JOSS WHEDON EXPLAINS WHICH AVENGER HIS MOVIE FAVORS - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

How fucking dare you.

Admit it you lie about Superhero movies to get attention.

I admit NOTHING.

I like Clark Gregg as an actor, but I hope I don't see much of him in Avengers.

Supposedly he has a pretty important role in the movie, though.

Right, the park scene.
 

It'll be Coulson. I'm buying everyone here a drink if it's anyone else.

Marvel will not let Whedon kill off an established character from the comics. Even Maria Hill is safe and everyone fucking hates her.

Feige seems to have a serious hard on for the Hulk so it won't be Banner and Renner is slowly becoming a megastar. Marvel will want to keep him around. I can see Hawkeye being the Legolas of the group. He'll get some cute lines and a few badass moments but that's it.

Also, and I'm going to get murdered for mentioning something comicbookmovie.com there is a potential description of Black Widow's opening scene that sounds fantastic and very, very Whedon. If true it gives the impression that every character gets a moment of their own.

Yeah, I can buy that as the angle for the film. 

Oh and count me as someone who likes Clark Gregg's charater - every group needs an asshole.

Isn't Tony that?

By the way, found this:

CraveOnline: Joss Whedon is also a master of killing off beloved characters. I’m actually a little worried about you.

Clark Gregg: Yeah, I’ve read this! I’ve read this. I’m flattered that people care, but I wish they would stop saying this because they’re going to put it in somebody’s mind! I’m talking to them about doing Iron Man 3 right now, and somebody’s going “Maybe Agent Coulson should die,” and I’m like, “Hey, hey, hey! This is the best job I’ve ever had! Stop talking about killing Agent Coulson off.”

CraveOnline: (Laughs) – Fair enough.

Clark Gregg: No, no, no. I talked to Joss Whedon early on. I said “Hey, why is everyone saying this?” And he said, “Yeah, I’ve done that before.

http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles/173736-clark-gregg-on-the-avengers-marvel-one-shots-iron-man-3-and-more

MISDIRECTION.

Lay off Coulson you bloodthirsty maniacs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Lay off Coulson you bloodthirsty maniacs.

If I get rich between now and May I'm buying everyone here a ticket to Greece so we can all watch The Avengers with Stelios.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike's Pants 

 Even Maria Hill is safe and everyone fucking hates her.

Huh. Did not realize she was a character from the comics. I wouldn't go based on those, though. Everyone in The Ultimates is a hateful douchebag, because that's the only kind of character Mark Millar knows how to write. Doesn't mean they will be in the movie.

Now that should be the title of the film.

Good Lord do I agree with that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

Huh. Did not realize she was a character from the comics. I wouldn't go based on those, though. Everyone in The Ultimates is a hateful douchebag, because that's the only kind of character Mark Millar knows how to write. Doesn't mean they will be in the movie.

Maria Hill isn't from the Ultimates, she's a character in the regular Marvel Universe.

Not really my point.

It was the ending of Wanted that makes me hate Mark Millar. I can only assume the man himself is a hateful douche.  It is one of the things that steered me away from The Ultimates.

I would also like to join the Agent Coulson fan club. I mean, you are encountering the strange with super powered beings, and the government pays him little and hands him a gun, while expecting him to work round the clock. In a Hult Smash event, you are the poor schmuck who gets creamed by a tank because some poor child/mother and baby/grandma can't get out of the Big Green Machine's way and you have to 'save the people.' 

His death will make me rage. I will see the movie twice, but RAGE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Not really my point.

What was it, then - that the movie's Maria Hill won't necessarily be the Maria Hill from the comics? If so, I agree, but I think it would be wise to keep the comic version of Hill as a counterpoint to her boss Fury.

Yes. I'm aware she wasn't in Ultimates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies 

What was it, then - that the movie's Maria Hill won't necessarily be the Maria Hill from the comics? If so, I agree, but I think it would be wise to keep the comic version of Hill as a counterpoint to her boss Fury.

 

Man, I hope Maria Hill tries to arrest Captain America for breaking a law before it was put into effect like in the comics.

But seriously, I kinda wonder why they're using her instead of Sharon Carter, unless the intention is to set up Carter in Captain America 2, and decided not to use the role in this.  Unless, Maria Hill is supposed to take over for Fury or something.  Things don't look good for him surviving if that's the case.

I don't see Fury being the guy to get Whedon'd in this. Didn't Samuel L. Jackson sign this ridiculous contract a few years ago to reprise his role of Nick Fury in some crazy number of movies like 8, encapsulating all solo Avenger member movies, Avengers sequels, and his own movie?

By the way, I like all of Whedon's shows so far, but his tendency to kill off major characters in a cheap, lazy attempt to generate drama is one of the only hallmarks of his style that really annoys me. I was disgusted that even in fucking

which is totally this light, inconsequential comedy (which I was enjoying on that level up until the death), he had to throw in the brutal, unnecessary death of a major character.

It's such a weak, unnecessary crutch of his. I'm really hoping the nature of this movie (being such a huge franchise thing that means a lot to a major studio) finally keeps him from pulling that shit in one of his productions.

The sudden gruesome death shock tactic worked beautifully the first time he did it on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", but after that it became increasingly predictable, forced, and ineffective on that show and in his other work. At this point, I'm really sick of it. Good thing he didn't write that episode of "The Office" he directed. Pam or Jim probably would have died before they ever got together.

I was mostly kidding about Fury, but yeah, Whedon has his crutches.  I imagine though, that like the other Marvel films, Marvel has its directors on a leash.  Even if Whedon may have a looser one than some of the other guys.

For whatever subversiveness and aversion of tropes he's had his hand in, he has gone and fallen into ones as well.

Three words about why Fury won't die:

LIFE. MODEL. DECOY.

Count me in as the only person who would be upset with Hawkeye dying.  He was my favorite as a kid, Renner's terrific in everything, and I think the team really benefits from the grounding of having a few non-powered types like him and Black Widow around.  I'd be totally fine with Fury biting it though; maybe he could be decent with Whedon writing him, but so far he's just been boring and bad.

The willingness to kill well-liked characters is not a crutch.  What a weird criticism.

Fury in Iron Man 2 was written as generic Sam Jackson character, not as Nick Fury.  I'd like to see Hawkeye stick around too.

That said, it's not that a willingness to kill well-liked characters is a crutch, it's that Whedon goes there so much that's it's become a crutch for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Fury in Iron Man 2 was written as generic Sam Jackson character, not as Nick Fury.  I'd like to see Hawkeye stick around too.

 

That said, it's not that a willingness to kill well-liked characters is a crutch, it's that Whedon goes there so much that's it's become a crutch for him.

The thing is, Sam Jackson always Sam Jacksons up his roles, and that's what makes them so fun.  But when you put him in a role that is specifically written to be Sam Jackson, he's weirdly horrible.  Luckily everyone else is so perfectly cast that it almost doesn't matter how bad he is, the product will almost surely be entertaining anyway.

I honestly don't see the issue the way apparently everyone else does.  Yes, he's killed off characters suddenly a handful of times in the stuff I've seen.  But that's including 100+ episodes of Buffy, 70 or so Angels, and a season + movie of Firefly, each of which features the heroes in mortal peril.  Someone has to take a loss from time to time in order for to maintain any sense of danger, not to mention that if you make that many hours of TV, you're going to end up repeating yourself in some fashion.

Calling it a "crutch" just rubs me wrong.  If anything, I think his problem is that he's too quick to use the comic-y nature of his stories as an excuse to bring characters back from the dead after earning a major death, which strikes me as legitimately lazy in its way.  But that's a separate issue, really.  When it comes to the sudden axing of supporting characters, he's pretty good about accepting that his cake is gone once he eats it.  And that means that he has to do the actual work of dealing with the destabilizing effect it has on the world of the story and creating a constant stream of likable characters to fill the margins.  A crutch, to me, is something you use to avoid the hard stuff.

I'd much rather prefer someone who has the balls to piss off his audience by killing beloved characters to someone who has to wrap everything up in a pretty little happily ever after.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

 

By the way, I like all of Whedon's shows so far, but his tendency to kill off major characters in a cheap, lazy attempt to generate drama is one of the only hallmarks of his style that really annoys me. I was disgusted that even in fucking

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

which is totally this light, inconsequential comedy (which I was enjoying on that level up until the death), he had to throw in the brutal, unnecessary death of a major character.

 

That death was ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

The thing is, Sam Jackson always Sam Jacksons up his roles, and that's what makes them so fun.  But when you put him in a role that is specifically written to be Sam Jackson, he's weirdly horrible.  Luckily everyone else is so perfectly cast that it almost doesn't matter how bad he is, the product will almost surely be entertaining anyway.

Ultimate Nick Fury is more serious Sam Jackson than the loud-mouthed parody of Sam Jackson they did in Iron Man 2.  I hope he's better in future movies.

Oftentimes now when he does it, it doesn't feel like it's a loss because things are dangerous, it's a loss because he wants the (cheap) drama.  And it can be really cheap.  What's the point of killing off major characters ten minutes before the entire series ends?

It's not like Xander died in S2/3 of Buffy because they were out fighting vampires one night and he got his neck broken.

Don't forget that Whedon is also the master of killing characters off just so he can bring them back to life. Angel in season 2 of Buffy only to return in season 3, Spike in season 7 of Buffy only to return on Angel, Fred in season 5 of Angel only to return as Illyria, etc. He even Wrath of Khan's Kitty Pryde's death at the end of his Astonishing X-Men run, leaving it open for her to be brought back later (and she was).  

True that.  And even Fred was supposed to come back, if they had gotten an additional season.

The main problem with Sam Jackson's Fury, or Gregg's Coulson, is that this is supposed to be a government organization so above everyone's heads that they can assemble a team of what looks like a couple of wanted fugitives and social ragtags to be a major force for the United States and/or the world. They've hand their hands in everything, they have a budget that allows excavation of WWII soldiers buried in ice, they work on developing Super Soldier Serums, they have the highest possible access to everything, and never have to answer to the press.

So why are they so jokey and casual? Coulson's a sitcom character, and Jackson's Fury might as well be sipping on a beer every time he reads his lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

The main problem with Sam Jackson's Fury, or Gregg's Coulson, is that this is supposed to be a government organization so above everyone's heads that they can assemble a team of what looks like a couple of wanted fugitives and social ragtags to be a major force for the United States and/or the world. They've hand their hands in everything, they have a budget that allows excavation of WWII soldiers buried in ice, they work on developing Super Soldier Serums, they have the highest possible access to everything, and never have to answer to the press.

 

So why are they so jokey and casual? Coulson's a sitcom character, and Jackson's Fury might as well be sipping on a beer every time he reads his lines.

All of what you said is exactly why they're so jokey and casual.  They're the shit and they know it.

Your whole post, but especially THIS. I can criticize some of his specific choices (the death in Dr. Horrible did seem gratuitous, and some of the character deaths in his ouevre--especially Firefly--were triggered by the actors wanting to bail more than an organic aspect of the story, which rubs me the wrong way a bit) but it's definitely true that in an ongoing adventure story where the fate of the world is frequently at stake, telling stories where no one ever dies wreaks havoc with our ability to care.

I agree with the whole "bringing characters back" thing, too, though I can excuse it in several cases. We all knew Buffy was coming back, though I think her resurrection was handled a bit awkwardly, and I thought the Fred/Ilyria thing was actually kind of brilliant--it definitely wasn't a "Oh hai I'm all good now lolz" thing, it was a major change to the status quo.

Anyway. It's entirely possible no one will die in The Avengers at all--more than a Whedon project, this is a bit of Marvel brand extension. People suggesting Hawkeye or Nick Fury will bite it are kind of nuts. I actually am down with Coulson dying because it'll at least give the story more of a sense of stakes than the usual superhero thing.

The problem with Fury and Jackson's performance of him so is that he's barely done anything yet. All these movies, with next to no screen time. I'm hoping with an expanded role we get to see him settle into the character, rather than this perpetual state of 'Look Kids! It's Samuel L. Jackson!' Once he actually gets something to do and a decent chunk of screen time, then I think we can pass judgement.

I'm pretty fine with Whedon's bloodlust in general, but Fred's death always struck me with how almost humorously over-the-top it was. Let's see:

-Character who is not only fan-loved but very innocent

-Death comes completely unexpectedly

-The dying process is protracted and extremely painful

-The reason for the dying is highly cruel and unfair

-It's partially the fault of another character's folly that it happens

-Angel has to face a ridiculous moral decision whose outcome is a forgone conclusion to try and save her

-Oh, and apparently she has not only died but her soul has been eradicated, so that she can't be brought back and doesn't get to go to heaven like Buffy

Although I probably could have handled that if it hadn't effectively rid the show of its only remaining interesting female character. Granted, they ended up with not much time to develop Illyria, and they apparently were going to bring Fred back if there was a season six, but it still sticks in my craw a bit.

We really shouldn't be spoiling unrelated TV shows so rampantly in an Avengers thread, especially since this is moot.  As Prankster and others note, even if Whedon would murder the shit out of the entire cast given his druthers, he's working with Marvel's intellectual property here, and they want to maintain the potential for solo trilogies for everyone, even if its a pipe dream in some cases.  The only way any actual Avenger could buy it is if the actor wants out of a contract and Marvel has given up on spinning them off.  Jackson's contract is too ludicrously profitable and low-maintenance to bail on, so only Hawkeye is even a vague possibility. 

And just to play out this thread, they could easily do it.  The character doesn't have much blockbuster potential on his own, as he's not terribly interesting when not surrounded by superfolks, not to mention that his "power" doesn't provide for easy spectacle the way Thor or Iron Man do.  Plus Renner is swimming in action franchises at this point, so he doesn't desperately need the steady gig.  And killing a hero off plays into the director's sensibilities, and maybe gives the brand a bit of "edgy" cred that that Nolan jerk has been hogging all of when it comes to superheroes.

Weighed against the creative justifications for doing it is the outside possibility of a positive future impact on a movie studio's bottom line.  I wonder, I wonder which one will win out...

Well, the con is that you kill Hawkeye, an archer in the middle of a Super Soldier, a Robot Man, a Monster Dude and a God of Thunder, the general audience will just be like, "Well, DUH."

Part of me hopes they invent a new movie-only Avenger for the movie, then kill him AND Hawkeye unceremoniously.

I can picture Ant-Man showing up, waving at the camera, and then just getting fucking DEMOLISHED by something.

Prediction:

"The Avengers" will be considered to consist of Cap, Thor, and Iron Man only at first. They'll be brought together to bring down the Hulk, either because he's rampaging or because they want to add him to the team (or at least place him under their control). While this is happening, there'll be a subplot involving some suspicious goings-on at SHIELD, with some of the ground-level characters stumbling across a Skrull mole. Or a bunch of Skrull moles. A lot of shit will go down, and SHIELD will be decimated, with Fury, Widow, Hawkeye, Coulson and Maria Hill being the only SHIELD agents left alive and functional. This is what will put them on the team per se.

Not sure how Loki fits in, but there are a number of different ways he could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

The main problem with Sam Jackson's Fury, or Gregg's Coulson, is that this is supposed to be a government organization so above everyone's heads that they can assemble a team of what looks like a couple of wanted fugitives and social ragtags to be a major force for the United States and/or the world. They've hand their hands in everything, they have a budget that allows excavation of WWII soldiers buried in ice, they work on developing Super Soldier Serums, they have the highest possible access to everything, and never have to answer to the press.

 

So why are they so jokey and casual? Coulson's a sitcom character, and Jackson's Fury might as well be sipping on a beer every time he reads his lines.

I'm totally with you on this. We haven't yet been given the impression that Shield is this all knowing, all powerful global force. Jackson is just Jackson "You're Iron Man and he just took it!?" and as much as I enjoy Gregg, the flippant tone needs to make way for some badassery quickly.

It's actually what confused me about Thor. I just assumed going in that Shield would be aware of the presence of the Asgardians but they were completely clueless. This seems even more odd given the beginning of Captain America where there seemed to be a group of people protecting the Tesseract during the War. I dunno, Shield should know about this. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

So why are they so jokey and casual? Coulson's a sitcom character, and Jackson's Fury might as well be sipping on a beer every time he reads his lines.

Personally, I find it to be a refreshing change of pace. I can watch the Bourne movies, Tailor of Panama or any number of other flicks for a more serious take on spies and secret agents, but this is the Avengers. SHIELD exists in a world with a rampaging green id-monster, a billionaire with a robot suit, Norse gods and FDR dressed in an American flag - let 'em be equally off kilter.

Yeah, but they're so loose that they seem unprepared. There's a difference between nonchalance and indifference, and I don't think the Marvel writers have identified that yet in regards to these characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike's Pants 

It's actually what confused me about Thor. I just assumed going in that Shield would be aware of the presence of the Asgardians but they were completely clueless. This seems even more odd given the beginning of Captain America where there seemed to be a group of people protecting the Tesseract during the War. I dunno, Shield should know about this. 

 

Interesting...
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Well, the con is that you kill Hawkeye, an archer in the middle of a Super Soldier, a Robot Man, a Monster Dude and a God of Thunder, the general audience will just be like, "Well, DUH."

You kill Coulson, the DUH is even smaller.

I think we should keep him around to have one normal guy in the team. And even though Jackson might not play a neveraging Fury, he's Samuel L. Jackson. He can never be the one normal guy. Even if it was Jason Bateman it wouldn't work as he's SHIELD's boss. Fury in action needs to be so awesome that he could at least beat Hawkeye and Widow.

I like the idea of making Coulson a villain later on. This way you'll have a character every Avenger has a history with.