he can deliver a product
he can take direction

>>69159544

Because he understands strong female characters, which is a valuable talent because very few people in Hollywood have it

He was cheap.

The movie was directed by Disney executives. Joss Whedon's just an actor in the Disney machine. He's there playing the role of director because he's marketable.

>>69159563
Fist post best post

whedon at the time was writing x-men comics for marvel

and they weren't disney yet, they were still figuring shit out on the fly, see favreau and based RDJ pretty much improving entire scenes in iron man 1

whedon had hollywood experience and could juggle large casts (see x-men comics and buffy), so he was kind of a rockstar to the other writers in the bullpen and he was the natural fit

now he is BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by the superior russos and his general betaness

He's literally a thumb.

>>69159580
Not, really sexy chicks that kick ass is his sexual fetish, nothing more, Black Widow was awful in both Avenger movies

>>69159544
He does great for his ensemble casts. He's known for them, and mre specifically, he's known for being able to write and direct great scripts that evenly balance lots of characters and make all of them feel fleshed-out.

Also, didn't he do Much Ado About Nothing and Cabin in the Woods before Avengers? Both of those were quite good.

And it's a bit unfair to hold Serenity against him as a commercial failure. He made it as a passion project on a pretty low budget because he wanted a true end to Firefly, the series that he says is his best piece of media to date. He knew full-well that it wouldn't do well in theaters. He just wanted to make it as an acceptable conclusion to the story, plots, characters, and world he created. That seems fine by me, desu. I'm not going to judge someone for having a vision and following through on it.

I will judge him for being a liberal bitch who constantly apologizes for being white and moderately successful, but I'm willing to set that aside and look at his greater body of work, which truly is pretty impressive.

>>69159670
>implying you wouldn't want to be kicked in the balls and dominated by a scrawny looking chick
>forgetting what year this is

You should have noticed by now that Marvel has a different way of picking directors than other studios. They don't look at box office numbers as much as most other studios, where the thinking is, "Michael Bay did a movie that grossed 700 million, we'll get him for this project". Marvel actually gives chances to directors who haven't done a huge tentpole movie.

However paradoxically the Marvel Studios movies are definitely lead creatively by Kevin Feige, he's the main producer pulling all the strings. So as a director you get to do a big movie, but you also have to play ball with the demands of the studio. You can't just do whatever you want because they have already shit mapped out for years and years in advance. They'll give you certain limits and within those limits you'll have creative freedom. But you can't do anything super drastic. TV directors know these kind of limitations very well because on tv shows the showrunner is the final voice of storytelling decisions. I think that is why Russos have been so successful in the MCU. They know how to navigate inside the system. But it is also a fact that you're a prisoner to that system to a degree and like I said, you don't have complete freedom. Guys higher up make some of the big storytelling decisions. This is also why Marvel Studios haven't really picked any big name directors outside of Kenneth Branagh.

Directors like Whedon, Russos, James Gunn etc. are also significantly cheaper to hire than more established directors. Whedon said he earned more from Dr Horrible sales than for the first Avengers film.

he's a low-tier director and has cred with the dweebs that like this shit. he has safe, compliant ideas and no visual style or flair to speak of, so nothing he could bring would oppose the on-brand, in-house style of marvel movies.

>>69159847
quality fucking post

also his much ado about nothing is sublime. i cant stand the guy but thats by far his best work

>>69159847
Yeah, that makes sense, Russos were only known for tv work too, I just remember a couple of months before it was announced that Whedon is gonna direct Avengers thinking that he is probably never even gonna get another chance to run a tv show

>>69159544
Dunno, but he did a great job.

It's honestly pretty embarrassing how much better the Russos are at making Avengers movies. Characterization, dialogue, fight scenes, etc. they just make Whedon look like a complete clown. I went to the marathon today and the difference between the Whedon films and the other films was jarring as fuck.

>>69159847
To be fair though, he had a direct percentage in profits from Doctor horrible, while he was paid a flat fee for Avengers.

>>69160078
>It's honestly pretty embarrassing how much better the Russos are at making Avengers movies.
It's embarrassing that people think this. Whedon is pretty formally terrible as a director, but the Russos aren't any better. In terms of the screenplays, though, Whedon's are so much better it isn't even funny. AoU was a bit of a hack-job, but it's better than the same tried story beats that Markus and McFeely keep conjuring up.