MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The New Thor Posters

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Responses to “The New Thor Posters”

  1. NickF says:

    So that why it looked familiar.

    Oh and Michael Clayton and most recently The Social Network have ushered in this words of face poster trend.

  2. IOv3 says:


  3. Joe Leydon says:

    OK, I have to ask — are these real posters or what?

  4. IOv3 says:

    The one with the GOD OF THUNDER is indeed real. The other one is David once again having fun with photoshop.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    That is what I suspected. Well, I guess some folks feel the need to do this sort of thing now and then to boost hits on their site. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Unless they criticize other folks for similar behavior.

  6. David Poland says:

    As the claim always is Joe, moronic. Who is going to come to the site to see that? Isn’t that a pretty basic requirement of pandering… having a reasonable expectation that you are doing something that will draw a new or unique audience?

    The visual representation of a thought and writing words about that thought are pretty much the same to me. Shouldn’t they be?

    Meanwhile, Sharon Waxman is now doing Friday night box office that will be sourced the same dumb way Nikki’s is and will be equally premature. That is pandering, Joe.

    It’s not really a subtle distinction.

    Nighty night.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    The blogger doth protest too much. LOL.

  8. Don R. Lewis says:

    Oh, I remember don’t worry-erry-erry

  9. leahnz says:

    the ‘times new roman’ font, or whatever that is, seems a strange, incongruous choice for a ‘thor’ one-sheet, far too ‘the social network’-looking.

    thor is all gods and thunder and battles and huge hammers and melodramopera with villains and worlds in peril – not some square, sterile newspaper font. the most un-badass font of all time. weird.

    also i think it should just read ‘GOD OF THUNDER’, the ‘the’ is extraneous and makes it look even more incongruously ‘THE SOCIAL NETWORK’-esque, which maybe is intentional…but really? i think it was geoff who mentioned ‘adjustment bureau’ kinda ripping off inception’s marketing style – which is at least somewhat understandable given the nature of the films – but who are the thor marketers trying to kid with the newspaper headline-y look of ‘the social network’ tactics for a kick-ass thor campaign. maybe somebody is having a good laugh.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    Seriously: I think it’s a bad idea to emphasize “God” in this situation. That’s bound to upset some of the professionally outraged.

  11. Jason Bruen says:

    For some reason I saw the slogan on Portman’s and immediately thought of Charlie Sheen. Winner.

  12. Martin S says:

    Damn, Joe. You keep beating the same drum, don’t you?

    You banged it about Clash o/t Titans and no one gave a shit and no one is going to give a shit about Thor being called a god, either.

    Leah – I think it’s “The” due to IP reasons. I agree about the font. The poster overall looks like a rush job. One-Color is very 90’s.

    On second look, without the total filter, it’s Ledger’s First Knight one-sheet.

  13. John says:

    Glad we have a poster. Now we can see the billing order.

    Anyone else amused that they got Stellan Skarsgard in this movie but he’s playing a guy from New Mexico?

  14. Barrett says:

    Stellan is playing a character who’s in New Mexico, not from New Mexico.

  15. christian says:

    I guess they really want to play up the facebook angle;]

  16. IOv3 says:


  17. Joe Leydon says:

    Martin S: Well, actually, some righteous folks already have objected to Thor.

    So I would not be too quick to dismiss the possibility that a similarly enlightened group will bitch about the “god” angle. Especially now that we’re cranking up for another election, and certain politicians love to toss “family values” red meat to their followers. Or did you miss all those accounts of what Mike Huckabee had to say about Natalie Portman’s pregnancy?

  18. christian says:

    Huckabee’s 2012 poster should read THE GOD OF DUMBER.

  19. Joe Leydon says:

    Christian: FTW.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon