Movie News


Matthew Vaughn talks THOR

By: Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor
Date: Monday, September 17, 2007
Source: Empire Online

After director Matthew Vaughn's latest fantasy film, STARDUST, bombed at the box office last month, he's admitted to being a little concerned about delving back into a new world with THOR. Not very surprising outlook after what happened but Vaughn feels he can pull this one off by what he has told Empire Online..Also revealed is some key details of the upcoming adaptation of the Norse God. For one, the film will be set in Asgard..the character's home. Here's what he told the magazine.

“Marvel were so surprised to see this other side of me with Stardust,” recalls Matthew Vaughn of his initial meeting to discuss his vision for the God of Thunder. “They actually said to me, ‘You are going to make Thor more macho? Right?’ Well, don’t worry – Thor’s not going to be wearing a dress".

The son of Odin (king of the gods, fond of ravens) and brother to Loki (tricksy, given to practical jokes), The Mighty Thor wields the power of thunder and lightning. Such potency doesn’t lend itself to modesty though, and so it is that Thor is sent to Earth in order to learn some humility. In comic lore, part of this lesson includes a mortal identity (that of disabled medical student Donald Blake) and all recollection of godhood banished from his mind. Word is that Vaughn’s origin tale will touch on none of this, staying firmly in Asgard for the duration, but maybe that’s a good thing. Of all the comic adaptations that have been mooted (and it’s a very long list indeed), few are more potentially fraught than Thor. After all, Hollywood was built on web-slinging vigilantes and men who dress up as bats to pummel villains in makeup, but when your hero is an aeons-old Norse god with a hammer, who speaks in the vernacular of Shakespeare, things could easily veer towards the daft. For his part though, Vaughn does not appear concerned with the potential pitfalls.



“My only concern initially was that it’s another fantasy film [after Stardust], but it’s different in the sense that it’s a superhero film set in the world of fantasy. You’ve got Thor and Odin and it’s set in Asgard - it’s not going to be like Lord of the Rings or even Narnia. I think it’s important to keep it comic book. We’re not doing the Thor of Norse mythology. We’re doing the Marvel Thor.”

For more details from Vaughn, be sure to pick up the latest Empire Online magazine which hits stands September 28, 2007.

 


More Content By Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor
Agent Zero & Barnell Revealed for WOLVERINE
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Amazon Producing Fantasy CHILD
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Cameron Updates Status on AVATAR
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Doomed JLA, More Mutants & Ant Man!
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
First Bloody Pic from LOST BOYS 2
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
IRON MAN Trailer Debuts on Feb 28 Lost
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
New Victims Ready for FINAL DESTINATION 4
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Two More Gangsters for Mann's ENEMIES
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
Weaving Tracks After the WOLFMAN
(Friday, February 22, 2008)
BIONIC WOMAN Officially Axed by NBC?
(Thursday, February 21, 2008)
Fandango Logo
Comments/Responses
1 2 > >>
wessmith1966 • Sep 17, 2007, 10:51am •
While I'm sure he'll have plenty of the mythological elements involved, I'm surprised Vaughn said he was doing "the Marvel Thor," especially after what he ran into when he was attached to X3. An origin story with a blonde hair, blue eyed, Thor learning what it means to be a god and wield the most devastating weapon in the universe could be an excellent story. I'd still rather see the more mythological Thor (red heaired, bearded and a bit of a bad attitude) cracking troll and giant skulls even though I'm a big Marvel Thor fan.

ponyboy76 • Sep 17, 2007, 11:18am •
Well, I can understand that Wessmith but if I`m not mistaken Marvel does own the rights to the Thor property. I don`t think that they would be too happy if Vaughn just scrapped Marvel`s Thor and made the one based in real Norse Mythology. If he did that what would be the point of even talking to Marvel. He could just do what they did to Catwoman. Which leaves me with a question. Did DC actually give the makers of that crap movie permission to do that to the Catwoman character or were the rights owned by some studio? And if they did, what kind of peyote were they smoking, I want some.

MuensterJohnson • Sep 17, 2007, 11:44am •
It would appear they were quite level-headed PonyBoy as Peyote is ingested, not smoked. But if they were on Peyote when they made Catwoman it would explain a many things as Peyote can make the user vomit before they begin to see visions.

Come to think of it Catwoman was so bad it made me nauseous... No fantastic visions followed though.

themacallan007 • Sep 17, 2007, 01:03pm •
LOL his last movie bombs and he STILL gets to direct Thor....only in Hollywood

westend • Sep 17, 2007, 01:09pm •
Stardust was actually very good, it only bombed because of bad marketing,and poor release timing. I predict it will do well in DVD sales and become a cult favorite.

monkeyfoot • Sep 17, 2007, 01:35pm •
Yes, a poor box office showing certainly doesn't denote a bad movie. Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw that is out of the director's hand as westend noted. The filmmaker having the chops and the vision to do the character right can be all the investor's need.
I'm surprised he isn't going for putting Thor directly on earth but having it all take place in Asgard. He doesn't equate this to LOTR or Narnia but that is how it feels to me, which is good in my book. A fantasy type world like Middle Earth filled with mythical creatures and adventures, ruled by powerful Odin from his gleaming city. But in its farther nether regions, there lies a growing danger perpetrated by a villiany sitting by his left had - his evil stepson Loki. And all that stands between the fall of this golden kingdom is the young, reckless, but ultimately noble prince to his right - the god of thunder, the mighty Thor.
I hope Ulik the rock Troll and Surtur the fire demon are in it.

dallaswinston • Sep 17, 2007, 02:34pm •
As long as Loki is in it , Then bring it on !

Whiskeymovie • Sep 17, 2007, 02:46pm •
"Thor,,,,Oh Mighty God Of Thuder"....one of the best lines in "Adventures In Babysitting".....This could be very cool, if it is done right,,,,,and being that I am Swedish, I have a particular interest in this. I love Norse Mythology. And Stardust was an under rated movie. But remember, He is also the reason most people hated X-Men 3. Remember, he back out after a year of pre-production, thus prompting Fox to bring in Brett Ratner a month before principal photography. Thats why X3 wasn't that good. Hopefully he will make up for it with Thor.

zack2366 • Sep 17, 2007, 03:42pm •
why would you give this movie to a crappy director - give it to the wachowski brothers and lets get some good effects - or hell lets even give peter jackson a try at it

Merin • Sep 17, 2007, 05:01pm •
After seeing Stardust, I am very happy to await Vaughn's version of Thor.

Not sure how I feel about sticking in Asgard and such, but if that avoids the ridiculous humor we'd get from New Yorkers making pithy comments about Thor's speech and attire, I'm willing to go with it.

1 2 > >>
Login to post a comment!