THOR gets ANOTHER new date: May 20, 2011

[Chewy]

Paramount and DreamWorks are forging ahead with "Transformers 3," dating the movie for release on July 1, 2011.It's the first official word of the three-quel. Paramount insiders have said that the dating of the pic isn't an official announcement that the project is going forward; rather that the studio wanted to plan a stake in the date.
DreamWorks and Par weren't immediately available to confirm whether Michael Bay and stars Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are set to return for the third installment in the franchise, which has fast claimed the July 4th holiday as its own.
"Transformers" opened July 3, 2007; "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" bows on June 24, 2009.
So far, "Transformers 3" has no direct competition in its July 1, 2011 date.
Paramount also has moved up the release of Marvel Entertainment's "Thor" from June 16, 2011 to May 20, 2011.


SOURCE (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001280.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562)

[FaT_tONle]

****ing bullL... I KNEW someone would take July 1st... hopefully TF2 underperforms and they delay TF3... I just want Cap there SOOOOO bad.

At least they positioned Thor correctly so that just in case... they can move Cap in there if the slot opens up. Plus it's a MUCH better release date than June.

[Chewy]

It seems pretty obvious that this is the exact reason Cap didn't take July 1st - Transformers/Cap are both distributed by Paramount, they get to pick the dates

[FaT_tONle]

Whatever... if Laebouf/Fox/Bay aren't game it won't happen that soon. Hopefully Will Smith won't get in the way either. At least Paramount has a backup that will slide nicely into July 1st.

[FaT_tONle]

And I just realized... what about the Terminator sequel?????? I mean if Salvation is a huge hit what then? Is Thor going to be delayed to 2012 if WB announces the same release date for that? Thor better hold that release that's all I can say.

[marvel001]

i just hope they don't keep moving the date for it, thats not a good sign . i'm glad tho that they moved it up a year, i mean, they didn't even have an actor to play thor yet, not to mention any other of the cast, they would have had to rush it, imo it takes more time to make an origin movie than a sequel to something because you have to set the stage for the series, iron man started filming around march 2007, more than a year away it came out.

[Aztec]

Isn't that in conflict with Spiderman now though? Why would they risk going up against Spiderman 2 weeks in? It's so sad that so many people would want to see more of that Transformers garbage. That movie was a vile pile of *****

[Chewy]

I think SM4 will see a decent sized decrease from SM3, so I wouldn't worry about that

[Blackman]

Huge conflict with SP4....
One of them is gonna get under promoted and not live up to expectations
thats what happened with The Incredible Hulk..marvel didnt wait and cranked it out 1 month after Iron Man. Marvel needs to spread their movies out more or their gonna crash and burn

[Chewy]

Because Paramount and Sony each base the promotion of their movies on the other's :huh:

[FaT_tONle]

Thor is a different animal than Spidey/IM/Hulk so I don't think it will effect it too much one way or the other. They can build off each other if anything. And 3rd week of May has proven to be an exceptional release date. Shrek, Indy, now Terminator... all big franchises but nonetheless, all of them have or probably will do well in that slot. Unfortunatly like I stated before... I think Thor will be moving to June yet again once Terminator 5 announces the same release date.

[Canis Sapiens]

I'm kinda worried with the S-M4 competition. That said, June is usually the worst month in the summer for blockbusters, so... half full or half empty...

[zeptron]

Doesn't HP and the Deathly Hollows part 2 come out in May 2011 also?

[FlawlessVictory]

^No, that is set for a July release.

[FaT_tONle]

Well there are always usually three big films in May the 1st, 3rd, and 4th weeks... if people are worried about Spidey having great legs then I think we are fretting too much. That is not a "legs" type film. It's a sequel that will be banking on a large opening weekend.

[broblacksteel]

Thor needs to announce something soon, those possible candidates have me worried... btw spidey will only pull in $30-$50 mill by the 3rd weekend when THOR comes out...question is if spidey pulls $100 mill or more on opening weekend, what is a realistic opening weekend for thor that will be considered successful?

[Chris B]

I think this is better since Thor and Captain America will be more spaced out and you wont to worry as much about them cutting off each other's legs.

But I am surprised that TF3 is aiming for summer 2011 because Bay mentioned not too long ago about wanting to take a year off. Which led to the presumption that 2012 was TF3's year.

[Nirvana]

Eh, I guess this release date would be better for it. I'll see it whenever it comes out.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Hmmm, well, I guess we will just have to wait and see how this works.

[zeptron]

Possibly some good news. Michael Bay confirmed that Transformers 3 is coming out in 2012. So maybe they'll bump up Captain America to Fourth Of July weekend now.

[FaT_tONle]

Possibly some good news. Michael Bay confirmed that Transformers 3 is coming out in 2012. So maybe they'll bump up Captain America to Fourth Of July weekend now.

Just what I needed to hear... you got a link?

Edit: Checked the TF boards... no need for the link.

Now we just have to worry about the Terminator sequel since that is the only other big franchise next to Potter that is due for 2011.

[marcvader]

I feel better going up against the Terminator than a 3rd Tansformers.

[FaT_tONle]

Worst case scenario... Thor is bumped ahead one week if Terminator 5 goes to May 20th. I would HATE to see Thor pushed into June and in essence force CA to remain late July. May 27th would still be 5 weeks separation bewteen Cap on July 1st. Just PLEASE don't go to June Marvel/Paramount no matter what.

[Vartha]

Well at least they didn't move the movie BACK.

[Marz69]

Craziness with Spidey. I really want this movie to do well. But I'm starting to feel that Marvel doesn't know wtf they're doing. It's disheartening. :csad: But I have faith in KB and hope he can do the best with what Marvel gives him.

[FaT_tONle]

Craziness with Spidey. I really want this movie to do well. But I'm starting to feel that Marvel doesn't know wtf they're doing. It's disheartening. :csad: But I have faith in KB and hope he can do the best with what Marvel gives him.

Well Marvel barely makes any money off of Spidey... it's 5% or something like that. While a lot of money it's not significant. Plus late May is 100% better than mid June as we have found out with like four or five other comicbook films released that month.

[p4poetic]

**** that's like...forever.

[Hypestyle]

seems weird, to open in late may, i guess its to be earlier, but.. especially since the Thor movie is presumably unconnected in any way to the spidey-4 film, i don't see what harm there is in waiting until summer is in full swing.. is there a spielberg movie opening that June 17?

may already gets crowded, plus kids aren't even out of school yet.. and hopefully branagh has a compellingly violent film that still fits pg-13 parameters..

[GNR]

Isn't that in conflict with Spiderman now though? Why would they risk going up against Spiderman 2 weeks in? It's so sad that so many people would want to see more of that Transformers garbage. That movie was a vile pile of *****

Nothing wrong with Bay making things go BOOM.:woot:

[Philly Phanboy]

How set in stone is Thor's new date?

With the casting announcements so far I'm not feeling this as being a legitimate early summer release. An August/Sept date might be a better fit because I see this easily getting creamed by Spidey at the BO with its current date. :O

[Chewy]

Because tentpoles starring young rising talent are such a new concept? Star Trek and Transformers both featured basically unknown casts, as did the first Spider-Man.

[Philly Phanboy]

Nice of you to include Transformers in your comparison Chewy. Rachel Taylor was in Transformers. She was also in the last Marvel adaption that went against the grain by casting unknowns. :csad:

There is a finite revenue per movie week and Spidey likely eating away 1/3 (or more) of your possible revenues makes this date bad without factoring in an unknown cast. If the movie isn't moved it will get ugly.

[Chewy]

As opposed to releasing it in late August/September, which is the equivalent of just dumping it and expecting it to fail.

Star Trek was able to survive Wolverine's second weekend, and thrive. If marketed properly Thor will be able to survive Spider-Man 4's third weekend.

[yoshimura]

Can my peeps help me out with dates? :woot:

Thor May 20
Cap July 22nd

Transformers 3?
Spidey?

[Chewy]

May (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-05-06&showweeks=4&p=.htm))
• Spider-Man 4 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman4.htm) (Sony (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=sony.htm)) - 5/6
• Thor (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thor.htm) (Par. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=paramount.htm)) - 5/20
June (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-06-03&showweeks=4&p=.htm))
• Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kungfupanda2.htm) (P/DW (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=pardw.htm)) - 6/3
• Green Lantern (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm) (WB (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=warnerbros.htm)) - 6/17
• Cars 2 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cars2.htm) (BV (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=buenavista.htm)) - 6/24
July (Details (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=theatrical&date=2011-07-01&showweeks=5&p=.htm))
• Transformers 3 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers3.htm) (P/DW (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=pardw.htm)) - 7/1
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two) (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=harrypotter72.htm) (WB (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=warnerbros.htm)) - 7/15
• The First Avenger: Captain America (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=captainamerica.htm) (Par. (http://boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=distributor&id=paramount.htm)) - 7/22

[yoshimura]

Wow, thank you very much and good work! Looking at your list, I'm digging May 20th.

Looks like GL has a pretty sweet spot for a debut.

[FaT_tONle]

SDCC Exclusive: Pirates 4 Starts Shooting Spring '10!
Source: Edward Douglas July 23, 2009


Comic-Con is in full swing at this point, and ComingSoon.net got a surprise interview with Disney's Head of Production Oren Aviv where we talked about the genesis of some of the projects they were showing at the con, though we did have a lot of questions about future Disney plans as well. One of the movies that's still on the forefront of everyone's mind is the fourth installment of "Pirates of the Caribbean." Producer Jerry Bruckheimer told us a few weeks back that they were working on a script, but Aviv and Disney are definitely on board as we learned when we discovered that they have plans to be rolling film on the movie as early as next year.

"We're going to shoot 'Pirates 4' in April and May of next year," Aviv told us during our interview. "We are going to release it hopefully in 2011 is the plan." He said that this time they would only be doing one movie this time that would "hopefully be the first of another trilogy."

"It's important to get the story right and it's important to me to scale it down, because we can't get bigger," Aviv admitted. "The movies have subsequently gotten bigger and bigger and very complicated and they were satisfying on so many levels obviously, but I want to kind of reboot the whole thing and bring it down to its core, its essence, just characters." He agreed that there is a lot of Captain Jack Sparrow's back story that we haven't seen yet without confirming or denying that we might see some of that in the fourth movie. Still no word on whether Gore Verbinski might come back for the fourth movie.

Look for our full interview with Mr. Aviv very soon. It will definitely be of great interest to anyone who is wondering how Disney has been making decisions about some of the movies they've been making and will make in the future.



Just adding to the 2011 clutter **** I guess. I am assuming this will go the week after Thor like when At World's End was released if not the same weekend. Doesn't bode well for Thor. Lets hope this is released sometime in June. Marvel might be kicking themselves for pushing all their projects to 2011.

[bunk]

Well what are they going to do... push them back to 2012? Rush them? It is what it is.

[FaT_tONle]

Had they settled on the script with their budget under control Thor would have been ready for June 2010 where it was originally scheduled. Marvel took their own sweet time and may have backed themselves in a corner. I smelled trouble from the moment they pushed back everything. With Salvation flopping and Disney presumably putting POTC4 off till 2012 I thought Marvel may have dodged a bullet. Wishful thinking with Disney having no megahits outside Pixar since AWE. I am sorry but this was a terrible job by Marvel from the getgo. I can't blame the writers strike on every delay especially when they are doing one to two films a year max.

[bunk]

Again, if they need to take their "sweet time", then so be it. I don't want a piece of crap Thor movie.

[Khemik@L]

Thor will do well don't worry guys. I'm getting a really sweet vibes about the movie I think it will be brilliant. Let's wait and see

[Fresh Prince]

As long as the movie is good its cool they delayed the movie.

[Wally West]

I'm glad they didn't rush things just to avoid competion in a busy summer. I'm not as concerned about the box office numbers as I am with the quality of the film. .

[DocHoliday]

rushing the film out for 2010 would have been bad. Kenneth Branagh is the man. Give him and Marvel the time they need. Maybe (and you guys may not like this) if it is too crowded to make money they can take the LOTR date in December. NOV/DEC has worked for other fantasy films pretty well.

[Compi716]

Thor's date should be fine. The only one I'm worried about is Captain America. My question is, if the July 4th slot is open, why not take it?

[Chewy]

Paramount probably wants to plant a Trek sequel in the July 4th slot

[spider-neil]

I think SM4 will see a decent sized decrease from SM3, so I wouldn't worry about that


based on what? SM3 did bigger numbers worldwide that SM2

[Chewy]

SM3 made more at the WW BO based mostly on hype built from SM1 + SM2.

The audience reaction to the movie was mixed at best and DVD sales took a pretty significant dip from the first two films

[FaT_tONle]

Paramount probably wants to plant a Trek sequel in the July 4th slot

I think the studios usually alternate the July 4th release if you look at it, and Paramount has Airbender that weekend in 2010. I know they prematurely placed TF3 in there but I think that was just wishful thinking, and Bay pretty much came out and said he wasn't doing it a day later. Plus sequels usually don't need that weekend, and we haven't even heard anything from Abrams yet... or have we? I am sure some star-filled movie will take that slot in the coming months, but there has to be a better reason why Paramount hasn't placed Cap in that slot. I think the studio rotation could be a factor.

[Spider-Vader]

I don't think we're seeing TF3 in 2011. I'm not sure about POTC4, the last one was pretty boring.

[spider-neil]

thor; tales of asgard (animated movie) is being delayed a year so it comes out at the same time as the movie

http://www.animatedsuperheroes.com/labels/2011%20Thor%20Tales%20From%20Asgard.html

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, that's a bit stupid.

[spider-neil]

Well, that's a bit stupid.


totally.
looks like 2011 is going to be a big year for thor;
thor: the movie
thor: tales of asgard - the animated movie
thor: the animated series

[TheCorpulent1]

They're gonna do one big media blitz, I guess. I think it would've been smarter to release the animated movie about 6 months before the live-action film and hype it up, since it'd increase awareness of the character. Instead, it looks like we'll have to rely solely on the live-action movie's marketing campaign.

[spider-neil]

They're gonna do one big media blitz, I guess. I think it would've been smarter to release the animated movie about 6 months before the live-action film and hype it up, since it'd increase awareness of the character. Instead, it looks like we'll have to rely solely on the live-action movie's marketing campaign.

it does make a 'bit' of sense. likewise sony could do a lot worse than giving a third spectacular spider-man season in 2011 to dovetail with the movie.

[Lauryn2000]

That's it?????

:csad:

[strikezone89]

when does production start?

[Aztec]

when does production start?

January. But pre-production has been under way at full steam since June.

[FaT_tONle]

Bay Announces Transformers 3 to be Released in 2011

Quote:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff135/key2win/Autobots.jpg

"Well its official: We have a great Transformers 3 story. The release date is now July 1st 2011. Not 2012.

Today is Day One. This morning started with an ILM meeting for five hours in San Francisco. Currently I'm flying with writer Ehren Kruger to Rhode Island to talk to Hasbro about new characters.

P.S. Megan Fox, welcome back. I promise no alien robots will harm you in any way during the production of this motion picture. Please consult your Physician when working under my direction because some side effects can occur, such as mild dizziness, intense nausea, suicidal tendencies, depression, minor chest hair growth, random internal hemorrhaging and inability to sleep. As some directors may be hazardous to your health, please consult your Doctor to determine if this is right for you.

Pain and Gain is right after shooting of Trans 3."

- tfw2005 (http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/bay-announces-transformers-3-to-be-released-in-2011-168570/)/MichaelBay.com (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5976)


Okay... we are officially ****ed...

[Chewy]

How does Paramount scheduling another tentpole a month and a half after Thor in any way **** it?

[FaT_tONle]

Because POTC4 has yet to announce a release date. Disney needs a proven tentpole in 2011 and they will stay the hell away from July now. I am telling you right now, if all those movies are coming out, Thor will be sandwiched between SM4 and POTC4 the following week. You just can't downplay that. Hasn't happened yet but I don't see another date for it. Plus you compound that with the early marketing these movies will get in the Superbowl and what not. Thor will not be on ANYONE's radar. They have to talk to Paramount about a March release, no other way around it.

[Chewy]

No, because Marvel profit = Disney profit. Disney doesn;t want Thor to fail any more than it wants Pirates to fail

You're working yourself up over something which is not an issue. If the dates conflict they will move one.

[FaT_tONle]

But they can't move Thor out of summer unless Paramount agrees to it. That was the plan. Summer releases. You come up with the best dates for those projects, all things considered. There are probably five reasons it will be a bad release date regardless of what weekend it is summer 2011.

[Keyser Soze]

Geez, Fat Tonie, again? With the amount of times you've jumped to the conclusion that the Thor film is screwed, you'd almost think you wanted it to fail...

[FaT_tONle]

Nah man... I feel good about it. It's just obviously going to get overlooked. With Branagh being more of a stage/drama guy, I really don't see the need to release the film in the middle of what will be the biggest summer at the box office all time, despite the 150 million dollar budget (which is speculative anyhow). I think there is plenty of time to have it ready earlier.

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't really care. I will watch Thor--probably multiple times unless it's absolutely, utterly atrocious, and probably still at least twice in that case, just to be sure it's as bad as I thought the first time--and that's really all I can do for the movie. No use worrying what the studios may or may not do.

[FaT_tONle]

I care for the sole purpose of getting sequels and other second tier Marvel character movies. An underperformance will deny any chance of a sequel and may even impact the Avengers budget. That's why people make a big deal about box office. Ask Hulk fans.

[TheCorpulent1]

The Hulk's a much more popular character than Thor. I'm a huge Thor fan, but I'm also realistic. Thor's basically the redheaded stepchild of Marvel's major character list. I really don't expect to ever see Thor on the big screen again after his movie and Avengers. I'm just counting my blessings we're getting those two movies made.

[Khemik@L]

I don't know Corp. I see this movie greatly improving the popularity of Thor in the same way the Iron Man movie did for Iron Man. I kindah see the public begging for more Thor after this first Movie. And speaking as a Hulk fan I actually have a great anticipation for the Thor Movie, so much so that I am looking forward to it more than a Hulk sequel at the moment. I don't know something about the cast and the way I see the movie progressing is leading me to believe this will be a really cool movie.

[TheCorpulent1]

While that would all certainly be great, I tend to think of Iron Man more as a fluke. What other character has had their popularity boosted so much by a single movie?

[The Ace of Knaves]

They should of released the animated movie a few months before the live action movie. Then launched the TAS in between the two and leading up to the movie.

[Khemik@L]

While that would all certainly be great, I tend to think of Iron Man more as a fluke. What other character has had their popularity boosted so much by a single movie?

Captain Jack Sparrow :yay: I know he is not a comic book character but the point I'm trying to make is once the movie is good and the Hero is larger than life their popularity can catch on. And I use Captain Jack Sparrow to kindah prove that it the audience does not really care where the character comes from, Comic Book or otherwise. Once the character is likable then people will like 'em.

Besides I can easily see a guy who controls Thunder and fights beast larger than himself becoming the next teenage attraction. Hell, this guy can go toe to toe with Hulk, who else can brag about that?

I don't know man maybe I'm a lil too optimistic but I only see good things for this character in the future.

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, I hope you're right. I'm naturally pessimistic, so I never really get my hopes up for anything.

[Webhead2006]

well yea the summer 2011 schedule is one cluster full of films. But we are over a year and a half away from then and we have no clue how each film is going to do. How the general movie goers are going to take thor/cap for example and how folks are going to go for sm4/tf3/POTC4. Plus there is still a chance between now and then some films could get moved around.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I wish TF3 and POTC4 would just **** off.

[FaT_tONle]

All these movies have polarizing leads... something Thor does not have. I mean you look at Hemsworth, is he really going to be as entertaining or as comedic as a Shia, RDJ, Depp? I don't trust him in that department. I don't know if Thor has the entertainment value you look for in a summer popcorn, certainly not by the way they have casted thus far. I don't think it warrants a 150 million dollar budget either. At some point you need to cut back and have realistic expectations based on the direction you are taking the film.

[TheCorpulent1]

I thought Branagh was bringing the budget down anyway, hence the rewrites and unknowns. And I don't really know what Hemsworth is capable of, since all I've seen of him is his little cameo in Star Trek. If Branagh was as impressed as he says he was by Hemsworth's audition, though, I figure he's probably got something going for him. Shia, RDJ, and Depp weren't always Shia, RDJ, and Depp, either.

[The Ace of Knaves]

All these movies have polarizing leads... something Thor does not have. I mean you look at Hemsworth, is he really going to be as entertaining or as comedic as a Shia, RDJ, Depp? I don't trust him in that department. I don't know if Thor has the entertainment value you look for in a summer popcorn, certainly not by the way they have casted thus far. I don't think it warrants a 150 million dollar budget either. At some point you need to cut back and have realistic expectations based on the direction you are taking the film.

The whole premise of Thor and his universe is entertaining. To A LOT of people I'd imagine.

They should market it like the Marvel version of LOTR. Whether the lead is a mega star shouldn't really matter too much.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I thought Branagh was bringing the budget down anyway, hence the rewrites and unknowns. And I don't really know what Hemsworth is capable of, since all I've seen of him is his little cameo in Star Trek. If Branagh was as impressed as he says he was by Hemsworth's audition, though, I figure he's probably got something going for him. Shia, RDJ, and Depp weren't always Shia, RDJ, and Depp, either.

Exactly.

Plus seeing who is involved, Thor has a much better chance of being an actual GOOD movie than the likes of Transformers 3.

[FaT_tONle]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, we're all just speculating and there's almost 2 years between now and the film's release. Lots can change. I don't really see the point of constantly wringing your hands about it.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

No it doesn't.

But when Thor is getting good reviews and TF3 is getting it's inevitable crap reviews people will sit up and take notice. ie Star Trek.

It's all about how they market it. There is a big demographic out there for the whole mythical, swords and sandals type movies, and there hasn't been a good one in ages. Add to that fans of comic book movies and there is a big market for a film like Thor. And then if it is marketed well, garners good reviews, it ain't all doom and gloom.

You put too much emphasis on star power. Which undoubtedly makes a big mark, but isn't the be all end all of a movies success.

[TheVileOne]

Transformers and transformers 2 got horrible reviews and they still made a ton of money. The movies are critic proof.

Star Trek got great reviews and all, but I mean . . . its still Star Trek.

Anyway, we'll see. Should be interesting.

[Keyser Soze]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

So?

Of course it's unlikely Thor is going to break box office records, but that's Marvel's problem, not ours. The movie doing financially would be great, of course, but all I'm looking for is a film that's well-recieved by fans and critics alike, and is good enough to help raise Thor's profile in the comics.

I think Corp put it best - it's pointless wringing your hands over ifs and maybes. Wouldn't it be more productive to anticipate Thor and The Avengers - two Thor adventures on film we know we're getting - rather than constantly fretting over the likelihood of a hypothetical Thor 2 in 2015?

[TheCorpulent1]

Amen. I think pretty much every big Thor fan who's had to put up with Marvel's shabby treatment of the character for years or decades knows that we're lucky to even be getting those two movies. A sequel is a hard sell unless Thor absolutely shatters its box office expectations, so I'm just basking in the awesomeness of Thor and The Avengers for the time being.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think a lot of fans miss the point a little.

I remember when I was younger, first reading comics, I never even thought about the possibility of my favourite comic book characters starring in their own movies.

Now they are, I'm grateful for it. And so should everyone else. As long as we get the film we want, who cares about how much money it makes some suits in Hollywood?

[FaT_tONle]

No it doesn't.

But when Thor is getting good reviews and TF3 is getting it's inevitable crap reviews people will sit up and take notice. ie Star Trek.

It's all about how they market it. There is a big demographic out there for the whole mythical, swords and sandals type movies, and there hasn't been a good one in ages. Add to that fans of comic book movies and there is a big market for a film like Thor. And then if it is marketed well, garners good reviews, it ain't all doom and gloom.

You put too much emphasis on star power. Which undoubtedly makes a big mark, but isn't the be all end all of a movies success.

Not really... LOTR was the exception... not the norm.

So?

Of course it's unlikely Thor is going to break box office records, but that's Marvel's problem, not ours. The movie doing financially would be great, of course, but all I'm looking for is a film that's well-recieved by fans and critics alike, and is good enough to help raise Thor's profile in the comics.

I think Corp put it best - it's pointless wringing your hands over ifs and maybes. Wouldn't it be more productive to anticipate Thor and The Avengers - two Thor adventures on film we know we're getting - rather than constantly fretting over the likelihood of a hypothetical Thor 2 in 2015?

Again, if you guys don't care about getting sequels and having a greater potential for more second/third tier Marvel films then I can't really argue with you. I guess Marvel would be better off selling all their non-money makers for other studios to rape if that's the case.

[The Ace of Knaves]

What do you mean not really? Films like Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and co made good money. People love those sorta films. Those sorta film are the ORIGINAL fantasy films.

[Chewy]

Fat_tonie how can you not see that it is an endless cycle? Before Pirates Depp wasn't a draw for general audiences, people would say "He's no Will Smith". Before Transformers, people said "Shia's no Depp". Before Iron Man, people said "RDJ's no Shia". How many examples of summer tentpoles starring leads who weren't considered "draws" beforehand do we need to see before we realize that the lead being a name isn't everything. it's how the film is marketed, the buzz surrounding the film, etc. There's no real way to judge that ahead of time, and going through this same tired discussion every few weeks won't change it either way.

[Keyser Soze]

Again, if you guys don't care about getting sequels and having a greater potential for more second/third tier Marvel films then I can't really argue with you. I guess Marvel would be better off selling all their non-money makers for other studios to rape if that's the case.

It's not that we don't care about getting sequels. Of course Thor 2 would be lovely. But I want to enjoy Thor 1 first. And I think it's just a bit tiresome when you're constantly just writing off Thor as a failure when it's 2 years away.

It's just that you seem so utterly defeatist about the whole thing. Like every one of your posts should be accompanied with a big "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT..." sound effect. Rather than looking at the negative angle on everything - "Oh no, Thor is out in Summer 2011 amidst lots of other big films, its going to get lost in the shuffle, it's going to bomb" - why not look at it as Marvel having faith that they have a film worthy of a big summer slot, and that putting the film in the season where everyone flocks to the multiplex week after week could actually be a GOOD thing for business? You act like being a couple of weeks after Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a death sentence, but surely a well-placed Thor trailer at the front of POTC4 can be a big boost to the film.

[FaT_tONle]

What do you mean not really? Films like Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and co made good money. People love those sorta films. Those sorta film are the ORIGINAL fantasy films.

Those are considered fantasy films???

Fat_tonie how can you not see that it is an endless cycle? Before Pirates Depp wasn't a draw for general audiences, people would say "He's no Will Smith". Before Transformers, people said "Shia's no Depp". Before Iron Man, people said "RDJ's no Shia". How many examples of summer tentpoles starring leads who weren't considered "draws" beforehand do we need to see before we realize that the lead being a name isn't everything. it's how the film is marketed, the buzz surrounding the film, etc. There's no real way to judge that ahead of time, and going through this same tired discussion every few weeks won't change it either way.

If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Those are considered fantasy films???

Well you know what I mean, swords and sandals epics. Same thing.



If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

You're still not getting past the fact that the lead doesn't necessarily make or break a film. It's a big important part of it, obviously, but not the be all end all.

So what you are basically saying is, the lead role should be given to the big name, rather than the actual best choice for the role?

[Chewy]

Ok, then let's look at the leads in other recent successful summer blockbusters. Chris Pine. Tobey Maguire. Hugh Jackman. None of them were anything before their respective films.

[Keyser Soze]

If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

Yeah, good point, without a big star leading the film Thor has no chance. If only District 9 has a star-studded cast, it wouldn't have been a box office failure, and might have topped the box office for a whileHEYWAITAMINUTE! :wow:

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah, good point, without a big star leading the film Thor has no chance. If only District 9 has a star-studded cast, it wouldn't have been a box office failure, and might have topped the box office for a whileHEYWAITAMINUTE! :wow:

I am not saying you need an A-lister all the time as the lead.. :doh:. We are comparing franchises so likewise I am comparing leads pre-blockbuster. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion and give Hemsworth the benefit of the doubt and automatically say he's the next Depp or Jackman. We just don't know that yet. He COULD be, but for that to happen you need a breakout hit. Even guys like Pine and Maguire, outside those respective franchises, I don't think they have any name power. Maybe that will change with Pine, but outside of Spiderman does Tobey cast in a film really get anyone excited? Not that that matters... point being you at least need that break out hit.

[Webhead2006]

totally is all about the marketing, promotions, buzz on the film.

[TheCorpulent1]

I am not saying you need an A-lister all the time as the lead.. :doh:. We are comparing franchises so likewise I am comparing leads pre-blockbuster. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion and give Hemsworth the benefit of the doubt and automatically say he's the next Depp or Jackman. We just don't know that yet. He COULD be, but for that to happen you need a breakout hit. Even guys like Pine and Maguire, outside those respective franchises, I don't think they have any name power. Maybe that will change with Pine, but outside of Spiderman does Tobey cast in a film really get anyone excited? Not that that matters... point being you at least need that break out hit.
I don't know, certain people being in a movie doesn't really get me excited in the first place. I tend to look at what the movie's about before anything else. The actors in it are just icing on the cake once I've already decided I'm interested in the film's story or concept. Although, I know that's the exception, not the norm.

[TheVileOne]

Tobey Maguire was a critically acclaimed actor and also had was in a prolific hit that was Pleasantville. He was known, but Spider-man made him a star.

[blamerandy]

Yeah and then he was in Seabiscuit and...Spiderman 2 and 3... I cant think of anything else... but he's a major superstar :whatever:

[Spider-Vader]

The Hulk's a much more popular character than Thor. I'm a huge Thor fan, but I'm also realistic. Thor's basically the redheaded stepchild of Marvel's major character list. I really don't expect to ever see Thor on the big screen again after his movie and Avengers. I'm just counting my blessings we're getting those two movies made.
Well, there's always the chance that Thor is a hit then Disney/Paramount would want to get sequels out.

I wish TF3 and POTC4 would just **** off.
Me too. Why are Disney & Paramount doing this? They'll already be getting alot from Thor & Cap (hopefully). Maybe if they release Transformers in late June again & push POTC4 (which will bomb without Depp, if he's not in it Disney shouldn't even try) to 2012. That gives Cap & Thor some time to breath.

Disney & Paramount have to think rationally. It'll change again, hopefully it'll be better for us comic fans.

[FaT_tONle]

Me too. Why are Disney & Paramount doing this? They'll already be getting alot from Thor & Cap (hopefully). Maybe if they release Transformers in late June again & push POTC4 (which will bomb without Depp, if he's not in it Disney shouldn't even try) to 2012. That gives Cap & Thor some time to breath.

Disney & Paramount have to think rationally. It'll change again, hopefully it'll be better for us comic fans.

Which is what I am trying to understand as well... but I'll go the other way as well. 2012 may potentially be equally packed if you throw in Avengers, MAYBE Indy 5 in the Memorial Day slot, and probably TDK 2 in July. Pure speculation but it would appear that POTC may have trouble isolating itself in May/July for both those years. If we look back at 2007, that was a year where we also had an SM movie, POTC, TF, and a HP movie so this would not be completely unprecedented. But now you add three more major comic book movies and it looks like a complete waste. I think Marvel would have been better off sticking to that June 17th date. It was obvious that they clearly weren't happy with TIH's BO numbers; hence the move to May, and GL quickly grabbed that date. They probably should have stayed put where they had some breathing room mid June.

[Spider-Vader]

I really think they should push Transformers back to 2012. If it fails that's because people are sick of Bay's version of the characters. Maybe they should do it for POTC too.

[Webhead2006]

well neither film is actually filming yet, so untill they are rolling on cameras who knows if they will be ready for the scheduled time they have presently.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Yeah and then he was in Seabiscuit and...Spiderman 2 and 3... I cant think of anything else... but he's a major superstar :whatever:
Wonder Boys, The Ice Storm, The Good German...

[The Ace of Knaves]

The Cider House Rules.

[Octoberist]

I think after Spider-Man 3, Tobey just kinda floated around. Also, he has kids now so that may explain why.

[Webhead2006]

yea he does have a daughter if i recall who is very young, so that is why he probably hasnt done alot of stuff since sm3. Heck if i was an actor and just had a kid i rather stay home with the kid for awhile, or work out deal to not be in like 16 hr days of filming and not see my kid at all.

[Octoberist]

I really think they should push Transformers back to 2012. If it fails that's because people are sick of Bay's version of the characters. Maybe they should do it for POTC too.

I really think that at least one of these movies will be delayed until Winter 2011 or Summer 2012, be it Transformers 3, Pirates 4, Captain America (who knows), or whatever.

[Spider-Vader]

I really think that at least one of these movies will be delayed until Winter 2011 or Summer 2012, be it Transformers 3, Pirates 4, Captain America (who knows), or whatever.

I say POTC4 should. But I don't think that should even go into production if Depp doesn't return. No Depp = Big Bomb.

[zeptron]

I agree. POTC4 and TF3 need to wait until 2012. Movies like Cap, Thor, and Green Lantern have never been on the big screen. They had their release dates set first and they all have pushed back once already.

Another reason I would like POTC to get pushed back is that is will probably destroy any chance of Depp being Riddler in Batman 3.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea POTC and TF3 need to **** off.

[FaT_tONle]

I agree. POTC4 and TF3 need to wait until 2012. Movies like Cap, Thor, and Green Lantern have never been on the big screen. They had their release dates set first and they all have pushed back once already.

Another reason I would like POTC to get pushed back is that is will probably destroy any chance of Depp being Riddler in Batman 3.

Depp is pretty much on board... even Geoffrey Rush has said he'd likely be back. Disney likes to put there biggest film in May (ala AWE, Narnia, Up, Persia) so I doubt they are thinking Winter. Summer 2012 is a possibility. Would not shock me at all if Marvel/Disney are negotiating with Paramount as we speak to move Thor out of the summer.

[Octoberist]

Pirates 4 is also the only one that doesn't have an official release date, so who knows...

[Octoberist]

Yea POTC and TF3 need to **** off.

You hear that POTC and TF3? Huh? (Punches wall)

[Spider-Vader]

Depp is pretty much on board... even Geoffrey Rush has said he'd likely be back. Disney likes to put there biggest film in May (ala AWE, Narnia, Up, Persia) so I doubt they are thinking Winter. Summer 2012 is a possibility. Would not shock me at all if Marvel/Disney are negotiating with Paramount as we speak to move Thor out of the summer.

LOL, if Disney really thinks Persia will be their biggest film next year, they're fools. TS3 could possibly be the highest grossing animated movie of all-time.

[FaT_tONle]

Well, maybe I should have said live action movie. Up was May but that's because the strike did not allow them to release Persia in May 2009.

[TheCorpulent1]

Persia as in Prince of Persia? With Jake Gyllenhaal? I'm a huge fan of the games and I doubt I'll even bother watching that. It looks terrible so far.

[Webhead2006]

i thought alot of folks have said it looks great, and jake is in extremely good shape for the role or the title character. I never played the game series at all but i am curious to see that film when it does hit theaters.

[TheCorpulent1]

The main reason why the Sands of Time was great was because of the writing. It was charming and witty. The movie just looks like a generic action movie without any of that wit. Plus, I think Gyllenhaal is supremely wrong for the role, regardless of what kind of shape he's in.

[TheVileOne]

I agree. POTC4 and TF3 need to wait until 2012. Movies like Cap, Thor, and Green Lantern have never been on the big screen. They had their release dates set first and they all have pushed back once already.

Another reason I would like POTC to get pushed back is that is will probably destroy any chance of Depp being Riddler in Batman 3.

A movie studio doesn't give a ****. Studios would rather bank on proven commodities than newer material. I mean all of its pre-existing IP which is what studios want rather than original ideas, but a studio 10 times out of 10 would rather bank on a sequel to a high grossing franchise than a new movie like Cap, Thor, or Green Lantern.

Paramount and Disney want Transformers 3 and POTC4 because their last movies made almost a billion dollars worldwide.

[TheCorpulent1]

I can't believe people aren't bored of those movies yet. I lost interest after one TF movie and two PotC movies.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I've never got into the Pirates films. Sure Jack Sparrow is a great character, but for me, that's about it.

And whilst it is true studios would rather bank on their already established franchises, they still must give their new properties the best chance. I mean, how did Pirates and Transformers get started up in the first place? One is a ****ing ride at DisneyWorld and the other is a bunch of toys from the 80s and 90s.

The studios got behind those franchises when they first started out in the film world. So the studios should get behind the likes of Thor and Cap and GL too. And they will.

[FaT_tONle]

Paramount certainly doesn't give a ****. It only HELPS their marketing campaign having TF in that July 4th slot so they can attach a kickass Cap trailer. Now maybe that bodes well for Cap. But certainly if HP8 or even TF have any legs that will hurt Cap (TF will probably fade by then but you never know). But Marvel was already prepared for HP8 and is probably banking on Cap holding it's own through July and most of August as the last major tentpole of that summer. Regardless Paramount still needs a tentpole of their own. 8% commission from two unproven commodoties is nowhere near enough. Now with Thor, I really doubt Paramount is going to compete with Sony/SM4 for market Thor. Just wouldn't make sense. I am sure they will do a servicable job, but don't expect TV spots and posters up the wazoo.

For Disney, POTC makes ZERO sense. They have a Pixar movie and two CB movies. Plus I heard POTC4 is only going to take two months to film? What kind of non-epic bull **** is that? Unless it's 80% motion capture/CGI or something. Plus I doubt Depp is doing another one so why rush it? 2012 sounds good. If they hit with Persia they can have that sequel out by 2013. Then you can have a big CB summer again in 2014. Hell you can have a big CB summer every year for that matter.

[Octoberist]

i haven't heard a thing about POTC 4 being filmed for 2 months..

[TheVileOne]

Believe it or not, that's pretty much the average time for a lot of these movies for PRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY. 2 months doesn't mean the movie will be finished in 2 months.

The first Iron Man movie for example shot for like 10 weeks for principal.

[Webhead2006]

yea most give or take what type of film it is its usally 2-6 months of filming then rest of production for prep before/post-reshots. Then if its a sequel with the same crew and all that. Things can be shot at a quick pace since everyone knows how everyone works, they would already have cgi/sfx stuff to work off from and all that. Then there is those types of films that seem to take forever to film. Usually its on average 40-100+ days for shooting right for certain films right.

[FaT_tONle]

I remeber reading in the POTC thread they were looking at a month and a half of filming or something. Well how long did it take the first three POTC films to film on average? I just figured those were at least 3-4 month shoots, a reason as to why they were so late with the marketing for AWE. Obviously they were on a tight schedule at the time and I am sure they will scale things down this time, but that filming schedule just seems too short for a POTC film. Makes sense if they want the film out by 2011. They don't even have a director yet if I am not mistaken.

[Webhead2006]

pirates 4 they got marshall(did chicago i believe) as director. But if alot of the crew and various actors are back for it sure filming will probably go quick and easy.