By now I’m sure you’ve seen the pirated Thor footage from Comic Con. We won’t be running that footage on CHUD – we’re old fashioned and think stolen material doesn’t belong on our site – but I can tell you what I thought of it when I watched it last weekend.
The thing that you’re not getting from the leaked footage is how awful the 3D was. Like the terrible post-conversion of Clash of the Titans, the perspective was all over the place – at one point Heimdall’s face looked to be about six feet inside his helmet. There’s a moment where Thor is looking at himself in a mirror and the mirror has depth, which just makes no fucking sense. The conversion was miserable, which is about what I expect from the finished movie. Please Paramount and Marvel, show this film to the press in 2D as well as 3D.
And the content itself… I have been skeptical about Thor for a while and this footage did nothing to allay that concern. I’m guessing that the entire plot was given away in the footage, and it seems small. Here’s a summary of what I think happens (gleaned only from the footage/basic knowledge of the comic book mythos, so technically this is not a spoiler):
Thor is kind of a big arrogant dick in Asgard. He ends up starting a war with the Frost Giants, probably because of some trick Loki pulled on him. Odin is furious and casts Thor out of Asgard, removing most of his powers. Much of the movie now follows Thor on Earth in a generic looking desert setting as he hangs around with Jane Foster and friends, having some cute fish out of water moments and blowing the minds of some scientists. Then he learns that SHIELD has his hammer, and he decides to get it back. Meanwhile in Asgard Loki is still scheming, possibly poisoning Odin. Chaos ensues in Asgard and Loki ascends to the throne. Back on Earth, Thor breaks into the SHIELD base with the hammer but discovers that he can no longer wield it, as he is unworthy. He is captured by SHIELD. Loki decides that Thor remains too big a threat to live, so he sends the Destroyer to Earth to take care of him. Thor must now figure out how to regain his worthiness so that he can wield Mjolnir, save his new friends, return to Asgard and get Odin back on the throne. The end.
That sounds like a syndicated TV pilot. Not even a wildly expensive one at that. And to be honest, the footage sort of looks like one too. The Asgard stuff looks cheap and tacky and stagebound, while the Earth stuff looks generic and forgettable. There were some interesting action shots of Thor breaking into the SHIELD facility, but his fighting style felt weird to me – I just doubt the God of Thunder has used a dropkick that often in his battles. It’s all so small. People keep talking about the Kirby designs finally making it to screen (which they barely did, to be honest), but what about that Kirby scope? Where’s the vastness of the drama? The bad guy is a big robot, just like ones we’ve seen in the Iron Man movies? Perhaps there’s some truly epic Asgardian stuff being hidden from us… or perhaps that glimpse of the snows of Jotunheim means that all of the off-Earth stuff was shot indoors and looks like it was shot indoors. Part of what makes The Lord of the Rings work is that locations were used – Middle Earth was a place, not a set.
I desperately want to be wrong about Thor, but the continued use of Batman TV-show-esque canted angles and the copper plated look of Asgard mixed with the unmemorable look of Earth and the tight smallness of the story make me very worried that this is the first Marvel film that I will actively dislike. Cheap, small, silly… this isn’t what I wanted out of Marvel Studios expanding their superhero scope.
51 comments
change the font color, blacked out
couldn't agree more. it's a bad trailer, gives way too much away of a story seemingly without surprises, and Asgard looks fake and camp. After Iron Man 2, Marvel has a lot of cred-regaining to do, and this doesn't inspire hope. PS – is anyone else getting worried about the massive overload of characters in the Avengers movie? I know it's cool seeing all these actors up on stage, but isn't over-abundance of characters the kiss of death for any superhero movie?
Actually, shouldn't a mirror have depth? You still see two images based on which eye is viewing.
Jesus Christ Devin you are just gonna keep banging that 3D drum aint ya? No one cares. No one has ever cared. Most people see films in 2D and just about every theater in the country gives you that option. So shut the fuck up about 3d already.
You might actively dislike Thor? What about Ghost Rider, the Batman and Robin of Marvel Comics films? Man Thing doesn't count because actual crap the studio actively disowned itself from doesn't count (IMO anyway).
Lorenzo Lamas is Thor. Thats what it looks like.
the haters gonna keep hating.
So I'm guessing Devin isn't getting a set visit.
When I saw it my first thought was "so David Twohy finally got his Riddick sequel."
What we have seen of the production design sure didn't inspire confidence but hearing that the "plot" is a mix of hero-is-a-douche-who-learns-responsabilities (IRON MAN) and deals with daddy issues (IRON MAN2) sure seals that coffin. Nothing to see here – even with an extra dimension – so I'm moving right along. It's not hate, it's indifference.
I couldn't agree more Devin. LOST has better production values than that footage let alone LOTR. But what do you expect when Marvel a.k.a. the cheapest bastards around are pumping these movies out like there on a fucking conveyor belt. People can praise Branagh, Johnston, and Whedon all they want but the fact is that they all make shit movies and were hired for one reason, because they're cheap. Marvel is in complete control and are lining up directors that can take orders. Favreau is too good for that and is why he didn't take over The Avengers. I'm sure he's just as pissed as fans that Marvel meddled with his Iron Man sequel so much that they turned it to shit. Marvel is more worried about their universe of money-making properties than they are about making quality films. I have a feeling this whole set-up for The Avengers is going to fail miserably and I'll be their laughing while I wait for REAL studios with REAL filmmakers (beside Favreau) to make REAL films from comic-book properties. Oh yea, did I mention that Kevin Feige seems like the biggest asshole in charge of a film studio since Tom Rothman at FOX.
I dunno, this doesn't really look worse than any of the other dreck released these days. Plus there's Natalie Portman, so….bonus.
I think the Destroyer looks fun in a 60s Toho sorta way, but the rest is very MEH. It sounds like this one will be the hard lesson for Marvel Studios. They should've cast Alexander Skaarsgard as Thor, who is big and imposing, instead of this Lorenzo Lamas lookalike who is not large and imposing and seems like a guy coplaying thor, badly.
Uh… mirrors DO have depth. Unless it's supposed to be an Odin POV shot.
Wow. I wholeheartedly disagree with all of you. The footage looked pretty cool if you ask me. The set design in Asgard looked otherworldy and grand… like somewhere a god would live. Quit bitching about it being shot on a soundstage! I'll take that over a CG background anyday. Thor s fighting style was how I imagined it would be, all be force. I like the idea of him almost fighting like a wrestler. And as far giving away the story….. i dont remember the last time i walked into a movie not aware of the major plot points. Thats why we read these websites! This is coming from someone who has never read a thor comic. All i know about thor is from what ive learned from wikipedia and Adventures in Babysitting. Marvel has put out some pretty good, entertaining films so far and from what ive seen of Thor, it's lookin like a decent flick. I'll definitely be there on opening day. It's not gonna win awards but it'll be a fun entertaining movie. And better than most of the crap that comes to the local cineplex
I am not worried about this movie. I think it will be as advertised by Branagh: a good mix of small moments and cosmic moments. I have always really liked Thor, and having watched all of Branagh's films, know he can go big, in an impressive way. He fucking figured out how to put NINJA's into "As You Like It"!
Have a little faith here people. Branagh can bring the epic-ness. Just watch him "Hamlet". A nearly claustrophobic drama writ large by the audacity of his (sometimes retarded) directoring choices.
'Inception', for me, proved the incontrovertible pointlessness of 3-D, and I am not happy about that aspect of this film, but otherwise, I feel like it is going to be good, but not perhaps, great.
"They should've cast Alexander Skaarsgard as Thor, who is big and imposing, instead of this Lorenzo Lamas lookalike who is not large and imposing"
What? IMDB has Skarsgard at 6'4" and Hemsworth at 6'3". That inch must mean a hell of a lot to you.
So…how long 'til the Pixar guys take control of Marvel?
There will always be non-3-D options for seeing any movie. I don't get the point of complaining about something that just amounts to having more choices.
I'm split on Devin's opinion that critic's screenings should be in 2-D though. That may be better for his personal enjoyment of a movie, but as a potential paying audience member I like to know in advance if the 3-D is either bad or really, really bad. So sorry Devin, but it's actually in our best interests if you're forced to suffer.
I think it looks like a lot of fun… maybe we're all spoiled from Inception?
It can't be any worse than Iron Man 2. At least Thor could experience a letdown without anyone really knowing; Iron Man 2, on the other hand… man, what a drastic drop in quality.
Agreed that this looks pretty ho-hum. Although I would say that Asgard looks way better in motion than in the stills. But my big question, why the fuck is Thor British? Is Asgard an isle of of England? What the shit!?
"All i know about thor is from what ive learned from wikipedia and Adventures in Babysitting."
That's awesome.
Never liked Thor outside of the Thor: Vikings series anyway.
No great loss if the movie is bad.
A mirror has depth like a TV has depth, it doesn't.
This looks fucking horrible. Worse than I expected.
Thors hammer gives him the extra strenth.
All I had to go by was the footage itself and I liked what I saw,as did others. Folks can make up their own minds without you going on about "but you didn't see the 3-D!" as if that's going to change our minds one way or the other. You make up a synopsis, according to five minutes of footage, then base your remaining criticism on said assumption.
Hey, to each their own, and if folks don't like it…c'est la vie. It does look like you're making up reasons to justify your preemptive dislike for the film,though …kinda like what happened with STAR TREK, if memory serves correctly.
"I desperately want to be wrong about Thor,…" Please. You can practically smell the insincerity coming off the screen.
Not only is Skaarsgard a mere inch taller than Hemsworth, he's got a pencil neck and a small head. The previous episode of True Blood showing Eric's viking past made me breathe a sigh of relief with "glad this guy isn't playing Thor, he looks ridiculous". Hemsworth is JACKED and he's a better actor.
Mirrors DO give binocular depth information (unlike TVs).
Are Devin and #25 both idiots? A mirror's image has Depth. A mirror's IMAGE is in 3D. The mirror itself is flat and has no depth, but a mirror reflects the real 3D world back at you, in 3D. It's an idiotic complaint about the 3D. A Mirror isn't an LED screen producing a flat photographic 2D image.
I think back to The Dark Knight review and then I think that Devin's opinion on superhero movies really doesn't matter one bit. Bring on da Thor!
If ever a film needed Brian Blessed.
Its a movie in post production, its got so much production time left. So what if the 3D sucks now, either it won't later or see it in 2D.
This is a completely unprofessional review. The footage sucked to you? Okay fine, but then you go on to guess the plot of the film, and then say it sounds like a TV show. That is like me say Inception's plot looks simple by the one preview I saw, and that it sounds like a made for TV movie.
Also bitching about them using soundstages this soon into post? Come on man. Its gonna look different. Lord of the Rings may have been able to film in New Zealand, but this film had to film both in a desert and in the snowy mountains. Sometimes budgetary concerns makes these decisions.
The earlier comment about most cinemas giving you the option of seeing the film in 2D is ferociously naive. With the vast expansion of digital projection within in cinemas, and the deals that have been made with cinemas by companies like Real D, it is wholly likely that most cinemas will be equipped with 3D equipment, and this being the case, why on Earth would a cinema – a business, remember – show a version that would gain them less revenue than the 3D version which they would have the capabilities of showing? It makes absolutely no sense, of course. There is no chance in Hell that they would show the 2D version instead, on some sort of artistic grounds. And as for that aspect, if the film is allowed to be post-converted, by the film-makers, then there is no artistry involved anyway. (If there was, the film would have been designed to be post-converted in the first place…like Piranha! ha!)
The only way of seeing the 2D version in the cinema, in the future, in my opinion, will be weeks after its initial release, when the cinema has been taken over by the next big 3D 'product', and the film has been put into a smaller screen – one that may not, that just may not, have 3D capabilities.
Wow…a movie review of a movie that won't come out for almost a year. Got any other predictions for us, say like some winning lottery tickets, the next superbowl or maybe even who is going to win the next presidental election?
#27 Indeed. I love Skaarsgard in TrueBlood, but when I saw him in his Viking garb, all I could think of was 'Nope. Thor he is not.'
When I saw pictures of hemsworth, then video? The dude hasn't got a barrel chest… he's got TWO barrel chests stuffed into one!!! And the size of those biceps??? Jesus christ. I'm guessing that extra inch must mean something to that earlier poster… he probably needs all the extra inches he can get 😉
#4 – I agree with Devin. I will not watch post-conversion 3D.
Typical Devin bitching abut the 3-D and chances are, it's because he didn't get a set visit like someone mentioned above. Can you say "spoiled nerd"??? Clearly, this sites seems the most critical about this movie, but what the fuck did you expect??? Your only going to be able to make this so real and in the end, you can't fucking please anyone now can you??? Considerinf this movie doesn't come out for what?? A year??? Did it ever occur to anyone that this is an early stage sort of trailer???? The fact they even were able to show footage at COMIC-CON is amazing: Something DC and WARNER BROS are kicking themselves over for not showing any GREEN LANTERN Footage and if they did, you'd bitch about that to…
"Stolen." Let's not be completely retarded – this footage was shown freely to regular Joes who showed up to Comic-Con. Do they deserve to see the footage just because they have the money to go? I last attended in 2007, and I felt honestly GUILTY about seeing things that weren't shown to other people – it didn't seem fair, because NOTHING separated me from them except that I had the cash to fly out to San Diego. If the footage was good enough to show me, it was obviously good enough to show to the world at large, because it's not like I was part of some elite group. I was one of many THOUSAND regular-joe fans who got to see it. So "stolen"? It's honestly more like "liberated." Freed from the idiotic rules of Comic-Con. To which I say: Hear-hear. Either release your footage to the public at large, or don't bring special footage to Comic-Con. It's something every studio could afford to learn.
Thor has to be silly because the comic is and always has been. Even at its most sophisticated it was still hammy.
@26 – "It does look like you're making up reasons to justify your preemptive dislike for the film,though" – My thoughts exactly. Half of this feature is Devin imagining what he thinks the movie is, and then criticizing the actual movie based on his assumptions. Weak.
Stand in front of a mirror, and close one eye. Now open it and close the other eye. Did you notice the image in the mirror shift slightly? That is because mirrors are in 3d.
And because they are in 3d, Devin HATES them.
Are most people aware that what they were shown was just a showreel?! It wasn't a proper trailer, nor was it the finished film. To judge the film one way or another from a five minute reel that was probably knocked together pretty quickly is just ludicrous.
#33: Let's not go all "Chicken Little" here. 2D's not going anywhere. I've had absolutely no problems catching a 3D film in its 2D incarnation. This may differ in smaller cities or towns, but here in Toronto… never been an issue. And as it's mostly major metropolitan cities that get the 3D tech anyways (not all, but mostly), there will always be a plan "B" for those who want it.
If people want to take the Comic-Con footage to task (preemptive as it may be), by all means, voice your opinion. But a film's quality and its projection method have nothing to do with each other. It's "console wars" mentality.
Jesus. I'm getting the impression that certain people haven't looked at a mirror in a LONG time.
This looks like Devin's designated Sacrificial Movie … the one he decides to stick it to in order to prove that he isn't a raving shill for. This will the movie he'll point to to prove that he isn't a raving fanboy "But I gave Thor a bad review! That means I'm objective!". It will be the movie that he uses to prove to himself that he isn't a deluded fool over "Scott Pilgrim" and "Sucker Punch", both of which look worse than THOR. (notice that Devin has no comments about the acting, which is light years better in THOR than in anything we've seen in Scott Pilgrim, which he insists is the best thing to come out of Comic Con, nor does he praise the cinematography in THOR which is way more clear and colorful than the muddy monochrome of Suckerpunch).
I kinda dug the footage. It's about as cool as we could have reasonably expected. And most importantly, this footage proved (IMHO) that Thor and Tony Stark can conceivably co-exist in the same universe.
Obviously, Devin hates 3D, and he says that it doesn't look good in 3D, and that would include the 3D look of an image in a mirror. But it was unfortunate that he claimed that the a mirror's image being 3D "made no fucking sense" because now it looks like his mind was searching desperately for examples of stupidity in this movie, and his mind fastened on the mirror and made this ignorant claim about mirrors. Devin, I'd take this wierd mental trick your mind was playing on you and use it to reconsider your approach to this film. If you could make a very basic mistake like that one, you could be making many many others in your criticism. Seeing flaws that aren't there. Question your otivation. Good critics do so all the time.
How anyone can realistically look at the the pic at the top of this page and genuinely feel excited about this movie is beyond me. And when I say 'genuinely excited' I mean drug-free…
Everyone's getting that faux-fanboy, complete spaz mentality toward this stuff. Count your godam blessings, you're getting Kenneth Branagh's Thor! Never would have happened when I was a kid. We had Steel, Batman and Robin, Spawn, Meteor Man, lol. Things are so much better now, enjoy it!
Sorry – but it's Flash Gordon 2.
#43 I do not disagree with the statement that 2-D is not going anywhere – but what I said was that if there is a 3-D version of a film available, and the cinema has been fitted out completely with 3-D technology, why would they show the 2-D version? They would lose money and therefore the studios would lose money. The whole reason they do this horrid post-conversion to films is to cash in, so when it came to the projection stage, why the Hell would they not bother? 2-D versions only exist for cinemas that cant show the 3-D version – as soon as the cinemas can, the 'flat' versions will be very difficult to locate, unless of course you are lucky enough to have an independent nearby, but even then, a lot of independents are getting kitted out with 3-D, too. (Also, why would an independent play something like Thor, anyway? Haha.x)
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.