Age of Ultron Whedon battles with Marvel

how the heck did this thread turn into the Whedon h8ters thread? :huh:

The thread Is about him fighting with Marvel over AOU. That naturally curtailed into whether Marvel or Whedon were to blame for then mistakes in AOU. And many people, myself included, feel that he was to blame.
 
I'll say this. In comparison with the Tim Burton Bat films and how much creative freedom would spill in the 2nd, The Avengers was Batman '89 while Age of Ultron was Whedon's own Batman Returns.
 
We don't really know that much about this but it feels like Whedon, as much as I think he's great, should just quit it. Studios almost always get involved and a director having "final cut" is actually rare, and would naturally be more so when it's a part of a shared universe.
 
Whedon actually got more creative freedom with AOU than he did with TA. I'm surprised that he'd be so vocal about his disagreements with Marvel over the sequel, whereas he didn't said anything back when Avengers was made. Whether he admits it or not, Avengers made Joss Whedon into a bigger name and a whole lot richer, even though he just made movies using the characters that appeared in other movies. He and Marvel should have better relationship imo.
 
Whedon actually got more creative freedom with AOU than he did with TA. I'm surprised that he'd be so vocal about his disagreements with Marvel over the sequel, whereas he didn't said anything back when Avengers was made. Whether he admits it or not, Avengers made Joss Whedon into a bigger name and a whole lot richer, even though he just made movies using the characters that appeared in other movies. He and Marvel should have better relationship imo.

Whedon does have a history of publicly criticising studios, other directors and writers etc. if a movie/show gets bad press of some kind.

One question I have is how much do Marvel demand when asking for a specific plot point to be included? For example, we know they wanted references to the infinity stones in AoU. But does this mean they insisted on it being presented as Thor's cave scene? Are they that specific? Or was the cave scene Whedons interpretation of their request? I recall Gunn just being asked to limit the amount of time for Thanos which sounds vague imo and not specific at all.

I ask because he seems unhappy about this scene in particular and notes Marvel and Chris Hemsworths team interference on this matter. I don't actually blame Hemsworth being annoyed as I think this scene was a big percentage of Thor's story and when it was cut he was down to about 15 minutes screen time which was the lowest for an Avenger.
 
I'll say this. In comparison with the Tim Burton Bat films and how much creative freedom would spill in the 2nd, The Avengers was Batman '89 while Age of Ultron was Whedon's own Batman Returns.

I think that's a terrible comparison. I get the impression Whedon had less creative freedom on AOU -- like the shoehorned Infinity Stone subplot (could've been saved for GOTG 2 and/or Thor 3) and that superfluous cave scene. And whatever freedom he had, Whedon was out-of-touch with some of the characters -- the Hawkeye-has-a-family thing was obviously written to give Jeremy Renner more screentime, et al.

Whereas Batman Returns gave Tim Burton way too much freedom. Gotham no longer looks the same (it looks like a studio backlot), and Batman again played second banana to Burton's fetishistic version of Catwoman and Penguin. The following BR continues to have mystifies me to no end. And while Pfeiffer was the best thing in that movie, she's not the definitive Catwoman either.
 
Whedon actually got more creative freedom with AOU than he did with TA. I'm surprised that he'd be so vocal about his disagreements with Marvel over the sequel, whereas he didn't said anything back when Avengers was made. Whether he admits it or not, Avengers made Joss Whedon into a bigger name and a whole lot richer, even though he just made movies using the characters that appeared in other movies. He and Marvel should have better relationship imo.

Totally agree. This film is way more Whedon than A1. Ironically at the same time this film felt more like the Avengers comics than A1 did. A1 feels very Ultimate Marvel with SHIELD running everything. AoU feels the most 616, of almost all the MCU films to me.
 
I think that's a terrible comparison. I get the impression Whedon had less creative freedom on AOU -- like the shoehorned Infinity Stone subplot (could've been saved for GOTG 2 and/or Thor 3) and that superfluous cave scene. And whatever freedom he had, Whedon was out-of-touch with some of the characters -- the Hawkeye-has-a-family thing was obviously written to give Jeremy Renner more screentime, et al.

More Renner, Hawkeye having a family, the Thor Cave scene, reintroducing Loki's staff...from what I've heard in interviews these all stemmed from Whedon. This was definitely his film.
 
I don't see how this is even a point to debate. If you've watched the movie, Whedon's fingerprints are clear as day.

I mean, he wrote the story himself people.
 
Writing the story doesn't necessarily mean nor guarantee that the story itself is as the author originally intended. For all we know, Marvel Studios could've been providing Whedon with ideas as to how they wanted Age of Ultron to be written.
 
Writing the story doesn't necessarily mean nor guarantee that the story itself is as the author originally intended. For all we know, Marvel Studios could've been providing Whedon with ideas as to how they wanted Age of Ultron to be written.

Except that he has said Linda Cardinelli and the whole farm scene was all him and the executives were wanting him to pull it out. Well it's in the movie.
 
Except that he has said Linda Cardinelli and the whole farm scene was all him and the executives were wanting him to pull it out. Well it's in the movie.

My wife and I, as well as many others, are happy it was included. It's nice to see the heroes when "not on duty".
 
I thought the farm scene was great too. I'm happy Whedon won that battle.

At the same time I think if the cave scene/concept had been reworked at the script level, even if it was due to studio pressure, we probably would've gotten a better movie. There should be some collaboration and some checks/balances.
 
My wife and I, as well as many others, are happy it was included. It's nice to see the heroes when "not on duty".
That scene and the party sequence were Great IMO.
Those scenes made the characters feel more like real people.
 
One of the farm scenes my wife loves and has brought up several times is - when the Avengers show up, and everyone is surprised that Hawkeye has a family, the kids ask if "Aunt Natashia" came, and then when they see her they run over for hugs.
 
Whedon actually got more creative freedom with AOU than he did with TA. I'm surprised that he'd be so vocal about his disagreements with Marvel over the sequel, whereas he didn't said anything back when Avengers was made. Whether he admits it or not, Avengers made Joss Whedon into a bigger name and a whole lot richer, even though he just made movies using the characters that appeared in other movies. He and Marvel should have better relationship imo.

It's a candid interview about the complexities of making a movie, especially a movie of this scale where there are so many moving pieces. In the end he says he probably overstuffed it putting too much in there and that the resulting movie is just as he wanted it with maybe 2 minutes of cuts he'd have preferred to keep in. He doesn't seem angry, upset or sound as if he'd been ill used - he sounds actually in good spirits and so much of it is said in good humor.

He seems to have plot all the major plot points and sequences he wanted except for the Thor pond scene. But he relates it tested very badly with audiences but cutting it all left a big hole of where was Thor and how did he get this information? It seemed every late in the process, far too late for a re-write and re-shoots and something that could only be addressed in editing.
 
My wife and I, as well as many others, are happy it was included. It's nice to see the heroes when "not on duty".

Agreed, I'm not sure we've ever seen that kind of a scene in a superhero film. It was very refreshing.
 
I think that's a terrible comparison. I get the impression Whedon had less creative freedom on AOU -- like the shoehorned Infinity Stone subplot (could've been saved for GOTG 2 and/or Thor 3) and that superfluous cave scene. And whatever freedom he had, Whedon was out-of-touch with some of the characters -- the Hawkeye-has-a-family thing was obviously written to give Jeremy Renner more screentime, et al.

Whereas Batman Returns gave Tim Burton way too much freedom. Gotham no longer looks the same (it looks like a studio backlot), and Batman again played second banana to Burton's fetishistic version of Catwoman and Penguin. The following BR continues to have mystifies me to no end. And while Pfeiffer was the best thing in that movie, she's not the definitive Catwoman either.

And a second banana to Christopher Walken; lets not forget that
 
And a second banana to Christopher Walken; lets not forget that

Batman Returns is an example that giving too much creative freedom sometimes isn't a good thing. Directors should be given as much freedom as possible, but some checks and balance would help the movie as well.
 
Am I the only person who loved Batman Returns? I think it is far better than Batman 89
 
I like it, but it's easy to see that it's not for everybody. lol
 
I don't mind it but I can see where people see it as the start of the campiness that started running rampant in the series after Burton left.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"