THE AVENGERS (2012) Pre-Release. - Page 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadew1 

Alan Silvestri announces that Alan Silvestri is working on this:

http://www.alansilvestri.com/Alan_Silvestri/Filmography.html

People referencing themselves in the third person always makes me think of THE REPLACEMENTS, when Orlando Jones is being a douche to the female reporter. Which makes me want to watch the movie. Which makes me a bad person.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Joss Whedon talks on The Avengers

 

 

I'm such a whore for any info on this movie. Any reservations I have are sated after reading Whedon in this interview. Trying to keep expectations lowered on this after Iron Man 2, but I have faith he can pull it off. Especially after hearing how he wanted to make the action setpieces specific to character. Just please, please be good.

I think the mere fact that they had a script when they began shooting will put this ahead of Iron Man 2.

My only reservation is how the exposition will be handled. Will every character be summed up with simplicity, or will there be an attempt to explain the events of the earlier movies?

I sure hope not, because I can't help but think of Serenity's opening narration within a flashback within a video recording. Sloppy work, Mr. Whedon.

I'll let the whole "do you know what happens to a toad when it's stuck by lightning?" line from the first X-Men go, because even though it's Whedon's, and it doesn't work, it's really Halle Berry's delivery that turns it into something especially awful. What I find especially interesting / distressing is that his draft included the X-Men battling it out in a K-Mart. Do I find that bothersome b/c it's simply not serious enough for a bunch of silly comic book characters? Nope, it's b/c it sort of wreaks of a surfeit of postmodern nonsense.

Fuck, I'm turning into a troll, and I'm sorry, but Jesus Christ on a cracker, I just don't like this guy's stuff at all.

You, sir, are crazypants. That opening was sweet.

That said, you won't see something similar in Avengers. Prologue will be taken care of in the marketing and people have actually watched these movies (as opposed to Firefly).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

You, sir, are crazypants. That opening was sweet.

 

That said, you won't see something similar in Avengers. Prologue will be taken care of in the marketing and people have actually watched these movies (as opposed to Firefly).

The opening was a jumbled mess of information dump, my friend. Chiwetel Ejiofor, however, saved the whole fiasco (and should play the Black Panther in Avengers 2).

Christ on a cracker, the whole Joss Whedon debate reeks of fanboy bias on both ends. Aside from his work on Buffy, he is generally indistinct as an artist. He's more workmanlike than anything, but people act like he's either this egregious hack or an acquired taste. Other than a few dialogue flourishes, he's pretty goddamn generic. Which can either be a good thing or a bad thing, but I wish people would stop acting like he's some visionary who either ruins everything he touches or automatically makes it gold.

The "Toad struck by lightning" line is the perfect illustration of this. It's a bad script doctor line, not unlike a million other bad script doctor lines in any movie ever from the beginning of cinema history. But because it's JOSS WHEDON it gets brought up AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

He's...not generic at all. That's a really weird thing to say, unless you're just talking about his visual sense. His writing, however, is incredibly distinctive. It has a very specific and consistent set of strengths and weaknesses. To me, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses (by a wide margin), but it's not at all surprising that people have a strong reaction to his work.

I thought the opening of Serenity was terrifically done, personally. A better and more cinematic SF exposition prologue than I can remember seeing anywhere else. If you have a problem with it, I can't imagine you enjoying deep-backstory SF or fantasy in general, which usually features much clunkier infodumping at the beginning. We love Star Wars because it's iconic, but if you knew absolutely nothing about it or Serenity, which prologue would be easier to follow?

I suppose I can imagine someone who's only familiar with Serenity or his other big-screen script work calling Whedon's output "generic."

I CANNOT imagine anyone who's watched a significant portion of any of his four TV shows (especially the first one) saying the same thing. 'Cause that would be asinine beyond belief.

He's definitely distinctive as a writer, but mostly it's just because of his wit. But he's nowhere as distinctive as say Diablo Cody or Tarantino. Buffy is chocked full of cultural references (which makes sense cause they're in, you know, High School) but his other work tones that aspect way down. His characters have witty banter. That's about the only thing you can say earmarks his style.

And yes, in all other areas of filmmaking he's as generic as they come.

Look, I've seen every episode of every Whedon show ever. I like the guy! But what he is known for, plain and simple, IS WITTY BANTER. And girl power. That is it. If that makes him a genius auteur filmmaker in the same league as Kubrick and Tarantino or some shit to you, I don't know what else to say.

Even though Whedon can be glib about that sort of material, isn't that exactly what the superhero genre needs? I feel like the last few MAJOR movies just treat the comic as SACRED TEXTS and the heroes as ENDURING ICONS and I think this sort of take-the-piss attitude is needed for this genre to thrive. I think Whedon is exactly what comic book movies need right now, I think he knows when to poke fun, and when to embrace the goofy high melodrama of the characters.

Whedon isn't exactly one of the "greats," but I think he's PERFECT for "The Avengers."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Christ on a cracker, the whole Joss Whedon debate reeks of fanboy bias on both ends. Aside from his work on Buffy, he is generally indistinct as an artist. He's more workmanlike than anything, but people act like he's either this egregious hack or an acquired taste. Other than a few dialogue flourishes, he's pretty goddamn generic. Which can either be a good thing or a bad thing, but I wish people would stop acting like he's some visionary who either ruins everything he touches or automatically makes it gold.

 

The "Toad struck by lightning" line is the perfect illustration of this. It's a bad script doctor line, not unlike a million other bad script doctor lines in any movie ever from the beginning of cinema history. But because it's JOSS WHEDON it gets brought up AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

In my defense, I did say that I'm giving it a pass. I brought it up not so much b/c of the infamy attached to it, but simply as intro to his work on the script in general. I honestly don't really care that much about him, but his being handed The Avengers and my recent first viewing of Serenity brings much of what I do feel about the man as a filmmaker into sharp focus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Even though Whedon can be glib about that sort of material, isn't that exactly what the superhero genre needs? I feel like the last few MAJOR movies just treat the comic as SACRED TEXTS and the heroes as ENDURING ICONS and I think this sort of take-the-piss attitude is needed for this genre to thrive. I think Whedon is exactly what comic book movies need right now, I think he knows when to poke fun, and when to embrace the goofy high melodrama of the characters.

 

Whedon isn't exactly one of the "greats," but I think he's PERFECT for "The Avengers."

 

In theory, yes. I would actually really like that if superhero movies have to stick around, that there be a lot more fun and variety in them, instead of approaching every other cape adventure like a Wagnerian dirge. However, Whedon's brand of "glib" doesn't strike me as being particularly clever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Look, I've seen every episode of every Whedon show ever. I like the guy! But what he is known for, plain and simple, IS WITTY BANTER. And girl power. That is it. If that makes him a genius auteur filmmaker in the same league as Kubrick and Tarantino or some shit to you, I don't know what else to say.

This is insanity. Witty banter yes, girl power, yes. Also: a knack for twists, and playing the audience in regards to their expectations. A willingness to try and hurt the audience. Comedic treatment of dark (to the point of apocalyptic) material. An inherent cynicism redeemed only by faith in the bonds between people. Extremely well-conceived long-form plot arcs, when working in TV. A willingness to reinvent himself and to try new things, including turning away from the stuff that he does well and could turn into a crutch if he was lazy.

Of course he's not Kubrick. Don't pull that straw-man shit. He's a distinctive storyteller who's only "generic" in that lots of people have been trying very hard to imitate him for the past decade, and he's made a major impact on genre TV and geekdom in general. It's like saying J. R. R. Tolkien is generic fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

This is insanity. Witty banter yes, girl power, yes. Also: a knack for twists, and playing the audience in regards to their expectations. A willingness to try and hurt the audience. Comedic treatment of dark (to the point of apocalyptic) material. An inherent cynicism redeemed only by faith in the bonds between people. Extremely well-conceived long-form plot arcs, when working in TV. A willingness to reinvent himself and to try new things, including turning away from the stuff that he does well and could turn into a crutch if he was lazy.

 

Of course he's not Kubrick. Don't pull that straw-man shit. He's a distinctive storyteller who's only "generic" in that lots of people have been trying very hard to imitate him for the past decade, and he's made a major impact on genre TV and geekdom in general. It's like saying J. R. R. Tolkien is generic fantasy.

Fair enough, I agree with most of what you are saying. And again, I like his work. But on the aesthetic, technical level of filmmaking he brings nothing special to the table whatsoever. A distinctive storyteller and voice? Definitely. A distinctive filmmaker? Not at all.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

This is insanity. Witty banter yes, girl power, yes. Also: a knack for twists, and playing the audience in regards to their expectations. A willingness to try and hurt the audience. Comedic treatment of dark (to the point of apocalyptic) material. An inherent cynicism redeemed only by faith in the bonds between people. Extremely well-conceived long-form plot arcs, when working in TV. A willingness to reinvent himself and to try new things, including turning away from the stuff that he does well and could turn into a crutch if he was lazy.

 

Of course he's not Kubrick. Don't pull that straw-man shit. He's a distinctive storyteller who's only "generic" in that lots of people have been trying very hard to imitate him for the past decade, and he's made a major impact on genre TV and geekdom in general. It's like saying J. R. R. Tolkien is generic fantasy.

I agree with this. I'm no Whedon superfan or even a detractor, but his paw prints are everywhere. He has the shittiest imitators, though.

Have to say, that breakdown of Whedon's style was really good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Fair enough, I agree with most of what you are saying. And again, I like his work. But on the aesthetic, technical level of filmmaking he brings nothing special to the table whatsoever. A distinctive storyteller and voice? Definitely. A distinctive filmmaker? Not at all.

You're narrowing the goalposts here. Having an overtly distinctive visual style isn't the be all and end all of being a good director. I'd argue that Spielberg is an example of a great director whose touch you tend to 'feel' more than see.

I kind of get where Sebastian is coming from, especially with Whedon the filmmaker vs Whedon the TV legend. Serenity is a crackling bit of storytelling, but it does feel kind of like a TV show. The real question is whether or not his long form storytelling skills can be ported over to this Marvel movieverse, and I imagine that's the big reason he was hired in the first place. 

Anyone doubting that Whedon can be dynamic as a director should watch the "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" episode "Restless" again. I was just watching it and the visual ingenuity on display in that episode is incredible. The imagination that he shows in constructing it as he does (both as writer and a director) and the impeccable timing and inventiveness that he demonstrates through its transitions from setting to setting is masterful. It's surreal, disorienting, confusing, and at the same time, coherent enough to make a clear statement about its characters and tell a story with a clear point and purpose by the end. It's also scary, funny, and exciting.

I'd rank the quality of the direction in "Restless" right up there with some of the most visually splendid movies I've seen. The fact that it was accomplished on a TV budget makes it even more impressive. Joss Whedon is no Kevin Smith. He's got a lot more going for him as an artist than just a knack for good dialog. He can be a hell of a visual storyteller too. Now I don't know if he'll be able to showcase any of that talent in "The Avengers", but only because of the constraints big studio pictures put on an artist's personal vision. My point is, whether he brings something special to the movie's look or not, he has it in him to do that. He has the ability to create art that's as brilliantly crafted and original visually as it is verbally. I don't know if "The Avengers" will be a platform that allows him to prove it, but I hope so.

Thanks folks. And sorry, Sebastian, if I seemed angry. I just think owls are assholes.

I have no problem with people labeling Whedon a bland director, though I think he's got the potential to be something more. Naisu points out "Restless", which was indeed pretty inventive, and didn't he also do "The Body" and "Objects in Space"? He's actually got almost as much of an art film tone-poem style going on as he does standard comedy-action-adventure. And yes, while the rest of Serenity is directed in a pretty workmanlike manner (though I think Whedon has an excellent handle on lighting, of all things), the pre-credits sequence is pretty virtuoso. But mostly, yes, he's clearly a writer first. But I have no real problem with workmanlike direction in service to a good script--in fact, I think a lot of good scripts have been fucked up by auteurs, including (to hear him tell it) some of Whedon's own work. As Michael Caine says in "Deathtrap", "I'll tell you how good [this script] is. Even a 'gifted' director couldn't hurt it."

Look, those complaining about Whedon lacking the visual and technical acumen are missing the point. Since Iron Man, hasn't Marvel made it clear that the execs are the real auteurs of these movies? They're all gonna look alike. They're all gonna feel alike. It makes sense to strike out with decent filmmakers like Favreau and Branagh the first time around, and when they don't agree with the accelerated timeline of these movies (DROP EVERYTHING FOR MARVEL) they'll reach for TV guys like Brian Kirk or Patty Jenkins, or even people with vaguely TV-like aesthetics like Shane Black, so that they don't have any visionaries that would make, say, The Avengers, look and feel different from Captain America 2, or a Black Panther or Dr. Strange movie.

I sit on the side of the fence that says Marvel right now are making hamburgers. Some of them are pretty delicious, but it's pretty much fast food, with a rotating menu of similar ingredients. They aren't going to hire Joss Whedon to introduce new ingredients, he's here to make the present ingredients taste better than before. I think he'll do that. I also think it's not going to be much more than a Big Mac.

In this equation, The Dark Knight Rises is a T-Bone steak, by the way. Yum.

I think Marvel's actually done a pretty great job of integrating the movies, visually and thematically, in an auteurist sort of sense, into one cohesive way of being while at the same allowing room for directors to play around. They impose a framework, which is logical, but they do not stifle the creativity of the directors they invite to play around there -- at least, not really going by the movies themselves. The behind-the-scenes stories suggest otherwise, but I dunno.

We got what was pretty clearly a Johnston movie with Cap, and Thor is very Branagh. Favreau doesn't really have an aesthetic of his own, as much as I think he's a fine director, but just by casting Downey and giving them both the freedom to improvise almost everything daily (at a time when the company's whole position, movie-wise, was much more tricky) I think they showed that they know the importance of creative vision, but also know it needs to have some logical limits to make the machine run as they need it to.

I do get your complaints, though, Gabe, and Feige definitely has a share of input that is in many ways creative and could be considered an infringement on his directors. We're not going to get something as distinctive as The Dark Knight out of this deal. But I think I like Thor and IM and even Cap a little more than that movie, which I don't often return to and do think is somewhat overrated, so it's not something I totally have a problem with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

We got what was pretty clearly a Johnston movie with Cap, and Thor is very Branagh. Favreau doesn't really have an aesthetic of his own, as much as I think he's a fine director, but just by casting Downey and giving them both the freedom to improvise almost everything daily (at a time when the company's whole position, movie-wise, was much more tricky) I think they showed that they know the importance of creative vision, but also know it needs to have some logical limits to make the machine run as they need it to.

No offense, but that last part of the statement just totally depressed me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

No offense, but that last part of the statement just totally depressed me.

Fair enough, but surely commercial moviemaking is a machine in general. That is true of The Dark Knight Rises, or any other movie made in that system. If it depresses you then you have problems with Hollywood filmmaking more generally, and you can't single out Marvel specifically for more or less following the trend (and being way more character- and story-oriented than most studios would ever think of being).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 If it depresses you then you have problems with Hollywood filmmaking more generally, and you can't single out Marvel specifically for more or less following the trend (and being way more character- and story-oriented than most studios would ever think of being).

I dunno, can't we?

(/lazy posting)

Gabe T, You keep your...T Bone Steak.  I definitely prefer a...Hamburger!  The Hamburger is the...Greatest of meat dishes.  Steak is just...OK!  Tube Steaks aka...Hot Dogs, would be second, with Chicken...Anything following at third.  I do want to see...The Dark Knight Rises.  However, my order of preference of Super Heroic Slugfests will also include some...Pulpish Hero never on the...Silver Screen!

1) THE AVENGERS!

2) Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance

3) Dredd

4) John Carter (100 years since he was created by...Edgar Rice Burroughs whom also created...Tarzan!  First Theatrical Film.  Asylum did release a dtv.  Marvel did have...28 issues of JC of Mars)

5) The Dark Knight Rises

6) The Amazing Spider-Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke fleed 

Gabe T, You keep your...T Bone Steak.  I definitely prefer a...Hamburger!  The Hamburger is the...Greatest of meat dishes.  Steak is just...OK!  Tube Steaks aka...Hot Dogs, would be second, with Chicken...Anything following at third.  I do want to see...The Dark Knight Rises.  However, my order of preference of Super Heroic Slugfests will also include some...Pulpish Hero never on the...Silver Screen!

1) THE AVENGERS!

2) Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance

3) Dredd

4) John Carter (100 years since he was created by...Edgar Rice Burroughs whom also created...Tarzan!  First Theatrical Film.  Asylum did release a dtv.  Marvel did have...28 issues of JC of Mars)

5) The Dark Knight Rises

6) The Amazing Spider-Man

Your post is rage-inducing.  I wish you all the ills of the world, good sir.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Your post is rage-inducing.  I wish you all the ills of the world, good sir.
 

 

Ha, you must be new here.

wadew1, Keep on...Truckin?  Should I think of my self as...BJ McKay, Chuck Norris in Breaker Breaker, Jerry Reed as Snowman in Smokey and The Bandit, or Jan Michael Vincent in...Damnation Alley?  Also, I just heard about a new Xbox 360 game called...Sledge Hammer.  You...Jack Hammer, drive a...Weapon Laden Battletruck, bristling with 31 Flavors of Firepower!  Also if you do not do as you were hired, your benefactors will...Detonate the bomb in your brain!  Now that should be a film!  Dolph Lundgren would be...Perfect!

Ska Oreo, So is it...Streets Of Rage or Primal Rage, that you are experiencing?  How could the...Assemblege of Avengers not be...The Superhero Event of...2012?  Oops, I did forget...Welcome to...Fantasy Island.  Err...CHUD.COM the...Greatest Of All Websites!

Latest villain rumor is

in a scene that defines

as one of the Nine Realms.

Intrigued.

Gabe T, That would be...Fantastic news if true!

That'd be awesome. I want to see that. Exactly that.

I just hope The Avengers is an amazing success so that Whedon can make The Avengers II as a musical. Yes!

You joke, but honestly I am more interested in this movie as something that gives Whedon more clout as a filmmaker than as the future of the Marvel franchise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Latest villain rumor is

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Annihilus

in a scene that defines

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The Negative Zone

as one of the Nine Realms.

 

Intrigued.

That would certainly be damn cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankypanky 

I just hope The Avengers is an amazing success so that Whedon can make The Avengers II as a musical. Yes!

I'd see the shit out of that movie. And I hate musicals.

There is a brand new German trailer out there with some snippets of new footage. Nothing major, though it's great to see Captain America speak German.

Also, Bruce Banner says, "We're not a team, we're a ticking time bomb." Seems sorta interesting, I guess.

None of the trailers have made me want to see this film, it looks weirdly flat and cheap. Considering the talent they got to photograph it, this seems like a very weird creative choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

None of the trailers have made me want to see this film, it looks weirdly flat and cheap. Considering the talent they got to photograph it, this seems like a very weird creative choice.

It's because the color correction is shit, there's no contrast and the lighting is flat as fuck.

It was always supposed to be in 3D, fellas.

Unsourced rumors floating around that Skrulls are not the mysterious-mocapped-baddies because Fox owns the rights as part of the Fantastic Four.

Am I wrong in feeling like the marketing is being mishandled on Avengers?  It all seems very weak.

There's still been very little indication on exactly who the bad guys (other than Loki) are in this.  If they're the Skrull standins the Chitauri, maybe the CG isn't done on them yet?

Can't show what you don't have?

Is this why those scrapped video game shots leaked? They were battling Skrulls in that.

Another website says that Fox only has the rights to Super-Skrull, the Skrull Empire is still with Marvel.

We'll see I guess.