If it's crap ... We'll tell you
John Derp posted a status
ValerieRaptor joined VinnyLT's group
ValerieRaptor posted a status
EMZreviews posted a blog post
MavenCree posted a status
EMZreviews joined Donwun's groupSuperhero Stories Assemble!"

Source: Whedonesque
Director and object of geek affection Joss Whedon recently posted the announcement that production on 'The Avengers' has officially begun. In typical Whedon fashion, he announced the good news on his website Whedonesque:
Hi Pumpkins, joss here.
[Monday] we start shooting (I THINK I'm legally permitted to say that). Day one. That's right. We'll be shooting the pivotal death/betrayal/product placement/setting up the sequel/coming out scene, at the following address:
[Marvel Lawyers rush in, take Joss's keyboard, blowtorch a picture of his family like in "Stormy Monday", drink his milkshake, leave the seat up, fluff his pillows, violently unfluff his pillows, leave]
Went too far. My bad. Anyhoo, it should be a fun day, followed by the eighty thousand other fun days it will take to finish this. I'll be checking in from time to time, if there's news or I crave attention (i.e. am awake) . None of it will be Avengers news -- I have some very denty pillows to remind of that -- but I may have tidbits. (They're not about Firefly. I should say that up front, if only to protect Sis Mo from the HATORZ.)
So wish me luck. DO IT! LUCK! NOW! I'm off to finish some Buffy pages, and then figure out what the movie is about already. I'm pretty sure it's about the Justice League [Marvel Lawyers re-enter, unspeakability occurs] or possibly something else. I'll get it. I've been looking forward to this. For about 46 years.
-j.
And, to celebrate this momentous comic book movie occasion, Marvel released the very first teaser picture of screen-printed chairs and the S.H.I.E.L.D. logo:
Production began in New Mexico, but will eventually move on to Cleveland, and then New York City to film. The full cast was once again announced, along with some story details and *spoilers* (so be warned). Along with the typical cast we've already assumed would be in the film (Nick Fury, the SHIELD agents, Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow, etc), it was also revealed that actor Tom Hiddleston (Loki), and Stellan Skarsgård (Professor Selvig from 'Thor') will appear in the film. Along with rumors of them both being involved in the after-credits sequence for Thor (toldya spoilers), it's now very likely that Loki (in disguise as Selvig) will be a main antagonist in the film. The basic synopsis for 'The Avengers' reads:
It's probably a good bet that we will be seeing Loki as the puppet master behind a larger threat (possibly otherworldly in nature?) that will force Fury to put together the full team to combat it.

In an interview with MTV News, 'Captain America' actor Chris Evans talked extensively about the film and the character's upcoming portrayal in 'The Avengers':
Evans loves everything he's seen of 'Captain America: The First Avenger':
He also confirms that there will be initial friction between Cap and Iron Man when they meet:
As well as confirming that there will be a brand new costume for 'The Avengers' and beyond:
Chris and his 'Avengers' co-star Samuel L. Jackson have been busy recently, as they finish up the latest round of re-shoots for the film, including the closing "bookend" for the film which finds a frozen Steve Rogers being revived in modern day New York City:


Source: LA Times
With 'Thor' currently receiving strong reviews in international markets (frakkata Aussies getting it first grumble grumble), lead actor Chris Hemsworth sat down to talk about wielding the mystical hammer Mjolnir and how apparently Tom Cruise doesn't read Thor comics much:
Hemsworth continues:
Until next time!
Comment
Comment by Cap on April 28, 2011 at 3:14pm
Comment by Mainstream12 on April 28, 2011 at 6:00am @Happy Birthday Roboto
Before you do, I think I gave the impression that I think you're one of the "haters" or don't have faith in the film or whatnot. I know you want it to succeed, so I apologize. I just believe there's not enough information to get worried that there might be other problems we don't know about. Nothing other than all the rumors about the CGI strikes me as unusual. People made a big deal about Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan's late casting, but Paul Bettany was brought in to voice Jarvis a week before Iron Man released.
So when I start hearing rumors that Warner Bros. is unhappy with the movie (VFX aside), then I'll get worried. Thing is, everything points to the opposite. Rumors keep popping up of wanting to work on a sequel immediately. So like I said before, I might look like a dummy if the movie sucks, but I'm betting on it being pretty good.
Comment by Happy Birthday Roboto on April 28, 2011 at 4:40am @Kal
I'll reply to your post properly later.
I think GL is going to be a serious hit or miss at the box office. I'd like to think that it will be a hit but 3D is getting old and a wack excuse to bring up the price at theaters. My opinion. Thor should have never been made into 3D nor the new and last Transformers.... Visually stunning is losing its luster with the art of 3D. I never was really looking forward to the C.America until the Avengers release and he's in the new suit... I just hope neither does poorly..
I agree with Fungus: Rule number 1
Comment by Usman on April 28, 2011 at 1:35am
Comment by Mainstream12 on April 27, 2011 at 10:00pm @Fungusmonkey
By your own admission, the film has to either have great effects or an awesome story. I admit that I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what we've heard so far, the story sounds pretty awesome. The sheer talent of the director, cinematographer, editor, composer, and the cast (yes, including Reynolds) impresses me. And while I really would like the film to be successful so that we can get some sequels, it's not my money! WB can sweat making it back - I'm cool. I didn't invest in it (though I happily would have).
On the money subject, Thor is estimated at $150 million - that's just $10 or $20 less than Green Lantern. Dark Horizons and Wikipedia (from a story reported in The Oxford Student) list X-Men's budget at $120 million, which is 50% more than the original estimated figure.
The pressure is on ALL of these films and their respective studios for them to make money. I'm more concerned about the quality of the film itself, and if the VFX are the most troubled part of this film (I haven't heard any stories of on-set problems like Thor's alleged Anthony Hopkins/Chris Hemsworth issues, Cap director Joe Johnston's history of swooping in to direct projects in trouble during pre-production, or X-Men: First Class' unusually long production schedule) then I'm not at all swayed in my excitement.
I saw the original TRON the other day, which I've been wanting to see for years because of all the talk of how amazing the effects were for their time. I was impressed with what they did for 1982. That movie was still boring as hell. So if GL disappoints, what can I say? I'm gonna' look silly

The biggest reason GL is sooo far behind schedule is because most of their movie is CG (very few practical effects), and because they're converting the damn thing to 3D. Lesson learned: stop using crap CG and stop making films in 3D when no one wants them. Warner Bros. just tacked on another 9 million that they need to earn back to make the film profitable, and it's still barely going to be finished in time for the release date. If the effects are just "so-so" (because they were rushed), or if the story isn't awesome... they're going to have a hard time making that back.
Rule #1 of professional filmmaking - earn more than you spend.
@Kal - We're focused on GL because it's in trouble. X-Men isn't. You want to know why? A large amount of practical effects and no 3D conversion. That's all it takes. Plus, at an estimated $80mil budget, it's going to be pretty easy to make it's money back and be successful for the studio. On the flip side, Green Lantern is now staring at a total budget of around $160mil (nearly $60mil of which is just for visual effects), and is going to have to really blow people away to make it's money back.
It's just like Cap and Thor. Thor wrapped up in a pretty short amount of time for a decent budget, so even if it just does ok, it will still be profitable for the studio. On the flip side, Cap has run way over budget, is still filming, only has a small portion of it's visual effects completed, and is going to cost a lot more (even though it only comes out two months after Thor), therefore is going to take a lot more business to make it profitable.
In the end, visual effects are only one part of what makes a film good. However, they've placed such a large emphasis on the effects that if they don't look good, the film will suffer for it as a whole. I won't classify GL as a "trainwreck" just yet, but it's definitely in trouble and it's good to see that WB is concerned too (otherwise they wouldn't be adding to the budget to get it done right and on time).
Comment by Mainstream12 on April 27, 2011 at 7:57pm @Happy Birthday Roboto
WB insists that the visual effects are on schedule and the extra $9 mil is just to help improve where they think the effects can be improved. Even if they are lying... can you blame them for being behind schedule? This movie is very CG heavy. GL's power is a special effect everytime he uses it; there are entire scenes set in space, the main character's costume is entirely CG - and to top it all off, they have to convert it to 3D. BUT here's the thing - who cares? It's not OUR problem; it's the studio's and like I said before, good for them giving the post-production crew another $9 million. That doesn't spell "trainwreck" to me.
Let's not forget that they finished production several months before last year ended, so if nothing else, I'm sure they have a very good workprint edit. On the other hand, why does it seem more people are focused on GL when X-Men: First Class was filming well into THIS year and comes out BEFORE Green Lantern?
Y'know, haters gonna' hate. The worst case scenario is that not all of the effects are entirely convincing. I can live with that. Source Code had some cartoony CGI and I still enjoyed it. I'm sorry dude, but thinking that there may be other problems with the film Warners hasn't gone public about just sounds pretty paranoid to me.
Comment by Happy Birthday Roboto on April 27, 2011 at 6:00pm @Kal
Hmm, it's weird, the reasons you give are exactly why I don't think all is well. Storywise, everything seems perfect, visual effects wise everything looks like it needs a lot more work and Warners have basically turned around ans said they need to inject more money! Okay that's not a problem, well done for wanting to do a good job within schedule, but the fact that the film is over budget and needs a LOT more work worries me about the studios ability to handle such a project, which itself makes me think there are problems with the film Warners have not gone public about! All we can do is wait and see!
Comment by Omega Dinobot on April 27, 2011 at 5:55pm @ Kal Storch
I agree with you, man. Forget what the naysayers say. Green Lantern is going to kick ass!
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
You need to be a member of The Spill Movie Community to add comments!
Join The Spill Movie Community