"Marvel Studios' The Avengers" Pre-Release Discussion (Spoilers)

[Spideyzilla]

Downey Jr., Favreau & Cheadle Suit Up for The Avengers!

Source: Marvel Entertainment
October 28, 2008



http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/avengersupdate.jpgMarvel Studios has sent out the following two-part production update for Iron Man 2 (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=44655) and The Avengers (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=44657)!

ROBERT DOWNEY JR. AND JON FAVREAU SUIT UP FOR MARVEL STUDIOS' THE AVENGERS AND IRON MAN 2

As part of his four picture deal with Marvel Studios, Robert Downey Jr. is appearing as Tony Stark in THE AVENGERS motion picture, as well as reprising his starring role as the larger-than-life leading character in IRON MAN 2. Jon Favreau will return to direct the sequel to the blockbuster IRON MAN, which to date has grossed over $578 million worldwide, as well as executive produce THE AVENGERS.

Academy Award® nominee Downey was most recently seen in the summer comedy blockbuster TROPIC THUNDER starring opposite Ben Stiller and Jack Black. Before Iron Man, he was best known for his film roles in KISS KISS BANG BANG, WONDER BOYS and CHAPLIN, the film for which he was nominated for an Oscar®.

In addition to directing the first IRON MAN, Favreau has previously directed ELF, ZATHURA: A SPACE ADVENTURE and MADE. He is also well known for writing and starring in SWINGERS. He will next be seen acting in FOUR CHRISTMASES, I LOVE YOU MAN and COUPLES RETREAT.

DON CHEADLE WILL STAR AS RHODEY IN IRON MAN 2

Marvel Studios is pleased today to confirm that an agreement has been finalized with award-winning actor Don Cheadle to take on the role of Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes in Marvel's IRON MAN 2 due in theaters on May 7, 2010. In casting Cheadle, Marvel replaces Terrence Howard who appeared in the role of Rhodey in IRON MAN.

Cheadle is also signed on to perform the same role in THE AVENGERS and subsequent installments of the IRON MAN franchise.

"We are very excited about working with the extraordinarily talented Don Cheadle as we expand the role of Rhodey in Iron Man 2. It has already become apparent as we prep the movie for production, that the dynamic between Robert and Don will take Iron Man 2 to new heights," said Kevin Feige, President of Marvel Studios.

Cheadle is best known for his Oscar® nominated lead performance in HOTEL RWANDA as well as his role as Basher Tarr in the OCEAN'S franchise, CRASH and SWORDFISH.

Based on Marvel's iconic Super Hero, IRON MAN 2 continues the story of this summer's box office blockbuster IRON MAN, the first feature film produced independently by Marvel Studios. IRON MAN 2 will be produced by Marvel Studios' President, Kevin Feige, and executive produced by Louis D'Esposito, Jon Favreau, Stan Lee, David Maisel and Denis Stewart.

In a movie event, THE AVENGERS will bring together the super hero team of Marvel Comics characters for the first time ever, including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk and more, as they are forced to band together to battle the biggest foe they've ever faced.

The highly anticipated sequel to IRON MAN will be released in theatres on May 7, 2010 and THE AVENGERS will be released July 15, 2011. Both films will be distributed by Paramount Pictures.

Cheadle is represented by UTA. Downey and Favreau are represented by CAA.

[Mala Loba]

My dad will be excited to hear this. He's been asking me about The Avengers movie and the Iron Man sequal for ages now.

[Mikintosh]

I still don't get why Howard's not coming back.

[Funkatron]

I still don't get why Howard's not coming back.

He wanted to focus on amusical career, or something to that effect. That and money

[ShadowGUN]

He wanted to focus on amusical career, or something to that effect. That and money

Actually Howard was surprised (http://www.newsarama.com/film/ap-081022-terrence-howard-surprise.html)by his removal and doesn't seem to know why he was remove.

[Funkatron]

Actually Howard was surprised (http://www.newsarama.com/film/ap-081022-terrence-howard-surprise.html)by his removal and doesn't seem to know why he was remove.


Huh. I heard about the money thing first, then I heard it was because he wanted to focus on music. Wierd.

[GWOtaku]

It's sounding good, but I liked Terrence Howard's Rhody... :(

[Bloody Marquis]

It's sounding good, but I liked Terrence Howard's Rhody... :(
Yeah, I liked Terrence Howard too. I hope Cheadle can be just as good.

[mookie75]

They're going to recast Rhodey? I hate it when movies recast characters. :mad:

[dmxx116]

All Marvel has to do is get Edward Norton on broad.

[Spideyzilla]

All Marvel has to do is get Edward Norton on broad.

I really hope so. Norton said he hasn't heard anything, back in September. But, I'm guessing Downey didn't as well. But, the producer of TIH says he has a multi picture deal,so we'll see. Also, recasting two people would be confusing.

[Arkaron]

Did The Incredible Hulk count in Downey's deal? If so, does this mean we have no chance to see him in Thor?

I also hope Norton will be back for The Avengers. I really liked him in The Incredible Hulk.

[Philo & Gunge]

Did The Incredible Hulk count in Downey's deal? If so, does this mean we have no chance to see him in Thor?

I don't think so, as The Incredible Hulk was a 100% Universal production over Paramount, which did nothing with TIH.

But yay! Avengers! :)

[Silverstar]

They're going to recast Rhodey? I hate it when movies recast characters. :mad:

Would you rather they had sent the character off to Iraq and killed him off? :p


Seriously, while Terrance Howard did a credible job in the first movie, but I don't really care about the character of Rhodey, so the recasting his doesn't really bother me. (In fact, I'm never bugged by recasting as long the replacement can act.) Cheadle's a decent actor; he should fill the bill nicely.

[mookie75]

Seriously, while Terrance Howard did a credible job in the first movie, but I don't really care about the character of Rhodey, so the recasting his doesn't really bother me. (In fact, I'm never bugged by recasting as long the replacement can act.) Cheadle's a decent actor; he should fill the bill nicely.

I will admit that there was something about Howard's high pitched voice that bugged me a little in Iron Man, but for me, an actor or actress becomes the character and simply switching to a new person doesn't sit well with me. What makes it even worse is that Howard was just as surprised as the fans by his exclusion.

On the broader topic of recasts in general, I can understand the necessity of it for remakes that are happening a couple decades after the original movie, but this isn't one of those cases. To be honest, I don't always care for recasts on remakes either. I mean, who here would want to see them make a remake of the Original Trilogy of Star Wars with, oh I don't know, Ashton Kutcher as Han Solo? :p I suppose some are now thinking, "Well, Harrison Ford couldn't do a remake, he's too old!" You would be correct...and my reply would be, then don't make the remake. ;)

However, to show that I'm not totally prejudiced against recasts, I will say that I'm still interested in the new Star Trek movie that's coming out, and that has nothing but recasts (unless you count whatever role Leonard Nimoy is going to have).

So where does that leave us? I honestly don't know. But I'm still disappointed that they recast Rhodey. :p

[JPPT1974]

Howard I think wanted more money.
Sadly, I can't picture Cheadle in an action film.
He is more of a dramatic actor.
Then, so is Howard notice Crash!

[RonDrakenfan17]

Alright Downey in Avengers I'm glad of this :D

[Old Guy]

I don't think so, as The Incredible Hulk was a 100% Universal production over Paramount, which did nothing with TIH.

TIH was not a Universal Picture nor was Iron Man a Paramount Picture. Marvel no longer needs a studio to make movies for them. They just need distributors. This all started with Iron Man, their first independent movie. So, it is likely that TIH would count as part of Downey's contract since Marvel is the one making the movies.

[Old Guy]

Robert Downey Jr. Talks Avengers

Source: MTV (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/25/robert-downey-jr-on-avengers-movie-if-we-dont-get-it-right-its-really-going-to-suck/)
November 25, 2008

MTV (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/25/robert-downey-jr-on-avengers-movie-if-we-dont-get-it-right-its-really-going-to-suck/) has an interesting interview with Robert Downey Jr. in which he talks about the fact that Marvel Studios will have to work hard on getting The Avengers (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=44657) movie right with so many characters involved. But this quote is the one that got us...

"The danger you run with colliding all these worlds is [director] Jon [Favreau] was very certain that 'Iron Man' should be set in a very realistic world. Nothing that happened in 'Iron Man' is really outside the realm of possibility. Once you start talking about Valhalla and supersized super soldiers and jolly green giants it warrants much further discussion."

Interesting, very interesting! The movie doesn't hit theaters until July 15, 2011.

[Mikintosh]

I think Thor from the Ultimates was a good way to do a "realistic" version of the character; at least at the beginning (I haven't kept up with the book), you didn't know if he was telling the truth that he was a Norse god or was just telling a story to justify his powers. I think that's the only tact that'd work in a movie like this.

[Old Guy]

Filmmakers need to get off their high horses with this realism nonsense. These characters aren't realistic. End of story. Richard Donner got it right in 1978. It's not about making it realistic. It's about making the audience think its real. Obviously a man can't fly, but we can make them believe he can.

[Young Justice]

Filmmakers need to get off their high horses with this realism nonsense. These characters aren't realistic. End of story. Richard Donner got it right in 1978. It's not about making it realistic. It's about making the audience think its real. Obviously a man can't fly, but we can make them believe he can.

That's what "realistic" mean. Iron Man is not real. There are a lot of futuristic Sci-Fi involved. But the trick is how you tell this fantastic story. You can tell it in a light fantasy way: Tim Burton's movies, including the Batman one's, are one example of light fantasy.

The other is to tell the fantastic as if it was not a fairy tale, but happen in our real world. Watchmen was realistic. Marvels was realistic. Superman 1978 was realistic. X-men and Spider man movies were realistic.

The problem with avengers is that Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America are all about science fiction and Thor is about magic. How you mix them in one coherent story is the main thing. In comics you can mix it up with no problem at all. In live action the thing is more tricky.

What I don't agree with Robert Downey Jr. is that Iron Man, Hulk and Captain america don't mix well together. I think they work alright. The main problem is Thor.

[JPPT1974]

Really can't picture Cheadle as an
Action hero. He is mainly dramatic.
Wonder what audiences will think?

[Old Guy]

Samuel L. Jackson, who made a cameo appearance as Nick Fury in Iron Man (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=7415), tell the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html) that talks about him returning to the role in future Marvel Studios have broken down:

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

You can read the full article here (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html).

[TheTerror]

So is this movie actualy in production now or it is basicly still on paper while they wait to do anything with it?

[Old Guy]

It's in pre-production and scheduled for release on July 2011.

[Spideyzilla]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html

NO! Marvel wants someone else to play Fury, when Jackson inspired the Ultimate Fury? I don't think so. What do you think?

[jph139]

I'm sure they'll get him. I mean, Marvel is probably just haggling at this point... Samuel L. Jackson is Ultimate Fury. There is no other actor that could play him. Or, at least, none that could do so without harsh glares at him and Marvel.

Though, personally, I'm hoping classic Fury at least gets a mention. :p

[Old Guy]

um...

http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=3119163&postcount=24

[Spideyzilla]

um...

http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=3119163&postcount=24

Sorry.:o My thread merged here.

[Russkafin]

Superherohype.com just posted this, originally from Variety:

Then there is comeback kid Mickey Rourke, who is poised to follow his Golden Globe-winning performance in "The Wrestler" with an offer to play the main villain in "Iron Man 2" — but at a lowball opening offer of $250,000 from Marvel; Marvel's tactics have already prompted Samuel L. Jackson to swear off playing Nick Fury because of a similarly low offer.

Has it been said anywhere else that Jackson actually "swore off" playing Fury? Until now I thought it was still kind of up in the air. I hope Variety is exaggerating and/or misinformed.

[Cortez2301]

Can I ask a question? I don't follow Marvel comics that much but was there ever a moment when the Avengers worked with the X-men or the Fantastic 4?

I'm just curious if that will ever happen in one of the movies.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Others can go into greater detail, but there's been at least one VS. crossover and I believe Beast has been an Avenger at some point.

[I.D.Will19??]

Superherohype.com just posted this, originally from Variety:

Then there is comeback kid Mickey Rourke, who is poised to follow his Golden Globe-winning performance in "The Wrestler" with an offer to play the main villain in "Iron Man 2" — but at a lowball opening offer of $250,000 from Marvel; Marvel's tactics have already prompted Samuel L. Jackson to swear off playing Nick Fury because of a similarly low offer.

Has it been said anywhere else that Jackson actually "swore off" playing Fury? Until now I thought it was still kind of up in the air. I hope Variety is exaggerating and/or misinformed.

Dang Marvel, why so cheap? Even an Oscar nomination can't get him a better deal. Maybe an Oscar win will.

First Terrence Howard, then Sam L. Jackson. There were also rumors about the "Iron Man" director. I wonder who's next?

[desi]

Whats the point of a black Nick Fury if Sam Jackson can't play it. You might as well make him white again.

[Russkafin]

Whats the point of a black Nick Fury if Sam Jackson can't play it. You might as well make him white again.

I wonder what David Hasselhoff is up to...?

[Cortez2301]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/ironmannews.php?id=8118

[creativerealms]

Well Samuel L. Jackson is now confirmed for nine Marvel movies as Fury.

[Old Guy]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/captainamericanews.php?id=8601



You know, you asked about my dream, I’ll tell you my real dream: To work with Joe Johnston and [“Thor” director] Kenneth Branagh and Jon Favreau and make like a triptych. We do four movies. We release them one a month for the summer. Or even every two weeks or three weeks. And the whole summer would be Avengers summer. So we do it the way they make television shows. One story arc but told in installments by different directors. So all of the directors that touch part of the Avengers world would do a part; we could make the movies shorter, maybe less than an hour and a half, and we use the same sets and save Marvel money. I would love to sit around a table with all of them a kick around the story. That’s my dream.

[desi]

Has Louis has ever heard of TV? I think at this point Louis just wants to be in Marvel's master plan even if it means sacrificing the quality of rest of the movies. Then again he did say it was a dream.

[wonderfly]

I got to thinking: with Samuel L. Jackson signed up for 9 movies, is there any chance that the Avengers "movie" is actually going to be a trilogy, like Lord of the Rings? Cause that would give the proper amount of time to spread out an Avengers epic movie, instead of cramming all of these great actors into one movie...

I'm just trying to figure out how they'll do 9 movies featuring Samuel L. Jackson...

[TheVileOne]

I got to thinking: with Samuel L. Jackson signed up for 9 movies, is there any chance that the Avengers "movie" is actually going to be a trilogy, like Lord of the Rings? Cause that would give the proper amount of time to spread out an Avengers epic movie, instead of cramming all of these great actors into one movie...

I'm just trying to figure out how they'll do 9 movies featuring Samuel L. Jackson...

I don't know about a trilogy, but they more than likely would want to make more if the first one does well.

Also just because he is signed up for 9 doesn't guarantee he will be in 9.

[dmxx116]

Edward Norton talks Hulk in The Avengers:http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/09/23/exclusive-ed-norton-likes-the-idea-of-hulk-as-avengers-villain/

[dmxx116]

Here an great article on The Avengers film.
http://www.newsarama.com/film/091216-avengers-reassembled-5-hollywood.html

[ryandcow]

I wonder if they pull a 2005 Avengers and put Spidey in one of the later (providing there are later movies) movies.

[suss2it]

I wonder if they pull a 2005 Avengers and put Spidey in one of the later (providing there are later movies) movies.

I don't think Spidey will be in an Avengers movie for a long time, seeing as Sony owns the film rights for him.

[Spideyzilla]

I wonder if they pull a 2005 Avengers and put Spidey in one of the later (providing there are later movies) movies.

Hope not. I have no problem with Spider-Man in the New Avengers, but the movie version would not work.

[Young Justice]

Here an great article on The Avengers film.
http://www.newsarama.com/film/091216-avengers-reassembled-5-hollywood.html

They talk about a shared universe as something new. Besides the examples of AVP and the classic Universal Monsters there's another one in animation at least: DC's Timmverse.

I hope this Marvel Live Action Universe is as good as the Timmverse.

[suss2it]

They talk about a shared universe as something new. Besides the examples of AVP and the classic Universal Monsters there's another one in animation at least: DC's Timmverse.

I hope this Marvel Live Action Universe is as good as the Timmverse.

True, but they're not talking about animation, they're talking about live-action. If it was about animation they could have mentioned their own shared 'verse from the 90s.

[dmxx116]

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige talks The Avengers.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/thornews.php?id=9019

[the greenman]

I am really looking forward to ANTMAN. That needs to get done like soon.

They also say a S.H.I.E.L.D. film may be in the works depending on how successful Avengers is.

[Spideyzilla]

I am really looking forward to ANTMAN. That needs to get done like soon.

They also say a S.H.I.E.L.D. film may be in the works depending on how successful Avengers is.

Antman? Yes, that'll be fun. "Look, down on the ground! It's a dust speck! It's a bug! No, it's.... ANTMAN!" ;) (please note this is satirical)

[dmxx116]

Is War Machine in Avengers?
Don't ask Don Cheadle.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/107/1070832p1.html

[dmxx116]

The Incredible Hulk and Clash of the Titans director is on short list to direct The Avengers:
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2010/03/22/clash-of-the-titans-director-on-short-list-to-direct-avengers/

And now that Captain America is cast and now here are the actors that will be in the The Avengers

Chris Evans/Captain America
Robert Downey, Jr./Iron Man
Chris Hemsworth/Thor
Edward Norton/Dr. Bruce Banner
Lou Ferrigno/As the voice of the The Incredible Hulk
Scarlett Johansson/Black Widow
Samuel L Jackson/Nick Fury
Don Cheadle/War Machine
Tom Hiddleston/Loki

[Old Guy]

Chris Evans/Captain America
Robert Downey, Jr./Iron Man
Chris Hemsworth/Thor
Edward Norton/Dr. Bruce Banner
Lou Ferrigno/As the voice of the The Incredible Hulk
Scarlett Johansson/Black Widow
Samuel L Jackson/Nick Fury
Don Cheadle/War Machine
Tom Hiddleston/Loki

The only thing that can top this is a Justice League movie. If audiences ever grow tired of superhero movies it'll be because of the Avengers. How do you follow this up? Only Batman and Spider-Man can survive this.

[wonderfly]

The Incredible Hulk and Clash of the Titans director is on short list to direct The Avengers:
http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2010/03/22/clash-of-the-titans-director-on-short-list-to-direct-avengers/


I think he did a pretty good job with the Incredible Hulk, though the studio cut out too many scenes for the theater version. If he's allowed to take his time with the Avengers and get it done right, I'm all for it. Not sure if this makes it more likely or less likely that Norton will return as Bruce Banner (I think Norton's anger was at the studio for editing the film, he wasn't upset with the director Louis Leterrier himself).



And now that Captain America is cast and now here are the actors that will be in the The Avengers

Chris Evans/Captain America
Robert Downey, Jr./Iron Man
Chris Hemsworth/Thor
Edward Norton/Dr. Bruce Banner
Lou Ferrigno/As the voice of the The Incredible Hulk
Scarlett Johansson/Black Widow
Samuel L Jackson/Nick Fury
Don Cheadle/War Machine
Tom Hiddleston/Loki

I doubt War Machine will be in it (that'd be too many from Iron Man's corner of the Marvel universe). Black Widow might be though (she doesn't belong just to the Iron Man corner of the universe, in fact, she's been a staple of the Avengers roster on and off for years)...

[dmxx116]

Joss Whedon on the Short List to Direct The Avengers?:
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8898:iesb-exclusive-leading-contender-in-line-to-direct-the-avengers-not-an-april-fools-joke&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73

[TheVileOne]

Leterrier will be taken off the list after Clash of the Titans bombs this weekend.

[Old Guy]

Leterrier will be taken off the list after Clash of the Titans bombs this weekend.

Clash grossed $4.3 million from its advance screenings alone. So, expect Leterrier to remain listed.

[dmxx116]

Chris Evans about Captain America in The Avengers:
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/05/chris-evans-captain-america-the-avengers/#more-32323

[Old Guy]

Joss Whedon on the Short List to Direct The Avengers?:
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8898:iesb-exclusive-leading-contender-in-line-to-direct-the-avengers-not-an-april-fools-joke&catid=43:exclusive-features&Itemid=73


And now he's in final talks to direct:
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/

[suss2it]

And now he's in final talks to direct:
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/I'm a big fan of Whedon so that's defiantly a plus for me, but I was hoping that Jon Favreau would direct seeing as though his movie set this whole thing off. I hope that he'll at least be a consultant on the movie.

[Old Guy]

I was hoping that Jon Favreau would direct seeing as though his movie set this whole thing off. I hope that he'll at least be a consultant on the movie.

The very first post in this thread is an article saying that Favreau is an executive producer on the movie. So, unless something has changed since then I assume he still is.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

I'd much rather see Whedon take on an X-Men film, but I'll take this too. I'm not the biggest Buffy or Angel fan, but his Firefly/Serenity work is enough to make me buy a ticket for anything he does.

[screw on head]

I really hope this follows through and Whedon is officially named director.

I also hope he gets a pass at writing the script for the film. I think Joss could out-do any writer they've lined for this (Zak Penn?), and I think Marvel would foolish not to let him heavily work the story into his own.

I'm very excited about this. Serenity is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi films in years and years, and I think that film alone gives me faith he can bring it together.

[suss2it]

The very first post in this thread is an article saying that Favreau is an executive producer on the movie. So, unless something has changed since then I assume he still is.
Great, now I'm really looking forward to this :D.

[the greenman]

I've heard Favreau kinda turn down the idea way back when he was doing junkets for IM. He said he's still learning this directing game. In a roundabout way, he said it's a daunting task to do an esemble piece, and it is.

Okay, so who wants to bet Dushku will be announced as Scarlet Witch??:shrug:

On another note. I was discussing this Avengers thing with a friend, MARVEL said Antman and Dr. Strange will be the next films after Avengers under Disney's umbrella. I wonder if they'll go back to doing this Avengers thing all over again with recruiting Antman, or if they will actually cast someone without consent from Edgar Wright in this film? He's the only founding member missing from the roster.

So far we do have:

Hulk - Ed Norton
Iron Man - RDjr
Nick Fury - Sam Jackson
Black Widow - Scarlett Johannson
Thor - Chris Hemsworth
Cap America - Chris Evans
Hawkeye - Jeremy Renner

[Knight]

I haven't seen any of Whedons film work but hopefully if he gets the job he puts together a great film. The Avengers movie potencial is huge and the cast looks tremendous.

[Michael24]

Hmmm... As much as I liked Firefly/Serenity, I've never really understood what was supposedly so great about Joss Whedon, so this news doesn't exactly excite me. I'd like to be able to enjoy this movie just to see so many classic heroes on the big screen together, even though I didn't care for Iron Man and was never that big on Thor, so I don't know how his movie will turn out. But I figured it was only natural for someone directing one of these individual Marvel movies to get the job.


Hawkeye - Jeremy Renner
Hawkeye's been cast already? I hadn't heard that.

[W.C.Reaf]

Okay, so who wants to bet Dushku will be announced as Scarlet Witch??:shrug:

I'll take that bet.

Since Fox still has the rights to X-Men characters for movies it's a sure thing she won't be in it. ;)

[suss2it]

Hawkeye's been cast already? I hadn't heard that.I believe he's gonna be in the Thor movie.

[Young Justice]

I'll take that bet.

Since Fox still has the rights to X-Men characters for movies it's a sure thing she won't be in it. ;)

Actually this is a good question. Although Scarlet Witch is a mutant she was much more related to Avengers (at least from the old days) than X-Men. I wonder how exactly this works legally between Fox and Marvel for her character.

[MasterDartz]

I didn't have a problem with Whedon directing... until I found out he would be rewriting the script!

As much as I love Whedon's work, he will be the death of this movie. His style of writing (especially his dialogue!) just has no place in an Avenger's movie.

I hope Whedon doesn't make all of the male characters effeminate like in everything else he's ever done. Angel, Spike, Wesley, Xander, Wash, Andrew? All act so effeminate that I sometimes wonder if they are supposed to be men or not.

The last thing I want is for Steve, Tony, and the rest of the guys to get this same treatment..

[ryandcow]

So far we do have:
Cap America - Chris Evans
So basically we can never have the FF and cap in the same movie?

[Wonderwall]

So basically we can never have the FF and cap in the same movie?

Weren't they talking about rebooting FF awhile ago? Evans being cast as Cap probably means that it'll give them another reason to reboot that whole franchise.

[Comics_the_QB]

I believe he's gonna be in the Thor movie.

I hope they let him where his Purple and Blue outfit like in the comics. There's no need for him to be updated.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I didn't have a problem with Whedon directing... until I found out he would be rewriting the script!

As much as I love Whedon's work, he will be the death of this movie. His style of writing (especially his dialogue!) just has no place in an Avenger's movie.

I hope Whedon doesn't make all of the male characters effeminate like in everything else he's ever done. Angel, Spike, Wesley, Xander, Wash, Andrew? All act so effeminate that I sometimes wonder if they are supposed to be men or not.

The last thing I want is for Steve, Tony, and the rest of the guys to get this same treatment..

Do you just not know that Whedon wrote one of the best X-men arcs in the last 10 years? He can do superheroes.

[TheVileOne]

Writing Astonishing X-men is not the same thing as directing one of the biggest movies of all time.

Reginald Hudlin for example wrote Spider-man comics.

[suss2it]

So basically we can never have the FF and cap in the same movie?I don't think Marvel even has the movie rights for the Fantastic Four right now, and when they do get it back I think they'll most likely reboot the franchise.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Writing Astonishing X-men is not the same thing as directing one of the biggest movies of all time.

Reginald Hudlin for example wrote Spider-man comics.

Joss has directed a movie, though. And four TV shows. I think he's set. Here's a guy that has talent as a filmmaker and writer who also has a deep understanding of superheroes. Sounds good to me.

And he in no way writes all of his men in an effeminate way. Mal Reynolds doesn't seem effeminate to me.

[TheVileOne]

Joss has directed one unsuccessful movie on a short-lived cult TV series. He created a few shows that had decent followings but were hardly huge shows.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Joss has directed one unsuccessful movie on a short-lived cult TV series. He created a view shows that had decent followings but were hardly huge shows.

What's the bar for directing a comic book movie you're setting here? Buffy and Angel propped up their respective networks for years as some of their most important tentpole shows.

Not everything else was as successful, but this is about potential. Joss is a great, experienced writer and director, with a deft feel for character, who understands Marvel superheroes better than just about anyone. His Avengers movie could be fantastic.

[TheVileOne]

Whedon is an experienced TV guy. He's not very well experienced working on productions like this. He's had mainly rough failed transitions into feature filmmaking.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Whatever did happen to Hobbes? Mr. Happy should be here to cry softly soon.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Whedon is an experienced TV guy. He's not very well experienced working on productions like this. He's had mainly rough failed transitions into feature filmmaking.

He's directed one movie. It wasn't a mega hit because, yeah, based on a canceled cult TV show, but it was a good movie. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

He was also a well-known script doctor before he moved into TV. He's a significant part of why Toy Story is so good.

[TheVileOne]

He's directed one movie. It wasn't a mega hit because, yeah, based on a canceled cult TV show, but it was a good movie. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Why? This is arguably the biggest and most important movie or comic book movie of all time. It could have a budget well exceeding $200 million or more.

I honestly don't hate this choice, but I'm a little concerned.


He was also a well-known script doctor before he moved into TV. He's a significant part of why Toy Story is so good.

Script doctoring is not the same as helming a gigantic comic book superhero movie.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Why? This is arguably the biggest and most important movie or comic book movie of all time. It could have a budget well exceeding $200 million or more.

I honestly don't hate this choice, but I'm a little concerned.



Script doctoring is not the same as helming a gigantic comic book superhero movie.

You should give him a break because there are no reasons to cast gloom and doom about at this point. Serenity was a cult, niche property, it was never going to be a mega blockbuster. You can't judge his whole potential as a director on its box office numbers. And you seem to be ignoring the actual quality of the work here.

They let guys who direct music videos and commercials helm major motion pictures all the time as first-timers. Michael Bay, who I'm using as an example solely because you seem primarily concerned with box office receipts, was making Meat Loaf videos before his first feature. Joss at least has a proven track record as a strong storyteller.

The way you've set the bar, it seems like the only director that would ease your mind would be one who has directed a successful giant Superhero team movie. In other words, it would have to be Bryan Singer because he's the only person who has done that so far. People might also try to say Zack Snyder, but Watchmen really didn't make that much compared to its astronomical budget. Okay, Tim Story's Fantastic Four did make a lot of money, but it was a bad film.

It's certainly not the most important movie of all time, anyway, not by a long shot. It won't even be the most important comic book movie, the Avengers will never be as iconic as Superman or Batman. Just having more guys doesn't make something more important.

Finally, I'm confident that he can do it. Buffy is a superhero, after all. He's written actual comic books.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Buffy's not that much of a comfort if you don't like seasons 6, 7, and 8(CB).

[Old Guy]

My only concern is Whedon's lack of experience. He's a TV guy. His only movie was like 5 years ago. Atleast JJ Abrams did Mission: Impossible III before Star Trek. Jumping from TV to a $200 million movie is one heck of a jump.

[Shawn Hopkins]

My only concern is Whedon's lack of experience. He's a TV guy. His only movie was like 5 years ago. Atleast JJ Abrams did Mission: Impossible III before Star Trek. Jumping from TV to a $200 million movie is one heck of a jump.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. Like you said, Joss has directed a movie. He's directed exactly as many movies as Abrams had before Star Trek. It was a cult property that was never destined to bring in as much of the almighty dollah as the third movie in a Tom Cruise series, but it was also an original vision.

And it's hard to stick the "lack of experience" label on a guy who has worked in the TV and movie business for more than 20 years, wrote several movies and created four TV shows.

At this point I'd much rather debate with the guy who was worried because he thinks Whedon writes all of his heroes like girly men. At least he was criticizing something tangible about Whedon's work instead of speculating based on nothing.

Or, here, I'll throw this one out there. With Whedon at the helm the Avengers movie will be too "talky" and cerebral to appeal to the Transformers crowd, who have been trained to accept loud and meaningless violence. That's something you can worry about.

Whedon might put female characters like the Wasp too much in the forefront, meaning the boys won't get as much screentime as they would with another writer/director. There's another one.

[GWOtaku]

You know, here's another guy that got going with TV work: J. Michael Straczynski. Once upon a time he wrote for 1980s cartoons. Once upon a later time he made Babylon 5. Once upon a time not so long ago, he wrote Clint Eastwood's Changeling.

Not that I'm trying to offer a direct analogy, but seriously. Don't be hatin' TV writers.

[Old Guy]

Joss has directed a movie.

Yes, a $39 million sci-fi movie based on a cult TV show. That's not the same as a $200 million blockbuster featuring four big superheroes. It's one heck of a jump. He could pull it off. I'm not saying he can't. It's just a big leap. It's like if Sam Raimi had directed Spider-Man right after Evil Dead.


Don't be hatin' TV writers.

I never was.

[wonderfly]

For all this talk of Whedon, has it actually been confirmed yet that he's directing the Avengers? Or is it still a rumor at this stage?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Yes, a $39 million sci-fi movie based on a cult TV show. That's not the same as a $200 million blockbuster featuring four big superheroes. It's one heck of a jump. He could pull it off. I'm not saying he can't. It's just a big leap. It's like if Sam Raimi had directed Spider-Man right after Evil Dead.


It's exactly nothing like that. Putting aside how early in Sam's career that was and how late in Joss's this one is and the fact that Evil Dead was a microbudget independent production and Serenity was a multi-million-dollar special effects movie, are you really trying to argue that TV experience absolutely doesn't count? That the only things Joss has learned about visual storytelling are what he's learned in those times he was working on feature films, and that all of the experience working on TV was just simply wasted time?

You're also aware that before Raimi came back to mainly feature films he produced a metric ton of sci-fi and fantasy genre television in the 90s and early aughts, right?

[Old Guy]

For all this talk of Whedon, has it actually been confirmed yet that he's directing the Avengers? Or is it still a rumor at this stage?

He's in final talks. In other words, putting the final details into the contract before signing it.


are you really trying to argue that TV experience absolutely doesn't count?

I'm just saying it's a big jump. TV and movies are different ballparks. The scope of the Avengers is huge. He's never done anything like this before. He can pull it off. I'm not saying he can't. But it does raise some questions.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Joss Whedon is just as, if not more than, qualified to direct a superhero movie as Jon Favreau was before he directed Iron Man.

If anything, Whedon has more experience in the science fiction/fantasy genre than Mr. Favreau did, who I believe only did comedies. Not to knock Favreau, who obviously loves comics, knows and respects the material, and did a great job with Iron Man, but it just goes to show you that you never can tell who's the best fit to direct a movie, until the movie is actually done -- all you can do is look at one's qualifications based on their previous work.

Having said that, if the guy who did Swingers can do decent Iron Man movie, I'd be willing to bet that the guy who did Serenity can turn out a great Avengers movie.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Leterrier seems to be getting a lot of big projects lately. The sheer logistics of putting this together mean that putting it together and getting it into a simple cohesive story is going to be a titanci task.


I really hope this follows through and Whedon is officially named director.

I don't see it as very likely. The fact that he's only directed T.V. work and a film that is almost legendary as a bomb, I don't know if he'll be considered commercially viable.


Do you just not know that Whedon wrote one of the best X-men arcs in the last 10 years? He can do superheroes.

Must depend on who you talk to (http://www.amazon.com/review/R308W1NAP9PJ9I/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1)....


Joss has directed a movie, though. And four TV shows. I think he's set. Here's a guy that has talent as a filmmaker and writer who also has a deep understanding of superheroes. Sounds good to me.

Whedon is the sort of guy who lots of people outside of the fanbase love to criticize, insisting that his group of fans aren't literate of the very things he's playing with (and indeed, I can't help but question how many "Once More, with feeling fans have actually seen any other musicals). But he's also a very literate guy; listening to his commentaries and hearing him reference things like Shakespeare, Nosferatu, and Anthony Mann to name a few (things I seriously doubt that Brett Ratner has even read or seen or heard of), and Whedon always has actual things to say other than "explosions are fun" and "special effects are cool." I do question whether or not he's got enough skill to work on a film production of this scale, and think that he's better suited to T.V., but he's clearly more than a hack for hire, and he's showed even in directing episodes of T.V. that he really has a good eye for technique, for composition, and working with actors, as well as a sense of timing and staging set pieces.


They let guys who direct music videos and commercials helm major motion pictures all the time as first-timers. Michael Bay, who I'm using as an example solely because you seem primarily concerned with box office receipts, was making Meat Loaf videos before his first feature. Joss at least has a proven track record as a strong storyteller.
This I'll agree with completely. But then, with most movies being feature length music videos anyway these days, they seem to be a viable choice.



Finally, I'm confident that he can do it. Buffy is a superhero, after all. He's written actual comic books.I think that's a line on of the very early Buffy episodes.


My only concern is Whedon's lack of experience. He's a TV guy. His only movie was like 5 years ago. Atleast JJ Abrams did Mission: Impossible III before Star Trek. Jumping from TV to a $200 million movie is one heck of a jump.

He did a feature film. A modestly budgeted one at best, and one based on a canceled T.V. series of his own, but still a feature film


He's in final talks. In other words, putting the final details into the contract before signing it.

When he tried to do that with Wonder Woman, he wound up working from the project. Let us not forget that he's had his share of trouble with T.V. studios.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Must depend on who you talk to (http://www.amazon.com/review/R308W1NAP9PJ9I/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1)....



There's always one contrarian dink who hates anything just because it's popular, and that certainly seems to be the case with this overdefensive, overconcerned with how "overhyped" Astonishing was review. If you look at the book's main page you'll see that the average customer review is 4.5 stars.

The remarkable thing about Astonishing, and the thing that's most important when we're talking about him directing a superhero movie, is that it doesn't feel at all like it's written by some big guest TV writer who comes in and changes the characters and the way they sound and act around to suit him like you got with Kevin Smith and Reginald Hudlin. They felt like themselves, like they were being written by a really good old comics pro that had a great grasp of who they were. The interplay between Wolverine and Cyclops was especially good.




I think that's a line on of the very early Buffy episodes.




Yes, Xander says it somewhere, can't remember which one.

[Old Guy]

Joss Whedon is just as, if not more than, qualified to direct a superhero movie as Jon Favreau was before he directed Iron Man.

Iron Man is nothing in comparison to The Avengers. Iron Man is, well, one superhero. The Avengers is four. The scope of the movie is huge! So, it makes sense to question Whedon's ability to pull that off.

[Palin Dromos]

I'm gonna agree with Shawn here and say that Joss as director raises no concerns with me.

The key to the Avengers is the same thing that was key to X-men juggling an ensemble cast. And Joss's major strength is character interaction. And unlike X-men, most of the character ground work will have already been laid down in the solo movies. Heck, it's not unlike guest directing a TV episode, in the respect that he'll be taking characters that others already worked on and molding them into the story he's telling.

Despite only one film on his resume, the 38 episodes of TV he's directed (IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923736/)) is plenty of experience. He knows how to work with a crew, with actors, and with budgets of varying size. Add to that all the producing experience he has not to mention writing. And all the comic book geek cred he's got. He's a shockingly appropriate choice. And a smart move by Marvel.

We won't know how good the film is until we see it, but this sounds pretty darn good to me.

Stuff can go any which way.
Hire a majorly respected dramatic director and you run the risk of Ang Lee's Hulk.
Hire a flavor of the month up and comer, you get Gavin Hood's Wolverine.
Hire a confessed comic geek with a lot of TV production experience, some film experience, and a rabid, niche, cult following and you get Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.

If this director choice goes through I won't be second guessing the production without serious cause.

[Old Guy]

budgets of varying size.

Whedon has never been anywhere near $200 million. He's never been anywhere near cutting edge visual effects. He's never been near A-list actors like Robert Downey, Jr. who could literally get him fired if they didn't like his ideas.

This is all new to Whedon which is why there's reasons to be concerned.


Hire a confessed comic geek with a lot of TV production experience, some film experience, and a rabid, niche, cult following and you get Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.

Lots of TV experience, but SOME film experience? Yeah, okay. I guess those 20 years and 9 movies meant nothing in comparison to Xena: Warrior Princess when Sony hired him.

[Shawn Hopkins]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

I don't see why everyone is assuming this will be a $200 million film. Watchmen was only $130 million. Some people just seems to be assuming that you take a movie about one superhero and times it by how many superheroes are in the team movie to get how big this one is, but that's silly. That's not the way it worked in X-Men and not the way it will work here.

[Old Guy]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

Charlie's Angeles was a silly flick made for under $100 million. The Avengers, as of now, is the highest profiled film of 2012.


I don't see why everyone is assuming this will be a $200 million film. Watchmen was only $130 million.

Watchmen didn't have any stars. The Avengers has Robert Downey Jr, Samuel L. Jackson, and Edward Norton. Half of the movie's budget is going to those three guys. And does Chris Evans count as a star? Is Scarlett Johansson gonna be in this movie? That's more money just for the actors. And we haven't even gotten to the visual effects budget.


That's not the way it worked in X-Men and not the way it will work here.

X-Men is an ensemble, but you wouldn't know that by watching the movies. Wolverine was clearly the star. Hence why Bryan Singer was able to pull off the first movie on a $70 million budget. The Avengers, on the other hand, has to be an ensemble. What's the point of bringing these superheroes together if its really gonna be Iron Man 3? And that's gonna be reflected in the budget.

[Hanshotfirst113]

It's kind of hilarious that somebody like McG can fall off a turnip truck on his way home from shooting a Gap commercial and be given a big movie like Charlie's Angels and no one says boo, but a seasoned, talented, usually successful genre veteran like Whedon is met with instant skepticism.

There was less riding on Charlie's Angels than there is on this though ;).

[Shawn Hopkins]

Still. It cost $75 million bucks and put a the future of a beloved franchise in McG's hands. When he had never directed anything more substantial than a music video. If we're talking in terms of scale, giving Charlie's Angels to an absolute nobody is a bigger risk than giving Avengers to one of the most talented TV and comic book guys out there, a guy who does have at least one feature film under his belt.

I wouldn't count on Avengers being an equal time ensemble too awful much, Old Guy. Simply from a storytelling standpoint there has to be a main, viewpoint character that will draw the most focus. That'll probably either be Cap or Iron Man.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

I've never seen this guy's work, but I don't fret. I really don't think the studio will be stupid enough to hire him if they weren't confident he could pull it off. Heck, he's going to have an entire team behind him to support. And if the movie sucks, there's always the Justice League...in about thirty years. :p

[Palin Dromos]

Peter Jackson's biggest budget before LOTR was 30 mill on "The Frighteners" and New Line let him shoot all 3 back to back. Huge risk (I'd say bigger risk than Avengers) and it paid off in spades.

I'm confused as to what you guys seem to think the difference between directing for TV and directing for film is? Granted there are differences, but the primary differences are mitigated by his TV producing experience. TV is a very restricted environment, from a time, budget, and S&P standpoint. Considering all he's been able to accomplish in that restricted environment (not to mention the shoe-string budget of Dr. Horrible) this will be a chance to stretch a little.

He's dealt with big personalities behind the scenes, studio executives can be just as ego driven as stars. And frankly I'd expect all the actors to be just as aware of the pressure of this film as him. RDJ had been off the A-list for years before Iron Man put him back on the map, I'd say he's unlikely to rock the boat too hard. Norton still isn't confirmed to be in Avengers, and both Chris's aren't A list yet. And Sam Jackson works with everyone, from Spielberg to the guys who directed "Snakes on a Plane", his ego is a non-issue.

There's a lot of un-deserved prejudice in Hollywood in terms of abilities between film and TV. Even within TV (reality vs scripted) and film (independent vs studio). It's all hogwash, the people who are actually good at what they do can cross those lines without a problem because they actually know what they are doing and have spent time building up their skills and talents (end slightly personal rant:sweat:).


Heck, he's going to have an entire team behind him to support.
Darn straight! Hire the right crew and the works half done!

[Old Guy]

Peter Jackson's biggest budget before LOTR was 30 mill on "The Frighteners" and New Line let him shoot all 3 back to back. Huge risk (I'd say bigger risk than Avengers) and it paid off in spades.

Peter Jackson was a risk. No one is going to deny it. However, he had directed Heavenly Creatures, a critically acclaimed drama that put Kate Winslet on the map. The guy had talent for more than cult B-movies. So, it gave New Line reason to be optimistic. It's the same with Sam Raimi and Spider-Man. He had directed A Simple Plan, a critically acclaimed and Oscar-nominated film. Plus, there was Darkman. So, he also had experience with the superhero genre. And, if you want to look at more risk, there's Tim Burton and Batman. The guy who directed Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice? People must have been scratching their heads in 1988. Add to that the controversial casting of Michael Keaton. Yet, WB had faith because Burton had proven himself as a visionary filmmaker. They knew the movie would have a unique and Oscar-winning look - which it did. As for Keaton, he had just done Clean and Sober so they knew he could handle drama.

The risk with Whedon is that he's a TV guy. His movie experience is very limited. However, he has a proven track record with fanboys so the studio is counting on that.

[Shawn Hopkins]

The risk with Whedon is that he's a TV guy. His movie experience is very limited. However, he has a proven track record with fanboys so the studio is counting on that.

Are you just not reading the posts where people are putting forth the argument that being a "TV Guy" does not mean that someone is bereft of experience that will transfer to a feature film? Because it sure seems like it, you just keep repeating that like a mantra instead of providing some concrete reasons as to why "TV Guys" have untransferrable skills and are worthless as feature film directors, even "TV Guys" who have directed, produced and written feature films.

[Old Guy]

You make it sound like I said that TV guys can't direct ANY movies. I simply said that a TV guy with limited movie experience could struggle with a $200 million summer blockbuster. If Whedon was directing a movie like, say, Kick-Ass, I wouldn't raise any concerns because that's a $30 million April release. You have to crawl before you can walk and Whedon hasn't done much crawling in the movie department.

[Discloner]

Seems like everyone on every side of the coin is already formulating opinions based on assumptions and not facts. Nobody knows how much the film is going to cost - and while it obviously won't be a thriftily made low-budget romp, I'm not ready to believe that it's going to be one of hollywood's most expensive purchases; even with the stars. Marvel's playing INTO Avengers - so it likely has that in mind when having actors, high-profile stars or not, sign their contracts. With how stingy they're being cash-wise regarding pay (I'm looking at you Terrance Howard!) for their stars, I think there is a very BIG chance that there's some Avengers-themed wording in all their cross-franchise star's contracts to keep costs in line when the time comes to moosh them all together.

Whedon does lack feature film directing - that's definitely something to keep an eye on for someone who's been tossed one of Marvel's most complicated new tentpoles, but at the same time he has been the show-runner for a number of complex shows...which in itself counts for something. He's got experience with juggling ensemble casts - which is another reason Marvel likely turned to him; not to mention his work in and familiarity with the comic-book world, and of course the built in 'geek' factor as already mentioned.

Fact of the matter is there's no director they could have hired for the part that couldn't fit into any of the concerns listed in this thread. Hell, even the directors with most clout succumb to the egos of partners involved. Spielberg is one of the world's most influential directors...and even he still listened to George Lucas's wacky ideas for Indy 4.

I think it's normal to be skeptical, but until there's ACTUAL cause for concern the opinion slinging is just hyperbole.

[dmxx116]

Edward Norton explains what will bring him back for The Avengers:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/05/14/edward-norton-the-avengers/#more-34837

[screw on head]

Not that there's been much mystery about Joss Whedon's connection to The Avengers, but Thor actor Chris Hemsworth confirms he's sat down with Whedon recently to discuss the Avengers (http://video.about.com/movies/Chris-Hemsworth-Thor.htm).

[Via Whedonesque (http://whedonesque.com/comments/23900)]

Thoughts?

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Not that there's been much mystery about Joss Whedon's connection to The Avengers, but Thor actor Chris Hemsworth confirms he's sat down with Whedon recently to discuss the Avengers (http://video.about.com/movies/Chris-Hemsworth-Thor.htm).

[Via Whedonesque (http://whedonesque.com/comments/23900)]

Thoughts?

First Thor interview!

And even if it hasn't been made official yet, this interview definitely confirms that Joss Whedon is the director of The Avengers.

Cool! Thanks!

[Spider-Man]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:


MovieWatch: Rumours swirl around that The Skrulls will be the big bad in The Avengers movie are emerging – and that they may be the ones that control The Hulk. Also rumours continue that the Kevin will have a role in the movie and that Karl Pennington will be playing a proto-Captain Marvel.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

[Young Justice]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:



http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

I thought the Skrulls were attached to the Fantastic Four franchise that is owned by Fox. It seem that I was wrong. Good.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I saw this on Bleeding Cool today:



http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/thursday-runaround-got-a-spare-quarter-million-euros/

Skrulls? That would be very cool!

That's essentially the plot of the first Ultimates Arc, so that makes sense.

[RonDrakenfan17]

Edward Norton explains what will bring him back for The Avengers:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/05/14/edward-norton-the-avengers/#more-34837

I'd love it if he was brought back.
It'd feel empty if he wasn't in there :(

[Discloner]

Charlie's Angeles was a silly flick made for under $100 million. The Avengers, as of now, is the highest profiled film of 2012. More than the next Batman? Ehhhhh........

I'd say even the Spider-man reboot due out in 2012 eeks out the Avengers in terms of profile for 2012. Might be one the most anticipated tentpole films as of now, but a majority of folks who don't dive into comicbooks don't even know what the Avengers are unless they've been bludgeoned with the concept in the latest Iron Man.

Some of the staff at the theater I work at thought it was a remake of this little gem (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118661/).

[dmxx116]

More than the next Batman? Ehhhhh........

I'd say even the Spider-man reboot due out in 2012 eeks out the Avengers in terms of profile for 2012. Might be one the most anticipated tentpole films as of now, but a majority of folks who don't dive into comicbooks don't even know what the Avengers unless they've been bludgeoned with the concept in the latest Iron Man.

Some of the staff at the theater I work at thought it was a remake of this little gem (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118661/). The Spider-Man reboot being more profile then The Avengers, Star Terk 2 and 3rd Batman movie I don't think so, Nobody want to see a Spider-Man reboot me and a lot of other fans don't want to this Spider-Man reboot when it comes out 2012. And it not going to make a lot of money like past Spider-Man films.

[Kindness King]

I wonder if the Thor movie will have an Avengers teaser after the credits or in the ending. For that matter, I wonder what it will be like.




The Spider-Man reboot being more profile then The Avengers, Star Terk 2 and 3rd Batman movie I don't think so, Nobody want to see a Spider-Man reboot me and a lot of other fans don't want to this Spider-Man reboot when it comes out 2012. And it not going to make a lot of money like past Spider-Man films.
There are plenty of people who do want to see it, dude. And you can't predict how much it will make either. Just saying.

[Discloner]

The Spider-Man reboot being more profile then The Avengers, Star Terk 2 and 3rd Batman movie I don't think so, Nobody want to see a Spider-Man reboot me and a lot of other fans don't want to this Spider-Man reboot when it comes out 2012. And it not going to make a lot of money like past Spider-Man films. Who knows how well it will do? I certainly don't. I'm not making a statement (or prediction) about it's gross being greater than any of the other major tentpole films coming out that year - and there are a lot. I'm just making an observation based on recognition alone. Spider-man is a MUCH more well-known and mainstream franchise in terms of public perception then The Avengers. Heck, I bet most people who are even loosely aware of what The Avengers are couldn't tell you who's in the group, how they got there, and other specifics of the story....I sure as hell can't! Meanwhile, ask someone who's not familiar with comicbook lore how Spider-man got his powers...

I bet you that come 2012 there will be plenty of people lining up to catch BOTH Spider-man and The Avengers. Just from my perception the former already has a built in base that leverages it over the Avengers. At the very least, in terms of Anticipation in the public mind.

Not that it even matters since both will make a butt-load of money in the end.

[Spideyzilla]

The Spider-Man reboot being more profile then The Avengers, Star Terk 2 and 3rd Batman movie I don't think so,

Don't forget Godzilla.:anime:

[Young Justice]

There's a rumor that Lost's Josh Holloway is in talks to sign a deal with Marvel to play an yet unknown Super Hero movie. The rumors say it could be Ant-Man or Hawkeye (more likely IMHO).

He could appear in the Avengers movie or in a movie of his own.

Got the link on Lostpedia:

http://www.tvovermind.com/lost/losts-josh-holloway-might-be-a-marvel-avenger/24323

[suss2it]

Wasn't Hawkeye already cast in the Thor movie?

[Michael24]

Awhile back it was said that Jeremy Renner was attached to play Hawkeye, but he says here (http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/12/30/jeremy-renner-says-he-definitely-wont-be-playing-hawkeye/) that it was all just talk.

[The Clown Prince]

Apparently Tony Stark will NOT cameo in Thor or Captain America and will be absent until The Avengers film. This according to Jon Favreau after talking to radio station KROQ shortly after the Iron Man 2 premiere....


"He's not in 'Thor', he's not in Cap which are the two movies for next Summer. It'll be very interesting to see how the Marvel Universe branches off. All of these movies are going to be taken into account for 'The Avengers' in two years."

Now, most of us on this site know this already but I think it bears repeating to hear it from one of The Avengers executive producers, Jon Favreau, himself especially since he reiterates that Tony Stark will not be seen again until 2012:

"I'm not sure where The Avengers goes. There is no shooting draft written yet. It's gonna be a big undertaking for Marvel to actually incorporate what happened in 'Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk. All that hs to inform one unified vision in The Avengers. It's a very exciting prospect. And certainly, Tony Stark is not going to be involved in any of the movies until that one."



http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TheDogPound/news/?a=18558 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TheDogPound/news/?a=18558)

We know Nick Fury won't be in Thor, but will be in Captain America. Howard Stark (a young version) will also be in Captain America. But no more Downey Jr. until The Avengers? Kind of sad. :(

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Apparently Tony Stark will NOT cameo in Thor or Captain America and will be absent until The Avengers film. This according to Jon Favreau after talking to radio station KROQ shortly after the Iron Man 2 premiere....



http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TheDogPound/news/?a=18558 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TheDogPound/news/?a=18558)

We know Nick Fury won't be in Thor, but will be in Captain America. Howard Stark (a young version) will also be in Captain America. But no more Downey Jr. until The Avengers? Kind of sad. :(


I think it's fine. We've seen enough Tony Stark/Iron Man for now until The Avengers movie happens. Iron Man got two movies, while The Hulk (the first Hulk movie doesn't count), Captain America, and Thor will have had only one movie each before The Avengers movie. It's only fair not to give one character too much more exposure than the others. Remember this is The Avengers we're working towards, not Iron Man and Friends.

[dmxx116]

Jeremy Renner to Play Hawkeye in The Avengers?:

http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/06/jeremy-renner-poised-to-join-marvels-avengers.html

[NewcomerDC]

Jeremy Renner to Play Hawkeye in The Avengers?:

http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/06/jeremy-renner-poised-to-join-marvels-avengers.html
I think this is old news according to what Michael24 just said.

[Michael24]

The story I linked to was from December of last year. But this new story is from just yesterday, so perhaps things have changed in the last six months.

[dmxx116]

EXCLUSIVE: Edward Norton is not the Hulk in 'The Avengers'?:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-edward-norton-is-not-the-hulk-in-the-avengers-but-he-d-like-to-be

[TheVileOne]

Hmm interesting. Also surprising to see Moriarty be a little more critical of Marvel Studios this go around.

I think Norton's creative influences also had something to do with his replacement.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Next we'll be hearing that Robert Downey Jr. will be replaced as Iron Man in The Avengers movie.

(They practically already set up for that possibility in Iron Man 2)

[Shawn Hopkins]

Right, I don't think McWeeny is focusing on the correct issue. It's not as much about money with Norton, it's the level of creative control he demands.

[King_of_doom]

Next we'll be hearing that Robert Downey Jr. will be replaced as Iron Man in The Avengers movie.

(They practically already set up for that possibility in Iron Man 2)

I seriously doubt that since Iron Man started with the whole Tie-In for the upcoming Avengers movie, if it does happen than why all the hype on putting Robert Downey Jr. on the final scene of the Hulk if they do that then why bother making this movie.

[Wounded_Dragon]

EXCLUSIVE: Edward Norton is not the Hulk in 'The Avengers'?:

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-edward-norton-is-not-the-hulk-in-the-avengers-but-he-d-like-to-be


That's not news, that's pulling stuff out of thin air with a flavoring of a fact or two.

[PowerZord]

That's not news, that's pulling stuff out of thin air with a flavoring of a fact or two.


Actually Marvel just confirmed it:

"Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert [Downey], Chris [Hemsworth], Chris (Evans), Sam [Jackson], Scarlett [Johansson], and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."


http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/145004

[jph139]

Man, that's really disappointing. I absolutely loved Ed Norton as Bruce Banner... perhaps the best part of the movie. Frankly, if they were going to drop him, I'd have preferred they just use the Hulk - have him come in post-transformation, use a stand-in for when he goes back to normal.

Of course, I don't know a thing about the movie itself, but... if you're supposed to have a team-up movie for your recent Marvel movies, why are you recasting the lead actor of one of those movies? It seems counter-intuitive. Like, the main draw of this film is seeing your favorite characters from your favorite movies interacting - and Ed Norton is this Hulk. I mean, maybe they'll use the rest of the supporting cast, but if you're not using the same actor, it may as well tie into the 2003 Hulk. Or Bill Bixby's Banner.

I dunno. Kinda puts a damper on things.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Actually Marvel just confirmed it:

"Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert [Downey], Chris [Hemsworth], Chris (Evans), Sam [Jackson], Scarlett [Johansson], and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."


http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/145004


That's called you not reading the article (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-edward-norton-is-not-the-hulk-in-the-avengers-but-he-d-like-to-be)critically. I said it had a sprinkle of fact. That Norton didn't come out is fact. The rest of that article was BS and fanwanking.

[TMC1982]

Man, that's really disappointing. I absolutely loved Ed Norton as Bruce Banner... perhaps the best part of the movie. Frankly, if they were going to drop him, I'd have preferred they just use the Hulk - have him come in post-transformation, use a stand-in for when he goes back to normal.

Of course, I don't know a thing about the movie itself, but... if you're supposed to have a team-up movie for your recent Marvel movies, why are you recasting the lead actor of one of those movies? It seems counter-intuitive. Like, the main draw of this film is seeing your favorite characters from your favorite movies interacting - and Ed Norton is this Hulk. I mean, maybe they'll use the rest of the supporting cast, but if you're not using the same actor, it may as well tie into the 2003 Hulk. Or Bill Bixby's Banner.

I dunno. Kinda puts a damper on things.

If God forbid, they recast Edward Norton completely as Bruce Banner, then would there be a problem with bringing or trying to bring Eric Bana back?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Am I the only one that really didn't like Norton as Banner? Bruce Banner is a man with a cold and distant edge to him, something I don't think Norton captured that well at all. They shouldn't go for an obvious leading man type, they need someone who can realistically play a scrawny scientist.

[Dreyfus]

This could be weird if they have to actually show another actor as Bruce Banner. Otherwise I think it will be fine. It really is a shame that Norton is such a tough person to work with.

[Spideyzilla]

Great Marvel. I loved The Incredible Hulk, and Marvel is practically kicking it to the curb. Is TIH going to stay in continuity? Who knows. There is NO Reason for this, I am very disappointed. That article was right, I don't think Marvel knows what they have on their hands. Something truly unique, something that has never been done before. Recognize that, and don't just treat it like a typical superhero movie.

[dmxx116]

This is my choice:
Don't even include Dr. Banner.
Just have a CG Hulk for the whole movie (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=282612&page=128#).
Hulk is out in the desert or something, and is contacted (manipulated by Loki) and goes after the Avengers. He fights the Avengers (still manipulated by Loki) then turns and helps the Avengers fight Loki when he figures out he is being manipulated. Then he leaves, rejecting their offer to join, and is gone without ever turning back to his human form.
This version of the Hulk could be slightly smarter too, enough to talk is short sentences anyway.
Hulk mad! Hulk hate Horned Man (Loki)! Hulk hate being used! Hulk want to be left alone. Hulk will smash you! Get out of Hulks way!
Stuff like that.
He is now known well enough that the audience who doesn't read Hulk comics knows who he is. So there is no need to establish him and Dr. Banner. And he wont be the focus of the movie (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=338397&page=3#), then all they have to do is voice cast the Hulk.

So, no Banner. Just Hulk. Not showing Banner would also leave extra time, that would have been used for Banner, leaving it for other things like the rest of the Avengers or Loki.

[The Clown Prince]

Marvel Studios Kevin Feige has commented on the Edward Norton recast to HitFix who first reported it....


"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."


Boy this is really disappointing. This is going to be one of those recasting decisions that will be jarring to watch. If you watch Iron Man and Iron Man 2 back to back, it's really shocking how different Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle's
portrayals really are. Full article http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-marvel-confirms-they-will-hire-new-hulk-for-avengers (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-marvel-confirms-they-will-hire-new-hulk-for-avengers).

[TheVileOne]

Norton has a pretty notorious reputation in this town.

It came through for The Incredible Hulk. People need to stop ignoring that.

[Spideyzilla]

Norton's agent rips Feige.

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-11-exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement?m=k
Didn't the same thing happen about Jon Faverau directing Iron Man 2 and Nick Fury being recast?

[JasonFox]

Norton's agent rips Feige.

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-11-exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement?m=k
Didn't the same thing happen about Jon Faverau directing Iron Man 2 and Nick Fury being recast?

Nick Fury wasn't rescast it was Rhodie.

[TheVileOne]

Norton's agent rips Feige.

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-11-exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement?m=k
Didn't the same thing happen about Jon Faverau directing Iron Man 2 and Nick Fury being recast?

No. Nick Fury wasn't recast. Jon Favreau said there was some slow downs or something in signing on to do the second movie and then acted "skeptical" about being able to make a 4/30/10 release date. All that ended pretty quickly when Feige said they would try and bring everyone back and that most of all the pre-work was done with the first movie so the second movie would be done in time. Favreau agreed after signing on to do the sequel. After the first movie came out, Favreau seemed to make some hints publicly that he wanted a reasonable raise in doing the sequel.

There were rumors about some bumps in the road in Fury's re-signing. But Jackson was ultimately re-signed anyway.

Who really knows what goes down in negotiations? They are usually private and anything that comes out of it is pure hearsay.

[dmxx116]

Marvel needs to work thing out with Norton and fast before the comic com comes up Kevin Feige don't want hear from the fans at the comic com.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah fans aren't going to do anything.

They didn't complain when Howard was recast and they went to SDCC.

All the questions are screened anway before they get to ask.

Fans will kiss their butts at comic con and go see the movie anyway. Such is the nature of whiney fanboys with keyboards.

[suss2it]

Yeah fans aren't going to do anything.

They didn't complain when Howard was recast and they went to SDCC.

All the questions are screened anway before they get to ask.

Fans will kiss their butts at comic con and go see the movie anyway. Such is the nature of whiney fanboys with keyboards.

The Hulk/Bruce Banner is more important than War Machine. Personally I'm disappointed that Ed Norton won't be in The Avengers simply because that was part of the appeal, seeing all the characters from the various movies all in one.

I'd also them rather just use Hulk no Bruce Banner, that way they don't even need to recast Norton, because if you think about it how much screentime would Bruce even get?

[TMC1982]

The Hulk/Bruce Banner is more important than War Machine. Personally I'm disappointed that Ed Norton won't be in The Avengers simply because that was part of the appeal, seeing all the characters from the various movies all in one.

I'd also them rather just use Hulk no Bruce Banner, that way they don't even need to recast Norton, because if you think about it how much screentime would Bruce even get?

There's already Facebook petitions demanding that Edward Norton be reinstated:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?officers&gid=118442384868187#!/group.php?gid=118442384868187&v=wall

[TheVileOne]

The Hulk/Bruce Banner is more important than War Machine. Personally I'm disappointed that Ed Norton won't be in The Avengers simply because that was part of the appeal, seeing all the characters from the various movies all in one.

Not really general public didn't care about The Incredible Hulk. Norton is not instrumental to the franchise. Downey is on the otherhand.



I'd also them rather just use Hulk no Bruce Banner, that way they don't even need to recast Norton, because if you think about it how much screentime would Bruce even get?

I'd rather they just keep out the Hulk and Banner as well. I figured getting Norton involved would ultimately lead to this.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Be honest, how many people actually thought Norton was really, really great in the role? He didn't make it his own like Downey did with Tony Stark and he didn't really become the character as Bale did with Batman, he just kind of walked through it, playing Ed Norton. This sudden outcry is just more proof that fanboys have a resistance to change that would make Rain Man say "lighten up."

[Wounded_Dragon]

Do you know why Marvel doesn't care as much about Hulk? Because all those fans weren't enough to make back the production budget using domestic gross. In fact, for all the hype and talk about getting it right the second time, both Hulk movies made nearly the same amount of money.

[TheVileOne]

Do you know why Marvel doesn't care as much about Hulk? Because all those fans weren't enough to make back the production budget using domestic gross. In fact, for all the hype and talk about getting it right the second time, both Hulk movies made nearly the same amount of money.

^Bingo.

[Time Wizard]

I'm so angry at Marvel at the moment. I loved The Incredible Hulk way more than Iron Man 1 and 2, I still loved both films though. Edward Norton was just fantastic as Bruce Banner.

[Knight]

Very disappointing I really liked Ed Norton in the Incredible Hulk and thought it was great that he was going to reprise the role for Avengers but now its no longer going to happen which is sad.

[Spideyzilla]

Be honest, how many people actually thought Norton was really, really great in the role? He didn't make it his own like Downey did with Tony Stark and he didn't really become the character as Bale did with Batman, he just kind of walked through it, playing Ed Norton. This sudden outcry is just more proof that fanboys have a resistance to change that would make Rain Man say "lighten up."

(raises hand) I thought Norton nailed it. He was tortured, but was still believable as a scientist.

By the by, there is a rumor that Marvel has offered the role to Joaquin Phoenix has been offered the role. (http://chud.com/articles/articles/24388/1/WILL-THE-NEW-HULK-RISE-LIKE-A-PHOENIX/Page1.html)
http://tresmichelle.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/joaquin-phoenix-letterman.jpg
Ohhh. But, it's probably untrue, as Marvel supposedly wanted an unknown.

[Shawn Hopkins]

(raises hand) I thought Norton nailed it. He was tortured, but was still believable as a scientist.



In what way was Ed Norton believable as the kind of introverted, distant, hard-edged scientist that Bruce Banner is? He was about as convincing a "milksop" as Bill Bixby. This is what Hollywood has always gotten wrong about Bruce Banner, he's not a leading man.

[dmxx116]

Edward Norton has posted his official statement on the matter at his Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531#!/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531)

Marvel you need to do what is right for the fans and for the picture and you do not want a lot of angry fans at the Comic Con coming up.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Edward Norton has posted his official statement on the matter at his Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531#%21/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531)

Marvel you need to do what is right for the fans and for the picture and you do not want a lot of angry fans at the Comic Con coming up.

All ten of them? ;)

I'm not sure how much influence these fans will have when they regarded Ang Lee as a flop and TIH made only a little more in gross and I'm pretty sure when adjusted for inflation Lee's Hulk beats TIH.

[Wonderwall]

Edward Norton has posted his official statement on the matter at his Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531#%21/photo.php?pid=167684&id=101925766514531)

Marvel you need to do what is right for the fans and for the picture and you do not want a lot of angry fans at the Comic Con coming up.

Marvel is making the biggest love letter to comic geeks just by making this movie. I don't think anyone will be angry at CC, behind their monitors sure but actually in person, most likely they'll cheer whatever Avengers news they hear.

[Time Wizard]

Marvel is making the biggest love letter to comic geeks just by making this movie. I don't think anyone will be angry at CC, behind their monitors sure but actually in person, most likely they'll cheer whatever Avengers news they hear.

Not all comic geeks, I myself don't like the idea of big superhero teams made up of well-known and/or powerful superheroes. The Justice League cartoon may be one of the few exceptions but I have never been a fan of The Avengers and similar teams. I like the focus to be on a few characters or even just one.

[Spideyzilla]

Not all comic geeks, I myself don't like the idea of big superhero teams made up of well-known and/or powerful superheroes. The Justice League cartoon may be one of the few exceptions but I have never been a fan of The Avengers and similar teams. I like the focus to be on a few characters or even just one.

You have a point. The Avengers might have to jump from character to character so often to squeeze them all in, that they cannot develop the characters themselves.

[TheAmazingJJJ]

For you Norton fans, I hope this might cheer you up... :D

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/JJJ-01-19-72/norton.jpg

[dmxx116]

The Avengers To Film In Manhattan In 2011 – And On The Helicarrier Above :

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/13/the-avengers-to-film-in-manhattan-in-2011/

[dmxx116]

Mark Ruffalo to Play Hulk in The Avengers?:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/mark-ruffalo-in-late-stage-talks-to-be-marvels-new-hulk-in-the-avengers/

(IMO) I hope not No fan of his.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Mark Ruffalo to Play Hulk in The Avengers?:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/mark-ruffalo-in-late-stage-talks-to-be-marvels-new-hulk-in-the-avengers/

(IMO) I hope not No fan of his.

Yeah, he's exactly the wrong direction if moving away from Norton. He looks like a male model, not a nerd.

[Wonderwall]

I'd rather they go with the guy who played the last Dr. Who like I saw rumored yesterday.

[Time Wizard]

I'd rather they go with the guy who played the last Dr. Who like I saw rumored yesterday.

David Tennant? Well he is a fantastic actor(and his Doctor is my favorite Doctor) But I don't see him as Banner.

[Nephets]

I agree that Hollywood hasn't truly made a Hulk movie with an actual introverted,nerdy and insecure Bruce Banner.HULK and TIH all felt like I was watching a stand-in for an actual Bruce Banner.Although I'm impressed that casting another actor hasn't stopped production on the movie itself.

[the greenman]

Funny, I was thinking my top two choices would be Ruffalo or Adrien Brody.

[Matt Hazuda]

Joss Whedon officially confirmed to be directing The Avengers (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/22/cci-joss-whedon-confirms-hes-directing-the-avengers/).


I wonder how he'll have Black Widow and/or Wasp emasculate every male character in the movie :sweat:

[Matt Hazuda]

More info from Comic-Con (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/23/joss-whedon-reveals-tiny-taste-of-his-avengers-plan/) about the movie.

The biggest pieces are that it will be in 3D (hopefully real 3D and not crappy afterthought 3D) and Whedon is re-writing the movie from scratch.

[wonderfly]

Having Whedon confirmed as director AND confirming that he's writing the script definitely help kill the bad taste left in the mouth with Norton's departure. I'm pumped up about this movie again!!! :D

Maybe Whedon will go in a different direction than "Skrulls invade the Earth"?!? I mean, the threat the Avengers face has to be world-devestating in scope, but Skrulls really belong to the Fantastic Four...

[Bloody Marquis]

I thought he was confirmed months ago? :confused:

[dmxx116]

Here some Hulk/ Avengers rumors and news

Mark Ruffalo Signs to Play Hulk in ‘Avengers’:

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/toldja-marvel-ruffalo-reach-hulk-deal/

Norton is still playing Bruce Banner, tells me Mark Ruffalo is in 'The Avengers'... just not as Bruce Banner?:

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Kaboom/news/?a=20501

Whedon Confirms Renner as Hawkeye in The Avengers :

http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/2010/07/joss-whedon-on-the-avengers-jeremy-renner-confirmed-as-hawkeye.html

[Blue Beetle]

Well in the Avengers/Thor/Cap panel they said Punisher is back with Marvel and they plan on introducing him to the movie Marvel U.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Well in the Avengers/Thor/Cap panel they said Punisher is back with Marvel and they plan on introducing him to the movie Marvel U.

Ooohh, nice, nice. I wonder if they'll ask Jane to return? Maybe have the Avengers hunt him down? It'd be interesting to see how long his enginuity could allow him to evade them...

[NewcomerDC]

Well in the Avengers/Thor/Cap panel they said Punisher is back with Marvel and they plan on introducing him to the movie Marvel U.
Two times The Punisher had on the big screen. No more.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Two times The Punisher had on the big screen. No more.

Three, actually, but why 'no more'?

[underdog]

Norton is still playing Bruce Banner, tells me Mark Ruffalo is in 'The Avengers'... just not as Bruce Banner?:

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Kaboom/news/?a=20501
[/URL]
Now that would be an interesting twist,..but who would Ruffalo actually play that would have had the potential to stir up controversy that they found it necessary to create fake publicity? Would it be out of the realm of possibility that they made an agreement with Sony so he play an older Peter Parker?

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

At the San Diego Comic Con...

Samuel L. Jackson (SHIELD Director Nick Fury) arrived on stage to introduce each of the cast of the film:

Clark Gregg (SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson),

Scarlett Johansen (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow),

Chris Hemsworth (Donald Blake / Thor),

Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America),

Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man),

Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye),

and, making it official, Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / The Hulk).


Robert Downey Jr. then welcomed director Joss Whedon onto the stage to the delight of the Hall H audience.


The Avengers opens May 4, 2012.


http://i.newsarama.com/images/AVENGERS-ASSEMBLED-Movie-Cast.jpg




EDITED TO ADD: Norton still Hulk!?


Big time rumors all over the internet tonight after The Avengers announcements were made at the San Diego Comic Con.

Reliable sources say that, despite previous announcements, Edward Norton is actually going to be playing Bruce Banner in the film afterall and that Mark Ruffalo is also still in the film... just not as Banner.

It is believed that this is a big publicity stunt by Marvel and director Joss Whedon and that tomorrow (Sunday) Edward Norton will make his appearance with the rest of the cast.

As for Ruffalo, speculation is that he will actually be playing Dr. Henry Pym aka Giant Man/Ant Man. This is given credence by the fact that Nathan Fillion, who was originally approached for the role of Dr. Pym, announced today that he had to decline because of scheduling conflicts.

This is all just rumor at this point, but we should all know for sure tomorrow on the last day of the convention.

[Blue Beetle]

They said in the panels that Antman and Wasp were both NOT going to be in the avengers so I doubt the rumor is true. I'd love it to be true since I want Antman in the avengers and I'm really bummed that he won't be in it. Not that I care much for Norton's Hulk, IMO Lee's Hulk was better, they should have gotten the Bruce from that film instead of casting a new guy...oh well.



Two times The Punisher had on the big screen. No more.
Both were pretty solid movies IMO, first one was a good origins story but lacked the attitude of Punisher being a badass. Second movie had Punisher as a badass but the story lacked. I would have loved another one, oh well maybe Marvel will do the character justice as well.


Ooohh, nice, nice. I wonder if they'll ask Jane to return? Maybe have the Avengers hunt him down? It'd be interesting to see how long his enginuity could allow him to evade them...

Jane was in a DC panel and he was asked about Punisher and he said he turned down thousands of dollars since he didn't feel they did the character justice and killed it and he wouldn't be able to show his face today at SDCC if he had done it... but who knows maybe they could convince him, personally the actor from War Zone better interpreted Frank IMO, Jane gave too much heart to the character.

[The Overlord]

Three, actually, but why 'no more'?

Because its hard to make movies about a character who has had nothing flops.

Plus in my personal opinion the Avengers hunting the Punisher wouldn't work, because the Avengers and Punisher don't mesh together well. The Avengers are more light hearted, fighting super villains, robots, time travelers and aliens, well Punisher lives in an ultra realistic and fights the worst of the worst when it comes to criminals, there was one arc where he took on a bunch of human slavers and that is one darkest comics I ever read.

The best take on Punisher is Punisher Max by Garth Ennis, no super heroes or super villains, just Frank Castle against the scum of humanity. That's what I like see with the Punisher. I think an HBO TV show would the best place for him.

Now the Ultimates is a darker take on the Avengers and some elements from that title will be incorporated into the movie, but at the end of the day, an Avengers movie should be PG-13 and an Punisher movie should be rated R.

[TMC1982]

If Mark Ruffalo actually takes over from Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, then would it be safe to say that the Incredible Hulk film series is to Marvel what the Batman series was to DC back in the '90s? I mean, like the Hulk movies (Eric Bana to Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo), the leading actor kept changing in at least a five-seven year span (Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney).

[dmxx116]

At the San Diego Comic Con...

Samuel L. Jackson (SHIELD Director Nick Fury) arrived on stage to introduce each of the cast of the film:

Clark Gregg (SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson),

Scarlett Johansen (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow),

Chris Hemsworth (Donald Blake / Thor),

Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America),

Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man),

Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye),

and, making it official, Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / The Hulk).


Robert Downey Jr. then welcomed director Joss Whedon onto the stage to the delight of the Hall H audience.


The Avengers opens May 4, 2012.


http://i.newsarama.com/images/AVENGERS-ASSEMBLED-Movie-Cast.jpg




EDITED TO ADD: Norton still Hulk!?


Big time rumors all over the internet tonight after The Avengers announcements were made at the San Diego Comic Con.

Reliable sources say that, despite previous announcements, Edward Norton is actually going to be playing Bruce Banner in the film afterall and that Mark Ruffalo is also still in the film... just not as Banner.

It is believed that this is a big publicity stunt by Marvel and director Joss Whedon and that tomorrow (Sunday) Edward Norton will make his appearance with the rest of the cast.

As for Ruffalo, speculation is that he will actually be playing Dr. Henry Pym aka Giant Man/Ant Man. This is given credence by the fact that Nathan Fillion, who was originally approached for the role of Dr. Pym, announced today that he had to decline because of scheduling conflicts.

This is all just rumor at this point, but we should all know for sure tomorrow on the last day of the convention.I'm not feeling Mark Ruffalo in that pic with the other cast members,He robbing me and the fans of a bigtime movie in 2012 he just don't look right in this pic while the other cast members look awesome.

[dmxx116]

Feige on Ruffalo's Hulk:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/110/1108390p1.html

[Zach]

Let's all give Ruffalo a chance here. It's not his fault that Marvel and Norton couldn't work things out, and it's not fair to harbor resentment toward him simply because he isn't Norton.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Well, I guess the rumor about Norton being in the movie afterall, was BS.

Oh well, I was almost convinced, but then again, I really did want to see Norton return. I hate when characters are recast.

[Michael24]

Let's all give Ruffalo a chance here. It's not his fault that Marvel and Norton couldn't work things out, and it's not fair to harbor resentment toward him simply because he isn't Norton.
I agree, and seeing as how I've never even seen him in anything before (I just know his name, nothing else), I'm more than willing to do that. :)

[Soul]

My big thing was I thought Norton was great as Banner and of course the even bigger thing: He seemed to legitimately like and enjoy playing the character.

[the greenman]

The thing with norton had to deal with him being a diva
And letterier had script changes and stuff.

Anyway, I think the whole antman thing will be an
arc that will lead to the sequel.

[screw on head]

MTV Splash Page interviews Joss Whedon on Hawkeye and Bruce Banner (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/07/25/comic-con-jeremy-renner-mark-ruffalo-the-avengers-joss-whedon/):


“The thing about Hawkeye, he’s got his bows and arrows, you need somebody who’s very very down to earth, who’s very grounded, and who’s going to be the kind of guy who, you see him, and you understand why he likes to be far away from things and then shoot at them,” Whedon said, adding that without the right actor in the role things could get “very silly” if handled incorrectly. “[With] Jeremy, he just has a lovely quality.”

With regard to Ruffalo, Whedon says the celebrated actor was his “first and only choice for Bruce Banner.”

“I’m stunned that we landed that, just stunned," he said. "He has what I remember loving about the show, that quality of, you just look at him and you go through it with him, he invites you in in a way that [no] other performer has since Bill Bixby. He is a guy who’s been beaten up by life, but not defined by that. That’s what I want from Bruce Banner, is a guy who’s still getting it done, even though he has his problem.”
I really like Joss's outlook on Bruce Banner here, however brief it's stated. Banner's working through it and chugging along even while he's carrying this monster inside him. Banner and Hulk is definitely one of the dynamics I'm most looking forward to seeing Whedon handle, because I think he can take it and make something out of it without it feeling tired and like something we've heard a thousand times. I think he has the writing chops to make it work well amongst everything else that will be going on.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I agree. Everyone needs to give Ruffalo a chance. He didn't cause the situation that led to Norton's departure and he isn't "robbing" anyone of anything, he's just doing a job. He's certainly not my choice to play Banner, but it really seems like all anyone, even Joss, remembers about the Hulk is the television show so he'll basically be playing Bill Bixby as David Banner and I guess he can do that.

[underdog]

I agree. Everyone needs to give Ruffalo a chance. He didn't cause the situation that led to Norton's departure and he isn't "robbing" anyone of anything, he's just doing a job. He's certainly not my choice to play Banner, but it really seems like all anyone, even Joss, remembers about the Hulk is the television show so he'll basically be playing Bill Bixby as David Banner and I guess he can do that.

Indeed, this is so similar to the Jay Leno situation, we should give the guy a chance.

[Blue Beetle]

I didn't think Norton was a great Banner so I don't care, same with Rodey in IM2, didn't care for the new actor but the old one was worse. Sure it sucks that they change actors because it breaks continuity but besides that I don't care.

What I do care about is no Antman/Wasp, its one of the things I was most looking forwards in Avengers, I really don't like Captain America or Thor. Besides its supposed to be a team, sure the Big 3 will be there but this wasn't a big 3 crossover movie, its an Avengers team movie. I feel antman could definitely be the next Iron Man in terms of jumping from a c-level hero to A-list. He could have easily formed the avengers, he messes up big time and reaches for their help, he is a smart man which makes him different from all the others including Tony, and he and wasp can share their quick origin it wouldn't mess with the main plot. The movie not having two of its founding members and the member that names the group bums me out. Antman sounds like a lame character but they can work with him to make him cool, unlike Thor/Captain America who I think won't be too relateable

[Wonderwall]

Indeed, this is so similar to the Jay Leno situation, we should give the guy a chance.

...No no it's not but we won't get into that here anymore;)

I liked Ruffalo in a couple of things, like Zodiac, so I don't see a problem with him as new Banner. I still can't get over how incredibly cheesy that Comic Con picture is though and that Joss Whedon got the directing gig. Not a knock on the guy just still seems surreal.

[dmxx116]

Eva Longoria addresses Avengers rumors.:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/110/1108786p1.html

[dmxx116]

Favreau on Hulk Recasting and his thoughts on Norton and The Avengers.:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/110/1108945p1.html

[Blue Beetle]

No antman because apparently it'd conflict with the movie being written for antman which might or might not happen. :(

I'm guessing that Thor/Captain America next year will decide if they go for an antman movie or not.

[Wonderwall]

I can't believe they are still even bothering with trying to make a solo Ant Man movie. I can't imagine there being any interest in that.

[Blue Beetle]

Stan Lee thinks (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.1cast.com%2Fl%2F253827%2Fstan-lee-sees-film-potential-antman-dr-strange&ei=aQpRTIrgBYiWsgPd1tDtDQ&usg=AFQjCNGP4zAYXRg7Z2kBrepIW3QCW15bMg)he'd be perfect and I agree with Stan Lee, he could be come an A-lister like Iron Man did with his movie, before that no one cared. Like Iron Man, Antman is based on a more realistic approach which audiences seem to like more. He's a scientist and he invented the Pym particles which allow him to grow in size or shrink, the possibilities for adventures are endless, add in his girlfriend/wife Wasp and you have an interesting dynamic that no other superhero movie has. Antman may have a silly name but he's a great character once you give him a chance. In fact I think he has a better chance at connecting with the Audiences than Thor and Captain America do, both are tough sells IMO and I think they will both fail at the B.O. A fantasy movie set in the modern world that also happens to be a superhero and connected to the realistic Iron Man movie? A World War II movie will do well but a superhero movie set in WWII? A character that is way too patriotic is not going to appeal much with young audiences like he was back in the day, theres a reason Caps isn't in the same level as X-Men/Spiderman/Iron man are. And this movie will also live or die by its domestic Box Office.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I don't think audiences are that wedded to realism. All the jokes about Bat-magic aside, Iron Man walks around in a suit of metal armor taking hits that should kill him via internal injury and creates a new element with dubious equipment that magically heals him of palladium poisoning despite no mechanism in place for that.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I think Ant Man would work. But as a comedy about Scott Lang, not a serious movie about boring old Hank Pym.

[the greenman]

From what I read in interviews I think wright has a good film. His descrtions harken back to films like innerspace and honey I shrunk the kids, so I was sold on his vision. Also I think he said his script hadboth antmen.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

From what I read in interviews I think wright has a good film. His descrtions harken back to films like innerspace and honey I shrunk the kids, so I was sold on his vision. Also I think he said his script hadboth antmen.


Innerspace and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids?

I'd probably be more interested if he had harkened back to the originators and not the imitators -- Fantastic Voyage and The Incredible Shrinking Man were the stories that had the groundbreaking science fiction concepts that Innerspace and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids were derivative of, respectively.

[dmxx116]

Mark Ruffalo On The Hulk And Replacing Edward Norton :

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/29/avengers-new-hulk-mark-ruffalo/

[jph139]

I think Ant Man would work. But as a comedy about Scott Lang, not a serious movie about boring old Hank Pym.

Yeah; I really wouldn't be interested (or not that interested) in a solo Pym movie. Or a Pym & Wife movie. I mean, I love Wasp, but they really work best as supporting characters - in The Avengers 2, I'd say. But Scott Lang would be awesome in a solo, semi-serious adventure movie. He works best in that sort of environment.

[kid rabbit]

I hope the infintey gaunlet in thor means thanto will be the villion in the avengers

[Rick Jones]

I like all 3 Ant Man characters to some degree but I can really take them or leave them ( Irredeemable was hilarious though). My interest in a solo movie lies solely in Edgar Wright and what he does with it.

[Gold Guy]

Yeah; I really wouldn't be interested (or not that interested) in a solo Pym movie. Or a Pym & Wife movie. I mean, I love Wasp, but they really work best as supporting characters - in The Avengers 2, I'd say. But Scott Lang would be awesome in a solo, semi-serious adventure movie. He works best in that sort of environment.

I kinda think that I might prefer a Wasp movie over a AntMan movie. She's more interesting, I guess.

[Silverstar]

Eh, I have nothing against Ant Man or Wasp, but I personally don't need to have either of them in this movie. Hank Pym in particular seems kind of redundant since when we're already getting Iron Man; I guess the producers felt the team didn't need 2 brainy guys with high-tech toys. As for Janet, she's an OK character, but her powers have always been just "meh" to me.

As long as we're getting Cap, Thor and Tony, I'm eagerly anticipating this movie. Maybe Wasp and Ant Man will turn up in Avengers 2, if there is one.

[dmxx116]

Take a look at EW The Avengers cast poll:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20399642_20405727_9,00.html

So far it not looking good for Mark Ruffalo in the poll.

[Spideyzilla]

We have a teaser trailer!
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21086

[kid rabbit]

"and there came a day that earths mightest hero united to fight a foe no single hero could defeat"
who do you think should be that foe?

[Yojimbo]

"and there came a day that earths mightest hero united to fight a foe no single hero could defeat"
who do you think should be that foe?I think Nick Fury says "foes," plural.

[jph139]

Villain-wise, I think it would depend on how they approach it.

If it's somewhat Cap-centric, with him adjusting to the 21st Century, the bad guys should be HYDRA, Red Skull, Hate-Monger; some super organization of Neo-Nazis and generally unsavory characters.

If it's more of a government-centric story, with SHIELD and the "sanctioned heroes" thing being central, I think the Skrulls would be cool; like, Secret Invasion, where they've been underground and staging an invasion for decades.

Maybe Loki. Maybe Thanos. Maybe Hulk. Maybe The Mandarin will finally get some screentime, or The Leader. There's a lot of roads they could go down, but really, I think it would depend on the basic outline of the film.

Or maybe it's a team up. Red Skull comes back and uses Mandarin's criminal empire to infiltrate the worlds' governments, and with the Infinity Gauntlet given to him by Loki for chaos-causing purposes, begins to conquer the Earth. The Leader is his right-hand man. There you go; all four major bad guys team-up.

But that'd be kind of ridiculous and hokey and I kinda hope they don't go there.

I'm not sure if I want Thanos yet, either... love him, but, he feels more like a "sequel" villain to me.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

I actually think Ultimate Avengers: The Movie did a really good job of bringing the team together to fight the Chitauri aliens and then taking on The Hulk. I didn't like Ultimate Avengers 2, but that first animated film was kick-ass (especially Captain America and the fight between The Avengers and The Hulk), so I would not mind at all if Whedon just remade it as a live-action film.

[dmxx116]

How Iron Man 2 Ruined Jon Favreau's Relationship With Marvel:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Iron-Man-2-Ruined-Jon-Favreau-s-Relationship-With-Marvel-20003.html

If that the case Disney need to fire Feige before he lose anymore talent from their movies.
I'm really not surprised. I remember when they almost didn't bring Favreau back for IM2 and I also remember him lamenting on his old MySpace page about being rushed. It was rushed and it showed.

Marvel has low-balled a lot of the talent (Terrence Howard, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson). They talk about creating an interwoven universe, but replace actors left and right and break continuity. They want to play the game, but don't want to go the extra mile to make it great. They'll settle for mediocre because it's going to make money no matter what

[Michael24]

Joss Whedon is considered cheaper talent than Jon Favreau? That's a new one on me. I figured it'd be the opposite. As much as I'm not crazy about Favreau, I would have preferred he direct The Avengers instead of Whedon.

[The Penguin]

Joss Whedon is considered cheaper talent than Jon Favreau? That's a new one on me. I figured it'd be the opposite. As much as I'm not crazy about Favreau, I would have preferred he direct The Avengers instead of Whedon.It's not really that surprising, Favreau may not have a long directing resume, but it includes the two Iron Man movies, which as we all know were big box office and Elf did pretty well too. As a director, Whedon, is primarily a TV guy at this point. Serenty may be loved by many here (I haven't seen it as of yet), but it is not a resume builder when you're talking a summer tent pole.

[the greenman]

Everyone, even non comic fans questioned things about im2. Too much avengers nonsense. In fact no relation between two russian characters, and nothing about the ten rings.

I kinda felt they deserved a failure after how they treated terry howard. No matter if you liked him or not, his rhodey was funnier and you felt more of a relationship between he and tony.

[Rick Jones]

This would definitely suck, if true. Favreau is as big a factor into the , so far, success of Marvel Studios as anybody and it stinks if they're really lowballing him like that. i did find it curious that he wasn't doing Avengers like I thought he would but I enever thought of something like what's suggested had occured. I wasn't upset over either Howard or Norton's dismissals, but Marvel needs to stop treating the talent as replaceable pawns and allow them to let the proper vision shine through or else we'll end up in a comic movie rut similar to the one we we're in right before Dark Knight and Iron Man hit.

[dmxx116]

I wasn't upset over either Howard or Norton's dismissals,. Well I'm still upset over Norton's dismissals but not Howard, But Feige robbed me and the fans of seeing Norton and Downey j.r on the big screen together for first time.

[suss2it]

Everyone, even non comic fans questioned things about im2. Too much avengers nonsense. In fact no relation between two russian characters, and nothing about the ten rings.Wait a second. Just because two characters are from Russia they have to have a connection somehow? Russia is a pretty big place you know. In fact I congratulate Favreau on not making every characters that come from the same nationality connected in someway, it seems too obvious.


Well I'm still upset over Norton's dismissals but not Howard, But Feige robbed me and the fans of seeing Norton and Downey j.r on the big screen together for first time.Same. I preferred Don Cheadle to Howard, and I really liked Ed Norton in The Incredible Hulk and I'm still mad he won't be in the Avengers movie. I would have preferred not have Banner in it at all. It's not like he's really needed either, they could easily get away with just having Hulk.

[the greenman]

Wait a second. Just because two characters are from Russia they have to have a connection somehow? Russia is a pretty big place you know. In fact I congratulate Favreau on not making every characters that come from the same nationality connected in someway, it seems too obvious.

There's an old saying in the biz. If there's a gun lying on a mantel on the stage, and it's never used, then you've just seen a bad play. Or else why else is it on stage for everyone to see.

I think I heard something similar in one of the DCAU commentaries, referencing Mel Brooks about ringing a bell. Not ringing a bell makes for poor filmmaking. I personally think there probably was something in the script stages that they probably cut out altogether.

[Spideyzilla]

So if this is true, will Downey stop playing Tony after Iron Man 3, then does that mean he will be out of the inevitable Avengers sequels, or just that he won't appear in an Iron Man 4? Although, I doubt this article a little bit. Faverau seemed very excited for Iron Man 2, saying he "would not disappoint." And let's not forget Downey's Avengers excitement at Comic-Con. So to tell you the truth, I don't really think this is real. And isn't Faverau Executive Producer on the Avengers?

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

There's an old saying in the biz. If there's a gun lying on a mantel on the stage, and it's never used, then you've just seen a bad play. Or else why else is it on stage for everyone to see.

I think I heard something similar in one of the DCAU commentaries, referencing Mel Brooks about ringing a bell. Not ringing a bell makes for poor filmmaking. I personally think there probably was something in the script stages that they probably cut out altogether.

I can see your point, but if we were to follow and apply that line of logic with everything, Lando Calrissian and Mace Windu were either related or knew each other -- because, of course, there's got to be a connection between two black guys no matter how big the galaxy is!

[W.C.Reaf]

Wait a second. Just because two characters are from Russia they have to have a connection somehow? Russia is a pretty big place you know. In fact I congratulate Favreau on not making every characters that come from the same nationality connected in someway, it seems too obvious.

Exactly. I really hate that complaint about IM2. It's like saying Rodey and Fury should have a connection 'cause they're black or Pepper Pots and Fury 'cause they're American.

It doesn't make any sort of sense that Black Widow and Whiplash be connected, she's a super spy working for SHIELD and he's a criminal engineering genius. If Widow wasn't part of SHIELD then yes it might've been a problem but she was.

As for the Avengers stuff in IM2: if they didn't do any of that then people would be complaining that Marvel dropped the ball after the Fury credits bit in IM1. Since Fury and Avengers were brought up in IM1 if the sequel had nothing to do with them then people would asking what's the point of introducing them at the end but not following up on it.

[Young Justice]

Wait a second. Just because two characters are from Russia they have to have a connection somehow? Russia is a pretty big place you know. In fact I congratulate Favreau on not making every characters that come from the same nationality connected in someway, it seems too obvious.

As much as it seems obvious and a cliche, it has some points why you should do it.

- The world is small as much as it is big. When you are good in your area of expertise, the chances is that you will be bumping on the same good and competent people of your area all the time.

So, Black Widow and Whiplash were from Russia, they were all from the intelligence and espionage field and they were good on what they do. There are good chances they were somewhat related.

- It would explain why one of the top agents of Shield was Russian instead of American, and why a Russian agent would be operating on US, instead of spying the Russian enemies on Russia.

- Cliche existed because they portray something that happens a lot in real life. You can have a cliche and still do it with creativity.

[W.C.Reaf]

So, Black Widow and Whiplash were from Russia, they were all from the intelligence and espionage field and they were good on what they do. There are good chances they were somewhat related.

He wasn't from any espionage background. The closest he got to that was being arrested for trying to sell uranium.

There’s no reason why two people from Russia have to be connected.

[wonderfly]

He wasn't from any espionage background. The closest he got to that was being arrested for trying to sell uranium.

There’s no reason why two people from Russia have to be connected.

Selling uranium puts you in the spotlight of intelligence and espionage groups.

Yeah, there was a potential for a connection there (we're not saying they needed to be old lovers, or anything, but maybe the whole reason why the Black Widow was on assignment in America should've been related to her investigation of Whiplash).

And no, they didn't have to be connected, but if it helps bring the plot into a more cohesive story, I'm all for it.

[Zach]

Selling uranium puts you in the spotlight of intelligence and espionage groups.

Knowing that someone is a criminal doesn't mean you have to have a personal connection with them.

Using the logic in this thread, Tony should have a personal connection with a random person in a crowd because they're both American. Whiplash and Widow are from two completely different backgrounds and are in two completely different fields of work.

[the greenman]

I can tell you guys never read the iron man comivs from the 80's, cause had youd argue about the russian connection. Also introducing justin hammer made all the more probable for a connection, since that old man in the comics made tony and justin look very much like scrooge mcduck and flintheart glomgold.

I don't appreciate the racism, as i'm not talking about it from that perspective. In the ccold war era comics, it was about russian espionage, and hammer was involved alot in it. It's a shame that the real life black widow, anna chapman, trumped her film counterpart.

[wonderfly]

Knowing that someone is a criminal doesn't mean you have to have a personal connection with them.

Using the logic in this thread, Tony should have a personal connection with a random person in a crowd because they're both American.

This is entering "pointless semantics" territory real fast, but anyway...

It depends on what you mean by "personal" connection. If you read my last post, I wasn't advocating for them to be lovers. I wasn't even advocating for them to know each other on a first name basis. But could they have tied the Widow's plotline in with Whiplash's plot, for a more cohesive story? Yes.

The whole Whiplash plot in the movie had it's start in Cold War politics, and with the Widow's comic book Cold War origins, you'd think they'd have the perfect way to tie some plot threads together. The director could've gone for a message distinguishing between what is percieved as the "old" Russia vs. the "new" Russia, and used the Widow and Whiplash to contrast that. Something like that.

I'm not advocating "they must all know each" generalizations, I'm advocating storyline enrichment.

[the greenman]

Ya know the more I think about it, the more this little non-russian subplot reminds me of the venom issue in Spider-man 3. Most comic fans wondered why they bothered introducing astronaut jj jamieson jr, and yet the alien symbiote randomly landing on earth had no connection to him. Yet another film script that had studio interference.

[suss2it]

It's a shame that the real life black widow, anna chapman, trumped her film counterpart.
Hardly. The real one got caught, while the movie version kicked ass and looked hot doing it:p


Ya know the more I think about it, the more this little non-russian subplot reminds me of the venom issue in Spider-man 3. Most comic fans wondered why they bothered introducing astronaut jj jamieson jr, and yet the alien symbiote randomly landing on earth had no connection to him. Yet another film script that had studio interference.

An alien symbiote attached to a space shuttle that Spider-Man saves or observes or whatever would actually benefit the movie story line instead of it randomly landing on his bike. But how would two Russians having some sort of a connection benefit the Iron Man story line at all? And is this version of the Black Widow even Russian? I can't seem to remember them confirming it one way or the other.

[Wounded_Dragon]

The whole Whiplash plot in the movie had it's start in Cold War politics, and with the Widow's comic book Cold War origins, you'd think they'd have the perfect way to tie some plot threads together. The director could've gone for a message distinguishing between what is percieved as the "old" Russia vs. the "new" Russia, and used the Widow and Whiplash to contrast that. Something like that.

I'm not advocating "they must all know each" generalizations, I'm advocating storyline enrichment.


It would've been too much of a stretch after the connection between Vanko and Stark was made, as well as weakening the father/son legacy storyline, all for what, a cheap thrill?

[wonderfly]

It would've been too much of a stretch after the connection between Vanko and Stark was made, as well as weakening the father/son legacy storyline, all for what, a cheap thrill?

How would it be a "stretch" if the whole reason she was assigned to Tony Stark was DUE to a connection to Vanko? And how is building up the plot a "cheap thrill"? Really, what purpose did she serve in Iron Man 2 beyond eye candy? We didn't learn her origin, she's just a kick-ass babe. Couldn't they have improved on that by building up a back story (which might've involved a tie, however loosely, to the Vanko plot)?

[Wounded_Dragon]

You're trying to make the story overcomplicated for no other reason than thinking "hey, it'll be neat!" What unique story purpose would be served by manufacturing that flimsy link? That threadbare reason you gave is already folded into the Stark/Vanko plotline.

Frankly, the backstories were already full with the Stark/Vanko hidden past. The movie is already at two hours. Any more backstories would've been a waste.

While we're at it, what is this obsession with everyone being well developed? Why do people think every character is supposed to get the limelight? Sometimes a "kick-ass babe" is just a kick-ass babe and there's no need for anything more. The movie was called Iron Man 2, not Iron Man-Vanko-Potts-Hogan-Rhodes-JARVIS-Coulson-Fury-Romanoff-Hammer 2.

[The Clown Prince]

Hey guys,

Any more Iron Man 2 talk, please go ahead and take it over to the Iron Man 2 discussion thread (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?t=267781). We're starting to fill The Avengers thread with too many Iron Man 2 posts. Thanks everyone! :)

[dmxx116]

As Expected, The Avengers May Be Released in 3D Too! :

http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/08/10/marvel-movie-the-avengers-will-be-in-3-d

The Avengers to Start Filming in February:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/105479-the-avengers-to-start-filming-in-february

[dmxx116]

Whedon : Black Widow won't be the only female character in Avengers:

http://www.moviehole.net/201026096-whedon-black-widow-wont-be-the-only-female-character-in-avengers

[Yojimbo]

Whedon : Black Widow won't be the only female character in Avengers:

http://www.moviehole.net/201026096-whedon-black-widow-wont-be-the-only-female-character-in-avengersBut the only female Avenger in the movie. So I'd agree with the article's musings and guess female supporting characters and villains may return in this movie, too.

[Spideyzilla]

But the only female Avenger in the movie. So I'd agree with the article's musings and guess female supporting characters and villains may return in this movie, too.

Yep, just more fan speculation for to chew on. I mean who could it be: Pepper? Enchantress? Betty Ross (stranger things have happened)? The possibilities are endless!

[the greenman]

Relationship news, hmmmm. . .

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/107232-jeremy-renner-on-hawkeyes-avengers-costume