Yeah it was easy I guess, but he talk about doing alot of rewriting of the scipt at a local Starbucks while they were filming in Cleveland.
Joss Whedon Remains Undecided About ‘Avengers 2′
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Yeah it was easy I guess, but he talk about doing alot of rewriting of the scipt at a local Starbucks while they were filming in Cleveland.
Obviously, you have just returned from the Mirror Universe, where you saw THEIR version of "The Avengers".
Try watching OUR universe's version next.
Killing characters is "a Whedon thing," yes, but not in this case; the decision to kill off Coulson was made before Whedon even came aboard. I think I even read somewhere that he resisted doing it because he knew people would go, "Oh, there Whedon goes killing off our favorites again."
I think the Avengers made money because it was the movie that had been teased since the end of Iron Man, which was also quite successful. I think it was good because of Whedon. Whether he does Avengers II or not, I just hope he gets the chance to write and direct more and bigger movies.
Quite right. It makes no sense to attribute the movie's success solely to the advance hype and the preceding films. Those things created high expectations for the movie, but if it hadn't actually been good enough to match or exceed those expectations, then the result would've been extreme disappointment and fan outrage. Remember how fans reacted to Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand -- which weren't really bad films per se, but were significant steps down from their extremely well-received antecedents, and so they fared poorly. So advance hype alone isn't enough to guarantee success. Just the opposite -- it makes success harder, because there's a higher bar to clear. The Avengers faced as high a bar of expectations as has ever been set for a superhero movie to date (not counting The Dark Knight Rises, which isn't out yet as of this writing), and it cleared that bar easily. So hell yes, it succeeded because it's a good movie in its own right, and that's largely because of Joss Whedon.
There were massive expectations for the first Superman movie, the 1989 Batman movie and Raimi's first Spider-Man movies, but none of them had the benefit of inflated ticket priices thanks to 3D and IMAX showings. And little of the hype for the Avengers movie said anything Joss Whedon directing the movie.
There's a large number of things that led to the seccess of the Avengers movie, I can't say Joss's direction was all that extraordinary.
Poor Whedon, he's the sole reason Serenity didn't work and he had no part in the success of the Avengers, or so I've heard.
It's hard to guess these things, but it seems to me that a part of The Avengers' success came from having that many superheroes on screen in one movie and they all did stuff and the stuff was big. When NYC was threatened, stuff was smashing everywhere.
As for the contributions of Joss Whedon Quimself, his script I though mediocre. I didn't buy into the Black Widow myself. And everything Fury did was downright stupid. Thor wasn't handled properly. Tom Hiddleston managed to make Loki interesting in Thor, but with Whedon's script, he was just a greasy haired asshole who made stupid speeches and got bitchslapped for his pains. The discovery that Banner was lying in every scene before the climactic battle I suppose is surprising. Writing the new Banner who is always angry and is in total control of the Hulk is going to be a challenge and it's not at all obvious Whedon is up to it.
As to the direction, the big climactic action scene flowed from one superhero to the other, which goes directly to the big selling point of Avengers being the sheer spectacle of all those superheroes. For the rest? No, it wasn't very visceral. You didn't have any real idea of why anything was happening. The so-called villains in particular were just aimlessly fighting. For my part, it was the scale that was interesting.
I doubt I'll purchase The Avengers, despite the nostalgia value. And if they hire someone else for directing the sequel it won't lower my expectations a bit. They're already lowered because sequels are rarely as good as the originals.
As for the contributions of Joss Whedon Quimself, his script I though mediocre. I didn't buy into the Black Widow myself. And everything Fury did was downright stupid. Thor wasn't handled properly. Tom Hiddleston managed to make Loki interesting in Thor, but with Whedon's script, he was just a greasy haired asshole who made stupid speeches and got bitchslapped for his pains. The discovery that Banner was lying in every scene before the climactic battle I suppose is surprising. Writing the new Banner who is always angry and is in total control of the Hulk is going to be a challenge and it's not at all obvious Whedon is up to it.
As to the direction, the big climactic action scene flowed from one superhero to the other, which goes directly to the big selling point of Avengers being the sheer spectacle of all those superheroes. For the rest? No, it wasn't very visceral. You didn't have any real idea of why anything was happening. The so-called villains in particular were just aimlessly fighting. For my part, it was the scale that was interesting.
I doubt I'll purchase The Avengers, despite the nostalgia value. And if they hire someone else for directing the sequel it won't lower my expectations a bit. They're already lowered because sequels are rarely as good as the originals.
It was supposedly poor marketing that blame for Serenity's failure, yet somehow the hype for the Avengers gets no credit, that's what's interesting.
Last edited:
I think that he needs to write or co-write the sequel in order to keep things consistent, including the quality of the scripts - he's possibly the best there is at what he does best. A change of director might benefit the franchise, though. Would love to see Guillermo del Toro do it, but his work on other projects (particularly the Hulk TV show) might preclude any involvement. Drew Goddard, maybe?
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...
"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.
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....)
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.
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.
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).
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).
How about getting Nolan to direct?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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!
