or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Avengers - Page 5

post #121 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

You calling George Lucas a hack?

Leave my daddy outta this!!!
post #122 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

That's so much sarcasm floating around I'm having a hard time telling if this is serious. George Lucas IS a hack... now.

Yes, it's sarcasm. The Oink has a special fondness for sir Lucas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post


Iron Man - Jon Favreau - Zathura and Jumanji.
Captain 'Merica - Joe Johnston - JP III and The Rocketeer (this however did make him perfect for it)
Spiderman - Sam Raimi - Evil Dead films
Thor - Kenneth Brannagh - Shakespeare
Incredible Hulk - Louis Leterrier - Transporter films

Favreau didn't direct Jumanji. That was Joe Johnston. Who as you mentioned went on to Capt. America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


Leave my daddy outta this!!!

Nooooooooooooo!
post #123 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

What did our other Marvel directors do before their shot at a Marvel superhero film?

Iron Man - Jon Favreau - Zathura and Jumanji.
Captain 'Merica - Joe Johnston - JP III and The Rocketeer (this however did make him perfect for it)
Spiderman - Sam Raimi - Evil Dead films
Thor - Kenneth Brannagh - Shakespeare
Incredible Hulk - Louis Leterrier - Transporter films

There's really nothing about any of their resumes that screams out "big budget comic book movie director!!" (perhaps with the exception of Johnston, imo--he would've my first choice).

And Marvel just announced that Thor 2 will be directed by Patty Jenkins, whose only previous feature was Monster, the one where Charlize Theron played Aileen Wuornos. Clearly, previous experience in the genre is not among Marvel's requirements for the job.
post #124 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Don't be coy....you know I wasn't inferring that.

I'm not sure what else you could have been inferring.

Quote:


Could it have been the Powers-That-Be (the $$$ guys) lacked confidence in his ability to deliver a winner?

They lacked confidence that Wonder Woman was a viable feature film property.
post #125 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I'm not sure what else you could have been inferring.

Do I really have to point out my post was speaking to COMMERCIAL SUCCESS and not to Cinematic Artistry?


Quote:


They lacked confidence that Wonder Woman was a viable feature film property.

Would Speilberg have been a given a greenlight?
post #126 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Do I really have to point out my post was speaking to COMMERCIAL SUCCESS and not to Cinematic Artistry?

And what was your point in bringing up the movie's commercial failure, if not to infer that it means Whedon is a lousy director?
post #127 of 1397
They just should have hired Albert Pyun. He had experience with Captain America.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/
post #128 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Favreau didn't direct Jumanji. That was Joe Johnston. Who as you mentioned went on to Capt. America.

You are correct. I meant to put "Elf".
post #129 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And what was your point in bringing up the movie's commercial failure, if not to infer that it means Whedon is a lousy director?

Josh, sometimes I worry about you; I know you're a smart guy.

Before responding to the things I write, are you reading my posts closely...or just trying to bait me?

To repeat myself (ad nauseum)...most likely reason JW hasn't been directing movies since 2005 is because Serenity underperformed at the Box Office.

If Serenity had grossed 200m, isn't it very likely Whedon's WW would have been put in to production?
post #130 of 1397
Wasn't WW on the shelf before Serenity came out? My memory may be faulty on that. I would agree that Serenity isn't a great film, but its a good one-definately better than any of the Star Wars franchise except ep. 4 +5.
post #131 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

it is most likely JW hasn't been directly movies since 2005 because Serenity underperformed at the Box Office.

No. Do you decide whether or not you will go see a film based on how well that director's last film performed at the B.O.? Well, nobody else does either. Actors are the ones that are (typically) closely tied to the success of a film. Directors... not so much. Usually if a director gets a unjustly bad rap, well then they just don't advertise his or her name very much (Ben Affleck for the "The Town" is a good example... and is something Shamaladingdong really needs to get on board with. Funnily enough, I saw previews for The Town and The Devil at the same time--that's when I noticed those two advertising distinctions).

If the director is known for making fall-out BAD (and poorly performing) films, then that's a different story... but they still seem to get jobs. :cough: Uwe Boll

So, no, I don't think Whedon has been NOT directing films because of how poorly Serenity did at the B.O. It's more likely been a decision on his part. I would also guess that maybe he's developed a reputation for being difficult to work with, but then again... he's directing THE AVENGERS. And if they kicked Norton out, there's no way they would've gotten Whedon for the job if he were indeed hard to work with.
post #132 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

No. Do you decide whether or not you will go see a film based on how well that director's last film performed at the B.O.? Well, nobody else does either. Actors are the ones that are (typically) closely tied to the success of a film. Directors... not so much. Usually if a director gets a unjustly bad rap, well then they just don't advertise his or her name very much (Ben Affleck for the "The Town" is a good example... and is something Shamaladingdong really needs to get on board with. Funnily enough, I saw previews for The Town and The Devil at the same time--that's when I noticed those two advertising distinctions).

If the director is known for making fall-out BAD (and poorly performing) films, then that's a different story... but they still seem to get jobs. :cough: Uwe Boll

Points well taken.
Without an "inside source" of the situation, nothing is certain.


Quote:


So, no, I don't think Whedon has been NOT directing films because of how poorly Serenity did at the B.O. It's more likely been a decision on his part. I would also guess that maybe he's developed a reputation for being difficult to work with, but then again... he's directing THE AVENGERS. And if they kicked Norton out, there's no way they would've gotten Whedon for the job if he were indeed hard to work with.

Would you hire somebody to make widgets who has a record of making $$$ for his employers or someone who did not?

IMO, Hollywood movies begin and end as BUSINESS.
Without $$$ there is no tomorrow....no next movie.
If a little bit of "art" sputters out now and then, then great for those of us who care about cinema.
post #133 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Would you hire somebody to make widgets who has a record of making $$$ for his employers or someone who did not?

IMO, Hollywood movies begin and end as BUSINESS.
Without $$$ there is no tomorrow....no next movie.
If a little bit of "art" sputters out now and then, then great for those of us who care about cinema.

Widget makers, just like directors, are expected to make their products effectively and efficiently. If the widgets aren't selling, you fire the marketers, the advertisers, the pricing analyst, the widget designer--you DON'T fire the guy who is creating a well-made product at a reasonable cost (Serenity had glowing critical and audience reviews and cost under $40 mil to make.) The fact that Serenity performed poorly at the box office had nothing to do with the way Whedon made it.

Furthermore, why on earth on you defending your theory of "he didn't get work because his products don't sell well"?? He is directing one of the most highly anticipated (not to mention, big-budgeted) films of next year or any recent years. Either your hypothesis has been proven wrong or moot or you believe that Marvel expects the movie they've been building up for over half a decade and investing hundreds of millions of dollars into to perform poorly.
post #134 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

Widget makers, just like directors, are expected to make their products effectively and efficiently. If the widgets aren't selling, you fire the marketers, the advertisers, the pricing analyst, the widget designer--you DON'T fire the guy who is creating a well-made product at a reasonable cost

Uh, yeah, you do.
Or do you keep building inventories of widgets that aren't selling?


Quote:


The fact that Serenity performed poorly at the box office had nothing to do with the way Whedon made it.

JW's widget didn't cut it in the marketplace.
This isn't debatable, it's about numbers.


Quote:


Furthermore, why on earth on you defending your theory of "he didn't get work because his products don't sell well"??

Because it's my "theory."


Quote:


He is directing one of the most highly anticipated (not to mention, big-budgeted) films of next year or any recent years. Either your hypothesis has been proven wrong or moot or you believe that Marvel expects the movie they've been building up for over half a decade and investing hundreds of millions of dollars into to perform poorly.

Marvel wasn't sold to Disney from a position of strength.
The guys who greenlighted this movie are no longer in charge of Marvel...Disney is.
And that is an entirely different discussion...
post #135 of 1397
Quote:


Uh, yeah, you do.
Or do you keep building inventories of widgets that aren't selling?

No, you have him build something else (remember, he is not the widget designer, or in Hollywood terms the writer or producer.) "You" here is the decision maker. "You" decided to sell widgets. That YOUR widgets aren't selling is YOUR fault (or widgets are selling in the market place, but nobody likes the ones you designed). "YOU" can fire the guy you hired to make your widgets even though he made them effectively and efficiently but all that means if you have poor business skills and should probably work at Taco Bell.

Quote:


This isn't debatable

Actually, it is debatable and I shall prove that by debating it.

Joss Whedon is still making widgets. The end.
post #136 of 1397
Anyway... IRON MAN was cool and a huge hit, but once Dark Knight hit, it was game over. DK slayed IM all to hell and the same exact thing may happen next year. The Avengers is not the most anticipated film of 2012. It's #2.

#1 i Dark Knight Rises, pure and simple and that means Whedon has his work cut out for him. That is a steep STEEP fill to climb and I personally do not think he has the chops to reach the mountaintop. He might get 3/4 of the way there and deliver an entertaining film, but the trailer is telling me no-way is this going to be a classic.

I pray I'm wrong.

By the way, from here on out, I am avoiding any and ALL preview for both films. When the 8 minute opening of DKR is played before Mi4 this December, I will skip into the lobby and set my watch for 8 minutes. No way do I want to see one more second.
post #137 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post

No, you have him build something else (remember, he is not the widget designer, or in Hollywood terms the writer or producer.) "You" here is the decision maker. "You" decided to sell widgets. That YOUR widgets aren't selling is YOUR fault (or widgets are selling in the market place, but nobody likes the ones you designed). "YOU" can fire the guy you hired to make your widgets even though he made them effectively and efficiently but all that means if you have poor business skills and should probably work at Taco Bell.

Actually, it is debatable and I shall prove that by debating it.

Joss Whedon is still making widgets. The end.

Before someone gets hurt...OK, you win.
post #138 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Before someone gets hurt...OK, you win.

Haha...
post #139 of 1397
Oink loves to troll and threadcrap on any Whedon threads. He is in hog heaven right now, thanks to you guys!
post #140 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

Oink loves to troll and threadcrap on any Whedon threads.

Once more....this time with feeling:
I LOVED Buffy and Angel....NOT Serenity/Firefly.

To paraphrase a famous quote from the 70's....Josh Whedon isn't the future of rock n' roll filmmaking.
IMO.
post #141 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post


By the way, from here on out, I am avoiding any and ALL preview for both films. When the 8 minute opening of DKR is played before Mi4 this December, I will skip into the lobby and set my watch for 8 minutes. No way do I want to see one more second.


+100. I'm tired of all these set photos and stuff we see everywhere! I don't want to see the making of before the actual movie.
post #142 of 1397
hit me!!!
post #143 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

+100. I'm tired of all these set photos and stuff we see everywhere! I don't want to see the making of before the actual movie.

I'm with ya....I like to be surprised.
post #144 of 1397
I loved buffy too. It was one the best tv shows in terms of writing and creativity. It had some of the best fight choreography I've seen. The 1st 3 years was bullet proof and prob the best entertainment on tv IMO.

I thought Serenity was way over rated. It looked and felt like a tv show. The avengers trailer made me cringed because it too also looks like a stylized tv show and not a movie. My initial fear that JW could not handle a big epic super hero film materialized like clock work. I'll see it whenever it arrives on video but any hopes of a great film is out of the window.
post #145 of 1397
Thread Starter 
Apparently during the downtime of making The Avengers, Joss filmed a secret indie adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" with Nathon Fillion starring.

http://www.slashfilm.com/josh-whedon...king-avengers/
post #146 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

i thought serenity was way over rated. It looked and felt like a tv show.

+1
post #147 of 1397
FYI: This one will be another flick converted to 3D in post-production (meaning the 3D effects will probably suck). That being the case I will probably wait for it to hit Blu-Ray so I can watch it at home in 2D.
post #148 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

FYI: This one will be another flick converted to 3D in post-production (meaning the 3D effects will probably suck). That being the case I will probably wait for it to hit Blu-Ray so I can watch it at home in 2D.

Yep - another money grab by a greedy Hollywood studio.
post #149 of 1397
Thread Starter 
...or just go to the 2D showing?

Joss is trying to downplay the 3D conversion as much as possible it seems. Kinda funny.
post #150 of 1397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

FYI: This one will be another flick converted to 3D in post-production (meaning the 3D effects will probably suck). That being the case I will probably wait for it to hit Blu-Ray so I can watch it at home in 2D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Yep - another money grab by a greedy Hollywood studio.

Or, it is a pragmatic move by a studio spending the bulk of money on making a great film by investing it in areas like getting the right mix of actors and technical talent, right amount of quality SFX, etc., rather than blow a big chunk on shooting natively using a Pace-Cameron Fusion 3D system. I don't think we'll all ever know all the factors that go into the decision of native vs. post conversion to 3D. Rather than dismiss every post-converted movie outright, I'd let the end result earn its bucks on its own merit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home