Avengers? Whedon? NooOOoooo...


Movies

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gah, I just read Joss Whedon is being considered for directing the Avengers movie. I haven't felt this bummed since Del Toro was picked for the Hobbit.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Any reason that you are against either of those choices?


You were bummed Del Toro was picked for directing the Hobbit? I couldn't see anybody else doing it besides him. I would also like to see a Whedon Avengers. Have you seen the magic between the crew members of Firefly?


Yeah, I would think that Joss would make an excellent Aavengers movie.


Joss Whedon is good at writing his own characters. He's kind of rubbish at writing characters previously written by anyone else. See: His run on X-Men, or more painfully, his run on Runaways.

The problem is that every character that he writes needs to be "Joss Whedon clever". All the characters act as vehicles for Joss to impress us with his sparkling wit (which I acknowledge is genuinely funny), but they lose whatever voice that they might have had prior to his picking them up.

Also, the Avengers doesn't feature NEARLY enough waifish teenage girls for Joss to take a real interest in it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jam412 wrote:
Any reason that you are against either of those choices?

Whedon tends to annoy me with a lot of his work, I just feel he is vastly overrated.

And I'll never forgive Del Toro for botching the Hellboy movies, such a waste of potential. I am very nervous to see what horrible reinterpretations he will put forth with the Hobbit.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

The Avengers movie falls under the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. So many things need to go right for such a movie to even enter production, let alone get finished. It has all the marks of a film that will be promised for years but never actually get finished.

Sovereign Court

Callous Jack wrote:
Jam412 wrote:
Any reason that you are against either of those choices?

Whedon tends to annoy me with a lot of his work, I just feel he is vastly overrated.

And I'll never forgive Del Toro for botching the Hellboy movies, such a waste of potential. I am very nervous to see what horrible reinterpretations he will put forth with the Hobbit.

Hey I've gotta agree with you that Whedon is seriously overrated, but as long as he isn't writing the script, I think he can do a good job.

Dark Archive

Josh does good buddy shows though as is evidenced by Firefly and Buffy. He should do fine with the Avengers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

While I like Whedon's stuff, I'll admit that many of the comments Green Left Eye made are spot-on. So, I understand your hesitation, CJ.

In that vein, if you ever get a chance to see it, Seth Green made a great parody of Whedon's inflated reputation on Robot Chicken.
He basically shows Whedon dressed as the Squire of Gothos and referring to his universe as the "Whedonverse." Great stuff.

As for DelToro, I think his results on Hellboy weren't so much disappointed as mixed for me. He definetly captures the weirdness vibe imbedded in the Hellboy universe really well. I think the problem is that he has a tendency for the gee-whiz factor to overwhelm characters instead of focusing the attention better on the heroes. It's kind of the same problem as Lucas and Star Wars in the second trilogy.


All these years, I thought I was alone. Now I see I am not the only one to not drink the spiked fruit punch that is Whedon. I'm with you, CJ. Hell, I'll even have shirts printed up with you and me drinking haterade(inside joke for a Whedon-loving friend of mine who will see this post this weekend).

Shadow Lodge

Green Left Eye wrote:
Joss Whedon is good at writing his own characters. He's kind of rubbish at writing characters previously written by anyone else. See: His run on X-Men, or more painfully, his run on Runaways.

Perhaps you refer to Astonishing X-Men, also known as easily the best 25 consecutive issues of X-Men in a decade minimum?

Sovereign Court

Kthulhu wrote:
Green Left Eye wrote:
Joss Whedon is good at writing his own characters. He's kind of rubbish at writing characters previously written by anyone else. See: His run on X-Men, or more painfully, his run on Runaways.
Perhaps you refer to Astonishing X-Men, also known as easily the best 25 consecutive issues of X-Men in a decade minimum?

Known by who?


Kthulhu wrote:
Green Left Eye wrote:
Joss Whedon is good at writing his own characters. He's kind of rubbish at writing characters previously written by anyone else. See: His run on X-Men, or more painfully, his run on Runaways.
Perhaps you refer to Astonishing X-Men, also known as easily the best 25 consecutive issues of X-Men in a decade minimum?

Is someone in this storyline displaying a style of humor/wit that they've never displayed before? Is a tragically deceased love interest suddenly shockingly back from the dead? Will we spend a long time developing a love story for two characters only to have them tragically torn apart from one another at the end?

Well, no one can say it isn't a Joss Whedon script, I guess.

Making a list of things that you're guaranteed to see in any Joss Whedon storyline is becoming almost as easy as making a list of things that you'll find in any given Warren Ellis storyline.


I should probably clarify here that I don't consider myself a hater. I LIKE Joss Whedon. I think he's a great writer. The reason that I'm familiar with his work on X-Men and Runaways is that I read damn near everything that he writes. I just find that when he writes characters created by other people, he tends to just ignore everything that's been developed in the character's history in order to tell a Joss Whedon story. Having said that, some of my favorite media has been things that feature characters that Joss has created himself. I'd be thrilled if he worked out a deal with Marvel to write a book with all his own characters; I'm less thrilled with the idea of his handling The Avengers.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Callous Jack wrote:


And I'll never forgive Del Toro for botching the Hellboy movies, such a waste of potential. I am very nervous to see what horrible reinterpretations he will put forth with the Hobbit.

Interesting. When you say botch the Hellboy movies, is that because they are significantly different from the comics?

I find the Hellboy movies to be a strange case for me. In the abstract, when I break down the plots and the characters, I realize how stupid and generic they are. And yet, I still enjoyed both of them.

I can't defend them as being good, and I wouldn't call them so bad they are good, but I must say that I did enjoy them despite finding them stupid and generic in the abstract.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Warren Ellis/Stormwatch Spoiler:
Has anyone read the Warren Ellis Stormwatch series? Where he kills off almost the whole team (the ones he didn't create) with Aliens (think Ridley Scott)?!?! What the f$$! was that about?!?!? I don't think that I've been more dissapointed by the ending of a comic series.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alex Martin wrote:

n that vein, if you ever get a chance to see it, Seth Green made a great parody of Whedon's inflated reputation on Robot Chicken.

He basically shows Whedon dressed as the Squire of Gothos and referring to his universe as the "Whedonverse." Great stuff.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Freehold DM wrote:
All these years, I thought I was alone. Now I see I am not the only one to not drink the spiked fruit punch that is Whedon. I'm with you, CJ. Hell, I'll even have shirts printed up with you and me drinking haterade(inside joke for a Whedon-loving friend of mine who will see this post this weekend).

I'm with you, give me my haterade!

Alex Martin wrote:
As for DelToro, I think his results on Hellboy weren't so much disappointed as mixed for me. He definetly captures the weirdness vibe imbedded in the Hellboy universe really well. I think the problem is that he has a tendency for the gee-whiz factor to overwhelm characters instead of focusing the attention better on the heroes. It's kind of the same problem as Lucas and Star Wars in the second trilogy.
Sebastian wrote:

Interesting. When you say botch the Hellboy movies, is that because they are significantly different from the comics?

I find the Hellboy movies to be a strange case for me. In the abstract, when I break down the plots and the characters, I realize how stupid and generic they are. And yet, I still enjoyed both of them.
I can't defend them as being good, and I wouldn't call them so bad they are good, but I must say that I did enjoy them despite finding them stupid and generic in the abstract.

I've always loved the Hellboy books, I stumbled across the first series in college because of Mignola's crazy style and it's the only series I still collect. They are probably one of the few things that brings out the inner fanboy.

The movie is very different from what Mignola did; many plot lines were simply mashed into a big mess or they just created whole new stuff that didn't even feel right with what was established in the books. Del Toro basically decided that instead of staying faithful to the books like say, the Harry Potter movies (for the most part), he would ignore most of what was published and do his own interpretation (which frankly, is pretty disappointing). He just disregarded so much of what I liked and just made a dumbed-down, Hollywood action flick which I guess would be entertaining if it wasn't this particular franchise. I recommend you try the trade paperbacks, they are really fun, quick reads with nods to Lovecraft, old myths/legends and pulp magazines.


Interestingly enough, my mom, who has VERY recently(read: April 3rd) converted to Catholicism, LOVES the Hellboy movies and watches them at every turn. I thought they were okay, and I never really got into the comics. I've read them, but they never really grabbed me.


Callous Jack wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:

n that vein, if you ever get a chance to see it, Seth Green made a great parody of Whedon's inflated reputation on Robot Chicken.

He basically shows Whedon dressed as the Squire of Gothos and referring to his universe as the "Whedonverse." Great stuff.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Freehold DM wrote:
All these years, I thought I was alone. Now I see I am not the only one to not drink the spiked fruit punch that is Whedon. I'm with you, CJ. Hell, I'll even have shirts printed up with you and me drinking haterade(inside joke for a Whedon-loving friend of mine who will see this post this weekend).
I'm with you, give me my haterade!

clinks glasses Salud.

I really hate Whedon, but I save a certain degree of animosity for his fans. I'm not going to get into the whole "What anime has Joss been watching lately" routine, as it would probably start me down a road of vitriol that would get the post deleted, but I will mention that his fans are his first and staunchest line of defense, going into foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes defending his work. Its one of the reasons why I loved that Robot Chicken sketch.


Kthulhu wrote:
Green Left Eye wrote:
Joss Whedon is good at writing his own characters. He's kind of rubbish at writing characters previously written by anyone else. See: His run on X-Men, or more painfully, his run on Runaways.
Perhaps you refer to Astonishing X-Men, also known as easily the best 25 consecutive issues of X-Men in a decade minimum?

Grant Morrison's runs on X-men were far, far better. Without Cassaday's art, Whedon's X-men would have astonishingly forgettable. Whedon's Runaways was pretty mediocre as well.

Joss Whedon can write good TV shows, but comics are best served without him I think.

And I think he's a poor fit for the Avengers movie too. Can you imagine Steve Rogers talking in cutesy, pop culture laden Whedon-speak? Barf. Good thing it'll probably never happen.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Whedon is god! Period.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:

n that vein, if you ever get a chance to see it, Seth Green made a great parody of Whedon's inflated reputation on Robot Chicken.

He basically shows Whedon dressed as the Squire of Gothos and referring to his universe as the "Whedonverse." Great stuff.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Freehold DM wrote:
All these years, I thought I was alone. Now I see I am not the only one to not drink the spiked fruit punch that is Whedon. I'm with you, CJ. Hell, I'll even have shirts printed up with you and me drinking haterade(inside joke for a Whedon-loving friend of mine who will see this post this weekend).
I'm with you, give me my haterade!

clinks glasses Salud.

I really hate Whedon, but I save a certain degree of animosity for his fans. I'm not going to get into the whole "What anime has Joss been watching lately" routine, as it would probably start me down a road of vitriol that would get the post deleted, but I will mention that his fans are his first and staunchest line of defense, going into foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes defending his work. Its one of the reasons why I loved that Robot Chicken sketch.

I won't go into a foaming-at-the-mouth defense. If you don't like him or his work, that's your call. Personally, I think the man made television watchable again.

Liberty's Edge

Grrr. Arrg.

Dark Archive

He's both almost-as-good-as-he-thinks-he-is *and* wildly overrated, at the same time. He was talking about himself in Season Seven of Buffy when he referred to the main character as having a superiority complex, and an inferiority complex because of it, I suspect. :)

The Avengers certainly doesn't fall into his comfort zone, but it's conceivable that he's finding his way out of that quippy self-referential too-clever-dialogue comfort zone.

He'd probably be better suited to an Avengers line-up that included Simon and Hank, come to think of it... Then he could sneak some Joss-y quips in without anyone acting out of character.

On the other, other hand, the snarky quips from Lucius Fox and Alfred in the new Batman movies were the only parts of them that didn't bore the holy living crap out of me. The ponderous flat acting from everyone else was killing me. Even the darn *Joker* wasn't interesting to watch, but all serious and grim. It was like 'Daria makes Batman.' Iron Man also was well-served by some quippage and snark, between Tony and Pepper, Pepper and random reporter chickie, and Tony and his various robots and AIs.

If Josses natural inclination to include a whacky teenaged supergenius who ranges from eccentric and quirky to crazed can be curtailed (and he doesn't turn the Wasp into Willow or Ant-Man into Topher), the movie might benefit from having some fun dialogue.

I got nothing on the Del Toro / Hellboy haterade 'though. Those were some freaking awesome movies. They weren't perfect soulless replicas of the comics, but they sure as heck weren't League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Catwoman or Elektra...

Sovereign Court

dmchucky69 wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:

n that vein, if you ever get a chance to see it, Seth Green made a great parody of Whedon's inflated reputation on Robot Chicken.

He basically shows Whedon dressed as the Squire of Gothos and referring to his universe as the "Whedonverse." Great stuff.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Freehold DM wrote:
All these years, I thought I was alone. Now I see I am not the only one to not drink the spiked fruit punch that is Whedon. I'm with you, CJ. Hell, I'll even have shirts printed up with you and me drinking haterade(inside joke for a Whedon-loving friend of mine who will see this post this weekend).
I'm with you, give me my haterade!

clinks glasses Salud.

I really hate Whedon, but I save a certain degree of animosity for his fans. I'm not going to get into the whole "What anime has Joss been watching lately" routine, as it would probably start me down a road of vitriol that would get the post deleted, but I will mention that his fans are his first and staunchest line of defense, going into foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes defending his work. Its one of the reasons why I loved that Robot Chicken sketch.

I won't go into a foaming-at-the-mouth defense. If you don't like him or his work, that's your call. Personally, I think the man made television watchable again.

The only show of his that was watchable was firefly. Buffy & Angel, never enjoyed either of them from their hercules imitation style to their pussification of vampires, granted I also hated blade, basically I think I hate anything that turns vampires into pussies, or plays up the "good vampire" story that always bothers me.

There's some other show he's done, but I'm not familiar with it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ironically, Buffy is my fave Whedon show, followed by Angel and I think Firefly and Dollhouse score a tie in last place. But I'll take a bad Whedon episode over a good one by most other creators. I also love Chris Carter (X-files, Millennium), J M Stryzenski (Babylon 5) and JJ Abrams (Lost, Fringe).

You want to talk about Wussification of vampires; I'd say that started with Ann Rice. What I love about Whedon is that he writes people so well. I was Xander in High School, so I was hooked instantly.

Dark Archive

Joss Whedon has some hit and miss concepts, but when he hits (Firefly, if it had progressed long enough), he nails it hard. Sort of like M. Night with his twist plots, sometimes they work (6th Sense), and sometimes they fail utterly (you know the horrible ones I'm talking about).

Del Toro has an excellent sense of the fantastic and the imaginitive, and if he ever works on a fantasy it would be awesome (Pan's Labyrinth).

I don't know if Del Toro can pull off the Hobbit, but it'll definitely look pretty. And weird.

Joss will probably not produce the Avengers right, it won't suck but it will not meet expectations.

As far as superhero movies go, Watchmen, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight have been really good. And I'm hoping the Dead Pool spin-off works.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I DO prefer it when Joss does his own stuff. I'm far more excited about Cabin in the Woods and Goners than I am Avengers.


Jared Ouimette wrote:
he nails it hard.

insert Beavis & Butthead laugh here

Dark Archive

dmchucky69 wrote:

Ironically, Buffy is my fave Whedon show, followed by Angel and I think Firefly and Dollhouse score a tie in last place. But I'll take a bad Whedon episode over a good one by most other creators. I also love Chris Carter (X-files, Millennium), J M Stryzenski (Babylon 5) and JJ Abrams (Lost, Fringe).

You want to talk about Wussification of vampires; I'd say that started with Ann Rice. What I love about Whedon is that he writes people so well. I was Xander in High School, so I was hooked instantly.

I haven't seen Dollhouse yet, or Babylon 5. Buffy had too many rubber monsters in them to really draw me in. Fringe is actually getting fairly good, it got off to a rough start with the terrorist attack of the week plots of the first episodes, but it's plotlines are becomeing more apparent. Merlin has caught my attention and Flash Forward looks interesting but I haven't seen much of the show.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Set wrote:

I got nothing on the Del Toro / Hellboy haterade 'though. Those were some freaking awesome movies. They weren't perfect soulless replicas of the comics, but they sure as heck weren't League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Catwoman or Elektra...

Actually.... that's pretty much where I'd put them. I just saw LoEG for the first time recently and it reminded me of Hellboy.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Jam412 wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

I read it. Was mildly upset by it for like a day, and then started reading the Authority and I was glad he was focusing on characters he liked better, because the writing got a whole lot better. I think I saw they brought back Fuji and the other original characters anyway, like they always do, so I guess I didn't care then and don't really care now.

If it took an Aliens crossover to get us the Ellis/Hitch Authority, that's what it took, and I'm ok with it.


I never read the Hellboy comics so for me, the movies worked. The second worked considerably better than the first, in my opinion, because you got to see more of the otherworldly side of things. Also, the end of the first one wound up just being kind of a weird jumble at high speed.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Jam412 wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

I read it. Was mildly upset by it for like a day, and then started reading the Authority and I was glad he was focusing on characters he liked better, because the writing got a whole lot better. I think I saw they brought back Fuji and the other original characters anyway, like they always do, so I guess I didn't care then and don't really care now.

If it took an Aliens crossover to get us the Ellis/Hitch Authority, that's what it took, and I'm ok with it.

Yeah I'm still pretty bitter about it like 10 years later, ha ha. I guess I really just dislike writers ruining a title and established characters just because they want to go in a different direction (see recent Marvel). He could have just made an Authority/ Stormwatch Black spin of and let the main comic fall to someone else.

To me it was like if you really liked Numeria, so you decided to destroy the rest of Golarion and focus just on Numeria. No matter how cool you made Numeria, I'd still be pretty mad that you blew up Golarion.

That said, you're right. Authority is awesome. :-)


I think most of whedon-lovin came from the time period when he was most prolific on television. To those who didnt like Buffy and Angel, I respect that everyone's tastes are different, but seriously the early 00's had basically nothing else good at all on. So Whedon's stuff seemed that much more awesome to me. I never was a fan of Survivor or The Weakest Link or all the other crap that was on during Buffy and Angel's run. I admit I'm not familiar with his work after Firefly, so thats why Im kinda excited if hes attached to the Avengers. It might sink (and I could really see that happening with all the way too cool dialogue) or it might be amazing the way Angel was to me in it's time (compared to the other tripe). But I definately look forward to watching and finding out!

-end fan boy semi-rant-

Liberty's Edge

Doctor Horrible.


grits teeth barely...making...will...save.....

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jam412 wrote:
That said, you're right. Authority is awesome. :-)

Authority was good but mostly because Hitch's art was spectacular and made up for Ellis' frenetic writing.

Shadow Lodge

The reason that I enjoyed Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men is that he managed to avoid two traps that have ensnared almost every X-Book in the past decade and a half or so:

1. Storylines that practically REQUIRE you to understand X-Men backhistory (one of the most convoluted messes in the entire Marvel Universe, by the way) to fully understand the story. An understanding of recent events on Genosha and the history of Jean's dead-alive-dead status would make some nuances of the story stand out more, but Whedon's arc was far more independant that the vast majority of X-Men stories have been in recent history.

2. Gigantic cast of characters. Just because three dozen or so named characters live in the mansion, that doesn't mean they all have to poke their heads into every other storyline that comes along. Whedon kept the core team small (Cyclops, Emma, Kitty, Colossus, Beast, and Logan) and kept the significant supporting characters even smaller (Wing, Armor, Ord, Danger, and Brand).


Freehold DM wrote:


I really hate Whedon, but I save a certain degree of animosity for his fans. I'm not going to get into the whole "What anime has Joss been watching lately" routine, as it would probably start me down a road of vitriol that would get the post deleted, but I will mention that his fans are his first and staunchest line of defense, going into foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes defending his work. Its one of the reasons why I loved that Robot Chicken sketch.

You mean that Robot Chicken sketch that had Whedon doing his own voice? Pretty funny that he is willing to poke some fun at himself and the perception of him.


Freehold DM wrote:
grits teeth barely...making...will...save.....

Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. So people have different opinions than you do. So what?


Lyingbastard wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
grits teeth barely...making...will...save.....
Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. So people have different opinions than you do. So what?

I can't! These knickers are self-twisting! I have the grappled condition!


Freehold DM wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
grits teeth barely...making...will...save.....
Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. So people have different opinions than you do. So what?
I can't! These knickers are self-twisting! I have the grappled condition!

Only one possible solution to that: PILEDRIVER.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think Whedon will do a decent job of the Avengers. The Serenity movie showed he can handle an ensemble cast very well, giving each member moments to shine, but not letting an overwhelming number of characters, um, overwhelm the plot and storyline. Also, the Firefly 'verse lacks the pop-culture we have in the here-and-now, so he might be able to have fun with Steve Rogers trying to be cool in a 1940's way with 70 year old slang. Ditto Thor and 1700 year old slang.

What's the Avengers' roster going to be? Nick Fury, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc. vs. some baddie (Leader?) aiming the Hulk at them? I don't know too much about the Avengers.

Dark Archive

I was pretty much a nay-sayer on Joss doing Astonishing, because I was predicting that he'd turn Kitty into Willow and Scott into Xander and Spike into Spike. Oh sorry, I meant Wolverine into Spike.

I was pleasantly surprised with how he dealt with the characterization of pretty much everyone (except Wolverine, whom I think he overcompensated for and made less competent and more of a 'butt-monkey' than he should have been, which, for me, a rabid hater of that character, is pretty surprising).

He wrote great Kitty, Scott and Emma, and kind of piffled around with Peter, Hank and Logan/Steve/James/whateverthehellhis'real'nameisthisweek. Peter, in particular, came across as a bit of a lump, and, in comics, I've always been annoyed by dead characters being resurrected when there isn't something balls-to-the-wall awesome planned for them.

(See Barry Allen, apparently ressurected because 'it was his turn,' and then thrown into limbo because nobody had a darned idea what to do with him...)

Whoever writes the Avengers movie, is going to be coming off of Iron Man 1 and 2, Thor, a couple of Hulk flicks, and Captain America, at the minimum (with the possibility of an Ant-Man movie as well). The actors are going to be chosen already (having been locked in via their previous movie contracts), the characterization is going to be already established (via their previous movies) and all that really remains is to craft a good story that utilizes the lot of them and includes that absolutely necessary bit of any superhero movie, big action fight scenes. (Where Superman Returns fell down, having no supervillain, and thus no real fight scene.)

With each of the characters (save the Wasp and Ant-Man / Giant-Man, if not introduced in the reputed Ant-Man movie) already established, it shouldn't be necessary to fart away 80% of the movie establishing characters and describing powers (like the Fantastic Four movie), and we should be able to see some fun stuff in the first act, instead of flattening our assets waiting for the third act.

Dark Archive

SmiloDan wrote:
What's the Avengers' roster going to be? Nick Fury, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc. vs. some baddie (Leader?) aiming the Hulk at them? I don't know too much about the Avengers.

The initial team was Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, Ant-Man and the Wasp, with Captain America joining almost immediately (and Ant-Man changing into Giant-Man).

Based on the movie talk, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk and Captain America are absolutely in, and the Ant-Man possibly. No idea about the Wasp (or Ant-Man becoming Giant-Man), but the Wasp seems almost a must-have, since the team will be a bit testosterone heavy without at least one female Avenger.

Other very quick additions to the team included Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, but it would make sense to skip them in the introductory movie, which is already going to have a decent sized cast.

I haven't heard anything about villains yet. The first Avengers foe was Loki, but it sounds like he's getting major use in the Thor movie, and would be less likely to show up as the Avengers baddie, IMO.

Ultron perhaps? He might make a good introductory foe, since the Avengers would get to cut loose on robotic foes with impunity, and show off their awesome firepower. The introduction of an adamantium robot would also create a loose tie-in to the rest of the marvel universe (see, Wolveroonie), and set precedent for them to eventually have some cross-pollination in later movies (such as establishing Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch as both Avengers, and mutants, and possibly even children of Magneto, if Marvel ever reclaims the movie-rights to use the name 'Magneto' from Fox).

Dark Archive

Set wrote:

Ultron perhaps? He might make a good introductory foe, since the Avengers would get to cut loose on robotic foes with impunity, and show off their awesome firepower. The introduction of an adamantium robot would also create a loose tie-in to the rest of the marvel universe (see, Wolveroonie), and set precedent for them to eventually have some cross-pollination in later movies (such as establishing Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch as both Avengers, and mutants, and possibly even children of Magneto, if Marvel ever reclaims the movie-rights to use the name 'Magneto' from Fox).

Ultron also works because he could be, theoretically, introduced in the Ant-Man movie and then move to major bad guy status in the Avengers. Maybe we could even get the Vision in there as well helping Ultron in the first flick, and the have Hank fix him up at the end and introduce him as an Avenger in the second movie.

Dark Archive

David Fryer wrote:
Ultron also works because he could be, theoretically, introduced in the Ant-Man movie and then move to major bad guy status in the Avengers. Maybe we could even get the Vision in there as well helping Ultron in the first flick, and the have Hank fix him up at the end and introduce him as an Avenger in the second movie.

Very true! Even if Ultron isn't introduced as a villain in the Ant-Man movie, Pym could be seen working on the AI or the robotic body in a 'throw-away scene,' and things could go terribly wrong during the beginning of the Avengers movie.

Hard to say, the Ant-Man movie appears to have been intended as a more comedic thing, with Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Star Trek) as Hank Pym, presumably spending half of the movie running in terror from 'giant' ants while he figures out how to un-shrink himself and / or communicate with them.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Is an Ant-Man movie in the works? If not, I wouldn't be surprised if they rejiggered Ultron's origin to be created by Tony Stark rather than Pym.

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Avengers? Whedon? NooOOoooo... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.