Thor('s Day): The Dark World

Today is Thor's day. It also happens to be release day for Marvel's Thor: The Dark World. See what they did there?

Earlier this week I watched David and Margaret pan this, the latest in the Marvel franchise and the sequel to 2011's Thor (but which takes place after the events of The Avengers). They said it's same ol' same ol'. They said there's nothing new to see here. They said it's superficial, bang, crash and pretty-boy heroes.

To be honest none of this comes as a surprise to me. In fact my thoughts as I watched these armchair critics from the comfort of my own armchair were firstly, what did you really expect? And with that in mind, do you really care that it's likely to be superficial, generic story telling and fantastical escapism? Like, really care?

I haven't seen Thor II but the likelihood of me doing so is pretty high. As you may have gathered by now, I have a completely at arm's length happily married lady crush on Tom Hiddleston, who plays the mischievous adopted god, Loki. I also reckon if Chris Hemsworth knocked on my door trying to flog me Foxtel I'd obligingly invite him in, brew him a cup of tea and hand over my credit card details.

Without having seen the film I'd say Margaret and David would be close to spot on with their assessments. So too am I confident that this is exactly what Marvel is pitching at. Given the amount of whinging from fanboys that accompanied the release of Iron Man III for its deviating from the dogma I can well believe they've gone back to formula - world at risk, motivated hero, love story, hero challenged, world saved - for this stop gap between the last and the next Avengers films.

I personally really enjoyed Iron Man III. I thought it was, while imperfect, relatively intelligent and poignant for a superhero movie. For me it was an interesting commentary on heroism, politicking and media, with the added bonus of Robert Downey Jr. But I can't expect all Marvel films to do this. I, in actual fact, am probably not the Marvel target market. I'd argue neither are David and Margaret.

The Marvel films are a product. First and foremost. The Marvel films are not produced for art. They are a commercial enterprise, which, in many respects, is what cinema has become.

Director Alan Taylor has himself spoken out about the treatment his film was given by the studio. According to Taylor, re-shooting, rewriting and the inclusion of new scenes even after production has ended is 'the Marvel way'. In a brief interview with Collider, Taylor admits to the inclusion of additional scenes featuring Loki, which one can only imagine have been added on the back of the audience and fan reception to Hiddleston's portrayal of the character and growth in his personal capital following the success of The Avengers.

In another interview with the Huffington Post, Taylor is oddly overt about the structure of the final film, of which the first 45 minutes is exposition. According to Taylor this all came about in post, or as he put it, was 'discovered along the way'. His preference, it appears, was for earlier versions of the film, which placed more 'trust the audience'. But the 'decision was made', leaving one to wonder who is really in control.

Well, in actuality I was never really in doubt. It's made all the more obvious with the inclusion of a snippet in the middle of the credits, which is apparently a blatant marketing ploy for the soon to be released flick Guardians of the Galaxy from yet another Marvel movie universe. Directed by James Gunn (who has also directed Guardians), Taylor notes that it's a shift in tone and probably not what he would have done with the scene. Interesting. But as Taylor notes, it's Marvel's way to make things 'better'.

In any case, Marvel can pretty well count on my money at the box office on this one. I don't always want smarts from my superheroes. Sometimes I just want muscly blokes with superhuman abilities making things go boom. It's about escapism, fantasy and zoning out for a couple of hours. I'd be silly to expect more.

Thor: The Dark World is in cinemas from 31 October.

-Stevie O'C

read more

Not So Marvel(ous): Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Brand new 64 inch 3D television...check. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D....check. Disappointment...check and double check!

Joss Whedon’s most recent attempt to see a television series survive beyond a handful of episodes is also the latest to come from the Marvel franchise. With the success of his blockbuster Avengers film, he seems to have been given the freedom to do whatever he wants – forever! And who could blame Marvel? The Avengers was well rad!

Sadly though, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. misses the mark on many levels.

A pilot episode is supposed to give you a taste of what’s to come and it needs to be punchy to suck you in. A good pilot is one that introduces you to the context you’ll need later in the series, but does so without the audience being aware that they’re effectively being taken on a guided tour.

Unfortunately, this is not that pilot. I don’t know if Whedon banked on it being green-lit anyway because hell it’s Marvel, but that is no excuse. The story is dull and passes slowly while archetypical characters are ham-fistedly thrown into the fray. The dialogue, which is usually Whedon’s strength, is unnatural, while the casting made me feel as though I was watching S Club 7 solve mysteries.

Has this been any other show’s pilot it would never have been green-lit. Well, maybe on SyFy.

The cast is young, Hollywood, and flat. I understand that Marvel only casts the very attractive for its heroes – they are a collection of rich philanthropists, übermenschen and gods – so it’s understandable that they’d cast men carved from marble, but applying the same approach to the rest of the humble bureaucracy seems a little excessive and fantastic. What I’m saying is that I couldn’t get a job at S.H.I.E.L.D., but I could have gotten a job on the Battlestar Galactica – that place was filled with normal looking people! S.H.I.E.L.D. is a large organisation that has access to some of the most brilliant minds in the world, with near unlimited resources, so you’d think there would be at least one Doc Cottle, Galen Tyrol, or hell, even a Gaius Baltar running around somewhere in an out of focus establishing shot!

The characters, thus far, are cookie cutter stereotypes that seem to be dusty off-the-shelf Whedonverse efforts transplanted into the Marvel universe, which could very well be fine but for the fact that the wit and banter we’ve come to expect from Whedonesque dialogue is just not there. Instead it feels, at best, phoned in. In particular, the kinship between the UK import tech team members is laboured and corny with them contributing nothing but accents and technobabble while looking both attractive and nerdy in non-threatening ways. And I can only hope that the team leader, who has a troubled but relatively stock standard past, will eventually be given a greater role than just ‘driving the bus’. And of course, there’s the quirky hacker who, for some reason, is not arrested for treason, and whose main talents appear to be being ‘bubbly and goofy’ but ‘also warm, edgy and witty’. Because, of course.

The action man field agent is quite possibly the most passable character, but only because he could be any secret agent from any applicable television show ever made. But the worst part, and it pains me to say it, is Agent Coulson. Clark Gregg is not a leading man and given Coulson's origin is as a supporting character, he has no sense of authority. You can’t have a character with a coy smile making jokes and then attempting to yell at someone. I love the film Coulson because he adds a sense of humanity and bewilderment in the superhero world, but here, without the support of the fantasy he is wasted.

Now, as this is my opinion on the pilot some have taken the time to remind me that all of Whedon’s pilots are like this and that I need to reserve my judgement. Honestly though, if he hasn’t gotten the hang of writing decent pilots by now, maybe he needs to reassess the process. Firefly was solid because it planted you right in the middle of a universe with no option but to accept the circumstances within which you found yourself. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is not Firefly, and it even had the benefit of a head start!

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - 7.30pm Wednesdays on Seven.

-Paul Briske

read more