Joss Whedon Remains Undecided About ‘Avengers 2′

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Dream, Jul 14, 2012.

  1. nightwind1

    nightwind1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    [​IMG]
     
  2. SalvorHardin

    SalvorHardin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    Star's End
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Neroon

    Neroon Mod of Balance Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Location:
    On my ship the Rocinante
    Pssst.... the "Comments to PM" advisory applies to everyone, so unless you also want infractions let's just move back to the topic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2012
  4. inflatabledalek

    inflatabledalek Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    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.

    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.
     
  5. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Let's give everyone infractions!

    [​IMG]


    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.
     
  6. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    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?
     
  7. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    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.



    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.)


    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.)


    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.
     
  8. Samurai8472

    Samurai8472 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007

    -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.


    :techman:
     
  9. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Nolan's Batman can glide on a "memory cloth" cape, even though science says it would kill him in real life.


    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.


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


    Nolan's giving us a flying Batmobile.
     
  10. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    get clint eastwood to direct it.
     
  11. Wereghost

    Wereghost Part-time poltergeist Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland
    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.
     
  12. Admiral James Kirk

    Admiral James Kirk Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2001
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
  13. Garak

    Garak Salty Dog Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    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!
     
  14. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    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.
     
  15. DWF

    DWF Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    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.
     
  16. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    And did this person also say that they haven't watched "much of" Lost, but they know it's a bullshit children's show? :rolleyes:

    See, all I told you is that it's not a good idea to talk about and make judgments about something you have no clue about. It's the same reason why it's not a good idea for a critic to write a review of the book after reading two pages of it, or about a movie after watching 10 minutes of it. Like I said, you just make yourself look foolish. (Which is assumed is something you wouldn't want to do... :shifty:)

    I have no doubts you might have caught 2 and a half episodes of Buffy and one and a half of episodes of Angel or something like that, or more, but you clearly haven't seen nearly enough to make an informed opinion, which you proved with the "tweeny bullshit" comment. See, you could have seen all of BtVS and AtS and still think they're bullshit - a matter of taste, de gustibus non disputandum, one man's meat is another man's poison etc. - but it's simply impossible for you to have actually seen a bit more of those shows and think they're aimed at children aged 10-12, since that can be further from the truth, as Christopher explained. Saying that those shows were "tweeny" is factually incorrect. It's like going on a rant about Ron Moore's BSG being shit and saying that what you hated the most was that it had a robot dog in it. Or ranting that Lost was the worst sitcom you've ever seen (and that you thought that guy Gilligan was really annoying).
     
  17. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Great avatar, DevilEyes. :)