# Iron Man 2, Thor announced for 2010



## Krug (May 5, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-ironman.html


----------



## bento (May 6, 2008)

Iron Man, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man movies all stuck close to the spirit of their comic book origins, but I'm seeing a major rewrite for Thor.  

I just can't see audiences today getting wrapped up watching a lame doctor gaining the power of Thor to fighting off an alien invasion while vacationing in Norway.

So if you were called in to write the screenplay on Thor's origin, how would you do it?

As for villain of this movie, I can't see anyone else except Loki.  What are your predictions?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> Iron Man, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man movies all stuck close to the spirit of their comic book origins, but I'm seeing a major rewrite for Thor.
> 
> I just can't see audiences today getting wrapped up watching a lame doctor gaining the power of Thor to fighting off an alien invasion while vacationing in Norway.
> 
> ...



 I expect its likely to go more the Ultimate route more than the classic, which probably works best for Thor more than almost any other hero due to the origin.

Still, its so early in the game with this one that about the only thing we know for sure at this point is Matthew Vaughn is directing. A good sign, in my opinion, but sadly not much.


----------



## bento (May 6, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I expect its likely to go more the Ultimate route more than the classic, which probably works best for Thor more than almost any other hero due to the origin.



Being an "old-school" Marvel zombie, how does that go again?  I quit comics (again) after finishing the first Ultimates series.  Didn't really like the interplay between the characters.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> Being an "old-school" Marvel zombie, how does that go again?  I quit comics (again) after finishing the first Ultimates series.  Didn't really like the interplay between the characters.



 Its generally the same in the sense that he's Thor, God of Thunder.

But from the start there's real question as to whether he's actually a god or not. There's as much evidence to say he's just a crazy guy claiming to be a god as there is to him possibly telling the truth. Eventually he does turn out to be a god, but the interplay up to that keeps things a bit more grounded in reality...if it can be called that.

One of the big things that would make it more likely for a film is that most all of the direct Asgard connections just simply aren't there. Eventually they do start to become more prevalent, but from there start there's basically nothing with the convoluted fun of Asgard and all that stuff.


----------



## bento (May 6, 2008)

But that still doesn't make for much of a "wow" origin like SM's death of Uncle Ben, Punisher's family getting killed, Stark held captive or FF's family bonding through cosmic radiation.

I liked the explination of Thor's dwelling on Earth to be attributed to his arrogance.  Odin sends him to Midgard, memories wiped and in the shell of a lame and frail man to teach him humility.  But once again, kinda ho-hum as far as origin stories go.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 6, 2008)

I'm betting Thor will just fight a giant mechanical spider.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> But that still doesn't make for much of a "wow" origin like SM's death of Uncle Ben, Punisher's family getting killed, Stark held captive or FF's family bonding through cosmic radiation.



I think a guy who can command the weather has plenty of "wow" potential built in. He'll probably wind up fighting some D&D refugees: giants, trolls, dragons, and such.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2008)

And let us not overlook 2011's "The First Avenger: Captain America", followed by the Avengers movie.


----------



## bento (May 6, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think a guy who can command the weather has plenty of "wow" potential built in. He'll probably wind up fighting some D&D refugees: giants, trolls, dragons, and such.



I'd like to see him go toe-to-toe with Loki, the Absorbing Man and the Destroyer (using JIM 114 - 123, the Trial of the Gods storyline as inspiration).  That would have enough Midgard-Asgard action to satisfy me!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> But that still doesn't make for much of a "wow" origin like SM's death of Uncle Ben, Punisher's family getting killed, Stark held captive or FF's family bonding through cosmic radiation.
> 
> I liked the explination of Thor's dwelling on Earth to be attributed to his arrogance.  Odin sends him to Midgard, memories wiped and in the shell of a lame and frail man to teach him humility.  But once again, kinda ho-hum as far as origin stories go.




If it means anything, that kind of stuff is hinted at. Its just that the Ultimate origin doesn't get so heavy into Norse mythology. Instead it takes a more serious look at Thor as a man who might just be crazy or MIGHT be the protector of the planet sent from Asgard. There's an interesting character conflict that definitely would work well.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> And let us not overlook 2011's "The First Avenger: Captain America", followed by the Avengers movie.




Word seems to be whoever does Cap will essentially be filming both simultaneously. Just wish we could get word on who they're going to have playing Cap, as it strikes me as one of the harder roles to cast since he's just...well, he's Cap.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 6, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Just wish we could get word on who they're going to have playing Cap, as it strikes me as one of the harder roles to cast since he's just...well, he's Cap.



Yes, Cap is the hardest movie role I can even think of, I mean whoever takes that role will have to portray the figurative embodiment of the "American Spirit."  Much as it might get dismissed that sort of character is extremely hard to do right.  More than that if the actor or director get it wrong they could screw up the reputation and revenue of subsequent Marvel movies.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Yes, Cap is the hardest movie role I can even think of, I mean whoever takes that role will have to portray the figurative embodiment of the "American Spirit."  Much as it might get dismissed that sort of character is extremely hard to do right.  More than that if the actor or director get it wrong they could screw up the reputation and revenue of subsequent Marvel movies.



 There's a rumour that's regaining some steam that it'll be Matthew McConaughey as Cap. And...physically, I can see that. If he could just lose that horrible accept and find a way to put on an actual aura of presence then he could probably work.

...but its still a rumour, of course.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 6, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's a rumour that's regaining some steam that it'll be Matthew McConaughey as Cap.




Oh, God, no. *shudder*

Frankly, I think Cap should--I might even go so far as to say _must_--be a semi-unknown. He doesn't need to be a complete newcomer, but he cannot be an established star.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> I'd like to see him go toe-to-toe with Loki, the Absorbing Man and the Destroyer (using JIM 114 - 123, the Trial of the Gods storyline as inspiration).  That would have enough Midgard-Asgard action to satisfy me!




Three words: too many villains.

We see it time and again in superhero movies - if you have too many villains, the movie isn't as good.  Pick one, and do it well.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 6, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's a rumour that's regaining some steam that it'll be Matthew McConaughey as Cap.




Which would work if you want to emphasize Cap as the embodiment of Stoner America, sure. 

I think McConaughey does a great job in the upcoming Tropic Thunder movie, but it's a role that didn't really require much of an acting stretch, honestly, and I personally don't feel he's got the chops to do much. He's a pretty face, that's about all there is to him.

I still think Aaron Eckhart would make a good Cap, even if he will be over 40 by the time they start shooting. Thomas Jane might be a good one, too.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's a rumour that's regaining some steam that it'll be Matthew McConaughey as Cap. And...physically, I can see that.




If that comes to pass, it's time to start picketing.  Matt McConaughey just is not Captain America.  He specializes in slouching ne'er do wells, not men of substance.

Cap is one of the hardest heroes to get right, even in the original format.  Doing him in film will be even more difficult.  Which is not to say it cannot e done.  It'll just be difficult.  

Well-known actors do have the issue of bringing with them a strongly established style in their previous work.  Few actors have made a habit of playing Boy Scouts, so finding an established actor may be difficult.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 6, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think Cap should--I might even go so far as to say _must_--be a semi-unknown. He doesn't need to be a complete newcomer, but he cannot be an established star.




Good luck with that, though. A movie like Captain America, which is essentially a one-pony show and giving the key role to an unknown? There's no way they could possibly sell it, I don't think. (Just a reality of how the movie industry works.)

A relative unknown as Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christiansen) worked because they had major stars in most of the other roles- Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson- as well as name recognition of the movie (Star Wars) and George Lucas' pull. 

Marvel has some degree of leeway because they've brought their movies back in-house, but they still have stockholders to answer to, money to raise for the production, etc. I don't see any conceivable way they could get away with a non-name star in the role- which, to be fair, even includes my hopefuls of Eckhart and Jane. (If they had a big enough name as the villain- likely the Red Skull- it would help, like they did with Travolta on Punisher, but it's iffy.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 6, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Good luck with that, though. A movie like Captain America, which is essentially a one-pony show and giving the key role to an unknown? There's no way they could possibly sell it, I don't think. (Just a reality of how the movie industry works.)




I dunno. It worked for Superman Returns.

I agree, there had to be _some_ star power. But I think there's enough room amongst the villains and supporting cast--especially if they play up the importance of Sam Jackson's Col. Fury--to make it work.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Three words: too many villains.
> 
> We see it time and again in superhero movies - if you have too many villains, the movie isn't as good.  Pick one, and do it well.



A lot of folks say that, but I don't see a tautology here. Multiple villains worked well in X-Men. Didn't mind it in Spidey 3 so much either. The Schumacher Batman movies just stank in general.

I think it's a matter of having villains that actually mesh. Loki and Absorbing Man isn't a bad team-up, for instance. They're good foils for each other. And since Loki endowed Absorbing Man with his powers, we don't get that awkward situation where we're presented two completely separate and unrelated villain origins. 

The other good thing about Absorbing Man is that he's a trick villain. You can't just pound him into submission. Ya gotta make him use his powers against himself.


----------



## Staffan (May 6, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I dunno. It worked for Superman Returns.



You might want to reconsider using Superman Returns as an example of a superhero movie that worked.


----------



## Staffan (May 6, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> A lot of folks say that, but I don't see a tautology here. Multiple villains worked well in X-Men. Didn't mind it in Spidey 3 so much either. The Schumacher Batman movies just stank in general.



While the X-men movies had multiple villains, they had the advantage of being linked. The first movie's villain was mainly Magneto, who used a couple of henchmen as well - but Sabertooth and Toad were mainly just muscle. In the second movie, you add Stryker as the main villain - but keep Magneto on. That's a good way to do it, because the audience already knows who Magneto is. The third movie added even more bad guy mutants - and didn't work out so well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 6, 2008)

Staffan said:
			
		

> You might want to reconsider using Superman Returns as an example of a superhero movie that worked.




Any problems with SR--and I'll admit there were quite a few, though I liked more about the movie than I disliked--were absolutely not related to the main cast. As long as they can tighten up the scripts and add more action, I'll be happy to see Brandon Routh in the part until he's physically too old to strap on the cape.

And in fact, Routh's performance was one of the aspects almost (and I stress _almost_) universally praised, even by those who didn't care for the movie as a whole.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 6, 2008)

For Cap I think they could go with either Brad Pitt or Matt Damon and pull it off.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 6, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I dunno. It worked for Superman Returns.




Which also had both Kevin Spacey (an Oscar winner) as well as a proven track record of successes (previous Superman films- IV notwithstanding) and a director who had a lot of clout, especially after X-Men.

It also took many, many years and many, many rewrites before it ever saw the big screen. Not to mention how many actors, directors, etc. it went through before it finally landed on its final iteration.

A Captain America movie doesn't really have all of those things going for it. There isn't even a script for it at this point, to my knowledge.

It could be done- theoretically- with an unknown actor in the role, but generally speaking, that's not the way these things tend to go in Hollywood, so I'd be very surprised to see it happen.


----------



## bento (May 6, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think it's a matter of having villains that actually mesh. Loki and Absorbing Man isn't a bad team-up, for instance. They're good foils for each other. And since Loki endowed Absorbing Man with his powers, we don't get that awkward situation where we're presented two completely separate and unrelated villain origins.



Exactly - Absorbing Man can go toe-to-toe with Thor in a physical sense, that Loki would never be able to.  AM can even absorb the Uru metal abilities from Thor's hammer.  And Loki has intelligence and magical abilities that AM lacks.  

The only thing bad about AM is that a Marvel movie has already introduced a villain with similar powers, the Hulk's dad, and that fight was a bit boring.  

As for the "who's going to play Cap" question, I'm anti-McConaughey.  Maybe they should get the Rock!


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> Maybe they should get the Rock!




I think _a_ rock would be preferable


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 7, 2008)

I'd like to see Simonson's Surtur Saga played out on the big screen, but I'm not sure how well it would translate. It would definitely be epic though.

As far as Cap is concerned, I'd like to see someone a bit older play him. I think that would work well if they portray him as he is in The Ultimates, and really help to highlight his "Man out of his own time" concept. Maybe Chris Noth or Viggo Mortensen. Maybe even Josh Holloway or James Caviezel if you want a bit younger. I dunno, that's a tough one to cast.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> Exactly - Absorbing Man can go toe-to-toe with Thor in a physical sense, that Loki would never be able to.  AM can even absorb the Uru metal abilities from Thor's hammer.  And Loki has intelligence and magical abilities that AM lacks.
> 
> The only thing bad about AM is that a Marvel movie has already introduced a villain with similar powers, the Hulk's dad, and that fight was a bit boring.



Well, nobody saw the Hulk, and even fewer people remember any of it except for the mutant poodle. Didn't Nolte use his absorption powers to turn into water? Man, you use absorption powers to turn into mountains or skyscrapers or the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier!


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Which also had both Kevin Spacey (an Oscar winner) as well as a proven track record of successes (previous Superman films- IV notwithstanding) and a director who had a lot of clout, especially after X-Men.



Well, there you go. You've figured out how to make an unknown in the role of Captain America work. Pick an infamous character actor to play the villain (and I'm not certain that the Red Skull would be ideal as that villain).


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2008)

Staffan said:
			
		

> You might want to reconsider using Superman Returns as an example of a superhero movie that worked.



How about Batman Begins? Pretty much unknowns all around. Christian Bale's only claim to fame up until that point was in American Psycho.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> How about Batman Begins? Pretty much unknowns all around. Christian Bale's only claim to fame up until that point was in American Psycho.



I remember Bale from Equilibrium, Shaft and Reign of Fire, and I heard a lot of good about the Machinist (didn't saw it yet, though). I am not sure if he was a big name before Batman Begins, but he wasn't entirely unknown, and he definitely has established himself as a good actor already.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 7, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, there you go. You've figured out how to make an unknown in the role of Captain America work. Pick an infamous character to play the villain (and I'm not certain that the Red Skull would be ideal as that villain).




Yep, this. 

Also, I'm not demanding someone who's a _complete_ unknown; just someone who's not all _that_ well known. (The Bale as Batman example above is a good one.)

The other absolute requirement for a Captain America movie is that at least 1/3 of it, and preferably more, take place during WWII.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

I am wondering what Captain America's and Thor's outfit will be like. Will they stay true to the comics or go their own way like in X-Men.

Oh, and for Batman Begins, the villain was also well know actor; Liam Nesson. Also Michael Caine as Alfred, other well-known actors in it; Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, Cillian Murphy (was sorta famous by then, and he was also a villain) and finally Ken Watanabe (minor role).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 7, 2008)

At least part of the Cap movie definitely has to be in WWII...I'm okay with only the first part, though, but no matter how much of it is in that time, I think it is basically a requirement that we see Cap deck Hitler.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For Cap I think they could go with either Brad Pitt or Matt Damon and pull it off.



Brad Pitt's too tiny to fill out a superhero uniform (unless it's Robin). Also, he'll be pushing fifty by 2011. 

Now, Matt Damon would probably be able to land the role if he wanted it. The Bourne movies have him cemented as an action hero, and we're kind of lacking in that department these days.

I can only take consolation in the fact that Affleck has already played Daredevil, thus denying him the chance to screw up Cap.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I remember Bale from Equilibrium, Shaft and Reign of Fire, and I heard a lot of good about the Machinist (didn't saw it yet, though). I am not sure if he was a big name before Batman Begins, but he wasn't entirely unknown



He was entirely unknown to most folks. All of those movies you cite played to small audiences. Heck, even you didn't see one of'em.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Oh, and for Batman Begins, the villain was also well know actor; Liam Nesson. Also Michael Caine as Alfred, other well-known actors in it; Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, Cillian Murphy (was sorta famous by then, and he was also a villain) and finally Ken Watanabe (minor role).



What's your point? The topic of discussion was putting someone who's not a big name actor in the lead role, so I'm not sure why folks started rattling off who was in the rest of the cast of the Batman and Superman movie. Nobody said the entire Cap movie had to be populated by unknowns. 

Besides that...Cillian Murphy? Ken Watanabe? I'm more of a movie buff than most folks, and I barely know who those guys are. Batman Begins was not a movie that was promoted on the strength of its supporting cast. It was promoted on the strength of the IP.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Pick an infamous character actor to play the villain (and I'm not certain that the Red Skull would be ideal as that villain).




To be honest, I'm not certain he'd be the best choice either, but as far as iconic Captain America villains go, his Rogues Gallery isn't exactly the most interesting or colorful. He's always been so closely tied to the Avengers that it's kind of hard to find someone to match him up against on his own, IMO.

I could possibly see something like using Kang and playing with the whole "Man Out of Time" notion, what it means to be the embodiment of the American Dream (as a concept that exists in a timeless fashion from the trends of the moment in Present/Past/Future America), even though Kang himself is more of an Avengers villain.

Otherwise, what do you have? Faustus, but he doesn't provide much in terms of a physical challenge to Cap. Arnim Zola, whose backstory is far more complicated than it's probably worth. Baron Zemo (either one), but if you use Heinrich, you might as well use the Red Skull. Helmut could be interesting, though, if you use Heinrich in the WWII part of the story and Helmut in the present.

Flag-Smasher, possibly, as Cap vs. the terrorist Ultimatum organization. Or Viper, possibly.

Can't really think of anyone else offhand that could really do the movie justice though.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> He was entirely unknown to most folks. All of those movies you cite played to small audiences. Heck, even you didn't see one of'em.




Hm. Not sure he was as much of an unknown as that. I was first familiar with him from American Psycho, but he'd definitely been on the radar for a long time- and the female populace, at least, I think was quite familiar with him. Christian Bale has been a huge heartthrob for ages now.


----------



## Mistwell (May 8, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> How about Batman Begins? Pretty much unknowns all around. Christian Bale's only claim to fame up until that point was in American Psycho.




Ummm....no.

It was his breakout blockbuster role, but not his "breaking out of being an unknown" role.  He had done that years ago.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'm not certain he'd be the best choice either, but as far as iconic Captain America villains go, his Rogues Gallery isn't exactly the most interesting or colorful.




Well, there's always Crossbones. He's more a henchman than a main villain, but he could always provide the muscle for someone else who's a good villain but not a physical match.

I actually like the idea of using the Two Zemos--one in WWII, one today.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, there's always Crossbones. He's more a henchman than a main villain, but he could always provide the muscle for someone else who's a good villain but not a physical match.




That's true. Can't believe I'd forgotten Crossbones (though, like you said, he's really a henchman and not a mastermind.)



> I actually like the idea of using the Two Zemos--one in WWII, one today.




Yeah, the more I think of it, the more I think it could work. Modify their history somewhat, so that Cap actually kills Heinrich during WWII (maybe Heinrich dies and sets off the rocket with Bucky as his dying act), and then you could have Helmut as the present day villain. That way you've got Cap as Man Out of Time going on in opposition to Helmut as Man of the Present, and you've also got the parallels of Cap losing his surrogate "son" Bucky (due to Heinrich) and Helmut losing his father (due to Cap).

Just so long as they leave Helmut alive (but scarred) at the end, and don't kill him off like so many good villains do in the movies. (And then Helmut can lead the Masters of Evil in an Avengers movie based on the Siege of Avengers Mansion storyline.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Yeah, the more I think of it, the more I think it could work. Modify their history somewhat, so that Cap actually kills Heinrich during WWII (maybe Heinrich dies and sets off the rocket with Bucky as his dying act), and then you could have Helmut as the present day villain. That way you've got Cap as Man Out of Time going on in opposition to Helmut as Man of the Present, and you've also got the parallels of Cap losing his surrogate "son" Bucky (due to Heinrich) and Helmut losing his father (due to Cap).




I dunno. I much prefer the Ultimates version of Bucky, where he's basically an "embedded reporter" (read: Allied propaganda), as opposed to a costumed sidekick, and where he lives to the modern day.

But I do like the "Cap kills one Zemo and then faces off against the second."


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I dunno. I much prefer the Ultimates version of Bucky, where he's basically an "embedded reporter" (read: Allied propaganda), as opposed to a costumed sidekick, and where he lives to the modern day.




Not that familiar with the Ultimates, myself. I stopped reading anything Ultimate fairly early on, when I grew to dislike Bendis' Spider-Man and couldn't stand Millar's X-Men (his characters had no voices- they were, to my reading, all interchangeable ciphers.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Not that familiar with the Ultimates, myself. I stopped reading anything Ultimate fairly early on, when I grew to dislike Bendis' Spider-Man and couldn't stand Millar's X-Men (his characters had no voices- they were, to my reading, all interchangeable ciphers.)




Heh. I'm only a fan of the Ultimates, and then only the first two series. (The third took a nosedive like you wouldn't believe.) And that's partly _because_ they lacked a lot--not all, but a lot--of the goofiness that pervades comic books in general.

For instance, the Ultimates version of Captain America is an actual soldier, not a boy scout. He's still a good guy overall, he's still got the whole "All America" thing going, and he's still got the old-fashioned sense of right and wrong. But he's a much more ruthless combatant, and a lot quicker to solve problems with fists than words--basically, exactly what you'd expect from a so-called Super Soldier.

My favorite Ultimates version is Thor, though. As described above, most people assume he's just a crazy guy with super powers and his heart in the right place, who _thinks_ he's the god of thunder. He's also a rabid environmentalist to the point of almost being hippy-esque, and politically active. Which doesn't mean he won't cave in your skull and call down the lightning on your twitching corpse if need be.  I actually hope they not only take that approach in the Thor movie, but leave the question at least vaguely hazy.

I dunno. Overall, I just thought the Ultimates really presented the characters in a more real-world paradigm than their original versions. (Note I said "_more_ real world," not just "real world." There's still plenty of comic bookiness.)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. I'm only a fan of the Ultimates, and then only the first two series. (The third took a nosedive like you wouldn't believe.)




That's what I've heard, actually.



> My favorite Ultimates version is Thor, though. As described above, most people assume he's just a crazy guy with super powers and his heart in the right place, who _thinks_ he's the god of thunder. He's also a rabid environmentalist to the point of almost being hippy-esque, and politically active.




That take on Thor is actually one of few interesting things I've read about Ultimates. From what I understand, the end of vol. 2 pretty definitively put this to rest, but I agree that it would be a cool angle to take with the character as opposed to the straight out Asgardian approach of the mainstream MU.

Based on Iron Man the Movie, it seems to me they're probably going to go a more Ultimates route with the Avengers than not, so I'm curious to see how that develops. I'm even more curious to see what they do with Ant-Man, since he's one of the goofier elements of the comics (in terms of the realism you're talking about). Just the name itself doesn't quite lend itself to a moviegoing public, I'd think. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to go a more comedic route with the character- based on the most recent Ant-Man- and have him be the comic relief of the Avengers team.

(Haven't read the recent Ant-Man series- not a fan of Kirkman's writing- but I could see where they might decide to go that route.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> That's what I've heard, actually.




Believe it. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it honestly reads like the writers said "You know what would be cool? Let's take everything that makes the Ultimates different from the original, more comic, goofier, and frankly tired version of the Avengers, and get rid of it in the silliest way possible."



> From what I understand, the end of vol. 2 pretty definitively put this to rest, but I agree that it would be a cool angle to take with the character as opposed to the straight out Asgardian approach of the mainstream MU.




Yep. I really wish they hadn't, honestly. I liked the ambiguity being part of the character.



> Based on Iron Man the Movie, it seems to me they're probably going to go a more Ultimates route with the Avengers than not, so I'm curious to see how that develops.




Well, only sort of. The character of 



Spoiler



Nick Fury, the SHIELD organization, and the fact that the public knows Stark is Iron Man


 are all straight out of the Ultimates. But the character origin and the suit are very original character, and the personality, while a mixture of the two, leans more toward the original. (Or at least, as he's portrayed in the Ultimates. I have no idea how he's portrayed in Ultimate Iron Man. I heard about the "brain thing," and promptly decided to stay as far from UIM as possible.)

Seems to me like they're taking (what they consider) the coolest elements of both. Which I'm fine with. 



> I'm even more curious to see what they do with Ant-Man, since he's one of the goofier elements of the comics (in terms of the realism you're talking about). Just the name itself doesn't quite lend itself to a moviegoing public, I'd think.





Yeah, I'm curious, too. In the Ultimates, he begins as Giant Man, not becoming Ant Man until later.

Honestly, I'm not sure a movie version of the Avengers really needs two shrinking heroes, so I kinda hope they do find something different to do with him. (Assuming they're keeping Wasp around, of course.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

I do have to add, though, that I think it's amusing that we're speaking of a genre and a medium where the version of WWII with aliens helping the Nazis build super-weapons is the _less_ comic-bookish of the two realities.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 8, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Three words: too many villains.



QFT, pick one primary enemy and do them well.  Loki would probably be most iconic for Thor to be dealing with.  However it might be interesting to see a relative unknown in the spot.


----------



## Tonguez (May 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> (Assuming they're keeping Wasp around, of course.)




Wasp is a much cooler character than Ant Man and the movie does need to have at least one female superhero in it. 

I can see Hank Pym working in an Avenger movie with a bit part as the Avenger 'tech' expert working on a nanotech level but really don't see a whole movie about a guy who shrinks and talks to ants as being all that interesting.

As to the Thor villain I can see a souped up version of the Wrecking Crew as working...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 8, 2008)

What we know about the Ant-Man movie, at the moment, is pretty limited like most of them. But we do know its going to be about both Hank Pym and Scott Lang, and that Simon Pegg is supposedly attached to it in some way. It seems like they're going to go with a lighter tone for it, which would really work for Ant-Man over many other heroes.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 8, 2008)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> As to the Thor villain I can see a souped up version of the Wrecking Crew as working...




Loves me the Wrecking Crew, but for them to be the main "villain" of the piece, I think you'd have to have really play up Thunderball as the driving force- possibly a variation of their origin story, where they're looking for the Gamma Bomb TBall built so that they can hold cities for ransom.

Which would be fine as far as I'm concerned, since TBall is my favorite member of the Crew. They could even tie it in with the Hulk movie in that regard if they wanted, by playing up the ties between Doc Franklin and Doc Banner and their work on Gamma radiation. (And hopefully we could finally get some Wrecking Crew action figures!!!)

Otherwise, the Wrecking Crew's a bit too dull to be the main opposition of Thor.


----------



## Tonguez (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Loves me the Wrecking Crew, but for them to be the main "villain" of the piece, I think you'd have to have really play up Thunderball as the driving force- possibly a variation of their origin story, where they're looking for the Gamma Bomb TBall built so that they can hold cities for ransom.




I think you've given a great plot outline for the Thor vs Wrecking Crew movie right there and wrecking crew action figures would be funky. 

I know Loki is the iconic nemesis to Thor but I'm not sure that I'm personally too interested in a movie about two norse gods battling out in New York. I'd also like to keep the overtly mystical aspects out of the Superhero movies.

On the last point of course we have a way to make TBall the driving force behind the Wrecking Crew by linking their powers to Gamma Radiation and Lightning rather than asgardian magic. I think the Wrecking Crew is obscure (and as you said dull) enough to modify their origins without offending too many and by supng them up you might just get a story.

A genius wronged by his employers and jailed without justice manipulates and binds three thugs into a team. They break in and steal one of his his invention a gamma powered earthquake generator which they will use to access the big prize (ie the gamma bomb) but they are hit by lightening which interacts with the gamma to give them enhanced strength and endurance. the earthquake enerator becomes the wrecking ball, whereas Wrecker gets his crowbow etc


----------



## Tonguez (May 8, 2008)

You know who else would be a seriously cool opponent to Thor - the Sub Mariner. It could involve the Submarriner attacking the city for some threat to the oceans and Thor trying to stop him and it also gives us a lead in to the Sub Mariner movie

but now I'm dreaming


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Otherwise, what do you have? Faustus, but he doesn't provide much in terms of a physical challenge to Cap. Arnim Zola, whose backstory is far more complicated than it's probably worth. Baron Zemo (either one), but if you use Heinrich, you might as well use the Red Skull. Helmut could be interesting, though, if you use Heinrich in the WWII part of the story and Helmut in the present.
> 
> Flag-Smasher, possibly, as Cap vs. the terrorist Ultimatum organization. Or Viper, possibly.
> 
> Can't really think of anyone else offhand that could really do the movie justice though.



M.O.D.O.K, baby!


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Ummm....no.
> 
> It was his breakout blockbuster role, but not his "breaking out of being an unknown" role.  He had done that years ago.



Ummm....no. (a little annoying, ain't it?)

He might have been building up a decent career before that. His name might have been on the short list of up-and-coming actors of self-designated Hollywood insiders. He might not have had trouble getting a table at the Four Seasons. His name might have been on the lips of the kind of the hardcore buffs who seek out a movie like Equilibrium or American Psycho. But when the general public heard that Christian Bale was Batman, the general reaction was "umm...who?" And that's what I'm referring to. Much like Daniel Craig becoming the new James Bond.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. I'm only a fan of the Ultimates, and then only the first two series. (The third took a nosedive like you wouldn't believe.) And that's partly _because_ they lacked a lot--not all, but a lot--of the goofiness that pervades comic books in general.
> 
> For instance, the Ultimates version of Captain America is an actual soldier, not a boy scout. He's still a good guy overall, he's still got the whole "All America" thing going, and he's still got the old-fashioned sense of right and wrong. But he's a much more ruthless combatant, and a lot quicker to solve problems with fists than words--basically, exactly what you'd expect from a so-called Super Soldier.
> 
> ...



I thought Ultimates was kind of a gyp. The first year or so, they don't fight any villains, just each other. It might be cute on paper to organize this multi-billion-taxpayer-dollar dream team, and then just have them sit around idly like nukes in a silo, but in practice, I'm mystified as to how folks found that entertaining month after month. In fact, I don't recall them fighting anyone until Magneto the Ultimates/X-Men crossover.

Millar's thing is going for the shock value--that step or two across the line that separates "edgy" from "tasteless". I like the idea of an ultimate Captain America that's got John Wayne's sense of morality and directness. I don't like a guy who's eager to smash a jack boot into people's faces. I like the idea of an ultimate Hulk that actually causes fatalities during the course of his rampage, but then Millar turns him into a cannibal that takes people apart like a rotisserie chicken. And then there's his ultimate Wasp, a disgusting bug-woman who lays eggs and sheds chitin and spits up goop like Jeff Goldbloom in The Fly.

Have to say though, his ultimate Thor was actually the coolest of the bunch. He was the closest to having a regard for human life (an "unrealistic" trait of superheroes that I think is pretty vital to being worthy of the term) that Millar gave us.


----------



## Mistwell (May 8, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Ummm....no. (a little annoying, ain't it?)
> 
> He might have been building up a decent career before that. His name might have been on the short list of up-and-coming actors of self-designated Hollywood insiders. He might not have had trouble getting a table at the Four Seasons. His name might have been on the lips of the kind of the hardcore buffs who seek out a movie like Equilibrium or American Psycho. But when the general public heard that Christian Bale was Batman, the general reaction was "umm...who?" And that's what I'm referring to. Much like Daniel Craig becoming the new James Bond.




The industry measures this sort of stuff.  There are star meters, and measurement of number of mentions in entertainment news, and test marketing, and that sort of stuff, to make it an objective rather than subjective measure.  Studies use this to aid with potential casting.  Across the board, he was already in the semi-star category before Batman Begins.  You may not have heard of him, but a sufficient number of people had heard of him (whether it was from when he was a kid, or more modern films) to rank him well above the "unknown" category for America, before Batman Begins.

And, for what it is worth, with the exception of my wife, Christian is the only actor whose popularity meter is actually something I know about, and knew about before Batman Begins.  I don't claim to be an expert on the general topic, just Christian's popularity (and my wife's).  I'm not going to go into why I know it (some folks here already do), but I hope you'll just take my word for it on this one.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2008)

Well, I know that you feel strongly that it's boiled down to an objective science which trumps the empirical evidence that water-cooler surveys provide, but I personally do know how the Hollywood machine is often terrible at gauging where the average joe stands on things. There's a lot of self-perpetuated assumptions in the industry, the most basic being that you can take an accurate sample of urban Americans by sampling L.A. and, at a broader level, California, because they represent the axis of modern civilization (q.v. the narcissism of "Crash" sweeping the Oscars in 2004) and everyone between there and Manhattan is living in the boondocks with no electricity so they should be disregarded. 

Hollywood execs still trust the Nielson Company as providing objective, scientifically-precise data, despite the obvious holes in their rating system. Thing is, most people who go to movies don't read trades in the entertainment industry. They just see something that looks good, and they go. Even if they rent a movie like Equilibrium, they usually don't try remember the actors' names. But the companies that provide Q ratings can hardly stay in business saying "mmm I dunno", so they call it a fine science.

Anyway, it's not much worth arguing about. I think our positions are just not going to sync up.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 8, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I'm mystified as to how folks found that entertaining month after month.




I wouldn't know. I read them as graphic novels. 



> Millar's thing is going for the shock value--that step or two across the line that separates "edgy" from "tasteless". I like the idea of an ultimate Captain America that's got John Wayne's sense of morality and directness. I don't like a guy who's eager to smash a jack boot into people's faces.




Other people have said this, and I just don't see it. There are a lot of lines crossed, such as your Hulk example. But my read on Cap was as a guy right up _on_ the line, but not crossing it.

Maybe that changed in one of the crossovers you mentioned.



> Have to say though, his ultimate Thor was actually the coolest of the bunch. He was the closest to having a regard for human life (an "unrealistic" trait of superheroes that I think is pretty vital to being worthy of the term) that Millar gave us.




Agreed. Thor (Ragna)rocks.


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 9, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. I'm only a fan of the Ultimates, and then only the first two series. (The third took a nosedive like you wouldn't believe.) And that's partly _because_ they lacked a lot--not all, but a lot--of the goofiness that pervades comic books in general.




It's funny, but while I mostly enjoyed The Ultimates, I find that I tend to enjoy comics more when they don't hide from their inherent goofiness. It just seems that the more seriously superhero comics take themselves, the harder time I have overlooking how ridiculous the inherent concept is in the first place. So while I enjoy reading The Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns and The Ultimates, I still need some Spidey foiling jewel thieves and cracking wise every now and then too.

For Cap's villain, it would be cool to see Baron Strucker and Hydra, even though they are more of a Nick Fury villain. Then again, maybe Fury and SHIELD could play a big role in the Cap movie...


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 9, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> M.O.D.O.K, baby!




Don't forget M.O.D.A.M.!


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 9, 2008)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> It's funny, but while I mostly enjoyed The Ultimates, I find that I tend to enjoy comics more when they don't hide from their inherent goofiness.




Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.

Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.

I hate this. Hate it with the burning fire of a thousand suns. That sort of thing was appropriate for the original Marvel universe, but not for the (somewhat) more real-world feel of the Ultimates line. It's one of the major aspects that turned me off U3.

Or the fact that Thor, for no good reason, went back to his pseudo-old-fashioned Shakespeare-speak.

There's nothing wrong with the Avengers as a comic book title. But if I wanted to read the Avengers, I'd read the Avengers. I read the Ultimates for the Ultimates. The two may be analogs of each other, but they _are_ different--sometimes in major ways. If they're going to turn the Ultimates into the Avengers, what's the point?


----------



## bento (May 9, 2008)

Big turn-offs for me with Ultimates line:

* Ultimate X-Men: Wolverine leaving Cyclops to die while exploring the Savage Lands in Antarctica 'cause he wants to get closer to Jean Grey
* Ultimates 1: How Hank Pym was handled.  He was too much of a cowardly punk, and while I'll admit the 1960's HP wasn't known for having a strong personality, I think the character deserved better than this in his Ultimates re-vision.

I remained somewhat a fan of the Spider-Man book as I saw it as an updated retelling of the original ASM series.  But even there I gave up when they introduced the Sinister Six story line.

As for a villain for Cap, how's about Batroc & his band of mercenaries?  (kidding!)  I'd agree that weaving in Col. Fury & SHIELD to the plot would be cool.


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 10, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.
> 
> Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.
> 
> ...




I agree with you here. Luckily a friend warned me off U3 and so I've avoided it. Looks like I was wise to heed his advice.

Frankly, I like the concept of having separate comic lines (like the Ultimate verse). It makes it easier for me to know what kind of stories I'm getting into ahead of time, so that when I feel in the mood for some more modern-style comic stories, I can pick up an Ultimate title, but when I want something old school, I can pick up something from the other line. Unfortunately, it seems like most comics are told in that "Ultimate" style now. There's still a few titles that go for that old-school story telling, but they are getting few and far between. 

In some ways that's good, but in other ways it's kind of sad.


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 10, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> As for a villain for Cap, how's about Batroc & his band of mercenaries?  (kidding!)  I'd agree that weaving in Col. Fury & SHIELD to the plot would be cool.




Lol Batroc. Batroc the Leaper - Master of Savate! Whatta maroon...

Reminds me of the issue of Cap I have where he infiltrates some super-villain fight club incognito and ends up fighting guys like Batroc and Tiger Shark and Flying Tiger (and Stilt Man I think). That issue also features Shang-ti and freakin Modam.

Still better than Capwolf though...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 10, 2008)

You know all this villain talk has got me wondering. How well would a traditional superhero (thus excluding The Watchmen) film do without a "main villain"?

Could it rake in the bucks with simply the interplay between the superhero and the world, or does there need to be that main antagonist? 

I state this to considering with Iron Man, while there is conflict there, the main "villain" in the form of Iron Monger didn't add much it was simply in my eyes a combat set-piece and could have been gone from the movie without harming it.


----------



## Michael R. Proteau (May 11, 2008)

Since the Marvel announcemnt implied Iron Man 2, Thor, and The First Avenger: Captain America are all leading into the Avengers film, it seems there will be some sort of link to all three of them. There are also reports that Downey did a Stark cameo in Incredible Hulk during filming of Iron Man lending some credence that thye are linking all these as a semi series of sequels. (no clue if it shows up int he main body of the film or as another post credit snippet to tease things to come). There have been reports that Thor will be set up in Iron Man 2 as well. 

Looking at the 2 comic origins for the Avengers and the Ultimates, you have Loki tricking Thor, Iron Man, and the Pyms into fighting the Hulk and Fury gathering the Ultimates after finding Cap on ice. 

My guess and speculation is that the Avengers movie will open with the discovery of Cap on Ice, and that the Cap movie will be set in WWII and end with Cap being frozen in the ice after stopping the Rocket fired by Zemo. 

Setting the Cap solo flick in WWII also addresses some of the concerns that have been reported about how well such a  blatantly patriotic character will fare in international box office receipts when public perception of the US internationally is so iffy in places (part of the reason they titled it First Avenger: Captain America and not just Captain America). WWII provides a cleaner backdrop separated from concerns brought about by current affairs. 

Using Loki as a foil in the Thor movie and then having him mastermind a plot to get revenge on Thor in the Avengers movie also provides another link. Having Loki behind the scenes maniulating things and having the Hulk be the physical foil for Cap, Thor, Iron Man, (and maybe the Pyms) provides a menace they can cut loose with and provide plenty of screen time for all the heroes (and the stars with desire to have face time) to shine. 

Using that train of thought, a Thor movie by a director known for his fantasty themed genre films (like Stardust) could very well be set in Asgard, not Midgard, with Loki as the main foil using mythological creaturs (say giants and trolls) as the main fodder for fight scenes, and have it climax with Thor foiling Loki's scheme but being just a tad too arrogant in his victory and being sent to Midgard to learn humility, setting up his sojourn on Earth and his role in the Avengers.  

It also allows each film to have its own identity with release dats so close, but all build as part of a much larger story. 

I am also guesing that Iron Man 2 will largely be based on the Demon In a Bottle storyline dealing with Tony Stark's battle with alcoholism, since that aspect of the character is one of the things that drew Downey to the role, and he has so much personal experience in that to invest into the role it would make a powerful performance. The first Iron Man movie also took a lot of time to highlight Tony getting and consuming alcohol (from our opening scene in the military caravan to the scene at the bar at his party, and others) that it was obvious they were setting this up for later usage. If Fury's character plays a larger role in Iron Man 2, they could also introduce the Pym's as SHIELD scientists and part of the Avengers Initiative, setting up for the later Avengers movie. 

It would be fun if they used little post credit snippets like the introduction of Fury to keep tying these together and building towards Avengers.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.
> 
> Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.
> 
> I hate this. Hate it with the burning fire of a thousand suns. That sort of thing was appropriate for the original Marvel universe, but not for the (somewhat) more real-world feel of the Ultimates line. It's one of the major aspects that turned me off U3.



As I recall, the seemingly neverending Marvel Zombies nonsense got started in Ultimate Fantastic Four. I regard that series as the "Lobo" of this decade: the equivalent of a baby-in-a-microwave joke that is maybe cute and shocking the first time you heard it, but not the tenth or twentieth time.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2008)

Michael R. Proteau said:
			
		

> It would be fun if they used little post credit snippets like the introduction of Fury to keep tying these together and building towards Avengers.



Michael, that was a great post. Seems to follow a very logical process.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 11, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> As I recall, the seemingly neverending Marvel Zombies nonsense got started in Ultimate Fantastic Four. I regard that series as the "Lobo" of this decade: the equivalent of a baby-in-a-microwave joke that is maybe cute and shocking the first time you heard it, but not the tenth or twentieth time.



 Say what you want, but Marvel Zombies vs. Army of Darkness was absolutely awesome.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 14, 2008)

So, it appears that Tony was working on Cap's shield.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 14, 2008)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> So, it appears that Tony was working on Cap's shield.



 I'm iffy on that one...kind of looks like a stretch, but who knows.

We already have seen from the Incredible Hulk trailers that the serum used to create Abomination of blue and white and is supposedly an attempt at the super soldier. Sooooo, its possible...


----------



## Amellia (May 14, 2008)

Hi guys... I just joined up, and part of the reason I did was 'cause I saw all this superhero movie talk, and got excited! I work in entertainment and media, and every so often I get a leg up (leaks, spoilers, advanced screenings, etc.) so hopefully I can hook you up with that stuff when I find it. So I wanted to introduce myself, but mostly jump right in.

To the rumors of McConaughey and Pitt as Cap and Thor, Marvel hasn't given any official word on that yet, but my opinion is that McConaughey might be able to do it -- Captain America's got that well-known all-American thing going for him, and having a known actor in the role could actually sort of work, where it wouldn't have with Spidey or Batman as well. Brad Pitt as Thor, in my opinion, is just ridiculous. I really doubt Marvel would go with that.





			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> You know all this villain talk has got me wondering. How well would a traditional superhero (thus excluding The Watchmen) film do without a "main villain"?




I think a superhero movie does have to have a main villain. Particularly in the first of a series -- the hero must go through several lesser villains, building up to the final villain, in order to prove himself (and also not be immediately badass at the end of the movie with the big villain). But just as the lesser villains are necessary, the main villain is necessary for a sense of closure and satisfaction. Even if the movie's open-ended, some sort of showdown with a main antagonist leaves movie-goers (or comic readers) with a sense of fulfillment. That's what we pay to see, after all.

Extending that opinion a little, I would guess Loki will show up at the end of the Thor movie, or sporadically through it as an "unknown." I would guess we get shown Thor as some guy with wiped memories who starts discovering his powers, and delves deeper and deeper and meets the "lesser" villains along the way, leading up to Loki as being behind it all toward the end. I wouldn't be surprised if Loki becomes a figure much like Magneto in the X-Men films -- always there, not always the main villain, but certainly with a finger in all the pies going around.


----------



## Michael R. Proteau (May 14, 2008)

Amellia said:
			
		

> To the rumors of McConaughey and Pitt as Cap and Thor, Marvel hasn't given any official word on that yet, but my opinion is that McConaughey might be able to do it -- Captain America's got that well-known all-American thing going for him, and having a known actor in the role could actually sort of work, where it wouldn't have with Spidey or Batman as well. Brad Pitt as Thor, in my opinion, is just ridiculous. I really doubt Marvel would go with that.
> 
> 
> > I really really hope they don't cast McConaughey as Cap. It would be a horrible casting decision. Cap is more about presence than looks. He inpsires and is able to lead people into battle to put it all on the line to do the right thing. McConaghly image is a spineless slacker whiner in most of his roles and I just don't see him as having the charisma or screen presence to make it believable that power houses and strong personalities like Fury, Iron Man and Thor would follow him to the bathroom let alone into battle.


----------



## Amellia (May 14, 2008)

I definitely agree, don't get me wrong. I don't want to see McConaughey in the role any more than you do. I think it would be a mistake. That said, I don't think it would be the total laughable disaster that other casting decisions might be. *cough*BradPittasThor*cough*

Hopefully Marvel will at least announce alternatives that they're considering soon, to put an end to the rumors.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 14, 2008)

I get the feeling McConaughey COULD do all those things he would need to do for Cap...its just the question of would he, really. One could argue that there are many actors who do the same thing again and again and get an image of what they are, then make a movie that goes completely against that and it WORKS. Not saying he'd be my first choice for a Cap, I'm definitely in the camp of a relative unknown, but I'm not willing to write it off completely just yet.

Same with Brad Pitt as Thor. Especially if its more Ultimate Thor. 616 Thor is something I highly doubt we'll see, at least completely, and I can definitely see Brad Pitt as a some version of an Ultimate Thor.


----------



## Felon (May 15, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> You know all this villain talk has got me wondering. How well would a traditional superhero (thus excluding The Watchmen) film do without a "main villain"?
> 
> Could it rake in the bucks with simply the interplay between the superhero and the world, or does there need to be that main antagonist?
> 
> I state this to considering with Iron Man, while there is conflict there, the main "villain" in the form of Iron Monger didn't add much it was simply in my eyes a combat set-piece and could have been gone from the movie without harming it.



Well, some of the best Batman stories didn't have a sueprvillain. Get past Joker and maybe Ras Al Ghul, the good villains start dwindling away quickly. 

For instance, the four-part "Venom" story from Legends of the Dark Knight would make a great screenplay.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Same with Brad Pitt as Thor.




Pitt isn't short, but he's not anywhere near buff enough to play the Thunder God, and I would not expect him to come up with the bodybuilder physique required.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 15, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Pitt isn't short, but he's not anywhere near buff enough to play the Thunder God, and I would not expect him to come up with the bodybuilder physique required.



 Actually, I'd say how he looked in Troy would work pretty well as Thor.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say how he looked in Troy would work pretty well as Thor.




Didn't see Troy.  But Thor is... Thor.  He's a huge bloody norseman.  He's not... Joe Black


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 15, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Didn't see Troy.  But Thor is... Thor.  He's a huge bloody norseman.  He's not... Joe Black




But then we don't want Dolph Lundgren or some other Scandinavian Worlds Strongest Man competitor that  can't act in the roll, just because they are buff and blond.


----------



## Amellia (May 15, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Didn't see Troy.  But Thor is... Thor.  He's a huge bloody norseman.  He's not... Joe Black




Here's the image circulating around with the rumors:








I would rather have an unknown in the role of Thor, but I would vastly prefer Brad Pitt to some body-building muscleman. I can't stand even looking at bodybuilders, they gross me out to a huge degree -- I wouldn't even be able to go see Thor if it had some wrestling champ in it. Ugh ugh ugh.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> But then we don't want Dolph Lundgren or some other Scandinavian Worlds Strongest Man competitor that  can't act in the roll, just because they are buff and blond.




Certainly not.  But remember, we are talking about a character who's physical strength is generally only matched by the Hulk.  He has to be able to act, but he has to project "I am physically stronger than _anyone else here_" as well, and I don't think Pitt does that.

There are six billion people on the planet.  Certainly, one of them has muscles and can act, too.

For example - a young Vincent D'Onofrio in "Adventures in Babysitting".


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 16, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Certainly not.  But remember, we are talking about a character who's physical strength is generally only matched by the Hulk.  He has to be able to act, but he has to project "I am physically stronger than _anyone else here_" as well, and I don't think Pitt does that.
> 
> There are six billion people on the planet.  Certainly, one of them has muscles and can act, too.
> 
> For example - a young Vincent D'Onofrio in "Adventures in Babysitting".




Wow. I'd never put together that that was Vinny. Then again, I haven't seen that movie in many many years.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 16, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Certainly not.  But remember, we are talking about a character who's physical strength is generally only matched by the Hulk.  He has to be able to act, but he has to project "I am physically stronger than _anyone else here_" as well, and I don't think Pitt does that.
> 
> There are six billion people on the planet.  Certainly, one of them has muscles and can act, too.



You mean, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone or Vin Diesel?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 16, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> He might have been building up a decent career before that. His name might have been on the short list of up-and-coming actors of self-designated Hollywood insiders. He might not have had trouble getting a table at the Four Seasons.




I think you are mixing up your personal perception with reality. Christian Bale has been a major actor for years. And years.

You've missed it, and that isn't a problem (although you've missed some great films), but your reading of Bale as an actor is rather idiosyncratic.


----------



## Amellia (May 16, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You mean, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone or Vin Diesel?





*shudder* Bite your tongue, Archchancellor.


----------



## Felon (May 20, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think you are mixing up your personal perception with reality. Christian Bale has been a major actor for years. And years.



Well, I guess I can just retort that you're mixing up your personal perception with reality back atcha. It's an easy game to play, though it cloys pretty quickly. Bale had the lead role in a bunch of small movies playing to small audiences, and supporting roles in some major motion pictures, but Batman was his big step into stardom, at least as far as all those folks out there who go to the movies less than ten times a year are concerned.



> You've missed it, and that isn't a problem (although you've missed some great films), but your reading of Bale as an actor is rather idiosyncratic.



You're being presumptuous. When Bale's casting as the new Batman was announced, I was the guy trying to fill folks in. 

"Well, did you see American Psycho? No? Didn't even know they made a movie out of it? How about Equilibrium? Sci-fi movie about emotionless gun-fu fighters? Never heard of it? Darn..."


----------



## Felon (May 20, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Certainly not.  But remember, we are talking about a character who's physical strength is generally only matched by the Hulk.  He has to be able to act, but he has to project "I am physically stronger than _anyone else here_" as well, and I don't think Pitt does that.



I agree. 

I don't want the thunder god to get the Ang Lee treatment. Thor's a big brute. I'm not sure that we really need a superb actor to play a character who, when you get right down to it, has the bombastic, in-your-face persona of a WWF superstar. 

It may well be that Thor is handled in the same manner as The Hulk, with all of the heavy-duty acting reserved for his alter ego.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 20, 2008)

Saw Iron Man again yesterday, and despite trying very hard, I didn't see anything even remotely resembling the Cap shield on Tony's workbench in any scene, including the claimed one.


----------



## Krug (May 20, 2008)

With Marvel handling all production from now on, I think the films are going to be more consistent in tone. Definitely not as grave as Ang Lee's Hulk.


----------



## Amellia (May 21, 2008)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Saw Iron Man again yesterday, and despite trying very hard, I didn't see anything even remotely resembling the Cap shield on Tony's workbench in any scene, including the claimed one.





Yeah, I think that one's a big stretch. But there will certainly be the super soldier serum in Hulk, and they're going to be cross-pollinating all their movies more and more because the fans just dig that stuff... but I agree, that shield is a biiig stretch. I plan on looking for it next time I get back to the theaters. 

The summer box office is eating all my hard-earned money... x_x


----------



## megamania (May 21, 2008)

I and other s talked about these roles and the ones we thought of were-


Captain America-
Mark Walberg or Matt Damon    Both could do it.

Thor-
an unknown or give Triple H some acting lessons and unleash him.   Keep in mind-  he (as Thor) would only be there for a short time as Donald Blake would do half of the acting time.


The villians would be a completely revised Red Skull and Loki in the back ground directing traffic and taking center stage in the Avengers movie.


----------



## Amellia (May 22, 2008)

Hey guys -- Thor info here. 

There's also a link to a script review, but it has spoilers apparently, so I didn't click.

Basically: Asgard, and no Brad Pitt. Guess we'll see.



> No director is attached at this time, but Feige says Marvel plans to announce one sometime this summer.
> 
> Also, he says they haven't even talked about casting yet for the lead role and have no idea who they plan to cast (Brad Pitt was rumored).
> 
> So far as the storyline, Feige says the film will be set in the world of Thor, Asgard, and that it would not be a contemporary story.


----------



## Michael R. Proteau (May 22, 2008)

More on Feige's interview is up at the comics news site Newsarama

http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/05/22/captain-america-movie-will-be-set-in-world-war-ii/

It appears the Cap film will be a period piece set in WWII.

Looks like my speculation on how these two films would be handled wasn't that far off. Cap in WWII being frozen at the end and Thor in Asgard being exiled to Midgard (earth) at the end, both setting up the Avengers film.

Feige also said ruumors of McConaughey as Cap are completely untrue (thank the gods). 
There is a link within the Thor story in the post above mine that leads to a bt more info on the Cap movie.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 22, 2008)

Okay. Forget Thor, Cap, Iron Man 2, etc.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i92601a875cdc02738e60593f7ed44e2b

Runaways. And written by Vaughan, too.

Marvel needs to stop the rest of their movies NOW and make this. NOW. I would have never expected the Runaways to even be CONSIDERED for a movie.


----------



## Michael R. Proteau (May 22, 2008)

The biggest delay in production of the Runaways willnot be Marvel's other slate of films, it will be BKV's comitments to ABC as a writer and co-producer on Lost for the remainder of the show's run over the next season or so. All work on the Runaways screnplay will have to be done without interfering with his work on Lost, which mens it may be a while before he completes the first draft of the screenplay. There's no way ABC is going to let Vaughan out of his committments to Lost, one of their biggst shows, to work on a project for another studio.  He will work on it after hours and during breaks inthe show, but I don't expect to see this move beyond the development/screenplay phase and into pre-preproduction before Lost wraps up for good.


----------



## Amellia (May 22, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Runaways. And written by Vaughan, too.
> 
> Marvel needs to stop the rest of their movies NOW and make this. NOW. I would have never expected the Runaways to even be CONSIDERED for a movie.





They've actually been in talks for quite a while to make a Y: The Last Man movie, too. Which I think would be aaaaawesome.

I saw the Runaways news this morning and nearly did a little dance in the middle of the office... no way to explain to my coworkers what was going on.


----------



## Umbran (May 22, 2008)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Saw Iron Man again yesterday, and despite trying very hard, I didn't see anything even remotely resembling the Cap shield on Tony's workbench in any scene, including the claimed one.




A few things from Sci Fi Wire  http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=54651

Marvel says that the shield was there.

Capt'n America gets a WWII period piece for origins!  Woot!

And thor's getting a movie with large chunks of it set in Asgard.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 22, 2008)

Michael R. Proteau said:
			
		

> It appears the Cap film will be a period piece set in WWII.




This right here? This is the best piece of comic book movie news _ever_.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 23, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Marvel says that the shield was there.



Dang, then I'm just completely disappointed that I missed it!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 23, 2008)

So, who for...
the Mandarin? (consider Ken Watanabe)
Cap? (Brad Pitt maybe)
Thor? (gotta be DJ Qualls)
Red Skull (how 'bout Peter Stormare)


----------



## Felon (May 23, 2008)

I honestly doubt we will see the Mandarin. There's a lot of protest whenever a movie depicts a Fu-Manchuesque villain, and in this case it's somewhat justified, since the Mandarin was created as an evil commie Chinaman.


----------



## Darth Shoju (May 23, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> I honestly doubt we will see the Mandarin. There's a lot of protest whenever a movie depicts a Fu-Manchuesque villain, and in this case it's somewhat justified, since the Mandarin was created as an evil commie Chinaman.




I dunno, I'd bet we'll see a _version _of the Mandarin, just not the racist stereotype one.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 23, 2008)

I think we will see the Mandarin. There has been so many analogies to him. From the rings (both on characters and flag), to the comment "with 12 of these you could rule all of Asia!" (referring to the Iron Monger suit) and "Ghengis Khan ruled all of Asia!" That to me says that the Mandarin is planning some kind of takeover of Asia, sooner or later.

I am wondering if the Mandarin will be using Chi or just technology.


----------



## Amellia (May 27, 2008)

I think whether or not we see Mandarin -- or, really, what version of him we'll see -- will depend upon the political landscape. Of course, they had no qualms about setting Iron Man in the Middle East, so maybe they won't back down if things in China get worst, who knows...

I think they'd probably go for some quasi-technological version of chi, rather than try to go for some actual "mystical" power. Perhaps a pseudo-medical explanation, or something. I think they're trying to ground Iron Man in a scientific world rather than a quasi-mystical one, and I really like that about it. It felt rock-solid to me, nothing wobbly throughout the entire movie in terms of logic and science. I didn't have to suspend disbelief at all.


----------

