The Avengers ::: 4 May 2012

It was recently announced to be in development. No solid date yet, but it'll happen for sure. This quote from Whedon intrigues me:

Quote :

But speaking to SFX Whedon said that that any sequel should not try to top the first film. "[It should be] smaller. More personal. More painful. By being the next thing that should happen to these characters, and not just a rehash of what seemed to work the first time. By having a theme that is completely fresh and organic to itself."

With AVENGERS passing $700 million, I'm hoping they give Whedon carte blanche on the development of the second flick. But who knows, maybe they'll give it to Brett Ratner.

Little early to have a thread about a flick that won't come out til 2016 at the earliest.

True, but consider this thread a place where you can make your own speculations on what might take place as the other Marvel movies roll in. At the same time you'll find out bits and pieces of info that's reported.

Basically the Marvel equivalent of "Bond 24 and Beyond" section.

Makeshift Python wrote:

With AVENGERS passing $700 million, I'm hoping they give Whedon carte blanche on the development of the second flick.

If they have any sense, they will. They deliberately chose him for THE AVENGERS because of his knowledge of the comics. And given the way that film has been received, they'd be mad not to bring him back for the second film.

Makeshift Python wrote:

It was recently announced to be in development. No solid date yet, but it'll happen for sure. This quote from Whedon intrigues me:

Quote :

But speaking to SFX Whedon said that that any sequel should not try to top the first film. "[It should be] smaller. More personal. More painful. By being the next thing that should happen to these characters, and not just a rehash of what seemed to work the first time. By having a theme that is completely fresh and organic to itself."

That's precisely what he did with the second season of "Buffy". The first season involved the Master trying to break free of his prison under Sunnydale, so that he could unleash hell on earth (and the episode "Doppelgangland" explored exactly what would have happened). But the second season focused much more on Buffy's relationship with Angel, and although Angelus tried to awaken a demon that would swallow the earth into a hell dimension, his cruellest and most evil acts were when he was targeting Buffy and her friends. The second season is widely-regarded as one of the show's best. So Whedon definately knows what it takes to back that statement up.

I also think Whedon was looking back at IRON MAN 2 when he made those comments. The only thing of note in that film is Fury telling Stark that he is unfit for the Avengers' Initiative. The rest of the film is exactly what Whedon describes: a rehash of what seemed to work the first time.

Makeshift Python wrote:

This fucker is over 700 million worldwide already! http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

Will it beat the Titanic and Avatar records?

:bounce:

Makeshift Python wrote:

She must be wearing some fcuking high shoes. She's only 5'4" and Chris Hemsworth is 6'3"

Skaarsgard is all *Lucky bastards ... I'm totally standing in the wrong spot, dammit* .

She looks like a young Peggy Bundy in that shot.

What I think I hate most about THE AVENGERS is how it practically guarantees another decade's worth of overblown superhero blockbusters. And man, I'm tired of superhero movies.

Hear hear. Enough is enough.

A continued steady stream of superhero movies doesn't bother me. Just don't watch 'em, and catch the few good ones that come along.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

A continued steady stream of superhero movies doesn't bother me.

It doesn't bother me that they exist as much as it bothers me that because Hollywood studios are making less and less movies, superhero flicks are taking over the slate.

Harmsway wrote:

It doesn't bother me that they exist as much as it bothers me that because Hollywood studios are making less and less movies, superhero flicks are taking over the slate.

I don't agree...there are many new non-superhero flicks released into theaters every week. If you look at the Top 25 movies today on boxofficemojo, there are only 2 comic book movies...Avengers and John Carter. We're 5 months into 2012.....the only superhero/comic-book related flicks during that period were Ghost Rider, John Carter and now Avengers. Add Spidey and Batman later this year...just 5 or so movies with only 3 of them expected to be megahits. I don't see how that means comic book movies are taking over :drunken: They're not always hits either...both John Carter and Jonah Hex failed miserably (the latter was a shame since I like DC's Jonah Hex books).

I'm starting to see MARVEL STUDIOS as the PIXAR of the comic book genre. As long as they carry on that quality control I'm looking forward to what they offer. So far only IRON MAN 2 fell short for me.

I think the Marvel run has been pretty mediocre so far. Sleek, soulless, formulaic product, lacking any real aesthetic personality. Maybe now that THE AVENGERS is out, they'll loosen their control a bit and let people play around with these films, but I doubt it.

I dunno, I say Branagh, Johnston and Whedon came out strong. I'm not sure what Favreau's deal is though as he doesn't seem to have any kind of stamp on any film he makes, but RDJ's presence manages to keep it up in the air. Leterrier's more workman like, but it... works I guess.

Joss Whedon is a lousy director.

I disagree.

He's got no personality, no aesthetics, no craft, no understanding of the form. He should've stuck to television.

I thought Branagh's work on THOR was pretty so-so. There were moments when it verged on being something interesting, but it was either undercut by the budget or by attempts to keep consistency with the larger (bland) Marvel-movie universe as established by Favreau's IRON MAN flicks and maintained in Leterrier's INCREDIBLE HULK and Whedon's THE AVENGERS.

Johnston's CAP. AMERICA aesthetic was just a poor man's version of SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW, though it is the most distinct-looking of the Marvel films.

I'd like to see these films get more creative with production design (which has been largely lamentable) and cinematography. These are comic book heroes, for crying out loud. Give us big, colorful, striking images.

Sharky wrote:

He's got no personality, no aesthetics, no craft, no understanding of the form. He should've stuck to television.

Again, I don't agree with your view. He ain't perfect sure. He's not making great art but from all I've seen so far he's shown plenty of competence in how to tell a story. All those criticisms I can see apply to hacks like Bay and Abrams, but I say Whedon is better than that.

Sharky wrote:

He's got no personality, no aesthetics, no craft, no understanding of the form. He should've stuck to television.

Tell that to his guaranteed US$1Billion dollar movie....