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

[Evil Twin]

I hardly think it's fair to compare Whedon's fanbase to Stephanie Meyer's.

Yeah, there are a lot more Stephanie Meyer fans. Like it or not, she's a mainstream success. Whedon is a cult success.

 

[GhostPoet]

:heart: STOP THE MADNESS! Lets all sit down and have some cookies and milk at the round table.

What kind? If there are no oatmeal cookies there will be HELL TO PAY!!!!

And i'm lactoise intolerant!!






kidding
:P

 

[Spider-Fan]

Whedon handles ensembles well, has great dialogue flow in his films, and tells great stories. Watch Serenity, Buffy, or Dr. Horrible, and you'll see the man knows how to craft a story. Now, is he a better writer vs director is another question, but I do know he is a good storyteller and handles ensembles/character interaction well. In a film that needs to meld 3 very different film style into 1 film, this is essential.

Whedon I think is a fantastic choice.

 

[chamber-music]

:heart: STOP THE MADNESS! Lets all sit down and have some cookies and milk at the round table.

Its a trick he peed in the milk and the cookies are laced with poison

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah, there are a lot more Stephanie Meyer fans. Like it or not, she's a mainstream success. Whedon is a cult success.

But out of the two, Whedon is the critical success. Twilight may be mainstream, and Let the Right One In might be cult, but I know what I'd rather watch. A history of huge mainstream success is not the be-all-end-all.

 

[OB12]

I agree that the chances of The Avengers absolutely bombing are quite small. But I think $600 million domestically is a pipe dream. Especially if Thor and Captain America aren't as big as Iron Man. I could very easily see The Avengers doing less than Iron Man 2 with the average movie goer seeing it as Iron Man 3 with less Iron Man.

Yeah, maybe $600 mil domestically was a bit overstated, but certainly a $700-$800 mil worldwide box office is within reach. I don't really fear for Thor, which is already getting a lot press and it is a year from coming out, plus it kicks off the '11 movie season, so it should perform well. Cap is a bit of a concern, being a period piece but I still think that it puts up TIH numbers at the least. My point is really that all of these movies are getting tremendous amounts of press, not just among fan sites but mainstream as well. The debate about Whedon delivering a successful Avengers really shouldn't be a question. We will have to wait and see if he delivers a great film experience.

 

[roach]

I hardly think it's fair to compare Whedon's fanbase to Stephanie Meyer's. It's a lot of Buffy fans who are the ones tearing their hair out after how much Twilight has dumbed down the vampire lore that Buffy originally helped put back in vogue during the 90s.

"Whedon fans" are more widespread than you present it - Whedon's as much a critical darling as he is a cult hero. I'd say the flipside of your argument is "Whedon haters have sort of downplayed and demonised Whedon's fanbase to the point they refuse to acknowledge the voices of all the people who do like Whedon's stuff."

I think he was comparing them in the fact that the Twi-fans cant understand why people dont like the books....
...just like the Whedon fans disbelieve someone watched his stuff and disliked it. Everytime someone says they didnt like Buffy or Angel or Firefly we get "Oh you probably seen only a few episodes or you didnt see this or didnt see that". Why is it I am not allowed to just not like something????

 

[Ace of Knaves]

My sentiments exactly Roach.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not worried about Cap's BO potential. He has more name recognition than IM did prior to the first IM film, and is more iconic. I see him grossing IM-like numbers.

 

[Kanon]

He dodged a bullet on that one

I don't think it was a gunshot when he left... X3 probably became a time bomb, in part, due to his leaving... When he was on board, there was time to do a lot of things, but he couldn't manage the preassure of having a problematic script...

 

[kedrell]

I hardly think it's fair to compare Whedon's fanbase to Stephanie Meyer's. It's a lot of Buffy fans who are the ones tearing their hair out after how much Twilight has dumbed down the vampire lore that Buffy originally helped put back in vogue during the 90s.

"Whedon fans" are more widespread than you present it - Whedon's as much a critical darling as he is a cult hero. I'd say the flipside of your argument is "Whedon haters have sort of downplayed and demonised Whedon's fanbase to the point they refuse to acknowledge the voices of all the people who do like Whedon's stuff."

It was Whedon's insipid idea of putting teens and vampires together in the 1st place that I found to be horrible. Way to dumb down a genre that had just got a useful shot in the arm with Jordan's Interview With The Vampire movie. You know, a fully adult take on vampires. That's one thing that a lot of people still hold against Whedon. The Vampire genre could have had a quality renaissance like the superhero genre is having right now. But the teen stuff came in and killed all credibility. As a huge Anne Rice fan, I was saddened.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think he was comparing them in the fact that the Twi-fans cant understand why people dont like the books....
...just like the Whedon fans disbelieve someone watched his stuff and disliked it. Everytime someone says they didnt like Buffy or Angel or Firefly we get "Oh you probably seen only a few episodes or you didnt see this or didnt see that". Why is it I am not allowed to just not like something????

Of course you're allowed to not like something. I'm just surprised that you are, given how widely acclaimed the likes of Buffy or Firefly are. I just thought it was at the point where their quality was a given.

I did expect arguments about Joss Whedon directing Avengers - we argue about everything on here - but I thought it would be more along the lines of "Yeah, Buffy and Firefly might have been great, but Dollhouse and Alien Resurrection? Not so much." Instead, it's "No, his great stuff is crap too."

To me, it's like the equivalent of going into an argument with someone who thinks Steven Spielberg ain't all that, expecting them to bring up 1941 or Hook, and instead they start with the opening gambit of "Jaws and Indiana Jones were S**T!"

I didn't want to create the impression that no one is allowed to hate Buffy or Firefly. Just that I wasn't expecting it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

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.

Favs, JJ, and Branagh all had bombs prior to making Iron Man, Cap, and Thor respectively. Yes, Whedon has not had mainstream success in his film career, but Avengers is not a risk film. This film is bringing in a bunch of big name characters. The fact he has 1 bomb under his belt (which was a great movie) is not a BO concern. Avengers will make its money. It has the release date and the characters. But, what Whedon brings is the creativity. This film can be cliche and boring very easy, but Whedon writes interesting stories. The people will be in the seats. Marvel picked him cause he makes good films/TV. Marvel has shown previous BO numbers don't effect their judgment in hiring directors. They hire based on ideas and potential. Whedon has mountains of potential.

I think he is the right man for this job.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It was Whedon's insipid idea of putting teens and vampires together in the 1st place that I found to be horrible. Way to dumb down a genre that had just got a useful shot in the arm with Jordan's Interview With The Vampire movie. You know, a fully adult take on vampires. That's one thing that a lot of people still hold against Whedon. The Vampire genre could have had a quality renaissance like the superhero genre is having right now. But the teen stuff came in and killed all credibility. As a huge Anne Rice fan, I was saddened.

Twilight owes as much to Anne Rice's po-faced romantic melodrama as it does to Whedon's teenage hijinks.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I love Hook!

I mean Bob Hoskins as Smee automatically elevates it to epic straight off the bat.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

don't feel like being sucked into an argument so i'll just throw in my 2 cents... happy with with the choice, big fan of whedon, i think he's proven himself with what little he's done in the film genre, and i wish him all the best.

 

[chamber-music]

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.

You been heere long enough to know that ain't never gonna happen. Its like asking afat kid to stop eating cake they just can't help themselves

Beast and Madrox are the only ones who are decent nowadays.

I've also got a soft spot for Cable, Domino, Banshee, Siryn and Cannonballs for obvious reason though

I do love me some Cannonball, Banshee (minus the magic fairy rubbish) and Madrox.

It's Avengers. Butts are going to be in seats if they pick Uwe Boll.

Don't even joke man, don't even joke

 

[kedrell]

Twilight owes as much to Anne Rice's po-faced romantic melodrama as it does to Whedon's teenage hijinks.

There's no real 'romance' in Anne Rice's vampire stories. All the vampires are asexual.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Favs, JJ, and Branagh all had bombs prior to making Iron Man, Cap, and Thor respectively. Yes, Whedon has not had mainstream success in his film career, but Avengers is not a risk film. This film is bringing in a bunch of big name characters. The fact he has 1 bomb under his belt (which was a great movie) is not a BO concern. Avengers will make its money. It has the release date and the characters. But, what Whedon brings is the creativity. This film can be cliche and boring very easy, but Whedon writes interesting stories. The people will be in the seats. Marvel picked him cause he makes good films/TV. Marvel has shown previous BO numbers don't effect their judgment in hiring directors. They hire based on ideas and potential. Whedon has mountains of potential.

I think he is the right man for this job.

I'm not talking box office man. Only a idiot would think Avengers would bomb.

I'm talking quality wise. I don't think Whedon is right for the job.

EVERYTHING he has ever done has distincly been Joss Whedon. They have his style and sensibilities all over it. I don't want his style and sensibilities or "Whedonisms" as i call em, anywhere near Avengers.

I want the Avengers i know and love. Not Joss Whedons version of them. And i really do honestly fear he will bring some of his little quirks to proceedings. And that is unnacceptable in my book.

Like, we'll get IM, Cap and Thor in their movies. Then in Avengers they will be different. They'll be "Whedonized". And i get the feeling that if Marvel say he can't do that, he won't be happy about it. And i say "**** you Joss" if that's the case.

 

[OB12]

Favs, JJ, and Branagh all had bombs prior to making Iron Man, Cap, and Thor respectively. Yes, Whedon has not had mainstream success in his film career, but Avengers is not a risk film. This film is bringing in a bunch of big name characters. The fact he has 1 bomb under his belt (which was a great movie) is not a BO concern. Avengers will make its money. It has the release date and the characters. But, what Whedon brings is the creativity. This film can be cliche and boring very easy, but Whedon writes interesting stories. The people will be in the seats. Marvel picked him cause he makes good films/TV. Marvel has shown previous BO numbers don't effect their judgment in hiring directors. They hire based on ideas and potential. Whedon has mountains of potential.

I think he is the right man for this job.

Exactly. Marvel is looking to get a director with some upside, in that he is considered good creatively, is generally well thought of in the sci-fi community, and has yet to have a big blockbuster, meaning he will come cheaply. Great move on Marvel's part.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Exactly. Marvel is looking to get a director with some upside, in that he is considered good creatively, is generally well thought of in the sci-fi community, and has yet to have a big blockbuster, meaning he will come cheaply. Great move on Marvel's part.

Well said. And on Whedon's side, the upside to him is that he has a surefire success to hold up now whenever someone says "But he's never had a hit movie." So it's a mutually beneficial partnership.

 

[Kanon]

It was Whedon's insipid idea of putting teens and vampires together in the 1st place that I found to be horrible. Way to dumb down a genre that had just got a useful shot in the arm with Jordan's Interview With The Vampire movie. You know, a fully adult take on vampires. That's one thing that a lot of people still hold against Whedon. The Vampire genre could have had a quality renaissance like the superhero genre is having right now. But the teen stuff came in and killed all credibility. As a huge Anne Rice fan, I was saddened.

What? The teen factor was mostly irrelevant in most of the story... You could have told the same adventures in any other setting, there wasn't that much of "teen element" in buffy to say it dumbed down the genre... While there was a lot of cool, respectful, aspects of vampires, like being demonic things with no reluctancy to kill for blood... Unlike Interview..., wich presented vampires refusing to take lifes... I find little of and "adult take" in Interview..., and I remember at the time was famous for showcasing teen idols like Pitt or Cruise...

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not talking box office man. Only a idiot would think Avengers would bomb.

I'm talking quality wise. I don't think Whedon is right for the job.

EVERYTHING he has ever done has distincly been Joss Whedon. They have his style and sensibilities all over it. I don't want his style and sensibilities or "Whedonisms" as i call em, anywhere near Avengers.

I want the Avengers i know and love. Not Joss Whedons version of them.

What Whedon-isms are you talking about? The quirkyness? I think the Avengers should have some quirky aspects in the character interaction. I mean, you have a rich playboy, WWII vet lost in time, and a god in the same room. There will be awkwardness.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but not hokey, try too hard, Whedon type awkwardness.

Fans of Whedon might like that, but i don't.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly. Marvel is looking to get a director with some upside, in that he is considered good creatively, is generally well thought of in the sci-fi community, and has yet to have a big blockbuster, meaning he will come cheaply. Great move on Marvel's part.

These are good points, but I think his relationship to Marvel is a bigger point on why he got this (as opposed to cheap, etc). He has written for a successful Marvel book for years (Astonishing X-Men), which further shows how he juggles groups. I think this project is more to Whedon's strengths than WW would have been.

Well said. And on Whedon's side, the upside to him is that he has a surefire success to hold up now whenever someone says "But he's never had a hit movie." So it's a mutually beneficial partnership.

Whedon will definitely have something to brag about now. Making the first film that is a sequel to 3 seperate franchises as well as a franchise of its own! On top of the biggest superhero gathering on film to date.