Thor: The Dark World (2013)

[FilmEntertainment]

Originally Posted by Evan Meadow

And it looks like the 2D has all the special features so I cancelled my order of the 3D set and changed it to this one. Get it a couple of bucks cheaper. YAY!!!!!

Between the 2D and the 3D it's only $3 difference unless you don't care to own it the 3D Blu-ray Combo and a better cover art.

Originally Posted by prozacnation1978

If its Disney I am expecting a 30 dollar 3d bluray cost at least

Not even close for this release.

Originally Posted by Edword

Target will probably have it for $27.99, I'm hoping for $24.99 though since I want that Target exclusive

Not sure about the exclusives but the regular 3D Combo Pack will be less than $25.

[AmandaBanana]

I still haven't seen this yet even though the first Thor was my favorite Phase 1 movie. Is The Dark World better than or on par with the first?

[Dispatch Ninja]

Captain America is actually my favorite of all the marvel movies at this point, tdw would be near the bottom along with iron man 2 & 3.

[TylerScruggs]

Thor: The Dark World, Captain America are the worst MCU films?

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by shane01

I noticed this in Iron Man 3. I suspect it has to do with Feige "encouraging" the use of the Arri Alexa on future Marvel projects instead of film cameras. Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, IM2, and Thor were all shot on film. They look significantly better than the digitally shot Marvel movies. This is not a digital vs. film debate, but objectively true. Compare IM and IM2 to IM3. Tony's suits, house, cars, etc all look better when Matthew Libatique shot it on Kodak.

I'm assuming that because the cinematographers on The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Thor 2 were all shooting movies digitally for the first time, it led to some mistakes in translating their usual techniques designed for film shoots to digital shoots. The movies all have a dim, washed out look to them. Maybe Feige should let the director and cinematographers choose their own format? I know shooting digital saves him some money and time, but he's still making a billion a pop. Make it look great, too.

Love digital cinematography but I agree with you here.

Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Thor look rich and texture. Beautifully capture. And while I think Thor The Dark World is the best looking MCU film thus far, it's kind of jarring to go from what they were doing to the look of the Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Thor The Dark World.

The Winter Soldier looks to follow in that same vein.

[fergusor]

Hi guys,

I know it's very slightly off-topic, but is there anywhere that shows me the complete CMU timeline, with the order in which the films and one-shots should be watched?

Thanks,
Richard.

[homernt]

I like this one way beter then the first maybe because I went with very low expectations. Still don't care for the Loki character do.

My list:
1. The Incredible Hulk
2. Iron Man 2
3. Iron Man
4. Iron Man 3
5. Thor 2
I don't like the other three so that's why there are not on the list.

Don't care if The Incredible Hulk fits in or not. It's still easily the best Marvel movie ever made.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by homernt

I like this one way beter then the first maybe because I went with very low expectations. Still don't care for the Loki character do.

What's wrong with Loki's hair?!?!

Originally Posted by homernt

My list:
1. The Incredible Hulk
2. Iron Man 2
3. Iron Man
4. Iron Man 3
5. Thor 2
I don't like the other three so that's why there are not on the list.

Don't care if The Incredible Hulk fits in or not. It's still easily the best Marvel movie ever made.

Wow. That is a strange list. Specifically referencing your Iron Man order and Incredible Hulk in pole position! I enjoy all MCU films, but I'm just not use to people ranking them anywhere near like that.

[Rich65]

My top three would be:
Iron Man
Thor: The Dark World
The Incredible Hulk
I like all the Marvel movies but those are my three favorites.

[homernt]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

What's wrong with Loki's hair?!?!

Nothing but he just a dull character.

Wow. That is a strange list. Specifically referencing your Iron Man order and Incredible Hulk in pole position! I enjoy all MCU films, but I'm just not use to people ranking them anywhere near like that.

Hulk is just my favourite character. Don't care for the Ang Lee one but I don't mind Mark Ruffalo in the roll. They should make another Hulk only movie.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by shane01

I noticed this in Iron Man 3. I suspect it has to do with Feige "encouraging" the use of the Arri Alexa on future Marvel projects instead of film cameras. Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, IM2, and Thor were all shot on film. They look significantly better than the digitally shot Marvel movies. This is not a digital vs. film debate, but objectively true. Compare IM and IM2 to IM3. Tony's suits, house, cars, etc all look better when Matthew Libatique shot it on Kodak.

I'm assuming that because the cinematographers on The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Thor 2 were all shooting movies digitally for the first time, it led to some mistakes in translating their usual techniques designed for film shoots to digital shoots. The movies all have a dim, washed out look to them. Maybe Feige should let the director and cinematographers choose their own format? I know shooting digital saves him some money and time, but he's still making a billion a pop. Make it look great, too.

I think back then before Disney acquired Marvel, they weren't really sure about going ahead with having a long Avengers storyline. Iron Man was handled by Paramount, The Incredible Hulk by Universal, etc. Don't get me wrong, they're all great films in their own right, but I can see what Kevin Feige meant when he said he is aiming for consistency across the MCU movies. I think many years from now, when all the MCU movies are complete, and when we have new and younger audiences, they might notice the differences from Phase 1 to Phase 2 and 3 movies.

After the acquisition and lots of backing from the house of mouse, it does look like Feige would be able to achieve that consistent look across the board. At the expense of film photography, unfortunately. But I cannot deny, there really is better consistency from Avengers, Iron Man 3, Thor The Dark World and the upcoming Winter Soldier. It really does feel like one giant storyline.

Originally Posted by Evan Meadow

And it looks like the 2D has all the special features so I cancelled my order of the 3D set and changed it to this one. Get it a couple of bucks cheaper. YAY!!!!!

Good choice. The 3D in this movie was very dull.

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Love digital cinematography but I agree with you here.

Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Thor look rich and texture. Beautifully capture. And while I think Thor The Dark World is the best looking MCU film thus far, it's kind of jarring to go from what they were doing to the look of the Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Thor The Dark World.

The Winter Soldier looks to follow in that same vein.

Kevin Feige and Joss Whedon is steering a tight ship too. They need the actors to star in several films in a few years, so a faster work flow would speed things up. Besides, the image quality is not *that* bad.

Originally Posted by fergusor

Hi guys,

I know it's very slightly off-topic, but is there anywhere that shows me the complete CMU timeline, with the order in which the films and one-shots should be watched?

Thanks,
Richard.

Wikipedia has a chronological time line. But I'll be nice and just post it here.

Phase 1:
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers

Phase 2:
Iron Man 3
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Phase 3:
Ant-Man
... And many more unannounced projects leading up to Avengers 3 conclusion.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by AmandaBanana

I still haven't seen this yet even though the first Thor was my favorite Phase 1 movie. Is The Dark World better than or on par with the first?

I thought it was slightly worse. What it improves upon the first one is that it doesn't take place almost entirely in the New Mexico desert and it also feels more like a standalone Thor movie instead of an Avengers prequel. What it does worse though....wow, where to start? First, the supporting cast was wasted. The characters on Earth were reduced to a joke, especially Erik and Darcy. The Warriors Three and Sif were given almost nothing to do(one of them vanishes after the first 10 minutes). Same with Odin. Second, the villain sucked. Loki wound up being the main baddie in the first movie and was terrific. Here, Malekith was flat out terrible. He's just there because they needed an antagonist. And third, they went back and forth from serious to lighthearted way too often. It was jarring. It's becoming a problem with these Marvel movies. Just compare how humor and drama was balanced in Iron Man vs. Iron Man 3. I hope it's not some suit at Disney or Marvel mandating this.

The best part is the ending(the one BEFORE the credits). That does seem to set up one helluva good third(and presumably final) film. I just hope they're allowed to maintain a serious tone next time and aren't forced to insert a bunch of jokes.

[WorkShed]

I would actually watch Iron Man 2 before The Incredible Hulk. Chronologically, that is how the story goes. The Incredible Hulk and Thor take place at the same time, but most of Iron Man 2 occurs before The Incredible Hulk and Thor. Coulson is sent to New Mexico and during Stark's final scene with Fury, breaking news of Hulk's attack at the university are displayed.

Putting the everything that has been released so far in order with One Shots, I would put it like this, with One Shots having an *:

Iron Man
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
*The Consultant (which fits actually right before the final scene on The Incredible Hulk)
*A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
*Agent Carter
The Avengers
*Item 47
Iron Man 3
*All Hail The King
Thor: The Dark World

[Dreamliner330]

I don't understand why actors like RDJ want such a ludicrous acting fee. It's not like RDJ will get $50 Million for anything outside of Iron Man, and unless he plans to retire and quit acting after Avengers 2/3 (doubt it), he should just crank out 6 IM films along with Thor and Cap going for 6 films too. Marvel will loose seam if they push into 2nd and 3rd tier source material and let the 1st tier age without fresh content.

They will never be in a higher grossing film, may as well milk it, but even Disney has payout limits. 5% of gross is a lot to pay a single actor.

[Kamelot]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I don't understand why actors like RDJ want such a ludicrous acting fee. It's not like RDJ will get $50 Million for anything outside of Iron Man, and unless he plans to retire and quit acting after Avengers 2/3 (doubt it), he should just crank out 6 IM films along with Thor and Cap going for 6 films too. Marvel will loose seam if they push into 2nd and 3rd tier source material and let the 1st tier age without fresh content.

It's something called ego.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Kamelot

It's something called ego.

I know, but he'll regret it. He's already going to miss out on Iron Man 4 cash. Avengers 2 & 3 only.

BTW, I can't believe you don't like MoS, the only PoS last year was the slapstick buddy cop kid-infested terrible-villan'd, suit-fails-with-a-light-touch, Iron-Man-less, glowstick-pepper comedy that was...IM3.
(Though the scrappy DIY Iron Man gadgets were pretty cool)

Also, shifting aspect ratio movies are HORRIBLE on my 136" 2.35:1 screen!
(And you will hate them too when 21:9 goes mainstream)

[solarrdadd]

looks like the blu for the movie just got a hella good review with 4.5 video & perfect 5 on the audio.

all i can say is Feb 25.....

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

(And you will hate them too when 21:9 goes mainstream)

I hope you are joking. This will never happen.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

I hope you are joking. This will never happen.

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

It's like thinking that 4K will be mainstream. Not with 10,000 UHD sets can you do this. It is folly.