The gaudy pictures from Kenneth Branagh’s Thor keep rolling in, and they keep making the Marvel panel at Comic Con my most anticipated event of the weekend. The pictures so far look really, really campy, and I wonder if that’s the tone of the Asgard stuff. Or is it just the unintentional fallout of trying to be true to Jack Kirby’s vision, which is completely unsuited for live action adaptation?
Many people are excited by the fact that Loki appears on the left wearing his classic helmet; the previous silly picture of Loki he wasn’t wearing any headgear.
This latest pic comes from the LA Times, and was run on Slashfilm. Thanks to the many fine readers who mailed me with a link.






24 comments
Come on! This looks good! I mean, the Asgard stuff looks sort of like, well, if you were in Asgard (I speak as if I've been there lol). On a more serious note, I get the feeling that this will fit well with the Marvel slate, but I do get the sensation of diminished returns with the Marvel pics. Every Marvel film is a little less good than the last one (Iron Man 2 anyone?). One day, Marvel is going to screw up and make a MODOK film. Nuff' said.
I'm getting a strong "Masters of the Universe" vibe from this picture. Dolph Lundgren in a red cape kneeling before Frank Langella's throne. I know "Masters" was basically an homage to Kirby's New Gods (http://bit.ly/a5fz4p), but that don't make it a good idea to do it all over again with Thor. Some imagery should remain ink and paint.
from the guy who directed 'Mary Shelley's frankenstein' who thought this would be good?
I don't know if it will play on film but I'm glad they are trying and not take the easy road and make it look like yet another Lord of Ringsesque fantasy flick like some people are demanding.
It might play well. Avatar looked like a 70s progressive rock album cover come to life and audiences loved it (not me so much).
Every picture is worse than the last. I'm not a huge comic book guy but I can't get my head around why they think this is a good idea.
Is this Flash Gordon II
At the very least, this film will be an interesting failure. I can't wait for a trailer so we can get more of a feel for it.
"Gordon's ALIVE??!?"
#1. Iron Man2 > Iron Man 1. = Fact
#3. You need to IMDB Kenneth Branagh. Frankenstein, was a low point. and that even succeeds on some levels.
Spot on, #2. My first thought was also: He-Man! And you know what, I'm fien with that. The MOTU movie isn't half as bad as some people remember it. Hell, according to my DVD cover, some idiot even called it "The Star Wars of the 80s". Now, if only they could cast some über-cute chick for the Courtney Cox part, I'm in.
See — I love how gaudy it is. I think it could be really fun if they treat the Asgard stuff like it's an over the top sci-fi/fantasy thing… like Flash Gordon. Man, that'd be awesome! It's a Marvel comic adaptation, not the latest Cormac McCarthy adaptation!!
I don't think it looks bad at all, I just question how they'll meld in 'magic' into this world they've created and make it something audiences will like.
I'm digging the strong Kirby look. It beats a boring old tradional Norse look by a mile.
The first thing that jumped to mind at seeing the pic is grand opera, such as Wagner's The Ring. This makes sense because of Brannagh's theatrical b.g. I think it looks really cool and yes I've seen both "Flash Gordon" and "Masters… " and they have a more cartoony feel to them
IRON MAN 2 was utter shit and I'd punch Favreau in the nut sack for waiting my time with Theroux's daddy issues. Utter failure from opening montage to moronic "science". If the screenwriter can't tell physics from alchemy he should shut up and let us think he's an idiot rather than speak and prove it. THOR: this set looks like a 30's MGM musical. Nothing wrong with this set, if it's for GOLD DIGGERS OF 2010. Otherwise, it's tacky and kitshy as all get up. And NO it doesn't have to be LOTR – brain cancers need to use what little neurons they have left and allow that there may be other visions besides option P.Jackson and option Baz Lurhman. Again: link to Kirby artwork that looks this cheap or it didn't happen like you remember.
"Or is it just the unintentional fallout of trying to be true to Jack Kirby's vision, which is completely unsuited for live action adaptation?"
Really? You're taking Branagh to task for choosing to stay true to the comic's visual roots, yet bestowing platitudes on Edgar Wright for choosing to do the same thing with SCOTT PILGRIM?I like the direction this film seems to be taking – an epic comic book based on ancient myth, writ large on the big screen. And Kirby's vision is DYING to be properly transferred to the movies. His art was a perfect blend of artistic skill and cinematic storytelling. FANTASTIC FOUR (both films) would have benefitted hugely from a more Kirby-esque look.
Between this and Nick's way-too-long rant on GREEN LANTERN (longer than the actual news piece, btw), this place is becoming less of a news site and more of a "Comic Book Guy" blog.
Thor is the perfect cameo character for a big screen avengers. He does not need his own movie. If this translates well to the big screen, it will be quite the feat.
All of these movies will probably be a hit with younger folks. I just don't see them living up to expectations for folks who have been reading the source material for decades.
This doesn't look any different than any set pics from the Hellboy movies, but Devin and Co. were shitting themselves over the creativity on display in those flicks. Why is one adaptations of myth automatically more shitty than another based on a few out of context set pics?
THOR has just as good a chance at doing well as Ryan Reynolds and the Green Lantern will: Either sink or swim at the box office…
"Thanks to the many fine readers who mailed me with a link." — sarcasm?
Hasn't anyone learned yet that still shots end up looking nothing like fully rendered shots in the final film? What looks cheap and plasticky in a still usually comes across as intended after lighting, editing, general cinematography, and film development (or the digital equivalent, if it's not being shot on film). Why must we bitch and moan about EVERY ASPECT before we actually SEE the fucking thing?
The only hope I have for this film at all is Ken Brannah as a director. He knows how to do this kind of stuff without the inherent goofiness taking over completely. It does have a weird 5th element vibe that is interesting though.
"You're taking Branagh to task for choosing to stay true to the comic's visual roots, yet bestowing platitudes on Edgar Wright for choosing to do the same thing with SCOTT PILGRIM?" It's because Devin is BFF with Wright and is horribly biased. I'm sure the 10/10 review for Scott Pilgrim is already written. It's a good thing no out outside this site gives two shits what Devin thinks anyway.
I'm just waiting for Ghost Rider (Cage) to have a cameo in Asgard!
It would then be the best movie ever made!
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.