Slashdot Mirror


Joss Whedon To Direct The Avengers

olyar noted that Joss Whedon has been tapped to direct The Avengers. This should make a lot of nerds very excited, and begin rampant speculation on Buffy/Firefly/Horrible universe actor cameos. Hope the script doesn't suck.

47 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. This is good. by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just pooped myself a little. It is awkward at work.

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  2. The [real] Avengers had... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...Mrs Peel. 'nuf said.

    1. Re:The [real] Avengers had... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like to think of Buffy as the love child of Emma Peel and Thor, so you see how it all ties together.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:The [real] Avengers had... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

      I prefer to think of Buffy as the love child of Emma Peel and Charisma Carpenter. Over and over again I think of this.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:The [real] Avengers had... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's disgusting and perverted. You just mixed a character and an actress. You broke the fourth wall and ruined the fantasy for all of us, heathen!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:The [real] Avengers had... by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      I though you were more of a willow devotee.

      The world is divided into two groups, the Willow devotees and those who cannot admit to themselves that they are Willow devotees.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  3. Cameos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that Buffy or Firefly cameos would be horrible.

    1. Re:Cameos by bFusion · · Score: 4, Funny

      DOCTOR horrible?

  4. Doubt it will ever get made by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I personally don't think this movie will ever get made. The first clue that this is not a serious project is the fact that the studio is talking about Robert Downey, Jr. playing Iron Man. There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.

    As far as Whedon goes, he's one of these guys that studios often bring in to write/rewrite scripts just to test the waters on early projects. His name generates some buzz, and the studio may or may not get an interesting script out of him. He also works cheap (an important consideration these days in an era of "tentpole" movies with exploding FX budgets, and multitudes of comic book franchises in the works). Though geeks think of him as an A-lister, Hollywood doesn't. If you look at the guy's financial track record, you'll see he's very small-time by Hollywood standards and has had WAY more failures than successes. At the risk of committing geek blashemy, I personally he's overrated, though he did do excellent work with the characters and dialogue in "Alien Resurrection" and "Firefly" (essentially the same set of characters, but well played with depth and wit on both counts).

    I suspect the studio is just looking for a little PR. The "Robert Downey is going to play Iron Man in the Avengers" thing is probably just to get some PR for "Iron Man 2." They know that's not going to happen. Hiring Joss Whedon may be a good way to get some geek buzz, but it doesn't indicate in any way that the studio is serious about actually making this movie. Until the real money starts to flow (i.e. when they actually start filming with the A-list talent), it's just another "Superman Lives"/"Green Lantern"/"Captain America" project that could spend decades in limbo and go through many directors/writers before it actually amounts to anything (if ever).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always had similar opinions of Whedon - how often has he had series (Firefly, Dollhouse) that should have gone straight to SciFi for 3-5-7 seasons and instead floundered on networks for 1-2? He's had his run with Buffy/Angel to be sure, but needs to make sure of his venues better.

      That being said, I applaud this pick. Whedon tends to actually care about Geek-genre characters.

    2. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I'm unrated, with bonus footage not seen in the theatrical release.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He paced Dollhouse too slow in the beginning, but if you think he did anything wrong with Firefly, you just weren't paying attention. That was FOX's mistake in handling it badly.

      So to answer your question: once. He had one show that should have gone straight to SciFi. Another that was handled badly by FOX, and two that were quite successful. Not bad in my book.

    4. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bingo. Hollywood Chatterati like to think they've got the inside scoop, but the real decisions are made by a cabal of dead-eyed accountants and lawyers who regard comic books, movies, and their own consumers [*] with - at best - a detached contempt.

      They don't get excited, or swayed by passion, they just decide how much money they're going to make from the rubes, and add up the 'value' of their 'talent' until it meets the required number.

      Whedon's last movie was 5 years ago, and bombed. His TV work since then has been small beer. Nobody wants to make a movie that 'only' grosses twenty five or even fifty million; I don't see this panning out any time soon.

      [*] Plus their 'creative partners', from which I draw my knowledge of their charming ways.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Dollhouse pilot actually covered most of the events in Season 1. Fox rejected that in favor of the inane "imprint of the week" formula.

    6. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/

      Hmmmmm. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about, in the least. I suspect he's more than willing to do an ensemble piece.

    7. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Informative

      here is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.

      Don't be too sure about that.

      We don't know what kind of deal he has going with the studios. Nor do we know what his intentions are. I've seen big name actors take bit parts due to: favors, desire to work, or wanting to work with someone that they've always wanted to work with.

      Eddie Murphy did Bowfinger because he is a fan of Steve Martin. Tom Cruise worked for scale on Rainman to work with Hoffman. Sean Bean shows up in weird places with different sized parts all the time. And Downey did do a cameo in Hulk - granted it was part of a grander plan for some future super hero movies, but never the less, he did it.

      There are countless times where you see a big name in credited and uncredited appearances in movies doing small parts.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    8. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. I do not blame Fox for the early demise of Firefly. I blame Joss or whoever decided to pitch it to one of the big networks. The show would have failed on ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. While the geek crowd rants and raves about it, it lacked the ability to interest the population at large for any length of time. Had Firefly started on a pay-to-view channel or Sci-Fi it would have ran much longer.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Chardish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And killing off Arrested Development, Futurama, and back-when-it-was-funny-Family-Guy aren't further proofs of Fox's incompetence as a network? Cancelling Firefly may be their biggest sin, but it's far from their only one.

    10. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buffy started off with a "monster of the week" formula as well, the first season at least, I don't remember exactly how long they kept that up but many many episodes had a "monster of the week". Similar concept. Worked out very well for that show.

    11. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by tweak13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have introduced many people to firefly over the years, and everyone I've shown it to has liked it.

      Every. Single. One.

      Hell, even my parents liked it so much that they showed it to their friends, many of whom went on to buy the DVDs. If that show has appeal from college students to boomers, I'd say it would have been pretty damn successful had anybody actually been able to watch it when it was on FOX.

    12. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by spookymonster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except the studio has already factored in RDj's inevitable self-destruction after Iron Man 2. By the time The Avenger's starts shooting, they'll have him down to a box of crackers and a prepaid Starbucks card.

      --
      - Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
    13. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was generally monster of the week with 5 minutes each episode dedicated to monster of the season. Monster of the season got 2 to 4 dedicated episodes, usually one at the beginning, two at the end and one in the middle where it demonstrates that Buffy is to weak to defeat him/her/it. But with the power of (heart/friendship/hot lesbian witches) they defeat the big bad after all.

      Even so, it was entertaining.

    14. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Besides; you don't know what his Iron Man contract has him obligated into.

      Didn't the LotR people sign up for all 3 movies? Same for Matrix 2 & 3, or Empire and RotJ, IIRC.

      More difficult would be DC's Justice League, with Batman and Superman as big, independent stars. Ok, the Superman guy would probably sign on in a heartbeat, let's be honest.

      For this, more difficult than Iron Man would be producing a Thor that wasn't completely idiotic. He'd have to be a real person, and even some 7' football lineman won't measure up much to the CGI Hulk. And that's the greatly reduced Hulk from Hulk 2.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by sjanich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is my understanding that as they have signed actors to do the standalone movies (e.g. Iron Man, Captain America, etc...) that the contracts included 2 Avengers movies.

    16. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whedon's last movie was 5 years ago, and bombed.

      Not sure where you got your info from... According to Wikipedia "It received generally positive reviews and opened at number two, taking in $10.1 million its first weekend, spending two weeks in the top ten, and totaling a domestic box office gross of $25.5 million and a foreign box office gross of $13.3 million. However, it did not make back its budget until its release on DVD. Serenity won film of the year awards from Film 2005[2] and FilmFocus. It also won IGN Film's Best Sci-Fi, Best Story and Best Trailer awards and was runner up for the Overall Best Movie. It also won the Nebula Award for Best Script for 2005, the 7th annual 'User Tomato Awards' for best Sci-Fi movie of 2005 at Rotten Tomatoes, the 2006 viewers choice Spacey Award for favorite movie, the 2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form and the 2006 Prometheus Special Award."

      Although it did not make back its budget immediately, it did after DVD release, plus winning all those awards...I would not call that a movie that "bombed"

    17. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However a LOT of shows perform much better in DVD sales than they do while aired and that's simply a fact of the method by which you watch it. Some shows just do better when you can watch multiple episodes at once rather than waiting a week between. Firefly is no exception to this.

      Or in proper order. Or at the time you expected them to be on without ads notifying about a time/day change. Fox decided to kill the show long before the first episode (which wasn't the first episode) aired.

    18. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't seem to be aware that Downey's contract already requires him to be in the Avengers.

      That still doesn't make me optimistic about this movie getting made by him. Your comments about Whedon getting played by the movie executives seem quite familiar, given how he was assigned to Wonder Woman, got all worked up over it, and here we are five years later with no sign of a movie.

    19. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are missing the point. I remember seeing the promos Fox ran for it and thinking what the hell is this crap, even though I love Sci-Fi. It wasn't till it was cancelled I watched it and fell in love with it. They put it on Friday nights, where alot of the younger crowd that would have been into it are out. What's worse is from what I heard they showed it out of order, and the order they showed it in made no sense. No wonder it didn't catch on. It's the same shit they did with Futurama, putting it on at 7:30 on Sunday and then premepting it because of football games or whatever constantly.

    20. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by Lorem_Ipsum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...I would not call that a movie that "bombed"

      Then you don't know what constitutes a bomb in the eyes of the studio execs.

      If it doesn't make at least double the budget in the US release alone, then it is a bomb.

      The only exceptions from their standpoint are the small-gross, tailor-made, Oscar-bait films.

      --
      --- Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary. ---
    21. Re:Doubt it will ever get made by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your definition is irrelevant. My definition is irrelevant. The only definition that matters in this conversation is that of the people in charge of green-lighting these projects. If they think "Serenity" bombed, then that means it is more likely their hiring of Whedon to write "The Avengers" is, as someone stated above, a ploy to attract attention without making a huge financial commitment, and less likely because they think Whedon's writing will make it a successful movie.

      Having said that, I think your definition is reasonable and the folks who actually _made_ the movie, as opposed to those who financed it, would probably agree with you.

      Hollywood is first and foremost a business. If creativity happens, if someone creates art, if people are inspired or awed by their product, it is simply a lucky side-effect. Almost every movie exec will be much happier to finance a movie that makes tens of millions of people slightly less bored for 90 minutes rather than a million people (or a hundred thousand, or ten thousand...) deeply moved.

      We comic books fans have been lucky in that a lot of movies based on the genre in the 15 years or so have been quite good, but Hollywood is lazy and doesn't like to take risks and the moment they think comic book adaptations are less than on fire, we fans will be back out in the weeds like we were through most of the 70s and 80s (minus a few obvious exceptions).

      Personally, I think Whedon would be a mixed bag as far as this movie is concerned. There are a lot of good things he could do for the movie, but also a lot of bad things. I actually stopped reading comics in the dark days of the early 90s and have had little or no interest in going back, so I can't comment on his comic book gig, but I am still very interested in the movies, and several the recent Marvel movies have been really excellent, and even some of the less-than-excellent ones (like the Fantastic 4 movies or Spider-man 3 were still a lot of fun).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  5. I'll probably got modded into oblivion... by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but am I the only nerd that can't stand Firefly?

    1. Re:I'll probably got modded into oblivion... by Troy+Baer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, yes you are. Go and sin no more.

      --
      "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
    2. Re:I'll probably got modded into oblivion... by CelticWhisper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you're not. I don't know when this geek law went into effect that says we must all love Firefly, but I've been breaking it all along and frankly, I'm not sorry. I watched it beginning to end, and the movie as well, and I don't think there was a single idea in it that hadn't been done better somewhere else. Ship of outlaws on the run from an overwhelmingly powerful government? Farscape. Space western? Cowboy Bebop. Telepaths/psychics trying to elude capture and subsequent scientific experimentation? Babylon 5. Badguy who will do anything to get what he wants, ethics be damned? Farscape again. Strong, capable, confident female characters? Farscape trifecta, and present in a lot of other series as well - take your pick from BSG's female cast, and there's Ivanova in B5, Caroline in ReGenesis, Scully in the X Files, the list goes on and on. Whedon hardly has a monopoly on sci-fi female empowerment, and what he does offer isn't even that good.

      And yet even now, 8 years after its demise, I still hear people clamoring to have Firefly brought back. Makes no sense to me either.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    3. Re:I'll probably got modded into oblivion... by DarksideDaveOR · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, Ivanova.

      I must spend a few hours repeating the B5 mantra now.

  6. James Marsters? by ReneeJade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we can have a Spike cameo, nothing else matters. I don't care if it makes no sense.

  7. Seriously, this is a casting nightmare by NormAtHome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I thought that Robert Downey Jr. did a really great job as Iron Man (in the first movie) the thing that made the movie was that the script was reasonably good. The second Fantastic Four movie was a total disaster because the script was absolutely the worst I think I've ever seen filmed and I was thinking all the way through the movie "Did the writer's ever actually read the original Jack Kirby, Stan Lee comic that this was based on?". The problem with the Avengers, besides needing a really good script is that the casting has to be good. To my mind the hardest problem here is trying to find someone to play Thor. You need a six foot two plus guy built like Hulk Hogan in his younger days that can do a credible Nordic accent and I think that is next to impossible.

    1. Re:Seriously, this is a casting nightmare by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're thinking much too locally. Go rent "The 13th Warrior" and check out the guy who plays Bulywif, Vladimir Kulich. Would make an *excellent* Thor.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    2. Re:Seriously, this is a casting nightmare by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      So far the movies actually made by Marvel studios rather than just co-produced by them do seem to be better than what they were initially licensing their characters to (the Fantastic Four sequel being a perfect example of the latter).

      They still fall squarely in the 'high budget Hollywood superhero movie' category, and they're not exactly highbrow, but I found both Iron Man and Ed Norton's version of The Incredible Hulk to be good entertainment. I'm interested to see how they do with Iron Man 2, and I still hold out fairly high hopes for The Avengers.

    3. Re:Seriously, this is a casting nightmare by spitzig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, to go by most of the comics I've read, you need a guy who speaks in Shakespearean English...

  8. Re:death penalty by tagno25 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is Marvel's Avengers not the UK Avengers.

  9. Re:death penalty by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Never mind. Joss, you're pardoned.

    Actually, I think Joss would have been an ideal candidate for remaking the UK Avengers. Summer Glau for the female sidekick? (More of a Purdy than a Mrs Peel, I think, but she can do a good bad English accent and beat people up, so what's not to like).

    Could have been more fun than more fricking Marvel superheroes. Ho hum, I wonder if they'll deconstruct the superhero mythos (again).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  10. Say what? by Spunkemeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Haven't you ever seen the footage shown after the credits of the Iron Man movie? It introduces Nick Fury to Tony Stark! I have no doubt Robert Downey Jr. was under contract for it when he signed up for Iron Man... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2lJ19qML0

  11. Re:In Defense of Buffy Geekdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some people were clever enough to notice that the show wasn't about magic and monsters, and instead was about the characters, people.

    Vampires weren't undead monsters. They were innocent people who were victimized, and as a result of the trauma became cruel themselves. This happens a lot in real life, consider rapists who were sexually abused in their past.

    Werewolves were people who were normally decent, but on occasion lost their cool. Is someone who loses their cool a bad person? This was an interesting question with real life implications, much like he vampire thing. Buffy didn't kill werewolves.

    That is really the tip of the Buffy iceberg. The things he did with the stories was amazing.

    Most people seem to watch it and say "these special effects suck" and move on. If someone was simply looking for a cool story about people with super powers kicking asses, they may not have liked it. To me, the super powers and magic made the story of the characters possible, not the other way around.

  12. Re:In Defense of Buffy Geekdom by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I enjoyed Buffy/Angel, the problem with Whedon of that period is he simply bit off more than he could chew work wise. Pretty much all of season six and seven of Buffy (with the exception of the musical and one down) were phoned in because he was busy with Firefly. The same thing happened with season four and five of Angel (with the exception of the puppet show) with Whedon having gotten too busy and phoning it in. If you compare season six/seven and four/five to the rest of the series you can see the writing went WAAAY downhill. Now that he isn't swamped seasons eight and six of Buffy/ Angel respectively in comic form actually have good writing again.

    So I would say whether The Avengers will be good or not depends on how much work Whedon has at that moment, since the guy can't seem to stand turning down a job even when he has a full plate. If he doesn't have much to do it will probably be great, if he is swamped it will probably be shit. it just all depends on his workload at the time.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  13. The Avengers by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have no idea what the Avengers are but you had me at Summer Glau ;)

    Think the 1960s Batman show on a good day, but slightly less goofy, and with spies instead of Batman and Robin.

    I wasn't clear which Avengers he was remaking, either. I remember when the other Avengers movie came out and I was like, "Oh, gonna be some Marvel Super Heroes in here..." and it was British spies instead... And then this story comes up and I'm like, "What, they're doing The Avengers again??" and it turns out to be the Marvel one... Darn this ambiguity!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  14. Re:In Defense of Buffy Geekdom by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She had one of my favorite lines, though, in Walk Through The Fire.

  15. Re:Not looking forward to it by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    of course, those things are generic *now*. They weren't when he made the original series.

    I remember when Buffy was first suggested as a TV series, no-one thought "oh no, another teen girl who kicks ass" as apart from the movie there hadn't been any.