Joss Whedon in final negotiations to direct "The Avengers"

[Lindley]

Seriously. Cut the sniping, it isn't accomplishing anything.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I just saw the story that Joss is rewriting Zak Penn's script and this excites me since I'm not a fan of Zak Penn's work.

 

[Turtletrekker]

^My reaction as well.

 

[Venardhi]

One of the arguments that never made sense to me was the "passing the buck" claims. If the Louvre handed over the Mona Lisa to H. R. Giger to 'touch up' and he painted robotic penises coming out of her shoulders and a crown of little demon skulls bursting out of her forehead would anyone blame da Vinci's abilities if it came out looking like shit? Would a living da Vinci be derided as whining if this happened over and over to his work? Should an architect be blamed if the contractor threw out his plans halfway through and built a shoddy shadow of the original design?

(Note: I'm not suggesting the two are necessarily equals, and I rather like a lot of Giger's work.)

 

[BlackestPanther]

Seriously. Cut the sniping, it isn't accomplishing anything.

I agree. Y'all need to relax.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

How they turn out as movies on their own has no direct bearing on Avengers.
The Avengers script is written by another and directed by another. The only element to be relevant is wheter or not the two Chris' did good jobs in their roles as Thor and Cap.

I wouldn't be so sure...if the PTB get it into their heads that Thor and Cap "didn't hold up their poles of the tent", they might cut their losses and cancel Avengers.

I really can't believe the lengths people will go to in order to defend Josh Wheedon.

I can't beleive the lengths some people will go to in order to hate Joss (get it right)...

And Serenity owned your sorry ass. Don't even try it with the notion that box office success equates to quality. You will lose what shreds of cred you may have left.

He had any to begin with?

 

[CaptainCanada]

How they turn out as movies on their own has no direct bearing on Avengers.
The Avengers script is written by another and directed by another. The only element to be relevant is wheter or not the two Chris' did good jobs in their roles as Thor and Cap.

I wouldn't be so sure...if the PTB get it into their heads that Thor and Cap "didn't hold up their poles of the tent", they might cut their losses and cancel Avengers.

On the schedule they've set, probably not. Cap comes out in late July 2011; the Avengers movie less than a year later. Shooting schedules being what they are, they'll probably be done (or midway through) of the production work by the time the success or lack of success of The First Avenger: Captain America; they're committed by then.

Now, if those two films don't meet expectations, expect a very Iron Man-centric ad campaign for the film.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You seem so confident in this, why don't you prove your assertion?

You are the one who originally made it. Back it up or retract it. I know you won't, though. Sounded good at the time, I suppose.

I have this friend who is a nerd and has a website. He says Wheedon is a good choice because has experience on Astonishing X-Men shows a grasp of the material and a good mix of ensemble interaction and action. I say, Colossus returns AGAIN? How inspired!

There was a LOT more than that to his opening arc. The Kitty vs Emma conflict, with Emma showing a new level of self-awareness when she asks Kitty to be the "conscience" of the team because she (Emma) knows that she cannot be that. Hank agonizing over the Cure. Scott getting the team back on track by understanding that they are supposed to be HEROES first and foremost, not just "mutant rights advocates"...there's a LOT of meat in Joss' opening story arc.

 

[3D Master]

BlackestPanther, you are so completely and utterly WRONG about Joss Whedon that everything you're trying to argue just makes me want to break out laughing. However, I take particular umbrage with your assertion that his work has not inspired academic and critical evaluation. If you're going to ignore the Wikipedia article that stonester1 linked you to, why don't you try and ignore THIS:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer/ANGEL Publications that are academic/scholarly in nature:
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Slayer-Ge...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271280860&sr=1-1

Odd how those feminist gender studios on Buffy always seem to miss:

1. The attempted rape of the title character was swept under the rug, focusing instead entirely on the attempted rapist, and the victim willing to send her little sister to the attempted rapist only hours after crime.

2. The female title character regaining her strength by lying in the arms of her attempted rapist, and her attempted rapist depicted as being one of her great immortal loves.

3. The way the female super hero is made is depicted as being against her will with phallic structures trying to get inside - it was depicted as a rape.

4. The title here then "shares" her by number 3 rape-induced power coming from a demonic entity and gives it to a 1000+ girls without asking them - effectively committing mass-rape.

Yes, according to Buffy, if you as a girl want to empower your friends, tie them down, get a broomstick and start raping.

Buffy degenerated into something sick and disgusting. It also happily spent its time considering only the Slayers with super human strength, power and being speshul as the leaders; despite the fact that both Slayers at the time, are about as good at leading anything as gravity is at making something float. Humans, without powers, but with a good set of brains in their heads, both academically and used to leading 1. a battle, and 2. is used to leading a construction crew for years... nah, not speshul enough, not enough super powers.

Angel S5 happily continued this with telling us that we as normal human beings are pathetic and worth nothing, you must be speshul, despite the fact that they were some of the most effective parts of the group in previous years, Wesley is reduced to a pathetic shell, Gunn makes a deal with W&H to gain super intelligence, and Fred gets offed to be possessed and jacked up with super powers by an ancient, old one, demon god.

Buffy S8 comics, happily continues this, with Buffy and Angel becoming Superman and Supergirl, incidentally unleashing an apocalyptic horde of demons upon the world, because apparently nature (despite the fact that demons and such, including the Slayer and the vampires, are inherently UNnatural) has decided it wans only supermen and superwomen and jacked up demons and humans no longer matter. Yay.

You want to get good stories; you keep Joss Whedon away.

There was a LOT more than that to his opening arc. The Kitty vs Emma conflict, with Emma showing a new level of self-awareness when she asks Kitty to be the "conscience" of the team because she (Emma knows) that she cannot be that. Hank agonizing over the Cure. Scott getting the team back on track by understanding that they are supposed to be HEROES first and foremost, not just "mutant rights advocates"...there's a LOT of meat in Joss' opening story arc.

Yeah, "Look I can do Buffy-dialog", reset-buttons, and more weak-assed bullshit.

 

[Neroon]

And looks as if a few infractions might be warranted as well.

Infraction for trolling. Based on the following litany:

Ah, Godwin'd.....

The most mysterious thing for me is why some people have such antipathy towards him. I truely do not understand it.

I, for one, don't understand why everyone is so eager to such Josh Whedon's cock.

I'm just trying to wake you up. Take the pill. Go down the rabit whole. The Whedon is the wool that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth: That he sucks.

You seem so confident in this, why don't you prove your assertion?

You are the one who originally made it. Back it up or retract it. I know you won't, though. Sounded good at the time, I suppose.

I have this friend who is a nerd and has a website. He says Wheedon is a good choice because has experience on Astonishing X-Men shows a grasp of the material and a good mix of ensemble interaction and action. I say, Colossus returns AGAIN? How inspired! We're likely to get a Wasp who is bi and having an affair with the Scarlet Witch because Whedon does that kind of pandering.

You are the one who originally made it. Back it up or retract it. I know you won't, though. Sounded good at the time, I suppose.

Hmm...what's this? What's this? A section in wiki on academic interest in just Buffy alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_studies

Ah, yes, because Wikipedia is such a reliable source. I can edit that article right now and say that Josh's farts smell like rich chocolate ovaltine.

Besides, if you had actually taken the time to read anything I have written rather than react like a wounded puppy, you'd realize that I already conceded Buffy, thus further nullifying your argument

But, do try again. I find this amusing.

Glad you admitted defeat. No hard feelings to you. There is no shame to losing to the better opponent.

One word.

Hitler.

Yes, it was quite the devastating argument. I'm not surprised you were unable to counter it (and I don't mean this as a knock. It's a rock solid argument). It is indicative of how people can become so wrapped up in charisma that you don't realize how bad your behaving until its too late.

My kudos to you for graciously bowing out.

You wish. I stand behind every single word. You are the ones who have nothing to back up your arguments with.

I do. Whedon will direct Avengers.

Nah. He won't.

Suck it.

I'd have to dig out my microscope first.

Again, I conceded Buffy. DUH. Someone needs a reading comprehension course.

The Firefly stuff is fluff, nothing more. There is nothing peer-reviewed in them at all. Books, as written, do not automatically qualify as "academic". Not unless they are peer-reviewed.


Try again.

Even if Wheedon is good with character development, The Avengers is supposed to be an action movie.

You're the reason Uwe Boll and Paul WS Anderson are still allowed to make films.

You're the reason why abortion is still legal.

Seriously. Cut the sniping, it isn't accomplishing anything.

I agree. Y'all need to relax.

You seem so confident in this, why don't you prove your assertion?

You are the one who originally made it. Back it up or retract it. I know you won't, though. Sounded good at the time, I suppose.

Hmm...what's this? What's this? A section in wiki on academic interest in just Buffy alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffy_studies

Buffy studies is a term applied to the collection of written works about, and the university courses that discuss aspects of, the television program Buffy the Vampire Slayer and, to a lesser extent, Angel. It explores issues related to gender as expressed through the content of these shows. Such work is concerned with the scholarly study and exploration of Joss Whedon's popular television series that take place in the fictional Buffyverse.
Neda Ulaby of National Public Radio describes Buffy as having a "special following among academics, some of whom have staked a claim in what they call "Buffy Studies."[1] Though not widely recognized as a distinct discipline, the term "Buffy studies" is commonly used amongst the academic Buffy-related writings.[2] Such studies are also sometimes referred to as 'Buffyology'

Game, set, match.

Douchebag.

Your play.

Infraction for flaming.




----------------------------------------------

Any comments on these infractions or actions (random interactions, so who's afraid of a little abstraction?) need to go to PM.

 

[Neroon]

After reading through the thread again, I see nothing encouraging enough to warrant re-opening it. There's an awful lot of repetition going on. Hence, the thread will remain closed