Anyone else fed up with Whedon's complaining?

[Johnny-Oh]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Yeah and if the current MCU darlings the Russo brothers stumble at all, I can't wait to see how the fanboys throw them to the wolves just like they've been doing with Whedon lately. SMH

Yes this is my concern as well, its unfair that Whedon gets so much hate when a couple of years ago he was getting as much praise as the Russos are getting now.

[First Avenger]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Such a great flick. That film actually made me a Spider-Man fan.

SM2 is still a masterpiece in the CBM genre,no doubt about it.

[Keehar]

Kev Fiege said it's one of the greats too

[Fosterson]

Originally Posted by Johnny-Oh

Yes this is my concern as well, its unfair that Whedon gets so much hate when a couple of years ago he was getting as much praise as the Russos are getting now.

People's expectations for AoU were so ridiculously high after the first one that they were setting themselves up for disappointment. Sure, AoU doesn't quite have the same magic as the original, but its still immensely entertaining and enjoyable. This is going to be a (potentially) huge problem for Civil War as well. TWS was so well received that if CW doesn't receive quite as much acclaim (but still largely gets positive reviews), it will be considered a failure and disappointment. The only way CW can avoid a similar fate to AoU is if it is acclaimed as much, or more, than TWS, which will be a challenge.

Ultimately, I can only imagine that the vitriol directed towards the Russo's would be even more violent than what is currently being thrown at Whedon, due to them being signed on for Infinity War 1+2.

[Keehar]

But like it's common nowadays for sequels to be even better than the first movie. So only normal people were expecting even better.

[Fosterson]

Originally Posted by Keehar

But like it's common nowadays for sequels to be even better than the first movie. So only normal people were expecting even better.

It's common with non-MCU superhero franchises, like Raimi's Spiderman and Nolan's Batman, but not with the MCU. So far, Marvel has only managed to make one sequel (Winter Soldier) that is widely believed to be better than its predecessor. IM 2+3 and TDW are generally considered to be inferior to IM and Thor respectively. And anyway, WS was the sequel to a film that was met by a lukewarm response upon release, and failed to even make 400 million dollars. Therefore, it wasn't hyped anywhere near as much as AoU and people did not set themselves up for disappointment. Meanwhile, Civil War, coming off the back of WS will face a very difficult task of surpassing its predecessor.

[Keehar]

Rami's Spider-Man, Nolan's Batman, X-Men, all got better sequels. Didn't matter that Thor's or Iron Man's were weaker. There was still big hope that Avengers sequel could be better, even if Winter Soldier had not been more awesome.

[Mandon Knight]

Whedon has delivered on both the Avengers films commercially from a director most studios wouldn't / hadn't touched with a barge pole previously.

He knew the 'constraints' of a studio size blockbuster going into the situation.

I'm not sure where people are coming from when they say AoU is a 'failure', I've not seen it yet, so cannot comment on it's quality in comparison to the first Avengers film but box office of nearly $1.4 billion would suggest it's popularity and appeal.

To be honest, I'm certain Marvel execs are not at home thinking 'I wonder what Joss thinks of me', they are too busy having a bath in $$$ bills.

[Keehar]

No way is AOU a failure. Not with money or even with critics. Even though it didn't score near as high as Avengers did. It didn't get a rotten rating.

[Vartha]

Yeah I read something to that effect. It was a big hit but a mega failure at the same time. I loved it That's all I care about, but I still want to see the FULL movie

[Fosterson]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Yeah I read something to that effect. It was a big hit but a mega failure at the same time. I loved it That's all I care about, but I still want to see the FULL movie

How was it a "mega failure"? By your logic, from now on every MCU film that makes less than 1.5 billion should be considered a failure.

[Fosterson]

Originally Posted by Keehar

Rami's Spider-Man, Nolan's Batman, X-Men, all got better sequels. Didn't matter that Thor's or Iron Man's were weaker.

Yes, it does because it shows that MS are crap at making sequels (with the exception of TWS). What Nolan, Raimi and Singer were able to do is completely irrelevant as none of those individuals have any input whatsoever at Marvel Studios. Besides, AoU was hyped up far more than X2, Spider-Man 2 or TDK prior to release. All of those films were only massively hyped after they were released. The weight on AoU's shoulders was immense (far greater than those three films) and despite being amazing, it was considered "not good enough" by critics and the GA.

[Stevie2020]

Originally Posted by Fosterson

People's expectations for AoU were so ridiculously high after the first one that they were setting themselves up for disappointment. Sure, AoU doesn't quite have the same magic as the original, but its still immensely entertaining and enjoyable. This is going to be a (potentially) huge problem for Civil War as well. TWS was so well received that if CW doesn't receive quite as much acclaim (but still largely gets positive reviews), it will be considered a failure and disappointment. The only way CW can avoid a similar fate to AoU is if it is acclaimed as much, or more, than TWS, which will be a challenge.

Ultimately, I can only imagine that the vitriol directed towards the Russo's would be even more violent than what is currently being thrown at Whedon, due to them being signed on for Infinity War 1+2.

The hype and expectation for AoU was really high. Avengers was a highly anticipated movie that delivered in a huge way and the follow-up had the same director who understood the characters and had the creative vision to deliver on the Ultron story line. It was entertaining, it made money, but it had problems in execution, so it was deemed a letdown.

Thing is that in the MCU, the franchise follow-ups carry the burden of continuing established characters while setting up the story for future movies according to the master plan. I expect this will be an on-going challenge for future entries where the main character has already been introduced into the MCU.

But I think that Civil War expectations may not be as high as AoU. The Cap franchise started out as somewhat quaint and continued as solidly grounded. The next one does seem pretty bloated so far, and it does seem to be playing set up to future IW, Black Panther and Spiderman movies as much as it is telling its own story. But I think the hard-core audience might have learned a lesson from the hype of AoU and I sense guarded optimism, at least from this forum.

I also expect the Russos and Disney/Marvel are aware of the problems with AoU (both in storytelling and hype) and will take some care with this production. CW doesn't have to garner superior critical or financial success, it just has to maintain quality with a few memorable scenes and -- most importantly -- no bad ones or major plot holes. I also think that marketing efforts will be very different and less sensational as those for AoU.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by Johnny-Oh

Yes this is my concern as well, its unfair that Whedon gets so much hate when a couple of years ago he was getting as much praise as the Russos are getting now.

It happens to all great CBM directors. Raimi was loved on here prior to SM3. Only one who hasn't been eaten alive seems to be Nolan. Singer had to win everyone back with DoFP after Superman Returns.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

It happens to all great CBM directors. Raimi was loved on here prior to SM3. Only one who hasn't been eaten alive seems to be Nolan. Singer had to win everyone back with DoFP after Superman Returns.

Honestly, IMO? The only reason Nolan hasn't been eaten alive by the fans yet is because DC has yet to have a single clearly good movie without him. The moment they release a decent movie that doesn't have his name on it? Nolan's getting thrown to the dogs. There have already been rumblings in that direction anyway, following the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman, with talk about how the "real" Batman should have a long list of properties, that coincidentally go against Nolan's portrayal.

[Val_Zod]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

Honestly, IMO? The only reason Nolan hasn't been eaten alive by the fans yet is because DC has yet to have a single clearly good movie without him. The moment they release a decent movie that doesn't have his name on it? Nolan's getting thrown to the dogs. There have already been rumblings in that direction anyway, following the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman, with talk about how the "real" Batman should have a long list of properties, that coincidentally go against Nolan's portrayal.

And consequentially, after TASM2, Raimi has been getting more love here as well, though if Marvel's Spidey delivers, I imagine people will start turning on him.

[Norek]

Originally Posted by Fosterson

This. Also, we have no idea whether the Russo's will be able to handle an ensemble piece. Balancing out all of these different personalities and characters (like Whedon was able to do in both Avengers movies) is much harder than simply doing a solo movie. The Russo's have given us a great Cap solo movie, but that's it so far.

Actually, TWS was a "solo" movie just by title. It had a ton of characters in itself and the Russo's did a great work with handling and juggling them all so no one was there just for the sake of it. Everyone was relevant to the story and had their time to shine, so I think they'll do a great job with the two Avengers sequels.

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by Norek

Actually, TWS was a "solo" movie just by title. It had a ton of characters in itself and the Russo's did a great work with handling and juggling them all so no one was there just for the sake of it. Everyone was relevant to the story and had their time to shine, so I think they'll do a great job with the two Avengers sequels.

Yeah you're right. Russos did a great job with Avengers 1.5 - but even so they did not have the same challenges as Whedon. The tone of Cap's universe is not the Avengers. It's grounded and consistent. They didn't have to merge outlandish and incongruous characters of varying origins from stand alone franchises into one event film that actually meant something. As Whedon has said, none of these guys should ever be in the same room let alone working together as a team. He pulled it off and while doing so figured out a way to still make everybody awesome.

Not saying the Russos won't be able to pull it off but I find the recent lack of fan gratitude towards Whedon a little irksome. Marvel apparently trusts the Russos immensely since they've in essence handed the reins to the entire MCU over to them by giving them three of their most important films which I think is fascinating. Marvel has never committed to any director on this scale before.

[pr0xyt0xin]

I will say, with everything that happened with Whedon in the past few months, I was completely 100% on his side.

Since he said all that stuff about the directors cut, "I'm too lazy," and "no one's interested"

I've been kicked off the horse. That's some bull. That's not the movie he wanted to release and its obvious. And of COURSE people are interested. just look at the sales on DoFP Rogue Cut.

Disney and Whedon would be idiots to not release it.

[TalismanRing]

Originally Posted by Norek

Actually, TWS was a "solo" movie just by title. It had a ton of characters in itself and the Russo's did a great work with handling and juggling them all so no one was there just for the sake of it. Everyone was relevant to the story and had their time to shine, so I think they'll do a great job with the two Avengers sequels.

TWS is a solo movie by focus and the amount of screen time devoted to one character - Steve Rogers.

Other characters like BW, Fury, Sam, Bucky and Pierce were fleshed out and relevant but they were there to ultimately not only serve the story but Steve as a character. That's why CW as filled as it is with name supporting actors and characters is still a Captain America movie and not an Avengers movie.

In TWS or CW unlike the Avengers movies there is no need to juggle 6-10 characters who are all supposed to have their "arc" or there's humongous complaining by fans and probably actors and agents. If Whedon didn't have to have a Thor arc they never would have done the cave bit to begin with and struggle with all the edits etc. If Whedon didn't feel like he had to serve Avengers who didn't have solo movies then an emphasis wouldn't have needed to be on Hawkeye, Banner and Nat while also trying to juggle the Big Three and introduce 3 new Avengers. It's an entirely different beast.

[TalismanRing]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

I will say, with everything that happened with Whedon in the past few months, I was completely 100% on his side.

Since he said all that stuff about the directors cut, "I'm too lazy," and "no one's interested"

I've been kicked off the horse. That's some bull. That's not the movie he wanted to release and its obvious. And of COURSE people are interested. just look at the sales on DoFP Rogue Cut.

Disney and Whedon would be idiots to not release it.

He's being flippant with those remarks but in the same discussion he reiterated the movie as it stands is HIS and he is satisfied with it.

[Fosterson]

Originally Posted by TalismanRing

TWS is a solo movie by focus and the amount of screen time devoted to one character - Steve Rogers.

Other characters like BW, Fury, Sam, Bucky and Pierce were fleshed out and relevant but they were there to ultimately not only serve the story but Steve as a character. That's why CW as filled as it is with name supporting actors and characters is still a Captain America movie and not an Avengers movie.

In TWS or CW unlike the Avengers movies there is no need to juggle 6-10 characters who are all supposed to have their "arc" or there's humongous complaining by fans and probably actors and agents. If Whedon didn't have to have a Thor arc they never would have done the cave bit to begin with and struggle with all the edits etc. If Whedon didn't feel like he had to serve Avengers who didn't have solo movies then an emphasis wouldn't have needed to be on Hawkeye, Banner and Nat while also trying to juggle the Big Three and introduce 3 new Avengers. It's an entirely different beast.

Exactly. Winter Soldier definitely had a "team movie" vibe to it but it was still very much a film about Steve Rogers in a way that IW 1+2 cannot afford to be.

That said, I'm definitely optimistic about the Russo's chances. I personally think it'll be cool to be able to compare Whedon's Avengers movies and the Russo's Avengers films.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Norek

Actually, TWS was a "solo" movie just by title. It had a ton of characters in itself and the Russo's did a great work with handling and juggling them all so no one was there just for the sake of it. Everyone was relevant to the story and had their time to shine, so I think they'll do a great job with the two Avengers sequels.

The reason the Russo's did such a great job with TWS was because they managed juggling the number of characters so well. No matter how much screen time a character received they still got memorable scenes which made fans happy.

Its not about the amount of time on screen but what the character does when they appear and this is what Whedon got wrong in AoU (but did well in Avengers). Fury didn't appear that much in TWS but his car chase scene with Bucky was brilliant. Zolas short scene was also great, and Rumlow didn't appear much but was very memorable. Marvel & Whedon needed to make tough choices for AoU but the only role reduced was Thors (and this was only following negative early screening reactions).

If the Russo's are prepared to take the same approach in CW & IW then I think these movies will be good. My only request is that the Russo's consult James Gunn about any space scenes as he has been responsible for creating this corner of the MCU.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

Honestly, IMO? The only reason Nolan hasn't been eaten alive by the fans yet is because DC has yet to have a single clearly good movie without him. The moment they release a decent movie that doesn't have his name on it? Nolan's getting thrown to the dogs.

Watchmen got decent reviews and Nolan's clout wasn't affected one iota.

[RocknRollGhost]

I was disappointed by Ultron and ultimately wish that he had passed the torch on directing it and come back for Infinity Wars refreshed. It was a mistake of him to push 2 of these in a row. He nailed the first one, so the second really came off as a letdown. I don't know why he started venting publicly.