Thor (The Movie) *Spoiler- contains character images*

[jye4ever]

You could be right, but your numbers are still speculation and don't account for net box office profits (400-450 minus box office costs), or other potential costs and profits involved. Movies like this are as much about merchandising as ticket sales, anyway, and that's a big X factor being left out of the equation.

I understand we have to rely on these other folks with more info. and industry knowledge to tell us the tale, but I'm an empiricist and like seeing and interpreting raw info. for myself

Well, true.

We really don't know what effect the deals with Burger King, 711, Acura, etc had on the overall numbers and then when you add the marketing with the tv ads, movie trailers, print advertising such as billboards, bus stops, buses, subways plus the dvd sales and rental agreements, it really becomes a mystery.

History tells us that it's usually safe to assume a 100 million marketing budget for a movie of this budget w/o the cost savings of other companies coming onboard.

Even w/o knowing the exact numbers, It's also pretty safe to assume that this movie was a positive thing for Marvel and not negative.

 

[karamazov80]

I surely hope it ends up being a success, because it was a fun, well-made movie. And when well made movies succeed, we get more of them.

I'm all about more Dark Knights, Iron Man, and Thor movies in lieu of those horrible Transformers, GI Joe, and Fantastic Four abominations.

 

[Spartan Rex]

I like this headline:
'Thor' hammers 'Bridesmaids' at box office.
Naughty Thor.

 

[jye4ever]

I surely hope it ends up being a success, because it was a fun, well-made movie. And when well made movies succeed, we get more of them.

I'm all about more Dark Knights, Iron Man, and Thor movies in lieu of those horrible Transformers, GI Joe, and Fantastic Four abominations.

Agree with your sentiments

This movie was so good that it definately deserves to be more successful than it will end up being.

I don't see this movie as having any less quality than TDK, it's just different, but TDK is Batman for christ sakes.....he's a HUGE property, who was already established with the 89 Batman being a huge hit before BB and TDK, so all WB had to do was respect the property.

Thor unfortunately will never be a Batman in the grand scheme of movie culture (TDK 1 billion ), not because the movie wasn't good, it was excellent, he's just not as well known as Batman, but he certainly will be a bad ass in the Avengers movie.

We all should be toasting the quality of this movie, hats off to Marvel.

I just bring up TDK because that's the perceived gold standard for Superhero movies due to Box Office.

What say you

 

[krec9]

just saw it today at the theater again love this movie glad that its still #1 at the box office

 

[Darklord Dave]

Has there been any discussion as to who that Black guy is that fought Thor during the Hawkeye scene? I know he's probably just a no body, but the geek in me really wants to believe he's Luke Cage. Even if he doesn't get a major role in Avengers, he could still be an easter egg kind of cameo. Kind of like how in Iron man 1 they had easter egg for the ten rings and the fighter jet code named "whiplash". It would be really cool if they named that body guard Luke Cage if not just as an easter egg or something..

I thought the black guy had a decent length of screen time, he fought along side Hawkeye, and was respected and complimented by Thor when Thor said something along the line of: "you're strong, but I'm stronger." I'd imagine that's exactly what Thor would say to Powerman if they dueled. I'm thinking it's possible that they wanted to cameo Luke Cage in this movie at first, but for whatever legal reasons turned him into a nameless guard before release...

I won't be surprised if we hear something like that in the commentary once the DVD/Blu-ray comes out.

I was thinking that he might be Cage too. They certainly made a big deal about him, more than the other Shield agents. But if I remember correctly - Cage wouldn't be down with working for the "Man."

 

[Spartan Rex]

It was obviously Black Goliath.
(Sans costume)


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[jye4ever]

CHUD:

Thor does what it needed to do, Bridesmaids kicks ass for the ladies as well as comedy-lovers with good taste everywhere, and Priest ____s the everything.

It’s unfortunate that Thor is going to suffer so much when Pirates 4 steals its thunder (and its 3D screens) because it’s done pretty strong business for such an ambitious start to a lower-tier character. The hold this weekend was well above 50%. That’s a risky guess to make for most any big movie in its second weekend, something Iron Man 2 didn’t manage last year and Fast Five didn’t even manage last weekend. That said, the legs will more than likely fall out from under it next weekend and it will begin a difficult crawl towards $200m that it may not make, the same going for a $500m worldwide total. There’s always a chance that the film will have a profoundly strong hold and that audiences will detect the apparent ____tiness of Pirates 4 (some truly hideous reviews hit this weekend) and stick with the God of Thunder. More likely though, it will quietly start to wrap up and hit something more like $180 domestic when all is said and done. It might be hard to spin it as an out-of-the-park hit for Marvel, but when you’re setting up a larger crossover film with an introduction to a kooky C-list character, no news is good news. What this does indicate though is that the public is still receptive to new heroes, and that Captain America may be in the position to pull an Iron Man, especially if that post-Bin Laden murt energy is still in the air.

 

[jedibear]

I was thinking that he might be Cage too. They certainly made a big deal about him, more than the other Shield agents. But if I remember correctly - Cage wouldn't be down with working for the "Man."

With some fancy writing in a subsequent movie, it could work...I rather like the idea. It's not like things haven't been changed from comics to the movies before...


...oh, and let "Pirates 4" steal all the 3D screens it wants....I'm more than happy to give "Thor" more business in the regular (and cheaper) 2D format...

 

[Lee in MI]

That guy being Luke or Goliath would be cool.

J,
Thor was good. Really really good...but it was no TDK. And that has nothing to do with box office numbers. Both stories were well written but TDK was clearly more sophisticated story telling. And thats to say nothing of the outstanding job by Heath Ledger...which the Thor movie had no one that came close to delivering that type of performance.

 

[The Mike]

I was thinking that he might be Cage too. They certainly made a big deal about him, more than the other Shield agents. But if I remember correctly - Cage wouldn't be down with working for the "Man."

Luke Cage has been a member of the Avengers/New Avengers for about 6 almost 7 years now. I would consider that working for "the Man"

As for whether or not it was him it could be, I remember specifically reading that a lot of the Marvel tie-ins were scaled back for Thor including a Henry and Janet Pym mention as well as a Banner implication and a couple of cameos although they never specifically mentioned who they cameos were so it is certainly possible. Luke Cage has been a project for Marvel since 2004 to get on-screen. I'm sure the DVD will answer that.

 

[karamazov80]

I just bring up TDK because that's the perceived gold standard for Superhero movies due to Box Office.

What say you

I don't think Thor is of the same quality as Dark Knight. Because I think Dark Knight succeeds on more levels than Thor and has a richness to it that Thor doesn't. It feels like it was a legitimate Oscar-level film, whereas Thor doesn't.

But that doesn't take anything away from Thor. The Nolan Bat-films were freakish aberrations that we are not gonna see again anytime soon. Just a perfect storm at work there, and worthy of being considered the gold standard IMO. What it does have in common with Thor (and Iron Man, and the first couple of Raimi Spidey films) is that they were made by talented filmmakers who took the subject matter seriously and tried to make genuinely good films with good stories and acting.

I think Michael Bay couldn't give a ____ about any of that. He's only concerned with explosions, stupid jokes, and jumbled incoherent robots rolling around, because that is all it takes to make him money. Schumacher thought you could camp up Batman to the nth degree, and he was rewarded by being brought back for Batman and Robin.

I hope the serious filmmakers win out.

 

[jye4ever]

Point taken about the serious filmakers, I agree.

First of all, I prefer BB over TDK.

While TDK was first a "Heat" gangster/mob type movie before a superhero movie and Ledger really did amazing work, I felt the action to be very generic, the soundtrack atrocious and the whole city evacuation and boat bomb dilema all rather silly and predictable.

The movie should've just been called The Dark Joker

Yes, mature story telling, but also boring at times.

BB had much better action, a powerful soundtrack and was just a better "Batman" movie overall for me.

Anyways, back to Thor.

Thor not being in the same league as TDK because it could never be nominated for an oscar doesn't mean that Thor is in anyway a less mature movie for me or a movie that I will take less seriously.

Thor is based in the cosmos, Batman went for a realistic Chicago..err..Gotham mafia movie.

I'm happy that we didn't see the Asgardian mafia being investigated by Thor for horse betting.

Thor brought out my emotions, something that BB or TDK didn't.

Joker was an anarchist yes, but he nor Batman succeeded at stirring any of my emotions.

It came close once during the interrogation scene, but at the end it didn't.

Don't get me wrong, BB and TDK are fine movies but I just may enjoy Thor more.

 

[Lee in MI]

The theme of the movie (gangster v. Cosmos) really has nothing to do with it.

Thor and TDK were both mature story telling but TDK was just more in depth story telling IMHO. I guess to some it would be considered boring at times but to me it was just telling a deeper story.

Thor was mostly action backed up by good story telling but it wasn't sophisticated.

I guess the boat scene could have been predictable to some but I certainly didn't expect what happened to happen. At that point in the movie Joker had gotten away so much shyyt that I expected him to blow up at least part of one of those ships!

 

[Lee in MI]

The theme of the movie (gangster v. Cosmos) really has nothing to do with it.

Thor and TDK were both mature story telling but TDK was just more in depth story telling IMHO. I guess to some it would be considered boring at times but to me it was just telling a deeper story.

Thor was mostly action backed up by good story telling but it wasn't sophisticated.

I guess the boat scene could have been predictable to some but I certainly didn't expect what happened to happen. At that point in the movie Joker had gotten away so much shyyt that I expected him to blow up at least part of one of those ships!

 

[karamazov80]

It's all very subjective of course, but I'm thinking in terms of the depth of the story, the complexity of the characters, the innovation in the story-telling, the feeling that you've seen something special and different that may change the entire genre. I think the Nolan films, in conjunction, did that.

Thor is a great movie. But it didn't do those things IMO, and didn't really aspire to. I get the impression that Branaugh was trying to make a solid action film with some depth to it, and got solid actors to help him accomplish that, and he succeeded. But I don't feel he was trying to redefine a type of comic movie.

Also, personally, I've always felt the comparison of Heat to TDK is pretty superficial and overly influenced by the opening scene. I'm not the biggest TDK fanboy around here by a long-shot, but recognize it as something special and original, and I try to give due to the folks who were involved in making it what it was.

I think there is an unmade film (that will probably never be made) of Thor that blows the ____ out of other comic action movies, and is on par with Lord of the Rings in terms of the fantasy bits and epic-ness, etc. And that would be equivalent to the Nolan Bat-films without trying to ape what it did for a fundamentally different character requiring a different approach. But this Thor film is not that film, IMO.

 

[jye4ever]

The theme of the movie (gangster v. Cosmos) really has nothing to do with it.

Thor and TDK were both mature story telling but TDK was just more in depth story telling IMHO. I guess to some it would be considered boring at times but to me it was just telling a deeper story.

Thor was mostly action backed up by good story telling but it wasn't sophisticated.

I guess the boat scene could have been predictable to some but I certainly didn't expect what happened to happen. At that point in the movie Joker had gotten away so much shyyt that I expected him to blow up at least part of one of those ships!

Sophisticated for me is just another word for boring

I'll take Thor's more simplistic approach to story telling that brought out my emotions vs a realistic dark crime drama that was cool but also left my emotions cool and unmoved.

 

[wofford29]

 

[jye4ever]

It's all very subjective of course, but I'm thinking in terms of the depth of the story, the complexity of the characters, the innovation in the story-telling, the feeling that you've seen something special and different that may change the entire genre. I think the Nolan films, in conjunction, did that.

Thor is a great movie. But it didn't do those things IMO, and didn't really aspire to. I get the impression that Branaugh was trying to make a solid action film with some depth to it, and got solid actors to help him accomplish that, and he succeeded. But I don't feel he was trying to redefine a type of comic movie.

Also, personally, I've always felt the comparison of Heat to TDK is pretty superficial and overly influenced by the opening scene. I'm not the biggest TDK fanboy around here by a long-shot, but recognize it as something special and original, and I try to give due to the folks who were involved in making it what it was.

I think there is an unmade film (that will probably never be made) of Thor that blows the ____ out of other comic action movies, and is on par with Lord of the Rings in terms of the fantasy bits and epic-ness, etc. And that would be equivalent to the Nolan Bat-films without trying to ape what it did for a fundamentally different character requiring a different approach. But this Thor film is not that film, IMO.

All valid points.

I certainly would take a 12 hour Thor movie directed by sir Peter Jackson but I will also enjoy this Thor movie for what it was, a thrilling superhero movie.

Don't get me wrong, I own TDK and BB, but Thor even with its simplistic, shallow and unsophisticated story, brought out my emotions, something that BB and TDK just didn't do for me.

 

[karamazov80]

but Thor even with its simplistic, shallow and unsophisticated story. . .

I didn't say that Thor was any of those things It just wasn't as fancy as Dark Knight.