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

[Son of Coul]

He has shown great concern about "blowing the reality we've created" which I think he's gotta get over, I mean it's Marvel. And as for Cowboys and Aliens, that's a whole nother movie. He directed Made, but chances are for a sequel he'd be reluctant to have martians come down and abduct Vince Vaughn. The delicate reality isn't a movie principle for him, it's an Iron Man principle.

edit: regarding Jon Favreau

 

[TikkiEXX]

yeah i know. i would think he knew from the beginning Thor would be showing up. its not the Iron Man universe its the Marvel universe.

 

[david icke]

How about Favreau didn't do it because he was UNAVAILABLE??? He took himself out as soon as he signed on for Cowboys. And I am sure he was well aware of Marvel's vision for Avengers from the getgo. But once he was pretty much locked into an IM2/3 after the success of the first, there was no way he would have been able to do all four every two years (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). Most directors take 3 years between franchises and to ask him to do a movie every two years including Avengers would have literally been INSANE. And his work would have been compromised with a schedule like that as he admitted. Now I am well aware that he did express his doubts about Thor mingling with the Avengers, but who didn't? But don't pretend it was a main factor why he took himself off Avengers. I am sure if Marvel offered him enough money he would have done his best with it, but he never wanted the responsibility after he was locked into two more IM movies.

How about the fact that he could have made himself available for Avengers if he had so desired? If he felt passionate about it, as passionate as he does with Iron-Man solo? Do you think he would have made himself 'unavailable' for a third Iron-Man movie if other projects were offered to him that also interested him, and it meant Iron-Man3 was going to go to another director? I don't think he would have.
The main point is, he was not as passionate about tackling the Avengers material, and was very vocal about those aspects of mingling the Thor magic with the Iron-Man workshop as being part of the reason why.
I don't understand why folk are so defensive about this on Faverau's behalf, because from where I'm standing it's the mark of a good artist, being honest about your passions and not going for the movie that you're not 100% about, even though it has the potential to be huge.
Yes, in that interview I linked back in the thread, he says he was unavailable, but then immediately talks about the thor/Iron-man mix, the two reasons can be thought of as linked, he's not just randomly talking about one thing and then another thing altogether right after.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Why would he abandon the IM franchise when he was so vocal about getting the three movies right, completing the trilogy, and avoiding the jinx? He wanted to eventually tackle Mandarin, which deals with a lot of the mystical Fin Fang Foom elements anyhow. Yeah it's possible he wanted to avoid Mandarin for the same reasons as Thor hence the reason to put him off for a while. But if that's the case he won't direct IM3 either and will serve as a producer, IF another more appealing project comes along. Until that happens, the scheduling nightmare would have outweighed any and all creative issues he may have had with it.

Edit: David Icke, I read you wrong, thought you said he wouldn't come back for IM3 if something else came up.

 

[roach]

I think if he did Avengers it would have burned him out for IM3

 

[topdog1]

Aren't so called A-listers always busy? Spielberg, Abrams all would be ideal, but all of them are up to their ears in projects.

Whedon can direct large groups of people as seen in Serenity. All were great characters that you could latch onto and he made it look easy.

Honestly, I'd take Whedon over Spielberg all day as far as Avengers is concerned. That may sound strange but Joss knows the universe and will work with Marvel. Spielberg would want control.

Anyone that doubts Whedon's ability or intellect needs to watch Serenity with his solo DVD commentary turned on. (The Special Edition 2 disc version has two commentaries- one solo and one with he and the cast) I listened again last night with the purpose of judging his directorial ability for Avengers. Now, more then ever, I believe he is the perfect choice. His comments and insight are masterful. I know working with his own hand picked team that absolutely loves him on Serenity is different then working with an all-star cast of strangers but the skills are definitely in place.

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

I'm afraid he didn't. Doc Ock doesn't have superhuman durability. He's just a man with indestructible metal tentacles.

One half arsed jab from Spidey should of knocked him out instantly.

It was a brilliant scene, no doubt. But Raimi didn't nail it, it wasn't perfect because it had a massive hole in the logic previously set up in the film.

spider-man always holds back. that's nothing new

 

[DACrowe]

Fanboys are looking for directors that have done avant garde/indie type stuff. That's what we like in our directors, not the mainstream types. Even if the indie guy is balls out obviously not the dude fit for the job. If he's directed a movie where a guy shoots up heroin and afterwards decapitates his cousin that owes him money, suddenly he's a great director.

No they really don't. They say they do, but that is not what they actually want. Nolan has a number of detractors for his perspective, but it worked. However when they do get an indie auteur, they usually backlash at some point. Bryan Singer made his X-Men movies very much in a tone and style that played to his strengths and cinematic interests with the emphasis on political allegory to racism and homophobia sans over the top special effects or costumes.

To this day many X-fans detest him for doing so.

Ang Lee is one of the greatest indie directors of his generation and when his Hulk movie came out that had more emphasis on Banner's PTS and Oedipus Complex with his Claudius-like father over "Hulk smash" fanboys *****ed to no end until the Transporter guy remade it as an action movie that was Bourne-lite.

Sam Raimi who had come from indie horror and prestige house drama projects made Spidey relevant to his own muse and his artistic ticks--absurdity humor with self-knowing camp married with bittersweet melancholy--and those are the aspects that fanboys despise.

I admit that Nolan has avoided earning their disdain, but we'll see if he can do it for three movies straight. I still hear grumblings about his artistic flourishes of making JOker wear make-up, envisioning Gotham as a modern city whose villains have no superpowers, etc. Singer and Raimi had two films of muted opposition before it exploded on their third efforts.

Branagh has a very distinct and grand style. But it is very restrained and more intrigued by acting and scope than fast-paced action. If his film ends up like that, we'll see how popular a choice he is. Whedon has a great individual style and there is backlash.

Fanboys are more like EON producers, they generally want directors without a distinct style so as to not overshadow the brand or hteir conception of the brand. Demand for indie credit is generally something they say but seem to oppose to any decisions marked by an auteur and not a workmanlike adapter.

 

[topdog1]

Well, this is one fanboy who enjoyed what both Singer and Raimi did with both franchises. They made 4 out of 5 excellent movies and one that's not half as bad as certain fans claim.

Besides, Marvel has proved with their solo studio efforts that the books and their creative crews have a say. One big happy family and all that...

 

[DACrowe]

I wouldnt expect an A list director...just someone with a little more experience

ahem,

Just like:

-Tim Burton
-Bryan Singer
-Peter Jackson
-Christopher Nolan
-Jon Favreau
-JJ Abrams

had before tehy tackled their first superhero or big budget blockbuster franchise. All of them are considered A-listers and all of them came off little experience to either Batman, X-Men, Lord of the Rings, Batman again, Iron Man or Star Trek with no record in these types of films and all left a major mark.

I just fail to see the logic. The "A-liters" are all either involved in their own franchises (Abrams, Favreau, Nolan) or mostly avoids them (like when I see the names Speilberg, Scott or Cameron pop up). Really.

 

[roach]

*Tim Burton got the job after doing 2 movies that did well. Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. He fought with the studio over everything from Keaton to the darkness of the film.

*Bryan Singer has Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil under his belt before he got to X-men and that was mainly due to Producer Tom Desanto pestering him to do it.

*Peter Jackson directed 7 pictured before he did Lord of the Rings. The rights to the books were his and he shopped them around to the studios working a two pic deal with Miramax and changing at the last minute to New Line.

*Chris Nolan had three films before Batman and Goyer had to convince WB to let him do it.

All of these directors had a few films before they were handed the keys to the big franchises

 

[DACrowe]

But none of them had much experience, except arguably Jackson and Nolan. Singer had two movies. Burton had two movies. Favreau had two movies. Abrams had one movie. And yet most consider their attempts successful. I fail to see how Whedon is not a similar choice of a talented, unique storyteller being given his big shot at a franchise. After all even if you take into account Jackson's seven pictures or the success of Beetlejuice, none of the filmmakers I named had made a big budget blockbuster or action movie before.

In some ways, Whedon has the dadvantage of cutting his teeth on filming action for Hollywood on Serenity (and I would argue the action is better than that of Burton's Batman movies, Singer's first X-Men movie and the underwhelming finale in Iron Man). Perhaps when he takes on Avengers he'll be ready to do his "X2" out of the gate?

My point is most had little experience in making Hollywood films and none most had not made an action movie or franchise picture before.

Whedon is a fair compariosn, particularly with Abrams and Favreau due to his similar sensibilities (and that Abrams was Whedon's rival who also came from TV).

I don't know if Whedon's Avengers will be a good movie. But this was a choice similar to other choices made in the genres before which worked out well.

 

[DocHoliday]

Come on man... I get believing in Whedon but his directorial experience is less than when those directors started their franchises. Two movies is a ton more experience. Whedon's only movie was released five years ago. I'd feel the same way if it was Shane Black. (and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my fave films).

 

[david icke]

Come on man... I get believing in Whedon but his directorial experience is less than when those directors started their franchises. Two movies is a ton more experience. Whedon's only movie was released five years ago. I'd feel the same way if it was Shane Black. (and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my fave films).

Yeah, it depends on what you mean by 'experience', if you are just going by counting up the movies you are not looking at the full picture.
A lot of Jackson's early movies would have been on a far smaller scale than any of the tv work JW has written and directed, same with Nolan's 1st movie 'Following'. 'Memento' was a low budget movie, but I'm not comparing that to JW's tv work, what I am saying is that his work on 'Serenity', involving lots of practical and CG sfx, probably contained more practical prep for a big budget superhero movie than Nolan's films, same with 'Insomnia', which was a remake, and a pretty straight cop thriller.
Nolan had no experience whatsoever with the sfx work needed for a huge superhero movie, before being handed the keys to Batman.

I would put the experience of writing and directing loads of superhero/sci-fi episodes over one movie, or at least it's not 'tons' more to have one more movie under your belt in that context.
You can go on about the major diff between directing a movie and a tv show, but I say you have to measure the scale of the movies with the tv shows(and JW's shows were big, involved productions with large casts and sfx), and also look at the amount of time spent working with actors, in order to get a fairer gauge on 'experience'.

edit: why are there no complaints over on the Spider-man boards about the fact that Marc Webb only has one movie under his belt before being handed the keys to that franchise? He is relative novice, Whedon has been in the biz for more than a decade.

 

[roach]

Because we know it isnt going to be Webb's movie as Sony is going to have their fingerprints all over it

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

Because we know it isnt going to be Webb's movie as Sony is going to have their fingerprints all over it

bingo

 

[Son of Coul]

Is there any doubt Marvel will have their fingerprints on this?

 

[Spider-Fan]

People are mad Favs is not doing this? If he did, chances would be really low he'd do IM3, and I would MUCH rather have him on IM3 than Avengers.

 

[mclay18]

Is there any doubt Marvel will have their fingerprints on this?

No. Arad did say that Joss loved the characters and was fiercely protective of it, so to me that says both Marvel and Joss are on the same page when it comes to the movie.

But we'll see if Whedon and Marvel go forward to the point where they'll have a shooting script ready and start casting the minor roles.

 

[Saint]

. Two movies is a ton more experience.

Okay, so your argument is "Two movies is a ton more experience than one movie and four TV shows."

Uh, okay.

 

[Doctor Jones]

A television show is something that provides much more opportunities to develop characters and stories over the course of 20 episodes or more seasons which isn't easy to do. LOST for God sakes, takes a hell of alot more than anything that can be thought out in a film. Not comparing Whedon's work to Lost, but Whedon has alot of experience doing television, which is enough, and he has a solid film under his belt.

I think at this point you just either have faith or you don't at all. I'm in the former category. We'll just have to see.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

Agreed, put me in the former category as well.

 

[david icke]

Because we know it isnt going to be Webb's movie as Sony is going to have their fingerprints all over it

bingo

Yeah, bingo in as much as that seems to be the situation with Webb and Sony, but no-go in as much as that's why there is far less complaining about that situation then there is with the Whedon one. In fact, that situation should have more complaints, should it not? Not only is it being given to an inexperienced director, but one who will not be able to weild any power against the decisions of the studio.

No, what is happening here is that because Whedon is experienced in sci-fi/superheroes, there are people who do not like his body of work in that area with his own characters, so what they are doing is saying he is 'inexperienced' because technically he has only directed one movie. Which is a weak argument as myself and others have outlined above. If he wasn't so experienced you guys would not be so up in arms about his appointment, as there wouldn't be the body of material out there for you to hate.

 

[DocHoliday]

Okay, so your argument is "Two movies is a ton more experience than one movie and four TV shows."

Uh, okay.

Yup and it is. Look at JJ Abrams a brilliant guy to be sure. He directed tons of tv but look how much progress he made between film number one and two. But I bey you his third film is even better than his 2nd. So yes I'd argue that one more film is significant when it's 2 vs 1. especially when his only film was 5 years ago.

 

[Evil Twin]

No they really don't. They say they do, but that is not what they actually want. Nolan has a number of detractors for his perspective, but it worked. However when they do get an indie auteur, they usually backlash at some point. Bryan Singer made his X-Men movies very much in a tone and style that played to his strengths and cinematic interests with the emphasis on political allegory to racism and homophobia sans over the top special effects or costumes.

To this day many X-fans detest him for doing so.

Ang Lee is one of the greatest indie directors of his generation and when his Hulk movie came out that had more emphasis on Banner's PTS and Oedipus Complex with his Claudius-like father over "Hulk smash" fanboys *****ed to no end until the Transporter guy remade it as an action movie that was Bourne-lite.

Sam Raimi who had come from indie horror and prestige house drama projects made Spidey relevant to his own muse and his artistic ticks--absurdity humor with self-knowing camp married with bittersweet melancholy--and those are the aspects that fanboys despise.

I admit that Nolan has avoided earning their disdain, but we'll see if he can do it for three movies straight. I still hear grumblings about his artistic flourishes of making JOker wear make-up, envisioning Gotham as a modern city whose villains have no superpowers, etc. Singer and Raimi had two films of muted opposition before it exploded on their third efforts.

Branagh has a very distinct and grand style. But it is very restrained and more intrigued by acting and scope than fast-paced action. If his film ends up like that, we'll see how popular a choice he is. Whedon has a great individual style and there is backlash.

Fanboys are more like EON producers, they generally want directors without a distinct style so as to not overshadow the brand or hteir conception of the brand. Demand for indie credit is generally something they say but seem to oppose to any decisions marked by an auteur and not a workmanlike adapter.

Yeah, I agree with this. Fanboys don't want auteurs who will put their own personal spin on the material. They don't want idiosyncratic quirk, a strong preference in era, or a take on the character that doesn't match their own. When an auteur is named to a film, it's the point where the movie moves from something idealized to something specific.

And, Whedon is an auteur.

Although, to be fair, beyond being an auteur, there are concerns about how good a fit Whedon is for the material. Even auteurs make bad movies. Especially when fitted to someone else's product.