From Midgard to Asgard and beyond, there was much joy, for a new star has joined the cast of "Thor"!
Kat Dennings, co-star of "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist," "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and more, has made hers Marvel, becoming the latest addition to the film's already star-studded cast. We'll have more news on Dennings' role soon, so stay glued to Marvel.com.
The 23-year-old actress will star alongside Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Stuart Townsend (Fandral), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun) and Ray Stevenson (Volstagg). Kenneth Branagh will direct.
"Thor" is one of a continuing slate of films being produced by Marvel Studios based on the Marvel characters, including "Iron Man 2" on May 7, 2010, "The First Avenger: Captain America" on July 22, 2011 and "The Avengers" on May 4, 2012.
Stay tuned to Marvel.com for the official word on all things to do with Marvel movies!
To find a comic shop near you, call 1-888-comicbook or visit www.comicshoplocator.com
Not a subscriber to Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited yet? Join now!
Download SPIDER-WOMAN Motion Comics now on iTunes!
Download episodes of "X-Men: Evolution", "Wolverine and the X-Men", "Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes" and "The Super Hero Squad Show" now on iTunes!
Check out the official Marvel Shop for your favorite Marvel Heroes!
does anyone know if Thor will be CGI???
Thor's a live action movie, but CGI might be highly used in the sense that it's hand in hand with action movie effects, especially of the superhero stock.And yeah, Surfer, I wrote way too much for comfortable reading, I agree, but what you said summed up and simplified one of the major points (...except if anyone wanted to be annoyingly technical, Thor was avenging long before Cap, lol)
will thor be CGI
ok im not going to lie i didnt read all of that there was way too much. my take on it would kinda like in no relation to the avengers in a way. like in a time before super heroes he was the first, he was the first avenger of people when they needed it most. the war is going on and the get captain america the first avenger. and yes it doesnt hurt marketing
...
View More
It's true a purist isn't going to like the 'First Avenger' part of title too much, but I've heard reasonable rationales for its use. Mainly [and probably most accurately any way it is looked at] it is simply marketing. Get the Avengers title primed for those that definitely have an interest in seeing a Cap movie and still aren't as exposed to the film tie-in plan of all those slated to come together into one movie: Hulk, Iron Man, Cap and Thor --> Avengers. It doubles internationally to strengthen the interest in Captain America, those that may not be as hyped by his name alone as the title also get urged on as it is part of the Avengers 'umbrella undertaking' - it's like watching a Han Solo movie knowing how largely he'll factor into the original Star Wars trilogy.Next is where the facts drift a bit to speculation, inferences and deductions - most of the creation of an Avengers team is considered to have spun out of the then regime's creation and use of a super-soldier to defend its interests and freedoms. The plan would've been to roll out dozens more like Cap, had the secrets/specifics of his creation not been lost/destroyed, followed by him. 'Meaning' the Avengers now forming could've very well been 2.0. Hints were left around of Cap's relevance via Easter eggs in Iron Man were probably supposed to get that ball rolling.After that comes the part that might mean the most as the movies play out, but can't be known before hand even though the title is already out for public knowledge: no one said the events of the movie are going to adhere strictly to the formulation of the Avengers in the comics. We already have the structure departure from 616 to Ultimate-verse by Fury being the recruiter of Iron Man for the Avengers initiative, who's to say he or someone else won't drop a line saying "Captain America was our first attempt at starting an Avengers program, but he was lost to us in the 40s..." He's also already told Stark that he's not the only one out there, and even though Iron Man and IM2 precede CapA:FA we don't know that even Cap isn't already recruited as of the events at the end of the first Iron Man movie (maybe even simply 'recruited' in the sense that he's already retrieved but still in a vegetative or suspended state after the years in the ice). Taking the influence of The Ultimates further into consideration; Banner, Stark and Blake are quite enough a trio of brains to be brought together with the hope they will develop the means to wake Cap up [aside from their use as Hulk, Iron Man and Thor in combat], especially if Pym doesn't make it into the movie, AND time has reinforced the understanding and [partial] acceptance that the Movie-verse(s), 616 and Ultimate-verse are separate but related time lines. That leaves artistic license its ability to make Cap A's movie title as 'First Avenger' as relevant as they see fit when the Avengers movie does hit, or at least Cap's. His story will probably unfold a great deal in WWII but he might have a modern day sneak peak that could put that more in context......or they might make it no more relevant than the using it in the movie title as marketing and it might still not relate to the order of recruiting into the Avengers, with no attempt at clarification. Just remember, Cap could be active all the while Stark is playing superhero simply awaiting his shield out of Stark's boardroom. Time relation can be shifted as much as they want leading up to the actual Avengers movie, and very well might be, since supposedly in the Hulk movie Hulk's cave scene when raging at the lightning was supposed to reference some off-screen fight he had with Thor that hardly likely would even make it onto screen in the Thor movie either, but it may get some linked hint/Easter egg or mention by Thor of "...battling a green monster on par with the frost giants of home..." to tie it all in.
View Less