Ecalsneerg Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 ... I am hoping against all hopes that this is of X2 quality, not X-Men Origins: Wolverine quality.
Azuth65 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 ... I am hoping against all hopes that this is of X2 quality, not X-Men Origins: Wolverine quality. Agreed.
Heritage Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Of the three superheroes coming out this year (that I know of, there must be more!) First Class looks the best, but I also have high hopes for the WWII-era Captain America, even though I've never been that into the character. One of the reaons I loved Iron man so much was a lack of rabid fan expectations, and I hope the same hold true here. As for Thor, this new trailer makes me want to see it again, though I imagine it will be still be the weakest of the lot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e07hmZ2NEjY
Griffalo Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I almost peed myself in excitment when I saw the First Class trailer.
quotemyname Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I also have high hopes for the WWII-era Captain America, even though I've never been that into the character. How dare you. That's like saying you hate America. Well? Do you?
N/A Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 As for Thor, this new trailer makes me want to see it again, though I imagine it will be still be the weakest of the lot. The one that's being helmed by Kenneth Branaugh, universally-acclaimed British actor and director of dozens of Shakespeare productions and film adaptations, the one starring George Kirk and Sir Anthony Hopkins, that's the one you have the lowest expectations for? Seriously?
quotemyname Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Sir Anthony Hopkins The guy was knighted? Seriously? He might actually be more bad ass than I thought he was. Wait, ... Yea. He is.
Heritage Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 The one that's being helmed by Kenneth Branaugh, universally-acclaimed British actor and director of dozens of Shakespeare productions and film adaptations, the one starring George Kirk and Sir Anthony Hopkins, that's the one you have the lowest expectations for? Seriously? Only because I think it's gonna be hard to strike the right balance of the magic and the mundane, and massive CGI battle scenes can be hard to pull off; the cast and director are all folks I really like, so I am hoping it will be good. And how could I forget Green Lantern? To me, that one actually looks the weakest, because I think RR is somewhat miscast. As was discussed in chat, I think he'd make a better Flash than a Lantern.
Dr Archeville Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Limitless (based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn) looks relevant to the interests of anyone playing a character with Enhanced Intelligence and/or Enhanced Charisma.
Geez3r Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 First Trailer for Captain America. 6ltujTGM9Z4 It looks like they're going to do Cap justice.
quotemyname Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Can't wait. Looks better than Thor, I think. Also: going to see sucker punch tonight. should be a good time ;)
Heritage Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Can't wait. Looks better than Thor, I think. Oh I agree; I'm looking forward to Thor, but actually pumped for Cap and X-Men: First Class. Two period superhero flicks in one year!
quotemyname Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 You say "period" like the 20th century was decades ago :P
N/A Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 You say "period" like the 20th century was decades ago First Class is set during the 1960s, and Captain America is set during the '40s (in both cases, when the original comics debuted). That's 50 and 70 years ago respectively. 50 years is long enough ago for it to be a "period piece." Oh I agree; I'm looking forward to Thor, but actually pumped for Cap and X-Men: First Class. Two period superhero flicks in one year! I disagree. Thor is the one I'm really excited about, and to me it looks like the best of the lot.
quotemyname Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 I just really wish the could have brought Ed Nortan back as The Hulk
KnightDisciple Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 New 4-minute long Green Lantern trailer up here. It's a definite improvement, and definitely makes it seem like the conflict and risk is bigger.
Dr Archeville Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 THOR See it. See it now. Your eyeballs will thank you. Also, I can easily see the FC-verse version of this movie, featuring Horus the Avenger. (Horus, son of Ra, cast out of Heliopolis for starting a war with the Serpent-Men of Duat, while Horus' brother Set -- really the son of Apep, King of the Serpent-Men, taken by Ra during the last war on Duat as a way to broker a lasting truce -- plots and schemes against, well, everyone. Horus must learn humility if he is ever to reclaim his Ankh and thus his awesome power.) /me now has an urge to play a Paragon... My biggest complaint: the lack of Marvel movie trailers. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is due out in a month, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS a month after that, this would be the perfect time to show new trailers! Instead, I got trailers for CARS 2, REAL STEEL (i.e., Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie), PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, and TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (the teaser one showing them on the moon, not the more recent one showing 'Bots and 'Cons tearing **** up).
N/A Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 THOR See it. See it now. Your eyeballs will thank you. Also, I can easily see the FC-verse version of this movie, featuring Horus the Avenger. (Horus, son of Ra, cast out of Heliopolis for starting a war with the Serpent-Men of Duat, while Horus' brother Set -- really the son of Apep, King of the Serpent-Men, taken by Ra during the last war on Duat as a way to broker a lasting truce -- plots and schemes against, well, everyone. Horus must learn humility if he is ever to reclaim his Ankh and thus his awesome power.) /me now has an urge to play a Paragon... My biggest complaint: the lack of Marvel movie trailers. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is due out in a month, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS a month after that, this would be the perfect time to show new trailers! Instead, I got trailers for CARS 2, REAL STEEL (i.e., Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie), PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, and TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (the teaser one showing them on the moon, not the more recent one showing 'Bots and 'Cons tearing **** up). Lucky you. I got the Captain America and Pirates 4 trailers, along with Colombiana and Cowboys & Aliens. Thor was solid. There was more that I liked about it than disliked, but it never really blew me away the way that Batman Begins or Iron Man did. Although I will give it the credit that it's due that, like those two movies, it tells a real and universal story that happens to take place in a science fiction superhero setting. It actually has something to say other than "Thor is AWESOME!" (I'm looking at you, Tim Burton). Most of the actors are good in their roles. It even made me genuinely laugh out loud a couple of times. I'm glad I saw it, but I wouldn't go see it a second time. And I could tell I the rest of the audience felt the same way, because there wasn't any applause or cheering when the credits rolled. Branagh and Hensworth both nailed Thor's characterization. Thor himself is easily the best part of Thor. He's charismatic as Hell, I had no problem believing that Asgardians and humans alike would be drawn to him, and yes, he did remind me why a Thor-expy has always been my second choice for an M&M PC. Anthony Hopkins brought his usual A-game; I'd pay to watch that man read a telephone directory. Colm Feore was as menacing as always as Laufey the king of the frost giants. Hell, they were all menacing, even under The Worf Effect. But I got the distinct feeling that a good 20 minutes of plot and character development, mostly for the human cast, got left on the cutting room floor, Daredevil-style, so the whole thing felt a bit rushed. And unlike, say, the Transformers series, the human cast weren't a bunch of completely unnecessary and annoying wastes of screen time AND carbon used merely to pad out the running time and save money on special effects. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of them. The chemistry between Hensworth and Portman was real, even if the movie wasn't at all subtle about it. Kat Dennings doesn't seem to have much range as an actress, but she's got great comedic timing and delivery. Stellan Skaarsgaard was the best of the bunch, and the director obviously knew it too, judging from the fact that Skaarsgaard got more screen time than all the other humans put together. If anything, it was the extra Asgardians who didn't contribute much to the plot. I found myself constantly comparing Thor to Batman Begins and watching Thor fall short in this regard. In Batman Begins, you have seemingly too many characters, and yet you still make it work, make them all matter, and manage not to waste any of them. In Thor, you just have too many characters, and a lot of them ARE wasted. Also, don't bother paying extra to see it in 3-D. It doesn't add much. The way they worked Donald Blake into the plot was a clever nod to the fans of the source material without standing out as a non sequitor to newcomers, the way Cyke's "yellow spandex" line did in X-Men. I liked the cameo, and I hope they bring both the character and the actor back for the Avengers movie, but I wish he'd have least gotten to do his thing instead of just standing there looking slick and quipping. Speaking of the Avengers movie, yes, there is an Avengers movie Easter Egg for it at the back end of the credits, and yes, you should wait for it, because it is the mother of all Avengers movie Easter Eggs. Nick Fury finally shows us what the plot will be about, and it's kind of a big deal.
Dr Archeville Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Lucky you. I got the Captain America and Pirates 4 trailers, along with Colombiana and Cowboys & Aliens. If anything, it was the extra Asgardians who didn't contribute much to the plot. I found myself constantly comparing Thor to Batman Begins and watching Thor fall short in this regard. In Batman Begins, you have seemingly too many characters, and yet you still make it work, make them all matter, and manage not to waste any of them. In Thor, you just have too many characters, and a lot of them ARE wasted. I do definitely wished there'd been a bit more with the Warriors Three, though since they are the B/C-List Asgardian team, I do see a concern about having too much of them overshadowing Thor. However, I was immensely pleased with how they did Fandral: he looked and acted the most like his Simonson-era comics counterpart. (Volstagg acted the part, but I don't think he quite pulled off the look ["Hollywood Pudgy" ]; I can't recall Hogun even having any lines, and his lack of his distinct hat [and Fu Manchu mustache] kept throwing me off.) More Sif would've been nice -- more refrigerator-less women in comics/comics-derived works is always a plus -- but I honestly don't know her comics incarnation well enough to make any comparisons to gauge if what little they had of her in the flick did her justice. Also, don't bother paying extra to see it in 3-D. It doesn't add much. I'd disagree on this point: I thought the 3D in it was far, far better than the 3D in Avatar (though that's the only other 3D movie I've seen, so my sample base for comparison isn't that large).
N/A Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'd disagree on this point: I thought the 3D in it was far, far better than the 3D in Avatar (though that's the only other 3D movie I've seen, so my sample base for comparison isn't that large). Really? I felt the exact opposite. I've been to...too many 3-D movies, and Avatar was the ONLY one I ever saw (that wasn't completely animated*) where the 3-D added significantly to the experience. Which probably had something to do with the fact that it was actually filmed in 3-D from the beginning, with two-"eyed" cameras. *3-D is much easier to do with animation than with live-action filming, but that doesn't mean it's always good. For every Coraline or Up, there's a truckload of Monsters vs Aliens.
Ecalsneerg Posted May 7, 2011 Posted May 7, 2011 3-D is evil to us blind people who don't own contact lenses. Since you have to put glasses on top of glasses and it itches like all hell.
Dr Archeville Posted May 7, 2011 Posted May 7, 2011 3-D is evil to us blind people who don't own contact lenses. Since you have to put glasses on top of glasses and it itches like all hell. I had no problems with the 3D glasses over my own glasses.
April Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Just got back from a triple feature, Gnomeo and Juliet, Thor and Hanna. I enjoyed the hell out of all three, but Hanna stole it for me, to be honest. I could easily see a few similarities between the title character and Sage (esp. with regard to some of the telepath's metaplot (yes, I actually have one!)) and so, yeah. I will always root for the ass kicking teenage women.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now