I see exactly what you are saying but I think The Avengers proves he can handle unlimited resources. Now he gets those same resources but for a blank slate (in theory).
Not to highjack this thread, but: Thanks for linking to this, it was a great read. A few favorite quotes:
Yes, after Iron Man I was willing to give Jon Favreau a lot of leeway - but even with that and even though I love Christmas movies and even with Reese Witherspoon, I had absolutely no desire to see *Four Christmases *(wait, did he direct that?)
Ha! But for everyone else, I’ll point out that, while this is a great game, the spaceship setting is really not that important, except for the final puzzle. The rest of it could have been any futuristic location. And it’s not as if the final puzzle was particularly good.
I’ve been curious about something… Joss wrote two of the most insanely popular teen-to-college-age TV series of all time (note, however, that he only directed about 1/10 of the episodes). Anyway. He then, at the height of his TV writing career, went to the networks and said “Hey, I’ve got an idea for a new teen-college age TV series and I’m going to call it Firefly”, and they didn’t just start writing blank checks, and instead hamstrung him at every creative turn (they broadcast the pilot last? WTF with that?) and eventually cut him off at the knees mid-season.
Why do we think that directing one (more) good movie is going to catapult him to mega-blockbuster success?
Because this particular good movie is in fact a very, very good movie, and it looks like it will make $200 million dollars its opening weekend here in the US. Money talks, especially in Hollywood.
I wouldn’t consider Buffy or Angel to be “insanely popular.” They were very successful basic cable TV shows, but they were still basic cable TV shows, and there were several other basic cable shows targeting the same demographic that were equally or more successful than Whedon’s shows. Probably more profitable, too, since stuff like Dawson’s Creek doesn’t need a particularly huge fx or stunt budget.
Because instead of your made-up scenario, what he actually did is say “Hey, I’ve got an idea for a space western TV series and I’m going to call it Firefly.” And then the executives wrote him a big check for the pilot, which they didn’t like, and then continued to write him smaller and smaller checks until they told him he was cancelled.
“Insanely popular”? BtVS and ATS may have been beloved by their fans and by plenty of critics, but not that many people actually watched them. How good do you think their ratings were?
Mmmkay, so my my own personal perception of the quality of Angel and Buffy seem to have biased my initial question, but the bottom line question still stands: He made two TV series that were popular in certain circles (but apparently not insanely so), another TV series that was popular enough that, even though it was cancelled, they ended up making a movie about it, and another TV series that went two seasons… in all cases, he’s primarily the WRITER, not the director: He directed 7 episodes of Angel. 22 episodes of Buffy. THREE episodes of Dollhouse.
How do we get from that to “The best part of the fact that The Avengers is about to make a Gazillion dollars is that Joss Whedon is going to be able to green light absolutely anything he wants to”?
You know the Hollywood phrase, “You’re only as big as your last hit”? Well, Joss Whedon’s last hit just made $200 million in its opening weekend.
Some if it is where the heart of creative control resides. For movies, a lot of the creative control resides with the director. Sure, the writer creates the script, and the actors contribute to the characterizations, but the director shapes those elements to tell the story he wants to tell the way he wants to tell it. For an example, read the description about Alien IV above. Look at what Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels - he has Natalie Portman getting criticised for being “wooden” and unconvincing - NATALIE PORTMAN! And Ewan McGregor.
Also look at exposure. Blockbuster movies are on an entirely different level than TV shows running on secondhand networks. (Yeah, Fox is now on equal footing with “the big three”, but it wasn’t the case when Buffy came out.) Plus, it’s largely about the money in Hollywood.
So Joss was Director on a blockbuster that is hugely successful, that translates into a lot of cred with the studios. That typically translates into the director getting to choose his next project and getting lots of leeway with it.
Dude, Firefly was on FOX. Whole different universe from Hollywood.
Joss is going to have to show he’s got length, but Cabin In the Woods and Avengers in simultaneous release and good buzz/box office will cut him a lot of slack on his next project. If nothing else, he’ll get a shot at Avengers 2 and a few other Marvel projects. Then with more of a track record he can green-light anything he wants.
Personally, I think he’ll concentrate on smaller, more character-driven stuff that he also writes in between the Marvel goodness.
Heck, if he makes enough money, when a studio tells him no he’ll be able to start his own studio to say yes.
The Avengers made $200 million. I have nothing against Joss Whedon, but let’s get real here. I would be surprised if 1/20 of the audience of this movie knows who directed or wrote it. Even fewer care that he wrote it even if they know it was him. That said, the movie was good. But I don’t think it was good in a way that many other recent action movies have been. Generally, Hollywood has been getting better at putting these franchises in capable hands. But just scanning rotten tomatoes, Star Trek, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, and the Dark Knight had as good or better reviews, and also made a shit-ton of money. I don’t think that it’s really fair to give Whedon anymore credit than say, Alex Kurtzman, the writer of Star Trek. I doubt that guy can get anything he wants made.
Also, consider that guys like George Lucas and Tyler Perry cannot greenlight a Hollywood pictures despite the fact that they have both made millions of dollars, and had tons of success. The only reason Perry can get stuff on air is because he can produce it himself. Keep in mind that Buffy, Whedon’s most popular show, was never ranked better than #120 of, at the time, 157 network shows in terms of ratings. It was behind well-regarded show we all remember so fondly like, The Geena Davis Show, The Michael Richards Show, and World’s Most Amazing Videos. That’s not to say they are better qualitatively, but when a guy’s “hits” are not particularly commercially successful, I wonder how you figure people should be tripping over themselves to give him money.
Lucas had trouble getting $58 million to get Redtails made. Even after you consider than many of Lucas’ recent movies have been critically panned, they almost always make a staggering amount of money.
After Titanic, James Cameron still had studios hedging on the budget for Avatar. In fact, Cameron had to shell out millions of his own money upfront to work on some of the tech stuff that went into the movie.
Paramount didn’t want to green light Anchorman 2 for Will Ferrell and Adam McKay. Despite that their movies have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, that they have a TV show and a successful website, that the movie is a sequel with a built-in fan base, that the original grossed about $60 million more than it cost to produce, that it stars Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and a bunch of other successful stars, and that Judd Apatow is involved. Even now, the budget will “only” be $50 million. To quote McKay in this interview:
Nowadays, it seems a good track record will get your foot in the door, but it doesn’t mean they will throw money at you for any idea that they don’t feel will make them money.
The reality is that Whedon could parlay this into more jobs where there is a built-in fan base, but no studio is gonna green light is next wacky vampire werewolf western just because he didn’t steer the Avengers into a ditch. To some extent, that is the downside of doing a movie like this. You don’t get as much credit for coaching the winning team if you have the best players. But, if you lose, you are fucked. As much as I think TV is better when you have creative people Whedon given more leeway to be creative, I recognize that Whedon’s work, from a business point of view, is probably not gonna make you a lot of money unless you can hopefully sell a bunch of DVDs down the line.
Avengers smashesopening weekend records and becomes the first film to take 200 million on its opening US weekend. It was always likely to get the record but 200 is still astonishing. Now we have to see how far it goes in the US all-time record. I think it will definitely beat Dark Knight Returns at 533. Avatar at 760 is probably too much. Titantic at 658 (padded by the recent re-release) is possible.
And yeah I hope it gives Whedon more freedom to do interesting projects. I never got into Buffy but I really enjoyed Firefly and while it appears a return is not possible I would like to see Whedon do another TV show in space.
Actually my dream project would be a Whedon show in the Star Wars universe about the early adventures of Han and Lando. A movie in the same setting would be great as well and would probably make a lot of money. After Avengers I don’t think any movie studio would hesitate to greenlight such a project; the only hurdle is George Lucas’s ego.
These are valid points. Clearly Whedon isn’t going to be able to make anything he wants. However he is going to have a lot more leeway in pitching projects and getting producers to listen. He proved that he can handle a mega-budget movie and make a gazillion dollars. He created one of the greatest action climaxes in movie history. Whedon has entered the league of major Hollywood directors for the first time.
Since you mentioned Star Trek, we might compare Whedon to JJ Abrams who also started off by creating TV shows. Abrams directed two franchise films: MI3 and Star Trek and then got to make a more personal film: Super 8. I don’t know whether the success of Star Trek contributed directly to Super 8 getting the go-ahead but it surely didn’t hurt.
I would imagine he already had people who will listen to his ideas. He was not an unknown, so it’s not as if a anyone in power would get a script and not know who he is. But TPTB, especially in network TV, want shows that theoretically appeal to a broad audience. Whedon’s stuff generally doesn’t. Unless he is willing to change that, I don’t any studio exec is just gonna throw money at him because people like what he did with The Avengers.
He did. But again, was there any chance this movie wouldn’t make a bunch of money? I think his stewardship, and fan loyalty probably added a few million, but it wasn’t the difference between bombing and success.
Huh? Maybe we watched different movies. Don’t get me wrong, it was a good movie, but I can think of at least a few recent “action” movies that were better overall, or had more impressive action sequences. I mentioned a few that were collectively rated better by both critics and fans, all released with the last few years. I think maybe you are a bit biased.
Is David Yates, director of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, a major Hollywood director? Maybe, but I don’t think you get credit for doing a good job with an established brand. That’s why Tim Cook will likely never be as revered as Steve Jobs was. It Whedon’s next unique project is a big commercial success, then you might be right.
JJ Abrams made SUCCESSFUL TV shows. Furthermore, Super 8 relied on a far more reliable premise than many Whedon projects. The best I can think that Whedon could hope for is a situation like Tarantino seems to have where his movies are usually backed by the same studio (Miramax/Weinstein), who seem to have great confidence in his overall ability. While I don’t think Tarantino will ever get huge budgets, I think he gets a lot of creative control to make his types of movies.
Again I go back to the Inception: Dark Knight analogy.
I am reasonably sure Whedon’s agent’s phone has been ringing off the hook for the last 48 hours. He’s going to be offered a blank slate, you’ll see.
To go back to another example someone mentioned: Favreau got the same chance and he used it on Cowboys and Aliens which unfortunately tanked (I liked it).
Oh, HELL yes! Points to “John Carter of Mars.” I’ll grant you the Wheedonistas have a ton of bias, but if you don’t think the mega-success of the Avengers will give Wheedon huge amounts of cred with the studios, I would say you are wrong.