Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[Alexei Belyakov]

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

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

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

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

You're right DS. Only people, not intelligent enough to see the big picture would call it a bad movie.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

You're right DS. Only people, not intelligent enough to see the big picture would call it a bad movie.

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

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

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

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

IM2 was at least as good as X-M:FC that seems to be generally liked. Both had their good parts, especially the first acts, both had their bad parts, especially the third acts.
I do think IM2 had by far the better acting though.

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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

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

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

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

 

[jmc]

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

 

[Adamantium Man]

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

 

[kedrell]

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

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

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

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

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

I wouldn't go that far to call him classless and ungratious, but it is true he has a history of bashing movies he did (in this case to promote another, worse movie). while I understand, that personaly, he wanted more creative freedom (he'd be a bad actor if he wouldn't want to make the best out of his role), I don't think that approach can go very far in this kind of genre.

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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

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

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

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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

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

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

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Eh, I agree to an extent of that.

 

[ElMariachi]

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

So, that includes Batman.

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

 

[BigThor]

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

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

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

The Haunted
Extremis
Armor Wars
Five Nightmares
Dragon Seed Saga

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

And sorry for derailing this thread a bit.

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

 

[cherokeesam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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