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

[Ace of Knaves]

I'd say it matters a s***load what medium it is. TV shows are not movies and neither are comics. Most directors(like Favs & Nolan) have to build up to the level of handling a superhero blockbuster movie by proving themselves with several theatrical movies to their credit. Not Joss Whedon, oh no! Just one theatrical bomb and he's off to the races with the biggest superhero film in history. And many Avengers fans quake in their boots at the thought of it.

 

[FrostBite]

Yeah! I am not alone on not judging until I see anything! -high fives NickNitro!-

Edit: I just noticed my Issac Clarke avatar and my excitable happy-go-lucky attitude don't mix very well at all.

 

[roach]

I love all the hostility from the fanboy community. I"m not sure if they are angry that he only has done one movie or that much of his work involves women who aren't damsels in distress, but there is some white hot hatred for the guy. I'm surprised.

The man more than anything knows how to juggle an ensemble and make awesome, really endearing characters and relations. Serenity, when viewed in context with the brilliant series Firefly, was the best sci-fi film of the last decade. He makes viewers love his characters, even if there are nine of them. Each is individually developed, distinct and cool.

While I was never a huge fan of the Buffy series, he had that same sensibility. He has directed some solid action scenes before and I have confidence he can up the ante with a $200 million budget. The complaints that he can't seem to be from people who don't know his work or think because he hasn't made an action movie he can't do it. Because we all know how well Louis Letterer and Brett Ratner, directors with action experience, were with Marvel movies.

Whedon's Youtube movie/musical, Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog, was better than half of the comic book movies made to date. I think he WILL BE FINE.

And for those who still whine about experience, I bet they were pissed off when JJ Abrhams, the guy who created the "girl power" show Alias and drama/mystery Lost got the job to do Star Trek.
He also did Mission Impossible 3 which is considered the best of the series and Cloverfield..so its not like he is an unproven director
He ended up making the best Trek movie ever, i.e. one that people actually wanted and enjoyed watchings. I'm also sure when "the guy who made Elf and Zathura" was given the job to make Iron Man, they wondered how "this small-time supporting actor and kids' movie director can handle Tony Stark? Where's Michael Bay?"

If you want Clash of the Titans, then I understand the problem. If you want something closer to Serenity or the last Star Trek movie, then Whedon is a great choice.

I dislike the man's work. No amount of watching Buffy or Serenity or Firefly is going to make me have some moment of clarity that he is the best thing to ever touch a tv.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I love all the hostility from the fanboy community. I"m not sure if they are angry that he only has done one movie or that much of his work involves women who aren't damsels in distress, but there is some white hot hatred for the guy. I'm surprised.

As am I. For years now, it seems Whedon not getting to direct this superhero movie or that superhero movie has been an evergreen source of fanboy outrage. Now there is outrage when he finally DOES get to direct a superhero movie.

The man more than anything knows how to juggle an ensemble and make awesome, really endearing characters and relations. Serenity, when viewed in context with the brilliant series Firefly, was the best sci-fi film of the last decade. He makes viewers love his characters, even if there are nine of them. Each is individually developed, distinct and cool.

I'm not sure if I'd say Serenity was THE best sci-fi film of the decade - not in a decade that also included Sunshine and Moon - but it could be a contender for top 5. I do think it was a great film, however, for much of the reasons you've laid out here. And I also think it's underrated on the action front too, especially considering the budget restraints.

And for those who still whine about experience, I bet they were pissed off when JJ Abrhams, the guy who created the "girl power" show Alias and drama/mystery Lost got the job to do Star Trek. He ended up making the best Trek movie ever, i.e. one that people actually wanted and enjoyed watchings. I'm also sure when "the guy who made Elf and Zathura" was given the job to make Iron Man, they wondered how "this small-time supporting actor and kids' movie director can handle Tony Stark? Where's Michael Bay?"

The ironic thing about JJ Abrams is that, before he really broke out big, he was often (unfairly, I think) dismissed as a poor man's Joss Whedon.

 

[Evil Twin]

I'd argue that Whedon's previous "teams" aren't really teams in the sense that The Avengers should be. They're more ersatz families.

I don't expect much argument that the late Robert Altman was a much better director of ensembles than Whedon is. But Altman was interested in communities, not, essentially, workplaces and would have been a bad fit. Again, I'd make the point that this is a different type of ensemble than what Whedon has done before. More The Seven Samurai than Buffy and her ersatz family. Too bad Aaron Sorkin isn't interested.

But, I think it's too early to judge. Right now, The Avengers needs someone that's good at story to focus the script. Who's the main protagonist(s)? What are the character arcs? What are the emotional stakes? What are the themes?

 

[NickNitro]

@FrostBite

Thank you you may have just rekindled my desire to post! Ha yea I believe the more and more they all fight on here the more theyll become numb and realize its reality, its happening, and all we can do is sit back and watch it all unfold.

NERDRAGE FTW!

EDIT: No matter who winds up directing/producing/writing The Avengers everyone on at least the Marvel Forums here are going to go see it.

 

[kedrell]

lol this is gonna be one of those things that goes round and round in circles.

So i might just give up now before i go insane. well more insane than i already am.

Shoulda been Vaugn!

I wholeheartedly agree. I'll just sit back and wait for SM3 part deux, I mean The Avengers...to come out. I'm sure it will be successful no matter what. PeeWee Herman could direct it and it likely still would be. But it'll be like SM3, IMO. A mess that we end up hating regardless of it's success. That's my Whedon prediction/guess.

 

[DACrowe]

Yea well Fox ****ed up. What's new?

And outdoing ROTS is not something to write home about.

And IMO it's a poor mans Star Trek.

If I had to guess you've maybe seen Serenity once years ago and maybe, maybe saw one episode of Firefly.

The show was intended to be the antithesis of Star Trek. It drew from Star Wars more than STar Trek and also from classic Westerns like Stagecoach and books like Killer Angels about the Civil War. It was about a Lost Cause (except no slavery this time) and a staunch anti-government, libertarian streak. The kind of people the Enterprise would look down upon as backwoods fools. And that was intentionally done so. Despite being liberal myself, I thought it was brilliant.

And when you watch the Star Trek movie that came out four years later, its sense of zippy whiz-bang fun and turning the Shatner character into more of a cowboy with an eye more ensemble adventure obviously owed something to Serenity/Firefly. Whedon and JJ are semi-rivals and he saw the fun of Serenity (which despite bombing got near universal appraisal for its tone by critics) and applied that to the usually stuffy, stiff-shirted Star Trek.

I'm sure Whedon can bring the same sense to his second film with the Avengers. After all what had JJ done before Star Trek, but a few TV shows (including a "girl power" one as you say) and well-reviewed action movie that bombed at the box office a few years prior? What had Favreau done before Iron Man but two kids movies, one of which bombed at the box office a few years prior? Marvel is taking a calculated risk and knows what they're looking for.

 

[roach]

@FrostBite

Thank you you may have just rekindled my desire to post! Ha yea I believe the more and more they all fight on here the more theyll become numb and realize its reality, its happening, and all we can do is sit back and watch it all unfold.

NERDRAGE FTW!

you shouldnt let anyone hinder you from posting...the purpose of a mesageboard is for people to come together and discuss ideas..thats what we are doing now and we welcome everyone's imput..even if it doesnt line up with ours...thats how messageboards grow..welcome to the Hype and hope to hear more from you

 

[Raiden]

All I can say is to each their own. But theme's of racism, prejudice, etc. really don't mean **** to me. So I never got into it all.

I think the theme of racism adds alot of depth to X-Men, and the X-Men films (except X3) became something more than just a superhero movie because of it thanks to the conflicting ideology of Prof. Xavier and Magneto. Too bad you don't get into it even though it's something that is uniquely X-Men and you can't find it anywhere else.

 

[DACrowe]

Bolded: You say that as though it's fact.

It's not. You are a Whedonite i take it? Of course you would say that.

When one writes their opinion, they should not have to add an IMO every sentence.

And it is no more strongly stated than your continued instance that SErenity was a "Mickey Mouse" movie (huh?) and that Firefly was a "crappy" TV show.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Bolded: You say that as though it's fact.

It's not. You are a Whedonite i take it? Of course you would say that.

Of course in the subjective world of entertainment, nothing is fact. But until I entered this thread I assumed Whedon's talent was just part of the accepted canon, as widely revered by critics as he is and by how heavily his work was backed as essential viewing when I took Film & TV Studies in University. But still, saying "You are a Whedonite I take it? Of course you would say that" is a nothing point, about as valid as saying "You hate Whedon I take it? Of course you would say that." It goes without saying that someone who is a fan of Whedon (or anyone) will praise their work, while someone who isn't won't.

I think that if this thread has taught us anything, it is that - on both sides of the fence - if you like a director you will make plenty of excuses for them and draw what the opposition would call tenuous links to make them seem like a better fit for a project than they are, while if you don't like them no valid point in their defense will be good enough and you'll keep on throwing up barriers and obstacles that you wouldn't throw up for other directors to try and create a false sense of them not being qualified.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If I had to guess you've maybe seen Serenity once years ago and maybe, maybe saw one episode of Firefly.

The show was intended to be the antithesis of Star Trek. It drew from Star Wars more than STar Trek and also from classic Westerns like Stagecoach and books like Killer Angels about the Civil War. It was about a Lost Cause (except no slavery this time) and a staunch anti-government, libertarian streak. The kind of people the Enterprise would look down upon as backwoods fools. And that was intentionally done so. Despite being liberal myself, I thought it was brilliant.

And when you watch the Star Trek movie that came out four years later, its sense of zippy whiz-bang fun and turning the Shatner character into more of a cowboy with an eye more ensemble adventure obviously owed something to Serenity/Firefly. Whedon and JJ are semi-rivals and he saw the fun of Serenity (which despite bombing got near universal appraisal for its tone by critics) and applied that to the usually stuffy, stiff-shirted Star Trek.

I'm sure Whedon can bring the same sense to his second film with the Avengers. After all what had JJ done before Star Trek, but a few TV shows (including a "girl power" one as you say) and well-reviewed action movie that bombed at the box office a few years prior? What had Favreau done before Iron Man but two kids movies, one of which bombed at the box office a few years prior? Marvel is taking a calculated risk and knows what they're looking for.

Well **** Abrams too (even though i'd prefer him to Whedon)

Vaughn should of got the gig.

 

[Keyser Soze]

If I had to guess you've maybe seen Serenity once years ago and maybe, maybe saw one episode of Firefly.

The show was intended to be the antithesis of Star Trek. It drew from Star Wars more than STar Trek and also from classic Westerns like Stagecoach and books like Killer Angels about the Civil War. It was about a Lost Cause (except no slavery this time) and a staunch anti-government, libertarian streak. The kind of people the Enterprise would look down upon as backwoods fools. And that was intentionally done so. Despite being liberal myself, I thought it was brilliant.

And when you watch the Star Trek movie that came out four years later, its sense of zippy whiz-bang fun and turning the Shatner character into more of a cowboy with an eye more ensemble adventure obviously owed something to Serenity/Firefly. Whedon and JJ are semi-rivals and he saw the fun of Serenity (which despite bombing got near universal appraisal for its tone by critics) and applied that to the usually stuffy, stiff-shirted Star Trek.

I'm sure Whedon can bring the same sense to his second film with the Avengers. After all what had JJ done before Star Trek, but a few TV shows (including a "girl power" one as you say) and well-reviewed action movie that bombed at the box office a few years prior? What had Favreau done before Iron Man but two kids movies, one of which bombed at the box office a few years prior? Marvel is taking a calculated risk and knows what they're looking for.

In Ace's defense, the faultyStar Trek analogy was mine. When I said that Serenity "out Star Trekked Star Trek", I meant that much in the way the film remake tried to capture the spirit and energy of the original Star Wars trilogy, Serenity had already done that, and better, a few years earlier.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Of course in the subjective world of entertainment, nothing is fact. But until I entered this thread I assumed Whedon's talent was just part of the accepted canon, as widely revered by critics as he is and by how heavily his work was backed as essential viewing when I took Film & TV Studies in University. But still, saying "You are a Whedonite I take it? Of course you would say that" is a nothing point, about as valid as saying "You hate Whedon I take it? Of course you would say that." It goes without saying that someone who is a fan of Whedon (or anyone) will praise their work, while someone who isn't won't.

I think that if this thread has taught us anything, it is that - on both sides of the fence - if you like a director you will make plenty of excuses for them and draw what the opposition would call tenuous links to make them seem like a better fit for a project than they are, while if you don't like them no valid point in their defense will be good enough and you'll keep on throwing up barriers and obstacles that you wouldn't throw up for other directors to try and create a false sense of them not being qualified.

Oh so now you are saying Whedon supporters have valid reasons and Whedon doubters don't?

C'mon man, you're better than that.

I'm just saying I'd prefer someone who is proven to make great movies with big ensembles that include megastars. Like Matthew Vaughn.

Whether Serenity is good or not is irrelevant at this point. It is the ONLY film he has made. He has NEVER connected to big audiences apart from with vampire shows. He is a niche, quirky, polorizing director who is more suited to quirky, polorizing things like Runaways or Cloak and Dagger or whatever. So him taking on something like Avengers is a risk. I don't see how this is deniable.

 

[DigificWriter]

I can't believe the insane amount of ignorance that has been demonstrated in this thread by the people who are complaining about this, and there are five points I would like to address:
1) Casting aside personal opinion, both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and ANGEL were and are incredibly well-respected and well-received by mainstream television critics (Buffy even generated a Biography special, for crying out loud, and an Emmy nomination). Serenity was also well-received by critics despite failing to generate massive numbers at the box-office.

2) Marvel isn't making this decision in a vacuum, which the 'haters' might want to try and remember. If Marvel believes that Joss is the right man for the job, then they obviously have reason to do so.

3) Although Whedon has only directed one feature film, most - if not all - of the episodes of BtVS, ANGEL, Firefly, and Dollhouse which he directed were directed in a very 'feature-esque' style, albeit on a television budget.

4) Regardless of personal opinion, Joss is by no means an 'unknown commodity' in Hollywood, and the successes he's achieved outside of his work on television have been well-documented, and are actually responsible for the successes he's achieved as a television writer, director, and producer.

5) Joss may be a well-documented feminist, but he has also proven that he is equally adept at presenting male characters who are as well-rounded and strong - in a myriad of different ways - as their female counterparts (if you need proof, look at ANGEL, Firefly, and Dr. Horrible, which are all quite 'male-centric').

 

[roach]

And when you watch the Star Trek movie that came out four years later, its sense of zippy whiz-bang fun and turning the Shatner character into more of a cowboy with an eye more ensemble adventure obviously owed something to Serenity/Firefly.
How many episodes of the Original Star Trek have you seen???? Kirk was always something of a cowboy and while Kirk was the star Spock and Bones were right there with him
Whedon and JJ are semi-rivals and he saw the fun of Serenity (which despite bombing got near universal appraisal for its tone by critics) and applied that to the usually stuffy, stiff-shirted Star Trek.
Go watch the original Star Trek series

I'm sure Whedon can bring the same sense to his second film with the Avengers. After all what had JJ done before Star Trek, but a few TV shows (including a "girl power" one as you say) and well-reviewed action movie that bombed at the box office a few years prior?
MI3 didnt bomb...thats why he is direction MI4???? He also did Cloverfield which was a big hit
What had Favreau done before Iron Man but two kids movies, one of which bombed at the box office a few years prior? Marvel is taking a calculated risk and knows what they're looking for.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Oh so now you are saying Whedon supporters have valid reasons and Whedon doubters don't?

C'mon man, you're better than that.

Well actually I was acknowledging the faults in the logic of both sides, but whatever.

 

[terry78]

I think we need to get out of this comfort zone of Nolan/Vaughn/Favreau when it comes to superhero movies. Hell, the acting pool is just as bad with the "Weaving should play every villain who has been created since the dawn of time." Gotta step out the loop to get a fresh take sometimes.

 

[kedrell]

I think the theme of racism adds alot of depth to X-Men, and the X-Men films (except X3) became something more than just a superhero movie because of it thanks to the conflicting ideology of Prof. Xavier and Magneto. Too bad you don't get into it even though it's something that is uniquely X-Men and you can't find it anywhere else.

You can actually. Maybe not in superhero comics, but loads of other places. We are inundated by it all the time and I just get sick of it. Probably why I didn't like District 9 either.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think we need to get out of this comfort zone of Nolan/Vaughn/Favreau when it comes to superhero movies. Hell, the acting pool is just as bad with the "Weaving should play every villain who has been created since the dawn of time." Gotta step out the loop to get a fresh take sometimes.

Yeah. I like how Joss - while IN MY OPINION thematically a perfect fit - is a bit more out of the box. I don't like the argument of "my top picks are Favreau and Vaughn because they're doing superhero movies this year." As if only people who've done superhero movies are qualified to make superhero movies.

 

[Raiden]

Well **** Abrams too (even though i'd prefer him to Whedon)

Vaughn should of got the gig.

JJ Abrams is great. Alias was a terrific show that has a female central character in it and made the spy/espionage genre turns on its head because it's not just about a suave male agent sleeping with a bunch of hot ladies; LOST, well, what more can be say about it except that it is one of those landmark TV shows? Mission: Impossible 3 is imo better than IM:2, even though it bogged down in the end, and finally acknowledge the team dynamic from the original TV show; and Star Trek is my favorite movie of 2009 next to Avatar. I think Abrams is brilliant and I hope he will get more directorial gigs, and maybe even a superhero movie from Marvel.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think we need to get out of this comfort zone of Nolan/Vaughn/Favreau when it comes to superhero movies. Hell, the acting pool is just as bad with the "Weaving should play every villain who has been created since the dawn of time." Gotta step out the loop to get a fresh take sometimes.

It's not comfort. It's because you KNOW they can do it.

Vaughn has made one comic book movie. A creator owned property. And he ****ing nailed it. Seriously, Kick Ass is one of those rare things where it is better than the source material. Kick Ass kicks arse.

Vaughn is a comic book fan, he is supremely talented and is not quirky or niche or polorizing like Whedon. He has paid his dues and he deserves his shot at one of the big name comic properties.

IMO Whedon, does not.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yeah. I like how Joss - while IN MY OPINION thematically a perfect fit - is a bit more out of the box. I don't like the argument of "my top picks are Favreau and Vaughn because they're doing superhero movies this year." As if only people who've done superhero movies are qualified to make superhero movies.

...again. Anyone who disagrees with you is talking **** right?

No, i didn't say Vaughn for the gig simply because he has done a comic book movie this year.

I picked Vaughn because I know, and i mean KNOW he could nail Avengers.

He has directed ensembles that included megastars, something which Whedon only dreams of. He can shoot sweet action scenes. He has a rapier wit in his writing that doesn't come off as too try hard to be cool like Whedon. He has a realness about him.

Vaughn would be perfect for this gig.

 

[Raiden]

It's not comfort. It's because you KNOW they can do it.

Vaughn has made one comic book movie. A creator owned property. And he ****ing nailed it. Seriously, Kick Ass is one of those rare things where it is better than the source material. Kick Ass kicks arse.

Vaughn is a comic book fan, he is supremely talented and is not quirky or niche or polorizing like Whedon. He has paid his dues and he deserves his shot at one of the big name comic properties.

IMO Whedon, does not.

Well, Marvel tried to get him to direct Thor, but unfortunately it didn't work out.