Batman-Online.com

It was announced a while back that the Hulk would be appearing in this movie. Now the latest rumours are suggesting the plot will be a mixture of the original Ragnarok storyline from the Thor comics and Greg Pak's Planet Hulk saga.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a much bigger fan of the Hulk than I am of Thor, so his presence is a major draw for me. But I really love the Plant Hulk storyline - in fact it's probably my favourite Hulk comic ever - and I was hoping they'd adapt it into a standalone film. A sort of Spartacus meets Star Wars affair. Since Marvel Studios currently lacks the rights to Silver Surfer, I can see how they might use Thor to fill his place in the narrative. But I'm not keen on the idea of throwing in elements from Planet Hulk as subplot material in a Thor movie. I'd prefer they gave Thor a cameo in a proper Planet Hulk adaptation.

But we'll see how it pans out. I think it already sounds more promising than the first two Thor films.

Yeah, if they play their cards right, this Thor could easily be the best out of the bunch.

Natalie Portman won't return as Jane Foster, Tessa Thompson from Creed will be Thor's new love interest.

Source: http://nerdist.com/thor-ragnarok-natalie-portman-tessa-thompson/

I can't help but feel it would've been more dramatic if Jane was killed off in Thor: The Dark World, instead of Frigga.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 10:34
I can't help but feel it would've been more dramatic if Jane was killed off in Thor: The Dark World, instead of Frigga.

None of the franchise's fans seem to particularly like Jane, so her death wouldn't have had any of the same resonance.  Plus, Frigga's death served the narrative because it was all about getting Loki, who genuinely loved his adopted mother, to re-team with Thor.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  1 Jun  2016, 20:18
It was announced a while back that the Hulk would be appearing in this movie. Now the latest rumours are suggesting the plot will be a mixture of the original Ragnarok storyline from the Thor comics and Greg Pak's Planet Hulk saga.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a much bigger fan of the Hulk than I am of Thor, so his presence is a major draw for me. But I really love the Plant Hulk storyline - in fact it's probably my favourite Hulk comic ever - and I was hoping they'd adapt it into a standalone film. A sort of Spartacus meets Star Wars affair. Since Marvel Studios currently lacks the rights to Silver Surfer, I can see how they might use Thor to fill his place in the narrative. But I'm not keen on the idea of throwing in elements from Planet Hulk as subplot material in a Thor movie. I'd prefer they gave Thor a cameo in a proper Planet Hulk adaptation.

But we'll see how it pans out. I think it already sounds more promising than the first two Thor films.

I don't think we'll see another solo Hulk film any time soon as Marvel doesn't have solo distribution rights so we'll likely see him as a supporting character for the forseeable future. I too am a big hulk fan and rather indifferent to Thor (I'll still go see his films but IMO he is the weak sister of the initial 4 avengers). Planet Hulk was a great comic but it might be hard to adapt to the big screen when you consider there is very little Bruce Banner and so Ruffalo wouldn't get much screen time.

I'll be excited for it though since they were the only two not in civil war.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:41
Plus, Frigga's death served the narrative because it was all about getting Loki, who genuinely loved his adopted mother, to re-team with Thor.

The scenes between Russo and Hiddleston were the only ones I felt had any real dramatic weight behind them in Thor: The Dark World.

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 14:39
I don't think we'll see another solo Hulk film any time soon as Marvel doesn't have solo distribution rights so we'll likely see him as a supporting character for the forseeable future. I too am a big hulk fan and rather indifferent to Thor (I'll still go see his films but IMO he is the weak sister of the initial 4 avengers). Planet Hulk was a great comic but it might be hard to adapt to the big screen when you consider there is very little Bruce Banner and so Ruffalo wouldn't get much screen time.

I'll be excited for it though since they were the only two not in civil war.

Good points. How do you think this film will position Hulk for the Infinity Wars, riddler? Planet Hulk segued into World War Hulk (not as a good a story, IMO), but will something similar happen in the MCU? It seems unlikely Banner will lead an attack on Earth after the events of Thor: Ragnarok. But I'm wondering if he'll refuse to help defend Earth from Thanos. Perhaps Thanos will even trick him into helping him. I guess it all depends which elements they take from Planet Hulk. But if they adapt the plot points concerning Hulk's exile and ostracization at the hands of humanity, then I could maybe see him turning against Earth in its time of need.

I certainly hope Caiera and the rest of the Warbound will appear.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 17:05
The scenes between Russo and Hiddleston were the only ones I felt had any real dramatic weight behind them in Thor: The Dark World.

I pretty much agree. :)  Thank goodness for those scenes and Russo and Hiddleston's fine work.

Frigga's murder at the hands of Malekith is so far arguably the most affecting on-screen death we've yet seen in the MCU (most of the other deaths have involved villains or characters with limited screen-time, or have taken place off-screen).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 17:05

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:41
Plus, Frigga's death served the narrative because it was all about getting Loki, who genuinely loved his adopted mother, to re-team with Thor.

The scenes between Russo and Hiddleston were the only ones I felt had any real dramatic weight behind them in Thor: The Dark World.

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 14:39
I don't think we'll see another solo Hulk film any time soon as Marvel doesn't have solo distribution rights so we'll likely see him as a supporting character for the forseeable future. I too am a big hulk fan and rather indifferent to Thor (I'll still go see his films but IMO he is the weak sister of the initial 4 avengers). Planet Hulk was a great comic but it might be hard to adapt to the big screen when you consider there is very little Bruce Banner and so Ruffalo wouldn't get much screen time.

I'll be excited for it though since they were the only two not in civil war.

Good points. How do you think this film will position Hulk for the Infinity Wars, riddler? Planet Hulk segued into World War Hulk (not as a good a story, IMO), but will something similar happen in the MCU? It seems unlikely Banner will lead an attack on Earth after the events of Thor: Ragnarok. But I'm wondering if he'll refuse to help defend Earth from Thanos. Perhaps Thanos will even trick him into helping him. I guess it all depends which elements they take from Planet Hulk. But if they adapt the plot points concerning Hulk's exile and ostracization at the hands of humanity, then I could maybe see him turning against Earth in its time of need.

I certainly hope Caiera and the rest of the Warbound will appear.

I could kind of see the Hulk go all out and rage a war against humanity. So far he's been seen kind of as an unwilling pawn. He's not as controlled as the other characters and was living peacefully until SHIELD recruited him. Knowing that SHIELD had eyes on him all alone, I wonder if he's angry they didn't jump in to help out when Ross was hunting him for all those years? Or for that matter half the Avengers aligning with Ross during the civil war.

I'd have to read planet hulk and world war hulk again to decide. Perhaps grey hulk or red hulk? Maybe even Jennifer walters and the she hulk?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:41None of the franchise's fans seem to particularly like Jane, so her death wouldn't have had any of the same resonance.  Plus, Frigga's death served the narrative because it was all about getting Loki, who genuinely loved his adopted mother, to re-team with Thor.

I liked Jane quite a bit. Thor 2 was kinda drab for her character though and a little too much in general. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  4 Jun  2016, 00:25

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:41None of the franchise's fans seem to particularly like Jane, so her death wouldn't have had any of the same resonance.  Plus, Frigga's death served the narrative because it was all about getting Loki, who genuinely loved his adopted mother, to re-team with Thor.

I liked Jane quite a bit. Thor 2 was kinda drab for her character though and a little too much in general. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I was being a little glib about Jane because I quite like Natalie Portman's performance in the part.  But judging from most of the comments online, not many others did care for it, or her character.

On the Jane topic, I could tolerate her way more than Darcy.

As far as the Thor narrative goes, it's a bit of a bummer Jane won't be in Thor 3 due to her character being prominent in the previous two films, but I'm sure we'll get some line from Thor saying Jane decided to end the relationship. Alot of Jane-detractors will be happy, so there's that.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 01:05

On the Jane topic, I could tolerate her way more than Darcy.

As far as the Thor narrative goes, it's a bit of a bummer Jane won't be in Thor 3 due to her character being prominent in the previous two films, but I'm sure we'll get some line from Thor saying Jane decided to end the relationship. Alot of Jane-detractors will be happy, so there's that.

It was the ultimate long-distance relationship.  Those things rarely work out.

Eh. It's comics. Anything can be worked out, just not with actors. Shame though, with Jane arguably being more prominent now than she ever has been in the past in Marvel Comics, her exclusion in Thor 3 is definitely not going to go unnoticed. Especially by those who ONLY know Thor thru the Marvel films. Figured they would pull a Ruffalo and just re-cast? *shrugs*

It's rather predictable Natalie Portman would drop out, she was visibly unhappy with the production of the last film. Same about Kat Dennings, her character brought some much needed comic relief. I wonder how much of this film will be spent on earth? I've found in the Thor films the Aasgard scenes have been under whelming while the Earth scenes have redeemed them.

Planet Hulk armour! I'm now officially hyped for this movie.

I still haven't seen the second movie, and I forget most of the first.

A while ago, it was rumoured that Ragnarok would feature "the darkest script by Marvel to date".
http://movieweb.com/thor-3-ragnarok-marvel-script-dark-valkyrie/

But now, Tom Hiddleston says that it will feature the "funniest depiction of Thor to date".
http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/tom-hiddleston-thor-ragnarok-loki-chris-hemsworth/

I've been burned out by the MCU's attempts at humour lately. Civil War had its share of forced humour that really didn't match the mostly serious tone. The airport scene was amusing the first time, but it got tiresome the second time I watched it again. Doctor Strange was better at it, but I'm hoping come Infinity War, the attempts at humour don't sour the experience. I never thought I'd say it, but I fear Marvel is becoming very complacent here, as well as many areas i.e. copy and paste Iron Man-style origin story templates for other characters.

Marvel can do whatever they want. It's of no consequence to me. I don't watch their movies anymore and haven't for a while.

Here are some photos from Entertainment Weekly.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fakns-images.eonline.com%2Feol_images%2FEntire_Site%2F201728%2Frs_634x845-170308094735-634.thor-ragnarok-ew.3817.jpg&hash=986d5fd67993c8bc44a87c7468a0f6babb0cf37a)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loseternautas.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2F000251059.jpg&hash=3615ef4fc66d2ebed44b59e51e603579ef460a49)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MGUNV8MxU

What do you guys think?

Could very well be the first Thor movie that isn't a complete waste of time.

However, I am really starting to question just how much of a actual Thor movie this is going to end up being? Just going off the trailer, this looks like a skeletal Planet Hulk adaptation, at best, with Hulk and Dr. Strange thrown in to keep people interested. All while re-doing the whole Thor having to prove he's worthy! schtick that was already done in the 1st movie. Hela looks like she's going to ultimately become a stand in for Death, and will probably be seen with Thanos as a end credits stinger, and thus another set up for Marvel's Infinity War.

Also, with no Jane, is there even going to be an appearance for Sif in this? Who barely was even in Thor 2. I guess now that whole love triangle sub plot that was clearly being set up is completely out the window now?

Oh well. The use of Led Zeppelin was cool. Although a bit GOTG inspired.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 10 Apr  2017, 20:54
Could very well be the first Thor movie that isn't a complete waste of time.

I feel the exact opposite.

None of the trailers I've seen so far for Spider-Man: Homecoming, GOTG Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok have made me looking forward to seeing any of these movies. I hate to say it, but ever since the second act in Civil War, I'm becoming more fed up with Marvel's use of humour for the sake of it. And as you say Joker, Thor needing to prove his worthy would only be a rehash of his arc in the first movie. Been there, done that.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 10 Apr  2017, 20:54
Oh well. The use of Led Zeppelin was cool. Although a bit GOTG inspired.

The whole film looks like it's GOTG inspired too.

Looks interesting. I've got fond associations with the Thor franchise. And honestly, I got a little sick of hearing about Ragnarok so finally seeing this thing will be enjoyable.

"When I think of characters from Norse myth, the first thing I think of is Tessa Thompson."
- Nobody Ever (Never AD)

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 10 Apr  2017, 20:54
However, I am really starting to question just how much of a actual Thor movie this is going to end up being? Just going off the trailer, this looks like a skeletal Planet Hulk adaptation, at best, with Hulk and Dr. Strange thrown in to keep people interested.

Sadly that's the way all upcoming superhero films are likely to be from now on - cram in as many heroes as possible to maximise marketing potential. All these characters are going to meet in next year's Avengers: Infinity Wars anyway. So why can't they have some solo adventures in the meantime? With everything being a crossover nowadays, the very concept of the crossover is rapidly losing its novelty.

What's particularly grating about this crossover is that Marvel may be wasting one of their greatest stories. Planet Hulk is my all-time favourite Hulk comic. I'm currently re-reading it and wishing it would get a proper cinematic adaptation. There's such a rich and layered mythology behind that story, it'd be a shame to squander it all by condensing it into a single set piece for a Thor movie. Hopefully there's more to it than that. At the very least, they should have Caiera and some of the Warbound make an appearance.

The idea of Hulk fighting Thor in the arena seems to be a nod to the 2010 Planet Hulk animated movie, where Hulk battled Beta Ray Bill. Of course in the original comic his opponent was Silver Surfer, but that obviously can't happen here for legal reasons. If nothing else, the Hulk vs. Thor fight scene should be worth the price of admission. And it's always nice to see Jeff 'uh' Goldblum on the big screen.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 10 Apr  2017, 20:54Hela looks like she's going to ultimately become a stand in for Death, and will probably be seen with Thanos as a end credits stinger, and thus another set up for Marvel's Infinity War.

Interesting theory. But who will be the stand-in for Mephisto? Or will they leave him out of Infinity Wars altogether?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 18:33
"When I think of characters from Norse myth, the first thing I think of is Tessa Thompson."
- Nobody Ever (Never AD)

Yeah, I tend to think of Idris Elba.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 11:59
The whole film looks like it's GOTG inspired too.

Considering the 1st Thor was a comedy that shouldn't have been a comedy, I guess it's not that surprising it's heading down that route!

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 20:33
Sadly that's the way all upcoming superhero films are likely to be from now on - cram in as many heroes as possible to maximise marketing potential. All these characters are going to meet in next year's Avengers: Infinity Wars anyway. So why can't they have some solo adventures in the meantime?

Makes complete sense.

QuoteWith everything being a crossover nowadays, the very concept of the crossover is rapidly losing its novelty.

Yeah, I share those sentiments as well. In some of these films, that aim for these types of crossovers, it's all too apparent that a good portion of time is totally devoted to being a lead in to the next chapter in the cinematic universe! rather than just simply concentrating on being a good movie within itself. Personally, I try to get excited over the upcoming Universal Monster shared universe that's supposedly going to kick off for real this time with the new MUMMY movie, but I find myself increasingly being more interested in just seeing good and worthwhile remakes/reboots to those classic films, rather than any sort of "shared universe" gimmick that studios are obsessed with these days.

QuoteWhat's particularly grating about this crossover is that Marvel may be wasting one of their greatest stories. Planet Hulk is my all-time favourite Hulk comic. I'm currently re-reading it and wishing it would get a proper cinematic adaptation. There's such a rich and layered mythology behind that story, it'd be a shame to squander it all by condensing it into a single set piece for a Thor movie. Hopefully there's more to it than that. At the very least, they should have Caiera and some of the Warbound make an appearance.

The idea of Hulk fighting Thor in the arena seems to be a nod to the 2010 Planet Hulk animated movie, where Hulk battled Beta Ray Bill. Of course in the original comic his opponent was Silver Surfer, but that obviously can't happen here for legal reasons. If nothing else, the Hulk vs. Thor fight scene should be worth the price of admission. And it's always nice to see Jeff 'uh' Goldblum on the big screen.

Yeah, I can perfectly understand that point. We're getting a watered down Planet Hulk adaptation. Likely due entirely to the whole Universal deal Marvel made years ago prior to the Disney acquisition. Evidently, the 2010 animated film is going to remain the "about as good as it's going to get" adaptation. Personally, one of the few reasons I'm giving this a look is due to my boy, The Incredible Hulk. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it. As I haven't seen "Age of Ultron" since I sat thru it in the theater and really haven't had a big desire to revisit it. Though as you say, the addition of Goldblum just may add something.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 10 Apr  2017, 20:54Hela looks like she's going to ultimately become a stand in for Death, and will probably be seen with Thanos as a end credits stinger, and thus another set up for Marvel's Infinity War.

Interesting theory. But who will be the stand-in for Mephisto? Or will they leave him out of Infinity Wars altogether?
[/quote]

Good question. Character wise, Infinity War looks like it's going to be a pretty busy set of films. Wouldn't surprise me if Mephisto just appears out of nowhere despite no substantial build up. It's not like Marvel doesn't have a pattern of lackluster cinematic villains.  ;)

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 23:15Personally, I try to get excited over the upcoming Universal Monster shared universe that's supposedly going to kick off for real this time with the new MUMMY movie, but I find myself increasingly being more interested in just seeing good and worthwhile remakes/reboots to those classic films, rather than any sort of "shared universe" gimmick that studios are obsessed with these days.

I love the classic monster movies – whether it's the Universal originals or the Hammer remakes – but I'm also apprehensive about the new series. One problem I have is that all of the films will occur in the same contemporary time period, whereas the original stories took place at different points in history. Frankenstein is a product of early 19th century Romanticism, and the plot is very much grounded in the post-Enlightenment philosophy and anatomical science of that age. Dracula and The Invisible Man are both specimens of late Victorian literature. The Mummy really needs to occur in the 1920s, as that was the decade of the Howard Carter expedition that uncovered the tomb of Tutankhamen. I suppose The Wolf Man can take place in any time period, but it works best in an Edwardian setting similar to The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't tied to any specific era either, but I always associate it with the 1950s.

But with all these new films set in the modern day, I can't help feeling some of the atmosphere and gothic flavour will be lost. The speculative science behind Griffin's invisibility formula and Dr. Jekyll's serum will seem redundant in the 21st century. And do we really need to have Dr. Jekyll making a cameo in a mummy film? Perhaps they can find a way of updating the material to make it work, but right now I'm just not as enthusiastic about the project as I'd like to be.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 23:15It's not like Marvel doesn't have a pattern of lackluster cinematic villains.  ;)

I'd love it if Keaton's Vulture was the one to break that trend, but I'm not holding my breath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht8NQC95TrA

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 12 Apr  2017, 18:06

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 23:15Personally, I try to get excited over the upcoming Universal Monster shared universe that's supposedly going to kick off for real this time with the new MUMMY movie, but I find myself increasingly being more interested in just seeing good and worthwhile remakes/reboots to those classic films, rather than any sort of "shared universe" gimmick that studios are obsessed with these days.

I love the classic monster movies – whether it's the Universal originals or the Hammer remakes – but I'm also apprehensive about the new series. One problem I have is that all of the films will occur in the same contemporary time period, whereas the original stories took place at different points in history. Frankenstein is a product of early 19th century Romanticism, and the plot is very much grounded in the post-Enlightenment philosophy and anatomical science of that age. Dracula and The Invisible Man are both specimens of late Victorian literature. The Mummy really needs to occur in the 1920s, as that was the decade of the Howard Carter expedition that uncovered the tomb of Tutankhamen. I suppose The Wolf Man can take place in any time period, but it works best in an Edwardian setting similar to The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't tied to any specific era either, but I always associate it with the 1950s.

But with all these new films set in the modern day, I can't help feeling some of the atmosphere and gothic flavour will be lost. The speculative science behind Griffin's invisibility formula and Dr. Jekyll's serum will seem redundant in the 21st century. And do we really need to have Dr. Jekyll making a cameo in a mummy film? Perhaps they can find a way of updating the material to make it work, but right now I'm just not as enthusiastic about the project as I'd like to be.

Agreed, these would be better if they were given the Sleepy Hollow/ Bram Stoker's Dracula treatment as stand alone period movies. But, where's the audience for that sort of thing? Crimson Peak is the last good "gothic horror/romance" film I can think of, and it was not a financial success. This is unfortunate.

EDIT: Sometimes I wish Burton would cut the kid-criendly crap he's been doing for the last decade (I initially thought the news for Dumbo wasn't real but a joke) and do a "classic monster" movie. He loved this stuff, maybe he's still got it, and his movies make money.

Quote from: Azrael on Thu, 13 Apr  2017, 10:53Agreed, these would be better if they were given the Sleepy Hollow/ Bram Stoker's Dracula treatment as stand alone period movies.

That's the way to go. If they want to do a monster mash further down the line, they still have the option of doing so. Dracula and the Mummy can be resurrected in any time period. Mary Shelley's original novel ends with Frankenstein's creature on an ice raft in the Arctic, so he could be frozen a la Steve Rogers. As for the other characters, they could be brought in using time travel/magic. These are fantasy stories after all. Just have a big Castlevania-style citadel with portals leading to other time periods, then the monsters can easily battle each other. But save such a scenario until after the characters have all been individually established. They each need to debut in their own story, in their own time and place. Then have them cross over. It's important to remember these monsters all come from separate works, not a shared comic book universe like Marvel and DC. Their literary and cinematic origins should be respected.

Quote from: Azrael on Thu, 13 Apr  2017, 10:53EDIT: Sometimes I wish Burton would cut the kid-criendly crap he's been doing for the last decade (I initially thought the news for Dumbo wasn't real but a joke) and do a "classic monster" movie. He loved this stuff, maybe he's still got it, and his movies make money.

Amen. Burton was pure magic back in the eighties and nineties. He was a legitimate auteur with a unique voice, producing films that were both artistically valid and commercially appealing. But the last film of his classic era IMO was Sleepy Hollow. Since then, his work has become increasingly stale and superficial. Every now and then he makes a decent film like Big Fish, but I don't think he'll ever recapture the energy and inventiveness of his formative years.

Burton was once a passionate creative talent with something interesting to say. Now, 'Tim Burton' seems to be a cosmetic brand for a certain type of family-friendly aesthetic – bright green grass, pale-faced characters, black and white gothic fashion, etc. Granted, a lot of those visual motifs were present in his old films too; but back then there was always an underlying emotional or psychological concept connected to the imagery. Whereas now, the Tim Burton aesthetic is pure window dressing. I can't imagine him ever making another film as personal as Edward Scissorhands. But who knows, maybe he'll surprise us.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 12 Apr  2017, 18:06
I love the classic monster movies – whether it's the Universal originals or the Hammer remakes – but I'm also apprehensive about the new series. One problem I have is that all of the films will occur in the same contemporary time period, whereas the original stories took place at different points in history. Frankenstein is a product of early 19th century Romanticism, and the plot is very much grounded in the post-Enlightenment philosophy and anatomical science of that age. Dracula and The Invisible Man are both specimens of late Victorian literature. The Mummy really needs to occur in the 1920s, as that was the decade of the Howard Carter expedition that uncovered the tomb of Tutankhamen. I suppose The Wolf Man can take place in any time period, but it works best in an Edwardian setting similar to The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't tied to any specific era either, but I always associate it with the 1950s.

That's very true. With the Wolfman, one of the reasons I liked the 1941 original was the fact that it really blended the past with what was the then-present. The film's setting took place in Europe, though from what I remember, it's unspecified. However, it's complete with with Lords, gypsies, and german castles, but also include modern day cars. Which is interesting to me, and gives the film a 'otherworldly' feel in the end. I like to think that Timm/Dini took atleast some inspiration from this approach with Batman the Animated Series since it took a similar approach (1940s combined with modern day tech), but that's just speculation. However, I definitely get your point in these characters being products of their time, and which was how they were presented to us in the classic Universal movies.

QuoteBut with all these new films set in the modern day, I can't help feeling some of the atmosphere and gothic flavour will be lost. The speculative science behind Griffin's invisibility formula and Dr. Jekyll's serum will seem redundant in the 21st century. And do we really need to have Dr. Jekyll making a cameo in a mummy film? Perhaps they can find a way of updating the material to make it work, but right now I'm just not as enthusiastic about the project as I'd like to be.

THIS.

I mean, sure. I'll see it. Cause I'm a sucker for this stuff, and I like the characters. It's just difficult getting really amped up when there's a sense of a underlining notion that it's more about hype of a shared universe right from the very jump than actual focusing on the highest quality for each individual remake. I will say that I hope I'm proven wrong on this, and some of the casting is atleast intriguing to me. So far, Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein Monster tops the list.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 14 Apr  2017, 04:18That's very true. With the Wolfman, one of the reasons I liked the 1941 original was the fact that it really blended the past with what was the then-present. The film's setting took place in Europe, though from what I remember, it's unspecified. However, it's complete with with Lords, gypsies, and german castles, but also include modern day cars.

If a monster film is going to take place in the present day – and The Wolfman is one of the better candidates for such a treatment – then that style is probably the best option. Mix elements of old and new to make the historical setting ambiguous, similar to Burton's Batman films or Dark City (1998). That way even the modern day stories would have an otherworldly gothic quality consistent with the historical entries.

From what little I've seen of the new Mummy film, that's not the approach they've taken. So far it looks like another Mission: Impossible film. I like the M:I movies, but I don't want my monster films adopting the same style.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 14 Apr  2017, 04:18I like to think that Timm/Dini took atleast some inspiration from this approach with Batman the Animated Series since it took a similar approach (1940s combined with modern day tech), but that's just speculation.

It's not as farfetched a theory as you might think. Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between certain passages of the 1941 Wolfman score and Elfman's Batman theme? I reckon that movie was definitely on their radar when the creative talent at Warner Bros established the look and feel of Batman 89 and B:TAS.

Anyway, here's the latest poster for Thor: Ragnarok:

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 23:15

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 11 Apr  2017, 11:59
The whole film looks like it's GOTG inspired too.

Considering the 1st Thor was a comedy that shouldn't have been a comedy, I guess it's not that surprising it's heading down that route!

I liked the humour in the first Thor because it felt appropriate for a fish out of water scenario, which is what Thor being banished to Earth was. We may disagree with this, but I didn't think the film was any more of a comedy than Iron Man 3 or even Superman II.

While on the subject of MCU villains, I thought there were only four who made a strong impression: Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian and Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. I don't quite count Bucky as a villain, but rather a victim due to brainwashing. The rest are undeniably disposable and forgettable.

Most disappointing villain for me would have to be Ultron. The Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon did a much better job at establishing his character, where he appeared as a harmless robot created by Hank Pym, who listens to Pym's distaste for human nature's tendency to violence to the point over the course of three or four episodes. Which spurs Ultron to decide human beings must be eradicated. In contrast, he was rushed in Age of Ultron and some things didn't latch on to me e.g. his hatred for Tony Stark.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 16 Apr  2017, 04:25Bucky as a villain

Now there's a subplot I'm sick of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue80QwXMRHg

I'm sad to say, it still doesn't look very good to me.

Director Taika Waititi has pegged the movie's current runtime at around 100 minutes, making it by far the shortest MCU film to date. In other news, the poster art is gorgeous:


But not as gorgeous as this improved alternate version:


Perfection.

That official poster is bloody awful! The Goldblum mockup makes that farce look bearable.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 26 Jul  2017, 19:16
Director Taika Waititi has pegged the movie's current runtime at around 100 minutes, making it by far the shortest MCU film to date.

As far as Thor movies go, that's likely a GOOD THING!

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 27 Jul  2017, 17:34

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 26 Jul  2017, 19:16
Director Taika Waititi has pegged the movie's current runtime at around 100 minutes, making it by far the shortest MCU film to date.

As far as Thor movies go, that's likely a GOOD THING!

I do think the two THOR movies are the weak link of the MCU but I'm actually excited for this one with the Planet Hulk and Jeff Goldblum.

I see the early reactions to this include that buzzword that's become very common when describing Marvel's movies nowadays: fun, fun, FUN. Well, the last time critics overemphasised how fun Marvel films were turned out to be a complete disappointment for me, and thought they were some of Marvel's worst entries. But that's only my opinion.

Meanwhile, Taika Waititi describes Thor as an Iron Man clone, more or less.

Quote
"I said this before, if the movie's called Thor, then Thor should be the best character," said Waititi. Expanding his thoughts on the God of Thunder, "My main focus was making him cool, and funny when he needs to be, heroic when he needs to be."

Thor's changed and it turns out he's picked up a sense of humor from an old friend, "Thor spent two years hanging out with [Tony Stark]. So, he knows a little bit more about irony and sarcasm now. He's got a little bit of Earth humor. He's like a rich kid from outer space who's spent some time slumming it for a bit, you know? So he's instantly become a bit more interesting but he's still in different parts of the Cosmos, and still learning as he goes."

Source: https://news.marvel.com/movies/76745/taika-waititi-talks-taking-challenge-thor-ragnarok/

One thing that's really annoying me now is a LOT of the heroes nowadays are becoming too similar to Stark's personality i.e. Spider-Man, Star-Lord, Ant-Man, even Rocket Raccoon sometimes. Even Doctor Strange, despite I enjoyed that movie, is too identical to Stark. I could sorta excuse Spider-Man because he's an impressionable kid and he's supposed to be Stark's protege, but the others could be the same character for all I care.

Yes, I regret I'm going to skip this movie altogether.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 20 Oct  2017, 10:31
I see the early reactions to this include that buzzword that's become very common when describing Marvel's movies nowadays: fun, fun, FUN. Well, the last time critics overemphasised how fun Marvel films were turned out to be a complete disappointment for me, and thought they were some of Marvel's worst entries. But that's only my opinion.

Meanwhile, Taika Waititi describes Thor as an Iron Man clone, more or less.

Quote
"I said this before, if the movie's called Thor, then Thor should be the best character," said Waititi. Expanding his thoughts on the God of Thunder, "My main focus was making him cool, and funny when he needs to be, heroic when he needs to be."

Thor's changed and it turns out he's picked up a sense of humor from an old friend, "Thor spent two years hanging out with [Tony Stark]. So, he knows a little bit more about irony and sarcasm now. He's got a little bit of Earth humor. He's like a rich kid from outer space who's spent some time slumming it for a bit, you know? So he's instantly become a bit more interesting but he's still in different parts of the Cosmos, and still learning as he goes."

Source: https://news.marvel.com/movies/76745/taika-waititi-talks-taking-challenge-thor-ragnarok/

One thing that's really annoying me now is a LOT of the heroes nowadays are becoming too similar to Stark's personality i.e. Spider-Man, Star-Lord, Ant-Man, even Rocket Raccoon sometimes. Even Doctor Strange, despite I enjoyed that movie, is too identical to Stark. I could sorta excuse Spider-Man because he's an impressionable kid and he's supposed to be Stark's protege, but the others could be the same character for all I care.

Yes, I regret I'm going to skip this movie altogether.

Plenty of movies have done fine with their best character's not being the title one. I don't think the fact that Cap wasn't the star of Civil War hurt the movie. Loki's been dormant since the Dark World, Hulk was underused in Phase two , I wont be disappointed one bit if either steal the spotlight, I'm just excited to see them again.

Overall Marvel has done fairly well with phase 3. Guardians 2 was a bit of a let down but Spidey and Civil War are excellent films and Doctor Strange was pretty good too. I've found the Thor films underwhelming so far but this one looks to have promise with the extra characters.

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 20 Oct  2017, 13:06
Plenty of movies have done fine with their best character's not being the title one. I don't think the fact that Cap wasn't the star of Civil War hurt the movie. Loki's been dormant since the Dark World, Hulk was underused in Phase two , I wont be disappointed one bit if either steal the spotlight, I'm just excited to see them again.

Overall Marvel has done fairly well with phase 3. Guardians 2 was a bit of a let down but Spidey and Civil War are excellent films and Doctor Strange was pretty good too. I've found the Thor films underwhelming so far but this one looks to have promise with the extra characters.

I'm afraid I beg to differ. I've been really dismayed by Phase 3 so far. Last year, I thought Civil War was just okay but nothing special, and I did like Doctor Strange and thought that was the best one in the phase so far. But I have not liked any movie from Marvel this year. I couldn't stand GOTG2 and I didn't think Homecoming was very good either.

If you were to ask me two and a half years ago, I thought Marvel could do no wrong and the only black sheep was Iron Man 2. The first two phases could juggle out different moods and tones and the variety was exciting. There was a better balance in comedy and drama back now.

But fast forward to right now, and I'm becoming increasingly agitated over the films seemingly pandering to the lowest common denominator with cheap jokes - which are progressively becoming more childish and idiotic as time goes by. Seriously - Flash Thompsons yelling "Penis" Parker? Not even Iron Man 2 would regress to that level of such juvenile humour. Every film seems to be a half-assed comedy nowadays.

After hearing all the things about Ragnarok, Thor has become a complete parody and a copycat. Since I have no interest in seeing this film, I don't see any point in talking about it in this thread again.

Saw this yesterday.

I'm glad to say this one is easily the best Thor movie. I found the first two somewhat underwhelming, mainly because of the portrayal of Aasgard: I found those scenes lackluster beyond the visuals. This time around, not much time is spent there, this one has a new setting with a new cast of characters. Visuals are well done, The action is handled fantastically, much the way the Russo brothers paced Winter Soldier. The film takes cues from other Marvel movies. In Iron Man 3 we saw separation anxiety between Tony and his suit, likewise with Spider-man in homecoming. Both those characters had to assume the man they were without relying on the suit, the same happens here between Thor and his hammer. The hammer is a cool feature of the character but removing it allowed the character to stand out on his own and Chris Hemsworth does. Since he lacks the hammer, Thor is forced to use his powers as the god of thunder which leads to outstanding character effects once he channels the lightning.

There is no love story to blind our title character this time around, instead the stakes are much bigger. When the action is on hold, Hemsworth shows his acting chops. He has unique relationships with all three of his allies in this film, his sister, his brother, and his friend Banner/Hulk and all 3 have special scenes with the title character.It was good to see Loki back in action, this time around he is far more of a protagonist than he had been in the previous films. Perhaps he's finally given up trying to beat Thor and decided to join him instead of executing menacing schemes only to be stopped by Thor. Sakaar is an interesting place, blending concepts from our past (Gladiator tournaments for sport) with futuristic technology. Goldblum is fantastic as a gentle dictator. He doesn't act intimidating but once you see what he's capable of, you understand he doesn't need to.

If you are a fan of the Incredible Hulk, you're in luck. He hasn't had this much screen time since his title fan in 2008 and it doesn't go to waste. His fight against Thor was legendary. We find out that the character has been in hulk form since Sokovia (2 years) and thus we have a more developed hulk capable of deeper thought and dialogue. He still maintains his character trait but the big difference is more dialogue. Sadly for fans of Mark Ruffalo, there isn't an awful lot of Bruce Banner. The character had been the hulk for so long, he realizes that it has taken over as his dominant personality which adds another moral dilemma for Banner. His fear of hulking out is back on the basis that he fears that due to his last hulk out lasting two years, he may not return to human form after his next hulk out. 

As far as the fun factor? It's there, the film is well paced between action, comedy, and drama. There are more jokes than the previous films. I felt there was the right mix, the humour was a nice touch but not enough in which it becomes a satire the way Guardians 2 came off. Comparing this film to the other phase 3 films, I thought it wasn't as good as Spider-man Homecoming or Civil War but better than Guardians and doctor strange.

Final grade: 8/10

I found the film entertaining. Admittedly, though, some of the humor caught me off-guard. I didn't realize until later on, but the dialogue sometimes feels like it was written for one of those "How It Should Have Ended" parodies.

To be honest, I am still not sure how I feel about that. I did find myself laughing, but there are times where I wish the tone was a little less casual.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue,  7 Nov  2017, 16:32
I found the film entertaining. Admittedly, though, some of the humor caught me off-guard. I didn't realize until later on, but the dialogue sometimes feels like it was written for one of those "How It Should Have Ended" parodies.

To be honest, I am still not sure how I feel about that. I did find myself laughing, but there are times where I wish the tone was a little less casual.

Thor is a tough character to pull off with a lot of humour. Fantasy and humour don't often mix well hence why the only 'space comedies' which exist are satires such as Spaceballs. In the first two films, most of the humour was reserved for the scenes on earth. With Ruffalo and the Hulk playing such a big part of the story, I'm glad they didn't take the material too seriously, Ruffalo is great with the dry humour.

FLASHBACK 1998

Wizard Magazine fan casts a Thor film based on the then-current "Heroes Return" Thor comic book run.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHi4jV2boAAupsO?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHi4lx5bwAArs2X?format=jpg&name=large)