Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2" [Archive] - Page 2

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 02:32 PM

This is an.....interesting perspective on things. Not a well-thought out one, but....interesting.

"Being recognized doesn't make something popular...." Well....yes it does. By definition.

"Everybody knows who the Flash is but that doesn't mean they would pay to see a movie about him. Why? Because he is silly and second tier character like Thor, Cap, and Iron Man were before their film success." Again you say this. What makes any of these heroes any "sillier" than a guy who spins webs, or flies through the air in red and blue underwear, or turns into the Jolly Green Giant whenever he gets mad?

And again with "second tier"....give me a break. Cap, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk (Marvel Studios' Big Four) have always been at the forefront of Marvel marketing, and have always been mainstream characters that aren't just known by comic book geeks.

Being recognized does not make something popular. Popularity has to do with something being well-liked, not just well known. Thor and Captain America are not popular characters. They are second tier characters in comparison to Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and the Hulk. Why do you think they put Wolverine and Spider-Man in the Avengers comics? Why do you think all of the characters I listed had major motion pictures made before Thor/Cap? The problem here is you are thinking like a comic geek and not like the general public.

Marvel and DC are just now getting to the big guns. And viewers are not rejecting character concepts; they're rejecting sh**ty scripts and production. Thor and Green Lantern are similar characters in terms of sheer fantasy element, and yet the former was embraced by audiences while the latter bombed. It wasn't because either character was "silly"....it was because one was treated with a greater degree of respect by his director and actor.

Viewers embraced the idea of Thor because of Iron Man 2 and the Avengers hype. Sure, the movie made more money because it was well reviewed but that has nothing to do with how difficult it was for Marvel to make this movie and sell it. That is my whole argument about how you aren't giving Feige and Marvel their props for making a quality Thor movie (with an unknown actor) that was a hit movie. Green Lantern didn't do well because the movie looked ridiculous and those impressions were confirmed once the critics savaged the film. A bit too harshly in my opinion.

kedrell

12-11-2011, 02:50 PM

Its a pretty bad movie. Even RDJ didn't like it.

I don't recall RDJ saying he didn't like the movie. He thought the first was better and that is a common opinion but that's not the same thing as saying he didn't like it. In the run up to the movie I remember him in an interview talking about how happy he was that Marvel trusted him & Favreau to pretty much do their thing on the film. IM2 probably had the most director/writer/star creative freedom of any of the 5 MCU movies to date because they had earned that via the success of the previous movie in Marvel's eyes.

kedrell

12-11-2011, 02:53 PM

So Robert Downey Jr is unintelligent & unable to see the big picture? As is Mickey Rourke?

When the very people who worked on a movie trash that movie, it doesn't exactly say much about the quality of said movie.

Only one has done that, Mickey Rourke. And he's proven himself to be quite classless and ungracious as a performer. So I wouldn't take anything he says as gospel.

Favreau never bad-mothed Marvel and neither did RDJ to my knowledge.

jmc

12-11-2011, 02:58 PM

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

Adamantium Man

12-11-2011, 03:01 PM

That's because he was hoping for it to break TDK's record, most likely. RDJ always aims high and is disappointed when a movie doesn't net him an Oscar. It doesn't mean that he thinks it's a bad movie.

kedrell

12-11-2011, 03:05 PM

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

That's not the same thing as saying he thought it was a bad movie. Plenty of movies get criticized even though they on the whole aren't bad movies. No movie is perfect.

R_Hythlodeus

12-11-2011, 03:08 PM

Only one has done that, Mickey Rourke. And he's proven himself to be quite classless and ungracious as a performer. So I wouldn't take anything he says as gospel.

Favreau never bad-mothed Marvel and neither did RDJ to my knowledge.
I wouldn't go that far to call him classless and ungratious, but it is true he has a history of bashing movies he did (in this case to promote another, worse movie). while I understand, that personaly, he wanted more creative freedom (he'd be a bad actor if he wouldn't want to make the best out of his role), I don't think that approach can go very far in this kind of genre.

Imagine someone with Rourkes attitude would have been cast to play, let's say, the Riddler. Just before the shooting starts that actor demands that the Riddler has a pet squirrel that got scenes written into the script, and, because he wants to make the Riddler a more interesting character by changing him to a meth addict, takes a ton of drugs just to proves that he is a Method actor and after all of those changes were made, the script adjusted and the scenes filmed, goes on a media rampage because a couple of scenes where his squirrel eats a nut and he nearly takes an overdose were cut in the editing room, because of time issues.

I doubt WB would be bashed for cutting that out, because they took no risk.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 03:22 PM

You don’t have to assume everyone saw Thor in 3D to realize 3D ticket prices skew performance, especially in light of non-3D movies. As for current movies being handicapped by technology, that argument might hold water for movies released 10 years ago (though I recall downloading movies as early as 2002), but I don’t buy it for movies released as recently as 5 or 6 years ago. Also, CGI was commonplace for would-be blockbusters in 2001. It‘s hardly anything new, and wasn‘t some box office draw as though it had never been seen before.

So what if it does skew box office performance though? Money is money. It made $450 million at the WW box office and that clearly is a sign of success. The vast majority of Thor's screens during it's release were 3D too. In some ways, it's a handicap for the movie. It's a more expensive product and people still went to see it anyway.

As for online downloads, I was talking about movies in the early 2000's, not the last few years. Sure, it was possible to download movies back then but not as quickly or easily as today. I also don't think big CGI movies were as commonplace as they are today. People were blown away by Spider-Man and The Matrix. Stuff like that now doesn't sell movies. Just look at Tron.

I don't think it says much about the popularity of Thor. I think it says something about Marvel taking advantage of a gimmick and a smart release date in an overly crowded summer. Domestic 3D attendance noticeably declined from summer's beginning to summer's end, and Thor had the advantage of being first.

Also, wouldn’t a movie like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which only grossed $4.5 million less than Thor domestically and $20 million more worldwide, be a prime example of what everyone is talking about? Given that 3D ticket sales reportedly contributed to 60% of Thor’s opening weekend gross, and possibly overall gross, I think it’s safe to say higher ticket prices are a reason (if not the reason) Thor out grossed Apes domestically and not because of audience attendance or popularity.

How does $450 million WW not point to the popularity of Thor, regardless of when it was released? You are really splitting hairs here. It's not as if Thor was the first movie that was released in 3D either. It was already fading and people were getting tired of paying for it last year.

I also think you are splitting hairs regarding popularity too. I think that Apes proved to be a more popular movie but it's pretty close. Apes had plenty of advantages too. A much bigger main actor, an established brand, and it was able to close out the summer with little competition.

I wouldn't say the poor economy balances out inflation. In fact, the poor economy is said to be one of the reasons people are going to the movies and not shying away from them, despite higher prices.

While it's true that the box office figures have been rising a bit, alot of it has to do with mega franchises like Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, and Twilight picking up the slack. Going to the movies continues to get more expensive and the economy is still terrible. Attendances are continuing to decline. Movies without that sort of buzz, like Thor, making 3D money is a success in my opinion.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 03:55 PM

I hold the studio to the standard of producing a movie that I won't forget about a couple of days later. Of showing me something new and exciting. I enjoy Marvel films enough at the time of watching them, but nothing more. And I want more, because life is short. I don't think the genre of the movies need to limit the artistry, as much as it's a money making business first and foremost. As much as I loathe making TDK comaprisons, I wish Marvel took the same balls to the wall approach. We'll see with the Avengers, I guess.

Can't you say the same thing about every superhero movie, aside from TDK? We have lost sight of what these movies are. They are meant to be pure entertainment, not Oscar material. Even TDK was more popcorn flick/action movie than it was some deep,meaningful movie.

As for wanting more, how were you not blown away by Thor? The opening shots of Asgard, the rainbow bridge, the set design, the detail in the armor, etc. was something I haven't seen in alot of movies. It was a beautiful movie with great acting (and an excellent soundtrack) that isn't getting the love it should be.

kedrell

12-11-2011, 04:00 PM

74% on RT is far from great. Its basically average or a "C". You want great? THE DARK KNIGHT - 94%. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE - 94%. IRON MAN - 94%. SPIDER MAN 2 - 93%. SPIDER MAN - 89%. X2: X-MEN UNITED - 88%. SUPERMAN II - 88%. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS - 87%. Those are all Grade "A" CBMs/critical successes.

That's a load of BS. This isn't like getting grades in school on a test. A 50% RT score would be more like a C. Scoring in the 70 percentile would be in the solid B to B+ range. Scoring in the 60's would be more in the C+/B- range. Of course I'm just making this up like you are because the RT score can't really be equated to a letter grade system. That's why they set fresh at 60%. It's the point where enough of a majority is present to give the film a :up: or :down: since merely putting fresh at 51% or higher doesn't given enough of a margin to be comfortable.

And it still doesn't proven jack all whether a film is good or not. I've seen films in the 90% range that audiences hated and films in the 30% range that audiences loved.

Parker Wayne

12-11-2011, 04:05 PM

Trying to talk to Alexei is like to talk to 1st grader. Iron Man 2 was successful and liked by the masses. It receives more hatred from comic book fans than filmgoers. It's not as good as the first, but it was still a fun, entertaining movie. You know a movie can just be good in order to be a critical success.

Also, don't use critic reviews as a gauge to whether audiences liked a movie. The audience rating is higher.

kedrell

12-11-2011, 04:28 PM

Trying to talk to Alexei is like to talk to 1st grader. Iron Man 2 was successful and liked by the masses. It receives more hatred from snooty film-fan types and Nolan/Raimi/Singer fans than film goers. It's not as good as the first, but it was still a fun, entertaining movie. You know a movie can just be good in order to be a critical success.

Also, don't use critic reviews as a gauge to whether audiences liked a movie. The audience rating is higher.

Just a correction. Most comic book fans I've talked to seemed to like it. Granted, that's anecdotal evidence.

Parker Wayne

12-11-2011, 05:59 PM

Eh, I agree to an extent of that.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 11:12 PM

From what I can gather from the Internet, it's my understanding that Nolan created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.

So, that includes Batman.

In some ways, I can't wait until Nolan moves on after this last Batman movie. I hate the obnoxious nuthugging that goes on with him. He is a brilliant filmmaker and it sucks that his name is attached to some of the most unbearable trolls on the internet.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 11:17 PM

No way :yay:. Jennifer Lawrence's acting was way better than Natalie Portman gawking all the time at Thor.

Eh.....we have to disagree on that. Jennifer Lawrence didn't really do it for me in XMFC. She is pretty but she didn't have much chemistry with her co-stars. I was sold on Natalie Portman/Hemsworth in Thor. And why wouldn't she gawk!? My chick would be gawking at Thor's muscles, accent, and blue eyes too. The dude is pretty much a romance novel cover. :hehe:

BigThor

12-11-2011, 11:25 PM

In some ways, I can't wait until Nolan moves on after this last Batman movie. I hate the obnoxious nuthugging that goes on with him. He is a brilliant filmmaker and it sucks that his name is attached to some of the most unbearable trolls on the internet.

Yeah I don't have a problem with Nolan or his films, it's just all the Nolan/Batman trolls that get on my nerves.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 11:26 PM

lol, So true. I was watching the Batman Year One on blu-ray the other day, and was thinking, where the hell have I seen this story before? That's right Batman Begins.

In my opinion, Batman Begins is his better movie. Something about it just feels more 'comic-booky' than TDK. That's why I am pretty excited for TDKR because it appears to be going back to BB with some of the comicbook elements. TDK was great but it felt too much like a crime drama at times than it did a superhero movie. I really hope they can tone down some of the Gotham Police Department stuff and focus on Batman a bit more.

Not directed at you, but really? People are still wanting to see DiaB??

It seems like it's only the non-Iron Man fans that demand that story on the big screen, because that's pretty much the most famous storyline from the comics, and also they know squat about Iron Man.

Had they actually read the damn book, they would know Favreau already incorporated some of that story line into Iron Man 2.

The Haunted
Extremis
Armor Wars
Five Nightmares
Dragon Seed Saga

All of those would all make for better summer blockbuster movie than Demon in a Bottle.

And sorry for derailing this thread a bit.

DIAB seems to be the most popular one because it's about drunk Tony Stark. I would have liked to see a proper Armor Wars movie. They included a bit of that in IM2 but it was combined with a quasi-DIAB storyline. Haunted would have been cool too. I'm really excited though to see what Shane Black is going to do with IM3. If RDJ is to believed, the IM trilogy will pretty much be Indiana Jones.

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 11:29 PM

Yeah I don't have a problem with Nolan or his films, it's just all the Nolan/Batman trolls that get on my nerves.

I love Nolan and think all of his movies have been great. Inception was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It's just a shame that the movie was hi-jacked by Batman fanboys last summer, as if it had anything to do with Batman!

ElMariachi

12-11-2011, 11:32 PM

By the end of XM:FC Fassy has lost his english accent completely. He is completely irish.

:hehe:

yeah, I noticed that! I won't hold it against the movie because he was really good in it, aside from the accent change.

cherokeesam

12-11-2011, 11:56 PM

Being recognized does not make something popular. Popularity has to do with something being well-liked, not just well known. Thor and Captain America are not popular characters. They are second tier characters in comparison to Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and the Hulk. Why do you think they put Wolverine and Spider-Man in the Avengers comics?

Because Bendis was putting together his big anti-Bush manifesto in Civil War, and he considered Logan and Parker (and the rest of the New Avengers) to be the best representatives of blue-state America versus the red-staters in Stark's Mighty Avengers. It was purely a political move on Bendis and Millar's part.

Why do you think all of the characters I listed had major motion pictures made before Thor/Cap? The problem here is you are thinking like a comic geek and not like the general public.

Since you glossed over the part I wrote before, let me reiterate: so you're saying that Blade, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, and The Punisher are all more popular characters than Captain America and Thor, both to comic book geeks *and* mainstream audiences? Because, you know, all of *them* got films well before Thor and Cap.

And I notice that your premise that Marvel Studios magnanimously "invented" Thor and Captain America for a blindly oblivious and gracious audience that had "never" heard of these characters before fails to even remotely take into consideration the abject failure of TIH back in '08. I suppose you're going to extend your fantasy even further and tell me that *Hulk* was unknown to the masses, too.....?

Viewers embraced the idea of Thor because of Iron Man 2 and the Avengers hype. Sure, the movie made more money because it was well reviewed but that has nothing to do with how difficult it was for Marvel to make this movie and sell it. That is my whole argument about how you aren't giving Feige and Marvel their props for making a quality Thor movie (with an unknown actor) that was a hit movie. Green Lantern didn't do well because the movie looked ridiculous and those impressions were confirmed once the critics savaged the film. A bit too harshly in my opinion.

Seriously? You *seriously* believe that the reason people went to see Thor or Cap was because of IM2 and the post-credit Avengers seeding...? The vast majority of audiences went to those movies to see those heroes stand on their own merits. Hell, Feige and Marvel made it a point again and again to emphasize that's *exactly* what they wanted viewers to take from those movies --- their solo efforts instead of thinking of these (and the IM movies and TIH) as Avengers prequels.

Look. I *want* Marvel Studios to succeed. I *want* them to have another blockbuster or three beyond the Iron Man movies. But the numbers don't lie --- Thor, Cap, and Hulk (in that order) fall wayyyy behind Iron Man in box office and merchandising and other residuals. Nobody, least of all Feige, wants RDJ to carry this studio on his shoulders all by his lonesome, but so far, that's *exactly* what's happening.

ElMariachi

12-12-2011, 12:12 AM

I know we all have differing opinions but how you can say that about FC and then a post later say that about IM2 is beyond me. You may prefer IM2, but FC was a much better movie in all aspects. Box Office isnt an indicator of quality, especially as FC had the stigma of the previous 2 movies to beat. IM2 was simply a poor follow-up to IM, while FC re-invigorated a dying franchise. I also dont see how the ending to FC was rushed either but thats me. But how you can criticize FC and praise IM2 is beyond me. FC is a great movie, and upon re-watch it gets better and better. IM2 or any other Marvel movie in my eyes just arent as good as it.

We have to disagree about this. I thought that Iron Man 2 was a better movie in nearly all aspects. Better acting, far better CGI, funnier (almost could be classifed as comedy), better continuinty, better action (imo), better dialouge, and the movie felt bigger and bolder.

I respect FC for reinvigorating the X-Men franchise but it just felt dull in comparison to IM2. Everything about IM2 felt bold to me and it all starts with the leading man. Even if you didn't like the plot, it's hard not to be completely entertained by RDJ and Sam Rockwell. It's a funny and witty movie that I think will be better appreciated a few years from now once the ridiculous expectations have been forgotten. It just sucks that nobody seems to appreciate humor and dialouge. Everything has to be melodramatic like XMFC, Spider-Man, and Batman. Sure, the story was a bit off in parts but overall it was good.

ElMariachi

12-12-2011, 12:26 AM

[Because Bendis was putting together his big anti-Bush manifesto in Civil War, and he considered Logan and Parker (and the rest of the New Avengers) to be the best representatives of blue-state America versus the red-staters in Stark's Mighty Avengers. It was purely a political move on Bendis and Millar's part.

C'mon, you know it had alot to do with Wolverine and Spider-Man being two of Marvel's most popular characters. Neither character makes much sense in the 'Heroic Age'. They are there to make it a quasi-JLA team with the biggest Marvel characters.

Since you glossed over the part I wrote before, let me reiterate: so you're saying that Blade, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, and The Punisher are all more popular characters than Captain America and Thor, both to comic book geeks *and* mainstream audiences? Because, you know, all of *them* got films well before Thor and Cap.

Some of them probally are more popular or just as popular. Ghost Rider, Daredevil, and the Punisher are easily as well known as the big three were pre-2008. Blade was a bit of a suprise though. Elektra wouldn't have been made without Daredevil.

And I notice that your premise that Marvel Studios magnanimously "invented" Thor and Captain America for a blindly oblivious and gracious audience that had "never" heard of these characters before fails to even remotely take into consideration the abject failure of TIH back in '08. I suppose you're going to extend your fantasy even further and tell me that *Hulk* was unknown to the masses, too.....?

They brought these characters to the mainstream via the success of Iron Man and the looming Avengers movie.

Hulk was known to the masses but the movie didn't make much money because I think people are bored with the Hulk. Also, the movie came quickly on the heels of Iron Man and the MCU wasn't really known to the average moviegoer at that time. Most people, including myself, thought it was a standalone Hulk movie at the time. From what I heard though, TIH has some popularity with downloads and DVD/BluRay sales. Somebody might need to confirm that for me though. The same situation happened with Superman. It made pedestrian numbers at the box office for a character of his stature. Why? Probally because younger people aren't Superman fans. This younger generation grew up on Batman, X-Men, and Spider-Man.

Seriously? You *seriously* believe that the reason people went to see Thor or Cap was because of IM2 and the post-credit Avengers seeding...? The vast majority of audiences went to those movies to see those heroes stand on their own merits. Hell, Feige and Marvel made it a point again and again to emphasize that's *exactly* what they wanted viewers to take from those movies --- their solo efforts instead of thinking of these (and the IM movies and TIH) as Avengers prequels.

Yes, I do believe that. It got people excited. Most people probally didn't even know they were making a Thor movie. Again, stop thinking like a forumer of this website and start thinking like a regular Joe moviegoer. Iron Man 2 made a ton of money and by then, most people understood the aftercredit thing.

Look. I *want* Marvel Studios to succeed. I *want* them to have another blockbuster or three beyond the Iron Man movies. But the numbers don't lie --- Thor, Cap, and Hulk (in that order) fall wayyyy behind Iron Man in box office and merchandising and other residuals. Nobody, least of all Feige, wants RDJ to carry this studio on his shoulders all by his lonesome, but so far, that's *exactly* what's happening

So what if they fall behind IM? He is the star of the studio. The same as Batman at DC. Thor and Cap are solid franchises. RDJ is hardly carrying the studio on his shoulders. Thor made $450 million and Cap made a respectable amount of money facing off against Harry Potter/Apes/C&A. You do need to want them to succeed, they are already succeeding!

ElMariachi

12-12-2011, 12:30 AM

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

I think it's great that he has such high standards. It hopefully bodes well for IM3 and I now fully expect them to blow us away. Most people enjoyed IM2 and really had no issue with it. The only things that were said was that it wasn't as good as IM1. That doesn't make it a bad movie or anything.

The comparison has been made before but Ill bring it up again. Iron Man 2 is kind of like Quantum of Solace. A good follow up to a great movie.

BigThor

12-12-2011, 12:59 AM

Thor made around 450 million and Iron Man made about 585 million, I don't know why people act as if there's some huge 300-400 million gap between the two.

Yes Iron Man was quite a bit more successful than Thor, but geez it's not like IM did Spider-Man numbers or anything.

Shadowlord X

12-12-2011, 05:30 AM

BMM

12-12-2011, 07:06 AM

So what if it does skew box office performance though? Money is money. It made $450 million at the WW box office and that clearly is a sign of success.

The issue isn't whether or not Thor is a success but, instead, how you're trying to justify that success. For instance, you're comparing Thor to 10-15 year old Will Smith movies, using 1997 and 2002 dollars, and acting like that's a legitimate benchmark, as though Thor appealed to the masses in the same way, when that isn't the case at all.

The vast majority of Thor's screens during it's release were 3D too. In some ways, it's a handicap for the movie. It's a more expensive product and people still went to see it anyway.

Hence the reason I think the release date plays a factor. Having so many 3D showings may have been a handicap. In fact, I think some articles say as much. But, if I'm going to acknowledge that having so many 3D screens may have hurt Thor, I'm also going to acknowledge that having no other option other than 3D may have bolstered Thor's performance, especially given that it had the fortune of being the first movie of the season and not caught in the middle of one of the most crowded summers in recent memory. I'm not saying it's the only reason people continued to see Thor regardless (of course people liked it), but I do think it's a reason. Given the decreasing trend in 3D attendance throughout the summer, I don't think Thor would have been as successful with as many 3D screens, had it followed the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean, Kung-Fu Panda 2, Cars 2, Green Lantern, and Harry Potter--all in 3D.

As for online downloads, I was talking about movies in the early 2000's, not the last few years. Sure, it was possible to download movies back then but not as quickly or easily as today. I also don't think big CGI movies were as commonplace as they are today. People were blown away by Spider-Man and The Matrix. Stuff like that now doesn't sell movies. Just look at Tron.

Of course it does. Just look at Transformers 1, 2, and 3.

How does $450 million WW not point to the popularity of Thor, regardless of when it was released? You are really splitting hairs here. It's not as if Thor was the first movie that was released in 3D either. It was already fading and people were getting tired of paying for it last year.

That quote is not in reference to Thor's worldwide gross. It's in reference to you saying Thor's 3D ticket sales, despite their higher price, is an idicator of the audience's steadfast liking of Thor. As for the rest, that goes back to what I was commenting on above.

I also think you are splitting hairs regarding popularity too. I think that Apes proved to be a more popular movie but it's pretty close. Apes had plenty of advantages too. A much bigger main actor, an established brand, and it was able to close out the summer with little competition.

I'm not splitting hairs. I'm making a point and a relevant one. You asked how a movie like Rise of the Planet of the Apes could make less than Thor, so I offered a reason.

Thor made around 450 million and Iron Man made about 585 million, I don't know why people act as if there's some huge 300-400 million gap between the two.

Yes Iron Man was quite a bit more successful than Thor, but geez it's not like IM did Spider-Man numbers or anything.

Depending on where you live, it may very well seem that way. In the US, Iron Man nearly reached Spider-Man 3 numbers.

What's really amazing to me is that so many people are criticsing MCU movies for 'lack of success' when THOR and CA:TFA were the 2 highest grossing non-sequels/prequels this year domestically. Not only that it was a year of a bad economy and a overpacked summer filled with the latest installments in some of the most successful franchises, e.g., TF3, HP7pt2, POTC, F&F.

Iron Man set the bar high.

roach

12-12-2011, 08:19 AM

while I did enjoy the MCU movies I feel they could have been better

cherokeesam

12-12-2011, 08:27 AM

What's really amazing to me is that so many people are criticsing MCU movies for 'lack of success' when THOR and CA:TFA were the 2 highest grossing non-sequels/prequels this year domestically. Not only that it was a year of a bad economy and a overpacked summer filled with the latest installments in some of the most successful franchises, e.g., TF3, HP7pt2, POTC, F&F.

Nobody's saying Thor and Cap aren't successes. We're saying that compared to Iron Man, no other character in the franchise comes even close to duplicating the lightning in a bottle that RDJ captured.

And that creates a perceptible image of a studio that had one fluke success based on the charisma of a certain star, and that has since tried vainly to recapture that success with inoffensive, pedestrian studio movies that skimp noticeably on the budget for talent.

kedrell

12-12-2011, 09:31 AM

The comparison has been made before but Ill bring it up again. Iron Man 2 is kind of like Quantum of Solace. A good follow up to a great movie.

When it came out I pretty much immediately called it the Temple of Doom for the IM franchise. Now as long as they never make an IM movie like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull then we'll be all right.

Vartha

12-12-2011, 09:45 AM

Well I hope to heck they keep the "flavor" they have with Thor. There's no need for some gimmicky kid in the film unless it IS Thor of course. lol

Shadowlord X

12-12-2011, 10:52 AM

Nobody's saying Thor and Cap aren't successes. We're saying that compared to Iron Man, no other character in the franchise comes even close to duplicating the lightning in a bottle that RDJ captured.

And that creates a perceptible image of a studio that had one fluke success based on the charisma of a certain star, and that has since tried vainly to recapture that success with inoffensive, pedestrian studio movies that skimp noticeably on the budget for talent.

Ok, let's look at THOR, according to you a so called pedestrian studio movie:

In which way did they skimp on the budget for that? The budget was $150 million, which was more than IRON MAN's. They got Kenneth Branagh, a respected thespian with little experience with action blockbusters, just like Jon Favreau. They got Academy award winning Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman to play major roles. And for the key roles they got 2 unknown actors who nailed their roles and have now become stars in no small part because of this movie. Flat out there is no mainstream high salary actor in Hollywood who has the physicality to play THOR. And no doubt when Branagh came on board he wanted Hiddleston because he thought he was excellent for the role. The movie is not pedestrian as it successfully explores the theme the consequences of the favoured son vs the unfavoured son in family structures. It has a hell of a lot more depth and emotional resonance than some overrated movies that I could mention.

So please tell me, where did they go wrong with THOR, as per your criticisms.

I'll get to CA:TFA after this one is sorted.

Alexei Belyakov

12-12-2011, 02:00 PM

BigThor

12-12-2011, 02:41 PM

Depending on where you live, it may very well seem that way. In the US, Iron Man nearly reached Spider-Man 3 numbers.

You don't just pick and choose either "domestic" or "foreign" numbers, you add them both together for the overall number and like I said 450 million and 585 million is not a gigantic difference.

Crimson King

12-12-2011, 03:19 PM

They made a popcorn movie.

A popcorn movie that beat out all other popcorn movies, including XMFC.

(only taking CBMs into account)

Gamma Burst

12-12-2011, 04:50 PM

You don't just pick and choose either "domestic" or "foreign" numbers, you add them both together for the overall number and like I said 450 million and 585 million is not a gigantic difference.

Exactly. Basic math.

ElMariachi

12-12-2011, 06:42 PM

The issue isn't whether or not Thor is a success but, instead, how you're trying to justify that success. For instance, you're comparing Thor to 10-15 year old Will Smith movies, using 1997 and 2002 dollars, and acting like that's a legitimate benchmark, as though Thor appealed to the masses in the same way, when that isn't the case at all.

I don't see why we can't compare movies seperated by a decade. Thor, in 2011 was as big of a movie as Men in Black 2 was in 2002. Both movies were low top ten box office films. The difference in how successful they are is again splitting hairs in my opinion. Clearly, ticket price inflation doesn't match up but I don't think it's a stretch to say Thor is in the same league as franchises like Men in Black. We will see next summer, I suppose.

Hence the reason I think the release date plays a factor. Having so many 3D showings may have been a handicap. In fact, I think some articles say as much. But, if I'm going to acknowledge that having so many 3D screens may have hurt Thor, I'm also going to acknowledge that having no other option other than 3D may have bolstered Thor's performance, especially given that it had the fortune of being the first movie of the season and not caught in the middle of one of the most crowded summers in recent memory. I'm not saying it's the only reason people continued to see Thor regardless (of course people liked it), but I do think it's a reason. Given the decreasing trend in 3D attendance throughout the summer, I don't think Thor would have been as successful with as many 3D screens, had it followed the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean, Kung-Fu Panda 2, Cars 2, Green Lantern, and Harry Potter--all in 3D.

This summer season thing is absolute nonsense, in my opinion. Thor came out in early May before the actual summer season when everybody is still in school. I will never understand why May movies are lumped in with movies released after Memorial Day weekend. March and April are argubably filled with just as many big movies now as early May.

I also don't buy this 3D argument. 3D was already known as an expensive gimmick long before Thor even came out. There were a few big 3D movies that came out before Thor too this year with Green Hornet, Rio, and Drive Angry. Some of the movies you mentioned actually looked like they would be worth watching in 3D. Green Lantern tanked, even though it looked like it could take advantage of the format.

Of course it does. Just look at Transformers 1, 2, and 3.

The first Transformers was actually a good movie and they have somehow maintained that audience through two awful movies. I don't think CGI sells anymore unless there is some crazy hype like Avatar or Inception.

I'm not splitting hairs. I'm making a point and a relevant one. You asked how a movie like Rise of the Planet of the Apes could make less than Thor, so I offered a reason.

You are right about this. I forgot that Apes wasn't in 3D. But I stand by what I said about it having some distinct advantages to offset the 3D argument by being a later summer movie with no competition and being apart of a suprisingly well liked franchise. That crappy Wahlberg one made decent money too.

ElMariachi

12-12-2011, 06:48 PM

They made a popcorn movie.

The Dark Knight and X-Men were a popcorn movies too. Or did you think people were philosophizing while watching them? Alot of great movies were popcorn movies. ET, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jaws, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.

kedrell

12-12-2011, 10:20 PM

The only superhero movie I probably wouldn't label as a popcorn movie would be Unbreakable and that's because it relies almost entirely on NOT showing you the whiz-bang action seen everywhere else in the genre. It's basically just a straight drama with a bit of a fantastical element added to it. And while I love it, I wouldn't want many more superhero films to follow it's lead.

Mysteryman

12-12-2011, 10:53 PM

I think Unbreakable was a form of pop psychology Superhero film,
Examining why people turn to Good and Evil and using comics as a metaphor for that .
It was interesting,
But,I am glad there have not been Sequels.

Alexei Belyakov

12-13-2011, 12:33 AM

A popcorn movie that beat out all other popcorn movies, including XMFC.

(only taking CBMs into account)

You think the fact that Thor made $95 million more than First Class somehow makes it a better film than First Class? Really?

I don't even wanna begin to list how many summer blockbusters were absolute crap.

Money does not = quality.

The Dark Knight and X-Men were a popcorn movies too. Or did you think people were philosophizing while watching them?

Actually, both those movies have very pronounced philosophies which the directors intended for you to notice as you watched them (which perhaps you didn't).

TDK explored "good vs. evil" in an entirely new way, by asking the question how far would we go for an ideal? The Joker came to Gotham to ask Batman that very question and made him see that even if you devote yourself to that ideal, the consequences of said devotion may make you rethink the whole thing altogether. It was a wonderful way of showcasing how the human being is essentially a prisoner of his own code, or of not being able to live by it.

[I]"I wanted to see what you would do & you didn't disappoint. You let five people die."

Here's a man who's willing to kill innocents JUST to break another man's ideal, because The Joker is essentially disgusted by the idea of a man trying to "save" a society so corrupt that in his eyes deserves nothing more but to burn.

His message was "You wanna be good? You wanna fight for your community? I'll show you what happens when you try to be good. I'll show you how your community will repay your efforts - or better yet I'll prove to you they're not worth the sweat on your brow."

So yeah, there's tons of philosophy in TDK as there is in X-MEN (with discrimination) for you to absorb whilst viewing them.

BigThor

12-13-2011, 01:14 AM

^^^ No point in arguing with this guy, he's NEVER going to change his mind about Incredible Hulk, IM2, THOR, and CA:TFA.

Alexei Belyakov

12-13-2011, 05:42 AM

TIH is a great film. Had it been released a year later, in its original 150-minute cut & with the Tony Stark scene placed after the credits (where it belonged), it would have an RT rating in the high 80s today & a total Domestic Box Office Gross close to Star Trek's. Blame Kevin Feige for ruining the potential that film had, not to mention the successful & quality franchise it would have spawned.

kedrell

12-13-2011, 08:27 AM

There's a reason I rank TIH as MS's worst film(I still consider it good and would give it a 7.5/10) and that's because Hulk still isn't a character in the movie(and it's original 150-minute cut wouldn't change that) but at the same time I can understand how gun shy they were after doing exactly what loads of cinesta's would want to do in the first movie and having it blow up in their faces. As the only MCU film/character/mythos to come to the table with baggage I consider it in a unique position. That still doesn't mean I'd give it extra review points or handicap it or anything like that but I understand(even though I don't condone) the decision.

cherokeesam

12-13-2011, 09:06 AM

Ok, let's look at THOR, according to you a so called pedestrian studio movie:

In which way did they skimp on the budget for that? The budget was $150 million, which was more than IRON MAN's. They got Kenneth Branagh, a respected thespian with little experience with action blockbusters, just like Jon Favreau. They got Academy award winning Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman to play major roles. And for the key roles they got 2 unknown actors who nailed their roles and have now become stars in no small part because of this movie. Flat out there is no mainstream high salary actor in Hollywood who has the physicality to play THOR. And no doubt when Branagh came on board he wanted Hiddleston because he thought he was excellent for the role. The movie is not pedestrian as it successfully explores the theme the consequences of the favoured son vs the unfavoured son in family structures. It has a hell of a lot more depth and emotional resonance than some overrated movies that I could mention.

So please tell me, where did they go wrong with THOR, as per your criticisms.

I'll get to CA:TFA after this one is sorted.

*All* MS movies have $150 million dollar budgets. Or thereabouts. By design. Avi designated that number back in '06 or '07 when he first outlined the MCU. He said that they planned on producing 2 tentpole films a year with $150 million budget caps, and that eventually he planned to add on smaller films with $30 million budgets for off-season. (IM2 is the only one that was generously allowed to go over budget; and no one still has any solid numbers on The Avengers budget, but it would be safe to assume that Feige would give Joss carte blanche on that one).

And yes, Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman are big stars. So are Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson. What do they all have in common....? They're playing *supporting* roles. Marvel doesn't cast marquee for the leads, and that's intentional. (No, RDJ doesn't count....he's a superstar in 2011 as a *result* of IM, but in 2008, he was anything but.) TIH was the closest they came with Norton, and we saw the clash between studio and star almost immediately.

And I highly disagree that there's no big star out there who could play Thor. I could run down the short list of anybody's fancast and agree with at least a dozen choices, who could do the "300" regimen and bulk up to the necessary physicality in just a few weeks --- Hollywood does it all the time.

Marvel gambles on lesser-knowns and unknowns for the leads. It worked with RDJ and Hemsworth, both of whom have gone on to stardom. Evans....not so much. It's still early in his career, but so far, Cap hasn't served him any better than Torch did.

The Dark Knight and X-Men were a popcorn movies too. Or did you think people were philosophizing while watching them? Alot of great movies were popcorn movies. ET, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jaws, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.

Some of you are misusing the term "popcorn movie." Just because a film is an actioner does not make it a lightweight throwaway. Spielberg and Lucas are just two examples of guys who can turn a genre movie into not just box office gold, but critical gold as well. All of the movies you listed were big budget box office bonanzas, but they also had deeper themes and stories that gave them resonance and longevity. It's still too early to tell whether Marvel's films will have that same timeless quality.

As to whether the "popcorn" monicker should apply to Thor: I think not. Branagh gave the film enough maturity to elevate its story above the usual Bayformer boomage and boobage stupidity; but it's still a "safe" film that didn't push any boundaries or aspire to the higher standards that Branagh usually shoots for. To use a golfing analogy, Marvel layed it up in the fairway instead of gunning for the green. And so far, that's been their philosophy on every Marvel movie except TIH.

Mysteryman

12-13-2011, 10:20 AM

How were they gunning for the green with TIH?
By casting Norton?
If so, why did they take that chance?

BigThor

12-13-2011, 01:20 PM

As to whether the "popcorn" monicker should apply to Thor: I think not. Branagh gave the film enough maturity to elevate its story above the usual Bayformer boomage and boobage stupidity; but it's still a "safe" film that didn't push any boundaries or aspire to the higher standards that Branagh usually shoots for. To use a golfing analogy, Marvel layed it up in the fairway instead of gunning for the green. And so far, that's been their philosophy on every Marvel movie except TIH.

Agreed, I think it has enough maturity to push it well above Bayformers levels.

Alexei Belyakov

12-13-2011, 06:19 PM

*All* MS movies have $150 million dollar budgets. Or thereabouts. By design. Avi designated that number back in '06 or '07 when he first outlined the MCU. He said that they planned on producing 2 tentpole films a year with $150 million budget caps, and that eventually he planned to add on smaller films with $30 million budgets for off-season. (IM2 is the only one that was generously allowed to go over budget; and no one still has any solid numbers on The Avengers budget, but it would be safe to assume that Feige would give Joss carte blanche on that one).

And yes, Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman are big stars. So are Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson. What do they all have in common....? They're playing *supporting* roles. Marvel doesn't cast marquee for the leads, and that's intentional. (No, RDJ doesn't count....he's a superstar in 2011 as a *result* of IM, but in 2008, he was anything but.) TIH was the closest they came with Norton, and we saw the clash between studio and star almost immediately.

And I highly disagree that there's no big star out there who could play Thor. I could run down the short list of anybody's fancast and agree with at least a dozen choices, who could do the "300" regimen and bulk up to the necessary physicality in just a few weeks --- Hollywood does it all the time.

Marvel gambles on lesser-knowns and unknowns for the leads. It worked with RDJ and Hemsworth, both of whom have gone on to stardom. Evans....not so much. It's still early in his career, but so far, Cap hasn't served him any better than Torch did.

Some of you are misusing the term "popcorn movie." Just because a film is an actioner does not make it a lightweight throwaway. Spielberg and Lucas are just two examples of guys who can turn a genre movie into not just box office gold, but critical gold as well. All of the movies you listed were big budget box office bonanzas, but they also had deeper themes and stories that gave them resonance and longevity.

All so very true.

*Love your signature btw http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Adamantium Man

12-14-2011, 03:17 AM

Radical thought: How about we wait until Marvel announces their actual choice before we go accusing them of anything?

Alexei Belyakov

12-14-2011, 03:48 AM

Radical thought: How about we wait until Marvel announces their actual choice before we go accusing them of anything? Radical Thought II: How about we don't embrace & defend every moronic decision Feige & the studio make and react appropriately concerned & disappointed?

TheDragonator

12-14-2011, 12:42 PM

Yeah! Let's bash every decision made without knowing any of the context behind it whatsoever!

kedrell

12-14-2011, 03:20 PM

Marvel gambles on lesser-knowns and unknowns for the leads. It worked with RDJ and Hemsworth, both of whom have gone on to stardom. Evans....not so much. It's still early in his career, but so far, Cap hasn't served him any better than Torch did.

I think 90%+ would disagree with you here, as would I. Evans became Steve Rogers every bit as much as the other two mentioned with their respective roles.

TheDragonator

12-14-2011, 04:16 PM

I think 90%+ would disagree with you here, as would I. became Rogers every bit as much as the other two mentioned with their respective roles.

They meant as in he didn't become very popular as a result of those roles.

J.Howlett

12-14-2011, 04:31 PM

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 04:32 PM

Actually, both those movies have very pronounced philosophies which the directors intended for you to notice as you watched them (which perhaps you didn't).

TDK explored "good vs. evil" in an entirely new way, by asking the question how far would we go for an ideal? The Joker came to Gotham to ask Batman that very question and made him see that even if you devote yourself to that ideal, the consequences of said devotion may make you rethink the whole thing altogether. It was a wonderful way of showcasing how the human being is essentially a prisoner of his own code, or of not being able to live by it.

[I]"I wanted to see what you would do & you didn't disappoint. You let five people die."

Here's a man who's willing to kill innocents JUST to break another man's ideal, because The Joker is essentially disgusted by the idea of a man trying to "save" a society so corrupt that in his eyes deserves nothing more but to burn.

His message was "You wanna be good? You wanna fight for your community? I'll show you what happens when you try to be good. I'll show you how your community will repay your efforts - or better yet I'll prove to you they're not worth the sweat on your brow."

So yeah, there's tons of philosophy in TDK as there is in X-MEN (with discrimination) for you to absorb whilst viewing them.

C'mon Alexei, you are giving audiences far too much credit here. And you can find philosophy in practically any movie. Few people left The Dark Knight with their minds altered. It's very much a popcorn movie. All well-written, well-acted, and well-directed popcorn movie but another summer blockbuster never the less. I'm not saying that TDK isn't the best comic-book movie but people need to stop making it out to be one of the best movies of all time. It's a stylish action thriller with great dialouge. I would probally compare it more to a movie like Collateral with Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx. The problem with The Dark Knight is that it existed in a world that was unrealistic that it could never fully impact people. Gotham City was so overly corrupt and it's citizens too unlikeable that it's hard to relate. Inception and Presitge made me think alot more than TDK.

As for XMFC, it's just not THAT good. It's a good movie but arguments for it being a truly meaningful movie are ridiculous. What about XMFC made you think or changed your minds on something? The only reason people put it on a pedestal is that it took place during the stylish, cool 60's. The civil rights analogies in this movie were not as strong as people make them out to be. And the acting wasn't sharp enough either. Don't get me wrong, I liked Xavier/Erik but their relationship was rushed. To compare, I think the Kirk/Spock relationship in ST09 was far more dynamic and exciting when they came to blows.

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 04:39 PM

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

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I knew the moment that Jenkins was hired, Portman was apart of her getting the job and that would ultimately lead to a performance from Portman that was very focused so that she could help shepherd Jenkin's vision and the pushing of more female directors in the industry.

When it was announced she got let go, I knew Portman would be a potential problem.

Yeah, I was just about to post this. It sucks but in all honesty......oh well. Patty Jenkins may have been popular but being the first woman to direct a major superhero franchise is not enough of a reason to hire her. What has she done to get all this respect from people? It's not like she's James Cameron and can do a project every decade. Monster was a good movie but her t.v. resume (imo) isn't as good as Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Rome, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and Homicide. Alan Taylor might not be a sexy pick but he has worked on some of the greatest American t.v. shows of the past decade. That's a pretty comforting hire.

As for Portman, I really dont' care about her THAT much. Thor 2 should take place almost entirely in Asgard and be about his adventures in the 9 realms. We don't need Jane trotting along there. She was good in Thor but I want more of a sense of adventure. Jane and her Earth scenes weigh that down. If she is out after Thor 2, I don't care. Just look at how annoying Paltrow became in IM2. Love angles work in one or two movies. After that, they get obnoxious. Spider-Man being the greatest example. If not Jane, I'll be fine with Sif and/or sexual tension with Enchantress.

TheDragonator

12-14-2011, 04:44 PM

*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*

J.Howlett

12-14-2011, 04:50 PM

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 04:52 PM

Some of you are misusing the term "popcorn movie." Just because a film is an actioner does not make it a lightweight throwaway. Spielberg and Lucas are just two examples of guys who can turn a genre movie into not just box office gold, but critical gold as well. All of the movies you listed were big budget box office bonanzas, but they also had deeper themes and stories that gave them resonance and longevity. It's still too early to tell whether Marvel's films will have that same timeless quality.

As to whether the "popcorn" monicker should apply to Thor: I think not. Branagh gave the film enough maturity to elevate its story above the usual Bayformer boomage and boobage stupidity; but it's still a "safe" film that didn't push any boundaries or aspire to the higher standards that Branagh usually shoots for. To use a golfing analogy, Marvel layed it up in the fairway instead of gunning for the green. And so far, that's been their philosophy on every Marvel movie except TIH.

I think that a popcorn movie is a big budget summer blockbuster. TDK was most certainly that. It may have been 'smarter' than say Transformers or Thor but let's not put this in the same category as Black Swan, Kings Speech, or Social Network. A movie that truly stands out in summer was Inception. That was a movie that made people think and could give audiences chills. It worked as a popcorn flick, Oscar bait, sci-fi, romance and action thriller. For this reason, it's Nolan's best movie and biggest success. He put a completely original idea out in summer and it was a monster success.

Thor was also a popcorn movie. Youre right that it was pretty mature in some scenes but it's pretty much at the same level as films like IM, Star Trek 09, etc. And I am happy with that. People want it to be like LoTR but that is never, ever going to happen. What I want for Thor 2 is a mixture of LoTR/Game of Thrones, Elder Scrolls, and Xena/Hercules/Conan. I want the quality acting/CGI of a great Hollywood fantasy, the sense of adventure in Skyrim, and the cheesy fun/humor of the latter/sword & sorcery.

R_Hythlodeus

12-14-2011, 04:59 PM

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 05:01 PM

Mariachi,

What I found interesting about the article is the fact that it reports that Jenkins had a clear vision of the picture that clashed with Marvel's....which is sort of my problem with the Marvel films in a nutshell. They are too many perimeters, it seems, for these directors that they can't even infuse Marvel's products with their own, unique vision of the film.

It's Marvel's way or the highway. And this notion that Jenkins was "moving too slow" is hogwash. The film doesn't hit until November of 2013. She had plenty of time.

And, I want Portman back because a major part of his arc is his relationship with Jane. It's unfinished and I want it finished....even if that means expanding Lady Sif. A love triangle would be just fine with me....That's how good Hemsworth's chemistry was with Alexander and Portman.

We don't know what her vision was exactly. That's the problem with all this speculation. We don't know if it sucked or if it sounded great. I mentioned earlier all the great directors (much better than Jenkins) that pitched ideas for superhero movies. Guys like Cameron, Aronofsky, and Tim Burton with flat out terrible ideas for these characters. We also need to hear Marvel's side of the story. There is a reason Jenkins hasn't directed a major motion picture since Monster. We don't know if she was up to the task to make a movie as big as Thor in the timespan the studio demanded. It was an odd choice from the very beginning.

As for Jane, I would like Portman back for one more movie but after that I don't think she is needed. They need her, I suppose, for the love angle set up at the end of the first movie but I really hope they don't dwell on it. A sequel, anchored down by Jane, will suck in my opinion. The romantic drama gets tiresome in these sorts of movies. I hated Mary Jane halfway through SM2 and we all know that Pepper is wearing thin after her b---y attitude throughout IM2. I want them to focus more on Thor's relationship with Odin, Loki, and the Warriors 3. They lost out because of Jane in Thor and it was one of my few problems with that movie.

R_Hythlodeus

12-14-2011, 05:03 PM

*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*
this will soooooo happen.
but, to be fair, all major movie sites focus on that point atm

J.Howlett

12-14-2011, 05:05 PM

Raiden

12-14-2011, 05:15 PM

Yeah, I was just about to post this. It sucks but in all honesty......oh well. Patty Jenkins may have been popular but being the first woman to direct a major superhero franchise is not enough of a reason to hire her. What has she done to get all this respect from people? It's not like she's James Cameron and can do a project every decade. Monster was a good movie but her t.v. resume (imo) isn't as good as Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Rome, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and Homicide. Alan Taylor might not be a sexy pick but he has worked on some of the greatest American t.v. shows of the past decade. That's a pretty comforting hire.

As for Portman, I really dont' care about her THAT much. Thor 2 should take place almost entirely in Asgard and be about his adventures in the 9 realms. We don't need Jane trotting along there. She was good in Thor but I want more of a sense of adventure. Jane and her Earth scenes weigh that down. If she is out after Thor 2, I don't care. Just look at how annoying Paltrow became in IM2. Love angles work in one or two movies. After that, they get obnoxious. Spider-Man being the greatest example. If not Jane, I'll be fine with Sif and/or sexual tension with Enchantress.

From reading the article, it does seemed like Marvel hired Jenkins due to Portman's recommendation, and didn't realize how far apart they both are when it comes to their common vision for the movie. Although I think it is Marvel's fault for hiring her in the first place, and they now faced the wrath of an unhappy Portman, I think Marvel should ultimately hire a director who has a better rapport with them if they want to ensure a successful film.

herolee10

12-14-2011, 05:46 PM

Raiden

12-14-2011, 06:08 PM

Well Portman is still obligated by contract to return for Thor 2, though it will definitely be a easier road for Marvel if they try stay on her good side since it'd be a shame to add another good actor to the list of actors that Marvel has ended ties with on a sour note.

I too hope that Marvel will try to appease Portman and maybe consult with her before they select their next director, instead of just taking her for granted because she is obligated to appear in Thor 2. If she's happy, it will only help not hurt the Thor 2 production.

herolee10

12-14-2011, 06:15 PM

I too hope that Marvel will try to appease Portman and maybe consult with her before they select their next director, instead of just taking her for granted because she is obligated to appear in Thor 2. If she's happy, it will only help not hurt the Thor 2 production.

Well I read elsewhere that Marvel are working overtime in trying to appease Portman by doing what you just mentioned and consult with her now in getting her input for Jenkin's replacement.

mclay18

12-14-2011, 06:17 PM

Well Portman is still obligated by contract to return for Thor 2, though it will definitely be a easier road for Marvel if they try stay on her good side since it'd be a shame to add another good actor to the list of actors that Marvel has ended ties with on a sour note.

Marvel could just choose not to exercise Portman's sequel option, if there's still friction between them when the final director is picked. That said, the fact that MS is working overtime to keep Portman in the loop about who's directing and so forth is telling that they want her back for Thor 3 as well.

But letting Jenkins go, without notifying the actors prior, is just bad form. It isn't a rare occurrence in Hollywood nowadays, but that's low. I can understand why Portman would be pissed.

DarkSovereignty

12-14-2011, 06:19 PM

Well I read elsewhere that Marvel are working overtime in trying to appease Portman by doing what you just mentioned and consult with her now in getting her input for Jenkin's replacement.
eh, i doubt her performance will suffer for it at all, not like it was all the riveting in the first one..and I really liked the first one.

herolee10

12-14-2011, 06:26 PM

Marvel could just choose not to exercise Portman's sequel option, if there's still friction between them when the final director is picked. That said, the fact that MS is working overtime to keep Portman in the loop about who's directing and so forth is telling that they want her back for Thor 3 as well.

But letting Jenkins go, without notifying the actors prior, is just bad form. It isn't a rare occurrence in Hollywood nowadays, but that's low. I can understand why Portman would be pissed.

True, and truth be told, I just want her back because I enjoyed her chemistry with Chris and I HATE major recasts since it takes me out of the universe that was established prior before that. It's bad enough that they had to recast Bruce Banner and Rhodey.

Plus, like some have said, if Marvel Studios keeps making it a habit of alienating their stars, especially the good ones, then they could reach a point where a lot of A listers won't want to work with them due to their track record.

eh, i doubt her performance will suffer for it at all, not like it was all the riveting in the first one..and I really liked the first one.

True, but if there's still a good amount of friction between them, then she could be like Ed Norton and not even promote the film after it's finished

Sgt.Pepper

12-14-2011, 06:38 PM

Raiden

12-14-2011, 06:53 PM

That's sad considering the fact that Portman was enthusiastic about the idea of working with Jenkins.

I know that Marvel is consulting with her on Jenkins' replacement, but I wonder if she has any desire to work on the next sequel (that's if it's successful enough to warrant it, of course).

I think it all depends if Marvel is successful in wooing her back to their good side, and if not I can see her bolting after Thor 2.

Sgt.Pepper

12-14-2011, 07:00 PM

I'd love to see her return but given the situation, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't.

mclay18

12-14-2011, 07:01 PM

True, but if there's still a good amount of friction between them, then she could be like Ed Norton and not even promote the film after it's finished

Truth be told, Natalie didn't do any promo rounds for Thor or Your Highness either but that was due to her pregnancy and wanting some time for herself before the baby arrived.

cherokeesam

12-14-2011, 07:15 PM

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 10:21 PM

Jane wasn't the problem with Thor. It was the inclusion of SHIELD that took away from Thor and Jane's budding relationship....

Take out SHIELD and the film doesn't change one bit, except you get more of Thor, Jane, Loki, Frigga, the Warriors 3, and Lady Sif...

I'm sorry but I prefer the scene where Thor tears through the SHIELD facility that ultimately ends in failure to any more scenes with Jane. Thor not being able to lift Mjolnir was the best scene in the movie. SHIELD wasn't even in the movie that much.

gkokujin

12-14-2011, 10:24 PM

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 10:28 PM

From reading the article, it does seemed like Marvel hired Jenkins due to Portman's recommendation, and didn't realize how far apart they both are when it comes to their common vision for the movie. Although I think it is Marvel's fault for hiring her in the first place, and they now faced the wrath of an unhappy Portman, I think Marvel should ultimately hire a director who has a better rapport with them if they want to ensure a successful film.

I think it's safe to say that stars do not always know what's best for how movies are made. People want to jump on Marvel for this but they forget all the bold moves they made and that worked. They know what they are doing more than Natalie Portman and a bunch of internet fanboys.

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 10:47 PM

That's a damn shame about Marvel alienating Portman. I'm glad they're trying to smooth over ruffled feathers, but I'm not sure how successful they'll be with the Game of Thrones direction.

The article is very revealing about the behind-the-scenes politics, though. I hope to god that some of you who keep saying that AB and me and some other "haters" now realize that we're *not* just making **** up....this bit says volumes about the current state of affairs at MS:

Can you explain to me why you think Patty Jenkins is better than people who direct Game of Thrones? Monster was a good movie but c'mon, it wasn't THAT good. The movie holds a 82% on RT, barely above Thor, Cap, and Iron Man 2. People are mistaking a great performace by Theron for Patty Jenkins being Martin Scorsese. All she has been doing since that movie came out was a few episodes of Entourage and The Killing pilot.

And we didn't say you are making anything up. We all know that Marvel is cheap when it comes to talent and micromanages their movies. What we are arguing is if that is a bad thing. At the end of the day, Marvel continues to hire the top actors in Hollywood and gives opportunities to budding stars like Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Hayley Atwell, and Chris Evans. They continue to spend lots of money making their movies and hiring directors who Marvel is later praised for. Favreau, Branagh, Johnston, and most likely Shane Black and Joss Wheadon.

That reminds me. Why hasn't Joss Wheadon whined about anything? He might be the most creative person hired by Marvel and he is doing just fine. Instead of hating on Marvel, maybe you could try giving them credit for doing a good job managing their movies? I don't know why everybody always assumes Marvel is in the wrong. Especially when the people whining are people like Mickey Rourke, Ed Norton, and Terrence Howard. Actors who aren't really lighting up Hollywood, mind you. Natalie Portman might have a legit gripe about this Patty Jenkins thing but nobody here knows if she was even up to the job. Thor 2 is a much bigger project than an episode of Entourage. Thor and Loki aren't Johnny Drama and Turtle.

ElMariachi

12-14-2011, 10:51 PM

as much as i want to champion "what is right for Patti" etc...

what it boils down to is: This is MARVEL's CHILD.

Any director, male, female, gay, straight, purple, white, black has to make a movie in alignment with the vision MARVEL has for it. If they go against that, then adios amigo!

this happened before with the Fat Albert movie. Forrest Whittaker was onboard as the director and left because of Bill Cosby and he had "creative differences". Bill wanted the horrible cornball movie that was released, and Forrest wanted a more "throwback/realistic" movie.

I said it early in the thread but it would be like WB hiring Chris Nolan or Quentin Tarantino to direct Goblet of Fire. It could be a great movie but it would be stupid to make something that doesn't fit with the other movies. Creativity isn't always a good thing when dealing with established characters.

Saitou Hajime

12-14-2011, 10:57 PM

Nobody's saying Thor and Cap aren't successes. We're saying that compared to Iron Man, no other character in the franchise comes even close to duplicating the lightning in a bottle that RDJ captured.

You can say the same thing about the other major CBM producing studios. Batman, Spider-Man, X- Men... the studios that made them have yet to replicate their success with other characters. One might say Marvel has a leg up in that they have produced sucesses beyond their A franchise, unlike the other studios.

cherokeesam

12-14-2011, 11:38 PM

Can you explain to me why you think Patty Jenkins is better than people who direct Game of Thrones? Monster was a good movie but c'mon, it wasn't THAT good. The movie holds a 82% on RT, barely above Thor, Cap, and Iron Man 2. People are mistaking a great performace by Theron for Patty Jenkins being Martin Scorsese. All she has been doing since that movie came out was a few episodes of Entourage and The Killing pilot.

Monster earned Charlize an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and a SAG. Jenkins won the Independent Spirit Award for Best New Feature Director. Jenkins and her script won several awards, and were nominated for many more. The most famous film critic of our time, Roger Ebert, named the movie not only the best film of 2003, but of the whole *decade.* Regardless of whether you or I agree with all that, it's pretty clear that Monster, Charlize, and Jenkins all have proven merit.

And speaking of Charlize: it's still speculation on my part, but I still wonder if part of the "package deal" Marvel was looking for was for Patty to woo Theron to the movie as Enchantress. And if so, and if that fell through.....well. Anyway. If Enchantress is going to be in this one, I'd hate to see them pass over Charlize, who is absolutely perfect for the role.

That reminds me. Why hasn't Joss Wheadon whined about anything? He might be the most creative person hired by Marvel and he is doing just fine.

That probably has a *little* something to do with the fact that he's, you know, *worked* for the Bullpen often. I wouldn't call him the most *creative* person hired by Marvel --- Branagh alone deserves more credit than that --- but he's certainly the most bona fide comic book geek.

Instead of hating on Marvel, maybe you could try giving them credit for doing a good job managing their movies? I don't know why everybody always assumes Marvel is in the wrong. Especially when the people whining are people like Mickey Rourke, Ed Norton, and Terrence Howard. Actors who aren't really lighting up Hollywood, mind you. Natalie Portman might have a legit gripe about this Patty Jenkins thing but nobody here knows if she was even up to the job.

I'd say Rourke, Norton, Howard and Portman all have plenty of cache (and cash) in Hollywood. Pretty enormous clout, as a matter of fact.

Thor 2 is a much bigger project than an episode of Entourage. Thor and Loki aren't Johnny Drama and Turtle.

It's also a lot bigger than an episode of Game of Thrones.

BMM

12-15-2011, 12:36 AM

I don't see why we can't compare movies seperated by a decade. Thor, in 2011 was as big of a movie as Men in Black 2 was in 2002. Both movies were low top ten box office films. The difference in how successful they are is again splitting hairs in my opinion. Clearly, ticket price inflation doesn't match up but I don't think it's a stretch to say Thor is in the same league as franchises like Men in Black. We will see next summer, I suppose.

It isn't splitting hairs. It's the reality of the situation. Just because two movies are in the top 10 in their respective years does not make their successes interchangeable. To say that Thor, after one movie, is in the same league as an entire franchise, especially one as successful as the Men In Black franchise, is a stretch. If you are going to make a comparison between the Men In Black franchise and one of Marvel Studios’ franchises, Iron Man is the more apt comparison, not Thor. And, no, we won't see next year. Even if Men In Black III bombs, it doesn't negate the success of its predecessors in their heydays.

This summer season thing is absolute nonsense, in my opinion. Thor came out in early May before the actual summer season when everybody is still in school. I will never understand why May movies are lumped in with movies released after Memorial Day weekend. March and April are argubably filled with just as many big movies now as early May.

May movies are lumped in with the rest of post Memorial Day Weekend movies because they're studio tentpoles, and they're meant to be every bit as big and appealing to mass audiences as anything else released during the summer.

Also, no, March and April are not filled with as many big movies as early May. There is a reason movie studios, especially Marvel Studios, go after those dates, and it isn't because they're interchangeable with ones in March or April. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 300, Alice in Wonderland, and Fast Five are the only March and April movies in the last decade that have cracked the top ten that aren't childrens movies, of which there are three. That hardly seems as reliable as the likes of The Mummy Returns, Spider-Man, X2: X-Men United, Spider-Man 3, Iron Man, Star Trek, Iron Man 2, and Thor--all in the top 10, all released in the first week of May--not to mention the rest of the pre-Memorial Day releases--Shrek, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, The Matrix Reloaded, Shrek 2, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, The Da Vinci Code, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides--also all in the top 10.

I also don't buy this 3D argument. 3D was already known as an expensive gimmick long before Thor even came out. There were a few big 3D movies that came out before Thor too this year with Green Hornet, Rio, and Drive Angry. Some of the movies you mentioned actually looked like they would be worth watching in 3D. Green Lantern tanked, even though it looked like it could take advantage of the format.

Comparing Thor to Drive Angry, a movie that barely grossed $28 million worldwide, is silly. Thor is meant to be a big, must see movie. The others, save for possibly Rio, are not.

The first Transformers was actually a good movie and they have somehow maintained that audience through two awful movies. I don't think CGI sells anymore unless there is some crazy hype like Avatar or Inception.

The Transformers movies maintain an audience for the same reason they ever had one in the first place. People are paying to see larger-than-life, CGI robots beat the crap out of each other. Nobody watches the Transformers trailers and thinks, "I'm going to see that movie for the brilliant story."

You are right about this. I forgot that Apes wasn't in 3D. But I stand by what I said about it having some distinct advantages to offset the 3D argument by being a later summer movie with no competition and being apart of a suprisingly well liked franchise. That crappy Wahlberg one made decent money too.

How is it that my noting the advantages of earlier release dates is nonsense but your noting the advantages of later release dates is a legitimate excuse?

You don't just pick and choose either "domestic" or "foreign" numbers, you add them both together for the overall number and like I said 450 million and 585 million is not a gigantic difference.

I'm talking about people's perceptions. People talk about Iron Man so highly because they're probably associating it with more than a couple of unrelatable numbers found on boxofficemojo. It's because Iron Man is the first Marvel Studios movie, and it came out swinging, promising bigger things to come. It put Marvel Studios on the map in a big way, and it single-handedly helped turn Robert Downey Jr., the actor with a troubled past and questionable career, into a superstar over night. He was everywhere in 2008, and people couldn't mention him without mentioning Iron Man. As for performance, in some markets, big markets like the US, Iron Man absolutely trounced Thor. It makes sense why some people treat it in such high regard, even if, nominally, there isn't an astronomical difference between the two.

BigThor

12-15-2011, 02:57 AM

I'm tired of all this "in the US" nonesense, becauses worldwide grosses are far more important than "domestic grosses" or "foreign grosses" since it's BOTH of them combined.

jmc

12-15-2011, 03:04 AM

BigThor

12-15-2011, 03:31 AM

jmc

12-15-2011, 03:36 AM

BMM

12-15-2011, 03:43 AM

I'm tired of all this "in the US" nonesense, becauses worldwide grosses are far more important than "domestic grosses" or "foreign grosses" since it's BOTH of them combined.

That's not my point, but okay.

It's attitudes like that which makes me wonder if there's any point in trying to reason with some. It's really sad that a studio has warped the perspective of some of their own fans. Maybe when Marvel do screw something up views will change.

Yeah. If Jane Foster returns, there's no way I wouldn't want Natalie Portman to return as well. Even though she basically just has googly eyes for Thor the entire movie, I like what chemistry is there. Also, I don't picture Marvel getting a more high profile actress or a particularly better one. Marvel dumping her isn't something I would like. Hopefully, they can smooth things over with her.

Alexei Belyakov

12-15-2011, 03:59 AM

To be honest, in my opinion what goes on at Marvel is their business as long as they keep cranking out faithful comic book films they'll have my support. That doesn't mean I think they're perfect and I agree with everything they do, because I have a few grievances with some of the things they do myself.

Oh and I honestly couldn't careless about Natalie Portman returning as Jane Foster or Patty Jenkins leaving from the film.

You "couldn't care less" about a solid director leaving or Portman being recast?

What do you care about?

Again, its as if people would be perfectly fine with Feige hiring his pool cleaner to direct THOR II. People would still run and see it just to watch Hemsworth throw the hammer.

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-15-2011, 05:09 AM

I'm not sure what other warning signs some people need. It's all well and good to bury ones head in the ground and ignore these reports, but at some point you have to acknowledge that all isn't that rosy at the studio in regards to their tactics. Folks, continual tactics like we've read are going to come back to haunt the studio, you have to see this.

I personally dont think we needed another warning sign, there are alreadt plenty, but this is just the icing on the cake, whats the point in hiring good, high profile professionals if all they are gonna do is piss them off and dump them if they dont agree with them.

Favreau, Norton, Howard, Rourke and now possibly Portman all seemingly dont like working with the studio, eventually they arent going to be able to attract anything like the talent they have so far for their movies. This is just ridiculous management by Marvel, their films may be successful now, but if they keep churning out formulaic films, without the extra help from great actors and actresses, their stock is going drop FAST with the GA.

Yeah. If Jane Foster returns, there's no way I wouldn't want Natalie Portman to return as well. Even though she basically just has googly eyes for Thor the entire movie, I like what chemistry is there. Also, I don't picture Marvel getting a more high profile actress or a particularly better one. Marvel dumping her isn't something I would like. Hopefully, they can smooth things over with her.

Same here, I am still pissed off and find it REALLY jarring that Howard is no longer War Machine and Norton is no longer Bruce Banner. If Portman goes as well and they just re-cast the character, I may give up on this sequel altogether. Marvel really is getting ridiculous, how are we supposed to believe this is a shared universe when actors/actresses and directors are being change willy-nilly?

04nbod

12-15-2011, 05:26 AM

We don't know what her vision was exactly. That's the problem with all this speculation. We don't know if it sucked or if it sounded great. I mentioned earlier all the great directors (much better than Jenkins) that pitched ideas for superhero movies. Guys like Cameron, Aronofsky, and Tim Burton with flat out terrible ideas for these characters. We also need to hear Marvel's side of the story. There is a reason Jenkins hasn't directed a major motion picture since Monster. We don't know if she was up to the task to make a movie as big as Thor in the timespan the studio demanded. It was an odd choice from the very beginning.

As for Jane, I would like Portman back for one more movie but after that I don't think she is needed. They need her, I suppose, for the love angle set up at the end of the first movie but I really hope they don't dwell on it. A sequel, anchored down by Jane, will suck in my opinion. The romantic drama gets tiresome in these sorts of movies. I hated Mary Jane halfway through SM2 and we all know that Pepper is wearing thin after her b---y attitude throughout IM2. I want them to focus more on Thor's relationship with Odin, Loki, and the Warriors 3. They lost out because of Jane in Thor and it was one of my few problems with that movie.

So all the men? I can see right through you from here.

No one lost out because of Jane, the Warriors Three lost out because the Asgard half was too crowded. The Earth half was just fine and was the only place Thor was allowed to show any character at all.

jmc

12-15-2011, 05:40 AM

Adamantium Man

12-15-2011, 06:51 AM

cherokeesam

12-15-2011, 07:38 AM

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

Technically, TIH already did that with a $134 million domestic take on a $150 million budget. ;)

But yeah, I agree with you that, while the warning signs are there, there's no sign *yet* that it's translated to actual box office failure. If Avengers fails, which I doubt it will, you can look for the proverbial crap to hit the proverbial fan. Still, I think this kind of domineering attitude towards lowballing talent and treating them like studio serfs is going to come back and bite Feige squarely on the ass within a matter of a few years or so. It's no longer an isolated incident here and there; it's becoming pandemic. And Hollywood *is* taking notice.

roach

12-15-2011, 07:46 AM

if Avengers makes a ton of money and they continue to low ball afterwards I could see it being an issue

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-15-2011, 07:57 AM

Not just with audiences but with the Hollywood system itself. You develop a reputation of being difficult to work with creatively and financially and no A-lister is going to want to work for you. The only reason things haven't fallen off the rails yet is because they've had some luck go their way, but eventually luck runs out especially if you continue to mismanage things.

Exactly my point, if they keep letting stuff like this happen eventually all the great talent they have so far managed to attract will become a thing of the past. I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies so far, but their scripts have all been elevated by the talent involved, non of the scripts have been fantastic.

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

Wait, so anyone who isnt completely happy with what Marvel Studio's is doing is a naysayer and detractor? I love Marvel, love their characters, have done since I was a kid, love the comics, and in regards to the movie studio, they have yet to make a movie below average, but at the same time they are yet to make an amazing movie either, they have all been formulaic. SO, see my point above, NON of these movies have had amazing scripts, they have been made better than what they are by the talent involved, if they continue down the road of pissing off the talent they do manage to work with, then eventually talented people wont want to work with them, and then the movies will really turn to ****.

cherokeesam

12-15-2011, 08:07 AM

Exactly my point, if they keep letting stuff like this happen eventually all the great talent they have so far managed to attract will become a thing of the past. I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies so far, but their scripts have all been elevated by the talent involved, non of the scripts have been fantastic.

Wait, so anyone who isnt completely happy with what Marvel Studio's is doing is a naysayer and detractor? I love Marvel, love their characters, have done since I was a kid, love the comics, and in regards to the movie studio, they have yet to make a movie below average, but at the same time they are yet to make an amazing movie either, they have all been formulaic. SO, see my point above, NON of these movies have had amazing scripts, they have been made better than what they are by the talent involved, if they continue down the road of pissing off the talent they do manage to work with, then eventually talented people wont want to work with them, and then the movies will really turn to ****.

Agree 1000%. Marvel are hiring sh** writers (Zak Penn and Don Payne must have permanent homes at MS), and they're going after "affordable" directors. The saving grace on *all* of their movies has been their actors....either they've hired proven talent for the supporting and/or villain roles, or they've given breakthrough roles to talent like RDJ and Hemsworth.

Once Marvel chases the talent away, they've got very little to fall back on in the way of directorial expertise and *no* talent in the screenwriting department.

Adamantium Man

12-15-2011, 08:19 AM

Agree 1000%. Marvel are hiring sh** writers (Zak Penn and Don Payne must have permanent homes at MS), and they're going after "affordable" directors. The saving grace on *all* of their movies has been their actors....either they've hired proven talent for the supporting and/or villain roles, or they've given breakthrough roles to talent like RDJ and Hemsworth.

Once Marvel chases the talent away, they've got very little to fall back on in the way of directorial expertise and *no* talent in the screenwriting department.

You have a point. However, so far, most of the actors have gone out of their way to praise the atmosphere of Marvel shoots and gone on record about how pleasant the whole experience was (ith the notable exception of Mickey Rourke). There's no "chasing away the talent". On the contrary. Everyone seems happy to be coming back. (We'll see which way Natalie Portman will jump, granted.)

And you can't in good conscience say that Branagh wasn't a saving grace. Or that Shane Black won't be. Or Joss Whedon. It's not *all* up to the actors.

I stand by my point that it's not so bad as all that. One story got out about behind the scenes shenanigans, and lo and behold, gloom and doom is in season. As I said, stuff like that goes on *everywhere*, *all the time*. The public just doesn't get to hear about it.

Adamantium Man

12-15-2011, 08:22 AM

Wait, so anyone who isnt completely happy with what Marvel Studio's is doing is a naysayer and detractor? I love Marvel, love their characters, have done since I was a kid, love the comics, and in regards to the movie studio, they have yet to make a movie below average, but at the same time they are yet to make an amazing movie either, they have all been formulaic. SO, see my point above, NON of these movies have had amazing scripts, they have been made better than what they are by the talent involved, if they continue down the road of pissing off the talent they do manage to work with, then eventually talented people wont want to work with them, and then the movies will really turn to ****.

Yeah, sorry about the generalization there. I was addressing the naysayers that say nay all the time and appear on the scene as soon as news like this gets around, because they just got new ammunition. Not directed at justified critics.

roach

12-15-2011, 08:23 AM

but this isn't one story...if this was the only story I'd agree with you...but there seems to be an emerging pattern

and I don't think you can count Branagh as he won't be directing Thor 2

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-15-2011, 08:36 AM

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-15-2011, 08:38 AM

Yeah, sorry about the generalization there. I was addressing the naysayers that say nay all the time and appear on the scene as soon as news like this gets around, because they just got new ammunition. Not directed at justified critics.

Ah, okay fair enough :up:.

cherokeesam

12-15-2011, 02:08 PM

You have a point. However, so far, most of the actors have gone out of their way to praise the atmosphere of Marvel shoots and gone on record about how pleasant the whole experience was (ith the notable exception of Mickey Rourke). There's no "chasing away the talent". On the contrary. Everyone seems happy to be coming back. (We'll see which way Natalie Portman will jump, granted.)

And you can't in good conscience say that Branagh wasn't a saving grace. Or that Shane Black won't be. Or Joss Whedon. It's not *all* up to the actors.

I stand by my point that it's not so bad as all that. One story got out about behind the scenes shenanigans, and lo and behold, gloom and doom is in season. As I said, stuff like that goes on *everywhere*, *all the time*. The public just doesn't get to hear about it.

There's also Terrence Howard. And Edward Norton.

batdude

12-15-2011, 02:30 PM

Look, I don't know if there is a big problem here. Game of Thrones is closer to Thor than Monster. Portman isn't really essential here.Marvel could get say, Jessica Biel to play the Enchantress and I'm not sure very many people would notice. I'm not against hiring a woman to direct one of these things, but I'd rather have an experienced Superhero/Sci Fi fantasy director. Did they even ask Hemsworth or Huddelston's opinion?

jmc

12-15-2011, 02:32 PM

This is one case where we (the public) learned what's happening at Marvel. But if you know the first thing about the movie business, you know that stuff like this goes on everywhere, all the time. You say read the warning signs. Okay, so we do. Now what? Boycott Marvel movies? And, knowing that stuff like this happens everywhere, boycott movies altogether?

How about being able to call the studio out on their BS tactics? There's too much acceptance of these tactics all in the name of preserving the MCU from some fans, it's like no-one cares who's directing, who's in the cast, what the story is, doesn't matter who's been fired, doesn't matter if they're cheap, just as long as the MCU continues. No-ones demanding better, no-ones wanting more ambition, everyone's fine with acceptable and it pisses me off. Marvel can do one wrong by me, that is make bad movies. Hasn't happened yet. With a project like that (and everywhere else), there always will be creative differences and resulting recasts. Audiences learn to roll with them. Meanwhile, we get the Avengers and Phase II. As others said, you need creative control for that. Some actors and directors will not be able to live with that, so they don't get hired. Simple as that.

And it's that sort of philosophy that will ultimately drive the really good creative types away and ultimately cause the demise of the MCU. Being so rigid and arrogant will turn people off wanting to work with the studio. Look, I realize that this is perfect fodder for the naysayers and detractors (and AB, whose posts I'm happy not to be able to read), so go have fun with it while it lasts. I'll take all this gloom and doom seriously when the first MS movie fails at the BO.

Oh great, another generalization. AVEITWITHJAMON summed it up best.

BigThor

12-15-2011, 07:27 PM

It's attitudes like that which makes me wonder if there's any point in trying to reason with some. It's really sad that a studio has warped the perspective of some of their own fans. Maybe when Marvel do screw something up views will change.

I'm pretty sure my perspective on this subject's been this way long before Marvel Studios existed, but if thinking Marvel Studios has warped my mind helps you sleep at night then by all means gp ahead.

You "couldn't care less" about a solid director leaving or Portman being recast?

What do you care about?

Again, its as if people would be perfectly fine with Feige hiring his pool cleaner to direct THOR II. People would still run and see it just to watch Hemsworth throw the hammer.

I care about getting a film that improves upon the sequel, no matter who the director is. Patty Jenkins was a good director indeed, but was she really the best candidate to direct a Thor film?

C'mon now, let's use our brains.

Alexei Belyakov

12-16-2011, 12:03 AM

How about being able to call the studio out on their BS tactics? There's too much acceptance of these tactics all in the name of preserving the MCU from some fans, it's like no-one cares who's directing, who's in the cast, what the story is, doesn't matter who's been fired, doesn't matter if they're cheap, just as long as the MCU continues. No-ones demanding better, no-ones wanting more ambition, everyone's fine with acceptable and it pisses me off. And it's that sort of philosophy that will ultimately drive the really good creative types away and ultimately cause the demise of the MCU. Being so rigid and arrogant will turn people off wanting to work with the studio.

Perfectly said.

jmc

12-16-2011, 03:26 AM

Original post removed. Can't be bothered arguing anymore.

Optimus_Prime_

12-16-2011, 09:03 AM

kedrell

12-16-2011, 09:32 AM

Thor does seem to have more female supporting characters and/or villainesses than most other superheroes. This is something to his advantage, should Portman walk.

Mysteryman

12-16-2011, 10:13 AM

It will take more than a few aricles to convince me that Portman is going to walk.
We still dont have a direct quote from her on any of this .

Alexei Belyakov

12-17-2011, 01:07 PM

jmc, Shadowlord's constant flaming & baiting will eventually get him booted from these parts. Don't even bother replying to his teenage antics.

04nbod

12-17-2011, 02:15 PM

I'm all for this. Have you seen Game of Thrones?!? Great experience for a Thor movie, because in many ways it's close to the Thor universe. Thor could benefit from some "edge" in the next movie too, since we're past the origin stage.

Moreover, I'd rather not see Natalie Portman. I love her, but she's just not right for Thor. Thor can function better a la James Bond or Batman 89 where you have a new love interest every film. Drop Foster and use Lady Sif and Enchantress instead. Jane Foster has been done to my satisfaction now, so has Don Blake.

They've barely done anything with Thor and Jane, they left it on a cliffhanger and they didn't show Thor doing anything with the Blake identity properly. How is that enough? Other than the Loki aspect nothing else was really done enough for me. Thor was a start, it needs to keep going on the path its begun because for me they are doing everything right. Using Jane and not Sif as lead, perfect. Using Blake as an ID and not a separate person or personality-spectacular. Using Earth for half the movie- ideal. In fact Thor is getting more right than Thor comics have in decades for me and I'm not entirely sure that was JMS' input.

Shadowlord X

12-17-2011, 04:30 PM

Well said 04nbod!

They did an amazing job of making THOR a very relatable character.

gkokujin

12-17-2011, 04:31 PM

dropping Portman and using Lady Sif and Enchantress is the best idea ever...

the problem?

no "earth" connection...EYE don't give a *****, but the STUDIOS will think the general audience does.

TheDragonator

12-17-2011, 05:59 PM

jmc, Shadowlord's constant flaming & will eventually get him booted from these parts. Don't even bother replying to his teenage antics.

You are the last goddamn person on these boards to talk about flaming and baiting.

You are insanely disrespectful to absolutely everyone who does not share your opinion. You talk down to everyone, and state your opinions as facts, and piss and moan when people don't agree with you.

Do you want to know why we like the 'mediocre' movies Marvel makes? It's not because we're plants, it's not because we're blind fanboys, it's not because we're trolls, it's because we don't think they're mediocre. We like the films. That's why we support them, because we think the results so far have been good. Just because you don't think so doesn't mean it's a fact that they are. We don't have low standards, we have different opinions. I personally am absolutely sick and tired of the crap you constantly pull. You did this with the Avengers boards, got probation, and now you're doing the exact same thing here. The reason people don't like you isn't because we disagree with you: I think JMC is ****ing awesome. Though I disagree with him, I still respect him.

The thing with you is that you recycle the same argument over and over and over and over. It's literally like a broken record. You treat anyone who disagrees with you as trolls or being stupid, and go out of your way to be disrespectful towards people. You always play the victim, even though you not only start the arguments, but you're the one putting others down all the time. Kurosawa is even ****ing better than that, because he at least uses multiple arguments and ideas to support his opinion with. You constantly mock people all the time. You even mocked someone once because they didn't like the idea of the Inhumans being the Avengers villains, to which you responded that they couldn't fathom the idea of the villains being the Inhumans. Which is ironic considering it seems you couldn't fathom the idea of you being wrong, an idea which you STILL, despite the umpteen number of times people have tried to tell you, have not learned. Just because you have an opinion on something, does not mean it is objective fact. The reason we 'settle for mediocre movies' is because [i]we don't consider them mediocre. You do, so you treat it as if we are less intelligent than you.

DarkSovereignty

12-17-2011, 06:16 PM

^QFT. i wish a mod would just permaban this tool already.

C. Lee

12-17-2011, 06:25 PM

I suggest EVERYONE in here watch their language and be more respectful of other people's opinions. You can disagree, aregue, debate, and discuss things without being insulting and rude to each other.

Alexei Belyakov

12-17-2011, 07:19 PM

Dragonator, do me a favor, please, stop trying to bait me. Not only is it never going to work because I'm too old to engage in a flame war with you, but you're gonna end up getting yourself banned. Also, don't PM me anymore inviting me to get bashed in threads like "Dick of the Year" (which was in no way designed for flaming people without consequence). Another thing, this whole routine you have now of presenting reasons to the forum of why I am the villain in all of this, is not only a waste of both our times, but of thread space. You still don't understand that coming after me doesn't repair any of the damage the studio's already done. You like these films? Fine. That doesn't mean all of us have to swallow whatever Feige feeds us next. Some of us want these films to be more than just summer fare. Again, you don't want things to change? Fine. You don't mind recasting, firing of solid directors & an overall disregard for talent? Fine. But stop attacking those of us that do mind.

Crimson King

12-17-2011, 10:07 PM

It will take more than a few aricles to convince me that Portman is going to walk.
We still dont have a direct quote from her on any of this .

How dare you wait until you know the facts before you believe something.

Iron_Stark

12-18-2011, 12:51 AM

I personally dont think we needed another warning sign, there are alreadt plenty, but this is just the icing on the cake, whats the point in hiring good, high profile professionals if all they are gonna do is piss them off and dump them if they dont agree with them.

Favreau, Norton, Howard, Rourke and now possibly Portman all seemingly dont like working with the studio, eventually they arent going to be able to attract anything like the talent they have so far for their movies. This is just ridiculous management by Marvel, their films may be successful now, but if they keep churning out formulaic films, without the extra help from great actors and actresses, their stock is going drop FAST with the GA.

Same here, I am still pissed off and find it REALLY jarring that Howard is no longer War Machine and Norton is no longer Bruce Banner. If Portman goes as well and they just re-cast the character, I may give up on this sequel altogether. Marvel really is getting ridiculous, how are we supposed to believe this is a shared universe when actors/actresses and directors are being change willy-nilly?

1st, Howard can suck it, there is no way in his own idiot mind that he thinks he can make more money and get top billing over Robert Downey Jr.

2nd, War Machine (the armor and how Rhodey got it) never should've been in the second movie. THAT was the problem in Iron Man 2. Look at the the prologue for Dark Knight Rises, look at the trailer, Bane is made to look like a badass and an actual threat in that movie. By the time that movie is released on video, Nolan will have taken a 3rd tier Batman villain and make him an unforgettable movie villain. Something Favreau couldn't accomplish with Rourke as Whiplash because of idiot fanboy demands for War Machine.

Jane wasn't the problem with Thor. It was the inclusion of SHIELD that took away from Thor and Jane's budding relationship....

Take out SHIELD and the film doesn't change one bit, except you get more of Thor, Jane, Loki, Frigga, the Warriors 3, and Lady Sif...

Really? You're still with this same tired argument? If not SHIELD, then who? The CIA? FBI? Some other faceless organization? Or should they have gone the way of other inept law enforcement agencies like in the TDK and ignore those types of situations?

Also, SHIELD was barely in the movie, and what did you want from Thor and Jane? some steamy sex scene like in Watchmen after a couple of hours of them knowing each other?

BigThor

12-18-2011, 07:01 AM

Really? You're still with this same tired argument? If not SHIELD, then who? The CIA? FBI? Some other faceless organization? Or should they have gone the way of other inept law enforcement agencies like in the TDK and ignore those types of situations?

Also, SHIELD was barely in the movie, and what did you want from Thor and Jane? some steamy sex scene like in Watchmen after a couple of hours of them knowing each other?

That's what I'm saying, good grief talk about setting the bar too high.

Iron_Stark

12-18-2011, 09:42 AM

That's what I'm saying, good grief talk about setting the bar too high.

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship. :bdh:

Give me a break.

Mysteryman

12-18-2011, 10:30 AM

While it is true That SHIELD didnt have any impact on Thor and Janes relationship ,
I disagree that they were a small part of the film .
They confiscated Janes equpment .
They captured and interrogated Thor .
Thor had to battle SHIELD to escape and had an extended fight sequence with one agent .
They encountered The Destroyer .
And wernt they in the background as Thor battled The Destroyer ?
Without SHIELD,
The only conflict with humans Thor would have had would be a couple of arguments with Jane and the bar fight,
Which we didnt see .
ironically the SHIELD agent with the least amount of screen time was Clint Barton.
Face obscured by a hood and not one arrow shot .
For me at least, that was Dissapointing.
It was nice to see Hawkeye ,
But I also wanted to see what he could do.

BigThor

12-18-2011, 04:08 PM

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship. :bdh:

Give me a break.

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

kedrell

12-18-2011, 04:35 PM

Now if Jane is in the sequel I'd recommend the writer's at least trying to tackle the one question that's always the big elephant in the room(especially in this case) in these fantastical genre's: Realistically speaking, how much of any sort of future could they have? That's not to say I would want the entire movie to revolve around that point but it should be raised.

Mysteryman

12-18-2011, 05:58 PM

Wasnt there a storyline in the comics where Odin temporarily granted Jane Asgardian powers ?
I dont know if they would do that in the films,
but it would certainly be interesting to watch.

Crimson King

12-18-2011, 09:06 PM

Yeah, I think he did it as a test...which she failed.

cherokeesam

12-19-2011, 12:58 AM

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-19-2011, 04:50 AM

1st, Howard can suck it, there is no way in his own idiot mind that he thinks he can make more money and get top billing over Robert Downey Jr.

Again though, this was Marvel's fault, not Howards, they paid him more for the first movie than RDJ, if he was promised the same for the 2nd movie why should he just accept it, he even said it was in his contract. This is down to Marvel, not Howard, they went back on THEIR word.

To me, he was a much better Rhodey than Cheadle was as well.

2nd, War Machine (the armor and how Rhodey got it) never should've been in the second movie. THAT was the problem in Iron Man 2. Look at the the prologue for Dark Knight Rises, look at the trailer, Bane is made to look like a badass and an actual threat in that movie. By the time that movie is released on video, Nolan will have taken a 3rd tier Batman villain and make him an unforgettable movie villain. Something Favreau couldn't accomplish with Rourke as Whiplash because of idiot fanboy demands for War Machine.

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

Iron_Stark

12-19-2011, 08:45 AM

Again though, this was Marvel's fault, not Howards, they paid him more for the first movie than RDJ, if he was promised the same for the 2nd movie why should he just accept it, he even said it was in his contract. This is down to Marvel, not Howard, they went back on THEIR word.

To me, he was a much better Rhodey than Cheadle was as well.

It all started with Avi Arad, he hired Howard long before Favreau and RDJ were hired.

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

Favreau had the 2 hour cap. He said it in many times that he would make the movie about as long as the original.

How did SHIELD and BW take from Tony's story? Besides the biggest problem with Iron Man 2 was Rourke getting very little screen time thanks to the unneeded War Machine subplot.

Did we really need a ridiculous play fight between Tony and Rhodey in the middle of the movie? Instead of getting an unforgettable action sequence we get a slapfight with corny music.

Then look at the end of the movie, War Machine hogs up most of the screen time, while Whiplash gets a 30 second fight scene in some bland generic suit that nobody even remembers what it looks like.

Speaking of hogging up, War Machine hogged up the advertisements, trailers, movie posters, money for suits and sfx, toyline, etc. while anyone barely heard a peep out of Rourke and Rockwell. They weren't even in the movie poster.

How is all of that SHIELD and Black Widow's fault? I don't blame Rourke for being upset and calling out Marvel and Favreau.

BigThor

12-19-2011, 05:01 PM

BigThor

12-19-2011, 05:03 PM

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

You raise some very good points sir, I can see where you're coming from.

04nbod

12-20-2011, 02:26 PM

dropping Portman and using Lady Sif and Enchantress is the best idea ever...

the problem?

no "earth" connection...EYE don't give a *****, but the STUDIOS will think the general audience does.

The problems are multi-fold. Why would you drop the biggest name on your cast sheet? Why would you ditch the audience perspective? Why would you half the female cast and/or relegate them ALL to Thor's bed buddies? Why would you take away the variety of characters in the female cast? If all you have left is Sif and bring in Enchantress you have a female cast that is either like men or for the desire of men. Jane and Darcy are unashamedly there for women.

I guess people want Thor 2: The Porno. Only Thor and Jane should get all the scenes together and have an occasional action sequence with Thor and the villain, and Jane in every shot being the damsel in distress.

They want a movie like that, I'm sure Vivid or someone already parodied that.

SHIELD took away from Thor and Jane's relationship. :bdh:

Give me a break.

Erm what? Saying you want a relationship more developed is not the same as saying you want a rom-com or a porno. Also, I've never complained about the Shield parts. My only complaint is that the Asgard side of the plot is too heavy with characters who themselves don't get developed. They probably should have kept it to either only The Warriors Three or team up Sif with Balder.

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

I think its more that now they've started it, they should carry on in that direction. But I will say I do prefer Jane to Sif/Amora mainly because Jane and Thor contrast. Thor is a noticably different character around Jane. He's more well rounded with her, he has his life as Blake, he thinks more, his life isn't fighting/drinking/fracking as it seems to be in Asgard. He's a more worthwhile man. The story between them is also a lot stronger.

I can't really blame people who don't get Jane's character. Marvel are awful with her. She's a great character who never gets a story. People usually don't bother with Stan and Larry's Journey into Mystery which is a bit of genius. It shows a selfless, brave, funny Jane Foster who conveniently was forced to faint whenever Donald had to change into Thor (it was the silver age). The Jurgens run is basically forgotten now but he made the modern Jane. She was central to the first 50 issues with that where Thor was put back in a hospital setting as a mortal and went right back to basics. He played up the old sexual tension between them while using the spectre of (mostly absent) Keith Kincaid and Jake Olson's fiance to stop them acting on anything. JMS did an OK job too, having her give Donald a well deserved slap. All those versions really culminate in The Mighty Avenger which takes bits of all of them and you saw how well that was reviewed.

Yeah, I think he did it as a test...which she failed.

There was a test, that he made impossible to succeed. She's locked in with the Lurking Unknown that we are told only Odin can control. So the tension is built up on the idea the monster will kill her. In fact, we later find out that he had already got Hiemdall to return Sif to Asgard in preparation before Jane had even arrived.

Its Jane that demands to be sent home afterwards and instead of sending her home Odin takes all her memories of Thor and drops her off in Keith Kincaid's office like a creepy pimp while he takes Thor's memories of Jane and ditched him with Sif.

I don't think Jane has to be in "every" Thor film: just Thor 2. In fact, I'd prefer it if she drops completely out by the end of Thor 2 (not to be overtly ghoulish, but I want to see her kick the bucket).

But she *does* need to be in, again, Thor 2. That's because Thor 1, for better or worse, absolutely established that fact. You can't just set up Jane as the love of Thor's life, and have him looking all moony-eyed across the cosmos after her, and set up the Broken Bridge and all that and *not* bring her back in Thor 2 as a major character.

But what I *do* want to see is the love interest transition away from Jane to Sif, just as we all know happened in the comics. Have Jane die a hero's death, sacrifice herself for the love of Thor, yadda yadda yadda, and then free Sif up for Thor's dance card by the time Thor 3 rolls around.

People will never get on board with Sif if she starts creeping on Thor straight after Jane dies especially if Jane is set up as the love of Thor's life. Also, there is no incentive to kill her. We can talk about lining up with the comics but Jane never dies. I even think using Sif as a love interest at all would be ill advised. Nobody likes the third wheel. And no sane person ditches academy award winner Natalie Portman for Kyle XY's Jaimie Alexander. Not to mention, killing off the person who sees the plot through the audience's eyes is a no go.

And the Thor/Sif transition was never a good thing. The Sif/BRB transition was the best thing to happen to that character.

BigThor

12-20-2011, 04:13 PM

I always thought Sif and BRB were pretty lame couple, I will always prefer Thor being with Sif over Jane.

*shrugs*

Iron_Stark

12-21-2011, 08:44 AM

Erm what? Saying you want a relationship more developed is not the same as saying you want a rom-com or a porno. Also, I've never complained about the Shield parts. My only complaint is that the Asgard side of the plot is too heavy with characters who themselves don't get developed. They probably should have kept it to either only The Warriors Three or team up Sif with Balder.

But how much development can one get from two people that are together for about two days?

Unless they're in a movie where they spend all of it together like Road Trip or in a movie where them having to bump uglies for the sake of the story like Terminator 1, there isn't much more development that you can get from them in this first movie.

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-21-2011, 08:45 AM

It all started with Avi Arad, he hired Howard long before Favreau and RDJ were hired.

Arad was the doing basically the same job Feige does now though, so again, its Marvel's fault, Howard had every right to expect everything he was promised and had in his contract.

Favreau had the 2 hour cap. He said it in many times that he would make the movie about as long as the original.

The 2 hour cap was given by Marvel though, as it has on all of their movies, an extra 15/20 mins would have done IM2's story wonders, if TDK can be 2hrs 30 mins long, why couldnt IM2 be around 2 hours 15 mins long?

How did SHIELD and BW take from Tony's story? Besides the biggest problem with Iron Man 2 was Rourke getting very little screen time thanks to the unneeded War Machine subplot.

Did we really need a ridiculous play fight between Tony and Rhodey in the middle of the movie? Instead of getting an unforgettable action sequence we get a slapfight with corny music.

Then look at the end of the movie, War Machine hogs up most of the screen time, while Whiplash gets a 30 second fight scene in some bland generic suit that nobody even remembers what it looks like.

Speaking of hogging up, War Machine hogged up the advertisements, trailers, movie posters, money for suits and sfx, toyline, etc. while anyone barely heard a peep out of Rourke and Rockwell. They weren't even in the movie poster.

How is all of that SHIELD and Black Widow's fault? I don't blame Rourke for being upset and calling out Marvel and Favreau.

The advertising has nothing to do with it though, the main problem is within the movie. At least 2 3rds of the Shield/Black Widow scene's werent even necessary, especially Black Widow's infiltration of Hammer industries and her fight scene, Jarvis could have just hacked WM but to create tension make it take him a long time. I couldnt accept that BW could hack into a system that Jarvis couldnt, so that whole fight scene wasnt needed.

The scene in the donut store also wasnt needed, Stark could have just uncovered his fathers stuff on his own and discovered the new element on his own. The medicine Shield gave Stark in that scene was pointless, as it didnt cure him. Shield telling him about the element made Tony look stupid when he is supposed to be a genius. I think the video left by Howard for Tony would have carried more emotional weight had he discovered it on his own, again Shield wasnt needed for this. Fury/Coulsen could have just paid Tony a visit while he is discovering the new element also, they didnt need to be in his house and life at point.

Remove all these scene's, it takes out a good 15/20 mins that could been used for Vanko and War Machine, Hammer's story IMO was pretty much covered in the finished film.

Mysteryman

12-22-2011, 10:33 AM

Arad was the doing basically the same job Feige does now though, so again, its Marvel's fault, Howard had every right to expect everything he was promised and had in his contract.

The 2 hour cap was given by Marvel though, as it has on all of their movies, an extra 15/20 mins would have done IM2's story wonders, if TDK can be 2hrs 30 mins long, why couldnt IM2 be around 2 hours 15 mins long?

The advertising has nothing to do with it though, the main problem is within the movie. At least 2 3rds of the Shield/Black Widow scene's werent even necessary, especially Black Widow's infiltration of Hammer industries and her fight scene, Jarvis could have just hacked WM but to create tension make it take him a long time. I couldnt accept that BW could hack into a system that Jarvis couldnt, so that whole fight scene wasnt needed.

The scene in the donut store also wasnt needed, Stark could have just uncovered his fathers stuff on his own and discovered the new element on his own. The medicine Shield gave Stark in that scene was pointless, as it didnt cure him. Shield telling him about the element made Tony look stupid when he is supposed to be a genius. I think the video left by Howard for Tony would have carried more emotional weight had he discovered it on his own, again Shield wasnt needed for this. Fury/Coulsen could have just paid Tony a visit while he is discovering the new element also, they didnt need to be in his house and life at point.

Remove all these scene's, it takes out a good 15/20 mins that could been used for Vanko and War Machine, Hammer's story IMO was pretty much covered in the finished film.
I am in complete agreement as far as the scenes that needed to be cut from IM2.
They were not needed at all.

Crimson King

12-22-2011, 11:33 AM

It wouldnt have been a problem if Marvel didnt have this ridiculous cap if around 2 hours for their movie run-time's, if the movie had been 20 mins longer War Machine wouldnt have been a problem, and I dont think he was that big of a problem anyway, Shield and Black Widow took away from Tony's story more than Rhodey did.

Are you sure about that? Branagh said in an interview that he told Marvel what he wanted the movie to be and it was his choice that it came in at 1:45.

Nave 'Torment'

12-22-2011, 01:14 PM

Hmm... there's a lot of emotions flying around here. But anyway, first off I'll say that it's a shame that Jenkins is no longer a part of the sequel, I really believed she had the proper understanding of characterisation that would've made the sequel a powerful film on its own. I've been a huge Branagh fan since even before Thor, but to be honest I don't think he's the right one for a sequel. He's done an amazing job with the first film but for the sequel you really need to have a sort of Ridley Scott-esque approach to the Nine Realms and the very sci-fi savvy world that Marvel's Thor occupies. Branagh is a classicist, his portrayal of the Asgardians was perfect for the first film, but with a sequel where obviously the story continues and there is a strong demand for freshness, I can only think about taking the franchise towards a more science-fictional setting. Several fans suggested del Toro and Peter Jackson, I'm sure they can do a great job, but at this point it seems rather wishful thinking.

They've barely done anything with Thor and Jane, they left it on a cliffhanger and they didn't show Thor doing anything with the Blake identity properly. How is that enough? Other than the Loki aspect nothing else was really done enough for me. Thor was a start, it needs to keep going on the path its begun because for me they are doing everything right. Using Jane and not Sif as lead, perfect. Using Blake as an ID and not a separate person or personality-spectacular. Using Earth for half the movie- ideal. In fact Thor is getting more right than Thor comics have in decades for me and I'm not entirely sure that was JMS' input.

I'm not that familiar with the history of the comics (though getting there, and coming close), but I have to agree with you with at least JMS run. I can see Sif in the lead, however, I can't really imagine the sequel without Jane at all. She was on the verge of something really spectacular at the end of the film - she was on her way to discover the hidden, invisible links uniting the Nine Realms, I'd love to see where that goes. I'm a big fan of Foster so yeah, definitely want to see her more. At the end of the day you can't really expect anyone to be dropped off completely, this was a movie built on character-dynamics.

But yeah, I'd love to see more of Sif as well.

I never knew there was so much Jane love, some people act as if she absolutely HAS to be a main character in every Thor film.

I've been a Thor fan for years and I was never all that crazy about her, Portman did a good job in the role in THOR but not every Thor film has to revolve around "the love interest".

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

The problems are multi-fold. Why would you drop the biggest name on your cast sheet? Why would you ditch the audience perspective? Why would you half the female cast and/or relegate them ALL to Thor's bed buddies? Why would you take away the variety of characters in the female cast? If all you have left is Sif and bring in Enchantress you have a female cast that is either like men or for the desire of men. Jane and Darcy are unashamedly there for women.

I think its more that now they've started it, they should carry on in that direction. But I will say I do prefer Jane to Sif/Amora mainly because Jane and Thor contrast. Thor is a noticably different character around Jane. He's more well rounded with her, he has his life as Blake, he thinks more, his life isn't fighting/drinking/fracking as it seems to be in Asgard. He's a more worthwhile man. The story between them is also a lot stronger.

I can't really blame people who don't get Jane's character. Marvel are awful with her. She's a great character who never gets a story. People usually don't bother with Stan and Larry's Journey into Mystery which is a bit of genius. It shows a selfless, brave, funny Jane Foster who conveniently was forced to faint whenever Donald had to change into Thor (it was the silver age). The Jurgens run is basically forgotten now but he made the modern Jane. She was central to the first 50 issues with that where Thor was put back in a hospital setting as a mortal and went right back to basics. He played up the old sexual tension between them while using the spectre of (mostly absent) Keith Kincaid and Jake Olson's fiance to stop them acting on anything. JMS did an OK job too, having her give Donald a well deserved slap. All those versions really culminate in The Mighty Avenger which takes bits of all of them and you saw how well that was reviewed.

People will never get on board with Sif if she starts creeping on Thor straight after Jane dies especially if Jane is set up as the love of Thor's life. Also, there is no incentive to kill her. We can talk about lining up with the comics but Jane never dies. I even think using Sif as a love interest at all would be ill advised. Nobody likes the third wheel. And no sane person ditches academy award winner Natalie Portman for Kyle XY's Jaimie Alexander. Not to mention, killing off the person who sees the plot through the audience's eyes is a no go.

Really good post here - at least I think so. Especially by relegating the female cast to Thor's bed-buddies. But on that same note, I'd love to see more of Sif as Thor's betrothed, at least to some extent. That's her character isn't it? On the other hand, I don't want Jane to vanish away either. Damn it!

At least with Foster, Sif, and possibly someone like the Enchantress, you would have a strong female cast. How would you reconcile that by not focusing them as Thor's ogling gals? Yes, a more platonic Sif would work, but then you would be treating her with the same shaded characterisation that we got in the first film. And there's no saying that Alexander can't do a better job if she's given the role.

BigThor

12-22-2011, 05:37 PM

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

I never said all female characters were "love interest", but jane definately falls under that category. You don't have to be dumb to be a damsel all you have to be is "helpless", and yes she has more going for her than the average damsel but what did she really do in Thor that was of major importance (besides helping to humble him)?

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

Alot of people say that bu it's not all that special to me, it's really no different than godlike Superman taking Lois Lane as his companion.

Nave 'Torment'

12-24-2011, 11:04 AM

I never said all female characters were "love interest", but jane definately falls under that category. You don't have to be dumb to be a damsel all you have to be is "helpless", and yes she has more going for her than the average damsel but what did she really do in Thor that was of major importance (besides helping to humble him)?

I understand that, I was simply reiterating the point in general not specifically to your comment. But Jane isn't exactly the typical damsel either - she wasn't all that helpless save for having her equipment stolen from her and then retrieved by Thor's Godly Awesomeness. That bit about Thor returning her book was less of a saviour's act and certainly didn't revolve around their relationship. If anyone, it's Jane Foster who "saves" Thor. The fact that she plays such an integral part on giving him this sense of normalcy and humanity is, I should say, rather important stuff. You can't get that with a warrioress like Sif. And besides Jane's love-affair with the Asgardian we still have a character who is on the verge of discovering the links between the Nine Realms. You don't just brush that character off like that, and I'm certain they won't.

Alot of people say that bu it's not all that special to me, it's really no different than godlike Superman taking Lois Lane as his companion.

Not... exactly. Lois and Clark have a different dynamic altogether. And the mythological echoes are actually important for the entire movie if you think about it, that's something mild-mannered Clark Kent / world-saving Superman doesn't share with Lois: he's already deeply connected with Earth thanks to his upbringing and Smallville. With Jane, she literally becomes the strongest connection Thor has with Earth. Even with the comic-book approach of Thor's mother being Gaia, you still need Jane Foster to let Thor connect with the world of mortals, at least initially. Which is why I can understand if we don't see her in his second coming in The Avengers, or at any rate, why I will accept it as a fan.

But back to Patty Jenkins: would it be sexist of me if I say that she should do Wonder Woman now that Thor 2 is off the charts? I mean, I'm sure she had a grand tale about Gods and Mortals planned up that Marvel Studios wasn't open to (or some variation of that tale). So why not WB instead?

Nave 'Torment'

12-24-2011, 11:12 AM

@ AVEITWITHJAMON

Those are excellent points regarding IM2! The scenes with SHIELD were fun I guess but they were really pushing it. And Nick Fury's hamming up in the donut store kinda seemed...well, suitable for the tone of the film, but definitely not for the character. But oh well. At least we got a fun 'Marvel Universe' feel on-film like we do in the other medias.

They were using Fury and SHIELD like a deus ex machina, and that's not something to be proud of. I understand the inclusion of Black Widow, but she needed more scenes with the commie baddie to do her character justice. Hopefully, Marvel's other sequels won't be as cumbersome - Thor and Cap Am transitioned brilliantly, as will the Avengers, so on a broader sense of it all I'm actually glad that these films are interconnected. That's been unheard of in the genre (and we all know that Clooney's movie, let alone his one-liners, don't count).

04nbod

12-24-2011, 04:13 PM

I always thought Sif and BRB were pretty lame couple, I will always prefer Thor being with Sif over Jane.

*shrugs*

And you are free to believe that. I know I assert my opinions very factually but that comes from getting told you don't have to say 'I think' because the fact you are saying it means you think it. :oldrazz:

I think we've discussed how I believe Sif was never written well beyond the Simonson run and a big part of that was getting out from Thor.

But how much development can one get from two people that are together for about two days?

Unless they're in a movie where they spend all of it together like Road Trip or in a movie where them having to bump uglies for the sake of the story like Terminator 1, there isn't much more development that you can get from them in this first movie.

I don't think there was that much more to be done. Maybe 2 or 3 more alone scenes. I know some were cut but didn't appear in the deleted scenes package on the Blu Ray because we see them filmed in the special features.

I think this second movie should develop it deeper. Set up Odin's opposition. Maybe set up Sif as Odin's preferred partner for Thor while keeping it platonic or setting up that they used to be together in their youth. But it should remain Odin who is the problem and not Sif.

Well, all female characters don't have to occupy the role of the love interest. Jane's got more going for her than just the dumb damsel (was she really in distress at all?) I'm more interested in the character, and yes, to see where Thor's relationship goes.

Jane was not in distress at all in Thor. She is the one who demanded to stay when the destroyer came to attack the town which is the moment for me Movie Jane and Comic Jane clicked. She doesn't like to be left behind and is frustrated by her powerlessness. In the end I would say Thor was in distress as he was trapped and she was going to find him. Which is also like Stan's Thor who as Donald was constantly a damsel.

There's something thematically very resonant about the fact that a Norse God has an Earthly-Female as his companion. As a scientist, Jane is already a little above your average mortal babe - she's somewhat an embodiment of earth herself. And on that note, I keep remembering that Thor's wife in the Norse myths was, in fact, an Earth-Goddess (yes it was Sif but it's a different Sif).

Exactly. Jane as love interest fits the spirit of the myth that Sif has vacated in Marvel's version. Thor was also god of the common man and would take the hard working souls of the poor into his halls so it does make sense he would be with an average woman. A goddess doesn't fit Thor.

The original premise of the arrogant god getting humbled as a disabled mortal man only goes so far. It could be very easy for Thor to think that because he has the spirit of a God he can triumph. The fact he falls for a mortal woman who his father says is not good enough is perfect because then he can campaign for her and show Odin that she is worthy despite the fact she wasn't a goddess born. That is what I mean when I say that their story is stronger. She accents Thor's character journey like every good supporting character.

Really good post here - at least I think so. Especially by relegating the female cast to Thor's bed-buddies. But on that same note, I'd love to see more of Sif as Thor's betrothed, at least to some extent. That's her character isn't it? On the other hand, I don't want Jane to vanish away either. Damn it!

It does often seem like Sif is defined by Thor which isn't a good thing. I think the movie could do wonders for her. Its already given her a more likable personality, same with Odin.

At least with Foster, Sif, and possibly someone like the Enchantress, you would have a strong female cast. How would you reconcile that by not focusing them as Thor's ogling gals? Yes, a more platonic Sif would work, but then you would be treating her with the same shaded characterisation that we got in the first film. And there's no saying that Alexander can't do a better job if she's given the role.

I would pit Jane against Enchantress, bigging up Science vs Magic and making Enchantress the romantic threat with Odin on the sidelines trying to manouvre Jane out of the way and perhaps exploiting Sif's loyalty to do it. But I would prefer if Sif were kept at a distance, perhaps saying that she and Thor dated in the past.

Son of Coul

12-25-2011, 12:12 AM

Jane has to be in Thor 2 but I'd kinda like to see her die.

Nave 'Torment'

12-25-2011, 01:17 AM

And you are free to believe that. I know I assert my opinions very factually but that comes from getting told you don't have to say 'I think' because the fact you are saying it means you think it. :oldrazz:

Hmm... I tend to do that a lot... :dry:

Exactly. Jane as love interest fits the spirit of the myth that Sif has vacated in Marvel's version. Thor was also god of the common man and would take the hard working souls of the poor into his halls so it does make sense he would be with an average woman. A goddess doesn't fit Thor.

I cannot reiterate how much I agree with this! I think that the decision to make Jane an astrophysicist, or more generally a scientist, rather than a nurse actually works on a deeper level. As a scientist she is immediately more connected with the phenomena of nature around her, it enhances that spirit of the 'earth-goddess' and infuses it with the idea of mortals looking at deities through these phenomena. As a scientist her relationship with Thor immediately makes it strikingly reflective of an Earth-Asgardian relationship, especially if you consider that Earth is more or less a world of science now instead of mysticism. It's almost poetic.

The original premise of the arrogant god getting humbled as a disabled mortal man only goes so far. It could be very easy for Thor to think that because he has the spirit of a God he can triumph. The fact he falls for a mortal woman who his father says is not good enough is perfect because then he can campaign for her and show Odin that she is worthy despite the fact she wasn't a goddess born. That is what I mean when I say that their story is stronger. She accents Thor's character journey like every good supporting character.

The theme of Thor's humility is, as you've said, only powerful to an extent. It essentially becomes cumbersome if someone like Jane isn't involved. And that part of Jane not being accepted into Asgard was, if I'm not mistaken, a big part of the early comics right? It was understandably absent from the first film but I do think that from the way the movie ended, that story should have some important element in the sequel.

It does often seem like Sif is defined by Thor which isn't a good thing. I think the movie could do wonders for her. Its already given her a more likable personality, same with Odin.

I would pit Jane against Enchantress, bigging up Science vs Magic and making Enchantress the romantic threat with Odin on the sidelines trying to manouvre Jane out of the way and perhaps exploiting Sif's loyalty to do it. But I would prefer if Sif were kept at a distance, perhaps saying that she and Thor dated in the past.

I would fall in love with the franchise anew if this happened! Science vs. Magic? Okay, you've won. :D I want this to happen now. And it also gives Sif's platonic characterisation from the first movie a good amount of respect as well. They would have to address Enchantress' magic being another form of advanced scientific equipment though, and the possible logical disputes that arise from that. Imagine an objective Jane around Asgard telling them how their statuses as gods are not only outdated on Earth, but that their self-aggrandisation is muted because technology is no longer considered magical. I think that, to some extent, the Asgardians do believe in their own myths, a scientist walking in there and explaining them away, a mere mortal at that, makes for good entertainment.

The idea of a mortal on Asgard alone has almost limitless thematic potential.

Jane has to be in Thor 2 but I'd kinda like to see her die.

Only if it involves a trip to Hel. With the Nine-Realms explored some more.