THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till release

[JacksonArcher]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

Thor looks very silly. The costumes are extremely plastic-y, the sets are gaudy, the acting is over-the-top (especially Anthony Hopkins and Chris Hemsworth in the early pre-banishment scenes) and the cinematography and camera angles remind me of Battlefield Earth. I'm sure the story and the script will be better than the quality of that movie, but visually the camera angles remind me of that film the most.

Also, I guess especially after reading Mark Protosevich's script that I was expecting something grand and epic on the scale of Gladiator or Troy, at least tonally. From the footage I've seen, Thor looks like a cross between Iron Man and a really poor Henry V. You have all of these desert scenes shot in New Mexico which look kinda tacky... I mean, why not shoot globally? Thor needs a grandiose and epic feel and that's not the vibe I got from the trailer at all. It looked like a cheap Iron Man knock-off, but with a slightly over-the-top Shakespearean vibe.

I guess I was expecting something with a bit more subtlety and grandiose epic quality, especially coming from Kenneth Branagh.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

If M.C. Hammer doesn't do the theme song then all will be lost with this film.

Nonsense! The theme better be "God of Thunder" by K.I.S.S.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

I'm a bit surprised to hear the word 'silly' being used for this movie. Nothing in that clip looks silly. Silly is Dinner for Schmucks. Silly was Jonah Hex and I was lobbying for that film. THOR looks bad ass, not silly.

We saw very little, it appears, of what happens after Thor gets his hammer. Saw a brief second or so of him tossing the hammer in full armor and about as long clashing with Loki. So much yet to see for this movie. A 5min clip is still only what, 1/40th or so of the movie?

I agree. If you think this looks silly, you likely think the comic and the character is silly, and probably most other comic book movies too.

Thor looks very silly. The costumes are extremely plastic-y, the sets are gaudy, the acting is over-the-top (especially Anthony Hopkins and Chris Hemsworth in the early pre-banishment scenes) and the cinematography and camera angles remind me of Battlefield Earth. I'm sure the story and the script will be better than the quality of that movie, but visually the camera angles remind me of that film the most.

Also, I guess especially after reading Mark Protosevich's script that I was expecting something grand and epic on the scale of Gladiator or Troy, at least tonally. From the footage I've seen, Thor looks like a cross between Iron Man and a really poor Henry V. You have all of these desert scenes shot in New Mexico which look kinda tacky... I mean, why not shoot globally? Thor needs a grandiose and epic feel and that's not the vibe I got from the trailer at all. It looked like a cheap Iron Man knock-off, but with a slightly over-the-top Shakespearean vibe.

I guess I was expecting something with a bit more subtlety and grandiose epic quality, especially coming from Kenneth Branagh.

Show of hands people, who recalls all the dissing of IM:1 after the SuperBowl spot. Claims of "The CGI looks like a video game" and other such visual gripes. Hands up, yep looks like nearly a full room. Now who recalls how in 3 short months that footage was greatly improved? Yep I still see the hands up.

So the early gripe of "plastic-y costumes" sounds oh too familiar from still pics. Again, question. Who checked in on the Predators threads when the still pics were released? How many crys of "they got the look wrong" or "those pics make it look bad" did we see typed up in knee jerk fashion? Plenty, that's right. In the movie under the right lighting and finished effects the creatures looked badass as ever.

Gaudy sets? Have you ever cracked early Thor issues to see how Asgard is depicted? Not just Jackson but anyone who might share that early opinion. It is indeed a bit over the top visually, but that is how Kirby drew it. They are gods so gold is good. Shiny is good. All Kirby left out were Rhinestones, thank god, or else then I'd agree its gaudy.

As to "over the top" acting, He's a god King. It's how god Kings have talked in print or on film for nearly every interpretation. Did you see how Liam Neeson spoke as Zeus in Clash of the Titans?

Why shoot in New Mexico vs globally, cost perhaps? The need to have the characters be in tight enough proximity for the shared universe to come together easier. The weakest complaint really.

Just to be clear I'm only offering explanations as I see them. I'm not talking down to Jackson or something. He would know this but sometimes others jump in. I recall a poster thinking we hated each other during the Returns threads. Jackson is one of my fav posters and he I are cool as far as I've ever known.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

If M.C. Hammer doesn't do the theme song then all will be lost with this film.

Nonsense! The theme better be "God of Thunder" by K.I.S.S.

I was hoping for Wagner or Scandinavian Death Metal.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

Show of hands people, who recalls all the dissing of IM:1 after the SuperBowl spot. Claims of "The CGI looks like a video game" and other such visual gripes. Hands up, yep looks like nearly a full room. Now who recalls how in 3 short months that footage was greatly improved? Yep I still see the hands up.

Umm... No disrespect here, but I don't think anyone rose their hands. Unless you were talking to a bunch of people that don't exist, or fabricating a bunch of people to agree with you.

My problem with the Thor footage has to do with tone, which is all over the place and probably won't be "fixed" by May 2011, the actual physical sets which look extremely fake and gaudy and the over-the-top acting. Unless it was the presentation of the footage I don't see how those things will be "fixed" by the time the film is released. They are legitimate criticisms all in the trailer that seem to be firmly present and not one of those "can be improved" type of scenarios.

So the early gripe of "plastic-y costumes" sounds oh too familiar from still pics. Again, question. Who checked in on the Predators threads when the still pics were released? How many crys of "they got the look wrong" or "those pics make it look bad" did we see typed up in knee jerk fashion? Plenty, that's right. In the movie under the right lighting and finished effects the creatures looked badass as ever.

In all fairness, the people who criticized those photos had every right to nitpick. Those photos were admittedly unreleased set pics; these are finalized movie stills. A bit of a difference. Seeing those plastic-y costumes in motion didn't really help my opinion of them, either. They still looked plastic and fake to me.

Gaudy sets? Have you ever cracked early Thor issues to see how Asgard is depicted? Not just Jackson but anyone who might share that early opinion. It is indeed a bit over the top visually, but that is how Kirby drew it. They are gods so gold is good. Shiny is good. All Kirby left out were Rhinestones, thank god, or else then I'd agree its gaudy.

Some things don't translate well to the screen. In a lot of instances sets or locations were toned down visually for adaptations because they were trying to strike a balance tonally. The Bat-Cave in Batman Begins comes to mind as does the X-Jet and Xavier's basement headquarters in those X-Men movies. I think had the Asgardian locations looked a bit more streamlined and less gaudy it would have given the film a majestic look. Instead it gives the film a laughably bad cartoonish type of vibe. At least to me.

As to "over the top" acting, He's a god King. It's how god Kings have talked in print or on film for nearly every interpretation. Did you see how Liam Neeson spoke as Zeus in Clash of the Titans?

The Clash of the Titans remake is a really bad example, as that had pretty ridiculously over-the-top acting. I'm talking about period pictures -- and I know Thor isn't necessarily a period picture but people will compare it as such at first glance -- and to me I'm thinking about the acting in Gladiator or even Troy, which seemed more subdue than the over-the-top acting seen in the Thor trailer. Or Kenneth Branagh's own Henry V or the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet or Shakespeare in Love. Maybe something on that level. Just because you're a God doesn't mean you have to shout and over-act.

Why shoot in New Mexico vs globally, cost perhaps? The need to have the characters be in tight enough proximity for the shared universe to come together easier. The weakest complaint really.

Almost every movie that tries to achieve a "desert" look shoots in New Mexico. It's old and trite. I guess I was just expecting a more epic and grandiose feeling from the trailer and instead I saw something that looked incredibly tired and predictable.

Just to be clear I'm only offering explanations as I see them. I'm not talking down to Jackson or something. He would know this but sometimes others jump in. I recall a poster thinking we hated each other during the Returns threads. Jackson is one of my fav posters and he I are cool as far as I've ever known.

Of course. Agree to disagree. It's all cool.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

I think those are perfect examples the poster above made regarding how Asgard has been depicted in the comics as drawn by Kirby. I thought Odin's chamber looked grandiose and epic myself and think fans get too nit picky regarding costumes. Are they plastic looking yes. Will they look different since this is supposed to be shot in 3D now? Perhaps. I think they look fine and faithful to the comics. Perhaps I'm just not as critical as some are and poke holes in everything. This is a comic book film not an Oscar contender. Thor in the comics has been silly and over the top so while attempting to base some reality into it while maintaining that comic book feel is not a surprise. Not to mention the fact that it shouldn't come as a surprise that it feels like "Iron Man" and "Henry V" considering who the director is and that he's made many statements in the past month or two comparing the Norse mythology and the comic book characters to Shakespeare so I have no problem with the approach he brought to this film. I'm looking forward to this film and as a Thor fan I am pleased so far with the progress and obvious care that this project seems to have undergone from those involved.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

During a conversation for his new movie Takers, Idris Elba chimmed in with some comments on his role as Heimdall in Thor.

You just finished your stint filming Thor as the Asgardian warrior Heimdall. How was that?
It was dope. It was an interesting genre of film to make. I had never done comic book stuff, so that was really great.
What was the coolest part?
Just the bigness of the show. It’s so epic, these huge sets were just amazing to look at. And they really pay attention to detail. When you read the comics, you see all the drawings, and to actually see them in real life, it’s like, “Whoa!”
Do you see yourself doing another superhero character or are you good with the crime dramas?
I have a deal with the Marvel Studios team, a four-picture commitment. I’m sure I’ll be back in something cool.

Marvel went ahead and locked him in for 4 films. Not going to have another Rhodey/Banner situation for this character at least.

And in bigger signed to sequel news Natalie Portman is locked down as well.

"I'm supposed to be in the next 'Thor' if they make more, but I don't know about that," said Portman. "I think all of us are signed up for the rest of the 'Thor' series, but we could have one line in the next one, or nothing."
​

 

[JacksonArcher]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

I think those are perfect examples the poster above made regarding how Asgard has been depicted in the comics as drawn by Kirby. I thought Odin's chamber looked grandiose and epic myself and think fans get too nit picky regarding costumes. Are they plastic looking yes. Will they look different since this is supposed to be shot in 3D now? Perhaps. I think they look fine and faithful to the comics. Perhaps I'm just not as critical as some are and poke holes in everything.

Or maybe some people just have different taste or preferences than you? Perhaps. Look, just because someone disagrees with you or has a different opinion than you, doesn't mean they are "critical" and like to "poke holes in everything". Some people just view things differently than you.

This is a comic book film not an Oscar contender.

Yet comic-book films have been Oscar contenders in the past. You can achieve both. It's all about a dedication for quality and films have that obtained that quality have been awarded in the past (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight received ample Oscar nominations; Dark Knight even won some).

Thor in the comics has been silly and over the top so while attempting to base some reality into it while maintaining that comic book feel is not a surprise.

"Silly" comic-book movies haven't had a successful track record (Dick Tracy, Batman & Robin, Spider-Man 3, Howard the Duck and the list continues...) and the most successful and good comic-book movies usually take their subject material pretty seriously. You have to have a sense of believability or else people won't buy into that world. Now there have been the more light-hearted comic-book movies that have proven to be successful (Iron Man springs to mind) however I guess I expected something different from Thor. I was expecting an epic and not an Iron Man knock-off.

Not to mention the fact that it shouldn't come as a surprise that it feels like "Iron Man" and "Henry V" considering who the director is and that he's made many statements in the past month or two comparing the Norse mythology and the comic book characters to Shakespeare so I have no problem with the approach he brought to this film.

The film so far appears to have more in common with Iron Man than it does with Henry V. It's light-hearted, cartoon-y, over-the-top and overblown. When I think of Norse mythology or Shakespearean films or influences I think of Gladiator or Troy or even Shakespeare in Love but so far Thor doesn't look anything like those films. It looks like a cheap knock-off that's trying to resemble those films on a purely aesthetic level and in my opinion it has failed.

I could be very well proven wrong when I see the film, but that four or five minute trailer was very telling if only for a few things: the overall tone, the acting, and the sense of story direction the film is headed in. From what I could tell, the tone is going to be radically different than some of the more serious comic-book films that we've seen in the past and even when you compare this to some of the epic "period" films like Gladiator or Troy I don't even get that epic or grandiose sense. It seems like it has taken itself very seriously as a silly comic-book and I'm not sure how well that's going to work. Batman can be a silly character but you can also find ways of making him serious and making him work and the Nolan films are prime examples of that. Heck, even the X-Men have the potential to be very cartoon-y and outlandish and the Singer films grounded things in a sense of naturalism that made those films accessible to a wider audience.

My fear with Thor is that because of the approach it is taking it won't be able to connect with movie-goers in the way that Batman Begins or Iron Man did. Iron Man is a rare example. It worked primarily because of Jon Favreau's comedic background and Robert Downey Jr.'s improvisational skills and somehow those two meshed (if at least for one movie). Kenneth Branagh comes from a very literate, Shakespearean, dramatic background so I guess I expected something different from him then this generic looking film that seems to imitate or want to imitate films of a grandiose or epic scale but can't seem to duplicate or replicate that feeling at all.

Then again, I could be wrong. I haven't even seen the film yet so I'm willing to give it a chance. But I honestly get a weak Battlefield Earth vibe about this film than even Batman Begins or Iron Man or Gladiator. That's not very encouraging, but we'll see.

 

[Anwar]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

The only reason Nolan's Batman films are taken more seriously by the public is because there's nothing superheroic about them and thus the audience is more able to think "Okay, this is a crime drama" since there's nothing remotely superhero in them and thus they won't feel insecure over liking a superhero movie. Marvel's movies however have truly fantastic beyond human stuff in them that the audience cannot fool themselves into thinking isn't superheroic; the audience can't fool itself into thinking they are not superhero movies.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

The only reason Nolan's Batman films are taken more seriously by the public is because there's nothing superheroic about them and thus the audience is more able to think "Okay, this is a crime drama" since there's nothing remotely superhero in them and thus they won't feel insecure over liking a superhero movie. Marvel's movies however have truly fantastic beyond human stuff in them that the audience cannot fool themselves into thinking isn't superheroic; the audience can't fool itself into thinking they are not superhero movies.

Batman saved plenty of people in Nolan's films. I thought that was the definition of a superhero: saving people? Also, he fights crime, just like he does in the comics.

 

[Anwar]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

No, he just comes off as merely James Bond-ish in Nolan's films. Some guy with physical training and fancy gadgets fighting criminals.

It's also why we'll never see anyone like Mr Freeze or Clayface in the movies either, since they aren't just deformed folks or psychopaths but have actual powers thus would solidify the movies as "superhero films" instead of "crime dramas".

 

[stj]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

The gadgets have superpowers, so technically Nolan's batmovies are scifi. Plus, it was obvious that Batman must be able to spring about like a gazelle and run like a cheetah, despite the cumbersome armor. It's just that Nolan has Batman do it offscreen, and just shows him magically appearing in the right spot. Or Batman has a grappling gun that shoots out foot after foot of line that couldn't possibly fit in the gun (much less have a motor strong enough to lift a grown man in armor.)

I could never get what Nolan thought he was doing with the superficial concessions "realism" in the batmovies.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

No, he just comes off as merely James Bond-ish in Nolan's films. Some guy with physical training and fancy gadgets fighting criminals.

But isn't that what he is? A guy with fancy training and fancy gadgets fighting criminals? He's never had superpowers. His willpower and training - and wealth - are his superpowers. That's what distinguishes him from the superpowered herd.

It's also why we'll never see anyone like Mr Freeze or Clayface in the movies either, since they aren't just deformed folks or psychopaths but have actual powers thus would solidify the movies as "superhero films" instead of "crime dramas".

Yes, that's a shame, because Mr Freeze worked sooooooooo well the last time he appeared in a live-action Batmovie.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

Then again, I could be wrong. I haven't even seen the film yet so I'm willing to give it a chance. But I honestly get a weak Battlefield Earth vibe about this film than even Batman Begins or Iron Man or Gladiator. That's not very encouraging, but we'll see.

I can chalk everything else up to preference as you said but had to address this. Even claiming a remote similarity to Battlefield Earth, even based on those 5min of footage, is not a fair comparison. Your above hyperbole.

 

[Anwar]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

But isn't that what he is? A guy with fancy training and fancy gadgets fighting criminals? He's never had superpowers. His willpower and training - and wealth - are his superpowers. That's what distinguishes him from the superpowered herd.

It's also how the audience were able to get away with saying they liked BB and TDK since they had grounds to say "Oh, it's not REALLY a superhero movie! It's gritty crime drama because of the great acting and directing" like Superhero films can't ever have either.

Yes, that's a shame, because Mr Freeze worked sooooooooo well the last time he appeared in a live-action Batmovie.

The idea of Mr. Freeze isn't what was wrong with B&R.

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

fucking nipples on the batsuit...

fucking neons, NEONS I SAY, on the Batmobile...

they fucking character raped Bane...

let's be honest, the only good thing in it was Alicia's latex-clad arse shot. and that was barely worth it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

The idea of Mr. Freeze isn't what was wrong with B&R.

QFT.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

It sure didn't help.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

Batman and Robin sucked because Schumacher wanted to camp up the movie and pay homage to the 60's television series. They did that to an extent in "Batman Forever" but it wasn't as bad as "Batman and Robin". They had the talent in place, the novelization comes across much better than the film did and has the serious undertone of Alfred's illness playing throughout the film. I read the book before I saw the movie and was shocked at how different and lousy it was. I think it comes down to a matter of tone change...I thought George Clooney was great as Bruce Wayne while campy as Batman. I agree with the character changes made. Bane and Ivy were a joke and over the top examples...Bane was nothing more than a sidekick henchmen while in the comics he freaking breaks the bat and damn near takes over Gotham's underground.

As for "Thor" to each their own...I know what I saw when I saw the footage and I am a fan and thought it looked great. I just don't see what it's detractors see, sorry if that isn't critical enough and I suppose that I was getting frustrated as a fan at Jackson's well written critical views, it was never meant as a shot at your views dude. Thor in it's self is different than the rest of the Marvel universe, as you're dealing with fantastic concepts of Gods interacting with man's word (for lack of a better term). It's true you might get "cheesy" elements that might not mix well with the "realistic" elements. I have faith in the director and cast to execute this film and the small amount of footage we've seen so far makes me pleased with the progress the film has gone in thus far.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Re: THOR-starts shooting Jan2010: Updates, Rumors & Casting till relea

I could never get what Nolan thought he was doing with the superficial concessions "realism" in the batmovies.

It's faux-realism, ie, it feels realistic, even if it actually isn't (see also: the Bourne movies, and the Daniel Craig Bond films; it's become a very popular style of filmmaking in the 2000s).