Draven

But isn't the discussion that most of these "weird choices" for directors tend to pan out?

Michael Bay seems like a no-brainer for something like "Transformers" and we all saw how that turned out. The "weird choices" have worked out better for comic book movies lately...let's keep the trend alive.

Xander

I enjoy some of his stuff (including Astonishing X-men) and am interested to see his take. As others have said, I never would have though Jon Favreau could pull off Iron Man and look how well that turned out. I'm definitely willing to give Whedon a chance on this.

toddly6666

So if Baron Zemo is the villain, im assuming the studios will not go for the hooded kkk look and screw up his look as they did with gi joes cobra commander.

cleaver

A)

B) You didn't like Transformers?

Hokeyboy

Nope. Ang Lee on Hullk (noble failure, but a failure nonetheless), Michael Steven Johnson on Daredevil/Ghost Rider (from the guy who wrote the Grumpy Old Men movies and directed Simon Burch), Tim Story on Fantastic Four (QED), even Joel Schumacher on Batman, etc.

TRANSFORMERS was generally pretty well received and made buttloads worldwide. I'd say Bay was a no-brainer that worked. The sequel, on the other hand...

Hokeyboy

Whedon doesn't annoy me as much as his pushy, annoying, obnoxious fanboys do. Same with Jesus.

Supermallet

And someone was saying Serenity was a problem at $38 million.

One studio feature. He's also got decades of experience in TV, and, as I mentioned, is a known commodity in Hollywood.

He actually did six. Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Dead-Alive, Heavenly Creatures, Forgotten Silver, and The Frighteners. However, three of those were low-budget schlockfests, one was a mockumentary, and that leaves only two that would convince New Line that he was right for The Lord of the Rings. However, neither the Frighteners nor Heavenly Creatures suggested that he would be able to handle a massively budgeted three film fantasy epic that was shot simultaneously and required extensive special effects.

You're right that Raimi was the most established. I think he was a great choice, but at the time I seem to recall people were iffy on him.

Well, we'll have to wait and see which one of us is right.

outcastja

To add to your argument, JJ Abrams is another guy who had no experience directing a motion picture, but was given a $150 million budget to go direct Mission Impossible III. And year later was offered to go direct Star Trek. Those two films turned out to be pretty damn good, imo.

Dr. DVD

And before someone says that M:I-3 was a failure at $134 million on a $150 million budget, it made about $397 million worldwide. Domestic disappointment does not a total failure make. Star Trek speaks for itself I think.

celmendo

true - up with Whedon!

Draven

It seems like that has panned out better lately, as super hero movies have been great these past few years.

I think we all know how little box office has to do with quality (see Avatar). I have no doubt Bay could make an Avengers movie that would make money, but the quality would be shit. I'd rather have a better movie, but then again...I'm not a studio exec.

JasonF

Bryan Singer's pre-X-Men resume:

Usual Suspects -- Budget $6 million, gross $23 million
Apt Pupil -- Budget $14 million, gross $9 million

Christopher Nolan had three movies, two of which -- Memento and Onsomnia -- did reasonably well, but nothing that would have made him the stand-out pick for Batman.

Sam Raimi had a longer resume, but again -- there was nothing on it that suggested he could deliver Spider-Man the way he did.

Supermallet

to everyone bolstering my argument.

bunnydojo

Wow, this is great news. His participation gives me hope that they'll do more than just settle for an all-out plot-less action-fest. I imagine him doing something similar to what Favreau is doing with Iron Man.

Have the rumors started yet that this will now be a musical?

JTH182

Great post

Son of Odin

whedon will do great. he has "real" comic book people behind him helping him out in kevin feige and jon favreau. this movie will own.

fumanstan

I think Whedon is ridiculously overrated, especially Firefly, but I don't mind him in the director's chair for this. I think I would have rather seen Favreau direct the Avengers, but oh well.

Like the examples above, plenty of director's that people wouldn't have thought about did great jobs with comic book properties and Whedon will treat the material well.

draven31

If you had thrown in a NPH reference I would give it 5...

Superboy

Favreau was an unknown, and a lot of people were really hesitant about the movie, bc it had an actor who was a recovered junkie, a character that really doesn't have the kind of audience that Batman, Superman, or Spider-man does, and a hollywood fanboy as a director. The movie was promoted properly though.

The difference between Whedon and Favreau is that he's already proven that his dialogue is stilted and totally unrealistic, his humor is too self-aggrandizing and totally mistimed, his plots are predictable and trite, and so on and so forth.

I have many of the same feelings about his run on Astonishing X-men. It was another x-men book written by a fanboy. His stories weren't even original. He recycled 3 storylines from the Avengers that were done way better, even in the modern age: Beast pursuing a cure for mutation, a supercomputer built in a subservient capacity becomes self-aware with homicidal tendencies, and an alien civilization believes Earth to be too great of a future threat and decides to annihilate it. Those aren't just "general" stories, but they played out almost exactly the same way.

He didn't even get the characterization right. Wolverine and cyclops fight in the first issue. They fight. For no reason at all. They've been at odds before, but they haven't gone this far, not for a long time, and with no real reason. Wolvie and Beast fight. For no reason at all. And so on and so forth. It's really tiresome to see that kind of immature writing in an X-men book. He obviously didn't understand the characters.

Dialogue like this:

"Lockheed! you are the best x-dragon ever!"

Is dumb for so many reasons. I mean do you really expect us to think that these characters know they're in a comic? they talk about things like it's merchandise for sale. In a world that hates and fears them. This isn't how Kitty Pride talks. This is how someone who wants to BE Kitty Pride talks, if they ended up LARPing.

Superboy

You're right, those three directors showed absolutely no talent with those movies, movies which were ignored by critics and quickly forgotten by audiences as mediocre and totally mundane.

starman9000

Well, it's not the Blade Runner remake I had hoped for, but this thread delivers.

He wouldn't have been my first choice, though I guess I'm not too concerned either. Besides Favreau, there isn't really anybody I was hoping for.

Please don't include any Captain Hammer references.

RocShemp

I see that a lot of the arguments seem to focus on Whedon the writer moreso than Whedon the director. Is he writing this one as well as directing?

fumanstan

I've never read Astonishing X-Men, but it seems like most accounts is that it was a very successful and popular run.

Damed

Funny you should ask.



http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/new...-exclusive.php

Artman

Hmm, well the main reason I didn't care for Firefly or Serenity were the characters, actors, dialogue... music. If he's dealing with these already established characters I don't see how he can go too far off the reservation. I just hope he doesn't try and get too cute with the dialogue quips....