Thor Movie
- Thread starter JonnyFreeze
- Start date
-
- Tags
- thor
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Trying and doing are two different things.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
And almost everyone hated that movie. I think a well done pop corn film is always better then bad pretentious would be art films. I didn't think Iron Man was shallow, I thought it had heart, least it had a good character arc.
Last edited:
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
So every Marvel movie should just aspire to be a fun popcorn movie from now on?
The only one of these movies that has even had a plot has been Iron Man 2 and that still managed to just be an excuse to delay scenes of Robert Downey Jr. talking really fast and fighting robots.
The only one of these movies that has even had a plot has been Iron Man 2 and that still managed to just be an excuse to delay scenes of Robert Downey Jr. talking really fast and fighting robots.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Well... no it doesn't. At all.
The supporting cast asking "is Thor a god" is a generic, stock reaction that makes sense and is nothing more than an impediment to the narrative as nothing can happen until they get back into 'god' mode.
What made THE ULTIMATES work was that we genuinely didn't know. This will not be the case here. It will be painfully obvious from the first scenes that Thor is the real, proper Norse God of thunder and every time someone goes "Is he really a god" we'll sigh and go "YES NOW PLEASE HAVE THE DESTROYER SHOW UP".
Now, it could work very well. THE X-FILES did this every week (and it solved the problem by having the characters trying to prove the weirdness, which is different to just coming to accept it), and it seems there's some comedy in this Asgardian braggard encountering 21st century Earth but it just will not evoke, in any way, THE ULTIMATES because it will be concretely evident he is from Asgard.
Unless the trailers have been flat-out lying to us.
I completely agree. While IRON MAN is probably the best movie Marvel's made, THE INCREDIBLE HULK is of the "better than mediocre" quality of SPIDER-MAN 2, but they've also made IRON MAN 2 which is as bad as SPIDER-MAN 3 or any of the FANTASTIC FOUR or X-MEN movies. Though, on the other hand, IRON MAN 2 wasn't as bad as GHOST RIDER, ELEKTRA or either of THE PUNISHER movies. And they've not made perfectly average films like DAREDEVIL or BLADE. It's too early to tell how much better they're doing. We'll know once THE AVENGERS, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are out whether in-house or out-house Marvel movies are of a consistent higher quality.
Indeed.
You say that, but it didn't fail as bad as GHOST RIDER or ELEKTRA or WOLVERINE, which not only failed, but didn't even try.
That said, I'd prefer to try and fail than to not try and be merely passable. At least you can respect the former for its ambition.
I prefer HULK to THE INCREDIBLE HULK and maintain that it was almost a big success. But as much as I like I know it didn't work. Both HULK and THE INCREDIBLE HULK are boring. HULK is boring for the first hour (and never really recovers), and THE INCREDIBLE HULK is boring for the last 30 minutes (but is thankfully entertaining for the rest). Neither really worked. It's just that THE INCREDIBLE HULK is bad in the ways one expects it to be, and HULK is bad for completely different reasons.
It wasn't and it isn't a good film, but it almost really was. The problems lied in the chronological structure of the screenplay (it ended 20 minutes before it finished and started 40 minutes too late) but the major problem is this: Ang Lee's repertoire is LUST, CAUTION and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. This is a man whose movies are solely about how the passion for love destroys you. These are not action movies, these are movies where the story is in the subtext and the hidden inner conflict of their lives. He is a sensitive director who has made some wonderful movies.
However, these sensibilities are not what people expect from a movie called HULK (especially when it's marketed to look like GODZILLA, even down to the similar fonts, colour schemes, and posters). The popcorn crowd is not the crowd that queued to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, and they were equally unfulfilled by CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (which people also call an 'art movie' - though they expected as much because it's 'foreign' and foreign movies are considered to be more highbrow than American ones for some reason). What's more, passion tragedies in which love destroys the romance are not particularly popular which is why only three people saw LUST, CAUTION.
And yet... that is why he's perfect to do the Hulk. Because Hulk is about the destructive nature of emotions, because the story is about a CGI monster and you need sensitivity to create the audience's empathy with it. He is a brilliant choice.
It just didn't work. Not because it was a pretentious art film, and certainly not because the audience was too stupid to get it. It didn't work because the screenplay was messy, and the producers, advertisers, editors, and Ang Lee himself couldn't entirely work out how to balance the popcorn action with emotional sensitivity.
The lesson of HULK isn't "you shouldn't try to something more than pop corn" but rather "it's really hard to balance action adventure with inner conflict even if you've done it before". Which isn't something new. As much as I love THE INCREDIBLES and THE DARK KNIGHT, neither attempt the level of inner complexity as HULK. THE DARK KNIGHT did try more than THE INCREDIBLES and succeeded where it tried much better than HULK did, that's for sure. And THE INCREDIBLES instead used great personal conflict within the family to heighten the drama, and did so more beautifully than HULK did with it's inner conflict.
Shame, really. I'd love to see if he could fix his mistakes with a sequel.
Last edited:
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
All of this.
Except the X-Men movies are in no way bad. The first two are excellent and I certainly count them among the best Marvel movies, even if the action isn't as exciting as in the more recent movies. To me, Raimi's first Spider-Man and the first two X-Men movies are to date the best Marvel movies. The Hulk is an extremely interesting, emotionally gripping movie with an almost masterful musical score that just fell flat on its face because it over-complicated its plot and had no idea what it was trying to be, overall. Daredevil is probably the most under-rated superhero movie since Batman Forever.
Everything after that is as you say (although I haven't seen any of the Blades, Elektra or the obvious ****-heap that is Ghost Rider). I enjoyed Iron Man 2 just as much as I enjoyed either of the Fantastic Four movies.
Where were you in 2008 when I was the only one in UC who thought (a simplified version of) this?!
Bass
Nexus of the World
I thought X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND was significantly better than the other two, because it was the only one which wasn't a teaser trailer for a sequel (something Singer tried again with SUPERMAN RETURNS), and the only one which wasn't completely predictable. I was so bored in the first two movies, I was forgetting stuff as it happened. Both movies just stand around delivering exposition, filled with cliches and promising a trilogy Singer bailed out on. At least in the third one it took the best idea the X-Men ever had (the cure) and proceeded to annihilate the cast in a way that made me genuinely intrigued as to how it would turn out. And Storm wasn't ****, which is amazing.
Now, that's not to say X3 is a good film. It's not, really. I just thought it was better. While it was relentless and misshapen, it wasn't boring or teasing. I tried watching the first two not long ago, and I couldn't stomach them for more than a few minutes. There's a part of me that wants to watch them because I want to get why so many people like them so much when I find them so distasteful.
As for SPIDER-MAN 1 and 2... SPIDER-MAN got everything right but the villain. SPIDER-MAN 2 got the villain right, but everything else wrong. Willem DeFoe was a great Norman Osborne, but Green Goblin was an awful villain on whom they couldn't craft a plot. The entire enjoyment of that movie comes from the origin sequence. SPIDER-MAN 2, on the other hand, did Doc Ock and Harry brilliantly, but then stuffed the movie with at least four sub-plots, none of which go anywhere. I also think that both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are problems. I never cared for Dunst who I felt was very poor, but Maguire's performance hasn't aged well either. It's very obvious that DeFoe, Franco, Molina, and Simmons are far more entertaining than the main two. As for SPIDER-MAN 3... it got Sandman right, but not Venom. It got Harry right, but none of the MJ stuff. It took the best and the worst from both, and then got poorly assembled because the studio wanted Venom and Raimi wanted Sandman, and no compromise was reached. That said, I prefer the first two Spideys and the third X-Men to the third Spidey and first two X-Men.
As I've said, the only superhero movies to come out since '99 that I honestly think were of quality are THE DARK KNIGHT, THE INCREDIBLES, IRON MAN, and possibly BATMAN BEGINS. The rest go from passable to crap for me.
Probably asking where you were.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
Perhaps not, but really what's wrong with a good pop corn movie? I don't think Iron Man would have done as well if they had played up the alcoholism to the point that is Angela's Ashes with a suit armor. I think the reason why the dark Knight worked the way it did is because it featured Batman, one of the darker most brooding super heroes around, but not every character works like that. Spidey and Iron Man work better in light hearted settings.
Last edited:
Gemini
Well-Known Member
I thought Hulk was a good movie too, lot of promise that kinda failed to deliver, but the heart of a great Hulk story was there in spades
Incredible Hulk sacrificed alot of that important character work, but it pretty much nailed everything else anyone would ever expect in a Hulk movie AND it spared us retreading the origin AGAIN.
Iron Man 2 was alot more like Incredible Hulk than anything, sacrificing alot of character issue's for spectacle, still a good movie, just feels like alot was left on the table
Thor seems like it will be a balance of both, you can't have a Thor movie without spectacle, but this movie isn't going to have the origin engraved in the public mindset like Hulks or a 300 Million dollar original movie to build off like Iron Man 2, so their going to have to bring out alot of that character depth and story groundwork to get everyone to come along for the ride
Incredible Hulk sacrificed alot of that important character work, but it pretty much nailed everything else anyone would ever expect in a Hulk movie AND it spared us retreading the origin AGAIN.
Iron Man 2 was alot more like Incredible Hulk than anything, sacrificing alot of character issue's for spectacle, still a good movie, just feels like alot was left on the table
Thor seems like it will be a balance of both, you can't have a Thor movie without spectacle, but this movie isn't going to have the origin engraved in the public mindset like Hulks or a 300 Million dollar original movie to build off like Iron Man 2, so their going to have to bring out alot of that character depth and story groundwork to get everyone to come along for the ride
I wish they were focusing more on the is-he-or-isn't-he aspect, but I guess most of it takes place in Asgard, so there goes that. I don't wanna say that Not Natalie Portman is going to RUIN the movie for me, but she is going to make it infinitely less enjoyable.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Thats why I said "there's a little bit of the story evoking The Ultimates approach". I meant that at least in the supporting characters minds there's a question of his being an actual God (hence the scenes of him strapped to a gurney, etc). Obviously, with all the Asgard stuff, there's no question in the audiences' mind about that (unfortunately).
Of course, it would be cool to see the movie open with Thor being discovered in the desert, revealing that at least he believes he's a God, the story play out with little flashbacks to Asgard, which could be interpreted as memories or hallucinations. I have a feeling at least in part this approach might be taken.
Anyway, I didn't say it was the same thing, just that its nice (at least for me) to imagine the writers were at least thinking of Ultimate Thor when putting that aspect in. Of course, the reality is that, yes, its just a worn out way of adding a bit of dialogue and dramatic tension, and probably is nothing more than my fanboy hopes spinning in the wind.
Agreed. But at the same time, in some instances comparing the two isn't really fair...the circumstances were very different. Ang Lee was a well known director who chose to do Hulk and attempt the artsy approach, which didn't work. He also probably was given much more latitude by the studio and producers than any of the directors for Ghost Rider, Elektra, or Wolverine were in terms of changing the script, the direction, characters, etc to fit their respective directors' views. Thats an assumption, but a pretty safe one.
I'm not defending those movies, and can appreciate what Hulk was attempting, but in the end it didn't pull it off, and thats what matters.
The Overlord
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
You do know that since the story is told from Thor's perspective, its almost impossible to keep such a secret hidden from the audience? It worked on the Ultimates because it was team book and Thor was not the sole focus, here Thor is the sole focus and everything is told from his perspective, so would know what he knows, thus ensuring there is no mystery about his origins. The story from the Ultimates doesn't work exactly like it does in comics in a solo film, that's why this is an adaption.
Also there are fans out there who prefer the 616 Thor, so why should this Thor just be the Ultimate Thor and not be a bit of combo of the two? Why should it be one or the other and not try to take the best aspects from both versions?
Bass
Nexus of the World
Depends what you mean by "popcorn" movie. If you mean, "action blockbuster", then no, there's nothing wrong with a good one. GHOSTBUSTERS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, BACK TO THE FUTURE, THE DARK KNIGHT are all popcorn movies. But you can have bad popcorn movies too like GHOST RIDER, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, and THE LAST AIRBENDER too.
Very good point. I forget to commend INCREDIBLE HULK for not retelling the origin as a credit sequence. That was a very good choice.
I can't stand her either.
But normal people thinking Thor isn't a god isn't anything to do with THE ULTIMATES. It's been around since forever. Even the recent Langridge series had people not sure if he's really Thor for a moment. So no; they're not thinking of THE ULTIMATES and it's not something that came from THE ULTIMATES. If anything, that series took that cliche of people not thinking he's a god to a full and effective conclusion by drawing it out for years.
I don't see how the approach is "artsy" just because it's ambitious. HULK is no more artsy than SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD.
That's true, but it was significantly better.
Of course it's possible. FIGHT CLUB. A BEAUTIFUL MIND. LES DIABOLIQUES. All of these films work around the premise that the protagonist's experiences may or may not be actually happening to them. Even HOT FUZZ, for a moment, had me start to wonder if Nicolas Angel was either imagining or responsible for the murders he was encountering. You could even go the opposite route and make him crazy in the vein of DON QUIXOTE.
You absolutely could make a THOR movie which was all about whether Thor is really a god or not.
Would be bloody hard, but you could do it.
I completely agree that there are fans of 616 Thor, and that the guys making this movie don't have to make Ultimate Thor. I don't think I ever said that they should, only that my personal interest in Thor lies solely in his Ultimate version. I'm very happy for them to do 616 Thor, it just doesn't excite me.
As for combining the two - I don't see how it's possible. 616 Thor is all about Asgard invading Earth, and Ultimate Thor is all about Thor trying to save humanity from itself. Maybe you could blend it, I suppose, but I think they're too opposite for it to work. Maybe though.
Last edited:
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
616 Thor is not all about Asgard invading earth... It is literally nothing like that...
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Bass was also wrong about a lot of other stuff. Not Natalie Portman = Kat Dennings.
Ultimate Houde
UC's Resident Genetic Recombinator
Sexynurse wants to see it cause a hot sexy guys beats up things with a hammer.
I want to see it for the same reason.
I want to see it for the same reason.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Sorry, by "Asgard invading Earth", I meant that Thor fights Asgardian-themed villains who try to take over Asgard or Earth; Loki, Enchantress, Executioner, and so on. There are obviously exceptions, but he is almost always fighting Norse Gods and part of the appeal of those stories is that Thor fights mythological entities in a modern day setting.
Ultimate Thor isn't so much trying to save the world or Asgard from things like Loki or the Enchantress. Rather, the big problem is that humanity is going to destroy itself and he has to save it. Loki is, at best, helping humanity on that path.
Does that make it clearer?
Thor hitting things with hammers is probably the least interesting part of the character for me. :/
Ultimate Houde
UC's Resident Genetic Recombinator
Bass doesn't get it.
