728huey said:

I saw the movie today, and I will say it's a good movie. Not great, but entertaining nevertheless. I think that the scenes in Asgard where the mythology of Thor and Odin is explained has a lot of those Shakespearean/Lord of the Rings elements to it, but it gets lost once the scenes on Earth are shown, particularly when Thor is not present. I will say that they cast the right actor to play Thor, as he was big and bulky yet added enough charisma and humor to the character without making him into a cheeseball.

I'm curious to see how this whole comic book superhero genre is going to play out this summer. You already have the next X-Men movie coming out, plus the Green Lantern and the remake of Conan the Barbarian. And as far as Thor's box office numbers, remember that he's a secondary player in the Marvel Comics universe like Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men, and he ranks higher than Blade and the Punisher but behind Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk.

Well, that didn't stop Iron Man and X-Men from kicking the box office's ass, so I'm not going to use that excuse for Thor.

Efan said:

errant said:

I could go either way on it. based on what they did with X3, I've intentionally steered clear of most info on it to keep my expectations down or neutral so that I won't be disappointed and might end up pleasantly surprised.

I hated X3 too (and Wolverine). But I think this is going to be different. Plus, that cast looks incredible.

Here, here. I was SO disappointed with both X3 and Wolverine! And then to find out they're still going ahead with a Wolverine sequel was even more disheartening! LOL! Give it a rest, guys! You fucked it up. Just move on.

The trailer for First Class seems to be all right, but I refuse to get my hopes up based off of that. I've been duped before! Lol! I do know, though, from the characters I saw in it, the comics timeline appears to be ALL screwed up!! Some of the mutants I saw in the film shouldn't even be present so early in the existence of the X-Men. but, I'll reserve my complete judgement until I see the entire story.

I saw it last night, and give it a

The Asgard scenes were better than I anticipated (actually, the panoramic shots were reminiscent of the Naboo shots that George Lucas created for Episode I if you ask me, lol).

Chris Hemsworth managed to pull it off. By a hair. He should've been bulkier & scruffier in general, but I realize that there's the "female appeal" aspect to consider. LOL Still though...the obligatory "beefcake" shot was horrible (come on...the God of Thunder in low-rise jeans? Give me a break!)

Also; I'm rusty when it comes to the mythology...is Loki really supposed to be of the heritage that they protray him to be, or was that the director's creative license?

Anyway...overall a good movie.

This was super cheesy, lol!! I enjoyed parts of it, though. The Earth scenes were by far the worst.

Efan said:

L4OATheOriginal said:

the cameo in the rain? i must have missed that part but thor was very good but i wonder if people stayed after the credits :hmmm:

Yeah, I did. I think everyone is "trained" now to stay after the credits in a Marvel movie. It was okay, but I didn't love it. It seemed kind of pointless.

Spoiler alert--highlight the text below if you want to see who the cameo in the rain was:

The guy tracking Thor with arrows as he was breaking into the compound was Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner). He's going to be in The Avengers.

ahhh gotcha thank u!!

alexnvrmnd777 said:

728huey said:

I saw the movie today, and I will say it's a good movie. Not great, but entertaining nevertheless. I think that the scenes in Asgard where the mythology of Thor and Odin is explained has a lot of those Shakespearean/Lord of the Rings elements to it, but it gets lost once the scenes on Earth are shown, particularly when Thor is not present. I will say that they cast the right actor to play Thor, as he was big and bulky yet added enough charisma and humor to the character without making him into a cheeseball.

I'm curious to see how this whole comic book superhero genre is going to play out this summer. You already have the next X-Men movie coming out, plus the Green Lantern and the remake of Conan the Barbarian. And as far as Thor's box office numbers, remember that he's a secondary player in the Marvel Comics universe like Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men, and he ranks higher than Blade and the Punisher but behind Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk.

Well, that didn't stop Iron Man and X-Men from kicking the box office's ass, so I'm not going to use that excuse for Thor.

The first X-Men movie didn't make that much money--worldwide gross of $296 million. Thor will top that easily. Of course X-Men was released over ten years ago though when ticket prices were cheaper and before the big 3D/IMAX craze which brings in even more money per ticket.

728huey said:

I saw the movie today, and I will say it's a good movie. Not great, but entertaining nevertheless. I think that the scenes in Asgard where the mythology of Thor and Odin is explained has a lot of those Shakespearean/Lord of the Rings elements to it, but it gets lost once the scenes on Earth are shown, particularly when Thor is not present. I will say that they cast the right actor to play Thor, as he was big and bulky yet added enough charisma and humor to the character without making him into a cheeseball.

I'm curious to see how this whole comic book superhero genre is going to play out this summer. You already have the next X-Men movie coming out, plus the Green Lantern and the remake of Conan the Barbarian. And as far as Thor's box office numbers, remember that he's a secondary player in the Marvel Comics universe like Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men, and he ranks higher than Blade and the Punisher but behind Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk.

also captain america is coming out in june

i just know that i'm getting sick of these 3D movies tho i could watch thor without the glasses and only a few select scenes were in 3D

alexnvrmnd777 said:

Efan said:

I hated X3 too (and Wolverine). But I think this is going to be different. Plus, that cast looks incredible.

Here, here. I was SO disappointed with both X3 and Wolverine! And then to find out they're still going ahead with a Wolverine sequel was even more disheartening! LOL! Give it a rest, guys! You fucked it up. Just move on.

The trailer for First Class seems to be all right, but I refuse to get my hopes up based off of that. I've been duped before! Lol! I do know, though, from the characters I saw in it, the comics timeline appears to be ALL screwed up!! Some of the mutants I saw in the film shouldn't even be present so early in the existence of the X-Men. but, I'll reserve my complete judgement until I see the entire story.

my cousin said the same thing about some of the characters he saw in the preview 4 xmen like diamond girl was in woverine but a kid and yet looks like a adult in this one. the xmen origins 4 me is like taking steps back intstead of going forward but i'll check this out tho but aren't they doing deadpool and magneto as well? it's time 4 xmen part four tho

L4OATheOriginal said:

alexnvrmnd777 said:

Here, here. I was SO disappointed with both X3 and Wolverine! And then to find out they're still going ahead with a Wolverine sequel was even more disheartening! LOL! Give it a rest, guys! You fucked it up. Just move on.

The trailer for First Class seems to be all right, but I refuse to get my hopes up based off of that. I've been duped before! Lol! I do know, though, from the characters I saw in it, the comics timeline appears to be ALL screwed up!! Some of the mutants I saw in the film shouldn't even be present so early in the existence of the X-Men. but, I'll reserve my complete judgement until I see the entire story.

my cousin said the same thing about some of the characters he saw in the preview 4 xmen like diamond girl was in woverine but a kid and yet looks like a adult in this one. the xmen origins 4 me is like taking steps back intstead of going forward but i'll check this out tho but aren't they doing deadpool and magneto as well? it's time 4 xmen part four tho

Is X-Men First Class a reboot? I don't care if it's part of the same timeline/continuity as the other movies. If I get a good movie out of it, that's all that matters.

Efan said:

L4OATheOriginal said:

my cousin said the same thing about some of the characters he saw in the preview 4 xmen like diamond girl was in woverine but a kid and yet looks like a adult in this one. the xmen origins 4 me is like taking steps back intstead of going forward but i'll check this out tho but aren't they doing deadpool and magneto as well? it's time 4 xmen part four tho

Is X-Men First Class a reboot? I don't care if it's part of the same timeline/continuity as the other movies. If I get a good movie out of it, that's all that matters.

it's not being looked as a reboot unlike how the superman/batman/new spidey movie is being looked upon. i think what is seperating the x men movies from the others is that marvel is stating up front that these stories are origins and not "well this story takes place between superman II and III and is a alternative take etc"

sextonseven said:

alexnvrmnd777 said:

Well, that didn't stop Iron Man and X-Men from kicking the box office's ass, so I'm not going to use that excuse for Thor.

The first X-Men movie didn't make that much money--worldwide gross of $296 million. Thor will top that easily. Of course X-Men was released over ten years ago though when ticket prices were cheaper and before the big 3D/IMAX craze which brings in even more money per ticket.

there was also no real expectation for it to do well. super hero movies had been killed off in the late 90's by the likes of Batman & Robin and others of that ilk. that it was a success -- hell that it was even good -- shocked a lot of people, including movie studios and the big two comics companies themselves. and kicked off the last decade's worth of super heroes being taken seriously in film and the expectation that they would be blockbusters again. $296 million is pretty good when you think about the climate for the genre at the time it was released.

Identity said:

sees Brad Pitt

L4OATheOriginal said:

Efan said:

Is X-Men First Class a reboot? I don't care if it's part of the same timeline/continuity as the other movies. If I get a good movie out of it, that's all that matters.

it's not being looked as a reboot unlike how the superman/batman/new spidey movie is being looked upon. i think what is seperating the x men movies from the others is that marvel is stating up front that these stories are origins and not "well this story takes place between superman II and III and is a alternative take etc"

Yeah, it's not QUITE a reboot, per se, but it's close. There was talk of having Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart reprise their roles as the adult versions of their characters, but they decided not to do that because they didn't want it to have any relation to the first trilogy.

alexnvrmnd777 said:

L4OATheOriginal said:

it's not being looked as a reboot unlike how the superman/batman/new spidey movie is being looked upon. i think what is seperating the x men movies from the others is that marvel is stating up front that these stories are origins and not "well this story takes place between superman II and III and is a alternative take etc"

Yeah, it's not QUITE a reboot, per se, but it's close. There was talk of having Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart reprise their roles as the adult versions of their characters, but they decided not to do that because they didn't want it to have any relation to the first trilogy.

I'm sure the fact that neither of them is a spring chicken at this point probably has at least a little something to do with it too. The first X-Men movie was over 10 years ago, who knows who's gonna be around in another 10 years?

[img:$uid]http://i51.tinypic.com/21kb5a8.jpg[/img:$uid]

Domestic and international box office earnings for Thor , including this weekend's.

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i51.tinypic.com/21kb5a8.jpg[/img:$uid]

Domestic and international box office earnings for Thor , including this weekend's.

I still expect it to fall just short of $200 million domestic by September.

*******POTENTIAL SPOILER MATERIAL BELOW. BEWARE!*******

Saw it today. Rather disappointing. Natalie Portman was good. Asgard skyscapes were fantastic, the architecture and CG'd crowds looked cheap and unimaginative.

Thor was too heavy handed at being the 'bad boy.' Surely, he didn't just start being an arrogant jerk. Spending a third of the movie dealing with it to get him to Earth suggests they didn't know what to do with him on Earth. Which showed.

The ending would have made more sense if Thor had stepped through and then been stuck for a minute.

I loved the hammer. WHAT a toy!

Personally, I would have crammed that whole movie into the first half of a movie. The second half would have Thor adjusting to Earth with a Natalie Portman & Co., assist. Thor dealing with Loki's mischief (think Seven Labors of Hercules) before Odin awakes, unseats Loki and gives Thor a break.

It was great in 3D.

Spinlight said:

It was great in 3D.

I did see it in 3-D IMAX

SUPRMAN said:

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i51.tinypic.com/21kb5a8.jpg[/img:$uid]

Domestic and international box office earnings for Thor , including this weekend's.

I still expect it to fall just short of $200 million domestic by September.

*******POTENTIAL SPOILER MATERIAL BELOW. BEWARE!*******

Saw it today. Rather disappointing. Natalie Portman was good. Asgard skyscapes were fantastic, the architecture and CG'd crowds looked cheap and unimaginative.

Thor was too heavy handed at being the 'bad boy.' Surely, he didn't just start being an arrogant jerk. Spending a third of the movie dealing with it to get him to Earth suggests they didn't know what to do with him on Earth. Which showed.

The ending would have made more sense if Thor had stepped through and then been stuck for a minute.

I loved the hammer. WHAT a toy!

Personally, I would have crammed that whole movie into the first half of a movie. The second half would have Thor adjusting to Earth with a Natalie Portman & Co., assist. Thor dealing with Loki's mischief (think Seven Labors of Hercules) before Odin awakes, unseats Loki and gives Thor a break.

interesting. most saying that Natalie Portman and the Earth stuff is where it's let down.

errant said:

SUPRMAN said:

I still expect it to fall just short of $200 million domestic by September.

*******POTENTIAL SPOILER MATERIAL BELOW. BEWARE!*******

Saw it today. Rather disappointing. Natalie Portman was good. Asgard skyscapes were fantastic, the architecture and CG'd crowds looked cheap and unimaginative.

Thor was too heavy handed at being the 'bad boy.' Surely, he didn't just start being an arrogant jerk. Spending a third of the movie dealing with it to get him to Earth suggests they didn't know what to do with him on Earth. Which showed.

The ending would have made more sense if Thor had stepped through and then been stuck for a minute.

I loved the hammer. WHAT a toy!

Personally, I would have crammed that whole movie into the first half of a movie. The second half would have Thor adjusting to Earth with a Natalie Portman & Co., assist. Thor dealing with Loki's mischief (think Seven Labors of Hercules) before Odin awakes, unseats Loki and gives Thor a break.

interesting. most saying that Natalie Portman and the Earth stuff is where it's let down.

I just said I liked Portman.

Billmenever said:

Identity said:

sees Brad Pitt

I was thinking the same thing...he looks like a young Brad Pitt and just as cute.

The plot was a little thin but it was a fun movie.