[Werthead]

Joss Whedon, creator of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ANGEL, FIREFLY, DOLLHOUSE and DOCTOR HORRIBLE'S SING-ALONG BLOG, has been recruited by Marvel to direct THE AVENGERS movie, slated for release in 2012.

The film is the culmination of a long-term plan by Marvel, which is building up to this movie through several groundwork-laying films, such as IRON MAN, INCREDIBLE HULK, this year's IRON MAN 2, and next year's THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA. These movies are all linked by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) showing up at some point to recruit the hero for a new team he is putting together. THE AVENGERS will see the team going into action for the first time, teaming up the respective movies' stars.

Whedon has been looking to get involved with a major superhero movie for some time, after he departed from the WONDER WOMAN project over creative differences. His last-directed film was 2005's SERENITY.

And yes, that's a lot of Big Damn Heroes.

[RodeoRanch]

That's an interesting choice. There's going to some funny banter!

[Morgoth]

Perhaps one of the few directors that makes me feel almost hopeful for the movie.


I wonder though, how they're going to finance the thing. Will they be promising sequels of the foundation movies in return for lower pay on the Avengers perhaps?

I mean, Samuel L. Jackson, Edward Northon, Robert Downy Jr., Chris Evans, and whomever they get to be the villain(s) wont come cheap as a package. Chris Hemsworth (Thor) might not be the cheapest of actors either as he seems to be on the rise.

The question really is whether they'll be able to afford making a proper movie out of it.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Without wishing t0o seem like a screaming fan: OMG AWESOME!

I expect at least one Firefly reference.

[Aptorian]

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 11:10 PM, said:

Perhaps one of the few directors that makes me feel almost hopeful for the movie.

I wonder though, how they're going to finance the thing. Will they be promising sequels of the foundation movies in return for lower pay on the Avengers perhaps?

I mean, Samuel L. Jackson, Edward Northon, Robert Downy Jr., Chris Evans, and whomever they get to be the villain(s) wont come cheap as a package. Chris Hemsworth (Thor) might not be the cheapest of actors either as he seems to be on the rise.

The question really is whether they'll be able to afford making a proper movie out of it.

Well, first of all, there's the question if the actors will do it for cheap. This is an Avenger movie of all things. It's the comic book holy land. I imagine guys like Jackson and Downey Jr, especially wouldn't mind taking a paycut just to be in this film. They have both admitted to liking their characters and their roles very much.

Then there's that whole financial crises thing hitting Hollywood. I remember reading an article about the movie companies changing their MO. Some companies are now going to be offering fewer millions for a big star but instead they may offer a percentage of the films earnings. Which in the case of an Avengers movie, no matter how good or bad it gets, might mean a hell of a lot of cash.

[Ulrik]

Well, Jackson takes now every shit, just for few bucks. Downey, well...thats another case. But hopefully he will "support" role that took him up again:)
Whedon is great choice - he can work with characters and thats for Avengers most important. If I look at new Avengers, it almost looks like half of issues is conversation between heroes.
And of course they can make "cheaper" version. IIRC Norton as Hulk wont appear, but Black Widow has support in Iron Man 2, fourth Spider-Man will be cheaper than Raimi´s, Chris Evans changed from Human Torch into Captain America: First Avenger and probably already has paragraph in contract, same probably Hemsworth as Thor. And Jackman will do anything with Wolverine...

What Im curious is final look of team. For old Avengers are missing many characters and new...well, thats more probable. Or they just take course into Ultimates?

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 14 April 2010 - 08:20 AM

[Gothos]

Don't you go dissing Mr. Jackson. He is the shit. Every movie he appears in is automatically epic.

Which makes me optimistic about this. I never was a big fan of comic book heroes, so it's just another movie for me, but the cast looks nice. And Whedon.

[Ulrik]

Half movies Jackson appears suck - Jumper, Lakeview Terrace, Spirit (I tried, I really tried!), Home of the Brave, xXx 2, No Good Deed (but Milla, OK) etc... I like the guy, but he sometimes takes really crappy movies - but I take it, you have to pay taxes:)

[Abyss]

On the one hand, we have Whedon. Maker of Buffy and Angel tv series. Sworn geek and worshipped geek god. His run on Astonishing X-Men should be mandatory reading for anyone who will ever work in comics ever.

On the other hand, we have Whedon. Whedon and Big Evil Network/Hollywood do not play nicely together.
I give you Firefly and Dollhouse and the trainwreck surrounding 'Serenity' tho perhaps not the flic itself. Also the handful of bits of his re-write that made it into the first X-Men movie (two lines, one of the best and one of the worse).

Take the Avengers. The sum total of everything Marvel Movies has been working towards for the last five or so years and next five or so years. The hopes and dreams of hundreds of Industry Execs who are missing payments on their ex wives Mercedes', and their flunkies who are missing payments to their therapists. Marvel Comics that is perpetually swerving across the relevance line and desperately trying to make comics profitable while pretending to be a multi-media co with an emphasis on movies.

Marvel movies have had some success with Iron Man and the opposite of that with the Hulk. The X-Men line started strong and failed.

This could go either way. Whedon's history of badmixing with industry interference makes me wary. His history of brilliance gives me hope.

[dktorode]

Morgoth, on 13 April 2010 - 11:10 PM, said:

Perhaps one of the few directors that makes me feel almost hopeful for the movie.


I wonder though, how they're going to finance the thing. Will they be promising sequels of the foundation movies in return for lower pay on the Avengers perhaps?

I mean, Samuel L. Jackson, Edward Northon, Robert Downy Jr., Chris Evans, and whomever they get to be the villain(s) wont come cheap as a package. Chris Hemsworth (Thor) might not be the cheapest of actors either as he seems to be on the rise.

The question really is whether they'll be able to afford making a proper movie out of it.

I would think that this movie would have been worked into the original contracts for the individual movies already. The plan was always to make an avengers movie with all of the original actors before all this started getting big.
They would not have known then how big this was actually going to be, so i would expect the fee they agreed on then, is allot less than what they would have been able to ask for now.

[Darkwatch]

Whedon is good, but he needs to be well... for lack of the English word "encadré".
I've liked many of his shows, but sometimes if he was allowed to go too much into his own it can go wrong. This is usually more apparent with franchises not of his own creation (I'm talking about "Alien: Resurrection" here, the worst of all three Alien movies. Watchable but it doesn't feel like Alien.)

Serenity was Awesome though. I found he struck the balance in there more than anywhere else (yes even more so than during the series' run).

[dktorode]

At least Jon Favreau is an exec. producer

[Abyss]

dktorode, on 14 April 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

I would think that this movie would have been worked into the original contracts for the individual movies already. ...

More likely it's a % deal. Actor gets low fee to make movie. Movie makes X, actors get Y%, Y being a function of how hawt said actor is.

Darkwatch, on 14 April 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

...Serenity was Awesome though. I found he struck the balance in there more than anywhere else (yes even more so than during the series' run).

I could be wrong but hasn't Joss disclaimed the mess that was A:R due to studio interference?

Serenity corrected much of what i thought Joss did wrong with Firefly, mostly in that stuff actually happened, as opposed to hours and hours of 'trust me, this will all be important in the second season!'. That said, the movie was still more for the Firefly fans than anyone else, and the audience was too niche to make it a success. The studio basically tossed it into theaters with minimal marketing to make back some $.

Whedon does his best work with a blank cavass, time to make it work and minimal interference. This is why i'm worried about Avengers. You're going to have idiots sitting in the room saying things like 'Have Hawkeye drink a latte in this scene. It makes him less intimidating.' and 'Instead of chainmail, make Captain America's suit corduroy."

[Tiste Simeon]

I have full confidence in Whedon to do something amazing, being a HUGE fan of Firefly, Serenity, Dollhouse and of course FREAKING DR HORRIBLE!!!! I do not have full confidence in Hollywood not stepping in and messing around...

[McLovin]

Abyss, on 14 April 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Take the Avengers. The sum total of everything Marvel Movies has been working towards for the last five or so years and next five or so years.

I see your Avengers and raise you the X-men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four. SECRET WARS, anyone?

Just on payroll alone it would be a billion-dollar geekgasm.

[Aptorian]

The secret wars, while a great read as a kid, were a terrible concept. They had guys like Thor, Professor X and The Hulk on the good side and guys like Galactus, that molecule manipulating guy, The absorbing man on the bad side, etc. All of which are "world destroyer" level characters. Each of which, especially Galactus and the Molecule Guy could have fucked up EVERYONE at any given moment... with ease. But nooo, we had to have a hundred seperate issues with silly battles and love stories, etc.

I swear, the only thing that saves the Secret wars is Doctor Doom and his battle royal with the Beyonder. I still vividly remember that scene where he is shot to hell and being pealed like an onion by the beyonder.

[McLovin]

But it would be perfect for the type of movies being made today. No silly plot or character development, just one CGI-laden set-piece after another.

[Aptorian]

Admittedly, I would probably watch a Secret Wars film if Michael Bay directed it.

And Wolverine was played by Shiah Labeef,

[Abyss]

McLovin, on 14 April 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

...X-men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four. ...

Question: What are three film franchises utterly destroyed by studio interference?

[Aptorian]

X-men was bad from the start. The first one completely warped the story, didn't even use the Ultimate X-men version instead, and had little or no depth to any character. It was just a lot of crazy kids in weird costumes involved in some crazy super villain plot taken out of a James Bond movie.

The films did nothing to show how far comics have come in terms of story telling or character depth. The problem is that the movie was directed at young X-box kids who wants lots of flash and bang. The fans couldn't possibly be happy with the way they warped everything and the "intellectual" critics were never going to like the story being told, for that everything was too stupid and shallow.

They could have gone with much more serious and important storylines. Mainly the prosecution of mutants, throwing in some sentinels, etc. instead of showing Magneto as the early era criminal super mutant they should have showed him as the later era, political super power playing messiah for the mutant people. Mirrored by Professor X as Magnetos foil advocating peace.

I've mentioned it before, but the Genosha storyline(s) would have been perfect for this. That mixed with the Avalon story where they face off in space on Magnetos asteroid station.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 15 April 2010 - 06:14 AM