kongisking
Active member
Montana Smith said:
Whedon was kind of a genius for that bit of Doing The Research.
Thor: The Dark World
- Thread starter Le Saboteur
- Start date
Whedon was kind of a genius for that bit of Doing The Research.
Le Saboteur
Active member
Le Saboteur said:
You're god damn prophetic, man.
Since the flick is finally drifting out of theatres after a two month run it looks like the final theatrical haul will be ~$630-million. The Dark World just barely cracked the $200-million mark stateside and picked up the difference internationally. I don't think anybody at the House of Mouse is unhappy about those numbers. They'll probably add another ~$200-million in home video sales and other back end deals.
Moedred said:
...um, no? It has a limited sentience -- i.e., self-preservation -- but it was/is a weapon created by the Dark Elves for use in their battle against the Asgardians. By definition, something created cannot be omnipotent. See the omnipotence paradox.
Moedred said:
Infinity. 'nuff said.
Moedred said:
Omniscient? No. You could get away with near omniscience, but think of Heimdall as someone with exceptionally good hearing and eyesight. Think of the sailor that can spot a...um, bird on the horizon well before you can and you have a good measure of Heimdall's powers.
Where's Finn to explain Norse mythology when you need him?
Joe Brody said:
I finally caught this over the holidays after a brief trip to the emergency room (and a hospital stay), and the audience was enthralled almost the entire time. Marvel really hit that four quadrant dead-on despite the bad reviews. Though, I highly doubt they would be 'bad' if Marvel actually developed the Asgardian plotline.
Amon Amarth is still too early. Maybe the third flick?
I enjoyed The Dark World, but ultimately found it to be a trifling affair. Like the original movie, it spent far too much time mucking about Midgard and worrying after Jane Foster. It's almost as if the initial indecision ending up backing the writers into a corner; a moment that may ultimately neuter Thor's big screen longevity. A golden opportunity to supplant the Lord of the Rings and capitalize on Game of the Thrones' popularity has been lost.
I wouldn't necessarily change anything, but the first movie should have spent most of its time in and around Asgard and ended with Thor getting cast down to Earth and meeting Ms. Foster. The second picture largely echoes the first, and the possible third flick sends it back to Asgard for more high-fantasy. Expand the mythos and build a second franchise out of it. You could have a Warriors Three and/or Lady Sif spin off.
Eh, I suppose they could work on it with a third movie. It'd take some effort.
Sorry, Ms. Foster. You cannot compete.
Colonel Winter said:
You were banned after two posts. That must be some sort of record. But, yes, I did stay for the mid and post-credits scenes. Like Thanos' appearance at the end of The Avengers, I couldn't help but let out an enthusiastic response to the appearance of Taneleer Tivan, The Collector. I'm curious to see where they go with him in the Guardians of the Galaxy.
I do share Moedred's concern that The Collector's vault looking slightly underwhelming despite some cool creature effects. Hopefully it was filmed quickly and not indicative of things to come.
HenryJunior said:
Come now, man. Surely you recognize a warp grenade when you see one?
Le Saboteur
Active member
Le Saboteur the Annoying said:
No spinoff yet, good sir, but Sif is all set to make a guess appearance on Agents of SHIELD. Arune Singh, Marvel Entertainment's Executive Director of TV Communications, Tweeted out the announcement
Moedred said:
Doubtful. Both Thor offerings are probably the weakest of the bunch for whatever reason, but not enough for people to skip out on the rest of the story. Marvel's been doing such a phenomenal job with their building block approach to the overall story that it can suffer a couple of stumbling blocks along the way.
The real test of the cinematic universe's durability is going to be the critical and commercial success of Ant-Man. He's an interesting character, but being able to shrink down to the size of an ant isn't exactly a sexy power.
Fun aside: Disney banned the idea that Ant-Man could ever be Eric O'Grady. Often referred to as the Irredeemable Ant-Man, his lasting claim to fame, aside from being a complete reprobate, was his dedication to getting upskirt snaps of Captain Marvel.
If I were a betting man, I would put money on interest increasing. Why? By pushing Batman vs. Superman back a full sixteen months, Warner Bros has all but confirmed that it will be the Justice League.
kongisking
Active member
I'm certainly curious to see Sif on SHIELD. I like her quite a bit in her brief appearances in the movies, and want to see her get a little more development.
And I'm actually hugely excited for Ant-Man. Edgar "ShaunOfTheDeadHotFuzzTheWorld'sEnd" Wright directing? If I could, I'd buy my ticket right freaking now.
And I'm actually hugely excited for Ant-Man. Edgar "ShaunOfTheDeadHotFuzzTheWorld'sEnd" Wright directing? If I could, I'd buy my ticket right freaking now.
Le Saboteur
Active member
kongisking said:
I'm not. While I like Edgar Wright well enough (specifically, Shaun of the Dead), I don't give a fig about the character. Now, his long time partner is a different story entirely. Marvel will get the comic fans and Edgar Wright fans, but I think this might be the hardest thing for Marvel to sell to the general movie going public yet.
Fell free to start an Ant Man thread, though.
Moedred said:
You didn't miss much. That is, unless you really, really care about Thor's relationship with Jane Foster. It was probably the worst post credits sequence Marvel has done to date. Especially since it wasn't actually Natalie Portman. Which I find funny, because I couldn't help notice just how much derriere Ms. Portman seemed to gain in a matter of seconds.
Moedred said:
Yeah, I saw that. I wouldn't be happy either; the obvious post credits sequence should have set up a third Thor picture. From a strictly visual standpoint, it looked hurried and unfinished. Where was the lighting? It certainly didn't have that polished look despite some groovy looking artifacts and creature effects. I sort of got the impression that James Gunn hurriedly shot it in order to make the official release date. Note the difference in the level of detail on the Asgardians' attire and Taneleer Tivan's. It's a night and day difference.
kongisking said:
She has been poorly utilized across two movies now, so Sif (and Jaime Alexander) deserves some proper screen time. Marvel really should be looking to bring The Lord of the Rings to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but has failed thus far. They have the perfect setup, too.
Hey, look. We've made it to a second page!
kongisking
Active member
Le Saboteur said:
I honestly don't care for the character either. I'm just hyped at the idea of an Edgar Wright Marvel movie. And hey, Iron Man was a character many didn't really give a darn about. Look what a talented director and a good script did to his rep...
And I'd start a thread, but I do want to decrease the superhero-pollution of this Indiana Jones-centric forum, as per Stoo's dema-I mean, wishes.
