Joss Whedon Remains Undecided About ‘Avengers 2′

[nightwind1]

Sysyphyx wrote:

---

Oooh. l'm real scared.

So apparently, on this forum, the guidelines only apply to people who express their opinions and then defend themselves when they are called out by other members who form the differing Majority. Wow. Sounds like a fascist regime to me. Fuck the lot of ya.

[SalvorHardin]

Sysyphyx wrote:

---

Oooh. l'm real scared.

So apparently, on this forum, the guidelines only apply to people who express their opinions and then defend themselves when they are called out by other members who form the differing Majority. Wow. Sounds like a fascist regime to me. Fuck the lot of ya.

[Neroon]

Pssst.... the "Comments to PM" advisory applies to everyone, so unless you also want infractions let's just move back to the topic.

[inflatabledalek]

Christopher wrote:

---

Well, I haven't seen that Transformers movie, but there were a couple of features about the Avengers Manhattan battle that stood out for me and that I doubt would've been true of a Michael Bay action sequence:

1) The focus stayed on the characters. Although there was plenty of destruction porn, the characters of the Avengers and their particular traits remained at the forefront of our attention: Captain America inspired and led people, Widow was fearless and resourceful, Hulk was mainly in it for the smashing but came through for his teammates when it counted, etc. The most important beats weren't explosions and crashes, but character moments.

There certainly is a focus on the main TF characters, though I know for a lot of people that's not a good thing considering how... well if not hated then at least not liked a lot of the film characterisations are. I know there are a lot of fans who really don't like Prime's "Lets end this, kill 'em all" approach. I tend to veer between agreeing (he's a children's hero rather than a realistic war leader) and disagreeing (it's a logical progression, the events of the first film basically showed trying to lock up Megatron would be a fool's errand and just causes more trouble down the line).

I think what tips me towards the later is, following the previous two hours (betrayed, one of his best friends killed, told to sod off by the humans even though that leads to them nearly being all killed) Prime being exceptionally pissed off as he heads into Chicago is fairly understandable.

2) The civilians weren't ignored. The heroes' first priority, as it should be for superheroes, was to protect the innocent and rescue the endangered. Even in the middle of this huge apocalyptic battle, they were taking the time to free people trapped in buses and coordinate evacuations and rescue hostages and so on.

That doesn't translate totally though, by the time the Autobots are able to fight back (thanks to be forced off planet by the US Government) Chicago has been occupied for long enough there aren't any civilians left.

Don't get me wrong, the end of Avengers works fine. And considering the similarity of setting and that a lot of the same ILM people likely worked on both it's understandable there's a lot of bleed through on design and style up of the action scenes. It just wasn't as "Wow" as some of the previous set pieces (the Hellicarrier stuff is brilliant, and I don't think off the top of my head I've seen anything quite like it in a film before. Though now I've said that people will be able to come up with 50 of my favourite films that do) because of the "I saw a lot of this last year" feeling.

In general, I actually think the biggest achievement of the film in general Marvel terms was the rehabilitation of the Hulk. I don't think anyone was expecting the one big name character/actor not coming off the back of a recent, succesful, film to help set them up to very nearly manage to steal the whole film from Downey Jr.

[JarodRussell]

Let's give everyone infractions!




I guess they should wait a bit with the development of Avengers 2. Who knows what villain or plot element of the next Iron Man, Captain America and Thor movie resonates the most with critics and audiences.

[RoJoHen]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Who knows what villain or plot element of the next Iron Man, Captain America and Thor movie resonates the most with critics and audiences.

That's kind of what I'm interested in seeing. The first round of movies were used as a way to build up to The Avengers. Will the sequels do the same thing, or will Avengers 2 just have its own story that wasn't based on something already established?

For example, will Loki be dealt with in Thor 2? Or will they save that for Avengers 2? What movie is Thanos actually going to be in?

[Christopher]

inflatabledalek wrote:

---

There certainly is a focus on the main TF characters, though I know for a lot of people that's not a good thing considering how... well if not hated then at least not liked a lot of the film characterisations are. I know there are a lot of fans who really don't like Prime's "Lets end this, kill 'em all" approach. I tend to veer between agreeing (he's a children's hero rather than a realistic war leader) and disagreeing (it's a logical progression, the events of the first film basically showed trying to lock up Megatron would be a fool's errand and just causes more trouble down the line).

See, what's interesting there is that when talking about the characters, you're only talking about the ones that are special-effects creatures. Not that I have anything against nonhuman characters, but it does suggest something about the difference in emphasis.

That doesn't translate totally though, by the time the Autobots are able to fight back (thanks to be forced off planet by the US Government) Chicago has been occupied for long enough there aren't any civilians left.

Which reinforces my point that the filmmakers' attention wasn't on protecting innocent lives at all. The Avengers's climactic battle wasn't just about warriors killing each other, it was about heroes saving lives. I think that's a critical difference. Rescuing and protecting is, to me, the most important part of what superheroes (or heroes in general) do, and it's a part that I feel is too often downplayed in movies in favor of having the characters get caught up in their own personal battles. (Look at the ending of the first Fantastic Four movie, for instance. The FF aren't defending anyone except themselves, and they even endanger the whole world by using Johnny's nova blast to protect themselves. Which is a complete inversion of what superhero stories should be about.) While The Avengers did keep the film's focus and the audience's focus on the characters, it never forgot that the characters' own focus was on defending other people, not just protecting themselves or killing someone they had a grudge against. (Although I could've done without the casual killing of the Chitauri.)

Don't get me wrong, the end of Avengers works fine. And considering the similarity of setting and that a lot of the same ILM people likely worked on both it's understandable there's a lot of bleed through on design and style up of the action scenes.

What I'm saying is that for me there'd be a big difference between that stuff (the effects and action and design and so forth) being the primary focus in and of itself and just being in the background of a narrative that's primarily focused on people. If it's about people, if there are emotional stakes to engage me, that gives me a reason to care about it in a way I wouldn't if it were just an orgy of CGI effects. (I used to be able to love special effects for their own sake back when they were more limited, when it was more impressive what people were able to pull off with clever techniques, but in this day and age, not so much.)

In general, I actually think the biggest achievement of the film in general Marvel terms was the rehabilitation of the Hulk. I don't think anyone was expecting the one big name character/actor not coming off the back of a recent, succesful, film to help set them up to very nearly manage to steal the whole film from Downey Jr.

For me, the rehabilitation of Black Widow -- and Scarlett Johansson -- was more impressive. In Iron Man 2, basically all she did was look great, and the energy level of the film seemed to drop twenty percent every time she actually spoke. Here, she became practically the central character -- the first Avenger we saw, the recruiter of the second, the one who deduced Loki's plan by out-tricking the trickster, the one who ultimately found and enacted the solution that closed the portal -- and Johansson managed to give a more engaging performance than I've seen from her before. I think Natasha was as much a breakout character as Bruce.

And yeah, I said Bruce. How is Hulk the breakout character? He basically had two big funny moments and one Big Damn Hero moment and the rest was just the usual rampaging. It was Bruce Banner who was actually the interesting character, and the one who thereby made the Hulk worth caring about.

And I think that most of what Whedon did to handle the Hulk so effectively came in the Hulk's absence. He did a great job building the Hulk's reputation in the first half, showing us through other characters' reactions why the Hulk was a big deal. Never more effectively than by building up Natasha as this completely cold, fearless, ultracompetent superspy and then showing her downright terrified by what this mild-mannered guy standing opposite her had the potential to turn into. What Whedon achieved through character alone was a more impressive special effect than all the CGI and performance capture at their disposal.

[Samurai8472]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

How about getting Nolan to direct?

-Iron Man won't fly. He'll use a prototype jet.

-Captain America uses a form of steroids

-Hulk is actually a fear induced creature. There is no "Hulk"

-Hawkeye will miss a few shots when firing his bow and arrow.

-The hellicarrier stays grounded.

[Christopher]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

-Iron Man won't fly. He'll use a prototype jet.

Nolan's Batman can glide on a "memory cloth" cape, even though science says it would kill him in real life.

-Captain America uses a form of steroids

Which isn't really that far from the truth already. The Super Soldier serum doesn't make Steve superhuman, just elevates him to peak human potential, so it's not beyond the realm of plausibility.

-Hawkeye will miss a few shots when firing his bow and arrow.

Better yet, Hawkeye will be played by an actor who's actually a competent archer.

-The hellicarrier stays grounded.

Nolan's giving us a flying Batmobile.

[junxon]

get clint eastwood to direct it.

[Wereghost]

If anyone wants to know what a Nolan-directed Avengers might have been like, they could do worse than check out Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch's run on The Ultimates, which takes the concept to some very dark places indeed and has "widescreen" written all over it. I don't think

Cap breaking Giant Man's jaw for beating up the Wasp or the Hulk killing civilians and eating his enemies

would go down too well with mainstream audiences, though.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Hulk gnash!

[Garak]

Sysyphyx wrote:

---

Oooh. l'm real scared.

So apparently, on this forum, the guidelines only apply to people who express their opinions and then defend themselves when they are called out by other members who form the differing Majority. Wow. Sounds like a fascist regime to me. Fuck the lot of ya.

Hi friend! Just so you know there's a forum here called the Neutral Zone where the rules are far more lax and you can get away with talk like that. Just a friendly suggestion!

Cheers!

[JarodRussell]

Christopher wrote:

---

Nolan's giving us a flying Batmobile.

Haha, now come on, the Bat is much more believable than a flying aircraft carrier. Seriously. Even the Iron Man suit is much more believable than a flying aircraft carrier.

[DWF]

Christopher wrote:

---

That doesn't translate totally though, by the time the Autobots are able to fight back (thanks to be forced off planet by the US Government) Chicago has been occupied for long enough there aren't any civilians left.

Which reinforces my point that the filmmakers' attention wasn't on protecting innocent lives at all. The Avengers's climactic battle wasn't just about warriors killing each other, it was about heroes saving lives. I think that's a critical difference. Rescuing and protecting is, to me, the most important part of what superheroes (or heroes in general) do, and it's a part that I feel is too often downplayed in movies in favor of having the characters get caught up in their own personal battles. (Look at the ending of the first Fantastic Four movie, for instance. The FF aren't defending anyone except themselves, and they even endanger the whole world by using Johnny's nova blast to protect themselves. Which is a complete inversion of what superhero stories should be about.) While The Avengers did keep the film's focus and the audience's focus on the characters, it never forgot that the characters' own focus was on defending other people, not just protecting themselves or killing someone they had a grudge against. (Although I could've done without the casual killing of the Chitauri.)
[/QUOTE]

Since there were civilians left in Chicago the innocents were safe thanks to the local goverment. The athorities in the Avengers movie seem to just stand around and wait for the heroes to do things, one cop even asked Cap. what kind of athority he had to give him orders. And the Chitauri appeared to be robots of some sort since once hte mothership was taken out they all collapsed.