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

[FrostBite]

It's an alright film, it's fun, but Whedon could have also directed it easily.
I doubt LL could have directed the Buffy season 5 ep 'The Body'.

I doubt LL could have as well (even though I haven't seen it,) he also couldn't direct Serenity, but don't pretend Whedon could have done Unleashed/Danny the Dog.

If you took Whedon's story telling/ensemble and mixed it with LL's action, you'd have one HECK of a ride.

I'm not going to lie I'm baffled by the directors that Marvel is choosing.

I have nothing against Letterer but TIH was fun but it was also forgettable. Thats all he ever does is fun but forgettable so I got what I expected but he wasn't the best choice to revamp that series into something special...even on paper.

Joe Johnston is a little better than Letterer but he's not exactly great either. Although I look forward to Cap because of Evan's I am not expecting to be blown away.

I can't lie and say I was onboard with Favs because I wasn't but atleast I thought that Elf was a damn good movie and a bit of a Chrismas Classic now. He did a great job though so my mis-giving were wrong.

Whedon hasn't made anything truely popular or really good since Buffy. DollHouse was unwatchable and Serinity was okay but it slips out of the mind fairly quickly. He's skills as a director leave alot to be desired going by the only movie he directed. I'd be okay if he were a co-writer on The Avengers but as a director....I think that this could be a disaster.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

TIH is forgettable for most (not for me, as it's my second favorite hero film underneath Hellboy 2,) because Marvel stripped many, many good things out of it. Thankfully it wasn't Transporter or I'd have put a bullet in my head. I still think it does many Hulk elements just right, and could have captured and audience had it not have been for releasing at a horrible time, with a horrible predecessor coming before it and no marketing to speak of. For me Iron Man was the forgettable one, not because it was bad as it was technically more sound... it was just too safe and formulaic for my tastes. (Though Iron Man 2 is going to destroy all.)

Johnston rarely makes enjoyable at all. And you can't forget them no matter how hard you try -shudders at Page Master and JP3.-

But I definitely understand where you are coming from. Marvel is choosing who ever is cheapest, least experienced, and who will get the job done for the respected characters (or at least in their minds.)

Favs -> Comedy -> Iron Man
LL -> Action -> Hulk
Bargahrankinfrackusnotgoingtoattemptspellinghisname -> Shakespearean works -> Thor
Johnston -> Period Pieces -> CA
Whedon -> Ensemble Pieces -> Avengers

I see where they make the connections, and honestly, it's worked out two times for them, but I wonder if that luck will continue into Thor, Cap, and Avengers.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Unleashed/Danny the Dog was surprisingly very touching and heartwarming in parts. It definitely wasn't just your typical action/Jet Li vehicle.

People probably think it was a Transporter 1.5 but that is soooo far from the case.

 

[chamber-music]

Everything is better with a little Bob Hoskins and Morgan Freeman

 

[david icke]

I never complained about Wolverine being turned into a 8 year old girl. I DO think it was awesome.

But it's still a typical "Whedonism". But in that case an acceptable one.

Well, in the context of the conversation you were saying he would fill the Avengers with 'Whedonisms', and that this would be a bad thing. Then someone said he did the X-Men comics while keeping the characters the same, but also making them feel fresh again. So, in response to that you cited the fact that he put a Whedonism in by making Logan an 8yr old girl, and that was the only Whedonism you cited for X-Men.
So, from that context it appeared you did not like that he put that 'Whedonism' in, until I was surprised to read later that you actually liked it.
So, the thing is, he will most probably do the same here, keep the Avengers in character, but there will be moments where you can see his own personal style come through in a gag, or an interaction, and it will most probably be pretty good. It's just like all great writers, you can recognise their style when they work with other people's material, but they keep faithful to the original idea, that's the mark of a good writer.

 

[david icke]

I doubt LL could have as well (even though I haven't seen it,) he also couldn't direct Serenity, but don't pretend Whedon could have done Unleashed/Danny the Dog.

If you took Whedon's story telling/ensemble and mixed it with LL's action, you'd have one HECK of a ride.

Ok, the action would have been different, but it was not in any way a story Whedon could not have directed just as successfully in his own way.
The fight when River takes out the whole bar by herself in Serenity was pretty damn awesome, all practical, no wire work/cgi crap, so he can handle brutal fast paced violence, so I stand by the fact he could have directed that movie just as successfully, if not in the exact same manner.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Everything is better with a little Bob Hoskins and Morgan Freeman

Yea the relationship Danny had with Sam and his step daughter was really touching i thought. And it seemed genuine, not forced like most emotional things are in action movies.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ok, the action would have been different, but it was not in any way a story Whedon could not have directed just as successfully in his own way.
The fight when River takes out the whole bar by herself in Serenity was pretty damn awesome, all practical, no wire work/cgi crap, so he can handle brutal fast paced violence, so I stand by the fact he could have directed that movie just as successfully, if not in the exact same manner.

Yea but see, the emotional aspects in Unleashed didn't seemed forced. Surprising for an action film.

See IMO pretty much everything Whedon does seems forced.

Forced romance. Forced hipster attitude. etc.

That's why i don't like him. He's too TRY HARD. And i HATE TRY HARDS.

 

[FrostBite]

Ok, the action would have been different, but it was not in any way a story Whedon could not have directed just as successfully in his own way.
The fight when River takes out the whole bar by herself in Serenity was pretty damn awesome, all practical, no wire work/cgi crap, so he can handle brutal fast paced violence, so I stand by the fact he could have directed that movie just as successfully, if not in the exact same manner.

Yes it was, just not as awesome as an LL flick. The man knows how to make action seem fierce, palpable, brutal, while at the same time putting in choreography that makes the fight scenes almost poetic. Whedon's action thus far has been great, just not that great.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

For some reason I really, really liked Unleashed.

I see I'm in the minority when I say that I think that Joss can't direct good action for s**t.

 

[FrostBite]

Yea but see, the emotional aspects in Unleashed didn't seemed forced. Surprising for an action film.

See IMO pretty much everything Whedon does seems forced.

Forced romance. Forced hipster attitude. etc.

That's why i don't like him. He's too TRY HARD. And i HATE TRY HARDS.

Watching Serenity for the first time last night, everything seemed to flow more naturally than in most stories I've seen. No forced hipster attitude at all.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

For some reason I really, really liked Unleashed.

I see I'm in the minority when I say that I think that Joss can't direct good action for s**t.

Same here. I only watched it for the first time last night. I thought it would just be a silly actioner like Transporter to watch before i went to bed.

But it really had a soul to it. And i thought Jet Li was brilliant in it even outside of the action scenes.

And i agree with you again, Whedon can't direct action for ****.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Watching Serenity for the first time last night, everything seemed to flow more naturally than in most stories I've seen. No forced hipster attitude at all.

Admittedly Serenity didn't suffer from that too much.

But for me every single one of his TV shows has.

 

[FrostBite]

For some reason I really, really liked Unleashed.

I see I'm in the minority when I say that I think that Joss can't direct good action for s**t.

I kind of agree. But that's okay, Iron Man's action was completely lackluster but a highly enjoyable flick.

Still, that does worry me as I want Avengers to be more spectacle driven rather than story/character. (I know I am in the minority on that issue.)

Admittedly Serenity didn't suffer from that too much.

But for me every single one of his TV shows has.

But I truly think it was on purpose, not that he was trying to hard, but that likes to ham it up (see: Raimi) which, there is an audience for that. I think he knows not to put it in Avengers.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Avengers is gonna be like one of the hardest films to make ever. It's gotta balance blockbuster action on a whole new level and great character moments that do these characters justice.

That's why i don't trust a guy who has done a few TV series' and one flop of a film.

I disagree about Iron Man though. Sure the final fight was a bit of a let down.

But that part in Golmera where he just stops, scans the terroists holding the civis hostage then shoots them all instantly is better action in 5 seconds than Whedon has done in his whole career.

 

[FrostBite]

Avengers is gonna be like one of the hardest films to make ever. It's gotta balance blockbuster action on a whole new level and great character moments that do these characters justice.

That's why i don't trust a guy who has done a few TV series' and one flop of a film.

Well, it was one heck of a highly rated flop however. It was a flop because the TV show was unseen, but the reviews were ace (har, har, "ace") which could mean good things for Avengers.

But that part in Golmera where he just stops, scans the terroists holding the civis hostage then shoots them all instantly is better action in 5 seconds than Whedon has done in his whole career.

Of which Favs could probably afford better choreographers. And sadly, while that scene was amazing, it was about 10 seconds long. (I'm exaggerating of course.) Though IM2 seems to rectify this.

OKAY OKAY, Frosty, you need to work out, you've wasted like an hour on here. -pant, pant- Hype... so... addicting. I'm forcing myself out of the conversation for now. But we'll pick all this up later on my break in-between classes.

 

[david icke]

Yea but see, the emotional aspects in Unleashed didn't seemed forced. Surprising for an action film.

See IMO pretty much everything Whedon does seems forced.

Forced romance. Forced hipster attitude. etc.

That's why i don't like him. He's too TRY HARD. And i HATE TRY HARDS.

Ok, if you really want to put that opinion to the test, go watch the Buffy s5 ep 'The Body', written and directed by JW.

edit: and it's pretty obvious that a lot of creative people at Marvel think he not only tried, but succeeded very well with his creative aims. Who gets a gig like Avengers after only doing one film that bombed at the box office? The reason is they are very familiar with his best stuff from Buffy, I would say anyway, they recognise what that show achieved, that no other superhero type show had ever come close to.

 

[baerrtt]

I found the emotional content in UNLEASHED far more forced than anything Whedon has ever done (take a poll of critics, film or tv, and they would say the same thing).

Whedon makes intelligent DRAMA that just happens to take place in genre universes. Directors like LL make brainless, hardcore action flicks where the 'drama' acts as just window dressing whilst you wait for the next fight scene which was my problem with TIH as well.

Even with an emotive story at it's core UNLEASHED at the end of the day still felt like a cheap action straight to DVD flick whereas BUFFY by the end of it's final season at it's best gave us(and people who are paid to review tv/film agree) some of the most moving and perceptive drama on either the small or big screen. And when you consider that he created a critically acclaimed show out of a concept so mind numbingly dumb and B-moviesh on paper (teenage cheerleader gifted with superpowers kills vampires) that's a pretty incredible feat.

 

[FrostBite]

I found the emotional content in UNLEASHED far more forced than anything Whedon has ever done (take a poll of critics, film or tv, and they would say the same thing).

Whedon makes intelligent DRAMA that just happens to take place in genre universes. Directors like LL make brainless, hardcore action flicks where the 'drama' acts as just window dressing whilst you wait for the next fight scene which was my problem with TIH as well.

Even with an emotive story at it's core UNLEASHED at the end of the day still felt like a cheap action straight to DVD flick whereas BUFFY by the end of it's final season at it's best gave us(and people who are paid to review tv/film agree) some of the most moving and perceptive drama on either the small or big screen. And when you consider that he created a critically acclaimed show out of a concept so mind numbingly dumb and B-moviesh on paper (teenage cheerleader gifted with superpowers kills vampires) that's a pretty incredible feat.

I hate it when people think more than one cinema shouldn't be made. (Or at least act like it.) To me a brain-dead action flick is just as important as DRAMAS as you so capitalize them (I tease.)

In fact, I believe Avengers should be more spectacle than drama. The ground work, all the drama is done for him. Iron Man is established, Hulk is, Thor will be, and Cap will be. All Whedon has to do is combine them to fight a universal force. If anything drama isn't the most important thing here, it's showing off what these heroes can do, especially together / against each other. Yes there has to be a dramatic element, but unless this is a 4 hour movie it's going to be hard to explore every relationship between all of the heroes and still fit in a grand battle.

TIH didn't need drama, it's a man on the run story. When people got drama in HULK they shied away, all of a sudden they want it back? Granted the psychological implications of having a terrorizing beast trapped within you are grand and could have been explored more... but the fugitive story just works better. What are you supposed to do, form a deep bond with every person you come across in Guatemala and Brazil when you grew up your entire life in the US without any real way to communicate?

...Tiene mas stretchy?

Edit: If anything, Hulk/Banner would only be good in the dramatic sense IN the Avengers, not his own movie. Simply because he'd be a source of equal distrust and contention between the teammates. But as we all know he'll probably be a background character. Maybe they'll even reduce him to just being locked in a cell so they won't have to gamble on the character anymore :P.

 

[baerrtt]

I hate it when people think more than one cinema shouldn't be made. (Or at least act like it.) To me a brain-dead action flick is just as important as DRAMAS as you so capitalize them (I tease.)

In fact, I believe Avengers should be more spectacle than drama. The ground work, all the drama is done for him. Iron Man is established, Hulk is, Thor will be, and Cap will be. All Whedon has to do is combine them to fight a universal force. If anything drama isn't the most important thing here, it's showing off what these heroes can do, especially together / against each other. Yes there has to be a dramatic element, but unless this is a 4 hour movie it's going to be hard to explore every relationship between all of the heroes and still fit in a grand battle.

TIH didn't need drama, it's a man on the run story. When people got drama in HULK they shied away, all of a sudden they want it back? Granted the psychological implications of having a terrorizing beast trapped within you are grand and could have been explored more... but the fugitive story just works better. What are you supposed to do, form a deep bond with every person you come across in Guatemala and Brazil when you grew up your entire life in the US without any real way to communicate?

...Tiene mas stretchy?

Edit: If anything, Hulk/Banner would only be good in the dramatic sense IN the Avengers, not his own movie. Simply because he'd be a source of equal distrust and contention between the teammates. But as we all know he'll probably be a background character. Maybe they'll even reduce him to just being locked in a cell so they won't have to gamble on the character anymore :P.

I'm not acting like there should be one form of cinema however, and this may be due to the fact that I'm getting older, brainless action flicks are dime a dozen. After watching the two TRANSFORMERS monstrosities forgive me for wanting a big event movie where you care for the characters to the point that the situation and danger feels more genuinely real and that's something Whedon does, imo, better than than most.

 

[FrostBite]

I'm not acting like there should be one form of cinema however, and this may be due to the fact that I'm getting older, brainless action flicks are dime a dozen. After watching the two TRANSFORMERS monstrosities forgive me for wanting a big event movie where you care for the characters to the point that the situation and danger feels more genuinely real and that's something Whedon does, imo, better than than most.

Well, I agree on that point. I did enjoy Transformers somewhat, and way more so Incredible Hulk, but completely brainless (i.e. Clash of the Titans) I don't really go for either. I suppose I just don't see Hulk as brainless as the others as a fugitive story doesn't really leave too much room for drama when you are a man on the run. Even the great dramatic scenes they had... Marvel cut, (oh well) and found something moving about the loneliness Banner experiences for much of the movie. It's a movie that mainly carries itself on silence for much of it and leads to this thematic stoicism where Banner while trying, has just seemed to give in, and the Hulk himself has other plans... which I just can't help but enjoy.

Then again, I'm only 20 and hardly a movie buff. So what would I know? I didn't even like Iron Man for any drama, mainly comedy. It wasn't a particularly moving story to me as it was an action comedy. I don't think any of these will be particularly moving, except maybe Thor.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Ok, the action would have been different, but it was not in any way a story Whedon could not have directed just as successfully in his own way.
The fight when River takes out the whole bar by herself in Serenity was pretty damn awesome, all practical, no wire work/cgi crap, so he can handle brutal fast paced violence, so I stand by the fact he could have directed that movie just as successfully, if not in the exact same manner.

LOL, seriously?

The fight looked like a choreographed dance.

 

[DACrowe]

For those who say Whedon can't direct action well here are two scenes he did in a movie for $40 million:

The first was all practical, no wires, no CGI and the actress in it did all her stunts save for a flip near the end.





And I couldn't resist. This is part of the climax of Serenity (River's side of it). It is the beset version on youtube and while the epic sound effects of bones crunching and skin ripping has been removed. The user replaced it with the 1812 Overture and it is pretty hilarious and still shows off the visual side of Whedon.


Lastly here is a space battle in Serenity that I think is more entertaining than any of the ones in the SW prequels or Star Trek reboot--however certain sequences, like Kirk and Sulu flying down for sword fights--are better in ST. But Whedon did this sequence with a $40 million budget. Imagine him with $200 million now.



While all this may not be on par with LL, it is more of a history of action sequences that are rock solid than Favreau, Singer or Nolan ever had before doing superhero movies and I think we can all agree they outdid LL's Hulk. Because they knew how to make a good momvie and the action followed.

 

[DACrowe]

LOL, seriously?

The fight looked like a choreographed dance.

There was a certain ballet or poetic nature to it. However, that was intentional. The River character was a ballerina and a dancer before the "government" got their hands on her. Thus that fight was supposed to be fluid like a brainwashed dancer cracking skulls.

In my second link you see, briefly a more fierce fight sequence where she is fighting still fluidly but it looks less choreographed and more desperate. The Mal/Operative fight at the end of the film is also much more gritty and violent than those fights, but unfortunately it does not appear to be on youtube. But it is more of a brawl in the vein that you speak of.

 

[roach]

For those who say Whedon can't direct action well here are two scenes he did in a movie for $40 million:

The first was all practical, no wires, no CGI and the actress in it did all her stunts save for a flip near the end.





And I couldn't resist. This is part of the climax of Serenity (River's side of it). It is the beset version on youtube and while the epic sound effects of bones crunching and skin ripping has been removed. The user replaced it with the 1812 Overture and it is pretty hilarious and still shows off the visual side of Whedon.


Lastly here is a space battle in Serenity that I think is more entertaining than any of the ones in the SW prequels or Star Trek reboot--however certain sequences, like Kirk and Sulu flying down for sword fights--are better in ST. But Whedon did this sequence with a $40 million budget. Imagine him with $200 million now.



While all this may not be on par with LL, it is more of a history of action sequences that are rock solid than Favreau, Singer or Nolan ever had before doing superhero movies and I think we can all agree they outdid LL's Hulk. Because they knew how to make a good momvie and the action followed.

couldnt see any of them they were disabled

 

[The Chris]

I found that fight you speak of. There's embedding so here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Cm5ik1kA8&feature=related