Matthew Vaughn in negotiations to direct Thor?

[7alex]

I want Brad Pitt to play Thor and thats final.

 

[Nokio]

I would like to see Thor in and Avergers or ultimates film first.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again spidey!

I never said Thor should beat Loki in the Thor film.

But thats a given, unless you are seriously suggesting Loki should not be the main villain for the first Thor movie!?

I think all of these solo films should lead into the Avengers film.

I disagree! They should all be self contained movies. None of the solo movies should reference the Avengers.

Have Thor fail to stop Loki in the Thor film and then pick up persuing him in the Avengers.

Ridiculously underwhelming. Your climax to the first Thor movie is that Thor fails to stop Loki. Are you a Superman Returns fan perchance?

So vilain wise, you'd just wanna go on and blow your wad with the first movie, huh?

Are you trying to wind me up dude!? t:

I'm the guy who suggested in the other recent thread we should have 12 Thor movies, each with a different set of villains!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=278017

ooo-kay. Can you not be patient and let these things happen in their due time?

I'm trying to sell the concept of 12 Thor movies but somehow I'm not patient enough!?

If Kang IS the ultimate Avengers villain, wouldn't you want to save him for the 2nd or 3rd film, really wrap up the trilogy with a bang?

So save Green Goblin for Spiderman 3, save Doctor Doom for Fantastic Four 3 and save Magneto for X-Men 3...is that how you do it!?

Guess not. I bet you LOVED X3.

Only as much as I loved the first two. I'm not a great fan of the X-men in general, the only character I really like is Juggernaut ('cause hes a sometime Thor villain). So if I had to pick a favourite I'd probably say X3, but there was little between all the movies - speaking as a non X-men fan that is.

I don't see that at all. Loki could be the main villain in the first Thor film, nearly beat Thor and his armies, and narrowly escape to Earth where...We see at the start of the Avengers film, he is using the Hulk to isolate Thor far from Asgard and lure him into a trap. From there Thor meets the other heroes and they realize they are basically fighting a common enemy. The Hulk wouldn't stick around for future Avengers films and Thor could move onto some other of his rogues gallery in future solo films (as I'd hope he'd do even if Loki DIDN'T appear in the Avengers film so I don't know where you get the whole "loki being in the Avengers will hurt the Thor franchise" thing!).

You have answered your own question by having Thor 'fail' to defeat Loki. Either that, or Thor does defeat Loki in his solo movie and then you use Loki again in the Avengers movie - which makes the Avengers movie somewhat anti-climactic given that Thor can defeat Loki on his own - why the heck does he need the Avengers!?

Well, we're both stating opinion, but if your going to stoop to calling things idiotic, I'll merely ask you: Where did Thor come from?

Marvel Thor comes from Earth - he was born of Odin and Gaia. Born on Earth and raised in Asgard.

Mythical Thor comes from Norway.

And where did he end up?

Oklahoma.

According to your logic, any story that took place after one of his many adventures in Asgard must have been idiotic which as anyone else knows is clearly NOT the case.

Wrong. Obviously the more we see of Asgard the less gravitas it will have each time.

Note that if you check out Essential Thor Volume 1 there is very little interaction between Thor and Asgard in the initial comics. The early stories concentrate on Earth and then slowly introduce more and more of Asgard.

The key being that they build UP to Asgard rather than start with Asgard and work down to Earth.

Oh my Lord! Again, you contradict your own statement about how important it is to stick to the comic as closely as possible by telling me I need to have my head examined for suggesting that...they stick to the comic by having them fight the Hulk on earth...just like they did in the comic!! What do you want, them fighting the Hulk on the Deathstar with lightsabers and the help of Darth Vader and Aragorn's Elf Army? Man, that would be just off the charts in terms of epic scale!! And pretty lame as well. If you don't like the original premise, take it up with Stan Lee.

I'm not saying they couldn't fight the Hulk - perhaps as a centrepiece of the movie, but to have that as the climax would be laughable.

I'd much rather see the Earth invaded by Kang's armada with the heroes battling legions of Kang's troops including multiple Growing Men and ultimately Kang himself.

Well, I am conversing with you, but if that's the way you choose to believe...

On that matter I was only joking - hence the smilie.

 

[Spider–Man]

Hello again spidey!



But thats a given, unless you are seriously suggesting Loki should not be the main villain for the first Thor movie!?

It's a given that Thor SHOULDN'T beat Loki in the first Thor film? Or are you saying it's a given that Thor SHOULD beat Loki? USUALLY the good guys BEAT the bad guys in the first film. I'm saying in the first Thor, have Thor FAIL to beat Loki. And where did I say Loki shouldn't be in the first Thor? Did you read my post? quote: "Have Thor fail to stop Loki in the Thor film and then pick up persuing him in the Avengers film" - "Loki could be the main villain in the first Thor film, nearly beat Thor and his armies, and narrowly escape to Earth". Did you miss this?

I disagree! They should all be self contained movies. None of the solo movies should reference the Avengers.

Again I didn't say that the first Thor film should 'reference' the Avengers film. But I do think they should all set up the Avengers film. What are you saying, that the solo films should have nothing to do with the Avengers film? How about actor-wise?

Ridiculously underwhelming. Your climax to the first Thor movie is that Thor fails to stop Loki. Are you a Superman Returns fan perchance?

Again, your opinion. I personally think a 20 - 30 minute battle royale between CG Hulk and the Avengers would be waaaaay more exciting than anything you mentioned but that's just MY opinion. And my preference was a good enough way to end the first comic issue of the Avengers which you have stated needs to be adhered to as closely as possible. And yes, SR was ok. Of course I'm not a huge Superman fan. But the film was enjoyable enough, if a bit long on time and short on action.

Are you trying to wind me up dude!? t:

I'm the guy who suggested in the other recent thread we should have 12 Thor movies, each with a different set of villains!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=278017


I'm trying to sell the concept of 12 Thor movies but somehow I'm not patient enough!?

12 Thor films??!!! So where is there even room in your agenda for this Avengers movie that 'we all' want so badly?

Only as much as I loved the first two. I'm not a great fan of the X-men in general, the only character I really like is Juggernaut ('cause hes a sometime Thor villain). So if I had to pick a favourite I'd probably say X3, but there was little between all the movies - speaking as a non X-men fan that is.

It suddenly becomes clear...

You have answered your own question by having Thor 'fail' to defeat Loki. Either that, or Thor does defeat Loki in his solo movie and then you use Loki again in the Avengers movie - which makes the Avengers movie somewhat anti-climactic given that Thor can defeat Loki on his own - why the heck does he need the Avengers!?

Where did I 'ask a question'? I said Thor FAILS TO BEAT LOKI in the first Thor film! That makes the Avengers' struggle against him (and the Hulk) in the Avengers film that much more epic! Jeez! What don't you get about that?

Marvel Thor comes from Earth - he was born of Odin and Gaia. Born on Earth and raised in Asgard.

Mythical Thor comes from Norway.


wrong. Obviously the more we see of Asgard the less gravitas it will have each time.

Note that if you check out Essential Thor Volume 1 there is very little interaction between Thor and Asgard in the initial comics. The early stories concentrate on Earth and then slowly introduce more and more of Asgard.

The key being that they build UP to Asgard rather than start with Asgard and work down to Earth.

Ok, in JIM #83, Don Blake taps the stick and suddenly there's Thor. Well, where did he come from? Just to prevent further discussion on this particular subject, I don't care where the first Thor film takes place. I'm just saying they COULD do it in Asgard and then continue on Earth in the Avengers very successfully IMO. What I DO care about is how they do the first Avengers film, which if what I've read is correct, is gonna be pretty much like I have said (maybe minus Loki).

I'm not saying they couldn't fight the Hulk - perhaps as a centrepiece of the movie, but to have that as the climax would be laughable.

I'd much rather see the Earth invaded by Kang's armada with the heroes battling legions of Kang's troops including multiple Growing Men and ultimately Kang himself.

I'd say the movie you want will be done when Marvel decides they want to spend $300+ million on one film! IOW not anytime soon! The Avengers I describe would already cost over $200 mil I'm sure! Again when you try to cram too much into a movie that you don't have enough money to realize successfully, the film suffers ala X3. But as you seem to be one of the 17 people who actually like that film, we have no common frame of reference for this point. The problem with SR was they had a LOT of scratch and didn't do NEARLY enough with it.

As to respect for Thor, I can see you are a really big fan, so I concede the point on the first Thor film and say I hope they do it exactly like you'd like it! I honestly want every superhero film to be the best it can be and I think every fan has the right to see their hero done justice on the big screen!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey spidey!

It's a given that Thor SHOULDN'T beat Loki in the first Thor film? Or are you saying it's a given that Thor SHOULD beat Loki?

Yes I am saying that. 'Beat' doesn't mean kill of course. But Thor has more than enough of a Rogues Gallery for us to not need Loki as a main villain again.

USUALLY the good guys BEAT the bad guys in the first film.

Correct, as it should be, especially in a first movie.

I'm saying in the first Thor, have Thor FAIL to beat Loki.

...I know, and this is where the lunacy begins.

And where did I say Loki shouldn't be in the first Thor? Did you read my post? quote: "Have Thor fail to stop Loki in the Thor film and then pick up persuing him in the Avengers film" - "Loki could be the main villain in the first Thor film, nearly beat Thor and his armies, and narrowly escape to Earth". Did you miss this?

Your ideas seemed illogical, hence the reason I questioned them.

Again I didn't say that the first Thor film should 'reference' the Avengers film. But I do think they should all set up the Avengers film. What are you saying, that the solo films should have nothing to do with the Avengers film? How about actor-wise?

Depends on the timing.

If we take the JLA movie as an example. I cannot see Christian Bale doing this movie. So if they do this movie sometime before he finishes his three Batman movies, its just going to look out of place.

Again, your opinion. I personally think a 20 - 30 minute battle royale between CG Hulk and the Avengers would be waaaaay more exciting than anything you mentioned but that's just MY opinion.

...and I am sure one every Hulk fanboy would love.

Hulk > Avengers!

But since Thor is more powerful than the Hulk the idea that this is the climax will only server to cheapen the Avengers.

And my preference was a good enough way to end the first comic issue of the Avengers which you have stated needs to be adhered to as closely as possible.

The problem you have is the question of whether or not that tale is worthy of spending your production budget on.

Even my own Thor movie treatment uses multiple ideas from the early comics (Loki, Stonemen, Wrecking Crew, Destroyer).

www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm

The most powerful characters (Thor, Superman) or teams (JLA, Avengers) need world-shaking threats or bigger to fully do them justice. That means facing forces MORE POWERFUL than the heroes themselves.

Hulk is not such a threat. Loki is not even such a threat. Kang on his own is no such threat. But Kang + an entire armada from the 30th century IS such a threat. Darkseid + Apokalips IS such a threat.

And yes, SR was ok. Of course I'm not a huge Superman fan. But the film was enjoyable enough, if a bit long on time and short on action.

That nonsense was a travesty...but l digress.

12 Thor films??!!! So where is there even room in your agenda for this Avengers movie that 'we all' want so badly?

You know Marvel have multiple franchises ongoing at the moment! One doesn't impact the other.

It suddenly becomes clear...

No neutral, non-X-men fan or casual moviegoer would consider the first two movies notably superior.

Where did I 'ask a question'? I said Thor FAILS TO BEAT LOKI in the first Thor film! That makes the Avengers' struggle against him (and the Hulk) in the Avengers film that much more epic! Jeez! What don't you get about that?

Its a simple case of not upping the ante enough.

Ok, in JIM #83, Don Blake taps the stick and suddenly there's Thor. Well, where did he come from? Just to prevent further discussion on this particular subject, I don't care where the first Thor film takes place. I'm just saying they COULD do it in Asgard and then continue on Earth in the Avengers very successfully IMO.

Its illogical to have the first Thor movie set on Asgard and 'build' to Earth.

What I DO care about is how they do the first Avengers film, which if what I've read is correct, is gonna be pretty much like I have said (maybe minus Loki).

If the climax is a battle with the Hulk then it sounds like a total waste of time.

I'd say the movie you want will be done when Marvel decides they want to spend $300+ million on one film!

Only if they get Singer to direct. Any other director will bring it in under $200 million...have you seen Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars prequels! Take away Tobey's paycheck and you would probably bring Spidey 3 in under $200 million.

IOW not anytime soon! The Avengers I describe would already cost over $200 mil I'm sure!

Utter nonsense.

Again when you try to cram too much into a movie that you don't have enough money to realize successfully, the film suffers ala X3.

It wasn't necessarily lack of budget that hurt X3 - the effects were better than 1 & 2 combined. The twin problems were the actors salaries (X3 must have had the biggest actor salary payout in movie history) and the lack of time afforded the movies production.

But as you seem to be one of the 17 people who actually like that film,

Yes - thats why it has by far the biggest box office of the series, all us 17 people went to see it a million times each.

we have no common frame of reference for this point.

Logic is all the commonality we need.

The problem with SR was they had a LOT of scratch and didn't do NEARLY enough with it.

The problem with Superman Returns was EVERY...SINGLE...THING!

As to respect for Thor, I can see you are a really big fan, so I concede the point on the first Thor film and say I hope they do it exactly like you'd like it!

I doubt I could be that lucky or Hollywood could be that smart.

I honestly want every superhero film to be the best it can be and I think every fan has the right to see their hero done justice on the big screen!

Absolutely.

I won't begrudge you an Avengers movie with Loki and the Hulk. I'm simply trying to explain why its not the most logical of ideas - but when was Hollywood ever logical.

 

[Spider–Man]

Hey spidey!



Yes I am saying that. 'Beat' doesn't mean kill of course. But Thor has more than enough of a Rogues Gallery for us to not need Loki as a main villain again.


Correct, as it should be, especially in a first movie.

I think you'd prove to be a more original writer if you'd open your mind to see beyond the hopelessly conventional 'that's the way it's always been done' (hero always wins) view you appear to have.

...I know, and this is where the lunacy begins.

Again because this apparently steers outside your comfort zone of the conventional superhero movie model, you call it 'lunacy'.

Your ideas seemed illogical, hence the reason I questioned them.

They would only seem illogical to someone who was incapable of opening his mind to see other possibilities than what we've always been handed. 'Illogical' thinking is the kind that allowed Stan Lee to envision a Marvel Universe that was completely different than anything that had been done before.

Depends on the timing.

If we take the JLA movie as an example. I cannot see Christian Bale doing this movie. So if they do this movie sometime before he finishes his three Batman movies, its just going to look out of place.

Bottom line: IMO if they a)make a JLA movie without Batman or b)have anyone other than Bale play him in JLA, it will be a mistake. I think this movie is gonna suffer anyway because DC is only rushing to get it out because Marvel plans to do the Avengers. Plus you don't know that it'll look out of place if Bale plays in it because you don't know how TDK will end.

...and I am sure one every Hulk fanboy would love.

Hulk > Avengers!

But since Thor is more powerful than the Hulk the idea that this is the climax will only server to cheapen the Avengers.

And yet it didn't cheapen the first issue of the Avengers. And you being a Thor fan makes you biased as to who is 'more powerful', but the Hulk has proven to be more than a match for Thor on many occassions (Hulk #300 as just one example) and with strength described here - "The Hulk has been shown capable of supporting, with the assistance of leverage, a 150 billion-ton mountain range,[9] as well as held together the continental plates of an entire planet to keep it from collapsing.[10] The Hulk has also been shown shattering an asteroid twice the size of Earth with a single punch" - I hardly think that a conflict between him and the Avengers would be 'underwhelming'.

The problem you have is the question of whether or not that tale is worthy of spending your production budget on.

Even my own Thor movie treatment uses multiple ideas from the early comics (Loki, Stonemen, Wrecking Crew, Destroyer).

www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm

The most powerful characters (Thor, Superman) or teams (JLA, Avengers) need world-shaking threats or bigger to fully do them justice. That means facing forces MORE POWERFUL than the heroes themselves.

Hulk is not such a threat. Loki is not even such a threat. Kang on his own is no such threat. But Kang + an entire armada from the 30th century IS such a threat. Darkseid + Apokalips IS such a threat.

'Worthy' is subjective. I could use your approach and say about your scenario "That's so lame. Throw in Galactus and Apocolypse and you'd REALLY have a 'world-shaking' event!" You can ALWAYS go further. Doesn't mean you SHOULD.

You know Marvel have multiple franchises ongoing at the moment! One doesn't impact the other.

Yeah, but Marvel's idea (which they've already stated) is to have these solo films tied to the Avengers film. I didn't make that decision. Sorry if that isn't the way you'd hoped it'd be.

No neutral, non-X-men fan or casual moviegoer would consider the first two movies notably superior.

Wow, in terms of story, writing, and directing the first 2 were FAR superior. Number 2 was even voted the best superhero film ever, an honor no one ever even HINTED at for X3. Again, your opinion on this makes your other points in this discussion much clearer.

Its a simple case of not upping the ante enough.

Again you can always up the ante more. What is enough is simply a matter of opinion.

Its illogical to have the first Thor movie set on Asgard and 'build' to Earth.

Spock, is that you? It has nothing to do with logic. As a writer, I would expect you could understand that a story could be written that could easily move from Asgard to Earth in a 'logical' manner. Are you saying that in your opinion, if they started on Earth, once they moved the story to Asgard, they could never return to Earth as that would be too underwhelming? Puh-lease!

If the climax is a battle with the Hulk then it sounds like a total waste of time.

Well, at least you'll save yourself 8 bucks!

Only if they get Singer to direct. Any other director will bring it in under $200 million...have you seen Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars prequels! Take away Tobey's paycheck and you would probably bring Spidey 3 in under $200 million.

No I haven't seen Transformers. And I won't use current (or 2+ year old) budget examples to predict the budget for a film that'll be made down the road. Time will tell which of us is right.

Utter nonsense.

Again time will tell.

It wasn't necessarily lack of budget that hurt X3 - the effects were better than 1 & 2 combined. The twin problems were the actors salaries (X3 must have had the biggest actor salary payout in movie history) and the lack of time afforded the movies production.

No, the biggest problem was trying to cram in everything but the kitchen sink and a horrible script. The best review I read of it likened Guy Hamilton thinking that 'Goldfinger' would be the last Bond film so he threw in all the stuff from Thunderball and You Only Live Twice and chose to kill off Q, M, and Moneypenny. Stupid writing+too much crap crammed in = teh suck!

Yes - thats why it has by far the biggest box office of the series, all us 17 people went to see it a million times each.

Ah yes, just as Batman Forever was the highest grossing of the first 3 Bat-films while still considered the worst, artistically, of the 3. To use BO success to support your argument for the quality of a film is so ridiculous as to berely warrant a response! Yes, more people went to see it initially, because of the success of the first 2 films, but I was actually referring to 'comic book fans' by the number 17.

Logic is all the commonality we need.

Um ok, so in reference to the point of that statement, because you liked X3 and it did well at the BO, logic says it was a good movie. And things become clearer still.

I doubt I could be that lucky or Hollywood could be that smart.

Well, I don't know about the lucky or smart of it, but I do doubt you'll ever get what you want unless you somehow make it yourself. But I'll keep hoping for ya! Let us know how that 12-picture scenario works out!

Absolutely.

I won't begrudge you an Avengers movie with Loki and the Hulk. I'm simply trying to explain why its not the most logical of ideas - but when was Hollywood ever logical.

Again with the 'logic'. Are you saying logical from a financial POV, artistic POV, what? See, logic is dependant on where you're coming from, your basis for CALLING something logical. It seems to me that your use of logic is subjective. It is essentailly based on what you want, hence your statement -


I'm not saying they couldn't fight the Hulk - perhaps as a centrepiece of the movie, but to have that as the climax would be laughable. I'd much rather see the Earth invaded by Kang's armada with the heroes battling legions of Kang's troops including multiple Growing Men and ultimately Kang himself.


- You're using your opinion, or what you want, as the basis for logic. That's...illogical!

 

[GL1]

It's good to see someone ELSE in an unreadable line-by-line quote battle for once!

Did I mention that 12 Thor movies is rediculous, and that in a dream world there would be new movies of all of our favorite comic franchises (Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern) every two years forever... but that's not going to happen.

 

[chiefchirpa]

1st Avengers movie shouldn't have Loki in it. Loki gets prime attention in Thor movies, while Avengers dwell in Ultron, Kang, or Thanos.

 

[Sebastos]

I want Brad Pitt to play Thor and thats final.

I don't really see him in the role. Sure he might of looked the part in Troy, but he wouldn't be one of my personal choices.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Spidey!

Apologies for the delay - work yadda yadda.

I think you'd prove to be a more original writer if you'd open your mind to see beyond the hopelessly conventional 'that's the way it's always been done' (hero always wins) view you appear to have.

I'm not averse to originality or 'risks' but its horses for courses I'm afraid.

Have you ever read a Thor comic? Its all about triumphalism, more so than any other comic.

It would be a complete waste of the license to have Thor lose, or any ongoing franchise. Given that you cannot name a superhero movie where the hero does ultimately lose, the closest being Superman Returns - which was just dreadful (I certainly felt I had lost by the end of that movie) your argument here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If I want tales of introspective failures I'll read Watchmen.

If I want bombastic epic action I'll go read Thor. Thats what should be embodied by the movie.

Again because this apparently steers outside your comfort zone of the conventional superhero movie model, you call it 'lunacy'.

...thats because I know what I'm talking about.

They would only seem illogical to someone who was incapable of opening his mind to see other possibilities than what we've always been handed.

I have opened my mind to it, but having an open mind doesn't mean flinging common sense out the window.

'Illogical' thinking is the kind that allowed Stan Lee to envision a Marvel Universe that was completely different than anything that had been done before.

Stan Lee wasn't illogical at all - he was simply very creative. Feel free to show where Stan Lee was illogical...?

Bottom line: IMO if they a)make a JLA movie without Batman or b)have anyone other than Bale play him in JLA, it will be a mistake.

I agree, but I just don't see it being done unless they give Bale $30 million or something like that (an amount which will compromise the integrity of the movie).

Bale is at odds with Batman Begins being too 'light' as it is now (he has remarked he wanted to do a '15' version). He also has a bit of a stick up his @ss with regards taking himself seriously. Obviously any JLA movie will be a dumming down of sorts because it will have to be marketed to kids more than the (current) Batman franchise. That means a compromised and to a degree 'lighter' Batman.

I think this movie is gonna suffer anyway because DC is only rushing to get it out because Marvel plans to do the Avengers.

Yes, I don't really understand that. Warner Bros. seem to be panicking a bit.

Plus you don't know that it'll look out of place if Bale plays in it because you don't know how TDK will end.

Well we know Batman's still going to be alive by the end of it - thats a safe bet.

And yet it didn't cheapen the first issue of the Avengers.

Irrelevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, a movie is effectively six issues of a comic, not one issue.

Secondly, you have to temper what happens in the comic with a degree of logic and verisimilitude. For instance, Thor's first issue has him battling the Stone Men from Saturn! There is no way that could be the Thor movie - to even think it is pure idiocy. Just like you don't put Wolverine in yellow spandex.

In addition to story, you have to consider the visual spectacle.

And you being a Thor fan makes you biased as to who is 'more powerful',

I place logic above my fandom.

but the Hulk has proven to be more than a match for Thor on many occassions (Hulk #300 as just one example)

Thats because Thor, in his hubris, lowers himself to fight at the Hulk's level (which plays to the Hulks strengths). Rather than simply blasting the green fool into pulp.

and with strength described here - "The Hulk has been shown capable of supporting, with the assistance of leverage, a 150 billion-ton mountain range,[9] as well as held together the continental plates of an entire planet to keep it from collapsing.[10]

Thor has lifted and thrown both the Odinsword and Surtur's sword, the latter certainly weighs a minimum of 10 billion tons (possibly quadrillions of tons, although I favour the former). He has also lifted the Midgard Serpent off the ground and it weighs several billion tons as well.

The Hulk has also been shown shattering an asteroid twice the size of Earth with a single punch"

...and Thor has caved in the head of the Celestial Exitar.

Also I seem to recall that Hulk was propelled towards the 'Asteroid' at great speed using some alien technology, and you technically can't have an Asteroid twice the size of the Earth so it makes the writers claims somewhat dubious.

- I hardly think that a conflict between him and the Avengers would be 'underwhelming'.

It would be underwhelming because Avengers > Hulk. Ergo, you gain nothing by beating someone weaker than yourself. Heroes stand up to bullies against the odds - not with the odds in their favour.

'Worthy' is subjective. I could use your approach and say about your scenario "That's so lame. Throw in Galactus and Apocolypse and you'd REALLY have a 'world-shaking' event!" You can ALWAYS go further. Doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Its not about going further for its own sake, its about giving characters appropriate challenges they have to strive to overcome. In the case of the most powerful characters this means the most powerful world shaking threats. Threats seemingly 'beyond' the hero/heroes. Hulk simply is not such a threat (unless you tell the Planet Hulk storyline*, which itself would take two movies to do justice, and then go into World War Hulk...and even then its not really a world war is it, more a civil war).

*Which is itself a double power-up for Hulk...increase strength and the addition of the Warbound.

Yeah, but Marvel's idea (which they've already stated) is to have these solo films tied to the Avengers film. I didn't make that decision. Sorry if that isn't the way you'd hoped it'd be.

Of course they will be 'tied to' them, they involve the same characters. But theres a difference between 'tied to' and a directly contiguous story, which is what you are suggesting.

Wow, in terms of story, writing, and directing the first 2 were FAR superior.

Nonsense.

Number 2 was even voted the best superhero film ever, an honor no one ever even HINTED at for X3.

So what, people have voted Superman Returns as the best superhero movie. That doesn't stop it being rubbish in the eyes of most people.

Again, your opinion on this makes your other points in this discussion much clearer.

Glad to hear it, I hate obfuscation.

Again you can always up the ante more. What is enough is simply a matter of opinion.

Wrong. Enough is something seemingly beyond the power of the hero/heroes to defeat.

Hulk is not > Avengers.

Spock, is that you? It has nothing to do with logic.

Of course it does. Superheroes are only as strong (and that can be strength of character - not simply physical strength) as their villains.

As a writer, I would expect you could understand that a story could be written that could easily move from Asgard to Earth in a 'logical' manner. Are you saying that in your opinion, if they started on Earth, once they moved the story to Asgard, they could never return to Earth as that would be too underwhelming? Puh-lease!

No thats not what I am saying at all - don't put words in my mouth.

I already explained that if you read Essential Thor Volume 1 you will see that they build UP to Asgard.

Well, at least you'll save yourself 8 bucks!

If Thor was in it I would be compelled to support my favourite character regardless of whether I thought the movie would be good or not.

No I haven't seen Transformers.

It might not be your 'cup of tea'...but most people will love it!

And I won't use current (or 2+ year old) budget examples to predict the budget for a film that'll be made down the road.

Down the road as in about 3-4 years time...o...kay.

No, the biggest problem was trying to cram in everything but the kitchen sink and a horrible script. The best review I read of it likened Guy Hamilton thinking that 'Goldfinger' would be the last Bond film so he threw in all the stuff from Thunderball and You Only Live Twice and chose to kill off Q, M, and Moneypenny. Stupid writing+too much crap crammed in = teh suck!

Specifically, what parts were stupid?

Ah yes, just as Batman Forever was the highest grossing of the first 3 Bat-films while still considered the worst, artistically, of the 3. To use BO success to support your argument for the quality of a film is so ridiculous as to berely warrant a response!

I didn't have a problem with Batman Forever, it was entertaining enough. Lower the colour contrast on your television and you could be forgiven for thinking it was another Tim Burton movie.

Yes, more people went to see it initially, because of the success of the first 2 films, but I was actually referring to 'comic book fans' by the number 17.

To use the prequels as the impetus behind its far superior box office is so ridiculous as to barely warrant a response!

Um ok, so in reference to the point of that statement, because you liked X3 and it did well at the BO, logic says it was a good movie. And things become clearer still.

It WAS a good movie in the eyes of anyone who wasn't a die hard X-fan. I enjoyed it. The majority of people seem to have enjoyed it (given the box office).

I also enjoyed X-Men and X-2, so if my enjoyment of a movie is at odds with you - how do you explain my like of those movies?

Well, I don't know about the lucky or smart of it, but I do doubt you'll ever get what you want unless you somehow make it yourself. But I'll keep hoping for ya! Let us know how that 12-picture scenario works out!

Thanks. Its a longshot I know, I plan on breaking into comics within the next five years then be writing Thor within five after that (I'm optimistic in case you hadn't guessed). So even best case scenario theres no way I'll be involved in this incarnation of Thor.

But if it tanks, I'll be there to pick up the pieces for the reboot.

Again with the 'logic'. Are you saying logical from a financial POV, artistic POV, what? See, logic is dependant on where you're coming from, your basis for CALLING something logical. It seems to me that your use of logic is subjective. It is essentailly based on what you want, hence your statement -

I'm not saying they couldn't fight the Hulk - perhaps as a centrepiece of the movie, but to have that as the climax would be laughable. I'd much rather see the Earth invaded by Kang's armada with the heroes battling legions of Kang's troops including multiple Growing Men and ultimately Kang himself.

- You're using your opinion, or what you want, as the basis for logic. That's...illogical!

I'm talking logical from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of doing the character(s) justice.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1 dude!

hope you're well.

It's good to see someone ELSE in an unreadable line-by-line quote battle for once!

You were always on the wrong end of them as I recall.

Did I mention that 12 Thor movies is rediculous,

Its not as ridiculous as Superman Returns. t:

and that in a dream world there would be new movies of all of our favorite comic franchises (Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern) every two years forever... but that's not going to happen.

Well, firstly I think every two years doesn't give enough time for the franchise to breathe. Worked with Lord of the Rings (and Harry Potter you could add) because that was simply one story spread over three books/movies.

Given the current propensity of the movie industry (Re: Superhero movies) I hardly think its a stretch to imagine we will see Wonder Woman, Flash, Thor and Green Lantern (among others) at some juncture. However, of those, Thor is by FAR the most suited to having multiple movies.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

I don't really see him in the role. Sure he might of looked the part in Troy, but he wouldn't be one of my personal choices.

I do think Brad Pitt would make a good Donald Blake, but not a good Thor...too small...too skinny (yes I have seen Troy).

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hey Spidey!

Apologies for the delay - work yadda yadda.



I'm not averse to originality or 'risks' but its horses for courses I'm afraid.

Have you ever read a Thor comic? Its all about triumphalism, more so than any other comic.

It would be a complete waste of the license to have Thor lose, or any ongoing franchise. Given that you cannot name a superhero movie where the hero does ultimately lose, the closest being Superman Returns - which was just dreadful (I certainly felt I had lost by the end of that movie) your argument here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If I want tales of introspective failures I'll read Watchmen.

If I want bombastic epic action I'll go read Thor. Thats what should be embodied by the movie.



...thats because I know what I'm talking about.



I have opened my mind to it, but having an open mind doesn't mean flinging common sense out the window.



Stan Lee wasn't illogical at all - he was simply very creative. Feel free to show where Stan Lee was illogical...?



I agree, but I just don't see it being done unless they give Bale $30 million or something like that (an amount which will compromise the integrity of the movie).

Bale is at odds with Batman Begins being too 'light' as it is now (he has remarked he wanted to do a '15' version). He also has a bit of a stick up his @ss with regards taking himself seriously. Obviously any JLA movie will be a dumming down of sorts because it will have to be marketed to kids more than the (current) Batman franchise. That means a compromised and to a degree 'lighter' Batman.



Yes, I don't really understand that. Warner Bros. seem to be panicking a bit.



Well we know Batman's still going to be alive by the end of it - thats a safe bet.



Irrelevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, a movie is effectively six issues of a comic, not one issue.

Secondly, you have to temper what happens in the comic with a degree of logic and verisimilitude. For instance, Thor's first issue has him battling the Stone Men from Saturn! There is no way that could be the Thor movie - to even think it is pure idiocy. Just like you don't put Wolverine in yellow spandex.

In addition to story, you have to consider the visual spectacle.



I place logic above my fandom.



Thats because Thor, in his hubris, lowers himself to fight at the Hulk's level (which plays to the Hulks strengths). Rather than simply blasting the green fool into pulp.



Thor has lifted and thrown both the Odinsword and Surtur's sword, the latter certainly weighs a minimum of 10 billion tons (possibly quadrillions of tons, although I favour the former). He has also lifted the Midgard Serpent off the ground and it weighs several billion tons as well.



...and Thor has caved in the head of the Celestial Exitar.

Also I seem to recall that Hulk was propelled towards the 'Asteroid' at great speed using some alien technology, and you technically can't have an Asteroid twice the size of the Earth so it makes the writers claims somewhat dubious.



It would be underwhelming because Avengers > Hulk. Ergo, you gain nothing by beating someone weaker than yourself. Heroes stand up to bullies against the odds - not with the odds in their favour.



Its not about going further for its own sake, its about giving characters appropriate challenges they have to strive to overcome. In the case of the most powerful characters this means the most powerful world shaking threats. Threats seemingly 'beyond' the hero/heroes. Hulk simply is not such a threat (unless you tell the Planet Hulk storyline*, which itself would take two movies to do justice, and then go into World War Hulk...and even then its not really a world war is it, more a civil war).

*Which is itself a double power-up for Hulk...increase strength and the addition of the Warbound.



Of course they will be 'tied to' them, they involve the same characters. But theres a difference between 'tied to' and a directly contiguous story, which is what you are suggesting.



Nonsense.



So what, people have voted Superman Returns as the best superhero movie. That doesn't stop it being rubbish in the eyes of most people.



Glad to hear it, I hate obfuscation.



Wrong. Enough is something seemingly beyond the power of the hero/heroes to defeat.

Hulk is not > Avengers.



Of course it does. Superheroes are only as strong (and that can be strength of character - not simply physical strength) as their villains.



No thats not what I am saying at all - don't put words in my mouth.

I already explained that if you read Essential Thor Volume 1 you will see that they build UP to Asgard.



If Thor was in it I would be compelled to support my favourite character regardless of whether I thought the movie would be good or not.



It might not be your 'cup of tea'...but most people will love it!



Down the road as in about 3-4 years time...o...kay.



Specifically, what parts were stupid?



I didn't have a problem with Batman Forever, it was entertaining enough. Lower the colour contrast on your television and you could be forgiven for thinking it was another Tim Burton movie.



To use the prequels as the impetus behind its far superior box office is so ridiculous as to barely warrant a response!



It WAS a good movie in the eyes of anyone who wasn't a die hard X-fan. I enjoyed it. The majority of people seem to have enjoyed it (given the box office).

I also enjoyed X-Men and X-2, so if my enjoyment of a movie is at odds with you - how do you explain my like of those movies?



Thanks. Its a longshot I know, I plan on breaking into comics within the next five years then be writing Thor within five after that (I'm optimistic in case you hadn't guessed). So even best case scenario theres no way I'll be involved in this incarnation of Thor.

But if it tanks, I'll be there to pick up the pieces for the reboot.



I'm talking logical from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of doing the character(s) justice.

Ok Multiquote abuser. LOL

 

[Spider–Man]

Apologies for the delay - work yadda yadda.



I'm not averse to originality or 'risks' but its horses for courses I'm afraid.

Have you ever read a Thor comic? Its all about triumphalism, more so than any other comic.

It would be a complete waste of the license to have Thor lose, or any ongoing franchise. Given that you cannot name a superhero movie where the hero does ultimately lose, the closest being Superman Returns - which was just dreadful (I certainly felt I had lost by the end of that movie) your argument here doesn't have a leg to stand on.


If I want tales of introspective failures I'll read Watchmen.

If I want bombastic epic action I'll go read Thor. Thats what should be embodied by the movie.

Well, probably not as much as Holy Ji-had-Man, but i digress.

Yes, I've read a few Thor comics (mostly the old Lee/Kirby stuff) but as I said, he isn't one of my favorites. So are you saying Thor has never lost? Are you saying that it would be illogical to ever have Thor lose? I think your prejudice for the character is showing. No greater way to build 'strength of character' (as you mention below) than to have them lose. You want to make the heroes victory even greater, have him lose first. As I said, that just seems to be outside your comfort zone. Nothing more boring than a hero who can't lose. Can't wait to see how the series does when you take over.

...thats because I know what I'm talking about.

And you base this on SR, the 'failure' of which you seem to be attributing to him 'losing'??? You haven't a clue. And let's not forget all those cinematic triumphs that support your position on the issue such as Ghost Rider, Elektra, FF1...oh wait, you probably liked those.

I have opened my mind to it, but having an open mind doesn't mean flinging common sense out the window.

So doing something other than the 'same old thing' is throwing common sense out the window?

Stan Lee wasn't illogical at all - he was simply very creative. Feel free to show where Stan Lee was illogical...?

I was being facetious with the use of the word illogical, hence the quotations. I was saying if Stan Lee thought like you do, the FF would all have had secret identities and probably worn capes, and Spider-man would have had a younger sidekick, he'd never have been beaten, and he would never have had any problems.

Well we know Batman's still going to be alive by the end of it - thats a safe bet.

Well, if he wasn't then his appearence in JLA would most CERTAINLY seem out of place!

Irrelevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, a movie is effectively six issues of a comic, not one issue.

Hmm, I must've missed that particular rule in the 'model for translating a comic to film' handbook...

Secondly, you have to temper what happens in the comic with a degree of logic and verisimilitude. For instance, Thor's first issue has him battling the Stone Men from Saturn! There is no way that could be the Thor movie - to even think it is pure idiocy. Just like you don't put Wolverine in yellow spandex.

Ah, so the Stone men from Saturn (who bear more than a passing resemblance to the Thing) would not look realistic enough to be included in a film with a hero who is a Norse god in a red, blue, and yellow costume whose main mode of transport is to swing a hammer and throw it, then grab the handle at the last second so that it yanks him along for the ride while crying "For Asgard and honor eternal, fell beastie I sayeth thee, NAY!!"

In addition to story, you have to consider the visual spectacle.

Well, if what I described above is nothing else, it is certainly visual spectacle.

I place logic above my fandom.

So what happens to your logic when Hulk whips Thor's ass?

Thats because Thor, in his hubris, lowers himself to fight at the Hulk's level (which plays to the Hulks strengths). Rather than simply blasting the green fool into pulp.

In his hubris, huh? I don't know how I could've missed seeing you when I was in Fantasyland last year! I guess 'in his hubris' he just let Supes knock him the freak out, too, huh?

Thor has lifted and thrown both the Odinsword and Surtur's sword, the latter certainly weighs a minimum of 10 billion tons (possibly quadrillions of tons, although I favour the former). He has also lifted the Midgard Serpent off the ground and it weighs several billion tons as well.



...and Thor has caved in the head of the Celestial Exitar.

Let's see...Hulk lifts 150 billion tons - Thor lifts 10 billion tons/several billion tons. Yup sounds about equal to me. You must be using some of that new 'logical' math.

Also I seem to recall that Hulk was propelled towards the 'Asteroid' at great speed using some alien technology, and you technically can't have an Asteroid twice the size of the Earth so it makes the writers claims somewhat dubious.

As opposed to being able to have a giant green man who's strong enough to bust said asteroid with his hurtling body. These are comics we're talking about. You need to possess the ability to suspend your disbelief just a little. Now a god of thunder being dragged thru the sky behind a hammer? I just saw one yesterday.

It would be underwhelming because Avengers > Hulk. Ergo, you gain nothing by beating someone weaker than yourself. Heroes stand up to bullies against the odds - not with the odds in their favour.

I say the Hulk is AT LEAST = to the Avengers. Check out FF # 26 as the Hulk takes on the Avengers AND the FF!

Its not about going further for its own sake, its about giving characters appropriate challenges they have to strive to overcome. In the case of the most powerful characters this means the most powerful world shaking threats. Threats seemingly 'beyond' the hero/heroes. Hulk simply is not such a threat (unless you tell the Planet Hulk storyline*, which itself would take two movies to do justice, and then go into World War Hulk...and even then its not really a world war is it, more a civil war).

*Which is itself a double power-up for Hulk...increase strength and the addition of the Warbound.

Well, if you can go further, then you're not presenting the 'MOST POWERFUL' threat. That's what my logic tells me, anyway.

Of course they will be 'tied to' them, they involve the same characters. But theres a difference between 'tied to' and a directly contiguous story, which is what you are suggesting.

Something else Stan Lee came up with, a 'universe' of heroes whose stories carried over into each others' from time to time. Issues ending in cliff-hangers and even being continued in another character's comic from the one in which it began. Until now, with franchise rights being held by different studios, we the fans have been denied this. Now it is possible and you are decrying against it?! Again, I guess this sort of 'outside the box' thinking is just too 'illogical' to be within your comfort zone.

Nonsense.

Again, your opinion.

So what, people have voted Superman Returns as the best superhero movie. That doesn't stop it being rubbish in the eyes of most people.

Ok, I should've been more clear. X2 WON in the voting for best superhero movie ever, an honor that will NEVER be bestowed on X3.

Glad to hear it, I hate obfuscation.

Uh, like saying the comics should be adhered to as closely as possible while hoping for a cinematic Avengers intro that is far different from the comic book version? Is that the kind of obfuscation you hate?

Wrong. Enough is something seemingly beyond the power of the hero/heroes to defeat.

I love that. "Seemingly". Well, when the Hulk is slapping Thor and the rest back and forth across the big screen, I'm sure he will seem "seemingly" beyond their power to defeat!

Hulk is not > Avengers.

Nonsense.

Of course it does. Superheroes are only as strong (and that can be strength of character - not simply physical strength) as their villains.

So the stronger the villains get, the stronger the heroes become. So when Cap is fighting the Red Skull he is much weaker than when fighting, say...well, the Hulk? Another rule I missed in the handbook...

No thats not what I am saying at all - don't put words in my mouth.

I already explained that if you read Essential Thor Volume 1 you will see that they build UP to Asgard.

Oh, so since in this case the comic supports what you want, it is ok to use it as a valid template for a film version? I'm seeing more of how your whole 'logic' thing works.

If Thor was in it I would be compelled to support my favourite character regardless of whether I thought the movie would be good or not.

You wouldn't be supporting your favorite character. You'd be supporting a film that you were totally opposed to the idea of no matter how you try to twist the 'logic' of it.

It might not be your 'cup of tea'...but most people will love it!

I have every intention of seeing it. I just haven't had a chance yet and therefore cannot comment on it. I've heard it's awesome!

Down the road as in about 3-4 years time...o...kay.

Again, I'll wait and see.

Specifically, what parts were stupid?

Oh, I don't know...
Scott getting killed
Prof X getting killed
Logan killing Jean in a scene that completely failed to stir any emotion in me other than annoyance
Magneto totally abandonning Mystique just because she was no longer a mutant. How's that for 'logical'?
"I'm tha Jugganaut, *****!"
Bobby icing up for a headbutt. Whoopee.
I could go on but you probably liked those things too so what's the point? There's just no accounting for bad taste.

I didn't have a problem with Batman Forever, it was entertaining enough. Lower the colour contrast on your television and you could be forgiven for thinking it was another Tim Burton movie.

Well, once again, what you call entertaining I call crap. No one would ever mistake a Schumacher film for any work of Burton's (except you, apparently).

To use the prequels as the impetus behind its far superior box office is so ridiculous as to barely warrant a response!

I see, so in your opinion, a movie will have no influence on the success (or lack thereof) of any of its sequels? POTC 2 and 3 were actually better movies than the first because they made more money than it did? I could site many more examples but what's the point? Your mind is completely closed to anything other than what you already believe.

It WAS a good movie in the eyes of anyone who wasn't a die hard X-fan. I enjoyed it. The majority of people seem to have enjoyed it (given the box office).

Again, > BO = the majority of people liked it? I would think that since they paid their money BEFORE they went in, a truer indicator of their enjoyment would've been how they felt about it AFTERWARD.

I also enjoyed X-Men and X-2, so if my enjoyment of a movie is at odds with you - how do you explain my like of those movies?

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Thanks. Its a longshot I know, I plan on breaking into comics within the next five years then be writing Thor within five after that (I'm optimistic in case you hadn't guessed). So even best case scenario theres no way I'll be involved in this incarnation of Thor.

But if it tanks, I'll be there to pick up the pieces for the reboot.

Well, good luck with that! Maybe you can get Joel Schumacher to direct. Just lower the color contrast and no one will ever notice the neon Mjolnir in Thor's (played by Ahnold!) hand! "Ah'll be back, Loki!!!"

I'm talking logical from both an entertainment point of view and in terms of doing the character(s) justice.

Again, entertainment POV is subjective. I'd be much more entertained seeing them fight the Hulk. And in terms of doing them justice, I'd say you can't do them much greater justice than staying true to the comic...which has them fighting the Hulk!

 

[Advanced Dark]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6109

So he has talked to Marvel about this but nothing set in stone yet.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Spidey!

Yes, I've read a few Thor comics (mostly the old Lee/Kirby stuff) but as I said, he isn't one of my favorites.

Okay, so you having read a few and him not being one of your favourites do you think honestly puts you in a strong position to dictate whats best for a Thor movie?

So are you saying Thor has never lost?

He is occasionally bested in what you could call Act 2 of a story arc, but he never 'ultimately' loses...at least not in his own title (which is pretty much the same for all ongoing superhero series).

...there is always the dreaded Busiek moment to consider though.

Are you saying that it would be illogical to ever have Thor lose?

No. I am saying it would be illogical for Thor to lose at the climax of a movie (and/or major story arc).

The only exception to this would be a loss at the end of a second (of three) movie trilogy. In effect the trilogy then becomes the story arc and the second movie parallels the second act.

I think your prejudice for the character is showing.

Think again.

I'd stipulate the same for every ongoing superhero franchise.

Stories with a finite end (a la Watchmen, 300) can of course differ from this.

No greater way to build 'strength of character' (as you mention below) than to have them lose. You want to make the heroes victory even greater, have him lose first. As I said, that just seems to be outside your comfort zone. Nothing more boring than a hero who can't lose.

You don't have the hero lose at the end of the first movie - its idiotic.

Can't wait to see how the series does when you take over.

You being such a Thor fan the wait must be killing you.

And you base this on SR, the 'failure' of which you seem to be attributing to him 'losing'???

I'm done debating Superman Returns (if you are that eager, search for my posts in the Superman Returns forum at this site).

And let's not forget all those cinematic triumphs that support your position on the issue such as Ghost Rider, Elektra, FF1...oh wait, you probably liked those.

Just because you follow the correct 'beats' doesn't make it a good movie - you still have to make 'a good movie'. Theres more to it than simply having the hero win at the end.

For the record.

Ghost Rider - haven't seen it (none of my friends would risk it).

Elektra - terrible.

Fantastic Four - No actual story, Doom was terrible (and as I stated previously - the hero is only as good as the villain).

So doing something other than the 'same old thing' is throwing common sense out the window?

No. Having a hero (of an ongoing franchise) lose at the end of his origin movie is throwing common sense out the window.

I was being facetious with the use of the word illogical, hence the quotations. I was saying if Stan Lee thought like you do, the FF would all have had secret identities and probably worn capes, and Spider-man would have had a younger sidekick, he'd never have been beaten, and he would never have had any problems.

Theres a difference between creativity and stupidity.

Well, if he wasn't then his appearence in JLA would most CERTAINLY seem out of place!

Agreed.

Hmm, I must've missed that particular rule in the 'model for translating a comic to film' handbook...

Of course not, because you don't know that a single page of script (be it comic book or movie) roughly translates to one minute of time.

But naturally, if you had studied such things (as I have), you would know that.

Ah, so the Stone men from Saturn (who bear more than a passing resemblance to the Thing) would not look realistic enough to be included in a film with a hero who is a Norse god in a red, blue, and yellow costume whose main mode of transport is to swing a hammer and throw it, then grab the handle at the last second so that it yanks him along for the ride while crying "For Asgard and honor eternal, fell beastie I sayeth thee, NAY!!"

Its not about realism, at least not in this case. Its about not confusing the audience. (Ongoing) Superhero movies should revolve around the goals of the (schemer) villain, tempered by the trials and tribulations of the hero.

Given that we know Loki will be the Schemer villain in the first Thor movie, adding a bunch of aliens (with no affiliations to the plotting of Loki) into the mix is only going to confuse people. The Stonemen, as aliens, serve no purpose in the first movie.

...and for the record I actually included the 'Stonemen' in my Thor movie treatment (on my website - I already gave you the link earlier), they just were not aliens, but instead stones animated by the god Loki.

Well, if what I described above is nothing else, it is certainly visual spectacle.

I agree, but I just don't see it as one big enough to represent the finale of an Avengers movie.

So what happens to your logic when Hulk whips Thor's ass?

If Thor fights the Hulk at his own level then he plays into the Hulk's hands (dynamic strength and exceptionally fast regeneration). Any savvy writer would have Thor change tactics or either knock the Hulk out right away before he becomes too angry to handle in pure melee.

In his hubris, huh? I don't know how I could've missed seeing you when I was in Fantasyland last year! I guess 'in his hubris' he just let Supes knock him the freak out, too, huh?

...and then Busiek just happened to get the Superman gig just after that - go figure.

Let's see...Hulk lifts 150 billion tons - Thor lifts 10 billion tons/several billion tons. Yup sounds about equal to me.

Actually Hulk 'supported' 150 billion tons, Thor lifted and threw 10 billion tons.

Effectively the difference between the most someone could deadlift and a javelin...in the case of weights thats far greater than a factor of fifteen.

You must be using some of that new 'logical' math.

Try this.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon2.htm

As opposed to being able to have a giant green man who's strong enough to bust said asteroid with his hurtling body. These are comics we're talking about. You need to possess the ability to suspend your disbelief just a little. Now a god of thunder being dragged thru the sky behind a hammer? I just saw one yesterday.

These are comics we are debating. Small difference.

I say the Hulk is AT LEAST = to the Avengers. Check out FF # 26 as the Hulk takes on the Avengers AND the FF!

Did he win?

Well, if you can go further, then you're not presenting the 'MOST POWERFUL' threat. That's what my logic tells me, anyway.

You don't need the 'most' powerful threat. Simply a threat greater than the power of the heroes.

Something else Stan Lee came up with, a 'universe' of heroes whose stories carried over into each others' from time to time. Issues ending in cliff-hangers and even being continued in another character's comic from the one in which it began. Until now, with franchise rights being held by different studios, we the fans have been denied this. Now it is possible and you are decrying against it?! Again, I guess this sort of 'outside the box' thinking is just too 'illogical' to be within your comfort zone.

Cliffhangars are something good for television (see Heroes), but I don't even think they are that good for movies released in consecutive years (Matrix 2-3). They are certainly useless for movies released evey three years.

Ok, I should've been more clear. X2 WON in the voting for best superhero movie ever, an honor that will NEVER be bestowed on X3.

Who votes in superhero movie polls...could it be comic book fans perhaps.

Uh, like saying the comics should be adhered to as closely as possible while hoping for a cinematic Avengers intro that is far different from the comic book version? Is that the kind of obfuscation you hate?

You bring it as close to the comic as possible, but you don't lose sight of common sense.

I love that. "Seemingly". Well, when the Hulk is slapping Thor and the rest back and forth across the big screen, I'm sure he will seem "seemingly" beyond their power to defeat!

Well they could have Aunt May slapping the Avengers back and forth. She would seem beyond their power to defeat.

Nonsense.

LOL! Utter tripe and onions.

Thor > Hulk

So any Avengers line up with Thor is automatically greater than the Hulk.

So the stronger the villains get, the stronger the heroes become. So when Cap is fighting the Red Skull he is much weaker than when fighting, say...well, the Hulk? Another rule I missed in the handbook...

No, again your myopia has you avoid what I actually said and put words into my mouth.

I specifically stated its strength of character, not necessarily physical strength.

Oh, so since in this case the comic supports what you want, it is ok to use it as a valid template for a film version? I'm seeing more of how your whole 'logic' thing works.

I'm still waiting to hear what comic franchise supports your 'logic'?

In which comic book do the heroes lose in the first major story arc...?

You wouldn't be supporting your favorite character. You'd be supporting a film that you were totally opposed to the idea of no matter how you try to twist the 'logic' of it.

How would I not be supporting my favourite character if he is part of the Avengers?

I have every intention of seeing it. I just haven't had a chance yet and therefore cannot comment on it. I've heard it's awesome!

I thought it was great. Ticked all the right boxes for me.

Oh, I don't know...
Scott getting killed

Okay this was the one scene I half agree with you about, because it hurts the future of the franchise as I see it.

But within the context of that single movie, it worked perfectly fine and established that Phoenix could kill even those she loved.

Also the fact that the actor who plays Cyclops was jumping ship to Superman Returns means I say kill him off for that travesty alone!

Prof X getting killed

I think this was probably to do with Patrick Stewart not wanting to do anymore X-Men movies, but Professor X being integral to the X-Men as a whole. Therefore you have the situation whereby we can logically change to a different actor.

Logan killing Jean in a scene that completely failed to stir any emotion in me other than annoyance

I thought the scene worked fine.

Magneto totally abandonning Mystique just because she was no longer a mutant. How's that for 'logical'?

Totally logical given that Magneto was a racist...or maybe you didn't get that.

"I'm tha Jugganaut, *****!"

Best line in the movie...but then I am a Juggernaut fan, not an X-Men fan.

Bobby icing up for a headbutt. Whoopee.

As opposed to what, Bobby freezing a cup of tea in X-2!? Double Whoopee! GO SINGER!

I could go on but you probably liked those things too so what's the point? There's just no accounting for bad taste.

See above. Your X-fanboy gyrations tempered by my impeccable logic.

Well, once again, what you call entertaining I call crap. No one would ever mistake a Schumacher film for any work of Burton's (except you, apparently).

As far as I can see you are one of those people who attack the director, not the movies they make.

Batman Forever is a perfectly fine, entertaining movie. Its not as 'dark' as the previous two, but thats more a cosmetic change than anything else.

Okay, they introduced Robin, and Robin's always a tool, but the good far outweighed the bad. Unlike Batman & Robin.

I see, so in your opinion, a movie will have no influence on the success (or lack thereof) of any of its sequels? POTC 2 and 3 were actually better movies than the first because they made more money than it did?

I think it will have a minor influence on opening weekend, but not after that.

I could site many more examples but what's the point? Your mind is completely closed to anything other than what you already believe.

I'm open to logical comments, but they are few and far between from you.

Again, > BO = the majority of people liked it? I would think that since they paid their money BEFORE they went in, a truer indicator of their enjoyment would've been how they felt about it AFTERWARD.

Well we could cite DVD sales, but again Superman Returns comes up empty since its DVD sales were terrible.

Many people who visit a movie other than the first weekend will almost certainly be tempered by word of mouth. So a movie with good box office legs (such as Transformers) has good word of mouth.

 

[Sebastos]

Hey there!

I do think Brad Pitt would make a good Donald Blake, but not a good Thor...too small...too skinny (yes I have seen Troy).

LOL, you really like to great people.

I still don't see him. I don't know, I'm hoping Marvel goes with someone unexpected.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hi Spidey!



Okay, so you having read a few and him not being one of your favourites do you think honestly puts you in a strong position to dictate whats best for a Thor movie?



He is occasionally bested in what you could call Act 2 of a story arc, but he never 'ultimately' loses...at least not in his own title (which is pretty much the same for all ongoing superhero series).

...there is always the dreaded Busiek moment to consider though.



No. I am saying it would be illogical for Thor to lose at the climax of a movie (and/or major story arc).

The only exception to this would be a loss at the end of a second (of three) movie trilogy. In effect the trilogy then becomes the story arc and the second movie parallels the second act.



Think again.

I'd stipulate the same for every ongoing superhero franchise.

Stories with a finite end (a la Watchmen, 300) can of course differ from this.



You don't have the hero lose at the end of the first movie - its idiotic.



You being such a Thor fan the wait must be killing you.



I'm done debating Superman Returns (if you are that eager, search for my posts in the Superman Returns forum at this site).



Just because you follow the correct 'beats' doesn't make it a good movie - you still have to make 'a good movie'. Theres more to it than simply having the hero win at the end.

For the record.

Ghost Rider - haven't seen it (none of my friends would risk it).

Elektra - terrible.

Fantastic Four - No actual story, Doom was terrible (and as I stated previously - the hero is only as good as the villain).



No. Having a hero (of an ongoing franchise) lose at the end of his origin movie is throwing common sense out the window.



Theres a difference between creativity and stupidity.



Agreed.



Of course not, because you don't know that a single page of script (be it comic book or movie) roughly translates to one minute of time.

But naturally, if you had studied such things (as I have), you would know that.



Its not about realism, at least not in this case. Its about not confusing the audience. (Ongoing) Superhero movies should revolve around the goals of the (schemer) villain, tempered by the trials and tribulations of the hero.

Given that we know Loki will be the Schemer villain in the first Thor movie, adding a bunch of aliens (with no affiliations to the plotting of Loki) into the mix is only going to confuse people. The Stonemen, as aliens, serve no purpose in the first movie.

...and for the record I actually included the 'Stonemen' in my Thor movie treatment (on my website - I already gave you the link earlier), they just were not aliens, but instead stones animated by the god Loki.



I agree, but I just don't see it as one big enough to represent the finale of an Avengers movie.



If Thor fights the Hulk at his own level then he plays into the Hulk's hands (dynamic strength and exceptionally fast regeneration). Any savvy writer would have Thor change tactics or either knock the Hulk out right away before he becomes too angry to handle in pure melee.



...and then Busiek just happened to get the Superman gig just after that - go figure.



Actually Hulk 'supported' 150 billion tons, Thor lifted and threw 10 billion tons.

Effectively the difference between the most someone could deadlift and a javelin...in the case of weights thats far greater than a factor of fifteen.



Try this.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon2.htm



These are comics we are debating. Small difference.



Did he win?



You don't need the 'most' powerful threat. Simply a threat greater than the power of the heroes.



Cliffhangars are something good for television (see Heroes), but I don't even think they are that good for movies released in consecutive years (Matrix 2-3). They are certainly useless for movies released evey three years.



Who votes in superhero movie polls...could it be comic book fans perhaps.



You bring it as close to the comic as possible, but you don't lose sight of common sense.



Well they could have Aunt May slapping the Avengers back and forth. She would seem beyond their power to defeat.



LOL! Utter tripe and onions.

Thor > Hulk

So any Avengers line up with Thor is automatically greater than the Hulk.



No, again your myopia has you avoid what I actually said and put words into my mouth.

I specifically stated its strength of character, not necessarily physical strength.



I'm still waiting to hear what comic franchise supports your 'logic'?

In which comic book do the heroes lose in the first major story arc...?



How would I not be supporting my favourite character if he is part of the Avengers?



I thought it was great. Ticked all the right boxes for me.



Okay this was the one scene I half agree with you about, because it hurts the future of the franchise as I see it.

But within the context of that single movie, it worked perfectly fine and established that Phoenix could kill even those she loved.

Also the fact that the actor who plays Cyclops was jumping ship to Superman Returns means I say kill him off for that travesty alone!



I think this was probably to do with Patrick Stewart not wanting to do anymore X-Men movies, but Professor X being integral to the X-Men as a whole. Therefore you have the situation whereby we can logically change to a different actor.



I thought the scene worked fine.



Totally logical given that Magneto was a racist...or maybe you didn't get that.



Best line in the movie...but then I am a Juggernaut fan, not an X-Men fan.



As opposed to what, Bobby freezing a cup of tea in X-2!? Double Whoopee! GO SINGER!



See above. Your X-fanboy gyrations tempered by my impeccable logic.



As far as I can see you are one of those people who attack the director, not the movies they make.

Batman Forever is a perfectly fine, entertaining movie. Its not as 'dark' as the previous two, but thats more a cosmetic change than anything else.

Okay, they introduced Robin, and Robin's always a tool, but the good far outweighed the bad. Unlike Batman & Robin.



I think it will have a minor influence on opening weekend, but not after that.



I'm open to logical comments, but they are few and far between from you.



Well we could cite DVD sales, but again Superman Returns comes up empty since its DVD sales were terrible.

Many people who visit a movie other than the first weekend will almost certainly be tempered by word of mouth. So a movie with good box office legs (such as Transformers) has good word of mouth.

I am not reading that.

 

[Sebastos]

I find it odd that Spidey and UK can't just let the topic drop instead of continuing these long essays.

 

[Spider–Man]

Hi Spidey!

Okay, so you having read a few and him not being one of your favourites do you think honestly puts you in a strong position to dictate whats best for a Thor movie?

It really doesn't matter. It's clear you think YOU'RE the be all/end all authority where Thor's concerned, so even if Walt Simonson, or even Stan Lee, said it was a good idea for the Avengers to end with a free-for-all with the Hulk, you'd try to tell them it was illogical and underwhelming. As to Thor, you again must have missed this, but I don't care anything about the Thor movie. He could be fighting Minnie the Model for all I care.

He is occasionally bested in what you could call Act 2 of a story arc, but he never 'ultimately' loses...at least not in his own title (which is pretty much the same for all ongoing superhero series).

...there is always the dreaded Busiek moment to consider though.

No (ongoing) hero ever ULTIMATELY loses (unless they kill him). For Thor to fail to beat Loki by the end of the first Thor movie, and then succeed in doing so in the Avengers film means he ULTIMATELY didn't lose. But that's still playing too fast and loose with those rigidly defined 'rules' of yours for your comfort!

No. I am saying it would be illogical for Thor to lose at the climax of a movie (and/or major story arc).

Logic has nothing to do with it. Your only defense for it being illogical is that it has never been done. Something never having been done has nothing to do with logic. I'll use the Stan Lee example again. If he had said "We can't do a universecomposed of heroes with feet of clay, real world problems, because it's never been done before", there would never have BEEN a Thor comic to make a movie of! And since there has never been a Superhero movie that ended with the hero failing to beat the bad guy (not 'lost' to them - big difference), how do you know it wouldn't work? I say you lack imagination because I can easily see it working to great success.

The only exception to this would be a loss at the end of a second (of three) movie trilogy. In effect the trilogy then becomes the story arc and the second movie parallels the second act.

LOL! You're so rigidly confined by convention!

Think again.

I'd stipulate the same for every ongoing superhero franchise.

Stories with a finite end (a la Watchmen, 300) can of course differ from this.

Again, that elusive rule book that apparently only you have access to. Key words being 'YOU stipulate'. That is your pov, your opinion. Like I said, I'm sure you 'stipulated' that Thor could never lose to Superman. Guess we see what your stipulation's worth.

You don't have the hero lose at the end of the first movie - its idiotic.

I bet you still believe the Earth is flat!

You being such a Thor fan the wait must be killing you.

Nah, I'd just like to see if your grandiose comments actually amount to anything.

I'm done debating Superman Returns (if you are that eager, search for my posts in the Superman Returns forum at this site).

I was merely seeking clarification about one of your statements.

Just because you follow the correct 'beats' doesn't make it a good movie - you still have to make 'a good movie'. Theres more to it than simply having the hero win at the end.


No. Having a hero (of an ongoing franchise) lose at the end of his origin movie is throwing common sense out the window.

I prefer to think of it as being see other possibilities, something you are showing yourself completely incapable of. As I said before, you keep spouting the illogical/makes no sense line without any means of supporting it...other than "it's never been done before!"

Theres a difference between creativity and stupidity.

Well , I don't even feel you're qualified to make this statement since you obviously don't know anything about creativity. Fact: creativity involves 'creating' something which implies it has not been done before.

Of course not, because you don't know that a single page of script (be it comic book or movie) roughly translates to one minute of time.

But naturally, if you had studied such things (as I have), you would know that.

Ah, so now you're a soothsayer. Do you know for a fact that I haven't studied film? And you have studied film and plan to be writing comics for Marvel in 5 years? If you studied film, what have you done that we might recognize? Or are you one of those who 'can't', so you criticize? Newsflash: MOST people know that the average movie script = 120 pages = 2 hours. That's not the issue though. What is is how you know what that translates into in relation to comic books. Are you saying that 2 hour movie = 6 issues of a comic book, so it takes you 2 hours to read 6 comic books? That's inane. 20 minutes to read a comic book?!

Its not about realism, at least not in this case. Its about not confusing the audience. (Ongoing) Superhero movies should revolve around the goals of the (schemer) villain, tempered by the trials and tribulations of the hero.

Given that we know Loki will be the Schemer villain in the first Thor movie, adding a bunch of aliens (with no affiliations to the plotting of Loki) into the mix is only going to confuse people. The Stonemen, as aliens, serve no purpose in the first movie.

First of all, how do we know Loki WILL be the villain ofthe Thor film? Did you get some secret memo? If the Stone men were the only foes then they would fit you model of the schemer and there would be no confusion on the part of the audience. So where's the idiocy in that?

If Thor fights the Hulk at his own level then he plays into the Hulk's hands (dynamic strength and exceptionally fast regeneration). Any savvy writer would have Thor change tactics or either knock the Hulk out right away before he becomes too angry to handle in pure melee.

So you're saying that Thor deliberately doesn't try to beat the Hulk? Where's your logic in that?
As to your latter statement, take a moment to notice how your pomposity shines thru in those words. "Any savvy writer would.." So you're saying that there has yet to be a 'savvy writer' depicting a conflict between Thor and the Hulk? Wow. Just...wow. Well, at least Thor fans have you to look forward to...when you finally manage to get the gig!

...and then Busiek just happened to get the Superman gig just after that - go figure.

Ah, the desperate grasps at straws!

Actually Hulk 'supported' 150 billion tons, Thor lifted and threw 10 billion tons.

Effectively the difference between the most someone could deadlift and a javelin...in the case of weights thats far greater than a factor of fifteen.

Where is the weight of this sword noted and how far did Thor fling it?

Try this.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon2.htm

Ah, and I was expecting some foundational evidence for your argument written by someone of recognized authority. But since you present it, why couldn't Zak Penn employ one or more of your 'modifiers' to make (in your mind) the Hulk more than a match for the Avengers?

These are comics we are debating. Small difference.

No, a debate involves backing up your position with facts. You have nothing to support your view other than hollow statements like "That's idiotic" and "nonsense" and "That's illogical" and "ridiculously underwhelming". In other words, your opinion. I at least have tried to provide some support for my position (showing examples of how the Hulk's strength is greater than Thor's, showing how at least my preference for the Avenger's storyline has been done successfully). In the end though, no matter how much of an intellectual you think you are, we're merely presenting our preferences for these films, neither of which will matter in the least. But please feel free to continue to think otherwise.

Did he win?

It wasn't about him winning. It was about the Hulk appearing to be 'seemingly' beyond their power to beat - (your words: Enough is something seemingly beyond the power of the hero/heroes to defeat), which he WAS right up to the end when Jan buzzed in his ear which distracted him just long enough for Rick to toss the radioactive pill into his mouth just before the Hulk fell off the pier. Try to keep on topic, ok?

You don't need the 'most' powerful threat. Simply a threat greater than the power of the heroes.

*sigh* this is getting embarrassing. Again, your words: In the case of the most powerful characters this means the most powerful world shaking threats

To expound any further would simply be adding insult to injury.

Cliffhangars are something good for television (see Heroes), but I don't even think they are that good for movies released in consecutive years (Matrix 2-3). They are certainly useless for movies released evey three years.

Ah, so the cliffhanger at the end of the Empire Strikes Back was useless? And I guess we could've done without those useles cliffhangers at the end of the first 2 Lord of the Rings movies. Even X2, with the death of Jean, was such a movie. All useless according to you. I'd go get my money back from whoever you 'studied' film under because apparently ALL they taught you was that 1 script page = 1 min. of screen time!

You bring it as close to the comic as possible, but you don't lose sight of common sense.

Nothing I have said steers outside the boundaries of common sense.

Well they could have Aunt May slapping the Avengers back and forth. She would seem beyond their power to defeat.

Which, according to you, is what is needed to do the characters justice.

LOL! Utter tripe and onions.

Thor > Hulk

So any Avengers line up with Thor is automatically greater than the Hulk.

And yet you STILL fail to provide any evidence to back up this claim of Thor's superiority. Here's something for the Hulk's. Note the score and keep in mind it already reflects a victory by the Hulk at some point in the past and the only thing keeping him from another was Doc Strange teleporting him away: http://www.leaderslair.com/gammapeople/hulksmashes/hulk300.html

No, again your myopia has you avoid what I actually said and put words into my mouth.

I specifically stated its strength of character, not necessarily physical strength.

Instead of insulting you for, I'll merely place your two statements side by side to show your clumsy switching tactics:

first statement: Superheroes are only as strong (and that can be strength of character - not simply physical strength) as their villains

latest statement: I specifically stated it [is] strength of character, not necessarily physical

Neither of your statements EXCLUDES physical strength (although you try to make it seem more so in your second one), your insinuation about which is ludicrous.

I'm still waiting to hear what comic franchise supports your 'logic'?

Uh, Avengers #1 for the support of my logic that the Hulk should fight the Avengers in their origin movie.

In which comic book do the heroes lose in the first major story arc...?

Again, I said have Thor 'fail to beat Loki'. That isn't the same as 'have Thor lose to Loki'. BUT once more, just because it hasn't been done IS NOT a reason for an open-minded, creative individual to say it could not or should not be done. I guess you're neither.

How would I not be supporting my favourite character if he is part of the Avengers?

You would be financially lending your support to a movie co-starring your hero that you have already stated would be a 'total waste of time'. You would in essence be validating what you would consider an inappropriate adaption of Thor's character to the big screen and encouraging more of the same. Way to support your favourite character!

I thought it was great. Ticked all the right boxes for me.

Must've followed the model to the T!

Okay this was the one scene I half agree with you about, because it hurts the future of the franchise as I see it.

But within the context of that single movie, it worked perfectly fine and established that Phoenix could kill even those she loved.

Well think how you'd be able to half agree if they had Sif kill Thor in the Avengers movie, then! Oh wait, that would be a different story because they would be messing with a character that YOU care about!

Also the fact that the actor who plays Cyclops was jumping ship to Superman Returns means I say kill him off for that travesty alone!

Ooo, so bitter...t:

I think this was probably to do with Patrick Stewart not wanting to do anymore X-Men movies, but Professor X being integral to the X-Men as a whole. Therefore you have the situation whereby we can logically change to a different actor.

Again this is fine with you as long as they're not effing with a character YOU care about.

I thought the scene worked fine.

Well, let's clarify that. The scene was supposed to be heartfelt, poignant, emotional. So for it to have 'worked' for you, it would have to have stirred the proper emotion in you. So tell me, did you shed a tear, get a lump in your throat? I don't think so. The scene didn't 'work' on any level.

Totally logical given that Magneto was a racist...or maybe you didn't get that.

Actually he's species-ist (did you miss the fact that Calypso wasn't white?) but still logic would tell you that someone who would have shared as much with him, been as intimate with him, sacraficed as much for him as Mystique did would not have been instantly abandonned by him the moment she as turmed into a homosapien (in the process of keeping it from happening to him, no less!) especially when he would certainly know that she still supported the mutant cause and would still use the talents she retained to help in any way she could. You're so big on logic when you think it supports your view (which it never does!) yet seem to ignore it when it goes against what you believe (as it most often has!).

Best line in the movie...but then I am a Juggernaut fan, not an X-Men fan.

If there was any justice in the world, Joel Schumacher would direct the first Thor movie and Thor would utter the line "I'm Thor, *****!" I honestly don't know what would be funnier, watching you rant and rail against it (in light of your opinion of Batman Forever and Joel Schumacher, and your preference for that line by Jugs) or seeing you somehow try and defend it to keep from looking like a hypocrite!

As opposed to what, Bobby freezing a cup of tea in X-2!? Double Whoopee! GO SINGER!

My point being, they tried to please everyone with this film and in doing so completely failed to please anyone (well, anyone with sense enough to recognize a dud!). By the way, I am not an X-man fan per se. The filmmakers were like "Hey everyone wants to see Bobby go full body Iceman", so to try and appease that demographic, they tossed them that pathetic 4 second bone. You'd be screaming out the other side of your face if they treated Thor with that type of disrespect in an Avengers film.

See above. Your X-fanboy gyrations tempered by my impeccable logic.

A) I'm certainly not an x-fanboy (as if you should throw around the 'fanboy' insult anyway - how much time have you got in that Immortality site of your?) and B) the closest you come to impeccable is your record for spouting unsubstantiated balderdash!

As far as I can see you are one of those people who attack the director, not the movies they make.

Well, as far as you can see...ain't very far at all!

Batman Forever is a perfectly fine, entertaining movie. Its not as 'dark' as the previous two, but thats more a cosmetic change than anything else.

Okay, they introduced Robin, and Robin's always a tool, but the good far outweighed the bad. Unlike Batman & Robin.

As I said, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I think it will have a minor influence on opening weekend, but not after that.

X3 made almost half it's total gross in the opening weekend so what does that tell you? Nevermind, probably not a thing!

I'm open to logical comments, but they are few and far between from you.

You're hysterical! Keep livin' the dream!

Well we could cite DVD sales, but again Superman Returns comes up empty since its DVD sales were terrible.

Many people who visit a movie other than the first weekend will almost certainly be tempered by word of mouth. So a movie with good box office legs (such as Transformers) has good word of mouth.

X3 made $102 mil opening weekend. Over the next 18 weeks before it was pulled it made $120 mil. Second weekend there was a 67% drop in the gross. That's because a huge number of people went to see it opening weekend based on reaction to the first 2 films. When the film failed to deliver, WOM got around and the result was a HUGE drop the following weekend.

With that, I'm dropping this. Think what you want and I'll do the same. AS far as the Thor and Avengers movies go, we can both see for ourselves when they come out! Anything else is just speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Spidey!

okay, I may not get the whole reply finished tonight, if not I'll sort it out as soon as possible. I'm working 73 1/2 hours this week and time is a bit scarce.

It really doesn't matter. It's clear you think YOU'RE the be all/end all authority where Thor's concerned, so even if Walt Simonson, or even Stan Lee, said it was a good idea for the Avengers to end with a free-for-all with the Hulk, you'd try to tell them it was illogical and underwhelming.

On the contrary I am sure they would actually choose a logical approach similar to the one I was taking or if not could logically state why they differed - something you cannot do.

Point of fact I have talked to Walt Simonson briefly about the Thor movie (over at Alvaro's months ago) and he also suggested (without prompting) that he would keep Asgard to the second movie!

As to Thor, you again must have missed this, but I don't care anything about the Thor movie. He could be fighting Minnie the Model for all I care.

That much was obvious.

No (ongoing) hero ever ULTIMATELY loses (unless they kill him). For Thor to fail to beat Loki by the end of the first Thor movie, and then succeed in doing so in the Avengers film means he ULTIMATELY didn't lose. But that's still playing too fast and loose with those rigidly defined 'rules' of yours for your comfort!

You are trying to put words in my mouth again.

First of all I said Thor (nor any hero of an ongoing franchise) should never lose in their first movie. To make them lose is idiotic and totally rubbishes the character...thats why we have never seen any superhero lose in their origin movie.

Secondly, the Avengers isn't even part of the Thor franchise. Each movie must work as a self-contained piece.

Frankly all you are doing is using the Thor movie for your own silly ends. You are happy to crap on the Thor franchise to make an Avengers movie work.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with your comments - I'll give you that.

Your only defense for it being illogical is that it has never been done.

Thats not a defense, thats simply a byproduct of logical thinking.

No writer/director would be stupid enough to have the hero lose in the first film.

Something never having been done has nothing to do with logic.

Unless doing it is illogical. Making the hero look bad is illogical.

I'll use the Stan Lee example again. If he had said "We can't do a universecomposed of heroes with feet of clay, real world problems, because it's never been done before", there would never have BEEN a Thor comic to make a movie of!

Again you confuse creativity (in different areas) with the basic fundamentals of storytelling.

And since there has never been a Superhero movie that ended with the hero failing to beat the bad guy (not 'lost' to them - big difference), how do you know it wouldn't work?

It wouldn't work because it totally cheapens the hero and makes them look a failure - thats why!

I say you lack imagination because I can easily see it working to great success.

Thats because you are willing to gut Thor to bolster the Avengers, but you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

LOL! You're so rigidly confined by convention!

On the contrary I, unlike you, know what works.

Again, that elusive rule book that apparently only you have access to. Key words being 'YOU stipulate'. That is your pov, your opinion. Like I said, I'm sure you 'stipulated' that Thor could never lose to Superman. Guess we see what your stipulation's worth.

Opinion based on fact and weight of history.

I bet you still believe the Earth is flat!

You haven't the vaguest conception of storytelling - that much is obvious.

Nah, I'd just like to see if your grandiose comments actually amount to anything.

Thanks, me too.

I was merely seeking clarification about one of your statements.

If sure you'll find it in the SR forums if you search deep enough. I was debating that terrible movie for about 7-8 months.

I prefer to think of it as being see other possibilities, something you are showing yourself completely incapable of. As I said before, you keep spouting the illogical/makes no sense line without any means of supporting it...other than "it's never been done before!"

Whereas you have a closed mind as to why its never been done before...or haven't you started wondering why it hasn't!?

Well , I don't even feel you're qualified to make this statement since you obviously don't know anything about creativity. Fact: creativity involves 'creating' something which implies it has not been done before.

Its apparent I know a damn sight more than you about it.

Ah, so now you're a soothsayer. Do you know for a fact that I haven't studied film?

...because if you did you would not have been ignorant to the time frame generally attributed to one scripted page.

And you have studied film and plan to be writing comics for Marvel in 5 years? If you studied film, what have you done that we might recognize? Or are you one of those who 'can't', so you criticize? Newsflash: MOST people know that the average movie script = 120 pages = 2 hours. That's not the issue though. What is is how you know what that translates into in relation to comic books. Are you saying that 2 hour movie = 6 issues of a comic book, so it takes you 2 hours to read 6 comic books? That's inane. 20 minutes to read a comic book?!

What do you mean am I one of those who can't. I am a published author, designer and artist. t:

First of all, how do we know Loki WILL be the villain ofthe Thor film?

Because hes Thor's nemesis!!!! Hes the Magneto to the X-men, hes the Doctor Doom to the Fantastic Four!

Did you get some secret memo?

Yes it was the one they keep hidden from you - its the common sense memo.

If the Stone men were the only foes then they would fit you model of the schemer and there would be no confusion on the part of the audience. So where's the idiocy in that?

The Stonemen do nothing to forward the myth of Thor, they are but a footnote in the history of Thor.

So you're saying that Thor deliberately doesn't try to beat the Hulk? Where's your logic in that?

What I am saying is that Thor tries to beat Hulk on a level playing field (pure combat) which plays into Hulk's strengths.

To Thor, it wouldn't be 'fair' to simply blast the Hulk.

As to your latter statement, take a moment to notice how your pomposity shines thru in those words. "Any savvy writer would.." So you're saying that there has yet to be a 'savvy writer' depicting a conflict between Thor and the Hulk? Wow. Just...wow. Well, at least Thor fans have you to look forward to...when you finally manage to get the gig!

Of course there have been great writers taking on such characters battles, but Thor has grown up immeasurably of late and theres no point retelling the same story the same way as its already been done, because it wouldn't make sense now based on the past experiences between the two characters.

Ah, the desperate grasps at straws!

Well funnily enough immediately after that crossover I actually debated in favour of Superman winning a purely fisticuffs battle with Thor...or at least I explained why he would have the slight advantage.

Although of course much like in encounters with the Hulk, Thor was massively holding back to take on Superman without using his full power. The God-Blast would drop Superman in one hit.

Where is the weight of this sword noted and how far did Thor fling it?

The sword is made from the metal of a condensed galactic core star - that means at bare minimum its as dense as White Dwarf Star Metal which is one million times more dense than iron.

I don't have time to look it up but I believe Thor threw the sword about a mile or something like that.

Okay I need to get to work. I'll reply to the rest as soon as possible.

Good debate by the way.

 

[Spider–Man]

Hey Spidey!

okay, I may not get the whole reply finished tonight, if not I'll sort it out as soon as possible. I'm working 73 1/2 hours this week and time is a bit scarce.



On the contrary I am sure they would actually choose a logical approach similar to the one I was taking or if not could logically state why they differed - something you cannot do.

Point of fact I have talked to Walt Simonson briefly about the Thor movie (over at Alvaro's months ago) and he also suggested (without prompting) that he would keep Asgard to the second movie!



That much was obvious.



You are trying to put words in my mouth again.

First of all I said Thor (nor any hero of an ongoing franchise) should never lose in their first movie. To make them lose is idiotic and totally rubbishes the character...thats why we have never seen any superhero lose in their origin movie.

Secondly, the Avengers isn't even part of the Thor franchise. Each movie must work as a self-contained piece.

Frankly all you are doing is using the Thor movie for your own silly ends. You are happy to crap on the Thor franchise to make an Avengers movie work.



It has nothing to do with your comments - I'll give you that.



Thats not a defense, thats simply a byproduct of logical thinking.

No writer/director would be stupid enough to have the hero lose in the first film.



Unless doing it is illogical. Making the hero look bad is illogical.



Again you confuse creativity (in different areas) with the basic fundamentals of storytelling.



It wouldn't work because it totally cheapens the hero and makes them look a failure - thats why!



Thats because you are willing to gut Thor to bolster the Avengers, but you haven't a clue what you're talking about.



On the contrary I, unlike you, know what works.



Opinion based on fact and weight of history.



You haven't the vaguest conception of storytelling - that much is obvious.



Thanks, me too.



If sure you'll find it in the SR forums if you search deep enough. I was debating that terrible movie for about 7-8 months.



Whereas you have a closed mind as to why its never been done before...or haven't you started wondering why it hasn't!?



Its apparent I know a damn sight more than you about it.



...because if you did you would not have been ignorant to the time frame generally attributed to one scripted page.



What do you mean am I one of those who can't. I am a published author, designer and artist.



Because hes Thor's nemesis!!!! Hes the Magneto to the X-men, hes the Doctor Doom to the Fantastic Four!



Yes it was the one they keep hidden from you - its the common sense memo.



The Stonemen do nothing to forward the myth of Thor, they are but a footnote in the history of Thor.



What I am saying is that Thor tries to beat Hulk on a level playing field (pure combat) which plays into Hulk's strengths.

To Thor, it wouldn't be 'fair' to simply blast the Hulk.



Of course there have been great writers taking on such characters battles, but Thor has grown up immeasurably of late and theres no point retelling the same story the same way as its already been done, because it wouldn't make sense now based on the past experiences between the two characters.



Well funnily enough immediately after that crossover I actually debated in favour of Superman winning a purely fisticuffs battle with Thor...or at least I explained why he would have the slight advantage.

Although of course much like in encounters with the Hulk, Thor was massively holding back to take on Superman without using his full power. The God-Blast would drop Superman in one hit.



The sword is made from the metal of a condensed galactic core star - that means at bare minimum its as dense as White Dwarf Star Metal which is one million times more dense than iron.

I don't have time to look it up but I believe Thor threw the sword about a mile or something like that.

Okay I need to get to work. I'll reply to the rest as soon as possible.

Good debate by the way.

AS I said, Krust, it isn't a debate.

But just some quick responses before saying adieu:

- I didn't realize they were working published authors that many hours a week!

- Well if Simonson said so then that settles it. I guess no Thor in Asgard for the first film.

- No one could fit ANYTHING else into your mouth. It's already packed full of your own nonsense!

- Why must each movie work as a self contained piece?

- You debated SR for 7-8 months?!! Sad doesn't even scratch the surface.

- Where do you get from me not thinking that 6 comics = a 2 hr hour script (which you have yet to address) that I didn't know that 1 page of a script roughly = 1 minute of screen time. I've known that for years, Spielberg! EVERYONE knows that! You are so blinded by your own superciliousness, it's hilarious! I'm getting the feeling that you're Brittish!

- For you to say Thor held back in his conflict with Superman and the Hulk is ludicrous! He got bested pure and simple.

- By the 'you can't' remark, I was referring to filmmaking. Where exactly does this supposed film experience of yours come into play? Where specifically did you 'study'?

- And finally, what exactly have you had published? I'm sure some people would like to read it...or NOT!t:

 

[Sebastos]

When will it end?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Spidey!

AS I said, Krust, it isn't a debate.

It is a debate (and yes I know, I get the infered 'slight' on your part). You are saying Thor should lose in his opening movie to build up the Avengers. I countered explaining why thats a bad idea, that it totally rubbishes the character of Thor.

But just some quick responses before saying adieu:

Away so soon...

...I get so few good debates of late...make another Superman movie quick Singer so I can start wreckin' people again.

- I didn't realize they were working published authors that many hours a week!

Actually I generally only work about 50-55 hours a week on the writing/art. Annoyingly my first solo book was only released in June 07, even though it was finished 18 months earlier (due to problems the Publisher was having with their Chinese Printing Partner). Since I get paid quarterly I'll basically have to wait until October before I see any money. So that has meant taking on a second job - its this job that I am currently working 42 hours at (but it just happened I got 7 days in a row due to the shifts so 73 1/2 hours from last Wednesday to this Tuesday).

- Well if Simonson said so then that settles it. I guess no Thor in Asgard for the first film.

Glad we are finally in agreement.

- No one could fit ANYTHING else into your mouth. It's already packed full of your own nonsense!

Well at least I am talking your language then.

- Why must each movie work as a self contained piece?

Its a vastly more satisfying format, in terms of timeframe (people don't like to wait) and clarity (why the hell would anyone want to watch a different franchise to resolve the story in the original franchise).

I mean you are not even content with neutering Thor in the first movie, but you also advocate dragging the story out into a second movie thats not even a 'Thor' movie.

- You debated SR for 7-8 months?!! Sad doesn't even scratch the surface.

This is how I relax and/or vent off some steam.

It just so happened that there were a lot of blinkered Superman Returns fans out there who needed a good talking to.

- Where do you get from me not thinking that 6 comics = a 2 hr hour script (which you have yet to address) that I didn't know that 1 page of a script roughly = 1 minute of screen time. I've known that for years, Spielberg! EVERYONE knows that! You are so blinded by your own superciliousness, it's hilarious! I'm getting the feeling that you're Brittish!

If you already knew it, why the hell did you question it when I made the comment in the first place?

...and yes I am British.

- For you to say Thor held back in his conflict with Superman and the Hulk is ludicrous! He got bested pure and simple.

Just let me clarify. I don't mean he held back in terms of strength or pulling punches, but what you (as someone relatively unfamiliar with Thor) fail to understand is that Thor has energy projecting powers way beyond his presumed status, even ones that can kill Galactus...and thats not even Thor using his most powerful attack!

Thor's 2nd most powerful energy blast > Darkseid's Omega Beams (as per the Darkseid vs. Galactus crossover).

But due to fair play Thor only breaks out these big energy blasts against truely cosmic entities.

- By the 'you can't' remark, I was referring to filmmaking. Where exactly does this supposed film experience of yours come into play? Where specifically did you 'study'?

I never said I had film-making experience. Simply that I have studied scriptwriting, screenplays, treatments and so forth. None of this was as part of an official course - but that would be an appeal to authority anyway.

- And finally, what exactly have you had published? I'm sure some people would like to read it...or NOT!

Well I gave you a clue earlier when I linked you to my website.

My first book is the Immortals Handbook Epic Bestiary, which is a roleplaying (d20, D&D) supplement.

 

[Spider–Man]

It is a debate (and yes I know, I get the infered 'slight' on your part). You are saying Thor should lose in his opening movie to build up the Avengers. I countered explaining why thats a bad idea, that it totally rubbishes the character of Thor.

A) I don’t know what ‘slight’ you mean as I inferred none, and B) it is not a debate because as I’ve said repeatedly, despite your apparent inability to comprehend it, I didn’t say Thor should lose. I said he should fail to stop Loki from escaping. There’s a big difference whether your extreme tunnel vision can fathom that or not.

Away so soon...

...I get so few good debates of late...make another Superman movie quick Singer so I can start wreckin' people again.

As I said, superciliousness to the most absurd degree! I’m ‘away’ much later than I’d have liked actually. Spending 8 months debating one movie (after its release I take it), the waste of time which is beyond my ability to comprehend, is so far past pathetic, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry! But you have fun with that great endeavor of yours!

Actually I generally only work about 50-55 hours a week on the writing/art. Annoyingly my first solo book was only released in June 07, even though it was finished 18 months earlier (due to problems the Publisher was having with their Chinese Printing Partner). Since I get paid quarterly I'll basically have to wait until October before I see any money. So that has meant taking on a second job - its this job that I am currently working 42 hours at (but it just happened I got 7 days in a row due to the shifts so 73 1/2 hours from last Wednesday to this Tuesday).

Move over, JK Rowling, there’s a new hot author on the scene with his great new #1 best selling hit book, Immortals Handbook Epic Bestiary! It’s shooting up the charts at the speed of smell, so get your copy while you can!

Glad we are finally in agreement.

Amazing ability you have to discern something that is ‘inferred’ when there is nothing, then totally fail to notice something that IS! We’ll both know about Asgard appearing or not when the film comes out and not because Walt Simonson states his opinion!

Well at least I am talking your language then.

Ah, American English! Glad to know you gave up that foppy Brit-****, Jim Dandy!

Its a vastly more satisfying format, in terms of timeframe (people don't like to wait) and clarity (why the hell would anyone want to watch a different franchise to resolve the story in the original franchise).

“Vastly more satisfying format” is you once again trying to spout your opinion as fact and it’s the main reason I’m dropping out of this discussion. You never did answer me using the example of the Empire Strikes Back as my rebuttal to your claim of cliffhangers released at 3-year intervals being useless! People may not like to wait but waiting increases anticipation which is why all the subsequent Harry Potter books have been such big hits. It's why the Star Wars films (even the ones that were generally thought to be less than spectacular) were such hits. Its why X3 was such a hit! I'm giving you examples of how time between films INCREASES the odds of the film's success where you've FAILED to substantiate your opposing claim! Are you saying that ANY movie you can think of would've been more satisfying simply by not having to wait as long as you did to see it? Beyond stupidity!

And what difference does it make what franchise it is in?!! A story is a story! There are many different ways of telling them (which is beyond your scope of understanding, although I’m sure that, within its rigidly paint-by-the-numbers, cookie-cutter-type format, the plot and characterization of your latest literary triumph is beyond compare)! There are single, stand-alone stories, there are stories that are continued/concluded in a sequel(s), and there are stories that are continued/concluded in a completely different title. As the latter is almost exclusive to the comic book format (which is what a Thor movie will be based on), this is a unique opportunity to recreate this format for the cinema. But Noooo, great artist that you are, you just can’t seem to muster the vision to see that this is not only possible, but would be a refreshingly original cinematic concept. I argued a while back to have the first Cap movie set in WW2 with Cap supposedly “dying” at the end. It would be a departure for superhero movies in that a) it would be a period piece, and b) the hero seeming to “perish” would give his actions that much more grandeur and put it artistically a step above previous superhero fare. Cap could be ‘discovered’ in the Avengers movie and be revived to lead the team. It would be an original concept in several respects for superhero movies and it would be true to the comic book version.

You needn’t even reply. I already know that you think it is too unconventional and ‘risky” for your OCDish, each-movie-has-to-be-kept-separate-in-its-own-neat-little-square-package type comfort!

I mean you are not even content with neutering Thor in the first movie, but you also advocate dragging the story out into a second movie thats not even a 'Thor' movie.

Well, perhaps they should just remove Thor from the Avengers movie entirely (since it won’t even be a THOR movie)! Thor failing to keep Loki from escaping is not ‘neutering’ him! Get a clue!

This is how I relax and/or vent off some steam.

And I thought holding on in quiet desperation was the English way!

It just so happened that there were a lot of blinkered Superman Returns fans out there who needed a good talking to.

That is the most blatant example I’ve ever seen of the pot calling the kettle black!

If you already knew it, why the hell did you question it when I made the comment in the first place?

Ok, I’ll type this slow so you can keep up:

You said:
Firstly a movie is effectively six issue of a comic book, not one issue. (This is you basically saying that 6 comics would = 2+ hours of screen time, an absolutely ridiculous assertion unless you are a completely ******ed imbecile who has trouble reading “See Spot Run”!)

Then I said:
Hmm, I must've missed that particular rule in the 'model for translating a comic to film' handbook... (Basically ME saying you must’ve pulled that comparison out of your ass in the absence of any source to verify it. STILL NOTHING THAT’S BEEN SAID HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW 1 PAGE OF SCRIPT = 1 MINUTE OF SCREEN TIME. I never said anything about the relation between the number of script pages to screen time. The comments were about the number of comic books in relation to the length of 1 movie!)

Then you said:
Of course not, because you don't know that a single page of script (be it comic book or movie) roughly translates to one minute of time.

But naturally, if you had studied such things (as I have), you would know that.

A) You couldn’t “know” that I didn’t know that (about movie scripts)because I DO!
B) The movie script to screen time ratio aside, where do you get that the same applies to comic books? If it takes you 2+ hours to read 6 comic books, you need to be spending more time with a reading tutor and less time arguing the pros/cons of SR or any other movie!
C) You assumed, based on misinterpretation of information, that I haven’t ‘studied such things’. I have studied film from books, magazines, and other sources for over 25 years. I made dozens of movies in 16mm format when I was a kid for which I wrote the scripts, did the stop-motion animation and matte work, and build the sets (with the help of my friends). I have shelves full of books on the subject. I took another career path but within the last two years, did some correspondence courses (such as this one: http://www.filmschoolonline.com/) to update my knowledge of more modern filmmaking techniques. I bought a MacbookPro loaded with software and a Canon XL2 and have had a ball just tinkering around with it. I was writing fiction well before that. I even had all my friends in fourth grade form a comic book company where we published comics with heroes we created and sold the copies for a penny apiece. Not much profit but a lot of fun and notoriety! I completed the Institute of Children’s Literature writing-for-children AND adult literature programs several years ago and had several short stories published in some older literary mags. Just to let you know, you shouldn’t go around assuming you know the way things are, especially when you haven’t the first clue.

...and yes I am British.

Goes without saying.

Just let me clarify. I don't mean he held back in terms of strength or pulling punches, but what you (as someone relatively unfamiliar with Thor) fail to understand is that Thor has energy projecting powers way beyond his presumed status, even ones that can kill Galactus...and thats not even Thor using his most powerful attack!

Thor's 2nd most powerful energy blast > Darkseid's Omega Beams (as per the Darkseid vs. Galactus crossover).

But due to fair play Thor only breaks out these big energy blasts against truely cosmic entities.

Then let me clarify:
A) Thor’s an idiot! And B) As long as he IS such an idiot, the Hulk would be a more than suitable threat for the Avengers to tackle in their first film! “Hey, he just cracked Iron Man’s armor! And he just smacked Cap halfway across town! And Thor’s pretty much impotent in this conflict due to his sense of fair play as he thinks it wouldn’t be fair to use his power on the Hulk!” Sounds great to me!

I never said I had film-making experience. Simply that I have studied scriptwriting, screenplays, treatments and so forth. None of this was as part of an official course - but that would be an appeal to authority anyway.

Which you insinuated that you ARE! Pffft!

Well I gave you a clue earlier when I linked you to my website.

My first book is the Immortals Handbook Epic Bestiary, which is a roleplaying (d20, D&D) supplement.

Yes, I took a gander at your site the other evening and when I awoke at my computer several hours later (no doubt rendered unconscious by the intensity of the gripping prose!), it was past my bedtime!

To sum up this particular point: you try to use the fact that you have “studied” scriptwriting, screenplays, treatments and so forth (on your own), a website you did on the powers of Thor and other immortals, and a book you had published which is a “role-playing supplement”, to claim superior knowledge of what would constitute a good fictional story for a film? I don't want you to mistakenly think I'm inferring anything. I am now openly mocking you.

Let me close my part of our discussion with this:

IMO IF they do the first Thor with him in Asgard, it could work very well.
If they do it on Earth, it could work very well.
If they tie it to the Avengers movie thru Loki, it could be awesome.
If they don’t, it could be awesome!
If Thor beats Loki in the first film, it could be fantastic!
If Thor fails to beat Loki in the first film, it could be fantastic!
If they fight the Hulk (as one thing that’s been confirmed is that he’s in it) at the finale, it could be amazing!
If they fight someone else as a team with the Hulk as a member, it could be amazing!
See how, when someone opens up his mind to possibilities, he can envision things that the narrow-minded simply cannot? No, I didn't think you would. Ever since the Boston Tea Party, you guys have been so negative! Now go find someone else who cares to spend 7 months of their life spinning their wheels on a topic that’s long since lost its flavor and have at it!