesn't do this in IM2. He is the same arrogant person he is from start to finish, so there is no emotional payoff, which is just poor storytelling. That's what I'm talking about in Justin Theroux's script. He didn't do that kind of thing with Tropic Thunder either.

At least Whedon knows how to create a character arc and have an emotional payoff, whether or not he kills a character (which he doesn't always. Neither Buffy, Angel, Echo or any of the absolutely main protagonists were killed off in his series).

 

[Son of Coul]

Stark SHOULD stay arrogant as far as I'm concerned, he just needs an ego check now and then. It's not poor storytelling for someone who's arrogant to stay arrogant.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but a lot of people seem to think it's a necessity for the protagonist to go through some enormous transformation by the end of a movie, and that really bugs me. Saying something HAS to happen like that or else the movie's no good is pretty ignorant and actually puts major restrictions on storytelling, if anything.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Well one of the important aspects of a film is progression. The character has to undergo a physical, mental, or emotional change in some way throughout a film or whats the point of the story?

 

[Son of Coul]

Entertainment. I'm not saying characters shouldn't change, I'm just saying it's not a necessity. Wouldn't there be something satisfying about a movie (any movie, not IM2 or anything) where a truly awful person is thrown bewildering obstacles and manages to overcome them while still retaining awfulness by the end to the frustration of others? It sounds almost pessimistic (which it's not), but there's something just interesting and funny about that.

There are some prominent examples in comedies, but I guess they would be pointless to list because they're comedies. One superhero movie you could make the argument for is TIH. I know people say character development lacked a little in that movie, but character development is just developing the idea of the character, not the changes in them. Anyways, the only slight change you could say for that movie was Banner accepting that the Hulk could be used for good. But who's to say he never thought so before? The point of the story is to watch a man overcome the outstanding challenges presented to him by others or fate and see how he does it, observe his relationships with others, and enjoy the ride.

I definitely agree with you that one of the most important aspects in a movie is progression. If nothing goes anywhere there's not a good chance the movie will be good (though who's to say nobody can pull that off...). I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily umbrella the characters themselves. If every movie were like that though, most probably would suck. In fact, maybe that's why the idea appeals to me so much, it's just hardly done. It's the reason I love the very polarizing movie Observe and Report. That movie does pretty much everything you're not supposed to do in a movie, including a reformed/progressing protagonist. It changed the way I thought about how they say things "have to be done" and opened up my head a little more to other possibilities.

But it really all depends on the type of movie you're making. Now specifically for IM2, do I think Tony Stark should go through some changes? Yes. I think he should learn to be a little more responsible and learn to cut back on his reckless behavior (I haven't seen the movie yet). But like Downey said about the first IM, he shouldn't go through this absolute reform and become Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes all of a sudden. That just doesn't happen to people, "When someone used to be a schmuck and they're not anymore, hopefully they still have a sense of humor." So like I said earlier, I do think Stark should maintain his egomania and ******* tendencies, just have it checked by others now and then (ie. Pepper, Rhodey, Fury, Cap etc.).

And that's all I gotta say about that.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Entertainment. I'm not saying characters shouldn't change, I'm just saying it's not a necessity. Wouldn't there be something satisfying about a movie (any movie, not IM2 or anything) where a truly awful person is thrown bewildering obstacles and manages to overcome them while still retaining awfulness by the end to the frustration of others? It sounds almost pessimistic (which it's not), but there's something just interesting and funny about that.

There are some prominent examples in comedies, but I guess they would be pointless to list because they're comedies. One superhero movie you could make the argument for is TIH. I know people say character development lacked a little in that movie, but character development is just developing the idea of the character, not the changes in them. Anyways, the only slight change you could say for that movie was Banner accepting that the Hulk could be used for good. But who's to say he never thought so before? The point of the story is to watch a man overcome the outstanding challenges presented to him by others or fate and see how he does it, observe his relationships with others, and enjoy the ride.

I definitely agree with you that one of the most important aspects in a movie is progression. If nothing goes anywhere there's not a good chance the movie will be good (though who's to say nobody can pull that off...). I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily umbrella the characters themselves. If every movie were like that though, most probably would suck. In fact, maybe that's why the idea appeals to me so much, it's just hardly done. It's the reason I love the very polarizing movie Observe and Report. That movie does pretty much everything you're not supposed to do in a movie, including a reformed/progressing protagonist. It changed the way I thought about how they say things "have to be done" and opened up my head a little more to other possibilities.

But it really all depends on the type of movie you're making. Now specifically for IM2, do I think Tony Stark should go through some changes? Yes. I think he should learn to be a little more responsible and learn to cut back on his reckless behavior (I haven't seen the movie yet). But like Downey said about the first IM, he shouldn't go through this absolute reform and become Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes all of a sudden. That just doesn't happen to people, "When someone used to be a schmuck and they're not anymore, hopefully they still have a sense of humor." So like I said earlier, I do think Stark should maintain his egomania and ******* tendencies, just have it checked by others now and then (ie. Pepper, Rhodey, Fury, Cap etc.).

And that's all I gotta say about that.

Yeah but its a change. Also by the end you see that he also finally has some control over the Hulk, hence the eyes and him smiling. I'm not just talking about progression, but there is usually some significant change of a character or a setting one way or another through out a film, and the rare films in which there are no changes at all throughout a film tend to be bad, but all aren't bad. One film I can name with no progression is The Player in which the main character [BLACKOUT]gets away with murder, and is still the same jerk[/BLACKOUT], but its more of an exploitation of the Hollywood film industry than anything.

I can't really comment much on Tony Stark since IM2 is still 6 days away in the US.

 

[Son of Coul]

One film I can name with no progression is The Player in which the main character [BLACKOUT]gets away with murder, and is still the same jerk[/BLACKOUT], but its more of an exploitation of the Hollywood film industry than anything.

Well there you go, it really depends on what the movie's going for. Not every movie's got to get all experimental, but it's interesting to try it and see how good you can still make it. I live in the US too, so IM2 is still just a much anticipated thrill ride for me too, I was just stating what I'd like to see from an outside audience member. That being- learn to straighten out a little, but feel free to stay a likable dick doing so.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There is always going to be a bit of hate towards a writer/director who doesn't stay inside the lines all the time.

To me he is, and will always be, the greatest storyteller I have come across.

When he presents a character, that character feels real to me. His dialogue is grounded in the reality that we are all trying to lighten the mood with sarcasm and wit most of the time, even in life and death situations.

His directing I find spot on, especially when he wants you to be emotional in a scene.

Yes, I worship the man!

The fact is, he has never let me down. I have never seen a project of his I didn't like. I have never seen an interview or a behind the scenes that didn't make me genuinley like the guy. He has pure, unrivalled talent.

When I was studying film studies, we had to do a project on an Auteur (a director with a recognisable style), and I wished he'd made enough movies for me to choose him.

I really hope this is his break into being respected by everyone. He already has his fans, and the critics behind him (because in most circles he is recognised as genius), but it'd be that final step if Joe Public knew his name.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I'm extremely happy with Joss Whedon as director of the Avengers. I think he's truly the best director for the job, he knows how to do quiet moments, big action and makes sure everyone has a distinct personality. I'm not sure I got around to watching much of Firefly before seeing Serenity, but I didn't feel lost at all during Serenity and felt I knew exactly who each character was and what they were about. Sure some of his dialouge might not fit the Avengers, but I trust he'd reign his more Buffy/Angel dialouge in for this movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I trust he stays true to the comics and the spirit of it. He seems like the type of guy who would.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Joss knows scifi Fantasy,and unlike some who do comic book films he Is actully fan of them and has actully do comic Books.Very acclaimed run on
Astonshing X-Men.Less succesful stint on Runaways.He Oversees the Buffy
Season 8 Comic for Dark Horse.And has written some.

BuffyAngel FireflySerenity and DollHouse are all different from each other.
Serenity was a much praised SCI FI film.Yes not a box Office hit but If you
only go by Box Office noone here can critize the Star Wars Prequels.

And he has plenty of expercence with ensemble casts.

 

[misjuevos]

As far as iron man's ego I'm sure just meeting and fighting alongside a super soldier, a behemoth, and a god would put anyones ego in check. Stark will realize He is just a man in a suit which anyone could operate. Where as the others are truely powerful and unique.

 

[Sawyer]

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.

Agreed.

And bump.