Patty Jenkins no longer directing "Thor 2"

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^For me, only IM and Thor have come close to the likes of X1 (both probably surpass this one) X2 and FC, no MS movies come close to the latter two for me. Also dont forget, Singer didnt direct FC, he came up with the basic story and produced, but Vaughn and Goldman wrote the script and Vaughn directed.

 

[kedrell]

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".

Oy, that was bad. As well as the trained CIA agents suddenly turning into slack-jawed idiots just to drive home the point(in case you hadn't gotten it already) that humans are prejudiced against mutants.

I wanted to fire-bomb the screen at that point.

 

[kedrell]

^For me, only IM and Thor have come close to the likes of X1 (both probably surpass this one) X2 and FC, no MS movies come close to the latter two for me. Also dont forget, Singer didnt direct FC, he came up with the basic story and produced, but Vaughn and Goldman wrote the script and Vaughn directed.

His influence was all over it and it was very easy to tell.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

The teenagers in FC were annoying (especially whoever played Mystique), January Jones is a real bad actress, the third act was a mess and I don't care for the catlike Beast. But everything else was very enjoyable. The first act was brillant until Xavier and Eric met for the first time.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The teenagers in FC were annoying (especially whoever played Mystique), January Jones is a real bad actress, the third act was a mess and I don't care for the catlike Beast. But everything else was very enjoyable. The first act was brillant until Xavier and Eric met for the first time.

Really? I thought they were all great, especially Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) Hank (Beast) and Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), I thought they were all played brilliantly. McAvoy and Fassbender are obviously stars of the show, they were both brilliant, but the others were great too IMO.

 

[BigThor]

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."

A few guest appearances and lame TV appearances hardly qualifies as being at the "forefront of Marvel's marketing", besides as a Thor fan I already knew about most of his media appearances.

 

[cherokeesam]

A few guest appearances and lame TV appearances hardly qualifies as being at the "forefront of Marvel's marketing", besides as a Thor fan I already knew about most of his media appearances.

He was in the 60s and 70s. As was Cap. Granted, I know most of you weren't even born then. Cap and Thor's popularity only waned in the 80s and 90s, when they were considered too Silver Age for a new generation that had latched on to Punisher and Venom and Wolverine and a billion X-Men spinoffs. But I'd say that their popularity returned in the late 90s and 00s, even before their respective movies, with Thor going full-on swords & sorcery (okay, *hammers* & sorcery) fantasy for the D&D/WoW niche audience and Cap becoming the new poster boy/martyr for blue-state America against Bush/Stark fascism during CW.

I don't know what definition you guys want to use to rate a character's pop culture mojo, but those of you who act like Cap and Thor were unknowns before these movies are just plain wrong.

 

[Gamma Burst]

Not unknowns, but hardly popular or known as spidey, hulk or even wolverine. Not even close.
Again, this 'not old enough' doesn't work with me. I've posted a lot of examples about their exposure in the media in, at least 30 years, and it pales in comparison to the exposure the more known characters got.
And more, the Avengers only became 'popular', in comics, (and marvel biggest brand) in the mid 2000's, with Bendis basically detroying them and adding Spider-Man and Wolverine ( I wonder why!) to the mix. After that, specially with the beginning of marvel studios, they started putting top names to write the classic avengers' main characters (IM,Thor, Cap). Before that, in the 90's and early 2000's, all the 'hot' talent went to the x-titles, spidey, etc.
Hell, even he awesome Busiek&Perez run on Avengers, while appreciated by fans, was hardly a top seller.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

For those of you who saw Patty Jenkin's Monster you know it was a dark, gritty film, well done etc. Maybe, just maybe she wanted to bring that tone to Thor (which I would have loved) and Marvel said no, we have to keep it kid friendly, we have a lot of toys we need to sell, we have to do it for the kids! Hence all the camp in the Earth scenes. Remember, Marvel makes their films accessiable for the general public first, then us. Look at all of the god awful, forced humor that ruined Iron Man 2.

 

[BigThor]

For those of you who saw Patty Jenkin's Monster you know it was a dark, gritty film, well done etc. Maybe, just maybe she wanted to bring that tone to Thor (which I would have loved) and Marvel said no, we have to keep it kid friendly, we have a lot of toys we need to sell, we have to do it for the kids! Hence all the camp in the Earth scenes. Remember, Marvel makes their films accessiable for the general public first, then us. Look at all of the god awful, forced humor that ruined Iron Man 2.

Humor isn't what ruined Iron Man 2, the film was rushed and featured just a little too many characters.

 

[cherokeesam]

Humor isn't what ruined Iron Man 2, the film was rushed and featured just a little too many characters.

It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor.

 

[Mysteryman]

It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor.

You can have a film be a big hit and still be a creative failure.
Happens all of the time.

 

[cherokeesam]

You can have a film be a big hit and still be a creative failure.
Happens all of the time.

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Well said, Charokeesam!

IM2 is not even close to a failure nor is it a bad movie. It's a good movie, just not close to how great IM was.

Having watched it recently again, I still find it very enjoyable.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

 

[kedrell]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

Uh, no. I am one and most were pleased with IM2. Sure, it wasn't as good as IM1 but then to me that's far and away the best superhero film in existence. The sequel coming up short of that still netted us a very good movie. It still got good reviews and made more $ than the first one.

 

[BigThor]

It always amuses and bemuses me when people discuss the "failure and ruin" of IM2, when it grossed considerably more than its predecessor.

Yeah I don't think it's a failure at all, it's just not as good as the first Iron Man.

I think he's a pretty good film actually, I don't know why it receives as much hate as it does.

 

[Mysteryman]

To many ,IM Was the greatest Superhero film ever made .
Or at the very least, one of the greatest .
Either way,
That is a lot to live up to.
When people have a lot of expectations, they can be easily dissapointed

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.

While IM2 was a financial success, it was also a critical failure & marked the beginning of "Safe" MARVEL aka Marvel Lite.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

But to be a genuine "failure," it would have to be followed by the death or reboot of the franchise; no sequel; has to make less money than its predecessors; etc. The "failure" of Spidey 3 and X3 and Batman & Robin, for instances, all spawned reboots (or "requels," in X-Men's case), and FFROTSS pretty much killed the franchise dead in the water.

In IM2's case, they're already at work on IM3 and the franchise looks just as healthy as ever. So calling it a "failure," creatively or anything else, is just wrong.

exactly.
and it wasn't even a critical failure. I mean, IM2 was certified fresh on RT with a 74% score. some people just had unrealistic expectations.

 

[WildcatNC]

I don't understand the IM II hate. It was a solid film. It was one of the weaker Marvel films to date, but since I really like them all thats not saying much. It was still good.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

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.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

Yeah, I think you can pick and choose the era. Batman was a radically different character post 85' in the comics, in the two darker Tim Burton movies, and the Animated Series. They threw a complete curveball with the two Schumacher movies. It's just like James Bond when they made the horrendous Die Another Day, which felt more like a 60's Bond movie than Goldeneye/Tomorrow Never Dies.

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.

How are you going to strike a balance of a Hollywood summer tentpole and alcoholism? Not only this but have Jon Favreau of all people direct it? There is a reason why no comicbook movie has delved into these sorts of themes. It would hurt the box office, alienate kids/families, and the movie most likely would suck.

 

[Iron_Stark]

It is a failure in the eyes of the Iron Man fans, not the general public who love anything with special effects and a bad script.

Nonsense, the only people that call Iron Man 2 a failure are haters.

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