Movie: Avengers (2012)

[wideawakewesley]

Originally Posted by tsmith15

Joss Whedon really can do no wrong..

Alien Resurrection!

[tsmith15]

Originally Posted by wideawakewesley

Alien Resurrection!

That pre-dates most of his impact work, and clearly pre-dates everything I like him for, but I see your point.

[stubadub]

Not really fair to attribute Alien Resurrection to Whedon just like it's not fair to say Alien 3 is the result of Fincher's work. Both projects were the victims of considerable studio interference and did not reflect the full intent of director or primary script writer.

I think Alien Resurrection was a great idea that didn't quite fit with Jeunot's vision for it, but who knows how much of that vision was actually intact by the time we got to see it. Jeunot has multiple times discussed how difficult that film was for him since the studio would not allow him to do the things they hired him to do.

A better example would be to look at the theatrical Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That was not a great film, but it seems pretty easy to say the blame was not with Whedon. The studio's mishandling of his script was what led Whedon to explore doing it again himself on the small screen, and with Whedon in full creative control that series was great.

[heyseuss]

Originally Posted by stubadub

A better example would be to look at the theatrical Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That was not a great film, but it seems pretty easy to say the blame was not with Whedon. The studio's mishandling of his script was what led Whedon to explore doing it again himself on the small screen, and with Whedon in full creative control that series was great.

BTVS did well at the time, and was well-liked.

[stubadub]

Originally Posted by heyseuss

BTVS did well at the time, and was well-liked.

It did ok. It made 16 million total on a 7 million dollar budget. It was not well received critically, and my own memory is that it wasn't strongly liked or disliked, unlike the show. I would say that's certainly the case now, with a 5.4 on IMDB. (In comparison, Alien Resurrection cost $70 million, made $160 million worldwide, has a 6.2 on IMDB, and slightly higher metacritic average according to IMDB. The scale is different, but I'd say they are comparable in their relative successes and failures, though I think people are definitely not indifferent towards Alien Resurrection).

But my point stands. The movie came out and was not the film that Whedon wrote. He expressed dissatisfaction with it, worked on getting the show together, and the show has gone on to be a cult favorite with a thriving fan base while the film is mostly forgotten. In most cases you can not base judgement of a screenwriter's success solely on the film that was produced. There are too many factors at play after the writer hands over his draft (director choices, other screenwriters that modified it but did not get credit during arbitration, studio interference, etc).

[bassguitar115]

Saw 'The Avengers' in 3D IMAX and it was awesome! Like Jeff said, giving the directorial duties for future Avengers movies to anyone but Whedon is NOT OK.

I'm going to see it again in 2D this next week. It's that good.

[drtyfrank]

Saw it Saturday night and must be a victim of the hype, 'cuz I do not see how it deserves the accolades it's receiving. It was fun, sure, but a great movie? Far from. Talk about a thin plot... holy crap, man. Still though, if there was ever a case for characters carrying a movie, this would be it. Hulk was way cool, though. But I'm biased as he's my favorite anyway.

[stubadub]

I don't think the standards to determine whether or not a film is great are so structured that a film needs to be disqualified because any one particular aspect is lacking. Sure, the plot is on the thin side but the movie achieves everything it set out to do and does it better than any film I can think of that came before it.

My wife, 6 year old son and I enjoyed it more than anything else we've ever seen as a family. I enjoyed it so much I've already seen it twice and plan to see it again. What's more, of the 6 people outside of my family that I know that saw it over the weekend, 5 of them have already seen it again, and 3 of those stated that they never go and see a movie more than once. The 1 guy that has not seen it again is making plans to do so again, and 4 of the 5 have stated they plan to see it at least once more.

I think it's fair to say that if you are someone that feels that strongly about a film the label "great" is appropriately used.

Now, for my next viewing, D-Box!

[wideawakewesley]

Originally Posted by stubadub

My wife, 6 year old son and I enjoyed it more than anything else we've ever seen as a family.

You took your 6yo? Wow, I thought I was liberal, but you're way ahead of me. I definitely wouldn't let my son see it (he's 6 next month) or any of the lead-in movies. Please don't take offence at that, I would dearly love my son to watch it, but there are least two individual scenes in the movie I don't think are appropriate for my son to watch and I think the final act is too much in terms of intensity.

As a general point, it disappoints me that these films are rated 12A in the UK. I really think that they should have shot for a PG rating, considering how much this content appeals to kids, but I'm not sure what the implications would have been to the content of the movie. The closest they've come is probably Thor, which I don't believe deserved it's 12A rating.

[gm_wil]

Well I just had goose bumps for 2 hours...

When Jeff reviewed it and got emotional I understood where that was coming from...

I had a lump in my throat for most of the movie and got a little teary-eyed a few times...not because of the directing and acting...but because I was experiencing a moment in my childhood's future and it felt just like I imagined it would.

-