Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

The Director Of THOR 2 Is …

I am – Hercules!!

Alan Taylor, who hasn’t directed anything for the big screen since 2003’s indie drama “Kill The Poor,” will helm Marvel’s big-budget actioner “Thor 2,” according to Deadline Hollywood.

Taylor is likely best known as an HBO director, having lensed episodes of everything from “Oz,” “Sex and the City,” “The Sopranos,” “Six Feet Under,” “Big Love,” “In Treatment” and “Bored To Death” to period dramas like “Rome,” “Deadwood,” “Carnivale,” “Boardwalk Empire” and “Game Of Thrones.”

So he has a lot of experience with both contemporary and non-contemporary settings. His work blending CGI with live action on the period series has been splendid.

Away from HBO he’s directed installments of “Homicide: Life On The Street,” “Now and Again,” “The West Wing,” “Keen Eddie,” “Lost,” “Law & Order,” “Mad Men,” “Nurse Jackie,” “Rubicon” and “The Playboy Club.”

Before now, Taylor’s best-known big-screen work was likely the 2001 switched-identities Napoleon comedy “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” starring Ian Holm. (Maybe it’s the feature experience that got him the job over Timothy Van Patton?)  His first feature was 1995's "Palookaville."

Taylor replaces Patty Jenkins (director of the Charlize Theron serial killer vehicle "Monster"), who apparently fell out of the project following creative differences with Marvel execs.

Actor Chris Hemsworth ("Star Trek," "Cabin in the Woods") and screenwriter Don Payne ("My Super Ex-Girlfriend," "Rise of the Silver Surfer") are both returning from Kenneth Branagh’s “Thor.”

Find all of Deadline’s exclusive on the matter here.

Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    It could go both ways with this one.

    by CodeName

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Anyone with Deadwood and Game of Thrones ..

    by 2LeggedFreak

    ..on their CV deserves a chance at this. I can see it now :- "Loki you miserable cocksucker, prepare to feel the might of Mjolnir, ya cunt."

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    FIRST!

    by Bryce Wagoner

    Inspired choice!

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    ha

    by shrimp_shack_shooter

    Yeah I'm sure you could.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    He better not fuck this up.

    by Nerd Rage

    He better not.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST

    turd rage

    by shrimp_shack_shooter

    I agree. Pretty big shoes to fill after the suprise that Thor 1 was. Marvel has a chance to make a huge expansive universe out of this character alone, and hopefully won't blow it by taking too many chances...but then again, Branaugh was a pretty big chance

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:38 a.m. CST

    but the more I think about it...

    by shrimp_shack_shooter

    The more underwhelming it is. Granted, he sounds like a proven tv director with a nice track record, but on the other hand, he's only played in universes that have an already established style. Could be more of the same. Which is...underwhelming

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:48 a.m. CST

    I'm sure he'll come on time and under budget

    by Bass Ackwards

    I think with Jenkins leaving the project Marvel just wanted to get a gun for hire in there that'll get this move out by the 2013 release date without fussing too much over what Marvel tells him they want this movie to be.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Herc

    by Grando

    I can never tell if you do this deliberately or not, but surely this guys most famous big screen work was Palookaville?

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:57 a.m. CST

    At least now this movie has a chance of being good!

    by annapaquinspussyjuice

    ...Which is more than can be said about the prospect of Patty Jenkins being at the helm.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Branagh

    by kubricksnutsack

    The thing is that Kenneth Branagh talked favourably about being part of the sequel. It's a shame they didn't let him have another go.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Anyone know why Branagh wasn't hired for the sequel

    by Nerd Rage

    The official reason and unofficial reason?

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:40 a.m. CST

    You took time out of your xmas day to post this?

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    more worringly, I took time out of mine to comment on it.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:49 a.m. CST

    Oh well...

    by paint163

    At least we had one good Thor movie.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST

    can anyone explain to me how people like Don Payne get work?

    by therootstheroots

    Like really? as i want in. Can anyone shed any light how people like him keep getting hired? is it because he knows someone. it's a bit like that brett ratner and a few others. they all seem really mediocre and i would love to know how they keep getting work. is there an article that sheds light on this? thanks

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 6:17 a.m. CST

    You forgot to mention Palookaville...!

    by DC Films

    Superb movie with Vincent Gallo... Now he would make a great villain!

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 6:48 a.m. CST

    Grando

    by Hercules

    I can't speak to home video sales, but in cinemas "Emperor's" was seen by nearly twice as many people as saw "Palookaville."

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Marvel

    by kesoze4

    Sounds like they found themselves an hombre they knew wouldn't get uppity.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 7:20 a.m. CST

    director of Oz, huh?

    by Mugato5150

    My ass is thor!

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Yet again Marvel is going for the cheap production route

    by KilliK

    Who's next? Uwe Boll to direct Captain America 2?

  • Saw it in an interview somewhere. He said Marvel wanted him back and he would like to have done the next movie, but he has other movies on his schedule that conflicted with directing Thor 2.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Re: Branagh

    by Schadenfreude

    He did an interview with Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 4 and pretty much said he needed a break, if he were to do the sequel it would mean going straight back into it the second he had finished the first and trying to turn it around in a year.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 8:30 a.m. CST

    He directed the final 2 eps of Game of Thrones Season 1..

    by highfunctioningsociopath

    And they were better than Thor. In fact they were better than the vast majority of movies. Nothing to be worried about whatsoever. Well, except that it might take him away from GoT.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 9 a.m. CST

    More THOR

    by NightArrows

    Less GoT nonsense please.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Not this dioxholster nonsense please

    by IAmTommyWiseau

    More smashing dioxholster in the face with a big hammer please.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I'm THOOOOOOOORRRRRRRR!!!

    by Tigger Tales

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    So, Is Natalie portman going to stop being a cunt now?

    by BYOBkenobi

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    In that first pic...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Is his leg broken?

  • as far as thor 2 goes, it will all come down to the script. and the success (or failure) of the Avengers will weigh heavily on all future marvel projects.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but when did Marvel start "going cheap"?

    by D.Vader

    Killik you say this as if it's a constant thing with Marvel, a company who hired Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, and Joss Whedon to helm their big pictures. Now suddenly this is commonplace for them to "go cheap"?

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST

    d.vader: Jon Favreau wasnt a big name before Iron Man

    by sunwukong86

    Before Iron Man, Favreau had directed Elf and Zathura.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST

    sunwukong86

    by Joe Damiani

    yet Iron Man turned out to be pretty good. So what's our point?

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    I'll tell you when Marvel started getting cheap

    by disfigurehead

    When Disney took over. They cheapen things down. Just look at the theme parks. Cutting budgets over "safety"

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Marvel started going cheap when Ang Lee self-destructed

    by chien_sale

    They said "no more high price big artistic director"

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    YEAH, HE BETTER NOT FUCK THIS UP!!!

    by notcher

    Cuz if he does, the LEGIONS of "Thor" fans will destroy his non-existent reputation. Whatever, I'm glad it's someone new, might as well take a shot at a newby instead of Brett Ratner.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    fuck yes

    by jsfithaca

    i hope this dosen't take time away from game of thrones, boardwalk empire and mad men, but he is an amazing director, can't wait to see what he does with thor

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Is lisab another genderblender/bender/whatever character?

    by rev_skarekroe

    It's the same combination of irrational hatred, baseless rumor-mongering (someone says they're not happy with the film - I won't say who, or where I heard it, but just posting it sews the seeds of doubt in your mind), psychic powers (s/he somehow knows exactly what's going to happen in the movie), and general misanthropy. All that's missing is some college literary essay babble. Also, Ang Lee's Hulk film is separate from the current series. Marvel didn't hire him, whatever studio put out the first Hulk movie did. Marvel hired Laterrier (sp?).

  • so fucking what if she posts strong words in a talkback? so fucking what if she might be wrong on some stuff she says? so fucking what if you disagree with what she says? since when women can't their shit from their perspective? since when only the michael bay's movies loving male geeks are the only one entitles to say their shit loud and unopposed? lisab is a women, she has her own perspective of things, taken from a feminist perspective, and so what? what's to be affraid of? it's another opinion, it's another point of view, and frankly, it's refreshing to see that, another point of view, doesn't matter if i agree with her or not. really, much ado about nothing, anybody? at least it' a nice frespite from the usual michael bay/jarjar abrams supporting bullshit that pollutes this joint!

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    rfrespite = respite

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    @lisab well said mate.

    by KilliK

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    @d.vader you just answered that by yourself.

    by KilliK

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST

    killik, lisab is not a mate, she is a matess.

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    .. you guessed it - Frank Stallone

    by Baron Karza

    Norm

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST

    PUT ON THE G-DAMN HELMET!!

    by Odkin

    It's not like it's a damn mask that hides the actors' face. It's a helmet with wings - standard Operatic Viking headgear - nothing even superhero-y about it. But without it, Thor looks like a fucking biker instead of a dignified regal Prince of the Realm Eternal. And don't get me started on the beard.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST

    a mattress? oh matess you mean she is a female mate.

    by KilliK

    even cooler then.

  • Goatfucker, you inbred piece of Portuguese shit, that is you who does that in nearly EVERY TALKBACK. Christ talk about a total lack of personal insight but then again mongoloids are not long on personal insight. Scrape some money together fly to Hollywood and beg Abrams, in person, to shove his mighty kosher meat rod up your oft violated by horses balloon knot. Its what you cry out for in every one of your dumb as fuck "JarJar Abrams" post you imbecilic fuckwit.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Lisab is right...

    by Fritzlorrerains

    Avengers is going to suck. Whedon sold out.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Stop making up stuff to hate on the Avengers

    by Andrew Coleman

    "It looks like they use wire-fu!". That long winded rant that retard above posted just shows how stupid people are around here. Look you don't like Whedon, fine. You're upset that Avengers doesn't look like how'd you make it, fine. Stop with this pointless shit though of trying to break a trailer down. That trailer was released not that long after they filmed in Cleveland. It obviously will get tweaked. But whatever it doesn't matter most of the haters have already settled for being bitter and hateful. It's a problem here on AICN, people hate on almost everything and anything because they have pathetic lives. I frankly like that Marvel is looking around for talent instead of going from hack short list. So leave your pathetic nonsense at the door. Stop claiming you know what is going on when you obviously don't.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 4:39 p.m. CST

    liv bor du ser mektige søt i den kjolen!

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    Jeg ser deg

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    lol indiana jones atkotcs is playing on usa channel!

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Wire-fu

    by Levon Swift

    If the argument against wire-fu is that it looks unrealistic and causes things to move in physically impossible ways, I would respond to that argument by saying that it is a film about characters capable of performing unrealistic and impossible feats. <p> It does look very set to follow the basic comic setup of The Avengers, so anyone who knows the story already knows what to expect for the most part. That can be good or bad, it just depends on how entertaining the film ends up being. Sometimes it's nice to be surprised, and sometimes it's nice to know what you're getting. <p>As far as what we've seen in the trailer, I don't think we've really seen anything at all yet. We still don't know what the nature of the alien threat is or anything about that element of the plot. Plus so much work for this film has to be done in post, and I would guess that they aren't done yet, as that work often goes right up until the film's release.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Lisab - hatin' stuff cause other people like it since high school!

    by SubTech_Zero

    Avengers looks fine. It's a comic book film - nothing wrong with wirefu, in my opinion. You're making snap judgements based on a trailer, which is just about the height of insanity. Chill out. Also, what would be wrong with a lot of "talking"? Personally, I'd rather see a movie with some heavy dialogue and *acting*, rather than a jumped up explosion of cartoon violence. All I was able to gather from your post was that: A) You hate wire-fu. B) You hate Joss Whedon C) You love action scenes, and feel these scenes alone will make or break the film. D) Action scenes not featuring more than one superhero are inherently bad.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    PS - Iron Man 2 ...

    by SubTech_Zero

    ...was superior to Iron Man 1. The first film had a weak third act. Weak as HELL.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Don't know the guy but he sounds like he'll deliver a decent sequel

    by The Founder

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST

    My Christmas Day Viewing By _Nerfee_ aged Thirtymumble...

    by Nerfee

    Kung Fu Panda 1&2 Excellent. Monsters V Aliens Think I have a crush on Ginormica Tron & Tron:Legacy blu-ray extras pretty good on these two. Also: Olivia Wilde... *bites fist* Doctor Who Christmas Special. Only so-so. Not as good as any of RTD & Tennant's, or even last year's. Still to come: Casablanca. Cos there is no finer way to round out the day. Happy Xmas, and Here's looking at you, TBers.

  • Truly pathetic that guy is for ranting about some damn wire fu. If the Avengers is shitty it'll be of because Whedon and not wire fu. Save for the terrible music in the teaser I thought it looked solid enough. Nothing looked game changing or epic but it was a solid teaser. My problems with the Avengers is Whedon. I do not share the optimism that so many have with this guy. I'm just holding my breath that he'll deliver but part of me is saying that he won't. Whedon has done decent and entertaining work so at the very least The Avengers shouldn't suck. I'm expecting at the least some decent entertaining tv outta of it but a grand scale kick ass Avengers flick from Joss Whedon is just not in the cards that I see.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Oh, and I forgot Horrible Bosses

    by Nerfee

    Lame.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 5:57 p.m. CST

    @byobkenobi

    by Mugato5150

    Natalie does come off as a stuck up butch. Probably unfounded but that's the vibe I get. Like how Jennifer Aniston comes off as clingy and high maintenance.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Alan Taylor directed the best episodes on Game of Thrones.

    by Happyfat73

    Especially Episode 9, Baelor, which is one of the best directed hours of television I've seen. Very cinematic. Check out the early scene between Varys and Ned in the dungeon, his use of light and darkness in such a quiet scene was superb.</p> </p> Good choice, says I.

  • Early S2 "Wow, we just found the hatch, ain't it weird" filler episode, so not the best credit of the show. But it does have the weird dream at the start with Jin speaking English. However, Hurley's "And now we have these... POTATO CHIPS!" monologue may actually rank as one of my favouritest Hurley moments in the entire series. So, yes, Alan Taylor, from this Lostie you get a pass.

  • Don't need no woman fucking things up with her "creative vision" of Thor. Fuck that. A yes man will do because marvel has done a nice job of shaping these films THEIR way. Don't need another Hulk or Daredevil or Ghost Rodrr...oh wait, lol

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    I don't think it matters too much what director gets chosen

    by cgih8r

    These films always stick to a common formula and come out looking and feeling the same. Not that it's a problem but I don't ever see a strong director's stamp on the film's delivery. I cannot watch Thor and say it's a Kenneth Branagh film. The director seems to basically be the man on the ground who does the studio's bidding at this point they've never strayed from the formula.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    How so, Killik?

    by D.Vader

    You imply going cheap is par for the course with Marvel and this has happened time and again. If that were the case, I'd expect them to have consistently gone with directors who weren't known for making good, credible films or for always choosing the gun for hire guy. And how was I wrong?

  • Like the worst kind of movie geek, actually. How ironic.

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    lisab is full of shit

    by severianx1

    Seriously, a longwinded 8 paragraph ranting "review" of a movie that isn't even out yet, based on a trailer. What idiocy. I assume, lisab, that since you have used your remarkable powers of precognition to determine that this movie is going to suck, you will not be seeing it when it comes out?

  • Dec. 25, 2011, 11:33 p.m. CST

    asimovlives, what a dick

    by severianx1

    So lisab makes a post, and after only one guy, that's right, one guy, negatively responds to it, asimovlives starts ranting and raving about "you guys" getting all worked up, and "victorian ages', and bunch of other stupid shit. What's up with that, asimovlives? Do you suck up to all women like that? How's it working out for ya? And WTF is up with this shit?- "so fucking what if she might be wrong", "so fucking what if you disagree with what she says". What, nobody can point out she's wrong or disagree with her because she's female? Seems like you've got some kind of reverse sexism going on there, asimovlives, or maybe just plain old sexism. Or maybe you're just trying to get laid.

  • lol, AICN talkbackers are all assholes anyway.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 12:52 a.m. CST

    I don't have faith in Whedon but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

    by The Founder

    I can't speak for no one but myself. I've never seen anything from Whedon that says he can deliver a kick ass movie. Avengers need to be big and have a good story. I want to be impressed and while Thor and Cap was solid films I wasn't impressed or awed. I've many times that Whedon has delivered entertaining tv shows with solid enough stories but again the man has done nothing that screams he's gonna hit a home run. Whedon is a decent enough story teller with capable directorial skills so at the least the Avengers shouldn't suck it I don't think it's going to be a great film.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    lisab thinks Whedon respects women?

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Because of all the realistic-looking ones he casts? Or because of how they have to curl up in a ball of tears and be rescued by men all the time? Having a size-1 learn two martial arts kicks =/= respecting women. And Black Widow looks like a nothing character because Black Widow is A NOTHING CHARACTER. I'd much rather have seen Carol Danvers or Janet Pym. But that would mean Hank Pym, and that would mean tackling spousal abuse in a hurr-durr Hollywood comic book movie-- which, if the tip-toeing around Tony Stark's alcoholism tells us anything-- will happen sometime around half-past never.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 3:19 a.m. CST

    cgih8r

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    FOR REAL. I used to be nervous as hell about team-up movies, but if it means never sitting through another origin story, I'm all about it.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 4:36 a.m. CST

    whatthehellhappenedtome

    by AsimovLives

    i really hope you are not one of those who masturbate on jarjar abrams works, considering your anti-whedon's coments. whedon, who at least shows far more understanding and respect for women in his work 1000 times over the aicn's beloved jarjar.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST

    severianx1

    by AsimovLives

    one guy? what, you just read the last post put in here? how about the other talkbacks? arguments from ignorance will not do, friend. i'm not defending lisab. she can do that for herself. but many of the fellows here sure take a lot of umbrage from a girl stating her radical opinions, when so many of the guys in here say shit that can and would be taken as sexist. i'm not out of that loop either.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 5:55 a.m. CST

    asimov

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    I find JJ and Whedon to both be occasionally palatable TV guys-- and would probably say I prefer Whedon based on Angel and his surprisingly good Serenity-- but I'm confounded by his reputation as some sort of neo-feminist just because he has a weird fetish for underwear models getting into fistfights. Full disclosure: I actually love Whedon's comic writing work.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 6:44 a.m. CST

    The Marvel Studios Marvel movies have lacked

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    by hewing too close to the feel of the Ultimates, but at least they aren't as goofy as those by other studios. Also, the Pyms as a spousal abuse story? Poor Hank Pym is forever tainted as a character because of a brief John Byrne storyline that should've been retconned in the 80's. Thankfully the recent Mighty Avengers toon is trying to undo the damage.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Whedon has a thing about prostitutes.

    by Nerfee

    He moralises about em but still uses them... as a dramatic device!

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Yeah what the fuck is this shit with Pym?

    by KilliK

    poor guy smacks his wife while drunk during one of their frequent couple fights and he is tainted for that for the rest of his comic life? Whereas Jean Grey/Phoenix kills billions of people but she is immediately forgiven because she is the whore who sucks Scott Summer's dick? good job there Marvel.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    @Dvader Because Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, and Joss Whedon

    by KilliK

    are not exactly A-list directors in Hollywood,regardless if they are talented or not.Dont you agree?

  • Ah yes, the Victorian era, where a woman couldn't speak out, let alone be ruler of a world-spanning empire or have an entire era of history be named after her (even in countries that weren't part of her world-spanning empire, it seems)... I kid, I kid, asi. I just loved the unintended, yet inherent, irony in your comment.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST

    You guys forget

    by Cruizer Dave

    Marvel movies are all about money, so they will hire anyone who will save them money. Maybe he'll do fine, but in the end it will be made cheaper than the first one.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Killik

    by D.Vader

    They're not a-listers, but they're certainly not cheap no-names who've never had creative success before.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Sounds like Marvel just wanted to somebody....

    by Orbots Commander

    ...to just shoot what's on a completed script page, and tell the actors where to stand and hit their marks.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 1:11 p.m. CST

    LisaB does not deal in facts

    by D.Vader

    Don't be fooled. She's been called out for her lies and bullshit in the past, and as rev skararoe pointed out, here she's just spewing more baseless rumors and over exaggerating them grossly to back up her opinion. But don't be fooled; they're not facts.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    lisab is probably a lesbian and 300lbs

    by sunwukong86

    but thats just what i think

  • Typical.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST

    lisab no one cares

    by sunwukong86

    give it a rest

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Why is this feminazi here?

    by Cruizer Dave

    We're all a bunch of geeky fanboys bitching about how the new Thor movie won't be as good as we think it will be. We don't have anything to do with anything she cares about. Anyway, Marvel will recast RDJ with someone else for IM3 or Avengers 2 because he'll ask for more money. That's why they're rebooting Spider-Man. SM3 made boatloads of money, they just didn't want to pay people, so they recast and got a cheaper director. Marvel movies ever since Iron Man have been becoming more and more just product to shove on people rather than telling great stories. So far, they've struck a pretty good balance, but I can see it coming. Soon it will be no stories as long as it makes money. They'll follow the Michael Bay model of plosions and plastic female leads with no writing as long as it makes money.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    You're just a mouthy hater, lisab

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    You contradict yourself and just want to make some random other talkbacker feel inferior to your misguided feminist bullshit. Guess who only make up 18% of the comic book demographic while representing 50% of the population? Oh, that's right. Women. And when publishers print female-centric (discounting the obviously exploitative ones) comics, they fail miserably. Of the women who I know who are regular comic readers, all of the long-term ones respect the art form for what it is; instead of burning their bras and demanding the medium change just for them.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    agreed about comic book demographic

    by sunwukong86

    superhero comics have always been and always will be targeted at males. Why do you think the women characters have unrealistic bodies? Women do seem to love manga, which is even sillier because the ones popular with women are about romance.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    LisaB

    by D.Vader

    I'm not engaging in an insult contest here, I'm just stating facts. Not sure how you'd get the two confused. And here are the facts: you have been proven time and time again to treat your own assumptions as facts, to treat your poor memory as truth. Many trolls and geeks here engage in hyperbole and over exaggerations, this is nothing new. What you are trying, however, is to wrap yours under a shroud of "intelligent discourse". You may be intelligent, but you're certainly not very wise. A wise person would actually to some research before laying down false observations and treating them as "facts". A smarter person would have actually provided examples of "who's upset with Marvel" or "who isnte happy withy his actor" instead of just hurling these accusations and hoping they'll stick, and even worse, trying to tie them into the Avengers simply bc they occurred after filming on that movie started. Someone else asked you to back up your claims. You have so far ignored that challenge but wanted to stand by your "facts". And I'm not even talking about your bizarre assessment of an entire movie based on a teaser for a film that was still being made. I mean your lies about the trailer itself. - Captain America does not "wiggle in three different directions". He flies straight out a window in one shot and lands on the car in another. Nothing as EXTREME and ridiculous as what you mention. There goes your bizarre accusation that the wire-fu in this movie will be terrible. - there has a been plenty of footage of Captain America and Thor fighting together in the streets of Cleveland. There goes your assertion that the heroes won't be doing anything in the same scenes - I haven't seen any clip of Cap fighting Loki - I haven't seen any clip of Cap fighting Iron Man - you also got the trailer wrong when it comes to the exploding cars. There is not ONE single shot of a "Flash Gordon" golden chariot floating in the air. No lasers? There is also a shot of lasers causing cars to explode. And not a single lifting pipe to be seen. Just more crap being spewed from you. What's even more telling is how you want action movies to settle issues by talking. And yet you want to insult the Avengers for *potentially* having more talking. Ironic. Look, you can speculate all you want. Thats what geeks do after trailers, and you fit right in here perfectly with you obsessive detail-oriented observations and extrapolations. But certainly dont expect to say things like there are no shots of heroes doing anything together in the trailers and clips, or that the wire-fu is terrible based on poor memory of a shot lasting less than a second, or that business with the "chariot" and exploding cars, and then treat them as if they are immutable facts. Because, well, you're wrong. But hey, welcome to the Geek Squad! As much as you try to insult geeks here in the past, you're proving to be one of the biggest ones here!

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST

    And to reiterate...

    by D.Vader

    You spent most of your last post trying to change the subject and deflect away from the issue at hand, how you have no qualms about spreading lies and misinformation to back yourself up. You've been called out on your lies in the past. This is just more of the same.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    re: running shot of full team

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Silver Age covers notwithstanding, I don't think this would necessarily be a good thing. Do you currently read the Avengers? Things most often play out as a highly-skilled paramilitary unit, with a leader giving commands and smaller one or two man teams taking different vectors to attack the big bad. Specifically during the all-out Skrull brawl at the end of Civil War, it was a several-city-blocks-wide cloud of fighting everything from giant super-Skrulls to two-man teams attacking ships, to a donnybrook on the ground. Same with the resolution to Breakout. Minus the Skrulls, obviously. And SERIOUSLY? You want a (for some reason specifically female) superhero to negotiate their way out of an intergalactic assault by a megalomaniacal villain with the power to level city blocks or enslave humanity? I think you're looking for something more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%26_Country

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:43 p.m. CST

    BREAKING NEWS!!! The Thin Man remake has been cast...

    by Finch

    Nick and Nora Charles will be played by d.vader and lisab. Johnny Depp is in talks to portray Asta.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    I know thinman is inevitable...

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    But I really wish they wouldn't. Just watched a marathon the other night. Such good flicks.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    @whatthehellhappendtome

    by Finch

    All kidding aside, I agree with ya. Grew up with the VHS copies of those movies, and I keep hoping the remake will get shelved. But with Depp involved, that's unlikely.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 10:23 p.m. CST

    @tanis

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    I don't think I saw my first one until I was 30, but they've become regular viewing for me. Wish I could find some of the old TV eps. And if they absolutley MUST remake, can they at least fire that horrendous overactor and get Jon Hamm in there? Judy Greer can play Nora. I could be OK with that, I guess. It's a timeless property and whatnot.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 10:23 p.m. CST

    I was gonna talk about Thor and Thor 2....

    by Baragon

    but since lisab derailed this TB with her crap I'm going to bed.

  • Dec. 26, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST

    @whatthehellhappendtome

    by Finch

    Jon Hamm would be perfect. Too bad the Hollywood casting machine has such narrow blinders.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Thor needs more

    by Moofhee Bader

    powerful villains, nay? Same problem I've had with every Superman movie. A god needs to fight a devil afore I bate over thee.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    @lisab

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Q&C's good. Sort of The Wire meets chick-James-Bond (or sometimes chick-Jack-Bauer). But allllllllll the bureaucracy and diplomacy plays out. There are other good "female" comics out there, just not from the majors. Brian Wood's DV8 reboot was also fantastic, and dare I say, "Whedonesque." Another Wood title, Demo, is co-created with Becky Cloonan, and features some nice non-aggressive female heroines. It's an anthology of one-shot stories, though, so don't get too attached. I don't dislike feminism, feminist art, or even Joss Whedon that much, I just hate the idea that Buffy being a female hero gives him a pass for all the rest of his misogyny.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    @lisab

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    Oh, and somecasper@gmail.com'll do.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Thor needs more

    by Hercules

    cowbell. He's gotta have more cowbell, fellas!

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 5:17 a.m. CST

    That was weird, herc.

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    And I thought *I* was lurking in here at weird hours.

  • Because for once, they don't want to show you EVERYTHING in the trailer? Maybe they want to wet your appetite, and get you pumped up to actually see it? Imagine that. I don't know one way or the other if it is gonna happen, but if it is, then leaving that out of the trailer was a great idea.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Only bitter losers announce a film will suck...

    by NHRonin

    ...before it hits the theater. We've seen this pronouncement from bitter nerds who think they could do better for every big genre film since the day the internet went live. Occasionally you tools are correct, but that's only because not every movie can be great. How many said "The Dark Knight" would suck based on the first trailer? How about "Iron Man," "Thor," etc, etc. etc.? If there was an internet in 1976, you clowns would have been raving about how "Star Wars" is going to suck after seeing the first trailer since Lucas was primarily known for "American Graffiti." Give it a rest. It's pathetic.

  • Diminished interest on the part of the public? Iron Man - Domestic Box Office - $318M Iron Man 2 - Domestic Box Office - $312M Yeah, huge diminished return there. Unfortunately a $6M drop in box office returns don't support your assertions. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant though. It's amusing.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 9:58 a.m. CST

    LisaB

    by D.Vader

    I'm not in The Avengers, but I'm signed up for the next two (Thor ) sequels if they are made. I think these inter-related Marvel movies are great fun. The Avengers will be like Ocean's Eleven with the superhero all-stars!"

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST

    LisaB, with real content this time

    by D.Vader

    Lisa- "Natalie Portman was the actor upset with Marvel, from my understanding. Which is why she isn't going to be in AVENGERS or the next THOR flick. This is also true of Edward Norton. They were the two I was referring to there. Wasn't there also talk of a Samuel L. Jackson walk-out demanding more money at one point before AVENGERS had really gotten going? As for who Marvel is upset with, there I was referring to Eric Bana and Edward Norton, since the understanding portrayed in much of the mainstream press was that they were displeased with Bana and Lee's HULK based on quality/adherence to what they wanted issues and were upset with Norton for badmouthing the movie and demanding more control than they were willing to give. Likewise, my understanding was that they were very displeased with the box-office of IRON MAN 2 and wanted Favrea out on Part 3. if any of these things are wrong, that's fine, but this was MY undestanding and all those issues can be found on sites like darkhorizons.com or boxofficemojo.com or, heck, just type in Edward Norton Hulk unhappy into Google and see what you find" Again, here you're wrong. Natalie is signed on for Thor sequels. She can be annoyed with Marvel for their choice of director for a Thor sequel, but she can't just choose to not be in the Avengers bc she doesn't want to be. If she's not in the Avengers, it's bc they thought the movie was crowded enough already, not bc she's "upset". In fact, here's a quote from Natalie after some basic research: "I'm not in The Avengers, but I'm signed up for the next two (Thor ) sequels if they are made. I think these inter-related Marvel movies are great fun. The Avengers will be like Ocean's Eleven with the superhero all-stars!" Wow, she certainly doesn't sound upset! LisaB- " As for who Marvel is upset with, there I was referring to Eric Bana and Edward Norton, since the understanding portrayed in much of the mainstream press was that they were displeased with Bana and Lee's HULK based on quality/adherence to what they wanted issues and were upset with Norton for badmouthing the movie and demanding more control than they were willing to give." As for Bana, no reason was given for why he wasn't approached, so all you can do is speculate, and I'm willing to bet it has less to do with "quality/adherence" (especially since marvel wasn't a studio at the time) and more to do with the fact that Hulk was not very successful critically or financially, and they'd rather start over and not remind people of the first one. Which is exactly what they did. As for Norton, no true explanation has been given, but Norton never bad mouthed the movie. What he did, according to stories at the time, was take some owenership of the role and in the shaping of the script. It reportedly caused some butting of heads, and Norton being disappointed in the finished product, but no one badmouthed anyone else over it. It just caused a bit of tension that Marvel most likely did not want to risk occurring again, especially on their biggest tent pole to date. In either case, you were completely wrong in trying to tie it into the Avengers by claiming it occurred after Avengers started filming. As for Sam Jackson, after he played Fury at the end of Iron Man, he had not signed any contracts for future Fury appearances yet, so yes, he had the upper hand and ability to negotiate for more money. But that certainly doesn't mean either party was upset with the other, or that reports were "flooding in" over problems. In fact, I could only find one story on the subject. So that throws your assertions right out the window. And once again, this happened way BEFORE Avengers started shooting, so again, you were being *intentionally* misleading by trying to tie these back room deals into the newest Marvel movie and suggesting the movie will be bad because of it. As for Favreau and Iron Man 2, if Marvel was unhappy with its end result, then they should be because so were the fans. As for Captain America's fall... LisaB- "The clip I refer to comes around the 1:21 minute mark or so in the trailer, and features Loki I think (it's blurry and hard to tell) throwing Cap out a window onto a car, where his movements and the arc and angle of his fall don't match what physics would do if someone threw someone at incredible strength and speed out a window. The velocity of his landing is also off. He goes OUT the window at a funky angle, DOWN at an odd arc, and INTo the car at a funky sidelong angle as well. Those were the three directions to which I am referring. " Not surprisingly, once again you are wrong here. Loki is throwing *Tony Stark* out the window. The teaser then cuts to footage of Cap being thrown out of a different window, so of course the angles would appear to be different. All you needed to do was a bit of research. As for the Avengers fighting together... LisaB- "I said that they would fight each other, but if you reread my message you might notice I was not at any time talking about them fighting each other. In fact, in my predictive breakdown I even said they'd waste 20 minutes or more of time with them fighting each other. I was referring to the idea of them actually AVENGING, IE the classic shots in the comics of the characters all running at some giant menace where Cap is throwing his shield, Thor is throwing his hammer, Hulk is leaping into the air, Hawkeye is aiming/firing, Black Widow is shooting off some flare/gas weapon, Iron Man using his repulsors all at the same time while the giant being has one hand out and hovering over someone menacingly like he's going to shoot them and the other hand is shielding himself." Wow, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said Cap and Thor have been recorded fighting TOGETHER. Not each other, but together. There's even a bit of this in the trailer toward they end, where Cap and Thor are standing in the street amid destruction, looking up at something. Just google Captain America Thor street fight to see it yourself. Cap and Loki fighting? Looks like you're right. Course, Cap also looks to fight Thor in the movie, so it appears he's not afraid and won't back down from a god. Very interesting. Fits his character perfectly. As for the golden chariot... LisaB- "I'm referring to two things here. The vehicle at the 49 second mark in the trailer combined with the very cheap-looking and ugly golden Happy Meal toy that was scooped on AICN from some filming. Here's the vehicle outside of the trailer, I think this was the same scooped image AICN used but I can't be sure. http://screenrant.com/avengers-skrull-spaceship-rob-129315/ Looks a LOT like the lame FLASH GORDON chariot things, doesn't it? Cheap, chintzy, golden glowing nonsense with a lot of pointless flair. And if you compare to the size of the car it's resting against, you can tell it's roughly the size of the Flash Gordon chariot and looks to likely serve the same purpose. That is my reference, and we all know what a glowing movie FLASH GORDON was, don't we? Especially when it had the characters banter and try to be funny. " First off, there is no vehicle at the 49 second mark of the trailer, so I'm very confused as to what you are referring to. In fact, there is no shot in the trailer that shows anything resembling that golden chariot picture you posted. If you think it looks like Flash Gordon, that's fine, but again, you were wrong in suggesting it is in the trailer, or in your words: You- "I'm seriously stunned that people are getting excited about this, especially after shots of the Flash Gordon chariot with no real sense of weight to it 'blowing up' a series of cars with no visible laser weaponry or anything, and the cars just sort of 'popping' into the air with the lifting pipes practically visible on each one." How you assumed the nonexistent chariot is blowing up those cars early in the trailer is beyond me. It's a foolhardy kind of assumption, actually. As for the lasers blowing up the cars... LisaB- "I'm not sure what lasers you're referring to, because I just went back to make sure and saw that the cars are exploding for no apparent reason, as if the ground itself were simply blowing up and shooting the cars into the air, likely because the effects aren't done (or won't be done for the movie's release, more likely given the massive cost-cutting they've done, slashing the budget to sub-IRON MAN (1) levels according to articles both on AICN and darkhorizons.com ..... save a lot of money if you don't bother to show anything, ever. Of course, it's also possible - and less likely - that the effects simply aren't done (then why is the Hulk visible at the end?). " You want lasers? Go to 1:30. If you had actually watched the trailer, you'd have seen this bc it's clear as day. But instead, you'd rather trash an entire movie based on how they cut the teaser. Sorry, but that's troll behavior, baby. And why would they show lasers in the opening shots of a teaser? It's much more suspenseful and surprising for the audience to wonder why the cars are blowing up, especially since its one of the first things they see. If you have any modicum of knowledge over how trailers work, then common sense would tell you the lasers will most likely be in the finished product. But again, like a troll, you'd rather say that's evidence for why the director and movie is terrible. LisaB- "But don't you find it conspicuous that there's not ONE shot in the ENTIRE trailer of the entire team running somewhere or standing strong or using their equipment at the same time" No, I don't. Because this is a teaser. Made at the same time as the movie was still filming. If there's to be any shot as the one you want, it could come at the end of the movie once the team settles their differences. Because it comes at the end, it could also appear to be a spoiler. Or it might be something the filmmakers would like to keep a surprise. Imagine that, in this day and age. Either way, you've been exposed. You manipulate stories, spread false information, tell lies, and try to wrap it all together in one bow to sell your story, to trash a movie you're not even going to go see. Troll behavior from a geeky girl. Done.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    IM2...diminished interest and returns? Really?

    by rogueleader66

    It made almost as much as the first. Any movie that makes over $300 million, is a huge hit. Zero logic to that statement. Maybe you should stick to Twilight movies. Girls seem to like those retarded movies.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:29 a.m. CST

    @rogueleader

    by Jessica white

    Actually, Catherine Hardwicke's TWILIGHT is unjustly maligned. It takes a shrewd woman to create sharp satire out of a product that's geared toward the Religious Right and Madison Avenue's conception of femininity. The bad acting, the overwrought emoting, particularly from Kristen Stewart, the in-your-face aesthetic: it's all intentional - a spectacular, big-budget send-up of its source material. TWILIGHT is to Meyer's novel as Verhoeven's STARSHIP TROOPERS is to the Heinlein original. Don't believe me? Then tell me why every TWILIGHT film since the first one has been directed by a man? Hardwicke's acidic and, ahem, ballsy response to the material was dangerous to the studio's bottom line over time, that's why.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Regarding the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films

    by Jessica white

    I don’t know about you, but I really do like men. I like chatting with them, reading stories about them and the actors that play them. These films aren't aimed at me, but they are aimed at men and it does have some great guys in it. These are good films.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Regarding the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films

    by Jessica white

    I don’t know about you, but I really do like men. I like chatting with them, reading stories about them and the actors that play them. These films aren't aimed at me, but they are aimed at blokes and it does have some great men in it. These are good films.

  • That's always a recipe for cinematic success.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST

    @lisab - big words don't prove your point

    by NHRonin

    IM2 still made a ton of money, well over $300M and even with inflation, still nearly as much as the original. Not quite the diminishing returns you suggested. As for how audiences felt about it: On Rottentomatoes, the average audience rating was 91% for IM1. For IM2, it was 80%, not as good, but certainly not the cauldron of "ill will" that you attempted to portray. Not sure what your agenda is, but big words and venom towards Marvel don't prove out your assertions. It looks like most everything you stated has been disproven by either myself or d. vader. A monumental failure on your part.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 3:22 p.m. CST

    @nhronin

    by WhatTheHellHappenedToMe

    IM2 was sub-par, and there was a palpable backlash online from the fanbase. Mainstream audiences seemed fine with it, but they also bought more tickets to Pirates 4 than any of the previous installments.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    The problem with this choice is

    by Scott

    Tv directors do not typically direct the actors. Branagh comes from theatre and this had a knack for directing performances and not just visuals and camera angles. Thor had really great performances from Hemsworth to Portman to the supporting comedic players. Also this director has a very broad resume which is good in theory but I would have preferred marvel going after someone with a bit more personality and signature style. I don't understand why they wouldn't have gone after a bigger name and not all these tv directors. Oh well though happy to be proven wrong and he certainly Makes more sense than the previous candidate.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    @whatthehellhappenedtome

    by NHRonin

    The studios could give a crap about on-line fan angst if a movie makes $300M domestically. Sometimes people forget the business end of show-business. I'm not defending the movie though I didn't think it was a steaming turd like many. Very rushed for sure but I thought it continued the story in a plausible way. I would have preferred to see a more epic villain like the Mandarin rather than more knock off iron suits though.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    AVENGERS

    by Jessica white

    I'm a girl. Superhero movies are not for girls. Superhero movies are hyperbolic male-potboiler superhero bullcrap. Flop. Poop. Whatever you like. It'll be interesting to hear about the gender breakdown among males vs. females on this when it becomes available. Ultimately, I think we can all safely assume it is THE AVENGERS that will be getting "pwned," as soon as it comes out.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Victorian Era...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...would be what the fella was referencing. Might have noticed that, what with him writing Victorian Era and all. So that would have been...ahhh...Queen Victoria. Your standard rant loses almost all its impact when you don't aim first.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Thank you, LisaB

    by D.Vader

    LisaB- "Your statements about the actors seem likely, so I'll give you all that. My understanding was different. I interpreted it as an implosion of talent getting cross with Marvel behind of and in front of the camera." Thanks, but you don't need to give me all that since they were only facts and your understanding of them was completely wrong and misguided since you attempted to portray them as having all happened behind the scenes of the Avengers. LisaB- "Regarding Tony thrown but Steve falls, again cant review it now but I'll believe you and give that a pass should it turn out to be.correct. I find wire fu totally unacceptable in this day and age. There is simply no viable excuse for it. Ever." Again, you don't need to give me that, but thank you. It is Tony being thrown out the window by Loki. LisaB- "As for the vehicle I attributed to the 49 second mark, not in a place to check the time stamp where I am right now. But I'm talking about the only shot of a flying vehicle that isn't Nick Fury's helicopter. It looks like one of the spaceships from STARGATE and is in one quick shot where it/the camera turn sidelong. Since the shot in qurstion looks like It is the same scene as the exploding cars and given how it all seems to be from a few brief scenes my assumption was that the vehicle blows up the cars, launches the chariot and then the chariot crashes. Seems logical, no?" No. No it doesn't seem logical *at all*. It seems very clumsy and immature to me. First off, the only other flying vehicle shown in the trailer that isn't a helicopter or Iron Man is a SHIELD jet: it has a cockpit, a nose, wings, and jet engines. How you think that, with the exploding cars, means there is a "Flash Gordon chariot with no real sense of weight to it 'blowing up' a series of cars with no visible laser weaponry or anything, and the cars just sort of 'popping' into the air with the lifting pipes practically visible on each one," is beyond me. It means you are either an extremely foolish person, or someone who has been knowingly lying to the rest of us. So which is it? This is not the first time you've been called out on your lies. LisaB- "Although your response was full of a lot of hostility and invective, that is understandable considering the gross hostility I once displayed toward fans to deflect/reject my own love of this material. So I get that." Thank you. Thank you for being able to admit you have been completely insulting in the past to an entire group of people here whom you have more in common with than you would like to admit. It's pretty much trolling behavior.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 8:13 p.m. CST

    what the hell is going on in this talkback?

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    lol... Fandango poll, what is your most anticipated movie of 2012? According to Women: 1. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 2. The Hunger Games 3. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 4. Dark Shadows 5. The Avengers According to Men: 1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 2. The Avengers 3. The Dark Knight Rises 4. The Bourne Legacy 5. Men in Black III

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    I have to agree with Lisab on one thing

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    So far that Avengers trailer looks extremely suspect. It could go either way.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Wow.

    by 3774

    I've given you the benefit of the doubt before 'LisaB', and even supported a couple of things you've said. I've been burned by Boy's Club Bullshit before. But you've grossly overreached in this thread. I'm not quite convinced yet that you're a troll, but if you're not, it's pretty apparent at this point that you have an almost embarrassing lack of self-awareness. Aggressively picking apart gender dichotomy in an arena like this is fine, but the intellectual gymnastics that you've gone through to pick apart the trailer for a popcorn spectacle like the Avengers just trumpets Committed, Whimsical Trolling or Serious Personal Issues. Neither one is a particularly great answer. Feminism is positive. Gender Theory Deconstructionists are negative. It's the eye-rolling, make-everyone-everywhere-feel-bad type of insight-turned-nonsense that isolates some intellectuals from the rest of society, and confines them to strange, small academic circles where they can feel superior (though they'll never admit it) to the Rest of Us, while never being aware of how much their valid points are ruined by how nonpersonable and off-putting they are. To be completely honest, I've seen this type before through college, and they always seem to be angry lesbians or militant 'transgenders'. And that's sad, because watching stereotypes in motion is always sad. One can only wonder what you'd be like at a party. This probably sounds like I'm railing against you, but I actually loosely support points you often make. Just make your points and....stop. There's giving some opinions, facts, and insight, and then there's just needlessly antagonizing the majority to make it All About You. As an aside, I would love to see Captain Marvel, and see her lead the team, no less. But I remain skeptical over ever seeing a black woman, strong and in control no less, in a movie budgeted like this.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    I agree with pink_apocalypse

    by D.Vader

    LisaB has in the past tried to twist my arguments into some sort of gender animosity. She hasn't done that here yet, but I wanted to point out my issue with her is her willful use of misinformation mingled with lies to back up her points. And she treats it all as if it's immutable truth. She tried this with Tintin months ago until I proved every one of her "facts" wrong, and the same thing has happened here once again. Rest assured, when another popular geek property pops up, one she has no interest in seeing, she will again tear it to shreds based on a few snippets of footage and use lies and assumptions to appear to be right. And she'll hope no one will call her out on it.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST

    re: "Why is this feminazi here?"

    by Ribbons

    First of all, I'm not convinced that she isn't a troll, so that in itself should be reason enough. But just to play devil's advocate, you don't have to look very far to find an argument to be made about gender politics on Thor 2. Several months ago, Marvel looks to hire Alan Taylor as the project's director. Then it turns out that Natalie Portman isn't interested in signing a new contract unless she has a say in who directs the film. She suggests Patty Jenkins, Marvel hires Patty Jenkins, then Portman puts pen to paper. Cut to: less than two months later, and it's just not working out between the two. Jenkins steps down from the job due to creative differences (later attributed to "chronic indecision" by Marvel when the story blows up in their face, despite the fact that Jenkins maintains she had a very clear vision of the film and was waiting on Marvel's in-house hack Don Payne to hand in a new draft) and they just happen to replace her with Alan Taylor. But hey, you're still going to do the movie, right Natalie? I mean, you are under contract and all. To me it's pretty obvious that they planned on hiring Alan Taylor the whole time, and only used Jenkins, who during her brief honeymoon was making headlines for being the first female director (something Portman was excited about as well) in a typically "boys' club"-friendly genre, as a bargaining chip. And this certainly isn't the first time that Marvel's done this shit, lowballing or dirty dealing people they think they can afford to lose out of their movies, then turning around and bashing them in the press. You'd think that ought to be the real conversation on a story like this. Instead the only comments even remotely related to the matter are "So is that selfish cunt [Natalie Portman] going to get back to work?" I mean it is just business after all.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Will Natalie Portman be in it ?

    by Itchy

    Because I like looking at her hot little ass on a big screen.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Ribbons, who are you speaking of ?

    by D.Vader

    LisaB? Because if you are, I'm going to guess you haven't read any of her comments in this thread. She never talks about any of the things you mentioned. I don't think she ever talks about Thor 2 at all. In fact, all she's done is troll about the Avengers trailer.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Buffy was horrible. not a realistic protrayal of women

    by chien_sale

    Sara Michelle Gellar was beating everybody while weighting what a hundred pounds? my sister could beat her just by blowing on her. this movie was feminist masturbation, their ideal picture of what the World should be like with everything bowing the widsom of the heroine. the vampires were just a bunch of punching bags but they really represented men, the male as a dangerous specie. and every men that liked the show were a bunch of lefties pussies that are whiped in real life and should be tried for treason against every beings of their own gender.

  • Dec. 27, 2011, 11:28 p.m. CST

    actually nhronin, must people thought Iron Man and DK would rock

    by chien_sale

    and it did

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Thor needs more helmet time in the sequel!!!

    by annapaquinspussyjuice

    It's bad enough he barely wears the darn thing in Avengers he should at least be sporting it in his own movies...

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST

    d.vader

    by Ribbons

    No, I've been following along at home. I know what LisaB's saying is basically a bunch of nonsense about the Avengers trailer. What provoked my response was this comment: "We're all a bunch of geeky fanboys bitching about how the new Thor movie won't be as good as we think it will be. We don't have anything to do with anything she cares about." Which isn't necessarily true. But I'm not defending Lisa exactly, because I'm pretty sure she's a troll. Just saying that a "feminazi" might hypothetically be interested in a story where Patty Jenkins got shitcanned by Marvel.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Wrong again, LisaB

    by D.Vader

    Your parodies don't make it difficult for you to show you're not a troll; your own posts do. If you want to be taken seriously, stop being so willfully negative about every story on this website, and stop lying and twsiting the truth to make your sad points. You say all you've done is make mistakes? Well, you are supremely confident in your mistakes, which is sad. Because you seem 100% confident that you are right, and you maintain that you always are until someone proves that everything you said was bullshit. Like I said up above, you don't deal in facts. After this back and forth, I stand by that. If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to change your entire approach to discussions here. Because no matter how many times you say you're not a troll, your actions speak louder than words.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I don't particularly care what anybody says...

    by 3774

    ...I thought Thor was great fun. I really liked that movie. I'm looking forward to the next one.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    I saw THOR for the first time a week and a half ago

    by D.Vader

    It was during the waning hours of a surprise birthday party my gf threw for me, and the guys that were left were like "come on, let's watch THOR," since all the girls were in another room talking. I hadn't seen it, but we put it in, and being that we were all kinda drunk, we talked through a lot of it, so I don't remember much. I DO remember thinking the Rainbow Bridge was presented in a pretty cool and spectacular fashion, and I really enjoyed the opening scene. I need to sit down and watch it sober.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Are we finally talking about the actual movie now?

    by lprothro

    Recently watched it a third time and I must say--it gets better with each viewing. Didn't care for it much the first time but I think maybe my standards were a bit too high. I'm also going to have to jump on the bandwagon and say I'd really like to see him in the helmet the next go 'round.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    I'm totally crushing on pink_apocalypse....

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ....who proves that women can be knowledgeable 'fanboys' (fangirls - fanchicks?), and 'feminists' don't have to be misandronistic trolls. I'm also looking forward to Thor 2; in fact, I'm watching Thor right now. I thought Nat was the weakest part of Thor: I just thought she was miscast (and I'm fan of hers since 'Leon'). Don't know who I would have cast instead, but she just didn't fit my vision (for lack of a better word) of Jane Foster. But it wasn't a dealbreaker for me. And although I haven't seen Cap yet (just got the blu for xmas), I think Avengers will be great. Really looking forward to it. And yeah, Marvel gave Jenkins the short end of the stick, but in the end it's their property. But they should hire a director, and then butt the hell out - I used to blame IM2's deficiencies on Marvel's interference more than Favreau, but then again, after seeing Cowboys and Aliens, I'm not so sure anymore. 'misandronistic': I'm pretty sure I just made that word up, but what the hell - other people here make shit up and spout it as truth, so when in Rome....

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Alan Who?!?

    by Stalkeye

    When I heard that it was some guy who Directed previous and present HBO series, the first thought that went to my head was Tim Van Patten. (y'know the actor formally known as Salami or Peter Stegman now succesful director.) The guy has directed some of the best eps of Sapronos, Boardwalk, Game of thrones,etc. Ergo, I figured him to be a shoe in for the sequel. Oh wellz.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    yes, Vader being drunk is no way to watch a Movie like Thor.

    by Stalkeye

    Transformers DOTM, Green lantern and C&A on the other hand is perfect for being hammered while riffing on shitstorm cinema with your mates.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    You're telling me, Stalkeye

    by D.Vader

    The only things I remember repeating are: "WHOA the Rainbow Bridge is fucking awesome!" "Natalie Portman is so fucking hot..." "Oh she totally wants to have sex with him." "Why is poor Loki so upset over this?" And "WHOA the Rainbow Bridge is FUCKING AWESOME."

  • As in a mindfuck of a headtrip. Hmmm, I just may decide to invest in a 3D LCD after all. (0:<

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    I totally agree about Natalie.

    by 3774

    Completely and totally miscast in that role. I wish Hollywood would gamble on relative unknowns more.

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 8:49 p.m. CST

    I've heard rumors it all takes place on Asgard?

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    I certainly hope so, since the stuff that took place here on 'Midgard', was not as interesting. Also, we need more Sif. Kat Dennings' character was underutilized. Sif isn't just Thor's Asgardian squeeze (and there's a TB handle if I ever heard one), she's a pretty kick ass warrior herself, and more than capable of hanging with the Warriors Three. But since Nat's evidently signed on for 2 more flicks, I'm sure we'll be bouncing back and forth between the two worlds. I'd like to see some sort of 'Hero's Quest' with Thor, Sif, and the Warriors Three on a journey to Hel and back, battling some big ass sumbitches with Led Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song' playing in the background. He's the God of Thunder, and his battles should be epic, the stuff of songs and legend. Verily!

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Sorry, I meant Jaime Alexander as Sif...duh

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    That's what you get for not proofreading when there's no edit button. Still a little punchy from all that holiday egg nog...

  • Dec. 28, 2011, 8:56 p.m. CST

    That would be neato.

    by 3774

    To not only hear the Hammer of the Gods, driving those ships to new lands, but see it played out also. It'd probably be some lame, Glee-ized cover, tho. I practically had all of their albums memorized by the time I was 7, thanks to my uncle.

  • Dec. 29, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST

    So, for the sequel, Marvel has gone with an unknown?

    by esm2176

    Bullshit if you ask me. They had a surprise breakout hit at the hands of an accomplished director so their big answer for a sequel is someone with zero to no big budget experience. Fucking Marvel man.

  • Dec. 29, 2011, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Def needs more Sif

    by lprothro

    ...and less Natalie. Don't think I could ever tire of looking at Jaime Alexander. I have a very good feeling about this sequel though if Marvel's thinking Game Of Thrones, which it kinda looks like they are. I'm too lazy to look but whoever said they pulled the old bait n'switch on the director choice to keep Portman on board is most likely spot on. Marvel studios has been beltin' out some great entertainment (IM2 excluded), but they have also proven themselves to be a bunch of ruthless lowballers when it comes to casting. Just ask Terrance Howard!

  • Dec. 30, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    "Game of Thrones", "Rome" NOW I'm looking forward to this!

    by DidntPullOutInTimeCop

    Thor was great, but didn't really think it would need a sequel after Avengers. Thor in his right element, epic tales, Asgard adventures, directed by someone who is used to tell stories in these kinds of worlds... I'm in!