Sequels "Smaller" Avengers sequel?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Shouldn't Avenger's always be epic in scope?

Here are Whedon's comments regarding giving the sequel a "smaller", more personal feel.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169813-joss-whedon-talks-qsmallerq-avengers-sequel

How do you guys feel about this?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I voted for yes. I#m more than looking forward to a sequel with a more personal approach. You can't top an alien invasion anyway and if you don't have to focus on adding action scenes every ten minutes, you can focus on a better plot instead.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Isn't it bad luck to talk about a sequel before your movie comes out?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I personally love what he said.

It's not that he's saying for the sequel there will be no action, and everyone will just talk. Of course there will still be epic action sequences.

He's just saying that the worst way to approach a sequel to something this big is to think 'How can I do something bigger' cause if you do that you'll ultimately loose sight of your characters and their story.

And Joss treats characters like people. In all of his tv shows he's proven that where he takes his characters isn't where he thinks the public want to see them go... It's where they would naturally go.

And because of that, the stories are strong, believable and full of heart.

Think of it this way.

When most people think 'bigger', they are thinking of bigger stunts and sfx.

Joss thinks bigger as in more 'drama'. More emotion. If the audience actually really CARES about these guys and what their going through... That's bigger than those 'ooohhh' moments when someone blows something up.

I mean the 'biggest' moments in Buffy weren't the one's where something visually spectacular happened. They were the huge emotional moments.

 

[BigThor]

I liked the fact that Joss said Avengers 2 is going to be smaller and more personal, because I think he means he gone to spend more time with the characters on a more in depth level.

Besides, when I first read that interview I immediately thought about Ultron being the perfect villain for a more personal villain.

 

[DOOZlovesBOOZ]

I liked the fact that Joss said Avengers 2 is going to be smaller and more personal, because I think he means he gone to spend more time with the characters on a more in depth level.

Besides, when I first read that interview I immediately thought about Ultron being the perfect villain for a more personal villain.

If smaller means introducing ultron and i get too see hank and jan, then i am all in. Although IMO i really think they might have to change hank to GIANT man only, so wasp's shrinkage has some significance. That wouldn't bother me cuz to me the importance of having hank in a movie is to HAVE anti-social/labrat hank in it, not necessarily his superpowers.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If smaller means introducing ultron and i get too see hank and jan, then i am all in. Although IMO i really think they might have to change hank to GIANT man only, so wasp's shrinkage has some significance. That wouldn't bother me cuz to me the importance of having hank in a movie is to HAVE anti-social/labrat hank in it, not necessarily his superpowers.

Actually that kind of psychological symbolism would be refreshing in an action movie.

I wouldn't want Ang Lee Hulk level ambiguity but a more direct approach where everyone can appreciate the symbolism would be welcomed.

 

[BigThor]

If smaller means introducing ultron and i get too see hank and jan, then i am all in. Although IMO i really think they might have to change hank to GIANT man only, so wasp's shrinkage has some significance. That wouldn't bother me cuz to me the importance of having hank in a movie is to HAVE anti-social/labrat hank in it, not necessarily his superpowers.

Yeah you're right about Wasp's shrinking needing to be unique,besides I'm more of a fan of Hank's Giant Man persona anway.

 

[DOOZlovesBOOZ]

Actually that kind of psychological symbolism would be refreshing in an action movie.

I wouldn't want Ang Lee Hulk level ambiguity but a more direct approach where everyone can appreciate the symbolism would be welcomed.

Oh not to that level, but you have to delve into that part of the character or what is the use of having him in the avengers, it is who hank is.

Yeah you're right about Wasp's shrinking needing to be unique,besides I'm more of a fan of Hank's Giant Man persona anyway.

Me too plus the whole ant world on film just doesn't seem like it would work, but who am i to say that I mean there were people who thought Thor's world wouldn't work but now look who's villain is prominently in the avengers. I still think a man riding insects is pushing the GA imagination and may detract from the sequel.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think you'll lose alot of people if you show a guy in a fishbowl helmet weaing tights riding a flying ant to fight evil. You can only take the general audience so far before they say "screw this nerd crap".

and for the record I always knew Thor could work in a movie.

 

[DrCosmic]

and for the record I always knew Thor could work in a movie.

Did you know how dramatically they were going to change his storyline in order to make it work?

Besides, when I first read that interview I immediately thought about Ultron being the perfect villain for a more personal villain.

I thought about this too. An earth-based robot with access to their personal data is pretty awesome in terms of ability to really get into these characters personal lives. As long as he's invented by Pym, I have no problem if Pym is still stuck in the 60s.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Smaller doesn't mean less action. When the Masters of Evil invaded the Mansion and nearly killed Hercules... tortured Jarvis... and pretty much destroyed the house, THAT was a smaller story in scope. No invasions. No taking over the world.

Just one big home invasion.

 

[BigThor]

Smaller doesn't mean less action. When the Masters of Evil invaded the Mansion and nearly killed Hercules... tortured Jarvis... and pretty much destroyed the house, THAT was a smaller story in scope. No invasions. No taking over the world.

Just one big home invasion.

Exactly, it just means action on a smaller more personal scale not "small" as in less fight scenes.

 

[MarvelKnight]

I personally love what he said.

It's not that he's saying for the sequel there will be no action, and everyone will just talk. Of course there will still be epic action sequences.

He's just saying that the worst way to approach a sequel to something this big is to think 'How can I do something bigger' cause if you do that you'll ultimately loose sight of your characters and their story.

And Joss treats characters like people. In all of his tv shows he's proven that where he takes his characters isn't where he thinks the public want to see them go... It's where they would naturally go.

And because of that, the stories are strong, believable and full of heart.

Think of it this way.

When most people think 'bigger', they are thinking of bigger stunts and sfx.

Joss thinks bigger as in more 'drama'. More emotion. If the audience actually really CARES about these guys and what their going through... That's bigger than those 'ooohhh' moments when someone blows something up.

I mean the 'biggest' moments in Buffy weren't the one's where something visually spectacular happened. They were the huge emotional moments.

Yep, I agree. I like that he said it would be 'what happens next' as in a natural progression of events. Having a whacked out god with an alien horde at his disposal is pretty epic for a first time out.

Having three cosmic/god-like enemies in a row lining up to take over earth.. it's almost not believable, so Smaller in scope, to me, lends itself to being a more home-grown threat.

One who knows the Avengers in and out, almost better than themselves, where they can not only attack them each physically but mentally as well which is pretty personal.

I say let him do whatever he feels! I trust Whedon to deliver

 

[BigThor]

One who knows the Avengers in and out, almost better than themselves, where they can not only attack them each physically but mentally as well which is pretty personal.

I say let him do whatever he feels! I trust Whedon to deliver

Once again that sounds a lot like my main man Ultron. t:

 

[MarvelKnight]

^Yep. I've been all for Ultron since day 1.

 

[BigThor]

^ Same here, I knew he wasn't going to be in the first film but I've been wanting to see him in an Avengers film forever.

 

[Chewy]

Shouldn't Avenger's always be epic in scope?

I think you're confusing "smaller" with "small"

 

[marcvader]

He's speaking in code guys! The Pyms are coming to the bug screen, I meant big screen!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think you're confusing "smaller" with "small"

If it is smaller then it will be small in comparison to the first movie.

and if they weren't planning something noticeably smaller, why would they bring it up?

 

[cherokeesam]

If it is smaller then it will be small in comparison to the first movie.

and if they weren't planning something noticeably smaller, why would they bring it up?

To show that they have no intention of trying to outdo themselves in the sequel. And that's a good thing. The Michael Bay/Gore Verbinski/Brett Ratner School of Blockbuster Sequelology has taught a lot of fans the unhealthy myth that sequels have to necessarily be bigger than their predecessors, which leads to increasingly bloated bombastic bull**** that ultimately turns off even the die-hard fans.

The better approach appears in sequels like The Temple of Doom, The Empire Strikes Back, and even X2: X-Men United, where directors chose not to one-up themselves and instead focus on a more personal, less epic story that concentrates on developing the main characters instead of just throwing them into an even bigger battle with even bigger sfx and fireworks.

 

[BigThor]

He's speaking in code guys! The Pyms are coming to the bug screen, I meant big screen!

Yesssssssss that would be great!!!!

 

[Dark Raven]

I liked the fact that Joss said Avengers 2 is going to be smaller and more personal, because I think he means he gone to spend more time with the characters on a more in depth level.

Besides, when I first read that interview I immediately thought about Ultron being the perfect villain for a more personal villain.

That's what I would like. Ultron as the villain would be a smaller Avengers sequel because it's not as grand in scale as an all-out alien invasion. However, Ultron would still be epic and ought to be the way they go with the 2nd movie.

 

[Lord]

I liked the fact that Joss said Avengers 2 is going to be smaller and more personal, because I think he means he gone to spend more time with the characters on a more in depth level.

Besides, when I first read that interview I immediately thought about Ultron being the perfect villain for a more personal villain.

Yeah, i tought the exact same thing t:
And i hope he's used

 

[BigThor]

That's what I would like. Ultron as the villain would be a smaller Avengers sequel because it's not as grand in scale as an all-out alien invasion. However, Ultron would still be epic and ought to be the way they go with the 2nd movie.

Yeah, i tought the exact same thing t:
And i hope he's used

I'm glad we're all on the same page here.

t: t: t: