THOR gets ANOTHER new date: May 6, 2011

[FaT_tONle]

All these movies have polarizing leads... something Thor does not have. I mean you look at Hemsworth, is he really going to be as entertaining or as comedic as a Shia, RDJ, Depp? I don't trust him in that department. I don't know if Thor has the entertainment value you look for in a summer popcorn, certainly not by the way they have casted thus far. I don't think it warrants a 150 million dollar budget either. At some point you need to cut back and have realistic expectations based on the direction you are taking the film.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I thought Branagh was bringing the budget down anyway, hence the rewrites and unknowns. And I don't really know what Hemsworth is capable of, since all I've seen of him is his little cameo in Star Trek. If Branagh was as impressed as he says he was by Hemsworth's audition, though, I figure he's probably got something going for him. Shia, RDJ, and Depp weren't always Shia, RDJ, and Depp, either.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

All these movies have polarizing leads... something Thor does not have. I mean you look at Hemsworth, is he really going to be as entertaining or as comedic as a Shia, RDJ, Depp? I don't trust him in that department. I don't know if Thor has the entertainment value you look for in a summer popcorn, certainly not by the way they have casted thus far. I don't think it warrants a 150 million dollar budget either. At some point you need to cut back and have realistic expectations based on the direction you are taking the film.

The whole premise of Thor and his universe is entertaining. To A LOT of people I'd imagine.

They should market it like the Marvel version of LOTR. Whether the lead is a mega star shouldn't really matter too much.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I thought Branagh was bringing the budget down anyway, hence the rewrites and unknowns. And I don't really know what Hemsworth is capable of, since all I've seen of him is his little cameo in Star Trek. If Branagh was as impressed as he says he was by Hemsworth's audition, though, I figure he's probably got something going for him. Shia, RDJ, and Depp weren't always Shia, RDJ, and Depp, either.

Exactly.

Plus seeing who is involved, Thor has a much better chance of being an actual GOOD movie than the likes of Transformers 3.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, we're all just speculating and there's almost 2 years between now and the film's release. Lots can change. I don't really see the point of constantly wringing your hands about it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

No it doesn't.

But when Thor is getting good reviews and TF3 is getting it's inevitable crap reviews people will sit up and take notice. ie Star Trek.

It's all about how they market it. There is a big demographic out there for the whole mythical, swords and sandals type movies, and there hasn't been a good one in ages. Add to that fans of comic book movies and there is a big market for a film like Thor. And then if it is marketed well, garners good reviews, it ain't all doom and gloom.

You put too much emphasis on star power. Which undoubtedly makes a big mark, but isn't the be all end all of a movies success.

 

[TheVileOne]

Transformers and transformers 2 got horrible reviews and they still made a ton of money. The movies are critic proof.

Star Trek got great reviews and all, but I mean . . . its still Star Trek.

Anyway, we'll see. Should be interesting.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Being a good movie does not gaurantee success. I just see no hope for the film, from a financial standpoint, in it's current slot. It will be lucky to do Narnia 2 domestic numbers.

So?

Of course it's unlikely Thor is going to break box office records, but that's Marvel's problem, not ours. The movie doing financially would be great, of course, but all I'm looking for is a film that's well-recieved by fans and critics alike, and is good enough to help raise Thor's profile in the comics.

I think Corp put it best - it's pointless wringing your hands over ifs and maybes. Wouldn't it be more productive to anticipate Thor and The Avengers - two Thor adventures on film we know we're getting - rather than constantly fretting over the likelihood of a hypothetical Thor 2 in 2015?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Amen. I think pretty much every big Thor fan who's had to put up with Marvel's shabby treatment of the character for years or decades knows that we're lucky to even be getting those two movies. A sequel is a hard sell unless Thor absolutely shatters its box office expectations, so I'm just basking in the awesomeness of Thor and The Avengers for the time being.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think a lot of fans miss the point a little.

I remember when I was younger, first reading comics, I never even thought about the possibility of my favourite comic book characters starring in their own movies.

Now they are, I'm grateful for it. And so should everyone else. As long as we get the film we want, who cares about how much money it makes some suits in Hollywood?

 

[FaT_tONle]

No it doesn't.

But when Thor is getting good reviews and TF3 is getting it's inevitable crap reviews people will sit up and take notice. ie Star Trek.

It's all about how they market it. There is a big demographic out there for the whole mythical, swords and sandals type movies, and there hasn't been a good one in ages. Add to that fans of comic book movies and there is a big market for a film like Thor. And then if it is marketed well, garners good reviews, it ain't all doom and gloom.

You put too much emphasis on star power. Which undoubtedly makes a big mark, but isn't the be all end all of a movies success.

Not really... LOTR was the exception... not the norm.

So?

Of course it's unlikely Thor is going to break box office records, but that's Marvel's problem, not ours. The movie doing financially would be great, of course, but all I'm looking for is a film that's well-recieved by fans and critics alike, and is good enough to help raise Thor's profile in the comics.

I think Corp put it best - it's pointless wringing your hands over ifs and maybes. Wouldn't it be more productive to anticipate Thor and The Avengers - two Thor adventures on film we know we're getting - rather than constantly fretting over the likelihood of a hypothetical Thor 2 in 2015?

Again, if you guys don't care about getting sequels and having a greater potential for more second/third tier Marvel films then I can't really argue with you. I guess Marvel would be better off selling all their non-money makers for other studios to rape if that's the case.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

What do you mean not really? Films like Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and co made good money. People love those sorta films. Those sorta film are the ORIGINAL fantasy films.

 

[Chewy]

Fat_tonie how can you not see that it is an endless cycle? Before Pirates Depp wasn't a draw for general audiences, people would say "He's no Will Smith". Before Transformers, people said "Shia's no Depp". Before Iron Man, people said "RDJ's no Shia". How many examples of summer tentpoles starring leads who weren't considered "draws" beforehand do we need to see before we realize that the lead being a name isn't everything. it's how the film is marketed, the buzz surrounding the film, etc. There's no real way to judge that ahead of time, and going through this same tired discussion every few weeks won't change it either way.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Again, if you guys don't care about getting sequels and having a greater potential for more second/third tier Marvel films then I can't really argue with you. I guess Marvel would be better off selling all their non-money makers for other studios to rape if that's the case.

It's not that we don't care about getting sequels. Of course Thor 2 would be lovely. But I want to enjoy Thor 1 first. And I think it's just a bit tiresome when you're constantly just writing off Thor as a failure when it's 2 years away.

It's just that you seem so utterly defeatist about the whole thing. Like every one of your posts should be accompanied with a big "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT..." sound effect. Rather than looking at the negative angle on everything - "Oh no, Thor is out in Summer 2011 amidst lots of other big films, its going to get lost in the shuffle, it's going to bomb" - why not look at it as Marvel having faith that they have a film worthy of a big summer slot, and that putting the film in the season where everyone flocks to the multiplex week after week could actually be a GOOD thing for business? You act like being a couple of weeks after Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a death sentence, but surely a well-placed Thor trailer at the front of POTC4 can be a big boost to the film.

 

[FaT_tONle]

What do you mean not really? Films like Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and co made good money. People love those sorta films. Those sorta film are the ORIGINAL fantasy films.

Those are considered fantasy films???

Fat_tonie how can you not see that it is an endless cycle? Before Pirates Depp wasn't a draw for general audiences, people would say "He's no Will Smith". Before Transformers, people said "Shia's no Depp". Before Iron Man, people said "RDJ's no Shia". How many examples of summer tentpoles starring leads who weren't considered "draws" beforehand do we need to see before we realize that the lead being a name isn't everything. it's how the film is marketed, the buzz surrounding the film, etc. There's no real way to judge that ahead of time, and going through this same tired discussion every few weeks won't change it either way.

If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Those are considered fantasy films???

Well you know what I mean, swords and sandals epics. Same thing.

If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

You're still not getting past the fact that the lead doesn't necessarily make or break a film. It's a big important part of it, obviously, but not the be all end all.

So what you are basically saying is, the lead role should be given to the big name, rather than the actual best choice for the role?

 

[Chewy]

Ok, then let's look at the leads in other recent successful summer blockbusters. Chris Pine. Tobey Maguire. Hugh Jackman. None of them were anything before their respective films.

 

[Keyser Soze]

If we are looking at those three guys... then certainly you'd agree that two of those guys were "A" listers at one point in time while we were still in grade school. Not debatable. As for Shia, you look at his body of work, he is a guy that had been a lead, a guy that had obviously been around the block as a premiere teenage actor for a 4-5 year period. I, Robot, Constantine, Holes, Disturbia, and plenty else. All major motion pictures as a lead or a supporting role. You look at Hemsworth, I am guessing some TV and five minutes in Star Trek. The guy doesn't even come close to Shia in terms of popularity pre-Transformers.

Yeah, good point, without a big star leading the film Thor has no chance. If only District 9 has a star-studded cast, it wouldn't have been a box office failure, and might have topped the box office for a whileHEYWAITAMINUTE!

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah, good point, without a big star leading the film Thor has no chance. If only District 9 has a star-studded cast, it wouldn't have been a box office failure, and might have topped the box office for a whileHEYWAITAMINUTE!

I am not saying you need an A-lister all the time as the lead.. . We are comparing franchises so likewise I am comparing leads pre-blockbuster. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion and give Hemsworth the benefit of the doubt and automatically say he's the next Depp or Jackman. We just don't know that yet. He COULD be, but for that to happen you need a breakout hit. Even guys like Pine and Maguire, outside those respective franchises, I don't think they have any name power. Maybe that will change with Pine, but outside of Spiderman does Tobey cast in a film really get anyone excited? Not that that matters... point being you at least need that break out hit.

 

[Webhead2006]

totally is all about the marketing, promotions, buzz on the film.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I am not saying you need an A-lister all the time as the lead.. . We are comparing franchises so likewise I am comparing leads pre-blockbuster. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion and give Hemsworth the benefit of the doubt and automatically say he's the next Depp or Jackman. We just don't know that yet. He COULD be, but for that to happen you need a breakout hit. Even guys like Pine and Maguire, outside those respective franchises, I don't think they have any name power. Maybe that will change with Pine, but outside of Spiderman does Tobey cast in a film really get anyone excited? Not that that matters... point being you at least need that break out hit.

I don't know, certain people being in a movie doesn't really get me excited in the first place. I tend to look at what the movie's about before anything else. The actors in it are just icing on the cake once I've already decided I'm interested in the film's story or concept. Although, I know that's the exception, not the norm.

 

[TheVileOne]

Tobey Maguire was a critically acclaimed actor and also had was in a prolific hit that was Pleasantville. He was known, but Spider-man made him a star.

 

[blamerandy]

Yeah and then he was in Seabiscuit and...Spiderman 2 and 3... I cant think of anything else... but he's a major superstar

 

[Spider-Vader]

The Hulk's a much more popular character than Thor. I'm a huge Thor fan, but I'm also realistic. Thor's basically the redheaded stepchild of Marvel's major character list. I really don't expect to ever see Thor on the big screen again after his movie and Avengers. I'm just counting my blessings we're getting those two movies made.

Well, there's always the chance that Thor is a hit then Disney/Paramount would want to get sequels out.

I wish TF3 and POTC4 would just **** off.

Me too. Why are Disney & Paramount doing this? They'll already be getting alot from Thor & Cap (hopefully). Maybe if they release Transformers in late June again & push POTC4 (which will bomb without Depp, if he's not in it Disney shouldn't even try) to 2012. That gives Cap & Thor some time to breath.

Disney & Paramount have to think rationally. It'll change again, hopefully it'll be better for us comic fans.