Total Thor-Fest

NOT GEEK

It was a fun movie with the right amount of explosions and funny one liners.

That's it. That's all I have to say about it. Sometimes one side has more to consider than the other.

I give it a B, B-, depending on how much CGI BUGS the SHIT out of you.

GEEK

The director is Kenneth Branagh. Marvel made a big deal out of this and they were right to do so, because he's a Name. Not a Name in the sense of "He's a good film director" (he isn't), but simply a Name in the sense that.... you've heard of him, he's famous enough to generate buzz. Comic Nerds might not even cry foul because Branagh the Director has domain over a separate Nerd Kingdom: Shakespeare. So internet buzz was genuinely positive, or at least optimistic.

The problem with this, and I called it at the time too (did it still count if I didn't have a blog?), is that Kenneth Branagh hasn't had a commercial hit, OR a good movie, since before Clinton was President. He is not good at this. What little success he DID have came when he was in a relationship with the ethereal, expansively talented, Oscar-winning Emma Thompson. A woman who left him when he nailed Helena Bonham-Carter (hindsight, much?). ET went on to win an Oscar, KB went on to direct no-budget Shakespeare adaptations for Showtime. I've seen them. They are visually and conceptually below average. "As You Like It" literally lays there like a bloated corpse, daring you to poke it with a stick.

After the overblown, much-hyped, mediocre-received "Hamlet" in 1996, he didn't direct anything for four years, no doubt to lick his wounds and figure out what other pretentious, self-serving project he wanted to work on next. In 2000 and 2006 he did two other Shakespeare adaptations (Love's Labour's Lost, and As You Like It, respectively), the first of which had a higher budget than the second, neither were memorable nor interesting to look at. The acting was adequate, but that's what happens when you get good actors. Under no circumstances should you rent these from Netflix. Even if you're a fan of interesting Shakespeare productions (which I am), neither of these are good. This is a failed director trying to get a toehold back into the industry.

And so someone listened, and gave him "Sleuth" (2007), a movie which is only kind of not very good on its own, and then a complete failure when held up next to the original with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. AND YET THEY GAVE HIM THE THOR JOB ANYWAY.

All of these movies were bad, Branagh's last that was a big hit was "Dead Again" in 1990, which was 21 years before Thor. You know, when Chris Hemsorth was seven.

Anyway, in failing to be concise yet again, the upshot is this: Kenneth Branagh is a shit director. He might be able to direct theatre, yes, he seems to have a knack with actors. But that is only one small part of film directing, a job which also includes shot selection, lenses, depth of field and length of shot, all of which Branagh has proven time and time again that he is no damn good at, and he has shown no progress in getting any damn better. He simply doesn't care.

THOR: The first act of this movie is wasted. It opens on some humans in the desert, who then run into Thor. Then there's a brief flashback that shows how Thor got there, and this brief flashback goes on for 45 FUCKING MINUTES. It is the entire first act of the movie, and CGI is layered onto it like the producers never saw a single movie after "The Phantom Menace," they commit every sin except for a main character MADE of CGI (wisely, they make the head of CGI-bad guys an actual actor in makeup. This works spectacularly well and creates the only bit of menace in the entire overblown battle sequence). Watching cartoons bounce off each other for 45 minutes is uninteresting if you've ever played a video game in your life. It is every bit as awful as the first act of Spider-Man 3. Thor, Act 1: F.

Finally we get back to Earth. Character development actually begins here, and despite the films terrible track record up to this point, Branagh actually stands back and lets his actors emote, in a movie where they are not required to. Portman seems genuinely concerned, yet distracted by her work. Hemsworth seems bold and douchey, yet distracted by his lust for glory. And Tom Hiddleston as Loki bothers to give his character layers, when other action movies would just have him walk in and recite plot points. The jokes fly quickly, there's no one character just to be comic relief. The humor is situational, and it works. When it's time to get serious, everyone gets serious. The production design is quite lovely. The costume design is so lazy it looks like the non-Vikings just put on whatever was in their closet and went to work. Act 2: A.

The last third of the movie has a lot of shit blow up, which is fine, but then Thor goes back to Asgard and shit blows up there too, and it's all CGI bullshit and despite the city/planet looking absolutely fantastic, you're basically left with CG characters beating each other up on a CG rainbow bridge. I don't fucking care. The interesting stuff happens between the actors, and that's what any geek will be talking about the next day. Not Geek? You may not mind the CG so much. I am a geek, and I was there for Spider-Man 3. Sam Raimi made many an enemy that day. Act 3: B-.

Hollywood movies know that as long as they finish strong, the audience will be happy and recommend the movie and maybe even see it again. The first act can be as weak as anything, as long as there's gigantic set-pieces in the end. Branagh doesn't have a lot of Hollywood muscle so probably had to do what he was told; Jon Favreau had insisted on models and such for the Iron Man movies, the Marvel execs probably just wanted a big CG movie to feel like they were doing their jobs. Well, they got their way, and it made the movie worse. Congratulations, you're a producer.

On the side:
Five credited screenwriters:

WRITTEN BY: Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz and Don Payne
STORY BY: J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Prostovich

Broken down:
Miller and Stentz worked on "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles." When that got cancelled, they went to work on "Fringe." Their geek cred is unimpeachable.

Don Payne used to work on "The Simpsons." When he eventually left that, he wrote "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It is my theory they brought him in to add jokes.

There's nothing about the screenplay I find off or flawed, my only problem is that Branagh rushes through the entire first act as if he has to go to the bathroom, tilting the camera for no reason and point it at talking shots when he should be shooting reaction shots, and vice versa. Shooting a high-budget movie is NOT the same as shooting a low-budget play. The flaws in the movie lie solely with him; the writers are great. Online buzz say this "Thor" is closer to JMS's Thor in the comics, and I guess that seems to work out okay. Ultimately it's probably out of his hands, though: Prostovich wrote the script back in 2002 for a production that never got off the ground; its doubtful much of his script remains, but they probably had to credit him for legal reasons. JMS, presumably, didn't have much more input.

So from a Geek perspective, that's where we're at. But the thing is, I have a feeling... by the time Captain America rolls around, we'll have forgotten. All that we'll really remember is the "Not Geek" perspective, and that's all anyone can ask. If we're getting the Huge Stack o' Marvel Movies, like we were promised, they can't all be perfect. They just have to be good enough to (a) interest the casuals, and (b) not piss off the hardcore fans. And since there are no hardcore fans of Thor, this was the safest one to trust with a green director.

Onward to Cap, and then The Avengers.

Victory to Marvel, death to Michael Bay.

Why You Hate Comics

Right up until 4-5 years ago, you hated comic book movies.

And I know this is true because *I* hated comic book movies, and I didn't dislike comics. I remember seeing "Spawn" as an impressionable youth, and thinking, "Well. THIS sucks."

And years later, other people had to educate me. They showed me Batman comics and Captain America comics and ... well, things that don't qualify as "comics."

I am not, by any means, a nerd about that stuff. I own less than two-dozen graphic novels, and 12 of them are the same authors' multi-volume set of "The Punisher" in which the "hero" distributes vigilante justice (via the "bullet" method) to an average of 20-30 criminals per book. It is sold in the "absolutely no children beyond this point" portion of the comic shop. If it were a movie, it would be NC-17. Even the R-rated "Punisher" movie(s) had to tone themselves down to be R-rated, compared to these books.

WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.

Robert Downey Jr. said "Yes" to Iron Man, and suddenly it was cool for mainstream actors to be in comic book character adaptations again, for the first time since "Batman Returns" in 1992. (Val Kilmer and George Clooney as Batman is what made it UNcool again, a few years later). But even now, not a lot of mainstream American actors are following in his footsteps.

Scarlett Johanssen? Yes. Chris Evans? Hardly a household name. Chris Hemsworth? Who the fuck is that.

So we're back to square one.

And people on the street, commenters on message boards, and my mom, all say things like, "Isn't that based on a comic book? It'll probably be silly."

...

Then I had an epiphany as to why people automatically assume comics are silly:


WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT.

There are a billion "Cathy" comic strips, and all of them are less funny than this one. Even humor itself, peeking its head out from under a rock, would not recognize this comic as anything remotely familial. It is anti-humor, designed to earn the author a steady paycheck. It is roughly five square inches in your daily newspaper, and there's not a fucking thing you can do to stop it.

And there's MORE LIKE IT. Dozens. Dozens of other unfunny little childish comic strips in your newspaper, distributed en masse by the millions, every day. Crazy, redonkulous exercises in non-jokes like Beetle Bailey and B.C. and One Tree Hill... I don't even read this crap anymore, because it wasn't even funny when I was twelve. When I was twelve I had to ask my parents what the joke meant, and wait for a response before I then realized it wasn't funny. By 13, I had cut out the middle man. What the hell is going on?

This runs in newspapers all over the country, and is seen by MILLIONS. Someone was PAID for this. There was probably even a first draft before it, where the author said, "No, no, wait... ten dollars isn't funny enough. It needs to be FIVE dollars."

But even that is giving it too much credit. Strips like this one have been manufactured by a computer program since 1988. I am sure of it. There is no possible way that a person could create that, and THEN an editor would read it and say, "Ha, yes, good work," and THEN pay the man. Unless the comic strip racket is run like Saturday Night Live, where you tell one funny joke then get to collect a paycheck for seven years while doing nothing at all.

Which is entirely possible. It's not like anyone is paying attention to this shit. Except for this person, my new hero:

"The Ten Newspaper Comic Strips that Need to Fucking End."
by Alicia Ashby

.......... I had ignored this crap for years, this cheap, pandering free money for bad artists, but as an adult without a great income, it pisses me off that the person who draws "Mamaduke" got paid more last year than I did. The last time I got drunk and pissed on the bathroom wall it created more interesting art than this bullshit. It is market-tested, color-coordinated, guaranteed-not-to-offend-anyone.... "art." Which would be fine, if there were five of them, but there's like EIGHTY in your newspaper every day.

And so that is what we, as a society, think comics look like. Also, comics are drawn, and as we all know hand-drawn animation is Disney's gift to the world. If it's a cartoon, it's for kids, yup yup yup!


When you write a movie, you have to make it easy to understand for the widest possible audience. There are rules, rules which most people aren't even aware of or care about: You cannot show violence against children, and if you do, it's not the hero committing such acts. The hero cannot beat women, take a dump, do drugs, and if he's shown stealing car it is always, ALWAYS for a good cause. There are never any consequences. He always wins in the end, the bad guy always dies (unless they want a sequel), any character who broke the law along the way also typically dies, lest any tiny corner of the audience feel uncomfortable.

If you are an adult, and writing a graphic novel for yourself... you can kill anyone you damn well please. If it entertains YOU, who cares if it's going to sell well in a mall? Trade it with your friends. Put it online.


You can't put that shit in the cineplexes. 100% entertainment value only. The author has set it in the near future and the Rapture occurs, except the Pope doesn't go because he's been too busy doing drugs and fucking whores. The populace is, as you can imagine, quite confused as to why the POPE didn't get called up in the Rapture... but luckily Yonder Pope is a mighty warrior in his spare time, and helps defend his fellow man against the evil left on earth.

If you read that... and you created "Funky Winkerbean" ... you should rightly hang your head in disgusted shame. You are a boil on society and you need to be lanced.

There are a thousand brilliant, multi-layered stories to tell here. And while some newspaper comics do still generate honest political commentary, or a genuinely funny gag-- you can count those comics on one hand. Doonesbury. The Boondocks. The art and content of "Get Fuzzy" is usually entertaining, and "Pearls Before Swine" has some clever wordplay.

And then there's fifty comic strips from the people who brought you "The Wizard of Id" just waiting there to suck. "Family Circus" is still allowed to exist, like a remnant of the 1950's that everyone forgot about. Alone they are nothing. Together they are skewing the perceptions of an entire nation. If YOU had lived in a foreign country all your life, and someone showed you "Garfield," what would YOU think of America?

Everything you know about the animated medium is wrong. People who write humorless, poorly drawn comic strips do it because they are contractually obligated to do so, and are under no individual obligation to be funny or interesting. It's rather like receiving tenure.

People who write movies must specifically write to appeal to the most number of people possible, particularly for a summer blockbuster (because that's what most often the stories lend themselves to), though there are a fair amount of graphic novels, too, that do not feature explosions. ("A History of Violence," for example, did not have a single car chase or flying robot).

People who write Graphic Novels do so because they honestly love it. They don't have a house in Hollywood Hills, they're not appearing on Letterman (though neither do screenwriters, really).

Screenwriter Scott Frank, who received an Oscar-nomination for adapting "Out of Sight" for the big screen, but also adapted "Get Shorty" and made his directorial debut two years ago with "The Lookout," once said...

"Writing a screenplay is like raising a child for adoption."

Telling, that. You labor over it for hours, weeks, months... then you hand it over to the studio and the director will do whatever the fuck he wants with it. You hope for the best.

Comic strip writers don't have their work changed, but that's because their editor never actually reads it.

Authors of Graphic Novels? These people, and their editors, are passionate about telling stories, and have written some good ones.

Some of them don't even have Batman in them.

Check them out, but... don't leave them lying around where your mother can find them. Just because there's a panel where someone dies does not mean we should ban all comic stores to protect the children. Context is everything, and a dramatic story well-told can teach us a lot.

But your mom doesn't know that, because she grew up reading "Family Circus."

Educate ya-self.