I swear this isn't about Thor's body

[trinityvixen]

I shouldn't have this much to say about Thor. At least this isn't about Thor really?

After the debacle that was shoe-horning in Black Widow into iron Man 2 and all the Avengers stuff that Jon Favreau clearly wanted nothing to do with, I was, despite my abiding love of Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson (who I think is way more interesting than Samuel L. Jackson as Fury), quite done with the crossover stuff to a degree. I knew that there would be some Avengers stuff in Thor, especially a much talked-about cameo by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye. The aspect of a cameo, in particular, annoyed me because it would either be a throwaway scene that stopped the momentum entirely or would be a literally nothing scene where you couldn't tell who or what you were supposed to be excited about.

As it turned out, the cameo was more the latter than the former, but it worked for me. It was just significant enough that you went, "Wow, we seem to be more involved with this one guy than we have any of the other faceless SHIELD agents," and no more involved than that. If you didn't know who it was, you didn't really notice. This is in direct contrast to the very heavy presence of SHIELD in the movie. Some people felt that it was still being studio-mandated or whatever into being. I think that setting up Agent Coulson as a means to throw Thor and his human companions in together a little more firmly really helped instead of hurt the film.

A.O. Scott's review was extremely negative despite the fact that he, for the most part, conceded that the movie was good. It's funny because he was especially upset that the movie was good and it exists, in part, to be a prologue to the Avengers movie. There's a point to be made there, that this movie, however good or bad it may be, is part of a money-making scheme that obligates you to return for more later to get the entire payoff. I understand that, but that's more a criticism that should be lobbed at a not-great movie that boosts its popularity by demanding that you see it in order to understand what comes later (Iron Man 2) versus one that is good and has some elements that will set up a later movie (but doesn't require that you see it for something else). Look, Marvel made its bones on its crossovers, but people liked those crossovers. Yes, it's a crass commercial calculation, but if it also pleases the audience, it isn't just about money.

All this is a long way of saying that my antipathy towards the advertising for The Avengers has been mostly dissipated. In fact, I think I threw myself firmly in the opposite camp and now I want alllllll the franchises to go into a blender. I think I, in all seriousness, endorsed an Ocean's Eleven/The Fast and the Furious crossover. I would love to see Vin Diesel and George Clooney plot a heist together. For real.

Comments

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Clooney: So we sneak in through the air ducts--
Diesel: WE DRIVE CARS INTO IT.
Clooney: And a second team, using fake IDs--
Diesel: CARS.
Clooney: This really needs subtlety to--
Diesel: CARS.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Meanwhile, in the background, the two brother duos from both films are locked in a wrestling match, desperately trying to give each other wedgies, and Brad Pitt and Sung Kang are flirting madly with everyone while Don Cheadle and Ludacris drink themselves to death over how STUPID everyone but them are.

[sols-light.livejournal.com]

Both of them promptly go off to watch the Original Italian Job with its awesome heist and car shenanigans.

[lnbw.livejournal.com]

Woo Clark Gregg! :D

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm a fan. I thought he did such a great, understated job in Iron Man and even Iron Man 2. I think, in fact, Iron Man 2 benefited more him having that one conversation with Robert Downey Jr. where he outlined what Stark would have to do to stop derailing himself than it did from just about the rest of everything new to that movie.

I'm biased, though. I love Clark Gregg!

[lnbw.livejournal.com]

I've been a Clark Gregg fan ever since he played an FBI agent on The West Wing way back when. Kind of the same character, in fact.

"In thirteen years with the Bureau, I've discovered that there's no amount of money, manpower or knowledge that can equal the person you're looking for being stupid."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I have got to watch that series. Every time I see a clip or read a line of dialogue from that show, I get completely interested in it to the distraction of anything else, but somehow, I never get there.

Clark Gregg, however, could get me there. Have you seen Choke? He plays a particularly self-righteous sort who's always riding Sam Rockwell, but he carries it off. (The movie's a wash, which is a shame because I love Sam Rockwell, too.)

[lnbw.livejournal.com]

Sadly, he has a fairly small part (IMDb says he was in 8 episodes), but YESSS, watch that show! If you need more motivation to get started, want to do a marathon some weekend? It's one of my favorites and I never get tired of it.

I haven't seen Choke and I'm not sure I could get through it (not a Palahniuk fan), but I will now at least look up some of his scenes on youtube.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Choke is not even particularly good Palahniuk, so I'm not recommending it overly. Neither book nor movie really did much for me. But to see Clark Gregg in ye olde wig as, like, mayor of a 1700s recreation historical site is pretty out there.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

And, when I have a weekend free, I'll let you know about The West Wing. So, uh, August?

[lnbw.livejournal.com]

...or maybe September. (I'm out of town either two or three weekends in August.) SOMEDAY!

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

A few of us were talking about the cameo afterward, and agreed that it was probably shot and cut into the movie after the fact--Renner's role wasn't announced until fairly late, and the scene was such that a few quick splices would be enough to shoe-horn it into place just to give us that "ooh, look, a set-up!' moment.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to think when Renner got cast. I know it was shortly before Comic Con, where they did the full cast pose for The Avengers. It's not unreasonable to think that Renner's scenes were shot "over" something else that had been there, and it wouldn't have been difficult to do, given how isolated they are from just about everything else save interaction with Clark Gregg.

I loved it. I am a fan of Jeremy Renner's, too. He's got fantastic intensity on top of a don't-give-less-than-a-shit attitude that I think would be great for Hawkeye. I also think that he wasn't too distracting--as someone more famous like Samuel L. Jackson would have been--in that scene. He's not so famous yet that he would warp the movie around him for that scene.

I think, in fact, that's why Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) works in the movie where anyone more famous would not. He doesn't distract you from the story he is in, either by being famous himself (a la Samuel L Jackson) or by having been the star of another movie. I think that goes a long way towards integrating more fluidly the cross-film influence and presence of SHIELD. Which, in turn, will help meld The Avengers together better as well.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I agree about both Renner and Gregg. And I really like the way they've been tying the movies together. Almost like it's, I dunno, a franchise? :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That's the thing: I like that they're tying the movies together. At worst, you sit through an okay/bad movie and you get a cookie for it. At best, you sit through a terrific movie and you still get a cookie.

It's so completely natural to combine these franchises, and Marvel built its profitability (back when it was still profitable) on them. As did DC to a lesser extent--from what I understand, their JLA came first, but they didn't require you to read all the other comics to know what was going on in it. Marvel did. Were they being punks by saying, "You want to see what happens if you pit Captain America against the Hulk? Then you have to buy Captain America's comics and the Hulk's comics."? Yes, absolutely, but damn it if it didn't WORK. I think resenting them for doing the same with the movies is just stupid. Anyway, whether you like all the movies on their own or not, The Avengers, without having a movie to its name just yet, is a franchise of which other franchises are a part. End of story.

[equustel.livejournal.com]

Really, the whole Marvel Studios "let's make our movie universe just as wild and crazily interconnected as our comic books!" deal has never outright bothered me. Maybe because I am just as much of a nerd as they are, or maybe because I sense their genuine enthusiasm every time a connection is made, as if an exec were typing in all caps and exclamation points when the script edits were made: "OMG look, it's Tony Stark talking to THE HULK!" "OMG look, it's SAM JACKSON AS NICK FURY!!1!"

Sure, a lot of it is shoehorned and it can be viewed as a huge, elaborate marketing campaign. Or it could be viewed as over half a century's worth of pop culture lore finally getting the limelight and its creators getting a little excitable. Truthfully, it's both, and I find it kind of endearing. (Plus, I think the track record for Marvel Studios' independently-made films so far is not too shabby. Yes, Iron Man 2 had its hiccups and The Incredible Hulk wasn't a masterpiece of cinema or anything, but I found them both perfectly respectable.)

I do agree that Thor made muuuch better use of its obligated plot details. It succeeded where some of its predecessors failed at making the audience feel like there really is a wider "universe" at work that's affecting, and being affected by, all the proceedings.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I mean, if you're going to incorporate these disparate characters into their own film, why not integrate them, so long as it's not distracting, within their own stories? I don't personally object to that, but I'm in the audience and this sort of thing definitely falls under the "give the audience what they want" storytelling rubric.

Yes, it is about making money. Why does it then follow it must be annoying? It's only annoying if it's done poorly. I like that Thor is tied down to the larger Marvel movie universe, something that, given its heavily "science"-based bias of the rest of its movie, is really necessary given how fantastical Thor is.

[six-demon-bag.livejournal.com]

I saw Thor on Saturday and really enjoyed it, although I'm not sure if I'd call it a good movie. My one actual beef is how many times I cringed at the lazy, ultra obvious jokes and comical scenes they threw in. I did laugh at a few parts, but most of the humor seemed so uninspired and forced.

I think Hemsworth makes a great Thor and I didn't even know Natalie Portman was in it until she popped up on the screen.

I agree that Gregg is far more interesting than Jackson.

I know the cameo you speak of, but only because a friend who's nerdier than me was talking about it later.

Haha I'm not sure how I feel about this Clooney/Diesel collaboration...