Whedon Isn’t ‘Going Nolan’ With ‘Avengers 2′; Says DC Characters Harder to Adapt

Published 1 year ago by

 Whedon Isnt Going Nolan With Avengers 2; Says DC Characters Harder to Adapt

Considering that we’re now fully living in the world of comic book movie sequels – phase two of the Marvel cinematic universe having successfully kicked off with Iron Man 3, with Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers 2 all on the way – now is a good time to take a look at such sequels and what they promise, particularly with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy having drawn to a close.

Whether you like them or not, Nolan’s films have had an undeniably powerful influence on the public perception of what comic book movies can be, given their distinctive tone and aesthetic. Some might argue that making comic book movies as dark, gritty and down-to-earth as possible is always the best way to go, and this seems to be particularly true of sequels, where attempts to make the next installment in a franchise darker has become almost as commonplace as the promise to “raise the stakes.”

There are plenty of arguments that could be made both for and against the particular approach that Nolan took to interpreting the Batman mythos for the big screen, but variety is the spice of life and if all comic book movies were dark, gritty and realistic then we’d probably all be praying for a ray of silliness. The box office success of last year’s biggest hit The Avengers seems to be indicative of a demand for a slightly more light-hearted approach, and in an interview with Metro, director Joss Whedon has promised that he isn’t planning to ‘go Nolan’ with The Avengers 2:

“Nolan has this thing and of it he is the master; I do not have Nolan’s thing. [I'm] Tony Stark desperately trying to be Steve Rogers. I can’t stop making jokes. In my vernacular there are two gold standards for sequels: ‘The Godfather Part II’ and ‘The Empire Strikes Back’. They are darker films but they are not suddenly pretentious and losing the mission. The joy of the thing is important: the exaltation, the nobility, the humor and the humanity. But you do need to bleed with these people a little bit or you won’t want to spend another day with them.”

Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight Whedon Isnt Going Nolan With Avengers 2; Says DC Characters Harder to Adapt

Of course, The Avengers wasn’t without its dark moments (we won’t name them here, out of respect to the three people on the planet who haven’t seen it yet), but it’s not the sort of movie that could be described as “dark” in a broad sense. When asked about the possibility of directing The Avengers 3, however, Whedon warns that the strain would probably cause him to take things down a very dark path:

“The idea of doing this three times just staggers the imagination. I’m not that young. But then, I hadn’t really intended to do a second one. In the third one, I really am going to kill everyone.”

While some might argue that creating a sequel is always more difficult than making the first film in a series, because of the certain stigma associated with bad movie sequels and the challenge of keeping the franchise fresh, Whedon says in an interview RTÉ Ten that conceiving The Avengers 2 has actually been comparatively easier, since the groundwork of the shared universe has already been established:

“It was harder the first time. We had to bring everybody together, we had to convince people that they could all be in the same movie. That’s done, and so now it’s just pure storytelling… We will see some new faces in ‘Avengers 2′, and they will be from the Marvel universe.”

Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill in The Avengers Whedon Isnt Going Nolan With Avengers 2; Says DC Characters Harder to Adapt

Whedon also suggests in the interview that some of the new faces will be female characters, due to his passion for making movies and TV shows about strong women. With that in mind, he was asked whether there was any possibility that his Wonder Woman script, which fell into development hell several years ago and never returned, might still see the light of day:

“I’ve not been asked back, and at present I don’t think there’s really an opportunity there. I don’t want to dash your hopes, but it’s not looking great. I have come up with a very original character of my own called Wondrous Gal … She’s a Flamazon.”

It looks like Joss Whedon is fully embedded in the Marvel camp, though J.J. Abrams’ assignment to direct both Star Trek and Star Wars Episode VII has shown that it’s not impossible for a director to straddle two rival franchises. Whedon has expressed his passion for the DC universe in the past, though he also said in an interview with DigitalSpy that DC characters are harder to translate to the big screen because “they are so far above us and their powers are so amorphous.”

Do you favor Nolan’s comic book movie style, or Whedon’s? Alternatively, are you just happy that they both exist?

____

The Avengers 2 is out in theaters on May 1st, 2015

Source: Metro & RTÉ Ten [via CBM], DigitalSpy

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the avengers 2

168 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. DC’s characters are harder to adapt because most of their origins are just downright ridiculous and they treated their heroes more like gods and icons unlike Marvel who made theirs more like real people but with crazy powers.

    • Because Marvel’s heroes all have sensible, realistic origins?

      • I know, I know. I’m just saying if you compare the two. I know there are exceptions but for the most part I think most of Marvel’s origins are based around science whereas most of DC’s are just crazy stuff. Marvel: Spider-Man bitten by a radioactive spider. Iron Man built his suit to save his life. Captain America, super soldier serum. Hulk, radioactive bombs. Even the X-men are created by the x gene. All science based. Whereas most of DC’s besides Batman are more myth and godlike.

        • what about Static, Cyborg & Doctor Manhattan? Their origins were science based, but I get what you are saying though.

          • Yeah I know, there are exceptions I’m just saying for the most part.

          • You forgot the flash.

            • Which version of the Flash origin? The Speed Force? Or the version where the Flash himself, upon his death, became the very lightning bolt which struck him and gave him his powers?

              • Ooooh a paradox, very sciency.

                Didn’t know about that one. See it’s true you can learn something new everyday.

                il princerino, I thank you…..

              • Should Flash be a black guy like in Squadron Supreme?

      • this is a joke ryt,,,,,so u believe spiderman,hulk has realistic origin……

        • Dudes, I am completely aware that all their origins are unrealistic and ridiculous, I’m just saying FOR THE MOST PART that most of Marvels main heroes are more grounded in science and DC’s FOR THE MOST PART are more fantasy based. Obviously Batman is not, I know there are exceptions people.

          • On that note, ironically, the DC movies, with the obvious unfortunate exception of the Green Lantern, have all been more on the realistic side, compared to the marvel movies haha

            • Interestingly, I would say “darker”, not “more realistic” – I think Iron Man 1 sets the standard for realistic superhero origins, compared to almost anything, even though it wasn’t particularly dark. Set in Afghanistan, steeped in aerospace tech and corporate intrigue, I couldn’t imagine it being more real and less fantasy (I think of some of the more magical aspects of Rhas Al Gul in B1, for instance)…

    • I definitely agree.
      Whereas now, Marvel can now raise the fantasy and the inherent ridiculous, it seems DC is now looking for a more relatable and “grounded” interpretation of these characters to make them stick.
      I mean most of DC characters have been seen and continue to be seen as very silly characters ripe for endless parodies and jokes.

      So it is interesting how the table is slowly turning around as of late.

      • Archer,

        Did you do your review of MOS yet?

        I’d be interested in your take of the movie.

        Thanks.

    • No, the problem is the most iconic DC ones are the antithesis of what they are and have few flaws to exploit.

      Superman – Nigh invulnerable, virtually unlimited strength, frost breath, heat vision, etc. Basically takes a near godly villain to kill him off.

      Only ones to challenge him are those with similar abilities (Darkseid, Doomsday, etc) or those with a superior but different ability – Luthors superior intellect.

      Batman – is the peak human physically, is without fear, ultimate gadgeteer who always has exactly what he needs to side step a situation and the worlds greatest detective (superior intellect) to boot!

      Wonder Woman – The best of womankind in every way.

      Flash – He’s not just fast like say Quicksilver he is the SPEED FORCE. They had to give him something to top Superman’s ability to also move lightning fast.

      Aquaman – King of the 7 seas and ruler of the Mythical Atlantis.

      Martian Manhunter – Ability to change shape into anything and can turn desolid at will making him nearly impossible to hurt.

      Green Lantern – Can generate constructs of virtually anything he can think of. Probably the most vulnerable of the group next to Batman and he isn’t unique considering there are literally 1000′s of Green Lanterns.

      Now compare that to many of the Marvel characters and you will find they are much more, “human” with all sorts of flaws and not necessarily the best at what they do. It’s those tragic and often times glaring flaws that make them more interesting and easier to write for.

      So being the absolute best does come at a price.

      • Superman stories are always better when it shows his humanity or quest for it. Superman for all seasons is a good book and so is All Star superman. Both show Superman trying to live his life or trying to be a good person at the end of it all. Totally recommend.

        • I completely agree about stories that show Superman’s humanity. It is easy to tell a great story with him without having to fight a “huge villain.”

      • Thank you. This takes the time and puts into words what every rationalizing person has been trying to say when comparing the two. Batman could almost be Marvel-like except that whole “prep time”, and “Batbelt with every perfect gadget needed” cop outs that prelude the “Because I’m BATMAN” jokes. Likewise, Wolverine could ALMOST be DC, but he does take damage and has more conflict.

        I personally prefer Spider-man because he’s the only one whose powers only give him SOMEthing, and he has to make the most out of it to make it work, as opposed to his powers doing everything for him, like DC and even a lot of Marvel characters.

        But still – the humanity and non-absolutism is what draws me the most to my favorite characters, which are Marvel. The Batman I like best wouldn’t even really fit too well into Man of Steel’s universe, for instance, except as an intellectual and HIGHLY strategical character. The distilled, concentrated and only slightly elevated essence of Batman, really.

      • I wouldn’t say Luthor has a superior intellect… But he is definitely way more cunning! If you read superman Earth One you’ll find that Kal-El has a pretty sharp mind and all the knowledge of Krypton, and was able to solve a near impossible equation “in a flash”.

        • Not saying Superman is somehow stupid. He has an excellent intellect but it’s not quite at the level of Lex (or Batman). That’s part of what makes those characters what they are.

          Also:

          - “cunning” is a part of the intellectual equation. You have to have an extremely sharp mind to be cunning.

          - Having access to a Kryptonian super computer and gadgets doesn’t make you any smarter.

          - And characters are always at the writers whims. So if they want Superman to solve a nearly impossible equation, it will happen. It’s called a plot device and happens all the time.

    • I don’t mean to be a total prick,but ALL Super Hero Origins are ridiculous,I mean “Gamma Rays” do nothing,a Comet would fry you to crisp,a Radio Active Spider would only get you sick,once frozen you are dead,”Super Soldier Serum” would work but not to the expected super human level,A Human Vampire is real but they are simply called Goth people and lastly..there is no one living on or under the surface of the moon!What do all of these have in common??They are all featured in some hero’s ridiculous origins,we(MARVEL have not much differences with DC with the exception being DC treats their own as Gods unlike MARVEL(us)..we basically treat them like crap!Ha!

      • If anything, only a few X-Men would be realistic. Stimulants and animal gene-splicing in the future could feasibly let humans take on animal traits. To grossly oversimplify this, take:

        eagle’s eyes DNA –> super vision

        chameleon skin DNA –> change pigment colors

        salamander/starfish DNA –> improved regeneration

        salamander DNA –> wall-climbing abilities

        engineer glands to increase certain chemicals –> increase muscle density, intensify focus, increase growth, shorten reaction times.

        And et cetera. So while it’s true we can’t do all these things, I thin it’s truer if we say we can’t do all these things…yet.

    • Very good and has many improvements and exciting new.

    • Most people from team Marvel have no constructive argument, exactly like this comment.

  2. I don’t get how people complain about DC having “godlike” heroes & villains. Marvel has a ton of them too: Sentry, Vulcan, Thanos, Scarlet Witch, Juggernaut, Blue Marvel & Magneto to name a few.

    • Thor, Loki.. heck, asgards

    • I think they mean godlike in the sense that people have come to associate them with being limitless in their abilities. Even Batman. If you ask most people “who would win in a fight, Batman or X” they’ll say Batman because of his crazy- preparedness. Which is ridiculous in my opinion.

      • Its ridiculous but at the same time its what people love about him. That hes always a step ahead of everybody, that he is the personification of ingenuity and perceverance/determination. He overcomes all odds. People love that, id argue thats why hes one if not the most popular superhero out there

        • The reason why I didn’t like TDK, he was always one step behind everybody else:)

      • Ridiculous yes… but still the whole point of Batman nonetheless.

    • @ Warclown

      Galactus, Ego, The Stranger, Adam Warlock, Hyperion, The Living Tribunal…

      uh, Eternity….

      LOL. J/k I truly think if you weigh the numbers Marvel has more “gods” but DC’s main people are pretty much “gods”

    • I’ll give you Sentry and Thanos, but Thanos is the biggest threat in that universe and Sentry went crazy from his powers. Most likely if that power was even possible, you would go crazy.

  3. I like Whedon’s wit. I loved his Much Ado About Nothing. I know that’s Shakespeare’s wit…. but still…. Whedon gets it. His snappy clever dialog is what I enjoy the most about his output.

    Who would you rather hang out with? A grim unsmiling humorless Nolan superhero, or a funny, upbeat, quick witted Whedon hero?

    I know which way I lean.

    • Hang out with? Yeah, the funny guy is usually the one most people go with. Humor is a great icebreaker between 2 people.

      However, there are times when I would take a dead serious person over some wisecracking jokester.

    • I don’t know about you, but I don’t judge the superheroes I like based on their sense of humour. And considering the gravity of most of the situations presented in comics and movies, I’d prefer a serious guy handling business when the fate of the city/world/universe is at stake.

      • My point exactly.

    • @Heustis

      I’d take the Nolan hero, mainly because I could learn a lot from him and I’ve already spent most of my life cracking jokes and goofing off, I wouldn’t wanna spend much time with a Whedon hero that does the same because the intelligent conversation and serious discussion wouldn’t be there.

      • +1

        Whedon is there to have a great time, Nolan is there to see what’s going on after you’ve left the party.

      • But what if the hero was funny and quick witted and also happened to be highly skilled and able to save the world too? Cracking jokes does NOT equal goofing off. My family are all very witty people but they also take care of business at the same time.

        Save the world, save the girl, kill the bad guys while depressed = DC.

        Save the world, save the girl, kill the bad guys with wit = Marvel.

        • What you call wit i call cheese

    • Who says you gotta pick? You can for sure have more than one friend right?

      • Shh, don’t say that around these people. Even though it is great that each studio is putting out different movies, the haters gonna hate.

  4. Whedom all the way

  5. Although DC Heroes are much harder to translate into Movies, I love Both Studios different approach. Frankly, if they had the same approach, we would all be bored. Imagine eating the same food everyday? lol :)

    • That’s a great point I thinki agree

    • @Wanderer
      Thank you! Very well said:)

    • Diversity, my friend.

      It’s called diversity, and it’s a good thing.

      • I thought that was an old wooden ship…

        • Heh, mama like!

        • +2

  6. All of their arguments are absolute crap. ANY superhero or villain can have a realistic, darker movie set in the real world, if the WRITERS WRITE IT THAT WAY. Good writing, good director, realistic movie. Crap writing, constant explosions and a director that doesn’t care about aesthetics or realism, then you get the Avengers, Tranformers, etc. Avengers wasn’t bad for mindless entertainment value, but if you were going to do a cartoony, off the wall movie that didn’t need realism and could contain dozens of plot holes, why not just ANIMATE IT?

    • Care to explain what plot holes you’re talking about in Avengers? Also, Dark Knight Rises has plot holes so big you could drive the Tumbler through them. And I say that as a guy who LOVES Rises. It was my favourite movie last year, but it has a ton of holes in it.

      • These may not be Plot holes, but they are certain PIS and CIS, and are a little disturbing if one would think about it. First, Thor demonstrates the ability to destroy hundreds of alien soldiers with one lightning stroke. Later, he does not care to duplicate this feat, cuz, you know, fighting soldiers one on one with a hammer is beast. Furthermore, the Chitauri, with all their advanced tech, are being mass murdered by a common human named Black Widow, who bears only her Widows Bite and her guns, I mean seriously ???? Thirdly, the Helicarrier can become invisible, but doesn’t demonstrate any ability to mask the intense sound coming from it, nor to stop it from appearing on any radar. Hawkeye and his goons found it without any trouble! Who designed that thing? They should be fired! Fourthly, in the very first scene, Loki does not appear to give a poop what happens to Nick Fury. He doesn’t make any attempt to mind control him, cause, you know, controlling the director of the only organization that might try to stop you is way overrated, and killing him outright is overrated as well. Fifthly, all alien soldiers immediately die after the explosion on the Mothership… Clearly there was protocol saying that if the mothership explodes, stop all brain activity of soldiers… nothing could possibly go wrong. There are plenty more, but too plentiful to describe here. And the Batman “plot holes”, most of those are simply unresolved in the film. They could easily be explained, each in a minute or less, but the film chooses not to. In that case, we make up our own explanations… Not like anything in the film contradicts itself as much as in the Avengers.

        • I bet you anything you wouldn’t even say anything like that if it was Batman instead of Black Widow.

        • @LUTHOR

          Very well said my friend. +10 to you.

          Honestly, I liked The Avengers on my first viewing but walked out disappointed and still think it’s the weakest of the Marvel movies so far. I didn’t even anticipate it much despite my love of the rest of the Phase 1 movies before it because I’d been burned by Wrath Of The Titans the previous month and tried not to go in with massive excitement just in case it let me down (which it did and which Man Of Steel did yesterday).

          It’s rare that I go into a movie and come out not liking it much because I watch trailers, make a decision on whether I’d like the full movie or not and then go see those I know I’ll like.

          For example, 2012 I went to see Wrath Of The Titans, The Avengers, Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd and Life Of Pi. The only movies that disappointed me were Wrath and Avengers.

          This year, I’ve seen Evil Dead, Iron Man 3 and Man Of Steel and only MOS has disappointed me by becoming not as good as it could’ve been.

          I’d skip The Wolverine if it didn’t have a DOFP button scene attached because that looks like a “TV movie” (ie one that you’d be better off seeing for free on television rather than paying to see).

        • 1) it appears in the movie(s) that it takes thor several seconds to absorb the lightning, then direct it at a target. i think the aliens would prevent him from standing still like that at close range. as to why he didn’t just stay on top of the empire state building and keep “lighting the bastards up”, i cant say. maybe it drains his own strength to constantly do that.

          2)as for black widow mass murdering, i think she got 4 or 5,before cap and hawkeye show up, hardly a mass, but, she is a bit of a martial arts expert and all, and the aliens were not invulnerable obviously.

          3) i will have to watch it again (yay!) but i seem to think that it got quieter when it became invisible. as for hawkeye finding it, they were in a stolen quin-jet, prolly had a beacon to the mothership, per se, so there you go.

          4) loki knows a strong opponent, thats why he took out the agents first, turned the survivors, and really want in close enough proximity to fury to change him.

          5) i’ll give you that one. hell, even whedon will give you that one, if you listen to the commentary. but, i did like his rationalization of it, that the avengers (or military) would be cleaning up for hours all of the surviving chitauri. in the scene where one of them pulls off it’s mask, it seems like it’s electrified, so maybe they just shorted out while not recieving the signal from the mothership. i don’t know.

          TDKR doenst really have plot hole, but does have some pretty weak/illogical storytelling, as well, i.e., bane and co hiding motorcycles in the stock exchange apparently the night before the big takeover, then do this big holdup, the result of which is to piss away bruces ENTIRE fortune, and the trade is allowed to go thru. yes, i know fox tells bruce he can “maybe” claim fraud, but the fact that a genius billionaire businessman would just suddenly do whatever unexplained stock trade thing, all during a terrorist takeover doesnt raise a red flag with the s.e.c.? there are many more, just see the HISHE, or “everything wrong”…clips on youtube for more.

          sorry about the novel

      • I am not defending the opinion of the guy above but there is some plot holes in the Avengers, or at least weakness in script details.
        Some are small “nitpicks”, others are more “legitimate” concerns:

        1) The Tesserect is never fully revealed to be how powerful or important in the grand scheme of things after two films.

        2) If Loki wanted to rule over Asgard, why settle for Earth? Just to taunt his brother? Why not take the cube transport himself with it to his masters, then take the army to Asgard and get back at his family there.

        3) Hawkeye is corrupted by Loki’s staff which works by tapping onto the chest in which lies the heart. This fails to work on Iron Man for some reason. Hawkeye is freed with a blow to the head?

        4) Steve Rogers getting used to not only a different time but frankly really weird events and people is reduced to an occasional joke.

        5) Loki had no real objective in getting captured. Sure it was to get Banner turn into the Hulk and divide a team which presumably Hawkeye perceived to be Fury’s plan but honestly this could have done in a variety of other ways (umm Tesserect is in his possession let’s see that higher power he is talking about)

        6) Thor comes back!- and totally negates the ending of his first film. Shouldn’t there be some consequence to using “dark magic” to transport him to Earth? I mean it may sound cliched but why call it dark if there is no consequence or negative attachments?

        7) Aliens and ships all go down after nuclear missile hits what we assume to be the mother ship. Why? We can debate this all day but there is no on screen explanation.

        There can be arguably more. Some of these points end up not really hurting the film’s integrity or overall important, but as other film’s The Avengers is not perfect despite its popularity and success. Some of these points can also be answered in some of the Phase 2 films, but I am an old fashioned believer that certain details should be given in the film to allow the film to stand strong on its merits without overly-relying on another film for information.

        • @ The Archer

          1. We saw a small taste of what the Tesserect would do after it demolished SHEILD’S HQ on the ground. A very small taste as SHEILD was still studying it’s power.

          2. Earth would be a more easy target for Loki to rule over than Asgard & retrieve the Tesserect for Thanos. He could tend to Asgard later most likely if he didn’t held up his end of the deal. Even The Other made threats to Loki if he did not deliever after he has their army, there would be no place he could hide from them.

          3. Reason why Loki’s staff failed on Stark was simply because it touched his Arc Reactor, not his human heart.

          4.Steve Rogers easily adapted to what was goin at the time because he was first spent time punching bags to get himself to the feel of fighting. And because he’s been frozen asleep for 70 years, obviously he didn’t forget his combat training, moves. Sure Loki had the upper hand on him but he never was gonna quit.

          5. Loki got himself caught to divide the team up, no doubt. Just as precaution. Remebering what Stark said to Rogers how main showing would be in NY when Loki’s Army arrives & no-one strong enough to challenge them. Loki didn’t use the Tesserect on the helicarrier because of how unstable it is. It’s why they made the machine on top of Stark Tower to use for Loki’s Army to arrive from. So it would be stable.

          6. Maybe well find out in Thor 2 to that question.

          7. My guess is with the mother ship blown up & the connection lost in deep space. Their life cycle must would of shut down. That’s good question. But no film is 100% perfect. Especially CBM.

          • The only problem i had with the avengers story wise was the odd convienence that a man under loki’s control programmed the wormhole machine thing to be shut off with loki’s sceptor which A. He knew nothing about and never touched/studied it. But many films have plot conveniences

            • There are theories concerning that. Either Selvig was just brilliant like that and had enough control over himself despite Loki’s influence to do something under Loki’s nose.

              OR

              Loki wanted to have a fail-safe himself in case something went wrong with the Tesseract. I mean, he had the staff right? So he would have been the only one with the power to shut it off (in case of emergency).

              Only villains who don’t mind going out in a blaze of glory don’t have ways to shut down their bombs/doom machines/don’t have the antidote etc.

              Loki is not someone who would “die for the cause”. Even Coulson noticed that he “lacked conviction”. So it would make sense if Loki wanted to have that fail-safe for himself, to have control over the portal.

              I think the second theory is more likely.

              • Again even if that was the case when he comes too he wouldnt remember that. Hawkeye was pretty blank afterwards. There is no theory its a plot convenience people who try to make theories out of it are just covering it up

                • Why wouldn’t he remember? Hawkeye wasn’t blank he remembered everything he did. He even remembered when Lokis plan was going to happen.

            • Selvig was purposely there to develop the porthole mechanism. He, like Banner and Cap saw there was a similar energy signature between the scepter and the Tesseract. Banner states this in the lab with his tracker and Cap says it at the meeting table.
              There are far less holes in the Avengers than what people think. It has pretty sophisticated/ subtle dialog and acting throughout the storyline tying it all together.

    • You don’t have to like Whedon (or Avengers), but downgrading his credibility and talent, by saying he’s a crap writer is just disrespectful. He doesn’t not care about realism, this is just his approach to comic book movies. He’s more of a fantasy/sci fi guy, anyway. Not EVERYTHING has to be dark and realistic; if it were, I’d be bored as hell.

    • @raymond tillson. You don’t have to like Whedon (or Avengers), but downgrading his credibility and talent, by saying he’s a crap writer is just disrespectful. He doesn’t not care about realism, this is just his approach to comic book movies. He’s more of a fantasy/sci fi guy, anyway. Not EVERYTHING has to be dark and realistic; if it were, I’d be bored as hell.

    • Your idea of animation is heartbreaking. I’m sure Miyazaki wouldn’t agree:)

  7. Though I am not a fan of Whedon works I love the way he talks to the press. He never throws a rival company or anyone under the bus, he takes the job seriously.

    • He takes subtle stabs at Dc that seem harmless but when you think about it, it would piss you off if some said it to you. Like what he said about Batman being a marvel character seemingly harmless but when you really think about it that’s insulting and then here calling Dc characters amorphous that is a straight insult. It’s funny that Marvel was going down the same path as Dc back in 1938 with strong characters without much development ,Captain America, Thank god they got stan lee who by the way has gone on record at comic-con saying how much he dislikes superman and doesn’t make sense at all IN COMIC BOOKS. Marvel looks down their nose at Dc plain and simple.

      • Are you saying DC heroes have no development?

      • If true – very unfortunate. Hope its not. I love both group of heroes and only want to be entertained.

      • Screw Stan Lee. He’s the biggest joke in comics. Taking credit for everything yea right excelsior my bag Stan. Kirby, finger, ditko, eisner, all of those artist are the ones who deserve credit.

        • @ Cyborg

          How is Stan Lee a joke if he co-created some Marvel’s greatest heroes? If you think he’s a joke it would be fair for me to say its a joke that Christopher Nolan had wished Batman & the property was something he could of created if he could. Stan Lee is among the best. But everyone has their opinion.

      • DC is probably amorphous in his eyes because they have characters that can make anything they want (as long as its green) with a power ring.

        • Marvel has Cerise:)

  8. I favor Whedon’s way. I agree with his statement about DC characters are harder to adapt on film, especially Realisticlly as Nolan’s Batman & Snyder’s Superman films. And the more you expand the DC universe like that with it’s characters, the harder it will get with that same real- world as possible tone.

    This is a good article & Whedon clearly makes the point between what the studios are doin & plan to do. I praise Whedon to sticking with his guns like Marvel has been doin aswell because it’s been paying off well.

    It’s a shame WB/DC didn’t take Whedon’s WonderWoman scripts into more consideration, they might of had something & been further alone. Obviously their lost.

    • Further along.

    • I personally would love to get my hands on Whedon’s script, just to see what he was thinking.

      Alas, we’ll never know.

  9. Anyone else think that the title and article is nothing more than a trap to start another debate between Marvel/DC/Nolan fanboys?

    Regardless, I’m not falling for it. Assuming it were true, it would bring more views and posts to their site, which is good for ScreenRant, I guess.

    • Totally. DC and Marvel fans probably make up a vast percentage of Screenrants fanbase. They gotta stir the pot sometimes.

      • * Ooh, and the debates are fun to read sometimes.

  10. Aquaman sucks. That is all.

    P.S. So does Wonder Woman.

    • Aquaman is badass

      • Aquaman IS badass.
        Too bad everything good about him was ripped from Namor or Thor.

      • Aquaman can suck because his powers vary from place to place. Near an ocean, sure he can summon Ctulthu. In a desert, city, or space? Not so much.

  11. I lean more towards Whedon’s approach generally. I found the batman movies rying too hard to make everyone psychotic and messed up. I will say that Green lantern, however, could have used a bit more seriousness (maybe alot, altho I liked the movie). Not darker, just more serious and not so much “gee-whizzie” or like Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure at times. If they ever make The Flash, which I really hope they do (Barry Allen, please!), I hope it is a bit more serious than Green Lantern.

  12. SO happy both exist!!! Though I love re-watching Nolan more because I feel like every time I watch I’m getting something new from it, Whedon is just so darn fun!

  13. Its hard to compare Joss with Chris. They both have different styles and perception when it comes to storytelling. The only thing they have similar is that they are great writers and director. They bring new light to the film industry, and are willing to introduce something to Hollywood that would be considered out right audacious. I enjoy both directors take and vision on whatever movie they do. I believe Nolan’s Batman was dark because Bruce Wayne/ Batman is a dark character. Pick up a Batman comic and that is what your going to get. That character surrounds himself in a dark atmosphere, and Nolan did a good job portraying the vigilante. Joss did the same with the Avengers. And I am not surprised by Joss, him being a fan, and a comic book writer himself, he was the perfect director for the job. They both are talented and would always pay to see their films.

    • VERY WELL SAID! I don’t know why EVERYTHING on this site needs to be a DC Vs. Marvel thing! I LOVED the Avengers I liked the Dark Knight Trilogy, I LOVED Man of Steel! which is better? They are both great sometimes some characters NEED the seriousness and some NEED the humor, that is just the way it is, I can guarantee that there are DC characters that are Humorous and light heartedness and Vice Versa It would be great to see a Marvel portrayed like the DC characters have in a comic book kinda way (if that makes any sense)and same for the DC characters being portrayed like Marvels have (but not in a GL kinda way (if that makes any sense)

      Im sure ppl will pick me apart but some of you will understand what Im saying!

  14. To be intrigued and emotionally challenged I’ll take Nolan. To be amazed and emotionally uplifted I’ll take Whedon. Just hope none of them goes overboard with each’s vision. Too bitter, you vomit. Too sweet, you throw up too. The trick is in the balance. Which is heck. That’s why you and I are not in the movie-making business. IMHO, DC characters are harder to bring inline with 21st century sophistication and expectations. That’s why – and this had been said countless times – the Nolan way is the best for DC heroes.
    Hats off to both of them for successfully transforming comic books into movies.

  15. “[I'm] Tony Stark desperately trying to be Steve Rogers.” <–this is the perfect way of putting it.

  16. Love both Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan. But prefer how the Marvel movies have been done. That final battle in The Avengers reminded me when I was 8 and playing with my action figures and having these grand battles in my bedroom floor. It was just great fun.

    However Inception blew my mind, like very few movies have.

    • I enjoy TDK trilogy a lot, and loved Nolan’s earlier films, but I didn’t see anything wonderful in Inception. Lots of great CGI and that seemed to be about it. Everyone kept saying how smart it was. It wasn’t *that* smart. Maybe I was expecting too much.

      • Its original there is no other film in existance like it

        • um…the matrix. same basic concept, i.e., it’s all in your head.

          • The Matrix and Inception are completely different films and ideas the key word you used was basic, when neither film were near basic. To deny the originality of Inception is clearly a biased remark towards a director you dislike. I don’t even like Inception that much, but it gets all the credit in the world for being incredibly different from anything ive seen.

            • @trey
              i didn’t say the films were basic, i meant the DNA, if you will, of both films were similar; a protagonist, plus a supporting team, can manipulate the altered reality of a dream world.
              even further back in history, in ’83 & ’84 were the films brainstorm and dreamscape, and i submit to you that inception is more of an amalgamation of those 2 films. if you have never seen either of these films, i encourage you to, then tell me that inception is different. i will give you that the f/x for inception blows away any of the f/x from the above mentioned films, but thats about the only part that is different. does this mean i don’t like nolans work? absolutely not. BB and TDK are 2 of my favorite films. i thought inception was a good film also, but it is not, IMO (lest anyone think i am trying to assert my opinion as fact), something that has never been done before, but he did do it better.
              i have no bias for or against any director. if i like their work, i like their work.

              • Dude, everyone knows Inceptions was ripped straight from a Duck Tales episode. Scrooge McDuck is OG gangsta!!

            • I think Nolan took his idea for Inception from this movie:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paprika_%282006_film%29

              “Paprika (パプリカ Papurika?) is a 2006 Japanese animated film co-written and directed by Satoshi Kon, based on Yasutaka Tsutsui’s 1993 novel of the same name, about a research psychologist who uses a device that permits therapists to help patients by entering their dreams. It is Kon’s fourth and final feature film before his death in 2010.”

  17. Everyone (and by everyone I mean the fangirls on tumblr) is always complaining about how Whedon is the Grim Reaper and he’s ‘always killing characters’. (This next part might be spoilers for Avengers and IM3) I’m sorry, but where in the Marvel universe has a prominent character been killed off? I was really hoping/expecting Happy to die in IM3, which didn’t happen. I knew that Coulson wasn’t dead in the Avengers, that was completely obvious. So what exactly gives people the notion that Whedon or any other writers in Marvel history is a ‘serial killer of characters’. Sorry, rant over,

    • This is because of how many characters Whedon has killed in his other shows he makes. He just has a reputation of killing characters fans love. For example, if he started working on The Walking Dead, he’d probably kill Daryl. Not saying this against the guy (come on, he made Avengers!) but it’s just something he’s done in his other shows.

      • Thank you for clarifying because I never understood and it honestly was starting to make me angry! Haha

  18. From Batman:TAS – JLU. That’s the kind of universe in live-action id like to see from WB/DC. I know it was animation but the shows came together so well. Superman:TAS finale was awesome aswell as the finale to JLU. Loved their version of Cadmus story Arc, creating villains for Superman just incase he turned on the human race like Volcana, a version of Powergirl, The Ultimates, even Doomsday. Not just Superman but eventually the whole Justice League. I even thought their version of Toyman was creepy than the average comic book version because of the mask alone & the voice,lol.

    And after seeing the episode Absolute Justice on Smallville, I figure WB/DC could make a shared universe of characters like those seen such as Hawkman, Dr.Fate,Star Girl,Sandman & Martian Manhunter. costumes might need little touching up. but very little as they looked good on the show.

    • +1

  19. I don’t think Joss was joking this time when he said he’s going to kill everyone. Thanos killed just about everyone at one point, just to please Death. Joss may actually take that route.

  20. The main problem i have with Avengers is that they almost never took anything seriously.The destruction of New York and these other “dark” moments were just reduced to jokes by the end

    • That’s because the aliens only attacked parked cars and abandoned buildings.

      • I recall Hulk rushing through a building that had people in it to tackle down one of the giant aliens. Not to mention Capt. America rescued people held hostage in another building from the Chitari. Every CBM movie is bound to have parked cars flipped over by force or someone. People claimed No-one was in parked cars in TDK when Batman was on his Batpod but you clearly say two kids in a car see the explosions made by it and how a guy noticed the Batpod clipped off his driver’s side mirror.

    • How were they reduced to jokes? I didn’t see any jokes when Coulson died? That scene was so emotionally heavy and dark you could cut the tension with a knife. the scene where Tony says we are not soldiers to Cap didn’t have any jokes in it either. And the montage at the end clearly shows people died. It really pisses me off when people think the Avengers isn’t serious because it has humor in it.

      • Coulson gets stabbed, thor screams 2 minutes later he shoots loki and his exact words “so thats what that does” cheap poor joke ruined the emotion

        • Is that seriously what you think is a joke? wow I have no words for how sorry I feel for you.

          • Its a none emotional line that cause laughter amongst the crowd. So its 1. A joke or 2. A cheesy line either way it takes away all emotion towards his death or lack of

            • So Dark Knight Rises wasn’t serious because Batman said So that’s what it feels like when Catwoman disappears? Or when He quotes Banes you have my permission to die during their fight?

              • The scene where he says so thats what that feels like was indeed a joke, when bane says you have my permission to die was not a joke, nobody laughed. The
                Coulsan scene would be like if batman began to fly away with the bomb and came back and said “i forgot my wallet”… its a joke that is poor and undercuts whatever emotion was being built

              • and why in the F does he use his gargled-broken-glass voice when talking to himself? that was dumb.

                • I agree it was pretty stupid but it does make sense. Its psychological he is Batman, he carries this persona as if it’s a completely different person and to jump out of character would be off. I just don’t think the gargled voice works for that particular joke. I prefer I’m not wearing hockey pads

  21. hey marvel boys, you watch my movie yet? go watch it, we want your money

  22. Nolan’s by far.

  23. I don’t think Joss was joking this time when he said he’s going to kill everyone. Thanos killed just about everyone at one point, just to please Death. Joss may actually take that route.

  24. Let’s get Nolan and Whedon to work together on one project. Imagine the possibilities. It wouldn’t even have to be a comic book property.

    • Wouldn’t work.

      2 completely opposing styles.

  25. Joss Whdeon is a great writer, I love his funny one lines and in my opinion his work on Buffy, Angel, firefly was fantastic. He killed off a lot of characters and ruined my favorite characters on several occasions, so i kind of have a personal vendetta with him, because he doesn’t know when to stop. But I don’t think he would be given the liberty to do as he wishes because they are not his own characters.
    I don’t think he is the man for a DC movie although i was very excited about the wonder woman project. DC is not as easy to adapt because the characters and stories are much more complex than marvel. I find those who trash the DC universe very naive and probably have never read a DC comic in their lives.

    • Personally, I’d love to see Whedon return to his roots, and create some new properties.

      That’s where he’s at his best. He did good work on the Avengers, but it is a Marvel owned property, and his hands are tied in certain respects. Unleash the beast, I say.

  26. “In the third one, I really am going to kill everyone.”
    Looking really far ahead, but does this eliminate a possibility of a phase 4??

    • He never said he wouldn’t bring them back to life =D

    • It would be nice if they did have an end game. But no doubt they’ll milk it until it becomes piss poor, then cancel it.

      • True that. I would rather it come to a satisfying, conclusive ending than dragging it out and ruining the whole saga. By the time phase 4 comes around, superhero movies might be all played out anyway!

  27. DC characters are not harder to do they just need to be thought out and well written for instance to do a great wonder woman you do not just throw her into the city like every other hero you start with her island and the creatures in it and throw humans into it and have her have to save them toward the end have her come to the city with the sequel have her learning about city life and how different it is and then have her become the hero of the city somehow.things have to be thought out not just lets have huge action scene and the same ole same ole.for avengers 2 i want to see The Leader create an army and hulk fight them as he turns into banner he defeats Leader with intelligence, and maybe have Ultron take on the Group. i also want to see She-Hulk,Warbird,Waspand Giantman.

  28. All I have to say is this:

    IMO, MOS turned out to be a huge success. It made Avengers look weak, weaker than I already thought it was. WB does not have to worry for a while now. If if anything leading up to Avengers 2 lacks, and even Avengers 2 itself, you’re going to have to sit down and try harder. IM3 was Marvel not caring about the outcome, they knew it wouldn’t affect their future financially. If Thor and Cap do that too, good luck trying to “James Bond” your way out of that mess.

    • Unfortunately for you that’s your opinion and WB and Dc are still on red alert because of The Avengers success. To put it bluntly they don’t care about your opinion. No matter how many times you say MOS is better than IM3 and Avengers it doesn’t make it true. So yeah they have to worry because they have one film out and have announced a sequel while Marvel has 6 out and 7 more announced and on their way to the big screen.

      • You make it sound like I’m a DC fanboy. Up until Avengers, I quite enjoyed Phase 1. Then Avengers came…and I felt like it was an extreme letdown. So I figured IM3 might’ve been a chance to get that bad taste out of my mouth. It only made it worse.

        I look at Marvel like a really fancy restaurant: the first meal you have is amazing and worth the money you pay for it. So you come back in a couple of weeks, try something else, and it’s just about as good as your first meal. The cycle runs for about 3 months. One day you come in and decide to have a full dinner with everything you’ve tried. You invite your friends and family because of it’s reputation. Everything goes well…until about halfway through it all, something doesn’t seem right. That taste you had for everything seems…bitter. Others don’t seem to mind except for a few, who look towards you with uncertainty. The meal is finished and you aren’t satisfied. So you think, “Maybe it wasn’t their night.” and brush it off. You wait about one month. Come back to see an advanced version of your first meal. This delights you. So you order it and take a bite. It’s raw. Tough. Hard to swallow. Even more bitter than the mix of everything they have. You look around to others eating the same meal. Some can’t stomach it. Some get up and leave. Others keep their guests because after all, the reputation must mean something. You get up, leave, and don’t consider coming back.

        I don’t know if DC will have the same fate, but MOS is enough of a first meal to make me believe it won’t as of right now.

        • What Cinema did you go to? The Majority of people loved the Avengers. That’s why its now an intricate part of pop culture just like Star Wars. If you say Puny God people are gonna get what you mean. If Avengers was bad it wouldn’t have multiple fans and fandoms and it wouldn’t be as memorable or part of our current pop culture today.

          • Comparing the avengers to star wars is the biggest joke ive ever heard. Seriously star wars?! The film thst defined and shaped blockbusters, it was the biggest and most creative original thing to hit the silver screen. You want o compare a funny pretty great superhero film to one of the most influencial and memerable trilogies of all time? Please. The avengers is a superhero film that will be remembered for making a lot of money thats all. Star wars is still relevent since 1977 i doubt the avengers will meet that length cause not many do

            • Wow calm down Star Wars fanboy alert. Sheesh you make it sound like a said the Bible was fiction. So sorry to poke holes in your glorious opinion but nowadays The Avengers is the biggest film around and its gearing up for a sequel. Think how many people are gonna go watch it. And BTW money talks what the hell do you think people use to buy tickets? Clam shells? The reason a film will make a lot of money is if people go to watch it. The Avengers set the bar and opened a whole new world of opportunities. Just watch we’ll have team movie after team movie. Xmen are already trying to replicate the formula so are DC. Get back to me when we are on avengers 5 and Justice League 3.

              • Your acting as if the avengers is the highest grossing film of all time. Its in 3rd which is extremely impressive no doubt. But its still a ways behind avatar, and slightly behind titanic

          • Avengers is average. For what they did with those characters, it was only praised because:

            1.) It’s a crossover. We don’t get a lot of those and whenever we do, people go nuts. “Freddy vs. Jason” is meh, but people love it because something like that had never happened before.

            2.) RDJ. This was also my issue with IM3 and I’m going to compare it to Daniel Craig in “Quantum of Solace”: Just because the main actor you came to see does a brilliant job in the film, and he was praised, does not make the film good. Both IM3 and QOS raked in a lot of money. Why? RDJ and Daniel Craig. And who did they focus on most in Avengers? RDJ.

            3.) Seeing Hulk smash things. It distracts people from some big issues with Hulk. In the special features for Avengers, Scarlett sells the most BS thing I have ever heard in regards to Avengers Hulk: that the transformation is more painful and different looking than any other version we’ve ever seen. I believe that goes to Norton. Hell, even Bana made it look more painful. But oh well, ME LIKEY SMASH STUFF!

            I can go on and on, but I won’t

            • So you suddenly speak for the whole of the population who saw Avengers and how they reacted to it? Wheres your proof? I’ve got mine its all over the internet.

              • That’s what you turn to? I’m talking to a brick wall. You bring up no solid defense. I’m not stating facts, but I am using basic logic. If people don’t care about what I think, why should I care about what you think? Why does this site even exist?

                You’re really not going to challenge my thoughts? Here is what you are doing: you are talking, but you are not saying anything.

                • you speak for the minority. Just saying. :-/

                  • Go minority

  29. The thing is that marvel caracters was created after DC caracters. So marvel was able to learn from DC’s mistakes.
    But I have to agree with Zack Snyder when he says that DC heroes represent more and are more noble than marvel heroes.

Be Social, Follow Us!!