Thor Trailer Released

Off Topic
21

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

Jon Favreau out as Iron Man director. Really weird news.[/quote]

Not really. The first one caught everyone off guard by just being a great movie all around even if you didn’t know the character. The second one suffered from a major case of sequel-itis. They got rid of the the guy playing Rhody (who did do a great job by the way) which changed the chemistry between those two characters…and they are supposed to be life long best friends.

They had too many characters in the movie and way too much bullshit eclipsing Rourke’s character completely. The entire end fight scene was anti-climactic because they didn’t make it personal enough between Robert Downy and Rourke.

If that had been the first movie, it would have marked the end of the Avengers project. Everyone saw it because of the fame of the first one.

Hell, I have only seen the second one twice and may not watch it again for a long time. Meanwhile, the first one is one of my favorite movies all around.[/quote]
Really? I thought the first one was mediocre at best. The end fight scene in that one was boooooring. Why would I want to watch Iron Man fight the Iron Monger with a half powered suit? Really the only comic adaptations that have been good so far have been Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass and the Nolan Batman films.[/quote]

Ok, I’m not counting Scott Pilgrim as SuperHero flick. And there has been many good SuperHero Comic book adaptions, 300 (yes those fuckers are superheros), Spiderman (I liked the 1&2nd), YES BATMAN, The Losers (even though non of us supported the Movie), Kick Ass another movie we did not support but was great. So there is hope out there we just need to put the money on the table so they can keep making Action flicks.[/quote]
300 sucked unless you like oily half naked men and slow motion and I bet you didn’t even see Pilgrim. A lot of people didn’t because it had hipsters omg. It was the best adaptation period.[/quote]

You are 100% right about me and Pilgram. I do feel that I should see the film because it has great reviews but your right the whole Hipster thing kills it for me.
But even though its a comic book adapted movie, I just don’t count it as a Super Hero movie. I mean That Tom Hanks where he is a mobster with Paul Newman was a comic book adaption but its not a super hero movie.
300 sucked???..awwww man you have no soul.

22

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

Jon Favreau out as Iron Man director. Really weird news.[/quote]

Not really. The first one caught everyone off guard by just being a great movie all around even if you didn’t know the character. The second one suffered from a major case of sequel-itis. They got rid of the the guy playing Rhody (who did do a great job by the way) which changed the chemistry between those two characters…and they are supposed to be life long best friends.

They had too many characters in the movie and way too much bullshit eclipsing Rourke’s character completely. The entire end fight scene was anti-climactic because they didn’t make it personal enough between Robert Downy and Rourke.

If that had been the first movie, it would have marked the end of the Avengers project. Everyone saw it because of the fame of the first one.

Hell, I have only seen the second one twice and may not watch it again for a long time. Meanwhile, the first one is one of my favorite movies all around.[/quote]
Really? I thought the first one was mediocre at best. The end fight scene in that one was boooooring. Why would I want to watch Iron Man fight the Iron Monger with a half powered suit? Really the only comic adaptations that have been good so far have been Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass and the Nolan Batman films.[/quote]

Ok, I’m not counting Scott Pilgrim as SuperHero flick. And there has been many good SuperHero Comic book adaptions, 300 (yes those fuckers are superheros), Spiderman (I liked the 1&2nd), YES BATMAN, The Losers (even though non of us supported the Movie), Kick Ass another movie we did not support but was great. So there is hope out there we just need to put the money on the table so they can keep making Action flicks.[/quote]
300 sucked unless you like oily half naked men and slow motion and I bet you didn’t even see Pilgrim. A lot of people didn’t because it had hipsters omg. It was the best adaptation period.[/quote]

You are 100% right about me and Pilgram. I do feel that I should see the film because it has great reviews but your right the whole Hipster thing kills it for me.
But even though its a comic book adapted movie, I just don’t count it as a Super Hero movie. I mean That Tom Hanks where he is a mobster with Paul Newman was a comic book adaption but its not a super hero movie.
300 sucked???..awwww man you have no soul.[/quote]

No, he has no taste. Saying all out blockbusters that changed the way other movies are made sucked means you are likely one of those guys who hates ALL popular music claiming that only bands no one has heard of sound good.

Iron Man 1 did not suck.

300 did not suck.

Also, the fight scene in the first Iron Man was done well. How do you add drama at all if this is just some beat down between two faceless robots? Yes, having him depowered raised the drama. That is what movies focus on if they are decent at all.

It was a way better climax than the second one.

23

Let me put it this way.

We were leaving the theater after watching the 2nd one.

Wife: Iron Man 2 was better than 1
Me: Not even close, part 1 was almost like a trendsetter. sort of like how T2 was
Wife: T2 was not a trend setter
Me: :o she’s young to have remembered it

24

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

Jon Favreau out as Iron Man director. Really weird news.[/quote]

Not really. The first one caught everyone off guard by just being a great movie all around even if you didn’t know the character. The second one suffered from a major case of sequel-itis. They got rid of the the guy playing Rhody (who did do a great job by the way) which changed the chemistry between those two characters…and they are supposed to be life long best friends.

They had too many characters in the movie and way too much bullshit eclipsing Rourke’s character completely. The entire end fight scene was anti-climactic because they didn’t make it personal enough between Robert Downy and Rourke.

If that had been the first movie, it would have marked the end of the Avengers project. Everyone saw it because of the fame of the first one.

Hell, I have only seen the second one twice and may not watch it again for a long time. Meanwhile, the first one is one of my favorite movies all around.[/quote]
Really? I thought the first one was mediocre at best. The end fight scene in that one was boooooring. Why would I want to watch Iron Man fight the Iron Monger with a half powered suit? Really the only comic adaptations that have been good so far have been Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass and the Nolan Batman films.[/quote]

Ok, I’m not counting Scott Pilgrim as SuperHero flick. And there has been many good SuperHero Comic book adaptions, 300 (yes those fuckers are superheros), Spiderman (I liked the 1&2nd), YES BATMAN, The Losers (even though non of us supported the Movie), Kick Ass another movie we did not support but was great. So there is hope out there we just need to put the money on the table so they can keep making Action flicks.[/quote]
300 sucked unless you like oily half naked men and slow motion and I bet you didn’t even see Pilgrim. A lot of people didn’t because it had hipsters omg. It was the best adaptation period.[/quote]

You are 100% right about me and Pilgram. I do feel that I should see the film because it has great reviews but your right the whole Hipster thing kills it for me.
But even though its a comic book adapted movie, I just don’t count it as a Super Hero movie. I mean That Tom Hanks where he is a mobster with Paul Newman was a comic book adaption but its not a super hero movie.
300 sucked???..awwww man you have no soul.[/quote]

No, he has no taste. Saying all out blockbusters that changed the way other movies are made sucked means you are likely one of those guys who hates ALL popular music claiming that only bands no one has heard of sound good.

Iron Man 1 did not suck.

300 did not suck.

Also, the fight scene in the first Iron Man was done well. How do you add drama at all if this is just some beat down between two faceless robots? Yes, having him depowered raised the drama. That is what movies focus on if they are decent at all.

It was a way better climax than the second one.[/quote]
I just said I didn’t think Iron Man was all that good, I thought it was ok. In fact I love the Nolan Batman films. And in today’s music world it is kind of hard to like bands that no ones heard of because of the internet. Indie bands have millions of followers. And if we are going by popularity than high taste= Transformers and Bieber and while you may think that is taste I don’t.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

Jon Favreau out as Iron Man director. Really weird news.[/quote]

Not really. The first one caught everyone off guard by just being a great movie all around even if you didn’t know the character. The second one suffered from a major case of sequel-itis. They got rid of the the guy playing Rhody (who did do a great job by the way) which changed the chemistry between those two characters…and they are supposed to be life long best friends.

They had too many characters in the movie and way too much bullshit eclipsing Rourke’s character completely. The entire end fight scene was anti-climactic because they didn’t make it personal enough between Robert Downy and Rourke.

If that had been the first movie, it would have marked the end of the Avengers project. Everyone saw it because of the fame of the first one.

Hell, I have only seen the second one twice and may not watch it again for a long time. Meanwhile, the first one is one of my favorite movies all around.[/quote]
Really? I thought the first one was mediocre at best. The end fight scene in that one was boooooring. Why would I want to watch Iron Man fight the Iron Monger with a half powered suit? Really the only comic adaptations that have been good so far have been Scott Pilgrim, Kick Ass and the Nolan Batman films.[/quote]

Ok, I’m not counting Scott Pilgrim as SuperHero flick. And there has been many good SuperHero Comic book adaptions, 300 (yes those fuckers are superheros), Spiderman (I liked the 1&2nd), YES BATMAN, The Losers (even though non of us supported the Movie), Kick Ass another movie we did not support but was great. So there is hope out there we just need to put the money on the table so they can keep making Action flicks.[/quote]
300 sucked unless you like oily half naked men and slow motion and I bet you didn’t even see Pilgrim. A lot of people didn’t because it had hipsters omg. It was the best adaptation period.[/quote]

You are 100% right about me and Pilgram. I do feel that I should see the film because it has great reviews but your right the whole Hipster thing kills it for me.
But even though its a comic book adapted movie, I just don’t count it as a Super Hero movie. I mean That Tom Hanks where he is a mobster with Paul Newman was a comic book adaption but its not a super hero movie.
300 sucked???..awwww man you have no soul.[/quote]

No, he has no taste. Saying all out blockbusters that changed the way other movies are made sucked means you are likely one of those guys who hates ALL popular music claiming that only bands no one has heard of sound good.

Iron Man 1 did not suck.

300 did not suck.

Also, the fight scene in the first Iron Man was done well. How do you add drama at all if this is just some beat down between two faceless robots? Yes, having him depowered raised the drama. That is what movies focus on if they are decent at all.

It was a way better climax than the second one.[/quote]
And Iron Man changed shit, Batman Begins and the Spiderman movies set the standard even though people on here for whatever reason didn’t like Spiderman oh but everyone did so you must not have taste.

26

I’m going on RECORD by saying:

Spiderman 2 was one of the BEST Superhero movies I’ve ever seen.
Batman the first with Jack Nicohlson and the Nolan films were GREAT…YES GREAT.
Superman Returns was so so not bad though
Hulk both films felt like they could have been really good but for some reason the directors held back on the characters rage.

Iron Man 1 was Fantastic, I made you feel good about being in the theater and not many films of any kind can do that these days.
Iron Man 2…ehh.

27

Gotta love how the PC mob in Hollywood has a black guy playing a norse god, commonly known as The White God. lol.

And 300 was gheyer than gay porn.

28

I’m probably gonna catch hell for saying this, but I really liked the second Hulk movie. I didn’t particularly care for the first one…I thought the CG Hulk in that one was too “soft” looking. The story kinda jumped the shark after the first hour or so, and it just got too hokey for me. The whole movie disappointed me, really.

However, I thought Ed Norton did well playing Bruce Banner in the second one, and I thought the CG Hulk in that one was much more “real”. (Or, at least as real as you can make something like that look.) While I agree that they didn’t capture the Hulk’s rage as much as I would have liked, I thought they got a lot closer than the first movie.

Overall, I have liked the movie adaptaions of most of the Marvel comics. I think once Marvel got more actively involved in the production, things improved dramatically.

I look forward to Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers.

29

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I’m probably gonna catch hell for saying this, but I really liked the second Hulk movie. I didn’t particularly care for the first one…I thought the CG Hulk in that one was too “soft” looking. The story kinda jumped the shark after the first hour or so, and it just got too hokey for me. The whole movie disappointed me, really.

However, I thought Ed Norton did well playing Bruce Banner in the second one, and I thought the CG Hulk in that one was much more “real”. (Or, at least as real as you can make something like that look.) While I agree that they didn’t capture the Hulk’s rage as much as I would have liked, I thought they got a lot closer than the first movie.

Overall, I have liked the movie adaptaions of most of the Marvel comics. I think once Marvel got more actively involved in the production, things improved dramatically.

I look forward to Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers. [/quote]

Why would you catch hell for this?

the second Hulk movie is the one that Marvel really wanted in order to stick with the Avengers story line. It was a very good movie overall with a good villain. Ed Norton did great in that role.

I personally don’t understand people saying it sucked. It was the more real version of the two and they made Hulk into a creature who could talk and come across like less of a “monster” and more like someone misunderstood but completely deadly.

30

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I’m probably gonna catch hell for saying this, but I really liked the second Hulk movie. I didn’t particularly care for the first one…I thought the CG Hulk in that one was too “soft” looking. The story kinda jumped the shark after the first hour or so, and it just got too hokey for me. The whole movie disappointed me, really.

However, I thought Ed Norton did well playing Bruce Banner in the second one, and I thought the CG Hulk in that one was much more “real”. (Or, at least as real as you can make something like that look.) While I agree that they didn’t capture the Hulk’s rage as much as I would have liked, I thought they got a lot closer than the first movie.

Overall, I have liked the movie adaptaions of most of the Marvel comics. I think once Marvel got more actively involved in the production, things improved dramatically.

I look forward to Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers. [/quote]

I liked the second Hulk much more than the first. It was much better that you can see the Hulk getting stronger as he got angrier instead of getting taller like the first. Such as the scene when he’s choking Abomination with the chain.

31

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
Gotta love how the PC mob in Hollywood has a black guy playing a norse god, commonly known as The White God. lol.

And 300 was gheyer than gay porn.[/quote]
So true especially if you see what the actual character is supposed to look like.

32

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Thor-To-Be-Boycotted-For-Hiring-Black-Actor-To-Play-White-God-22280.html

[quote]Thatâ??s right. In this day and age where you can barely walk down a street without seeing hundreds of multi-cultural people, there are still those out there who think white skin makes them superior. Their most recent complaint is that Idris Elba, talented and up and coming actor, has been cast in Thor as traditionally white god, Heimdall.

Of course, the god in Nordic mythology and in the Marvel comic book on which the movie is based is light skinned and maybe should have been left as such to be historically accurate, but the Council of Conservative Citizens (or CoCC, fitting) released this statement on their website turning a simple case of not following the source material into a racial issue and may have crossed the line in doing so:

Norse mythology gets a multi-cultural remake in the upcoming movie titled â??Thor,â?? by Marvel studios. Itâ??s not enough that Marvel attacks conservative values and promotes the left-wing, now mythological Gods must be re-invented with black skin.

It seems that Marvel Studios believes that white people should have nothing that is unique to themselves. An upcoming movie, based on the comic book Thor, will give Norse mythology an insulting multi-cultural make-over. One of the Gods will be played by Hip Hop DJ Idris Elba.

Even though Idris Elba is in fact a hip hop DJ, when you read all of that in context you canâ??t help but hear the hate these white power fools are trying to preach rather than trying to make a logical argument against the casting decision.

If you want to get really technical about it, why would any of the other actors be in this film? I mean, Chris Hemsworth is a native Autralian, Anthony Hopkins is as English as you can get, the only true Scandinavian in the movie is Stellan Skarsgard and he doesnâ??t even play a god he plays a professor. Seems like all of the casting is wrong for this movie, not just the one guy who has dark skin.

Elba spoke to TV Times (Via The Guardian) to defend himself against raging comic book fan boys unable to let go of their precious source material:

There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character? Hang about, Thor's mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That's OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong?

I was cast in Thor and I'm cast as a Nordic god, If you know anything about the Nords, they don't look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that's good.

While itâ??s not necessarily â??goodâ?? to just change the race of a character to give your film a multi-cultural edge, itâ??s not exactly the end of the world either. Diversity may not be the only reason he was cast. After all, his name is gaining some clout in the industry and he may put a few butts in the seats when itâ??s all said and done. Thereâ??s a legitimate reason to be slightly upset in here somewhere, but no one has yet to be able to intelligently present it. So for now, why doesnâ??t everyone just kiss and make up and stop blaming Hollywood for all their problems. [/quote]

33

I wonder how many people who are now taking offense to this even knew this character existed before last week.

34

http://anyguey.guanabee.com/2010/12/white-supremacists-boycott-thor/

It would seem only a certain kind of person is pissed about this…especially since this was not a premier character that most even know about.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
http://anyguey.guanabee.com/2010/12/white-supremacists-boycott-thor/

It would seem only a certain kind of person is pissed about this…especially since this was not a premier character that most even know about.[/quote]

I can’t imagine Marvel losing sleep over a boycott by rednecks who probably can’t afford movie tickets.

36

Wasn’t the “point” of the movie that Thor comes from another place in the universe, or another dimension which is much more technologically advanced? Not actually from Scandanavia. In which case, why shouldn’t someone be black?

I think they’ve chosen a fantastic actor and that’s all I’m concerned with.

37

Oh whatever, as long as the guy is a better actor than what you usually get to see today…

Not sure how I feel about the movie in general, but we’ll see.

38

[quote]Jason van Wyk wrote:
Wasn’t the “point” of the movie that Thor comes from another place in the universe, or another dimension which is much more technologically advanced? Not actually from Scandanavia. In which case, why shouldn’t someone be black?

I think they’ve chosen a fantastic actor and that’s all I’m concerned with. [/quote]

Yeah, this is a little like “Too Human” in that it has little to do with actual Norse mythology anyway… Mostly names and a bit of lore here and there and maybe the general “rank” or whatever of the chars, but that’s about it, no?

39

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Oh whatever, as long as the guy is a better actor than what you usually get to see today…

Not sure how I feel about the movie in general, but we’ll see.

[/quote]

The man has already proven himself to be a great actor. That is why that article claiming he is just a “hip hop dj” is a slap in the face.

He is the type of actor to make people go see the movie who might not have otherwise.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Oh whatever, as long as the guy is a better actor than what you usually get to see today…

Not sure how I feel about the movie in general, but we’ll see.

[/quote]

The man has already proven himself to be a great actor. That is why that article claiming he is just a “hip hop dj” is a slap in the face.

He is the type of actor to make people go see the movie who might not have otherwise.[/quote]

I don’t recognize him tbh, rarely watch movies these days… He looked pretty cool in the screenshot though.

Besides, nobody outside of comic fans (you), metalheads (me), a few gamers (both lol) and some history students knew who Heimdall is/was until this “controversy” anyway.

These supremacist guys just look for every excuse to make trouble over nothing to keep themselves distracted from their actual problems… Like sucking at life in general.