Joss Whedon Remains Undecided About ‘Avengers 2′

[Mr. Adventure]

DWF wrote:

---

It was supposewdly poor marketing that blame for Serenity's failure, yet somehow the hype for the Avengers gets no credit, that's what's interesting.

touche'

[DevilEyes]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

Terrence Malick could have directed Avengers and gotten a one billion dollar box office. Lars von Trier could have directed Avengers and gotten a one billion dollar box office. Whedon was a hired gun on Avenger; frankly, he needed Avengers more than Avengers needed him.

Stupid studio. Why did they think that they should pick and choose how to hire as a director and screenwriter? Obviously that makes no difference, since every big budget movie with popular characters and a lot of promotion earns a billions dollars at the office. There's never been a comic superhero flop or a just moderate success.

Oh, wait...

Sysyphyx wrote:

---

Never was a big Whedon fan until just recently. l liked Avengers, but absolutely LOVED The Cabin ln the Woods. Never really watched much Buffy, Angel, or any other tweeny bullshit for that matter, but l gotta say he really hit the mark with Avengers. Would love for him to do a sequel since he seems to know what hes doing in this field, instead of passing it on to whatever MTV generation hack that Avi Arad indecisively pulls out of his ass.

"Tweeny bullshit?"

Never really watched much

Ah, well that explains it.

A piece of advice: try not to talk about things you haven't watched and have no clue about. You'll just make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

[Mr. Adventure]

It's hard to know for sure, I think the movie would've been successful regardless but going from personal experience I think the level of its success has been from good word-of-mouth. I've certainly heard a lot of praise from many circles with this one. (again, judging from my own little world....)

[RoJoHen]

When we say "successful" with regards to The Avengers, I don't think we're strictly talking money. This movie was going to make tons of money regardless of the director. What Whedon is really good at is bringing characters from diverse backgrounds together into one story and making it work in a way that feels right. He gets what makes actors and characters tick, and he is great at making them work well together.

Obviously Whedon is not the sole reason for this movie's success. It was going to be successful with or without him. What Whedon managed to do is make this movie live up to, if not exceed, expectations. This movie could have easily been a huge critical disappointment given how built up it was.

We really shouldn't be questioning Whedon's role in the success of this film. We should be wondering if a different actor can pull off an equally awesome movie.

[FPAlpha]

I think Whedon is very integral to the success of Avengers.

Whedon is king of nerd culture and therefore perfect for this franchise.. he's got the tools of the trade by helming 3 "nerd" shows and several other projects so he knows the audience and he knows how to write/direct.

All successful superhero movies were made by people who understood the characters and settings and understood what made these characters what they are and then they managed to capture that on film.. Spiderman, Iron Man, Nolan's Batman and so on.

The Avengers was going to be a financial success no matter what.. it was simply big enough not to fail but it could have been just a mediocre movie if someone would have directed/written it without understanding the culture and vibe of superhero comics.. the movie would then be an amalgamation of overproduced action scenes with groan worthy one liners.. it may have been a Michael Bay movie. Avengers was still heavy on CGI and one liners but Whedon inserted heart and balance into it because he understands the medium and the fans.

Whedon may not be the best guy to write/direct some social, Oscar worthy drama but he damn well understands comic book heroes and knows how to write them.

I'm not too worried by what he said at Comic Con.. the man is currently focused on the Firefly anniversary so let him finish that and then the real talks can begin (and no doubt did he already have talks about Avengers 2 with the studio.. especially when it took off like a rocket both financially and fan approval wise).

[Dream]

Anyone disappointed with how Marvel Studios has treated its movie directors? Every time they do a sequel they go with a new director. It makes them look cheap to me.

Only Iron Man 2 had the same director as the original Iron Man.

[JarodRussell]

How about getting Nolan to direct?

Dream wrote:

---

Anyone disappointed with how Marvel Studios has treated its movie directors? Every time they do a sequel they go with a new director. It makes them look cheap to me.

Only Iron Man 2 had the same director as the original Iron Man.

Actually, that's something I appreciate. They also change the whole creative team. Each film has his own composer, writers, directors of cinematography, editors, production designer, costume designer...

[Caliburn24]

Marvel Studios is notoriously tightfisted with the purse strings, but also with the creative strings. Whedon will presumably ask for more money to direct Avengers II, and perhaps more creative freedom. Favreau supposedly had to incorporate a lot of elements into Ironman II that he did not want, but which the studio demanded(which partly account for it being a step down from the first movie). I don't see Whedon giving up as much creative control as easily.

The combination of keeping costs down and maintaining creative control could very well get the Marvel execs to go for someone cheaper and more manageable. I think Brett Ratner probably has an opening in his schedule.

[JarodRussell]

Another thing is that Marvel now belongs to Disney. I think that might change a lot.

[Dream]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Another thing is that Marvel now belongs to Disney. I think that might change a lot.

Yeah, I keep forgetting this. Disney pretty much has unlimited money. How else could they gave that flop John Carter a 250 million budget?

Money won't be a problem for Marvel.

Marvel, give Joss Whedon whatever he wants so he will return for Avengers 2!

[Snaploud]

My guess is that Marvel is playing hard-ball with Whedon. 'Undecided' is code for "the offer isn't good enough yet."

[Christopher]

^Why try to read it as a code or deception of any kind? It makes perfect sense to think that he's genuinely, literally undecided, given that he surely has other options being offered to him and it makes good professional sense to weigh them all. Heck, it would be foolish for him not to keep an open mind at this point. And like I said, it's hardly unusual for a director to say he's undecided about a sequel this early in the game. It's happened numerous times before. Not as melodramatic and juicy as believing there's some secret nastiness going on behind the scenes, but routine things happen more often than dramatic things.

[DWF]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Why try to read it as a code or deception of any kind? It makes perfect sense to think that he's genuinely, literally undecided, given that he surely has other options being offered to him and it makes good professional sense to weigh them all. Heck, it would be foolish for him not to keep an open mind at this point. And like I said, it's hardly unusual for a director to say he's undecided about a sequel this early in the game. It's happened numerous times before. Not as melodramatic and juicy as believing there's some secret nastiness going on behind the scenes, but routine things happen more often than dramatic things.

It's also pretty common for a director to start planning a sequel even before the first movie has come out. IT is rather odd for Marvel not to have insured his direction of a sequel given how little time they actually have. Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 come out next year and Captain America 2 in 2014, if Marvel still wants two movies a year they better get going on The Avengers 2. Plus there's some doubt about RDJ's involved in the series following Iron Man 3.

[Sysyphyx]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

"Tweeny bullshit?"

Ah, well that explains it.

A piece of advice: try not to talk about things you haven't watched and have no clue about. You'll just make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

lf you were able to read properly through all that red nerd rage of yours you would know that what l said was l never watched it "much". l did watch it enough to get a clue and form an opinion, and l'm standing by my "tweeny bullshit" assessment. So take your little piece of advice and shove it up- nah. l guess l'll be the gentleman here. A good day to you, sir.

[Christopher]

I don't think you watched nearly enough, then, since "tweeny" doesn't make sense at all. If I interpret that right, you're referring to "tweens," which is a slang term for children between 10 and 12 years old, and that's absolutely not the target audience for Buffy and Angel, which were definitely for older teens and adults only with plenty of sex and violence -- not to mention plenty of mature, sophisticated characterization and exploration of the themes of becoming an adult and facing the responsibilities and painful transitions that come with it. Angel in particular skewed older than Buffy, since it didn't deal with high school or college or maturation and was more about adult characters.