Avenger's Movie Thread

[Navarre]

suffice to say the mix of big action scenes was very well balanced against a level of 'characterfulness' from the main antagonists.

Joss is great at doing this, weaving strong character moments in with the action.

[CatHalo]

THE AVENGERS IS AWESOME!! More later

[CatHalo]

It is as good as you hoped. Balanced. Funny. Intense. Clever AND Actiony. Most fun I've had at the cinema so far this year. By the time you (hopefully) hear my bit on this week's Major Spoilers Podcast I will have seen it a second time, at least. Go see this movie. There are no excuses.
For more thoughts please go to Cat Halo Movies on FaceBook (https://t.co/D0qutpy2), and feel free to Like the page.

[Tondi-]

I loved it. Definately worthwhile?  They even made characters that werent greatly portrayed in the previous films better. 

[Navarre]

I bet DC is kicking themselves now for not letting Joss write/direct a Wonder Woman movie as he suggested.

[Gaumer]

I bet DC is kicking themselves now for not letting Joss write/direct a Wonder Woman movie as he suggested.

Surely the padding provided by Nolan's Batman run makes that kick a bit less painful.

Joss or no Joss, Wonder Woman ain't even close to the property value of the Avengers, nor does WW have 5 movies to act as prequels for added build-up.

Not taking away anything from Whedon, just trying not to give him total credit for a movie that would have been number 1 for weeks even if my 6 year old had directed it.

[Navarre]

The positive reviews are a result of Whedon's work (and good work on the part of the actors). Sure, it might be #1 at the box office for a bit either way, but to continue to make money at the expected level and to continue to provide legitimacy to the superhero film franchise, we have to acknowledge Whedon.

[Gaumer]

The positive reviews are a result of Whedon's work (and good work on the part of the actors). Sure, it might be #1 at the box office for a bit either way, but to continue to make money at the expected level and to continue to provide legitimacy to the superhero film franchise, we have to acknowledge Whedon.

Not taking away anything from Whedon, just trying not to give him total credit for a movie that would have been number 1 for weeks even if my 6 year old had directed it.

[CatHalo]

This movie would have made a tonne of cash one way or another. But to have it be a genuinely good/great movie, that is where Joss comes in. Transformers 3 was a sweaty pile of sour pants...and made a BILLION dollars. Hopefully Avengers will do a tonne better, because it deserves it.

[Gaumer]

Transformers and Bay is not a good comparison.

Bay directed EVERY movie in the series, meaning he would get blame or praise no matter how good T3 was.

Whedon did not direct, or having anything to do with, ANY of the preceding movies that are the fuel for the hype engine driving this movie prior to opening for the majority of people who are going to see it.

I'm not saying the movie is good or bad, I haven't seen it, but it doesn't take much for these property movies to do well regardless. So they get a director who has NEVER directed a movie that he didn't create the property, who has had some success with comics and tv (and I mean "some"; most of his shows get shitcanned after two seasons), and has only directed 2 movies overall, if we are counting Doc Horrible.

Why get such a relative unknown? Because who directed Hunger Games? How about the other Marvel movies in this run? You can prolly name one or two directors, but my point is that most people don't give a flying shit about who directed the movie; they simply don't care. But who would care if Joss was directing? The multitudes of fanboys that kiss the feet of the Buffy/Firefly creator because of what he did a decade ago, not for any film credits or perceived film credits he actually has.

I don't have a problem with Joss; He has done some great things, and he has done some crap, just like any other creator/director out there. Its cool when a director of note does a movie, but having an unknown director doesn't make a movie bad. Joss Whedon, for all intents and purposes (having only directed 1 movie) makes him an unknown, to everyone except the multitudes of Whedon fans who claim the guy can do no wrong.

It a shameless marketing ploy, along the lines of throwing Wolverine on a cover of a comic book because he is perceived as cool.

[Navarre]

It a shameless marketing ploy

No. It isn't.

Marvel Studios hired the writer/director they thought would do the best job. He is relatively unknown, yes. So they aren't relying on hype around his reputation. As good as he is, they could have hired a better known writer/director.

The movie will sell tickets no matter who writes it, directs it, or stars in it. But whether the movie is actually good or not- whether or not it gets positive reviews from critics, fans, and general viewers alike- is a result of good acting and especially a good script that is well directed.

The writer/director on a film matters. Joss Whedon is an instrumental part of this film's upcoming success. That is an undeniable fact.

[Gaumer]

A part of its success as a good film, not as a financial success. Which matters more in the larger scope of things is debatable and a matter of individual perspective. Transformers 1 sucked in the opinion of most people I know; yet it made a ton of cash and afforded two sequels, with a 3rd on the way. Winter's Bone, for example, was a terrific movie that was not socially deemed the same, if we look at the money it brought in. Batman was both a social and financial success, but we have still found people who think its crap, as seen on these very forums.

So, if quality is arbitrary to a movie having financial success or affording the opportunity for sequels, then we are left with, in the context of having a discussion about the movie as we are in this thread, a debate about the movie being a financial success. Since the consensus points to this movie being an emphatic financial success no matter who is directing it, and that quality has little to do with that financial success or opportunity for sequels, I am simply being fair and logical about things.

If Marvel chooses not to get the creators to tell good stories in their comics, why would you assume that they would do so with a movie? Why not just throw Wolverine on the cover so they get a built-in fanbase who thinks Whedon can do absolutely no harm, and if they think he has they wouldn't even think of saying so? Its a surefire, built-in internet media blitz for no other reason than a name attached to the movie, and its all for free.

I'm not saying Joss is going to direct a poor movie. I think it will be quite the contrary. All I'm doing is putting into question Marvel's reasoning for hiring him, since, as I have pointed out and proven, having a movie be "good" is not necessary for a studio to meets it ultimate ends.

A writer/director DOES matter, but only for continued success of the individual movie he is writing/directing, and Marvel has made such a huge investment in the build-up for The Avengers that it will be an automatic success regardless of who they have writing/directing, making tons of money and, more importantly, affording sequels. I just simply find it hard to believe that Marvel would choose the absolute best person they thought was right for this one project, and it happens to be a guy with a built-in fanbase on the level of Whedon's, when I don't think for one second that Marvel cares enough about the writing/directing of this one Avengers movie to be successful past the first couple of weekends, which it would have been regardless of writer/director.

This is kind of a senseless debate at this point because Whedon IS on it, and the story IS going to be good, and I am in no way bashing Whedon at all. I just can't help but question the motives of Marvel in the context I have laid out. When you really think about it, and forget how awesome Whedon is while remembering how passionate his fanbase is about shows that get cancelled after two season, it makes Marvel look exactly as a giant conglomerate should think: $$$$$$$ :

[Navarre]

I see Marvel Studios doing everything right so far. They aren't casting a Kardashian in their films, skimping on special effects, or allowing Uwe Boll to direct.

I have seen nothing but integrity toward creating not just financially successful films but good films. Joss is a part of that for a reason, imo.

Marvel obviously intends to make money. But I haven't seen any evidence they are taking a casual attitude toward the best way to do that.

[Gaumer]

I see Marvel Studios doing everything right so far. They aren't casting a Kardashian in their films, skimping on special effects, or allowing Uwe Boll to direct.

I have seen nothing but integrity toward creating not just financially successful films but good films. Joss is a part of that for a reason, imo.

Marvel obviously intends to make money. But I haven't seen any evidence they are taking a casual attitude toward the best way to do that.

Valid points. I don't think getting a well-known director of ANY standing is taking a casual attitude. But I have to agree that they've made good choice IMO so far.

I'd go as far as to say that Joss is the best director choice for any of the five lead up moves besides Captain America. Favreau was untested; Leterrier did some fine action but Hulk should have been more IMHO; Branagh was a good choice for ANY movie IMO, but I wasn't sure he'd get Thor; but Joe Johnston is a movie god.

Marvel may not have gone out for Whedon for the reasons I have stated but it hasn't hurt. I'm really just exploring the things to discuss about the movie since it still TOO FAR AWAY!!!

If gas was cheaper I'd drive up to see it with you, Nav.

[Navarre]

I wish you could! I'm still trying to find someone to go to the midnight showing with me.