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

[Doctor Jones]

You just don't want either characters near the Avengers film do you? If you can't see how much Hank could contribute to the dynamic of the group then I can't help you.

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film.

 

[bunk]

Yeah, you only get half of every ticket you sell.

Thus, Hulk was a bomb.

Actually, according to Mark Millar a film has to make twice it's budget to break even. That is why "Superman Returns" was considered a flop.

Is that really how you would define "flop" and "bomb"?
It doesn't seem very useful to describe a movie that makes 130—or 200 million as having bombed. That's a ****load of money. I wouldn't put quite so much emphasis on the cost. What if a movie only needed 5 million more to be in the black. Suddenly it's no longer a "bomb" with 5 million more? That hardly makes sense. it's not so cut and dry.

 

[lixdexia]

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film.

i understand your thinking there, but i'd like to point out that by the time the avengers comes out those four characters will have had 10+ hrs of film in which to develop. it's not like the avengers will start them from scratch, most of their development should be done by that point and they can deal with character progression, which shouldn't need quite so much time.

 

[Son of Coul]

Actually, I'd say it should.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Is that really how you would define "flop" and "bomb"?
It doesn't seem very useful to describe a movie that makes 130—or 200 million as having bombed. That's a ****load of money. I wouldn't put quite so much emphasis on the cost. What if a movie only needed 5 million more to be in the black. Suddenly it's no longer a "bomb" with 5 million more? That hardly makes sense. it's not so cut and dry.

Thats how studios define "flop." Studios put a lot of emphasis on the cost because if they invest and expect to make a profit. Otherwise we'd be getting a SR sequel or a TIH sequel pre-Avengers. And yes, it isn't not so cut and dry. The idea is that a film generally has to make around double it's budget to make it's money back. It's not like 5 million more or less is going to make a film a flop or a success. But one thing that also should be considered is DVD sales and merchandising, because from what I hear those end up being the way most big budget films make their money.

I wouldn't mind at all actually. I think they should appear as scientists only. This film needs serious thought on everything. Especially characterization and development. And the four guys seem plenty. That's why we have sequels. I want to see them focus on the first four first. Four superheroes are enough. It will be hard enough to get all their stories properly developed as it is. For now with this first film, start it off with the beginning of the group, then bring in Hakweye or something. This is a difficult project to make, and I don't want it going down the drain because everyone wants as many characters as they can including favorite characters that could hurt the film.

I only want Hank and Janet because they were founders of the team and they are two of the biggest figures on the team after the big three. I think they deserve to be in the team more then the other Avengers that will probably be in the film like Hawkeye, Black Widow, and War Machine.

Plus, I agree with the idea that there should be some lesser members to show how big of a deal Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and Hulk really are.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I just wouldn't mind seeing Fury, IM, Cap, Thor and Hulk forming as the team first. I think it would work that way. That's four separate character arcs you have to develop over the course of a film. That is not easy to do.

 

[Son of Coul]

I agree, there'll be plenty of time for the Pyms in the sequel. And like I've said, forcing the Pyms into this can put some creative restrictions on Wright's Ant-Man solo movie.

 

[lixdexia]

I just wouldn't mind seeing Fury, IM, Cap, Thor and Hulk forming as the team first. I think it would work that way. That's four separate character arcs you have to develop over the course of a film. That is not easy to do.

i doubt hulk gets near as much time as the others, i also doubt he has much more impact on the team than that of an antagonist. fury is a supporting role and won't need or get the same as the big three, but that's the amount of time i picture hank and jan taking up as well. i think we're all in agreement that the film should focus mainly on thor, cap, and tony though.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Yeah, you only get half of every ticket you sell.

Thus, Hulk was a bomb.

Hulk was hardly a bomb.

i doubt hulk gets near as much time as the others, i also doubt he has much more impact on the team than that of an antagonist. fury is a supporting role and won't need or get the same as the big three, but that's the amount of time i picture hank and jan taking up as well. i think we're all in agreement that the film should focus mainly on thor, cap, and tony though.

And Banner

 

[Deaths Head II]

I agree, there'll be plenty of time for the Pyms in the sequel. And like I've said, forcing the Pyms into this can put some creative restrictions on Wright's Ant-Man solo movie.

Since Wright is doing Scott Lang instead I think they're actually pretty free to do what they want with the Pyms. And besides, they'll probably set up any appearance with Wright's Ant-Man in mind.

I think the Pyms should have a supporting role. They can appear as scientists working with Fury on the sidelines and if they're really bold maybe at the end Pym shows off his new Ant-Man suit and helps the team in some way. I would just rather Ant-Man and Wasp be there as the team is created. In the comics, they're the ones who thought up of the idea of the Avengers in the first place. They deserve some role, even if it's only as scientists.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Hulk was hardly a bomb.



And Banner

Marvel barely broke even on TIH. It was pretty well documented in Marvel's financial quotes following the Disney buy out, and while the situation wasn't dire, it wasn't nearly as good as was led on (the economy aside). Paramount ate nearly 10% of the gross. Couple that with the money owed to their investors whose resources allowed the studio to go independent and fund the movies. Take out the theatre cuts to boot and a 150 million dollar budget, and they may have found themselves in the red for that matter. Now with DVD, Blue-ray, toys and other merchandise, I am sure they ended up somewhere in the green, but that is not saying a lot. You guys can overplay TIH as a successful movie and a modest hit for Marvel all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Maybe Hulk's role in Avengers will reinvigorate the character and garner future movies, but he will likely be relegated to a supporting player in the universe from there on if we are lucky. And TIH2 certainly won't take precedent over IM3, Avengers sequels, or even Thor/Cap sequels if those do better than Hulk. Not to mention Norton is not even 100% confirmed. If Marvel is happy with those numbers then so be it. All I know is that Avengers can and should be a billion dollar franchise, so if they end up with 750-800 million and they are partying like it's their Avatar, well I guess there is good reason why they are so cheap to begin with.

 

[Kent]

Will people please learn what a "bomb" is? TIH was not a bomb. It was financial disappointment I'm sure, but that's not what a bomb is. A bomb is a movie where the costs greatly exceed the revenue.

For instance... Kevin Costner's "The Postman" cost around 80 mille to produce and market, but didn't even gross 20 mille worldwide. That is a bomb.

 

[Kent]

Double post. *bah*

 

[FaT_tONle]

Batman and Robin cost 130 million and went on to gross 240 WW. Guess that ain't a bomb either...

 

[jadejaws]

Will people please learn what a "bomb" is? TIH was not a bomb. It was financial disappointment I'm sure, but that's not what a bomb is. A bomb is a movie where the costs greatly exceed the revenue.

For instance... Kevin Costner's "The Postman" cost around 80 mille to produce and market, but didn't even gross 20 mille worldwide. That is a bomb.

I think we also have to ask ourselves if we know exactly what Marvel was expecting for TIH after 2003's Greek Tragedy. If you remember correctly, the first trailer for it didn't come out until late March or early April 2008. Not to mention the fact that it wasn't really marketed well after that point either. Why wouldn't a company market the hell out of movie who had a previous film version failure 5 years earlier? Because they literally had no idea how it would be received. Their sole purpose was to re-introduce the character for the Avengers. They knew it would turn a small profit through media and toy sales (Hulk hands part 2) but it's debatable as to how they actually believed the movie would turn out. Their publicized reactions to it's opening weekend were close to "shock" and they then announced it was a success once it surpassed Ang's movie by $1. My guess is that they didn't believe it would get there.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I don't buy that ^^^. They went through the trouble of rebooting in hopes that they'd make 1$ more than Ang's? And it literally was a dollar more when you do the adjustments. They wanted to not only re-introduce the character for Avengers, but they hoped it would spawn a franchise. I am sure Hulk would have had no trouble fitting into Avengers had they just put him in. Maybe even Bana would have came back. Not saying it wasn't an opportunity to make a quick buck, but their expectations could not have possibly been that low.

 

[OB12]

Batman and Robin cost 130 million and went on to gross 240 WW. Guess that ain't a bomb either...

In fact, no I wouldn't consider Batman and Robin a bomb, a terrible movie . . . yes. There is a distinction that needs to be made, just because a movie is generally considered to be bad, doesn't mean it can't be a financial success. I think TIH was a modest success, perhaps missing the box office numbers that Marvel hoped for but I would be very surprised if they consider it a bomb. It wasn't successful enough to automatically warrant a sequel, but the fact that we hear musings about one after Avengers indicates that they want to bring TIH back to the big screen.

On the topic of Whedon, I would be fine with him taking on this project. I watched a little of Buffy and Angel and they were entertaining. It would be interesting to see what he could do with this epic movie. That said, I don't think it will be Whedon.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I agree with that in terms of what is a bomb versus a critical failure. But the fact that we don't appear to getting Hulk movies anytime soon, and Avengers could be the final appearance for a while; it's like Batman making the cut in a JLA movie (which we almost got with George Miller), but not getting additional solo movies (so negate TDK and BB3 if Begins performed similarly to Hulk). So yeah it's not the same critical failure as B&R, but it's still the same result.

 

[OB12]

I think you are assuming that a lack of movement on TIH2 means that TIH is viewed as a poor showing for the character. I don't think that is the case at all. What does Marvel gain by putting another Hulk movie out prior to Avengers? The character is set up pretty good for inclusion in the team-up and Marvel has Cap and Thor, who need to be established yet, so messing with another Hulk movie seems a bit needless. We got IM2 because the original was a bonafide smash hit, but TIH was a modest success that received largely favorable reviews and is positioned correctly for Avengers as is. If there is no talk of a TIH2 a year after Avengers, then there is reason to be worried.

 

[KangConquers]

I sort of laugh at the big distinction people make between the Ang Lee Hulk and TIH. They were roughly the same in terms of critical reaction and box office success. It wasn't a critically acclaimed mega movie, nor a smash hit. It barely made it's money back, if it did at all, and just as many critics said it was thin and without any characterization as said they enjoyed watching the Hulk and Abomination fight.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Studios invest in these tentpoles with the idea that they will spark at least a sequel, with a trilogy being more desirable. Look at the 2011 slate. Every movie is a 2nd, third, or fourth installment. No doubt Marvel wants to see Cap or Thor become their Wolverine with 5-6 major appearances. I am sure they envisioned at least one sequel to TIH outside of Avengers. If Cap/Thor don't do IM type numbers and fail to establish individual franchises then the same can be said for those, but at least those are staple Avengers characters that will appear in more than two films. I see no reason why Marvel will deliever more Hulk movies when they can invest in cheaper C-listers that have yet to graze the big screen.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I think you are assuming that a lack of movement on TIH2 means that TIH is viewed as a poor showing for the character. I don't think that is the case at all. What does Marvel gain by putting another Hulk movie out prior to Avengers? The character is set up pretty good for inclusion in the team-up and Marvel has Cap and Thor, who need to be established yet, so messing with another Hulk movie seems a bit needless. We got IM2 because the original was a bonafide smash hit, but TIH was a modest success that received largely favorable reviews and is positioned correctly for Avengers as is. If there is no talk of a TIH2 a year after Avengers, then there is reason to be worried.

I think it was fairly obvious TIH was begging for a sequel pre-Avengers with the way they set up The Leader and hinted that Banner could control the Hulk now. The Avengers appearance will even completely change the meaning of the ending because now it'll be used as a hint that Hulk turned evil.

And honestly, if they were going to hold off so long on the sequel they should have held off on the first film too. It's chronologically set after Iron Man 2 even. One of the main things I feel held the film back was the fact general audiences hated the first film, but for some reason they decided to have the Hulk be one of the first Marvel Studios films out. And in the middle of a busy summer too. Despite what fanboys claim, reboots do have to occur a decent amount of time after the last unsuccessful film. Most people I know assumed TIH was a sequel to a movie they hated and the ones that didn't still said something along the lines of "I already saw a Hulk movie in theaters and it sucked."

 

[KangConquers]

Studios invest in these tentpoles with the idea that they will spark at least a sequel, with a trilogy being more desirable. Look at the 2011 slate. Every movie is a 2nd, third, or fourth installment. No doubt Marvel wants to see Cap or Thor become their Wolverine with 5-6 major appearances. I am sure they envisioned at least one sequel to TIH outside of Avengers. If Cap/Thor don't do IM type numbers and fail to establish individual franchises then the same can be said for those, but at least those are staple Avengers characters that will appear in more than two films. I see no reason why Marvel will deliever more Hulk movies when they can invest in cheaper C-listers that have yet to graze the big screen.

Exactly. And I hate that all the Hulk fans seem to think Hulk will be the main character of Avengers; he'll be taking a backseat to the Big 3 characters, guaranteed.

 

[OB12]

I think it was fairly obvious TIH was begging for a sequel pre-Avengers with the way they set up The Leader and hinted that Banner could control the Hulk now. The Avengers appearance will even completely change the meaning of the ending because now it'll be used as a hint that Hulk turned evil.

And honestly, if they were going to hold off so long on the sequel they should have held off on the first film too. It's chronologically set after Iron Man 2 even. One of the main things I feel held the film back was the fact general audiences hated the first film, but for some reason they decided to have the Hulk be one of the first Marvel Studios films out. And in the middle of a busy summer too. Despite what fanboys claim, reboots do have to occur a decent amount of time after the last unsuccessful film. Most people I know assumed TIH was a sequel to a movie they hated and the ones that didn't still said something along the lines of "I already saw a Hulk movie in theaters and it sucked."

Obviously, TIH is set up for sequels, LL and Norton have said as much but I don't think it was necessarily a foregone conclusion that the sequel would come before Avengers. Think about it, if they TIH2 and they made Hulk the hero again, then his turn as a villian in Avengers would seem a little jarring unless they did a direct bridge with Loki appering in TIH2. The way they did it left it ambiguous so that if TIH was a huge hit that demanded a sequel, they could. Now the ending can be interpreted as Banner is possibly being controlled so that Hulk can serve as a first act villian in Avengers. It was certainly a hedge as was the fact that Norton may or may not be contracted for future films. Marvel was unsure but hopeful of TIH's success. What they got was a movie that tonally more in-line with the Marvel universe, a decent box office take, and a generally warm reception from fans.

 

[OB12]

Exactly. And I hate that all the Hulk fans seem to think Hulk will be the main character of Avengers; he'll be taking a backseat to the Big 3 characters, guaranteed.

Hulk definitely won't be the main character, but will certainly be part of the puzzle and he may even have a pivotal role in the outcome of the movie.