"Marvel Studios' The Avengers" Pre-Release Discussion (Spoilers)

[Old Guy]

budgets of varying size.

Whedon has never been anywhere near $200 million. He's never been anywhere near cutting edge visual effects. He's never been near A-list actors like Robert Downey, Jr. who could literally get him fired if they didn't like his ideas.

This is all new to Whedon which is why there's reasons to be concerned.

Hire a confessed comic geek with a lot of TV production experience, some film experience, and a rabid, niche, cult following and you get Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.

Lots of TV experience, but SOME film experience? Yeah, okay. I guess those 20 years and 9 movies meant nothing in comparison to Xena: Warrior Princess when Sony hired him.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

I don't see why everyone is assuming this will be a $200 million film. Watchmen was only $130 million. Some people just seems to be assuming that you take a movie about one superhero and times it by how many superheroes are in the team movie to get how big this one is, but that's silly. That's not the way it worked in X-Men and not the way it will work here.

 

[Old Guy]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

Charlie's Angeles was a silly flick made for under $100 million. The Avengers, as of now, is the highest profiled film of 2012.

I don't see why everyone is assuming this will be a $200 million film. Watchmen was only $130 million.

Watchmen didn't have any stars. The Avengers has Robert Downey Jr, Samuel L. Jackson, and Edward Norton. Half of the movie's budget is going to those three guys. And does Chris Evans count as a star? Is Scarlett Johansson gonna be in this movie? That's more money just for the actors. And we haven't even gotten to the visual effects budget.

That's not the way it worked in X-Men and not the way it will work here.

X-Men is an ensemble, but you wouldn't know that by watching the movies. Wolverine was clearly the star. Hence why Bryan Singer was able to pull off the first movie on a $70 million budget. The Avengers, on the other hand, has to be an ensemble. What's the point of bringing these superheroes together if its really gonna be Iron Man 3? And that's gonna be reflected in the budget.

 

[Hanshotfirst1138]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

There was less riding on Charlie's Angels than there is on this though .

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Still. It cost $75 million bucks and put a the future of a beloved franchise in McG's hands. When he had never directed anything more substantial than a music video. If we're talking in terms of scale, giving Charlie's Angels to an absolute nobody is a bigger risk than giving Avengers to one of the most talented TV and comic book guys out there, a guy who does have at least one feature film under his belt.

I wouldn't count on Avengers being an equal time ensemble too awful much, Old Guy. Simply from a storytelling standpoint there has to be a main, viewpoint character that will draw the most focus. That'll probably either be Cap or Iron Man.

 

[KYO'NYUU IMOUTO]

I've never seen this guy's work, but I don't fret. I really don't think the studio will be stupid enough to hire him if they weren't confident he could pull it off. Heck, he's going to have an entire team behind him to support. And if the movie sucks, there's always the Justice League...in about thirty years.

 

[Palin Dromos]

Peter Jackson's biggest budget before LOTR was 30 mill on "The Frighteners" and New Line let him shoot all 3 back to back. Huge risk (I'd say bigger risk than Avengers) and it paid off in spades.

I'm confused as to what you guys seem to think the difference between directing for TV and directing for film is? Granted there are differences, but the primary differences are mitigated by his TV producing experience. TV is a very restricted environment, from a time, budget, and S&P standpoint. Considering all he's been able to accomplish in that restricted environment (not to mention the shoe-string budget of Dr. Horrible) this will be a chance to stretch a little.

He's dealt with big personalities behind the scenes, studio executives can be just as ego driven as stars. And frankly I'd expect all the actors to be just as aware of the pressure of this film as him. RDJ had been off the A-list for years before Iron Man put him back on the map, I'd say he's unlikely to rock the boat too hard. Norton still isn't confirmed to be in Avengers, and both Chris's aren't A list yet. And Sam Jackson works with everyone, from Spielberg to the guys who directed "Snakes on a Plane", his ego is a non-issue.

There's a lot of un-deserved prejudice in Hollywood in terms of abilities between film and TV. Even within TV (reality vs scripted) and film (independent vs studio). It's all hogwash, the people who are actually good at what they do can cross those lines without a problem because they actually know what they are doing and have spent time building up their skills and talents (end slightly personal rant).

Heck, he's going to have an entire team behind him to support.

Darn straight! Hire the right crew and the works half done!

 

[Old Guy]

Peter Jackson's biggest budget before LOTR was 30 mill on "The Frighteners" and New Line let him shoot all 3 back to back. Huge risk (I'd say bigger risk than Avengers) and it paid off in spades.

Peter Jackson was a risk. No one is going to deny it. However, he had directed Heavenly Creatures, a critically acclaimed drama that put Kate Winslet on the map. The guy had talent for more than cult B-movies. So, it gave New Line reason to be optimistic. It's the same with Sam Raimi and Spider-Man. He had directed A Simple Plan, a critically acclaimed and Oscar-nominated film. Plus, there was Darkman. So, he also had experience with the superhero genre. And, if you want to look at more risk, there's Tim Burton and Batman. The guy who directed Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice? People must have been scratching their heads in 1988. Add to that the controversial casting of Michael Keaton. Yet, WB had faith because Burton had proven himself as a visionary filmmaker. They knew the movie would have a unique and Oscar-winning look - which it did. As for Keaton, he had just done Clean and Sober so they knew he could handle drama.

The risk with Whedon is that he's a TV guy. His movie experience is very limited. However, he has a proven track record with fanboys so the studio is counting on that.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

The risk with Whedon is that he's a TV guy. His movie experience is very limited. However, he has a proven track record with fanboys so the studio is counting on that.

Are you just not reading the posts where people are putting forth the argument that being a "TV Guy" does not mean that someone is bereft of experience that will transfer to a feature film? Because it sure seems like it, you just keep repeating that like a mantra instead of providing some concrete reasons as to why "TV Guys" have untransferrable skills and are worthless as feature film directors, even "TV Guys" who have directed, produced and written feature films.

 

[Old Guy]

You make it sound like I said that TV guys can't direct ANY movies. I simply said that a TV guy with limited movie experience could struggle with a $200 million summer blockbuster. If Whedon was directing a movie like, say, Kick-Ass, I wouldn't raise any concerns because that's a $30 million April release. You have to crawl before you can walk and Whedon hasn't done much crawling in the movie department.

 

[Discloner]

Seems like everyone on every side of the coin is already formulating opinions based on assumptions and not facts. Nobody knows how much the film is going to cost - and while it obviously won't be a thriftily made low-budget romp, I'm not ready to believe that it's going to be one of hollywood's most expensive purchases; even with the stars. Marvel's playing INTO Avengers - so it likely has that in mind when having actors, high-profile stars or not, sign their contracts. With how stingy they're being cash-wise regarding pay (I'm looking at you Terrance Howard!) for their stars, I think there is a very BIG chance that there's some Avengers-themed wording in all their cross-franchise star's contracts to keep costs in line when the time comes to moosh them all together.

Whedon does lack feature film directing - that's definitely something to keep an eye on for someone who's been tossed one of Marvel's most complicated new tentpoles, but at the same time he has been the show-runner for a number of complex shows...which in itself counts for something. He's got experience with juggling ensemble casts - which is another reason Marvel likely turned to him; not to mention his work in and familiarity with the comic-book world, and of course the built in 'geek' factor as already mentioned.

Fact of the matter is there's no director they could have hired for the part that couldn't fit into any of the concerns listed in this thread. Hell, even the directors with most clout succumb to the egos of partners involved. Spielberg is one of the world's most influential directors...and even he still listened to George Lucas's wacky ideas for Indy 4.

I think it's normal to be skeptical, but until there's ACTUAL cause for concern the opinion slinging is just hyperbole.

 

[dmxx116]

Edward Norton explains what will bring him back for The Avengers:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/05/14/edward-norton-the-avengers/#more-34837

 

[Weibart]

Not that there's been much mystery about Joss Whedon's connection to The Avengers, but Thor actor Chris Hemsworth confirms he's sat down with Whedon recently to discuss the Avengers.

[Via Whedonesque]

Thoughts?

 

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Not that there's been much mystery about Joss Whedon's connection to The Avengers, but Thor actor Chris Hemsworth confirms he's sat down with Whedon recently to discuss the Avengers.

[Via Whedonesque]

Thoughts?

First Thor interview!

And even if it hasn't been made official yet, this interview definitely confirms that Joss Whedon is the director of The Avengers.

Cool! Thanks!

 

[Spider-Man]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:

MovieWatch: Rumours swirl around that The Skrulls will be the big bad in The Avengers movie are emerging – and that they may be the ones that control The Hulk. Also rumours continue that the Kevin will have a role in the movie and that Karl Pennington will be playing a proto-Captain Marvel.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

 

[Young Justice]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:



http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

I thought the Skrulls were attached to the Fantastic Four franchise that is owned by Fox. It seem that I was wrong. Good.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:



http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

That's essentially the plot of the first Ultimates Arc, so that makes sense.

 

[RonDrakenfan17]

Edward Norton explains what will bring him back for The Avengers:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/05/14/edward-norton-the-avengers/#more-34837

I'd love it if he was brought back.
It'd feel empty if he wasn't in there

 

[Discloner]

Charlie's Angeles was a silly flick made for under $100 million. The Avengers, as of now, is the highest profiled film of 2012.

More than the next Batman? Ehhhhh........

I'd say even the Spider-man reboot due out in 2012 eeks out the Avengers in terms of profile for 2012. Might be one the most anticipated tentpole films as of now, but a majority of folks who don't dive into comicbooks don't even know what the Avengers are unless they've been bludgeoned with the concept in the latest Iron Man.

Some of the staff at the theater I work at thought it was a remake of this little gem.

 

[dmxx116]

More than the next Batman? Ehhhhh........

I'd say even the Spider-man reboot due out in 2012 eeks out the Avengers in terms of profile for 2012. Might be one the most anticipated tentpole films as of now, but a majority of folks who don't dive into comicbooks don't even know what the Avengers unless they've been bludgeoned with the concept in the latest Iron Man.

Some of the staff at the theater I work at thought it was a remake of this little gem.

The Spider-Man reboot being more profile then The Avengers, Star Terk 2 and 3rd Batman movie I don't think so, Nobody want to see a Spider-Man reboot me and a lot of other fans don't want to this Spider-Man reboot when it comes out 2012. And it not going to make a lot of money like past Spider-Man films.