Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[ElMariachi]

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

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

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Kevin Bacon was also great in XM:FC

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

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

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

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

and here begins - again - the transatlantic schism of measurements

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

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

 

[jmc]

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

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

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

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

 

[cherokeesam]

Being Marvel's 'big guns' means nothing. To the comic community, sure, but to the general public they mean nothing. Being recognized doesn't make something popular. Everybody knows who the Flash is but that doesn't mean they would pay to see a movie about him. Why? Because he is silly and second tier character like Thor, Cap, and Iron Man were before their film success. Nobody grew up with these characters like they did Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and the Hulk. I think we can all agree that those were the mainstream characters to the general public. There is a reason that those were the first major Hollywood superhero movies to be made/rebooted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[misjuevos]

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

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

 

[BMM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

 

[BMM]

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

 

[hatebox]

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

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

 

[Marvel]

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

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

So, that includes Batman.

 

[Silvermoth]

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

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

 

[BigThor]

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

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

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

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

I actually agree with your point here.

 

[cherokeesam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

 

[cherokeesam]

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

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

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

 

[Iron_Stark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Haunted
Extremis
Armor Wars
Five Nightmares
Dragon Seed Saga

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

And sorry for derailing this thread a bit.

 

[04nbod]

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

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

 

[Gamma Burst]

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

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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

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

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

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

 

[kedrell]

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