Joss Whedon Remains Undecided About ‘Avengers 2′

[Dream]

Joss Whedon said today during a Comic-Con press conference for his series Firefly‘s 10-year anniversary that he hasn’t committed to making the sequel to Marvel’s The Avengers, this year’s massive Disney tentpole that he directed and co-wrote. “I have not come to a decision on directing Avengers 2 yet,” he said. “I am having too much fun with this (Firefly reunion) now.” The Marvel superhero pic is the third-highest-grossing movie of all time to date, and has racked up $612.3 million domestically and $1.46 billion worldwide, so having the architect back for a sequel is top of mind.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/comi...ut-avengers-2/

I REALLY hope Whedon returns for the sequel. Nothing sounds better to me than the words "Joss Whedon's Avengers trilogy".

How important do you consider getting Whedon back for the sequel to be? Do you think Whedon was an important reason for how huge Avengers turned out or do you consider him a director for hire?

[Allyn Gibson]

Dream wrote:

---

I REALLY hope Whedon returns for the sequel. Nothing sounds better to me than the words "Joss Whedon's Avengers trilogy".

How important do you consider getting Whedon back for the sequel to be? Do you think Whedon was an important reason for how huge Avengers turned out or do you consider him a director for hire?

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.

The idea of a singular Avengers trilogy is somewhat laughable. It's likely that Iron Man 3 will be Downey's last time suiting up as the Armored Avenger. Even if Downey has a good time making Iron Man 3 and wouldn't be opposed to doing more, Marvel isn't going to want another payout like Downey got for Avengers, and they're certainly not going to want an entire cast getting back-end deals for Downey-like money on a third Avengers film. Kevin Feige has already said that Downey will be replaced; it will happen sooner rather than later.

[lurok]

The only really important element I thought Whedon brought to the party was his dialogue/banter , which for me really made the film (quim, anyone?). The action was pretty perfunctory (if entertaining), and isn't most of that stuff done by second unit/stunt directors anyway?

[Captain Craig]

Whedon's contribution to the film's success is universally heralded. Without his dialogue and pacing the film loses some charm. The gamble would be will people show up for the sequel regardless? Can we turnover Whedon and worry about Avengers 3 at a later time.

Marvel--this isn't the time to gamble. Yes, people are going to show up for TA2 but they will expect the same type film they got. New people in charge of the script and directing will be noticeable.

[sonak]

I also agree that Whedon was not the key ingredient to the film's success. The effects, actions, and characters are the key ingredient. Look how easily Ruffalo stepped in as a new Hulk. I doubt it'll make much difference if it's Whedon for Avengers 2 or not.

[Captain Craig]

Who do you think directed the action? Who gave the characters their voice?
Whedon was the largest part of what made the film work and this thread is the first time I've seen anyone give opinion to the contrary.

[Christopher]

This hardly seems like news to me. You'd hear the same from any film-series director this early in the process. We heard the same from Abrams about his second Star Trek movie, from Peter Jackson about The Hobbit, etc. Directing a movie is a huge investment of time and effort, and surely a director as successful as Whedon is right now is getting plenty of other offers that he needs to weigh against doing Avengers 2. So it's natural that he'd take his time before deciding.

lurok wrote:

---

The only really important element I thought Whedon brought to the party was his dialogue/banter , which for me really made the film (quim, anyone?). The action was pretty perfunctory (if entertaining), and isn't most of that stuff done by second unit/stunt directors anyway?

The second-unit directors and stunt choreographers, like everyone else, answer to the director. He approves or rejects all their suggestions and their job is to enact his decisions. Everything you see onscreen in a feature film has the director's stamp on it.

I think Whedon is a superb action director, particularly in Serenity, where he had the good judgment to rely on long master takes and let Summer Glau and the other stunt performers really show off their skill, rather than hacking everything into second-long cuts like most filmmakers these days. There wasn't as much of that in Avengers, due to the much greater VFX demands, but you could see his trademark in that elaborate "master shot" that tracked from one Avenger to the next to the next without any visible cuts, like a CGI/action equivalent of the opening-titles sequence in Serenity.

[sidious618]

He might also not want to say anything if he wants more money. I he's like, "Hmm... I don't know about a second one" then the studio might throw him a little more money and say, "Well how about now?"

[Mr. Adventure]

He doesn't want to take time away from doing the Firefly reboot on The Science Channel.

[Timby]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Who do you think directed the action? Who gave the characters their voice?
Whedon was the largest part of what made the film work and this thread is the first time I've seen anyone give opinion to the contrary.

Whedon's direction was terrible. The Avengers succeeded in spite of him, not because of him. That film had the most perfunctory, dull and, quite frankly, boring action I've seen in a summer blockbuster in quite some time, with everything framed in a method that actually nullifies any sensation of physicality whatsoever. It's basically the textbook definition of "not visceral in the slightest." Whedon's a halfway-decent writer, but he's just terrible as a director. His action scenes in The Avengers exist solely to have dudes make comic book poses: It's action as empty, meaningless time-filling material, essentially Whedon playing with action figures.

Honestly, it's identical to how the film presents wiretapping, torture, terrorism, genocide, so on and so forth. It's "political." Wiretapping is shrugged off as no big deal. Torture is reduced to just a word.

So, yeah, I'd be very happy if a different director were to tackle the next installment.

[LaxScrutiny]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Who do you think directed the action? Who gave the characters their voice?
Whedon was the largest part of what made the film work and this thread is the first time I've seen anyone give opinion to the contrary.

I like Whedon, I've followed his work and enjoyed it, but it's a bit overeaching to say he was 100% responsible for Avengers.

Whedon wasn't involved in the other movies, the dialogue in Avengers for Downey was comparable and not really better or deeper than it was for IM and IM2. Thor was handled much much better by Branagh than by Whedon, hands down. Ruffalo should certainly get credit for his own abilities, Whedon is great at letting a good actor act. Jackson played the same character in each movie, the same way, same style, same characterization; it wasn't Whedon who made Nick Fury fun to watch, it was Jackson.

It would have been easy to muck up Avengers and Whedon should get full credit for synthesizing work done by other writers and directors. With the exception of Thor, none of the characters really lost anything from their own films, and Whedon kept them all consistant. At the same time, I wouldn't say he added much that wasn't already present in the series of movies we had to date.

Whedon did a good job. I certainly think Favreau could have done as well. I think Johnston had a better feel for Cap and Branagh brought out more dimensions to Thor's character and personality.

What else is Whedon doing now? Cabin in the Woods II? Avengers was arguably the greatest commercial success Whedon has ever had. I'm not knocking Firefly fans, or people who liked Cabin in the Woods, I enjoyed them too, but Avengers is what is opening doors for him now.

[RoJoHen]

Whedon is great when it comes to working with ensembles. If anyone was going to be responsible for bringing together this rag-tag group of heroes, I'm glad it was him. He can take characters with vastly different personalities and give them chemistry that other directors might not get a handle on. For that reason alone, I'd love to see Whedon back for Avengers 2.

However, if the success of the first Avengers film now gives Whedon the resources to work on some of his own projects, I'd be all for that as well.

[T'Baio]

I think the success of The Avengers as a film, not as a billion dollar phenomenon that has just as much to do with expectations and franchise loyalty, has everything to do with Whedon.

His writing, and his deft handling of a film with many characters, all who were given important and meaningful things to do, was evident, and done better than other films with fewer characters...like Iron Man 2. The amazing rebirth of the Hulk, for instance, has so much to do with Whedon understanding the character. He understood them all, and that's why it worked. His pacing, writing, shooting and editing of the interactions between the characters are what made the film amazing.

That's what's most important to me. If the action is mid-level (which I don't think it is), it doesn't matter to me. It was the character scenes that made me love the film.

[davejames]

Timby wrote:

---

Whedon's direction was terrible. The Avengers succeeded in spite of him, not because of him. That film had the most perfunctory, dull and, quite frankly, boring action I've seen in a summer blockbuster in quite some time, with everything framed in a method that actually nullifies any sensation of physicality whatsoever. It's basically the textbook definition of "not visceral in the slightest." Whedon's a halfway-decent writer, but he's just terrible as a director. His action scenes in The Avengers exist solely to have dudes make comic book poses: It's action as empty, meaningless time-filling material, essentially Whedon playing with action figures.

Honestly, it's identical to how the film presents wiretapping, torture, terrorism, genocide, so on and so forth. It's "political." Wiretapping is shrugged off as no big deal. Torture is reduced to just a word.

So, yeah, I'd be very happy if a different director were to tackle the next installment.

Not sure what movie you were watching. Sure Whedon may not be the great action director that ever lived, but the showdowns in this movie alone (between Iron Man and Thor, Thor and Hulk, and even Cap and Loki) were awesome and exciting as hell, and better than anything in the previous Marvel movies.

I'm not even a Marvel guy, and I was seriously geeking out at that shit.

I think Whedon was invaluable in making this movie work. Sure it was going to do huge business no matter what, but so did Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 2. That's very different form the movie actually being good and being something you want to watch again and again.

[Sysyphyx]

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.