The Avengers (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

I like Whedon OK. After the rousing success of his film Serenity and his latest show Dollhouse, he seems like a great fit for the crowning achievement of Marvel films. I mean, this should be easy for a guy who has made one feature film budgeted at 35M dollars.
Whatever. It could be Bay or Sommers. Whedon is at least better than that.

 

[Nick Martin]

I get that box office dollars are everything to a studio, but that it's everything for fans to decide what is quality and what isn't is well...there's probably no point in finishing that sentence since it really doesn't matter.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I personally don't care that Whedon's film only made $35M, but I absolutely care that he's only directed ONE feature film. Based on a TV show. 5 years ago.

Writing Runaways (which would make a lot of sense for him to direct) and Astonishing X-Men doesn't quite create the job skills necessary to helm a film with this cast and this scale.

Avengers has themes outside of his wheelhouse. He's done a lot to tell me that he could handle X-Men. But not the Avengers.

So I'm NOT a huge fan of Whedon for this. I'll judge the movie, as a moviegoer, when it's made. I'll judge the business decision on business history.

I'm wondering why Marvel gave him the job. Because they ARE a studio.

Edit: Bad language.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Avengers has themes outside of his wheelhouse. He's done a lot to tell me that he could handle X-Men. But not the Avengers.

What themes would those be Chuck?

I think the positives for Whedon are- he has experience with the practical demands and considerations of special effects. His TV production background gives him some experience and resourcefulness when it comes to budgetary constraints (and I think this was a huge factor in why Marvel wanted him for this specific property). He also has a lot of experience with ensemble pieces and understands how to juggle multiple character arcs while maintaining a clear through-line for the story.

Since Marvel is producing I expect he will have a good well of knowledge to draw from when particular problems arise as well as support from the producers. They will have had 5 similar projects under their belts by then and have gone through (and solved or learned from failing to solve) many of same problems. This isn't like Fox or Sony.

 

[Nick Martin]

I won't miss "Dollhouse" at all, aside from not having something to watch on a Friday night but I'll not write him off because of it either. "Firefly" was canceled but was clearly good enough to get turned into a movie, and obviously that movie would have been very limited in its appeal but that doesn't make it garbage despite the internets telling me to think it is, since there seems to be some big internet consensus that because Whedon's film "Serenity" wasn't a big moneymaker it is indeed garbage. I suppose that makes "Transformers" Oscar-worthy. "Buffy" would have been canceled faster than Firefly or Dollhouse combined if it were on anything other than the WB when it started since it never had big ratings, but I doubt people are thinking of it as a failed crap show. I don't know or care if he's right for "Avengers" because this need to write him off regardless of that is bordering on some kind of too cool for school fad now.

 

[JonZ]

" I wish it were possible but let's face it: Hulk AND Iron Man AND Captain America together in one 2 hour movie? Throw in a Norse God and it's a recipe for Studios to muck up a great comic book."

"The point of The Avengers, from it's internal story perspective, should not be that Thor, IM, and CA are necessary specifically- but rather that Nick Fury and SHIELD are in the business of perpetually assembling/overseeing/orchestrating/grooming an Ops team made up of extraordinary individuals."


I've said this at the SHHboards and Ill repeat it here. Antman was a huge missed opportunity. That film could have been the beginning of the Avengers story.

You have Hank Pym working for SHIELD, Janet, Nick Fury,Ultron in primitive form as a AI computer/robot and maybe introduce Hawkeye as well. Thats a great foundation for The Avengers right there. I was really hoping Wrights Antman would get made. I thought it really could have been a cool scifi movie.

I have no idea who the villian could be. I doubt itll be Ultron (A Antman movie could have taken care of setting up Ultron). My best guess, as others have mentioned, would be the Hulk on a rampage under the influence of someone.... The Leader? Mandarin?

This is another film I never thought would actually be made. Itll be interesting to see what happens with this one.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
It appears that Joss Whedon will most likely be in the director's chair

The good one or the bad one?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Theme was probably the wrong word. I'll use "tone". Whedon has always been about family groups based on friendship and mutual beliefs; the underdog and the misunderstood. He's repeated these concepts throughout his work. It's the geek thing, got it.
But The Avengers are the cool kids. The super-genius billionaire, the God of Thunder, and Captain America. The Hulk is a wild card, but even his issues are not societal, they are psychological. The Avengers are a professional super-team, completely unlike the X-Men. They are the opposite of what he has built a career doing. And they need to be what they are. They aren't fighting the Man, they are the Man. If the Man was moral and fought for the common good. Whedon loves the underdog, Whedon loves subverting gender roles. The Avengers are the epitome of alpha males. Again, the god, the narcissist genius, the super soldier, and the HULK.
I don't have a huge problem with Whedon getting this plum job. Maybe he'll nail it. I just fear his best work, writing-wise, is behind him. Serenity was pretty well directed, but he still doesn't have that "feature" sense around him. Maybe he'll surprise.
Regarding making TV budgets look good...sure. You can make "bad" look "OK". And "OK" look "decent". But it really does take money to make anything above "decent". There is no way around it.
The Avengers will run $200-250M easily, unless they forego action until the last scene, thus killing the golden goose. I'm hoping they didn't get Whedon for his frugality.

 

[JonZ]

Seems Whedon is rewritting both Avengers and Capt America.

Capt America starts filming in a few months so hes prob just tweeking that script to incorporate some of his ideas.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Chuck- really cogent points you made- I'm not as well versed on the Avengers as I am other properties- but what you say makes absolute sense. I would like to think that Marvel understands this also and wouldn't have brought anyone on board that wasn't in synch with this view. We keep being told they have a vision, so all these guys are basically work-for-hire craftsmen. If the film does try to force in the outsider/underdog paradigm with this group then I will have to lay a good part of the blame at Marvel, as they had to have heard the right things coming from JW to have signed off on him.

As far as the budget issues go- as this gets rolling, Marvel will have two other big films in production. They are borrowing the money to finance these, and will be paying interest on that money regardless of how well the films do. And one or all of them could fail to catch fire. That is a HUGE gamble to be making with borrowed money so even if they could finance $250 million for one of the films alone, I highly doubt they will. I fully expect them to try to make this on the cheap. I'm actually just fine with that. The plays the thing for me. If the characters are sympathetic, the conflict juicy, and the plotting involving, I'm fine. I would prefer it not to look too small scale, but I understand that there are limitations and if there have to be I would rather it be with the scope of the visuals rather than the core of the dramatic elements (character, plot, structure, etc). I'm probably in the minority with that view, but then there is a reason I avoid Michael Bay movies.

 

[JonZ]

If Iron Man 2 and Thor do well, they should make plenty to finance Avengers?

I think the fact the he can stretch a dollar also played into the decision to hire Whedon, but I dont think theyre going to take the cheap way out here. They cant. Avengers has to be the biggest superhero film ever and Marvel knows it.

Avengers also puts alot on Iron Man2, Thor and CaptAmerica. Iron Man2 will do big business, but Marvel has to bring it for Thor and Cap if they want the feeding frenzy for Avengers.

The chance to see CaptAmerica, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Nick Fury,etc in one movie - I think unless Cap and Thor bomb, I dont see why Avengers wont do Transformers type business.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, I'm not an Avengers nut (I like IM mostly from his own series, Thor for Walt Simonson and Norse mythology, Cap for everything, and Hulk for what Peter David did for him), but I think their dynamic is different. I agree that it must be assumed that Whedon will give Marvel what they want, and if he doesn't, part of the blame is on them. My issue is more with I wonder what they saw in his previous material. It is just so different from Avengers. Again, the alpha male thing.

All of that said, I trust Whedon OK. I'm worried about his experience, and I believe he relies too much on his worshipful fanbase sometimes, but he is absolutely gifted.

I'm not sure about the budget thing. If The Avengers feels cheap (or less than epic), I think it will be a big let down. They can't hang around the mansion all day. How much did Iron Man 2 cost? This needs to cost at least that.

 

[JonZ]

wiki has Iron Man2s budget at 210 mil

 

[oscar_merkx]

Samuel Jackson talks The Avengers http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9106

Q: Did you get to read The Avengers script for Joss Whedon is going to rewrite it?
Sam: No.
Q: Do you have any desire to campaign for your own Nick Fury film?
Sam: The Avengers is my own starring vehicle for that character, pretty much.
Q: But, that’s so far away.
Sam: That's not that far away. It's just February. I've got time to get in shape and everything.

 

[oscar_merkx]

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=18337

It's been assumed for several years now that Marvel Studios ensemble film The Avengers will follow the continuity of the original comics run; where Loki gains control over the Hulk to unleash his fury on Earth, which causes the superhero team to assemble for the first time. Last night I learned that this may not be the case, and apparently I'm not the only one who's privy to this information. Two fellow entertainment journalists, one being our own DCMarvel_Freshman, were tipped to this information around the same time as I was; and by two other sources close to the production.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Jeremy Renner is almost in as Hawkeye.

http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/06/jeremy-renner-poised-to-join-marvels-avengers.html

 

[David Deeb]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
Jeremy Renner is almost in as Hawkeye.

http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/06/jeremy-renner-poised-to-join-marvels-avengers.html

That article mentions "Renner will join....Don Cheadle as War Machine." What?

The War Machine character doesn't belong in an Avengers movie. I hope they follow through with making this story follow as closely as possible to the original comics - which until I read that piece of info, I believed was happening.

Marvel movie travesties such as Uncle Ben being killed by the Sandman or Cyclop's death only seem to aggravate their fan base & biggest advocates. So why do it?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by David Deeb

Marvel movie travesties such as Uncle Ben being killed by the Sandman or Cyclop's death only seem to aggravate their fan base & biggest advocates. So why do it?

Because the fan base is a small part of the audience. And let's face it, a portion of the fans are going to complain no matter and still see the movie anyway. So when they're damned if they do and damned if they don't and they still get their money, why would they care what the fans think?

 

[JonZ]

Killing Cyclops was something that the suits at Fox gave to the writters as a guideline for things they wanted from the script.
Which they later regretted according Penn or Kinberg. The Fox suits underestimated the popularity of the character and were suprised by the internet backlash, despite the writers trying to pursuade them that it was a bad idea to treat such a important character like shit.

They didnt see it. To them Cyclops was boring, so he was used as fodder in a attempt to heighten drama.

Which only proves the point, yet again, that the studio execs dont understand the properties they own, which is why we get so many stupid decisions in these film adaptations.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by David Deeb
Marvel movie travesties such as Uncle Ben being killed by the Sandman or Cyclop's death only seem to aggravate their fan base & biggest advocates. So why do it?

Were those really Marvel decisions? Since Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox own the movie rights to, Spider-Man and X-men, respectively, I don't believe they have to answer to Marvel to do what they want to do. As long as they use characters they own, obviously. Although Uncle Ben's murder was probably shoehorned in by Raimi (not necessarily the producers) to have a personal conflict between Spidey and the 'villain of the week'. Completely unnecessary and redundant after the third time, just as having MJ being kidnapped by the villain.