Plot ideas based on SPOILERS (general discussion)

Discussion in 'Thor: The Dark World' started by elizah72, Nov 16, 2012.

  1. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thing is though, Surtur is going to be CGI, and so VERY expensive to use, just as the Hulk was used carefully in Avengers for that reason. So that might be a reason to not center an entire movie around him showing him A LOT. Instead they may hint at him through much of the movie, maybe give us a few glimpses, maybe a few obscured shots as he's making his sword, building anticipation and then BAM! a big confrontation at the end. You have to think about it from a filmmaking/storytelling standpoint. This actually makes sense. plus we'd have the bonus of being able to see others of Thor's "Rogues Gallery" in Thor 3, assuming we'll get one. Also I recall Feige and Branagh mentioning that they are very cautious about sequels, and it all depends on how the next one does, I think Tom or Jaimie said that also recently about a Thor 3, SO, with that in mind they probably wouldn't tease Surtur for a Thor 3, because what if Thor 2 bombs and they never get to a Thor 3? (NOT going to happen, but I'm just saying, that's what their thinking is as businessmen...)

    Also, in order for it to flow with the rest of the MCU, whatever happens has to be basically resolved by the end of Thor 2 (not necessarily meaning we won't see Surtur again, understand, but this particular confrontation would need resolution). So you can't for instance, have Surtur invade Asgard and cliffhanger that for Thor 3. As for wasting him, well there really is quite a bit of time left based on the scene numbers (in comparison to Thor 1 and Avengers). plus I'm expecting Thor 2 can be at least 10 minutes longer than Thor 1 was, based on running times of the other films. So there really does look like there is plenty of time for them to bring Surtur to London and then even take the fight up to Asgard and resolve it there. It could work.
     
    #901
  2. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Or he could appear in limited ways in the third movie as wwell. I mean, there's plenty of movies that use CGI only characters
     
    #902
  3. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    he could, but it does sound like he fits best in this one, with Malekith paving the way for him. Here's hoping the toy fair in NY next week has a few Thor 2 related slip ups from the toy companies like with IM3. :whatever: then we might find out who Krige plays and whether Surtur is in it. :cwink:

    Another point, it takes a long time for them to design and create these CGI characters for the film. So the more that character is on screen the longer it takes for them to get the job done (and the longer it takes for us to get another sequel!). That interview with the VFX shows talks about that a bit, and I vaguely remember mention somewhere of something in Avengers that wasn't actually finished until a week or so prior to the movie release date. Can't recall what it was...
     
    #903
  4. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    it was the schwarma scene.

    and I suppose that could work, BUT that would mean surter has to have a MASSIVE presence on this movie. Saving Surtur for a simple third act of one film would be dissappointing
     
    #904
  5. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, this was definitely to do with VFX/CGI, so not the schwarma scene.

    Either Thor 2 or Thor 3 I wouldnt expect to actually see him any more than the Hulk was seen in Avengers, possibly less.
     
    #905
  6. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    9,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Patently false.

    ..... and your "theory" on how long it takes to render characters is so generic it's not even funny. It depends on which FX house is handling the operation (i.e. # of people working on the character) and what they're trying to achieve. For example, a character like the Hulk they tried to get everything down to the body hair and sweat right, not to mention make sure one could still see Ruffalo within him. They were blending a whole plethora of techniques. For a character like Surtur they don't have that problem, nor will they likely be trying to match him up with some kind of mocap actor.
     
    #906
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  7. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    a few quotes of interest, with reference points

    "Anything we could do to give these guys texture. We couldnt really work on their behavior as much as we wanted because they're just too expensive. Everytime we cut to those guys It's expensive!" - Joss Whedon Avengers commentary re the Chitauri (during final battle)

    "We would have A TON of Hulk, uh... it's incredibly difficult and expensive...." and... "and the reason for that is it was just too expensive to have too many intersticial shots of what was going on with him."- Joss Whedon Avengers commentary re the Hulk (during Thor brings the lighting, final battle)

    "This whole sequence was, early-on, storyboarded... I mean, actually, it was previsualized by the Third Floor, and they did a lot of the movie in previs and postvis. Once we'd shot something they would then add a sort of mock-up of what the effects would look like since we literally didn't drop some of them in until under a week before we delivered the film. It takes that long." Joss Whedon Avengers commentary (during Tony arrives at Stark Tower first time) and that was the thing I was thinking of, btw, that I mentioned above. continues... "We had 2 years from the time I took the job until the movie had to come out, which is not enough years."

    Victoria Alonso: I couldn’t tell you because we’re not working on Thanos, but for any character that is an all CG character like the Hulk, it took us, would you say 19 months? 20 months? So it’s almost a two year process from the modeling. The modeling and the rigging took forever.
    Jeff White: And even the design work you guys did before, iteration after iteration.
    Victoria Alonso: We had been working on it for, by the time you got involved, already eight and a half or nine months on all that had to do with the Chitauri and Hulk, the army and everybody else that had to be designed.
    http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/204575-in-the-nosebleeds-jeff-white-a-victoria-alonso-on-the-avengers
     
    #907
  8. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Again though, there was A LOT of Chitauri. And they weren't...detailedly attentive to them as they were to Hulk. Hulk was the BIG cgi of that movie.

    I sorta see it as like..the chitauri were just the weekly exams/quizes, but Hulk, that was the final for the class. (yes, I am using college references lol)

    the point was, there are plenty of movies that feature CGI characters/character heavily, Hulk was worked on for a very long time, and there were a lot of Chitauri, yes the film had a large budget, but there was still A LOT of things in this movie that other movies, and solo movies didn't and won't have. These things obviously cut the spending, and Hulk needed limmitted time. However, every movie in the MCU probably won't NEED as big of a budget, and I am sure they won't run into monetary issues regarding cgi characters. I wouldn't worry too much about Surtur.

    Rock's point, and hell, mine, are that, when Surtur is going to be used, chances are, there is nothing to worry about, regarding cgi :).
     
    #908
  9. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    9,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Elizah .....

    The point is if Surtur is to be used, whether in this film or the next he will have been PRE-PLANNED and the EFX house(s) will have already been at work to bring him to the screen. They wouldn't just go "Oh you know what, we should use Surtur!" in the middle of the production and post process, whereby pushing back the film date.

    Even if they were saving him for Thor 3, what is this comment about it delaying us getting the next sequel? TDW just wrapped up filming. There's still Avengers 2. We're not seeing Thor 3 for a good 3-4 years at the least. By the comments you posted in regards to almost a 2 year process rendering a character like the Hulk, that's MORE than enough time to get Surtur ready.
     
    #909
  10. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    yeah, agreed. Her point though seems to be regarding the budget issues, due to hulk being expensive, thus his..limmitted time on screen, but it's slightly different. Yeah, using Surtur in a movie similar to avengers could be in an issue, but in a movie for a solo character, and if they have all this time to plan, I don't think they will run into financial issues regarding modelling/using a character in the film. As I said, yes, smaller budget, but thor isn't going to have a very detailed hulk to design by ILM, nor will he have an army of chitauri (this point could be irrelevant), nor will it have 5 or 6 lead actors to pay for, along with modelling an ENTIRE city, and Ironman, and other characters that need CGI moments.

    Again, to Elizah, I wouldn't worry too much aabout being a financial issue when they use Surtur. They will figure their stuff out.
     
    #910
  11. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hm. funny how I didnt get so much as an apology/retraction for this statement even though I have a direct quote from the writer/director stating exactly what I said I had "vaguely" remembered. :cmad:

    And I NEVER suggested that they would all the sudden mid production or post production decide to add Surtur and that would delay the next sequel. That would be pretty stupid of them, and stupid of anyone to think that. I am not stupid, nor am I a liar. I would appreciate it if you would please stop changing my words around into something you can attack and belittle.

    What I said was: "So the more that character is on screen the longer it takes for them to get the job done (and the longer it takes for us to get another sequel!). "

    That is referring to A LOT of screen time for the CGI character delaying things, not use of him at all. The more he's on screen the longer it'll take to get the job done and the more expensive, that is just common sense. That's why I quoted Joss above saying they'd have used Hulk more but "it's incredibly difficult and expensive." and also that "We had 2 years from the time I took the job until the movie had to come out, which is not enough years." So timing seems fine to have Surtur in it some in Thor 2, but I wouldnt count on him standing around for half the movie. Of course they'd have planned for having him in it long ago, if they are going to have him in Thor 2, but it's likely going to amount to no more than Hulk's screentime is what' I'm getting at. That's my guess anyway. If that's they case they likely started working on him when Thor 1 first came out, after Marvel had a chance to gauge the response to the first one. This is all assuming they had the idea to use Surtur in Thor 2 at that time, but we have no way of knowing that for sure until the movie comes out or something slips out about it. But still, if the Chitauri and the Hulk in Avengers is any indication, and I'm sure there will be other CGI creatures other than Surtur in Thor 2, fire demons maybe as an example, then the work done on the Chitauri and Hulk in Avengers is probably similar to the amount of expense and time and screentime, or in some ways maybe less that they would give to Surtur, and other CGI creatures in the film. Which is why I brought it up.

    honestly, right now, I couldnt care less about Surtur. Generally my feeling is the more live action characters the better. I really only brought it up because I didnt want you to get your hopes too far up for like A LOT of him in this movie or the next one. :csad:

    If he was pre planned for Thor 2, then they've already been working on him, possibly before Thor 1 was even out, or maybe not, maybe that's part of what the pushing back of the release date to Nov. was about. I have no idea. Either way, if he's in it, he's in it, if he's not, he's not. I just dont think you should expect much more time for him than the Hulk, due to cost and time (per my quotes), and there are likely to be lots of other effects and CGI characters in addition to Surtur in this film, if he's in it, adding to cost and time too.

    on the bolded, you don't think there is going to be a BIG fight in London? Possibly nearly as big as the fight in NY was in Avengers?

    also in that interview with the VFX people, she says "There are a couple of CG characters there that I couldn’t reveal at the moment but very soon I will."

    a couple CG characters plural, probably not an army of Chitauri, however, also a smaller budget, as you said.
     
    #911
  12. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    lol Elizah, you are speaking this as a fact, when it is not. There are plenty of films where a fully CGI character has had plenty of screen time. Using some circumstances in Avengers 1 is not enough to make such a conclusion that he won't appear much because of similar reasons. They are film companies, trust them. If they want to have a lot of Surtur in Thor 2. They will. If they want to have a lot of surtur in thor 3, they will, and they will spend wisely. Again, when it comes to Surtur having limmitted screen time, there is nothing to worry about. Trust me :)

     
    #912
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  13. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    honestly again, I really don't care if he's in it or not, I'd rather see "real" characters, and interesting storylines, than a lot of flashy effects. So, no I'm not worrying. Just you seem very heart set on seeing the character a lot, and we're friends (I hope) and so I don't want you to be disappointed if he isn't. Honestly, I'm sorry I even said anything now. SHEESH. :oldrazz:



    there was a lot of filming around London reported without principal actors and with crowds reacting but very unclear what they were reacting to, isn't that sort of part of the same scenario? Clearly whatever the crowds are reacting to, etc, is being filmed on a stage and will be put together later in a similar way. (I agree though it'll likely be smaller, but I'm not sure that much smaller)
     
    #913
  14. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    well the thing with london though, yah, that's a lot of filming. but the entire final battle in avengers was filmed essentially in front of a green screen. the last 45 minutes was all cgi, that's A LOT of money
     
    #914
  15. DarthSkywalker

    DarthSkywalker May the Force Be With You

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    86,084
    Likes Received:
    89
    Even if there was a ton of cgi, it was far from "all cgi". Even if all of it was green screen, and we know it wasn't, that doesn't equal all cgi and more importantly, the green screen is what brings down the cost. Besides that, there was a lot of practical work in those scenes. The actors, when on the streets, were not floating on air. We saw filming on actual streets.

    But on the London thing. You would think something as simply as a fly over and some combat would look "bigger" when filming then it would actually turn out on film.
     
    #915
  16. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    yeah, on streets. It's been said already though, that all the buildings, with the trackign shot, and essentially every shot that wasn't on the ground was all cgi.
     
    #916
  17. Godzilla2000

    Godzilla2000 Dollar Store Diva

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    9,514
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's amazing how green screened footage, miniatures and real time location footage can be seamlessly stitched together to create vast scenery.
     
    #917
  18. elizah72

    elizah72 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    question, are you expecting Algrim to be Algrim most of the film, and change into Kurse nearer the end for a big end battle? Or do you think Algrim will change to Kurse early on in the film? Why?
     
    #918
  19. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    The way AAA was talking about it, I don't know. I feel like he will be algrim briefly. He gets sent away, or "killed" yada yada, early one. and then gets transformed into Kurse. But we don't see him until maybe 2/3 of the way into the movie. He will most definitally be a part of an end battle. That seems obvious enough, but I am sure he will be Kurse before that, briefly, as well. I feel like there will be a good hour where he isn't on screen at all. Meaning, he changes, then we don't actually see him come back on screen for like an hour or so.

    What I have been wondering is if as Kurse, if he will have any lines
     
    #919
  20. American Maid

    American Maid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this makes a lot of sense.

    Sure! At the very least, he'll have:

    "THOR!!!!!!!!!!!"

    and

    "Malekith!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    (More seriously, I hope he has lines too, beyond the above. And the turnabout we have discussed before, where he ultimately leads his people in a more peaceful direction. Given that Kurse is supposed to be more animalistic, that doesn't seem likely, though.)
     
    #920
  21. jaqua99

    jaqua99 ....I need a horse!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    8,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    yeah, doubtful about the leading his people thing. I would like to see it, but since Kurse seems to literally be a monster, it seems unlikely.

    However, I sure as hell hope we get some small lines
     
    #921

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"