thor_art

I don’t even vaguely trust Marvel editor in chief Joe Quesada to be objective about a Marvel Studios project. So when he goes all ebullient about how game-changing Kenneth Branagh’s Thor is going to be, I don’t take it very seriously. But I do wonder to what extent this will be different from the glut of superhero films we’ve seen to date.

There’s a specific tone and structure to superhero films from which we rarely see movies diverge, especially when they’re introducing a character. I can imagine a lot of ways in which Branagh might break these informal rules, based on both his own background and the rich mythological legacy of Thor as a character, and I hope to see him engage them all. But for now, all we’ve got is Quesada’s statement, which is after the break.

Here’s a big chunk ‘o text from Quesada’s conversation with Comic Book Resources:

…the one thing I can say – and I’ve said as much to Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige – is that people are going to go into this movie with a preconceived idea about what it will be. If you’re a comics fan, you’ll have a preconceived notion of what you’re going to get. If you’re a non-comics fan, you’ll have another notion of what the movie is all about. And what’s really amazing is that both groups will walk away going, “I’ve never seen anything like this before within the super hero genre.” It’s so cool, and I don’t want to use the word unusual, but it is unusual in the sense that it redefines what a super hero movie can be. It’s not the expected story or settings.

What’s the selling point of the whole thing, when we really get down to it? According to Quesada, it is director Kenneth Branagh:

I’m sitting there listening to Branagh act out his version of the scene with gusto and passion and I had to stop him and say, “If you said to me right now, ‘Then Thor kills 100 puppies in an animal shelter’ I’d say it was fantastic.”

Meanwhile, we know what role Kat Dennings has in the film — Variety says she’ll be Darcy, a co-worker of Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster. That Variety report stirred up some questions, however, based on the logline used in the article, which describes the character as “a partly disabled med student who discovers his Norse god alter ego, the hammer-swinging Thor.” Earlier this year, Marvel president Kevin Feige said that Donald Blake, the classic version of that disabled human, wouldn’t be in the movie.

Antennae at AICN perked up when Variety ran that logline, and the site checked with a source it calls “100% tested and solid” who says that Blake is not in the movie at all. (AICN also ran some big spoilers for one script draft which have since been removed.) It’s possible, then, that Variety merely cobbled together a logline based on the classic Marvel version of the character, in which Thor is confined to the crippled body of Don Blake in order to learn humility.

By the way, AICN also mentioned, in the now redacted spoilers, that Stellan Skarsgard plays Jane Foster’s Norwegian professor. Which is, I think, the first time anyone has specifically mentioned the nature of Skarsgard’s role.

  • Just how well known is Thor in the Marvel canon? I grew up a comic book cretin. I knew Thor, but never read an issue, or had friends that knew his stuff. I couldn't name a Thor villain if I tried.

    Any Thor freaks out there? Beyond Mr. Fischer?
  • Soundwave_17
    same here, I grew up knowing the character but not knowing much else about him, when I was very young I saw Adventures in Babysitting & remember Vincent D'onofrio playing a character that resembled Thor but that's about it. When I heard Kenneth Branagh was directing I finally started to read some material but not much. I did name my Puppy after the villain "Loki"
  • RussFischer
    I'm not a Thor freak at all. I read some of the Simonson stuff many years ago (he put a frog in a Thor outfit on the cover) but haven't read anything with the character in easily 15 years.
  • How are Thor's sales, compared to say ... "Ultimate Spider-Man" or "X-Men?" And sorry to imply that you are a freak Russ.

    I mean, don't get me wrong. This production is kinda cool, in that Branagh gives it the most credible pedigree we've seen for a comic movie. But I guess that's my only interest in this thing.

    Though, my manic-depressive Norwegian cousins? They think Thor's alright.
  • cmarius
    Well Thor's a pretty popular character in Marvel, more so in recent times. He's always been one of the main avengers, alongside Iron Man and Captain America. Also, J. Michael Straczynski just ended a pretty epic run on the main book (it's currently my favorite Thor run).
    Thor's also smack in the middle of Marvel's next big event called Siege, in which the city of Asgard (which currently resides in Oklahoma, i think) is gonna be under, well, a siege. So Thor's a pretty important part of Marvel.
  • Thanks. But, would it be fair to call Thor a second-tier superhero, as he lacks the cartoons, the merchandising and the pop cultural ubiquitousness of say ... Wolverine?

    Or is he a critical favorite? He attracts better writing and stories? I mean, Daredevil had a Frank Miller run, and Punisher a Garth Ennis run ... but we know how their overally popularity, not to mention film quality is...
  • He's as much a second tier character as Ironman was, and we saw how well that worked.
    He's considered A list in Marvel comics. After resting the character a few years, he's recently been one of their consistently best selling properties. When he shows up in another book it sells better. There is a certain iconic reverence given to the character in book, comparable to Superman.
    He's a tough nut to crack dramatically, so his stories are often giant hits or massive bombs.
    And I would add that he's probably bigger than Wolverine in some regions, like (as you mentioned) Norway.
    He should do as well as Ironman if the product is as good and the marketing is solid.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    It helps that whenever Thor shows up in a comic, all the characters go "OMG 5000! It's THOR!" and then a blazing lightning bolt strikes as Thor strikes his hammer-to-the-sky pose. He was dead for a while, or at least not around because I remember his cybernetic replacement in Civil War.

    Iron Man use to be petty in concern to the marvel universe. He was just a guy in a robot suit who had some good comics and he was also in the Avengers. Now he's like the n.2...
  • Thank you on the info for Siege. I literally had no idea what it was about.
  • mchops
    He is second tier but a great character none the less. people will be very surprised by Thor.
  • frosty
    dude thor is the shit !!!! ultimate, new, traditional.... aah.. its ok, but in his entirety thor and the realm of asguard and the avengers and...... far out i can go on i can say this, i am australian and im truly not being bias, i am also a starwars,matrix,lord of the rings and marvel super freak and currently thor super freak and i say so far this thor film to me is gearing up to be absolutely fucking awsome. cheers dude.
  • dukeoffearl
    Oklahoma lol
  • The Guest
    For all of the talk about casting for this film, I see very little critical examination of Branagh's directing oeuvre. I say this more in sorrow than in anger, for I count his HENRY V as one of my favorite films of all time and also have affection for his DEAD AGAIN and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. But the hard fact remains that he has not directed a decent film since then. He has shown virtually no growth as a director since then. To the point that I absolutely know what THOR is going to be like - slow mo climactic action sequences, swirling 360 degree camera movement, egregrious race-blind casting that probably won't work, a cast stuffed with stars who all distract from one another, and a too-long running time. On the bright side we might get another decent Patrick Doyle score (although he can be hit or miss) and probably stunning production design from Tim Harvey.

    I'm just surprised at the general collective amnesia about Branagh's failures as a director since the heady early days when he and Emma Thompson were going to take over the world. FRANKENSTEIN was a disaster (has gotten some cult appreciation since then, but still was a box office failure), HAMLET was bloated, LOVE'S LABOURS LOST dead on arrival (and should not have been) and SLEUTH was simply a forgettable mess. Branagh has gone on to redeem himself artistically as an actor since then but I cannot understand why anyone would again give him the reins of a major Hollywood blockbuster. Wow. Still trying to get my mind around this.
  • mchops
    You're very negative about this film. Have some faith. The guy did great with the new Hulk movie.
  • What are you talking about?
  • mchops
    Didn't this guy direct the incredible hulk? Thor director?
  • nononono
    lolwut
  • mchops
    Isn't the Thor director the one who did the incredible hulk with norton?
  • clarencesomerset
    Someone is totally lost here ...
  • mchops
    I'm sorry I was thinking of Louis lettier. My mistake
  • Frederik
    Louis Leterrier is doing the Clash of the Titans, perhaps that's how you got them confused :-)
  • mchops
    That's what I was thinking, thank you.
  • Nope, Louis Leterrier directed the last Incredible Hulk and is now doing Clash of the Titans.
  • mchops
    I knew I got those guys confused. Thx
  • dashiel
    wasn't ang lee's "hulk" supposed to redefine what a super-hero movie could be?
  • I have about as much faith in Joe Quesada as I do some carnival barker. He's got zero credibility. Like a lot of people here, I knew of Thor but he wasn't really one of the comics I read. I'm still kind of surprised to see this project go forward like it has, but Kenneth Branagh directing makes me curious just a little bit. However, in the end I've got about as much interest in this as I did the comics books back in the day.
  • moviefan
    i dont know much of thor character. But they got a good cast, a good crew. So i cant wait to see how things turn out.
  • i demand age of apocalypse 3 part animated movie, or.. since disney owns marvel now a 3 part CG epic, it would be marvels "lord of the rings", or civil war
  • lest78
    Damn, an animated multi part Civil War would be awesome.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    Yes please.
  • Frederik
    As a Scandinavian I really hope they integrate the norse mythology well and don't butcher something I grew up with as bedtime reading and later on, taught in the school. But then again, it's just a comic book character so it'll probably not be very faithful :(
  • mbellerbrock
    Yeah... from what I've seen and heard, which I'll admit isn't a bunch, I have my doubts that they're going to keep the mythology incredibly accurate. A failure of Thor combined with the abysmal Too Human would make me very sad indeed.
  • mangoshakes
    hmm, you'll be a couple years late and a dark knight short on that redefinition mr. quesada. there's always been something i don't like about that guy.
  • Azure Trayl
    How could they not have Donald Blake, that's like saying let's remake Superman for the umpteen time and not put Clark Kent's character in it (though played by the same actor, I'm talking about alter egos here). I hope they change that out and soon as they find themselves producing a bomb. Oh and to answer a question asked about naming a Thor villan, "the Destroyer" comes to mind but nothing much else in that category.
  • topheavy
    I really want it to not be a turd. honest.
  • JKW3000
    I trust Joe Quesada about as much as I trust a drunken dentist. As a comic book fan, he's the kind of guy who can understand the fundamental reason why a character is losing his luster (like, say, Spider-Man being married) and rectify the situation in the worst possible manner ever conceived (like, say, Spider-Man making a deal with the DEVIL). So yeah, when I hear "game-changer", that's not necessarily a good thing. Just give me something well-executed and not over-CGI'd and we'll call it a day.
blog comments powered by Disqus