The Avengers Our director: Joss Whedon!

[The Morningstar]

Yea i prefer character driven stories. It's all about the characters. Because no matter how good a story is, if the characters are not written well, if you can't connect to them... who gives a **** about the story they're involved with?

 

[The Morningstar]

Honestly, I think Whedon did more with Hawkeye than any other director would have bothered to do.

He made him a central figure in the plot, he and Black Widow were the only thing resembling any romantic tension, he had some incredible moments and lines... what more do people want.

Oh and FYI, a few of my friends walked out with a crush on him

Yea Hawkeye was awesome. He was a thorough bad ass, was important to the plot, had a little character arc of his own where you sensed him stopping Loki became personal after he was compromised. I loved how he was the eyes and ears of the team in the final battle.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

If Whedon has spent more time on the antagonists, adding layers to them etc, it would mean less time with the heroes, and the excellent character interaction that you mention wouldn't be as great. It's a balancing act, and Whedon's interest was in setting up the heroes and how they become a team - I'm personally delighted with that emphasis, and sincerely think the film wouldn't work as well (or would be REALLY LONG) if the antagonists had been focused on anymore.

IMO, one thing about Whedon's work I love is the emphasis on character over plot; the plot elements are just mcguffins you need in order to really dig down into character. It's why his work is so great, and why his stuff tends to be so incredibly re-watchable.

I agree completely.

He KNOWS it's a simplistic villain plot. That was intentional so that the characters themselves would shine more than the story. So that the team up would be the focus of the plot, not what the team up was for neccesarily.

And i'm really looking forward to a sequel. Because this first film was kind of all about groundwork. It was about introducing all their characters in a way that makes you love every single one of them and want to see more.

And now that's done, he can tell a much more evolved story next time.

 

[Mjölnir]

Yes, that's not a good plot. The Loki part would have worked much better for Thor 2. But fine, I could get past that. But writing boring generic aliens isn't good writing. And the Joker's henchmen? They're an integral part of the plot. Everything builds up to them. The climax. And then the ending. Channeling the Phantom Menace is never a good sign.

What a good plot is, or isn't, is subjective and should not be stated as a fact.

Avengers was supposed to have a simple plot in order to have the characters drive the story. Something that's really important here as it's about bringing an ensemble together.

Being more plot focused at times make characters fall out. Thor had a bit of a problem with the warriors three since, while character focused (and not an entirely applicable example), the plot centered all around Thor and Loki. Nolan has also had these problems since I think he has wasted the third "special" character in both movies this far and would have done better with sticking to Batman and one villain. These movies of course have other strengths instead and it shows that you have to decide where your focus will be.

 

[spider-neil]

I'm reading the ultimates (alternate universe avengers) hardcover, dated 2005 (3 years before IM) and guess who gives the introduction? joss whedon.

ha ha how weird is that?
also this is the series that introduced the sam jackson nick fury (3 years before IM).

 

[Shadowlord X]

All of this.

I was on-board with Joss as soon as he was announced because I thought he was one of the most brilliant storytellers TV had seen with perfect comic book-y sensibilities, but the negativity surrounding that announcement was so disheartening. I LOVE seeing him prove all the naysayers wrong.

Also, not only do I hope he comes back for TA2, but I would love for Marvel to do something else unprecedented, and convince him to stay on as a kind of a creative "Godfather" (as WB put it) for their whole universe. Ya know, as a producer like Feige, and maybe co-write the stories for the other solo ventures, etc. I mean, he's a heavily-experienced TV showrunner: looking at and guiding the "big picture" in a series of stories is pretty much his area of expertise.

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!

I so agree with this.

 

[Shadowlord X]

How was the plot bad? The pacing at the start? I can see that. But the plot is not bad... at all. It's simple. All plot's can be boiled down. It's the story that brings the depth and interesting things. It's the little details. Avengers is chock full of those little details that you can miss on the first watch. And this idea that the film has no layers or depth is a fallacy. Loki's rant in Germany for instance. Not just a typical bad guy rant. What SHIELD was really upto with the Tesseract. The Tesseract was a metaphor for the global energy crisis. But what makes Whedon's script so great is that the film doesn't bash those themes around our heads. There is no spoon feeding here, like some other comic book franchise. This movie doesn't insist upon itself. It just presents these ideas, poses these questions, then moves on. So the audience can think for themselves. All this stuff is right there in the story, but it's easily overlooked because who the hell wants to think about global energy crisis metaphors when Hulk is going on a rampage, Thor is calling down bolts of lightning and Captain America is barking orders?

Excellently said.

 

[Smashlilman]

All of this.

I was on-board with Joss as soon as he was announced because I thought he was one of the most brilliant storytellers TV had seen with perfect comic book-y sensibilities, but the negativity surrounding that announcement was so disheartening. I LOVE seeing him prove all the naysayers wrong.

Also, not only do I hope he comes back for TA2, but I would love for Marvel to do something else unprecedented, and convince him to stay on as a kind of a creative "Godfather" (as WB put it) for their whole universe. Ya know, as a producer like Feige, and maybe co-write the stories for the other solo ventures, etc. I mean, he's a heavily-experienced TV showrunner: looking at and guiding the "big picture" in a series of stories is pretty much his area of expertise.

[YT]kvKXt3Surlk[/YT]
I'm gonna make you a Story you can't refuse!

 

[Shadowlord X]

Their motive was quite clear. They wanted the Tesseract. That was the deal, Loki could use the army, as long as he provides them with the Tesseract. Barely characterised? What more do you want from them? It's like complaining that the Joker's henchmen aren't developed. The Chitauri were just fodder. This film was about the heroes, for once. It's actually refreshing to have a superhero film where the heroes are not overshadowed by the bad guys. That said, Loki was still great. He was the natural choice for the villain. He is seeking validation, he failed as king on Asgard so now is trying his luck on Earth, probably expecting humans to fall to their knees like they did in the stone ages where he and his brother and father were worshipped as Gods. But he was wrong, his arrogance got the better of him. Typified by the Hulk scene.

Exactly. In fact it makes absolutely no sense for criminals to be supporting someone who's just creating mass chaos. Criminals are interested in making money. One of the many reasons that movie is beyond stupid.

 

[The Morningstar]

Exactly. In fact it makes absolutely no sense for criminals to be supporting someone who's just creating mass chaos. Criminals are interested in making money. One of the many reasons that movie is beyond stupid.

Well i disagree there. It was said that his goons were mentally unstable. People Joker could easily manipulate. One of them was explicitly said to be a former inmate of Arkham.

They are still just goons, fodder. But they weren't criminals after just money. They were nutjobs.

 

[DACrowe]

All of this.

I was on-board with Joss as soon as he was announced because I thought he was one of the most brilliant storytellers TV had seen with perfect comic book-y sensibilities, but the negativity surrounding that announcement was so disheartening. I LOVE seeing him prove all the naysayers wrong.

Also, not only do I hope he comes back for TA2, but I would love for Marvel to do something else unprecedented, and convince him to stay on as a kind of a creative "Godfather" (as WB put it) for their whole universe. Ya know, as a producer like Feige, and maybe co-write the stories for the other solo ventures, etc. I mean, he's a heavily-experienced TV showrunner: looking at and guiding the "big picture" in a series of stories is pretty much his area of expertise.

I wouldn't mind him being a consultant for other films or a producer. But I like each director to have his own vision. Marvel needs to hire more directors with that and to slacken the leash, in my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes, that's not a good plot. The Loki part would have worked much better for Thor 2. But fine, I could get past that. But writing boring generic aliens isn't good writing. And the Joker's henchmen? They're an integral part of the plot. Everything builds up to them. The climax. And then the ending. Channeling the Phantom Menace is never a good sign.

I hate saying this, but most "overwhelming" forces The Avengers/Ultimates fight in the comic are generic canon fodder. Why? Because so much time has to be given to the large disparate group of heroes.

But I do think that while the stakes were huge in the third act, I never felt any suspense that TA could lose or were overwhelmed. If Joss can write the actual plot for TA2 (Zak Penn/Marvel came up with the basic plot outline for this film before Joss wrote the screenplay), I think we're in better shape. Look at Serenity. He made rleeasing a viral video seem like something worth dying for and made you believe they would die for it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

With this type of film, I think you need a simple plot to concentrate on all the characters. They've got complex stuff going on themselves. Lots of complex characters within a complex story doesn't exactly mix too well. This film was character based. As much as I loved the plot and story and action, you can take all those away and be left with the characters and it's a great character film.

 

[metaphysician]

Well i disagree there. It was said that his goons were mentally unstable. People Joker could easily manipulate. One of them was explicitly said to be a former inmate of Arkham.

They are still just goons, fodder. But they weren't criminals after just money. They were nutjobs.

More than that, we saw some of his "recruitment" scenes. When the Joker "recruits" you, you are terrified, attacked, probably in pain, and have definitely killed people you had previously worked for and with. And then, after that, the Joker probably praises you as "a better caliber of criminal", with the promise of freedom and loot.

He's basically brainwashing people.

 

[BillPardy]

I have a question, I just don't really get something. What exactly do people dislike about Joss Whedon's work?

 

[jacobed]

Too many jokes and Cap is too preachy in this movie is really only problems with him. Midnight show many of the jokes hit but that's because of the atmosphere. Saw it two more times and many jokes fell flat and a lot are unnecessary. When they hit, they hit but when they fall it falls hard.

 

[The Morningstar]

I didn't think Cap was too preachy. I thought he was written perfectly. I guess that type of character just isn't to everyones tastes. He's the anti-cynical boy scout, i can understand why people wouldn't dig him.

 

[DACrowe]

I have a question, I just don't really get something. What exactly do people dislike about Joss Whedon's work?

They generally think his's too funny (or tries to be funny, but is smug) and all his characters are so witty that it sucks away drama or a level of seriousness from the proceedings. That or he's campy (though only one of his shows was really full camp and his only other film was anything but). They also think that because he made four TV series that his direction would be TV-ish and lack scope by pointing out how little spectacle there was in Serenity (which ignoring it was made for $39 million).

They are of course wrong.

In my opinion.

 

[The Squirrel]

Too many jokes and Cap is too preachy in this movie is really only problems with him. Midnight show many of the jokes hit but that's because of the atmosphere. Saw it two more times and many jokes fell flat and a lot are unnecessary. When they hit, they hit but when they fall it falls hard.

So, ordinary humor then?

 

[DACrowe]

Too many jokes and Cap is too preachy in this movie is really only problems with him. Midnight show many of the jokes hit but that's because of the atmosphere. Saw it two more times and many jokes fell flat and a lot are unnecessary. When they hit, they hit but when they fall it falls hard.

The only scene where I think they didn't quite get the Whedon rapport/beats was when Tony comes in and complains about the guy playing video games. I feel like it was shot early, because the pacing between the characters seemed off.

 

[flickchick85]

I wouldn't mind him being a consultant for other films or a producer. But I like each director to have his own vision. Marvel needs to hire more directors with that and to slacken the leash, in my opinion.

I see your point, and even somewhat agree. I hate the thought of a director's creativity being stifled. But I also feel like this is a very unique and tricky situation. If Marvel is to continue with this shared universe concept, and if the characters are going to start appearing in each others' films more (instead of it always being merely Fury) as I suspect they will, then character and world-building continuity (tonal, emotional) is going to have to get significant focus. These films are not meant to be completely individual pieces of art, so it seems almost counter-productive to me to treat them as such. IMO, this series has the potential to be something completely new to cinema - like I said, it could be like a television series on an exponentially larger scale - where the whole becomes the main attraction, the individual work, more than the pieces. That's not to say the solo ventures can't be individual visions on their own, which is why Whedon would be the perfect man to oversee this instead of someone more driven by the commercial side of things like Feige - because Whedon knows how to create memorable and unique episodes that also serve a greater story. With Buffy, the "big picture" was just as much a work of art as some of the individual episodes. Sometimes I think Whedon just gave some of his writers a basic premise for an episode and said, "take it and run with it." I feel like he could do the same thing with the solo films of this franchise, while ensuring that whatever they come up with still serves the bigger story he's trying to tell in the MCU.

I know, I know, it's a radical concept that's unprecedented for many good reasons (like the one you presented), so I'm sure it would never happen. I just think it would be kinda cool.

 

[eddy]

Marti Noxon on how Buffy outlines were made:

“I would say 90 percent of the time Joss really broke all our stories and drove that process. We’d sit in the room for hours and say, ‘Maybe this is good.’ And he’d come in the room for 10 minutes and say something that was 90 percent better. And we’d all want to kill ourselves.”
–Marti Noxon, writer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Fright Night)

 

[DACrowe]

I see your point, and even somewhat agree. I hate the thought of a director's creativity being stifled. But I also feel like this is a very unique and tricky situation. If Marvel is to continue with this shared universe concept, and if the characters are going to start appearing in each others' films more (instead of it always being merely Fury) as I suspect they will, then character and world-building continuity (tonal, emotional) is going to have to get significant focus. These films are not meant to be completely individual pieces of art, so it seems almost counter-productive to me to treat them as such. IMO, this series has the potential to be something completely new to cinema - like I said, it could be like a television series on an exponentially larger scale - where the whole becomes the main attraction, the individual work, more than the pieces. That's not to say the solo ventures can't be individual visions on their own, which is why Whedon would be the perfect man to oversee this instead of someone more driven by the commercial side of things like Feige - because Whedon knows how to create memorable and unique episodes that also serve a greater story. With Buffy, the "big picture" was just as much a work of art as some of the individual episodes. Sometimes I think Whedon just gave some of his writers a basic premise for an episode and said, "take it and run with it." I feel like he could do the same thing with the solo films of this franchise, while ensuring that whatever they come up with still serves the bigger story he's trying to tell in the MCU.

I know, I know, it's a radical concept that's unprecedented for many good reasons (like the one you presented), so I'm sure it would never happen. I just think it would be kinda cool.

I see your point and it's an interesting concept. However, I just feel like film is not television. We only get an individual film with each of these characters every 2-3 years, as opposed to 12-24 stories with them a year. Thus, it needs to be able to stand on its own as a piece of worthwhile cinema. Now, I agree Joss can do it better than Feige has thus far done it. But again, the problem with many of the earlier MCU films (besides scope) has been that the individual interests of the movies have suffered in need of serving the larger formula of getting The Avengers. Namely, I think it made IM2 an aimless mess of a movie and really hurt the third act of CA which before that point was a very engaging, pulpy organic story that suddenly became a sprint to finish in 2012.

Now, I agree Whedon can do it better than what's come before, but I'd like to see these characters branch off into distinct adventures. There should be guidelines so none of them go too far down a rabbit hole that breaks from the shared universe, but creative vision is what made Avengers so good and is finally a MCU that can stand with the best of them in the genre IMO (that'd be Nolan's Batman, Burton's Batman, Raimi's early Spider-Mans, even Vaughn's two superhero movies with KA and XFC). It's what can separate a formula film from being something like Batman Begins or just Thor or The Incredible Hulk, if you know what I mean.

 

[flickchick85]

I see your point and it's an interesting concept. However, I just feel like film is not television. We only get an individual film with each of these characters every 2-3 years, as opposed to 12-24 stories with them a year. Thus, it needs to be able to stand on its own as a piece of worthwhile cinema. Now, I agree Joss can do it better than Feige has thus far done it. But again, the problem with many of the earlier MCU films (besides scope) has been that the individual interests of the movies have suffered in need of serving the larger formula of getting The Avengers. Namely, I think it made IM2 an aimless mess of a movie and really hurt the third act of CA which before that point was a very engaging, pulpy organic story that suddenly became a sprint to finish in 2012.

Now, I agree Whedon can do it better than what's come before, but I'd like to see these characters branch off into distinct adventures. There should be guidelines so none of them go too far down a rabbit hole that breaks from the shared universe, but creative vision is what made Avengers so good and is finally a MCU that can stand with the best of them in the genre IMO (that'd be Nolan's Batman, Burton's Batman, Raimi's early Spider-Mans, even Vaughn's two superhero movies with KA and XFC). It's what can separate a formula film from being something like Batman Begins or just Thor or The Incredible Hulk, if you know what I mean.

I definitely know what you mean, but I guess I feel like the only reason it was problematic with IM2, Thor, etc, is because it was Feige, who's not really a storyteller, dictating those things. Joss was given guidelines for this film just like all the others, but unlike those others, they didn't diminish his vision. They gave him certain elements they wanted to see in the story, but everything else was all him. To that degree, the concept worked, imo. So basically what I'd prefer from here on, is something similar, but with Joss as the one coming up with those guidelines, or "things that have to happen," in the other projects to support his long-term Avengers vision, instead of Feige & Co. Because Joss has MUCH more experience weaving those types of elements into individual episodes to serve a bigger picture in a way that feels organic, rather than shoe-horned in like they were in previous Marvel films. The individual films can still be unique and worthwhile standalone features, but they would also still feel connected to a larger universe, AND a larger story.

In short: Feige did a good job with Phase 1, but that was the easy part - just do everyone's origin stories, then get them together. Phase 2 is where it gets tricky, and I think we need a real storyteller steering the ship from here on out, or risk the MCU turning into a hot damn mess with all the inter-connectedness they're weaving.

 

[Raiden]

Yea i prefer character driven stories. It's all about the characters. Because no matter how good a story is, if the characters are not written well, if you can't connect to them... who gives a **** about the story they're involved with?

Exactly. That's why even though I'm a Transformers fan, I ultimately consider Bay's TF movies as merely okay (TF1) to average (DOTM) and horrible (ROTF). Bay doesn't care about his characters, and it shows in his movies.