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

[FQRizzo]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

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

Understanding the team dynamic is what I'm concerned with.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I agree that Whedon does not create eye popping visuals in anything he's done. But everything he HAS done has heart. There is a real emotional investment in the characters, and clever/unique situations for the characters to navigate through. Maybe he won't stage an overly complex, multi-camera dolly shot with explosions, but he will create a story where you feel for the characters and share in their triumphs and losses.

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Understanding the team dynamic is what I'm concerned with.

He's not writing the script AFAIK.

I agree that Whedon does not create eye popping visuals in anything he's done. But everything he HAS done has heart. There is a real emotional investment in the characters, and clever/unique situations for the characters to navigate through. Maybe he won't stage an overly complex, multi-camera dolly shot with explosions, but he will create a story where you feel for the characters and share in their triumphs and losses.

He's not writing the script AFAIK.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Usually the directors meet with the writers and discuss story ideas together. I know Spielberg (with Lucas) conferred with the writers for the final drafts (it's in the Making of IJ book) giving suggestions for some of the sequences. And I know Martin Campbell also contributed to the story in Goldeneye, saying in the commentary that they all came up with the tank chase scene. So I know that it's not unusual for the director to contribute to key story elements. I'm sure Whedon would not resist putting his 2¢ in and even doing a script polish on his own.

If anything, I think it's more rare that a director does not contribute anything to the story and shoots exactly what's in the script.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

There is no way they hire Whedon to direct and he doesn't have enormous input into the script.

I still maintain that this is no more a gamble for Marvel than Favreau or Jackson was for New Line. It's more of a sure thing since he at least knows how to work within a budget. Sure you could give it to James Cameron and it would cost 500 Mil and take 5 years to make. Who else would you like to see direct Avengers if not Whedon?

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

If anything, I think it's more rare that a director does not contribute anything to the story and shoots exactly what's in the script.

The director does not rewrite the entire script. It's silly to assume any of the trademark Whedon story flourishes will be there unless he's getting paid to write a new draft. That's simply not how the business works.

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

There is no way they hire Whedon to direct and he doesn't have enormous input into the script.

AFAIK the script already exists. It's possible he'll be hired to pen a new draft, but anyone who thinks it's going to be modified on the fly to be more Whedonesque needs to come back down to earth. It's also worth remembering Whedon has openly stated he has no affinity for these characters, which is why he doesn't write Avengers comics.

I still maintain that this is no more a gamble for Marvel than Favreau or Jackson was for New Line. It's more of a sure thing since he at least knows how to work within a budget.

He made one movie that lost money and was not exactly lauded for its action sequences. So it's actually quite an unusual choice, especially since Whedon has continually proven incapable of reaching beyond his cult audience.

Who else would you like to see direct Avengers if not Whedon?

Realistically, they should have given it to Favreau or Leterrier. I would have liked to have seen a more offbeat choice personally. There's always the possibility Whedon knocks it out of the park, but looking at his work as a director inspires no confidence he can handle this sort of picture.

 

[Kabukiman]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

They should've given Iron Man to Bryan Singer rather than Jon Favreau. And why Ridley Scott didn't get LotR is beyond me.

 

[twistedfreak]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I'm not a fan of Whedons. I would have much preferred to see someone else direct this. I think Sam Raimi could have pulled it off, but alas what happened with the SM franchise. I would have been fine with Favrau or Leterrier too. Hopefully Avi Arad will play a MAJOR role in how this movie turns out.

 

[tomandshell]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I tend to agree with Barbelith. I don't think that Whedon has shown an ability to deliver a breakout success beyond his small but faithful cult following. This could be the project that introduces him to the mainstream--but when your feature film resume includes only one movie (which had a ten million dollar opening weekend), this could be more of a risk for Marvel. But I think that by that point, people will be showing up no matter what.

I just hope that he doesn't have a hand in the screenplay, since his writing style tries far too hard to be "hip" and "smart" and "edgy" but doesn't always succeed.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Working within a budget - I was referring to bringing in a mini-movie in 8 days for 2 mil. dollars.

And saying that the script won't have Whedonesque flourishes is a bit naive, especially considering Robert Downey Jr. (claimed) to rewrite half his dialogue for IM as they were shooting. Joss will at least do a polish although probably uncredited.

Hip, smart and edgy are exactly what a superhero movie needs.

 

[Chapter 2099]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

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.

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.

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).

It wasn't a financial "blockbuster." I agree with you there. Could it have done better? Yeah. Was it a financial "failure?" Not in my opinion. What Serenity lacked in ticket sales, it more than made up for in DVD sales, rentals, etc., due in large part because of "good" reviews from the critics and its strong fan base. To address your point, if someone adds up the numbers for Serenity, they're there. Universal didn't lose any money on this deal. That seems pretty logical to me.

My main point earlier wasn't about financial success. Given the foundation that it was built upon (i.e. a television series of 14 episodes,) Serenity did very well. (And yes, that is an opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.) The success of a movie is more than just the revenue they earn, which is probably why I'm not in the movie business. It is possible to have a qualified resume for a comic book-based movie in today's day and age, without having a title like "Avatar" or some other multi-, multi-million dollar grossing "blockbuster" under your belt. And in my opinion, Joss is a shining example of just that.

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

There's no "blind" fandom involved, when I know what a director/writer/producer is capable of. If I'm "blind," then so is Marvel Studios for even considering him in the running for this movie. As are they for Captain America, Thor, and every other movie they make in the future because I'm sure they'll consider another just like Joss in the future. Eventually, a "new kid on the block" will show up, get the job done, and impresses us all, despite the lack of hope his followers may or may not have had.

In order to make money in the business reality, people need to take risks. If they don't, I can guarantee you they won't be sitting "on top" for long. And if you're not going to take risks, then why bother?

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?

The same could be said about Favreau, director of such movies like Made, Zanthura, and Elf. (As Dave has already mentioned before.) At the time, I can't exactly say that I envisioned Jon Favreau translating ol' Shell Head onto the "big screen" as well as he did. And if ANYONE honestly predicted that he would make the Iron Man franchise what it is now, please get in touch with me. I'm looking to win the lottery here soon.

If Joss isn't qualified to direct the Avengers, then neither was Favreau for Iron Man. And yet, here he is "on top of the world" years later, directing what has the potential to be one of the biggest movie franchises of all time. (And rightfully so. ) That's pretty impressive for a guy who got his start in "Rudy." As the saying goes, we all start somewhere.

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

And saying that the script won't have Whedonesque flourishes is a bit naive

It will if he's paid to rewrite it (or risks a union battle by taking an unpaid pass at another writer's credited work).

 

[barbelith]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

It wasn't a financial "blockbuster." I agree with you there. Could it have done better? Yeah. Was it a financial "failure?" Not in my opinion.

The only opinion that counts is Universal's. Serenity is seen as a bomb within the industry. The box office lost millions. This may or may not have been made up in home video sales, but that's a different arm of the business, and as we see, none of it persuaded Universal to make any of the planned sequels. So when you say things like Serenity held its own in numbers etc, that's flat out false, sorry.

The same could be said about Favreau, director of such movies like Made, Zanthura, and Elf.

Not really. Elf and Zathura are exactly the kind of movies you'd expect a director to cut his teeth on before a superhero movie. Significant effects/action pieces and an A list headliner. Whedon doesn't have anything to compare with this; his TV direction has been flat (our involvement largely stems from our affection for his characters rather than the direction itself). His sole feature effort lost money, had no A list names and has hardly earned a reputation for its effects/action sequences.

Anyone claiming Whedon is an obvious or even safe choice is blinded by their fandom, because as a director he hasn't proven his chops. But I suppose it's to Marvel's credit they're taking a risk with someone who has consistently proven incapable of attracting a mainstream audience. I'm rooting for him to really bring The Avengers home.

I'm just not holding my breath, is all.

 

[Chapter 2099]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

The only opinion that counts is Universal's. Serenity is seen as a bomb within the industry. The box office lost millions. This may or may not have been made up in home video sales, but that's a different arm of the business, and as we see, none of it persuaded Universal to make any of the planned sequels. So when you say things like Serenity held its own in numbers etc, that's flat out false, sorry.

I agree with you there. Just like the only opinion that matters is Marvel's. And if they want Joss....They'll have Joss, regardless of how well people may or may not believe Serenity did. I have a strange feeling they're not too bothered by Serenity's "numbers" though. Otherwise, why would they even consider him, right? It definitely doesn't bother me, but then again, what does that matter.

Not really. Elf and Zathura are exactly the kind of movies you'd expect a director to cut his teeth on before a superhero movie. Significant effects/action pieces and an A list headliner. Whedon doesn't have anything to compare with this; his TV direction has been flat (our involvement largely stems from our affection for his characters rather than the direction itself). His sole feature effort lost money, had no A list names and has hardly earned a reputation for its effects/action sequences.

Anyone claiming Whedon is an obvious or even safe choice is blinded by their fandom, because as a director he hasn't proven his chops. But I suppose it's to Marvel's credit they're taking a risk with someone who has consistently proven incapable of attracting a mainstream audience. I'm rooting for him to really bring The Avengers home.

I'm just not holding my breath, is all.

I hope you're not insinuating that I said Joss was an "obvious" choice? I was as stunned as the next person. I think he has the credentials.

And again, the rest of your post was all opinion and we're all entitled to those. And I do respect yours.

As for the Avengers, I'll go see it regardless because I'm interested in the source material among many things. There's more to a movie than a director.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Whatever way you cut it, Serenity was considered a failure. I think Joss even mentioned that he had the outline for a trilogy of features. But Universal has no interest in making sequels.

But Zathura was a failure too and was the film that Favreau made right before Iron Man.

 

[Anzik]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Ang Lee is a very good director but I wouldn't call the first Hulk a success. George Lucas is a crappy director and has made billions with lots of sequels. Bryan Singer has done much better work outside of the superhero genre than he has in it. Raimi had a lot of people nervous when he was announced for Spiderman.
Time will tell.
The one thing that has always bothered me about superhero films is that too often the film maker abandons the story that made that hero great. At least with Whedon, he is familiar with the story and characters and has respect for the source material.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

i think Favreau should be a executive producer on the film at least

He is. Which I suppose technically makes him Whedon's boss on the film.

Anyone claiming Whedon is an obvious or even safe choice is blinded by their fandom, because as a director he hasn't proven his chops. But I suppose it's to Marvel's credit they're taking a risk with someone who has consistently proven incapable of attracting a mainstream audience. I'm rooting for him to really bring The Avengers home.

I'm just not holding my breath, is all.

 

[karamazov80]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Admittedly, I haven't seen everything Whedon has done, but though I have enjoyed Firefly/Serenity and the Astonishing X-Men to some extent, I'm not sure that I can see his style translating to a major Avengers film. I think he would have to take a major step away from all the TV stuff he did. I won't write the guy off or anything, but I'm not going to get overly optimistic based on his track record. In some ways, I think a more "serviceable" and conventional director like Joe Johnson would work better for something like this than a guy with such a distinctive and unconventional style like Whedon's.

Bruce Timm should get the job.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I personally did see great potential in Favreau in Zathura. The movie itself was okay, and the action sequences were clever. But what caught my eye was his aesthetic for the effects. They felt real--especially the robot. I saw the behind-the-scenes and saw that he preferred practical effects and physical props to CGI. That gave me a lot of confidence in him, knowing that he knew there was more to a visual effect than just spectacle. I also knew that he was able to create characters that the audience cared about and felt invested in. My only concern going forward with IM was whether the action sequences were going to be great or not. As I said, Zathura was okay--more clever than anything else. Iron Man's action sequences weren't that elaborate. I think it's widely agreed on that the action was a little lacking. I personally disagree with that. I think the action was just right, and made even better because of the involvement you felt with the characters. That's what I think Whedon can bring to the table. He may not create eye-popping visuals, but he knows how to make you care for the characters. And I think that is a million times more important than being able to paint a pretty picture onscreen, like Lucas with the Prequels, Bay with Transformers or Cameron with Avatar.

Of course it would be ideal to get both--strong visuals and great characters. But if I had to put more weight on one than the other, I would pick characters over visuals.