Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[HighFivingMF]

EXCLUSIVE: Director Patty Jenkins is leaving Thor 2. Best known for directing Charlize Theron to an Oscar in Monster and the pilot of AMC’s The Killing, Jenkins had been set to helm the film in late September. I’m told that Marvel Studios is already talking to agencies as it canvasses for a new director, something that is expected to happen quickly. Her exit had to do with creative differences, but the feeling is that she’ll probably end up working on one of these superhero films, but perhaps not on a sequel. Marvel will have to move fast because it has to meet a July 26, 2013 release date for the sequel, which brings back Chris Hemsworth as the hammer-wielding superhero, and Thor co-writer Don Payne is writing the script. The Kenneth Branagh-directed original grossed $448 million worldwide and launched the star of Hemsworth, who reprised Thor in The Avengers and then played the latter title role opposite Kristen Stewart and Charlize Theron in Snow White and the Huntsman for Universal.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/director-patty-jenkins-exiting-thor-2-sequel/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Gamma Burst]

That was unexpected! I wonder who'll be the next choice.

[Raiden]

Well, since I didn't think she was the right choice for Thor 2, I'm not that disappointed to see her leaving this film. However, I do believe that with the director's chair once again vacant, that they should consider postponing the release date instead of rushing it to meet the May of 2013 deadline. The director is a very important position in a movie and they must take their time finding the right person before they start shooting.

[Gamma Burst]

Well, since I didn't think she was the right choice for Thor 2, I'm not that disappointed to see her leaving this film. However, I do believe that with the director's chair once again vacant, that they should consider postponing the release date instead of rushing it to meet the May of 2013 deadline. The director is a very important position in a movie and they must take their time finding the right person before they start shooting.

But it's already been postponed for November 15th, 2013.

[Compi716]

I'd really love to know what these "creative differences" always are.

[Figs]

I'd really love to know what these "creative differences" always are.

Same here. I wonder if Kevin Feige was being too demanding again.

[Yellow Cyclone]

Same here. I wonder if Kevin Feige was being too demanding again.

Is the pope catholic?

[Mako]

Wow that came outta nowhere.

[Figs]

Is the pope catholic?

:funny:

[Crockett]

I feel like it wouldn't matter what directors Marvel gets in general for their movies since they have a specific vision for them so any creative input from the directors wouldn't be so huge.

[gkokujin]

I feel like it wouldn't matter what directors Marvel gets in general for their movies since they have a specific vision for them so any creative input from the directors wouldn't be so huge.

This is what it boils down to.
This was HIGHLY unexpected.



Hey folks How many other Marvel movies have directors that have dropped out? (besides X3)

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Haven't seen any of her work... so its not much of a loss to me.

Lets hope they can find a great replacement and fast.

[kedrell]

You'd figure all these 'creative differences' stuff would get ironed out before the director was hired. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? See if they're all sympatico on what film they want to make.

[Goku Goes Crazy]

Talented director stepping down from a project due to "creative differences" is NEVER a good sign.

[HighFivingMF]

You'd figure all these 'creative differences' stuff would get ironed out before the director was hired. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? See if they're all sympatico on what film they want to make.

It's impossible to figure out every single detail about the movie the person wants to make before hiring any cast or crew. Especially with a movie that's an adaptation and a sequel.

[Gamma Burst]

I don't how this can be seen as a good or bad sign, since we know nothing at all about the 'creative differences''.

[mclay18]

That sucks. She seemed like an unorthodox, but promising director to take on the material and such. (And I think her involvement would get some great actors and encourage the ones under contract like Hemsworth, Portman and Hiddleston to do even better.)

Marvel Studios really needs to allow some creative freedom beyond the buildup for Avengers 2. Let's hope the next director actually makes it to filming and post-production.

[J.Howlett]

Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

[Mako]

Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

Marvel seems to want things their way or nothing. Not to say that's a completely bad thing but then why hire creative talent only to force them into a certain mold of things?

[HighFivingMF]

As long as they keep Shane Black on Iron Man I'm good.

[samsnee]

I'm guessing they wanting something more commercial, whereas Jenkins maybe wanted more character moments. Pretty much the same thing that happened with Incredible Hulk.

[kedrell]

Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

Many possibilities come to mind. But the one I tend to favor is that directors usually like to be the one's with the vision and when you see the movie it is that director's vision you are seeing. However in this case Marvel has their own creative vision and they want directors who are talented and like-minded with regards to bringing their vision to life.

I think usually stuff like this is ironed out before the director is even hired but apparently sometimes things can crop up even after hiring. When that happens it looks like poor communication was going on behind the scenes(possibly a fault of both parties but Marvel as the owner & one driving this project is the more responsible party). That said, Vaughn was originally on Thor1 and then left and was replaced by Branagh. It's not an X-Men 3 scenario here.

[Ash Talon]

I have no feeling regarding her as a director, so I don't care if she leaves the project.

I just hope they find someone that loves the material. None of the directors they've hired for their previous movies have much style. Shane Black actually seems the most unique so far. The Marvel directors have all had workman-type experience and not necessarily unique visions (before or after their Marvel work). Therefore, I'm sure they'll find someone who can do what they want done.

They should hire me to direct it. I have experience in the field. And I'll work for next to nothing, since I love the material.

[kedrell]

I'm guessing they wanting something more commercial, whereas Jenkins maybe wanted more character moments. Pretty much the same thing that happened with Incredible Hulk.

I see no evidence of that. TIH was unique because of Ang Lee's disaster preceeding it. Thor was a bonafide hit which would make Marvel more willing to take risks rather than less.

It just seems like somebody(more likely on Marvel's side) dropped the ball in the 'finding a director on the same page as them' phase of the project. Apparently they should have vetted Jenkins more than they did.

[Gamma Burst]

I see no evidence of that. TIH was unique because of Ang Lee's disaster preceeding it. Thor was a bonafide hit which would make Marvel more willing to take risks rather than less.

It just seems like somebody(more likely on Marvel's side) dropped the ball in the 'finding a director on the same page as them' phase of the project. Apparently they should have vetted Jenkins more than they did.

My feelings exactly.

[samsnee]

It does make you wonder about all the positive things that came from Branagh and Hiddleston about her. I'm sure they were being honest, but they'll probably be less likely to be so enthusiastic next time until shooting actually starts.

[jrd550]

Marvel putting the creative handcuffs on...

[kedrell]

^Oh god!:whatever: Here we go again. Because the guys at Marvel Studios don't have a creative bone in their bodies and are just bean counters or studio suits, right?

[JackMercy]

I needed to make this epic for my anniversary post.

I'd really love to know what these "creative differences" always are.

"This time I want him to drink tea instead of coffee in the diner."
"No."

Sometimes it really does come down to really stupid stuff like that...

Same here. I wonder if Kevin Feige was being too demanding again.

Ya think?

I feel like it wouldn't matter what directors Marvel gets in general for their movies since they have a specific vision for them so any creative input from the directors wouldn't be so huge.

Bingo. Marvel very quickly developed a 'rep' in this town.

You'd figure all these 'creative differences' stuff would get ironed out before the director was hired. Isn't that what they're supposed to do? See if they're all sympatico on what film they want to make.

Yes, that is what they're supposed to do...but oh so very often it does not go that way...


Marvel Studios really needs to allow some creative freedom beyond the buildup for Avengers 2. Let's hope the next director actually makes it to filming and post-production.

Why should they? They're making Benjamins hand over fist. What incentive is there for them to truly offer creative freedom? They've tried it twice with Hulk. Didn't work.

We aren't in the age of 'encouraging challenging performances' now, are we? We're in the Marvel Age.


Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

Hmm... See last two sentences above.

Marvel seems to want things their way or nothing. Not to say that's a completely bad thing but then why hire creative talent only to force them into a certain mold of things?

Hmm...ibid.

As long as they keep Shane Black on Iron Man I'm good.

Heh.

I see no evidence of that. TIH was unique because of Ang Lee's disaster preceeding it. Thor was a bonafide hit which would make Marvel [I]more willing to take risks rather than less.


Bana, Norton, exit stage left. Ruffalo, you're next. Did anyone really care?
Thor a hit? Captain America's now a bigger one. [see home video figures]

It does make you wonder about all the positive things that came from Branagh and Hiddleston about her. I'm sure they were being honest, but they'll probably be less likely to be so enthusiastic next time until shooting actually starts.

Perhaps, but the contracts are signed, baby...and that's all Marvel cares about.

:word:

[SuperSoldier985]

My reaction when I heard the news:

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff516/snowblue9/JimRoss-1.gif

[Gamma Burst]

Bana, Norton, exit stage left. Ruffalo, you're next. Did anyone really care?
Thor a hit? Captain America's now a bigger one. [see home video figures]


:word:

Yep, Thor was hit, and, sorry, Cap wasn't/isn't, even with his bigger video figures.

[Gamma Burst]

Btw, nice to see the ''marvel bashing' taking off.

[kedrell]

Oh Cap was definitely a hit. TIH is the only MS film that was a 'well, we broke even' movie. And that film had unique baggage.

[jrd550]

Hey Kedrell - first off I love you avatar - I can stare at it for hours.

I am just commenting on Branagh leaving for what I presume to be creative differences and now Jenkins for the same reason. Since Marvel are the studio, and producers then they have final cut, not the director and some director's don't like those type of restrictions, i.e. handcuffs.

[JackMercy]

Yep, Thor was hit, and, sorry, Cap wasn't/isn't, even with his bigger video figures.

Wasn't denying Thor's success (and I personally like it more than Cap) -- just saying that in Marvel's estimation, Captain America, however "mild" a hit it was, was allll bonus for them (no one quite knew how the movie would perform), and the fact that it's outselling Thor is gravy to Marvel's meat which is branded with "Only hire directors and stars who won't battle us in the creative process or editing room."

By the way, I'm a Marvel Comics follower from childhood, straight-up. But I have no illusions about how, as a studio entity, they are now conducting their business, having experience in said business myself.

[kedrell]

They're only handcuffs IMO if they're told they'll have creative freedom up front but then the studio starts meddling later(a FOX specialty). I seriously doubt that's going on at MS. They already have their vision and it's laid out. Any director coming on to such a project knows going in that he/she is hired to bring the studio's vision to life, rather than their own.

[JackMercy]

They're only handcuffs IMO if they're told they'll have creative freedom up front but then the studio starts meddling later(a FOX specialty). I seriously doubt that's going on at MS. They already have their vision and it's laid out. Any director coming on to such a project knows going in that he/she is hired to bring the studio's vision to life, rather than their own.

Exactly. It's all about how much wiggle-room you can negotiate...

[DarknessOfDeath]

Why didn't we all see this coming? Too bad since I thought Jenkins was a good choice. Damn.

[Gamma Burst]

Wasn't denying Thor's success (and I personally like it more than Cap) -- just saying that in Marvel's estimation, Captain America, however "mild" a hit it was, was allll bonus for them (no one quite knew how the movie would perform), and the fact that it's outselling Thor is gravy to Marvel's meat which is branded with "Only hire directors who won't battle us in the creative process or editing room."

Well, I don't think there's much logic in your post.
First, you're implying Brangh is a director who wouldn't battle marvel studios, unlike Johnston.
Second, you're a director like Johnston is the reason Cap is doing better on dvd( let's not forget the fact he's supposed to be a much bigger name in US) .
But why didn't it do better on the movies( where it really matters)?

[ElMariachi]

Am I missing something? When did Patty Jenkins become Darren Aronofsky? This is no great loss. She directed one good movie nearly a decade ago and a bunch of t.v. shows. Yet, people are saddened by this news for some odd reason.

In all honesty, I would prefer somebody like Tarsem Singh. This movie needs to be epic, not some character driven drama. Get a director with a bold visual style and a sense of adventure.

[kedrell]

Uh, both theatrical and DVD matter. Money is money. In fact we really should just lump them in all together to get a complete picture of the success of ANY film.

[TheVileOne]

Not really surprising. Relatively inexperienced director with not a lot of experience on bigger budget projects. Branagh has done a lot of heavy drama and Shakespeare, but he still previously did some pretty big budget high concept films.

I think they should've just brought Branagh back anyway I think. It's a lot to ask to have a female director come in and carry on work someone else started. It's not really "her" vision.

[kedrell]

Am I missing something? When did Patty Jenkins become Darren Aronofsky? This is no great loss. She directed one good movie nearly a decade ago and a bunch of t.v. shows. Yet, people are saddened by this news for some odd reason.

In all honesty, I would prefer somebody like Tarsem Singh. This movie needs to be epic, not some character driven drama. Get a director with a bold visual style and a sense of adventure.

I'd prefer both.

[ElMariachi]

Marvel has to meddle. They had the vision for this all and it's worked out pretty well I think we can all agree. Nothing would be worse than some hotshot director throwing a wrench in the forumula and it blowing up in their face. How would people react if they let Quentin Tarantino direct a Harry Potter movie? Sure, it would be creative but it wouldn't fit with the rest of the movies.

[TheVileOne]

Maybe they get a Harry Potter director on this. Like Alfonso Cuaron, David Yates, or Mike Newell ;) .

[JackMercy]

Well, I don't think there's much logic in your post.
First, you're implying Branagh is a director who wouldn't battle marvel studios, unlike Johnston.
Second, you're a director like Johnston is the reason Cap is doing better on dvd( let's not forget the fact he's supposed to be a much bigger name in US) .
But why didn't it do better on the movies( where it really matters)?

Branagh (again, whom I like) was relatively low on the filmmaking totem-pole when being offered this job, in industry terms. Not the "name" he was even a decade ago. He needed the exposure.

Johnston's career was arguably at about the same level -- except he's got friends in high places of the California "New Hollywood" hierarchy. If you don't understand what I'm speaking of, look up his history.

I think there's a few reasons why Cap's selling more DVDs and BDs...I don't think Johnston is one of them.

[ElMariachi]

I'd prefer both.

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

[jrd550]

They're only handcuffs IMO if they're told they'll have creative freedom up front but then the studio starts meddling later(a FOX specialty). I seriously doubt that's going on at MS. They already have their vision and it's laid out. Any director coming on to such a project knows going in that he/she is hired to bring the studio's vision to life, rather than their own.

Very true, the vision is very much laid out beforehand - especially with the characters in the avengers

[Juicy J]

Not a terrible loss, but it's never good to see a director drop out. Just further complicates the whole production. Hope they find a good replacement soon.
That being said, I'm glad Marvel is so tight-fisted about their movies. I want to see these films done marvels way, period, end of statement.

[JackMercy]

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

Agreed. Which is why it was (relatively) successful. Marvel's definitely still worried about getting too mythological on your a$$$$. As much as they like fan support, they like the Benjamins more...preferably from the general audience...in repeat visits...and owning a copy for the whole family.

Was that over the top? I can never tell... :word:

[TheVileOne]

I think Johnston is a good director but not outstanding. A lot of his movies I've found very good but others very boring and forgettable. He's basically like Spielberg-lite. I mean that's not the worst thing in the world either.

I'm sure they will get someone decent for Thor 2. Though I don't see why it can't be Branagh again since he doesn't seem to be very busy and he did a good enough job with Thor which was pretty much a breakout hit last year.

[kedrell]

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.


It was pretty good, over-all. I just think the story needed some more time added so it could breathe and not feel like Thor's change was rushed. And I'm not talking another hour added to the runtime or anything like that. 15-20 minutes more could have done it. Hell, maybe only ten.

[JackMercy]

Not a terrible loss, but it's never good to see a director drop out. Just further complicates the whole production. Hope they find a good replacement soon.
That being said, I'm glad Marvel is so tight-fisted about their movies. I want to see these films done marvels way, period, end of statement.

Like I said earlier...that philosophy has, however strangely, worked out well for them thus far.

Cashville.

:word:

[TheVileOne]

I think the movie did need about another 10 minutes and a little more action maybe.

Like Thor's stuff on earth was fun and I kind of wanted more of that. And more on Asgard.

I mean the movie didn't make too many bold choices and that's understandable. Now that Thor's established hopefully they will make the sequel more bold.

I'm also fine with Marvel's philosophy because I mean they seem to know what they are doing most of the time. Have their been mistakes? Yes, but overall I think they know what these characters are and what they should be. Warner Bros. and DCE have freaking everything and all they can produce decently is Batman flicks.

You can bemoan the acting deals, but at the same time they shouldn't go around breaking the bank on all these ridiculous actor and director deals. A lot of these deals were set up before the Disney merger and Marvel couldn't just go around spending money they didn't have yet. I'm glad they were careful about how they structured everything. I think we need to see more shrewd deal-making like that again. Because we want to see this built up cinematic universe.

[kedrell]

I think Johnston is a good director but not outstanding. A lot of his movies I've found very good but others very boring and forgettable. He's basically like Spielberg-lite. I mean that's not the worst thing in the world either.

I'm sure they will get someone decent for Thor 2. Though I don't see why it can't be Branagh again since he doesn't seem to be very busy and he did a good enough job with Thor which was pretty much a breakout hit last year.

My personal guess is that Branagh himself needs space at this point in his life. He just didn't seem like he was ready to make another major commitment so soon. Let him go do some other smaller stuff if that's where his heart is, I say. Maybe by Thor 3 he'd be refreshed enough to return?

[JackMercy]

I think the movie did need about another 10 minutes and a little more action maybe.

Like Thor's stuff on earth was fun and I kind of wanted more of that. And more on Asgard.

I mean the movie didn't make too many bold choices and that's understandable. Now that Thor's established hopefully they will make the sequel more bold.

I think the person who was planning to do that just got escorted out.

[Juicy J]

Agreed. Which is why it was (relatively) successful. Marvel's definitely still worried about getting too mythological on your a$$$$. As much as they like fan support, they like the Benjamins more...preferably from the general audience...in repeat visits...and owning a copy for the whole family.

Was that over the top? I can never tell... :word:
Relatively successful?
Almost half a billion dollars raked in at the box office, plus a successful run in DVD sales, plus a 77% on rotten tomatoes...
What is that relative to exactly?Like I said earlier...that philosophy has, however strangely, worked out well for them thus far.
Agreed.
Cashville.

:word:
Haha, you know it :D

[TheVileOne]

I think the person who was planning to do that just got escorted out.
Meh whatever. It's probably for the best she doesn't do a movie like this if she isn't ready or her heart's not in it.

[JackMercy]

My personal guess is that Branagh himself needs space at this point in his life. He just didn't seem like he was ready to make another major commitment so soon. Let him go do some other smaller stuff if that's where his heart is, I say. Maybe by Thor 3 he'd be refreshed enough to return?

Branagh is just being his typical reserved and respectable British self, not rocking the boat too much -- as Marvel are the ones who gave him this big break, him giving any other reason for bowing out now would seem ungrateful, and at worst, biting the hand that fed him pretty well recently.

He's a very smart guy, and I'm sure was able to foresee bigger problems on the horizon...

[JackMercy]

Relatively successful?
Almost half a billion dollars raked in at the box office, plus a successful run in DVD sales, plus a 77% on rotten tomatoes...
What is that relative to exactly?


Relative to how much they spent on production and marketing (which is always much higher than you're hearing), and relative to other successful superhero and blockbuster tentpoles.

[Juicy J]

Relative to how much they spent on production and marketing (which is always much higher than you're hearing), and relative to other successful superhero and blockbuster tentpoles.

Fair enough. It didn't make a staggeringly high, jaw-dropping amount of money so you've got a point.
But to be honest, it performed both financially and critically a LOT better than I expected...I didn't think it'd be to well received just because of how out there it is compared to other movies, but I know a lot of people who saw it and most of them really enjoyed it.

[Axl Van Sixx]

In all honesty, I would prefer somebody like Tarsem Singh. This movie needs to be epic, not some character driven drama. Get a director with a bold visual style and a sense of adventure.

Damn, that's a great suggestion. Given that Immortals got decent reviews, and even the people who didn't like the movie acknowledged it was visually stunning, with every frame like an oil painting, I would love to see what Tarsem could do with Thor. Since Thor will likely be exploring other realms and worlds in the sequel, it would be great to get somebody with that kind of cinematic vision who's worked on projects involving mythological characters before. Unless they can get Branagh back, I'm sold.

I think they should've just brought Branagh back anyway I think. It's a lot to ask to have a female director come in and carry on work someone else started. It's not really "her" vision.

Not trying to play Political Correctness Cop here, but why add the qualifier "female director"? As opposed to just, "it's a lot to ask to have a director come in and carry on work someone else started." Do you believe female directors are less capable of directing action films in general?

I think there's a few reasons why Cap's selling more DVDs and BDs...I don't think Johnston is one of them.

Oh, I very much disagree. Sure, Johnston's got friends in high places, but Cap was a much better film than it otherwise would have been precisely because he was directing. Marvel really made the perfect choice. Given his previous experience with period pieces, not to mention his pedigree working on classic sci-fi/action adventures and neo-serials like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, you couldn't have picked a better guy to bring to life a Captain America origin story set in World War II. This really sank in for me the last time I watched The First Avenger; I don't think the movie would have been half as good if someone else was sitting in the director's chair.

But I think there are other factors explaining Cap's superior DVD and Blu-Ray sales, chief among them the fact that the movie's box office take in the summer was hampered by coming right off the heels of the Harry Potter juggernaut, a billion dollar hit and the year's most successful blockbuster. At the same time, the general audience was probably experiencing superhero burnout by this point, with Thor, X-Men: First Class and Green Lantern having already come and gone. A lot of people probably just decided they could wait for the DVD, and Marvel is now seeing the fruits of that decision.

[JackMercy]

Warner Bros. and DCE have freaking everything and all they can produce decently is Batman flicks.


Warner Bros. is also a studio (historically kind to creative talent, I would add) which produces 70% non-superhero pictures.

Marvel Studios' sole purpose is producing their own material.

[jrd550]

I highly doubt Branagh will be back and my guess is that Marvel will eventually announce another 'bold' choice who can work within the budget and all will be well.

[JackMercy]

Fair enough. It didn't make a staggeringly high, jaw-dropping amount of money so you've got a point.
But to be honest, it performed both financially and critically a LOT better than I expected...I didn't think it'd be to well received just because of how out there it is compared to other movies, but I know a lot of people who saw it and most of them really enjoyed it.

Understood (I enjoyed it very much, too), but interestingly, "people" were even more concerned about Cap than Thor.

[JackMercy]

Not trying to play Political Correctness Cop here, but why add the qualifier "female director"? As opposed to just, "it's a lot to ask to have a director come in and carry on work someone else started." Do you believe female directors are less capable of directing action films in general?

Agreed in your response. Marvel's in a 'darned if we do, darned if we don't' position right now. If they hire another female director, it could almost look like an insult, in that they are specifically looking to paste over choice #1 with a facsimile. If they hire a male, of course people will accuse them of wanting this all along, and performing this charade of a 'bold decision' for the press and PR, after blaming the split on "creative differences."

...But people will also forget about all of it if the movie is successful.

:word:

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think the person who was planning to do that just got escorted out.

Man, I hope you're wrong. Historically for superhero franchises, the second film is usually the best of the series, because with the main character established and the origin story out of the way they're free to tackle new and exciting challenges. But Marvel still has yet to prove that they can do that. The only sequel they've gotten to, unless one counts The Incredible Hulk (which was more of a reboot than a sequel), is Iron Man 2 - a movie which proved itself the exception to the "first sequel is the best film" rule and was a letdown overall IMO.

Not only that, but The Dark Knight really raised the bar as well. As much as I get annoyed by fanboys who worship Nolan like a god, he really outdid himself with that movie, transcending the genre and asking hard questions that made the viewer think. I'm not saying Thor 2 has to reach those heights, but it would be nice to see a focus on character and drama that feels natural rather than forced, like they're just making a redundant sequel because the first one made money. Iron Man 2 had that feeling of "well, the first one was successful, and we had to make a sequel, sooo...here it is!" The Dark Knight, on the other hand, was an outstanding film on every level that stood on its own two feet.

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

[TheVileOne]

Axl Van Sixx, in Hollywood there are very few female directors as well as ones that are successful that do big moves like this. Even Kathryn Bigelow struggled for a long time before she struck it big with Hurt Locker and now she has more clout. It's a very male dominated industry and there also very few minority directors as well (ie black, Asian, etc.). It goes against the norm.

[JackMercy]

Man, I hope you're wrong. Historically for superhero franchises, the second film is usually the best of the series, because with the main character established and the origin story out of the way they're free to tackle new and exciting challenges. But Marvel still has yet to prove that they can do that. The only sequel they've gotten to, unless one counts The Incredible Hulk (which was more of a reboot than a sequel), is Iron Man 2 - a movie which proved itself the exception to the "first sequel is the best film" rule and was a letdown overall IMO.

Not only that, but The Dark Knight really raised the bar as well. As much as I get annoyed by fanboys who worship Nolan like a god, he really outdid himself with that movie, transcending the genre and asking hard questions that made the viewer think. I'm not saying Thor 2 has to reach those heights, but it would be nice to see a focus on character and drama that feels natural rather than forced, like they're just making a redundant sequel because the first one made money. Iron Man 2 had that feeling of "well, the first one was successful, and we had to make a sequel, sooo...here it is!" The Dark Knight, on the other hand, was an outstanding film on every level that stood on its own two feet.

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

I agree on almost everything you say here; I'm highlighting the bold terms for emphasis.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Agreed in your response. Marvel's in a 'darned if we do, darned if we don't' position right now. If they hire another female director, it could almost look like an insult, in that they are specifically looking to paste over choice #1 with a facsimile. If they hire a male, of course people will accuse them of wanting this all along, and performing this charade of a 'bold decision' for the press and PR, after blaming the split on "creative differences."

Nah, I don't think Marvel risks any of that; they're going to choose the best director they can get for their vision, male or female. There might be more discussion if the director is a female, but then it might look like they're intentionally trying to get a female director (and it'll only look that way, unfortunately, because there are so few successful female directors in Hollywood).

As bad as the world has gotten in many respects, I have to say one of the good things about the present is that people are generally free of racist and sexist attitudes when it comes to choosing individuals for prominent and powerful positions. For example, I'll admit I was as surprised as anybody when Herman Cain took off in the Republican presidential race, because I was convinced the Republican base would never choose an option that would result in two black men running against each other in the presidential election. But I was wrong, and that says something good about people's attitudes in this area having come a long way.

In the end, while I can see how some people might criticize Marvel for limiting their directors' creative freedom, I'd be lying if I said the geek in me wasn't tremendously excited that they're trying to create a cohesive Cinematic Universe and characterizations of their heroes that stay true to what we grew up loving in the comic books.

[TheVileOne]

Very few directors get 100% creative freedom on all their projects. Even with indie films, you still have financial investors to answer to.

This is still a business at the end of the day. Just saying.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Axl Van Sixx, in Hollywood there are very few female directors as well as ones that are successful that do big moves like this. Even Kathryn Bigelow struggled for a long time before she struck it big with Hurt Locker and now she has more clout. It's a very male dominated industry and there also very few minority directors as well (ie black, Asian, etc.). It goes against the norm.

I know, and that's all very true, sad to say. I just wanted to clarify where you were coming from.

However, let me just say at this point that I loved Punisher: War Zone, which was directed by a woman, Lexi Alexander - and that was one of the most cartoonishly over-the-top action movies I've ever seen, a veritable encyclopedia of movie violence. I know a lot of people think it was crap, but I think it's a great, mindless action flick to watch with a couple buddies and a six pack of beer.

[JackMercy]

Nah, I don't think Marvel risks any of that; they're going to choose the best director they can get for their vision & $$$$, male or female.

I fixed that for you.

:word:

[El Payaso]

I'd really love to know what these "creative differences" always are.

- I have had a lot of ideas for the movie.
- Leave them at the door, this is going to be a Marvel movie. All the ideas have been already listed in this piece of paper. Read them, memorize them, execute them.



My personal guess is that Branagh himself needs space at this point in his life. He just didn't seem like he was ready to make another major commitment so soon. Let him go do some other smaller stuff if that's where his heart is, I say. Maybe by Thor 3 he'd be refreshed enough to return?

I think Branagh has always had his space. Which is why I believe he's not too excited about doing a movie that is more a product than a personal film. I'm sure he enjoyed the experience but not enough to spend another couple of years involved in a sequel.

[JackMercy]

Very few directors get 100% creative freedom on all their projects. Even with indie films, you still have financial investors to answer to.

This is still a business at the end of the day. Just saying.

Exactamundo.

People who want to understand how the studio process has worked for 30+ years should research "Final Cut": The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate.

[Gamma Burst]

Man, I hope you're wrong. Historically for superhero franchises, the second film is usually the best of the series, because with the main character established and the origin story out of the way they're free to tackle new and exciting challenges. But Marvel still has yet to prove that they can do that. The only sequel they've gotten to, unless one counts The Incredible Hulk (which was more of a reboot than a sequel), is Iron Man 2 - a movie which proved itself the exception to the "first sequel is the best film" rule and was a letdown overall IMO.

Not only that, but The Dark Knight really raised the bar as well. As much as I get annoyed by fanboys who worship Nolan like a god, he really outdid himself with that movie, transcending the genre and asking hard questions that made the viewer think. I'm not saying Thor 2 has to reach those heights, but it would be nice to see a focus on character and drama that feels natural rather than forced, like they're just making a redundant sequel because the first one made money. Iron Man 2 had that feeling of "well, the first one was successful, and we had to make a sequel, sooo...here it is!" The Dark Knight, on the other hand, was an outstanding film on every level that stood on its own two feet.

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

In the end, that's what really matters to me.

[Saitou Hajime]

Warner Bros. is also a studio (historically kind to creative talent, I would add) which produces 70% non-superhero pictures.

Marvel Studios' sole purpose is producing their own material.

I never got this argument. Fox and Sony also don't have CBMs as their sole asset, but unlike WB are more aggressive in utilizing them.

[Liam_H]

Well until recently WB had a biannual cash cow they could depend on, but they messed up Green Lantern.

[BenReilly]

I never got this argument. Fox and Sony also don't have CBMs as their sole asset, but unlike WB are more aggressive in utilizing them.

They have to be. If Sony and Fox doesn't have their respective Marvel films in production/development by a certain time period, the rights will revert back to Marvel and they'll lose everything.

WB on the other hand has no such fear. They can literally do nothing and will always be in control of these properties. Superman probably being the exception at the moment. The upcoming reboot is a product of the Siegel lawsuit, forcing their hand.

[Tony Stark]

Wow, it took all of 5 seconds for someone to blame this on Feige.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

[hatebox]

Don't know her work, so won't miss her, but this can hardly be considered good news. Whether Marvel's reputation is deserved or not, this will only play into it.

[Gamma Burst]

Don't know her work, so won't miss her, but this can hardly be considered good news. Whether Marvel's reputation is deserved or not, this will only play into it.

They only produced one sequel, actually.

[Liam_H]

They probably announced her as the new director without hammering out the details cause Marvel is on a timeline. So when they got to a certain issue she just walked. Luckily the postponed release date gives them some time to look for a replacement.

[Gamma Burst]

Wow, it took all of 5 seconds for someone to blame this on Feige.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

Don't worry. The ones doing that are the 'usual suspects' from this forum.:)

[KenK]

Wow, it took all of 5 seconds for someone to blame this on Feige.

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.

I'm so sick of people blaming crap on Marvel when these things don't work out. Negotiations are a two way street. It's pretty clear what Marvel wants as far as it's Cinematic Universe is concerned, so a director ought to know that when going in, if they were going to have a problem.

It's always easier to blame the people with no creative involvement in the filmmaking process. We always want to be on the side of the creators, mind you , in this case, are we really at a loss? Granted, I'd be more than happy to see Branagh come back, but failing that, was Patty Jenkins really on anyone's radar to direct a movie like this? Outside of Monster, there's honestly nothing all that impressive on her resume. It'd be interesting to see if Marvel gets to replace her.

[hatebox]

Don't worry. The ones doing that are the 'usual suspects' from this forum.:)

Just like the usual suspects will always defend any given superhero/studio?

[Superhero 101]

This made my day!!

[cherokeesam]

Here's an idea:

Why not get a *Scandinavian* director to direct a film about, you know, Scandinavian gods?

Tomas Alfredson, a Swede, had an international hit with the vampire thriller Let the Right One In, and now he's gone on to bigger things with LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. He seems to be available, and Marvel could stick a feather in their hat for "cultural authenticity" if they bag him.

[Liam_H]

Just because he's Scandinavian doesn't mean he's right for the material.

[Gamma Burst]

Just like the usual suspects will always defend any given superhero/studio?

Aww. Touched a nerve?

[Mysteryman]

Sorry to hear this .
I hope they find and finalize a deal with a new director ASAP.

[herolee10]

I wonder what interviews are going to be like for the main cast that was confirmed and Kenneth when asked about this. I mean one moment we hear Chris, Kenneth, and Tom saying on how great they thought Patty was and of her understanding of the material, then the next minute we get this.

I wonder how actors in their shoes approach doing interviews from here on out when asked about this, especially when another director is finally chosen as a permanent thing for the sequel.

[Liam_H]

Same as usual, we'll always hear the "oh its great to be working with [name], such a great vision that's going to really excite people" etc.

[JackMercy]

I wonder what interviews are going to be like for the main cast that was confirmed and Kenneth when asked about this. I mean one moment we hear Chris, Kenneth, and Tom saying on how great they thought Patty was and of her understanding of the material, then the next minute we get this.

I wonder how actors in their shoes approach doing interviews from here on out when asked about this, especially when another director is finally chosen as a permanent thing for the sequel.

There's no point in journalists really asking about this from here on out, because the interviews should generally be about the movie that's getting made, not the one that Patty Jenkins...isn't going to make. This is not a Superman Lives situation where the production got within days of filming and/or with a director with much more clout who had major creative control over the production. This is Marvel's bag...and they do make sure people know it.

But yes, actors, etc. move on and just try to produce the best film they can. Many of them do care about the product as well, but are ultimately at the behest of the studio's (and director's) creative choices.

[herolee10]

Well, I just hope that they pick a director that's someone will make the entire cast honestly excited to be working with like they had mentioned when talking about Kenneth in their interviews.

[JackMercy]

You want to know what "creative differences" means? It means she wanted more money, and Marvel wouldn't pay it.


No, not really. Often times it means what it says. Disputes about the creative process and direction of the film/production. The amount of times we've heard about things "falling through" with Marvel Studios and talent in their short life I think really says something about their overall agenda, which to some degree is about money...but it's also about creative and industrial positioning.

Benecio del Toro and Paramount recently "couldn't come to terms" for the Star Trek sequel. That one was about money...apparently. Del Toro has been fairly highly regarded in recent years. Patty Jenkins, while also well-regarded, simply doesn't have the same 'clout'...whether that's partially because she's a rarity, a strong-willed female director, is debatable.

[BMM]

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

Anything deeper than Thor would be Superman Returns? :doh: I think a Thor sequel can (and should) have better writing, without going that far.

[TheVileOne]

How about Lars Von Trier?

JK :D

[hatebox]

Aww. Touched a nerve?

:huh: How'd you come to that conclusion? Saying this plays into Marvel's hardline reputation, whether it was an amicable parting or not, is hardly fanatical.

[Gamma Burst]

:huh: How'd you come to that conclusion? Saying this plays into Marvel's hardline reputation, whether it was an amicable parting or not, is hardly fanatical.

I get that, and I agree with you about Marvel's hardline reputation.
Anyway, believe me, I don't think your opinion is fanatical.

[J.Howlett]

Very curious to see how this affects Natalie Portman's performance in Thor 2. Telling you right now, with Jenkins at the helm, Portman would've been this film's biggest cheerleader and she would've gone out "guns blazing", in terms of her performance.

One thing I know about her is that she into "radical choices". That's the main reason she took the part for the first film. Branagh was a radical choice and that intrigued her. Knowing her, Jenkins would've been even more intriguing prospect.

Not saying she's going to phone it in, but....

(Her comes the "well, Natalie wasn't that good anyway in Thor" responses...)

[Silvermoth]

Good on Patty for sticking to her guns though. So many directors will do anything once that big paycheque comes their way and I'm glad Patty did what she thought was right.

[Liam_H]

Well if Portman gets the same caliber of writing as in the first movie, it doesn't matter how she plays her part. There's hardly anything there.

[herolee10]

Well personally, I'm just glad that they had announced awhile back that Natalie was confirmed alongside Chris and Tom so that regardless of what happened to Patty, Natalie is still signed on for the sequel since I hate major recasts.

[J.Howlett]

Liam,

Well, here's the thing; you can make a strong case that Natalie's character in Thor is probably one of the best portrayed female characters in this genre or any film that's more male oriented for the simple fact that her character has an outside story that doesn't deal with the male protagonist.

As much as I think the Dark Knight is a masterwork, Rachel's character is technically a trophy. She really wasn't in Batman Begins. She became that way. It's the same with Carol Ferris in Lantern. Blake Lively has no outside scenes in the film that doesn't involve sharing the screen with Reynolds. None. She has no story that doesn't deal with Hal and their past relationship. We get small hints of what her life is.

Natalie's character has a whole film that doesn't deal with Thor. The emergence of Thor supports her story but still, it's her own story. That's one of the more unique aspects of the film, despite the fact that's merely a solid film.

If you take out SHIELD, I do agree that we would've had more with Thor and Jane or maybe just Jane.

[BigThor]

Bottom line: I'd like a sequel to Thor that's even better than the first, if possible. If Marvel can do that, then I don't care who the director is.

Yeah I agree with you and for that very reason I'm not bother about Patty dropping out of Thor 2 at all.

There's nothing wrong with left field choices, but she was little too left field imo.

[04nbod]

I think what we had in the first movie was perfect. It was the perfect tone for a Thor movie. Anything deeper than that would muddle the character just like they did with Superman Returns. The only areas where I would like some better character writing is with the Warriors Three and Sif. The relationship with Thor, Loki, and Odin as well as Thor/Jane was the right fit.

You know, this isn't shocking to me. They used the exact same dynamics that sold Thor in his early years in the 60's and it paid off. Stan knew how to create simple yet compelling dynamics. When you consider that the Warriors Three and Sif weren't there in those earliest days its no wonder the writers had problems making them fit in a meaningful way. We are still missing Balder too and if we were going by the old Lee/Lieber dynamics it would have been him pleading for Thor.

[chamber-music]

Very few directors get 100% creative freedom on all their projects. Even with indie films, you still have financial investors to answer to.

This is still a business at the end of the day. Just saying.
Yep Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have said even they don't get 100% creative freedom sometimes and they are extremely successful directors.
Well until recently WB had a biannual cash cow they could depend on, but they messed up Green Lantern.
WB had the Harry Potter money which is one of the most successful and profitable movie franchises of all time. They didn't care much about getting DC charaters of the ground when the Potter movies were making them tons of cash.
How about Lars Von Trier?

JK :D
Be hilarious to see a Dogma Thor film.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Another one bites the dust with Marvel? Looks that way, I know they said she will direct another super-hero film for them in the future, but they said the same with Louis Leterrier and still no sign of him doing so.

Marvel need to be careful as their movies havent been that good that they cant become stale. Thor was the best movie for them since IM1 and Cap was a step down from Thor IMO. They obviously havent learned much from the rushed and interference filled production of IM2 which was the first Marvel sequel to not better the original.

Saying that, if Branagh returns, I will be a happy man, but I doubt he will, he pretty much said no to Thor 2 as soon as it was announced and it seems Marvel was a bit factor in that also. It'll be interesting to see who they get for this now.

[Destructus86]

To be honest...this wasn't a huge surprise for me. Based on her past films she just didn't seem right for this particular character. I'm sure creative difference was the reason too.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Saying that, if Branagh returns, I will be a happy man, but I doubt he will, he pretty much said no to Thor 2 as soon as it was announced and it seems Marvel was a bit factor in that also.
BS. He was commited to direct Italian Shoes (or however it is called) and simply had scheduling problems. IS is in post now, or will be in post soon, while T2 preproduction already started. If Branagh thought he could do two films at once he would have done it, but timing was definatly a problem. This has nothing to do with Marvel.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

BS. He was commited to direct Italian Shoes (or however it is called) and simply had scheduling problems. IS is in post now, or will be in post soon, while T2 preproduction already started. If Branagh thought he could do two films at once he would have done it, but timing was definatly a problem. This has nothing to do with Marvel.

Fair enough, although plenty of other directors have no problems doing more than one movie at once, look at Spielberg with Tintin and War Horse for example.

[Godzilla2000]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

[Iron_Stark]

Why is it always "creative differences" when it comes to the Marvel films?

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

Me too, I would love for Branagh to come back because what he did with the first movie is what made enjoy so much, I was actually very dissapointed to learn he wouldnt be directing Thor 2.

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

Please! So every director who has been left to tell his vision has put out GL level type movies? God the defense of MS is ridiculous sometimes. Nolan was left to his own devices on the sequel to BB and we got TDK, not to mention I could mention COUNTLESS other movies which turned out superb because the studio left the directors to deliver THEIR OWN vision.

And in actuality, WB meddled A LOT with GL, there is a whole different cut of the movie out there on the cutting room floor. Interfering with movies gets you Green Lantern, the FF movies, X3, Wolverine, Clash Of The Titans, etc. NOT interfering with them gets you The Terminator, Terminator 2, Gladiator, TDK, Inception and countless, countless quality movies.

I just dont want Thor 2 to turn out like IM2 which was a BIG step down from IM1.

[cherokeesam]

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.

Except for TDK. And Batman 89. And XMFC. And Raimi's Spider-Man series. And Donner's Superman series. And Singer's X-Men. And a relatively infinite number of movies outside the superhero genre.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.


True, no MS movie is a certified flop, nor has any of them been bashed by critical consensus; but it *is* true that Marvel have so far only managed to strike Top 10 superhero gold with Iron Man; *not* Cap, Thor, or Hulk. IM 1 & 2 are the only ones in boxofficemojo's Top 10 superhero films; Thor sits at #15, Cap at #17, and TIH at #24.

So the "Marvel Studios/Kevin Feige formula" has been good for one certified blockbuster franchise; and even it worked best because Favreau was given free rein (at least in the first film). The tight leashes on Johnston, Leterrier and Branagh have yielded less favorable results.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Cherokeesam, you are right on point. Marvel's only truly successful franchise is the Iron Man franchise & massive studio interference ruined the quality of the second film & drove off Favreau. Its gonna take a hell of a whole lot more though, for people here to wake up & smell the coffee than Patty Jenkins leaving. Some of these defenses of Marvel are just insulting to the medium. There are posters here basically saying directors in the MCU are supposed to be drones that bring nothing to the table. Jesus. Truly great films require creative minds behind them. None of the producers at Marvel Studios (I'm looking at you Kevin Feige) have a creative bone in their body. They can keep treating the talent like disposable diapers for now but eventually the formula that began with IM2 will dry up because the fans will finally say "NO" to mediocre CBMs from what they thought was the perfect studio to adapt CBMs. Now come the "Marvel Studios can do no wrong" rants.

[Excelsior.]

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.WB heavily meddled in Green Lantern's development; especially editing.

You would've done better to cite Superman Returns since Singer had full creative vision.

Except for TDK. And Batman 89. And XMFC. And Raimi's Spider-Man series. And Donner's Superman series. And Singer's X-Men. And a relatively infinite number of movies outside the superhero genre. Burton only got to do his thing in Batman Returns (and boy was it glorious). B89 was a studio film through and through.

[R_Hythlodeus]

It will only be a matter of time until Alexei will come here and tell anyone how Kevin Feige is the the devil incarnate.

edit: wow, I got ninja'd by AB himself. I shouldn't take 20 minutes to post. Stupid dinner!

[mclay18]

Whyshould they? They're making Benjamins hand over fist. What incentive is there for them to truly offer creative freedom? They've tried it twice with Hulk. Didn't work.

There's more than one way directors can have creative input, even with Marvel's caveats and mandatory inclusions. Even with Marvel Studios' input, Thor is very much a Kenneth Branagh film.

And MS wasn't involved with the 2003 Hulk movie like they are now. Universal and Ang Lee messed that up by themselves.

Very curious to see how this affects Natalie Portman's performance in Thor 2. Telling you right now, with Jenkins at the helm, Portman would've been this film's biggest cheerleader and she would've gone out "guns blazing", in terms of her performance.

Absolutely. That's why when Jenkins came on the production, I thought "Natalie would love to work with her". And I think Portman would've been very enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Granted, Portman will be contractually obligated to do Thor 2 no matter which director comes on and gets the ball rolling. But a good or unorthodox pick will give the actors incentive to work better and have fun.

[BigThor]

To be honest...this wasn't a huge surprise for me. Based on her past films she just didn't seem right for this particular character. I'm sure creative difference was the reason too.

I agree, I understand left field choices sometimes but she didn't have anything to suggest she was poperly suited for Thor.

They say Branagh was left field for THOR, but atleast he had a shakepearan background which Thor shares alot of common themes with.

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

I agree with this as well, I would be overjoyed if Branagh was able to return and improve on the first film's foundation with THOR 2.

[Thor_Odinson]

Well, I'm hoping that Kenneth Branaugh will have room in his schedule to direct this movie, or maybe Marvel could be patient and allow for room to allow Branaugh to commit to the project. He just has a knack for drawing out some pretty intense performances from his actors. I think a lot of it has to do with his background in Shakespearian theater and all in dramatic scenes from the Bard's works. If there is going to be any Loki/Odin confrontations, and logic tells me there will, Mr. Branaugh can most certainly guide such an emotionally driven scene. In fact in Thor when Odin banishes Thor that was a pretty powerful thing for all the actors involved. Imagine what Loki's humbling would be like if you could be there to see it being filmed with Kenneth Branaugh in the director's chair.

I also agree with this. I hope to see Branagh possibly come back to direct Thor 2.

[R_Hythlodeus]

I agree, I understand left field choices sometimes but she didn't have anything to suggest she was poperly suited for Thor.

They say Branagh was left field for THOR, but atleast he had a shakepearan background which Thor shares alot of common themes with.

If anything, the choice of Jenkins was an indicator what the theme or the plot of the movie was. MS always contracted directors that had a certain strength, fitting a particular point of the movie in question. Like Leterrier and action movies, Johnston and lighthearted 30ies/40ies period pieces, Favreau and comedies, Branagh and shakspearean dramas. Black's strenght was as obvious as those. I believe, when Thor 2 comes out and you know what the movie is about you'll say "Oh, THIS is why they wanted Jenkins!"...

[SuperSAINT]

Sorry if this got posted else where on this thread, but the Hollywood reporter got a quote from Patty on this subject...

"I have had a great time working at Marvel," Jenkins told The Hollywood Reporter in an exclusive statement. "We parted on very good terms, and I look forward to working with them again."

[Axl Van Sixx]

Liam,

Well, here's the thing; you can make a strong case that Natalie's character in Thor is probably one of the best portrayed female characters in this genre or any film that's more male oriented for the simple fact that her character has an outside story that doesn't deal with the male protagonist.

As much as I think the Dark Knight is a masterwork, Rachel's character is technically a trophy. She really wasn't in Batman Begins. She became that way. It's the same with Carol Ferris in Lantern. Blake Lively has no outside scenes in the film that doesn't involve sharing the screen with Reynolds. None. She has no story that doesn't deal with Hal and their past relationship. We get small hints of what her life is.

Natalie's character has a whole film that doesn't deal with Thor. The emergence of Thor supports her story but still, it's her own story. That's one of the more unique aspects of the film, despite the fact that's merely a solid film.

If you take out SHIELD, I do agree that we would've had more with Thor and Jane or maybe just Jane.

100% agree.

[Raiden]

Because when you hire someone to do a job without overseeing how they're going to do it and they do a piss poor job, you get Green Lantern type results.


Whether people bad mouth Marvel and Feige (I've done it myself), they've made hits. They're 5 for 5, not one movie has been a flop or got universal bashing from critics.

This Patty Jenkins thing, sorry, I was never sold on her.

I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.

[Gamma Burst]

So, 'alexei' came here and posted the same thing he always does again?:)

[Vartha]

well geez this ain't good

[Doc Samson]

I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.

True, but this is at least the third example of someone leaving a Marvel project due to their heavy hand. At some point you run the risk of not being able to secure the top level talent they've gotten so far.

I love these movies, but I won't sit here and say they aren't somewhat formulaic (to be fair, most origins from that time period were kinda formulaic as well) Still, I don't think giving a little more creative freedom is necessarily a horrible thing

[jmc]

I also believe that after the Ang Lee Hulk fiasco, Marvel has been more leery about giving the director more creative freedom, although sometimes they butt in too much (see IM2). I don't think Jenkins realized that, because she's more of an indie filmmaker and in small-budgeted movies like Monster, she probably had more power making the film the way she intended it to. She will not have the same control that she enjoyed in her other projects.

Marvel had nothing to do with Ang Lee's hulk.

[Doc Samson]

Marvel had nothing to do with Ang Lee's hulk.

I think that's Raiden's point. Marvel saw how off the tracks Ang took the Hulk (some of which I liked, some I didn't) so once they got their opportunity to start overseeing these projects, they steadfastly wanted to put a halt to that much creative freedom, I think there's some credence to that.

TIH was basically hamstrung to be a straight action flick with minimal psychological aspects directly as a result of Ang's movie. In fact, most of these films have given the bare minimum in terms of characterization and deeper subtext in order to keep things moving, brisk & digestible. Not saying everything needs to be deep & dark, but the Hulk certainly should be, Ang just went too abstract with it, not to mention the marketing that lead the general audience to believe it was a straight popcorn summer film.

[jmc]

I think that's Raiden's point. Marvel saw how off the tracks Ang took the Hulk (some of which I liked, some I didn't) so once they got their opportunity to start overseeing these projects, they steadfastly wanted to put a halt to that much creative freedom, I think there's some credence to that.

TIH was basically hamstrung to be a straight action flick with minimal psychological aspects directly as a result of Ang's movie. In fact, most of these films have given the bare minimum in terms of characterization and deeper subtext in order to keep things moving, brisk ''digestible. Not saying everything needs to be deep '' dark, but the Hulk certainly should be, Ang just went too abstract with it, not to mention the marketing that lead the general audience to believe it was a straight popcorn summer film.

But you could equally look at Nolan's Batman film to realize what can be done if you give the director room to breathe, or even IM1 for that matter. You can't just look at the negative results. Hulk may not have work execution wise but I think most can agree it was a bold thing to attempt for a superhero film, in my view anyway I can appreciate it for giving it a red hot go. Not being flexible with creativity will ultimately lead to good directors not wanting to do your movies, if all you're looking for is someone to match your vision you may as well get someone from inside the studio to direct.

[Marvel]

Oh literally thank GOD! I was trying to fall in line and back Jenkins but everything screamed AWFUL idea right from the start. Dodged a huge bullet here... now almost anyone will seem like an improvement. Maybe that was Marvel's grand plan all along!

This will be just like when Tom Cruise passed on playing Tony Stark!!!!

Happy day :woot:

[Doc Samson]

But you could equally look at Nolan's Batman film to realize what can be done if you give the director room to breathe, or even IM1 for that matter. You can't just look at the negative results. Hulk may not have work execution wise but I think most can agree it was a bold thing to attempt for a superhero film, in my view anyway I can appreciate it for giving it a red hot go. Not being flexible with creativity will ultimately lead to good directors not wanting to do your movies, if all you're looking for is someone to match your vision you may as well get someone from inside the studio to direct.

Oh I'm in direct agreement with you, in many ways I still prefer Ang's movie to TIH, I just didn't agree with some of the more unnecessary changes he made that served no purpose other than visual stimulation (mainly the size changing & some of the more abstract mental imagery)

I'm just stating the reasons I think Ang's film, in particular, is the catalyst for the approach Marvel's been taking with their movies, and how ultimately, it's going to hurt more than help.

[Compi716]

Oh literally thank GOD! I was trying to fall in line and back Jenkins but everything screamed AWFUL idea right from the start. Dodged a huge bullet here... now almost anyone will seem like an improvement. Maybe that was Marvel's grand plan all along!

This will be just like when Tom Cruise passed on playing Tony Stark!!!!

Happy day :woot:
I firmly believe Cruise would have been a great Stark. He just wouldn't have been as big of a wiseass of RDJ's. The guy always brings his A-game, and would make that whole "Tony Stark is a Celebrity Superhero" very meta.

[ElMariachi]

True, no MS movie is a certified flop, nor has any of them been bashed by critical consensus; but it *is* true that Marvel have so far only managed to strike Top 10 superhero gold with Iron Man; *not* Cap, Thor, or Hulk. IM 1 & 2 are the only ones in boxofficemojo's Top 10 superhero films; Thor sits at #15, Cap at #17, and TIH at #24.

So the "Marvel Studios/Kevin Feige formula" has been good for one certified blockbuster franchise; and even it worked best because Favreau was given free rein (at least in the first film). The tight leashes on Johnston, Leterrier and Branagh have yielded less favorable results.

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.


-----------

Also, what are these 'tight leashes' that everybody keeps talking about? You people continue to say these things without any knowledge of how Marvel conducts business. Iron Man 2 'suffered' because Marvel allowed Justin Theroux to be hired as writer. Everything else about that movie was great. The only things that suffered in Cap and Thor was they had to fit into the Avengers storyline. I'm sorry but if you think Marvel is going to let Favs do a 'Demon in a Bottle' storyline in it's most important summer blockbuster, you're insane.

[Gamma Burst]

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.




Good post. I was about to post something similar.

[ElMariachi]

And I love how people bring up Nolan as being an example of creativity regarding BB/TDK. He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies. Chris Nolan didn't create the Joker and 'dark' Batman stories. He simply drew inspiration from Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and No Man's Land. That is why he was successful with Batman. The previous 3 Batman movies could have used a Kevin Feige to control the nonsense that had been allowed.

If any example is needed to why a creative director isn't a good thing, just look at Aronofsky. Anybody remember his godawful idea for a Batman movie? Or James Cameron's for Spider-Man? Or Tim Burton's Superman and how insane he allowed Returns to get? Or Bryan Singer's Superman? Marvel has avoided all this bulls--t by not allowing directors to make bad movies. Demon in a Bottle would have been stupid as a 2 hr movie as mentioned earlier.

[Gamma Burst]

You shouldn't have mentioned Nolan or batman here. Hell will breal loose. :D

[ElMariachi]

Good post. I was about to post something similar.

Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands. Kenneth Branagh made a great movie with bold creative design and interesting characters--and some don't appreciate it. I watched Thor the other day on Blu-Ray and just continue to be amazed on how incredible and colorful the movie looks. The Rainbow Bridge, Asgard, the Frost Giants, etc. How funny and well acted it is. All actors perfectly cast by Marvel. They clearly allow for creativity and Thor is it's best example. I hate to keep sounding like a Marvel fanboy but they are one of the bright spots in Hollywood.

[ElMariachi]

You shouldn't have mentioned Nolan or batman here. Hell will breal loose. :D

Yeah, I fully expect some of them to come in here and tell me how Nolan created Batman. :woot:

[Gamma Burst]

Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands. Kenneth Branagh made a great movie with bold creative design and interesting characters--and some don't appreciate it. I watched Thor the other day on Blu-Ray and just continue to be amazed on how incredible and colorful the movie looks. The Rainbow Bridge, Asgard, the Frost Giants, etc. How funny and well acted it is. All actors perfectly cast by Marvel. They clearly allow for creativity and Thor is it's best example. I hate to keep sounding like a Marvel fanboy but they are one of the bright spots in Hollywood.

Yes, the fact that some of these characters were virtually unknown to the GA, and, in Thor's case, how 'out there' his concept is, make him very tricky to pull off. Not to mention how crowded the summer was.
I was honestly surprised (and happy) about how succesfull and popular he's become.

[jmc]

And I love how people bring up Nolan as being an example of creativity regarding BB/TDK. He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies. Chris Nolan didn't create the Joker and 'dark' Batman stories. He simply drew inspiration from Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and No Man's Land. That is why he was successful with Batman. The previous 3 Batman movies could have used a Kevin Feige to control the nonsense that had been allowed.

If any example is needed to why a creative director isn't a good thing, just look at Aronofsky. Anybody remember his godawful idea for a Batman movie? Or James Cameron's for Spider-Man? Or Tim Burton's Superman and how insane he allowed Returns to get? Or Bryan Singer's Superman? Marvel has avoided all this bulls--t by not allowing directors to make bad movies. Demon in a Bottle would have been stupid as a 2 hr movie as mentioned earlier.

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.

[Crimson King]

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself.

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

[Gamma Burst]

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

Agreed. It's impossible to make the comparison.

[Raiden]

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why Marvel is strict about their movies is because they are all set in MCU, so they all have to adhere to a certain vision. I think if Marvel decided to make all their movies standalones, they'll probably be more lenient and will allow Nolan to make BB & TDK the way he wanted to. And WB's policy of letting the filmmakers to do whatever they want doesn't pan out aside from Nolan's films; remember Bryan Singer's Superman Returns and Martin Campbell's The Green Lantern? Yes, Marvel is at fault for exerting too much control over their directors, but in a way they have prevented disasters or bombs from happening to their Marvel Studios movies.

[jmc]

Not a valid comparison, IMO, since DC doesn't have a cinematic universe. Different rules.

I think it's completely valid. There's nothing stopping them from pushing things to the next level, but you can't get to that next level if you don't allow someone to try and do it. The argument was the reason TDK/BB worked so well was because it stuck close to the source material, that's part of the reason, the other part was that the director was allowed to make the movie he wanted and wanted to push the envelope. If they want a cinematic universe that's fine, but they need to be more flexible in how they go about things otherwise they won't get the good directors and the results will reflect it. By having such a hardline stance against the talent if they don't see eye to eye and taking some chances with the direction and themes of their films they're only going to hurt themselves and their fans coz eventually one of these hardline decisions will cost them.

[Parker Wayne]

Some of these defenses of Marvel are just insulting to the medium.

You're an insult and a disgrace to humanity, with your snide comments and holier than thou attitude. You're no better than the trolls wHo T@lk Lyk Dis, and no worse than snide jerk. You're opinions isn't law, and you need to get that out of your head that it is. These posters here express their opinions too, but do not talk down to people like children the way you do. Questioning people's intelligences and saying people's explanations are insulting to medium, as your explanations are more insulting to the people's minds with your terrible contrarion behavior.

Marvel Studios has been pretty well as a studio, and in terms of CBMs, Thor and Captain America, while not reeinventing the wheel (every movie, especially hollywood movies does not have to), they do what they do best: entertain the masses with faithful representations of their characters. With vision, we are so used to the director having the vision for the story that we forget that their not the only ones who could have a vision and could have the vision. Producers have a vision too i.e. Tim Burton for a Nightmare before Christmas or Warren Beatty for Bonnie and Clyde. I'm not comparing Feige to them, but we don't know the whole story. Feige has a vision for these characters too that is obvious interfering with Thor.

Their goal clearly is not to make revisionist tales of the character like Batman. Every character isn't Batman, nor do they need to be placed in a realistic world like Batman. That's like going to see the The Transporter, wishing it was Drive. Both have similar concepts and are in the same genre, but have different appeals and tones. More people should accept that Marvel won't be making their movies like the Batman series, and they should accept that the Comic Book Genre has grown to be more complex to the point that there are different kinds of not only comic book, but superhero movies.

Why are people complaining that this movie "isn't the greatest superhero movie ever"? If the movie is good, fun, and entertaining, I couldn't care less if it isn't the great superhero movie ever. Marvel Studios has done that with every movie, and yes even IM2, which I felt was a fun comic book movie that almost literally felt like a comic book.

[Crimson King]

JMC, the reason I think it's invalid is that Nolan played by different rules. He was allowed to create a universe for himself. Batman's entire world is the one Nolan imagined (for better or worse) and leaves no room for connected stories. That sort of control is something Marvel can't offer, so it never would've happened.

There are upsides and downsides to both ways of thinking. Unlimited directorial control can yield great results (TDK) and it can lead to total disasters (GL, B&R). Marvel's approach so far has yielded above average movies, even some bordering on great, but nothing groundbreaking. I think they're more successful at the moment, however, because the MCU is something we haven't seen attempted before. The Avengers is nothing less than a living piece of movie history, even before we see the thing. It's huge. And maybe they won't have an Oscar-caliber film this cycle, but things change, and I see more potential for them as they refine the process of connecting their properties while allowing the filmmakers to put their stamp on the movies.

[ElMariachi]

Yes, the fact that some of these characters were virtually unknown to the GA, and, in Thor's case, how 'out there' his concept is, make him very tricky to pull off. Not to mention how crowded the summer was.
I was honestly surprised (and happy) about how succesfull and popular he's become.

Yeah, it was much more than the character. They sold the notion that there were Norse Gods living in outer space and able to travel to earth using wormholes. I think it's one of the most bizarre summer blockbuster concepts that was successful.

[ElMariachi]

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.

I don't think Batman and Robin was all that close to the source material. The Schumacher movies were closer to the over-the-top silliness of Adam West/Silver Age Batman comics. The Nolan movies may have stepped up the realism a bit but they feel closer to the post 85 Batman source material.

I do think Marvel would have allowed Nolan to make Batman Begins. It's not as if their current movies don't have an element of seriousness to them. There just is more humor in them than there is in Nolan's Batman. Batman is also a different animal than Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. You really can't compare a tragic story of a crime fighter to a billionaire playboy, a Norse god, and living propaganda.

Regarding DIAB, it can't work for a summer tentpole. It's a movie about a guy suffering from alcoholism. Who the hell wants to munch popcorn, take their kids to see THAT? It would be kind of depressing and more along the lines of Leaving Las Vegas than it would Spider-Man or James Bond. I have no problem with the storyline but it can't work in the movies. Perhaps if they made an Iron Man t.v. series like was mentioned. 2 hours isn't enough to see a guy fall apart, hit a low, and climb back.

[ElMariachi]

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why Marvel is strict about their movies is because they are all set in MCU, so they all have to adhere to a certain vision. I think if Marvel decided to make all their movies standalones, they'll probably be more lenient and will allow Nolan to make BB & TDK the way he wanted to. And WB's policy of letting the filmmakers to do whatever they want doesn't pan out aside from Nolan's films; remember Bryan Singer's Superman Returns and Martin Campbell's The Green Lantern? Yes, Marvel is at fault for exerting too much control over their directors, but in a way they have prevented disasters or bombs from happening to their Marvel Studios movies.

Yeah, thats pretty much the main reason why they have to maintain control over their movies. The great thing about the MCU is that everything works and fits perfectly. They cannot pull off that sort of continuinty in the X-Men movies under the Fox banner. The biggest problem I have had with the X-Men franchise. With the MCU, we have history, a timeline, and interlocking parts. All it takes is one director making changes to tarnish it.

The MCU is a garden at Versailles. It has to be finely landscaped and organized to work. TDK is a personal garden of miscellaneous flowers and plants. Both are beautiful but require different sort of gardening.

[BigThor]

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.

Hell yeah, man you really hit the nail on the head with this post :up:

Thor made more than MIB II though

THOR - 448.5 million

MIB II - 441. 8 million

[ElMariachi]

Hell yeah, man you really hit the nail on the head with this post :up:

Thor made more than MIB II though

THOR - 448.5 million

MIB II - 441. 8 million

Even better! A movie about Thor made more than a sequel to a huge Will Smith flick. Can't complain about that!

[BigThor]

Yeah, thats pretty much the main reason why they have to maintain control over their movies. The great thing about the MCU is that everything works and fits perfectly. They cannot pull off that sort of continuinty in the X-Men movies under the Fox banner. The biggest problem I have had with the X-Men franchise. With the MCU, we have history, a timeline, and interlocking parts. All it takes is one director making changes to tarnish it.

The MCU is a garden at Versailles. It has to be finely landscaped and organized to work. TDK is a personal garden of miscellaneous flowers and plants. Both are beautiful but require different sort of gardening.

That's a very logical way to look at it, dude you're on your way to becoming one of my favorite posters.

[Excelsior.]

He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies.

:shock:wow:

This is a...revelation not witnessed since the founding of Christianity!!!

[Parker Wayne]

He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies.


Wait, WHAT?

[cherokeesam]

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3.

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.

Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands.

What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

[Gamma Burst]

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.



What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

What you posted, at least concerning Thor's success', is not quite accurate. It didn't make IM numbers in US, but it did very well in the foreign box office, with numbers very similar to the iron man franchise.

[jmc]

I don't think Batman and Robin was all that close to the source material. The Schumacher movies were closer to the over-the-top silliness of Adam West/Silver Age Batman comics. The Nolan movies may have stepped up the realism a bit but they feel closer to the post 85 Batman source material.
Even die hard Bat fans grudgingly accept that B&R is a faithful adaptation, the reason it sucks is the execution.
I do think Marvel would have allowed Nolan to make Batman Begins. It's not as if their current movies don't have an element of seriousness to them. There just is more humor in them than there is in Nolan's Batman. Batman is also a different animal than Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. You really can't compare a tragic story of a crime fighter to a billionaire playboy, a Norse god, and living propaganda.
I will say IM is the closest Mavel has to Begins given it was first cab off the ranks and therefore the one with the most freedom, so maybe he would have been able to make that film, but with their current philosophy there's no way TDK gets made.
Regarding DIAB, it can't work for a summer tentpole. It's a movie about a guy suffering from alcoholism. Who the hell wants to munch popcorn, take their kids to see THAT? It would be kind of depressing and more along the lines of Leaving Las Vegas than it would Spider-Man or James Bond. I have no problem with the storyline but it can't work in the movies. Perhaps if they made an Iron Man t.v. series like was mentioned. 2 hours isn't enough to see a guy fall apart, hit a low, and climb back.

Oh of course it can, you can always find a balance, you can't always apply the kids card as a way to avoid heavy topics, kids grow up eventually, in fact it could be a great way to curb a young kid away from that very path seeing their favourite superhero having to deal with such an addiction. This notion that a summer tent pole can't tackle deeper issues is nonsense, Inception proved that, lets not treat every superhero as simply the dude in the costume who saves the days, and lets not be afraid to tackle deeper problems. Personally I like the concept of a superhero having to deal with both a personal addiction and whatever threat he's up against mostly because we haven't seen that before in a superhero film.

[hatebox]

Marvel's a tough one - they take a degree of risk in hiring directors like Favreau and Brannaugh, as well as RDJ at the time, but once those pieces are in place they're so committed to the giant universe in which the characters are set that the stories become rigid.

The idea of making all these movies as a build-up to one big one is incredibly ambitious, and yet (IMO) Marvel have never produced anything close to a great blockbuster. I enjoy them at the time and then forget about them a couple of days later. The first Iron Man is genius casting decision and that's about it.

That said, they make Marvel money and that's all they care about, so fair enough. Their business acumen is, boradly speaking, sound. But I think, at some point, they should follow through with their gutsy director hires by giving them more leeway too. The genre will only survive if it continues to offer something new.

[Alexei Belyakov]

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.



What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

This.

Thank you for posting all of this.

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

Keep tellin' 'em, eventually they'll see the truths you bring up here http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gif (or they'll just make you out to be a troll :awesome:)

Favreau made a great film that launched a studio. Since his departure, that studio's tried so very hard to recreate the success he achieved with his first effort. They've failed, but still managed to make just enough profit to keep things rolling. But modest numbers (Domestic $181 & $177) can't save the studio from themselves - for slowly the material's decline in quality is becoming more and more evident & the talent (Norton, Vaughn, Rourke, Branagh, Kirk, Jenkins) slowly but surely aren't having it.

The Marvel Studios cashcow is far from done. Unfortunately for us fans, by the time it dries up we'll have MCU movies being made so inferior to Iron Man that they'll end up on that dreaded list of CBMs that houses Ghost Rider, Elektra, Daredevil & Punisher War Zone.

Thor II, because of the Feige approach to filmmaking, I fear will not only fail to surpass its [decent at best] predecessor, but also will amount to nothing more than a forced sequel & prequel to [the imminent] Avengers 2.

Feige clearly doesn't just want cheap directors. He wants drones.

[Gamma Burst]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore. :)

[R_Hythlodeus]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore. :)
And yet, I'm still the only one who nominated him for Dick of the Year.

Anyway, I don't let my excitement about that movie be ruined by this unfortunate department. The quote by Jenkins in my signature shows, this "creative differences" weren't that severe as some people here might think, it probably just was the "sequel" factor.

As a director, making a sequel usualy gives you less creative freedom. Especially if it's a big franchise. You have to follow the rules of the first movie, can't change the direction or the genre completely. The last time something like that happend was when Jim Cameron made a sequel to a great horror film in space and turned it to a mindless action movie. It worked then (to some, not me), but I can't remember it has happend since. Also, you have to somewhat go with the art direction of the first movie. You can't suddenly change the look of Asgard. Alfonso Cuaron went as far as he could in that aspect when he took over the Potter franchise, but he was very limited as well. And you don't have a final say in the casting as most of the characters are already cast and under contract.

So yes, it's the nature of a sequel to restrict directors in the choices they can make and I can understand that Jenkins wants to do a Marvel movie that is not a sequel. But it's really more about that, I think, than about Kevin Feige being the Lord of Darkness.

[Gamma Burst]

And yet, I'm still the only one who nominated him for Dick of the Year.

Anyway, I don't let my excitement about that movie be ruined by this unfortunate department. The quote by Jenkins in my signature shows, this "creative differences" weren't that severe as some people here might think, it probably just was the "sequel" factor.

As a director, making a sequel usualy gives you less creative freedom. Especially if it's a big franchise. You have to follow the rules of the first movie, can't change the direction or the genre completely. The last time something like that happend was when Jim Cameron made a sequel to a great horror film in space and turned it to a mindless action movie. It worked then (to some, not me), but I can't remember it has happend since. Also, you have to somewhat go with the art direction of the first movie. You can't suddenly change the look of Asgard. Alfonso Cuaron went as far as he could in that aspect when he took over the Potter franchise, but he was very limited as well. And you don't have a final say in the castin as most of the characters are already cast and under contract.

So yes, it's the nature of a sequel to restrict directors in the choices they can make and I can understand that Jenkins wants to do a Marvel movie that is not a sequel. But it's really more about that, I think, than about Kevin Feige being the Lord of Darkness.

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

[cherokeesam]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore. :)


Nobody's "ignoring" foreign and worldwide numbers. It's just that those of us who use boxofficemojo.com as a touchstone (i.e., most of us on this forum) have to realize that BOM uses domestic (U.S.) as their gauge in all the showdown/comparison charts, including all-time b.o.

But it *is* true that Thor remains something of an anomaly in the superhero genre as pretty much only one of two flicks whose b.o. came *mainly* from overseas markets instead of U.S. at 60%+ of the global take. (The other was Hancock, but nobody ever counts that one, right? ;) )

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

I'm not calling Marvel and Feige "villains." I'm just saying that they're starting to get a growing reputation among directors and actors alike as being a meat-n-taters penny-pinching Wal-Mart studio.

I understand that Feige's budget-conscious approach to keeping a tight rein on Marvel property comes of necessity, since he (and we) have seen Marvel characters and canon get raped before the MS era; but I don't think his over-your-shoulder constant meddling has yielded any certified all-time blockbusters beyond RDJ's Iron Man, and the box office numbers (and off-screen interviews with actors and directors) proves that.

[Vartha]

heh was talking to a guy who runs his own chain of videos in the area and he was saying Warner is having problems even RENTING their movies these days.
I still find it odd that Cap's doing better than Thor in DVD sales and not to hot in the theater. I understand the "the dislike of american" thing for world wide but me it's odd. It's like there's closest Captain America fans all over. lol

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

I'm certainly not saying Marvel and Fiege are villains, or that Fiege is the 'Lord Of Darkness,' but there is no doubting their meddling and strict ways are having a detrimental effect on the studio's reputation and movies. 3 directors and 3 actors have now left their employ, and it never seems to be on good terms. I read Jenkins' comments about loving working with Marvel and working with them in the future, but in 2008, Louis Leterrier said EXACTLY the same and still hasnt been near a Marvel movie since.

Thor was their best movie since IM, I loved it, but Cap was VERY average and was a BIG step down for me from Thor. I just dont want another IM2 out of Thor 2. IM2 certainly wasnt a bad movie, but its not good either, it had the potential to be as good as TDK, but Marvel meddled too much, which is now pretty much common knowledge and ruined what we could have got.

[kedrell]

Me thinks this thread needs to get renamed the Marvel Studios Boosters vs. Detractors Argumentation Thread.

[kedrell]

but with their current philosophy there's no way TDK gets made.

Thank God! If MS ever made a film like that I'd probably quit going to their movies altogether. I pay to be entertained, not have my intelligence insulted.

[Gamma Burst]

Me thinks this thread needs to get renamed the Marvel Studios Boosters vs. Detractors Argumentation Thread.

This isn't a bad idea. :cool:

[kedrell]

I'm not calling Marvel and Feige "villains." I'm just saying that they're starting to get a growing reputation among directors and actors alike as being a meat-n-taters penny-pinching Wal-Mart studio.

I understand that Feige's budget-conscious approach to keeping a tight rein on Marvel property comes of necessity, since he (and we) have seen Marvel characters and canon get raped before the MS era; but I don't think his over-your-shoulder constant meddling has yielded any certified all-time blockbusters beyond RDJ's Iron Man, and the box office numbers (and off-screen interviews with actors and directors) proves that.

Why should we care if these movies are all-time blockbusters? As long as they're good and profitable they'll keep making them. With the lone exception of TIH, all of MS's films have reached good-enough-returns-for-a-sequel status. And TIH had unique baggage that hindered it. Honestly that's really all I'm looking for. These don't need to make 3/4 of a billion $ WW each to be worthwhile from a business standpoint.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This isn't a bad idea. :cool:

What about those of us in between? :woot:

[Gamma Burst]

What about those of us in between? :woot:

Add ''the in-betweeners' to the title.:D

[hatebox]

Why should we care if these movies are all-time blockbusters? As long as they're good and profitable they'll keep making them.

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..

[kedrell]

Regarding DIAB, it can't work for a summer tentpole. It's a movie about a guy suffering from alcoholism. Who the hell wants to munch popcorn, take their kids to see THAT? It would be kind of depressing and more along the lines of Leaving Las Vegas than it would Spider-Man or James Bond. I have no problem with the storyline but it can't work in the movies. Perhaps if they made an Iron Man t.v. series like was mentioned. 2 hours isn't enough to see a guy fall apart, hit a low, and climb back.

Well actually I think it is enough time(and remember I'm the one that was arguing that DIAB wouldn't work as a movie). The problem is that to do the subject matter any justice, THAT'S ALL YOU'D HAVE IN THE MOVIE. And these still need to be summer blockbuster, superhero action movies to boot. That's why it wouldn't work. In order to fit it all in inside a theatrical movie you'd be looking at probably a 3-4 hour movie and few would put up with that. And then the movie would tank at the box office.

[kedrell]

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..

I think they've all been good so far. A couple of them I'd say were actually great. But I do agree that there will always be room for improvement. I don't think Marvel Studios are blind to this either. They know they'll live or die by the quality of their product.

[Crimson King]

I love how people assume you're a blind Marvel Studios supporter just because you don't believe everything you hear in the rumor mill. All it takes is one unfounded "Is Marvel running off its directors?" article (with no proof, mind you) and people take it as fact and call you naive for questioning it.

I'd like to see MS improve in a lot of areas, but their track record is nothing to sneeze at. Five movies, five hits (to various degrees), and a movie event in the making for next summer. I think they're doing just fine.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Add ''the in-betweeners' to the title.:D

Fair enough :cwink:.

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..

Totally agree, they need to get beyond their formulaic approach at some point.

And that last sentence could be thier tagline :cwink:.

[kedrell]

I love how people assume you're a blind Marvel Studios supporter just because you don't believe everything you hear in the rumor mill. All it takes is one unfounded "Is Marvel running off its directors?" article (with no proof, mind you) and people take it as fact and call you naive for questioning it.

I'd like to see MS improve in a lot of areas, but their track record is nothing to sneeze at. Five movies, five hits (to various degrees), and a movie event in the making for next summer. I think they're doing just fine.

I'm right there with ya.

[BigThor]

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..

True, but there's alot more room for them to be worse than better.

[Godzilla2000]

I don't think Batman and Robin was all that close to the source material.

Oh, it was close to a source material, namely the campy 60's TV series...whichy was not a very good thing to be faithful to.

[TheDragonator]

I love how Alexei thinks that not agreeing with him = being a mindless drone.

However, it seems impossible for him to consider that maybe it wasn't Feige plannnig to sabotage all of the MCU movies, but perhaps something like she was offered something else, or that they found someone *gasp* better suited for the job at the last second?

But no, it's 'Feige is the devil and everyone hates me' bull****. AGAIN. Despite the fact that this is an argument he's stated over and over for again, likely gotten infractions for, and was put on probation for. Yet he continues to not get the picture.

Perhaps he doesn't realize the reason we disagree with his 'truth' is because, in fact, he acts like a pompous jerk to everyone he meets that doesn't agree with him? Seriously.

He treats fellow users like crap.
He treats others opinions like crap.
He treats the MODS like crap.
He refuses to listen to others opinion.
He can't spell 'clique' to save his goddamn life.
And acts as though everyone is out to get him.

[Parker Wayne]

Nobody's "ignoring" foreign and worldwide numbers. It's just that those of us who use boxofficemojo.com as a touchstone (i.e., most of us on this forum) have to realize that BOM uses domestic (U.S.) as their gauge in all the showdown/comparison charts, including all-time b.o.

But it *is* true that Thor remains something of an anomaly in the superhero genre as pretty much only one of two flicks whose b.o. came *mainly* from overseas markets instead of U.S. at 60%+ of the global take. (The other was Hancock, but nobody ever counts that one, right? ;) )



I'm not calling Marvel and Feige "villains." I'm just saying that they're starting to get a growing reputation among directors and actors alike as being a meat-n-taters penny-pinching Wal-Mart studio.

I understand that Feige's budget-conscious approach to keeping a tight rein on Marvel property comes of necessity, since he (and we) have seen Marvel characters and canon get raped before the MS era; but I don't think his over-your-shoulder constant meddling has yielded any certified all-time blockbusters beyond RDJ's Iron Man, and the box office numbers (and off-screen interviews with actors and directors) proves that.

I agree and disagree with some of this. Before I get to that, I must say thanks for saying this all in a respectful fashion unlike Alexei, who seems to think acting like a pretentious child will help his case.

Worldwide #'s are becoming much more important, even in Hollywood. Larger and larger percentages are coming in from Worldwide while the domestic market is remaining steady/declining. It goes beyond comic book movies, many blockbusters a larger chunk of its money worldwide than domestic.

Thor, I believe isn't an instantly huge blockbuster, but with the numbers, its done good enough to create a stable franchise and potentially be on a bigger plateau with a great sequel (which to be honest, with this news, I'm having some doubts about).

Captain America I expected to make less internationally, but its surprising that it didn't make more than Thor domestically, but in its defense, it was released a week after the last Harry Potter, and had to deal with Cowboys and Aliens, and the surprise blockbuster Rise of the Planet of the Apes (which people were expecting to bomb).

Feige's approach isn't the end-all-be-all approach, but the results have been stable and good. I admit it's not all time good, and I'm glad at the same time people aren't settling, but I dislike when people completely throw away what's happening here.

We have a stable film studio that consistently puts up quality fun, quality superhero movies that aren't frustrating or loses the heart of the source material. Years ago, everyone was asking for at least that, after the Fox was churning out crap, and WB was struggling with the Superman movies and getting their other superheroes released.

Now, we have good stuff, and while some love it, some hate that it doesn't push the genre forward, and I don't think Marvel needs to push the genre forward. They will when they release that their box office is gaining less and less, but for now, I'm fine with enjoying some fun, entertaining Marvel movies.

Leave the revisionist, desconstruction of superheroes to Chris Nolan. Love TDK, but every superhero movie doesn't have to reinvent the wheel.

[TheDragonator]

Hey, guess what? Patty just said that there was no problems between her and Marvel for her leaving.

"I have had a great time working at Marvel. We parted on very good terms, and I look forward to working with them again. I have a long love of superhero films and I'd been saying over and over again to my agents at CAA that I'd like to do one. The Marvel guys are so brave in terms of who they choose overall, and I don't think they had any pause about me being a woman."

Although Alexei will just take this as being her covering Marvel's tracks, even though if she said she was upset with Marvel he'd be praising her like a queen for her 'truthfullness'. He'll likely say that because a few people who had nothing to do with Thor 2 whatsoever didn't agree with Marvel, that she's upset and just being told by Marvel to cover it up.

[Parker Wayne]

People forget that both sides are interested in making a Marvel film together, but just not Thor 2.

[TheDragonator]

Indeed.

Hell, perhaps the reason she left was because she was offered a project from Marvel that she liked even more than Thor, maybe one of the 2014 movies.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Indeed.

Hell, perhaps the reason she left was because she was offered a project from Marvel that she liked even more than Thor, maybe one of the 2014 movies.
As I stated above:
I don't let my excitement about that movie be ruined by this unfortunate department. The quote by Jenkins in my signature shows, this "creative differences" weren't that severe as some people here might think, it probably just was the "sequel" factor.

As a director, making a sequel usualy gives you less creative freedom. Especially if it's a big franchise. You have to follow the rules of the first movie, can't change the direction or the genre completely. The last time something like that happend was when Jim Cameron made a sequel to a great horror filmhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22022079#) in space and turned it to a mindless action movie. It worked then (to some, not me), but I can't remember it has happend since. Also, you have to somewhat go with the art direction of the first movie. You can't suddenly change the look of Asgard. Alfonso Cuaron went as far as he could in that aspect when he took over the Potter franchise, but he was very limited as well. And you don't have a final say in the casting as most of the characters are already cast and under contract.

[Parker Wayne]

So who's gonna start the Patty Jenkins for Dr. Strange bandwagon? :o

[TheDragonator]

Ah, so it was that she felt it was strange having to go off of a previous director's style. That makes sense.

Still, hopefully she'll return in the future.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Ah, so it was that she felt it was strange having to go off of a previous director's style. That makes sense.

Still, hopefully she'll return in the future.
That was just an assumption from my part.
but statements like "she will still work for Marvel, just not on a sequel" certainly sound like that was the problem.

[R_Hythlodeus]

So who's gonna start the Patty Jenkins for Dr. Strange bandwagon? :o
There's a reason why I changed sig and avy yesterday :woot:

[kedrell]

Ah, so it was that she felt it was strange having to go off of a previous director's style. That makes sense.

Still, hopefully she'll return in the future.

While yes that does make sense in and of itself, it doesn't make sense that it took her/them this long to come to that conclusion. She had to know when she was hired that this was going to be the case. And this is where I fault Marvel. These are the kind of things that really should get taken care of behind the scenes and away from our view.

[ElMariachi]

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)

You are assuming that everybody who saw Thor did so in 3D. Also forgetting that Thor and movies released in theaters today have handicaps compared to movies a decade ago. They didn't have the ability to pirate movies like they do now. Superhero movies were fresh and CGI was incredible. Both are commonplace now. These movies were also released when the economy was booming in the 80's, 90's, and first half of the last decade. You talk about 3D prices but obviously people are paying these prices in a terrible economy with high unemployment. That says alot about the popularity of Thor in my opinion. What's the excuse for similar movies like Immortals, Green Lantern, First Class, Super 8, Planet of the Apes, Rio, Kung Fu Panda 2, Real Steel, Battle LA, and Cowboys and Aliens making less money than Thor?



Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.


That's a pretty weak argument. When you adjust ANYTHING for inflation, it looks worse and is sort of splitting hairs (for recent movies). If anything, the poor economy balances out inflation because fewer people have money to go to the movies.

And that list you showed me is top grossing movies of all time. Nobody said that Thor and Captain America were the most popular movies of all time. We said they are popular comicbook movies and that's a fact. You also seem to be forgetting the rest of planet earth. Thor cleaned up overseas and Captain America did pretty well too. As I said before, look at how well Thor has done compared to current movies. The only movies that beat Thor and Captain America worldwide this year have been big sequels (Twlight, Potter, Transformers, Pirates, Fast Five), a couple kid movies, and Planet of the Apes. There is no way of trying to diminish that Thor and Cap were popular movies. Thor would have been one of the most popular, non franchise movies the last few years as well and in the top 10.




What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

They did duplicate the success of Iron Man. They created two franchises that people are excited about with Thor and Cap. Both were positively reviewed and made money. Success isn't measured in box office take alone. XMFC was considered a success because it resurrected the X-Men franchise, despite making much less money than the previous movies. Duplicating Iron Man's box office take was never going to happen for the simple fact that Thor and Cap are much more difficult sells. The same as Green Lantern wasn't going to replicate TDK or Prince of Persia wasn't going to match Pirates of the Caribbearn. As I mentioned, Thor is a character who has always been regarded as silly and Captain America as hokey. The money Captain America made around the world (a post 9/11, Bush, Iraq War world) is testament enough about how much of a success it was. You aren't giving enough credit because you are hating.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

Being Marvel's 'big guns' means nothing. To the comic community, sure, but to the general public they mean nothing. Being recognized doesn't make something popular. 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. Nobody grew up with these characters like they did Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and the Hulk. I think we can all agree that those were the mainstream characters to the general public. There is a reason that those were the first major Hollywood superhero movies to be made/rebooted.

[ElMariachi]

That's a very logical way to look at it, dude you're on your way to becoming one of my favorite posters.

Thanks man, right back at ya!

[R_Hythlodeus]

While yes that does make sense in and of itself, it doesn't make sense that it took her/them this long to come to that conclusion. She had to know when she was hired that this was going to be the case. And this is where I fault Marvel. These are the kind of things that really should get taken care of behind the scenes and away from our view.
Patty had not made a movie for a decade and was now offered the chance to direct a big blockbuster movie. If you were in her position, would you think twice before you sign the contract? would the thought about your creative limits and the adaptation of Branaghs directorial style be in your mind at all?
I imagine she never thought of that until she had a couple of ideas that didn't work in that enviroment. Marvel took care of that as it seems they offered Patty another movie (Dr. Strange probably) instead, where she has more creative freedom and has not to fight against a ton of creative decisions already done before she joined the team.

At least that's how the whole story happend in my brain when I first read both the official statements from MS and the reaction from Patty.

[ElMariachi]

Even die hard Bat fans grudgingly accept that B&R is a faithful adaptation, the reason it sucks is the execution. I will say IM is the closest Mavel has to Begins given it was first cab off the ranks and therefore the one with the most freedom, so maybe he would have been able to make that film, but with their current philosophy there's no way TDK gets made.

I think we have to agree to disagree on that. Batman and Robin had nothing in common with the post-85 Batman comics. It was a faithful Silver Age adaptation but it didn't even mesh with the two Burton movies or the Animated Series. Mr. Freeze was serious in TAS. In B&R, he was a complete clown, Arnold playing himself basically, and nothing but terrible (but hilarious) puns. Same goes with Dent/Two Face in Forever. A great character in the show/comics, but a bufoon in the movie. The Schumacher movies were more like an updated 60's Batman with silly gadgets, laughable writing, and poor acting. The only thing that was missing was the 'boof', 'bang' and 'swish' words popping up.


Oh of course it can, you can always find a balance, you can't always apply the kids card as a way to avoid heavy topics, kids grow up eventually, in fact it could be a great way to curb a young kid away from that very path seeing their favourite superhero having to deal with such an addiction. This notion that a summer tent pole can't tackle deeper issues is nonsense, Inception proved that, lets not treat every superhero as simply the dude in the costume who saves the days, and lets not be afraid to tackle deeper problems. Personally I like the concept of a superhero having to deal with both a personal addiction and whatever threat he's up against mostly because we haven't seen that before in a superhero film.

Yes, you can apply the kid card here because it's a superhero movie and aimed at a wide audience. I understand that kids grow up fast but can't we just have some escapism? Do we really need to see Ant Man beat his wife in the film adaption? I'm there to be entertained. Tony Stark puking, not shaving, and being an unfunny tool doesn't sound entertaining. They tried this stuff in Hancock and frankly, it sucked and ruined the movie.

[ElMariachi]

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..

You can say this about any movie though. As I have said before, many times, the Marvel Studios movies are unfairly held to ridiculous standards. Yet, a movie like First Class with some terrible acting, glaring continuity holes, average CGI, mediocre box office returns, and rushed ending gets absolutely no criticism....at all. Not only that but it's considered to be one of the best comicbook movies. The same people who whine about the ending of Captain America, overlook the rushed ending/relationship of Magneto/Xavier. The same people who complain that Thor became a good person too quickly would have no problem with Magneto/Harvey Dent making quick villain turns.

[Crimson King]

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks that way about XM:FC. I try to keep my opinions on that one to myself since most people here are fans.

[ElMariachi]

Well actually I think it is enough time(and remember I'm the one that was arguing that DIAB wouldn't work as a movie). The problem is that to do the subject matter any justice, THAT'S ALL YOU'D HAVE IN THE MOVIE. And these still need to be summer blockbuster, superhero action movies to boot. That's why it wouldn't work. In order to fit it all in inside a theatrical movie you'd be looking at probably a 3-4 hour movie and few would put up with that. And then the movie would tank at the box office.

You could do DIAB I suppose but you can't alot of the other fun stuff that made Iron Man great. I still don't know if a 2 hour movie is enough time to flesh it out though. 3 hours, sure, but we both know that ain't happening.

The biggest issue with it is the subject matter. Alcoholism isn't a pretty thing. People would complain that the movie doesn't take it seriously enough or that the movie is TOO serious. It's a fine line and would be a huge gamble to pull off. Kids wouldn't want to see that, parents might not want to take kids too see their kids to see a guy swigging Wild Turkey, and the box office would suffer. jmc mentioned Inception being a box office hit and while it's deeper (no pun intended) than most summer fare--dreams/sci-fi is easier to swallow than alcoholism. The theme of IM2 was deep enough, although it's not given enough credit round' these parts. They probally should have just avoided the palladium poisioning thing all together or made it the full story. Instad, they tried to combine Armor Wars and DIAB.

[ElMariachi]

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks that way about XM:FC. I try to keep my opinions on that one to myself since most people here are fans.

I own the movie and enjoy it for what it is but I just don't think it was as great as people make it out to be. If people went over it with a fine tooth comb like they have IM2/Thor/Cap, they will see the flaws. The acting in Thor/Cap/IM2 is miles ahead of XMFC (Xavier/Magneto being the exception), in my opinion.

[Parker Wayne]

Kevin Bacon was also great in XM:FC

[R_Hythlodeus]

I've reached the point now where I no longer care who directs Thor 2 as long as the movie has the right amount of Superman!
:O

[Gamma Burst]

Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks that way about XM:FC. I try to keep my opinions on that one to myself since most people here are fans.

Add me to the list. You're not exactly alone on this.

[Gamma Burst]

I've reached the point now where I no longer care who directs Thor 2 as long as the movie has the right amount of Superman!
:O

For me it's the right amount of spider-man. He's much cooler!

[R_Hythlodeus]

For me it's the right amount of spider-man. He's much cooler!
and here begins - again - the transatlantic schism of measurements :o

but well, since obviously the spider-man movies so far had the biggest amount of Superman by a single character, I hereby declare that the amount of 10 Supermen should be called the amount of 1 Spider-Man or the amount of 10,000 Cyclopses!

In short: 10,000 Cyclopses = 10 Supermen = 1 Spider-Man

[jmc]

I think we have to agree to disagree on that. Batman and Robin had nothing in common with the post-85 Batman comics. It was a faithful Silver Age adaptation but it didn't even mesh with the two Burton movies or the Animated Series. Mr. Freeze was serious in TAS. In B&R, he was a complete clown, Arnold playing himself basically, and nothing but terrible (but hilarious) puns. Same goes with Dent/Two Face in Forever. A great character in the show/comics, but a bufoon in the movie. The Schumacher movies were more like an updated 60's Batman with silly gadgets, laughable writing, and poor acting. The only thing that was missing was the 'boof', 'bang' and 'swish' words popping up.

What's to disagree about? So what if it isn't based on post '85 Batman, it's still based on a part of Batman's history. You can't pick and choose which eras are the 'correct' character, they're all valid. Whether you like it or not it's a faithful movie, it's just not very good.


Yes, you can apply the kid card here because it's a superhero movie and aimed at a wide audience. I understand that kids grow up fast but can't we just have some escapism? Do we really need to see Ant Man beat his wife in the film adaption? I'm there to be entertained. Tony Stark puking, not shaving, and being an unfunny tool doesn't sound entertaining. They tried this stuff in Hancock and frankly, it sucked and ruined the movie.

You seem to be under the assumption that you can't strike a balance, that it either has to be a totally sanitized experience or is too heavy a subject for kids. There is middle ground. No-ones asking for Leaving Las Vegas but the concept is perfectly fine to tackle and can be done in a way that doesn't ruin enjoyment and could even promote discussion and greater awareness.

[cherokeesam]

Being Marvel's 'big guns' means nothing. To the comic community, sure, but to the general public they mean nothing. Being recognized doesn't make something popular. 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. Nobody grew up with these characters like they did Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and the Hulk. I think we can all agree that those were the mainstream characters to the general public. There is a reason that those were the first major Hollywood superhero movies to be made/rebooted.

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.

"I think we can all agree that those were the mainstream characters to the general public. There is a reason that those were the first major Hollywood superhero movies to be made/rebooted." Except you're forgetting that most of the superheroes who got film treatments first were *not* top tier characters.....hell, some of them didn't even rate the d-list. Blade? Constantine? Daredevil? Elektra? Ghost Rider? Spawn? Steel? Supergirl? Hellboy? The Rocketeer? The Crow? Judge Dredd? Punisher?

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.

[misjuevos]

Add me to the list. You're not exactly alone on this.
and another. i said my peace about not liking xmfc in their boards. when it came out. of course my opinion was not well recieved. i liked kickass but that doesn't mean i will like any movie vaughn makes. that scene where they picked their names made me cringe it was so bad. "and you are prof x and you are magneto".

[BMM]

You are assuming that everybody who saw Thor did so in 3D. Also forgetting that Thor and movies released in theaters today have handicaps compared to movies a decade ago. They didn't have the ability to pirate movies like they do now. Superhero movies were fresh and CGI was incredible. Both are commonplace now. These movies were also released when the economy was booming in the 80's, 90's, and first half of the last decade.

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.

You talk about 3D prices but obviously people are paying these prices in a terrible economy with high unemployment. That says alot about the popularity of Thor in my opinion. What's the excuse for similar movies like Immortals, Green Lantern, First Class, Super 8, Planet of the Apes, Rio, Kung Fu Panda 2, Real Steel, Battle LA, and Cowboys and Aliens making less money than Thor?

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.

That's a pretty weak argument. When you adjust ANYTHING for inflation, it looks worse and is sort of splitting hairs (for recent movies). If anything, the poor economy balances out inflation because fewer people have money to go to the movies.

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.

[Gamma Burst]

I really don't see the point in trying to diminish Thor's success.
A lot of movies used the 3D(supposed) 'gimmick' and were absolute failures or didn't come close to Thor's numbers.
And yet, people pretend this was the only reason why it was succesfull, instead of acknowledging it became popular, with good word of mouth.

[BMM]

I don’t think it’s about diminishing Thor’s success so much as it is about being realistic (at least, to me). I’m happy to support Thor, but I’m not going to falsely attribute success to it either because it surpassed the box office numbers of a movie released 10, 20, or 30 years ago, as though the two are on an equal playing field and Thor is the victor.

[Gamma Burst]

I never compared films that old to Thor. The comparison is impossible, since you can't predict how Thor would've made 20 years ago or even how those movies would do now.
What I can say, based on facts, is that Thor was succesfull, a blockbuster, and it's not me who's calling it that way; you can find it in any movie/cinema website, be it collider,imdb,hollywoodreporter,deadline,etc.

[hatebox]

You can say this about any movie though. As I have said before, many times, the Marvel Studios movies are unfairly held to ridiculous standards.

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.

[Marvel]

Yeah, I fully expect some of them to come in here and tell me how Nolan created Batman. :woot:

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.

[Silvermoth]

I own the movie and enjoy it for what it is but I just don't think it was as great as people make it out to be. If people went over it with a fine tooth comb like they have IM2/Thor/Cap, they will see the flaws. The acting in Thor/Cap/IM2 is miles ahead of XMFC (Xavier/Magneto being the exception), in my opinion.

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

[BigThor]

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.

Thor and Cap being Marvel's big guns in terms of comic books has nothing to do with the general public, to the general public they WERE virtually unkown before their movies came along.

You can't really think Thor's been at the forefront of Marvel's marketing outside of the comic book world, outside of Avenger's stuff he's been virtually in the shadows.


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.

I actually agree with your point here.

[cherokeesam]

Thor and Cap being Marvel's big guns in terms of comic books has nothing to do with the general public, to the general public they WERE virtually unkown before their movies came along.

You can't really think Thor's been at the forefront of Marvel's marketing outside of the comic book world, outside of Avenger's stuff he's been virtually in the shadows.



Where are you guys getting the notion that Thor and Cap were "unknown" to the masses before 2011? Here's some reading material on both characters in pop culture from the 60s onward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)_in_other_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_in_other_media

Again, Cap and Thor were *at least* as well known as Iron Man before their movies came out this year. As a 45-year old long-time fan who has literally grown up watching these characters in movies, TV, games, and books as well as comics, it continues to astound me that some people think of Captain America and Thor as "silly second-tier characters that nobody has ever heard of."

[Gamma Burst]

It doesn't matter if cap and thor (and the avengers in general)were ''at least '' as known as iron man. ALL of them were virtually unknown to the general audience; that's the point.
The only really big/ iconic characters (before the movies) to the public were spider-man and the hulk, and , maybe, some of the x-men.
The other characters always have been 'first tier' in comics, but if you think they have been promoted and exposed to the public like hulk/spidey, then, i'm sorry to say, you're mistaken. Before these recent movies it was not even close. Now, the gap between then is certainly much smaller, but still is significative.

[cherokeesam]

It doesn't matter if cap and thor (and the avengers in general)were ''at least '' as known as iron man. ALL of them were virtually unknown to the general audience; that's the point.
The only really big/ iconic characters (before the movies) to the public were spider-man and the hulk, and , maybe, some of the x-men.
The other characters always have been 'first tier' in comics, but if you think they have been promoted and exposed to the public like hulk/spidey, then, i'm sorry to say, you're mistaken. Before these recent movies it was not even close. Now, the gap between then is certainly much smaller, but still is significative.


The "gap" is a generational one. You young whippersnappers only know of comics in pop culture from the 80s onwards. Those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s have a very different memory of things. See, you kids missed the brief "renaissance" of superheroes in the mainstream in the late 70s --- born almost entirely of the blockbuster success of Donner's Superman film. In the late 70s, we saw movies, TV movies and live-action TV shows for every character from Spider-Man to Hulk to Wonder Woman to Captain Marvel ("Shazam!") to Captain America to Thor to the Justice League....and I'm sure I'm leaving more than a few out.

Again, read the Wikilinks I showed you in the post directly above yours. You'll find plenty of pop culture references to Cap and Thor long before 2011.

[Iron_Stark]

And I love how people bring up Nolan as being an example of creativity regarding BB/TDK. He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies. Chris Nolan didn't create the Joker and 'dark' Batman stories. He simply drew inspiration from Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and No Man's Land. That is why he was successful with Batman. The previous 3 Batman movies could have used a Kevin Feige to control the nonsense that had been allowed.

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.


If any example is needed to why a creative director isn't a good thing, just look at Aronofsky. Anybody remember his godawful idea for a Batman movie? Or James Cameron's for Spider-Man? Or Tim Burton's Superman and how insane he allowed Returns to get? Or Bryan Singer's Superman? Marvel has avoided all this bulls--t by not allowing directors to make bad movies. Demon in a Bottle would have been stupid as a 2 hr movie as mentioned earlier.

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.

[04nbod]

I own the movie and enjoy it for what it is but I just don't think it was as great as people make it out to be. If people went over it with a fine tooth comb like they have IM2/Thor/Cap, they will see the flaws. The acting in Thor/Cap/IM2 is miles ahead of XMFC (Xavier/Magneto being the exception), in my opinion.

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

[Gamma Burst]

First, if you think I'm young, you're mistaken again, but thanks. :)
I know all the series you've mentioned and I don't see what you tried to prove when you posted them, since it does'nt refute anything I've stated in my previous post.
Again, hulk and spidey always have been popular, since the 80s, with multiple cartoons, series, and many of them have become 'cult'. Thor, iron man, etc never had the same exposure, and poor cap had a ridiculous series,which had almost nothing to do with the character and a ridiculous direct to video movie. Before the movies, Iron Man had an ok cartoon in the 90's, which didn't that much, and Thor only appeared as a guest in other toons. If you think that's comparable to what Spidey and hulk had.... To be fair, I don't think even the hulk was comparable to spidey.
Don't take me wrong, i'd love to see all my favourite characters being equally popular and well known, but, unfortunately, it's hasn't been that way, and there's still a long way to go.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You can say this about any movie though. As I have said before, many times, the Marvel Studios movies are unfairly held to ridiculous standards. Yet, a movie like First Class with some terrible acting, glaring continuity holes, average CGI, mediocre box office returns, and rushed ending gets absolutely no criticism....at all. Not only that but it's considered to be one of the best comicbook movies. The same people who whine about the ending of Captain America, overlook the rushed ending/relationship of Magneto/Xavier. The same people who complain that Thor became a good person too quickly would have no problem with Magneto/Harvey Dent making quick villain turns.

You could do DIAB I suppose but you can't alot of the other fun stuff that made Iron Man great. I still don't know if a 2 hour movie is enough time to flesh it out though. 3 hours, sure, but we both know that ain't happening.

The biggest issue with it is the subject matter. Alcoholism isn't a pretty thing. People would complain that the movie doesn't take it seriously enough or that the movie is TOO serious. It's a fine line and would be a huge gamble to pull off. Kids wouldn't want to see that, parents might not want to take kids too see their kids to see a guy swigging Wild Turkey, and the box office would suffer. jmc mentioned Inception being a box office hit and while it's deeper (no pun intended) than most summer fare--dreams/sci-fi is easier to swallow than alcoholism. The theme of IM2 was deep enough, although it's not given enough credit round' these parts. They probally should have just avoided the palladium poisioning thing all together or made it the full story. Instad, they tried to combine Armor Wars and DIAB.


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.

[kedrell]

Count me as another who didn't understand the love that XM:FC got. It's ok and not a bad movie but it's got the same irritating problems that the first two X-Men films had(which I'll admit is still better than the problems X3 & XOW had). Basically, I'm sick to death of Brian Singer's soapbox preaching with the movies. Just about as sick of it as I ended up being with Raimi and his particular flavor of cheese. I'd rank all the MCU films(even TIH which I consider to be their worst film, relatively) at least at the same level if not much higher than X1, X2, XM:FC, SM1, SM2. I don't think the MCU films are flawless but they maintain a relative standard of excellence that I admire.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^For me, only IM and Thor have come close to the likes of X1 (both probably surpass this one) X2 and FC, no MS movies come close to the latter two for me. Also dont forget, Singer didnt direct FC, he came up with the basic story and produced, but Vaughn and Goldman wrote the script and Vaughn directed.

[kedrell]

and another. i said my peace about not liking xmfc in their boards. when it came out. of course my opinion was not well recieved. i liked kickass but that doesn't mean i will like any movie vaughn makes. that scene where they picked their names made me cringe it was so bad. "and you are prof x and you are magneto".

Oy, that was bad. As well as the trained CIA agents suddenly turning into slack-jawed idiots just to drive home the point(in case you hadn't gotten it already) that humans are prejudiced against mutants.:whatever:

I wanted to fire-bomb the screen at that point.

[kedrell]

^For me, only IM and Thor have come close to the likes of X1 (both probably surpass this one) X2 and FC, no MS movies come close to the latter two for me. Also dont forget, Singer didnt direct FC, he came up with the basic story and produced, but Vaughn and Goldman wrote the script and Vaughn directed.

His influence was all over it and it was very easy to tell.

[R_Hythlodeus]

The teenagers in FC were annoying (especially whoever played Mystique), January Jones is a real bad actress, the third act was a mess and I don't care for the catlike Beast. But everything else was very enjoyable. The first act was brillant until Xavier and Eric met for the first time.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The teenagers in FC were annoying (especially whoever played Mystique), January Jones is a real bad actress, the third act was a mess and I don't care for the catlike Beast. But everything else was very enjoyable. The first act was brillant until Xavier and Eric met for the first time.


Really? I thought they were all great, especially Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) Hank (Beast) and Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), I thought they were all played brilliantly. McAvoy and Fassbender are obviously stars of the show, they were both brilliant, but the others were great too IMO.

[BigThor]

Where are you guys getting the notion that Thor and Cap were "unknown" to the masses before 2011? Here's some reading material on both characters in pop culture from the 60s onward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)_in_other_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_in_other_media

Again, Cap and Thor were *at least* as well known as Iron Man before their movies came out this year. As a 45-year old long-time fan who has literally grown up watching these characters in movies, TV, games, and books as well as comics, it continues to astound me that some people think of Captain America and Thor as "silly second-tier characters that nobody has ever heard of."

A few guest appearances and lame TV appearances hardly qualifies as being at the "forefront of Marvel's marketing", besides as a Thor fan I already knew about most of his media appearances.

[cherokeesam]

A few guest appearances and lame TV appearances hardly qualifies as being at the "forefront of Marvel's marketing", besides as a Thor fan I already knew about most of his media appearances.


He was in the 60s and 70s. As was Cap. Granted, I know most of you weren't even born then. Cap and Thor's popularity only waned in the 80s and 90s, when they were considered too Silver Age for a new generation that had latched on to Punisher and Venom and Wolverine and a billion X-Men spinoffs. But I'd say that their popularity returned in the late 90s and 00s, even before their respective movies, with Thor going full-on swords & sorcery (okay, *hammers* & sorcery) fantasy for the D&D/WoW niche audience and Cap becoming the new poster boy/martyr for blue-state America against Bush/Stark fascism during CW.

I don't know what definition you guys want to use to rate a character's pop culture mojo, but those of you who act like Cap and Thor were unknowns before these movies are just plain wrong.

[Gamma Burst]

Not unknowns, but hardly popular or known as spidey, hulk or even wolverine. Not even close.
Again, this 'not old enough' doesn't work with me. I've posted a lot of examples about their exposure in the media in, at least 30 years, and it pales in comparison to the exposure the more known characters got.
And more, the Avengers only became 'popular', in comics, (and marvel biggest brand) in the mid 2000's, with Bendis basically detroying them and adding Spider-Man and Wolverine ( I wonder why!) to the mix. After that, specially with the beginning of marvel studios, they started putting top names to write the classic avengers' main characters (IM,Thor, Cap). Before that, in the 90's and early 2000's, all the 'hot' talent went to the x-titles, spidey, etc.
Hell, even he awesome Busiek&Perez run on Avengers, while appreciated by fans, was hardly a top seller.

[Still A ThorFan]

For those of you who saw Patty Jenkin's Monster you know it was a dark, gritty film, well done etc. Maybe, just maybe she wanted to bring that tone to Thor (which I would have loved) and Marvel said no, we have to keep it kid friendly, we have a lot of toys we need to sell, we have to do it for the kids! Hence all the camp in the Earth scenes. Remember, Marvel makes their films accessiable for the general public first, then us. Look at all of the god awful, forced humor that ruined Iron Man 2.

[BigThor]

For those of you who saw Patty Jenkin's Monster you know it was a dark, gritty film, well done etc. Maybe, just maybe she wanted to bring that tone to Thor (which I would have loved) and Marvel said no, we have to keep it kid friendly, we have a lot of toys we need to sell, we have to do it for the kids! Hence all the camp in the Earth scenes. Remember, Marvel makes their films accessiable for the general public first, then us. Look at all of the god awful, forced humor that ruined Iron Man 2.

Humor isn't what ruined Iron Man 2, the film was rushed and featured just a little too many characters.

[cherokeesam]

Humor isn't what ruined Iron Man 2, the film was rushed and featured just a little too many characters.


It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor.

[Mysteryman]

It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor. You can have a film be a big hit and still be a creative failure.
Happens all of the time.

[cherokeesam]

You can have a film be a big hit and still be a creative failure.
Happens all of the time.

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.

[Shadowlord X]

Well said, Charokeesam!

IM2 is not even close to a failure nor is it a bad movie. It's a good movie, just not close to how great IM was.

Having watched it recently again, I still find it very enjoyable.

[Still A ThorFan]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

[kedrell]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

Uh, no. I am one and most were pleased with IM2. Sure, it wasn't as good as IM1 but then to me that's far and away the best superhero film in existence. The sequel coming up short of that still netted us a very good movie. It still got good reviews and made more $ than the first one.

[BigThor]

It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor.

Yeah I don't think it's a failure at all, it's just not as good as the first Iron Man.

I think he's a pretty good film actually, I don't know why it receives as much hate as it does.

[Mysteryman]

To many ,IM Was the greatest Superhero film ever made .
Or at the very least, one of the greatest .
Either way,
That is a lot to live up to.
When people have a lot of expectations, they can be easily dissapointed

[Alexei Belyakov]

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.

While IM2 was a financial success, it was also a critical failure & marked the beginning of "Safe" MARVEL aka Marvel Lite.

[R_Hythlodeus]

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.
exactly.
and it wasn't even a critical failure. I mean, IM2 was certified fresh on RT with a 74% score. some people just had unrealistic expectations.

[WildcatNC]

I don't understand the IM II hate. It was a solid film. It was one of the weaker Marvel films to date, but since I really like them all thats not saying much. It was still good.

[Alexei Belyakov]

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.

[DarkSovereignty]

well seeing as how the large majority of movies that come out these days are lucky to break 50%, I'd say a curve is applicable here. also, just because 55 nerds on the internet hated it doesn't make it a bad movie. Iron man 2, whether you want to admit it or not, was NOT a failure. it wasn't groundbreaking, but it wasn't a failure.

[ElMariachi]

What's to disagree about? So what if it isn't based on post '85 Batman, it's still based on a part of Batman's history. You can't pick and choose which eras are the 'correct' character, they're all valid. Whether you like it or not it's a faithful movie, it's just not very good.

Yeah, I think you can pick and choose the era. Batman was a radically different character post 85' in the comics, in the two darker Tim Burton movies, and the Animated Series. They threw a complete curveball with the two Schumacher movies. It's just like James Bond when they made the horrendous Die Another Day, which felt more like a 60's Bond movie than Goldeneye/Tomorrow Never Dies.


You seem to be under the assumption that you can't strike a balance, that it either has to be a totally sanitized experience or is too heavy a subject for kids. There is middle ground. No-ones asking for Leaving Las Vegas but the concept is perfectly fine to tackle and can be done in a way that doesn't ruin enjoyment and could even promote discussion and greater awareness.

How are you going to strike a balance of a Hollywood summer tentpole and alcoholism? Not only this but have Jon Favreau of all people direct it? There is a reason why no comicbook movie has delved into these sorts of themes. It would hurt the box office, alienate kids/families, and the movie most likely would suck.

[Iron_Stark]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

Nonsense, the only people that call Iron Man 2 a failure are haters.

IM2 wasn't as good as part one, but it sure is better than MOST cbm out there.