Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[ElMariachi]

It's more than just the source material, Batman and Robin is close to the source material too. Ask yourself this question, had they owned the character do you think Marvel would have allowed Chris Nolan to make TDK as it is, or even Batman Begins? Be honest with yourself. As for Demon in a Bottle, I don't see why a subject like that couldn't be used in a superhero film.

I don't think Batman and Robin was all that close to the source material. The Schumacher movies were closer to the over-the-top silliness of Adam West/Silver Age Batman comics. The Nolan movies may have stepped up the realism a bit but they feel closer to the post 85 Batman source material.

I do think Marvel would have allowed Nolan to make Batman Begins. It's not as if their current movies don't have an element of seriousness to them. There just is more humor in them than there is in Nolan's Batman. Batman is also a different animal than Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. You really can't compare a tragic story of a crime fighter to a billionaire playboy, a Norse god, and living propaganda.

Regarding DIAB, it can't work for a summer tentpole. It's a movie about a guy suffering from alcoholism. Who the hell wants to munch popcorn, take their kids to see THAT? It would be kind of depressing and more along the lines of Leaving Las Vegas than it would Spider-Man or James Bond. I have no problem with the storyline but it can't work in the movies. Perhaps if they made an Iron Man t.v. series like was mentioned. 2 hours isn't enough to see a guy fall apart, hit a low, and climb back.

 

[ElMariachi]

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why Marvel is strict about their movies is because they are all set in MCU, so they all have to adhere to a certain vision. I think if Marvel decided to make all their movies standalones, they'll probably be more lenient and will allow Nolan to make BB & TDK the way he wanted to. And WB's policy of letting the filmmakers to do whatever they want doesn't pan out aside from Nolan's films; remember Bryan Singer's Superman Returns and Martin Campbell's The Green Lantern? Yes, Marvel is at fault for exerting too much control over their directors, but in a way they have prevented disasters or bombs from happening to their Marvel Studios movies.

Yeah, thats pretty much the main reason why they have to maintain control over their movies. The great thing about the MCU is that everything works and fits perfectly. They cannot pull off that sort of continuinty in the X-Men movies under the Fox banner. The biggest problem I have had with the X-Men franchise. With the MCU, we have history, a timeline, and interlocking parts. All it takes is one director making changes to tarnish it.

The MCU is a garden at Versailles. It has to be finely landscaped and organized to work. TDK is a personal garden of miscellaneous flowers and plants. Both are beautiful but require different sort of gardening.

 

[BigThor]

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3. Captain America also did pretty well considering it was released at the same time as Harry Potter and had some stiff competition in August. Thor and Cap are big successes, there is no way around that. Even moreso considering both characters weren't very popular and Kevin Feige's touch has made them into quality franchises that people care about. Nobody knew much about The Avengers before 2008. In the years after Iron Man, it has become one of the most anticipated movies. Both movies made more than First Class too.

Hell yeah, man you really hit the nail on the head with this post

Thor made more than MIB II though

THOR - 448.5 million

MIB II - 441. 8 million

 

[ElMariachi]

Hell yeah, man you really hit the nail on the head with this post

Thor made more than MIB II though

THOR - 448.5 million

MIB II - 441. 8 million

Even better! A movie about Thor made more than a sequel to a huge Will Smith flick. Can't complain about that!

 

[BigThor]

Yeah, thats pretty much the main reason why they have to maintain control over their movies. The great thing about the MCU is that everything works and fits perfectly. They cannot pull off that sort of continuinty in the X-Men movies under the Fox banner. The biggest problem I have had with the X-Men franchise. With the MCU, we have history, a timeline, and interlocking parts. All it takes is one director making changes to tarnish it.

The MCU is a garden at Versailles. It has to be finely landscaped and organized to work. TDK is a personal garden of miscellaneous flowers and plants. Both are beautiful but require different sort of gardening.

That's a very logical way to look at it, dude you're on your way to becoming one of my favorite posters.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies.

This is a...revelation not witnessed since the founding of Christianity!!!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

He pretty much used the source material as a basis for the movies.

Wait, WHAT?

 

[cherokeesam]

That's not really a good argument looking at the box office comparisons.

Of the movies that have made more than Thor/Cap domestically.....

-4 Batman movies
-3 Spider-Man movies
-2 X-Men movies
-2 Iron Man movies
-1 Superman movie
-2 Men in Black/Will Smith movies
-300

It should be noted that Thor made more worldwide than Superman Returns, Batman Begins/Forever, X2, and pretty similar money to MIB2, 300, and X-Men 3.

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.

Thanks. The unrealistic standards that minor characters like Thor and Captain America are held to amaze me. It would be like people poo-pooing a Paul Bunyan movie making $400 million. That's how ridiculous the idea of a Thor movie was to the masses. He was considered silly, but now the character is trending on Twitter, making lots of money, creating new stars, and getting buzz for it's sequel. I just don't understand the demands.

What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

 

[Gamma Burst]

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.



What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

What you posted, at least concerning Thor's success', is not quite accurate. It didn't make IM numbers in US, but it did very well in the foreign box office, with numbers very similar to the iron man franchise.

 

[jmc]

I don't think Batman and Robin was all that close to the source material. The Schumacher movies were closer to the over-the-top silliness of Adam West/Silver Age Batman comics. The Nolan movies may have stepped up the realism a bit but they feel closer to the post 85 Batman source material.

Even die hard Bat fans grudgingly accept that B&R is a faithful adaptation, the reason it sucks is the execution.

I do think Marvel would have allowed Nolan to make Batman Begins. It's not as if their current movies don't have an element of seriousness to them. There just is more humor in them than there is in Nolan's Batman. Batman is also a different animal than Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. You really can't compare a tragic story of a crime fighter to a billionaire playboy, a Norse god, and living propaganda.

I will say IM is the closest Mavel has to Begins given it was first cab off the ranks and therefore the one with the most freedom, so maybe he would have been able to make that film, but with their current philosophy there's no way TDK gets made.

Regarding DIAB, it can't work for a summer tentpole. It's a movie about a guy suffering from alcoholism. Who the hell wants to munch popcorn, take their kids to see THAT? It would be kind of depressing and more along the lines of Leaving Las Vegas than it would Spider-Man or James Bond. I have no problem with the storyline but it can't work in the movies. Perhaps if they made an Iron Man t.v. series like was mentioned. 2 hours isn't enough to see a guy fall apart, hit a low, and climb back.

Oh of course it can, you can always find a balance, you can't always apply the kids card as a way to avoid heavy topics, kids grow up eventually, in fact it could be a great way to curb a young kid away from that very path seeing their favourite superhero having to deal with such an addiction. This notion that a summer tent pole can't tackle deeper issues is nonsense, Inception proved that, lets not treat every superhero as simply the dude in the costume who saves the days, and lets not be afraid to tackle deeper problems. Personally I like the concept of a superhero having to deal with both a personal addiction and whatever threat he's up against mostly because we haven't seen that before in a superhero film.

 

[hatebox]

Marvel's a tough one - they take a degree of risk in hiring directors like Favreau and Brannaugh, as well as RDJ at the time, but once those pieces are in place they're so committed to the giant universe in which the characters are set that the stories become rigid.

The idea of making all these movies as a build-up to one big one is incredibly ambitious, and yet (IMO) Marvel have never produced anything close to a great blockbuster. I enjoy them at the time and then forget about them a couple of days later. The first Iron Man is genius casting decision and that's about it.

That said, they make Marvel money and that's all they care about, so fair enough. Their business acumen is, boradly speaking, sound. But I think, at some point, they should follow through with their gutsy director hires by giving them more leeway too. The genre will only survive if it continues to offer something new.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

I should hope Thor did, considering that a 3D movie ticket in 2011 costs a helluva lot more than your "normal" movie ticket did in '06, '05, '95, '03, '02, '07 and '06. All of those movies are at least 4.5 years old, and were made before the "3D 'revolution'" jacked ticket prices up to the point that it now costs 100 bucks for a family of four to go to the local multiplex. (And that's before overpriced concessions.)


Let me show you what I'm talking about:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm

When you adjust for inflation, that pushes Thor all the way down to #78 all-time and Cap to #83.....and that's *just* for PG-13 movies. Taking that into consideration, it's not just Bats, Spidey, Supes and the X-Men that are ahead of Marvel Studios, but a *ton* of flicks.



What "demands"? Most of us, fanboy and hater alike, as well as Kevin Feige himself, just wanted to see if Marvel Studios could duplicate the success of Iron Man. They haven't; and they've missed the mark by a wide margin. That being said, it looks more and more like RDJ and Favreau can claim most of the credit for the success of IM, and *not* the studio itself, since Cap, Thor and Hulk haven't come close to Tony Stark's lofty ballpark.

And you know as well as I do that all that stuff you wrote about Cap and Thor being "silly minor characters" is absolute and utter hogwash. Cap, Thor and Hulk have *always* been among the biggest guns in Marvel's marketing arsenal. Their recognition factor among the general public has always been *at least* equal to Iron Man's; and yet, again, their movies failed to catch the same lightning in a bottle that Favreau and RDJ did.

This.

Thank you for posting all of this.

Its refreshing, so refreshing, to see someone post here that isn't brainwashed by the "Marvel Studios can do no wrong" agenda.

Keep tellin' 'em, eventually they'll see the truths you bring up here

(or they'll just make you out to be a troll )

Favreau made a great film that launched a studio. Since his departure, that studio's tried so very hard to recreate the success he achieved with his first effort. They've failed, but still managed to make just enough profit to keep things rolling. But modest numbers (Domestic $181 & $177) can't save the studio from themselves - for slowly the material's decline in quality is becoming more and more evident & the talent (Norton, Vaughn, Rourke, Branagh, Kirk, Jenkins) slowly but surely aren't having it.

The Marvel Studios cashcow is far from done. Unfortunately for us fans, by the time it dries up we'll have MCU movies being made so inferior to Iron Man that they'll end up on that dreaded list of CBMs that houses Ghost Rider, Elektra, Daredevil & Punisher War Zone.

Thor II, because of the Feige approach to filmmaking, I fear will not only fail to surpass its [decent at best] predecessor, but also will amount to nothing more than a forced sequel & prequel to [the imminent] Avengers 2.

Feige clearly doesn't just want cheap directors. He wants drones.

 

[Gamma Burst]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

And yet, I'm still the only one who nominated him for Dick of the Year.

Anyway, I don't let my excitement about that movie be ruined by this unfortunate department. The quote by Jenkins in my signature shows, this "creative differences" weren't that severe as some people here might think, it probably just was the "sequel" factor.

As a director, making a sequel usualy gives you less creative freedom. Especially if it's a big franchise. You have to follow the rules of the first movie, can't change the direction or the genre completely. The last time something like that happend was when Jim Cameron made a sequel to a great horror film in space and turned it to a mindless action movie. It worked then (to some, not me), but I can't remember it has happend since. Also, you have to somewhat go with the art direction of the first movie. You can't suddenly change the look of Asgard. Alfonso Cuaron went as far as he could in that aspect when he took over the Potter franchise, but he was very limited as well. And you don't have a final say in the casting as most of the characters are already cast and under contract.

So yes, it's the nature of a sequel to restrict directors in the choices they can make and I can understand that Jenkins wants to do a Marvel movie that is not a sequel. But it's really more about that, I think, than about Kevin Feige being the Lord of Darkness.

 

[Gamma Burst]

And yet, I'm still the only one who nominated him for Dick of the Year.

Anyway, I don't let my excitement about that movie be ruined by this unfortunate department. The quote by Jenkins in my signature shows, this "creative differences" weren't that severe as some people here might think, it probably just was the "sequel" factor.

As a director, making a sequel usualy gives you less creative freedom. Especially if it's a big franchise. You have to follow the rules of the first movie, can't change the direction or the genre completely. The last time something like that happend was when Jim Cameron made a sequel to a great horror film in space and turned it to a mindless action movie. It worked then (to some, not me), but I can't remember it has happend since. Also, you have to somewhat go with the art direction of the first movie. You can't suddenly change the look of Asgard. Alfonso Cuaron went as far as he could in that aspect when he took over the Potter franchise, but he was very limited as well. And you don't have a final say in the castin as most of the characters are already cast and under contract.

So yes, it's the nature of a sequel to restrict directors in the choices they can make and I can understand that Jenkins wants to do a Marvel movie that is not a sequel. But it's really more about that, I think, than about Kevin Feige being the Lord of Darkness.

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

 

[cherokeesam]

I love how some posters ignore(?) the foreign (and worldwide) numbers, so that they can 'prove' their points.
In the case of poor Alxei, the guy is so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

Nobody's "ignoring" foreign and worldwide numbers. It's just that those of us who use boxofficemojo.com as a touchstone (i.e., most of us on this forum) have to realize that BOM uses domestic (U.S.) as their gauge in all the showdown/comparison charts, including all-time b.o.

But it *is* true that Thor remains something of an anomaly in the superhero genre as pretty much only one of two flicks whose b.o. came *mainly* from overseas markets instead of U.S. at 60%+ of the global take. (The other was Hancock, but nobody ever counts that one, right? )

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

I'm not calling Marvel and Feige "villains." I'm just saying that they're starting to get a growing reputation among directors and actors alike as being a meat-n-taters penny-pinching Wal-Mart studio.

I understand that Feige's budget-conscious approach to keeping a tight rein on Marvel property comes of necessity, since he (and we) have seen Marvel characters and canon get raped before the MS era; but I don't think his over-your-shoulder constant meddling has yielded any certified all-time blockbusters beyond RDJ's Iron Man, and the box office numbers (and off-screen interviews with actors and directors) proves that.

 

[Vartha]

heh was talking to a guy who runs his own chain of videos in the area and he was saying Warner is having problems even RENTING their movies these days.
I still find it odd that Cap's doing better than Thor in DVD sales and not to hot in the theater. I understand the "the dislike of american" thing for world wide but me it's odd. It's like there's closest Captain America fans all over. lol

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I hadn't seen the quote. Nice.
But it doesn't matter, marvel and Feige are THE villains.

I'm certainly not saying Marvel and Fiege are villains, or that Fiege is the 'Lord Of Darkness,' but there is no doubting their meddling and strict ways are having a detrimental effect on the studio's reputation and movies. 3 directors and 3 actors have now left their employ, and it never seems to be on good terms. I read Jenkins' comments about loving working with Marvel and working with them in the future, but in 2008, Louis Leterrier said EXACTLY the same and still hasnt been near a Marvel movie since.

Thor was their best movie since IM, I loved it, but Cap was VERY average and was a BIG step down for me from Thor. I just dont want another IM2 out of Thor 2. IM2 certainly wasnt a bad movie, but its not good either, it had the potential to be as good as TDK, but Marvel meddled too much, which is now pretty much common knowledge and ruined what we could have got.

 

[kedrell]

Me thinks this thread needs to get renamed the Marvel Studios Boosters vs. Detractors Argumentation Thread.

 

[kedrell]

but with their current philosophy there's no way TDK gets made.

Thank God! If MS ever made a film like that I'd probably quit going to their movies altogether. I pay to be entertained, not have my intelligence insulted.

 

[Gamma Burst]

Me thinks this thread needs to get renamed the Marvel Studios Boosters vs. Detractors Argumentation Thread.

This isn't a bad idea.

 

[kedrell]

I'm not calling Marvel and Feige "villains." I'm just saying that they're starting to get a growing reputation among directors and actors alike as being a meat-n-taters penny-pinching Wal-Mart studio.

I understand that Feige's budget-conscious approach to keeping a tight rein on Marvel property comes of necessity, since he (and we) have seen Marvel characters and canon get raped before the MS era; but I don't think his over-your-shoulder constant meddling has yielded any certified all-time blockbusters beyond RDJ's Iron Man, and the box office numbers (and off-screen interviews with actors and directors) proves that.

Why should we care if these movies are all-time blockbusters? As long as they're good and profitable they'll keep making them. With the lone exception of TIH, all of MS's films have reached good-enough-returns-for-a-sequel status. And TIH had unique baggage that hindered it. Honestly that's really all I'm looking for. These don't need to make 3/4 of a billion $ WW each to be worthwhile from a business standpoint.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This isn't a bad idea.

What about those of us in between? t:

 

[Gamma Burst]

What about those of us in between? t:

Add ''the in-betweeners' to the title.

 

[hatebox]

Why should we care if these movies are all-time blockbusters? As long as they're good and profitable they'll keep making them.

The 'good' part is the problem though. I think they're fine but could be much better.

But hey, they make money so who gives a damn..