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

[david icke]

But that's the problem i have with this choice.

I just KNOW Whedon will try to cram some of his own sensibilities and ideas into the movie. Even if it means stomping over the work Favs and Branagh and Johnston have done before him. It's inevitable. And it's unnacceptable.

Unacceptable? I would say it was necesarry. Faverau walked from any possibility of doing Avengers because he did not want to take on the mystical aspects of Thor and mesh them with his real world Iron-Man template.
They need a director who will be able to mesh those sensibilities, and as someone already mentioned on the thread, Whedon has successfully mixed science-fiction with magic and mystisicm in Buffy and Angel, he has experience in this kind of comic book culture clash that will be necesarry for this movie. Faverau didn't think he would be able to do that, who knows maybe he would have, but good man that he is, he stepped aside as he was not 100% sure how to tackle such an idea.

edit: and I do not think he will 'stomp all over' any work done previously by the directors, he will want to keep it consistent with the other movies, and do his utmost with that.

 

[DocHoliday]

But also Whedon has expressed that he isn't even terribly intrigued by the Avengers (in comic form). I'd love Whedon for Runaways. I just don't know about Avengers. Just because groundwork has been set by other people and not him.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Exactly Doc.

Whedon is more suited to quirky things like Runaways. Not all out mainstream action extravaganza's like Avengers.

And Dave, it is unnacceptable. I can imagine him spinning characters in different ways, going against how they were portrayed in their own films. He'll add his little Whedonisms. I don't want Whedons Avengers. I want the Avengers.

 

[kedrell]

But that's the problem i have with this choice.

I just KNOW Whedon will try to cram some of his own sensibilities and ideas into the movie. Even if it means stomping over the work Favs and Branagh and Johnston have done before him. It's inevitable. And it's unnacceptable.

Yeah, sort of the cinematic equivalent of Jeph Loebbarf taking over after Millar's run on the Ultimates.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Loeb should of retired long ago.

His recent work on Hulk has been a travesty.

 

[david icke]

But also Whedon has expressed that he isn't even terribly intrigued by the Avengers (in comic form). I'd love Whedon for Runaways. I just don't know about Avengers. Just because groundwork has been set by other people and not him.

Well, there is a big diff between doing a monthly comic and a feature film with the characters, and no not just the money, the creative challenge. Not being terribly intrigued with doing the monthly comic does not mean he will not be able to get charged up for the movie and be able to do the job.

 

[DocHoliday]

Well, there is a big diff between doing a monthly comic and a feature film with the characters, and no not just the money, the creative challenge. Not being terribly intrigued with doing the monthly comic does not mean he will not be able to get charged up for the movie and be able to do the job.

true...however if he can't even get enthused at the prospect if controlling an arc from his brain than why would he be interested in a job where he didn't shape the story or the characters up to that point? Simple, it'll be a huge movie a and a bump to his career.

 

[david icke]

Exactly Doc.

Whedon is more suited to quirky things like Runaways. Not all out mainstream action extravaganza's like Avengers.

And Dave, it is unnacceptable. I can imagine him spinning characters in different ways, going against how they were portrayed in their own films. He'll add his little Whedonisms. I don't want Whedons Avengers. I want the Avengers.

I have a few of his X-Men books, and they felt like the same X-Men to me, so I think he can keep them in character whilst having a good writer's individual style there.

and for what it's worth, I don't rate Jeph Loeb either, about the only thing I thought was outstanding aboiut the Long Halloween was the artwork, it was ok, and i hear that was his best work.

Anyway, we will see what happens. But we should all promise to come back here after it has been released and eat our words if we were wrong, one party sending a bucket of flowers to Joss Whedon if he gets it right, and I will promise to eat a bucket of flowers complete with Earth and/or mud if he mucks it up.

 

[david icke]

true...however if he can't even get enthused at the prospect if controlling an arc from his brain than why would he be interested in a job where he didn't shape the story of the characters up to that point? Simple, it'll be a huge movie a and a bump to his career.

C'mon that is very cynical, this will be far more than a career bumping job, he will be stoked to do a Marvel universe live action movie at this scale.
and not being interested in writing the Avengers on a monthly basis is a far different cry from not being interested in the characters at all, or understanding them, after all, this was the guy who came up with the solution to the end of Civil War when all the other Marvel writers had reached an impasse.

 

[DocHoliday]

I'm on the fence. I just am not going to blindly embrace this. In the same way I was cautiously optimistic with the first Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. I think there is real potential there and some stuff to be excited about but also a lot of unanswered questions.

When we see something real to indicate he has this under control, than I'm there. I like Whedon so I am not hating on him. I also like Derek Jeter but I wouldn't want him pitching relief innings.

 

[kedrell]

I sure hope Whedon hears all this doubt, nay-saying and vitriol about his hiring and ends up digging deep down to give something that completely blows anything else he's ever done in his life away(if he indeed posesses such talent hidden within, which I'm not convinced that he does). If we can prod him to that point, then I'll happily eat my words. But for now I remain pessimistic.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Everything this guy touches has a cheesy sitcom feel, even Firefly.

He simply doesn't have the scope for what could be the biggest comic book movie in history. He should stick to vampire soaps.

 

[roach]

well the one good thing is that the female avengers will get some real focus now

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't know about this.

 

[kedrell]

I can see it now: Out goes Renner as Hawkeye, in comes Fillion.

 

[david icke]

Everything this guy touches has a cheesy sitcom feel, even Firefly.

He simply doesn't have the scope for what could be the biggest comic book movie in history. He should stick to vampire soaps.

His vampire soaps were a flop, the vampires could'nt tell if their faces were clean or not after using them, and don't even get started on the shaving foam he brought out, a lot of vamps sued for chin/adams's apple damage there.

He has not had the budget yet to do something at this scope, give Picasso a pencil he will do a drawing, but that doesn't mean he does not have the training necesarry to be a great painter if you gave him the full paint set.

and to kedrell and Doc Holiday, fair enough about being cautious, whether you are a fan or not. But, I am not sure about throw up smileys, slaphead smileys or whatever, being the things that push him in the right direction creatively.

 

[kedrell]

I just want him to know in no uncertain terms that we aren't all browncoats here. He's got one helluva job ahead of him.

 

[roach]

General consensus of this thread
1)Whedon fans who believe he will knock this out the park based on Buffy and Firefly
2)People who dont believe he will knock this out the park based on Buffy and Firefly

 

[Iron_Stark]

Unacceptable? I would say it was necesarry. Faverau walked from any possibility of doing Avengers because he did not want to take on the mystical aspects of Thor and mesh them with his real world Iron-Man template.
They need a director who will be able to mesh those sensibilities, and as someone already mentioned on the thread, Whedon has successfully mixed science-fiction with magic and mystisicm in Buffy and Angel, he has experience in this kind of comic book culture clash that will be necesarry for this movie. Faverau didn't think he would be able to do that, who knows maybe he would have, but good man that he is, he stepped aside as he was not 100% sure how to tackle such an idea.

edit: and I do not think he will 'stomp all over' any work done previously by the directors, he will want to keep it consistent with the other movies, and do his utmost with that.

Wrong, Favreau isn't doing the Avengers because he's going to be coming off Iron Man 2 and jumping onto Iron Man 3 which is heavily rumored to be coming out that same year as the Avengers.

And you're not helping your case with the constant mentions of Buffy and Angel.

C'mon that is very cynical, this will be far more than a career bumping job, he will be stoked to do a Marvel universe live action movie at this scale.
and not being interested in writing the Avengers on a monthly basis is a far different cry from not being interested in the characters at all, or understanding them, after all, this was the guy who came up with the solution to the end of Civil War when all the other Marvel writers had reached an impasse.

So it was HIS idea the Extremis armor compromised by Vision

The Extremis Armor.

Like I've said before I really wish he'd stay away from anything related to Iron Man.

 

[roach]

was JJ Abrams too busy???

 

[david icke]

Wrong, Favreau isn't doing the Avengers because he's going to be coming off Iron Man 2 and jumping onto Iron Man 3 which is heavily rumored to be coming out that same year as the Avengers.

And you're not helping your case with the constant mentions of Buffy and Angel.

Not wrong my friend, Please read John Faverau interviews when it comes to not directing the Avengers in future:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/10/1...-avengers-explains-iron-man-2-tie-in-process/

 

[roach]

Not wrong my friend, Please read John Faverau interviews when it comes to not directing the Avengers in future:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/10/1...-avengers-explains-iron-man-2-tie-in-process/

Pretty much says he's going to be unavailable...then goes on to have some thoughts on it.
In fact reading that interview it seems the big reason he aint gonna do it is because he's so focused on Iron Man

 

[Immortalfire]

Oh no

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

was JJ Abrams too busy???

Yes, especially with Star Trek 2 coming.

 

[FrostBite]

Favs was a comedian that I scoffed at. Ledger was a pretty boy that I dismissed. LL was a crazy action nut known for the Transporter. Sam Raimi was a comedy/horror specialist.

Whatever your beefs with these movies, most of them were pretty freakin' good. What I have learned is that there is no real way to judge how an artist is going execute his craft based on previous bodies of work. While there will always be signature traits that are present much like a person's own signature, there is no telling how they will preform.

I've never seen any of Whedon's stuff except for my girl loving Dollhouse (of which, I thought the idea when explained to me was pretty cool,) and Buffy (the film, which I thought was horrid.)

I'm not going to dismiss the man, not until/if he actually screws it up. Which even so, if he does, I can't hold it against him. This will be one hard as heck property to bring to the big screen.

Let's hope he pulls it off.