(Disclaimer: Movie Posters used in this post are property of their respective creators, etc.)
Fact: I'm a bit of a comic book nerd
Fact #2: I'm a movie buff.
So imagine my shriek of excitement and happiness when I realized not only that these next few years were going to be jam-packed with superhero and comic book related movies, but also the fact that a lot of them referenced each other?
Yes. It was that epic.
I just saw Thor, and now I have deemed it necessary to share my opinions, hopes, thoughts and criticisms of the Superhero Timeline that is to be the box office for the next two years.
Beware, below there will be much spoilers, and some extreme comic book detail that may delude your future enjoyment of the genre.The Timeline:
Thor (May 2011) – Xmen: First Class (June 2011) - Green Lantern (June 2011) – Captain America (July 2011) – Cowboys & Aliens (July 2011) – The Avengers (May 2012) – The Amazing Spider Man (July 2012) – The dark knight Rises ( July 2012) – Nick Fury (Late 2012) – Iron Man 3 (2013?) - Xmen Origins (2013?)
Phew. Look at all those movies!
Thor - May 2011First up, Thor. I'm counting Thor as first because even though the Green Hornet premiered this year, it's not connected with this franchise, like many of these movies are, it's premiere is significantly separate. And also, it sucked.
I never strongly followed Thor in comic form, largely because I'm not fond of things that have a large root in mythology. I'm a fan of mythology and when they turn to comic books it largely becomes messed up. I tend to stick with more “original” characters. Nonetheless, I'm slightly acquainted with Thor and slightly more acquainted with Norse Mythology.
The realm of Thor borrows (decently accurately) from Norse Mythology. Odin is the ruling deity, and Thor is his son. He does have a hammer and is ruling over thunder. There's some fudged blood-lining, and Loki becomes Thor's brother (in reality, the deity, while existent, is from a separate though equally significant family). Loki is a caricature of his mythological self, becoming less a trickster and more...evil and disturbed, for lack of better phrasing. Whereas deities in Norse mythology are more balanced, having human-esque characteristics of good and evil, Thor creates more “sided” characterizations. Anyway, as in the movie, Thor is send to Midgard (the sphere known as Earth) for his hubris. In the comic, Thor is fused with a medical intern (and future Doctor) Donald Blake, who is slightly disable. His walking cane, when activated, becomes Thor's hammer. He's largely unaware of being Thor in the beginning, and he maintains a relationship with nurse, Jane Foster (transformed into a physicist for the movie's sake). The story portrayed in the movie is a largely contained and more immediately resolved version of this, with nods to Thor's comic book counterpart (references to Donald Blake, as well as the presence of Shield and nods to the future Avengers movie).
As a film, Thor impressed me. Only small parts were corny (flying with the hammer, for instance, really?), and on the whole the detail and cgi was beautifully done. Chris Hemsworth was a great Thor and Portman was a strong Foster. Kat Denning's Darcy provided some cute comedic relief. The story dragged a bit in the middle, and it wasn't as action packed as many comic movies, which in retrospect is largely a positive thing, as it allowed more story presentation. The film was evidently a predecessor for the avengers, and there was an exciting moment for comic nerds that included a cameo for Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, who is to be involved in the Avengers. The director for this film caught my eye, as Kenneth Branagh is more notorious for his Shakespearian renditions than action packed comic adaptations (read: not at all a comic director), however I was impressed and this film was definitely worth seeing. A good start to the comic book endeavor. An A- for independent film and a strong B+ for consistency with comic book lore.
X Men First Class - June 2011This film could really go either way. (Hahaha. That's what she said). Matthew Vaughn directs, and he has some decent adaptations and fantasy/superhero-esque films under his belt, so I'm not terribly scared. The writers have experience in the genre and Bryan Singer returns for continuity sake. The cast has strong members and great potential. James McAvoy as a young professor X, with positive newcomers such as Michael Fassbender as magneto, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique and Zoe Kravitz as Angel. My biggest concerns are (again) significant oversights in the x-men universe (all universes and side-universes to be exact). Cyclops, for instance, is the older brother of Havok, who appears in this film, and Cyclops also later gets it on with Emma Frost (over Jean Grey's grave, for that matter, YIKES). And she's not immortal by any means. The presence of Mystique and Azazael nicely sets up for nightcrawler's inception though, and the inclusion into historical events is definitely and interesting touch.
This has great potential for a film independent of the adaptation, but some oversights in the ongoing x-men franchise (primarily, that the ORIGINAL X-men were cyclops, marvel girl (Later Jean), Archangel, ice man and beast). To be honest, the whole franchise should be scrapped. If the intention to use popular x-men was in mind, this should've been done full-fledgedly out of timeline (including not only cyclops, storm, rogue, shadowcat, wolverine and jean, but also the forgotten ones like gambit and emma frost) rather than add them in improper time series as an after though. Admittedly x-men timeline is largely fuzzy, given the rebirth and inclusion of many “older” character such as cyclops and jean with younger counterparts such as gambit and rogue, who debuted in the late 80's and early 90's. However, this is still no excuse to move around the introduction of havok and emma frost.
In spite of my nit picky-ness, there's still room for this to go bad in the issue of magnetos and professor x's history, so while I suggest seeing this, I add “Approach with caution” lest the timeline entirely explode in your face.
Green Lantern - June 2011I've never been a big green lantern fan. Not really my thing. But I'm decently familiar with the lore. This movie follows the second generation (read: Most successful) Green Lantern, Hal Jordan. The background is mostly accurate. He's an air force pilot who comes upon a dying alien and is (reluctantly) granted the green lantern ring and inducted in to the Green Lantern Corps, a sort of intergalactic police thing. Casting was decent for the Green Lantern. Ryan Reynolds is a solid choice, though he was preferable as Deadpool in my books. But he does have the sort of early Paul Newman look the lantern was based off of. Not a fan of the false inclusion of Carol Ferris. From the trailer and what's been released, there's no mention of her alter ego Star Sapphire, so I highly doubt they'll delve into that, which is a shame, because it's honestly the only thing that keeps her character from becoming a floozy solely around to serve as a love interest. Star Sapphire is a somewhat under-utilized supervillian in the DC universe, although the potential for her character is promising. Casting for Ferris is a huge no-no for me. Other than being Moderately attractive in my opinion, Blake Lively is a poor actress (and her voice is grating). The storyline fluidity from trailers and background releases shows potential. The writers seem decent but the director is Martin Campbell (think Bond and Zorro), which translates to movies I don't particularly like. The trailer also leaves me a little hesitant as the implementation seems rather corny. The use of the green lantern corp home base, the effects of the powers of the ring, and the SUIT all leave me squirming in discomfort. I understand the obsession with sleek and cgi based suits, but while I admire Ryan Reynolds physique (trust me, I do), I think the suit leaves much to be desired in aesthetic and homage to the original. While I admire the possible inclusion (at least, according to IMDB) of Parallax (which, SPOILER ALERT: takes over the sacrificed Hal Jordan in comic world and influences him to destroy Green Lantern Corp), which has great potential for future movies, his/her/its? True influence does not display well onto screen unless through Jordan's actions, which appear not to be covered yet. This inclusion with Sinestro seems to hint at some story line melding.
In other words, if you're a fan of the Green Lantern world, give it a shot at your own risk, but otherwise, poor acting and implementation makes It unworthy of your time.
Captain America - July 2011When I saw the first trailer for this movie, I banged my head into the wall. (Although, hello body....) The first trailer made it seem corny, but while I was at Thor, the new trailer left me interested.
For you non-comic savvy, as shown in the trailer, Steve Rodgers is a sickly and small young man around the time of WWII who is enhanced by a serum to become Captain America and aid the war effort. Chris Evans is Captain America, and he has some experience as the Human Torch. Well...Actually I'd hardly call that experience. But it looks like he can pull it off nonetheless. Red skull is the villain. Well duh, you can't have a captain america movie without red skull (i.e. one of the most epicly evil villains of all time). And to add to this, HUGO WEAVING (v for vendetta, mr smith and elrond) is playing him. OMG I had a fangirl moment. I LOVE hugo weaving. One of the best actors of all time. No word on whether he's deformed or wears a mask. I'm a fan of the second, but I have a feeling I won't win this one.
The connection to stark, the avengers etc is included, which also seems pretty sweet. Costume is modern (in a good way), without being that shitty spandex all superheros wear (and thus MORE REALISTIC) and the film seems to have a nice balanced tone of dark and light comedic moments. There's not much else released, although the films inclusion of Bucky Barnes seems a little like jumpy the gun. While he is captain america's only moderately known side-kick lets not forget he takes the helm when Steve Rodgers supposedly dies. The title first avenger, while understandably setting up for the avengers movie, seems to be taking itself a bit too seriously. Joe Johnston directs (other than Jumanji, his credits are bit lack luster), but the fact that Joss Whedon contributed to the re-write to aid in avengers continuity makes me happy.
This one has good potential. I definitely suggest it.
Cowboys & Aliens - Late 2011I bet you can't believe this is on here.
Well believe it or not, Cowboys and Aliens is loosely based on an 06 graphic novel I've been meaning to (and still need to) pick up. Honestly, beyond the premise, there's not much connection (Though does anyone else feel the connection of cowboys and aliens and space is reminiscent of Joss Whedon? Just saying). The intent is for the film to seem intense but for the audience to crack up. So it looks like it'll meet the goal. I don't particularly have much to say on story or continuity given the situation, but it has OLIVIA WILDE (naked?) and Harrison Ford and it looks hilarious. Worth a laugh and not much more.
Coming Later - PART TWO The 2012 Movies
