Thor: Trailer

24

Comments

  • Bcotton5
    Bcotton5 Members Posts: 51,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2010
    I think this movie is gonna end up being good, I do think the Asgardians should be Gods instead of aliens though
  • dalyricalbandit
    dalyricalbandit Members, Moderators Posts: 67,918 Regulator
    edited December 2010
    allied wrote: »
    ? that was some ? ! I'm checking for no comic movies until The Dark Knight Rises.

    ................
  • rage
    rage Members Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2010
    I think this movie is gonna end up being good, I do think the Asgardians should be Gods instead of aliens though

    They are, the whole Earth X timeline cop out was just put out there for those crackas that were hating on Stringer. Nothing I have read or seen has lead me to believe that they are following the Earth X timeline.
  • jai'yesis
    jai'yesis Members Posts: 28
    edited December 2010
    IDK. A guy with a hammer? What else can he do? I couldn't follow the trailer. Looks weird.
  • clairvoyance
    clairvoyance Members Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2010
    Im passing on all marvel movies.After iron man 2 its gonna be awhile b4 they earn my trust back. Anything less than epic im not supporting it. Marvel has a tendency to over due it with the humor though they usually get it right with the first installment. Aaaaah I dont know.
  • funkdocdamc
    funkdocdamc Members Posts: 3,786 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2010
    Asgard looks sick, trailer was extra wack though.
  • A.J. Trillzynski
    A.J. Trillzynski Members Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    critics gettin paid off for this one i can tell.. either that or it's another case of Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman can do no wrong so of course every critic will dickride this movie, exactly what Marvel was banking on. i heard Vanity Fair called it the best superhero movie since Spiderman. yea.. ok. Spiderman was wack though. and numerous movies have topped it since.. that's exactly the type of ? they get paid off to write.
  • ShencotheMC
    ShencotheMC Members Posts: 26,051 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    reaperbong wrote: »
    critics gettin paid off for this one i can tell.. either that or it's another case of Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman can do no wrong so of course every critic will dickride this movie, exactly what Marvel was banking on. i heard Vanity Fair called it the best superhero movie since Spiderman. yea.. ok. Spiderman was wack though. and numerous movies have topped it since.. that's exactly the type of ? they get paid off to write.

    Why can't it just be a good movie? You ? will hate on anything I swear
  • Bcotton5
    Bcotton5 Members Posts: 51,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
  • rage
    rage Members Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    reaperbong wrote: »
    critics gettin paid off for this one i can tell.. either that or it's another case of Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman can do no wrong so of course every critic will dickride this movie, exactly what Marvel was banking on. i heard Vanity Fair called it the best superhero movie since Spiderman. yea.. ok. Spiderman was wack though. and numerous movies have topped it since.. that's exactly the type of ? they get paid off to write.

    Quite possibly the dumbest thing written in this forum.
  • A.J. Trillzynski
    A.J. Trillzynski Members Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    ^lol at the emotions invested in this ? . hyperbole = feelings caught


    ok just ask yourself how many good reviews you think i can find for ? Marvel movies like Iron Man 2 or Spiderman 3? the studio is owned by Disney you're naive if you think there aren't critics getting paid to hype up a movie before it's release. 1 review literally said it's the best comic book movie since Spiderman FOH
  • rage
    rage Members Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    reaperbong wrote: »
    ^lol at the emotions invested in this ? . hyperbole = feelings caught


    ok just ask yourself how many good reviews you think i can find for ? Marvel movies like Iron Man 2 or Spiderman 3? the studio is owned by Disney you're naive if you think there aren't critics getting paid to hype up a movie before it's release. 1 review literally said it's the best comic book movie since Spiderman FOH

    Your a ? , it has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. You havent seen the movie, you dont know ? about this movie. You have no proof that studios pay off critics (infact critics blast ? movies like Iron Man 2, Spiderman 3, Transformers 2, etc etc). You have no idea if this is the best comic book movie or not....because again you havent seen it. So again you are an idiot.
  • Bcotton5
    Bcotton5 Members Posts: 51,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    lol why you so upset, just wait till the movie comes out


    It looks dope IMO, is he fighting the Destroyer or is the Destroyer working with him in this?
  • A.J. Trillzynski
    A.J. Trillzynski Members Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    wow ok calm down already, Sony was exposed for this ? 10 years back what i'm telling you is common knowledge and just because i don't have proof doesn't mean it doesn't go on nowadays that's a lame defense.

    here's from the Newsweek article that exposed Sony leading to them having to pay out millions of dollars for false advertising:
    The real question is why Sony had to conceive the counterfeit critic to begin with, given the world of movie junkets, where normal reporting standards don’t apply. Reading the glowing newspaper-ad recommendations for even the lamest movie, you might wonder if those quoted critics are real. Unlike Manning, they are. Many are habitués of the junket circuit, an all-expenses-paid gravy train where the studios give journalists free rooms and meals at posh hotels and the reporters return the favor with puffy celebrity profiles and enthusiastic review blurbs. Sometimes studio executives will suggest what kind of quotes they need, and even shape the reviews to suit the studio’s goals. If a studio wants its movie pegged as “This year’s ‘Alien’,” the reviewer delivers precisely that. No one complains, and bad movies end up with great quotes. The junket troops are a mostly anonymous crowd working for obscure outlets like Wireless Magazine and Inside Reel, which helps explain why nobody—even people within Sony and Revolution—noticed that Manning was a sham. “If he doesn’t exist, he should at least have given us a better quote,” Roth joked. The Manning fabrication broke even Hollywood’s lax rules. But the real scandal is what’s considered acceptable.
  • rage
    rage Members Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    reaperbong wrote: »
    wow ok calm down already, Sony was exposed for this ? 10 years back what i'm telling you is common knowledge and just because i don't have proof doesn't mean it doesn't go on nowadays that's a lame defense.

    here's from the Newsweek article that exposed Sony leading to them having to pay out millions of dollars for false advertising:

    What is this exactly?? Is this supposed to prove something?? Sony completely made up a reviewer, not only that but the reviewers they do buy off are no names...it even says that in the quote you put up. Thats why it works because nobody pays attention to the no name critics.

    Not only that but the aggregated opinion of the reviews is that its shaping up to be a good movie...not great. How the ? can anybody argue with that? Especially since THEY HAVENT EVEN SEEN IT?

    If you cant prove something it doesnt exist. Its only in this ridiculous internet message board world of stupidity does this "innuendo" and "common knowledge" ? work.
  • A.J. Trillzynski
    A.J. Trillzynski Members Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    not the exact example of the situation with Sony but more that there are shady goin ons like this (you had to have actually read the whole thing)
    Reading the glowing newspaper-ad recommendations for even the lamest movie, you might wonder if those quoted critics are real. Unlike Manning, they are. Many are habitués of the junket circuit, an all-expenses-paid gravy train where the studios give journalists free rooms and meals at posh hotels and the reporters return the favor with puffy celebrity profiles and enthusiastic review blurbs. Sometimes studio executives will suggest what kind of quotes they need, and even shape the reviews to suit the studio’s goals. If a studio wants its movie pegged as “This year’s ‘Alien’,” the reviewer delivers precisely that. No one complains, and bad movies end up with great quotes.

    so... what you're telling me is you don't believe it ever happens that a studio pays bribes or gives cushy incentives for critics to give positive reviews or for competitor studios to do the same for negative reviews. you don't think that ever happens? the film industry is perfectly honest nothing shady like that would ever happen is that your belief?
  • Kame
    Kame Members Posts: 24,246 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    reaperbong wrote: »
    not the exact example of the situation with Sony but more that there are shady goin ons like this (you had to have actually read the whole thing)



    so... what you're telling me is you don't believe it ever happens that a studio pays bribes or gives cushy incentives for critics to give positive reviews or for competitor studios to do the same for negative reviews. you don't think that ever happens? the film industry is perfectly honest nothing shady like that would ever happen is that your belief?

    Have you seen how many big budget movies get blasted.....? on?
  • lazypakman
    lazypakman Members Posts: 4,913 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    just peeped it,it was pretty decent and a lot better than i'd thought it be but there are better marvel adaptations out there.

    the best scenes took place on Asgard,they did a good job of not making that side of the story seem silly,it is a little bit camp at times but it works because it isnt completely outlandish.some of the cgi at times was really nice and they captured the whole mythical norse land vibe perfectly,the scenes on earth however didn't serve much purpose at all and just dragged the film down the story moved much quicker on Asgard.I know Thor is banished to earth to learn humility,but the whole film takes place over like 3 days so it's kinda hard to accept (for me at least) that he's able to change his ways so quickly.in the comics wasn't he on earth for a good number of years?aside from that it just gave the audience something to laugh at,and whilst there are a couple of funny lines it would have been a better film if they concentrated more on the space opera

    Chris Helmsworth did a very good job,out of the rest of the cast Idris Elba stood out but thats about it.the action scenes were decent but nothing special,and i would also say it isnt really worth watching it 3d,from where i was sitting it added absolutely nothing to the film.

    overall a good film for a friday night but it won't be mentioned as one of the elite comic book films
  • sdotcarter111
    sdotcarter111 Members Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    Iron Man 2 was some garbage. Just dropped to say that.

    No way Thor can be any worse than that movie.
  • Mantequilla
    Mantequilla Members Posts: 1,833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2011
    lazypakman wrote: »
    just peeped it,it was pretty decent and a lot better than i'd thought it be but there are better marvel adaptations out there.

    the best scenes took place on Asgard,they did a good job of not making that side of the story seem silly,it is a little bit camp at times but it works because it isnt completely outlandish.some of the cgi at times was really nice and they captured the whole mythical norse land vibe perfectly,the scenes on earth however didn't serve much purpose at all and just dragged the film down the story moved much quicker on Asgard.I know Thor is banished to earth to learn humility,but the whole film takes place over like 3 days so it's kinda hard to accept (for me at least) that he's able to change his ways so quickly.in the comics wasn't he on earth for a good number of years?aside from that it just gave the audience something to laugh at,and whilst there are a couple of funny lines it would have been a better film if they concentrated more on the space opera

    Chris Helmsworth did a very good job,out of the rest of the cast Idris Elba stood out but thats about it.the action scenes were decent but nothing special,and i would also say it isnt really worth watching it 3d,from where i was sitting it added absolutely nothing to the film.

    overall a good film for a friday night but it won't be mentioned as one of the elite comic book films

    Slept on review, basically becomes D/L territory for me now If I even watch it at all
  • TimroD
    TimroD Confirm Email Posts: 1,685 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    nice movie i liked it but was never really into thor comics
    dope cgi first fight was great and like the others mentioned the scenes in asgard were nicer than the ones on earth
    best characters: thor, his pops, the gatekeeper and loki
  • a.mann
    a.mann Members Posts: 19,746 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    acting was pretty good, writing was....servicable......

    first half was super and 2nd not so......felt a lil rushed.

    Toward the middle really felt this would have made a great TV show tho.

    The action...off the hook.....effects...off the chain

    3 stars solid for what it is

    Recommmended.
  • VulcanRaven
    VulcanRaven Members Posts: 18,859 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Better than I thought it would be.Second half did seem rushed.Would have liked a bigger battle at the end though including the ice giants.
  • dat_bk_nicca
    dat_bk_nicca Members Posts: 1,526 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    saw this earlier, movie was ok wasnt bad, just wished it would've been more action even tho thats expected with an origin story, story was great tho, but i didnt quite understand the post credits scene to much