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

[Son of Coul]

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.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here. I haven't seen one Hulk fan claim they think he'll be the main character, just a pivotal role in getting the Avengers formed. Which is how it should be, like the books.

 

[KangConquers]

That's fine...but anyone who thinks he's a long term part of the Avengers film franchise is sorely mistaken.

Professor Hulk walking around Avengers mansion would be 20 times cornier than Ant-Man or Wasp.

 

[Son of Coul]

Indeed. I think he could ditch them after the first movie, wanting to be alone or whatever. The Hulk could be a very exciting aspect of the movie with how powerful and dangerous he is, but with repetition the character would lose its impact. With the Pyms, though they are a big part of the team, they could be put off till the sequel. I mean, Cap is an enormous part of the Avengers but he wasn't thawed out until four issues in. With Hulk, because he's integral not so much to the team in the long run, but the team's formation, it's now or never.

And I personally hope other incarnations of the Hulk never come near the movies. I like it with the Jekyll/Hyde angle rather than a million personalities and all this trippy stuff. I think it takes away from the character's uniqueness.

 

[KangConquers]

Indeed. I think he could ditch them after the first movie, wanting to be alone or whatever. The Hulk could be a very exciting aspect of the movie with how powerful and dangerous he is, but with repetition the character would lose its impact. With the Pyms, though they are a big part of the team, they could be put off till the sequel. I mean, Cap is an enormous part of the Avengers but he wasn't thawed out until four issues in. With Hulk, because he's integral not so much to the team in the long run, but the team's formation, it's now or never.

And I personally hope other incarnations of the Hulk never come near the movies. I like it with the Jekyll/Hyde angle rather than a million personalities and all this trippy stuff. I think it takes away from the character's uniqueness.

I want them to use Avengers to drum up interest in TIH 2...that said I don't think it should be all about the Hulk...I think Hulk should leave the team after Avengers 1 and TIH 2 should pick up right after Hulk leaves the Avengers.

 

[OB12]

Yeah, I think for the most part, Hulk is a one shot deal in Avengers. He does something heroic at a pivotal moment to turn the tide for the Avengers, then at the conclusion he jumps off to seclusion only to be pursued in Hulk sequels by the Leader. I wouldn't mind if he came back briefly in Avengers 3 to help the team deal with Ultron or something, but he certainly shouldn't be hanging out with the team.

 

[TheVileOne]

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.

Paramount didn't distribute Incredible Hulk, Universal did. Did Paramount give Marvel a financing loan for the movie though?

 

[FaT_tONle]

I don't know what the original financing deal was and what happened to it after the merger. Probably became null and void once Disney started footing the bills. I doubt the money came from Paramount otherwise they probably would have just leased it out to them or another major studio.

 

[TheVileOne]

But why did you say Paramount ate 10%? Did you mean Universal?

I think the original financing deal was with Merrill Lynch in 2006. Since that time and the economy crash I think Merrill Lynch was having troubles. I think that and the writer's strike was probably the cause of the delays in these movies a little while back.

 

[FaT_tONle]

The Paramount thing was an obvious mistake. Universal probably took in the same cut though. They didn't market the movie for free. Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America during the crisis. I don't know if Marvel was really short on cash when Thor was going into production or whether Bank of America was increasing Marvel's interest rates or whatever, but I doubt they were going to loan more money out to Marvel (assuming they needed it) at a time when they were buying out the joint. It could have facilitated the Disney take over.

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.

IM2 did not have to take place before TIH. They were rather flexible as far as the timeline. We didn't need a Fury meeting in IM2, or a "Not interested in your (Avenger team)" scene with Stark/Fury. It could have taken place after TIH2 for that matter, and all the pre-Avengers Fury stuff could have remained behind the scenes or post-credit. All we know for sure is that IM took place before TIH. Before IM2 actually plays out the way it will, it could have gone either way. The second it was evident that TIH was not going to be a sequel, it made sense to have IM2 happen before TIH in the timeline to elaborate on the formation, the behind the scenes stuff, and Fury's ultimate role in the process.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I want them to use Avengers to drum up interest in TIH 2...that said I don't think it should be all about the Hulk...I think Hulk should leave the team after Avengers 1 and TIH 2 should pick up right after Hulk leaves the Avengers.

That's how I feel too. Avengers would be good publicity for Hulk, but he's not a team player. It's kind of funny, because the Hulk's series got cancelled after 6 issues before he showed up in Avengers. Then after quitting the Avengers his popularity really started to take off. It would be kind of funny if history repeats itself with the movies.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah but I don't think 2 major feature films compare to six introduction issues. I like the view point and the irony though...

 

[jadejaws]

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.

Good post! That was exactly how I saw it.

 

[OB12]

IM2 did not have to take place before TIH. They were rather flexible as far as the timeline. We didn't need a Fury meeting in IM2, or a "Not interested in your (Avenger team)" scene with Stark/Fury. It could have taken place after TIH2 for that matter, and all the pre-Avengers Fury stuff could have remained behind the scenes or post-credit. All we know for sure is that IM took place before TIH. Before IM2 actually plays out the way it will, it could have gone either way. The second it was evident that TIH was not going to be a sequel, it made sense to have IM2 happen before TIH in the timeline to elaborate on the formation, the behind the scenes stuff, and Fury's ultimate role in the process.

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here. What does IM2's place in the timeline have to do with Hulk sequels? All I am saying is that I don't believe that Marvel had it in the plan to do a Hulk sequel prior to Avengers. I think with IM and Hulk being released in the same year, they were prepared to do a sequel for one of the two but not both and since IM did so well and since Hulk has already been on the big screen twice, it was a better idea to do an IM sequel.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Count me in as someone who would seriously approve of Whedon getting the gig, I absolutely loved Firefly and Serenity and he is really good at doing characters and as Serenity proved can do a pretty damn good action scene as well, I think he would be the perfect choice as character interaction seems to be his strong point.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here. What does IM2's place in the timeline have to do with Hulk sequels? All I am saying is that I don't believe that Marvel had it in the plan to do a Hulk sequel prior to Avengers. I think with IM and Hulk being released in the same year, they were prepared to do a sequel for one of the two but not both and since IM did so well and since Hulk has already been on the big screen twice, it was a better idea to do an IM sequel.

I don't know if I agree with that. Say the strike didn't happen, there was a good chance Thor would have been out in 2009. 2010 latest. They could have snuck in TIH2 in 2011 along with Cap if that were the case. Maybe even Fury/Ant-Man could have been made prior to Avengers. I am not saying they weren't trying to fast track Avengers; originally they wanted it rushed out by 2011. But it was pretty evident that it had to go to 2012 or later unless they wanted to hapass it. If TIH had made money, I am sure a sequel would have preceded Ant-Man and Nicky Fury solo films and been out prior to Avengers had they stuck to the rigid schedule.

 

[holtz11]

According to Nikki Finke, it's almost a done deal. Joss Whedon directs the Avengers.

 

[DocHoliday]

Not great news if you ask me... Great writer but nothing he has ever done yells "great action director".

 

[craigdbfan]

Joss Whedon In Final Negotiations For "The Avengers"

On April Fool’s Day, IESB had the bad timing to report that Joss Whedon was on the shorlist to direct The Avengers for Marvel. Really bad timing for that scoop — while Whedon is the sort of guy a lot of fans would like to see on this film, there was too much reason to be skeptical when it ran on April 1. (Memo to webmasters: April 1 fake scoops are idiotic, unless they’re really funny or done as well as the Film School Rejects site ‘revamp.’) The LA Times confirmed that shortlist a few days later, but even then it was tough to tell if the studio was serious, or just spitballing in the same way it seemed to do with the Captain America casting.
Either way, things are evidently serious now, as there’s a report that Whedon is in final talks to direct the film.
Deadline has a piece on the deal, but doesn’t offer any more info.
Whedon is a ballsy choice, but will the identity of the director really matter from the perspective of the mainstream? Probably not. A great many people won’t think ‘this movie is from the guy behind Buffy and Firefly and that movie Serenity.’ They’ll hopefully think, ‘holy ****, this movie has Iron Man and Thor and Captain America? I’m so in!’ Making the film look like a good prospect has a lot more to do with the success of Thor and Captain America than it does the choice of director.
Making it a good movie — that’s a different story. While Whedon has his shortcomings, there will be serious editorial oversight from Kevin Feige, Jon Favreau and others at Marvel. Furthermore, I think Whedon managed Serenity really well. That film was made on a relatively small budget, had many characters and several setpieces, and it worked. I came into it not having seen moment one of Firefly and the film turned me on to the series. I can see him going to town with The Avengers.

 

[Chewy]

I just spent ten minutes logging in, ten minutes loading this page, ten minutes loading the "New Reply" page, and ten minutes waiting for my reply to be posted just to say that I think this is an interesting choice.

 

[rashad]

Seems like a cool choice. My expectations still remain low for this film however.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Great news.He IS a comic book fan unlike some who do films.While more a
X-Men fan than Avengers.He will probally do some work on the script.Buffy
and Angel were basiclly comic book shows but created for TV without
being in COmics.He can work with enselmbes.Go back and watch Serenity
If you any doudt.And If this means some of his regular actors might show up
provided hawkeye,Wasp and Ant-Man/Giant Man make It Into the film so
much the better{Nathan FillIon would be great as hawkeye,and Amy Acker
would be good as wasp)

Remember Jon Favreru with Iron Man and Kenneth branagh with Thor would
not be the first choices to do big films like that.Joss Is a more likely choice
than them.

 

[mclay18]

Whedon is a GREAT choice. And he can do wonders on a budget.

Marvel, thank god you did not pick Letterier. My head would've exploded.

 

[metr0man]

Wow, you Avengers fans are in for a treat.

Nobody does geek ensemble like Joss, nobody. I wouldn't consider him the right fit for say Iron Man, or Captain America, as far as solo films goes, but the man knows how to do iconic groups. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Ast. X-Men, Runaways, the list goes on and on.

But it remains to be seen how much influence he has on the script. if Zak Penn is writing it, well, that's very hit and miss.

(I say you Avengers fans, because even though I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm not really a fan of super-groups, same with Justice League, i'm more of an Iron Man fan than an Avengers fan).

 

[DACrowe]

Buffy=campy, forgettable, but solid fun.

Firefly=brilliant, amazinng, superb show.

Serenity=Best Science Fiction film of the last decade (yes better than Avatar).

A guy who has a great a touch for action/drama/comedy and who knows how to use an ensemble cast masterfully. Firefly/Serenity is far better than anything the X-Men franchise has ever produced.

Good choice.

 

[DACrowe]

Buffy=campy, forgettable, but solid fun.

Firefly=brilliant, amazinng, superb show.

Serenity=Best Science Fiction film of the last decade (yes better than Avatar).

A guy who has a great a touch for action/drama/comedy and who knows how to use an ensemble cast masterfully. Firefly/Serenity is far better than anything the X-Men franchise has ever produced.

Good choice.