Thor: Script Reviews/Discussion

[chiefchirpa]

Ok, very big question AD - are we seeing teen/early 20's Thor in the script? Extra - when does Mjolnir come to play?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Advanced Dark!

It's final 45 minutes or so makes the biggest battles of Lord of the Rings seem bland.

I think a sequel could top this one for sure.

This seems contradictory to me.

If you read the little bit of info in the first post you'll see what happens to Thor. That brief review is correct...so the next one we'd see Thor from the beginning to the end with his powers, and with a major villain from start to finish.

I fail to see how Thor having his powers and a major villain from the start trumps a 45 minute battle which makes Return of the King look like a Sunday School picnic.

This isn't set up as a one film deal. This clearly sets up future movies in several ways.

Knowing a bit about Thor, it seems to me that if they don't set up Donald Blake then they ultimately ruin the franchise. Whereas if they do use Blake in a sequel (as opposed to the first movie), for it to make sense Thor cannot be the defacto hero of the first movie, simply because his banishment to Earth must be for a reason.

Now perhaps they have found a way to write Thor so that he is heroic enough to carry the movie but hotheaded and with enough braggadocio to ultimately warrant banishment. However, even assuming the writer managed that tightrope walk successfully, and sets up a Blake involved sequel. You have still painted yourself into a corner with regards the scale of the movie. If the first movie already has the battle to end all battles then surely the sequels will feel underwhelming by comparison.

Let me tell you one thing though...the ending alone (last 45 minutes in this movie would probably cost 75 million.) It's non-stop action and would require CGI big time.

Out of curiousity how many pages is the script? Just wondering how many minutes they suggest it lasting, 2 hours or 3 hours 'Lord of the Rings' long.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hey Advanced Dark!





This seems contradictory to me.



I fail to see how Thor having his powers and a major villain from the start trumps a 45 minute battle which makes Return of the King look like a Sunday School picnic.



Knowing a bit about Thor, it seems to me that if they don't set up Donald Blake then they ultimately ruin the franchise. Whereas if they do use Blake in a sequel (as opposed to the first movie), for it to make sense Thor cannot be the defacto hero of the first movie, simply because his banishment to Earth must be for a reason.

Now perhaps they have found a way to write Thor so that he is heroic enough to carry the movie but hotheaded and with enough braggadocio to ultimately warrant banishment. However, even assuming the writer managed that tightrope walk successfully, and sets up a Blake involved sequel. You have still painted yourself into a corner with regards the scale of the movie. If the first movie already has the battle to end all battles then surely the sequels will feel underwhelming by comparison.



Out of curiousity how many pages is the script? Just wondering how many minutes they suggest it lasting, 2 hours or 3 hours 'Lord of the Rings' long.

I don't have it here at home but I think 129 pages. Regarding a sequel not topping the original...that's just ridiculous. Also this film does not have the battle to end all battles. Otherwise there would be no more stories to tell. Nothing you say makes any sense above. The movie clearly leaves room for more stories this is just the first one. You have to actually use your imagination to see what comes next but I"m confident they won't make Thor 2 unless it can top the 1st oen...and with all the stories out there to be told that's not a hard accomplishment. The important thing is that Thor is a great film and makes enough to support it's budget.

How many movies have you seen thinking they'd never top that? How many video games have you played growing up thinking...this is near the best it's gonna be. I remember playing Aliens vs Predator on the Atari Jaguar and was stunned at the graphics thinking...they'd never top that. Marvel doesn't have a time limit on when to make sequels since they already own the rights so they don't have to rush sequels out. They'll make them right or not at all.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hey Advanced Dark!





This seems contradictory to me.



I fail to see how Thor having his powers and a major villain from the start trumps a 45 minute battle which makes Return of the King look like a Sunday School picnic.



Knowing a bit about Thor, it seems to me that if they don't set up Donald Blake then they ultimately ruin the franchise. Whereas if they do use Blake in a sequel (as opposed to the first movie), for it to make sense Thor cannot be the defacto hero of the first movie, simply because his banishment to Earth must be for a reason.

Now perhaps they have found a way to write Thor so that he is heroic enough to carry the movie but hotheaded and with enough braggadocio to ultimately warrant banishment. However, even assuming the writer managed that tightrope walk successfully, and sets up a Blake involved sequel. You have still painted yourself into a corner with regards the scale of the movie. If the first movie already has the battle to end all battles then surely the sequels will feel underwhelming by comparison.



Out of curiousity how many pages is the script? Just wondering how many minutes they suggest it lasting, 2 hours or 3 hours 'Lord of the Rings' long.

I don't have it here at home but I think 129 pages so it's not Lord of the Rings long...but it's a bigger film than any one of the LOTR films. I can't explain it more than I already have. Regarding a sequel not topping the original...that's just ridiculous. Also this film does not have the battle to end all battles. Otherwise there would be no more stories to tell. Nothing you say makes any sense above. The movie clearly leaves room for more stories this is just the first one. You have to actually use your imagination to see what comes next but I"m confident they won't make Thor 2 unless it can top the 1st oen...and with all the stories out there to be told that's not a hard accomplishment. The important thing is that Thor is a great film and makes enough to support it's budget.

How many movies have you seen thinking they'd never top that? How many video games have you played growing up thinking...this is near the best it's gonna be. I remember playing Aliens vs Predator on the Atari Jaguar and was stunned at the graphics thinking...they'd never top that. Marvel doesn't have a time limit on when to make sequels since they already own the rights so they don't have to rush sequels out. They'll make them right or not at all.
I imagine from reading the script that some of the pages though only 1 page long could be a 2-3 minute scene or longer. I also imagine Marvel could film much more than they put on screen and if the movie makes enough money they could go back and finish that footage. That would save them some money.

Lastly, any sequel to Thor will be a completely different story. The first film is an origin film that has to do with the becoming of the God of Thunder. Any future movies won't deal with that anymore.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Ok, very big question AD - are we seeing teen/early 20's Thor in the script? Extra - when does Mjolnir come to play?

Regarding his age I don't remember the script itself discussing his age but I'm sure he's in the 20's. Regarding Mjolnir I don't know in in the Marvel Universe how Mjolnir is introduced since I've never read Thor before this script really. So I don't want to spoil anything like that. Hmmmm how can I put this:

Thor saves someone's life (most important scene in the movie) and in return Mjolnir is made for Thor. It's brought to him in Asgard at the palace and that's when something happens. I don't want to go any further than that. If this follows the comics than you'd know exactly what happens.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Thanks AD.

As for the sequels: the "last" one should be no-brainer Ragnarok, all out war between Asgardians and the forces of evil. The immediate sequel can be about Enchantress/Executioner, Desak or Surtur. I'm not worrying with the sequels as there are many story possibilities with Thor. Cap trilogy, that where I worry as Cap has always been about the Avengers.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Advanced Dark!

I don't have it here at home but I think 129 pages so it's not Lord of the Rings long...but it's a bigger film than any one of the LOTR films.

As it should be.

I can't explain it more than I already have.

Thats okay mate, fair enough.

Regarding a sequel not topping the original...that's just ridiculous. Also this film does not have the battle to end all battles. Otherwise there would be no more stories to tell. Nothing you say makes any sense above.

I'm only going on what you said earlier that the last 45 minutes of Thor makes the biggest battles of LotR seem bland, an exact quote.

Now that may have been a kneejerk comment by yourself(?), but it seems to me that the seige battle in Return of the King would be difficult but not impossible to top. If however, this movie makes that seem bland by comparison then they are going to be struggling to top that in the sequel.

The movie clearly leaves room for more stories this is just the first one. You have to actually use your imagination to see what comes next but I"m confident they won't make Thor 2 unless it can top the 1st oen...and with all the stories out there to be told that's not a hard accomplishment.

The obvious problem is twofold.

1. If the sequel remains in the past, how can they bring Thor into the Avengers?

2. If they do set up a Blake involved sequel how do they top the spectacle of the first movie. If you imagine Fellowship of the Rings had the Return of the King battle at the end of it, then the follow ups would need to go to ludicrous extremes to top that. In fact I am even failing to see exactly how the Avengers movie tops the Thor movie!?

The important thing is that Thor is a great film and makes enough to support it's budget.

It seems like an entertaining action movie epic, albeit one that somewhat divorces itself from the source material - unless of course they are able to perform the juggling act I mentioned previously.

How many movies have you seen thinking they'd never top that?

Depends on whether you mean the spectacle or the experience.

In terms of spectacle I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy did a good job in building the battle scenes up in each subsequent movie by what looked like a factor of about 100 each time. The step up in scale was notable at any rate. While I certainly think you could out-do the RotK battle, I don't think its something you could do three times over.

How many video games have you played growing up thinking...this is near the best it's gonna be. I remember playing Aliens vs Predator on the Atari Jaguar and was stunned at the graphics thinking...they'd never top that.

If you are talking about mere graphics then none. If you are talking about gameplay then loads.

I'd rather play Doom and Doom II than the horse manure that is Doom III.

Marvel doesn't have a time limit on when to make sequels since they already own the rights so they don't have to rush sequels out. They'll make them right or not at all.

Its pretty standard practice to make sequels about 3 years apart.

I imagine from reading the script that some of the pages though only 1 page long could be a 2-3 minute scene or longer. I also imagine Marvel could film much more than they put on screen and if the movie makes enough money they could go back and finish that footage. That would save them some money.

That would save them money assuming they shoehorned those scenes into the sequel.

Lastly, any sequel to Thor will be a completely different story. The first film is an origin film that has to do with the becoming of the God of Thunder. Any future movies won't deal with that anymore.

Thats like saying the first Spider-man movie is about him becoming Spider-man, and any future Spider-man movies won't deal with that. However, the reality is that the first movie sets the tone and tempo. Sequels have to keep the tone and up the tempo/scale.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

UPDATE: NEW MV COMMENTS ON THOR!!

Are you going to do “Thor”?

I’ve done the script and we’re talking about it. But it’s a huge logistical and financial burden for anyone. So the budget is like 300 million at the moment, so we’re trying to reshape it and get it down. So yes, I’m committed to it.


Charlie Cox said earlier that you might be doing a WWI film together.

It’s all to do with “Thor”, if “Thor” is going ahead or not. It’s a smaller very dramatic, beautiful script. I need to find someone to play the opposite role, many, tough. There aren’t many actors who are like that. They’re all wimps these guys now. They’re not the McQueens, the Lee Marvins… a man’s man. They’ve all gone.


Well, there’s Jason Statham.

Yeah, there’s Jason. Maybe Jason.


.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hey Advanced Dark!



As it should be.



Thats okay mate, fair enough.



I'm only going on what you said earlier that the last 45 minutes of Thor makes the biggest battles of LotR seem bland, an exact quote.

Now that may have been a kneejerk comment by yourself(?), but it seems to me that the seige battle in Return of the King would be difficult but not impossible to top. If however, this movie makes that seem bland by comparison then they are going to be struggling to top that in the sequel.



The obvious problem is twofold.

1. If the sequel remains in the past, how can they bring Thor into the Avengers?

2. If they do set up a Blake involved sequel how do they top the spectacle of the first movie. If you imagine Fellowship of the Rings had the Return of the King battle at the end of it, then the follow ups would need to go to ludicrous extremes to top that. In fact I am even failing to see exactly how the Avengers movie tops the Thor movie!?



It seems like an entertaining action movie epic, albeit one that somewhat divorces itself from the source material - unless of course they are able to perform the juggling act I mentioned previously.



Depends on whether you mean the spectacle or the experience.

In terms of spectacle I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy did a good job in building the battle scenes up in each subsequent movie by what looked like a factor of about 100 each time. The step up in scale was notable at any rate. While I certainly think you could out-do the RotK battle, I don't think its something you could do three times over.



If you are talking about mere graphics then none. If you are talking about gameplay then loads.

I'd rather play Doom and Doom II than the horse manure that is Doom III.



Its pretty standard practice to make sequels about 3 years apart.



That would save them money assuming they shoehorned those scenes into the sequel.



Thats like saying the first Spider-man movie is about him becoming Spider-man, and any future Spider-man movies won't deal with that. However, the reality is that the first movie sets the tone and tempo. Sequels have to keep the tone and up the tempo/scale.

Regarding bringing Thor into the present I'd like to see a few take place in the past but per the book they could live to be 10,000 years old so it's possible to have another adventure of Thor...in today's time.

 

[Vartha]

Interesting find Thorfan.

AD and UK, I don't see TOO much of Major battles within the first movie.
I can see the battles being worked in as if Thor had been in them and the battles lasted awhile, but unless there's something within the battles that need to be shown, say the defeat of the leaders of each battle, or the winning of an item during the battles, would just show what Thor went through to become what he is.

I can see the use of the battles to introduce the major enemys of Thor and Asgard. The use of battle with the enemys and creatures to show what they are capable of rather than explaining what they are capable of.

I'm sure there has to be much more actual story that should be told rather than just having epic battles throughout the film. Such as the development of characters like Loki and his connections, which we know will happen too.

An epic battle at the end of the movie can be shown in ways that don't become expensive and still tell a story. I think that MAY be what MV and MP are doing with the rewrite.

 

[TKing]

For someone with no idea about the character, hearing all this has got me seriously hyped now.

 

[Vartha]

Any Questions TK we'd be glad to help fill you in on Characters and story.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Interesting find Thorfan.

AD and UK, I don't see TOO much of Major battles within the first movie.
I can see the battles being worked in as if Thor had been in them and the battles lasted awhile, but unless there's something within the battles that need to be shown, say the defeat of the leaders of each battle, or the winning of an item during the battles, would just show what Thor went through to become what he is.

I can see the use of the battles to introduce the major enemys of Thor and Asgard. The use of battle with the enemys and creatures to show what they are capable of rather than explaining what they are capable of.

I'm sure there has to be much more actual story that should be told rather than just having epic battles throughout the film. Such as the development of characters like Loki and his connections, which we know will happen too.

An epic battle at the end of the movie can be shown in ways that don't become expensive and still tell a story. I think that MAY be what MV and MP are doing with the rewrite.

How can I put this without spoiling anything hmmmmm ok: It's not just an epic battle at the end...it's more than a battle. Lots of action and F/X required though. It's not just the battles though it's gonna require quite a bit of F/X just to present the world even without the action. They'll figure it out though...Marvel has no choice. LOL

 

[TKing]

Any Questions TK we'd be glad to help fill you in on Characters and story.

lol I literally don't know a thing about the character (except there's a villain named Loki ).

Though, Vaughn is rewriting the script to get the budget from $300 down to $150, right? So I'm guessing some of the battle scenes will be filtered down.

 

[Advanced Dark]

The budget will be 180 million even though he said 150. Marvel is telling him 150 in case they go over. They have up to 180.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Advanced Dark!

Regarding bringing Thor into the present I'd like to see a few take place in the past but per the book they could live to be 10,000 years old so it's possible to have another adventure of Thor...in today's time.

Setting Thor movies in the past is illogical and unnecessary. Even asuming you want an all fantasy movie, Asgard itself is perpetually set in some pseudo medieval timeframe. For such a production, visiting Earth would not be required.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Howdy Advanced Dark!



Setting Thor movies in the past is illogical and unnecessary. Even asuming you want an all fantasy movie, Asgard itself is perpetually set in some pseudo medieval timeframe. For such a production, visiting Earth would not be required.

There was no explanation of when this took place. There was just no tecnhology in the film at all in Midgard so I just assumed. However in one of the biggest and most impressive scenes involves something one wouldn't see nowadays.

 

[Vartha]

lol I literally don't know a thing about the character (except there's a villain named Loki ).

Though, Vaughn is rewriting the script to get the budget from $300 down to $150, right? So I'm guessing some of the battle scenes will be filtered down.

Well this site has one of the most complete character listings of Thor characters, http://www.immortalthor.net/.

 

[Vartha]

Howdy Advanced Dark!



Setting Thor movies in the past is illogical and unnecessary. Even asuming you want an all fantasy movie, Asgard itself is perpetually set in some pseudo medieval timeframe. For such a production, visiting Earth would not be required.

Well LotR was set in the past, and you need to go into the past with Thor in order to show why he is the way he is, because he has lived so long.

 

[Advanced Dark]

It is an origin film for the character that's for sure.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Howdy Advanced Dark!



Setting Thor movies in the past is illogical and unnecessary. Even asuming you want an all fantasy movie, Asgard itself is perpetually set in some pseudo medieval timeframe. For such a production, visiting Earth would not be required.

Why is it unnecessary? Just because they are not following the Journey Into Mystery formula? If that is your reason the majority of people are glad that formula is not being followed, a lot of people such as myself are very happy that Donald Blake is not in the film.

And yes Asgard itself is set in a midieval timeframe but Thor has been around for thousands of years so what is so illogical about showing that time on film?

I think you're just upset because you're not getting the version of Thor that you want, which is ER meets Superman.

 

[KangConquers]

Why is it unnecessary? Just because they are not following the Journey Into Mystery formula? If that is your reason the majority of people are glad that formula is not being followed, a lot of people such as myself are very happy that Donald Blake is not in the film.

And yes Asgard itself is set in a midieval timeframe but Thor has been around for thousands of years so what is so illogical about showing that time on film?

I think you're just upset because you're not getting the version of Thor that you want, which is ER meets Superman.

Still A ThorFan, I officially love you.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Lol

 

[Still A ThorFan]

VERILY!

But he keeps on with "Where is Donald Blake, this doesn't make sense, this isn't Marvel Thor it is just Thor from Norse mythology.."

He just doesn't get it that yeah DB was a big part of Thor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is what the majority of the fans want on film. And if we did get that Thor would have been no different from Spiderman or Superman, or the typical superhero movie formula of hero has disguise and sheds it when bad guys come around.

Thor is going to be different, and more serious, and hell might be the most respected superhero film of all.

But you don't care about that, you want the Stone Men of Saturn running around.

 

[KangConquers]

VERILY!

But he keeps on with "Where is Donald Blake, this doesn't make sense, this isn't Marvel Thor it is just Thor from Norse mythology.."

He just doesn't get it that yeah DB was a big part of Thor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is what the majority of the fans want on film. And if we did get that Thor would have been no different from Spiderman or Superman, or the typical superhero movie formula of hero has disguise and sheds it when bad guys come around.

Thor is going to be different, and more serious, and hell might be the most respected superhero film of all.

But you don't care about that, you want the Stone Men of Saturn running around.

I can already see the response.

Hey Thorfan!

No your opinion sucks. K thanks.