Does somebody actually give a ****? Really? (Thor)

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:25 pm

saysadie wrote:Can someone really be counted as one of the best actors in Hollywood if they've only been in six somewhat-notable roles?

Best is indicitive of quality, not quantity.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:50 pm

I know, I said that. Which is why I'm renting those movies, so I can know for myself without taking other people's word on it.

[/nottryingtobeadick,justtired]

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:21 am

Primal Fear, his first movie, is a bit of schmaltzy courtroom drama, but you can really see him shine in that one as well.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:41 am

I am probably going to end up watching every Ed Norton movie out there, aren't I?

Not saying I'm being forced, I'm just saying. I've never really noticed him before, and now I'm curious.

So watched The Italian Job... boyfriend owned it apparently, and I like the price of "free". Thoroughly enjoyable, but I don't know how much of that enjoyment is tempered by the fact that I didn't pay. Didn't go to get the other ones yet.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:17 pm

I think Brend was joking about The Italian Job...

Norton was decent in The Illusionist and 25th Hour as well, but really, since American History X and Fight Club he's never come anywhere near the intensity of those two roles, and they were over a decade ago.

I still would've liked him back as The Hulk though. After a series of good decisions about their movies, Marvel are starting to make a bunch of weird choices.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:46 pm

Kingdom of Heaven is a beautiful intricate movie in the director's cut, though it's still flawed. However, Orlando Bloom craps it up all the way through. Ghassan Massoud, Edward Norton, Eva Green and Liam Neeson all make the most of the material. Just thought you should know. I have a weird thing for that movie.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:43 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:I think Brend was joking about The Italian Job...

It's an epic.

Norton was decent in The Illusionist

I thought The Illusionist was dull pretentious rubbish.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:49 pm

Except for Depp, I'm hard pressed to come up with actors of the caliber of Norton right now. Obviously, Depp shines in the more eccentric roles, but if he wanted to play an average Joe, he could do that too. Depp's the best.

I would say DiCaprio is one of the better actors in Hollywood. I thought that guy was a hack when he first came on the scene, just another Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves. I was wrong. I've been very impressed with him this last decade. He was fantastic in Blood Diamond and The Departed. Strong in Catch Me If You Can as well. Going to see Inception this weekend, and don't think I'll be disappointed.

In terms of actresses, well, Streep rules but next in line is Keira Knightley. That girl is a phenom. She'll be a legend like Katherine Hepburn and Streep by the time she's done. Emily Blunt is another up-and-comer to watch. Ann Hathaway and Natalie Portman are considered amongst the best, but I think they're overrated and would put Naomi Watts and Cate Blanchett there instead.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:20 pm

Brendocon wrote:
I thought The Illusionist was dull pretentious rubbish.

Sure, but Ed was good in it. The Prestige is a zillion times better though.

Yaya wrote: I would say DiCaprio is one of the better actors in Hollywood. I thought that guy was a hack when he first came on the scene, just another Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves. I was wrong. I've been very impressed with him this last decade. He was fantastic in Blood Diamond and The Departed. Strong in Catch Me If You Can as well. Going to see Inception this weekend, and don't think I'll be disappointed.

I think he's good, but nowhere near as good as Martin Scorcese seems to think he is. Look at Gangs of New York. It's Daniel Day Lewis that gives the true acting masterclass there.

Yaya wrote:In terms of actresses, well, Streep rules but next in line is Keira Knightley. That girl is a phenom. She'll be a legend like Katherine Hepburn and Streep by the time she's done. Emily Blunt is another up-and-comer to watch. Ann Hathaway and Natalie Portman are considered amongst the best, but I think they're overrated and would put Naomi Watts and Cate Blanchett there instead.

I love me a bit of Keira. When the material is good, she's great. Blunt's another little corker. Hathaway is very watchable. As for Naomi... I watched Mullholland Drive again this week and she was amazing.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:59 pm

The Prestige is a zillion times better though

.

Damn straight. Prestige is one of the greatest movies, and best-acted movies IMO, of the past ten years.

It's Daniel Day Lewis that gives the true acting masterclass there.

Forgot about Daniel Day Lewis. Excellent actor. He'll drink your milkshake too.

I think Naomi Watts is the most underrated actress in Hollywood. I think she's destined for a Best Actress Oscar on her mantle.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:33 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:Sure, but Ed was good in it.

Phew. For a moment you had me worried.

I just got my blu ray copy of The Prestige this week. Saving it for a midweek treat.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:40 pm

The Hulk thing- that had something to do with Ed Norton getting too much of his nose in, wasn't it? Something like that. He wasn't a "team player" in the fashion they wanted him to be. I seem to remember reading that somewhere. Either that or he "wanted too much money", though I seem to remember reading that that wasn't true. Eh. Most of the week is a blur. I'll probably go re-read.

American History X - Fight Club are next. Hoping to get time to grab those tomorrow. I think the only thing I've seen Kiera Knightley in are the Pirates movies... as much as I enjoy them, they're not the best showcase for acting ability. Coincidentally I pulled all three up while searching for more Ed Norton movies, I will watch those this week as I haven't seen them in forever.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:01 pm

Keira's great in Atonement.

I'm getting hot under the collar just thinking about it.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:01 pm

Brendocon wrote:His most important cinematic role, however, was that of heel-turn thief Steve in the 2003 remake of The Italian Job.

Towering.

Believe you're forgetting possibly his best role as Smoochy the Rhino in Death to Smoochy. Doesnt get much better.

IMO, hes been in some great movies not mentioned. Rounders, Red Dragon, 25th Hour. All good flicks. Pride and Glory wasnt bad, just not a Collin Ferrell fan (except for In Bruges) Plus mother-f'n Fight Club. Come on, doesnt get much better.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:18 pm

I forgot about Death to Smoochy!

Which also reminds me, Catherine Keener automatically improves a movie by 33.3%.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:59 pm

If the Thor comics were remotely true to Norse Legend, rather than it being a case of love and theft, I might sympathise. As it is, Marvel fans demanding that Hollywood stick closer to the source material is pretty rich.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:12 pm

Amen!

I actually think it's going to be like the Straczynski run, with Thor running around and finding the gods in the bodies of mortals. Heimdall will be reincarnated in a black man's body.

saysadie wrote:He wasn't a "team player" in the fashion they wanted him to be.

But that's the Hulk!

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:32 pm

Death to Smoochy is one of my favorite movies. I thought we were talking about his serious roles.

"Its a... A SPACE SHIP! AND ITS GOING TO TAKE US TO MILK AND COOKIE LAND!"

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:33 am

bumblemusprime wrote:
saysadie wrote:He wasn't a "team player" in the fashion they wanted him to be.
But that's the Hulk!

Brendocon wrote:Hulk's not an actor. So no.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

I've commented on the net on this before, and to me, it all boils down to this:

Sif and Heimdall are brother and sister.

So... one of them will be of a completely different ethnicity? Seeing as this is complete fantasy, a movie about people that live on the other side of the rainbow, I could accept it, if there is SOME type of explanation for it.

Hopefully they won't just throw the sibling-relationship away in the movie. Although that is most likely what they will do, since it's so darn simple.

Jack Cade wrote:If the Thor comics were remotely true to Norse Legend, rather than it being a case of love and theft, I might sympathise. As it is, Marvel fans demanding that Hollywood stick closer to the source material is pretty rich.

In what way, if I may ask? There are quite a few adaptions of the Norse Myths, Marvels version is but one of many.

But it happens to have some fans, and those fans arguably want to see the movie because it could very well be their favorite adaption come to life.

IMHO, saying that the fans shouldn't except a movie based on a comic to be faithful to the source-material is quite stupid. Faithfulness to the source-material is what many fans have dreamed of, for quite a few years.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:55 pm

I saw some photos from this Thor flick. I can tell already they are going about it the wrong way.

They should approach this film with a sort of The Thirteenth Warrior or Beowulf kind of grittiness as the basis, not the flashy, shiny, modern-day Iron Man approach. Thor's story will only be appealing if they stick more to the Norse warrior roots and less on the Earth's Mightiest Heroes part Thor plays, IMO.

Develop primarily the Norse aspect, and leave Thor the Avenger for the Avengers movie.

That's how I would do it, anyway.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:15 pm

Predabot wrote:IMHO, saying that the fans shouldn't except a movie based on a comic to be faithful to the source-material is quite stupid. Faithfulness to the source-material is what many fans have dreamed of, for quite a few years.

So what if they dreamed of it? The film-makers are plundering the source material for profit, keeping/changing whatever they want, just like Marvel writers have done with the original Norse stories.

What goes around, comes around. If Marvel fans don't like it, hard cheese - they didn't stand up for faithfulness to the source material when they were buying the comic in the first place. Getting on their high horse about it now reeks of hypocrisy. Either the film makers are completely within their rights or the whole comic is an abomination to start with.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:32 pm

Jack Cade wrote:What goes around, comes around. If Marvel fans don't like it, hard cheese - they didn't stand up for faithfulness to the source material when they were buying the comic in the first place.

^^ this =

Predabot wrote:Sif and Heimdall are brother and sister.

And Elba's a brother. Where's the prob?

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:56 pm

Who thinks that Heimdall will die heroically to save the rest of the team? Early on in the movie?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:39 pm

So, maybe Heimdall is sensitive about his pseudomelanism.

Maybe he was called Spotty at school, and in true over-clichéd, overcoming-adversity fashion, bettered himself to the point where he's now Chief Insomniac Guard of the Rainbow Bridge, and all his former bullies grew up to have boring jobs like Junior Giant-Slayer or Associate Troll-Killer.

Predabot wrote:Sif and Heimdall are brother and sister.

Brother and sister? Not sister and brother? Boy, have I been reading them wrong all these years!

Predabot wrote:So... one of them will be of a completely different ethnicity? Seeing as this is complete fantasy, a movie about people that live on the other side of the rainbow, I could accept it, if there is SOME type of explanation for it.

Well, y'see, sometimes, mummies and daddies don't always get along, and when that happens they sometimes end up going their separate ways. And sometimes they find other people that they do get along with, and they have children with these people and these children therefore have different mummies or daddies to their other children. And these later mummies or daddies might just be of a different ethnicity to the earlier mummies or daddies.

Alternatively, we could just say that polygamy wasn't frowned upon in those days.

Or, we could stick drumsticks up our noses, underpants on our heads and run around shouting "A brown-haired, brown-eyed couple gave birth to a fair-haired, blue-eyed child! WTF? The Sky is Falling and the Earth is Flat!"

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:49 am

Brendocon wrote:
Jack Cade wrote:What goes around, comes around. If Marvel fans don't like it, hard cheese - they didn't stand up for faithfulness to the source material when they were buying the comic in the first place.
^^ this =

sorry - I think this is a rather daft argument. They are fans of the Marvel incarnation of Thor saying they don't like the fact that the Marvel incarnation of Thor has changed for the movie of the Marvel incarnation of Thor.

The fact that Marvel changed it from the original Norse myth in the first place is irrelevant to the above complaint - as important or unimportant as said complaint may happen to be - as that is not the source material they are taking issue with the deviation from.

it would only reek of be hypocrisy if they had been big into Norse myth then started buying the Thor comic and said, "This is different but I am cool with that" then subsequently started screaming about Elba's casting.

I doubt this to be true in the majority of cases.

It's like saying I shouldn't be a bit miffed if SMG got ditched for a Buffy movie because I never complained about the fact Kristie Swanson got ditched for the TV show, despite the fact I never watched the original movie before watching the TV show which I really liked and was hoping the movie would be based off which given its prevalence in the Buffy canon (much like Marvel Thor's prevalence in... Marvel Thor canon) the wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation.

There's enough hypocrisy in the world without us seeking to manufacture it on people's behalf.

They are, I suspect, just people who care too much about the realisation of a certain thing and have had some of their aspirations for it dashed.

Should they expect that airing of that grievance to make much of a difference? - no.

Should they be reamed for expressing it isn't to their taste or having aspirations about how something they like will be made into a film? - also no I would suggest.

Blah.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:02 am

Best First wrote:It's like saying I shouldn't be a bit miffed if SMG got ditched for a Buffy movie because I never complained about the fact Kristie Swanson got ditched for the TV show

The tv show was devised by the same person who wrote the film and created the character. And anyway... Gellar isn't (to my knowledge) a black man.

Marvel had their wicked way with traditional characters thaaaaasands of years old, whose stories and behaviour and appearance were word of mouth and constantly evolving. Marvel's take was an evolution. The Marvel film is an evolution.

It's folklore. There's no hard and fast proven facts to work with, like Sarah Michelle Gellar's got an awful nose or Cordy should have mahoosive breasts. Traditional depictions are only traditional for so long as the storyteller puts that spin on it.

Nick Fury got black, Megatron became a dinosaur and Starbuck's a chick. I mean next thing we'll be whinging because they called Prowl "Barricade" and made him a Decepticon.

So long as the story's tight, I got more important things to worry about. Like the fact I had to come to work this morning when I'd rather be watching the last few episodes of The Shield. :/

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:35 am

Brendocon wrote:
Best First wrote:It's like saying I shouldn't be a bit miffed if SMG got ditched for a Buffy movie because I never complained about the fact Kristie Swanson got ditched for the TV show
The tv show was devised by the same person who wrote the film and created the character. And anyway... Gellar isn't (to my knowledge) a black man.

Marvel had their wicked way with traditional characters thaaaaasands of years old, whose stories and behaviour and appearance were word of mouth and constantly evolving. Marvel's take was an evolution. The Marvel film is an evolution.

It's folklore. There's no hard and fast proven facts to work with, like Sarah Michelle Gellar's got an awful nose or Cordy should have mahoosive breasts. Traditional depictions are only traditional for so long as the storyteller puts that spin on it.

Nick Fury got black, Megatron became a dinosaur and Starbuck's a chick. I mean next thing we'll be whinging because they called Prowl "Barricade" and made him a Decepticon.

So long as the story's tight, I got more important things to worry about. Like the fact I had to come to work this morning when I'd rather be watching the last few episodes of The Shield. :/

i'm not disputing people's lack of perspective or unrealistic expectations, i'm just saying that they are entitled to said lack of perspective or unrealistic expectations and it doesn't follow that they are hypocrits because they express them and yet didn't complain when Don Blake banged a stick against his leg 40 years (or whatever it was) ago.

Non of which the above seems to refudiate, so hey.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:42 am

Best First wrote:i'm not disputing people's lack of perspective or unrealistic expectations, i'm just saying that they are entitled to said lack of perspective or unrealistic expectations and it doesn't follow that they are hypocrits

Where did I say that?

I agreed that it's hard cheese. And quoted a bit more of Jack's post than I probably should have. Where did I call them hypocrites? As we're getting into things not refudiating (whatever that means) other things.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:46 pm

it was Jacks post that called people hypocrites - that was the sentiment i was responding to.

as for refudiate;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/201 ... e-new-word