Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

He labeled aspects of IM2 as dissatisfying and disappointing.

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

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

 

[BigThor]

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

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

 

[Shadowlord X]

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

 

[BMM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iron Man set the bar high.

 

[roach]

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

 

[cherokeesam]

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

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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

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

 

[Vartha]

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

 

[Shadowlord X]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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

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

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

They made a popcorn movie.

 

[BigThor]

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

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

 

[Crimson King]

They made a popcorn movie.

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

(only taking CBMs into account)

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

Exactly. Basic math.

 

[ElMariachi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElMariachi]

They made a popcorn movie.

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

 

[kedrell]

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

 

[Mysteryman]

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

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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

(only taking CBMs into account)

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

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

Money does not = quality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BigThor]

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

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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

 

[kedrell]

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

 

[cherokeesam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mysteryman]

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

 

[BigThor]

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

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