Thor is a MUCH more fantastic/supernatural character, less household name than iron man, with an unknown playing him unlike an a-lister in Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man. They didn\’t expect it to be Iron Man, but it\’s a big hit movie that will help build for the Avengers.

Sorry, you can try to spin it some other way, but Thor is a hit movie, sorry.

It\’s not that Thor didn\’t match Iron Man\’s numbers, it\’s that they were so inferior. Again, why is Marvel so hesitant to talk \”Thor 2\”?

Longworth\’s critical point-of-view is slanted anyway. I doubt that she ever goes into a mainstream film with a fair mindset, but she claims that naming TRASH HUMPERS as the best film of 2010 is in no way a affected stance. In other words, she can\’t disclose what her subjectivity is despite it being evident to anyone who\’s reading her reviews.

I\’ll admit: I did not completely love BRIDESMAIDS. Like many Apatow productions the movie\’s structure is shaggy and most of the film is visually unexciting. But Kristen Wiig\’s lead performance is great and the story had insight. And I laughed more than five times. So that\’s more credit than anyone can reasonably give most Hollywood comedies these days.

Thor has frost giants, rainbow bridges, other realms and an unknown star. Iron Man had familiar faces, in a modern day setting, making it more accessible. Guns, plans, that kind of stuff with no fantasy elements make it a safer bet.

Iron Man was a huge hit – so what if Thor isn\’t as big of a hit? So basically, your thinking is, anything that doesn\’t match Iron Man is a flop?

Is any WB movie that doesn\’t match The Dark Knight is then also a flop?

But, the way Hollywood (unfortunately) works is that they jump on properties, they move quickly on ideas. Kevin Feige has talked about a Thor 2 – he\’s also talked about a Hawkeye movie. He\’s talked a lot. But, the way Hollywood works is, after that first, or maybe after that second weekend, people will be talking about a sequel, or they won\’t. No one really does the \”wait and see\” approach, because if they do, they get fired and replaced. Look at what happened at Universal – they fired their President of Production the weekend after Fast Five hit. While there were a totally independent series of political strategies beyond that decision, the point is, Hollywood is ruthless about this shit.

Marvel has been FORCED into the wait-and-see position with their non-Iron Man properties, as Iron Man 3 is the only post-Avengers project with anyone behind it. The studio has ONE solo production set for 2012, and then only one more for 2013. That\’s an awfully lonely slate, and they\’re debating whether to extend their franchises, or create new ones. To say there is uncertainty regarding whether there should be a Thor 2 instead of an, I don\’t know, Dr. Strange, or SHIELD movie, suggests they aren\’t entirely confident in the way Thor has been greeted by domestic audiences.

You\’re thinking too conservatively – Marvel wants home runs. Thor is a triple, and anyone not in the cutthroat Hollywood business would be happy with that and the ensuing profits. But they want THEATRICAL profit, and they want it IMMEDIATELY, and that means $500 million worldwide as a WORST case scenario. The standards are different here.

Also, yes, I would argue Thor, the Norse God Of Thunder, was more well-known to casual fans both today and in 2008, when Iron Man happened. At the time, if you recall, Iron Man was still considered a \”b-list\” Marvel character. Not to say that anyone has ever been rabid about Thor, but I would say, in early 2008, that it was a more viable brand name than Iron Man.

And a less than 50% drop for a second weekend regardless of the competition means that people actually like the movie and it\’ll probably play for awhile. It may be a limp to the finish line but Marvel and Paramount will make sure Thor gets to 200 mil domestic just for the bragging rights.

I\’d say they are very confident in how Thor was received. That drop off was very, very good, and the cinemascore was a \”B+\” – The idea now is launch Thor and Captain America to build hype for \”The Avengers\” – so far, so good. I think you need to look at The Avengers as the next chapter, not a Thor or Cap 2.

Going by \”whats being talked about\” makes no sense. first, they don\’t say publicly everything they really mean or have going on behind the scenes. Second, just because something is talked about doesn\’t mean its happening (ANT-MAN?) and just because something isn\’t being talked about (THOR 2) doesn\’t mean its not happening.

My opinion would be they don\’t want to be hyping a Thor 2 or Captain America 2, because the next chapter is THE AVENGERS, and that\’s what they want the focus to be on.

Don\’t forget they already have all their actors under contract – so its not like you will read about them clamoring to get deals done to sign people and schedule them like you would with other franchises, since they make sure to sign everyone for multiple movies right up front.

Also, people know Iron Man. When I was a kid you had Wu Tang Clan rapping about Iron Man and Tony Stark for Godsakes. Was Robert Downey Jr. A list when he did Iron Man? No, but Robert Downey Jr. is a million times more known here in the U.S than Chris Hemsworth. Iron Man was Downey Jr. first foray into big budget tentpole movies. The movie looked cool and people were curious to see Downey in a movie he has never done before. Similar to Johnny Depp in the first Pirates movies. If Brad Pitt was cast as Thor it would have easily done Iron Man numbers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/may/05/thor-sequel-kenneth-branagh

\”arvel\’s Kevin Feige said last month that a second Thor film is being planned, with Australian Chris Hemsworth set to reprise the lead. In the meantime, the god of thunder will appear in the Joss Whedon-directed ensemble superhero movie The Avengers, alongside Captain America, Iron Man and The Hulk, next year.\”

um, no, actually, properties/ideas often spend a long time in development. How many creative teams and years have been spent on \”The Dark Tower?\”

Also what does \”No one really does the “wait and see” approach, because if they do, they get fired and replaced.\” mean? EVERY MOVIE USES THIS APPROACH.

The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, fast and the furious, and other movies where they saw first one was successful – because they \”wait and saw\” does it make it less so?

What about movies like \”The Vampires Assistant\” \”The Last Airbender\” \”The Golden Compass\” and \”Percy Jackson\” – those were envisioned from the start as franchises with multiple installments mapped out – but then those later installments were cancelled. So…

Every movie is on the \”wait-and-see\” approach. And just because a studio is thinking about a sequel before a movie comes out, doesn\’t make that movie successful (see the above)

If the film does $500 million, then no doubt they\’d be proud of that. That means the film weathers Pirates 4, Hangover, Kung-Fu Panda 2 and X-Men and has legs. Not impossible. But that\’s going to be a heckuva struggle.

Iron Man 2, btw, made $622 million internationally. The first Iron Man finished at $585 million. Thor probably will not match either.

And \”lol whut\” (please pick a new username), the movies you mentioned most definitely had sequels in active development shortly afterward. Extenuating circumstances (the talent gets busy) means that they didn\’t get released until maybe two or three years later, but days after counting those initial tallies, announcements were made regarding further chapters in those installments.

There was a waiting period with The Matrix, because the Wachowskis originally envisioned the story of The Matrix to be a trilogy before, as they claim, truncating the entire story into the first film. It was months of persuasion to get them onboard for more adventures in that universe. Just because a movie enters active development (people get signed, scripts are commisioned) doesn\’t mean we\’ll see it immediately, but it means it is a priority for the studio. We\’ve seen no such announcement on Thor before Kevin Feige saying he likes the idea of a Thor 2 anecdotally.

To be honest, I would think hiring a writer for Thor 2 seems like it would be a priority, but among all the Avengers, Thor seems like the one that would necessitate a more expensive sequel. Nevertheless, a sequel announcement is a good way of hyping the original picture currently in theaters, so, in all fairness, we may be days away from that. Truth is, Marvel needs product, and beyond The Avengers next year and Iron Man 3 the year after, they don\’t have any yet.

In other words, I think you could go either way on Thor\’s \”hit status\” and I think there\’s enough evidence to suggest Marvel is doing more sweating than celebrating.

*Uncertain as to Thor\’s international tally. I\’ve read some reports it\’s already close to $200 million, but if that\’s not counting this weekend, the overseas tally is poised to be a LOT greater. Which would make all this null and lead to Thor 2 becoming an inevitability, I think.