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

[Eros]

whoever syaing Thor needs 9 movies is on cocaine.

 

[Fried Gold]

*snip*

Those of us on planet earth agree with you.

 

[The Punisher]

Thor should just have 3 movies.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi F G dude!

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.

Ah...I agree, which is why I would only greenlight one (at a time), but that doesn't mean we couldn't plan ahead.

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.

Well it depends on a number of factors.

Firstly, does the hero have any other interesting villains to use, if so, wouldn't it be better to see something new onscreen.

Secondly, do you have a totally fresh reason for including that villain a second time? What do you mean land deal?

A good writer, an inventive story teller, could use the same villain 15 times and still produce good stories.

Of course they could, but what makes a good story and what makes a good blockbuster movie are two different things.

The criteria that you made up...

Then debunk it point by point if you can...?

LOL We know this because it happened.

Its not rocket science, its just common sense. You can look at ANY villain and immediately sum them up using the criteria I outlined:

A. Mental Challenge
B. Physical Challenge
C. Humanocentric
D. Visually Interesting

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

For someone to fulfill the role of schemer they need to to be as smart or smarter than the hero. I just don't see Eddie Brock fulfilling that role.

Possibly, but you never know.

Can you honestly say to me that Rhino could carry a (Spider-man) movie all on his own? That is the most ludicrous thing you have said yet!

Because you saw him in Daredevil...

Absolutely and that is a major consideration. I'd be shy about using the Absorbing Man in a Thor movie simply beause he showed up in the Hulk.

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

Not at all. I just think there are very few villains who alone fulfill ALL the criteria.

For instance I think Bane could carry a Batman movie all by himself (although preferably you want to use the Arkham breakout plot because its just magnificent). I think Darkseid could carry a Superman movie by himself (although he brings such great secondary characters you wouldn't want to waste them).

I rest my case.

You have yet to construct a case.

Let me further explain.

- Carnage: No. Like Venom he doesn't fulfill the schemer role and hes not really humanocentric (after the fact), so the audience cannot empathse with him. Lastly if you have already done Venom, then Carnarge loses that element of originality.

- Chameleon: No. Audiences are already familiar with Mystique. Interesting character but I just don't think he would work on his own, I think he'd be great in tandem with Mysterio.

- Kraven: No. Arguably doesn't fit the schemer role, but more to the point is not visually interesting enough to work as the lone villain in a Spider-man move. Great character though.

- Mysterio: No. I would be concerned about the physical threat posed by Mysterio, also you have to wonder about the humanocentric aspect. Though I suppose you could get around the latter by showing him without the fishbowl.

- Lizard: Tricky to judge, personally I would say no though. Lizard sort of fits all the criteria, however, once he transforms we lose that humanocentric quality that is needed for the audience to relate to. Thats why personally I would use Kraven and Lizard together.

- Electro: No. Electro doesn't fit the schemer role. But he does fit all the other criteria.

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.

The knowledge that Rhino could carry a Spider-man movie all by himself.

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

But how can you make such a statement when, by your own admission you don't know anything about Thor?

You can't say Batman has a better Rogues Gallery than Thor if you don't know Thor's Rogues Gallery for goodness sake.

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.

When did I ever say we had to greenlight 9 movies from the start?

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

Have you even been reading my posts? I have replied point to point on everything you posted.

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

I fail to see the point here.

Its very easy to break these movies down into their component parts.

Right up your alley, then.

Well I'd prefer to see it first before criticising it.

Dude, Dragonslayer was awful.

In what way? I never said it was a great movie, but it was certainly inoffensive enough.

If anything, Thor should be more like Conan or Sinbad.

Exactly, the acting needs to be more serious the further divorced from reality the story is.

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

I don't think you have to live by it, but at the same time why ignore common sense.

We have seen what happened when Singer ignored it with Superman Returns.

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.

I fail to see how multiple villains fulfilling different roles is any more of a rehash than single villains?

Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about religious subtext and not unique subtext.

A subtext unique to superhero movies.

If this is the case, then why did you dimiss my intial response that the Hulk could provide equally interesting material?

Simply because I don't think Hulk has any connection to religious subtexts. I never said Hulk doesn't have interesting subtexts of its own.

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

You seemed to enjoy some Thor bashing, whatever keeps you happy I say. Though thanks for the hypocrisy.

I look forward to it.

You and me both then.

Didn't they abandon the Donald Blake idea years ago?

Yes, after the first 20 years though, although by all accounts he is back for the relaunch.

I think Marvel prefer flawed heroes.

Also, Blake doesn't really cover the human interest angle, as once Thor is there Blake is gone, and so are the audiences eyes.

Yes but thats where the 60 second rule comes in.

In effect the 60 second rule is Thor's kryptonite. Which is why hardcore Thor fanboys hate it (and by extension Blake) because they don't want him to have any weaknesses.

No, you need someone to fill the schemer role.

Any movie where the hero is not mentally challenged by the villain simply boils down to a fight.

For example, Doomsday cannot carry a Superman Movie without other supporting villains because he does not fulfill the schemer role (or the humanocentric criteria). Once Superman encounters Doomsday and fights him, thats basically your movie, thats all you have.

But they could've easily had Hans in an outrageous outfit, but they did not.

Surely that would have destroyed the verisimilitude.

I'll say it again as you seem to keep on missing it; The villain does not need to be visiually interesting,

In a superhero movie YES THEY DO!

nor do they need to fill your imaginary criteria to be successful.

I fail to see how common sense is imaginary.

The villain is dependant on good writing, character design, wardrobe etc and not your egotistical little check-list that only you know about.

I think lots of people, such as Sam Raimi for instance, have the common sense to tick all the right boxes.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey chief!

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.

Why deviate from the comics when they set up the origin story perfectly?

I don't understand the need to change the core elements.

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.

Exactly.

As for having 9 Thor movies, that's really pushing it. Let me count the ways:

Fire away.

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.

Totally agree. Which is why I would totally change the cast and crew for every trilogy and have a 6 year gap between each trilogy to have it come back fresher much in the way Nolans movie seems fresh.

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.

I don't see how this is necessary the case. Why can quality not be maintained? Is Nolan's Batman Begins of a lesser quality to Tim Burton's Batman?

3. Actors age, don't they? Directors bored, don't they?

We only require them for 3 movies. Its not a life sentence.

4. Thor is not Marvel's top dog. Marvel execs would better be making 9 Spidey movie than Thor.

Why can't they do both? Why can't they have 3-4 Marvel movies a year, that way you can have 10-12 franchises on the go at any one time.

Or better yet, explore other franchises to make them famous and help their comics.

Again, no reason why they can't do both.

Are you aware of the upcoming Marvel movies in development? They have projects like Ant-man in development. So lesser characters are getting the chance to shine.

5. Critics would almost certainly pan long running series.

As long as the movies are a success, who gives a s*** what the critics think? You can't please all the people all the time.

I'd rather make (and watch) an entertaining movie than a snoozefest a bunch of critics loved.

What's this, Freddy Kruger? It's a movie for god sake, not comic books or TV series.

Tell that to James Bond.

6. 2040? Do you still have interest on comic movies.

I certainly still have an interest in being entertained.

Heck, are you still alive by then?

Fingers crossed.

Finally, never equate Thor with Batman. Batman is the comic book character with the most media expose', beating both Superman and Spider-Man.

I don't think Batman is currently as big as Spider-man, but I would go along with the notion Batman is probably the most identifiable superhero, primarily because hes not really a 'super'hero.

Batman has the most TV series (counting cartoons) and big budget movies than any other characters.

Surely Superman has the most television (animated or otherwise) episodes.

Also Both Batman and Superman have 5 movies each.

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.

I agree.

But Thor still has a better Rogues Gallery.

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?

I'm well aware of the differences between Burton's adaptation, Scumacher's reinvisioning and Nolan's reimagining. But the fact of the matter is that they are all Batman movies.

 

[Duneboy]

If done correctly w/ a strong script, good actors, & a nice $$ budget, I'm sure a trilogy would work. There so many storyline's to work with. Not to mention Thor characters.

 

[Spider-Fan]

They should just make one movie, then a sequel if it sells, and another if it sells, etc. That is what any studio will do. I do not see them going LOTR, and making three Thor movies. They may not close all of Thor's storylines by going movie by movie, but you can't make an expensive trilogy if it isn't going to sell well.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Spider-fan!

They should just make one movie, then a sequel if it sells, and another if it sells, etc. That is what any studio will do. I do not see them going LOTR, and making three Thor movies. They may not close all of Thor's storylines by going movie by movie, but you can't make an expensive trilogy if it isn't going to sell well.

Agreed.

When I say a trilogy of trilogies I still mean that every movie will be self-contained in the same manner that the Spider-man movies are self-contained. Rather than Lord of the Rings where it leaves you hanging.

 

[GL1]

Hey GL1 mate!

Yo. Lets see how short I can keep this...

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

An interesting criteria. I feel that those roles need to be filled in a movie, but I do not feel they all need to be filled by the same character.

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).

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!

What you have failed to say is why that's a problem and I've illustrated why it's not. Furthermore, your inability to concoct 9 superman movies is a search button away from being alleviated.

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.

I do.

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.

I gave my definition, and SM vs Doc doesn't fall under it.

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.

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)

But Ra's IS less visually interesting than he is in comics, illustrating my point which is that comics visual interest is a non-factor. See how my point invalidates yours?

Again, are we talking about execution or the potential of the characters? Cuz if we're talking about what's already been done then Superman has a movie and Thor doesn't: End of Arguement. If we're talking about what these characters have in them, then lets compare comics to comics... I'm not interested in comparing apples to oranges... cuz I like both.

Again, if you're comparing "The Perfect Thor Movie" to Superman Returns, why would I even bother with that arguement?

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.

But I DON'T argue that. I stated that with a single villain we CAN get more indepth treatment than with four, simple logic. My actual point was that having four villains is not necessarily an advantage... it CAN be, it also CAN be a hindrance... it all depends on the STORY, not the number of villains.

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. 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).

It's bad math where the external struggles are half the movie... they are simply the most visually interesting. My statement was that villains cannot carry a movie, you affirm that.

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

It should be easy for you, honestly, as soon as you get over your villain-centrism. Use the search function to see the opinions of others.

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.

What makes the next trilogy fresh? I think that should be my question...

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

But you are saying that Thor's villains are overal vastly superior to Batman, Superman or Spider-Man's. There are villains in each gallery that cannot and should not serve a primary role... that's fine.

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

It's a lack of relative faith. One can have all the faith in the world in Superman's rogues, but if one has all the faith in the universe in Lex Luthor, who are you going to use for a restart.

Also, you keep using the same main character, with the same powers, isn't that unorigional? It's not obviously anything...

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.

What if you did a restart, 30 years later? Would you avoid the use of Loki altogether? Or Loki prequels? Would using Loki be unorigional?

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.

What about the internal conflicts, that come from his relationships with the supporting cast... Spider-Man still having the thing with Mary Jane, or Aragorn's constant hesitance to take the crown?

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.

I was going on the use-all-of-Greek-mythology theory... the one Whedon is going with... are you saying that Thor's rogue's gallery is greater than all of Greco-Roman myth?

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.

By appearances, you didn't read my post which clearly indicated that the villains you feel cannot carry a movie on their own never should. Furthermore, yoy have a great lack of the potential of these characters. You also fail to understand the concept of movie redesign, that their comic appearances has NOTHHING to do with how visually interesting they would be in a movie. Should I continue argueing with you if you ignore my most crucial points?

Argh... gotta finish later.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1!

Yo. Lets see how short I can keep this...

I know what you mean - these debates have a habit of growing exponentially.

An interesting criteria. I feel that those roles need to be filled in a movie, but I do not feel they all need to be filled by the same character.

Never said they did.

I simply stated that some villains cannot carry a movie. Which you seem to agree with.

What you have failed to say is why that's a problem and I've illustrated why it's not. Furthermore, your inability to concoct 9 superman movies is a search button away from being alleviated.

I already listed my thoughts on the problems with concocting 9 Spider-man movies.

Fried Gold already listed some candidates for villains in a Superman movie. Unfortunately most of them barely qualify for supporting villain.

I mean Mxy and Toyman are just jokes.

Mongul is very problematic in that I think we can either use him or Darkseid, but not both (since they are so similar) and if it comes to a choice we have to use Darkseid obviously.

Terraman is just ludicrous (though I could imagine Bryan Singer using him).

Ultraman is less interesting than Cyborg, yet almost identical.

There are virtually no interesting villains beyond the ones I have used.

What you may be able to do is to adapt the Our Worlds At War storyline for movies, but there are just so many elements that would need explaining that it could get really confusing. Its got that 'everything plus the kitchen sink' feel.

But other than that, I think Superman has 6 good movies in him (maybe 7) and thats it...before you have to start recycling material.

I do.

Then by all means crank out a 9 movie run of Batman and/or Superman, because I simply don't see where its coming from.

I gave my definition, and SM vs Doc doesn't fall under it.

My apologies, yes I agree with your definition.

But Ra's IS less visually interesting than he is in comics, illustrating my point which is that comics visual interest is a non-factor. See how my point invalidates yours?

How is he more visually interesting in the comics? I must confess I haven't read every Ra's story but I have seen a few.

Again, are we talking about execution or the potential of the characters? Cuz if we're talking about what's already been done then Superman has a movie and Thor doesn't: End of Arguement. If we're talking about what these characters have in them, then lets compare comics to comics... I'm not interested in comparing apples to oranges... cuz I like both.

Lets say you wanted to use Mxy on the big screen, how would you make him interesting without changing so much of the initial character as to make using the name itself meaningless?

Again, if you're comparing "The Perfect Thor Movie" to Superman Returns, why would I even bother with that arguement?

I thought I was comparing 9 Thor movies to 6 Superman movies.

But I DON'T argue that. I stated that with a single villain we CAN get more indepth treatment than with four, simple logic. My actual point was that having four villains is not necessarily an advantage... it CAN be, it also CAN be a hindrance... it all depends on the STORY, not the number of villains.

Then you agree with me that the flaw in Batman & Robin had nothing to do with multiple villains at all.

It's bad math where the external struggles are half the movie... they are simply the most visually interesting. My statement was that villains cannot carry a movie, you affirm that.

Then we agree on the matter.

It should be easy for you, honestly, as soon as you get over your villain-centrism. Use the search function to see the opinions of others.

I have outlined my own ideas for Spider-man and Superman. Both grind to a halt before we reach a ninth movie as far as I can see.

What makes the next trilogy fresh? I think that should be my question...

Weirdly enough Thor has eras in the comics where the dynamic of the internal conflicts totally changes. So you would probably use Jane Foster in the first trilogy, then use Sif in the second.

I've been thinking about my own ideas for the Thor movies over the past few days and I now wonder if 12 might not be the better way to go.

Trilogy #1: Earthly Trilogy (with Asgardian elements)
Trilogy #2: Asgard Trilogy (with Earthly elements)
Trilogy #3: Mythical Trilogy (with both Earthly and Asgardian Elements)
Trilogy #4: Alien Trilogy (with elements from all the above)

Now there are a few problems with this kind of pidgeonholing, namely in terms of story elements out of continuity making waves and having to cut certain key moments from the comics.

But you are saying that Thor's villains are overal vastly superior to Batman, Superman or Spider-Man's.

Vastly superior to Superman's but not Batman's and Spider-man's.

I think the difference between Batman's, Spider-man's and Thor's villains is not that great. But I'd still have Thor slightly above both in that respect.

There are villains in each gallery that cannot and should not serve a primary role... that's fine.

Exactly.

It's a lack of relative faith. One can have all the faith in the world in Superman's rogues, but if one has all the faith in the universe in Lex Luthor, who are you going to use for a restart.

I would have used Lex Luthor for the restart myself. But I would have used him in tandem with Metallo.

Also, you keep using the same main character, with the same powers, isn't that unorigional? It's not obviously anything...

I think thats why we see Batman use different gadgets and vehicles in different movies to hkeep things seeming fresher.

In Thors case he has so many different powers that there is nearly always going to be something new to show each movie.

What if you did a restart, 30 years later? Would you avoid the use of Loki altogether? Or Loki prequels? Would using Loki be unorigional?

Good question.

Personally I only think you need a restart AFTER you have ballsed up the previous movie.

In the modern era however, I think remakes (or near remakes) are just a waste of time.

I can see a reason for a King Kong remake (bring it into colour and use state of the art CGI). But I don't see a reason for remaking a movie like the Poseidon Adventure. Its just a lack of creativity and imagination.

Similarly I don't see a good reason for basically remaking Superman the Movie.

What about the internal conflicts, that come from his relationships with the supporting cast... Spider-Man still having the thing with Mary Jane, or Aragorn's constant hesitance to take the crown?

I think Thor has enough internal struggles and relationship issues to last the distance.

I was going on the use-all-of-Greek-mythology theory... the one Whedon is going with... are you saying that Thor's rogue's gallery is greater than all of Greco-Roman myth?

Yes, and furthermore I think simply using the mythology without stamping your own unique elements on proceedings will make Wonder Woman seem all the more disconnected since she herself is not intrinsic to that mythology.

By appearances, you didn't read my post which clearly indicated that the villains you feel cannot carry a movie on their own never should.

Then we are in agreement.

Furthermore, yoy have a great lack of the potential of these characters. You also fail to understand the concept of movie redesign, that their comic appearances has NOTHHING to do with how visually interesting they would be in a movie.

How is that any different from creating new villains specifically for the movies?

Is Gus Gorman's supercomputer really Brainiac? Is Nuclear Man really Bizarro?

Should I continue argueing with you if you ignore my most crucial points?

I wasn't aware I had ignored your crucial points.

Argh... gotta finish later.

I know what thats like.

 

[Fried Gold]

Fried Gold already listed some candidates for villains in a Superman movie. Unfortunately most of them barely qualify for supporting villain.

No I didn't.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Happy New Year F G!

No I didn't.

My mistake, it was GL1 who actually made the list of Superman villains.

But I stand by the point I made with regards Superman's Rogues Gallery.

As far as I can see, he has about 6 potentially good movies in him before things start to either (a) get complicated, (b) get recycled or (c) get lame (Toyman etc.).

I did a few quick studies of the X-Men universe and I think you could probably get 9 X-Men movies.

So Thor could have at least 9, Batman and X-Men could probably have 9. Spiderman and Superman get complicated after you do 6 movies.

In the case of Supes, even within the 6 movies I would outline, there are a lot of recurring villains, so its not exactly ideal, but certainly feasible.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Bump. Trilogy for sure.

 

[Spider–Man]

Bump. Trilogy for sure.

Well, reading this and another Thor thread Upper Krust directed me to has certainly shed new light on his Thor obsession! I had no idea! t:

 

[FaT_tONle]

I like the one movie first... and then if its a hit... do the next two back to back... but the first one would have to be a really big block buster... I know it hasn't worked out quite well with POTC and the Matrix... but give it a good year or year and a half between parts 2 and three... same thing should be done for Thor if the first one is a huge block buster... but I don't think it will be another POTC... therefore I'd like to see an Avengers first before Thor sequels... if the first one does a good 400 + million WW... I'd like them to do sequels back to back, but only after Avengers comes out.

 

[odiin]

I like the one movie first... and then if its a hit... do the next two back to back... but the first one would have to be a really big block buster... I know it hasn't worked out quite well with POTC and the Matrix... but give it a good year or year and a half between parts 2 and three... same thing should be done for Thor if the first one is a huge block buster... but I don't think it will be another POTC... therefore I'd like to see an Avengers first before Thor sequels... if the first one does a good 400 + million WW... I'd like them to do sequels back to back, but only after Avengers comes out.

the only logical choice. Logically, the only way we'll know if a trilogy is "financially realistic" is if the first film does well enough to warrant a sequel, and if the second film does well enough to warrant yet another sequel. That should pretty much be common sense.

Never a big fan of shooting movies back to back, maybe it's just me but they always end up feeling the the same movie. I'd rather pay to see a sequel rather than having to pay to see half of a movie and then pay again a year later to see the other half.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I just want one stand alone Thor film, about two and a half hours, a solid stand alone movie.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Just do good, stand alone movies I say.

 

[odiin]

Just do good, stand alone movies I say.

I'm with you. Don't try to force a big trilogy or whatever. If it happens, it happens. Just focus on making one good Thor film, and if people like it and it warrants a sequel, then focus on making ANOTHER good Thor film, and os on and so forth.

 

[Hypestyle]

Trilogy.. trilogy..

 

[Advanced Dark]

I'm with you. Don't try to force a big trilogy or whatever. If it happens, it happens. Just focus on making one good Thor film, and if people like it and it warrants a sequel, then focus on making ANOTHER good Thor film, and os on and so forth.

Thor is a franchise though and it's always better to have a storyline in mind that goes beyond the ending of the 1st film while touching on events prior to the 1st film. Of course each film has to have it's own beginning, middle, and end but you want to end the film setting up something else for the next no matter how subtle. Favreau and company are thinking way ahead with Iron Man with the next 2 films already sketched out.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Thor is a franchise though and it's always better to have a storyline in mind that goes beyond the ending of the 1st film while touching on events prior to the 1st film. Of course each film has to have it's own beginning, middle, and end but you want to end the film setting up something else for the next no matter how subtle. Favreau and company are thinking way ahead with Iron Man with the next 2 films already sketched out.

But it's not very difficult to make a sequel with so much source material, without having to have an arc etc panned out in advance.

Look at Batman for example, it was made as it's own film, sure there waa an almost definate guarantee for the sequel, but it was made as a solid film.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ It's not difficult no but look how X1-X3 meshed together when Bryan Singer screwed Fox and took his writers with him.