AVENGERS Movie Thread

re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

There are definite hints of this already happening in the last Hulk movie.

I hope Marvel can make this one work, but as Jon Favreau said in a recent interview, it's Thor that may be a problem here - making him fit into the new Marvel film universe along side Iron Man, Cap America and the like will be a real challenge. I'm eager to see what Ken Branagh does with the character.

What has happened to the Ant Man film BTW? Is Edgar Wright still involved and will it also be connected to The Avengers movie? I hope it is as it would be great to see the comic original line up in the very first film.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

So this will be the 2nd Marvel teamup movie series to come out. While the only thing team up Warner has ever done....


At least we have the Justice League episodes from Smallville.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Er, pardon my ignorance...but what was the 1st Marvel teamup movie?

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

X-Men

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

I suppose that the people writing Thor could posit that the Asgardians aren't actually Norse Gods, but from an alien/parallel world with very advanced technology (cue the Arthur C. Clarke quote) who were taken for Gods when they last visited "Midgard", although they might get a bunch of "ripping off Stargate SG-1" flak for that.

Then again, while I'd prefer they keep the Marvel Movie Universe more-or-less science fictional, all bets are going to be off if they want to include Dr. Strange (in the Universe, if not this movie), which appears to be on their to-do list.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Jason Seaver wrote (post #7):


"Ripping off" a show that specializes in "rip-offs". And the chain extends . . . .


All of Hollywood's super-hero comic-book movies are fantasies with a thin window-dressing or the sheerest (obligatory) veneer of "science". It's a hopeless cause.


In my opinion, a Doctor Strange movie would make for one of the most fascinating fantasy presentations for adults possible, if done right. On the other hand, it would also make for the biggest possible cinematic gamble I can think of. Even more than the Thor character, getting Doctor Strange done right---if they can just capture the kind of "look and feel" that Steve Ditko's artistry gave to the comic book!---making him "mystical" without also making him "hoky" (especially with the hand-gesticulations or attitudes so favored by Ditko) and "Grasshopper-like", that's the challenge. Ah, the Dread Dormammu! Good villain for a dark fantasy.

For my part, if they do do an Avengers movie, I'd hope they'd pose the team against the "Squadron Sinister", their counterparts from a parallel Earth. Then Thor could match up against his opposite number from there, Hyperion.

Does anyone think in a movie like this (or in a Justice League movie, for that matter) the producers will be able to duck the costume/uniform "problem"? You can't have groups of disparate and diverse super-heroes all walking/flying/crawling/whatever around in the same dull dark uniforms. They'd have to let the individuals "shine" in their brightest, sometimes most garish, reds, blues, and yellows, it seems to me. (Spandex, anyone?)

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Well, Dr. Strange is a character everyone claims to like but no-one actually reads. He might be more successful in the movies, if only because you don't have to keep creating a greater threat every few months; he can play out his story arc and then have the movie end.

I admit, there isn't much reason for my wanting a firewall between my adventures with science-fictional tropes and those with fantasy tropes. It does seem to be an issue the executive producer has, though, and I can see why: Balancing them can be tough. It's tough to make Tony Stark look like a genius because he can build these amazing things, if a magical character can do it with just a wave of his hand; it's just as easy to go the other way.

As to the costume thing, I don't think it will be that much of a problem. Marvel does not seem to be shying away from the primary colors with its self-produced movies - although I imagine you could have an amusing subplot about SHIELD trying to get the heroes into some type of uniform and it failing badly.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Exactly right Norm. We've seen these travesties in both Marvel & DC movies. When filmmakers re-write 50 year old canon, they show no respect for the film's biggest potential advocate: the comic book fan. Don't they want us to spread the good word?

Not only that, it boxes them into corners they can't get out of without starting from scratch. IE: Superman's baby.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Can't wait to see the Avengers movie though

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Jason Seaver wrote (post #10):


I don't know anything about Doctor Strange's association with the Avengers in the comic book, because that must have come about some time after I'd outgrown them, but I'd say that Doctor Strange would probably be best left alone and treated in his own universe, a universe of mysticism and magic, and not one of scientific reason.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

A movie about a team isn't the same thing as a "team-up" movie. And if it were you'd have to count Fantastic Four as well so that would be 3 in terms of franchises.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

You're forgetting the Justice League animated series, that one was good as well.

Re: AVENGERS Movie Thread

Listen, I would love nothing more than seeing this done well but the odds are against it. I would say it's pretty much impossible.

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.

X-Men and Fantastic Four were great but they were always a team to begin with and X-men lends itself well to uniforms. Even the comic books tried a few times to get most of them in uniform.

Avengers is all about individuals that really have their own lives and trials. This is really more like a live action justice league. Also fated to remain in the toon world.

It appears that Joss Whedon will most likely be in the director's chair for this upcoming movie.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/#more-31658

Geez, I hope he isn't writing.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No, I really don't think so.
For one thing, this isn't Fox, and Rothman, someone with disdain for the source medium and genre,  isn't the head of production at the studio. Whedon, if this pans out, is well versed in this stuff. Hell, the Buffy season six ' Dark Willow' storyline was a far better adaptation of the Dark Phoenix storyline than X3 was. These guys get this stuff.
As for how to integrate many disparate characters into one film- I would see this as hinging on Captain Americas character. The easiest way to do this, is to handle the exposition of everything through his eyes- especially if the first act of the film has him getting revived and entering the 21st Century. There is a huge opportunity there to have Iron Man and Thor already working in concert in the background, and CA getting up to speed to join them in a major operation.
As for The Hulk, the story could easily be about the Avengers stopping the Hulk as he rampages around the world, possibly being manipulated/controlled remotely by an unseen mastermind who either factors into the third act resolution, or else is carried, Spectre-like, over the course of more than one film to build up to an ultimate final showdown in a second or third film. By the end of the first film though, Hulk would no longer be an adversary, but a wild-card ally
This is also one property where the filmmakers could perform a deus ex machina that most of the viewers would likely cheer- i.e. having random other Avengers show up for the first time on screen in the climax to pull the main characters out of an impossible squeeze. The fact that you have a character like Fury overseeing and orchestrating things makes having something like Quicksilver or Hawkeye or Scarlet Witch showing up out of the blue, with no exposition, entirely plausible. 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. That is the reason disparate individuals converge.

The big part of this is how well the framework is being laid in these next three films. If something is off there, the job gets a lot harder. Just like a house, the next three solo films are the foundation and the frame. They have to be done right if The Avengers is going to work, and if they aren't, the Avengers will need to spend (screen)time and money correcting the mistakes to simply make the project livable.


Edited by Paul_Scott - 4/13/10 at 5:08pm

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Chuck Mayer - 4/13/10 at 8:00pm

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.

 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.

" 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.


Edited by JonZ - 4/14/10 at 9:47pm

Quote:
The good one or the bad one?

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.

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.


Edited by JonZ - 4/15/10 at 11:15pm

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.