Marvel Films Discussion Thread

[HGervais]

Based on the statement Marvel Studios made this was about a lot more than money. To be fair, Norton had a reputation of being difficult & demanding before he made The Incredible Hulk and when you compound that with his refusal to do almost any press when the movie came out and add that to him trying to play hardball about the cut of the movie he preferred, this all sounds like it had been building for quite some time. And I guess when you are taking on a project the size of The Avengers, which let's be honest,if it is done the way it should be we have seen nothing like this before, Norton's ego may have been one too far. And really, go back and read the statement, because I have never read anything this strong out of a studio head before when speaking of a lead actor.
I liked The Incredible Hulk quite a lot. I would love to see Norton's preferred cut but the movie in it's original form didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Combine that with a director with only one, smallish budget, film under his belt and I can kind of see where Marvel Films would want to avoid a problem before entering into production on the film which will probably determine its longterm fate. Everything is riding on The Avengers. I think the razor sharp edge of Fiege's words provides a window into just how strongly they didn't want Norton around. It's something you have to factor in.

[cdouglas]

I liked The Incredible Hulk quite a lot. I would love to see Norton's preferred cut but the movie in it's original form didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Combine that with a director with only one, smallish budget, film under his belt and I can kind of see where Marvel Films would want to avoid a problem before entering into production on the film which will probably determine its longterm fate. Everything is riding on The Avengers. I think the razor sharp edge of Fiege's words provides a window into just how strongly they didn't want Norton around. It's something you have to factor in.

However, the statement from Norton's agent indicates that Marvel had made Norton an offer and that Norton had already had a positive meeting with Whedon. The only way this move is justified is if something really nasty happened in the contract negotiation process, because Marvel shouldn't have let things go as far as they did if they were just going to drop Norton because they didn't want to work with him.

[HGervais]

I liked The Incredible Hulk quite a lot. I would love to see Norton's preferred cut but the movie in it's original form didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Combine that with a director with only one, smallish budget, film under his belt and I can kind of see where Marvel Films would want to avoid a problem before entering into production on the film which will probably determine its longterm fate. Everything is riding on The Avengers. I think the razor sharp edge of Fiege's words provides a window into just how strongly they didn't want Norton around. It's something you have to factor in.

However, the statement from Norton's agent indicates that Marvel had made Norton an offer and that Norton had already had a positive meeting with Whedon. The only way this move is justified is if something really nasty happened in the contract negotiation process, because Marvel shouldn't have let things go as far as they did if they were just going to drop Norton because they didn't want to work with him.

I guess it is he said/he said. I still can't get over the level of anger in the statement which the more I read it, the more pronouced it becomes.

[Dan Mancini]

I liked The Incredible Hulk quite a lot. I would love to see Norton's preferred cut but the movie in it's original form didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Combine that with a director with only one, smallish budget, film under his belt and I can kind of see where Marvel Films would want to avoid a problem before entering into production on the film which will probably determine its longterm fate. Everything is riding on The Avengers. I think the razor sharp edge of Fiege's words provides a window into just how strongly they didn't want Norton around. It's something you have to factor in.

However, the statement from Norton's agent indicates that Marvel had made Norton an offer and that Norton had already had a positive meeting with Whedon. The only way this move is justified is if something really nasty happened in the contract negotiation process, because Marvel shouldn't have let things go as far as they did if they were just going to drop Norton because they didn't want to work with him.

I guess it is he said/he said. I still can't get over the level of anger in the statement which the more I read it, the more pronouced it becomes.

If the parting of ways was for the reason Fiege cites, then it doesn't bode well for the project. If it wasn't a question of money, then it should've been Whedon's call to make. Period.

[Boba Fett]

Norton's response to the situation:

[J.M. Vargas]

^^^ Watch Marvel suits now pick Eric Bana as Banner for "The Avengers."

[HGervais]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

[Andrew Forbes]

Norton's response to the situation:

That was class.

[J.M. Vargas]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

There's the accent thingie though (unless he's dubbed).

[Boba Fett]

Copley hid his accent in The A-Team. Bana also had an amazingly thick accent, but you couldn't tell it one bit in "Hulk."

[cdouglas]

Copley hid his accent in The A-Team. Bana also had an amazingly thick accent, but you couldn't tell it one bit in "Hulk."

I dunno, Copley seemed to have trouble hiding his accent in A-Team to me. I agree on Bana, though.

[Steve T Power]

Oh god... oh man... i think i just puked... I can't wait for this to suck!

[Dan Mancini]

Oh god... oh man... i think i just puked... I can't wait for this to suck!

I liked the initial pictures of Thor, but that one is six rubber nipples shy of being Schumacher bad.

[Gabriel Girard]

Oh god... oh man... i think i just puked... I can't wait for this to suck!

I liked the initial pictures of Thor, but that one is six rubber nipples shy of being Schumacher bad.

It looks like a still from a bad t.v. movie or from a Flash Gordon sequel.

[cdouglas]

I still have enthusiasm for Thor since Branagh's at the helm... but man, those pictures are awfully discouraging. I hope Seal is doing a song for the end credits!

[Andrew Forbes]

Bad, yes, but to be fair, they've lit that in the worst possible way. Those costumes and the set cry out for shadow.

I do wonder why they went with clashing golds for Hopkins' armor and eye-patch, though. That's really poor colour design.

[Dan Mancini]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

Deadline Hollywood claims Mark Ruffalo is about to sign on to play Banner.

[cdouglas]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

Deadline Hollywood claims Mark Ruffalo is about to sign on to play Banner.

I think I like the idea of Ruffalo even better than the other two. The man delivers just about every time, no matter the level of the material he's working with.

[Dan Mancini]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

Deadline Hollywood claims Mark Ruffalo is about to sign on to play Banner.

I think I like the idea of Ruffalo even better than the other two. The man delivers just about every time, no matter the level of the material he's working with.

Me, too.

[Dunnyman]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

Deadline Hollywood claims Mark Ruffalo is about to sign on to play Banner.

I think I like the idea of Ruffalo even better than the other two. The man delivers just about every time, no matter the level of the material he's working with.

Me, too.

Ruffalo's been sort of an under the radar guy who can play just about anything very well. I think he'd nail this one, and we're getting closer to a just about perfect Avengers movie.
Regarding Hopkins as Odin, he looks horribly wimpy, just as I figured he would. T'was not hysteria, Mr. Gervais, t'was common sense....they shoulda hired Brian Blessed, he woulda been awesome!

[Andrew Forbes]

"You're making me concerned, slightly sad and/or uncomfortable. You wouldn't like me when I'm concerned, slightly sad and/or uncomfortable."

[HGervais]

The two names I have seen mentioned today for Banner/Hulk are Joaquin Phoenix and Sharlto Copley. Copley in particular would shut a lot of people up in a hurry.

Deadline Hollywood claims Mark Ruffalo is about to sign on to play Banner.

I think I like the idea of Ruffalo even better than the other two. The man delivers just about every time, no matter the level of the material he's working with.

Me, too.

Ruffalo's been sort of an under the radar guy who can play just about anything very well. I think he'd nail this one, and we're getting closer to a just about perfect Avengers movie.
Regarding Hopkins as Odin, he looks horribly wimpy, just as I figured he would. T'was not hysteria, Mr. Gervais, t'was common sense....they shoulda hired Brian Blessed, he woulda been awesome!

Ruffalo would indeed be a great choice. He is one of the best actors working today.
As for Hopkins...call me crazy but I'm not one to base my opinion on a couple of still photos. He is a great actor capable of bringing the goods so up until I see the thing I'm staying with the open mind. The problem with Blessed is by nature of casting him you open the door for camp or the perception of camp right from the word go. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Brian Blessed but I just don't think he would be right for it.

[J.M. Vargas]

Jennifer Lawrence ("Winter's Bone") cast as Mystique in the new "X=Men": http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/winters-bone-star-cast-as-mystique-in-xmen-first-class.html.

[bubblegumking]

Now if they can just talk Christina Hendricks into being the Scarlet Witch, I'd be one happy and totally geeked fanboy all over again.

Fixed.

She's "Our Mrs. Reynolds", yeah?

[the5thghostbuster]

I honestly don't get the complaints about the costumes in Thor or the complaints about lighting. This is supposed to be the relm of the gods: a big, bright sheen on everything makes sense. If one wants a darker, more "real" looking set of costumes, I'm not sure that Thor is the best place to start. Its a story of big, MYTHIC characters.

Given the complaints people keep brining up, you'd swear we we in the late 1990s again, where a film like Thor would likely would have been directed by George P. Cosmatos IF we were lucky, staring somebody from the WWE. Instead, we have flippin' Kenneth Branagh directing the film with a crew of real, honest to God actors, and rather than wait and see how the finished film will be, people seem to just be looking for something to complain about.

[Steve T Power]

I honestly don't get the complaints about the costumes in Thor or the complaints about lighting. This is supposed to be the relm of the gods: a big, bright sheen on everything makes sense. If one wants a darker, more "real" looking set of costumes, I'm not sure that Thor is the best place to start. Its a story of big, MYTHIC characters.

Given the complaints people keep brining up, you'd swear we we in the late 1990s again, where a film like Thor would likely would have been directed by George P. Cosmatos IF we were lucky, staring somebody from the WWE. Instead, we have flippin' Kenneth Branagh directing the film with a crew of real, honest to God actors, and rather than wait and see how the finished film will be, people seem to just be looking for something to complain about.

Or... you know, we just might remember The Avengers.

[Dan Mancini]

I honestly don't get the complaints about the costumes in Thor or the complaints about lighting. This is supposed to be the relm of the gods: a big, bright sheen on everything makes sense. If one wants a darker, more "real" looking set of costumes, I'm not sure that Thor is the best place to start. Its a story of big, MYTHIC characters.

It's not about things looking more "real." It's about it being a story of big, MYTHIC characters...wearing plastic costumes. If it's supposed to be the realm of the gods, then it should look that way, not like a Syfy production of Dune Messiah.

I do agree with Forbes, though, that if the movie isn't as brightly lit as that publicity still, the costumes may come off better.

[the5thghostbuster]

My problem withh the "Syfy" movie arguement that has been made is that it is such hyperbole that the statement ceases to be representative of what we are actually talking about. I've watched enough Syfy (god I hate that name) to know how crappy they are, and to compare what we have here to those is overkill in the extreme.

Beyond that, what does the relm of the gods look like? For all we know, part of the point is that it has a fake sheen to it in order to set up a contrast to reality of Earth in the finished film. Point is, till we at least see some footage, we wont know how these things look in their proper context.

Most of all however, my reaction to the negativity is based upon past experience. People were crying for Brian Singer's head when the X-Men costumes were revealed, then once they actually saw the film were perfectly fine with them (save the die hards who want Wolverine in yellow spandex). People complained about the early photos of SamRaimi's Spiderman costume, and Christopher Nolan's Batman costume, etc. etc. Everytime, everyone afterwards granted that the costumes worked. So why the heck is it everyone feels like going through the motions of this same process time and again?

[Dan Mancini]

My problem withh the "Syfy" movie arguement that has been made is that it is such hyperbole that the statement ceases to be representative of what we are actually talking about. I've watched enough Syfy (god I hate that name) to know how crappy they are, and to compare what we have here to those is overkill in the extreme.

It's not hyperbole. Odin's costume looks cheap. Like what you'd see in a low-budget movie. There, I said it.

I completely agree that, in motion and with different lighting, the cheapnis may be hidden. But that still makes the release of that photo a marketing snafu.

People were crying for Brian Singer's head when the X-Men costumes were revealed, then once they actually saw the film were perfectly fine with them (save the die hards who want Wolverine in yellow spandex). People complained about the early photos of SamRaimi's Spiderman costume, and Christopher Nolan's Batman costume, etc. etc. Everytime, everyone afterwards granted that the costumes worked. So why the heck is it everyone feels like going through the motions of this same process time and again?

I griped about none of the examples you cite. In fact, I almost never gripe about movie superhero costumes...unless they involve nipples on batsuits or Norse gods who look like they're ready to hop in their van and head out to Comic-Con.

[the5thghostbuster]

My problem withh the "Syfy" movie arguement that has been made is that it is such hyperbole that the statement ceases to be representative of what we are actually talking about. I've watched enough Syfy (god I hate that name) to know how crappy they are, and to compare what we have here to those is overkill in the extreme.

It's not hyperbole. Odin's costume looks cheap. Like what you'd see in a low-budget movie. There, I said it.

I completely agree that, in motion and with different lighting, the cheapnis may be hidden. But that still makes the release of that photo a marketing snafu.

People were crying for Brian Singer's head when the X-Men costumes were revealed, then once they actually saw the film were perfectly fine with them (save the die hards who want Wolverine in yellow spandex). People complained about the early photos of SamRaimi's Spiderman costume, and Christopher Nolan's Batman costume, etc. etc. Everytime, everyone afterwards granted that the costumes worked. So why the heck is it everyone feels like going through the motions of this same process time and again?

I griped about none of the examples you cite. In fact, I almost never gripe about movie superhero costumes...unless they involve nipples on batsuits or Norse gods who look like they're ready to hop in their van and head out to Comic-Con.

I am talking about in the broad sense, not just you. Trust me, I remember how much complaining there was about all of these costumes, particularly the X-Men costumes when AICN originall released the photos of them.

Personally, I don't see anything cheap here. Too much light? Maybe, and that is a big maybe. And if you really think that those costumes look as bad as those in the Dune mini series of Alien Apocalypse, then we have a very different set of standards

[J.M. Vargas]

More (better?) "THOR" pictures: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/marvelparamount-release-new-thor-pics/

[HGervais]

I'm reserving comment on that part of it until we see the footage that is bound to be introduced this weekend at ComicCon.

[Steve T Power]

In the spirit of friendly debate:

I still think it looks like crap, combined with how absurd I think the concept of Thor as a live action film will be... well... There's a certain demographic that will defend it unto death, like me with Paul W.S Anderson movies, but that doesn't make them any less insane (or me for that matter).

It has reached that point. the comic book movie genre has become so saturated, that things are getting greenlit simply BECAUSE they are long running comic books. There's next to zero thought process into how well the concept would work as a film. I think we're going to start seeing a lot more Daredevils and Ghost Riders rather than Iron Mans and Spider-Mans.

To put it into perspective, or to try to further my case, take Metal Gear. I've played every video game in the series to completion multiple times, read the comics, own some of the action figures, and am pretty knowledgeable about the mythology, probably on par with your average comic book geek and his/her chosen passion. I know that there's no chance in hell that Metal Gear could work as a feature length film without being completely ridiculous, or altered to such an extent that it wouldn't even remotely resemble the source material. I prefer that they don't even bother.

There are comic books out there that would make brilliant movies, even superhero comics. I just don't think Thor is one of em. I also don't think it has the built in audience to win back a blockbuster budget. I thought the same thing about Iron Man until i saw pics and the first trailer. Yeah, I guess Thor may still win out when a trailer hits, but the pictures, the chosen director (I honestly don't see why the fact that Branagh's directing is such a big deal) and the casting don't exactly inspire the same confidence in me that Downey Jr. and self-avowed Comic Geek Jon Favreau did for Iron Man.

[HGervais]

It has reached that point. the comic book movie genre has become so saturated, that things are getting greenlit simply BECAUSE they are long running comic books. There's next to zero thought process into how well the concept would work as a film. I think we're going to start seeing a lot more Daredevils and Ghost Riders rather than Iron Mans and Spider-Mans.

Why do we keep hearing the same point about saturation over & over again? We heard it a year ago and the year before that and the year before that. The simple truth is every movie is different and they need to be judged on their own terms. Could Thor suck? Of course but if it does it won't be because comic book movies are over saturating the market, it will be because Thor isn't a good movie.
As far as MU movies, I don't know. If you are setting up a film universe where Avengers is the endgame, Thor is a pretty major player. I want to see Thor in action. I want to see Asgard in motion. I want to see the route they take. Then I can make a decision.

[Steve T Power]

It has reached that point. the comic book movie genre has become so saturated, that things are getting greenlit simply BECAUSE they are long running comic books. There's next to zero thought process into how well the concept would work as a film. I think we're going to start seeing a lot more Daredevils and Ghost Riders rather than Iron Mans and Spider-Mans.

Why do we keep hearing the same point about saturation over & over again? We heard it a year ago and the year before that and the year before that. The simple truth is every movie is different and they need to be judged on their own terms. Could Thor suck? Of course but if it does it won't be because comic book movies are over saturating the market, it will be because Thor isn't a good movie.
As far as MU movies, I don't know. If you are setting up a film universe where Avengers is the endgame, Thor is a pretty major player. I want to see Thor in action. I want to see Asgard in motion. I want to see the route they take. Then I can make a decision.

You keep hearing it because it's true. Mind you, I wasn't saying it last year, or the year before that. But when it seems like there's a new super-hero funny-book turned movie greenlit every other week, followed up by conversations about short features precluding feature length films and acting as gateway flicks for second string characters, well, it's gone too far. Does The Avengers have to exist as a film? No, i really don't think that it does. Is it a concept that i think can work as a film? No, not necessarily, even with someone like Whedon behind the reins. It brings cred to the film when you have a built in legion of followers who will eagerly spread the word, but the concept, on the molecular level, just doesn't lend itself to live action in any sensible fashion, and beyond that, tossing these characters into a vat together cheapens them as individual properties. It feels to me like the only reason a Thor film even exists is as a building block to the Avengers, and i find that sad. I feel the same about Captain America, which I think could very well make for a kick-ass blockbuster. With Joe Johnston and Chris Evans being involved, i feel it could live up to Marvel's better films. I just hope that Johnston sticks to his guns and ignores The Avengers crap as he claimed he would.

Of course, Thor very well could hit the ground running, and wind up being a fantastic flick on par with the best of Marvel's offerings, hell the chance exists that it could even stand with DC's more thoughtful efforts, but there's just as much chance that it will suck like a Hoover. Probably more. I appreciate that you in particular, Harold, want to at least see it in motion before making a judgment call, but based on what I've read about the script, and now what I have seen of the production , I'm making my call. I hope you're right, and I'm wrong, if only for the sake of the character's hardcore Thor fans. I'd rather see them walk away happy in the end. I'd rather see a film that demands I toss some cash across the box office bark dust rather than wait for my rental copies to come in and grow more and more intoxicated while laughing maniacally at how awful it is in the comfort of my own home. Though both outcomes definitely have their merits, yes?

Meanwhile, i think Green Lantern is also looking like a total train wreck, but that is for another thread.

[Dunnyman]

More (better?) "THOR" pictures: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/marvelparamount-release-new-thor-pics/

That rumbling sound you hear is Jack Kirby rolling over in his grave.

[Dan Mancini]

Does The Avengers have to exist as a film? No, i really don't think that it does. Is it a concept that i think can work as a film? No, not necessarily, even with someone like Whedon behind the reins. It brings cred to the film when you have a built in legion of followers who will eagerly spread the word, but the concept, on the molecular level, just doesn't lend itself to live action in any sensible fashion, and beyond that, tossing these characters into a vat together cheapens them as individual properties.

While I would love it if The Avengers turned out to be the most kickass thing ever, I tend to agree. And I think the guy who really gets screwed in this bargain is Jon Favreau because The Avengers is about 90% guaranteed to intrude upon, if not outright sh*t upon, the world that he's created in the Iron Man flicks -- a world that's netted Marvel a heap o' dough, by the way.

It feels to me like the only reason a Thor film even exists is as a building block to the Avengers, and i find that sad.

You're two fer two, Steve-o. While I, too, hope the Thor fans dig the end product, I hate that all these movies are being treated as prequels to what will probably be the Irwin Allen-style (if only Shelley Winters were still alive!) superhero disaster flick of the century. The thing is, if Thor sucks (and I suspect it will), then all Marvel has accomplished is crapping in Favreau's sandbox. Making a Thor movie was not necessary to setting up an Avengers movie. I'd have preferred that they took the Ultimates route and presented him as a roguish borderline eco-terrorist who certainly has superpowers of some kind and claims to be a god, though no one really believes him (thus letting audience members fall in whichever direction they choose). At least then I could buy the sight of Chris Hemsworth and Robert Downey Jr. sharing the frame.

Meanwhile, i think Green Lantern is also looking like a total train wreck...

Three for three.

[Mitchell Hattaway]

That rumbling sound you hear is Jack Kirby rolling over in his grave.

I thought it was Walt Simonson shaking with apoplectic rage. Maybe it's both.

[HGervais]

It's official.

[HGervais]

Ladies and gentlemen, your cast of The Avengers.

[J.M. Vargas]

MARVEL RE-ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS OWN "PUNISHER" MOVIES: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/now-marvel-can-make-pics-for-the-punisher/.

[the5thghostbuster]

MARVEL RE-ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS OWN "PUNISHER" MOVIES: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/now-marvel-can-make-pics-for-the-punisher/.

Just let him cameo in other films. No need to once again try and get him to be the center point of a film.

[molly1216]

regarding THOR

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2010/07/the ... elmets.php


they lost me with this image.

there are only 2 ways this can go with such a set piece.
1 playing it straight - which yields Pitch Black 2.
2 playing it straight but with tongue firmly planted in cheek which yields Flash Gordon.
not bad but unlikely.

[Boba Fett]

regarding THOR

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2010/07/the ... elmets.php


they lost me with this image.

there are only 2 ways this can go with such a set piece.
1 playing it straight - which yields Pitch Black 2.
2 playing it straight but with tongue firmly planted in cheek which yields Flash Gordon.
not bad but unlikely.

This might be a spoiler for some but...

Very little of the movie takes place on Thor's planet. Most of it revolves around Thor on Earth.

[HGervais]

Okay. The Infinity Gauntlet. Officially more interested now. Thanos would make a lot of sense for a bad guy big enough to justify a Avengers movie.

[Steve T Power]

MARVEL RE-ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS OWN "PUNISHER" MOVIES: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/now-marvel-can-make-pics-for-the-punisher/.

Just let him cameo in other films. No need to once again try and get him to be the center point of a film.

KEEP: Ray Stevenson

JETTISON: Everything Else!

[molly1216]

MARVEL RE-ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS OWN "PUNISHER" MOVIES: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/now-marvel-can-make-pics-for-the-punisher/.

Just let him cameo in other films. No need to once again try and get him to be the center point of a film.

KEEP: Ray Stevenson

JETTISON: Everything Else!

which is really sad.
Ray Stephenson is a renaissance man, he's a poet and a painter and drop dead gorgeous from the navel out in all directions...it's a shame to see him in such mindless tripe. But at least if he opens a few films he will start getting better offers.

[Steve T Power]

MARVEL RE-ACQUIRES RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS OWN "PUNISHER" MOVIES: http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/now-marvel-can-make-pics-for-the-punisher/.

Just let him cameo in other films. No need to once again try and get him to be the center point of a film.

KEEP: Ray Stevenson

JETTISON: Everything Else!

which is really sad.
Ray Stephenson is a renaissance man, he's a poet and a painter and drop dead gorgeous from the navel out in all directions...it's a shame to see him in such mindless tripe. But at least if he opens a few films he will start getting better offers.

I think the character still has a good film in him, and Ray has been the strongest iteration of him up to now. What's worse is that Warzone almost had it. If only the "comic book" style had been toned down. The biggest problem is that the vast majority of those involved in developing the films just don't "get" the character at all. Tom Jane did, but he was miscast, Stevenson definitely did, but he didn't have the script to back him up, and the film's agenda was just off base.

[Jim_Thomas]

regarding THOR

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2010/07/the ... elmets.php

How Wagnerian.

[Andrew Forbes]

How Wagnerian.

Seriously. Why are people so down on this set? That's some epic Nordic sh*t right there. Odin sitting in a giant, golden sword-hilt-throne, flanked by ravens? If this was from the thirties, people would be praising it as the pinnacle of Golden Age set design.

I fully expect the movie to be a failure, mainly due to Branagh's track record with genre material and his weak action direction (in those brief moments his films can claim to contain action), but that's some seriously fine production design.