Thor expected to be "biggest" Marvel Studios film to date! [Archive]

Advanced Dark

10-03-2007, 11:39 PM

Keep in mind when hearing this Marvel Studios only will have made 2 films prior to this: The Incredible Hulk & Iron Man. Still with rumors of Iron Man's budget hitting the financing cap of 180 million makes me feel even stronger that Marvel isn't being cheap on any of their films and they're putting the right talent behind these franchises to ensure they last. Also by preselling the overseas distribution rights they effectively cut the budget, on top of not having to pay themselves for the rights. 2008 is gonna be HUGE for Marvel.

http://letsgetcomical.blogspot.com/2007/10/were-jumping-straight-into-where-we.html

<LI class=MsoNormal>The weird phrase/ idea of fantastic four was about Alex Zane…and his hat (apparently it’s become a “thing” now) and the weird thing of today came from me remembering that the director of Stardust, Matthew Vaughn is going to direct the “Mighty Thor” movie. SO there was much gruff yelling of THOR. I even spoke to Vaughn about Thor he said it’s happening but they’re just discussing the budget because it could very well be Marvel’s most expensive movie.

hippie_hunter

10-03-2007, 11:54 PM

I can see Thor being much more expensive than Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk.

Jordacar

10-03-2007, 11:58 PM

Let's hope that Marvel does better making their own movies for a change.

Casius--J

10-04-2007, 05:07 AM

Thor should be a bigger budget as i see it more of a mythical type of film than any of the rest of the marvel movies.

Rust

10-04-2007, 06:14 AM

Thor should be a bigger budget as i see it more of a mythical type of film than any of the rest of the marvel movies.

Especially if it set in Asgard and Valhalla. Can't wait to see how they'll visualize a worldwith buildings that essentially is a mixture of Edoras and Minas Tirith from LOTR on a bigger scale.
And I hope there'll be some breathtaking nature-shots from isolated locations too.

chiefchirpa

10-04-2007, 07:07 AM

I hope they hire quite a bit of unknown but good actors so they can save some money for the special effects and settings.

Vartha

10-04-2007, 10:26 AM

Man that is a relief! At least we know for sure they are serious about making this a great Movie.

Steve Rogers

10-04-2007, 10:56 AM

I don't care about it being the biggest..whatever that means. I just hope it is well made. I can't wait to see how Marvel handles their own films. Hopefully they'll have enough filmmaking sense to realize that you can't simply film a comic book. Changes must be made to adapt it to film. But, on the plus side, they certainly will have enough comic book sense to realize that they don't have to butcher and re work every little detail to make a comic work as a film.

NateGray

10-04-2007, 03:54 PM

Mr. Socko

10-04-2007, 04:11 PM

I definitely want it to be in Asgard.

Advanced Dark

10-04-2007, 04:57 PM

An Asgrad based Thor movie will tank big time mark this post, feel free to bash me till then but when it does know I said it would tank.
Marvel Thor is not Norse mythology Thor and in fact they are so far apart its not even funny.
This is typical studio head idiot's thinking... hey if we make it all in Asgard we will get comic book fans and the fantasy fans as well...yeh thats the ticket....

Vaughn already made it perfectly clear this is a Marvel Thor and not based on Norse mythology.

Vartha

10-04-2007, 05:21 PM

Well Marvel's Thor is LOOSLY based on the myths.

KangConquers

10-04-2007, 05:51 PM

I said from the beginning you can't do Thor without a LOT of money.

Chris B

10-04-2007, 05:53 PM

An Asgrad based Thor movie will tank big time mark this post, feel free to bash me till then but when it does know I said it would tank.
Marvel Thor is not Norse mythology Thor and in fact they are so far apart its not even funny.
This is typical studio head idiot's thinking... hey if we make it all in Asgard we will get comic book fans and the fantasy fans as well...yeh thats the ticket....

Due to the most recent script review mentioning that the story focuses on both Asgard and Midgard, I'm under the impression that Thor still ends up on Earth in the film. But without the Donald Blake storyline.

KangConquers

10-04-2007, 05:54 PM

Due to the most recent script review mentioning that the story focuses on both Asgard and Midgard, I'm under the impression that Thor still ends up on Earth in the film. But without the Donald Blake storyline.

yeah...and saying Thor will tank without Donald Blake is pretty stupid.

Damiean Dark

10-04-2007, 07:48 PM

I welcome any marvel film but i have never really taken to thor as a character maybe its because he is a character taken from popular myth rather then a character built from the ground up.

Ahura Mazda

10-05-2007, 04:43 AM

I think they are planning the amounts they are spending based on profitability projections they are making regarding Iron Man and Hulk.

Of course, based on the script review the amount of special effects I think that would be needed would easily make this movie very expensive.

Vartha

10-05-2007, 01:39 PM

As long as the Movie isn't rushed I'm fine with just about anything they do. I can't wait to hear more now!

Advanced Dark

10-05-2007, 02:04 PM

Marvel might just be focusing on Thor only for 2009 as far as their studio films go.

darthhalen

10-05-2007, 02:19 PM

So you feel that Thor will be it for 2009? That's disappointing. I'm growing impatient for Cap. Have you heard any confirmation regarding this AD?

matrix_ghost

10-05-2007, 02:23 PM

Damn , their most expensive movie yet :wow:
Just a quick question. How big are the budgets of Hulk and Iron Man.
I've heard rumors that Iron Man budget is somehwere between 160-180 million and HULk lies somewhere around 170.

So this would mean that Thor would be around 180-200 million. That is alot of money but then again i can see why it would cost so much.
3 words : CG Flying Human

Advanced Dark

10-05-2007, 03:33 PM

The budget restrictions under the financing agreement is 180 million. There's no need for Marvel to go over that IMO. Being that they're the studio for their own character the save quite a bit on the budget.

Jick09

10-05-2007, 04:00 PM

more expensive marvel movie?
even more than SM3?
well...I just hope they make it a badass movie. and the Ultimate Thor would be better, imo.

Advanced Dark

10-05-2007, 04:35 PM

^ Marvel Studio's movie is what they were talking about.

Vartha

10-05-2007, 05:03 PM

yeah...and saying Thor will tank without Donald Blake is pretty stupid.
I agree, it should be shown WHY Thor beomes merged with Blake, not the way Lee & Kirby introduced Thor.
You have to look at it from Thor's angle not Blake's. Journey Into Mystery 83 was from Don Blake's view, not how Thor got into that cave.

Still A ThorFan

10-07-2007, 10:45 AM

When all the smoke is cleared and the movie is out of theaters on its way to DVD it will be one of the biggest and best Marvel movies of all time, maybe even a blockbuster in general. And I will point and laugh at those who for many years said Thor sucks, and The movie will never happen.

Vartha

10-07-2007, 03:39 PM

I will be right there with you Thorfan.

Batman1987

10-07-2007, 04:07 PM

Triple H is perfect for Thor, right build, height, handsome, great actor, and he'd kick ass throughout the movie
http://www.usanetwork.com/sports/wwe/downloads/wallpapers/images/tripleh1024x768.jpg

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 12:33 AM

The current script would cost 300 million to make. That's too much. Marvel's restricted to 180 million.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/great-odins-beard-thor-is-expensive.php

Vartha

10-09-2007, 12:41 AM

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 01:08 AM

GEEZ 300 million? is that all CGI or what...never mind I'll read it

EDIT:
Well I'm sure if they use CGI that it could be alot less expensive. I want to see this script just to see what they HAD planned.

If you see the script of a film budgeted for 300 million you'll be dissapointed with anything that comes out. LOL

Vartha

10-09-2007, 01:19 AM

Well geez if you think about it, Fantasy films are not cheap for one.
Marvel has said they wanted this to be thier LotR, if that's the case they'll need to spend the money, (which that artical does have wrong it's 180, not 150) and LotR was not a tried movie, New Line really stuck thier neck out for the films.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 01:20 AM

The budget limit is 180 but Vaughn said Marvel told him to cut it in half.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 01:23 AM

lol Egads I have a terrible feeling this movies gonna look like #@$&.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 01:24 AM

^ Marvel won't let that happen Vartha. Look how they're handling Hulk & Iron Man.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 01:29 AM

I understand that, but there's more to Thor than to those two movies if it's going to take place on Asgard.
Both Iron-Man and Hulk can be filmed in ANY area and look right, Asgard is completely mythical, there's no cheap way around it.

Blader5489

10-09-2007, 02:03 AM

I understand that, but there's more to Thor than to those two movies if it's going to take place on Asgard.

That's probably how they'll cut the budget: less Asgard. I wouldn't be surprised if they had to revise the script to include (less expensive) scenes on Earth.

Silvermoth

10-09-2007, 03:23 AM

Maybe if Iron man is a success, they will boost Thor's budget?

I just hope its a not a way to force Matthew into hiring Triple H as Thor

chiefchirpa

10-09-2007, 04:33 AM

Maybe if Iron man is a success, they will boost Thor's budget?

Nah, above $ 200 M is insanely out of proportion for a semi-famous character like Thor.

Casius--J

10-09-2007, 04:47 AM

haha that interview with matthew vaughn was funny, imagine being told u need to cut your budget by half. I dont know how he's gonna do it but i hope he does it soon.

Eventhough i've never been a thor fan i'm looking forward to seeing his big screen debut!

AVEITWITHJAMON

10-09-2007, 07:14 AM

Mr Jide

10-09-2007, 09:33 AM

Also, weren't the effects from LOTR done by Jackson's own visual effects house.
$300million is way too much. $200million or just under would be perfect. That means, we getting unknown actors (I hope) and a serious marketing/promo campaign.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 09:44 AM

I realise LotR used Bigatures and all that I'm just pointing out Asgard will more than likely be the most expensive thing out of the whole movie.
There is however a way to solve some of Asgard's buildings.
Do you know how many Renaissance faires there are out there that have Permenent structures? Some are pretty dang close to the styles of structures.
This is just the front gate to one I worked at,
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c331/Vartha1/Thor/2688948780038113075IrFexO_fs.jpg
This faire has 150+ buildings, I know of several others that are the same way, so building models are always the cureall either.

Cyrusbales

10-09-2007, 09:48 AM

I liked the idea of doing it a bit like Ultimate marvel, where Thor is this godly figure, but people aren't sure if he's really this powerful and a god, or just mad etc. Nice extra edge brought in there, would also help the audience familiarise with the charater more if he was in midgard.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 10:32 AM

I can't see using the Ultimate "is he crazy?" idea yet. The first film is just dealing with Thor growing up and leading to what puts him on earth.
I can see a possible use in the 2nd film when he does go to earth.

Cyrusbales

10-09-2007, 10:34 AM

A whole asgard film would lose a lot of interest from the general public. Asgard is something that should be explored later on, have it as a question about what it's like, so we don't have it all speled out for us from his start to finish, start with Thor having been active for a small amount of time on earth, then go from there.

Asgard is something that needs to be explored later.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 10:42 AM

Well with all the rumors of wanting a younger actor just points toward a mostly Asgard setting.
Besides with the characters that have been mentioned that will be in the film it just says to me that it will be mostly on Asgard.
WE as fans don't need it spelled out, but, I'm sure the non-fan does need it spelled out to them.

Cyrusbales

10-09-2007, 10:44 AM

Every step of the way being described, it's dull, the forumla of comic book films tends to be pretty poor, we see from start to finish etc, the whole element of mystery and creating a mysterious back story that's hinted at is much more interesting, worked with "Batman".

Hypestyle

10-09-2007, 10:48 AM

Vartha

10-09-2007, 10:55 AM

Today, 09:44 AM #48
Cyrusbales

"Every step of the way being described, it's dull, the forumla of comic book films tends to be pretty poor, we see from start to finish etc, the whole element of mystery and creating a mysterious back story that's hinted at is much more interesting, worked with "Batman". "

Depends on how it's done. The original way Thor was introduced is too Comic booky, and it is from DON's point of view not Thor's.

I can actually see the film opening on Asgard and you hear Odin and a young Thor arguing in the background then fading into the throne room where they're arguing, and a young Loki standing to the side smerking.

There are so many possibilities for this film, the approach from Journey into Mystery 83 just doesn't fit.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 10:57 AM

.... and now marvel wants Vaughn to find a way to cut the projected $300 million budget in half?

whoo-boy, I don't have a good feeling about this.. I guess they can just film the first act and hope for the best (?)

Well I want to know WHAT cost so much actually. like I've been saying The only thing I can imagine costing so much would be Asgard it's self.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 11:11 AM

Probably the action sequences. Maybe a bit too long and too many.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 11:16 AM

Vaughn already made it perfectly clear this is a Marvel Thor and not based on Norse mythology.

He can call it whatever he wants the script says Norse mythology Thor not Marvel Thor.
And now with the new decreased budget yep mark my first post this Thor is gonna tank like superman4, unless there are some major revisions to that mostly Asgard based plot.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 11:18 AM

yeah...and saying Thor will tank without Donald Blake is pretty stupid.

Thinking you are making something called Marvel Thor without using DB is pretty stupid since without him its not really Marvel Thor now is it.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 11:19 AM

^ That's not what he said. Saying it'll "tank" without him is stupid.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 11:25 AM

^ That's not what he said. Saying it'll "tank" without him is stupid.

Thinking you can make Marvel Thor without DB is stupid and I quoted what he said so how exactly did I mis-quote him?

DB is a major part of the Marvel Thor storyline trying to spin some story where this is not the case is stupid and again not Marvel Thor no matter what someone says.
What audience are they looking for?
Who wants to see an Asgrad based Thor? fans of the CB doubtful although we will be there.
Again this is studio heads trying to double dip comic book fans with fantasy fans and its going to end up biting them in the ass when they half ass both story parts.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 11:27 AM

Vaughn alread said clearly this is based on "Marvel" Thor and not the Norse mythology.

Advanced Dark

10-09-2007, 11:28 AM

He can call it whatever he wants the script says Norse mythology Thor not Marvel Thor.
And now with the new decreased budget yep mark my first post this Thor is gonna tank like superman4, unless there are some major revisions to that mostly Asgard based plot.

So you've seen the script they just finished?

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 11:28 AM

Thinking you can make Marvel Thor without DB is stupid and I quoted what he said so how exactly did I mis-quote him?

DB is a major part of the Marvel Thor storyline trying to spin some story where this is not the case is stupid and again not Marvel Thor no matter what someone says.
What audience are they looking for?
Who wants to see an Asgrad based Thor? fans of the CB doubtful although we will be there.
Again this is studio heads trying to double dip comic book fans with fantasy fans and its going to end up biting them in the ass when they half ass both story parts.

http://www.geocities.com/ingwibergo/whos_thor.html (Differences between Marvel Thor and Thor)

enlighten yourself. Dr. Donald Blake isn't the only thing that makes Marvel Thor. A lot of it is in the characterization, and Thors relationship with the other Gods.

The fact is, most of Thor's great enemies are in Asgard. I'd much rather see Thor fighting Ulik and Ymir than the Wrecking Crew.

Also, comparing this to Superman 4, which had a 17 million dollar budget, is ridiculous. This movie will have 9 times said budget.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 11:38 AM

Probably the action sequences. Maybe a bit too long and too many.
True, I can see action sequences costing a bit of cash.
hehehe I want to see at least SOME of the script! I'm gonna be a mess by the time this movie's out lol.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 11:43 AM

Thinking you can make Marvel Thor without DB is stupid and I quoted what he said so how exactly did I mis-quote him?

DB is a major part of the Marvel Thor storyline trying to spin some story where this is not the case is stupid and again not Marvel Thor no matter what someone says.
What audience are they looking for?
Who wants to see an Asgrad based Thor? fans of the CB doubtful although we will be there.
Again this is studio heads trying to double dip comic book fans with fantasy fans and its going to end up biting them in the ass when they half ass both story parts.
In the Begining (JIM 83) the book WAS based from DB's perspective, but it has changed over the years, Thor is NOT just "powers" given to someone Worthy like BRB, it's way more than that.
Basically, start with Son of Asgard, then go to JIM83 and DB.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 11:46 AM

I was going to mention what Kang had to say, if you look at Marvel's Thor compared to the mythology one, they hardly resemble each other in any sense.

Donald Blake doesn't make the character, he was an added dimension that they actually strove away from eventually, cuz without the explanation it eventually received it was sort of stupid to have some American gimp knock his cane and all a sudden turn into a thunder god.

I suppose 150 million is more then enough, unless they spend over half the budget on a-list actors, wtv, anything but Triple H will please me.

I really have my doubts about this film, from the speech, to the odd God spandex they wear, to giant rainbow passageways, and the Marvel cheese added in, just cuz its a comic movie... I don't see how this will be well recepted by the mass public.

Characters like these and Captain America just seem way harder to deal with then Spider-Man or Iron Man.

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 11:47 AM

If Thor was a trilogy I'd like to see the first 30% and the last 30% in Asgard. The middle 40% (the end of the first movie, the entire second movie, and the beginning of the 3rd) would all be on midgard.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 11:53 AM

NateGray

10-09-2007, 11:59 AM

So you've seen the script they just finished?

Nope and nothing would make me happier than to be dead wrong and it to be a huge hit.
I am just not getting that vibe from the original script I read and am getting a vibe that this is not going to do well based on what I did read.
Seems to be a tweener plot trying to again apease both fantasy based fans and CB fans.
Please do not think my doubts are me wanting it to fail.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 12:03 PM

http://www.geocities.com/ingwibergo/whos_thor.html (http://Differences%20between%20Marvel%20Thor%20and%20Thor )

enlighten yourself. Dr. Donald Blake isn't the only thing that makes Marvel Thor. A lot of it is in the characterization, and Thors relationship with the other Gods.

The fact is, most of Thor's great enemies are in Asgard. I'd much rather see Thor fighting Ulik and Ymir than the Wrecking Crew.

Also, comparing this to Superman 4, which had a 17 million dollar budget, is ridiculous. This movie will have 9 times said budget.

I am quite familiar with Thor thanks.
What was the origin comic based off of? could it be using DB yep it sure was.
Perhaps they did that so average people would associate with a god yep sure sounds like the reason they did it to.
I understand wanting Asgard based villains but that is not a reason to base the story mostly in Asgard.
Not IMO anyways.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 12:10 PM

Nope and nothing would make me happier than to be dead wrong and it to be a huge hit.
I am just not getting that vibe from the original script I read and am getting a vibe that this is not going to do well based on what I did read.
Seems to be a tweener plot trying to again apease both fantasy based fans and CB fans.
Please do not think my doubts are me wanting it to fail.
Again when and where did you read the script?

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 12:27 PM

I am quite familiar with Thor thanks.
What was the origin comic based off of? could it be using DB yep it sure was.
Perhaps they did that so average people would associate with a god yep sure sounds like the reason they did it to.
I understand wanting Asgard based villains but that is not a reason to base the story mostly in Asgard.
Not IMO anyways.

That's ridiculous. As Vartha said, there have been prequels to Jourey into Mystery; you think that the previous 3000 years of Thor's life before he was banished to Earth doesn't deserve screen time?

Vartha

10-09-2007, 12:38 PM

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 01:04 PM

Nate you have, Tales of Asgard (Lee&Kirby and Simonson), Son of Asgard, the Eye of Odin arc dealing with Thor being Mortal AND the Previous Asgard to the ones we know (the ELDER Asgard being the MYTH Asgard), Blake is just PART of Thor's life.

Exactly. Blake isn't Thor's entire life.

Given the usual trilogy setup, Thor 1 should be pre-donald blake, and Thor 3 should be trying to avoid Ragnarok in Asgard.

First and foremost, this has to be a movie with great story telling, not about fanboy expectations.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 01:32 PM

That's ridiculous. As Vartha said, there have been prequels to Jourey into Mystery; you think that the previous 3000 years of Thor's life before he was banished to Earth doesn't deserve screen time?

Look we can go back and forth forever.
Yes all of those stories are retcons or most of them anyways to give more character to Thor by giving him back stories or a history.

You want to base the first Thor movie off of back stories not his origin story?
The one that introduced him to the world?
Trust me had they tried those origin stories without first establishing him as a earth based hero they would have failed horribly and we would not be having this conversation right now.

Just look at the CB industry and tell me how many non earth based hero's survive? titles like Conan etc etc etc just never last.
Heck Thor had a hard time lasting and if I re-call the last cancel was due to low numbers being sold and yep the stories were Asgard based sorta tells something doesn't it?

So why would they want it to do great yet base the story off a storyline when the comic quit selling? just makes no sense hence my concerns and fears it may tank with this type of storyline.
But again hey I would love to be wrong I thought stardust was great to bad not many others bothered to even go see it... hint hint.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 01:43 PM

Well a big part of Thor dieing was people couldn't understand the Thor speak or old English, Even many writers had problems with it and it ended up making Thor sound like a buffoon.
JMS has prooven this already. Removing the old English is one of the best things to happen to Thor, not to mention making him more understandable to many people.
I think If Mark has written Thor the same way, there should be no problem with the movie.

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 01:44 PM

Look we can go back and forth forever.
Yes all of those stories are retcons or most of them anyways to give more character to Thor by giving him back stories or a history.

You want to base the first Thor movie off of back stories not his origin story?
The one that introduced him to the world?
Trust me had they tried those origin stories without first establishing him as a earth based hero they would have failed horribly and we would not be having this conversation right now.

Just look at the CB industry and tell me how many non earth based hero's survive? titles like Conan etc etc etc just never last.
Heck Thor had a hard time lasting and if I re-call the last cancel was due to low numbers being sold and yep the stories were Asgard based sorta tells something doesn't it?

So why would they want it to do great yet base the story off a storyline when the comic quit selling? just makes no sense hence my concerns and fears it may tank with this type of storyline.
But again hey I would love to be wrong I thought stardust was great to bad not many others bothered to even go see it... hint hint.

Ugh.

Donald Blake is NOT Thor's origins. Just because the first issue of the Thor comic involved him doesn't mean that's how THOR originated. It's where we picked up.

This movie is going to be the equivalent of Batman: Year One. a True origins story. The next one will pickup with The Lee/ Kirby stuff.

Warhammer

10-09-2007, 01:57 PM

Vartha

10-09-2007, 02:00 PM

lol I was just thinking about the comparison of Year one lol
In many ways Thor and Batman can be compared in the beginings of thier storys.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 02:02 PM

Ugh.

Donald Blake is NOT Thor's origins. Just because the first issue of the Thor comic involved him doesn't mean that's how THOR originated. It's where we picked up.

This movie is going to be the equivalent of Batman: Year One. a True origins story. The next one will pickup with The Lee/ Kirby stuff.

UGH right back at you.
Yes DB is part of his origin you even say so yourself the first issue hmm sure sounds like he is part of it if he is in the first issue.

What you keep referencing is his mythology based origin, as them retconing stories many years later you want to call an origin?
Yeh thats a dumb idea lets introduce a character but start it before the comic books? where we introduced him.
What do you think the average non CB fan is going to think of that? yep you nailed it a fantasy based movie about a character they barley know.

Look you can try to spin it however you want but his origin in Comic books is tied to DB your wanting to start with a prequel is IMO a bad idea.

I think we will have to agree to disagree as you think an Asgard based story is a good idea and I just do not see it as a good idea.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 02:04 PM

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 02:04 PM

UGH right back at you.
Yes DB is part of his origin you even say so yourself the first issue hmm sure sounds like he is part of it if he is in the first issue.

What you keep referencing is his mythology based origin, as them retconing stories many years later you want to call an origin?
Yeh thats a dumb idea lets introduce a character but start it before the comic books? where we introduced him.
What do you think the average non CB fan is going to think of that? yep you nailed it a fantasy based movie about a character they barley know.

Look you can try to spin it however you want but his origin in Comic books is tied to DB your wanting to start with a prequel is IMO a bad idea.

I think we will have to agree to disagree as you think an Asgard based story is a good idea and I just do not see it as a good idea.

Well how would you do it. Have Thor fly around NYC saving baby's from burning buildings? No thanks.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 02:07 PM

^Me no wants a whole film of the Asgard origin story.
I don't care for seeing all of it, actually.

However, it would be very interesting to see if the audience will be turned away from that, or lured to it like LOTR.
Well there's always been a facination to the Vikings or the Norse, according to someone I think connected to 13th warrior.
There are so many different type films that Thor can be Aimed at. Harry Potter, Pirates of the Carribbean, LotR, just to name 3.

NateGray

10-09-2007, 02:11 PM

Well how would you do it. Have Thor fly around NYC saving baby's from burning buildings? No thanks.

Yeh no I would base it about him being bound to DB to learn humility.
Then have Loki mess with earth and him have to be Thor to save earth.
and we even have the built in GF with Jane foster.

See I want a movie that the average movie goer will associate and an Asgard based plot is just not something they will associate with.

Heck if they just did the origin from the CB I think it would do fantastic.
Its a great story for a movie.
Lets see Alien villains check
Superhero check
Damsel check
Man finds cane in ancient cave that when he taps it on the ground transforms him into the MIGHTY THOR
Yeh I can see average movie goers gobbling it up.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 02:12 PM

I wouldn't see this having the same sort of appeal as LOTR, I mean that was a rendition of one of the original great fantasy books, long awaited, and masterfully executed.
I just see people taking this badly on account that it is a Marvel epic movie, and that maybe most people don't think comic movies can transcend into that sort of grandiose movie.
Plus didn't the guy say he didn't want that anyways? Guess it could still be marketed as such.
So no old English? good.
But what would it make sense for them to sound like? I guess they'll for some reason all sound sort of British? Unless we'd get some subtitled movie spoken in Old Norse... But I fracking doubt it.
I'm with KangConquers in terms of incorporating the DB origins by the end of the first movie, expanding on that in the 2nd and moving towards some Ragnarok thing in the 3rd.
Bye then they should have an Avengers movie out, which will be sweet, and probably easier to take then seeing him in a solo movie.

Upper_Krust

10-09-2007, 02:24 PM

Howdy Kang! :)

That's ridiculous. As Vartha said, there have been prequels to Jourey into Mystery; you think that the previous 3000 years of Thor's life before he was banished to Earth doesn't deserve screen time?

No, because it has nothing to do with the origins of Marvel Thor.

If you abandon Blake then you abandon ANY ties to Earth, ergo we'll never have a 'proper' Mighty Thor movie.

If you make an all Asgard movie then follow up with Blake in a second movie, then you have to make Thor look like a complete tool in the first movie, because he has to be banished for a reason (being a bullying braggart and trouble maker) Therefore he cannot be a hero.

So either the plan is to make Thor look like a tool in the first movie (unlikely) or they'll abandon any future notion of either Blake or Thor on Earth (even more unlikely with Avengers coming up).

Frankly there doesn't seem to be an elegant solution (once tainted by an all Asgard first movie), which means they'll almost certainly throw out Blake and everything associated with him, thereby consigning the franchise to mediocrity, since it will have no underlying message and no pathos.

Upper_Krust

10-09-2007, 02:29 PM

Well how would you do it.

Ask me! Ask me! :woot:

Have Thor fly around NYC saving baby's from burning buildings? No thanks.

Hardly.

But battling Loki or the Wrecking Crew in New York City or the Destroyer as buildings are being demolished, that could be cool.

Upper_Krust

10-09-2007, 02:33 PM

Hey Bubonic! :)

I'm with KangConquers in terms of incorporating the DB origins by the end of the first movie, expanding on that in the 2nd and moving towards some Ragnarok thing in the 3rd.

Except that Donald Blake's incorporation requires Thor previously being shown as a bullying braggart. Which means the first movie has to make Thor look like a tool.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 02:51 PM

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 02:57 PM

Hey Bubonic! :)

Except that Donald Blake's incorporation requires Thor previously being shown as a bullying braggart. Which means the first movie has to make Thor look like a tool.

True, might not do much to get people to like the character.
Actually I can see this as problematic now, as the movie would then center on the characterization of Thor as a pompous jerkoff, and the audience might end up rooting for Loki, or no one at all... Ugh, I hate to be a flip-flopper but the DB angle seems easier to write anyways.

But I still feel like the audience might find this all very confusing, and wonder whats up with some debilitated doctor dude finding some ratty cane in a cave and turning into Thor.

Plus I'm trying to figure out how this movie and the sequels will actually be, considering that it seems to be settled that there won't be any Don Blake?

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 03:01 PM

Not a complete Tool UK, besides you have to figure there's Loki and his complete jelousy he has for Thor, could be written to make Thor look like a tool and get blamed for things Loki had done and in the end Thor gets banished.
It can be written right, have faith bud.

Smart idea!
I can see this working, but isn't the all-father supposed to be all knowing enough to see threw some Loki scheme?
Guess he is a master trickster and it would hold long enough to frame his brother... But that would mean you'd have the protagonist losing in the first movie, and ending it open-ended with DB set up to start in the next movie.

Plus, isn't the script pretty much set?
More of these directors/production companies should make myspace or facebook pages and interact with the fans from the start, seems to have worked for Iron Man so far.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 03:05 PM

True, might not do much to get people to like the character.
Actually I can see this as problematic now, as the movie would then center on the characterization of Thor as a pompous jerkoff, and the audience might end up rooting for Loki, or no one at all... Ugh, I hate to be a flip-flopper but the DB angle seems easier to write anyways.

But I still feel like the audience might find this all very confusing, and wonder whats up with some debilitated doctor dude finding some ratty cane in a cave and turning into Thor.

Plus I'm trying to figure out how this movie and the sequels will actually be, considering that it seems to be settled that there won't be any Don Blake?
Could be written to where like I said above if Thor had gotten blamed for things Loki had done, Thor would have to Go through certain amount of heroic acts on earth to regain his place on earth somewhat like the Hulk tv movie.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 03:07 PM

Heroic acts? That could be cool, add a bit of the Hercules element to it.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 03:10 PM

yeh Back when Thor was on the Hulk tv show Thor was VERY VERY close to becoming a series with that idea behind it.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 03:16 PM

How set in stone are things though? Last I had read, there would be no DB, it would be all, or predominantly in Asgard, and it would be somewhere in the middle between Stardust and LOTR, not completely comic book, and definitely not epic.

So are we now mostly complaining about the inevitable, trying to make justifications for how this movie could work despite our grievances, or because the movie is so far away, things could change at any moment and people hope some changes will take places between now and then?

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 03:18 PM

Ask me! Ask me! :woot:

Hardly.

But battling Loki or the Wrecking Crew in New York City or the Destroyer as buildings are being demolished, that could be cool.

I despise the Wrecking Crew; I've always thought it was a lame idea. That's exactly why I don't want an Earth movie. You'd honestly rather see the Wrecking Crew than Ulik, Sutir, or some of the other Thor villains?

Vartha

10-09-2007, 03:26 PM

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 03:26 PM

I'd like to see the wrecking crew, as they were in omega flight, be dispatched by Thor in a matter of minutes.
I'd just like that in the marvel universe, just to drive home the point that this is a world were they're are always nuts in costumes pulling off crazy crap.
It be a good, fun little scene if no importance was put to it, and had nothing to do with the major story arc.
Just like if maybe they're be 5 minutes in a Spidey movie where he'd get sidetrack by a bankrobery , and low a behold, that dumbass shocker is there.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 03:55 PM

I actually don't know how they can make the Wreking crew belivable on film. It would be hard to do.

Wolfman

10-09-2007, 04:10 PM

Man finds cane in ancient cave that when he taps it on the ground transforms him into the MIGHTY THOR

Yeah, that's a cool sounding pitch actually. It could be majestic...

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 04:27 PM

I actually don't know how they can make the Wreking crew belivable on film. It would be hard to do.

A bunch of generic thugs with the power of gods screams "straight to video."

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 04:53 PM

Well wtv, you don't need a backstory for them, they just look like a bunch of crazy douche-bags, they are, and it wouldn't be bad to "waste" 6 minutes of film on them, for comedic relief, and a good pounding.
I mean they don't look all that bad, I liked their look in the Omega Flight thing.

Mr. Socko

10-09-2007, 05:28 PM

A completely rewritten script is inevitable if they plan on slashing the budget by half of what it would cost.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 05:30 PM

where is the script btw?
is it only available to "insiders"?
if not pm me or reply, i'd like to read it.

Apollo

10-09-2007, 06:10 PM

i can see how this may be a really good movie, thank god Marvel got the rights back

Vartha

10-09-2007, 06:15 PM

A bunch of generic thugs with the power of gods screams "straight to video."
Screams to me "Genral ZOD and crew":woot:

KangConquers

10-09-2007, 06:17 PM

Screams to me "Genral ZOD and crew":woot:

Bah. The last thing we need is for Thor to be Superman with a hammer.

Vartha

10-09-2007, 06:20 PM

where is the script btw?
is it only available to "insiders"?
if not pm me or reply, i'd like to read it.
Closest thing we have anywhere to a script is a Review of the script in the "Karl for Thor thread", I haven't been able to find a thing on it by anyone.

Negrotigre

10-09-2007, 07:44 PM

Negrotigre

10-09-2007, 07:45 PM

Well how would you do it. Have Thor fly around NYC saving baby's from burning buildings? No thanks.

Thor's interactions with the human world are vital to the audience connecting with him.

T.

Warhammer

10-09-2007, 07:49 PM

Well there's always been a facination to the Vikings or the Norse, according to someone I think connected to 13th warrior.
There are so many different type films that Thor can be Aimed at. Harry Potter, Pirates of the Carribbean, LotR, just to name 3.

Tell that to the creators of Pathfinder. :csad:

Silvermoth

10-09-2007, 07:51 PM

You know what they should seriously consider? A video game adaption. Could be nice.

Bubonic

10-09-2007, 08:41 PM

Of Pathfinder?
I was excited for that movie, but it was apparently so underwhelming I never bothered seeing it.
Hmm, well I'll seek out that review, thanks.
And I stand by my notion that small, isolated, action packed cameos of not so famous bad guys would always be fun in any Marvel movie.
Even the stupid Wrecking Crew. Just not as the main antagonist!

Vartha

10-10-2007, 01:45 AM

You know what they should seriously consider? A video game adaption. Could be nice.
Of Pathfiner or Thor? Because Sega is supposed to be putting out a Thor game by 2009 or 10.

hippie_hunter

10-10-2007, 01:52 AM

Totally disagree. Thor's elevated, old english speech is perfect for his character.

T.

He really doesn't need the old English. JMS's dialogue for Thor is great. He talks like a GOD should talk like and doesn't come off as a doofus at the same time.

Upper_Krust

10-10-2007, 09:09 AM

Howdy Vartha mate! :)

Not a complete Tool UK, besides you have to figure there's Loki and his complete jelousy he has for Thor, could be written to make Thor look like a tool and get blamed for things Loki had done and in the end Thor gets banished.

Already thought of that, it doesn't make sense for two obvious reasons.

Firstly, that means Loki tricks Odin the 'All-wise'.

Secondly (and more importantly) if Thor is wrongfully banished without actually being 'in the wrong', then his incarceration will be an injustice, not a penance. Wrongful imprisonment would actually turn a good man bitter, rather than make him see the error of his ways.

It can be written right, have faith bud.

Not based on the evidence so far.

Upper_Krust

10-10-2007, 09:18 AM

Hey Kang! :)

I despise the Wrecking Crew; I've always thought it was a lame idea.

The Wrecking Crew would serve a very valuable purpose.

1. We can show how Thor easily deals with mortal adversaries (by setting him against a pre-powered Wrecking Crew).

2. We can show Thor gradually coming to terms with his powers and fighting prowess (against a post-powered Wrecking Crew).

Its not like anyone is suggesting the Wrecking Crew should carry the movie. They are mere pawns created by Loki.

That's exactly why I don't want an Earth movie.

On the contrary, you are not a Thor fan, you merely don't want an Earth bound Thor movie because you want Thors coming to Earth to be the start of the Avengers movie.

You'd honestly rather see the Wrecking Crew than Ulik, Sutir, or some of the other Thor villains?

If you read my synopsis you would know I had Thor fight Ulik in basically the first ten minutes of the movie (in a flashback scene dreamt by Blake).

As for Surtur, the very idea of putting Surtur in the first Thor movie is idiotic.

Upper_Krust

10-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Hey Bubonic! :)

True, might not do much to get people to like the character. Actually I can see this as problematic now, as the movie would then center on the characterization of Thor as a pompous jerkoff, and the audience might end up rooting for Loki, or no one at all... Ugh, I hate to be a flip-flopper but the DB angle seems easier to write anyways.

Exactly. It doesn't make any sense to leave Blake out.

But I still feel like the audience might find this all very confusing, and wonder whats up with some debilitated doctor dude finding some ratty cane in a cave and turning into Thor.

So you could say it would be a journey into mystery for the audience then. :oldrazz:

Plus I'm trying to figure out how this movie and the sequels will actually be, considering that it seems to be settled that there won't be any Don Blake?

As far as I can tell, if you don't have Blake in the first movie then you simply cannot have him ever without a total reboot. Which means none of the Thor on Earth stuff works, which in turn means they cannot legitimately bring Thor up to date. Thus you end up destroying the franchise with the first movie.

Upper_Krust

10-10-2007, 09:34 AM

Hello again Vartha! :)

I actually don't know how they can make the Wreking crew belivable on film. It would be hard to do.

Nonsense. It would be childs play.

They work in a construction site. They are bullies. They get into trouble harrassing Blake & Nurse Foster (on their way to lunch). They get fired (seems they are always getting into trouble). As 'revenge' they rob the construction site, and the manager gets killed by the Wrecker. They start a bank robbing spree where they use their demolition skills to destroy the buildings after they make off with the cash. When Blake/Thor gets back from Norway the Wrecking Crew are all over the papers. Thor gatecrashes one of their latest bank robberies, and manages to apprehend three of the crew. But Wrecker manages to escape and is turned invisible by Loki, helping him evade the police. Loki makes the Wrecker a deal he cannot refuse, and as the rest of the crew are being taken to jail in an armored car, the now powered up Wrecker is able to free them and deal with the cops. They capture Nurse Foster and take her to the construction site where Thor catches up with them...battle ensues.

This would of course be the minor diversion outside the main story of Loki and the Destroyer.

Upper_Krust

10-10-2007, 09:39 AM

Hi Kang! :)

A bunch of generic thugs with the power of gods screams "straight to video."

Wrong, but you indirectly answered your own question.

The Wrecking Crew are generic (supervillain) thugs and would be used as such. No one is suggesting they should be the main villains or even central to the main plot (which would involve Loki and the Destroyer).

But as previously mentioned (by me a few posts ago) they do serve a useful purpose.

Bubonic

10-10-2007, 10:02 AM

Hey, that was basically reiterating my point in fuller detail!
About the Wrecking Crew, and the tricking the All-Wise not making sense.
But yah... You argued your point more fluently so thumbs up.

This is the bitter sweet part of boards, all the damn endless speculating... Its fun, and it holds us over, but it is usually all for naught, and makes the wait longer!

Vartha

10-10-2007, 11:10 AM

Howdy Vartha mate! :)

Already thought of that, it doesn't make sense for two obvious reasons.

Firstly, that means Loki tricks Odin the 'All-wise'.

Secondly (and more importantly) if Thor is wrongfully banished without actually being 'in the wrong', then his incarceration will be an injustice, not a penance. Wrongful imprisonment would actually turn a good man bitter, rather than make him see the error of his ways.

Not based on the evidence so far.

Well this brings up some thing with Odin AND LORD Thor at the end of Vol 2. Keep in mind where Both could "SEE" all, neither would interfer with the natural flow of things, unless it was something like Surtur destroying Earth, or something of that nature.
Also Loki can and has set Thor up in the past, it's just great story telling.
Loki sets Thor up, Thor ands up doing something wrong without thinking (keep in mind it's YOUNG Thor).

If you Remember the Hulk TV movie with Thor, Blake was in charge of Thor and Thor had to do so many Heroic deeds before being able to return to Asgard. There was supposed to be a TV series based on that, but it fell threw, more than likely because of the ALE drinking.

It can work if done right.

Vartha

10-10-2007, 11:26 AM

Hello again Vartha! :)

Nonsense. It would be childs play.

They work in a construction site. They are bullies. They get into trouble harrassing Blake & Nurse Foster (on their way to lunch). They get fired (seems they are always getting into trouble). As 'revenge' they rob the construction site, and the manager gets killed by the Wrecker. They start a bank robbing spree where they use their demolition skills to destroy the buildings after they make off with the cash. When Blake/Thor gets back from Norway the Wrecking Crew are all over the papers. Thor gatecrashes one of their latest bank robberies, and manages to apprehend three of the crew. But Wrecker manages to escape and is turned invisible by Loki, helping him evade the police. Loki makes the Wrecker a deal he cannot refuse, and as the rest of the crew are being taken to jail in an armored car, the now powered up Wrecker is able to free them and deal with the cops. They capture Nurse Foster and take her to the construction site where Thor catches up with them...battle ensues.

This would of course be the minor diversion outside the main story of Loki and the Destroyer.
You know UK, I can see your point, but still, looking at the non-fan point of view, it could end up being VERY hokey. I can see that the Crew would be very cheap to make, but, is it something you'd want in the second film?

I would rather see something like the Saturn people, or somehow the Destroyer, or even something classic like the Lavamen would work.

Thor is rich with stories that can be worked into the 2nd film. Heck even the Enchantress and the Exicutioner would be cool.

Hypestyle

10-10-2007, 03:40 PM

I just hope any budget cuts don't downgrade the grandeur of the film.. I would hate, for example, to see a proposed fight with Fafnir the Dragon end up being a tussle with a crocodile... :whatever:

Bubonic

10-10-2007, 04:07 PM

yah, and paul hogan as Thor!

Vartha

10-10-2007, 05:23 PM

oy neither will happen :D

Bubonic

10-10-2007, 05:37 PM

Granted the rights are handed over to fox :cmad:
I can't wait to see TIH and IM so I can hopefully confirm that these movies will be done right since the studio is also home of the creators.

Vartha

10-10-2007, 05:51 PM

Well if you think about it, We don't have ANY kind of blog, or Myspace to go to and you'd think that with a movie like Thor there would be one for fan feed back. It worked for IM why not Thor?
Not every Thor fan has the same point of view on Thor, but, the same basic Ideas are there.

Bubonic

10-10-2007, 06:28 PM

Yah I was pretty excited that Favreau did that with IM, it was interactive, it gave the fans hope, and so far it seems to be developing pretty well.
TIH didn't bother with this though, and despite Norton's input, sounds like it could have done with some more opinions.
Yet it is definitely not too late for something to be done about Thor, whoever is one of the top dogs on this board, and can carry information to whom it matters should make a mention of it, or we should get that guys email who's making it and spam him with this suggestion.

Upper_Krust

10-11-2007, 12:10 PM

Hey Vartha matey! :)

Well this brings up some thing with Odin AND LORD Thor at the end of Vol 2. Keep in mind where Both could "SEE" all, neither would interfer with the natural flow of things, unless it was something like Surtur destroying Earth, or something of that nature.
Also Loki can and has set Thor up in the past, it's just great story telling.
Loki sets Thor up, Thor ands up doing something wrong without thinking (keep in mind it's YOUNG Thor).

If you Remember the Hulk TV movie with Thor, Blake was in charge of Thor and Thor had to do so many Heroic deeds before being able to return to Asgard. There was supposed to be a TV series based on that, but it fell threw, more than likely because of the ALE drinking.

It can work if done right.

My point is not that Odin can or cannot be tricked (for story purposes of course he can). Its that Thor is wrongfully imprisoned, therefore the imprisonment itself will only fuel bitterness, not become a voyage of self-enlightenment.

KangConquers

10-11-2007, 12:34 PM

Hi Kang! :)

Wrong, but you indirectly answered your own question.

The Wrecking Crew are generic (supervillain) thugs and would be used as such. No one is suggesting they should be the main villains or even central to the main plot (which would involve Loki and the Destroyer).

But as previously mentioned (by me a few posts ago) they do serve a useful purpose.

As long as they're dressed like 2000 thugs and not...1970s thugs...it might be acceptable.

Bubonic

10-11-2007, 12:48 PM

Did anyone see them in the Omega Flight limited series?
http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1243473_OmegaFlight01pg1718.jpg

They look awesome for what they are! Everyone looks like a silly prick in the marvel universe anyways.

Upper_Krust

10-11-2007, 01:04 PM

Hey Vartha dude! :)

You know UK, I can see your point,

:cwink:

but still, looking at the non-fan point of view, it could end up being VERY hokey.

The more fantastical the story the more serious you have to treat the material.

I can see that the Crew would be very cheap to make,

Cheap enough.

but, is it something you'd want in the second film?

On the contrary its something I'd want in the first movie! :woot:

I would rather see something like the Saturn people, or somehow the Destroyer, or even something classic like the Lavamen would work.

I have the "Saturn People" (in the guise of stone constructs animated by Loki), I have Ulik, I have the Destroyer and I have the Wrecking Crew written into my first movie synopsis.

Thor is rich with stories that can be worked into the 2nd film.

Hes so rich in stories that you could even have twelve Thor movies.

Heck even the Enchantress and the Exicutioner would be cool.

I think I have them in 'my' fourth Thor movie. :cwink:

Vartha

10-11-2007, 09:24 PM

HEH think about the Eye of Odin saga. THAT could be a great movie. it is basically the Ring of the Nieberlungs. :D

Bubonic

10-11-2007, 09:35 PM

What issues is that saga in?

Vartha

10-11-2007, 09:48 PM

I think it's 293-300, I have a few of them, but not the entire saga anymore.
Roy Thomas did a great job on the transfer of the story. Thor is actually MORTAL in the saga!

Bubonic

10-12-2007, 02:31 PM

Close enough, I checked, and it isn't really indicated as a saga, but in 291 you've got Odin and Zeus against Thor, and up until the 300th issue there is this ominous eyeball following Thor around or something.

Vartha

10-12-2007, 08:21 PM

Well I'm missing the 1st 2 issue of that arc, Wish I had em.

Advanced Dark

10-29-2007, 09:03 AM

odiin

10-29-2007, 09:31 AM

If they film Thor in Austrailia they'll get a 40% rebate. Look at this! That way they can effectively cut the budget without cutting the quality.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6459

Holy crap, is that lucky timing or what? Thor would be a perfect candidate for shooting in Australia too since it doesn't take place in any modern city so you don't have to worry about making Sydney look like New York or something like that. That would pretty much solve their budget problem right there.

Advanced Dark

10-29-2007, 12:01 PM

Yep. Marvel would need approval from Merril because it'll still cost 250-300 with the understanding the tax credit must come back to the credit line.

Vartha

10-29-2007, 03:55 PM

Well it would be kind of cool if they could film in the same area 13th Warrior filmed too, or even in New Zealand.
I can see Australia tho.

Sasquatch

11-04-2007, 02:55 PM

Does anyone think the current story ark in the Thor comic would be a good movie script?

Sasquatch

11-04-2007, 04:04 PM

edit

Vartha

11-04-2007, 05:16 PM

Does anyone think the current story ark in the Thor comic would be a good movie script?
I could see the current arc as a movie, possibly the 3rd movie.
The Thor movies should be 1st one his origin, 2nd Thor being on earth, and then the current arc in the 3rd.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 01:00 AM

Vaughn is certainly coming off as an arrogant ass. 1st he lies to everyone and says he's backing out of X3 because he didn't realize it would take him away from his wife for a year. Then he says he could have made X3 a hundred times better, and now the truth comes out in more detail. He then goes on to say he has a bad reputation and what we hear isn't true...and then proceeds to kindly bash Brett Ratner.

http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=119418146358056&sku=071104130057

Where's Robert Zemekis???

odiin

11-05-2007, 01:03 AM

Doesn't sound anymore arrogant than anyone else in Hollywood. Especially not enough to single him out on it. He's a very good director, and that's all the matters to me.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 01:10 AM

Doesn't sound anymore arrogant than anyone else in Hollywood. Especially not enough to single him out on it. He's a very good director, and that's all the matters to me.

I think him belittling Brett Ratner wasn't cool. Take the high road. Anyways let's hope he can handle Thor without backing out and trashing it later.

Antonello Blueberry

11-05-2007, 01:30 AM

I like the guy. I usually judge people more from what they do than from their words, but in this case I approve what he says.
I wouldn't like to be Brett Ratner either.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 01:34 AM

I like the guy. I usually judge people more from what they do than from their words, but in this case I approve what he says.
I wouldn't like to be Brett Ratner either.

Maybe but as a fellow director in the industry you should take the high road. And honestly I enjoyed X3 more than Stardust.

Son of Sun

11-05-2007, 03:30 AM

Brett is a pretty uninnovative director. His stuff is so boorishly clinical that I've become to skip movies entirely because of him. I mean, even bad directing would be something, but there's nothing. Just an empty seat.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 10:59 AM

GNR

11-05-2007, 11:15 AM

I was thinking the same thing when I only saw writer engaged for Thor.Hopefully Vaughn didn't leave.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 11:21 AM

If you guys had a choice between Vaughn and Zemekis who would you choose? Beowolf looks awesome.

darthhalen

11-05-2007, 11:56 AM

These earnings reports are always a dissapointment to me. I let myself think Marvel will make announcements at these things but they never do. Now we find out that Thor may no longer have a director. This is extremely disappointing. Does Marvel now realize that they may have NO movie to release in 09. Will this be a violation of their Merril Lynch Deal? Did the audio clarify anything with this report? Hopefully we can hear more about Thor soon, but it looks like Vaughn may have walked over the budget issues.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 12:07 PM

If Vaughn walked over budget issues he's a moron because he's known from the beginning Marvel has a 180 million cap on it's films. So when 300 million comes up...it's no surprise. Right now only X-Men Origins is on the list because it has a release date for 2009. Magneto has no date yet, and neither does Thor. The CC links don't work so no audio as of now. Marvel will fix that. Also there is always news at earings and this time is no exception with the Hulk TV series and the Thor animated film from LGF, also an update on Marvel Online next month.

Mr Jide

11-05-2007, 02:00 PM

I think Vaugn is still attached to this. Dont know why it wasn't reported but I doubt he's gone walkies.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 02:12 PM

I just listened to the conference call and 2009 was not mentioned, however Marvel was just there for FY07 and early 08 guidance. Still, I figured someone would "ask" the damn question and nobody did. The script could easily be polished by someone non-union. ;) Let's get moving Marvel!

Upper_Krust

11-05-2007, 06:03 PM

Howdy Vartha mate! :)

I could see the current arc as a movie, possibly the 3rd movie.
The Thor movies should be 1st one his origin, 2nd Thor being on earth, and then the current arc in the 3rd.

Horrendous idea...and thus almost certain to be used. :whatever:

Thor has so many fantastic stories that to even have the idea of using the current meanderings (which themselves would make for a terrible movie based on the first 3 issues so far*) before you had done about 50 Thor movies would be insulting beyond belief.

*and just to explain myself, while I like the first 3 issues of the current series they ARE very slow, not to mention the need to explain the entirety of Civil War to give the Thor vs. Iron Man battle ANY gravitas whatsoever.

Upper_Krust

11-05-2007, 06:06 PM

Howdy Advanced Dark! :)

If you guys had a choice between Vaughn and Zemekis who would you choose? Beowolf looks awesome.

If I had to choose between Vaughan and Zemekis I'd choose Guillermo Del Toro. :oldrazz:

However, I predict a number of people here jumping on the Zemekis for Thor director just after Beowulf is released. Just like they jumped on the Kulich for Thor and Jackson for Thor director bandwagons in years gone by.

Upper_Krust

11-05-2007, 06:31 PM

Hello again! :)

Vaughn is certainly coming off as an arrogant ass. 1st he lies to everyone and says he's backing out of X3 because he didn't realize it would take him away from his wife for a year. Then he says he could have made X3 a hundred times better, and now the truth comes out in more detail. He then goes on to say he has a bad reputation and what we hear isn't true...and then proceeds to kindly bash Brett Ratner.

http://www.eventguide.ie/articles.elive?session_id=119418146358056&sku=071104130057

Vaughn did himself absolutely no favours in that interview. Especially since he has nothing with which to back his braggadocio up.

The bottom line is that X3 outperformed X1 and X2 and Superman Returns and Stardust. So the Ratner-haters can suck it!

Vartha

11-05-2007, 06:37 PM

Howdy Vartha mate! :)

Horrendous idea...and thus almost certain to be used. :whatever:

Thor has so many fantastic stories that to even have the idea of using the current meanderings (which themselves would make for a terrible movie based on the first 3 issues so far*) before you had done about 50 Thor movies would be insulting beyond belief.

*and just to explain myself, while I like the first 3 issues of the current series they ARE very slow, not to mention the need to explain the entirety of Civil War to give the Thor vs. Iron Man battle ANY gravitas whatsoever.
I know what you're saying UK. I was just saying I could see the story done as a movie, it would need to be changed.
I agree there are MANY thor stories that could be made into movies and there shouldn't be no problems with future films because of that.

Vartha

11-05-2007, 06:44 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071105/20071105005748.html?.v=1

For some reason it does NOT show Thor now for 2009, and it also only says writer engaged. No mention of director engaged. Did our bi-polar director run away from a challenge again?
Well we both saw Thor listed as 2010 as well AD. It could be that Marvel may have bumped it back a year because of IM and Hulk, not to mention Matt and Mark were working on the script and now that there's a writers strike, who knows when that will be finished.

MarvelMovies

11-05-2007, 06:53 PM

Using the 3rd quarter project list, I'm putting together a list of all the upcoming Marvel projects.

http://internapse.com/news.php?id=21

Eventually, I'd like to create a page for each project on Marvel Gateway - www.internapse.com/marvel.html -- along with the pages for already released movies.

Did I miss any?

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 07:51 PM

Well we both saw Thor listed as 2010 as well AD. It could be that Marvel may have bumped it back a year because of IM and Hulk, not to mention Matt and Mark were working on the script and now that there's a writers strike, who knows when that will be finished.

Where did we see Thor for 2010?

Vartha

11-05-2007, 08:13 PM

IMD originially had 2010, I saw it when I was searching for Thor posters, as well.
I know I've seen it as both on sites just not sure which one at the moment. More than likely it was when the movie was first annouced and Mark was working on the script.

Advanced Dark

11-05-2007, 08:21 PM

IMDB isn't reliable especially since Marvel itself said 2009 release. However...the strike could change that if the script rewrite wasn't finished and approved.

Vartha

11-05-2007, 08:26 PM

Right, between the strike and the rewrite, it may be a 2010 release. Which could be a good thing because of IM and Wolverine.

Advanced Dark

11-06-2007, 01:00 AM

IM is 2008. Wolverine is 2009. There's plenty of room for Thor in 2009...it's just the damn strike. The problem is the strike will cost the screenwriters more than they'll ever get out of the results of the strike if it lasts a few months. It's hurting them more than anything. Get rid of the unions and let each screenwriter get paid on his own merit. Same for everyone.

odiin

11-06-2007, 01:09 AM

Advanced Dark

11-06-2007, 01:11 AM

That's a great way for them to get even less money. Without a system in place, they will always get paid the smallest amount of money possible.

I disagree. Not if they're repped by powerful agents and have skills worth paying for. Maybe the average screenwriter who works as a waiter in Hollywood would benefit from a Union but not the "made men".

Antonello Blueberry

11-06-2007, 05:47 AM

I disagree. Not if they're repped by powerful agents and have skills worth paying for. Maybe the average screenwriter who works as a waiter in Hollywood would benefit from a Union but not the "made men".
Then why all the major screenwriters approve the strike?
If they get 4 cents out of very DVD instead of the 8 they're asking, for somenone whose movies sell thousands of copies (think John August, Elliot and Rossio) that means a truckload of money.
Unions are a great thing, they help workers organize to reclaim their rights. Without Unions, people will still be working 18 hours a day 'till they fall dead.

Advanced Dark

11-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Then why all the major screenwriters approve the strike?
If they get 4 cents out of very DVD instead of the 8 they're asking, for somenone whose movies sell thousands of copies (think John August, Elliot and Rossio) that means a truckload of money.
Unions are a great thing, they help workers organize to reclaim their rights. Without Unions, people will still be working 18 hours a day 'till they fall dead.

Because that's the system in place and all of them once (or most of them) were struggling screenwriters looking for their first break and the union supported them. The strike will most benefit future screenwriters who will probably have a strike of their own. It's just the high cost and burden of the strike does it actually pay for itself and then more? The last time it did not.

Advanced Dark

11-06-2007, 11:30 AM

http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/93/24193.php

Vaughn was the co-screenwriter on Stardust so is he a member of the WGA. LOL Uh oh.

Antonello Blueberry

11-06-2007, 03:15 PM

http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/93/24193.php

Vaughn was the co-screenwriter on Stardust so is he a member of the WGA. LOL Uh oh.

Are you sure? He's British.

Advanced Dark

11-06-2007, 03:44 PM

^ No I'm not sure. Just checking. Forgot the "?".

Advanced Dark

02-19-2008, 11:14 AM

Well late 2009 it is...if it happens in 2009. So looking the release sched James Cameron has Dec 18th through January pretty much tied up. LOL A post XMAS release would be not sesnsible. So we're looking at a November or early 1st week of December release. November is probably better.

Vartha

02-19-2008, 02:40 PM

Well I hope so. I can wait if need be, this IS supposed to be rather epic compared to Stardust. (I bought Stardust cheap)
I'm hoping he gets the right people to help make it epic.

Nepenthes

02-24-2008, 05:34 AM

I definitely want it to be in Asgard.

I'd assume the movie would be set in between Asgard and modern NY.

Or maybe the first movie is entirely in Asgard with Thor being banished to NY in then final scenes - that would be be shocker ending fer sure. and set up the sequels or an Avengers movie quite well.

Antonello Blueberry

02-24-2008, 05:38 AM

I'd assume the movie would be set in between Asgard and modern NY.

Or maybe the first movie is entirely in Asgard with Thor being banished to NY in then final scenes - that would be be shocker ending fer sure. and set up the sequels or an Avengers movie quite well.
In the draft that's been around for some time, NY is nowhere to be seen. When he gets exiled from Asgard he ends up among the vikings.

chiefchirpa

02-24-2008, 11:15 AM

Strike’s over, so what’s with the delay and Marvel latest announcement that Thor still doesn’t have a director? Possible culprits are:

Script has not been perfected. Yeah, 2 years – and it’s not done yet. Better get some comic book writers (JMS? Simonson?) to speed up the process.
Short of cash after doing IM & Hulk promotions.
Director issue, Marvel is still not sure with Vaughn.Gosh, when I compare Thor movie making process with fast GI Joe, Wolverine and JLA process, I just want to cry.

Rust

02-24-2008, 11:50 AM

I sure ****in hope he doesn't end up in NY in this movie, but if that's the way it goes it'd be a now-typical set-up for The Avengers, I suppose.

Antonello Blueberry

02-24-2008, 03:05 PM

Bubonic

02-24-2008, 08:09 PM

They should make this as big and grandiose as possible, instead of cutting back on the collosal epic nature of this movie, they should engage a writer, director they have complete confidence in and blow us away.

When IM and TIH rape the box office, which I think they will, they should have more then enough spending money to make this happen in full force.

Vartha

02-26-2008, 12:07 PM

The script is in need of a serious budget rewrite. And I think axing the viking part will cut a lot of the action but could save a lot of money.
Btw, I have an idea about that, that could set up the Donald Blake thing and the contemporary setting.
If they did that it wouldn't be a fantasy film if they cut the viking parts. I can see SOME of the scenes being expensive, but these days Viking Villages would be easy to do, Moreso than finding places in Big cities, stopping traffic in those cities, and so on.

Bubonic

02-26-2008, 12:30 PM

If they did that it wouldn't be a fantasy film if they cut the viking parts. I can see SOME of the scenes being expensive, but these days Viking Villages would be easy to do, Moreso than finding places in Big cities, stopping traffic in those cities, and so on.

I still have hope for this to be as epic as possible, why can LOTR have an epic movie and not Thor.
Thor stands the chance of not being taken seriously if the audience isn't in complete awe of it all, so have vikings, trolls, and ice giants galore!

Vartha

02-27-2008, 11:27 AM

I agree Bubonic and it is Marvel's aim to make Thor a LotR type movie, the script IS epic. I can still see the reasons to cut some of the script back or change those parts that are considered too expensive.
It can be done, I have no doubts we'll see the things that need to be shown and still tell the story epically.

Antonello Blueberry

02-27-2008, 11:56 AM

If they did that it wouldn't be a fantasy film if they cut the viking parts. I can see SOME of the scenes being expensive, but these days Viking Villages would be easy to do, Moreso than finding places in Big cities, stopping traffic in those cities, and so on.
It would still have a truckload of Asghard scenes even if they cut the Viking stuff. In my opinion the Vikings part should be cut, because I would prefer that Thor make his atonement journey not as a warrior.

Gotham

02-28-2008, 05:53 AM

If they leave out of the Viking aspect, they will have ruined Protosevich's best script. Maybe forever. Whatever he's doing on that film, keep doing it. He understands Thor.

Advanced Dark

02-28-2008, 01:07 PM

http://www.comics2film.com/index.php?a=story&b=31371

New script review. Highly positive.

Blader5489

02-28-2008, 01:23 PM

I'm still disappointed that they're leaving out the human element (Donald Blake, New York, etc.) for this film.

Advanced Dark

02-28-2008, 01:24 PM

They're not leaving out the human element in this film. Not at all. Just not the way you're thinking. Did you read the script? If not there is a human element to it for a great portion of the film.

Blader5489

02-28-2008, 01:43 PM

All I have read are script reviews, not the actual script itself.

And by human element, I was referring to Donald Blake and that whole aspect of the character.

Advanced Dark

02-28-2008, 01:49 PM

Oh Gotcha. It's awesome none the less.

Bubonic

02-28-2008, 02:13 PM

Vartha

02-28-2008, 02:35 PM

I'm still disappointed that they're leaving out the human element (Donald Blake, New York, etc.) for this film.
They really aren't leaving it out, just approaching it from another angle.

Vartha

02-28-2008, 02:39 PM

Is this a review of the revised version without all the things deemed too grandiose?
Because I figure reviewing that one would be inadequate since what we will get might be much less epic.

Nvm, checked the link.
Doesn't sound any different from the old script, the date is still the same from what I remember the first draft was 04-04-07.

Bubonic

02-28-2008, 04:51 PM

Doesn't sound any different from the old script, the date is still the same from what I remember the first draft was 04-04-07.

I want to read this script so very badly... So very very very badly!!!
If anyone can help me toward this end, I'd be ever appreciative!

Sounds so good, and personally I think the movie will translate better without the Donald Blake element. Asgard is such a wondrous place and needs to be explored!

They'll have to find another reason for him coming Earth, but I'm sure it'll be a valiant one.

I can do without an 8 legged horse, sounds like it would look awkward, but everything else I'd love to see. :wow:

Gotham

02-28-2008, 05:36 PM

http://www.comics2film.com/index.php?a=story&b=31371

New script review. Highly positive.

As I said previously, Protosevich managed to nail the character completely.

Advanced Dark

03-01-2008, 03:35 AM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981687.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Thor mentioned in WWE article. I doubt Vaughn will go for that if he has any say.

Gotham

03-01-2008, 03:52 AM

There has to be someone out there can convey Thor appropriately.

Antonello Blueberry

03-01-2008, 07:16 AM

They're not leaving out the human element in this film. Not at all. Just not the way you're thinking. Did you read the script? If not there is a human element to it for a great portion of the film.
Human? A contest between brutish Vikings for who is the best warrior?
That's the human element? Thor is supposed to make up for his pride sin because he gets spit in his face a couple of times?

X-Maniac

03-01-2008, 10:12 AM

The Viking elements provides better opportunity for Norse mythological/historical elements than Donald Blake. I have no objection to the Donal Blake element being in a future movie.

The expectation of a Thor movie is Norse mythology and history, not a modern-day doctor with a walking stick.

Advanced Dark

03-01-2008, 12:29 PM

I read the script but didn't the casting call conflict with that?

Advanced Dark

03-01-2008, 12:31 PM

Human? A contest between brutish Vikings for who is the best warrior?
That's the human element? Thor is supposed to make up for his pride sin because he gets spit in his face a couple of times?

If you read the script you would know that there was much more than you just said. I'm not posting any details about it here.

Antonello Blueberry

03-01-2008, 12:34 PM

If you read the script you would know that there was much more than you just said. I'm not posting any details about it here.
Maybe I did.

Advanced Dark

03-01-2008, 03:16 PM

Either you did or you didn't. If you did you would know exactly what he had to deal with and how he had to prove himself, etc...There was quite a bit of soul searching in the script I read.

Antonello Blueberry

03-01-2008, 04:03 PM

Either you did or you didn't. If you did you would know exactly what he had to deal with and how he had to prove himself, etc...There was quite a bit of soul searching in the script I read.
Soul searching while beating the hell out of the vikings.

Vartha

03-01-2008, 06:32 PM

yup, as odd as it sounds it DOES happen. Keep in mind the Norse had different levels of people as any other country. Chieftians, farmers, slaves, and so on, there weren't just Warriors.

Advanced Dark

03-02-2008, 01:53 AM

Soul searching while beating the hell out of the vikings.

Ok now I know you didn't read the script then or you breezed through it because there was more than that.

Still A ThorFan

03-02-2008, 10:42 AM

I read the script and I'm just so damn happy that the movie has such a serious tone. It is nothing like the previous Marvel Films; Spiderman, FF, X3, and Ghost Rider which were all a damn joke in my view.

Thor seems to be more of an adult superhero movie that I believe critics will take seriously as well.

As far as casting goes Loki was described as darkly handsome so I can imagine a Joaquin Phoenix or Jonathan Rhys Meyers being chosen.

As for Thor who the hell knows.

Bubonic

03-02-2008, 06:53 PM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981687.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Thor mentioned in WWE article. I doubt Vaughn will go for that if he has any say.

For the most part, wrestlers should be confined to their ring and crap WWE movies if need be.
Last thing the Thor movie needs is some talentless muscelhead ruining the character.
Although considering Marvels casting so far, we shouldn't even have to worry.

Advanced Dark

03-03-2008, 06:18 PM

Dana's Marvel Review - Thor - Film Fodder (http://comic-news-now.com/Thor/?p=99)Dana's Marvel Review - Thor Film Fodder - 1 hour ago Thor is classic Straczynski, at least as I know him, and that’s this title’s greatest asset. ...
comic-news-now.com/Thor/?p=99 - 3 hours ago - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&pwst=1&q=related:comic-news-now.com/Thor/%3Fp%3D99) - Note this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&um=1&q=film+fodder+thor&sa=N&tab=nw#)

For some reason I can't access the above review. I'm sure it's positive though because how could it not be. -AD

Advanced Dark

03-03-2008, 06:20 PM

For the most part, wrestlers should be confined to their ring and crap WWE movies if need be.
Last thing the Thor movie needs is some talentless muscelhead ruining the character.
Although considering Marvels casting so far, we shouldn't even have to worry.

Totally agreed. It takes more than HGH or Anabolic Steroids to act.

Antonello Blueberry

03-03-2008, 06:23 PM

Ok now I know you didn't read the script then or you breezed through it because there was more than that.
Slightly more than that.
But I know everything out of Marvel is gold for you, right?

Antonello Blueberry

03-03-2008, 06:24 PM

Advanced Dark

03-03-2008, 06:28 PM

Slightly more than that.
But I know everything out of Marvel is gold for you, right?

Yeah because I loved Blade Trinity, Daredevil, Elektra, Fantastic Four, and X-Men 1 so much. LOL Get a grip and learn how to have a conversation without throwing dirt or lame old accusations from a dry well.

I did read the script which is the topic of conversation here in case you forgot--and it is gold and anyone who's read it and reviewed it online will back me up on that. Every published review to date has been nothing but praise.

Antonello Blueberry

03-03-2008, 06:38 PM

I did read the script which is the topic of conversation here in case you forgot--and it is gold and anyone who's read it and reviewed it online will back me up on that. Every published review to date has been nothing but praise.
I'm not saying it's crap. It's quite spectacular. But as I said I'd prefer for the atonement journey of Thor to be something more peaceful and more in tone with his Don Blake aspect.

Advanced Dark

03-03-2008, 06:46 PM

Antonello Blueberry

03-03-2008, 06:54 PM

You might get that Antonello in the next film or a future film. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Thor has a pretty long lifespan. There's no date specified in the script but I imagine it's before cars were invented. LOL
I don't think in the next film there will be a need for Thor to learn humility and to live like a normal human being again. And to me learning humility doesn't mean beating the crap out of vikings in a contest.

X-Maniac

03-04-2008, 07:13 AM

Perhaps the final scenes of the film will show how Thor lived on from the Viking days and eventually became Donald Blake. Pity that Blake ended up living in New York, which is the setting for just about every movie.

Vartha

03-04-2008, 07:57 AM

I don't think in the next film there will be a need for Thor to learn humility and to live like a normal human being again. And to me learning humility doesn't mean beating the crap out of vikings in a contest.
Good point Antonello, it'll be interesting to see how they bring Thor into the future since he gets taught Humility early on.
Tho I think you may have misunderstood how Thor leans humility, sure he eventually kicks some viking butt, but, that's not how he learns humility.

YJ1

03-09-2008, 11:20 PM

I was starting to get excited for Thor until I read this quote from Vaughn from Empire online...

"I think you have to respect that it is comic book and silly to be frank, so you have to combine that with a modern style and hopefully come up with something fresh. I think we can come up with something special."

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22144

If he thinks comic books are "silly" then stay the hell away from Thor. It's no wonder they kicked his ass off X3. Why is Marvel still enamored by this guy. Stardust bombed badly.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22141

These little articles mean I officially hope Ant-Man is Marvel's 2009 film now.

Gotham

03-10-2008, 12:18 AM

I like the fact that he wants an unknown for Thor.

Lighthouse

03-10-2008, 01:06 AM

After reading that Empire article, I think Thor is toast. At least Matthew Vaughn's version.

chiefchirpa

03-10-2008, 02:30 AM

Thor is toast if Matt Vaughn opt to break out.

I don't know who to blame on this other than Marvel Studios. Thor is the less known among the 3 Avengers and to have it first before Captain America is certainly not the best move.

Bubonic

03-10-2008, 06:12 PM

I was starting to get excited for Thor until I read this quote from Vaughn from Empire online...

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22144

If he thinks comic books are "silly" then stay the hell away from Thor. It's no wonder they kicked his ass off X3. Why is Marvel still enamored by this guy. Stardust bombed badly.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=22141

These little articles mean I officially hope Ant-Man is Marvel's 2009 film now.

Seriously, whats Vaughs major malfunction... He already seems to have a total lack of respect for the source material, and to me that means there is a bigger chance he'll take big "creative" liberties in order for it to fit his vision of "fresh".

The script reviews sounded amazing, and everyone who read it seems to have no problems with it, but how much will Vaugh as a director respect the source if he is at odds with it?

Right now I'm worried, but I am excited for Ant-Man all a sudden!

X-Maniac

03-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Well, if Peter Jackson hadn't already done elves and trolls, I'd think he might be a good choice. It would seem like 'director typecasting', if you get what I mean.

Vaughn's Stardust was okay but not as special as it's hyped to be. It won 'best sci-fi/fantasy' from Empire magazine's movie awards, televised here in the UK tonight. The other contenders were: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (zzzz...), 300 (visually spectacular, yes, if a little soulless), Sunshine, and Transformers.

Chris B

03-10-2008, 11:22 PM

I found it interesting that he suggested that the film may have fallen into development hell. Probably due to the budget issues mentioned. I wonder that if they can't get around that, Marvel will discard the current script and start over from scratch? Possibily instead aiming for a storyline involving Donald Blake.

Advanced Dark

03-11-2008, 01:04 AM

I don't think he suggested that. It's in a holding pattern thanks to the looming SAG strike. Marvel can't possibly finish filming by the end of June 08. The risk is too great to start filming and then have a strike happen. Therefore you're not gonna seem any big films start filming after April or very early May until strike is settled. Who's the genius who allowed all of these damn contracts to expire in the same year. No way Marvel trashes the script. The love it. Just needs a budget trim. While we wait to figure it out Ant-Man is getting a second draft and other Marvel films are in the works. Marvel is being careful with their properties as you can see with Hulk and Iron Man so far. They're not in a rush to release a film to avoid losing the rights.

Vartha

03-11-2008, 04:42 AM

I hope not, I still say Marvel's taking their time because it IS their FIRST fantasy film. They DO want to make it.

Wolfman

03-11-2008, 05:55 AM

They're not in a rush to release a film to avoid losing the rights.
Marvel can loose the rights to make a movie of it's own character? Anyways, it sucks that this movie is on hold... :csad:

Franklin Richards

03-11-2008, 05:57 AM

So.... Simonson era?

:thing: :doom: :thing:

Blader5489

03-11-2008, 06:08 PM

Marvel can loose the rights to make a movie of it's own character?

No, they can't lose the rights. That was AD's point--that Marvel doesn't need to rush their films out because there's no fear of losing movie rights.

Advanced Dark

03-11-2008, 06:32 PM

No, they can't lose the rights. That was AD's point--that Marvel doesn't need to rush their films out because there's no fear of losing movie rights.

Thanks beat me to it. :)

Vartha

03-12-2008, 03:10 AM

So.... Simonson era?

:thing: :doom: :thing:

Actually Lee, Simmonson, alittle of all the writers. It's written like Tales of Asgard with a mythic feel to it.

Check your pm box FR.

protocida

03-12-2008, 02:38 PM

Gotta have Loki and the destructor!

Still A ThorFan

03-15-2008, 10:06 AM

Advanced Dark

03-15-2008, 11:32 AM

It really pisses me off that they are going full speed ahead with stuipd f'n Ant-Man, a meaningless superhero movie and they have the nerve to put Thor on a "holding pattern."

Ever since they started busting out movies never have I seen more positive script reviews for one of their films. You have the Hulk and Iron coming out which are going to blow people away, now is the time to get started on Thor, now.

MV has a great vision and MP wrote the most amazing, and serious script ever. I pray to the Norns Marvel doesn't F this up.

Dude. May I call you dude? Marvel will make the film that is ready when it's ready. Both Ant-Man & Thor and whatever films they were hoping to release were put in a holding pattern by the WGA and DGA strikes. Now the gap is to soon before the SAG strike so nobody can start filming a big production until that strike is over unless they can finish filming before the end of June. That also means no reshoots if the strike is still on so what idiot would risk that? Don't rush the studio into making the film you want when it's not ready and then start complaining later that it's rushed. Marvel is doing things the right way. There are different writers, producers, directors and actors schedules to consider. When they all fall in place for one project it goes. Also Ant-Man could be visually a stunning film and find a huge audience in theatres because of how it will be presented on screen. These are the movie franchises and both Thor and Ant-Man and even films like Blade have their place. We're gonna get to see both of these films but let's just be patient and let them make the one that is ready first instead of rushing to meet the demands of a frothing fanboys. LOL

protocida

03-15-2008, 02:54 PM

And Ant-Man is a lot more fun than Thor.

Bubonic

03-15-2008, 04:21 PM

And Ant-Man is a lot more fun than Thor.

a lot more funny then Thor.
But he's had his moments.

Plus I don't see how a Thor movie wouldn't be fun.

protocida

03-15-2008, 06:54 PM

You don't see yourself enjoyng ''Thor''?

Because a movie is fun when you enjoy it.

Still A ThorFan

03-16-2008, 10:53 AM

I've read the script, Thor is an epic battle film. No room for campy jokes or sillyness in this one.

You want that? Go watch Spiderman, Ghost Rider and the F4. Child crap.

For those of you who didn't read the script you just have no idea.

protocida

03-16-2008, 06:15 PM

You're not getting it.

Still A ThorFan

03-17-2008, 11:19 AM

Why would you follow the Hulk and Iron Man with Ant-Man?

Advanced Dark

03-17-2008, 11:49 AM

Why would you follow the Hulk and Iron Man with Ant-Man?

You still don't get it do you? I'll try to explain it again:

It's not like Marvel has all of these scripts and projects ready to go and they pick one over the other. It's not like the same writers are working on every film and drop Thor for Ant-Man. What's ready first is ready first. It could be Thor...or it could be Ant-Man...who knows. If the Thor script is revised and comes back and is still not ready but Ant-Man is then you move forward with Ant-Man while they work on Thor or vice versa. These movies all have different directors, actors, screenwriters, producers, etc...I've said this a few times in this thread.

odiin

03-17-2008, 12:18 PM

You still don't get it do you? I'll try to explain it again:

It's not like Marvel has all of these scripts and projects ready to go and they pick one over the other. It's not like the same writers are working on every film and drop Thor for Ant-Man. What's ready first is ready first. It could be Thor...or it could be Ant-Man...who knows. If the Thor script is revised and comes back and is still not ready but Ant-Man is then you move forward with Ant-Man while they work on Thor or vice versa. These movies all have different directors, actors, screenwriters, producers, etc...I've said this a few times in this thread.

This.

Still A ThorFan

03-17-2008, 10:51 PM

I understood completly, but I just wanted to rant and get it off of my chest.

They shouldn't have bothered with Ant-Man anyway. Waste of resources.

Advanced Dark

03-17-2008, 11:42 PM

I understood completly, but I just wanted to rant and get it off of my chest.

They shouldn't have bothered with Ant-Man anyway. Waste of resources.

Actually not doing something with it is wasted sources. Someday when you own billions of dollars of potential content you won't neglect any of it. You find it's best use and go for it. I'm happy movies are being made from obscure characters like Hellboy, Blade, Ant-Man, etc...There's enough people in the world to support all of these characters whether you or I like them.

odiin

03-18-2008, 03:03 AM

Actually not doing something with it is wasted sources. Someday when you own billions of dollars of potential content you won't neglect any of it. You find it's best use and go for it. I'm happy movies are being made from obscure characters like Hellboy, Blade, Ant-Man, etc...There's enough people in the world to support all of these characters whether you or I like them.

Seriously. I should also point out, that outside of comic book fandom, Marvels Thor isn't really well known either, so it's extremely ignorant to say that making an Ant-Man movie would be a waste, when one could make the same case for Thor.

Advanced Dark

03-18-2008, 03:05 AM

To me Ant-Man could be extremely fun. I loved Fantastic Voyage, Inner Space, Incredible Shrinking Man, and even the original Honey I shrunk the kids was cool when it first came out. Now imagine that with a Superhero directed by Edgar Wright.

Can't go wrong.

Rust

03-18-2008, 10:11 AM

:up:

I just wonder if we're getting a british or american an cast and a british or american narrative style.

Will Simon Pegg be in it?

And will it be as graphic as Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz?

Still A ThorFan

03-18-2008, 09:44 PM

Actually not doing something with it is wasted sources. Someday when you own billions of dollars of potential content you won't neglect any of it. You find it's best use and go for it. I'm happy movies are being made from obscure characters like Hellboy, Blade, Ant-Man, etc...There's enough people in the world to support all of these characters whether you or I like them.

How many supported Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Elecktra, or F4?

dpm07

03-18-2008, 10:49 PM

How many supported Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Elecktra, or F4?

I supported every single one of those characters in the theatre. In fact, I think Daredevil is underrated. I also liked Nicholas Cage's interpretation of Johnny Blaze as well.

I am not a huge fan of Tim Story's approach with the FF, but I went to see it, and it was decent. While there are many things one could point out negatively to Elektra, I try to look at positive elements. The more the films are supported, the more leverage Marvel will have with putting out films like The Avengers, Thor, or whatever. It's the genre I am supporting in general.