Should THOR have only one movie or is it financially realistic as a trilogy?

[hippie_hunter]

Trilogy:
Thor
the Mighty Thor
the Avengers

 

[Fried Gold]

It is a rule that the majority of people will not have heard about a comic character before they see that character in the movies.

What you are doing there is describing every movie ever, not just comic films. Next you're going to tell me that water is wet.

Loki is a schemer at heart, I agree with you in that respect. However, he is much more versatile.

He has fought *insert superhero here* hand to hand.
He has fought *insert superhero here* with his magic (great visual potential).
He also works in the background messing things up fo *insert superhero here*.
He is also cannot be killed, so he makes a good nemesis.
In certain cases he probably has something akin to diplomatic immunity.

Ah, just like Doctor Doom.

I have to disagree - its a stone cold fact, Thor is worthy of 9 movies based upon his Rogue's Gallery. More than Batman, more than Superman, more than Spiderman.

LOL! Superman is lacking in the villian stakes, but to say that Thor has more potential in his rogue's gallery than Spider-Man or Batman is mental. That's right, mental.

Since when? The only epic battle spidey ever fought was against the Sinister Six. In terms of an 'epic battle' Batman is nowhere to be seen. Superman has some potential, but to be honest its almost never been realised in the comics (feel free to come back at me on this point with examples).

Epic does not need to be based soley on how much CGI you can cram on screen. I'd call Rocky v Apollo Creed 'epic', and that was two dudes in a boxing ring.

Now I know you are off your rocker. So many great Thor arcs end in some awesome epic battle! No other comic character has anywhere near the same potential for wondrous battles and creating such a visceral spectacle...

All of which mean nothing, unless your sole aim is be Eragon.

I think he is unique in his ability to tackle ideas such as religious freedom.

There is no come back to this. You free to think what you want.

But by all means tell us who is better qualified in that respect?

Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, the Fantastic Four, Captain America, Hulk, Daredevil, The Punisher, the X-Men...

Some more so than others. Who are the strong women in the Batman movies? I would concede Lois Lane (though not the Bosworth incarnation) is a strong character.

Must you bring Superman Returns into every argument?

The point I was making is that the female demographic is covered, the action adventure demographic is covered, the younger generation demographic is covered.

See Eragon.

I disagree. I don't think there are truly that many villains who are visually interesting/impressive. Spidey has a half a dozen or so (Doc Ock, Sandman, Venom, Hydroman etc.), Batman has a handful (Scarecrow, Mr Freeze), Superman maybe has one or two (60 storey tall Metallo for instance). But Thor has lots.

Except that no-one knows who they are. Possibly, because they're crap.

Nonsense.

No other character has as many visually impressive villains.
No other character has the same scope for epic battles.

Again, a film is more than what is on the screen. It needs to connect with audiences, something which battles and villains (more of than not) fail miserably with. Please do not cite LOTR, as that is the exception to the rule, plus, likening the works of Tolkein to that of the writers of a Thor movie would be quite embarrassing.

I don't think they are as much of a crutch as say for instance Batman, Superman or Spidermans supporting cast.

Then what good are they if they aren't there to support?

Again you are confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of merit.

One the supporting cast is established onscreen people will see the merits of them.

If they are written well, ie. better than they are in the comic. If they were so good and so rich, you'd think comic fans would know who they were and that the book wouldn't ge cancelled every few months or so.

Not more - simply better ones.

So good, that we have no idea what there names are.

Obviously any series runing from the 30s with a mult-book strokefest in operation will have lots of villains. Thats not the point. How many of those villains are worthy of a return visit. Not that many in Supermans case.

Whereas in the case of Thor, 1 visit is 1 too many. Going by sales of the comic, anyways...

 

[K.B.]

I'm for a trilogy and that marvel should pull theyre heads outta theyre butts and get good talent on the films. ie; Peter Jackson for Thor.
Some said it would take a boat load of money to make a good Thor movie (I beleive the quote was "superman returns money") Your wrong..all 3 LOTR movies together cost 300 million. Thats 100 million per movie. Watch just one scene from any of those flicks and tell me A. Jackson could EVER make a bad Thor movie and B. He couldn't make one for 100 million.

 

[Fried Gold]

I'm for a trilogy and that marvel should pull theyre heads outta theyre butts and get good talent on the films. ie; Peter Jackson for Thor.
Some said it would take a boat load of money to make a good Thor movie (I beleive the quote was "superman returns money") Your wrong..all 3 LOTR movies together cost 300 million. Thats 100 million per movie. Watch just one scene from any of those flicks and tell me A. Jackson could EVER make a bad Thor movie and B. He couldn't make one for 100 million.

If you'd actually read the rest of thread instead of flapping your gums at the first available opportunity, you would've A. read that I also stated that 100mil would still be a lot, given that Thor is a relatively unknown commodity, and B. that 100 mil would still be a lot, given that Thor is a relatively unknown commodity.

Also, the budget for LOTR was relatively cheap (though some have cited the budget as closer to $450mil), because A. they were making all three together, so sets only needed to be built once, actors fees were set, props were re-used and special effects for all three could get underway without starting from scratch each time round.. As an already proven critical and commercial success in the literary world, it's not hard to see why a trilogy was comissioned as opposed to making them one at a time. The last time I checked, the Thor comic weas pretty bad, and would routinely get cancelled. Comparing the two is akin to comparing Mozart with Franz Ferdinand.

I have since learnt that they have given Thor a prospective budget of $115mil (which by your estimation would be over spending...), but I'm all for one film and then seeing where it goes from there.

 

[Upper_Krust]

If you are actually going to sit here and say that Thor has more villains and story types to draw on than Batman or Superman, then honestly you're pretty ignorant on those two heroes. Each of them has Dozens and dozens of villains and has explored every genre, including fantasy on their own, unassisted.

Not at all, obviously a superhero who has been around 30 years longer than Thor and has been engaged in a multi-book strokefest for the past decade or more is going to have more villains.

But how many of those villains are genuinely worthy of returning again and again in the comics and more to the point worthy of being seen on the big screen?

Batman has had 5 movies in the modern era and already they are returning to the Joker!

I don't need to tell you how many times Luthor has shown up in Superman movies.

In fact its weird that in recent interviews over the past year or so with Morrison and then Busiek, both have stated Superman doesn't have a great Rogues Gallery.

Whereas Thor not only has the strength and depth for nine movies, it can be nine movies with 4 villains in each.

Obviously one is the main villain, one might fulfill the henchman role, another could simply be a plot device, and one other could be handled through a flashback or somesort. So its not a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Thor's Rogues Gallery is so good they actually used a Thor villain in the Hulk movie! Thor donates his villains to other less fortunate heroes.

I'm not talking about gross, I'm talking about number of movies and Thor simply can't hold a candle to Superman and Batman... even on his best day.

Rubbish. We have already seen how Batman and Superman are forced to recycle villains. You wouldn't have to do that with Thor.

Thor can be a strong franchise if given the chance, I'll agree with that. I'd prefer a single awesome movie rather than three good ones... or nine good ones... or 15 good ones... whatever.

This is the sort of attitude I don't understand, why can't we have 9 great movies!?

I like Thor better with the Avengers, basically.

You cannot have an Avengers movie before you have at least one Captain America, Thor and Iron Man movies.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi F G!

What you are doing there is describing every movie ever, not just comic films. Next you're going to tell me that water is wet.

Try to keep up FG.

I was replying to the point made that Thor is not as well known a character as Batman or Spiderman, and therefore shouldn't have any movies about him made - which is idiotic.

Ah, just like Doctor Doom.

Absolutely. Hes almost on that level. Doesn't quite have as cool a look, but you can't have everything I suppose.

Incidently Loki appeared before Doctor Doom.

LOL! Superman is lacking in the villian stakes, but to say that Thor has more potential in his rogue's gallery than Spider-Man or Batman is mental. That's right, mental.

Not at all, I am familiar with all the characters mentioned so far and I can honestly say Thor has the superior Rogue's Gallery.

Case in point. A few months ago I replied in the Spiderman forum about what people would do with regards the sequels. People struggled to concoct 9 movies - struggled! With Spidey!

Superman (as far as I can see) struggles with 6.

Batman has potential for at least 6 (I haven't done an indepth study yet) although there are some villains who cannot carry a movie all on their own (like Penguin) so you need to double-team them.

Remember with Thor I propose 9 movies with 4 villains in each! Although in fairness its much easier to challenge the likes of Batman and Spider-man with less because a lot of their villains are combined schemers and brawlers.

Epic does not need to be based soley on how much CGI you can cram on screen. I'd call Rocky v Apollo Creed 'epic', and that was two dudes in a boxing ring.

Under your criteria anything could be epic.

I meant epic in scale.

All of which mean nothing, unless your sole aim is be Eragon.

Not at all, simply that Thor can bridge the gap between Superheroics and Epic Fantasy. Which is a dimension that Batman, Spiderman and Superman cannot encroach upon.

There is no come back to this. You free to think what you want.

Of course there is no comeback, because no other superhero has the potential to deal with religious issues like that (which may be a disservice to Kirkman's Battle Pope, who knows).

Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, the Fantastic Four, Captain America, Hulk, Daredevil, The Punisher, the X-Men...

So, let me get this straight, according to you, the Hulk is a better vehicle for having a strong religious freedom subtext than Thor - is that what you are honestly saying!?

Must you bring Superman Returns into every argument?

I like twisting a kryptonite shank into the dreary, dank carcass that is Superman Returns and then kicking it while its on the ground - since thats all its good for.

That and I know it winds you up - Singer fan!

See Eragon.

Do I have to?

Except that no-one knows who they are. Possibly, because they're crap.

Anyone who has read the material will know who they are.

You don't because you haven't read it and yet from this position of ignorance still try to argue your case.

You can't expect people to know characters before they read about them or see them on screen. People are not clairvoyant.

Again, a film is more than what is on the screen. It needs to connect with audiences, something which battles and villains (more of than not) fail miserably with. Please do not cite LOTR, as that is the exception to the rule, plus, likening the works of Tolkein to that of the writers of a Thor movie would be quite embarrassing.

I never said big battles necessarily make the audience connect better with the character, simply that they add to the epic spectacle (which is one reason why people go to see 'blockbusters')

Then what good are they if they aren't there to support?

Well for one thing it means we don't have to use all of them, all the time, unlike for instance the same characters in Batman and Superman for instance.

If we want to have some sort of romantic sideplot we an have Balder/Karnilla. If we want to add some humour we can bring in the Warriors Three.

If they are written well, ie. better than they are in the comic. If they were so good and so rich, you'd think comic fans would know who they were and that the book wouldn't ge cancelled every few months or so.

Don't worry, he'll be back.

Just because hes not 'always round' doesn't mean hes not a great character.

So good, that we have no idea what there names are.

Well I could easily outline my ideas for the first 9 Thor movies (incidently I have also outlines for 6 Superman movies, albeit with a few recycled villains) although I forsee that would raise more questions than answer ("whats so good about villain #A?" etc) and I don't currently have the time for a full page synopsis on each movie (like I did with the first movie on my website).

Heroes need to be challenged both mentally and physically. Thats why some could carry a movie on their own (like Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Joker, Bane) and others cannot (Sandman, Venom, Penguin, Poison Ivy). Characters like Superman and Thor add a third facet in that their almost certainly needs to be some sort of world level threat/plot device to sort out. For Superman this is usually going to be some sort of natural disaster (Earthquake, Growing Island) whereas Thor its probably going to be one of his villains (Destroyer, Surtur etc.)

One of the main reasons Superman Returns failed miserably was in that it didn't challenge Superman physically. Nor is Lex a visually interesting foe. So it skipped on two key criteria.

Neither Sandman nor Venom alone could carry a Spider-man movie. Both are predominantly brawlers rather than schemers - hence the reason we have Harry Osborn.

In Batman Begins we had both Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow. While Ra's Al Ghul fulfills both the schemer and the brawler roles, he is not 'visually interesting' villain.

So you can immediately look at villains and know whether they can carry a movie or whether you need more than one villain to fulfill all the roles.

Whereas in the case of Thor, 1 visit is 1 too many. Going by sales of the comic, anyways...

Whereas Superman with all the comic sales in the world still doesn't make money at the box office - go figure eh. t:

 

[GL1]

Hey GL1!

apologies for the delay in getting this post finished.


Be careful you don't bite off more than you can chew.

Yo, Upper_Krust... it's all good.

I'm sorry mate I don't understand the context of this sentence.

It is a rule that the majority of people will not have heard about a comic character before they see that character in the movies.

The exceptions are characters who have already featured in movies - see how that works!

I say you're ignoring other merchandising and exposure, especially cartoons, when released 5-15 years prior to a movie's release, the prime audience is then familiar with the character. Iron Man. Fantastic Four. Heck, even Blade was in the 90's Spider-Man cartoons. That familiarity, while not determinant, IS a strength of the franchise, a strength which a Thor franchise would not have. A previous movie is only one of the MANY things that Thor does not have.

Loki is a schemer at heart, I agree with you in that respect. However, he is much more versatile.

He has fought Thor hand to hand.
He has fought Thor with his magic (great visual potential).
He also works in the background messing things up fo Thor.
He is also cannot be killed, so he makes a good nemesis.
In certain cases he probably has something akin to diplomatic immunity, in that he is an Asgardian prince.

The same can be said of Lex Luthor (except the Asgardian Prince), and of course, it is technically possible for him to be killed, yet somehow practically impossible. That said, while Loki is a great villain, he's simply not the awesomest... simply a worthy opponent with Norse references.

I have to disagree - its a stone cold fact, Thor is worthy of 9 movies based upon his Rogue's Gallery. More than Batman, more than Superman, more than Spiderman.

Alright... while it is convenient that Thor has the well-established Norse mythos as his rogue's gallery and supporting cast, to say that he has more villains than Batman or Superman, who are, in my experience uncountable is crazy. Furthermore, to say that rogue's gallery alone can propel a franchise is a bit shortsighted. Franchises need stories.

Since when? The only 'epic' battle spidey ever fought was against the Sinister Six (and that pales in comparison to Lord of the Rings style battles). In terms of an 'epic battle' Batman is nowhere to be seen. Superman has some potential, but to be honest its almost never been realised in the comics (feel free to come back at me on this point with examples).

Now I know you are off your rocker. So many great Thor arcs end in some awesome epic battle! No other comic character has anywhere near the same potential for wondrous battles and creating such a visceral spectacle.

Hmmm... I think you confused 'epic' with 'number of people' invovled. The damage that goes along with a Superman or Sinister Six battle is on the same scale as anything in Lord of The Rings. Cities fall in both cases. Yes, Thor has battles with more bodies in them but...

Here's an example: I consider a battle between Green Lantern and Silver Surfer more epic than a battle between 2 fourth graders and 2 fifth graders. Numbers don't determine epic, but the scale of the battle, and, budget permitting, Superman and Spider-Man have massively scaled battles.

Now it can be argued that the movies heretofore have not had epic battles. That's fine.

I think he is unique in his ability to tackle ideas such as religious freedom.

But by all means tell us who is better qualified in that respect?

Preacher. The Authority. Heck, Hercules. Wonder Woman. There isn't a sci-fi series worth it's salt that hasn't opened up Religious Freedom a couple times. And while Thor is specially empowered to do so, like other heroes with a religious origin, that's a great backdrop for one epic movie. Not 9.

Some more so than others. Who are the strong women in the Batman movies? I would concede Lois Lane (though not the Bosworth incarnation) is a strong character.

The point I was making is that the female demographic is covered, the action adventure demographic is covered, the younger generation demographic is covered.

Movies? I mean, do I have to go to Poison Ivy and Batgirl? Catwoman maybe? The Begins franchise is without a strong female, I'll give you that. I guess Batman's so recognizable that Rachel was enough.

I disagree. I don't think there are truly that many villains who are visually interesting/impressive. Spidey has a half a dozen or so (Doc Ock, Sandman, Venom, Hydroman etc.), Batman has a handful (Scarecrow, Mr Freeze), Superman maybe has one or two (60 storey tall Metallo for instance). But Thor has lots.

Nonsense.

No other character has as many visually impressive villains.
No other character has the same scope for epic battles.

Well that's subjective. I can simply choose not to feel that Thor's villains are interesting and that Superman/Spider-Man/Batman/Wonder-Woman/Green Lantern's are. And to speak about visual interestingness in movies where all characters get a redesign is silly. Their visual appeal is all but moot.

How is it not both?

... touche.

I don't think they are as much of a crutch as say for instance Batman, Superman or Spidermans supporting cast.

Bah. Spider-Man doesn't exist without his supporting cast, and Clark Kent doesn't exist without Superman's supporting cast. Batman... well... yeah, his cast is just to reflect him, I'll run that.

Again you are confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of merit.

One the supporting cast is established onscreen people will see the merits of them.

The same thing could be said of any hero's supporting cast though. In a world where quality is determined by writers, recognition is the only objective measurement available. Still not determinant, but as for comparing the strength of a Thor franchise with another, his suppoting cast does not come out looking like strong points, they look like just another part of the Thor world that needs introduction.

So, by your logic, if you have multiple villains it must be camp, because Batman & Robin - was camp.

Not my logic. That's someone else's logic from another arguement we've had before, my statement makes a clear cause and effect relationship, and that's not it. You read into my statement something you expected to see there and you would've gotten that question wrong if this had been a standardized test on reading comprehension.

The actual point, which I hadn't gotten around to, was that a movie with one or two villains can be better than a movie with 5 villains. Just another way to say that Thor's number of villains is not a significant strength of the franchise, but a minor one... not something that can carry 9 movies on it's own.

I thought you said you were not that familiar witth him!

Not more - simply better ones.

Obviously any series runing from the 30s with a mult-book strokefest in operation will have lots of villains. Thats not the point. How many of those villains are worthy of a return visit. Not that many in Supermans case.

I'll finish the rest of your comments later.

Well I'm not familiar with Thor (though I've never said any such thing... I know it's tough to keep arguements straight with multiple "opponents"... it's easy to lump em all together), but I do know that he is a Norse God and thusly can draw on all Norse Mythology, and, honestly, count everything from Norse Mythos in his rogue's gallery, regardless of whether or how it's appeared in the comics. That's fine.

And we all know that Superman and Batman have tons and tons of villains, enough to make an actual numerical comparison useless. At this point the question of their quality is made. How many are worth returning to.

I'd wager at least 60. That's enough for 20-30 awesome movies by your logic. By my logic the total number of villains is irrelevant because a movie is a story, not a villain showcase.

Thor's story, like that of all Norse Mythology, leads to Ragnarok. It can depart if it likes, but Ragnarok is such a powerful and revolutionary mythology that it simply overshadows anything else you try to stack up around it.

Batman is bigger than his back being broken, Superman is bigger than his own death. These characters have story fodder in and of themselves for years. To say nothing of the dozens if not hundreds of great stories already been told.

I could say "I don't like those stories, All Thor's stories are better" but that does nothing to prove that Batman and Superman can't carry a bajillion movies and Thor can.

Not at all, obviously a superhero who has been around 30 years longer than Thor and has been engaged in a multi-book strokefest for the past decade or more is going to have more villains.

But how many of those villains are genuinely worthy of returning again and again in the comics and more to the point worthy of being seen on the big screen?

Batman has had 5 movies in the modern era and already they are returning to the Joker!

I don't need to tell you how many times Luthor has shown up in Superman movies.

In fact its weird that in recent interviews over the past year or so with Morrison and then Busiek, both have stated Superman doesn't have a great Rogues Gallery.

Whereas Thor not only has the strength and depth for nine movies, it can be nine movies with 4 villains in each.

Wow... so using the same villain in a restart is bad now? Which brings the question: Why is reusing villains a bad idea in the first place? Do you really think that in 9 movies Loki would only appear once? Or Enchantress?

Why not apply this logic evenly. Man, Begins SUCKS, they used Alfred AGAIN! Batman must have a pretty weak supporting cast if they keep reusing the same Butler over and over.

And y'know, Superman's Rogue's gallery isn't as stellar as one would assume. Batman and Spider-Man's are better, I'll give you that (Wonder Woman too, if you count all Greek Mythos). But to say that it's no good is more extremism. Off the top of the head: Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Darkseid, Zod, Doomsday, Maxima, Metallo, Toyman, Conduit, Bizarro, Myxlsptlk and Parasite. Each capable of carrying a movie and the first four capable of carrying a trilogy (like Sauron or Loki) with the others being minor villains of one sort or another.

Superman, Batman, Wonder-Woman and Spider-Man are all capable of carrying 9 movies... but what's the point if the story being told isn't worth the time and effort to portray. What story is each trilogy telling, what jawdropping moment on the calibre of of LOTR/Matrix/ROTS movie-climax are we building to? What journey is each character taking every single movie? The coming of age/responsibilty story is nice, and with religous freedom you can pull out a great single movie out of that. Perhaps drawing on all of the Thor comics and some Norse Mythology we can put together a set of compelling character arcs that Thor endures while building up to Ragnarok in "Thor 3." But to push the franchise beyond that is... well... pushing it. Thor 4 might ride the wave, but you end up with Thor 5 where everyone says 'why didn't they just let it die."

Or alternately you save Ragnarok for the second trilogy, which gives the first trilogy an arbitrary epic battle where everything is NOT on the line, letting the audience feel cheated like it wasn't a real trilogy, like their time has been wasted and they've watch 9 hours of thor fight for something he wants instead of the survival of his species.

OR you could decompress the storytelling and trag a trilogy out into a trilogy of trilogies with lots of filler villains, that are great, but don't actually lead directly to the conclusion... like you were making a TV series, you decompress and scatter the meaningful pieces of the story.

OR you take Thor's best villains, best stories and make 1-3 great movies and call it a day.

Obviously one is the main villain, one might fulfill the henchman role, another could simply be a plot device, and one other could be handled through a flashback or somesort. So its not a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Thor's Rogues Gallery is so good they actually used a Thor villain in the Hulk movie! Thor donates his villains to other less fortunate heroes.

My arguement is not that Thor does not have a good rogue's gallery, nor is it that he cannot have four villains in a movie. My statement is that the former is not unique to Thor and that the latter is not a strength of a movie franchise.

Rubbish. We have already seen how Batman and Superman are forced to recycle villains. You wouldn't have to do that with Thor.

No you have not. You have seen them choose to reuse villains (in a restart mind you) and then decided to assume that they were forced to do so, not based on any information, but simply to prove/feel you are right. You haven't "seen" anything like this and you're now making up info to prove your point.

You don't have to do that with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man, and yet for a bajillion reasons, most lying in concepts of storytelling, villains get reused. (Well, we already used Sauron, better get a new villain for Two Towers).

This is the sort of attitude I don't understand, why can't we have 9 great movies!?

This attitude relies on the assumption that Thor doesn't have 9 great movies in him. Such a conclusion seems to rest on the idea that a large rogue's gallery is simply not enough to carry a franchise, nor should it be.

You cannot have an Avengers movie before you have at least one Captain America, Thor and Iron Man movies.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[toddly6666]

First off, I don't think a THOR movie would be that successful, even if they had a good director, good story good actors. I wish that it would be successful and even spawn sequels, but I don't think it will happen. Would Thor be walking around current-day earth, or walking around his own world? If it's Thor walking around his own world, the movie won't be special - if anything it will be at the same level of excitement as PATHFINDER, BEOWOLF, CONANs, where many characters are gods, have powers, and there is mainly a fantasy element. Plus if there is a character like Beta Ray Bill, that would take away the specialness of Thor - another character that looks just like Thor and is a camel, just takes away the excitement and uniquenss of Thor. Does Thor ever walk around current-day Earth by himself and not be involved with The Avengers? For a superhero movie to be successful, it seems that they have to be current-day Earth based.

I'm a casual comic book fan, and I've never heard of Loki or Beta Ray Bill till recently. I learned of Loki in Jim Carrey's THE MASK, before learning that he's involved with Thor as well. Loki is the most famous villain of Thor, but I can be sure that no one knows any of Thor's characters/villains. Batman, Spiderman, Superman all have famous well-known characters/villains/sidekicks. Thor is basically obscure. Someone in here was exactly right when he's just known as a Norse-god with a hammer and long blond hair. That's about it.

The Blade movies were popular due to the fact that it was the first real respectable Superhero movie since Superman. Sure, the Superman sequels, the Crow movie, Tim Burton's Batman movies were successful superhero movies, but they are all camp, dated and/or too B-movie-ish. Blade began the trend of making superhero movies for adults as well and taking the superhero seriously. After Blade, then came the X-mens and Spidermans. After watching Blade and seeing its success, it made me really feel optimistic that more Marvel and DC superhero movies were going to be made and made well. This was not the feeling I got after watching Batman 1 and 2, Crow, 90s FF4, Dolph's The Punisher. Why would famous superhero movies be made after being aware of the endless delays/problems for James Cameron's Spiderman in the mid 90s?

Blade and Blade 2 were also successful because they were acually good movies. Elektra, Catwoman and The Punisher just sucked and were amateurish. Daredevil failed only because people hate Ben Afleck. But the theatrical or director's cut of Daredevil are both awesome. Daredevil is a great superhero movie.

So the best chance of THOR being successful is in one movie, and being made after the AVENGERS film. Thor in Avengers would be a successful film. Thor by himself in his fantasy Conan-land would not be successful. Although I personally would love the gods&sword&sorcery movies to make a successful comeback. I'm sure Pathfinder, Beowolf, 300 will make some good money but not successful enough for trilogies and sequels. So why would Thor be a success with sequels and trilogies? There's just no reason for it now. People just aren't interested in that theme anymore.

And if they make a Thor current-Earth based film, I don't think fans will like that either if it's an Ultimate Thor as a Greenpeace superhero fighting white collar criminals who are polluting the earth.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Just wanted to say great discussion, thoroughly enjoying it.

However, chances are I won't be able to respond to posts (especially these big replies) until Saturday (my time is really limited at the moment). But I promise to comeback, don't worry I won't leave you hanging.

So I just wanted to let you know up front.

 

[toddly6666]

I also forgot to add that Loki and Hercules are already globally well-known characters that have existed in mythology. Hercules and Loki have already appeared in countless forms of book, comic, movies. If you throw these two characters into a Thor movie, it might confuse people. Most people don't know of Hercules the Marvel Avenger, and Loki as a Thor villain. It could throw people off, sort of like in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It would definitely be not wise to have Hercules appear in a Thor movie or in a Avengers movies. Hercules cannot be taken seriously anymore, especially after the fat boy and momma in Eddie Murphy's THE NUTTY PROFESSOR: "Hercules, Hercules, oooh my Hercules!"

The next FF4 movie and Silver Surfer movie is the best chance of bridging the gap between Superheroics and Epic Fantasies. Silver Surfer/Galactus/Thanos&Death/Nova/Warlock/Capt. Marvel/Kree/Skrull are a lot more interesting and original than Thor and co.
Or a Superman sequel with Darkseid has a chance of bridging the gap as well. There hasn't been a real balls-out superheroes in space movie yet (it was barely in Superman 2). The closest thing is Star Trek, Aliens, Star Wars and Firefly(Serenity), but even that isn't what we are after
We need superheros clashing all over the universe, bouncing off asteroids, having wars in black holes, villains thrown into the sun, etc. (Picture Superman vs. Darkseid, Infinity Gauntlet, The Kree-Skrull War stories - that's what we need, and Thor will not bring that to the table)

 

[Eros]

I thor movie Imo would be silly, and make a complete mockery out of Norse mythology, the critics will proabbly be disgusted. A god being a superhero works in comics, but you can't have crap like done in a movie. maybe if they go with the Ulitimate version of Thor.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I find this all irrelevant.

First, the all trilogy thingy...
Trilogies are very popular now, but the same goes to not wanting them.
Trilogies are the perfect way to tell a story, because they are big movies, divided in 3 parts, a begining, middle and the end.
Now, when you don´t have that big of a story, now then i agree that it becames stupid to try and make a trilogy.

About the all "no one knows who Thor is"...
Who cares?
If you make a great movie, people will see it, or you guys think they will see just because they know the character?

 

[GL1]

I find this all irrelevant.

First, the all trilogy thingy...
Trilogies are very popular now, but the same goes to not wanting them.
Trilogies are the perfect way to tell a story, because they are big movies, divided in 3 parts, a begining, middle and the end.
Now, when you don´t have that big of a story, now then i agree that it becames stupid to try and make a trilogy.

About the all "no one knows who Thor is"...
Who cares?
If you make a great movie, people will see it, or you guys think they will see just because they know the character?

I agree... but the fact remains that you need an awesome story and an awesome world to make a successful trilogy. Thor has that. To make a trilogy of trilogies you need something just short of perfection, and you need lots and lots of it. How awesome is Star Wars, but the second trilogy fizzled out, because as big and great as Star Wars is, it simply cannot support a trilogy of trilogies because the stories aren't there... there are great SW stories outside of Episodes IV-VI, yes... but there aren't any trilogy worthy stories... and as we've seen from Episode II, "A Cool War" is not enough to carry a movie.

 

[Fried Gold]

Try to keep up FG.

I was replying to the point made that Thor is not as well known a character as Batman or Spiderman, and therefore shouldn't have any movies about him made - which is idiotic.

Perhaps you should keep up, as no-one ever said that Thor should not have his own movie.

Absolutely. Hes almost on that level. Doesn't quite have as cool a look, but you can't have everything I suppose.

Yeah, it would be a shame to only use him once...

Incidently Loki appeared before Doctor Doom.

And lots of posters in the discussion so far came to these boards before you. Your point being... ?

Not at all, I am familiar with all the characters mentioned so far and I can honestly say Thor has the superior Rogue's Gallery.

Case in point. A few months ago I replied in the Spiderman forum about what people would do with regards the sequels. People struggled to concoct 9 movies - struggled! With Spidey!

Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Venom, Rhino, Kingpin, Scorpion, Man-Wolf, Morbius, Vulture, Sand-Man, Hydro-Man, Carnage... obviously those over in the Spider-Man forum are a bit dim, then.

Superman (as far as I can see) struggles with 6.

To you. And to me, Thor would struggle with 3.

Batman has potential for at least 6 (I haven't done an indepth study yet) although there are some villains who cannot carry a movie all on their own (like Penguin) so you need to double-team them.

Penguin could carry a movie, as long as you did not turn him into a sewer dwelling monster, but instead made buisiness-like with ties to the mob.

Remember with Thor I propose 9 movies with 4 villains in each!

LOL!

Although in fairness its much easier to challenge the likes of Batman and Spider-man with less because a lot of their villains are combined schemers and brawlers.

And?

Under your criteria anything could be epic.

I meant epic in scale.

Have you seen Eragon yet?

Not at all, simply that Thor can bridge the gap between Superheroics and Epic Fantasy. Which is a dimension that Batman, Spiderman and Superman cannot encroach upon.

Granted, but after 9 movies, each cramming in 4 villians, I think audiences would tire rather quickly of it.

So, let me get this straight, according to you, the Hulk is a better vehicle for having a strong religious freedom subtext than Thor - is that what you are honestly saying!?

Are you saying that Thor does? Oh sure, it employs Norse mythology, but not necassarily religion as we know it in Western culture. Unless you're Swedish.

I like twisting a kryptonite shank into the dreary, dank carcass that is Superman Returns and then kicking it while its on the ground - since thats all its good for.

That and I know it winds you up - Singer fan!

Ah, so that's it... you rile up Superman fans in order to detract from your subjective views.

Do I have to?

You obviously want to.

Anyone who has read the material will know who they are.

You don't because you haven't read it and yet from this position of ignorance still try to argue your case.

You can't expect people to know characters before they read about them or see them on screen. People are not clairvoyant.

You keep hammering this point home as though we aren't aware of it. What we are questioning is if a book that is routinely cancelled, not that well known even within comic circles and with a central character so embroiled within mythology that he's almost more alien than Superman could sustain 6758454 movies. I do not believe it could.

I never said big battles necessarily make the audience connect better with the character, simply that they add to the epic spectacle (which is one reason why people go to see 'blockbusters')

You are aware that 96% of 'blockbusters' are crap, right?

Well for one thing it means we don't have to use all of them, all the time, unlike for instance the same characters in Batman and Superman for instance.

Pity.

If we want to have some sort of romantic sideplot we an have Balder/Karnilla. If we want to add some humour we can bring in the Warriors Three.

Nah, the humour will come from a made-up human character who witnesses Thor's antics. Mark my words.

Don't worry, he'll be back.

Just in time to get cancelled again.

Just because hes not 'always round' doesn't mean hes not a great character.

But it does mean that he, and his band of cronies, are not strong enough to sustain a successful comic run.

Well I could easily outline my ideas for the first 9 Thor movies (incidently I have also outlines for 6 Superman movies, albeit with a few recycled villains) although I forsee that would raise more questions than answer ("whats so good about villain #A?" etc) and I don't currently have the time for a full page synopsis on each movie (like I did with the first movie on my website).

You could, but anyone outside of a die hard Thor fan, would not listen.

Heroes need to be challenged both mentally and physically. Thats why some could carry a movie on their own (like Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Joker, Bane) and others cannot (Sandman, Venom, Penguin, Poison Ivy). Characters like Superman and Thor add a third facet in that their almost certainly needs to be some sort of world level threat/plot device to sort out. For Superman this is usually going to be some sort of natural disaster (Earthquake, Growing Island) whereas Thor its probably going to be one of his villains (Destroyer, Surtur etc.)

So where's the human element? Y'know, to make us care what's happening other than seeing some no-name extras getting in the way?

One of the main reasons Superman Returns failed miserably was in that it didn't challenge Superman physically. Nor is Lex a visually interesting foe. So it skipped on two key criteria.

No, one of the reasons Superman failed was that it did not utilise the dichotomy of brains over brawn to it's maximum potential. That, and they gave Superman a kid.

Neither Sandman nor Venom alone could carry a Spider-man movie. Both are predominantly brawlers rather than schemers - hence the reason we have Harry Osborn.

Harry is there as a by product of the first two films. Venom could carry a movie just as easily as the Green Goblin, if not more so. Just because we are not seeing this in Spider-Man 3 does not make it not possible.

In Batman Begins we had both Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow. While Ra's Al Ghul fulfills both the schemer and the brawler roles, he is not 'visually interesting' villain.

So you can immediately look at villains and know whether they can carry a movie or whether you need more than one villain to fulfill all the roles.

LOL! Alan Rickman portayed one of the greatest screen villians dressed in a nice suit in Die Hard. I wouldn't discount any potential villians credibility based on whether or not they are wearing green and yellow armour and a silly hat.

Whereas Superman with all the comic sales in the world still doesn't make money at the box office - go figure eh. t:

Actually, it did. There is a sequel being penned as speak.

 

[Katsuro]

Wow, when this guy first said he wanted 9 Thor movies I really thought he was joking. I mean, 9 movies!?! Has any franchise other than cheesy 80s/90's horror films made it to 9? Oh, and Bond, but those movies are all the same and quite boring (though I haven't seen Casino Royale yet).

I like Thor plenty, but be freakin' realistic. What the hell are you gonna do for 9 movies? It doesn't matter how many villains you have, if they just keep coming up with generic plots and the character never goes anywhere. 4 new villains appear, plot to do evil things, big splosions, Thor wins, movie ends. You really wanna see that 9 times?!?! Where would the story actually go? What would be the point of it? Movies need more than epic battles with swords and magic. They need character development. They need emotional depth. After 9 films, you're gonna run out of all of that.

Also the obvious point that no actor is going to stick around for 9 films. 9 films, each of them 3, maybe sometimes 2 years about, you're looking at well over 20 years. Dude, stop kidding yourself. You're delusional if you think anyone would come even close to being excited about Thor 9.

 

[Diamondhead]

If done right a Thor movie should the most beautiful and most expensive marvel movie ever
They have to use most of the same special effects they used for lord of the ring trilogies and much better

Asgard should be a wonderful shinny architectural marvel
Unlike Richard Donner's architectural nonsense render of krypton
That I never really like .

And all those Asgardian Gods including Thor should be at least ten feet tall and more in other to make them imposing and impressive to ordinary human .

 

[Still A ThorFan]

You had me until the 10 foot tall thing.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Yo, Upper_Krust... it's all good.

Hey GL1 mate!

I say you're ignoring other merchandising and exposure, especially cartoons, when released 5-15 years prior to a movie's release, the prime audience is then familiar with the character. Iron Man. Fantastic Four. Heck, even Blade was in the 90's Spider-Man cartoons. That familiarity, while not determinant, IS a strength of the franchise, a strength which a Thor franchise would not have. A previous movie is only one of the MANY things that Thor does not have.

I can see that being a strength for characters with their own shows, but not for those with mere 'bit parts' in the occasional episode.

The same can be said of Lex Luthor (except the Asgardian Prince), and of course, it is technically possible for him to be killed, yet somehow practically impossible. That said, while Loki is a great villain, he's simply not the awesomest... simply a worthy opponent with Norse references.

In a movie I think a villain (or villains) must fulfill the following criteria.

A. Do they mentally challenge the hero? (If not then its just a fight)
B. Do they physically challenge the hero? (If not then its just a puzzle)
C. Are they humanocentric? (Anyone who has watched the special features on the Blade dvdv will know that they changed the Blood God at the end of the movie from a giant blood cloud to possessing Deacon Frost - a classic example of why you have to fill that niche)
D. Are they visually interesting?
E. Epic plot Device/Villain (only necessary for top tier heroes like Superman and Thor who can 'save the world')

Each superhero movie must fill those criteria. Lets look at a few examples.

1. Batman Begins (Covers A, B ,C & D)
- Ra's Al Ghul: A, B & C (Ra's Al Ghull is not visually interesting)
- Scarecrow: A, C & D (Scarecrow wasn't a physical challenge)

2. Superman Returns (Covers A, C & E)
- Lex Luthor: A & C (Lex is not a physical challenge nor is he visually interesting)
- Kryptonian Island: E

3. Spider-man 2 (Covers A, B, C, & D)
- Doctor Octopus: (Doc Ock covers all the criteria)

4. Spider-man 3 (Covers A, B, C, D)
- Sandman: B, C, D
- Venom: B, C, D
- 'Goblin': A, B, C, D?

5. Thor (Covers A, B, C, D, E)
- Loki: A, B, C & D (D due to magic)
- Wrecking Crew: B, C & D
- Destoyer: B, D & E

Alright... while it is convenient that Thor has the well-established Norse mythos as his rogue's gallery and supporting cast,

I think Norse mythology only makes up about 25% of Thors Rogues Gallery (counting the ones I would be using in the 9 movies that is).

to say that he has more villains than Batman or Superman, who are, in my experience uncountable is crazy.

I never said he had more, but I will say he has more great villains, than Superman or even Batman.

Someone else out there try and concoct 9 Superman movies and I will show you where you are going wrong and why some villains work and others don't.

Like I said before, I have outlined 6 Superman movies and five times (over a mere 6 movies) I had to use the same villains twice!

Furthermore, to say that rogue's gallery alone can propel a franchise is a bit shortsighted. Franchises need stories.

What a Rogues Gallery with strength and depth adds is variety - which as we all know is the spice of life. I don't think any other superhero has Thor's strength and depth in that department.

Hmmm... I think you confused 'epic' with 'number of people' invovled. The damage that goes along with a Superman or Sinister Six battle is on the same scale as anything in Lord of The Rings. Cities fall in both cases. Yes, Thor has battles with more bodies in them but...

Here's an example: I consider a battle between Green Lantern and Silver Surfer more epic than a battle between 2 fourth graders and 2 fifth graders. Numbers don't determine epic, but the scale of the battle, and, budget permitting, Superman and Spider-Man have massively scaled battles.

Now it can be argued that the movies heretofore have not had epic battles. That's fine.

Exactly. Unless we outline what 'epic' means (in my case it should refer to the scale of the battle) then it can mean absolutely anything.

So I may think Spider-man vs. Doc Ock on the train is the best superhero movie fight ever, but I wouldn't describe it as epic.

Preacher. The Authority. Heck, Hercules. Wonder Woman. There isn't a sci-fi series worth it's salt that hasn't opened up Religious Freedom a couple times. And while Thor is specially empowered to do so, like other heroes with a religious origin, that's a great backdrop for one epic movie. Not 9.

Preacher always seemed to me more about one religion than religions in general, though I have only read a few stories so I could be wrong.

Hercules and Wonder Woman are not gods. Herc is only a demi-god.

You could well be right about the Authority - I haven't read that yet.

Well that's subjective. I can simply choose not to feel that Thor's villains are interesting and that Superman/Spider-Man/Batman/Wonder-Woman/Green Lantern's are. And to speak about visual interestingness in movies where all characters get a redesign is silly. Their visual appeal is all but moot.

Obviously it doesn't take a genius to see that Ra's Al Ghul is NOT visually interesting and that Scarecrow (when employing the fear-toxin) IS.

Similarly, Lex Luthor and Metallo (how awesome would a 60 storey Metallo have looked onscreen - instead we get to see Superman lift an island)

The actual point, which I hadn't gotten around to, was that a movie with one or two villains can be better than a movie with 5 villains.

To me that is illogical on a number of fronts.

You might argue that with a single villain we will get a more indepth treatment, but even then I don't think it necessarily has to be the case if every villain fills a different role.

Just another way to say that Thor's number of villains is not a significant strength of the franchise, but a minor one... not something that can carry 9 movies on it's own.

I think it can.

As I see it most movies are about internal and external struggle. The internal represented by relationships, responsibilities (the 'software' if you will), the external represented by real threats, villains (the 'hardware').

Therefore having great villains (that fill all the criteria I list above) for a movie is half the battle won.

Well I'm not familiar with Thor (though I've never said any such thing... I know it's tough to keep arguements straight with multiple "opponents"... it's easy to lump em all together), but I do know that he is a Norse God and thusly can draw on all Norse Mythology, and, honestly, count everything from Norse Mythos in his rogue's gallery, regardless of whether or how it's appeared in the comics. That's fine.

The Mythology is only about a quarter of his Rogues Gallery (a quarter of those I would have in the 9 movies that is, I am sure the mythology is less than 10% overall in the comics).

And we all know that Superman and Batman have tons and tons of villains, enough to make an actual numerical comparison useless. At this point the question of their quality is made. How many are worth returning to.

I'd wager at least 60. That's enough for 20-30 awesome movies by your logic. By my logic the total number of villains is irrelevant because a movie is a story, not a villain showcase.

Then it should be very easy for you - or someone else to propose villains for 9 Superman or Batman or Spiderman movies.

Thor's story, like that of all Norse Mythology, leads to Ragnarok. It can depart if it likes, but Ragnarok is such a powerful and revolutionary mythology that it simply overshadows anything else you try to stack up around it.

I disagree. I think you can have 'end of the world' epic stories with Thor without going the whole hog and having Ragnarok.

I'd probably have a Ragnarok storyline in the third movie, but have Armageddon averted rather than waged to the finish.

With the sixth movie, instead of doing another Ragnarok bait and swerve I might have Odin (and Thor) battling the Celestials. So through movies 4, 5 and 6 I would be building up the Oversword.

Batman is bigger than his back being broken, Superman is bigger than his own death. These characters have story fodder in and of themselves for years. To say nothing of the dozens if not hundreds of great stories already been told.

I don't think every comic book story or villain would work on the big screen.

For instance, as I see it you could never have Toyman in a Superman movie in any great capacity.

I could say "I don't like those stories, All Thor's stories are better" but that does nothing to prove that Batman and Superman can't carry a bajillion movies and Thor can.

I'm not saying all Thor's villains are great all Batman's and Superman's are bad, far from it.

Wow... so using the same villain in a restart is bad now?

Obviously its bad. Its not only bad its unoriginal. Its a lack of faith in the heroes Rogue's Gallery.

Which brings the question: Why is reusing villains a bad idea in the first place?

Do you really think that in 9 movies Loki would only appear once? Or Enchantress?

Not at all. I would have Loki in every odd numbered Thor movie. HOWEVER, I wouldn't have him return as the main schemer, only in a supporting role.

So I might have Hela as the schemer in the 3rd movie, with Loki aiding her.

Why not apply this logic evenly. Man, Begins SUCKS, they used Alfred AGAIN! Batman must have a pretty weak supporting cast if they keep reusing the same Butler over and over.

I don't see this applying to the supporting cast, since they are clearly not the focus of the external threat faced by the hero - the villain IS!

So with so much focus being placed on the villain, you should get it right.

And y'know, Superman's Rogue's gallery isn't as stellar as one would assume. Batman and Spider-Man's are better, I'll give you that (Wonder Woman too, if you count all Greek Mythos).

I agree with you about Superman. But Wonder Woman has a terrible Rogue's Gallery - one of the worst in comics (for such an established heroine). I read an interview with Joss Whedon and basically they are struggling to find a great villain for a Wonder Woman movie. If Whedon can even squeeze a trilogy out of that franchise I will be amazed.

But to say that it's no good is more extremism. Off the top of the head: Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Darkseid, Zod, Doomsday, Maxima, Metallo, Toyman, Conduit, Bizarro, Myxlsptlk and Parasite. Each capable of carrying a movie and the first four capable of carrying a trilogy (like Sauron or Loki) with the others being minor villains of one sort or another.

I strongly disagree.

- Lex Luthor: done to death at this point. Supporting role only please.
- Brainiac: Alien Brainiac needs an additional villain because he is not visually interesting enough. Robot Brainiac needs a humanocentric villain to back him up (Luthor?).
- Darkseid: Superman's greatest villain by far. The problem with Darkseid is that once you have done his stories, you will never top it. So you want to save him for the end.
- Zod: Certainly has potential, however, I am not sure Zod alone is visually interesting. In effect hes a Superman 'clone' - he has all the same powers.
- Doomsday: Cannot work on his own. He doesn't challenge Superman mentally, nor is he humanocentric.
- Maxima: Could never carry a movie on her own. If she ever shows up it will be as a mere Supporting 'thug'.
- Metallo: Great visual villain, but doesn't challenge Superman mentally. Therefore he cannot carry a movie alone.
- Toyman: Far too corny. Sounds like a cheesy Batman villain. Could never carry a Superman movie. I would never have him in a Superman movie.
- Conduit: Really can't see him carrying a movie at all.
- Bizarro: Cannot carry a Superman villain on his own, because he cannot challenge Superman mentally.
- Mxy: Again, its just going to be a cheese-athon. There is no way Mxy can carry a movie. I wouldn't even use him in a supporting role.
- Parasite: Definately has potential, but hes not humanocentric, so that means he cannot work on his own.

My six Superman movies had the following:

1. Lex + Metallo
2. Lex + Robot Brainiac
3. Lexiac + Doomsday (Death of Superman)
4. Darkseid (on Apokalips: Superman dies and wakes up in 'Hell')/Cyborg (on Earth = an Evil Superman trying to take over Earth) + Bizarro.
5. Cyborg + Gog (who kills Cyborg) + Parasite
6. Darkseid (Comes to Earth) + Doomsday (Released from containment by President Luthor to fight Darkseid).

Superman, Batman, Wonder-Woman and Spider-Man are all capable of carrying 9 movies...

Utter nonsense.

Batman - 9 maybe
Superman - 6 ish
Wonder Woman - 3 at best.

but what's the point if the story being told isn't worth the time and effort to portray. What story is each trilogy telling, what jawdropping moment on the calibre of of LOTR/Matrix/ROTS movie-climax are we building to? What journey is each character taking every single movie? The coming of age/responsibilty story is nice, and with religous freedom you can pull out a great single movie out of that. Perhaps drawing on all of the Thor comics and some Norse Mythology we can put together a set of compelling character arcs that Thor endures while building up to Ragnarok in "Thor 3." But to push the franchise beyond that is... well... pushing it. Thor 4 might ride the wave, but you end up with Thor 5 where everyone says 'why didn't they just let it die."

I think there are far more stories than that to tell and as you rightly opine, the religious freedom thing was merely one. I have all the others with the subtext ranging from things like the Environment and Racism to Evolution or the War on Iraq and even Terrorism.

Or alternately you save Ragnarok for the second trilogy, which gives the first trilogy an arbitrary epic battle where everything is NOT on the line, letting the audience feel cheated like it wasn't a real trilogy, like their time has been wasted and they've watch 9 hours of thor fight for something he wants instead of the survival of his species.

The great thing about Thor is that Ragnarok is not the only 'epic' in his arsenal.

Personally I would actually show Ragnarok at the start of the third movie in 'flashback' (Prophecy) format. That would be my opening sequence.

I think you can get away with one bait and switch Ragnarok, but not twice. So I would only use that 'trick' once.

The first trilogy would be used to explain the Norse Gods. The second trilogy would be used to explain other Pantheons (including Herc). While the third trilogy could start to introduce alien cultures (including Beta Ray Bill) and races as well as some sci-fi elements.

OR you could decompress the storytelling and trag a trilogy out into a trilogy of trilogies with lots of filler villains, that are great, but don't actually lead directly to the conclusion... like you were making a TV series, you decompress and scatter the meaningful pieces of the story.

Unlike most other superheroes Thor doesn't need to use 'filler' villains.

OR you take Thor's best villains, best stories and make 1-3 great movies and call it a day.

I can outline 9 great movies, and thats only using characters from the first 300 or so issues of Thor (Thor has over 500 issues).

My arguement is not that Thor does not have a good rogue's gallery, nor is it that he cannot have four villains in a movie. My statement is that the former is not unique to Thor and that the latter is not a strength of a movie franchise.

The former is half the battle with any superhero movie.

The strengths of the latter outweigh the weaknesses. 4 villains means you cover every criteria, you'll have something for everyone. You can have big monsters, more to interest a younger audience (can you say 'toys'). A bigger spectacle, more visually entertaining foes.

Yet for all that you can still have one major villain of the movie. Four villains does not mean four equal partners like Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler from the 60's Batman tv movie. It means each villain fulfilling a different role.

No you have not. You have seen them choose to reuse villains (in a restart mind you) and then decided to assume that they were forced to do so, not based on any information, but simply to prove/feel you are right. You haven't "seen" anything like this and you're now making up info to prove your point.

No one is saying they were forced to reuse Luthor or the Joker, but the simple fact of the matter is that they did. So that tells you something about how the Rogues Gallery is perceived.

You don't have to do that with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man, and yet for a bajillion reasons, most lying in concepts of storytelling, villains get reused.

(Well, we already used Sauron, better get a new villain for Two Towers).

Unfair appraisal. Lord of the Rings is the one story told in 3 parts. Its not 3 different, standalone movies.

I would have each Thor movie as a standalone piece, but each 'trilogy' would have a theme and a side-plot running in the background which is brought to the fore in the third movie.

This attitude relies on the assumption that Thor doesn't have 9 great movies in him. Such a conclusion seems to rest on the idea that a large rogue's gallery is simply not enough to carry a franchise, nor should it be.

Not at all. But I think the Villains in such a movie are as important as the hero. Getting the external threat right is half the battle to making it a success. At no point did I ever say I was ignoring the internal conflicts or even the story subtext. All of which I have accounted for. However, I don't think people on these forums are that keen to read essay length appraisals - hence the reason I would generally outline these things quickly using the villains.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You're welcome.

 

[kamaldhamal2007]

I say make it a PERIOD PIECE a good 2.5-3 hour long epic movie becasue i feel in this day and age general public won't except a comic book movie where the central character is some mythological guy.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello eros!

I thor movie Imo would be silly, and make a complete mockery out of Norse mythology,

I disagree, I believe it would be a fitting tribute.

the critics will proabbly be disgusted.

Well I'm disgusted with Superman Returns and somebody gave that movie a greenlight to get made.

A god being a superhero works in comics, but you can't have crap like done in a movie.

What logic is your opinion based upon?

maybe if they go with the Ulitimate version of Thor.

That would be a vast mistake, though I did like a few of the ideas touched upon in the Ultimates.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

Perhaps you should keep up, as no-one ever said that Thor should not have his own movie.

You have consistently argued the point that because the character is currently less well known than other characters who have already had their movies, he is somehow less deserving.

Yeah, it would be a shame to only use him once...

I am fine with using Loki (or Lex Luthor for that matter) more than once in a movie provided they are not used as the key villain.

And lots of posters in the discussion so far came to these boards before you. Your point being... ?

I was just pre-empting any suggestions Loki may be a rip off.

Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Venom, Rhino, Kingpin, Scorpion, Man-Wolf, Morbius, Vulture, Sand-Man, Hydro-Man, Carnage...

Lets have a look at which can carry a movie:

- Green Goblin: Yes, fulfills all 4 main criteria.
- Doc Ock: Yes
- Venom: No (Cannot carry a movie on his own because he does not fill the schemer role)
- Rhino: No
- Kingpin: No - and is not a great Spidey villain either, works much better for Daredevil.
- Scorpion: No
- Man Wolf: No
- Morbius: Hard to say.
- Vulture: No
- Sandman: No
- Hydroman: No

I'll add a few others:

- Carnage: No
- Chameleon: No
- Kraven: No
- Mysterio: No
- Lizard: Tricky to judge, personally I would say no though.
- Electro: No

Once you get past Green Goblin and Doc Ock, therer are not that many spidey villains who can carry a movie on their own. Which means what you need to do is pair them up.

For instance:

Spidey 4: Lizard and Kraven
Spidey 5: Mysterio and Chameleon
Spidey 6: Sinister Six (too good an opportunity to miss), new to the big screen would be Electro and Vulture (as well as one villain returning from each of the previous 4 movies)
Spidey 7: Scorpion and Carnage (perhaps in the third act Scorpion is affected by the Venom symbiote)

At this point nothing really obvious springs to mind. I love the character Hydroman, but he can't work on his own. The ideal partner would be Sandman, but we have already used Sandman twice by this point.

I really don't see Morbius or Man-Wolf working individually, but perhaps together...?

I like Rhino, but I am sure everyone can see he can only be used as a mere henchman.

Spidey 8: Morbius & Man-Wolf?
Spidey 9: Hydroman & Rhino?

obviously those over in the Spider-Man forum are a bit dim, then.

Or maybe they have just thought things through a bit more than you have.

To you. And to me, Thor would struggle with 3.

Thats because you know nothing of Thor. Whereas I am well versed in Thor, Batman, Spiderman and Superman.

Personally I wouldn't have an opinion on perhaps how a Green Lantern movie, or movies might fare, because I am not that familiar with the character. You seem to have the same ignorance of Thor but still believe yourself qualified to offer some sort of intelligent insights on the matter. To that end you are clearly deluding yourself.

However, I do enjoy answering a skeptics questions. So from that perspective your posts are not without their uses.

Penguin could carry a movie, as long as you did not turn him into a sewer dwelling monster, but instead made buisiness-like with ties to the mob.

Penguin cannot carry a movie on his own and never will. He is no physical threat, he cannot fight Batman. Therefore he does not cover all the required criteria.

Even in Batman Returns, the key fight in the movie is between Batman and Catwoman.

LOL!

Yet you have still to invalidate the idea of 9 Thor movies with any objective argument.

Have you seen Eragon yet?

No. By all accounts its somewhat derivative, and in the few clips I have seen some of the (over-)acting (in particular Robert Carlisle) seems tongue-in-cheek.

The difficulty with fantasy is that to make it believable you have to make it more serious in tone. Hence the reason Lord of the Rings (and Dragonslayer) works while others, like Dungeons & Dragons fail miserably.

Granted, but after 9 movies, each cramming in 4 villians, I think audiences would tire rather quickly of it.

A double misconception on your part.

Firstly we are not 'cramming' villains into the movie. Rather these villains fulfill different roles.

Secondly, I fail to see how audiences will tire of 'variety' quicker than they will tire of the same old villains trotted out again and again (ie. Lex Luthor) rehashing the same plots even!

Are you saying that Thor does? Oh sure, it employs Norse mythology, but not necassarily religion as we know it in Western culture. Unless you're Swedish.

What I am saying is that Thor provides scope for some unique sub-texts.

Ah, so that's it... you rile up Superman fans in order to detract from your subjective views.

You misunderstand. I AM a Superman fan. I'm just not a Singerman fan.

You keep hammering this point home as though we aren't aware of it. What we are questioning is if a book that is routinely cancelled,

I admire your ignorance. Is twice in 43 years routine to you? Even though the 'cancellations' were simply intended as story devices to further fuel the relaunches. The recent delay simply being because Neil Gaiman had prior work commitments and couldn't take over as initially planned.

You are aware that 96% of 'blockbusters' are crap, right?

They are not crap simply because they are 'blockbusters'. They are crap because they are crap. For myriad reasons like the ill-judged hubris from the creative team behind the failure that is Superman Returns.

Incidently did you read the latest Joe Fridays column at Newsarama (?) where he slags off Superman Returns.

Nah, the humour will come from a made-up human character who witnesses Thor's antics. Mark my words.

I have marked them...you got a D+.

Just in time to get cancelled again.

I wonder which does more damage, a crap movie like Superman Returns, or no movie at all...?

But it does mean that he, and his band of cronies, are not strong enough to sustain a successful comic run.

Only for 43 years and counting.

Thor Returns: August 2007

You could, but anyone outside of a die hard Thor fan, would not listen.

Exactly, so I would be preaching to the deaf...and dumb. Therefore better just to educate you point by point rather than diatribe.

So where's the human element? Y'know, to make us care what's happening other than seeing some no-name extras getting in the way?

Clearly thy ignorance of Thor is truly boundless. t:

His alter-ego, Dr. Donald Blake covers all this. I outlined all this in my Thor movie synopsis so, choose not to read it (as you attest in the previous point), thats fair enough but don't try and make assertions without the benefit of facts to back yourself up.

No, one of the reasons Superman failed was that it did not utilise the dichotomy of brains over brawn to it's maximum potential. That, and they gave Superman a kid.

I disagree. Although I do agree the whole Lex plot was stupid and thus made Lex seem stupid. Which, oddly enough he doesn't seem in Smallville - go figure.

Superman failed to tick all the right boxes, and compounded the misery by making the internal conflicts of this melodrama far outweigh the external.

Harry is there as a by product of the first two films. Venom could carry a movie just as easily as the Green Goblin, if not more so. Just because we are not seeing this in Spider-Man 3 does not make it not possible.

Well I am not saying its not possible, simply that it wouldn't be very successful. I mean I don't think they should have had Lex as the sole villain of Superman Returns, because he doesn't fulfill all the criteria either - and look how that turned out. t:

Venom and Sandman are almost exclusively physical challengers. You still need someone to fulfill the schemer role, which, going by the trailer to Spidey 3, does appear to be Harry.

LOL! Alan Rickman portayed one of the greatest screen villians dressed in a nice suit in Die Hard. I wouldn't discount any potential villians credibility based on whether or not they are wearing green and yellow armour and a silly hat.

False logic. John McClane is not a super-hero, therefore he doesn't need a super-villain to showcase his talents.

Actually, it did. There is a sequel being penned as speak.

Oh they are making a sequel (primarily to save face) but Superman Returns made no profits at the box office. It may start making money at some point from dvd sales. But they were many millions down from the box office.

However, we can take some hope from the fact that Warner Bros will listen to the box office and criticism and try to curb as much of Singer's hubris for the sequel.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Katsuro!

Wow, when this guy first said he wanted 9 Thor movies I really thought he was joking. I mean, 9 movies!?! Has any franchise other than cheesy 80s/90's horror films made it to 9? Oh, and Bond, but those movies are all the same and quite boring (though I haven't seen Casino Royale yet).

I fail to see how you justify your stance on the Bond movies considering they have been a success for over 40 years.

As for other franchises, for better or worse both Batman and Superman seem set to reach at least 7 each within the next few years. Who is to say we won't see more after that?

Given that I am talking about 9 movies over the course of a 30 year period I fail to see why people are so shocked. Its not like I am suggesting we fork out the cash for 9 movies before we test the market with one first. I am just saying you can easily make 9 Thor movies and still keep things fresh, unlike Superman Returns.

I like Thor plenty, but be freakin' realistic. What the hell are you gonna do for 9 movies?

Well how in depth do you want it explained. t:

It doesn't matter how many villains you have, if they just keep coming up with generic plots and the character never goes anywhere. 4 new villains appear, plot to do evil things, big splosions, Thor wins, movie ends. You really wanna see that 9 times?!?! Where would the story actually go? What would be the point of it? Movies need more than epic battles with swords and magic. They need character development. They need emotional depth. After 9 films, you're gonna run out of all of that.

I disagree. As I have been trying to say, I have studied the matter at length. The character has strength and depth not just with external threats and villains but also with internal issues.

Also the obvious point that no actor is going to stick around for 9 films.

Agreed. I think at best you will get a trilogy from the one actor.

Which is why I suggest leaving Thor to cool from peoples minds and recast about 6 years later.

9 films, each of them 3, maybe sometimes 2 years about, you're looking at well over 20 years.

30 years as I see it:

2010, 2013, 2016
2022, 2025, 2028
2034, 2037, 2040

Dude, stop kidding yourself. You're delusional if you think anyone would come even close to being excited about Thor 9.

Weird considering people are excited about Batman 6 (myself included) and that movie is recycling a villain we have already seen.

If the movies are entertaining and interesting enough I think people would be excited about them. Simple as that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello!

I say make it a PERIOD PIECE a good 2.5-3 hour long epic movie becasue i feel in this day and age general public won't except a comic book movie where the central character is some mythological guy.

I think making Thor a period piece (by which I assume you mean set in Asgard?) is a bad idea and a waste of the license.

Firstly, what makes Thor unique is that he is a god amongst me. If you set it in Asgard, then he is just a god amongst gods. When everyone has super-strength/powers it makes people with them less special.

Secondly, those superhero movies that stray too far from the comics always end up the worse for it.

Also, if you use Thor without Donald Blake, then there is no "crutch" (no pun intended) for the character. Why should we sympathise with a character like Thor, he has no flaws without Blake. If you make him arrogant and hot-headed (which preceeded his initial banishment to Earth) then you are casting Thor as the villain.

As regards the length of the movie. I really think that 2.5 to 3 hours is really pushing things too far. Personally I think maybe 130 minutes should be the limit.

As much as I admire the Lord of the Rings trilogy, those movies border on a chore to watch simply because of their running time. King Kong likewise suffered the same and I don't need to tell people here that Superman Returns long outstayed its welcome!

 

[Fried Gold]

You have consistently argued the point that because the character is currently less well known than other characters who have already had their movies, he is somehow less deserving.

Again, at no point did I did I say that Thor was not deserving. I merely stated that greenlighting more than 1 movie would be financially risky.

I am fine with using Loki (or Lex Luthor for that matter) more than once in a movie provided they are not used as the key villain.

I find the idea that you would disregard the use of a villain in either primary or supporting roles based purely on if they had been used before to extraordinarily narrow-minded. A good writer, an inventive story teller, could use the same villain 15 times and still produce good stories.

I was just pre-empting any suggestions Loki may be a rip off.

My post was merely raising the point that he is not unique. Stop being so insecure.

Lets have a look at which can carry a movie:

- Green Goblin: Yes, fulfills all 4 main criteria.

The criteria that you made up...

- Doc Ock: Yes

LOL We know this because it happened.

- Venom: No (Cannot carry a movie on his own because he does not fill the schemer role)

Error. You forget that you can use Venom and Eddie Brock. Eddie does a pretty good job of messing things up domestically for Pete.

- Rhino: No

Possibly, but you never know.

- Kingpin: No - and is not a great Spidey villain either, works much better for Daredevil.

Because you saw him in Daredevil...

- Scorpion: No
- Man Wolf: No
- Morbius: Hard to say.
- Vulture: No
- Sandman: No
- Hydroman: No

So to sum up, unless it's already happened, you dismiss the idea.

I'll add a few others:

- Carnage: No
- Chameleon: No
- Kraven: No
- Mysterio: No
- Lizard: Tricky to judge, personally I would say no though.
- Electro: No

I rest my case.

Once you get past Green Goblin and Doc Ock, therer are not that many spidey villains who can carry a movie on their own. Which means what you need to do is pair them up.

For instance:

Spidey 4: Lizard and Kraven
Spidey 5: Mysterio and Chameleon
Spidey 6: Sinister Six (too good an opportunity to miss), new to the big screen would be Electro and Vulture (as well as one villain returning from each of the previous 4 movies)
Spidey 7: Scorpion and Carnage (perhaps in the third act Scorpion is affected by the Venom symbiote)

At this point nothing really obvious springs to mind. I love the character Hydroman, but he can't work on his own. The ideal partner would be Sandman, but we have already used Sandman twice by this point.

I really don't see Morbius or Man-Wolf working individually, but perhaps together...?

I like Rhino, but I am sure everyone can see he can only be used as a mere henchman.

Spidey 8: Morbius & Man-Wolf?
Spidey 9: Hydroman & Rhino?

Shall we put nipples on the Spidey suit as well?

Or maybe they have just thought things through a bit more than you have.

Not really. I'm not even a massive Spidey fan, but with the knowledge I have gained from over a decade of reading Spidey stories, I can at least see the potential.

Thats because you know nothing of Thor. Whereas I am well versed in Thor, Batman, Spiderman and Superman.

Obviously not that well versed if you believe that Thor has a better rogues gallery than Spidey or Batman.

Personally I wouldn't have an opinion on perhaps how a Green Lantern movie, or movies might fare, because I am not that familiar with the character. You seem to have the same ignorance of Thor but still believe yourself qualified to offer some sort of intelligent insights on the matter. To that end you are clearly deluding yourself.

Intelligence is more than what you read in a comic book. It's about understanding the market, being realistic, and making qualified judgements bin regards to the idea in hand. In this case, the idea that 9 Thor movies should be made without the benefit of a stand alone movie to test the waters first. An idea that I find ridiculous.

However, I do enjoy answering a skeptics questions. So from that perspective your posts are not without their uses.

Except that you haven't really answered anything. Your posts are basically "THOR Is DA BEZT!!!1!! HE sHUD HAV 575675 FILMS!!!1!1"

Penguin cannot carry a movie on his own and never will. He is no physical threat, he cannot fight Batman. Therefore he does not cover all the required criteria.

Oh right, yeah, Batman Returns happened so naturally you dismiss the notion.

Even in Batman Returns, the key fight in the movie is between Batman and Catwoman.

I know. I saw it with my own eyes.

Yet you have still to invalidate the idea of 9 Thor movies with any objective argument.

I have, but you choose to pay no attention as clearly evidenced in the first sentence of this post.

No. By all accounts its somewhat derivative, and in the few clips I have seen some of the (over-)acting (in particular Robert Carlisle) seems tongue-in-cheek.

Right up your alley, then.

The difficulty with fantasy is that to make it believable you have to make it more serious in tone. Hence the reason Lord of the Rings (and Dragonslayer) works while others, like Dungeons & Dragons fail miserably.

Dude, Dragonslayer was awful. If anything, Thor should be more like Conan or Sinbad.

A double misconception on your part.

Firstly we are not 'cramming' villains into the movie. Rather these villains fulfill different roles.

Roles that did not exist until you made up your check list that you seem to live by.

Secondly, I fail to see how audiences will tire of 'variety' quicker than they will tire of the same old villains trotted out again and again (ie. Lex Luthor) rehashing the same plots even!

4 villians in each movie would be a rehash. It would be a rehash of using multiple villains. Are they trying to kill Thor? Gosh! How exciting.

What I am saying is that Thor provides scope for some unique sub-texts.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about religious subtext and not unique subtext. If this is the case, then why did you dimiss my intial response that the Hulk could provide equally interesting material?

You misunderstand. I AM a Superman fan. I'm just not a Singerman fan.

I'm a film fan.

I admire your ignorance. Is twice in 43 years routine to you? Even though the 'cancellations' were simply intended as story devices to further fuel the relaunches. The recent delay simply being because Neil Gaiman had prior work commitments and couldn't take over as initially planned.

Fair enough, I thought it was more than that.

They are not crap simply because they are 'blockbusters'. They are crap because they are crap. For myriad reasons like the ill-judged hubris from the creative team behind the failure that is Superman Returns.

Incidently did you read the latest Joe Fridays column at Newsarama (?) where he slags off Superman Returns.

Slagging off Superman Returns is so last summer.

I wonder which does more damage, a crap movie like Superman Returns, or no movie at all...?

Again, with the Returns bashing. There really is no need.

Only for 43 years and counting.

Thor Returns: August 2007

I look forward to it.

Exactly, so I would be preaching to the deaf...and dumb. Therefore better just to educate you point by point rather than diatribe.

As oppsed to your tirades? Nah, I think I'll carry on.

Clearly thy ignorance of Thor is truly boundless. t:

His alter-ego, Dr. Donald Blake covers all this. I outlined all this in my Thor movie synopsis so, choose not to read it (as you attest in the previous point), thats fair enough but don't try and make assertions without the benefit of facts to back yourself up.

Didn't they abandon the Donald Blake idea years ago? Also, Blake doesn't really cover the human interest angle, as once Thor is there Blake is gone, and so are the audiences eyes.

Irrelevant Superman Returns bashine

Oh please change the record.

Venom and Sandman are almost exclusively physical challengers. You still need someone to fulfill the schemer role, which, going by the trailer to Spidey 3, does appear to be Harry.

No, you need someone to fill the schemer role.

False logic. John McClane is not a super-hero, therefore he doesn't need a super-villain to showcase his talents.

But they could've easily had Hans in an outrageous outfit, but they did not. I'll say it again as you seem to keep on missing it; The villain does not need to be visiually interesting, nor do they need to fill your imaginary criteria to be successful. The villain is dependant on good writing, character design, wardrobe etc and not your egotistical little check-list that only you know about.

More irrelevent Superman Returns bashing

*Yawn*

 

[chiefchirpa]

I can make a suggestion of having the Thor movie like Hellboy. A museum curator or Dr. Blake who never know he has God powers until a powerful Norse heirloom (Mjolnir) comes to town and break his amnesia. The Mjolnir is actually sent by Loki to fool the newly-awakened Thor in helping his own scheme.

I dispute the notion that a comic character has to be famous for a good or succesful movie. As an example, I didn't know anything about Hellboy. I watched and enjoyed the movie. The same thing can be said with Blade and Daredevil.


As for having 9 Thor movies, that's really pushing it. Let me count the ways:
1. Movies have actors, directors, producers, and so on - their interests to be or make Thor movies would not keep up after 2-3 movies.
2. Quality cannot be maintained of the same level if the above happens. As a result a there will be a progression of lower quality Thor movies.
3. Actors age, don't they? Directors bored, don't they?
4. Thor is not Marvel's top dog. Marvel execs would better be making 9 Spidey movie than Thor. Or better yet, explore other franchises to make them famous and help their comics.
5. Critics would almost certainly pan long running series. What's this, Freddy Kruger? It's a movie for god sake, not comic books or TV series.
6. 2040? Do you still have interest on comic movies. Heck, are you still alive by then?

Finally, never equate Thor with Batman. Batman is the comic book character with the most media expose', beating both Superman and Spider-Man. Batman has the most TV series (counting cartoons) and big budget movies than any other characters. Perhaps it's because Batman is a dark character, full of techno-gizmos and wear a cool cape. He's both Bond and Holmes incarnates. All these stuff make Batman #1 or at least in the top 5 in terms of media marketability.

And there's no such thing as Batman 6. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is disconnected from the other 4. It's a different rendition of the story of Batman with a different director and such. If you couldn't tell the difference, might I suggesting asking the guys at the Batman Hype?