the vynsane asylum

I'm actually pretty stoked to see Renner playing Hawkeye in the Thor film.

Yeah, but do you see my point, that if they're not careful and using this sort of thing sparingly (which, to their credit, they've done so far, though I doubt this trend of tastefulness can continue), they really risk screwing the pooch bigtime?

All we can go by is what we've seen so far. And The Hulk and both Iron Man films have been great. The trailers for Thor and Cap look great.

The Post-Avengers landscape of the shared universe might (a very slight might) have some issues along those lines. Where do individual films go after an Avengers film? But for right now, I see nothing that warrants anything but optimism. Even the very small amount of information we have of the post-Avengers lineup has me impressed. Shane Black on Iron Man 3? Hell yeah.

Rollo Tomassi wrote:And The Hulk and both Iron Man films have been great.

Agreed. Too bad The Incredible Hulk was mediocrity defined and Hulk doesn't fit into this new movie universe.






(Yes, I know you were referring to The Incredible Hulk when you said The Hulk)

I was the biggest naysayer of Incredible Hulk, and still have yet to see it all, in order. But what I've seen actually looks pretty good.

I still think Ang Lee's was better, and still resent Marvel execs actually describing it as bad simply because it didn't perform well. I've said before and will again, I'd like to read a headline that Ang Lee beat Avi Arad to death with his Oscars, and it was ruled justifiable homicide and no charges will be filed.

Plus, it gave us Velvet Revolver, in a manner of speaking.

The Incredible Hulk isn't terrible, but I thought Hulk was far better (especially in terms of cast).

Hulk vs. The Incredible Hulk, via boxoffocemojo.com:

Hulk (2003)
Domestic: $132,177,234 (96.48% of production budget)
Foreign: $113,183,246
Worldwide: $245,360,480 (179% of production budget)
Budget: $137 million
Profit: $108,360,000

The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Domestic: $134,806,913 (89.87% of production budget)
Foreign: $128,620,638
Worldwide: $263,427,551 (175% of production budget)
Budget: $150 million
Profit: $113,420,000

With numbers this close, I can't help but wonder why Hulk is considered such a massive failure.
And that isn't taking any inflation into consideration.

anarky wrote:Plus, it gave us Velvet Revolver, in a manner of speaking.

Before they were even calling themselves Velvet Revolver to boot!

I think the expectations for the 2003 were unrealistically higher because of stuff like Spider-Man and X-Men and whatnot. So when it did only fair, they saw that as failure.
The expectations for the 2008 film were more realistic and as such, performed 'better'.

Overall I liked both films, but I enjoyed the 2008 film more. The Hulk seemed too preoccupied with the science of it all, whereas the later film realized it was a comic film and just got on with the Hulkiness. I also thought Norton made a better Banner. But Sam Elliot made a better Ross. Also, the later film didn't have Nick Nolte which gives it one in the win column in my opinion.

The second Hulk film was a million times better than the Ang Lee production- it felt much more like a marvel venture, whereas Lees seemed like Hulk was a vertigo title. I state that as context for what I am about to say about Thor.

Saw it last night. The only real complaint I would have against it is the pacing- the film runs for around 2 entire minutes "in the present" before turning into a (roughly) 25 minute long flashback, starting with Thor and Loki as children then going through everything that lead up to the opening scene of Thor smacking into the desert. The rest of it kind of suffers from the fact that it is basically part one of a two-part deal, with Avengers being the next thing to happen in the continuity. The last act of the film just doesn't feel like the end of anything, which is pretty much a necessary evil with this kind of mega-project.

The film looks really good overall, the humour is well executed and by no means overdone, and Natalie Portman is actually cast fairly well as a goofy person.

The Stan Lee cameo is hilarious.


I will put spoiler tags on this bit just so, even tho it was mentioned earlier Hawkeye is totally in the film- I have read in some places that his appearance seemed "forced" or whatever but I didn't really get that from it- Thor is trashing the site of a SHIELD investigation in pursuit of his hammer and the site director calls for "somebody up high", so a dude who is not in costume stands in front of a weapons rack and almost reaches for a rifle before settling on some kind of wacky composite bow- he has maybe 3 lines, none of which is anything more than him communicating the status of the target, and only once he is referred to as "Barton"- no costume, no nothing, and the pursuit of Thor is concluded without Hawkeye even so much as nocking an arrow IIRC

I think the best aspect of the film, for me, was just how Marvel it was overall- you get Marvel Deaths, very mild violence (yet still blazing action) and if you have read enough silver age Marvel featuring Thor, no surprises- every time something you KNEW was coming happened it delighted me (such as for instance the obligatory Odinsleep)

Overall it is better than a lot of ways I could imagine Thor being handled- if you want something deep (like an Ang Lee film) you are NOT going to get it- if anything it was almost like a cheesy 80's film with much better writing and awesome effects- but I do believe it was a worthy big-screen introduction to the Odinson

Is Beta Ray Bill in it?

No, there isn't anything even close a Beta Ray Bill reference- there is a really crafty way of working Donald Blake into the film in such a way that it is both a cool touch for fans and totally unobtrusive for anyone not "in the know"

Lack of Beta Ray Bill does not work in the film's favor.

However, I will take into account your appreciation for Speed Racer and, therefore, superior movie tastes. Realistically, though, I doubt I'll see it until it's on DVD.

C'mon Chux, you gotta save something for the sequel. And trying to cram Bill into this one would lead to an overabundance of awesome that would cause the entire Marvel Film universe to implode.

I just got back from seeing it,but will wait to review it on something other than my phone because I don't want to be typing for half an hour.

Has it at least got Deep Roy?

anarky wrote:Has it at least got Deep Roy?

If you stay for the scene after the credits, Deep Roy plays the Cosmic Cube. But, as with any part he plays, he's such a good actor, you won't be able to tell its him because he immerses himself into the part so completely.

Saw Thor yesterday. Didn't love it, but I liked it.
Great case, good enough story.

It fits well in the Marvel Movie Universe and is clearly a Prologue to The Avengers.
And its about as good as a Thor movie could be.