“Expressed Through Punching”
“There’s a thunder god, there’s a green giant rage monster, there’s Captain America from the 40s, there’s Tony Stark who definitely doesn’t get along with anybody. Ultimately these people don’t belong together but the movie is about finding yourself [through] community. And finding that you not only belong together but you need each other, very much. Obviously this will be expressed through punching but it will be the heart of the film.” — Joss Whedon describing his forthcoming Avengers feature.
If you were Robert Downey Jr., Clark Gregg, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo, would you have second thoughts about poisoning your soul and compromising your reputation by taking an Avengers paycheck and working with the likes of Whedon, whose stewardship automatically guarantees problems in terms of the film being a satisfying, full-bodied experience? No. Of course not. You would suck it in, hold your nose and do the job.
Actually Wells, I think Whedon is the main element countering your suspicion. As his films and tv shows distinctly lack the financial track record to back it up, he is a brave choice for a big league film, and a smart one too: his abilities lie primarily in marshaling an ensemble, and that is most likely the crux of the Avengers gig.
No expectations, but I hope it works out. If not, I’m 32, I’ve plenty of other things in my life that will keep the sun shining. Good luck to him I say, he’s only starting on this project.
If I’ve learned anything from watching from watching Buffy, Angel, and, to a lesser extent, Firefly, it’s that Whedon loves language, and fisticuffs is the universal language.
No love for Serenity, Jeff? It’s one of the great sci-fi-as-western films ever made; every time I watch it, I can’t help thinking that John Ford would have done back flips over it. And Ejiofor is terrific as the villain.
Um, Joss Whedon stewardes hundreds of hours of “satisfying, full-bodied experience”, ALL with top-notch ensemble casts.
I would go to the length of saying he’s sort of an expert at the ensemble, Jeff. SERENITY was a very solid film, that just didn’t have Hollywood markee stars, but yet had the performances worthy of them.
My only worry about The Avengers is that it will be pushed by Marvel to be the flash/bang of Iron Man 2 instead of the joy of the first Iron Man. IM2 was like eating too much candy.
Yeah, I’m with everyone else here. Whedon’s a big step in the right direction for the movie. Unlike, frankly, every other director who’s worked on Marvel films (Sam Raimi excluded), he’s got a unique sensibility and has a great ear for dialogue. As a movie/TV fan, not a comic book fan, I am very excited for this movie, if only because the thought of Whedon directing one of the biggest comic-book movies is still a wild notion to me.
Whedon wrote Alien:Resurrection. Stop praising him.
I’m really looking forward to the inevitable song and dance number in this movie. You just know Whedon can’t resist it.
Whedon also worked on Toy Story. And his draft of Alien: Resurrection wasn’t what they filmed.
Whedon “gets” how The Avengers is quite the ridiculous concept, and Marvel probably chose him because he’s one of the only people who with any sort of pseudo-certainty who could pull something like that off.
This dismissal is really astounding. Whedon has precisely one feature film to his credit as writer/director so far, and it was terrific. Granted, that’s just my opinion– I found it to be both satisfying and full-bodied, but you clearly didn’t. But it’s not as if Whedon has left a trail of disappointing features in his wake, and it’s fairly clear that you haven’t seen ANY of his work for television (which is MOST of his oeuvre.)
But now you say with full confidence that ANY film he directs will be problematic?
Exactly how much of Whedon’s TV work have you seen? This seems like a really unfair thing to write about a hugely talented guy, based on not really paying attention to most of what he’s done. Lazy.
GKL: “and a smart one too:”
Yeah, Serenity was a box office smash. Oh, wait!
sutter: “It’s one of the great sci-fi-as-western films ever made;”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6T0aVsYor0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdt1N2101pU&feature=related
Pete: He also worked on Dollhouse. What’s your point?
DeeZee: So Serenity wasn’t a box office smash. It was a feature based on a low-rated TV series, and it made its money back in the long run.
Favreau’s MADE and ZATHURA weren’t box office sensations, either. I guess he wasn’t a smart choice for the Iron Man franchise, either. BALLS.
What’s YOUR point?
This is more or less what I expect from Whedon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbnGeWzYPZw
Geoff: “It was a feature based on a low-rated TV series, and it made its money back in the long run. ”
But that’s not what they were hoping for.
“Favreau’s MADE and ZATHURA weren’t box office sensations, either.”
Made was low-profile and Zathura was a sequel to a film which had a short 15 minutes. Favreau still had Elf, though, while Whedon just had UPN.
“If you were Robert Downey Jr.,… would you have second thoughts about poisoning your soul and compromising your reputation by taking an Avengers paycheck?”
Well, seeing as how Iron Man saved Downey’s career and, quite possibly, his life, no, I don’t think he’ll have second thoughts.
As I said DeeZee, not the most fiscally responsible choice, but the right choice, creatively speaking.
If you want to be one of those shaved monkeys who use box office numbers to justify quality, then I think we have little to talk continue talking about.
Yes, DeeZee: they still had that he was “THE DIRECTOR OF ELF.”
A children’s holiday film starring Will Ferrell. The PERFECT template for who you should get to helm your Marvel superhero action franchise.
You are BALLS, DeeZee.
Whedon doesn’t just have UPN. He has his tenure writing for Marvel comics as well, which showed he has a solid grasp of the Marvel Universe.
But I guess that’s not as important as if he had helmed a Christmas comedy starring Will Ferrell.
I’m not disparaging Favreau. He was– clearly– a smart choice for Iron Man. And Whedon is clearly a smart choice for the Avengers. I’m disparaging DeeZee’s typically blinkered view of this whole situation.
Whedon is as smart a choice for The Avengers as anyone I can think of– but I am genuinely curious, DeeZee, who would be your pick to helm the Avengers movie? Both from an artistic point of view, and in terms of making big money for the studios– as much money as they “hope” to make?
I’d actually go as far as to wager that Jeff has never seen more than ten minutes of anything where Whedon had final say as a writer or director. That is to say: I would be extremely surprised if he had seen a single episode of Buffy, Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible, etc., and I’m sure he’s seen Toy Story (on which he was a big part of a big team) and Alien Resurrection (on which he was a small part of a big team). I vaguely remember him writing about Serenity in 2005 but I wouldn’t swear to him ever seeing it. The point is, it’s a blind spot that he’s filled in with “guy who likes comics and quips, ugh,” because it’s more fun for him to do that. I guess he’s no, uh, Philip Noyce.
That doesn’t even really offend me; Whedon is a talented guy but he’s not perfect. Some of his work has a bit of a formula to it, although it works more often than not. I was a big supporter of Dollhouse, actually, which after a bumpy start got pretty consistently strong. It’s just the enthusiastic ignorance that gives me pause. At least admit that this is something you just don’t care about — honestly, not caring about an Avengers movie is find by me — but don’t have it both ways where you disdain it, yet try to cover this as some kind of expert.
It seems weird to rip on Whedon for the quality of his directorial work, when I bet Jeff hasn’t actually seen any of it. But this has more to do with trying to knock the feet out from under any superhero movie currently being made than legitimately considering how to best make a movie like this work.
And as far as actors holding their nose and doing sell-out jobs—look, if you’re a movie star there’s two types of movies to do. Genre movies or straight dramas. Genre movies are always going to be a pain in the ass and require you to do lengthy physical training, stand in front of a green screen, and get battered and bruised for three months of shooting. Dramas usually require you to put on a suit or dress and remember your lines. I’m basically lazy, so I know which type of movie I’d prefer to do, but I also know that if you want to stay a movie star you need to do what people want to see, and right now superhero movies (specifically Marvel ones) are one of your safest bets.
And nobody is selling out any more by doing a superhero movie than if they were doing a viking movie, a World War II adventure or a spy thriller. Actually, with Thor, Captain America and Iron Man, those are exactly the movies they’re making. And the idea of The Avengers—I think there’s two kinds of people—those for whom the idea of seeing a group of characters from different movies teaming up is the coolest thing ever, and those who could give a shit. I’m definitely in the former category. The equivalent would be if somebody in the 80′s had made a Dirty Dozen-type movie teaming up John McClane, Martin Riggs, Axel Foley, Rambo and Dutch from Predator. Who wouldn’t want to see such a crazy thing?
That’s the thing about The Avengers though—this has NEVER BEEN DONE. Ever. Regardless of what you think about superheroes, I find it hard to believe that there are people who don’t understand that getting all these characters together in one movie is a very big deal.
GKL: “but the right choice, creatively speaking.”
How exactly is he creative? All he has are one-liners.
“If you want to be one of those shaved monkeys who use box office numbers to justify quality, then I think we have little to talk continue talking about”
A bigger-budget SyFy film =/= quality.
Geoff: “A children’s holiday film starring Will Ferrell. The PERFECT template for who you should get to helm your Marvel superhero action franchise.”
He also wrote Swingers, which is a lot fucking cooler and more enjoyable than Gellar’s acting. Picking Whedon, OTOH, is like hiring a talky Schumacher.
“He has his tenure writing for Marvel comics as well, which showed he has a solid grasp of the Marvel Universe.”
Kevin Smith did comic book writing, too. How well did that help his recent work?
“but I am genuinely curious, DeeZee, who would be your pick to helm the Avengers movie?”
Probably Brad Bird.
I think Whedon can be talented, he just needs to get away from his fetishes. He’s done four tv shows and all of them feature young girls kicking ass. I’ll only start being concerned if he announces that Kitty Pryde is going to appear in Avengers.
Jeffmc2k, I agree with you in principle, because there are certain narrative tricks he over-uses (the heart-wrenching “surprise” death that “needs” to happen for the audience; it’s all the worse that he’s talked about it in those terms, all too self-conscious about what is often just a surprise plot twist, albeit an effective one in some cases). But the young-girls-kicking-ass thing is kind of a lame complaint. It might not be if anyone ever said anything like: such-and-such-action-director is pretty good, but he needs to get away from his fetish; all of his movies feature a young guy kicking ass.
But because it’s a girl, it’s considered some kind of gimmick that shouldn’t be repeated too many times. If the female ass-kickers on Buffy were very similar to those on Dollhouse, or if he was incapable of writing a non-ass-kicking female character, it might be a point, but this idea of a quota on ass-kicking girls (because, says, subtext, it’s less plausible than ass-kicking guys) is pretty silly.
“Probably Brad Bird.”
The funny thing, Dee Zee, is if Brad Bird was directing The Avengers, you’d be bitching about why they would pick someone who has only directed animated movies with arguable financial success. Then you’d say The Iron Giant ripped off some piece of shit Anime movie that no one cares about, and that Pixar movies are over rated. Meanwhile, you’ve probably never seen any of his work anyway, or Whedon’s.
And then your mom would call you up from the basement for dinner.
You really are an asshole.
DeeZee: How exactly is he creative? All he has are one-liners.
Sound like anybody we know?
DeeZee: He also wrote Swingers, which is a lot fucking cooler and more enjoyable than Gellar’s acting. Picking Whedon, OTOH, is like hiring a talky Schumacher.
Swingers IS cool. And the writing of that is not analogous to Gellar’s acting. The WRITING on Buffy, however, was frequently VERY cool. Unlike, say, Heather Graham’s acting. (See how little sense your analogies make?)
Comparing Joss Whedon to Schumacher is ridiculous. Their careers, their styles, nothing about them is remotely similar.
DeeZee: Kevin Smith did comic book writing, too. How well did that help his recent work?
Not at all. You seem to think that every apple can be compared to an orange.
DeeZee: Probably Brad Bird.
Okay. So if The Avengers outgrosses Mission Impossible IV, then you are automatically wrong, yes?
You are an absolute cancer on this website.
Jesse, yes I would have the same complaint if all his shows featured a young guy kicking ass, although I probably wouldn’t describe it as a fetish unless they took their shirts off a lot (which, if the show was on the CW, they would).
It just seems to be a very specific well he keeps going back to. It’s fine to have a thing for tough waifish girls, but if 90% of my career featured them as leads (even Alien:Resurrection had one, now that I think of it—up to 95%) I wouldn’t be too surprised if people started thinking I had a sort of a thing going on.
bents: “The funny thing, Dee Zee, is if Brad Bird was directing The Avengers, you’d be bitching about why they would pick someone who has only directed animated movies with arguable financial success.”
Nope. I’m not a Pixar fan, and the clips I saw of Incredibles looked average, but he seems to “get” the ensemble thing better than other directors right now. Plus, I wouldn’t have to sit through pointless observations like I will with the Whedon version.
“Then you’d say The Iron Giant ripped off some piece of shit Anime movie that no one cares about,”
Tetsujin 28/Gigantor, and Robert Smigel cared enough to spoof it. Anyway, I still liked IG for what it was.
“Meanwhile, you’ve probably never seen any of his work anyway, or Whedon’s.”
I’ve seen enough of Whedon’s work to know he
Geoff: “Sound like anybody we know?”
No, I actually can do more than have some skinny girl beat up a monster/alien/secret agent and then throw in a quip. I’m just “hibernating” right now.
“The WRITING on Buffy, however, was frequently VERY cool. Unlike, say, Heather Graham’s acting. ”
The writing was ok for a low-rent tv show, but would’ve made that ending for Lost seem like a masterpiece by comparison. And Graham still has a better resume than Gellar.
“Their careers, their styles, nothing about them is remotely similar.”
That’s slightly true. At least Schumacher will always have Falling Down.
“So if The Avengers outgrosses Mission Impossible IV, then you are automatically wrong, yes? ”
Well, it won’t out-gross MI4, because the source material guarantees it’ll be even more fucking expensive than Watchmen. Not to mention that Whedon is stuck in
Geek Jail, and doesn’t have the broad appeal of an Abrams. But, assuming it does make more money, at least half the credit will be due to the cast, and the other half will be due to Paramount’s marketing which made me think even Iron Man 2 would be a good sequel.
Missed one. *know he’s just preaching to the fanboy choir.”
So even if you’re wrong, you’re right?
So I take it Wells and DeeZee and everybody else in the Whedon hate parade have all seen (HUGE SPOILER) that episode he wrote and directed where Buffy comes home and finds her mom lying dead of a brain aneurysm on the couch? Whole lotta smarmy quips going on in that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lKEckx4yE
Just no directorial talent or substantial artistry going on there there with the artful framing, measured pacing, sparse sound design, painfully realistic dialogue and terrific acting. Just no way the episode would have won a metric fuckton of mainstream awards if it wasn’t from a culty genre show with a goofy name.
In what universe does ANYONE on that stage have cause to be “holding their nose” for this project? Downey owes his second shot to this character. Jackson is Mr. I’ll Make Anything. Ruffalo just won the fucking lottery in terms of the kind of HUGE role that’s thus-far eluded him. Evans, Renner and Hemsworth are basically next-to-nobodies getting real shots. Johanssen, maybe, is on a different plane – but even she’s never really had a major hit to her name.
JF: “Whole lotta smarmy quips going on in that one. ”
Yep, starting from :09-:15 or so. BTW, very special episodes do not count. Though, even if they did, Gellar’s still pretty fucking cartoonish in the way she expresses shock.
Why don’t the standout episodes count? Because they don’t fit into your narrow, mistaken conception of what he’s capable of as a filmmaker, is the only possible reason.
And if all you’re thinking about during that scene is how much you don’t like Sarah Michelle Gellar, you need to get your soul checked.
Oh wait, you’re that daft obtuse guy nobody likes, right? Forget I said anything. Go with the god of your preference.
@ JF,
To be fair, even Whedon – when speaking AT the con – is pretty upfront that he’s a somewhat unlikely/untested choice for this project. He’s going to need some REALLY on-the-ball 2nd Unit guys, I’d imagine, to get it to come out right.
I tend to think he can pull it off, but I also don’t think he would’ve been hired without the “extra benefit” he brings to Marvel, i.e. Whedon is one of MAYBE five or six guys who get an “innocent until proven guilty” pass from the geek set right off the bat. His presence more-or-less GARAUNTEES bend-over-backwards deferential coverage from now until release.
“But, assuming it does make more money, at least half the credit will be due to the cast, and the other half will be due to Paramount’s marketing which made me think even Iron Man 2 would be a good sequel.”
So, if it loses money, it’s Whedon’s fault, but if it makes money, it’s in spite of Whedon? Can’t have it both ways, DZ, either the director matters to the grosses or he doesn’t. On top of which, nobody is arguing with you that Whedon’s ‘Avengers’ will definitely be successful. You’re arguing that it won’t make money in response to somebody saying that it shows the potential for artistic quality. You’re so stupid that you think the two are tied, unless a movie you don’t like (which is all of them) is successful, and then you argue that it’s still shit.
JF: “Because they don’t fit into your narrow, mistaken conception of what he’s capable of as a filmmaker, is the only possible reason.”
No, because they’re meant to manipulate your emotions and fuck with the characters in a cheap way.
“And if all you’re thinking about during that scene is how much you don’t like Sarah Michelle Gellar, you need to get your soul checked.”
Sorry, but Gellar hams it up horribly with her bug-eyed gawking. Plus, any potential impact is negated by that whole skirt covering thing. Did that scene *have* to be there? Couldn’t they just focus on the CPR? And why do we need to see a zoomed shot of that phone? Plus, that scene meant to fool people into thinking everything is ok felt like a slap in the face to people with that type of condition, or people with family members with that type of condition, because they just go through it quickly.
I dunno. It just seems like it’s more about her, than what her mother went through, and I would’ve at least preferred if they gave it a build-up leading to it, rather than just cram it into a small part of that show. ‘Cus otherwise it comes off a tad more improvised than it should, when it needs to flow naturally with the rest of the show.
Anyway, Cruise did the parental loss thing better in Magnolia. Now *that’s* fucking emotionally powerful, and that’s coming from someone who was bored stiff by that movie.
Gordon: “Can’t have it both ways, DZ, either the director matters to the grosses or he doesn’t. ”
Well, he didn’t matter to Serenity, and he hasn’t mattered since Angel was still on the air. So the only way he matters to Avengers is if he can come up with action money shots which rival the ones in the individual films of said characters.
“You’re arguing that it won’t make money in response to somebody saying that it shows the potential for artistic quality.”
No, I’m saying it won’t make money because the star salaries alone will cost the producers an arm and a leg.
I actually don’t expect much potential artistic quality, just geeks hyping it as better-than-average writing and directing, because they’re in the tank for Whedon.
DeeZee, you’re just a knee-jerk contrarian. You’ll say anything to bolster whatever agenda you’re pushing. And you simply deny any evidence that gets in your way. If the other team hits a home run, you just say “that doesn’t count, because…” It’s why people don’t like you here.
The original point was that Whedon was a smart choice. Your sarcastic, sub-Whedonesque quip was that “Yeah, Serenity was a box office smash. Oh, wait!”
Judging from the quality of wit on display, I’d say a fair amount of your dislike of Joss Whedon’s one-liners is that you seem incapable of actually delivering a solid one yourself, despite numerous attempts.
You’ve since said two other things about Serenity.
1) You conceded that it made its money back, but that’s not what the studio had “hoped” for
2) That Joss Whedon writing and directing “didn’t matter” to Serenity
Well, I sincerely doubt that Serenity would have made a profit if Joss Whedon hadn’t been a part of it. I think there would have been a fan revolt and the film would have been an absolute bomb, not a film that failed to meet expectations.
The one thing you seem blind to is that Serenity was itself a difficult proposition from the start. It was a feature follow-up to a low-rated FOX television program. It was NEVER going to be as big as they hoped, it was a long shot, a hail mary pass, one last chance to make a hit out of a franchise that had never been able to be more than a cult show. It was an underdog movie from the start (that’s why it was so modestly budgeted) and it was a tricky feat that Whedon managed to pull it off as successfully as he did. He made a film that appealed to fans of the show without boring them with repetition of info they already knew, while still making sense to someone walking in with zero awareness of the tv show.
That’s just one of the skills that makes him a smart choice for The Avengers. He has to make a film that will work for both diehard Marvel Comics nerds AND will make sense and be entertaining to someone who has no idea who The Avengers are. As a storyteller, he knows how to do that, and it has nothing to do with quips.
Whedon is a smart choice. Your choice, Brad Bird, might have been smart, but JESUS– you’re picking him based on NO GOOD REASONS. You think The Incredibles “clips” you saw looked “average”, but you say you think he seems to “get” the “ensemble thing” better than other directors right now.
What is your evidence for how Brad Bird somehow “gets” what you call “the ensemble thing” better than other directors right now?
And please, a fuller explanation of what you deem to be “the ensemble thing” that all other directors just aren’t “getting” right now.
Wow. I never watched Buffy other than bits and pieces here or there, but I just watched the clip from The Body that JF posted and I immediately called my parents after watching it. Seriously. I loved Serenity and watched all of Dollhouse on Netflix and enjoyed it. But that scene was absolutely brilliant. The most realistic and affecting depiction of the actual moment loss I’ve seen in some time.
And yes, DeeZee is still an idiot.
Serenity was about 1000 times better than JJ’s Star Trek. Just had to get that off my chest.
I actually loved Star Trek, too, but my enthusiasm may have been influenced by the fact that Star Trek has always bored me in its previous incarnations and JJ’s version was fun and entertaining in a way that no other Star Trek film has been for me (with the exception of Wrath of Khan, of course). I always appreciate Abram’s rhythm and flair, but I also think that Whedon has a much better grasp on characterization and plot. Frankly, I think both Whedon and Abrams showed Lucas up on their first attempts at sci-fi feaures, with Serenity, in particular, being the best Star Wars film since Empire.
The worry with Whedon is his affinity for cute little quips and babyish language. “Mr. Pointy,” for example. If he pulls that shit with this supposedly bad-ass team of super heroes, it could make the whole thing look like an exercise in camp. The premise is already going to stretch audience believability levels, and given Nolan’s third jet-black Batman will be out in the same summer, a comedic take on The Avengers could make everyone involved look very silly indeed.
That said, he’s certainly comfortable with ensemble casts, and the level of Marvel intrusion probably means nobody would get to stamp their definitive vision on the project, so he’s probably as safe a pair of hands as anyone.
Just when I thought I was out…
“No, because they’re meant to manipulate your emotions and fuck with the characters in a cheap way.”
There’s absolutely nothing cheap about The Body: it’s thematically justified and beautifully executed. And this “they” surely can’t be referring to any other major, groundbreaking episode of Buffy, because they are: 1) an extremely entertaining comedy/horror episode that goes 30 minutes without dialogue 2) a surreal series of prophetic Lynchian dream sequences that absolutely nails the way dreaming feels, 3) The Body, and 4) one of the best musicals of the last decade.
“Plus, any potential impact is negated by that whole skirt covering thing. Did that scene *have* to be there? Couldn’t they just focus on the CPR?”
Hey, why’s all this harsh realism in my harshly realistic death episode?
“And why do we need to see a zoomed shot of that phone?”
Because it’s a subjective POV shot in which she starts internalizing the magnitude of what’s just happened.
“Plus, that scene meant to fool people into thinking everything is ok felt like a slap in the face to people with that type of condition, or people with family members with that type of condition, because they just go through it quickly.”
Or maybe it’s a representation of a thought process that anybody who experiences something like that goes through. Which representation might as executed also be a slap in the face, but it’s a slap in the face to people who think it’s just going to be another episode of the show, where something like that fantasy sequence might have happened for real, which group is certainly worth slapping in the face more than the families of people who’ve gone through this experience.
“I dunno. It just seems like it’s more about her, than what her mother went through, and I would’ve at least preferred if they gave it a build-up leading to it, rather than just cram it into a small part of that show. ‘Cus otherwise it comes off a tad more improvised than it should, when it needs to flow naturally with the rest of the show.”
The whole episode is about what it feels like to lose somebody. It’s not about death, exactly,it’s about how death impacts the living, which you would know if you’d actually watch it, in context, while not being a ditz.
“Frankly, I think both Whedon and Abrams showed Lucas up on their first attempts at sci-fi feaures, with Serenity, in particular, being the best Star Wars film since Empire.”
This is exactly right.
Back to the Jeff’s original dismissive post, has it been established whether he has voiced an appraisal of Whedon’s work before on this site, or anywhere? I can’t find his take on Serenity, whether he ever saw it or not, or if he’s ever seen any of his TV work.
(DeeZee has clearly seen some “clips” here and there, which was more than enough to make up his mind. He also saw some Brad Bird “clips” which he didn’t like but which makes him recommend him highly! Clips!)
@Eloi,
Then again, if he DOES deliver a movie where The Avengers call eachother by cute pet names (Iron Man is “Ol’ Shellhead”), endlessly bicker about who’s stronger or who should be the leader and in general act like a bunch of oversized ten year-olds hanging around the tree house; he’ll be delivering a wholly-accurate version of the material.
Also, whichever one is objectively “better,” isn’t it kind of a foregone conclusion that the 3rd Batman will be recieved as a dissapointment? I mean, there’s just no way it’s going to A.) be as lightning-in-a-bottle at the boxoffice as TDK or B.) benefit from the grim pop culture phenom-hood that comes from combining “OMG Joker the ultimate enemy!!!!” with “guy PLAYING Joker dies right before it comes out.”
MovieBob: Fair point. But I think too much of the bickering will lead it into Mystery Men territory. I’m certainly very interested to see what Marvel comes up with. I can’t see it working, but I’d like to be pleasantly surprised.
Batman 3 not only has to live up to the Dark Knight, but also now Inception. It’s obviously going to be a let down to some.
Eloi, I think it’s a little silly to say that because Whedon’s movie will be coming out the same summer as the sure-to-be-excellent-and-dark third Nolan Batman, then it sure better be super-serious, too. Wouldn’t that just make it a pale imitation of that series? Is that really what anyone wants out of the Avengers, the dark-vengeance take? Does the Iron Man series work because it tries to out-dark Batman, or because it has a sense of humor and fun and playfulness while still allowing you to take Stark seriously as a character? For me, the most enjoyable stuff in that series has to do with these different well-defined characters bouncing off of each other, moreso than the dark epic angle. (That is to say: the fact that Iron Man 2 featured a ton of two-character dialogue scenes was kind of delightful.)
In fact, that tone is one of Whedon’s major strengths: he can tell a story that you can take seriously, and that can go some dark places, while retaining a sense of humor. I know this just makes me sound like a fanboy or whatever, but Buffy, the character, *is* totally badass even though she has some quippiness. Same with Eliza Dushku’s Faith.
Also: if this movie is close to Mystery Men in quality, I’ll be excited, because Mystery Men is awesome, and actually does a nice job of working as a story even though it’s a broad, goofy comedy. I’m sure Avengers won’t be so spoofy, but nor are quips exactly out of place in a superhero team-up movie. Favreau has done nice work on the Iron Man movies, but this seems to me like the first Marvel Movie hire since Bryan Singer that has the potential for something showing the director’s actual personality and style (and *that* is a way they can compete with the Nolan Batman movies).
Also also, did you just use the word “babyish”? Haven’t really heard that one floating around too much since fourth grade. Do you also carry your backpack on one shoulder, because using both is totally babyish?
jesse: It doesn’t have to be super-serious, but I think if audiences are high on Nolan’s gritty Batman series, to then see a bunch of colorful comedians quipping around the place and fighting some space figure/God from the heavens is going to be quite the contrast, and not necessarily a good one. Having said that, I don’t know whether the Avengers is coming before Batman, so if it beats it to the punch then it’ll likely be fine.
It’s definitely interesting to see what happens. I just wonder whether next year’s Thor/Captain America double release will give the project a huge boost, or kill it dead before it’s even arrived.
Serenity was about 1000 times better than JJ’s Star Trek. Just had to get that off my chest.
Geoff: “I’d say a fair amount of your dislike of Joss Whedon’s one-liners is that you seem incapable of actually delivering a solid one yourself, despite numerous attempts.”
No, I just think one-liners shouldn’t be used gratuitously in a way which talks down to the audience. They should be snappy, not a crutch.
“1) You conceded that it made its money back, but that’s not what the studio had “hoped” for”
And? I don’t think that’s what Marvel and Paramount are gonna want with Avengers, given that it’s gonna be a lot more expensive than Serenity.
“Well, I sincerely doubt that Serenity would have made a profit if Joss Whedon hadn’t been a part of it.”
They said, “From the creator of Buffy”, and no one cared. So it only did well on home video, because it looked like a good rental. If it did matter, they’d be bringing back his show.
“It was an underdog movie from the start (that’s why it was so modestly budgeted) and it was a tricky feat that Whedon managed to pull it off as successfully as he did. ”
From what I heard, it was the other way around. Uni saw decent home video sales for Firefly, and thought it could channel that into box office.
“He made a film that appealed to fans of the show without boring them with repetition of info they already knew, while still making sense to someone walking in with zero awareness of the tv show.”
That’s great, but the marketing for it still blew.
“That’s just one of the skills that makes him a smart choice for The Avengers. He has to make a film that will work for both diehard Marvel Comics nerds AND will make sense and be entertaining to someone who has no idea who The Avengers are. ”
If Avengers has as much geek-bait as Serenity and Dollhouse, I doubt Whedon will deliver on anything. You want a real success story, see how Abrams rebooted Star Trek last year.
“What is your evidence for how Brad Bird somehow “gets” what you call “the ensemble thing” better than other directors right now? ”
A-Team? LXG? The Losers?
JF: “There’s absolutely nothing cheap about The Body: it’s thematically justified and beautifully executed.”
It looks like DTV/Lifetime acting to me.
“4) one of the best musicals of the last decade.”
One of the best musicals of the last decade was South Park. The Buffy thing just reminded me of that Hercules/Xena musical segment.
“Hey, why’s all this harsh realism in my harshly realistic death episode?”
What realism? Who worries about how their parents look when they’re dying?
“Because it’s a subjective POV shot in which she starts internalizing the magnitude of what’s just happened.”
Whatever you say, Film School Whiz…
“Or maybe it’s a representation of a thought process that anybody who experiences something like that goes through. ”
It might be, if they built up to it. But they just inserted it into a random episode for a ratings boost.
“but it’s a slap in the face to people who think it’s just going to be another episode of the show,”
No, the people who watch the show now have some sort of excuse to argue it’s less deep than it really is. Plus, they endured the series and defended Whedon even though it had other people dying when it ran out of ideas, so…
“It’s not about death, exactly,it’s about how death impacts the living,”
That’s exactly my problem with it. She’s an important character to the show, and her actual death isn’t even delved into, just used to make the lead more sympathetic.
Bob: I trust Nolan on Batman 3, if he can do something more interesting with Riddler than Schumacher.
jesse: Mystery Men is a shitty and uninspired parody only comic book geeks would love, much like the live-action Tick.
I find the idea of responding to you point by asinine point too enervating, so here’s a Wikipedia link instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)#Critical_reception
DeeZee, you make no sense.
DeeZee: “From what I heard, it was the other way around. Uni saw decent home video sales for Firefly, and thought it could channel that into box office.”
That’s Uni’s fault, not Whedon’s. It was an underdog movie. If Uni thought it was something else, that was their mistake. Everyone else on planet earth knew it was an underdog project from the start– CANCELED FOX SHOW BECOMES MOVIE, strong video sales or not, is not what most people think of as a surefire hit recipe for a smash hit film.
DeeZee: “That’s great, but the marketing for it still blew.”
Again, not Whedon’s fault. Unless you claim he is in charge of marketing.
“You want a real success story, see how Abrams rebooted Star Trek last year.”
That WAS a success story. And it followed on the heels of his long-ratings-challenged Alias and his “below expectations” box office on MI3. He was still a smart choice to reboot Star Trek, just as Whedon is a smart choice for the Avengers movie. You are just cherrypicking. The fact is that these are both smart choices and talented guys.
DeeZee: A-Team? LXG? The Losers?
What is your evidence that BRAD BIRD “gets” the ensemble thing? Don’t just list bad movies he had no involvement with. What’s the example for BRAD BIRD. Clips you saw on the Internet that you weren’t impressed with? (I think Brad Bird’s great, but I have seen his recent work and I like it. You have seen clips of his recent work that you claim to be unimpressed by. And yet he is YOUR CHOICE. Great vetting process you have.)
“One of the best musicals of the last decade was South Park.”
Nobody tell him that ‘South Park’ came out more than a decade ago. Let’s all just laugh at how stupid that stupid piece of shit is instead
Also, I like the way DZ is arguing as if he’s seen every episode of ‘Buffy’, even though he repeatedly talks about how he doesn’t like it and, when push comes to shove, can only refer to “clips” from it.
Geoff: “strong video sales or not, is not what most people think of as a surefire hit recipe for a smash hit film.”
Don’t blame me. That seemed to be the thought process for Stranger with Candy, Reno 911, Arrested Development, and Battlestar Galactica.
“Again, not Whedon’s fault. Unless you claim he is in charge of marketing.”
He must be in charge of some marketing, because he sure as fuck should know better than to pitch a show like Dollhouse.
“And it followed on the heels of his long-ratings-challenged Alias and his “below expectations” box office on MI3.”
MI3 disappointed because Cruise made an ass out of himself. But it had good WOM for an MI movie, which is why Abrams got more gigs. Whedon’s last venture, OTOH, has not had good WOM, and he only got the gig because they think his familiarity with the franchise guarantees a hit movie. MI3 at least was going to make its money back, while Avengers needs to avoid costing as much as Superman Returns to even be profitable. Plus, Abrams just had to reboot the series, while Whedon has to take into account the individual films already out or on the way.
“What’s the example for BRAD BIRD. Clips you saw on the Internet that you weren’t impressed with? ”
I wasn’t impressed by ‘em, but he did seem to give the supporting cast just enough screen time and importance to the story that they didn’t weigh down the narrative or feel out of place in the story. Most of the superhero team movies fail because of that lack of balance. So I see it in terms of potential, not what I currently like about him.
Gordon: “Nobody tell him that ‘South Park’ came out more than a decade ago. ”
They’re alluding to Buffy, which would only be a few years later, so in terms of that decade, it counts.
They’re not alluding to anything. They’re saying “the last decade”. The last decade, that is, 2000-2009, or possibly 2001-2010. The Buffy musical came out in the last decade, and ‘South Park’ didn’t.
But, by all means, continue to argue against basic facts, as it makes the rest of your points seem even more unhinged.
Gordon: They said the last decade, but it came out in the early part of the decade, therefore, you can use the ten years prior to it. Plus, it got nominated for Best Song at the beginning of the decade, so it still fucking counts.
Oh my gawd. Fudging the meaning of “decade,” now are we?
Get a job, you fuck!!
Ladies and gentlemen,
Here I’m gonna introduce an online store, http://www.shoes2.us/
There are thousands of Female supplies in this website.
Brand handbags,clothing,shoes,boots,watches,sunglasses,scarf,necklaces rings and so on.
Dear girls, i promise you can have a pleasure shopping journey here,
And dear guys, you also can choose some products as presents for your friends (especially for girlfriends)!
LV handbags &42
Chanel handbags $42
Versace handbags &38
Gucci handbags $42
Prada handbags $45
LV boots $52
high BOOT woman from$52
Roca women jeans $39
Nike women hoody $50
Cartier necklace $18
Dior necklace $18
……
Best regards for you all,
Looking forward to your visiting.
http://www.shoes2.us/
Holy SHIT, DeeZee! You are fucking losing it! Pull yourself together, man, this is weak stuff even for YOU!
DeeZee: “Don’t blame me. That seemed to be the thought process for Stranger with Candy, Reno 911, Arrested Development, and Battlestar Galactica.”
Okay, TWO of those had actual theatrical movies made. One of them is still in the pre-script, pre-greenlight stage, and one of them was never made into a theatrical feature at all. And you’re telling me that the studio thinking was that SERENITY had the same (according to you) SKY-HIGH BOX OFFICE EXPECTATIONS as… The Strangers With Candy movie? The Reno 911 movie?
Holy SHIT, man. I didn’t realize those suits at Universal were expecting Serenity to make STRANGERS WITH CANDY money!!!
DeeZee: “He must be in charge of some marketing, because he sure as fuck should know better than to pitch a show like Dollhouse.”
I guess if you pitch a show to a network, that MUST mean you are IN CHARGE of SOME marketing, right? That makes sense.
You pitch a show, and then the network says, “You know what? We’re gonna put you in charge of some of the MARKETING.”
“What? Why?”
“Because you shoulda known better, pal. PItch a show like that, the network’s just BOUND to put you in charge of some of the marketing. Because that’s something that makes sense.”
DeeZee: “MI3 disappointed because Cruise made an ass out of himself. But it had good WOM for an MI movie, which is why Abrams got more gigs.”
No, Abrams got more gigs because he’s GOOD. Same reason Joss keeps getting more gigs. They both do good work, and people want to work with them.
DeeZee: “Whedon’s last venture, OTOH, has not had good WOM, and he only got the gig because they think his familiarity with the franchise guarantees a hit movie.”
They are not idiots. They are not sitting back and thinking the movie will be a hit because of Whedon’s name. The Whedon brand is not “box office gold.” You keep trying to suggest that that is somehow what ANYONE is arguing. The Whedon brand is NOT “box office gold.” Right now, only the name Nolan has that kind of clout. THAT’s not why Whedon is a smart pick. He’s a smart pick because he can do the WORK and he does it well. And if he makes a cool movie, the WOM will be good, and THAT will help make it a hit movie.
DeeZee: “MI3 at least was going to make its money back, while Avengers needs to avoid costing as much as Superman Returns to even be profitable.”
Whedon is not known for going over budget. Quite the opposite. His background is in TV, where he showed he can do more with less. ANOTHER reason why he’s a smart choice, and why you are proving OH MY GOD YOU ARE PROVING that you know so very very little about what you are attempting to talk about here.
DeeZee: “Plus, Abrams just had to reboot the series, while Whedon has to take into account the individual films already out or on the way.”
ANOTHER reason why– everybody say it together, please– Whedon is a SMART CHOICE for this gig. His ONE feature film managed to both recap a little-watched series without alienating first time viewers. And that’s after he had to do a similar challenging thing after FOX refused to air his two hour pilot and he had to write a 2nd episode that introduced all the characters without repeating anything that had been done in the pilot, which would be aired later. So Serenity was his THIRD introduction of a complex ensemble cast, and he had to do it all again without repeating ANY of the ways he had already done this task twice before.
But I guess those clips on the Internet that you saw of Brad Bird films must have really done the trick in selling you. Even though you didn’t like them.
You should be a studio exec, DeeZee. You have the arrogance AND the lack of attention span/familiarity with what the fuck you are talking about.
DeeZee: “I wasn’t impressed by ‘em, but he did seem to give the supporting cast just enough screen time and importance to the story that they didn’t weigh down the narrative or feel out of place in the story. Most of the superhero team movies fail because of that lack of balance. So I see it in terms of potential, not what I currently like about him.”
Is this your coverage on the “clips” you watched? Superb.
SOMEONE HIRE THIS MAN TO RUN A STUDIO!!
Kane: “Get a job, you fuck!!”
Says the guy responding to me.
Geoff: “And you’re telling me that the studio thinking was that SERENITY had the same (according to you) SKY-HIGH BOX OFFICE EXPECTATIONS as… The Strangers With Candy movie? The Reno 911 movie? ”
Well, it’s not my money. I don’t know why any studio would pay more than the average budget of a single season for a non-DTV version of those shows. But they either want to or already have done it.
“I guess if you pitch a show to a network, that MUST mean you are IN CHARGE of SOME marketing, right?”
Well, you are basically promoting the concept which will be used in marketing, if greenlit, so…
“No, Abrams got more gigs because he’s GOOD. Same reason Joss keeps getting more gigs. ”
No, Whedon gets gigs because he’s cheap and can fill up some air time or sell a few copies of a run of a particular comic. He has yet to prove he can cross over to wider audiences or even produce a show which had the same cultural impact as Lost.
“He’s a smart pick because he can do the WORK and he does it well.”
That’s debatable, especially considering his work is SyFy quality at best.
“And if he makes a cool movie, the WOM will be good, and THAT will help make it a hit movie.”
No one wants a “niche” over-priced superhero movie to depend on WOM. Again, look at Watchmen.
“Whedon is not known for going over budget.”
He never had to work with big actors before.
“His ONE feature film managed to both recap a little-watched series without alienating first time viewers. ”
Yes, but it still alienated them in the sense that the material was not very compelling.
“You should be a studio exec, DeeZee.You have the arrogance AND the lack of attention span/familiarity with what the fuck you are talking about.”
That’s an amusing observation, given that fanboys making decisions are why we get Kick-Ass, Grindhouse, and Sky Captain.
Whenever DZ gets heavily into railing against “geeks” and “fanboys”, I like to remind people that he’s a die-hard Troma buff who thinks that everything Troma ever made is good.
DeeZee: “Well, it’s not my money. I don’t know why any studio would pay more than the average budget of a single season for a non-DTV version of those shows. But they either want to or already have done it.”
Jesus, did anyone say it was your money? You said the studios expected huge returns at the Box Office based on Firefly DVD sales, then cited Strangers With Candy as another example. One of the dumbest things anyone has said here.
DeeZee: “Well, you are basically promoting the concept which will be used in marketing, if greenlit, so…”
So…. you are “in charge of some marketing”? What you said was still wrong and made no sense.
“No, Whedon gets gigs because he’s cheap and can fill up some air time or sell a few copies of a run of a particular comic. He has yet to prove he can cross over to wider audiences or even produce a show which had the same cultural impact as Lost.”
I thought you said the big concern for Whedon was that The Avengers would be SO expensive that it wouldn’t make as much money as, say, MI4. But now you say he’s cheap. As a matter of fact, BEFORE, you said he got this job because the studio thought his familiarity with the Avengers would guarantee a smash hit. Now, you say he gets work because he’s cheap. He seems to get hired for totally different reasons depending on which one of your ridiculous statements you’re desperately trying to justify/defend.
DeeZee: “That’s debatable, especially considering his work is SyFy quality at best.”
If that means that The Avengers will be as good as the first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica, then we have a winner, both critically and at the box office.
DeeZee: No one wants a “niche” over-priced superhero movie to depend on WOM. Again, look at Watchmen.
You are the one who brought up how good the WOM was on the underperforming MI3. Now, suddenly, when it suits you, no one cares about WOM.
DeeZee: “He never had to work with big actors before.”
So he will go over budget somehow because the actors salaries are bigger?
DeeZee: “Yes, but it still alienated them in the sense that the material was not very compelling.”
No, if it alienated anyone it was that they did not go to see it and buy a ticket. Because, as YOU said, it was poorly marketed. (And no, DeeZee, Joss Whedon was not “in charge of some marketing” for Universal.) And because, as I said, it was an underdog project from the get-go.
DeeZee: “That’s an amusing observation, given that fanboys making decisions are why we get Kick-Ass, Grindhouse, and Sky Captain.”
No, it’s an amusing observation because you are just like a studio exec. You think you know better than everyone else, you always have an excuse or an equivocation ready (whether it makes sense or not) and you’re always ready to point fingers to save your ass. You’re a survivor, and I’d bet you could work your way right to the top!
DeeZee: “Well, it’s not my money. I don’t know why any studio would pay more than the average budget of a single season for a non-DTV version of those shows. But they either want to or already have done it.”
Jesus, did anyone say it was your money? You said the studios expected huge returns at the Box Office based on Firefly DVD sales, then cited Strangers With Candy as another example. One of the dumbest things anyone has said here.
DeeZee: “Well, you are basically promoting the concept which will be used in marketing, if greenlit, so…”
So…. you are “in charge of some marketing”? What you said was still wrong and made no sense.
“No, Whedon gets gigs because he’s cheap and can fill up some air time or sell a few copies of a run of a particular comic. He has yet to prove he can cross over to wider audiences or even produce a show which had the same cultural impact as Lost.”
I thought you said the big concern for Whedon was that The Avengers would be SO expensive that it wouldn’t make as much money as, say, MI4. But now you say he’s cheap. As a matter of fact, BEFORE, you said he got this job because the studio thought his familiarity with the Avengers would guarantee a smash hit. Now, you say he gets work because he’s cheap. He seems to get hired for totally different reasons depending on which one of your ridiculous statements you’re desperately trying to justify/defend.
DeeZee: “That’s debatable, especially considering his work is SyFy quality at best.”
If that means that The Avengers will be as good as the first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica, then we have a winner, both critically and at the box office.
DeeZee: No one wants a “niche” over-priced superhero movie to depend on WOM. Again, look at Watchmen.
You are the one who brought up how good the WOM was on the underperforming MI3. Now, suddenly, when it suits you, no one cares about WOM.
DeeZee: “He never had to work with big actors before.”
So he will go over budget somehow because the actors salaries are bigger?
DeeZee: “Yes, but it still alienated them in the sense that the material was not very compelling.”
No, if it alienated anyone it was that they did not go to see it and buy a ticket. Because, as YOU said, it was poorly marketed. (And no, DeeZee, Joss Whedon was not “in charge of some marketing” for Universal.) And because, as I said, it was an underdog project from the get-go.
DeeZee: “That’s an amusing observation, given that fanboys making decisions are why we get Kick-Ass, Grindhouse, and Sky Captain.”
No, it’s an amusing observation because you are just like a studio exec. You think you know better than everyone else, you always have an excuse or an equivocation ready (whether it makes sense or not) and you’re always ready to point fingers to save your ass. You’re a survivor, and I’d bet you could work your way right to the top!
Apologies for the lengthy double post. I got an error message when I hit “post” and then I clicked it again when the comment didn’t appear. Then they both showed up at once.
Gordon: I don’t think *everything* they make is good. But they’re better at cutting out the bullshit on the disposable stuff than most mainstream directors. Kick-Ass would not be two hours of waiting for shit to happen if it was done by one of their people.
Geoff: “You said the studios expected huge returns at the Box Office based on Firefly DVD sales, then cited Strangers With Candy as another example. One of the dumbest things anyone has said here”
So they weren’t expecting a decent return on the Strangers with Candy or Reno 911 movie, either?
“So…. you are “in charge of some marketing”? What you said was still wrong and made no sense. ”
I didn’t say you’re in charge of marketing, but you do impact its direction with your pitch.
“I thought you said the big concern for Whedon was that The Avengers would be SO expensive that it wouldn’t make as much money as, say, MI4. But now you say he’s cheap.”
I said he’s cheap when he does SyFy-esque tv and comic book gigs. Avengers will not be cheap.
“As a matter of fact, BEFORE, you said he got this job because the studio thought his familiarity with the Avengers would guarantee a smash hit. Now, you say he gets work because he’s cheap. ”
It’s a bit of both, obviously.
“If that means that The Avengers will be as good as the first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica, then we have a winner, both critically and at the box office.”
I’m talking Lexxx kind of Syfy, not Galactica kind of Syfy.
“You are the one who brought up how good the WOM was on the underperforming MI3. Now, suddenly, when it suits you, no one cares about WOM. ”
MI3 was a fucking sequel to a hit franchise which got tainted by Cruise’s couch-jumping. Abrams was in a lose-lose situation on it, anyway, which is why WOM was necessary to save it. Avengers is a big-budget cross-over of other franchises which should be able to sell based on the individual appeal of said franchises and Whedon’s take on it. It should not need good WOM, even if Thor and Captain America suck, because there’s still a potential audience for it in general. If it does need WOM, it’s toast.
“So he will go over budget somehow because the actors salaries are bigger? ”
Probably. That, and he’ll have to rely on CG more than usual.
“Because, as YOU said, it was poorly marketed. (And no, DeeZee, Joss Whedon was not “in charge of some marketing” for Universal.) ”
Yes, it was poorly marketed, but he still should be able to shoot it in a way in which the marketing could spin it as having potential wide appeal. And he did not.
“You think you know better than everyone else, you always have an excuse or an equivocation ready (whether it makes sense or not) and you’re always ready to point fingers to save your ass.”
That sounds more like an entertainment blogger to me. Execs at least don’t try to pretend the game was rigged[I.E. Kick-ass was *always* going to be "niche".] when their horse loses like fanboys.
DeeZee: “So they weren’t expecting a decent return on the Strangers with Candy or Reno 911 movie, either?”
Your dismissal of Serenity was that it wasn’t “a box office smash.” When it was pointed out that it made a decent return in the long run, you said it wasn’t as big as they were hoping for. Then, as an example of films that had similar expectations, you cited the Strangers With Candy movie. You keep lowering the bar to make your argument make sense, and as a result, it keeps making less sense.
“I didn’t say you’re in charge of marketing, but you do impact its direction with your pitch.”
Now you are just lying. All anyone has to do is scroll up the page to say this: “He must be in charge of some marketing, because he sure as fuck should know better than to pitch a show like Dollhouse.”
HE MUST BE IN CHARGE OF SOME MARKETING. — dumb quote by DeeZee, 2010
DeeZee: “I said he’s cheap when he does SyFy-esque tv and comic book gigs. Avengers will not be cheap.”
No, it won’t be cheap, per se, but in Whedon they have hired a guy who knows how to do more with less. Which is why he is A SMART CHOICE. I seriously doubt we will be hearing about budget overruns. In fact, I predict the film will come in under budget. This is something that we can verify when it happens, although you have a habit of denying any reality that doesn’t suit your argument. (“Yes, but it only came in under budget because…”)
Just like you denied ANY success to Inglourious Basterds could be attributed to Tarantino, despite the fact that it was a hit and got a Best PIcture nomination. (“Yes, but it only made money because of Brad Pitt and it only got a nomination because there were ten slots…”)
So even if the film is a big hit and makes a ton of money and people think it’s really well-written and well-directed, you’ll still find a way of attributing 100 percent of that success to anyone but Whedon. Because that’s what you do.
DeeZee: “It’s a bit of both, obviously.”
Adding the word “obviously” is kind of a smug way of disguising a mild concession on your part.
DeeZee: “I’m talking Lexxx kind of Syfy, not Galactica kind of Syfy.”
Although any objective observer would say that the cult following and critical acclaim for most of Whedon’s TV work more closely mirrors the reception of Galactica than the reception of Lexx. You might not personally like Whedon’s work, but you can’t deny that other people did, and that the people who liked it were often the same type of discerning viewers and TV critics who liked Battlestar.
DeeZee: “MI3 was a fucking sequel to a hit franchise which got tainted by Cruise’s couch-jumping. Abrams was in a lose-lose situation on it, anyway, which is why WOM was necessary to save it. Avengers is a big-budget cross-over of other franchises which should be able to sell based on the individual appeal of said franchises and Whedon’s take on it. It should not need good WOM, even if Thor and Captain America suck, because there’s still a potential audience for it in general. If it does need WOM, it’s toast.”
Avengers might be a special case, but it’s not really so different from a sequel to a hit franchise. It’s just a sequel to several franchises at once. And while it’s pretty much guaranteed a big opening weekend, I’d say that pretty much EVERY movie needs good WOM in order to be a genuine hit.
DeeZee: “Probably. That, and he’ll have to rely on CG more than usual.”
But I don’t see how that will make him go OVER budget. I think time will tell on this, neither of us can predict the future, but if the past is any indication, I think Whedon’s a pro who will make damn sure that this beast doesn’t balloon out of control.
DeeZee: “Yes, it was poorly marketed, but he still should be able to shoot it in a way in which the marketing could spin it as having potential wide appeal. And he did not.”
Serenity was a sci-fi epic shot with a budget just slightly more than some Woody Allen movies. And it looks better than the Star Wars prequels, which cost considerably more. And Jack Green was the cinematographer. How should he have shot it better?
DeeZee: “That sounds more like an entertainment blogger to me. Execs at least don’t try to pretend the game was rigged[I.E. Kick-ass was *always* going to be "niche".] when their horse loses like fanboys.”
Don’t sell yourself short. Execs spin like crazy, to cover their asses, and you can do it with the best of them. YOU NEED TO BE HEADING UP YOUR OWN STUDIO ASAP. You can tell hack filmmakers like Whedon how it’s REALLY done. Hold court about the way they should shoot their films, and flatter them with remarks like “I’ve seen CLIPS of your work, and though I didn’t LIKE them, I think you’ve got POTENTIAL, kid!”
“When it was pointed out that it made a decent return in the long run, you said it wasn’t as big as they were hoping for. Then, as an example of films that had similar expectations, you cited the Strangers With Candy movie.”
When I said similar expectations, I meant proportionate to their true potentials.
“Now you are just lying.”
That was sarcasm. But conceding that I said it, it was still a different context from that other statement.
“but in Whedon they have hired a guy who knows how to do more with less.”
He knows how to do more with less when he works with less. This fucker, OTOH, could be his Dune.
“Just like you denied ANY success to Inglourious Basterds could be attributed to Tarantino, despite the fact that it was a hit and got a Best PIcture nomination.”
And?
“Although any objective observer would say that the cult following and critical acclaim for most of Whedon’s TV work more closely mirrors the reception of Galactica than the reception of Lexx. ”
Yeah, that’s why Firefly was just as big as BSG. Oh, wait!
“And while it’s pretty much guaranteed a big opening weekend,”
That depends on whether or not Downey’s lost his shine, and whether or not Thor and Captain America can keep the comic book fad going.
“I’d say that pretty much EVERY movie needs good WOM in order to be a genuine hit.”
Not Transformers 2, apparently.
“But I don’t see how that will make him go OVER budget. ”
What was Watchmen’s budget again?
“And it looks better than the Star Wars prequels, ”
If the prequels were shot with the Riddick crew.
“You can tell hack filmmakers like Whedon how it’s REALLY done.”
But if you do that, then they get cocky and give us crap like Be Kind, Rewind.
DeeZee: “When I said similar expectations, I meant proportionate to their true potentials.”
But– but– what I MEANT was…
DeeZee: “That was sarcasm. But conceding that I said it, it was still a different context from that other statement.”
It wasn’t sarcasm. It was a cheap dodge, and now that you are called on it, you try another cheap dodge. EXECUTIVE MATERIAL, FOLKS!
DeeZee: “He knows how to do more with less when he works with less. This fucker, OTOH, could be his Dune.”
Could be, yes. On this point, it’s truly a wait-and-see proposition. He’s never helmed anything with the automatic blockbuster potential of this. But my prediction is that he will not suddenly become an out-of-control money waster, that he will marshall his skills from working with less, and that even when he does, you will just say that it was something else that made it happen, and that you never said otherwise, or that you were being sarcastic, or that what you really MEANT was…
DeeZee: “And?”
Exactly.
DeeZee: “Yeah, that’s why Firefly was just as big as BSG. Oh, wait!”
There’s that DeeZee wit again. Although I’d point out that Firefly easily could have been a much bigger hit if it had been on a channel like Sci Fi where they have incentive to really promote it the way BSG was promoted. Being aired on Friday night on FOX, out of order, contributed to its low ratings and failure on FOX.
DeeZee: “That depends on whether or not Downey’s lost his shine, and whether or not Thor and Captain America can keep the comic book fad going.”
Or whether the world is still in one piece, or the sun still shines, or movies still exist, or…
DeeZee: “Not Transformers 2, apparently.”
It would have been a bigger hit if more people were coming out and saying it was really great. And obviously, to the people who like Transformers movies, it had good WOM. Someone was telling someone else to go see it. Whereas, with Jonah Hex, no one was telling anyone to go see it.
DeeZee: “What was Watchmen’s budget again?”
Oh wow. You actually think Joss Whedon directed Watchmen? You have been misinformed.
DeeZee: “If the prequels were shot with the Riddick crew.”
Or by hack cinematographer Jack Green.
DeeZee: “But if you do that, then they get cocky and give us crap like Be Kind, Rewind.”
????
Geoff: “It was a cheap dodge, and now that you are called on it, you try another cheap dodge. EXECUTIVE MATERIAL, FOLKS!”
Executive material is more like the average Whedonite who believes cutting corners and relying on one gimmick(girls who kick high) is all that you need to make a “good” product.
“Although I’d point out that Firefly easily could have been a much bigger hit if it had been on a channel like Sci Fi where they have incentive to really promote it the way BSG was promoted.”
Doubt it. He just peaked. After all, he couldn’t fucking save a barren wasteland like UPN.
“????”
I’m just making a point that these “auteurs” think they know better about mainstream flicks than the rest of us.
DeeZee: “Executive material is more like the average Whedonite who believes cutting corners and relying on one gimmick(girls who kick high) is all that you need to make a “good” product.”
I think it’s a given that Whedon has had girls who can kick high as a recurring thing. But to say it’s the only gimmick he relies on wouldn’t be accurate even if you wanted to dismiss everything he does as nothing but gimmicks. He had the “vampire with a soul” gimmick, he had the “space western” gimmick, he had the “high school situated over a hellmouth” gimmick, etc.
So even if you want to be dismissive and say he’s nothing but gimmicks, you’re not even being remotely honest about it when you say he’s a guy who relies on one gimmick.
And this cuts to the core of your problem– you’re just saying shit to be provocative and contrarian. Because if you honestly wanted to critique Whedon as gimmicky, you wouldn’t limit yourself by saying he only has one gimmick, when that can so EASILY be refuted by simply citing basic facts.
But you don’t really care about being consistent or being honest. It’s nothing but pure negativity for the sheer pleasure of it. Which is sad.
DeeZee: “Doubt it. He just peaked. After all, he couldn’t fucking save a barren wasteland like UPN.”
I don’t get why it’s on him that Buffy wasn’t able to save a network. Even a behemoth like American Idol couldn’t save FOX if it was the ONLY show they had that people watched. No single show has that kind of power. Buffy wasn’t a high-rated show- it was a cult hit and a critical darling. But you can just say that wasn’t a ratings hit, you only weaken your own argument when you say it couldn’t save a struggling upstart TV network, because even a SMASH HIT show probably couldn’t do that.
You want to say that he hasn’t had a big mainstream hit? Say it. You want to say that he is gimmicky. Christ, man, just SAY it.
Why must you overcomplicated your arguments by embellishing them with these extra conceits that add nothing and in many cases actually weaken the point you’re trying to make?
And though you will never be honest enough to acknowledge it if Whedon steps up and makes The Avengers into a big smash hit that people like– you’ll give all the credit to ANYONE but Whedon and act like he had nothing to do with it– if The Avengers movie DOES end up becoming a creative and commercial success, then a lot of people will start to say that he’s peaking again.
But we all know you would never admit that. You’ll either change the subject or hide behind illogic, or directly contradict what you’ve said previously. Anything to avoid admitting that you might not really know what you’re talking about.
DeeZee: “I’m just making a point that these “auteurs” think they know better about mainstream flicks than the rest of us.”
If you’re saying that Be Kind Rewind wasn’t great, on this we can agree.