THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***

^ - Does the worldwide number include the US number? Or is it US number + worldwide number = total take? In the first case 76.5 million is probably some part of the 242+ million number. Otherwise it's a nearly 320K which may be pretty good for a movie that cost 150 million.

 

The worldwide (foreign and domestic) box office as of yesterday is 265 million.
Not too shabby!

source

 

I took it as both foreign and domestic figures added together.... but still not bad... made enough of a profit to make Thor 2 possible.

 

Keep in mind that total above the production budget isn't all studio profit. There is the ever unknown price for marketing which no one ever knows but $100m is a conservative number.
Even then the studio splits admission take with the theater chains. The most often cited number is something like 55/45% split but I've seen a higher figure for the first two weeks in the studio's favor.

Splitting hairs and drilling down too deep but once Thor hits over $400m WW we can start talking real possibility of sequel. Which I think it should be able to achieve.

 

By Odin, that would be be perfect.

 

I wanna see her as Carol Danvers or Mockingbird whom I guess is basically similar to Sarah Walker.

 

Her as Mockingbird playing the partner/wife of Renner as Hawkeye, wowzers.

Then again, they may go with the Hawkeye/Black Widow pairing of the early stories.

 

I don't think they're thinking about relationships this early...not much time to touch on that in a group movie.

 

^

That plus, ya know, Joss Whedon doesn't really do couples that survive to the end credits.

 

Yes, but down the road there's the DVD sales PPV sales and cable movie channel sales - not to mention the toy merchandizing. These days, the studios are satisfied with just recouping te production and marketing cost via the B.O. receipts (and are exstatic if they get more from the B.O. receipts); but most films make the stuiido it's money AFTER the theatre run (and for years afterwards.)

 

Just a prime example of the fact that you don't need a strong plot or good storytelling for a movie to succeed at the box office. As I stated earlier, I gave this film a "B" while a co-worker of mine was gushing over it. Then, of course, this particular co-worker of mine also thinks Green Lantern is one of the Avengers heroes making a debut at the box office this summer.

 

A-

We saw it tonight, not in 3D. A dozen people in the theater at most, just the way I like it.

Of all the Marvel movies, Thor sits at a close second behind X2 as my favourite. There were very few moments where the movie slowed down, but not to the point where it yanked me back to reality. It was actually paced quite well overall, bouncing between Asgard, Earth and Jotunheim. Plenty of action, with mild comedic scenes throughout.

Hemsworth was excellent. Initially, I was kind of disappointed when he was cast as Thor, though I couldn't think of anyone better suited for the role at the time. He was huge, ripped, commanded presence, and his sound was pretty good--something I have imagined and have been hearing in my head for over two decades.

Tom Hiddleston’s Loki was a very cool, calm, conniving, fellow. He was jealous and thirsty for love, power, and acceptance by his father; and there was a desperation about him: definitely one of the most complex villains to appear in a marvel flick. Bravo.

The supporting cast was a good mix. Jane Foster (Portman) and Erik Selvig (Skarsgard) were both pretty solid, but I couldn't figure out what Darcy's (Dennings) purpose was. T&A? (Unnecessary) comedy relief? She brought nothing to the movie, really. Agent Coulson (Gregg) was there with his usual deadpan.

Selvig’s relationship with Jane had me a bit confused. He said he taught with her father, and then it seemed as though he was going to add more to the story, but didn’t. I thought it was going to turn out that he was her father?

The cosmic cube. As soon as I saw that, I just knew it was be featured in Captain America. I almost wished I hadn’t stayed past the credits, because lately I’ve found my enjoyment going into a movie is much greater when I know nothing about it. I could be wrong, though.

I want a Thor sequel, damnit!

 

The 5 P's of Thor. Right here.

 

So?

 

Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong - I enjoyed it but it's a pretty slight excuse for a movie; as one reviewer said, it's not something anyone will remember in a couple of months.

 

From Ebert's review:

Ouch!

I haven't seen this yet but it does sound like Marvel just wants to make popcorn blockbusters and doesn't care if they're high art. Nor should they, really, since arty movies are risky gambles and dumbed-down effects fests tend to rake it in.

 

Thanks for the info... I also am hoping for a strong 2 nd week,maybe I will add to the numbers and see it again....

 

Not according to our poll or nearly every other ranking system. Ebert appers quite wrong but he's allowed his opinion all the same.

What happens if he disses on Green Lantern?

 

I think EVRYONE is going to diss GL when it comes out. It doesn't look good at all.

Captain America is the only other comic book movie I'm looking forward to seeing this year.

 

I agree that Ebert's not too far afield, but Thor was sure as hell better than The Mummy 3 or both of the Tomb Raiders, which he did like, to say nothing of RotS (and whose hero was totally captivating?), so...