Does Marvel Lack Ambition?

I wonder with a dread fear if someone in Hollywood, stuck with a movie about a Norse god, said "Get Branagh. He deals with that Shakespeare crap." - Roger Ebert, Thor Review

When Marvel announced Kenneth Branagh would direct "Thor", I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was a perfect choice. Sure, he hadn't done a big summer tentpole, effects-heavy, superhero, action movie before. But his attention to character and story - rooted in many works of Shakespeare - I felt meshed perfectly for what would be required in a "Thor" movie.

However, these really aren't Kenneth Branagh's type of movies. If I had to guess, he did Thor to try a new experience - an experience he doesn't want to revisit. Is it because he wanted to move on? Or is it because the more mechanical approach to such movies didn't appeal to him? Or is it because Marvel was a pain in the ass?

The reason I assume Marvel is a pain in the ass for directors is because these movies are theirs. Marvel seems to take great care, and therefore control, of their movies. Which is warranted, being that all of them have been leading up to The Avengers. Of course they need to drop things in all the movies to tie them together. It's a grand, epic plan. And perhaps these movies need to be looked at differently than a typical superhero movie. Almost as if they are sequels and prequels to each other. And I think the problem is directors have a desire to make a movie their movie. To let it be able to stand on its own. I think that's also warranted.

But directors need to understand that these movies aren't really able to do that. They need to be looked at as a saga as opposed to individual movies. I think a lot of the reason Jon Favreau left the Iron Man franchise was due to too much meddling from Marvel. While I seem to be in the minority of people who didn't hate Iron Man 2, the movie was definitely a bit disjointed, unfocused. Perhaps this was unavoidable. Marvel probably said, "OK, Iron Man is our biggest superhero right now. Let's use it to set up Thor, and even Captain America!" Was it smart? Possibly. Did it hurt Iron Man 2? Definitely.

So this is where I'm torn. I understand the need for these movies to reference each other. But at what cost? The Hawkeye cameo in Thor was great for comic fans, but non-fans didn't get it and thought it interrupted the movie. It's a hard balancing act for Marvel. Which leads me to my final, and main, point.

Thor was an epic superhero movie with Shakespearean undertones. To whom did Marvel offer the job? Kenneth Branagh - one of the best Shakespearean filmmakers. For Thor 2, he didn't want to return. So, Marvel throws us a wild card and hires Patty Jenkins - known for the Academy Award-winning film "Monster". I thought this was interesting, even admirable. A female filmmaker who focuses on character. Nice. But suddenly, she leaves the project. (I have a feeling Marvel was meddling too much for her.) So who do they get next? This might be what Marvel thought, "Hey, who should we get to direct Thor 2? Game of Thrones is similar to Thor... Let's get one of those directors!" (Alan Taylor has been tapped for Thor 2.)

I didn't see what was so bad with Roger Ebert's quote. I think I understand it now.

"Prometheus" Trailer

After much talk and 3 trailers for the trailer, Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" trailer arrives. Thoughts after the embed.



Seriously, enough with the "Inception" styled music beats. Also, I thought the way PROMETHEUS slowly appeared on the screen was distracting.

However, the film looks awesome. I was expecting a bit more than just a teaser, but this definitely whetted the appetite. It's got a great cast, pretty fantastic atmosphere, and I'm very interested to see how this leads into, if at all, the Alien saga.

Which leads me to a personal note. Originally, this was supposed to be an Alien prequel. Then, during the writing process, Ridley Scott said that it evolved into something new, but that "strands" of the Alien DNA are within the film. What does this mean? That's been the question for a lot of people. Is it just a way to separate it from the Alien saga marketing-wise? Due to how bad it became? Possibly. But, look at the 44 second mark. There's a shot of some sort of chair rising out of the floor. That's where they found the Space Jockey in the original "Alien".

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Trailer

UPDATE: Here's a link to it on Apple: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/



Fantastic. Beautiful. Nostalgic. Can't wait to go back to Middle-earth.

"Battleship" Trailer Commentary

Director Peter Berg sits down with IGN to provide audio commentary on his latest movie "Battleship".



I don't know what to think about this movie. On one hand, my inner nerd and love of sci-fi results in excitement. On the other hand, it's a movie based on the board game Battleship... It's obvious they're attempting to bank off the popularity of the Transformers movies. And you know what? It'll probably work.

The one thing I learned from this commentary that I really enjoyed was the fact that the aliens aren't here to simply destroy and kill everything, despite what the trailer suggests. They've actually come here in response to an invitation from us, but one of the ships malfunctions and crashes to Earth. As a result of the crash, they lost their ability to communicate with their home planet and must use our satellites to call for help, which may have dire consequences for the people of Earth.

I've always hated the fact that these amazingly intelligent beings who have mastered interstellar space travel come to Earth and...blow up everything. Does it make for an exciting Hollywood movie? Sure. But pardon me for wanting aliens that are more interesting and, dare I say, complex. So, I'm happy to hear that they're not solely here to destroy us.