Matthew Vaughn in negotiations to direct Thor?

[Advanced Dark]

I can just imagine a very cool scene opening up an Avengers film with The Hulk.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello!

Okay I cannot finish this now, I'll re-edit in the morning.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Thor Strikes Hollywood

by Natalie Finn
Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:27:17 PM PDT

COMMENTS (0)

var startSz = 1;var tgs = new Array();tgs[0] = "article-text-block-1";TEXT SIZE + A | -A




Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice…unless Thor's around, that is.
The hammer-tossing superhero is the latest star from the comic-book vault to get in line for big-screen treatment, with Marvel Studios lining up British auteur Matthew Vaughn to direct Thor, based on the Stan Lee-created character.
Marvel is hoping to get production in progress by this winter. Mark Protosevich, whose latest project was the apocalyptic Will Smith thriller I Am Legend, will pen the screenplay.
As laid out in the 1962 comics franchise The Mighty Thor, the Norse god of thunder and war is sent by his father Odin to inhabit the body of mere mortal Dr. Donald Blake, in order to teach the arrogant lad some humility. Once Odin is satisfied that his son has learned his lesson, Thor no longer requires a regular-guy alter ego and can be counted on to save the world from the inevitable variety of humanity-threatening evil-doers.
Describing the thought process that went into creating Thor 40-some years ago, Lee wrote in his 2002 autobiography Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee:
"I wanted to come up with something totally different. I thought it would fun to invent someone as powerful as, or perhaps even more powerful than, the Incredible Hulk. But how do you make someone stronger than the strongest human? It finally came to me: Don't make him human—make him a god."
There's no word yet on who might be asked to wear the winged helmet, but as is the case when Hollywood utters the words "superhero" or "sci-fi," the blogs are already atwitter with suggestions.
"This pretty much has Josh Holloway written all over it," wrote IceTruckDexter on cinematical.com, while others suggested Matthew McConaughey, Jason Mewes (must be a hair thing), New Zealand-born actor Karl Urban (lately an assassin in The Bourne Supremacy) and, of course, Vincent D'Onofrio, who memorably played a beefy mechanic who was mistaken for Thor in Adventures in Babysitting in 1987.

Hopes are high, especially considering the sleight of hand Marvel Studios displayed in casting its other upcoming additions to the comic-book-film canon, The Incredible Hulk, due out June 13, 2008,and Iron Man, slated for a May 2 release.
Edward Norton is suiting up as the volatile Dr. Bruce Banner for the not-quite-a-sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk, and Liv Tyler plays love interest Betty Ross. Tim Roth, William Hurt and Tim Blake Nelson are also on hand to up the action flick's dramatic pedigree.
Former Swinger Jon Favreau's take on Iron Man stars Robert Downey Jr. as the metallically-enhanced hero, with Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Samuel L. Jackson and Hilary Swank rounding out the supporting cast.
Thor will be only the third trip behind the camera for Vaughn, who made his directing debut with 2004's heist romp Layer Cake, and whose second film, the fantasy-adventure Stardust, starring Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro, comes out Friday.
The London native also produced the Guy Ritchie-directed films Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Swept Away, with an emphasis on the first two.

Cool write up.

 

[Negrotigre]

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.



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.



So doing something other than the 'same old thing' 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.





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



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



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!!"



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



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



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?



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.



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.



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



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



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.



Again, your opinion.



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.



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?



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!



Nonsense.



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...



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.



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.



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!



Again, I'll wait and see.



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.



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).



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.



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.



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



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!!!"



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!

In "What IF," Thor killed a totally enraged Hulk with ease! And X3>X1 &X2. I know Ratner has made his share of garbage, but the hate he gets for X3 is unfounded. The movie had better action than the previous two, Wolverine finally knew how to fight, and the movie took alot of chances that for the most part paid off. I just personally wouldn't have killed of Cyclops and would have had Juggernaut way more powerful.

Negro, OUT!~

 

[Whiskey Tango]

"This pretty much has Josh Holloway written all over it," wrote IceTruckDexter on cinematical.com, while others suggested Matthew McConaughey, Jason Mewes (must be a hair thing), New Zealand-born actor Karl Urban (lately an assassin in The Bourne Supremacy) and, of course, Vincent D'Onofrio, who memorably played a beefy mechanic who was mistaken for Thor in Adventures in Babysitting in 1987.

Lmao whoever suggested Mewes needs to be beaten with bricks.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Lmao whoever suggested Mewes needs to be beaten with bricks.

Oh I know. I can just imagine a 10 year old Thor sitting in front of some stone age 7/11 say *()*#%$&)

 

[Advanced Dark]

In "What IF," Thor killed a totally enraged Hulk with ease! And X3>X1 &X2. I know Ratner has made his share of garbage, but the hate he gets for X3 is unfounded. The movie had better action than the previous two, Wolverine finally knew how to fight, and the movie took alot of chances that for the most part paid off. I just personally wouldn't have killed of Cyclops and would have had Juggernaut way more powerful.

Negro, OUT!~

Ratner did a tremendous job with X3 considering zero prep time after Singer who F'd up the franchise to begin with walked with his writers. Pretty much ALL of Ratners films make money and it's not because they suck or because he's a hack. They entertain.

 

[kedrell]

In "What IF," Thor killed a totally enraged Hulk with ease! And X3>X1 &X2. I know Ratner has made his share of garbage, but the hate he gets for X3 is unfounded. The movie had better action than the previous two, Wolverine finally knew how to fight, and the movie took alot of chances that for the most part paid off. I just personally wouldn't have killed of Cyclops and would have had Juggernaut way more powerful.

Negro, OUT!~

Whay If?'s never count. The whole point of What If? is to not be confined by the pre-existing rules of the Marvel U.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Whay If?'s never count. The whole point of What If? is to not be confined by the pre-existing rules of the Marvel U.

Well what if there was a "What If" that was confined by pre-existing rules? Wouldn't that fit with in the whole "what if" thought process?

 

[kedrell]

Why wouldn't it just happen in the 616 then, rather than needing a What If? And I'm not saying every What If? has to break the rules, but they end up doing that most of the time since they aren't as confined story-wise. I wouldn't consider anything in What If? as canon.

 

[Negrotigre]

Why wouldn't it just happen in the 616 then, rather than needing a What If? And I'm not saying every What If? has to break the rules, but they end up doing that most of the time since they aren't as confined story-wise. I wouldn't consider anything in What If? as canon.

"What if" is just Marvel's way of killing off characters and making out of the box suggestions for story lines and then saying, "Just kiddin."

TigreBlack

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider–Man
You still haven't explained WHY each story MUST BE self contained. Ok, if this makes it easier for you, how about the Avengers film is essentially the sequel to each of the first solo movies? That's more or less what I've been saying anyway.


As long as the person on the street doesn't need to watch the Avengers movie to conclude Thor #1 or begin Thor #2.
Quote:
And to make my idea fit more into your mold, any of the devices you've mentioned could be employed with respect to Loki.


I already mentioned how it could work with Loki in the Avengers movie, however it appears Marvel are going for an Asgard only Thor movie so that idea won't work anymore.
Quote:
Ok, how do you view a 9' tall monster who destroys NY city while on a rage-fueled rampage?


I don't think Hulk would destroy New York.
Quote:
When did I say he should be the villain other than in the first Avengers movie? He will be a hero in TIH against A-bomb.


I meant that if the Avengers fight Hulk more than once in the Avengers movie, not in future Avengers movies.
Quote:
No, it should be what is best for the fans! The characters aren't really real! What's best for 'them' isn't an issue!


Same difference as far as I am concerned.

And I've already addressed the term 'best'. If you look at all of these movies as one big story, then tying them all together IS what is 'best' (your definition).

Tieing them together is one thing, making themmultiple parts of the same story is another.

I could use your argument against you and what you would like to see by saying "Well, your idea is underwhelming compared to throwing in (fill in blank with super-powerful villain) to boot!"

The Avengers movie has to be the biggest of the biggest for Marvel. If a Thor movie looks far more epic than the Avengers movie then you simply haven't done the Avengers justice.
Quote:
And that's fine. I never said your ideas wouldn't work. YOU are the only one who has been trying to pigeonhole everything and saying nothing but YOUR ideas would work.


I never said my ideas are the only ones that will work, simply that they are better/more logical choices for Thor than what you have suggested so far.
Quote:
Do you think Raimi's Spider-man was the only way Spidey could've been presented?


No.
Quote:
Do you think his way was the 'best' that could've been?


Possibly. I can't really fault the first Spider-man movie...if I am being ultra critical the score could have been better I suppose.
Quote:
No and no.


No and Possibly.
Quote:
Something doesn't have to be 'the best' to still be awesome!


It should still be the best you can logically make it.
Quote:
No, you are condescending by inferring that the majority of the public don't have sense enough to watch a Thor movie and then figure out that the Avengers movie is the next chapter in that story.


Correct, I don't think they do.
Quote:
By saying it would confuse them, you're essentially calling them stupid!


Its not about stupidity its about knowledge. I'm no smarter than the next man because I can name all the supporting characters in Thor.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with their knowledge of superheroes!


Of course it is.
Quote:
With media, the internet, up to the second entertainment news, they would EASILY know what was going on, especially if the solo movies blow up!


I think thats debateable.
Quote:
Not a Hulk 'fanboy'. The way I arrive at my view is backed by dozens of years of stories that support my view. FF# 25 and #26 for starters. If you have any proof that The Hulk IS NOT (or at least doesn't APPEAR to be thru a drawn out battle) a match for the Avengers please show it.


Has Hulk ever defeated the entire Avengers?
Quote:
If you have an example of Thor easily beating the Hulk, please show it.


I don't think it would make much of a story done that way. Hulk gets mad, Thor blasts him...the end.
Quote:
I mean, taking each other at our word notwithstanding, let's be reasonable: you can't just say 'Thor can destroy the Hulk with ease' without actually pointing to some example and expect anyone to take you seriously.


I can say it, the God-blast would have killed Galactus had he not fled, it has killed Loki in one shot.
Quote:
Your view is backed by your preference for thor. Mine is backed by recorded recognized canon.


My view is backed by knowledge of Thor, your view is backed by knowldege of Avengers-Thor...and there is a difference.
Quote:
My point was you shouldn't ask a question to which you already have the answer. If you already know an answer, just give it!


I'm debating you, not myself.
Quote:
Again, I just see this remark as silly and in complete contradiction with your claim to know what constitutes a good story. Did you see Die Hard, arguably the mother of action films? Did it have moments of quiet introspection? Of course! Al telling John about how he accidentally shot the kid! John telling Al about how he'd never told his wife he was sorry! This ENHANCES the scenes with the action! Sounds to me like you just want a 2 hours battle royale! There's good story telling for yuh! I never said I wanted long, drawn-out scenes like that!


I want a movie that ticks all the boxes...including characterisation and action. What I don't want is a boring Superman Returns-like introspective waste of my time. Your initial idea was "Yadda yadda yadda...they fight the Hulk."
Quote:
You asked what else could fill up 110 minutes and it seemed you really had no clue!


Of course I had a clue but I wanted to hear why you thought your idea had merit.
Quote:
Ok, let me see if I can think of some possible action scenes:
Cap training
Thor maybe having a run-in with the law in his first experience with modern civilization
IM in the middle of some high-tech criminal take-down when he gets the call from Fury about putting together the team
Thor's initial run-in with the others and a short skirmish
the Hulk rampaging thru a city being hounded by the army


With the exception of Cap training (and to an extent even then), all the above are more suited to the characters respective solo movies.
Quote:
Those are just off the top of my head but again I would think as a writer, you would know that action is the easiest thing to add more of.


Its an easy thing to add but its getting harder and harder to wow. Thats why I keep returning to the Hulk as the climax, because its terribly underwhelming.
Quote:
It's characterization that takes skill and surprisingly seems the least important to you.


All facets are important, you need a good balance.
Quote:
That would be about like saying that it would pale in comparison to the end of ROTK which IMO it wouldn't.


Well I am curious as to how you justify that comparison. As far as I can tell its going to pale in comparison to Fellowship of the Ring, nevermind Return of the King.
Quote:
Look, I'll just be blunt, I read Avengers #1 when I was a kid and always wanted to see it brought to life.


The truth surfaces. I can empathise with you, I see where you are coming from, but you have to temper that with
Quote:
To me, there are few things it would pale in comparison to and I can't really think of one of those at the moment. So again, it's down to opinion.


A battle where the Avengers face hordes of Trolls and Giants and Monsters, or where the world is overrun by an armada from the future.
Quote:
Don't know the story.


Kree vs. Shi'ar Galactic War with Earth caught in the middle.
Quote:
Like I said, have Loki/Hulk in #1, Ultron in #2, and Kang and his army in #3 and it meets both our criteria for a good trilogy!


That could work.

Again I won't argue opinion. I think that it could be done dynamically enough that it would be anything but weak!

Well of course it could be done and it might be very good. But it should be as good as if not better than current crop of blockbusters.

Well, i'd think this would make it perfect for you as then, the remaining team would 'seemingly be unable to stop' the Hulk! Isn't that what you said was most important a few posts back? This would take Thor out of the equation thus making it easier for you to accept!

But that seems like you are taking away the best chance for a match-up.

Well, the Hulk isn't going to keep running when super powered beings are attacking him. His rage will grow and so will his desire to smash! He's not going to be rationally trying to figure out why they're attacking him. He is pretty much a reactionary character!

Why would they attack him if he just jumps to the desert?

In closing, we're not really getting anywhere except making more than clear each of our personal preferences. Any further discussion will just be circular. As I said, what either of us wants won't have any effect on what we'll get in the end. So I'm moving on. I'll reply when I've had a chance to look at your Thor synopses.

Okay.

 

[Upper_Krust]

These forums have ballsed up the html, hence some of your quotes are missing at the end.

Hello!

You still haven't explained WHY each story MUST BE self contained. Ok, if this makes it easier for you, how about the Avengers film is essentially the sequel to each of the first solo movies? That's more or less what I've been saying anyway.

As long as the person on the street doesn't need to watch the Avengers movie to conclude Thor #1 or begin Thor #2.

And to make my idea fit more into your mold, any of the devices you've mentioned could be employed with respect to Loki.

I already mentioned how it could work with Loki in the Avengers movie, however it appears Marvel are going for an Asgard only Thor movie so that idea won't work anymore.

Ok, how do you view a 9' tall monster who destroys NY city while on a rage-fueled rampage?

I don't think Hulk would destroy New York.

When did I say he should be the villain other than in the first Avengers movie? He will be a hero in TIH against A-bomb.

I meant that if the Avengers fight Hulk more than once in the Avengers movie, not in future Avengers movies.

No, it should be what is best for the fans! The characters aren't really real! What's best for 'them' isn't an issue!

Same difference as far as I am concerned.

Tieing them together is one thing, making themmultiple parts of the same story is another.

The Avengers movie has to be the biggest of the biggest for Marvel. If a Thor movie looks far more epic than the Avengers movie then you simply haven't done the Avengers justice.

And that's fine. I never said your ideas wouldn't work. YOU are the only one who has been trying to pigeonhole everything and saying nothing but YOUR ideas would work.

I never said my ideas are the only ones that will work, simply that they are better/more logical choices for Thor than what you have suggested so far.

Do you think Raimi's Spider-man was the only way Spidey could've been presented?

No.

Do you think his way was the 'best' that could've been?

Possibly. I can't really fault the first Spider-man movie...if I am being ultra critical the score could have been better I suppose.

No and no.

No and Possibly.

Something doesn't have to be 'the best' to still be awesome!

It should still be the best you can logically make it.

No, you are condescending by inferring that the majority of the public don't have sense enough to watch a Thor movie and then figure out that the Avengers movie is the next chapter in that story.

Correct, I don't think they do.

By saying it would confuse them, you're essentially calling them stupid!

Its not about stupidity its about knowledge. I'm no smarter than the next man because I can name all the supporting characters in Thor.

It has nothing to do with their knowledge of superheroes!

Of course it is.

With media, the internet, up to the second entertainment news, they would EASILY know what was going on, especially if the solo movies blow up!

I think thats debateable.

Not a Hulk 'fanboy'. The way I arrive at my view is backed by dozens of years of stories that support my view. FF# 25 and #26 for starters. If you have any proof that The Hulk IS NOT (or at least doesn't APPEAR to be thru a drawn out battle) a match for the Avengers please show it.

Has Hulk ever defeated the entire Avengers?

If you have an example of Thor easily beating the Hulk, please show it.

I don't think it would make much of a story done that way. Hulk gets mad, Thor blasts him...the end.

I mean, taking each other at our word notwithstanding, let's be reasonable: you can't just say 'Thor can destroy the Hulk with ease' without actually pointing to some example and expect anyone to take you seriously.

I can say it, the God-blast would have killed Galactus had he not fled, it has killed Loki in one shot.

Your view is backed by your preference for thor. Mine is backed by recorded recognized canon.

My view is backed by knowledge of Thor, your view is backed by knowldege of Avengers-Thor...and there is a difference.

My point was you shouldn't ask a question to which you already have the answer. If you already know an answer, just give it!

I'm debating you, not myself.

Again, I just see this remark as silly and in complete contradiction with your claim to know what constitutes a good story. Did you see Die Hard, arguably the mother of action films? Did it have moments of quiet introspection? Of course! Al telling John about how he accidentally shot the kid! John telling Al about how he'd never told his wife he was sorry! This ENHANCES the scenes with the action! Sounds to me like you just want a 2 hours battle royale! There's good story telling for yuh! I never said I wanted long, drawn-out scenes like that!

I want a movie that ticks all the boxes...including characterisation and action. What I don't want is a boring Superman Returns-like introspective waste of my time. Your initial idea was "Yadda yadda yadda...they fight the Hulk."

You asked what else could fill up 110 minutes and it seemed you really had no clue!

Of course I had a clue but I wanted to hear why you thought your idea had merit.

Ok, let me see if I can think of some possible action scenes:
Cap training
Thor maybe having a run-in with the law in his first experience with modern civilization
IM in the middle of some high-tech criminal take-down when he gets the call from Fury about putting together the team
Thor's initial run-in with the others and a short skirmish
the Hulk rampaging thru a city being hounded by the army

With the exception of Cap training (and to an extent even then), all the above are more suited to the characters respective solo movies.

Those are just off the top of my head but again I would think as a writer, you would know that action is the easiest thing to add more of.

Its an easy thing to add but its getting harder and harder to wow. Thats why I keep returning to the Hulk as the climax, because its terribly underwhelming.

It's characterization that takes skill and surprisingly seems the least important to you.

All facets are important, you need a good balance.

That would be about like saying that it would pale in comparison to the end of ROTK which IMO it wouldn't.

Well I am curious as to how you justify that comparison. As far as I can tell its going to pale in comparison to Fellowship of the Ring, nevermind Return of the King.

Look, I'll just be blunt, I read Avengers #1 when I was a kid and always wanted to see it brought to life.

The truth surfaces. I can empathise with you, I see where you are coming from, but you have to temper that with whats going to make the character work for the majority of people.

To me, there are few things it would pale in comparison to and I can't really think of one of those at the moment. So again, it's down to opinion.

A battle where the Avengers face hordes of Trolls and Giants and Monsters, or where the world is overrun by an armada from the future.

Don't know the story.

Kree vs. Shi'ar Galactic War with Earth caught in the middle.

Like I said, have Loki/Hulk in #1, Ultron in #2, and Kang and his army in #3 and it meets both our criteria for a good trilogy!

That could work.



Well of course it could be done and it might be very good. But it should be as good as if not better than current crop of blockbusters.



But that seems like you are taking away the best chance for a match-up.



Why would they attack him if he just jumps to the desert?



Okay.[/quote]

 

[Upper_Krust]

I'll do this all in one go rather than risk the wrath of the forums quote gobblers.

Hey Krust,

Hey spidey!

I just finished reading you synopsis for a first Thor movie (http://www.immortalshandbook.com/shrine2.htm).

Okay, thanks.

I thought there were synopses for all 12 movies but less is the better as I really don’t have time to read that much!

I do have synpopsis for all twelve, but I haven't typed them up to the website yet and I am not sure if I will. I still hold on to the dream that one day I will get the chance to do these movies so for now all you get is the first one.

First, I’ll say that I commend you on your obvious love for the character of Thor. I will also commend you on trying to stick close to the Lee-Kirby origin of Thor.

Thanks on both accounts.

Now for the critical stuff:

Thats what we're here for.

First of all, I can’t believe that, after so vehemently blasting my notion that the first Thor film be set in Asgard (your words: Asgard is more spectacular than Earth, therefore you build UP to Asgard - talking about building from Asgard to Earth - thats simply idiotic), you start your movie off with a huge BATTLE in…ASGARD! And then proceed to Earth!

Not exactly. The battle would take place on the Vigrid Plain, you wouldn't actually see 'Asgard'. Also at that point we wouldn't know if Blake was dreaming, mad or if these events actually happened.

Next, the way you set everything up looks like you’re reading a step-by-step book on ‘How to write the PERFECT Treatment’ as you were writing this thing. I mean, you have this whole list of criteria that has to be filled – schemer, brawler, ally, love interest – it’s like you’re filling in the blanks.

I just wanted to make sure I had everything covered. I'm more of a designer first, writer second, so to a degree I'll 'build' a story.

And the notes at the end of each act – “Things to be resolved: Loki’s treachery, Tyr’s jealosy (when is THIS resolved?)” – it all just seems like you are yet again filling in the blanks for a standard treatment/screenplay template.

You have to remember I'm writing this stuff in my spare-spare time...and I don't have very much spare time to say the least. So things like that will get resolved when I go back over the synopsis.

Loki's treachery would have been informing Geirroduhr (the Troll King) that Odin was partaking of the Odin-sleep and thus Asgard was vulnerable. Of course Loki would stay in Astral form or Shapechanged so as to avoid detection, but of course he couldn't fool Odin like that.

Tyr would be jealous because Thor defeated Ulik (the Troll Champion), while he, Tyr: God of War, could not. This would come to play in a later movie when Tyr vies for Sif's affections.

I mean, yes, anyone can take a hit story, deconstruct it to figure out the individual elements, and then do another story that satisfies each of these points, but that boots creativity and originality out the window!

I disagree if you have never written a movie synopsis before (and I am talking about me a few years ago when I wrote that) then the best thing to do is study others and see what they get right and what they get wrong (and fix the latter).

Now on to the story itself:

I like the opening battle, but we never learn what Odin does to his sons (though I guess we can assume he imprisoned Loki in a tree!) nor how Thor’s actions (and what they were) led to the fighting.

Obviously Thor's punishment would be to learn humility living as Donald Blake. Loki's would be imprisoned as a tree - as mentioned later in the text. I specifically wouldn't mention what Odin does to Thor at that juncture to keep the audience guessing about Blake.

The idea is that Geirroduhr would mention Thor's hunting of trolls. We would also make Thor seem brash and quick-tempered in the opening battle, showing no mercy and willing to fight on even if it would destroy Asgard and lead to the death of many innocent lives.

Next, Blake has his pride wounded by failing to defend Jane from some louts so he…takes a trip to Norway?!! Seems a little contrived but ok, if you say so. I mean, I guess you have to get him to Norway to find the hammer, huh?

We could set that up by having Jane mention that Blake never takes holidays - hes chained to his work. Also that he doesn't talk much about his family..."Weren't your family from Norway?" she could ask (Blake obviously needs to be adopted - not sure if this is ever mentioned in the comics, but if not it should be in the movie). So slightly later on when he does decide to 'get away' we have that reasoning in there.

As I said, I like that the next part sticks closely to the comic origins.

Always my intention.

Ok, next you have a battle in the park between Thor and Loki. Why the sudden flashback in the middle for no disclosed reason?! Battle, battle – flashback to Thor and Loki’s youth – battle, battle! I don’t get it! Again, it almost appears that the guidelines said “insert flashback here”!

Well, while we have established a number of things with the opening battle, we don't really understand things like why Loki and Thor are at odds, or why only Thor can lift his hammer.

So I have thought a few flashbacks could better illustrate these things.

Also we could use the flashbacks to set up a Thor - Son of Asgard movie (or two). Not sure if you have read that miniseries yet, but it is very good indeed.

Ok moving on, next is the scene in the bank which raises a question: seems to me Thor is out of contact with his hammer for more than 1 minute yet remains Thor. How so?

Hard to say. Of course the scene is easily changed so that Thor brings the hammer in with him, they get him to set down the weapon, then one of them tries to lift it.

Next question: why does Loki need to ‘distract’ Thor while he’s looking for the Destroyer? And it seems even in your draft he doesn’t use the Wrecker for that anyway because Thor doesn’t even fight the Wrecker until after Loki has found the Destroyer.

Yes, that is the major piece of the puzzle I am still not 100% sure of. Basically it boils down to whose spirit gets to inhabit the Destroyer. Thinking about it, it should be the Hunter initially - that way we can showcase the powers and weakness of the Destroyer. Then Loki should use Jane Foster as the spirit.

So I sort of have it worked out - I just haven't had time to edit the synopsis.

The scene that cuts back to Norway just to apparently introduce Paul Duval and then cut back to the main story without mentioning him again seems terribly out of place in the context of the story. It’s a literary brick wall.

Its a set up for a later movie. Also with a number of tourists claiming they were attacked by "Rock Men" you would think there would be an investigation. Its partly an Easter egg for the fans, but it does serve a purpose later in the series.

Next, why does Loki have the Wrecker kidnap Jane and take her to a construction site? He doesn’t even know she has anything to do with Thor (via Don Blake).

The main idea I have is that Loki gets the Destroyer armour and wants to use Jane Fosters spirit in it. So he knows of Thor's alter ego and has the Wrecking Crew abduct Jane to place her spirit within the Destroyer. The crew abduct her while Loki finds the armour, Thor catches up to them but Loki takes her away just as Thor enters the construction site. Thor can't immediately chase after Lki/Jane because the Crew intercede.

Earlier we could show the Hunter (who initially inhabits the Destroyer in the comics) being killed by Loki when he unearths the Destroyer. Loki tricks the Hunter into finding and uncovering the Destroyer and touching it. When Loki tries to control him, he realises he can't, so after the Destroyer tries to kill him (showcasing his powers in the process) Loki is forced to kill the Hunter's body to save himself - rendering the Destroyer inert again (showcasing its weakness).

So therefore Loki needs the spirit from a body he knows Thor won't kill. Hence his use for Jane.

In light of this, it seems to be a huge coincidence. It also seems to directly rip off Spider-Man 3!

Actually I wrote this well over a year before I had seen Spider-man 3.

I like the idea of the Wrecking Crew choosing familiar ground for their battle against Thor, and it all fits their backgrounds.

Next, why would Loki want to attack Thor with the Wrecking Crew while simultaneously using the Destroyer to attack the UN? I’d think he’d throw everything he had at Thor (especially when you already stated he figured Thor would beat the Wrecker) and THEN try to take over the world. I mean, Loki’s NOT an idiot!

Loki's goal has never really been to kill Thor so much as its been to belittle and humiliate him.

Lokis primary plotting revolves around having mankind worship the gods (him in particular).

And finally, the point that bends me out of shape worse than any other: one of the things you were most vocal about in our earlier discussions was that there was no way Thor could lose in his first movie. Well, in your treatment, THOR LOSES! Destroyer would’ve killed him if ODIN hadn’t stepped in and beaten it!

He doesn't lose, the Destroyer is basically the Kobayashi Maru. You can't beat it. By the end of the movie Thor shows he is willing to sacrifice his life to save others also that there are some battles you cannot win. Thus he has learnt the lessons Odin sought to teach him all those years ago when he banished him to Earth.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t take you seriously. I don’t really believe YOU know what you believe. I don’t mean that to insult you but with inconsistencies and contradictions like the ones uncovered just in this treatment (not to mention the ones I saw earlier today in other threads where you basically use the same criteria I used to defend my position against you to defend your own position against others - http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=12440274#post12440274 and http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=278017 ), I realize that a rational discussion unencumbered by bias and double-talk is something you seem incapable of having. Good luck and good day.

Well see above, I thought I answered all your questions honestly and fairly.

 

[Advanced Dark]

<sigh>