Thor 2 news, speculation and pictures possible Spoilers - Part 1

[Symbiotic]

Unless he's got schedule conflicts, I say go get Branagh back.

[RealIrOnMaN]

Again, I would love to see Ken back in action. It's not like he's busy with anything right at the moment.

[Crimson King]

I'd love to see Branagh back, but he's already said no to the scheduling once.

How about Favreau? Hah!

[Symbiotic]

If he didn't have a full plate, I'd say del Toro.

[Sgt.Pepper]

Pity that she left. I'm hoping they go with Kirk, as he's a fantastic choice for this.

[Crimson King]

del Toro's good. Given their track record, the choice will probably come out of left field. Maybe Ben Affleck.

[R_Hythlodeus]

idk about del Toro, I mean, he just dropped out of Star Trek...
*ducks and hides*

[Gamma Burst]

del Toro's good. Given their track record, the choice will probably come out of left field. Maybe Ben Affleck.

Don't even kid about it.:D

[R_Hythlodeus]

Affleck and Superheroes....
Hollywoodland was awesome, though.

[Son of Coul]

I'm curious as to where all these creative differences stem from. Perhaps the directors wanting to shift the tone/direction to different places and Marvel putting their foot down?

[Crimson King]

Don't even kid about it.:D

Not kidding! I can't stand him as an actor, but the guy has some directing talent.

[RealIrOnMaN]

I'm curious as to where all these creative differences stem from. Perhaps the directors wanting to shift the tone/direction to different places and Marvel putting their foot down?
Most definitely. Favreau wasn't able to do what he wanted with IM2, because of Marvel Studios' decisions. I guess, that Patty faced with the same problems. Interestingly enough (your nickname reminded me of this), Jenkins and Clark Gregg were supposed to meet on next week or so.

[Sgt.Pepper]

idk about del Toro, I mean, he just dropped out of Star Trek...
*ducks and hides*

That's the wrong del Toro. You're thinking of the actor Benicio del Toro, not the director Guillermo del Toro. :woot:

[Son of Coul]

Hmm, hopefully Marvel was right on and it wasn't a result of them wanting to play things too safe (cutting the suicide opening in TIH and not allowing DIAB for IM2 still annoy me).

[R_Hythlodeus]

That's the wrong del Toro. You're thinking of the actor Benicio del Toro, not the director Guillermo del Toro. :woot:
Oh yes, the del Toro brothers. Better than the Raimis and Wayans combined...:oldrazz:

[Crimson King]

How did I know the Marvel bashing would begin so quickly?

Favreau decided not to do DIAB. He said it didn't fit with the tone he wanted. We don't know anything about the Jenkins split, so it's useless to start assigning blame. For all we know, she might've wanted to the whole thing be a black-and-white noir piece.

[Gamma Burst]

How did I know the Marvel bashing would begin so quickly?

Favreau decided not to do DIAB. He said it didn't fit with the tone he wanted. We don't know anything about the Jenkins split, so it's useless to start assigning blame. For all we know, she might've wanted to the whole thing be a black-and-white noir piece.

Exactly. But bashing (for most) is always the easiest way, hehe.
Anyway, it seems it was a somewhat 'friendly' departure, as she's up to directing another movie.

[R_Hythlodeus]

I wonder if she might take over Dr. Strange...

[Son of Coul]

How did I know the Marvel bashing would begin so quickly?

Favreau decided not to do DIAB. He said it didn't fit with the tone he wanted. We don't know anything about the Jenkins split, so it's useless to start assigning blame. For all we know, she might've wanted to the whole thing be a black-and-white noir piece.
I agree, and I hate the Marvel bashing as well, but I do strongly believe that Marvel is responsible for the DIAB dropped plot. There was a Q&A with Favs and RDJ a few months back and I recall Favs specifically saying "We didn't want to show Tony getting drunk, we were told..." then going on to say the party scene they got away with because kids could assume that he was "acting silly because he was dying" or something to that extent.

I am curious as to what superhero franchise she could take over, it's always good to hear about a pleasant departure without bad blood.

[Spider-ManHero12]

This is really sad. I mean, they've already done a lot of storyboards, concept art and promotional art for the movie. The only things that are in need of tinkering with - is the script and, from now on, the new director.

I would love to see Branagh back. I'm dead serious. Agreed.

[Gamma Burst]

Btw, Thor 2 is already trending on twitter. LOL.
The God of Thunder is popular or what? ;)

[Son of Coul]

If this pushes them to put the movie off, it'd be awesome if they waited for Mr. Branagh to become available.

[Gamma Burst]

Yeah, I'd love if he could come back to Thor 2.

[Crimson King]

Wait, didn't that article have the wrong release date? I thought Thor got moved to November?

[Gamma Burst]

Yeah, it was wrong. The real date is November 15th.

[Crimson King]

I agree, and I hate the Marvel bashing as well, but I do strongly believe that Marvel is responsible for the DIAB dropped plot. There was a Q&A with Favs and RDJ a few months back and I recall Favs specifically saying "We didn't want to show Tony getting drunk, we were told..." then going on to say the party scene they got away with because kids could assume that he was "acting silly because he was dying" or something to that extent.

I am curious as to what superhero franchise she could take over, it's always good to hear about a pleasant departure without bad blood.

I remember Favs talking about how he didn't want to do DIAB as far back as the post-IM1 interviews. Here's one quote:

."If you went straight into, 'Demon In A Bottle,' it would end up feeling like, 'Leaving Las Vegas.' That story doesn't give you much."

Maybe she could take over Dr. Strange?

[Son of Coul]

Ok, I guess that is on Favs then. Still hoping Marvel doesn't punk out on nothin'. I dunno much about the tone or character of Dr. Strange but if people here think she could do it then by all means I'm for it. I'm really interested in seeing him make it to the screen, seems like an awesome character.

[Crimson King]

I, too, would like them to experiment in different tones.

[kedrell]

Favs was right about DIAB. Can't be done in one of these movies. The only place in live action it could really work would be on a TV series. Been saying that for 4 years now. It's a story that really needs room to breathe and you'll never be able to fit it into a 2-2 & 1/2 hour summer action film whilst retaining the requisite...y'know, ACTION. DIAB is a very non-action story. Who wants to see Tony Stark out of his armor and on the street for 90% of the film? IM2 gave us about as good an 'omage to DIAB as I think we ever could have got. Now if someday they have a Iron Man TV show then by all means, go whole hog on DIAB.

[DarknessOfDeath]

damn this sucks monkey ass. and just when you thought that the project would get off the ground soon, it didn't because she left. :(

[Gamma Burst]

damn this sucks monkey ass. and just when you thought that the project would get off the ground soon, it didn't because she left. :(

It won't change things that much,mate. They'll probably announce a new director soon.

[kedrell]

If he weren't already attached to that damn Uncharted video game movie I'd say they should give Neil Burger a consideration. The guy dipped his toe in fantasy already with The Illusionist and Limitless was one of the best films this year. And both made on suprisingly small budgets given the quality of work and box office returns they got.

[DarknessOfDeath]

It won't change things that much,mate. They'll probably announce a new director soon.


I wonder if Ken will come back. Probably not.


Btw, Odison, are you from England??

[Gamma Burst]

I wonder if Ken will come back. Probably not.


Btw, Odison, are you from England??

No, far from it! I'm brazilian. :D

[DarknessOfDeath]

No, far from it! I'm brazilian. :D

oh okay. :D When you said mate, I thought it meant you were from England. hehe. :) Cool.

Well speaking thor2, I hope Enchantress is in it but I doubt it cause I am working on a photoshop manip of Kate Beckinsale as Enchantress. Not sure how this is going to turn out. Its probably gonna come out like s*** cause I hardly know anything about the character. lmao.

[kedrell]

I was much more hopeful of Theron being cast as Amora before this news broke.

[DarknessOfDeath]

yeah. theron wouldn't be a bad choice either.

[TheVileOne]

I'd support bringing back Branagh if he's available. I mean why not? I mean Thor wasn't fantastic, but I think he did a good job. Give him a little more time and money and I think he can make it even better.

I just don't want another Gavin Hood or Brett Ratner situation here.

[kedrell]

And let him make a film with enough runtime to flesh the story out well.

[DarknessOfDeath]

^^ Agreed totally.

[TheVileOne]

They didn't really cut much out of Thor though. And most of what they cut was pretty boring.

[kedrell]

That was one of the only real problems I had with Thor1. The guy's a thousand years old(at least) and thus would have such ingrained behavior patters/character traits(such as the arrogance that got him banished) and all it takes is what seems like a week at most as a mortal on Earth and he's a changed man/god? Yeah, that's pretty rushed.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah but at the same time they didn't like butcher the movie as some would think. The deleted footage seems to indicate the movie was already sort of lean on elements like that even with all that deleted footage.

[mclay18]

I'd support bringing back Branagh if he's available. I mean why not? I mean Thor wasn't fantastic, but I think he did a good job. Give him a little more time and money and I think he can make it even better.

Branagh has said repeatedly that he wants a breather from doing another big movie. Never say never, he might come back to direct if the script is good enough.

I just don't want another Gavin Hood or Brett Ratner situation here.

That was different. Fox's Tom Rothman was in his "finger in the pie" mode and wanted some things his way. Marvel Studios had little to no say in X-Men 3 or Wolverine like they had with their Paramount and Disney-released movies.

[kedrell]

Personally ,I liked what I read about the original mythos in the comics about Thor being turned into a human infant and having to live an entire lifetime as a mortal to give him some better perspective before regaining his godhood. Now that's a bit more of an epic scope.

The only thing I didn't like there was the whole convoluted thing about him and Blake actually not being the same person. Unnecessarily complex, if you ask me.

[chiefchirpa]

Marvel may have avoided a Green Lantern. You know, a good promising director is forced upon to take a genre that's not her or his forte....

[kedrell]

^That is possible. Still, if they had been doing their jobs right then this would've been all behind the scenes stuff and we'd have never known about it.

[TheVileOne]

This happens sometimes. Branagh wasn't the original director for Thor remember? Matthew Vaughn was set to direct before his deal expired during the WGA strike.

[sgaana]

I'd love to see Branagh back, but he's already said no to the scheduling once.

How about Favreau? Hah!

Didn't Branagh say no to the scheduling back when it was a May 2013 release, before they moved it to November? His scheduling conflicts might not exist any longer.

I don't know how likely I think it is that he'd be back. But it does kind of feel like that would be a good way for them to put a positive spin on this. All other things being equal, a movie losing a director (after being heavily rumored to have gotten Kirk, and then THAT falling through, earlier) never looks great for the movie. It seems like it would be a great PR move to be able to say, "But nevermind, we got Ken back!"

(I know some folks would like to see a different director's take on it. But going back to the reviews at the time the film came out, a LOT of them praised the way Branagh handled the Asgard material. Since he was judged to be such a positive for the film amongst critics, that's why I'm saying that announcing they'd gotten him back would be a good PR move after losing Jenkins.)

[itchyscratch]

Didn't Branagh say no to the scheduling back when it was a May 2013 release, before they moved it to November? His scheduling conflicts might not exist any longer.


Branagh was talking about the Thor movie and sequel in an interview the other day with Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 5. He made lots of positive noses about Thor but it sounded like he thought the sequel would take up way too much of his time.

[herolee10]

Branagh was talking about the Thor movie and sequel in an interview the other day with Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 5. He made lots of positive noses about Thor but it sounded like he thought the sequel would take up way too much of his time.

The impression that I got was that he felt that he would need more time to prepare for a sequel than what Marvel is currently allotting for.

I think that if Marvel was willing to hold back and release the film in summer 2014, then Kenneth may have been more inclined to come back perhaps.

[Crimson King]

Here are MTV's suggestions for the new director. Duncan Jones sounds great to me.

Joe Wright
If you think about it, Wright may be the best choice here. "Pride & Prejudice" and "Atonement" showed off his knack for injecting modern touches into classical tales. The under-rated "Hanna" proved he can easily pull off badass, yet nuanced action. Wright strikes the balance that made Branagh such an inspired choice.

Rian Johnson
Johnson is poised for a huge breakout in 2012. He screened an unfinished version of his upcoming sci-fi action film "Looper," and the reactions were outrageously positive. He can tackle genre in clever ways without ever being too self serious. (See "Brick" and "The Brothers Bloom.") He'll be the director everyone will be talking about this time next year, so Marvel should snap him up as quickly as possible.

Duncan Jones
He's already been to space with the indie hit "Moon," and this year, Jones took on a bigger budget and a wider release with "Source Code." In both cases, he has taken outlandish premises and grounded them with believable characters, something that Norse gods and their domestic issues need.

Kathryn Bigelow
One of the best action directors out there, Bigelow could make a brilliant "Thor 2." Look no further than the film she won an Oscar for, "The Hurt Locker." There you have tight, tense action with a brain. Bigelow could be the director to give the emotional back bone that was lacking in the first "Thor."

Joe Cornish
Cornish earned some serious geek cred this year with the aliens in the projects film "Attack the Block," plus he's already been working on the screenplay for a different Marvel superhero. His work on "Ant-Man" with Edgar Wright will make the perfect appetizer for a directorial outing with "Thor 2."

source (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/12/07/thor-2-patty-jenkins-director/)

[Gamma Burst]

Interesting choices!:up:

[R_Hythlodeus]

And again, Vadim Jean didn't make the list... *shakesfistsinrage*

[Crimson King]

Hmm. Not familiar with Vadim.

[DarkSovereignty]

Here are MTV's suggestions for the new director. Duncan Jones sounds great to me.



source (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/12/07/thor-2-patty-jenkins-director/)
I'd be ecstatic over any of these choices.

[Gamma Burst]

So, do you think we'll have a new director until Chirstmas?

[Raiden]

Here are MTV's suggestions for the new director. Duncan Jones sounds great to me.



source (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/12/07/thor-2-patty-jenkins-director/)

I like Duncan Jones but Joe Wright seems to be a great choice as well. I won't mind Kathryn Bigelow but I think Marvel may have a hard time telling her what they'd like her to do with Thor 2, and we may have a Jenkins situation all over again.

[DarkSovereignty]

eh, i don't think bigelow would have a problem with studios. she's kind of a major player, so i see the studio backing off somewhat (like what fox does with james cameron). jenkins in somewhat of a no-name. i honestly had never heard of her before this, so it's very believable that she has no pull what so ever.

[BigThor]

I'd support bringing back Branagh if he's available. I mean why not? I mean Thor wasn't fantastic, but I think he did a good job. Give him a little more time and money and I think he can make it even better.

It was fantastic to me, underrated even and I'm not just saying that as a Thor fan.

Here are MTV's suggestions for the new director. Duncan Jones sounds great to me.

source (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/12/07/thor-2-patty-jenkins-director/)

Ducan Jones is my number one choice, I hope Marvel Studios takes a look at him.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah Bigelow ain't doing it. She's gearing up her Kill Bin Laden movie to help Obama get re-elected.

[Juicy J]

I pretty much trust marvel with any decision...they have a perfect track record in my eyes. I will 100% be behind whoever they chose, I know that for a fact.

[rashad]

I pretty much trust marvel with any decision...they have a perfect track record in my eyes. I will 100% be behind whoever they chose, I know that for a fact.

Even someone like him?

http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/brettratner__111109014817.jpg

[Juicy J]

Oh, definitely. Especially him. That man knows more about story telling and character development than pretty much anyone else in hollywood. But as much as I love him as a film maker, it's his overall humility that I admire the most.
:D

[hatebox]

Duncan Jones would be a good choice, in fact I suspect he's already the frontrunner.

[dark phenom]

I read Hiddleston is signed for six films... Anyone think or hope they'll bring Lady Loki into this? If they do I hope they cast Eva Green for the role.

[BigThor]

Duncan Jones would be a good choice, in fact I suspect he's already the frontrunner.

Man I really hope he and Marvel can reach an agreement because I would LOVE for him to direct THOR 2.

I read Hiddleston is signed for six films... Anyone think or hope they'll bring Lady Loki into this? If they do I hope they cast Eva Green for the role.

No, to Lady Loki...just no

[Godzilla2000]

I read Hiddleston is signed for six films... Anyone think or hope they'll bring Lady Loki into this? If they do I hope they cast Eva Green for the role.

Chances are if they have Loki's soul possessing anyone's body, it will be Sif's body just like in the comics. I'm sure they can fit Tom Hiddleston in there by having him appear in astral form over reflective surfaces. I'm sure Tommy and Jaimie Alexander would have a blast trying to perfectly mimic each other's gestures and performance.

[BigThor]

The impression that I got was that he felt that he would need more time to prepare for a sequel than what Marvel is currently allotting for.

I think that if Marvel was willing to hold back and release the film in summer 2014, then Kenneth may have been more inclined to come back perhaps.

I want THOR 2 in 2013 so if having Branagh returns means waiting until 2014 then I'll be perfectly happy with settling for a new director.

[elgaz]

Duncan Jones for me.

[BigThor]

^^^ Same here :up:

[Sgt.Pepper]

There's a lot of interesting choices of directors but, for some reason, I feel like Marvel is going with a less known directors. I was thinking maybe one of the directors that were considered before Jenkins was hired. So it's possible they're going with either James McTeigue (V for Vendetta), Drew Goddard (Cabin in the Woods), Noam Murro (300: Battle of Artemesia) or Breck Eisner (Sahara & The Crazies).

Don't get me wrong, I would love if they chose an inspired choice of director or any of the ones that were mentioned earlier, but I don't know, it feels like they're going to select one of the directors that are mentioned above.

[Gamma Burst]

Marvel's Shortlist For New THOR 2 Director And Screenwriter Revealed!

Following Patty Jenkins' exit, Marvel Studios are swiftly looking at Thor 2 director replacements in Game Of Thrones' Daniel Minahan and Alan Taylor; and a new scribe!


Close sources of the ever-reliable Hollywood Reporter have exclusively revealed who Marvel Studios are closing in on for Patty Jenkins' replacement as director of their much-anticipated Thor sequel. With both contenders having a popular TV series in common on their resumes, THR have also disclosed the shortlist for a new screenwriter coming on board.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that the company is looking at two director prospects: Alan Taylor and Daniel Minahan. Marvel was also in the middle of hiring a writer when the Jenkins exit occurred. Don Payne had written a draft and Sheldon Turner was among those being discussed to work on the script, but the new shortlist of possible writers consists of John Collee, Robert Rodat, and Roger Avary


Coincidentally, or rather considerately, both Alan Taylor and Daniel Minahan have directed episodes of the ever-popular medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. And before Patty Jenkins was locked in, Brian Kirk was considered for the gig, who also directed a Game of Thrones episode. What do you think?

And regarding the screenwriters, John Collee's credits include Happy Feet and Master and Commander: Far Side of the World, while Robert Rodat has penned the story for Saving Private Ryan. And Sheldon Turner wrote X-Men: First Class' story, while Roger Avary is best known for Quentin Tarantino's Oscar-winning Pulp Fiction. What do you think?


#Source: The site!

[Gamma Burst]

Very interesting choices for both directors and writers.

[Gamma Burst]

Some links:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/thor-2-alan-taylor-daniel-minahan-272033

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvel-alan-taylor-daniel-minahan-direct-thor-2-screenwriter-hire-expected/

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Game-Thrones-Directors-Being-Looked-Direct-Thor-2-28297.html

http://www.movieweb.com/news/thor-2-narrows-in-on-directors-alan-taylor-and-daniel-minahan

[rashad]

For what it’s worth, Jeff Sneider from Variety commented on this report (http://twitter.com/#%21/TheInSneider/statuses/145309738341629954) saying, “Don’t believe everything you read. If I were a betting man, I’d say DANIEL MINAHAN ain’t getting the THOR 2 gig… much as I loved SERIES 7.”

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvel-alan-taylor-daniel-minahan-direct-thor-2-screenwriter-hire-expected/

[Gamma Burst]

Well, it's Variety's insider info vs. THR's insider info, heheeh.

[Crimson King]

I more encouraged by the new writers coming on board. Don Payne wasn't exactly a thrilling choice for me.

[Juicy J]

Whoa now they're getting a new writer? I thought a script was already made and ready to be filmed?

[Godzilla2000]

Whoa now they're getting a new writer? I thought a script was already made and ready to be filmed?

It's a common practice in movie development to have a script written but never filmed. Just like my hand written rough drafts for my fan fictions, they rarely resemble my typed up, polished drafts. Besides, some of the most iconic scenes from well regarded movies were never in the script, like Indy just shooting that sword wielding guy in Raiders.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah movies get re-written constantly before active production and even during principal production.

Lord of The Rings was re-written constantly when it was in production. For example, they filmed footage of Arwen going to Helm's Deep and FIGHTING THERE! ARWEN FIGHTING WITH A SWORD IN HELM'S DEEP!

[J.Howlett]

Is Marvel afraid of visionaries?

I understand trying to save money but goodness, they're not even trying with some of these choices anymore.

[jmc]

Guys, seriously, you can't be that ok with this direction the studio is going.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Guys, seriously, you can't be that ok with this direction the studio is going.
why? so far their director choices were great and fitted the movies. they have my full trust in this (until they do wrong)

[Godzilla2000]

Guys, seriously, you can't be that ok with this direction the studio is going.

I think the main thing for me is that i'm in a wait and see pattern. Remember, they'll have to focus most of their time on the Avengers movie for now. The sequels can be put on the back burner for a bit, so as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says, don't panic.

[R_Hythlodeus]

i think the main thing for me is that i'm in a wait and see pattern. Remember, they'll have to focus most of their time on the avengers movie for now. The sequels can be put on the back burner for a bit, so as the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy says, don't panic.
^this!

[jmc]

I can only shake my head in disbelief that a studio is purposely avoiding the great talents out there in favour of no-names to save cash and sidestep creative issues and fans are seemingly ok with it. I'm genuinely baffled.

[R_Hythlodeus]

most great talents started as no names, you know? take spielberg for an example.

but really, we had that discussion when Jenkins was announced, we had it when Kirk was frontrunner, we had it when Favreau was announced to direct IM and we had very similar discussions when Branagh, Leterrier, Whedon and Johnston were announced. Black is probably the only one were almost everyone loved the idea of him directing, but even then a selected few thought he'd need more experience. So far Marvels strategy worked and they hired the right people for the jobs, as the finished products showed. I'm not worried at all.

I'm starting to get worried when the quality of their movies drops. Just...relax a little bit, and enjoy the ride while you look in which the direction the movie goes, because right now we can't say yet.

[jmc]

You seriously don't see it as a drop in level from Branagh to a couple of no-name TV directors? There's a massive gulf here that some people seem to be ignoring. I don't get it, I really don't get what it takes for some Marvel fans to call the studio out on these tactics. The studio considers the talent as expendable and wants to work as cheaply as possible despite Disney owning them and it's like no-one sees a problem with it simply because they haven't screwed up yet. Folks, continuing these tactics will come back to bite them in the arse and the ones who will suffer the most will be you guys, the fans.

[Gamma Burst]

Yeah, because hiring established/big name directors worked 'wonders' on films like SR and GL, Hulk,etc :)

I'll judge the if the prospective director will be good based on their performance, not 'name'. If they make a great movie, then marvel made a good choice.

[R_Hythlodeus]

You seriously don't see it as a drop in level from Branagh to a couple of no-name TV directors? There's a massive gulf here that some people seem to be ignoring. I don't get it, I really don't get what it takes for some Marvel fans to call the studio out on these tactics. The studio considers the talent as expendable and wants to work as cheaply as possible despite Disney owning them and it's like no-one sees a problem with it simply because they haven't screwed up yet. Folks, continuing these tactics will come back to bite them in the arse and the ones who will suffer the most will be you guys, the fans.
look, you'll find no one around here (I assume) who wouldn't be happy if Baranagh would direct the sequel too, but since that didn't work due to the scheduling conflict with Italian Shoes, Marvel had to hire someone else.

They hired Jenkins who made a great movie (Monster) and proved to be a very comepetent fimmaker but she seems to have problems with working on a sequel, which is sad but understandable.

So they have to hire someone new. And personally I like that Marvel isn't going for the usual suspects. As much as I love delToro, if it was for the fans on this board, every CBM would be directed by him or Jim Cameron or Peter Jackson (starring Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie), it's nice to see a little out of the box thinking and - so far - MS has perfected that. MY personal favourite (who's not on the shortlist, which, you know, is just a rumour and not official, afawk) Vadim Jean mostly worked for TV too and is probably unknown by a large majority of people here on this board. Duncan Jones is far from being anywhere like a houshold name in HW, still most people would love to see him make Thor 2.

Both have in common that they did astounding work. (Jean with a very, veeery low budget) The two no-name TV directors mentioned on that shortlist did so too. They worked on a great TV show, a fantasy, action-oriented show that is generally loved. Spielberg did an episode of Columbo and a TV movie before he became the big Hollywood icon he is now, Ridley Scott did commercials, before he made Alien and Blade Runner. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE and at least Marvel has the guts to take a risk instead of playing it safe and give the movie to, let's say, a big name like Bay.

Of course Marvel can make a wrong choice by hiring one of those two and they will earn all of the criticism if they do, but they also could be very right with this decision. Only future can tell.

[Gamma Burst]

look, you'll find no one around here (I assume) who wouldn't be happy if Baranagh would direct the sequel too, but since that didn't work due to the scheduling conflict with Italian Shoes, Marvel had to hire someone else.

They hired Jenkins who made a great movie (Monster) and proved to be a very comepetent fimmaker but she seems to have problems with working on a sequel, which is sad but understandable.

So they have to hire someone new. And personally I like that Marvel isn't going for the usual suspects. As much as I love delToro, if it was for the fans on this board, every CBM would be directed by him or Jim Cameron or Peter Jackson (starring Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie), it's nice to see a little out of the box thinking and - so far - MS has perfected that. MY personal favourite (who's not on the shortlist, which, you know, is just a rumour and not official, afawk) Vadim Jean mostly worked for TV too and is probably unknown by a large majority of people here on this board. Duncan Jones is far from being anywhere like a houshold name in HW, still most people would love to see him make Thor 2.

Both have in common that they did astounding work. (Jean with a very, veeery low budget) The two no-name TV directors mentioned on that shortlist did so too. They worked on a great TV show, a fantasy, action-oriented show that is generally loved. Spielberg did an episode of Columbo and a TV movie before he became the big Hollywood icon he is now, Ridley Scott did commercials, before he made Alien and Blade Runner. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE and at least Marvel has the guts to take a risk instead of playing it safe and give the movie to, let's say, a big name like Bay.

Of course Marvel can make a wrong choice by hiring one of those two and they will earn all of the criticism if they do, but they also could be very right with this decision. Only future can tell.

Exactly. That's the only thing we can say so far.:up:

[Crimson King]

You seriously don't see it as a drop in level from Branagh to a couple of no-name TV directors? There's a massive gulf here that some people seem to be ignoring. I don't get it, I really don't get what it takes for some Marvel fans to call the studio out on these tactics. The studio considers the talent as expendable and wants to work as cheaply as possible despite Disney owning them and it's like no-one sees a problem with it simply because they haven't screwed up yet. Folks, continuing these tactics will come back to bite them in the arse and the ones who will suffer the most will be you guys, the fans.

It does appear bad at the moment, but I don't automatically jump the gun and cry "disaster!" They're 5-for-5 in my mind with their movies so far. When they put out a bad product, I'll give it the criticism it deserves. Until then, I see no need to bash them.

[BigThor]

It does appear bad at the moment, but I don't automatically jump the gun and cry "disaster!" They're 5-for-5 in my mind with their movies so far. When they put out a bad product, I'll give it the criticism it deserves. Until then, I see no need to bash them.

I feel the same way Kingmatte. :word:

[kedrell]

It does appear bad at the moment, but I don't automatically jump the gun and cry "disaster!" They're 5-for-5 in my mind with their movies so far. When they put out a bad product, I'll give it the criticism it deserves. Until then, I see no need to bash them.

This.

The studio is what I(and many other fans) have faith in. And it's not blind faith but rather faith based on results that exist in fact.

I'm with the rest in saying when thay make a turd film, I'll jump on them just like everybody jumped on Pixar about Cars 2. But until such a time as that happens, they've earned the benefit of the doubt(something I wouldn't give to FOX, Sony or WB).

[kedrell]

Wow, Roger Avary?! That's a feather in Marvel's cap if they can get him to to the script.

[Congo Jack]

With Kenneth Branagh dropping out as director, I don’t know why Marvel wouldn’t continue to work with the writers of the first THOR to try and establish as much creative continuity as possible between the two films.

I had heard Don Payne would be penning initial drafts of the sequel’s story. I think that’s a decent move for the reasons stated above, and because he was one of the guys that did his best to improve the quality of the FANTASTIC FOUR sequel.

Perhaps the writers of THOR have been approached and turned the opportunity down, but considering the film’s critical and commercial success that doesn’t seem likely. Marvel should look to the writers that know the world like J. Michael Straczynski, and I do hope Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz are brought in to work on the screenplay again.

[WildcatNC]

Yeah but at the same time they didn't like butcher the movie as some would think. The deleted footage seems to indicate the movie was already sort of lean on elements like that even with all that deleted footage.

It was. Branagh himself said he wanted to keep it short in the run time. Thats the only mistake I really fault him for in Thor. It did feel to short, but considering the run time he did a fantastic job of making it in the time he did.

I actually wish they HAD cut it down. At least then we could have had our directors cut eventually.

[Alexei Belyakov]

At this point I think its safe to say the studio wants not only the cheapest possible director they can find, but also one they can control. They tried cheap & creative but the creative part was a problem for them. Now they just want cheap. I'm already dreading who they'll pick to direct Cap 2. What I just don't (can't) understand, is why Feige thinks he can top - or better yet match the (less than stellar) box office gross of Cap & Thor with inferior directors to Branagh & Johnston. I honestly, honestly, wouldn't be surprised if Feige ends up directing one of these MCU films in the future. His head is bigger than M.O.D.O.K.'s at this point. These decisions are just getting laughable. They have the money to hire a true visionary, but look who they're thinking of getting. The MARVEL brand alone isn't a guaranteed success on film. You need someone with ability running the show.

[Crimson King]

With Kenneth Branagh dropping out as director, I don’t know why Marvel wouldn’t continue to work with the writers of the first THOR to try and establish as much creative continuity as possible between the two films.

I had heard Don Payne would be penning initial drafts of the sequel’s story. I think that’s a decent move for the reasons stated above, and because he was one of the guys that did his best to improve the quality of the FANTASTIC FOUR sequel.

Don Payne has a pretty spotty record, so I'm not sad to see him go. He was responsible for most of the humor in the Earth scenes, one aspect of the movie commonly reviled in reviews.

I'd love to see JMS more involved. He was something of a consultant last time around.

[Gamma Burst]

It would be cool if JMS could give a contribution to the sequel. He knows the character pretty well.

[Silvermoth]

I uh...don't think JMS is going to be sought out by Marvel for a while.

[Crimson King]

Why not? What did I miss?

[Sgt.Pepper]

It's a pity that it was creative freedom that made Jenkins dropped out. I mean of course there's a high risk when giving filmmakers creative control, so Marvel Studios play it safe, but damn, it should be some sort of collaboration between them and the creativity of the directors. These directors seems to me (beside cheap) like the ones that simply performs what the studio wants and, besides that, I don't really feel confident with either of them at the helm of the movie.

[Mysteryman]

Why not? What did I miss?
Apparently,JMS made some remarks about the declining sales of The Amazing Spider- Man And he and Stephen Wacker , the current Editor of The Spider titles got into a heated online discussion about it .

[Godzilla2000]

I can only shake my head in disbelief that a studio is purposely avoiding the great talents out there in favour of no-names to save cash and sidestep creative issues and fans are seemingly ok with it. I'm genuinely baffled.

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth were virtually unknown here in the States, but that didn't harm their portrayals of their characters at all. Sometimes there's a plethora of undiscovered talent out there whether it's in acting, writing or directing that needs to be tapped which Hollyweird tends to ignore in favor of mediocrity. If Marvel makes the bold decision to take a chance on people they've seen show some promise, more power to them and I would applaud them for looking outside of the rusted Hollyweird machinery to find those who can provide solid entertainment for their characters.

[Shadowlord X]

Well said Jinouga.

It's like Kedrell said, we MCU fans have 'confidence based on past experience' (a term often replaced by faith which is belief in the absence of evidence) not blind faith.

And like everyone said when they make crap, I'll be extremely critical, because as an MCU fan I hold my head up high with pride as the MCU quality record so far; 5 for 5!

[BigThor]

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth were virtually unknown here in the States, but that didn't harm their portrayals of their characters at all. Sometimes there's a plethora of undiscovered talent out there whether it's in acting, writing or directing that needs to be tapped which Hollyweird tends to ignore in favor of mediocrity. If Marvel makes the bold decision to take a chance on people they've seen show some promise, more power to them and I would applaud them for looking outside of the rusted Hollyweird machinery to find those who can provide solid entertainment for their characters.

Yeah I'm tired of people thinking the only great talents out there are the known ones, because that's simply untrue.

[Mysteryman]

You raise good points BigThor .
But , would fans have been as excited about Thor if Brad Kirk were the director instead of Branagh ?

[Alexei Belyakov]

It's a pity that it was creative freedom that made Jenkins dropped out. I mean of course there's a high risk when giving filmmakers creative control, so Marvel Studios play it safe, but damn, it should be some sort of collaboration between them and the creativity of the directors. These directors seems to me (beside cheap) like the ones that simply performs what the studio wants and, besides that, I don't really feel confident with either of them at the helm of the movie.

This hunt for cheap, unproven talent to increase creative control for Feige, its just so beneath the MARVEL brand.

But as you can see in some of the above posts, fans don't really care that much. As long as Thor's throwing that hammer in the big screen, they can hire Feige's housekeeper to direct the movie & you'd still have people supporting the studio, saying "Proven talent sucks! Visionaries make visionary films! BARF! We want directors to make studio films!!! Marvel rules!!!!!!"

Hiring inexpensive/inexperienced directors isn't a bold move by Marvel. Its [at the point that we're at now] a predictable move.

P.S. Love your avatar. Watched SHAME last week. The Steve McQueen/Michael Fassbender collaborations are now certified brilliant. Can't wait for 12 YEARS A SLAVE & I'm 99% certain Fassbender will get an Oscar Nod next month.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Apparently,JMS made some remarks about the declining sales of The Amazing Spider- Man And he and Stephen Wacker , the current Editor of The Spider titles got into a heated online discussion about it .
yep, JMS behaved like a dick

[jmc]

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth were virtually unknown here in the States, but that didn't harm their portrayals of their characters at all. Sometimes there's a plethora of undiscovered talent out there whether it's in acting, writing or directing that needs to be tapped which Hollyweird tends to ignore in favor of mediocrity. If Marvel makes the bold decision to take a chance on people they've seen show some promise, more power to them and I would applaud them for looking outside of the rusted Hollyweird machinery to find those who can provide solid entertainment for their characters.

My god you think Branagah didn't have something to do with getting those actors to perform the way they did? The man is an actor's director for crying out loud and managed to get a lot more than he should of out of the script he was given. I can't believe how nonchalant some you people are, it's almost like some have adopted the talent is expendable mantra that Marvel have. We're talking about going from Kenneth Branagh who managed to take a rather absurd concept work to a complete no-name. I'm sorry but Marvel have really given some of you a false sense of security and it's sad to see.

[Alexei Belyakov]

My god you think Branagah didn't have something to do with getting those actors to perform the way they did? The man is an actor's director for crying out loud and managed to get a lot more than he should of out of the script he was given. I can't believe how nonchalant some you people are, it's almost like some have adopted the talent is expendable mantra that Marvel have.

This.

We're talking about going from Kenneth Branagh who managed to take a rather absurd concept work to a complete no-name. I'm sorry but Marvel have really given some of you a false sense of security and it's sad to see.

This too.

[kedrell]

You detractors are so predictable. If something good happens it's solely because of the hired talent and the studio behind it had little-to-nothing to do with it. Well, maybe sometimes that's the case but when a track record is established with multiple talents working across several films one has to start to conclude that maybe it's the higher-ups that are really on the ball in this case. And it's not like this is the first time this has happened. Pixar did it the same way. It was the studio that earned trust by being consistent with their quality, rather than any individual actor, writer or director.

[Sgt.Pepper]

This hunt for cheap, unproven talent to increase creative control for Feige, its just so beneath the MARVEL brand.

But as you can see in some of the above posts, fans don't really care that much. As long as Thor's throwing that hammer in the big screen, they can hire Feige's housekeeper to direct the movie & you'd still have people supporting the studio, saying "Proven talent sucks! Visionaries make visionary films! BARF! We want directors to make studio films!!! Marvel rules!!!!!!"

Hiring inexpensive/inexperienced directors isn't a bold move by Marvel. Its [at the point that we're at now] a predictable move.

P.S. Love your avatar. Watched SHAME last week. The Steve McQueen/Michael Fassbender collaborations are now certified brilliant. Can't wait for 12 YEARS A SLAVE & I'm 99% certain Fassbender will get an Oscar Nod next month.

Yeah, I want them to make a bold move and hire a director that not just do what they want, but also contribute creativity-wise. For example, if Aronofsky had direct the new Wolverine movie, I would like Marvel to follow suit and hire someone similar to him. But no, now they're looking at directors who'll, presumably, obey everything Marvel tells them to do every step of the way.

Anyway, glad to hear you enjoyed Shame. I haven't seen the film as it hasn't release here yet, but I'm really eager to see it.

[TheCorpulent1]

Apparently,JMS made some remarks about the declining sales of The Amazing Spider- Man And he and Stephen Wacker , the current Editor of The Spider titles got into a heated online discussion about it .
There's also the little matter of Joe Quesada basically pushing "One More Day" ahead by ghost-writing most of the story and not letting JMS take his name off until the last issue. Suffice it to say there's a bit of bad blood between Marvel's current leadership and JMS.

[Mysteryman]

Do we know anything about the perspective writing candidates for Thor 2 ?

[Crimson King]

My god you think Branagah didn't have something to do with getting those actors to perform the way they did? The man is an actor's director for crying out loud and managed to get a lot more than he should of out of the script he was given. I can't believe how nonchalant some you people are, it's almost like some have adopted the talent is expendable mantra that Marvel have. We're talking about going from Kenneth Branagh who managed to take a rather absurd concept work to a complete no-name. I'm sorry but Marvel have really given some of you a false sense of security and it's sad to see.

I think Branagh had a ton to do with their performances. I'd love to have him back (minus a few hundred tilted camera shots), but since the scheduling didn't work out, Marvel has enough of a good track record with their directorial choices for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's not blind allegiance, either. Besides being based on past hirings, it also takes into account their financial situation. Marvel is a fledgling studio with only five films under its belt. They can't afford to have a flop, so it's in their best interest to go with a safe bet. I doubt they have the money for one of the big-name directors in Hollywood. More likely they will look to lesser-known directors that show promise with the subject matter. Maybe from a series like Game of Thrones, for instance. Makes sense to me.

[BigThor]

I think Branagh had a ton to do with their performances. I'd love to have him back (minus a few hundred tilted camera shots), but since the scheduling didn't work out, Marvel has enough of a good track record with their directorial choices for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's not blind allegiance, either. Besides being based on past hirings, it also takes into account their financial situation. Marvel is a fledgling studio with only five films under its belt. They can't afford to have a flop, so it's in their best interest to go with a safe bet. I doubt they have the money for one of the big-name directors in Hollywood. More likely they will look to lesser-known directors that show promise with the subject matter. Maybe from a series like Game of Thrones, for instance. Makes sense to me.

Yeah some people aren't looking at this realistically, it's good and fine to want big name directors but you have to look at it from a business standpoint and not just a critical standpoint.

[Shadowlord X]

I have a question for the detractors like JMC and AB. Firstly don't think that me asking this implies that I in any way consider the opinions of nolanites/anti-MCU people, such as yourselves, valuable. But just out of curiosity, if WB was doing the same thing with the Batman reboot after nolan's done, what would you do???

[cherokeesam]

You detractors are so predictable. If something good happens it's solely because of the hired talent and the studio behind it had little-to-nothing to do with it. Well, maybe sometimes that's the case but when a track record is established with multiple talents working across several films one has to start to conclude that maybe it's the higher-ups that are really on the ball in this case. And it's not like this is the first time this has happened. Pixar did it the same way. It was the studio that earned trust by being consistent with their quality, rather than any individual actor, writer or director.

um.....what?

I'd say that Pixar is *precisely* an example of a studio staying consistently with high-profile proven talent instead of dumping directors and actors for new faces on the cheap. John Lasseter practically lived at Pixar. You don't see Pixar finding low-rent talent for their voice-acting, and you don't see Pixar kicking them to the curb to find someone cheaper.

Pixar is a poor example to compare with Marvel; they have entirely different philosophies when it comes to budget and creative vision.

[Crimson King]

I agree that you can't compare Pixar to Marvel, but only because it's different mediums rather than philosophies. Brad Bird is the only director I can name from Pixar. Those guys usually don't get much press.

[DarkSovereignty]

I'd say brad bird and john lasserter are pretty recognizable, and andrew stanton to an extent, seeing as how he, along with bird, are the only ones to make the jump to live action.

[jmc]

I have a question for the detractors like JMC and AB. Firstly don't think that me asking this implies that I in any way consider the opinions of nolanites/anti-MCU people, such as yourselves, valuable. But just out of curiosity, if WB was doing the same thing with the Batman reboot after nolan's done, what would you do???

Blow a ****ing fuse. Oh, and I'm not a detractor, for the most part Marvel have made pretty watchable films, but a lot of that comes down to who directed the thing but some of you don't want to acknowledge that. I'm just being realistic when I say that one these tight arse decisions from Marvel are going to bite them in the arse, I'm trying to show people the warning signs.

[Crimson King]

^I don't think anyone's denying the fact that the directors have an effect on the outcome. Most of us are simply pointing out that there's no reason to panic. Why criticize a directorial choice when you haven't seen what said choice can do?

[Alexei Belyakov]

I have a question for the detractors like JMC and AB. Firstly don't think that me asking this implies that I in any way consider the opinions of nolanites/anti-MCU people, such as yourselves, valuable. But just out of curiosity, if WB was doing the same thing with the Batman reboot after nolan's done, what would you do???

Here we go again.

WHAT is it with you & Warner Bros/DC? What?

Your DC vs. Marvel nonsense has no place in this discussion at all (or anywhere for that matter).

Also, for the 80th time, badmouthing Nolan to defend the MCU - weakens the strength of your MCU defenses.

Marvel is searching for cheap, controllable directors. FOX & Warner Bros. are hiring brilliant people like Darren Aronofsky & Chris Nolan to helm their CBMs. Even though Aronofsky left The Wolverine, FOX still hired him (and were willing to pay for him).

Marvel Studios (Feige) seem to have no interest in recruiting a truly visionary artist to direct their movies. That isn't them being "financially responsible", its them (Feige) avoiding the possibility of someone's creativity interfering with their safe popcorn approach. They can afford people like Aronofsky & Nolan, they just don't want visionaries.

Visionaries don't make popcorn.

[Aeltri]

um.....what?

I'd say that Pixar is *precisely* an example of a studio staying consistently with high-profile proven talent instead of dumping directors and actors for new faces on the cheap. John Lasseter practically lived at Pixar. You don't see Pixar finding low-rent talent for their voice-acting, and you don't see Pixar kicking them to the curb to find someone cheaper.

Pixar is a poor example to compare with Marvel; they have entirely different philosophies when it comes to budget and creative vision.

High profile is not always the best match for a project or the most talented, for that matter. I find it hard to stomach how the bulk of celebrities are ridiculously overrated, the treatment they get borders on idolatry! The general audience is also at fault when they buy into all the hype which keeps skilled hopefuls from breaking into mainstream film. Watch 'Starsuckers (http://youtu.be/BW0WJ_xULXU)' to get a better idea of how screwed up the whole industry is. Is it really any wonder that we get the same tripe over and over again? I've been around serious actors who do voice work and/or theater and are definitely more versatile than a lot of 'big names' out there. But instead of hiring the ideal voice actor for a character we are treated to a half-assed performance from the likes of Brad Pitt *facepalm*.

[jmc]

^I don't think anyone's denying the fact that the directors have an effect on the outcome. Most of us are simply pointing out that there's no reason to panic. Why criticize a directorial choice when you haven't seen what said choice can do?

Because these guys who they're looking at are not Kenneth Branagah and will not have much say as to where they can take the film. This is about control. If Kenneth Branagh comes back he'd want more creative freedom, and rightfully so given he managed to take a concept that could easily have fallen over and made it work, that should be his reward. He's earned that right much like Nolan did with Batman. The reason some should start raising eyebrows is Marvel is suffocating their own characters potential to do better by using directors who will simply do what they want. It says a lot that they weren't willing to grant the director who helped get the character to where it is now the extra time he wanted, and then change the release date after he asked for it. Again, treating good talent as expendable will come back to bite them in the arse badly.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Because these guys who they're looking at are not Kenneth Branagah and will not have much say as to where they can take the film. This is about control. If Kenneth Branagh comes back he'd want more creative freedom, and rightfully so given he managed to take a concept that could easily have fallen over and made it work, that should be his reward. He's earned that right much like Nolan did with Batman. The reason some should start raising eyebrows is Marvel is suffocating their own characters potential to do better by using directors who will simply do what they want. Again, treating good talent as expendable will come back to bite them in the arse badly.

This.

Feige's been treating the talent like crap since 2008. I'm surprised the studio's gotten this far in the business with that mentality. Then again, money talks & at this point they can afford to behave this way.

[jmc]

Even though Aronofsky left The Wolverine, FOX still hired him (and were willing to pay for him).



I rue the missed opportunity with Aronosfky's Wolverine. I maintain that could have potentially given TDK a run for its money. Sadly we'll never see it.

[Crimson King]

Because these guys who they're looking at are not Kenneth Branagah and will not have much say as to where they can take the film. This is about control. If Kenneth Branagh comes back he'd want more creative freedom, and rightfully so given he managed to take a concept that could easily have fallen over and made it work, that should be his reward. He's earned that right much like Nolan did with Batman. The reason some should start raising eyebrows is Marvel is suffocating their own characters potential to do better by using directors who will simply do what they want. It says a lot that they weren't willing to grant the director who helped get the character to where it is now the extra time he wanted, and then change the release date after he asked for it. Again, treating good talent as expendable will come back to bite them in the arse badly.

You're assuming a lot of knowledge here, knowledge that no one outside of the Marvel board room can know. That's my biggest problem. It's easy to hear a rumor, assume it's true, and then present it as fact.

You have no proof that Marvel parted ways with Jenkins because she couldn't be controlled, nor anyone else for that matter. You have no proof that Marvel is looking for a director to be their puppet. It's all conjecture. That's not to say it might not some day prove true, but until that day comes, I'm not going to fault them for it.

[TheDragonator]

Not every movie needs to be The Dark Knight or Superman The Movie. Good movies will keep the genre alive.

[TheDragonator]

I rue the missed opportunity with Aronosfky's Wolverine. I maintain that could have potentially given TDK a run for its . Sadly we'll never see it.

Didn't he leave because Fox wanted more control over the project?

[BigThor]

Not every movie needs to be The Dark Knight or Superman The Movie. Good movies will keep the genre alive.

True, yet some people fail to realized this.

[TheDragonator]

Plus, it's not like Marvel's not taking risks. The Avengers is a very ambitious and risky move.

[Alexei Belyakov]

jmc, I have no doubt in my mind that Aronofsky's THE WOLVERINE would have taken the CBM genre to the next level. It woulda been not only the next TDK, but a step forward from TDK. I guess now we'll have to wait and see if TDKR & MOS (or an X-Men First Class sequel) take that step.

[Crimson King]

The next X-Men movie can't help but take a step forward. FC was not their finest effort.

[TheDragonator]

The next X-Men can't help but take a step forward. FC was not their finest effort.

Alexei will call you a low-standard sheep with no taste in 3...2....1...

[Alexei Belyakov]

kingmatte, X-Men: First Class is miles better than anything Marvel's released over the last 3 years. It did more for the genre than Marvel Studios ever has. You can dissagree with me all you want, but as far as the general consensus goes, you really have nothing aside of personal studio bias to fault First Class. Like TDK, its just a difficult movie to put down. Great films are difficult to put down. On a separate note, if you really cared about MARVEL's true worth (the comics) you'd rejoice over the success of First Class. Who cares what studio's adapting the characters? As long as the end result is great, you should be satisfied - not here talking down to the best CBM in the last 3 years to defend mediocre CBMs that relied on kids appeal & 3D prices to make their bank. X-Men: First Class relied on character, story & pathos - hence the great film we got.

[TheDragonator]

^
Different people have different tastes. You need to learn to deal with that.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Plus, it's not like Marvel's not taking risks. The Avengers is a very ambitious and risky move.
Hell, the whole MCU is a god damn risk. Few people realize how ambitious that project is. One little mistake in one movie and this whole metafranchise can fail miserable. this is one of the reasons the studio has to have the last say, for the greater good of a shared movieverse.
if the directors are the authors of those specific comic books, the studio has to have an overseeing editor just for continuity between all of them.

[Crimson King]

kingmatte, X-Men: First Class is miles better than anything Marvel's released over the last 3 years. It did more for the genre than Marvel Studios ever has. You can dissagree with me all you want, but as far as the general consensus goes, you really have nothing aside of personal studio bias to fault First Class. Like TDK, its just a difficult movie to put down. Great films are difficult to put down. On a separate note, if you really cared about MARVEL's true worth (the comics) you'd rejoice over the success of First Class. Who cares what studio's adapting the characters? As long as the end result is great, you should be satisfied - not here talking down to the best CBM in the last 3 years to defend mediocre CBMs that relied on kids appeal & 3D prices to make their bank. X-Men: First Class relied on character, story & pathos - hence the great film we got.

What, exactly, did it do for the genre? I think it did something to improve the XM franchise--considering the absolute failures of X3 and Wolverine--but for the genre? Not so much. The X-teens were terrible (save for Hank). It was painfully obvious that the filming was rushed. That movie needed a few more months of development before shooting. I admire Vaughn's ability to deliver a watchable movie from that mess, but by no means does that make it great.

I know you love to say I'm biased just because I happen to like the MS movies so far, but you really couldn't be farther off base. I loved X1 and 2. Loved TDK. Loved Kick Ass. I'm allowed to like something you don't. It's okay. That doesn't make me a fanboy.

[TheDragonator]

Hell, the whole MCU is a god damn . Few people realize how ambitious that is. One little mistake in one and this whole metafranchise can miserable. this is one of the reasons the studio has to have the last say, for the greater good of a shared movieverse.
if the are the authors of those specific comic books, the studio has to have an overseeing editor just for continuity between all of them.

Indeed.

It's very fragile. If Marvel went all-or-nothing with every film, it could be disastrous. WB went all-or-nothing with Green Lantern, and now that franchise is almost certainly dead.

[ElMariachi]

Hell, the whole MCU is a god damn risk. Few people realize how ambitious that project is. One little mistake in one movie and this whole metafranchise can fail miserable. this is one of the reasons the studio has to have the last say, for the greater good of a shared movieverse.
if the directors are the authors of those specific comic books, the studio has to have an overseeing editor just for continuity between all of them.

I agree with this. The MCU is a huge, ambitious project. Something that has never really been done before. They took second tier characters and built an entire history, story, and universe around them in the matter of 4+ years. In some ways, it's just as big of a project as Harry Potter with far more gambles and much more unpredictable. People forget all the talent that Marvel cast to play characters in this cinematic universe. Or how risky it was to make Thor and Captain America with large budgets and lesser known actors as leads. And because of this success, they can now try their hand at even lower tier characters like Dr. Strange, Ant-Man, Luke Cage, etc. I don't think they are given enough credit for basically creating a $3 billion dollar franchise in the matter of 4 years with IM/IM2/TIH/Thor/Cap/Avengers. All that in the time span between TDK/TDKR is impressive in my opinion.

[kedrell]

I rue the missed opportunity with Aronosfky's Wolverine. I maintain that could have potentially given TDK a run for its money. Sadly we'll never see it.


Peronally I don't want that guy anywhere near a comic book movie. The only consistent attribute he's demonstrated to me is the ability to put me to sleep. It'd be another Ang Lee disaster.

[kedrell]

kingmatte, X-Men: First Class is miles better than anything Marvel's released over the last 3 years. It did more for the genre than Marvel Studios ever has. You can dissagree with me all you want, but as far as the general consensus goes, you really have nothing aside of personal studio bias to fault First Class. Like TDK, its just a difficult movie to put down. Great films are difficult to put down. On a separate note, if you really cared about MARVEL's true worth (the comics) you'd rejoice over the success of First Class. Who cares what studio's adapting the characters? As long as the end result is great, you should be satisfied - not here talking down to the best CBM in the last 3 years to defend mediocre CBMs that relied on kids appeal & 3D prices to make their bank. X-Men: First Class relied on character, story & pathos - hence the great film we got.

I could substitute ANY of the MCU films here and it'd be just as true with you. But then I get the impression you think your opinion is of a higher caliber than the rest of us.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Peronally I don't want that guy anywhere near a comic book movie. The only consistent attribute he's demonstrated to me is the ability to put me to sleep. It'd be another Ang Lee disaster.

Different strokes for different folks, but when you speak this way of one of the most talented & brilliant film directors in the business - it gives the impression that you have a problem with truly great (intelligent) films.

Again, to each his own, but how are people (me) supposed to value your input when you're walking into a room and saying Darren Aronofsky puts you to sleep?

I could substitute ANY of the MCU films here and it'd be just as true with you. But then I get the impression you think your opinion is of a higher caliber than the rest of us.

I don't think my opinion is anything but my opinion.

I, Alexei Belyakov, like intelligent movies. I don't like useless summer fare made for the sole purpose of making the producers behind those films rich.

I have no studio bias. I don't care who makes these films. I just want them to be good. Really good.

When I know I can have intelligent CBMs, why would I want anything other than that? Why?

[BigThor]

Indeed.

It's very fragile. If Marvel went all-or-nothing with every film, it could be disastrous. WB went all-or-nothing with Green Lantern, and now that franchise is almost certainly dead.

Exactly, some people just continue to look at things through the eyes of the consumer without understanding that a studio has to worry about good business first and foremost.

[kedrell]

Different strokes for different folks,

That's pretty much all these arguments boil down too.

but when you speak this way of one of the most talented & brilliant film directors in the business

According to who? A bunch of art-house cinesta's and film snobs? They only speak for a section of the audience, not the whole.

- it gives the impression that you have a problem with truly great (intelligent) films.

I have a real problem with films that think they're smarter than they really are which in my experience is where most 'intelligent movies' fall.

Again, to each his own, but how are people (me) supposed to value your input when you're walking into a room and saying Darren Aronofsky puts you to sleep?

Because he's forgot or outright dismissed what I consider to be the cardinal rule of movie making: Keep it interesting/entertaining. To use an alternate example: David Fincher makes smart movies as well but he also manages to keep them interesting/entertaining....for the most part(I found The Social Network to be fairly dull yet well put together).

I don't think my opinion is anything but my opinion.

Really?

Its refreshing, so refreshing, to see someone post here that isn't brainwashed by the "Marvel Studios can do no wrong" agenda.

You seem pretty certain that we're all brainwashed by MS. But then, I'm sure you realize that that too is just your opinion. So I withdraw my speculative comment on how your opinions come across.


I, Alexei Belyakov, like intelligent movies.

So does just about everyone else here.

I don't like useless summer fare made for the sole purpose of making the producers behind those films rich.

Where do you draw the line? Because I'll bet you that just about every summer movie starts with that goal in mind as the primary reason for doing the movie in the first place.

I have no studio bias. I don't care who makes these films. I just want them to be good. Really good.

Which we got.

When I know I can have intelligent CBMs, why would I want anything other than that? Why?

I have yet to see a MCU film that wasn't sufficiently intelligent.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Peronally I don't want that guy anywhere near a comic book movie. The only consistent attribute he's demonstrated to me is the ability to put me to sleep. It'd be another Ang Lee disaster.
I somewhat agree with that. while he made some great movies, I fell asleep in the cinema when I was trying to watch the Fountain. Arronofsky sometimes forgets to put any point of interest in his movies. I don't have this problem with von Trier or Haneke, as examples, who both make smarter movies anyway. Arronosky just makes some of his movies too boring to sit through.

On the other hand... I liked Angs Hulk (the third act was a horrible mess, but until then, except for he hulked out dogs, the movie was quite enjoyable)

[jmc]

Not rating XMFC, no desire to see an Aronofsky Wolverine, I seriously can't help but shake my head at what I've read in here. I guarantee had XMFC been made by Marvel most who don't rate it would rate it, in fact there's nothing much about that film that wouldn't fit into MCU, its tone is not drastically different, the only difference is that it was bolder in its ambition.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Not rating XMFC, no desire to see an Aronofsky Wolverine, I seriously can't help but shake my head at what I've read in here. I guarantee had XMFC been made by Marvel most who don't rate it would rate it, in fact there's nothing much about that film that wouldn't fit into MCU, its tone is not drastically different, the only difference is that it was bolder in its ambition.I completely agree & I really hope FOX greenlights the First Class sequel. Fassbender's Erik MUST have another film. When he said "I prefer Magneto." & the credits rolled, I knew immediately that the genre's ability to evolve had not died with TDK. FOX not only redeemed themselves with First Class but they raised the stakes for the CBM genre by relying on a brilliant character arc for its protagonist instead of turning to post-converted 3D & safe kid-friendly material. I never saw First Class coming. I truly never did. What I wouldn't give for an MCU film done like First Class or TDK.

[kedrell]

Not rating XMFC, no desire to see an Aronofsky Wolverine, I seriously can't help but shake my head at what I've read in here.

Sounds like you may have been too insulated from criticisms that have existed for quite a while. There's loads of people who aren't buying what the more vocal/positive boosters of such fare are selling.

I guarantee had XMFC been made by Marvel most who don't rate it would rate it,

Some might(and I don't know that that is even all that invalid a response since the film would then exist as part of a larger mosaic which would mean a bit of a different perspective when viewing it in context) but I suspect that most people would still be irritated with the same problems that the film did end up having. It had some of the same problems all the previous X-Men films had and why would we not continue to point that out?

in fact there's nothing much about that film that wouldn't fit into MCU, its tone is not drastically different, the only difference is that it was bolder in its ambition.

I don't see any real evidence of that at all. Regardless, I'd still say aiming high and missing is pretty worthless. What counts is if you can hit what you're aiming at.

If I go to a restaurant and order a high-end steak meal and the chef pains-takingly slaves to give the best meal anyone has ever had and produces a beautiful looking steak with all the trimmings which just looks gorgeous when the waiter puts it in front of me, yet when I actually bite into it the meat tastes like something that wouldn't pass muster on a McDonald's hamburger.....it's a failure and I'm going to be pissed as a paying customer who only expected excellence(not perfection) for my $. Movies are product, we are customers.

[Crimson King]

Not rating XMFC, no desire to see an Aronofsky Wolverine, I seriously can't help but shake my head at what I've read in here. I guarantee had XMFC been made by Marvel most who don't rate it would rate it, in fact there's nothing much about that film that wouldn't fit into MCU, its tone is not drastically different, the only difference is that it was bolder in its ambition.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but can you explain the "bolder ambition" FC had? How was it different in message from the first two X-movies?

[kedrell]

um.....what?

I'd say that Pixar is *precisely* an example of a studio staying consistently with high-profile proven talent instead of dumping directors and actors for new faces on the cheap. John Lasseter practically lived at Pixar. You don't see Pixar finding low-rent talent for their voice-acting, and you don't see Pixar kicking them to the curb to find someone cheaper.

Pixar is a poor example to compare with Marvel; they have entirely different philosophies when it comes to budget and creative vision.


My point was that it's the studio moviegoers have faith in, rather than someone the studio hired. This only works if said studio is a consistant performer of good quality product(as Pixar and MS are).

[cherokeesam]

You're assuming a lot of knowledge here, knowledge that no one outside of the Marvel board room can know. That's my biggest problem. It's easy to hear a rumor, assume it's true, and then present it as fact.

You have no proof that Marvel parted ways with Jenkins because she couldn't be controlled, nor anyone else for that matter. You have no proof that Marvel is looking for a director to be their puppet. It's all conjecture. That's not to say it might not some day prove true, but until that day comes, I'm not going to fault them for it.


What we *do* have proof of, though, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that somebody in Marvel dropped the ball big time with the Jenkins misfire. Because either:

a) she *was* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for letting her go/chasing her away; or
b) she *wasn't* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for not realizing that from the start.

I was genuinely excited by the idea of Patty Jenkins getting to helm this movie; and tbh, I think the call was a brilliant one that actually *disproves* the theory that Marvel isn't willing to take on visionaries or take bold risks. But the fact that they already dumped her before the ball even got rolling puts us right back to Square One, doesn't it....? And the names that have been cast into the rumor mill since then *are* proof that they're looking for safe, controllable, nameless, vision-less drones to replace her.


If I go to a restaurant and order a high-end steak meal and the chef pains-takingly slaves to give the best meal anyone has ever had and produces a beautiful looking steak with all the trimmings which just looks gorgeous when the waiter puts it in front of me, yet when I actually bite into it the meat tastes like something that wouldn't pass muster on a McDonald's hamburger.....it's a failure and I'm going to be pissed as a paying customer who only expected excellence(not perfection) for my $. Movies are product, we are customers.

But what are the odds that the steak *would* suck? If it's a high-end menu item, and the chef is slaving over it for you and bending over backwards to make it perfect for you, odds are pretty high that he'll make it worth your while, instead of just throwing a pile of **** on your plate.

[kedrell]

What we *do* have proof of, though, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that somebody in Marvel dropped the ball big time with the Jenkins misfire. Because either:

a) she *was* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for letting her go/chasing her away; or
b) she *wasn't* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for not realizing that from the start.

That's been my contention since we first heard about this situation. This should have all been resolved internally without us knowing about it. That may be partially Jenkins's fault but it certainly is largely Marvel's fault.

I was genuinely excited by the idea of Patty Jenkins getting to helm this movie; and tbh, I think the call was a brilliant one that actually *disproves* the theory that Marvel isn't willing to take on visionaries or take bold risks. But the fact that they already dumped her before the ball even got rolling puts us right back to Square One, doesn't it....?


From the sounds of it they may still have a job for her.


And the names that have been cast into the rumor mill since then *are* proof that they're looking for safe, controllable, nameless, vision-less drones to replace her.

While I think they're looking for affordable guys(and rightly so as it makes good business sense) I don't think they want 'safe, controllable, nameless, vision-less drones'. I think they want guys who are talented and deserve a shot and who aren't ego-driven 'visionaries' who are there just for themselves and the furtherance of their reputations. Marvel wants team players.


But what are the odds that the steak *would* suck? If it's a high-end menu item, and the chef is slaving over it for you and bending over back-wards to make it perfect for you, odds are pretty high that he'll make it worth your while, instead of just throwing a pile of **** on your plate.

True, that's where the analogy breaks down. The answer is that the odds aren't very likely because making a good meal is far, far, far less complicated than making a good movie. But that's beside the point I was trying to make, which is that good intentions don't end up counting for much. Results are what counts.

[Crimson King]

What we *do* have proof of, though, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that somebody in Marvel dropped the ball big time with the Jenkins misfire. Because either:

a) she *was* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for letting her go/chasing her away; or
b) she *wasn't* the right woman for the job --- in which case Marvel fails for not realizing that from the start.

I was genuinely excited by the idea of Patty Jenkins getting to helm this movie; and tbh, I think the call was a brilliant one that actually *disproves* the theory that Marvel isn't willing to take on visionaries or take bold risks. But the fact that they already dumped her before the ball even got rolling puts us right back to Square One, doesn't it....? And the names that have been cast into the rumor mill since then *are* proof that they're looking for safe, controllable, nameless, vision-less drones to replace her.

Why is it assumed to be Marvel's fault? Why has Jenkins been assumed innocent? You could just as easily say that it was Jenkins who shouldn't have taken the job if she didn't like working on a sequel.

And sorry, but looking at Game of Thrones directors to take over does NOT prove that Marvel is looking for a controllable, visionless director. That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say and you've pretty much just discounted every single achievement ever made by a director working in TV.

[R_Hythlodeus]

That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say and you've pretty much just discounted every single achievement ever made by a director working in TV. like spielberg, scorcese or lynch...

[Son of Coul]

Why are people so down on Game of Thrones directors? Like "oh, there's no talent in directing TELEVISION!"

It's ****ing HBO, not an episode of Bones. They have some of the most talented filmmakers working for them.

I haven't seen a full episode of GOT so I admittedly can't speak for narrative, but I at least watched some videos to do my research before making opinions. In this one minute video alone, some of the shots wouldn't be out of place in a blockbuster movie- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43LW7a_NKMk

[Shadowlord X]

Blow a ****ing fuse. Oh, and I'm not a detractor, for the most part Marvel have made pretty watchable films, but a lot of that comes down to who directed the thing but some of you don't want to acknowledge that. I'm just being realistic when I say that one these tight arse decisions from Marvel are going to bite them in the arse, I'm trying to show people the warning signs.

Thank you for replying and being honest.

But after you blew that fuse what would you do??? Would you start a petition? Would you protest in front of WB offices.

My guess is that you wouldn't do anything that would actually impact the situationm, and then, like us, you would wait and see how things turn out.

Am I right?

[BigThor]

Man, this thread has devolved into something I don't much care for.

[jmc]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but can you explain the ''bolder ambition'' FC had? How was it different in message from the first two X-movies?

It was more ambitious in terms of the size and scope of it's journey. The film is basically a homage to the Bond films of the 60's with it's varying locations around the world, with the story set over several years, and big action finale using the Cuban missile crisis as a foundation. Coupled with it tackling a theme that more that suited the time period. Compare that to something like Thor where the majority of the film is confined within either Asgardian walls, or small town USA, (with the exception of the traveling to the Frost Giants planet), all set over a 48 hour period. All very basic, well made basic perhaps, but it's not nearly as grand in scope. A friend of mine summed it up best calling the film 'The smallest scaled epic movie ever'.

[jmc]

Thank you for replying and being honest.

But after you blew that fuse what would you do??? Would you start a petition? Would you protest in front of WB offices.

My guess is that you wouldn't do anything that would actually impact the situationm, and then, like us, you would wait and see how things turn out.

Am I right?

Yes, I'm going to waste my time protesting over a film. :dry: I wouldn't take much notice of the movie if WB went from Chris Nolan to no-name TV director because it would be a huge step backwards. Luckily it won't happen coz Nolan is still going to be producing Batman films and will have a say as to who takes over plus WB aren't tight arses financially and will be willing to spend money on the best talent.

[Godzilla2000]

Why are people so down on Game of Thrones directors? Like "oh, there's no talent in directing TELEVISION!"

That is just such a retro 60's comment. I believe this is the year 2011?

Anyways, there's no use getting all worked up about Thor 2 and a lack of a director or writers. There's still some time to get this all situated before filming starts. Anyways I think the main priority right now is the Avengers movie. This I believe is new territory in that this is the first major movie to have characters from different franchises team up in one mega movie so give Marvel some patience as they figure out how to handle such an ambitious project.

[Alexei Belyakov]

That is just such a retro 60's comment. I believe this is the year 2011?

Anyways, there's no use getting all worked up about Thor 2 and a lack of a director or writers. There's still some time to get this all situated before filming starts. Anyways I think the main priority right now is the Avengers movie. This I believe is new territory in that this is the first major movie to have characters from different franchises team up in one mega movie so give Marvel some patience as they figure out how to handle such an ambitious project.

Its not ambitious.

To a fan its cool, but to the GA its just "Iron Man and The Avengers". That's it.

You want ambition? Watch a movie like Hunger. Watch a movie like The Artist. Watch a movie like The Tree of Life.

Putting a bunch of superheroes together in one movie is interesting to you and me because we enjoy the books, but to the GA its like the Fantastic Four movies or the end of SM3 - where costumed heroes fight side by side.

The Avengers will make most of its money from Iron Man being its unofficial protagonist.

This whole "Marvel Studios is incredibly ambitious!!!" mentality is just not accurate. What they're doing is nothing new for the medium.

Now, bringing in Aronofsky to do a Wolverine film was VERY ambitious. Sadly it didn't happen. That woulda been uncharted ground for the medium and for the genre.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Hell, the whole MCU is a god damn risk. Few people realize how ambitious that project is. One little mistake in one movie and this whole metafranchise can fail miserable. this is one of the reasons the studio has to have the last say, for the greater good of a shared movieverse.
if the directors are the authors of those specific comic books, the studio has to have an overseeing editor just for continuity between all of them.
One thing I'd like to add to my stament above is that no one should forget that MS are basically sailing uncharted waters. The whole idea of this shared universe, a multifranchise-connecting continuity and background, is totally new and has never happend before. It's like the Indiana Jones and the Star Wars movies would have played in the same cinematical universe,

So, since it was never done before, they are not only ambigious as hell even thinikng of doing that. There is no map that shows them the way, they have to explore it all themselves.

[Crimson King]

Its not ambitious.

To a fan its cool, but to the GA its just "Iron Man and The Avengers". That's it.

You want ambition? Watch a movie like Hunger. Watch a movie like The Artist. Watch a movie like The Tree of Life.

Putting a bunch of superheroes together in one movie is interesting to you and me because we enjoy the books, but to the GA its like the Fantastic Four movies or the end of SM3 - where costumed heroes fight side by side.

The Avengers will make most of its money from Iron Man being its unofficial protagonist.

This whole "Marvel Studios is incredibly ambitious!!!" mentality is just not accurate. What they're doing is nothing new for the medium.

Now, bringing in Aronofsky to do a Wolverine film was VERY ambitious. Sadly it didn't happen. That woulda been uncharted ground for the medium and for the genre.

Actually, it's extremely ambitious. In fact, the only person I know who doesn't think so is...you, and you have a fairly obvious bias, so that shouldn't surprise.

Also, saying something like "What they're doing is nothing new for the medium" negates all future arguments from you. That's like saying Ledger didn't really put his stamp on the Joker, that his portrayal had been done before. You're being obstinate and contrary just to rile people. When, in the history of CBMs, has a company ever created a shared cinematic universe, culminating in a team-up movie as huge as this? It hasn't been done. It couldn't have possibly been done because no company has ever had all of these superhero licenses under one roof.

[BigThor]

Actually, it's extremely ambitious. In fact, the only person I know who doesn't think so is...you, and you have a fairly obvious bias, so that shouldn't surprise.

It's not a suprise in thie least, if he's so disappointed in Marvel Studios why does he constantly visits their movie thread.

If a person really though a film was underwhelming they'd state their opinion and be done with the matter.

[Crimson King]

It was more ambitious in terms of the size and scope of it's journey. The film is basically a homage to the Bond films of the 60's with it's varying locations around the world, with the story set over several years, and big action finale using the Cuban missile crisis as a foundation. Coupled with it tackling a theme that more that suited the time period. Compare that to something like Thor where the majority of the film is confined within either Asgardian walls, or small town USA, (with the exception of the traveling to the Frost Giants planet), all set over a 48 hour period. All very basic, well made basic perhaps, but it's not nearly as grand in scope. A friend of mine summed it up best calling the film 'The smallest scaled epic movie ever'.

I see. I disagree with you about the ambition of FC, but I appreciate that you present your opinions respectfully and intelligently. :up:

I agree about the scope of Thor. I can see why they confined it in the first movie, but that didn't lessen the disappointment. Thor was a gamble after the realistic tone set by IM1 and 2. If they went huge with the fantasy side of things and failed, it would've set their studio back much further than, say, WB was set back after GL's failure.

Since Thor enjoyed a fair amount of success, I want Thor 2 to be massive. They've already said that it'll visit other realms, so that gives me hope.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Actually, it's extremely ambitious.

Extremely ambitious how? IM, TIH, IM2, THOR & Cap are essentially sequels to one another. What is so ambitious about sequels being released after sequels? The fact that characters interact with one another over different films as they do in the comics? Again, what is that doing for the medium?

You could say FOX was extremely ambitious by putting a Wolverine cameo in the original cut of Fantastic Four though it was never used in the theatrical version.

You as a fan think its AWESOME!!! that you're seeing these characters share screentime, but the truth is the GA doesn't share your enthusiasm. To them The Avengers isn't some giant "event" movie 4 years in the making. Its the first summer blockbuster of 2012 that just happens to feature a bunch of costumed superheroes fighting to save the planet. Fantastic Four 2 had that same premise as did Watchmen.

Also, saying something like "What they're doing is nothing new for the medium" negates all future arguments from you. That's like saying Ledger didn't really put his stamp on the Joker, that his portrayal had been done before.

What does Ledger's brilliant acting performance have to do with a movie about a bunch of costumed heroes? How does the 30th (or whatever number this is) movie about costumed heroes do anything for the medium? You think they're going to write film books on the "INCREDIBLY ambitious move by Marvel Studios to combine characters..." No.

Ledger will be talked about for ages as was James Dean & Peter Finch for being an amazing talent that died too young. His role in TDK contributed to both the medium (acting) and genre - for being a commanding presence in TDK that contributed to the Academy's decision to increase the number of Best Picture Nominees to make room for the great films that were being left out.

The Avengers won't do anything but make money. No 8 Academy Award Nominations. No Golden Lion. Again, nothing for the medium.

You're being obstinate and contrary just to rile people.

No, I'm being honest and simultaneously challenging your narrow view on cinema.

When, in the history of CBMs, has a company ever created a shared cinematic universe, culminating in a team-up movie as huge as this? It hasn't been done. It couldn't have possibly been done because no company has ever had all of these superhero licenses under one roof.

Again, FOX made the first move even if it never saw the big screen. I don't see you worshipping their "incredibly ambitious" resolve.

kingmatte, you gotta step out of the CBM genre and start watching real movies. You're supposed to be a screenwriter, right? Honestly, I just refuse to believe that you truly subscribe to the concept of the MCU doing anything substantial for this art-form we call film. Movies like TDK & First Class elevated the genre to that which people are still having a hard time believing - art.

TDK is a brilliant crime drama & First Class is a stylized throwback revenger character study.

As a CBM fan & screenwriter you should want more films like those to elevate our beloved comic book movies from popcorn to art. The MCU, at least the way Feige's running it, is far from that. Its all about money, man. Not quality and in no way about art.

[Crimson King]

I'm going to answer this in a PM because I can't believe people want to see us go back and forth for another six pages. I know I wouldn't. Suffice to say that I think you're so far off base, you're in another stadium.

Screenwriter? No, no screenwriting for me (although I do edit them on occasion). I stick to short stories and books.

[Alexei Belyakov]

I'm going to answer this in a PM because I can't believe people want to see us go back and forth for another six pages. I know I wouldn't. Suffice to say that I think you're so far off base, you're in another stadium.

I'm sure our fellow posters would like to see your retort to my above statement. I say that, because I honesty think there are too many people here that don't watch enough real films to truly dismiss the notion of wanting better CBMs than what Marvel Studios is giving us.

I had the same problem in the Wolverine forums when Aronofsky left. There were only a few posters reacting poorly to it while a dozen or so didn't really care. I know its not because they disliked him, but rather because they don't anything about him.

People are entitled to prefer popcorn over quality. I just think people deserve to taste quality before making that decision.

Screenwriter? No, no screenwriting for me (although I do edit them on occasion). I stick to short stories and books.

I coulda sworn you said you wrote for the screen. Either way, my point still applies.

[BigThor]

Dude, why do you come on to threads about Marvel Studios films just to constantly argue about films that you find undwerwhelming?

We ALL know how you feel about Marvel Studios by now so there's no need to keep arguing with people about the quality of these films because at the end of the day no one's opinion is going to be changed.

[TheDragonator]

I'm not as informed as others are here about Thor, so I don't know if these are terrible villain suggestions, but based off of looks and names, here are some I hope are the villain for the sequel:

Desak
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/138225-180635-desak_super.gif

Seth
http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/3/3b/Seth.jpg

Kurse
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Thor363.jpg

Just to get this thread off this ass-redundant topic.

[Crimson King]

Fine. Alexei, my response is below:

The MCU movies are not sequels to one another. Sequels happen in sequence. The MCU movies share a universe and their story timelines overlap.

The simple fact that a studio has created a unified world for their films--where actions in one movie affect actions in another--is an undertaking of monumental proportions. It's risky as hell. It could fail in any number of ways with one small misstep. Then, on top of that, you want to take the lead characters from all of your films and put them in a single movie? It's operating on the fringe of traditional moviemaking, and to me, that's ambition. You take something that's hard to do and you do it anyway. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, they've succeeded.

As for the popularity of the Avengers with the GA, I assume you've seen this:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/are-these-the-most-anticipated-2012-films/

Ever visit Tumblr? Try doing a search on the "Avengers" tag. Enjoy the next six months of sorting through millions of posts clamoring for its release.

Saying the Avengers won't do anything but make money is ridiculous. You're judging a movie before it's released. Was Whedon's Astonishing X-Men run a money grab with no substance? I didn't think so. Millions of people didn't think so. Give the guy some credit and hold off on the criticisms until you have an actual product to criticize.

It's always amusing for me to see you make assumptions about my taste in movies. CBMs aren't the only things I watch. My tastes run the gamut but when it comes down to it, my favorites all share common traits: they have great writing and they elicit an emotional response. Whether it be because I love the portrayal of a character or because the thematic undertones strike a chord, movies with those traits are counted among my favorites. Things like Shawshank Redemption, TDK, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, LA Confidential, Se7en, Black Swan... those are movies I could watch over and over (and do, actually). On the TV side of things, my list is shorter, but Mad Men and Dexter stand out as the best of that medium. Mad Men, in particular, is one of the best-written shows ever made.

You seem to think I can find no wrong with Marvel. That's not true in the slightest. I've documented my problems with Thor, IM2, and TIH. I still count them as successes even though I wanted more from them.

Finally, I was a huge fan of Aronofsky directing the next Wolverine movie. It was up there with my most anticipated movies because I knew he'd do a great job. When he left, my interest left with him. I'll probably still see it, but I was so impressed that they went with him in the first place. It's a shame we'll never see his interpretation.

[Crimson King]

I'm not as informed as others are here about Thor, so I don't know if these are terrible villain suggestions, but based off of looks and names, here are some I hope are the villain for the sequel:

I'm fairly new to the Thor world as well, but...Seth? Seth is a real villain name?

I'm hoping for Enchantress and Executioner, mostly because they can incorporate Jane into that storyline.

[BigThor]

I'm not as informed as others are here about Thor, so I don't know if these are terrible villain suggestions, but based off of looks and names, here are some I hope are the villain for the sequel.

Kurse
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Thor363.jpg

Just to get this thread off this ass-redundant topic.

I wouldn't mind seeing Kurse appearing in THOR 2 as Malekith's "muscle", but I think Desak should be saved for whenever Thor becomes King of Asgard just like in the comics.

I'm not crazy over either of those guys as villains in a Thor film though, I'd rather see these guys (I'm leavin out Amora and Skurge because they're shoe-ins).

Ulik
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5629/ulik001.jpg

Malekith
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9684/127274162115malekithsup.jpg

Mangog
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3091/799462mangog1large.gif

Surtur
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7162/406pxsurtur1.jpg

[TheDragonator]

OH GEE I WONDER WHO THE THOR 2 VILLAIN WILL BE?

Let's KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE TROLL.

[BigThor]

OH GEE I WONDER WHO THE THOR 2 VILLAIN WILL BE?

Let's KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE TROLL.

Exactly, checkout the post above yours.

[TheDragonator]

I wouldn't mind seeing Kurse appearing in 2 as Malekith's "muscle", but I think Desak should be saved for whenever becomes King of Asgard just like in the comics.

I'm not crazy over either of those guys as villains in a film though, I'd rather see these guys (I'm leavin out Amora and Skurge because they're shoe-ins).

Ulik
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5629/ulik001.jpg

Malekith
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9684/127274162115malekithsup.jpg

Mangog
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3091/799462mangog1large.

Surtur
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7162/406pxsurtur1.jpg

Shorten Malekith's hair and maybe the skirt and I could deal.

Also, that's the first pic of Mangog I've seen where he looks nice. The only ones I can find of him are like this:
http://www.leaderslair.com/marvelvillains/mangog-sm.gif

Surtur, from what I've heard, sounds like he'd be saved for a third film. From what I can tell, next to Loki and, of course, Ragnarok, Surtur is Thor's biggest villain.

[steintym]

I'm not as informed as others are here about Thor, so I don't know if these are terrible villain suggestions, but based off of looks and names, here are some I hope are the villain for the sequel:


Just to get this thread off this ass-redundant topic.



:highfive:

Thank you!


My personal choices would be to have the Executioner and Enchantress in the sequel. They seem to be the next logical choices to me.

I know it won't happen (and probably shouldn't), but I also wouldn't mind seeing the Destroyer again ... but waaaay more unstoppable.

[BigThor]

Shorten Malekith's hair and maybe the skirt and I could deal.

Also, that's the first pic of Mangog I've seen where he looks nice. The only ones I can find of him are like this:
http://www.leaderslair.com/marvelvillains/mangog-sm.gif

Surtur, from what I've heard, sounds like he'd be saved for a third film. From what I can tell, next to Loki and, of course, Ragnarok, Surtur is Thor's biggest villain.

They could just change Malekith's skirt into armor flaps similar to the one's Hogun has in THOR and yeah I think pic I posted of Mangog is his coolest design ever.

Malekith's hair could just be straightened like it was in Avengers:EMH, here's a pic of it below.
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2940/malekithaemh.png

[Saitou Hajime]

So according to that other site, Alan Taylor has emerged as the favorite to be the next pick. Which I guess is a good thing, because I kind of preferred his GoT episodes over Minahan's.

Edit: Well, so much for steering it in another direction.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Translation: my trolling needs an audience, so your invitation to make this tired discussion private is denied.

Translation: anyone who criticizes Marvel Studios is a troll.

Second translation: I can't counter this person's argument, so I'll just label him a troll (as if that somehow dismisses the points he's making).


OH GEE I WONDER WHO THE THOR 2 VILLAIN WILL BE?

Let's KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE TROLL.

See the above post.

[Saitou Hajime]

Translation: anyone who criticizes Marvel Studios is a troll.

Second translation: I can't counter this person's argument, so I'll just label him a troll (as if that somehow dismisses the points he's making).


cherokeesam and jmc criticize Marvel Studios: they're not considered trolls. kedrell criticizes Marvel Studios in his own way, but apparently he's a MS drone or something.

[Crimson King]

So according to that other site, Alan Taylor has emerged as the favorite to be the next pick. Which I guess is a good thing, because I kind of preferred his GoT episodes over Minahan's.

Edit: Well, so much for steering it in another direction.

Just looked and saw that Taylor did the last two episodes. I liked those a lot. :up:

[Alexei Belyakov]

The MCU movies are not sequels to one another. Sequels happen in sequence. The MCU movies share a universe and their story timelines overlap.

Yes, this is something that works very well in the comics and seems to be [obviously] appealing to the comic book fans who go out and watch these films.

The simple fact that a studio has created a unified world for their films--where actions in one movie affect actions in another--is an undertaking of monumental proportions.

This is where you lose me. Monumental? No way. Why? Because anyone could do it.

FOX coulda done it and [as I mentioned earlier] attempted it, SONY could do it still & New Line did it when it merged Freddy and Jason into one film. The list goes on.

Its not a "monumental" undertaking. Its just taking characters from individual films and putting them together in one film. A simple concept that will make Marvel (through its loyal fanbase) good money. Will it do something for this medium? Absolutely not.

It's risky as hell. It could fail in any number of ways with one small misstep.

The only way it can fail is if The Avengers flops and there's a 99% chance it won't.

As for the popularity of the Avengers with the GA, I assume you've seen this:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/are-these-the-most-anticipated-2012-films/

Ever visit Tumblr? Try doing a search on the "Avengers" tag. Enjoy the next six months of sorting through millions of posts clamoring for its release.

I never said the MCU movies aren't popular. I said they don't contribute to the evolution of this genre. They're very popular.

Saying the Avengers won't do anything but make money is ridiculous. You're judging a movie before it's released. Was Whedon's Astonishing X-Men run a money grab with no substance? I didn't think so. Millions of people didn't think so. Give the guy some credit and hold off on the criticisms until you have an actual product to criticize.

I'm a huge Joss Whedon fan in both his literary work and what he's done for the screen. The problem is, and this is where you and I clash worse than an old guy and a midget, Joss Whedon is not running this show.

Whedon like Favreau in IM2, Leterrier and Norton in TIH in post, & Branagh on Thor, most likely had to make the movie Kevin Feige wanted to make and not the film he would have made had he been given creative freedom.

Granted, both trailers look great (cinematography) but at this point I can't expect much from a studio that seems more concerned with filling seats than telling great stories. We'll soon hear the announcement of the film's running time & all hell will break loose, trust me. Uber-loyalists will support 98 minutes while guys like me will just drown the pain with alcohol.

It's always amusing for me to see you make assumptions about my taste in movies. CBMs aren't the only things I watch. My tastes run the gamut but when it comes down to it, my favorites all share common traits: they have great writing and they elicit an emotional response. Whether it be because I love the portrayal of a character or because the thematic undertones strike a chord, movies with those traits are counted among my favorites. Things like Shawshank Redemption, TDK, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, LA Confidential, Se7en, Black Swan... those are movies I could watch over and over (and do, actually). On the TV side of things, my list is shorter, but Mad Men and Dexter stand out as the best of that medium. Mad Men, in particular, is one of the best-written shows ever made.

See, as I expected, you have good taste in film. So why, kingmatte? Why do you give Marvel sooooo much leeway?

I love the books too, man. I grew up reading them and have a collection that would blow your mind. But as I've said many times, we shouldn't have to settle for what Feige's feeding us when we know just how good these movies could be.

I was first in line to see Thor (and Cap) with my daughter. We were both excited as hell and wore t-shirts of Thor and Loki fighting (as in the concept art for the film). When we left both movies, we couldn't help but feel underwhelmed (specially with Cap having seen First Class a month earlier).

I want these MCU movies to be great but Feige just keeps ruining that for me. I had absolute confidence in this studio after IM and TIH (I got the press screening with the Tony scene placed after the credits). I really thought they were gonna eclipse everything in the genre that had come before based on Marvel Comics.

But then came the news about Norton's reason for not doing publicity. Then came the revelation that the Tony scene was moved up to before the credits. Then came Iron Man 2 and everything after that, specially what I told you I learned went on during the shoot. It was enough for me to get turned off. But I still went out and gave Thor and Cap the benefit of the doubt, even though it bit me in the ass [twice].

You seem to think I can find no wrong with Marvel. That's not true in the slightest. I've documented my problems with Thor, IM2, and TIH. I still count them as successes even though I wanted more from them.

Then why continue to be enthusiastically supportive of the studio? Why give something your confidence when it didn't fully satisfy you? You champion the studio in these boards. Even with these ridiculous director choices for Thor II, you crusade for Feige's non-sensical decision-making and urge people to wait and see.

Finally, I was a huge fan of Aronofsky directing the next Wolverine movie. It was up there with my most anticipated movies because I knew he'd do a great job. When he left, my interest left with him. I'll probably still see it, but I was so impressed that they went with him in the first place. It's a shame we'll never see his interpretation.

You have no idea just how bummed I was when he walked away. My daughter actually posted a note on Facebook expressing her sadness to which her aunts and uncles replied "Its just a movie, relax". Gotta love Facebook.

[kedrell]

cherokeesam and jmc criticize Marvel Studios: they're not considered trolls. kedrell criticizes Marvel Studios in his own way, but apparently he's a MS drone or something.



Funny how I can do both, ain't it?:word:



Just looked and saw that Taylor did the last two episodes. I liked those a lot. :up:

Not to poo-poo that choice(I'd support it) but doing the episodes that are essentially the climax of the season can kind of give one a skewed impression.

[Adamantium Man]

OH GEE I WONDER WHO THE THOR 2 VILLAIN WILL BE?

Let's KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT INSTEAD OF FEEDING THE TROLL.

The ignore button is your friend.

Also, I'd be down with Malekith. Don't judge me - I've got a thing for elves.

On second thought, he might be considered a Loki clone if not done right. Okay, I'll go with the obvious choice - Enchantress and Executioner. We haven't had a female villain in the MCU before.

[cherokeesam]

I'm fairly new to the Thor world as well, but...Seth? Seth is a real villain name?

I'm hoping for Enchantress and Executioner, mostly because they can incorporate Jane into that storyline.


Yeah, I'm still betting on Amora and Skurge as the most obvious choices. This is one of the reasons I was so hyped for Patty to get the call and bummed that Marvel changed their mind: Patty seemed to have the right chops for directing a story in which Enchantress and Jane Foster (and possibly other female leads) would feature prominently.

By pushing the Game of Thrones directors to the forefront, it seems pretty clear that the current direction is just "hey, let's just make a decent fantasy movie to appeal to the D&D/WoW/Skyrim clan." *That's* why I'm disillusioned, and think that Thor 2 --- which could've had a ton of potential --- might devolve into just an average swords(hammers) 'n' sorcery flick.

[Crimson King]

Not to poo-poo that choice(I'd support it) but doing the episodes that are essentially the climax of the season can kind of give one a skewed impression.

True, but he could have just as easily screwed it up, too. A lot of people wilt under that kind of pressure.

[OB12]

New Line did it when it merged Freddy and Jason into one film. The list goes on.

Its not a "monumental" undertaking. Its just taking characters from individual films and putting them together in one film. A simple concept that will make Marvel (through its loyal fanbase) good money. Will it do something for this medium? Absolutely not.




Comparing Freddy vs Jason or AvP to what Marvel is doing really doesn't take. None of those respective franchises were developed orginally with crossovers in mind. It is a very different thing to go into a project knowing that you want the individual properties to stand on their own, but they will have various strings to each other throughout. That is quite the daunting challenge and should be applauded because it could've easily gone sideways.

[Crimson King]

Yeah, I'm still betting on Amora and Skurge as the most obvious choices. This is one of the reasons I was so hyped for Patty to get the call and bummed that Marvel changed their mind: Patty seemed to have the right chops for directing a story in which Enchantress and Jane Foster (and possibly other female leads) would feature prominently.

By pushing the Game of Thrones directors to the forefront, it seems pretty clear that the current direction is just "hey, let's just make a decent fantasy movie to appeal to the D&D/WoW/Skyrim clan." *That's* why I'm disillusioned, and think that Thor 2 --- which could've had a ton of potential --- might devolve into just an average swords(hammers) 'n' sorcery flick.

Again, you're assuming Marvel was the one to break things off. There's no evidence that points to that.

I think your disillusionment is a bit premature. So far, all of this is just a rumor.

[Saitou Hajime]

By pushing the Game of Thrones directors to the forefront, it seems pretty clear that the current direction is just "hey, let's just make a decent fantasy movie to appeal to the D&D/WoW/Skyrim clan."

You seem to have a funky perception of GoT. To me, going for the GoT directors seems like MS wants to expand upon the unique character drama Branagh utilized in the first film, and is the forte of GoT.

[steintym]

Not sure I'd want to go in this direction in the next sequel, but at some point I'd also love the see the Wrecking Crew, maybe even the Absorbing Man down the road.

[cherokeesam]

You seem to have a funky perception of GoT. To me, going for the GoT directors seems like MS wants to expand upon the unique character drama Branagh utilized in the first film, and is the forte of GoT.


I don't have anything against GoT or against fantasy, period; far from it, in either case. It's just that in the case of Thor in particular, I don't think full-on fantasy is the right direction. Yes, Thor in the comics has definitely capitalized on the fantasy genre, but the story still remains firmly rooted in the *superhero* genre. Big difference.

I'd rather see Thor be the Defender of Midgard rather than the Ruler of Asgard, since that's always been the emphasis in the comics. In other words, the viewers don't have as much invested in Thor if he's off defending Asgard; but if he's trying to protect Earth and humanity, that gives him a noble purpose. Humanocentric, I know, but again, that's the nature of the superhero genre. Nobody cares about a superhero of another world/planet/dimension; only a superhero who belongs to *our* world.

[TheDragonator]

I don't have anything against GoT or against fantasy, period; far from it, in either case. It's just that in the case of in particular, I don't think full-on fantasy is the right direction. Yes, in the has definitely capitalized on the fantasy genre, but the story still remains firmly rooted in the *superhero* genre. Big difference.

I'd rather see be the Defender of Midgard rather than the Ruler of Asgard, since that's always been the emphasis in the comics. In other words, the viewers don't have as much invested in Thor if he's off defending Asgard; but if he's trying to protect Earth and humanity, that gives him a noble purpose. Humanocentric, I know, but again, that's the nature of the superhero genre. Nobody cares about a superhero of another world/planet/dimension; only a superhero who belongs to *our* world.

I don't see how being directed by someone who directed episodes of Game of Thrones means it's not going to be on Earth. :huh:

The guy who directed the Justin Bieber movie is directing G.I Joe Retaliation and they are alike in absolutely no ways.

Jon Favreau directed Zathura, and Iron Man didn't take place primarily in space.

[TheDragonator]

Not sure I'd want to go in this direction in the next sequel, but at some point I'd also the see the Wrecking Crew, maybe even the Absorbing down the road.

I've always considered Absorbing Man more of a Hulk villain, personally.

Also, if they bring him back as an actor: Kenneth Branagh as Balder

[RagingOvaries]

I've always considered Absorbing Man more of a Hulk villain, personally.

Also, if they bring him back as an actor: Kenneth Branagh as Balder

Okay, THAT would be interesting.

[steintym]

I've always considered Absorbing Man more of a Hulk villain, personally.


Weren't most of his earlier run-ins with Thor? In fact, I thought he got his powers from Loki. I might have that wrong. It's been a looong time.

[TheDragonator]

I guess so. My best experience with the character was in EMH, where he's a Hulk villain.

Also, this:

http://i.imgur.com/MzJrY.jpg

[kedrell]

I'm sure our fellow posters would like to see your retort to my above statement. I say that, because I honesty think there are too many people here that don't watch enough real films to truly dismiss the notion of wanting better CBMs than what Marvel Studios is giving us.

Real films? WTF is that supposed to mean? We do watch real films and the MCU films are in that category. Seriously, the pretentiousness in here is truly astounding sometimes.

I had the same problem in the Wolverine forums when Aronofsky left. There were only a few posters reacting poorly to it while a dozen or so didn't really care. I know its not because they disliked him, but rather because they don't anything about him.

It was precisely because I'd checked him out that I was glad he was gone.

People are entitled to prefer popcorn over quality. I just think people deserve to taste quality before making that decision.

Oh, we prefer quality. Make no mistake. That's pretty much why we like these films and disliked stuff like GR, FF, FFROTSS, X3, AngHulk, etc.

[rashad]

'Thor 2' Star Natalie Portman Furious Over Director Patty Jenkins' Firing
1:49 PM PST 12/14/2011 by Kim Masters

The actress is said to be deeply unhappy with Marvel over Jenkins' dismissal but is contractually obligated to stay with the project.

The success of Marvel Studios has allowed it to operate by its own rules, so perhaps it’s not surprising that its top executives neither knew nor cared that dropping Patty Jenkins as director of its Thor sequel would shock Hollywood. But perhaps the studio didn't count on shocking Natalie Portman, who is said to be deeply upset by the decision.

While the parties spun the Dec. 6 parting (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/thor-2-patty-jenkins-270210) as an amicable split over creative differences, sources say Jenkins was fired without warning from a job that would have made her the first woman to direct a superhero tentpole. The news was out before anyone had told Portman, who had strongly urged Marvel to hire the director of 2003’s Monster (a film that won Charlize Theron her Oscar). According to sources, Portman had begun to question whether she wanted to continue acting at all right now -- possibly for several years -- because she wants to spend time with her baby boy, who was born in June. Portman was said to be re-engaged in Thor 2 because of Jenkins' involvement and especially proud that she would have played a role in opening the door for a woman to direct such a film. The Oscar winner is contractually obligated to stay with the project and Marvel is now said to be working overtime to smooth over the situation by including her in discussions about whom to hire as a replacement.

Meanwhile, insiders are telling widely divergent stories about why Marvel dropped Jenkins. A source with firsthand knowledge of the production says Marvel became concerned that Jenkins was not moving decisively enough and feared the film might miss its November 2013 release date. Exactly how Jenkins should have acted more decisively is unclear since no script was in place. Marvel had commissioned one from Don Payne before Jenkins came onto the project in October, but the studio now wants a rewrite.

Still, the source says the company felt she showed “a lack of overall clarity in her choices,” which led to concern that the process would be “difficult.”

But an insider in Jenkins’ camp says the lack of clarity might be on Marvel’s part. This person says Jenkins was so explicit about her vision for the film that she didn’t expect to be hired in the first place. The source speculates that Marvel executives might have been won over initially by Portman’s enthusiasm for Jenkins but then, “when they started to interview writers for the rewrite . . . may have decided they really weren’t comfortable.”

“Marvel had certain things they needed to achieve,” says another source. “There were constraints on what she could do creatively.”

These sources say Jenkins respects Marvel’s imperatives and still wants to work with the company. She also doesn’t want this to be seen as gender-related, though that might be inevitable. A recent Annenberg study showed women directed only 3.6 percent of the top-grossing movies of 2009.

The directors Marvel is now considering to replace Jenkins -- Game of Thrones vets Daniel Minahan and Alan Taylor — are both men.

Sexual politics aside, Marvel has a reputation for calling its own shots. This is the company that offered Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke a less-than-princely $250,000 for Iron Man 2 (that was negotiated up to something north of $400,000). The Disney-based studio has said in the past that it doesn’t mean to be disrespectful, just budget-conscious. But with certain exceptions — say, Robert Downey Jr. for the Iron Man series — the company is happy to lowball talent.

But as long as Marvel movies pull in those big global audiences (like $448.5 million for Thor), it has no reason to change course. “There’s a real arrogance,” says a film agent. “But in this environment where everybody’s struggling to stay employed, their behavior is amplified.” And agents can’t combat that. “We don’t have leverage,” he says. “The movies are the stars.”

Email: Kim.Masters@thr.com
Twitter: @KimMasters

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/thor-2-natalie-portman-marvel-patty-jenkins-272978

[TheDragonator]

*waits for Alexei to miss the part where it involves her wanting to be with her kid and only focus on that she's upset because the director was fired*

[Alexei Belyakov]

Great article. The studio's been lowballing talent since 2008. Its about time the press caught up to their behavior & informed the masses about their arrogance. And Natalie Portman's mad? Well we all know Marvel Studios doesn't care. Feige will recast her in a minute. That's the Marvel Studios way of doing business in Hollywood.

[BobbyCorwin88]

*waits for Alexei to miss the part where it involves her wanting to be with her kid and only focus on that she's upset because the director was fired*
That must mean you didn't understand it fully. Of course she wants to be with her kid, she's a mother. So asking Marvel to get Jenkins involved was her way of saying, "this will make me happy to work since I can't see my kid for a while." Then Jenkins gets the boot. Now she's contractually obligated to do something she isn't psyched about while being away from her child.

She has every reason to be upset.

[J.Howlett]

Ten bucks Marvel clashed over Jenkin's portrayal of the female characters in the sequel, i.e., they had more beefed up roles in the sequel....(aka...not waiting around for the men and not the damsel in distress).

I'm about one more of these stories away with cutting Marvel loose.

[TheDragonator]

That must you didn't understand it fully. Of she wants to be with her kid, she's a . So asking to get Jenkins involved was her way of saying, "this will make me happy to work since I can't see my kid for a while." Then Jenkins gets the boot. Now she's contractually obligated to do something she isn't psyched about while being away from her child.

She has every reason to be .

When did I say she didn't have every reason to be upset? I was talking about how Alexei ignored everything else.

[TheDragonator]

Ten bucks clashed over Jenkin's portrayal of the female characters in , i.e., they had more beefed up roles in the sequel....(aka...not waiting around for the men and not the damsel in distress)..

That's flat out stupid. How the hell did you reach the conclusion that having larger character roles is why she was fired?

And this is from the same company who hired JOSS FREAKING WHEDON. You know, the guy who does that with EVERY FEMALE CHARACTER HE TOUCHES.

[cherokeesam]

I don't see how being directed by someone who directed episodes of Game of Thrones means it's not going to be on Earth. :huh:

The guy who directed the Justin Bieber movie is directing G.I Joe Retaliation and they are alike in absolutely no ways.

Jon Favreau directed Zathura, and Iron Man didn't take place primarily in space.

GI Joe isn't a Marvel Studios film, of course.

As for Favreau, his "forte" before Iron Man was light comedy adventure --- Zathura & Elf --- and that's exactly the angle Marvel looked for (and got) with Iron Man. Marvel was looking for a WWII period action piece, and they got (surprise) Joe Johnston. Looking for someone who's good with stories about medieval family feuds? How about, oh I dunno....Ken Branagh? A fast-paced action tour de force....how does Leterrier of Transporter and Unleashed fame sound?

Marvel specifically targets people who are familiar with the types of stories they want to tell. In the case of Patty Jenkins, it's safe to assume that the script she was aiming for would have been heavy on the feminine, and I'm sure would've given meaty roles to not only Jane Foster, but other Thor femmes like Sif and Enchantress. Hell, maybe even Karnilla, Hela, Valkyrie....who knows.

But when they ditched her in favor of Any Random Game of Thrones Director, it's obvious that *their* vision instead trends more towards LOTR: The Asgardian Version. And the rumors have already said that this story focuses on a "jaunt across the Nine Realms." That points to very little (if any) focus on Thor's relationship with Midgard and humanity, which further distances him from the Avengers and any earth-based conflicts, like Creed and the Wrecking Crew.

So yeah, it's not a stretch to assume Marvel intends to go full-on fantasy for Thor 2.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Marvel specifically targets people who are familiar with the types of stories they want to tell. In the case of Patty Jenkins, it's safe to assume that the script she was aiming for would have been heavy on the feminine, and I'm sure would've given meaty roles to not only Jane Foster, but other Thor femmes like Sif and Enchantress. Hell, maybe even Karnilla, Hela, Valkyrie....who knows.

To be honest, I find this part a little sexist. Just because Jenkins is women it's not "safe to assume" that she was aiming for something heavy on the feminine.
True, the main character in Monster were female, but why does that mean, that Jenkins has to give meatier roles to the women per se? Was Just Drive (Jenkins first movie) heavy on the feminine? No, as far as I remember there were no women at all in that movie.

[Crimson King]

Sources, insiders, more sources...

That thing reads like bad fanboy blogging.

[Crimson King]

Ten bucks Marvel clashed over Jenkin's portrayal of the female characters in the sequel, i.e., they had more beefed up roles in the sequel....(aka...not waiting around for the men and not the damsel in distress).

I'm about one more of these stories away with cutting Marvel loose.

Which female characters in Thor were damsels in distress or waited around on men? Jane was an astrophysicist, not some socialite waiting for her prince to come. Sif led the Warriors Three. Frigga cut a giant down with a sword. What on earth makes you think Marvel was scared about feminine empowerment?

This is my problem with rumor mags. They can say whatever they want, make whatever assumptions they want, with no consequences, and people believe it. I'll give this person the benefit of the doubt and assume she's reporting what people told her, but it's still hearsay, and BIASED hearsay at that, no matter which camp the rumor comes from.

[JackMercy]

This is my problem with rumor mags. They can say whatever they want, make whatever assumptions they want, with no consequences, and people believe it. I'll give this person the benefit of the doubt and assume she's reporting what people told her, but it's still hearsay, and BIASED hearsay at that, no matter which camp the rumor comes from.

Before you critique something, do a little research. The Hollywood Reporter is not a "rumor mag." It's one of the oldest trade papers in the business. While its reputation has declined like many others (such as Variety) because of numerous changes in journalistic fashion, it spends the majority of its time reporting facts, and is deeply embedded inside the industry. This is not "Gawker."

How many stories like this will it take for you to believe that Marvel Studios' reputation in the industry is one of arrogance and hubris (and cheap hubris, at that)?

[TheDragonator]

Whatever. As long as I enjoy the movies, I'll be satisfied.

[Alexei Belyakov]

kingmatte, are you seriously gonna call bias on a press article that has no reason to be biased? Talk about getting defensive with Marvel (and reaching). I sometimes truly think that you work for the company and are paid to be on message boards making sure the studio's reputation stays positive with the fans.

[JackMercy]

And this is from the same company who hired JOSS FREAKING WHEDON. You know, the guy who does that with EVERY FEMALE CHARACTER HE TOUCHES.

Whedon was hired primarily for his dialogue. He's good at "banter" between antagonizing individuals -- something the Avengers story needs, particularly with Downey heading it up. You don't think Marvel has ultimate control over their Avengers film vision? $250 mil to Whedon with creative control? Hardly. This is their big apple. Whedon's strong 'touch' with female characters (debatable in itself) is purely a bonus for the studio...a controllable bonus.

Whedon was also...cheap. He's only directed one feature, and even that was fairly low-budget and only mildly successful.

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't have anything against GoT or against fantasy, period; far from it, in either case. It's just that in the case of Thor in particular, I don't think full-on fantasy is the right direction.


Like I said, you have a rather funky perception of GoT. You make it sound like LOTR, whereas with the exception of the medieval theme, it's relatively fantasy-lite for the most part. It's forte is the character drama and political intrigue, which I believe what MS is looking for after their experience with Branagh. However...


Yes, Thor in the comics has definitely capitalized on the fantasy genre, but the story still remains firmly rooted in the *superhero* genre. Big difference.

I'd rather see Thor be the Defender of Midgard rather than the Ruler of Asgard, since that's always been the emphasis in the comics. In other words, the viewers don't have as much invested in Thor if he's off defending Asgard; but if he's trying to protect Earth and humanity, that gives him a noble purpose. Humanocentric, I know, but again, that's the nature of the superhero genre. Nobody cares about a superhero of another world/planet/dimension; only a superhero who belongs to *our* world.This seems to be an "Asgard vs Earth" issue, which I can't speak on. Although I will say that a GoT director can craft compelling Earth-centric stories intermixed with Asgardian elements.

[cronosred]

Feige will recast her in a minute.

I won't be surprised if this happens. :csad:

[Crimson King]

kingmatte, are you seriously gonna call bias on a press article that has no reason to be biased? Talk about getting defensive with Marvel (and reaching). I sometimes truly think that you work for the company and are paid to be on message boards making sure the studio's reputation stays positive with the fans.

Seriously? You're accusing me of being a plant?

I never said that this information couldn't be true. Maybe it is. I'm saying that I don't believe everything from "sources and insiders" just because it's posted on the Internet. My god, this place is really starting to grate on me. Why do I keep coming here again?

[Crimson King]

Before you critique something, do a little research. The Hollywood Reporter is not a "rumor mag." It's one of the oldest trade papers in the business. While its reputation has declined like many others (such as Variety) because of numerous changes in journalistic fashion, it spends the majority of its time reporting facts, and is deeply embedded inside the industry. This is not "Gawker."

How many stories like this will it take for you to believe that Marvel Studios' reputation in the industry is one of arrogance and hubris (and cheap hubris, at that)?

Compare this article to anything you read on CBM. You'll find them similar. And yes, I know what The Hollywood Reporter is, so no research is required.

[Saitou Hajime]

So Branagh and Jenkins talk positively about MS and about wanting to work with them in the future, and it gets ignored. But the conspiracy stories from the "insiders" come up about the big bad MS, and detractors cling to it like gospel. Oh, and somehow the latter has more weight that the former, for some reason.

[Mysteryman]

I hope Paty Jenkins Directs a Marvel film one day.
Cloak and Dagger might be a good fit for her .
I hope we get news of her replacement soon.
Followed by confirmation on a new screenwriter,early casting and selection of villains .

[BobbyCorwin88]

When did I say she didn't have every reason to be upset? I was talking about how Alexei ignored everything else.
You actually "predicted" that he'd ignore everything else, which is baiting because for some reason you want to get a rise out of someone on a message board, and to which AB really only commented on anyway. It's a mystery to me why that even matters.

I didn't even know Portman was suggesting Jenkins in the first place, so I do kind of feel for her. It makes me scratch my head when Marvel makes moves like these, although it's not that surprising anymore. This particular move is kind of confusing since they apparently wanted Jenkins and I even remember an interview with Hiddelston where he said Ken Branagh told him to watch Monster when researching Loki. Everyone seemed pretty excited for her until now. I really wanted to see what her vision was too since I am not a fan of Branagh's Thor.

[cherokeesam]

Compare this article to anything you read on CBM. You'll find them similar. And yes, I know what The Hollywood Reporter is, so no research is required.

Wow....are you seriously putting The Hollywood Reporter in the same league as CBM's fan blog? That's like saying Variety has the same value as latinoreview....:dry:

[Alexei Belyakov]

Wow....are you seriously putting The Hollywood Reporter in the same league as CBM's fan blog? That's like saying Variety has the same value as latinoreview....:dry: At this point, I'm sure of one of two things: either kingmatte works for Marvel Studios as a message board floater, or he's just an MCU fan that can't accept the idea of Marvel being a terrible studio. I was a HUGE MCU fan before 2009. I lost my respect for Feige when I heard the tales of IM2's production. I probably shoulda done so earlier with the TIH situation but I wanted to give them a chance to prove me wrong. When I watched IM2 I pretty much understood what my friends in the production meant by calling Feige a "tremendous deuchebag". The man running Marvel is a man that really shouldn't be involved in this medium at all. He's a Uwe Boll. A Michael Bay. A Renny Harlin. Actually, he's less intelligent than those guys & less suitable for this art-form.

[Aeltri]

Malekith's hair could just be straightened like it was in Avengers:EMH, here's a pic of it below.
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2940/malekithaemh.png

So that he looks even more like Prince Nuada? No. The comparisons are already going to be inevitable. Besides, part of what made Simonson's characters great was that they had a unique look to them. IMHO they need to rework his design a bit for the big screen without turning him into another person. This is an alternate design that I came up with:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/aimelek/MAL-2.jpg

Malekith's costume has always looked entirely like leather armor to me. What seems like a skirt is actually made up of pteruges similar to those worn by Roman soldiers and the same influence can be seen in the form-fitting cuirass.

[BigThor]

You're going a bit overboard, straightening his hair would definately not turn him into another person.

Prince Nuada doesn't have a half black/half white face, he's much of a magic user, and Hellboy II wasn't all that big of a movie for him looking like Nuada to really matter.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ten bucks Marvel clashed over Jenkin's portrayal of the female characters in the sequel, i.e., they had more beefed up roles in the sequel....(aka...not waiting around for the men and not the damsel in distress).

I'm about one more of these stories away with cutting Marvel loose.

I wont be far behind you, it already grates me watching IM2 with a totally different Rhodey, i'm sure The Avengers will be the same with Banner. This shared universe stuff they are trying to pull isnt going to be worth **** if they keep changing actors every few movies.

[Rac]

I wont be far behind you, it already grates me watching IM2 with a totally different Rhodey, i'm sure The Avengers will be the same with Banner. This shared universe stuff they are trying to pull isnt going to be worth **** if they keep changing actors every few movies.
No one wants to work with them anymore if they lose Portman too.

"Why would I wanna do this movie, when you're gonna boot me from the sequel(s)?"

Get it together, Marvel.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No one wants to work with them anymore if they lose Portman too.

"Why would I wanna do this movie, when you're gonna boot me from the sequel(s)?"

Get it together, Marvel.

Exactly, and things like the first Iron Man movie wont happen anymore if RDJ type talent wont want to work with them.

[Crimson King]

At this point, I'm sure of one of two things: either kingmatte works for Marvel Studios as a message board floater, or he's just an MCU fan that can't accept the idea of Marvel being a terrible studio.

It would be just as easy for me to say you were a WB plant sent here to sabotage the MCU, but that would be idiotic.

I don't know why you have this obsession over my opinions. Just let it go. Not everyone falls asleep at night wishing for the death of Feige.

As far as Thor 2 goes, MTV summed it up best: these are rumors. Troubling rumors, but still rumors. Until there's some concrete FACTUAL reason to be upset at Marvel, I'm going to hold my tongue. I see enough baseless rage due to rumors where I work and nine times out of ten there is an aspect to the story that people don't know, and that aspect usually ends up defusing their anger.

Marvel could very well be acting like douchebags here (that's DOUCHE, not deuche). Patty Jenkins could be acting like a douchebagette. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

[Alexei Belyakov]

It would be just as easy for me to say you were a WB plant sent here to sabotage the MCU, but that would be idiotic.

I'd have to be a WB/FOX/SONY combo then. Again, unlike you, I don't champion studios.

I don't know why you have this obsession over my opinions. Just let it go.

I honestly don't. I am however curious as to why you (as predicted) continue to defend Marvel despite the almost IMPOSSIBLE way to do so at this point.

Not everyone falls asleep at night wishing for the death of Feige.

Death's a bit harsh. I'd be happy if they fired him.

As far as Thor 2 goes, MTV summed it up best: these are rumors. Troubling rumors, but still rumors. Until there's some concrete FACTUAL reason to be upset at Marvel, I'm going to hold my tongue. I see enough baseless rage due to rumors where I work and nine times out of ten there is an aspect to the story that people don't know, and that aspect usually ends up defusing their anger.

Marvel could very well be acting like douchebags here (that's DOUCHE, not deuche). Patty Jenkins could be acting like a douchebagette. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

No, the truth has been right in front of you for 4 years now. You've just chosen (as you are again now) to completely ignore it.

Again, I don't know what it'll take for you to finally begin to question Feige's methods. You seem happy with pretty much anything the guy does.

I mean look where we are now: we've gone from Jon Favreau to the cable TV directing roster & you're still trying to protect Marvel's image by dismissing Portman's quarrels with the studio as rumors.

I told you here on these boards of just how unprofessional Feige behaved with Favreau on the set of IM2. That info came from people who worked with Favreau & Feige all throughout principal photography and you STILL said "rumors!!! just rumors!!!".

Must Feige drive the MCU to the ground in order for you to cease your Marvel Studios can do no wrong crusade?

[steintym]

This stuff gives me a headache. I hope we start getting story/character details soon.

[Crimson King]

^Agreed

[Aeltri]

You're going a bit overboard, straightening his hair would definately not turn him into another person.

Prince Nuada doesn't have a half black/half white face, he's much of a magic user, and Hellboy II wasn't all that big of a movie for him looking like Nuada to really matter.

Prince Nuada's costume is somewhat similar already, that includes the red/black color scheme. Not to mention that his hair is also long and blond-white. Trust me, enough people remember who he is. This is roughly the same audience that will be interested in the Thor sequels. I am mainly referring to visuals here, the more distinct Malekith is from him the better and my point is that they should do whatever they can keep it that way. A tattoo/birthmark on his face shouldn't be the only thing.

[cherokeesam]

It would be just as easy for me to say you were a WB plant sent here to sabotage the MCU, but that would be idiotic.

I don't know why you have this obsession over my opinions. Just let it go. Not everyone falls asleep at night wishing for the death of Feige.

As far as Thor 2 goes, MTV summed it up best: these are rumors. Troubling rumors, but still rumors. Until there's some concrete FACTUAL reason to be upset at Marvel, I'm going to hold my tongue. I see enough baseless rage due to rumors where I work and nine times out of ten there is an aspect to the story that people don't know, and that aspect usually ends up defusing their anger.

Marvel could very well be acting like douchebags here (that's DOUCHE, not deuche). Patty Jenkins could be acting like a douchebagette. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

When does a "rumor" become actual "news" for you....?

Again, this article is from The Hollywood Reporter. The biggest trade in the industry behind *only* Variety. Variety and THR are THE sources that Entertainment Tonight, Entertainment Weekly, Access Hollywood and all the rest go to FIRST before THEY start reporting. That means that THR does *not* print baseless rumors; they check and double-check their sources and get independent confirmation before running a story, same as any other *official* wire service. Unlike Fanboy World sites like SHH and CBM and latinoreview, THR are *not* able to print wild rumors and speculation, since their asses would be handed to them on a silver platter by a whole army of lawyers suing for libel and slander if they even tried.

[Crimson King]

When does a "rumor" become actual "news" for you....?

Again, this article is from The Hollywood Reporter. The biggest trade in the industry behind *only* Variety. Variety and THR are THE sources that Entertainment Tonight, Entertainment Weekly, Access Hollywood and all the rest go to FIRST before THEY start reporting. That means that THR does *not* print baseless rumors; they check and double-check their sources and get independent confirmation before running a story, same as any other *official* wire service. Unlike Fanboy World sites like SHH and CBM and latinoreview, THR are *not* able to print wild rumors and speculation, since their asses would be handed to them on a silver platter by a whole army of lawyers suing for libel and slander if they even tried.

When Kim Masters decides to do actual journalistic work and interview both Marvel and Jenkins about these allegations, they will remain what they are: rumors. Why is this garnering so much attention? Because it paints things as dramatic. Drama brings clicks and links. Why do you think she wrote it the way she did?

Again, I'm not saying this will never turn out to be true. It very well could. Until then, relax, dude. What do you care if I wait to hear actual news?

EDIT: after re-reading the article, she presents rumors critical of both sides. How is it possible that all of these rumors are fact? I find it curious to see people in here defending certain sources as truth while others are ignored.

[Son of Coul]

This thread's become a joke yo. Be back when the first pic comes out.

[TheDragonator]

message board floater, or he's just an MCU fan that can't the idea of being a terrible studio

Or, he has, you know, a different opinion than you.

[TheDragonator]

I also just read that Tanarus is actually Ulik. :dry:
...WTF?!

[Whiskey Tango]

http://i42.tinypic.com/i6bn89.jpg

[T"Challa]

lol..i haven't been to this board in a couple of weeks. When did this fanboy-hater civil war start?..haha

[R_Hythlodeus]

lol..i haven't been to this board in a couple of weeks. When did this fanboy-hater civil war start?..haha when AB returned.
As usual.

[Godzilla2000]

You know, I was thinking about this but maybe Odin is starting to grow weary of his position as defender of the nine realms. This could explain why he'd been appeasing the Frost Ginats for so long. Even Laufey mentioned that he was looking weary, and I don't think it was just because of the oncoming Odin sleep. Odin has lived for such a long time, has most likely seen many wars and I'm thinking he' preparing himself and those he loves for his departure from their reality, which makes what Loki's doing all the more tragic in that he's distancing himself from the man he called father for so long. The dramatic potential of Odin and Loki parting with unfinished business and no real sense of closure on his part is just too appealing to me.

[BigThor]

This thread's become a joke yo. Be back when the first pic comes out.

It sure has and I don't blame you Son of Coul.

[TheCorpulent1]

You know, I was thinking about this but maybe Odin is starting to grow weary of his position as defender of the nine realms. This could explain why he'd been appeasing the Frost Ginats for so long. Even Laufey mentioned that he was looking weary, and I don't think it was just because of the oncoming Odin sleep. Odin has lived for such a long time, has most likely seen many wars and I'm thinking he' preparing himself and those he loves for his departure from their reality, which makes what Loki's doing all the more tragic in that he's distancing himself from the man he called father for so long. The dramatic potential of Odin and Loki parting with unfinished business and no real sense of closure on his part is just too appealing to me.
I thought that was a given. Why would he have been holding a coronation ceremony to officially name Thor as his successor at the beginning of the first movie otherwise?

[Whiskey Tango]

when AB returned.
As usual.

You can set your clocks by it.

[steintym]

"Feige is the anti-Christ" talk gets old very quickly.