The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

[KneelBeforrSmallville]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

i think Favreau should be a executive producer on the film at least, I think a project of this magnitude is going to be long, huge and EPIC, Whedon is a good writer, Serenity was eh ok but i will sayBuffy and Alien Ressurection are good. but this needs either a director of James Cameron Status or a bunch of talented guys working together! Whedon could...write and direct probly, but def bring Favreau on!! and the Thor and C.A. Directors to help collaborate(ONLY IF THERE GOOD)

 

[Chapter 2099]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

He's never done A SINGLE THING to earn him the right to direct a film as huge as "The Avengers". If I were Favreau (who has earned it), I would walk away from "Iron Man 3" on principle alone.

Whedon is a good (if obvious) writer. But his previous directorial efforts have been workmanlike at best. He's really going to need to step up to the plate to pull this one off, especially considering the guys behind the individual films. Hopefully the DoP and effects crew are really at the helm.

The same could be said about Favreau before Iron Man, Peter Jackson before Fellowship, or Michael Bay before Pearl Harbor.

I'm agreeing with Dave here, and Whedon's resume isn't too shabby in my opinion. Serenity did VERY well at the box office, surprising MANY fans and even the Fox executives (which is not that easy to do if you ask me. ) Favreau definitely executed the first Iron Man movie well, but if you compare Favreau (before or after IM), I still think Joss is more qualified. He's directed, written, and produced two very successful television series in their entirety, not to mention all of the guest shows he's done. He's a writer for Marvel's own Astonishing X-Men series (not to mention a comic book series of his own) and arguably knows more about the Marvel Universe than most directors out there. The guy is qualified to say the least in my opinion.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Only by people who'd never seen their other movies.

Was it Elf or Zathura that made you think Favreau could handle a big star, huge action and the expectations of millions? It was heralded as a bold move to hire him for Iron Man because there was nothing comparable in his oeuvre.

Jackson made a little more sense - Heavenly Creatures was very visual and a difficult subject. But there was nothing on his resume that was anything like Lord of the Rings.

I think the only people that wouldn't agree that Whedon is a great idea have an unreasonable dislike of him, perhaps because he IS so popular. But he is so loved for good reason and has proved his skills as a storyteller over and over again and is a logical choice.

Branagh was a surprise for Thor because it wasn't really something he's known for - but at least Thor is in his wheelhouse after Henry V and Much Ado....

And I was kidding about Michael Bay...

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Serenity did VERY well at the box office

No, it didn't, which is why there was never a sequel.

 

[EVILFACE]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Wow, Whedon directing means Avengers will be as anti-climatic as Serenity.

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Was it Elf or Zathura that made you think Favreau could handle a big star, huge action and the expectations of millions?

Both were larger-than-life FX films. The "big star" and "expectations of millions" parts aren't really relevant (and the former was already in the can with Will Ferrell anyway). Favreau proved he could handle fantasy pictures. Although I'd give you a point in at least one respect; Iron Man isn't a film directed with any kind of visual flair, so Whedon might fit right in.

Jackson made a little more sense - Heavenly Creatures was very visual and a difficult subject. But there was nothing on his resume that was anything like Lord of the Rings.

I think the combination of BrainDead and Heavenly Creatures made him a solid if offbeat choice. I expected his take to be a bit more Raimi.

I think the only people that wouldn't agree that Whedon is a great idea have an unreasonable dislike of him

Except as I said, I like Whedon as a writer, so you're wrong. Sorry about that. Whedon is a bit of a Claremont clone, but that's no bad thing in my book. As a director it's a different story. He's not very visually driven; his work doesn't have a distinctive style and is frankly pedestrian more often than not. This is frequently hidden by the nature of TV production and fans' affection for his characters, but the only people who would ever hold him up as a solid action director are fans of his franchises. I love Serenity for its characters, but the direction is workmanlike and hardly bodes well for what should be a hugely OTT comic book spectacle.

But he may well surprise us.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

There isn't a fanbase that gets butthurt quicker than the Whedonites. Wow. You should read my email and Twitter DMs this morning. These folks make Star Wars nerds, Avatards, and even Twilight weirdos look absolutely rational.

 

[FQRizzo]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Astonishing X-Men was awesome. I approve of Whedon directing the Avengers.

...and no, I'm not a Whe-tard.

 

[Deckard]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

____ing Epic Catastrophe.

I will gain no friends on this board I'm sure, but I still think Whedon is one of the most overrated men in the buissness. Always thought Buffy, Angel and Dollhouse were just crap. Sorry. Needed to be said.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I don't think those shows are crap (well, maybe Dollhouse). In fact, I quite enjoy watching Buffy, Firefly, etc. They are just insanely over-valued. And I do agree that Joss Whedon is one of the most overrated things around in general.

The only film he's ever directed was "Serenity", and that was just a glorified TV movie based on his own work and characters. This is a huge, huge, HUGE risk by Marvel. And, imho, a completely unnecessary one. This will need more than the devotion of Whedonites alone if it doesn't work.

 

[Deckard]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Serenity was ok, like a 7/10 for me. Mediocre really, and its his best project. Giving him the awesomeness of all these kick ass heroes interacting with quirky scenes between Stark and Rogers just don't seem like something he can do.

And speaking of which, Chris Evans better not be a smart ass Johnny Storm version of Captain America or its going to be even worse.

Honestly I'd rather have no movie at all and let Iron Man and Hulk remain good films with no tie to this thing which seems to be getting worse and worse with every announcement. Joe Johnston and Chris Evans were the first thing that made me take a step back, this just makes me want to hit rewind. Hell just give the movie to Brett Ratner.

 

[Chapter 2099]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

No, it didn't, which is why there was never a sequel.

Serenity surprised a lot of people, critics included, and considering it was a movie based on a canceled television series with an 11-aired episode run, it did quite well. Was it a summer blockbuster? No. But it exceeded a lot of expectations and held it's own. That to me is impressive.

As for your post, I don't quite follow the logic. Titantic did amazing at the box office in terms of sales, and yet there was never a sequel. Independence Day and Forrest Gump did phenomenal. None of those had sequels, so does that make them not successful?

Then you have movies like those in the Saw series. What are they up to now? Six? I don't see those winning Oscars anytime soon. I'm not saying Serenity broke all kinds of records, that it will go down as one of the most memorable movies of all time, or that it's the greatest creation of all time. What I'm saying is that it held it's own in terms of numbers, had great reviews, and consequently, had successful DVD sales. There's a lot of movies out there that can't say the same. I'm sure it won't hurt Whedon's resume.

 

[Kabukiman]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I'm looking forward to seeing what Whedon can do on a budget. I think I'd be more excited about him writing the film than directing it though.

Writing =
Directing = We'll see.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I think he was trying to point out that "Serenity" was a huge disappointment at the box office (because it was) and that's the reason why there wasn't/won't be a sequel. That's actually quite simple logic, really.

Also, he's not even 100% golden with his writing all the time, either. I guess I have to point out that in Whedon's last foray into superhero movies (he did a script polish on X-MEN) he was responsible for one of the worst lines in film history (you know, something about toads and lightning... I can't even reiterate it it's so painful).

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Deckard]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Yea but do you know what happens to a director when it gets hit by lightning?

 

[FQRizzo]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Yea but do you know what happens to a director when it gets hit by lightning?

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Astonishing X-Men was awesome. I approve of Whedon directing the Avengers.

Writing a comic and directing an action movie are two different skill sets.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

he was responsible for one of the worst lines in film history (you know, something about toads and lightning... I can't even reiterate it it's so painful).

And then he blamed Halle's delivery (which was also awful in and of itself) as if another actress would have made that an epic moment.

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Serenity surprised a lot of people, critics included, and considering it was a movie based on a canceled television series with an 11-aired episode run, it did quite well.

That doesn't make it a box office success.

As for your post, I don't quite follow the logic. Titantic did amazing at the box office in terms of sales, and yet there was never a sequel.

Serenity was intended to be the first film in a franchise. Its box office didn't justify making another one. The other movies you mention weren't intended to launch franchises.

Then you have movies like those in the Saw series.

Those movies keep being made because they achieved their financial objectives. Serenity did not. I like Serenity. But in the business of the box office it failed - and frankly it's not hard to see why. It made $10 million in its opening weekend and barely pulled $25 million across its entire domestic run. Its budget was $39 million before advertising. Even taking into consideration its global ticket sales (a pathetic $13 million internationally), the movie lost money. FAIL. Saw VI by comparison made $28 million ($62 million globally) and cost just $11 million. WIN.

Don't let your fandom blind you to the business reality.

What I'm saying is that it held it's own in terms of numbers

As you can see, it clearly didn't.

Meanwhile we have Whedon directing one bomb film and a bunch of TV episodes. Which of those episodes suggests to you he can handle a $100 million CG action flick where the Hulk throws a car through a building?