When Lou Piniella was managing the Cubs, a journalist asked him why he didn’t switch pitchers following a bad loss under the pretense that they could’ve performed better in the next game of the series. Piniella said, “I’m focused on winning THIS game, not the next one.”
Marvel Studios, since 2008 and their separation as an individual studio, has always been focused on the next game.
I bring this up because “Thor” bothered me quite a bit. As the first movie of what will now be a llllooooonnng summer, it signaled to me the same crap Marvel pulled with “Iron Man 2.”
They are making an “Avengers” movie in 2012, and in both “Thor” and “Iron Man 2,” it has been heavily marketed within the movie as a prominent side plot to the main one.
The upcoming film has an all-star cast, is directed by cult TV favorite Joss Whedon, and they damn well want you to know to be excited for it.
A.O. Scott of The New York Times made the delicate clarification that Marvel is a business. He put it all very eloquently in his review of “Thor.”
““Thor” is an example of the programmed triumph of commercial calculation over imagination. A postcredits teaser gives viewers who have lingered in the theater a taste of “The Avengers,” which at some future date will braid together the “Iron Man,” “Incredible Hulk” and “Thor” franchises under the eye-patched aegis of Samuel L. Jackson. Or something. This is franchise building of the kind that has long been practiced by comic book publishers to keep their long-running serials fresh and their readership hooked.
Translated into the hugely expensive, culture-dominating realm of big-budget moviemaking, however, the tactic of treating the price of a ticket as an installment-plan payment has more in common with a Ponzi scheme. The purpose of putting this movie in theaters is to make sure you and all your friends go to the next one, and then the one after that.
At this stage in the superhero bubble the strategy seems to be to protect the investment by minimizing risk. And the biggest risk would be a movie that dared to be interesting or original in its exploration of archetypal characters and their allegorical predicaments…
…If you can’t remember what you saw, then there’s no harm in seeing it again. There is no reason to go to this movie, which might be another way of saying there’s no reason not to. Something like that seems to be the logic behind “Thor,” and as a business plan it’s probably foolproof.”
Scott may not be aware of it, but the amount of Easter eggs Marvel is willing to drop to get fanboys to drool all over their own nerddom is staggering and goes beyond one-dimensional characters and postcredits teasers. “Iron Man 2” was full of them, as well as a lot of other product placement for ACDC, Audi and more.
But “Thor” is a lot more subtle in a way of not being subtle at all. The government agent sent to research Thor’s fallen hammer is the same that appears randomly in “Iron Man 2.” He even utters a line at one point when a robot lands on Earth: “Is that one of Stark’s? That guy never tells me anything.” And this next bit will ironically come as a spoiler to anyone familiar with Marvel comics, but hardly to anyone simply trying to enjoy (good luck) “Thor.” The same government agent calls someone to take him down, and a man grabs not a sniper rifle but a bow and arrow. As he takes aim, he is later revealed to be Jeremy Renner, even saying, “I’m starting to root for this guy.”
JEREMY RENNER?!?! You mean the two-time Oscar nominee from “The Hurt Locker” and “The Town?” What’s he doing here?
That’s what I said to myself in the theater. Everyone else said, “That’s Hawkeye!” The realization sunk in that Renner had not just stooped to doing one superhero movie the way a number of phenomenal actors of late have, he had signed on to at least three, including the useless cameo he makes here, his big role in “The Avengers” and very likely his own origin story. No doubt “The Avengers” could get a sequel, and unless Kathryn Bigelow directs, Renner, one of the most promising young actors today, will not be doing anything interesting for some time.
There’s also a shamelessly dumb postcredits scene featuring an appearance by Samuel L. Jackson himself as Nick Fury. He shows a shiny McGuffin to Stellan Skarsgard that I’m sure has some comic book lore significance, and in case I didn’t already guess, the credits themselves announced that Thor would return for “The Avengers” movie.
Why is it that THIS is the stuff I remembered from “Thor?” Nothing about “Thor” is memorable or interesting. Even the parts I found amusing in the film are strictly par for the course. The film is a safe outing from a studio with other projects on its mind, and the marketing ploy here is that Marvel would rather make you think about those than think about the one you’re currently watching.
I haven’t seen “Captain America” yet, but even that film is bound to beat you over the head with its connections to their new franchise. The full title of that film is “Captain America: The First Avenger.” Why don’t they call it, “Captain America: The First Marketing Ploy of Many?” And “X-Men” may not be part of the Avenger party, but their score of characters is deep enough to mine it for dozens of origin stories. Wolverine’s came out two years ago and proved to be a big bust, and this year they’re looking at Xavier and Magneto when they were young.
Did I mention there was a “Spiderman” reboot coming?
This all started with the unequivocal failure of “Spiderman 3” and the unequivocal success of “Iron Man.” The former was deemed by some as wretched, others not, but none can deny that it was the first superhero movie of its kind to feel overstuffed with too many villains, plot lines and not enough substance. The latter on the other hand allowed for a superhero movie to feel cathartic and fun without needing to have the emotional depth of say, Bruce Wayne.
Since then, Marvel has done everything they can to be louder than their counterparts DC. DC has steadily released one movie a year, and their only existing franchise is Batman. Their Superman reboot failed, so they took a big risk on “Watchmen” and now the lesser known Green Lantern. Granted, they are planning to reboot Batman again as soon as Christopher Nolan is done with “The Dark Knight Rises,” but you don’t see DC trotting out their answer to Stan Lee with cameos in every one of their movies.
DC, perhaps because it remains a subsidiary of other studios and not its own entity, is a studio with respect for what their audiences want to see now and not what they may want to see down the line. There are no corny postcredits teasers and there are no Easter eggs. The appearance of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle in “The Dark Knight Rises” does not necessarily indicate a franchise will be built around her as Catwoman. A Justice League movie is unfortunately inevitable, but not every character in that movie needs their own prequel. It may actually be a surprise to see who they cast as, say, Aquaman (please let it be Vinnie Chase!).
Marvel is in a whole other league. Watching their movies and hearing the buzz that is created from them makes me hate the fans that partake in it, and that’s unfair. I’d much rather just hate the movies and not the culture that surrounds it, but Marvel will do anything to immerse themselves in the culture and all of that culture’s cash.
I’m really sorry that four moments lasting no more than 30 seconds each ruined a two-hour film that will be nothing like “The Avengers” for you. “Thor” was definitely somewhat “par the course,” but when you’re dealing with an alien god based on Norse mythology who straddles the realms of Earth and Asgard, par the course is pretty unique. Hemsworth and Portman gave solid (I won’t say “great;” they aren’t going to raise Oscar’s eyebrows) performances and Asgard and Jotunheim were beautifully rendered. The plot was never unpredictable, but it stuck to its script and executed it well. And, yes, this movie was FUN, and I hate being the guy who always (jokingly) calls you out on hating fun, but goddammit, there weren’t any moments that made you silently fist-pump or smile in spite of yourself? I have no delusions of changing your mind, but know that there’s another viewpoint from someone whose opinion you hopefully respect.
There were moments of your comment where I wondered if I didn’t know that it was you, I may have responded MUCH differently to it, but then again it was fairly well reasoned. But seriously, I had other problems with Thor than just the Easter eggs, and like “Iron Man 2,” it wasn’t that it was Easter eggs that distracted me; it was entire subplots. The introduction of Nick Fury in Iron Man was completely tacked on and there were bits of Thor that felt like that too. I’ve had fun in completely silly movies before (read my Fast Five review), but Hemsworth seems much more like a boisterous loud mouth than a good actor and there was very little I found about I found amusing or original. Again though, Natalie Portman is the best part of every movie she’s in, and “Thor” was no exception.