Went to see Thor last night

Pretty fucking awesome movie. Not as good as Iron Man, but much better than IM2 and Incredible Hulk. Great acting and action, some well done comedy relief. but the Asgard scenes were dull. I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10. Don't understand why people are proclaiming this the best superhero movie of all time though.

Who the hell is doing that?

Some dudes on AP.

They seem to have bad opinions on everything other than OP.

They just hate everything remotely popular, so when something unknown like new superhero enters the scene everone jumps on the love bandwagon because it isn't Wolverine or Spider-Man.

In all honesty I thought it was the best super hero movie I've seen. MY expectations were very low though so that could be why.

I liked it as well, though I think Kai's spot on when he says it's still inferior to the first Iron Man. I think whatI liked the most was that it avoided the rather familiar formulaic feel of most Super Hero movies

I could see if someone thinks it's the best MARVEL STUDIOS movie, but better than every other superhero movie? No. Maybe if it was funnier or had a non-forced relationship between Thor and Jane. And didn't waste a perfectly good cameo. >_>

It was pretty good, yeah. I still both Hulk films have had better action than all the other Marvel films I've seen (which is all of them apart from Iron Man 2).

Also saw the Cap trailer. Is it set entirely in WW2?

Also did Thor have a post-credit scene? I didn't stick around to find out.

I'm pretty sure most of the Cap movie takes place around WW2 with him getting frozen somewhere near the end so that he can be thawed out in the Avengers movie. And yes, Thor did have a post-credits scene that had Dr. Selvig meeting with Nick Fury about the Cosmic Cube. And Loki seemed to be controlling / influencing Selvig.

A_Nonny_Moose wrote:

Also saw the Cap trailer. Is it set entirely in WW2?

Yep. I think the post-credit scene of that film is supposed to be Cap showing up in the present.

Thor's post-credit scene was Nick Fury showing the Cosmic Cube to Selfig, who is possessed by Loki (or something).

Selvig is the guy who got drunk with Thor, yeah? I only managed to catch the names of 4 characters in the whole film.

Yeah.

Dammit.

Oh, and I still really like The Incredible Hulk, it had some great action scenes and didn't get bogged down with all the psycho-analytical bullshit that Ang Lee's Hulk did, nor get mired in the cheesiness that could easily have de-railed the story. Not sure on the casting of Mark Ruffalo in Avengers though, changing actors in a cohesive universe like the one Marvel studio are trying to create seems an odd choice.

Bruce Banner 's looks vary in his comics, and that seems to have worked in Marvel's shared universe for decades. Banner's not even really who's important; it's what he changes into.

The comics is one thing, film's another.

I remember someone (I think Nonny) referencing the end of Incredible Hulk, where Robert Downey Jnr walks in the bar, and someone in the audience said "look, it's Iron Man". Why? Because Downey Jnr is Iron Man. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't have worked if they'd got another actor to play Stark for that scene because no one would have known who he was.

Yes, I know there's a difference between a cameo and a co-starring role, (look at the fuss when they changed Rhodey's actor for IM2) but the universe is meant to be one big cohesive whole, and bringing in another actor somewhat undermines that. Of course, I have no idea if the change has been made because either Norton didn't wish to reprise the role, or because Marvel wanted someone else, so it may have been a decision that was unavoidable.

No, it's not that big a deal, but I just thought it an odd decision.

I was surprised when they cast Norton because I really didn't think they'd be able to tie him to the kind of multi-film deal they were planning. I assume that's why they've gone with smaller name actors since then. Downey is a bit different since Iron Man really put him in the spotlight again, and he owes a lot to that film for where he is now. Whereas Norton was kind of slumming it in Hulk.

I've heard people saying that Norton didn't seem that into the character, that he was on auto-pilot, but I think a lot of that was down to the script. Stark's a billionaire playboy, Thor's a brash and arrogant young man who happens to have the strength of a God. Plenty of opportunity for humour, and both films made good use of more light-hearted moments. Hulk films don't always have that option; by definition, Banner's a very serious man, very much a loner, and his situation doesn't lend itself so well to comedic scenes. (Pretty much every amusing scene in IH stemmed from Tim Roth, who looked like he was having a blast playing the bad guy.)

Yes, Norton played it very straight but that's what the character called for. Were Thor and Iron Man better films as a result? Absolutely. Could Norton have done much more with his role? I'm not sure he could.

I liked Incredible Hulk better than Iron Man. The banter between Tony and Pepper was more fun than the suit stuff, though. I preferred Iron Man 2, if only for the Russian guy.

I thought Iron Man 2 was a mess, the end result feeling like lots of ideas thrown at the screen with not many of them sticking. I still enjoyed it in patches, but it wasn't anything like as good as the first.

Kaede wrote:

I liked Incredible Hulk better than Iron Man. The banter between Tony and Pepper was more fun than the suit stuff, though. I preferred Iron Man 2, if only for the Russian guy.

There's so many things wrong in this sentence

Yeah, the bts of Iron Man where he was actually Iron Man weren't that great.