|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 15:56:59 GMT -5
Dr Strange continuity is all over the place - he has obviously now been master of the mystic arts for some considerable time, to have his current level of mastery, but there's an easter egg in his film which places his origin after Civil War, which is after Avengers 2, which is 2 years before Thor 3 - there's no way that all fits in in that time line. The most sensible thing to do is to avoid the easter egg, and say he'd been training for years, but not sure where the cultural references from his film fits
One other continuity things - where did Skurge get his guns from? They were last seen in the Bifrost building, how did he get them onto the spaceship?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 17, 2017 15:03:55 GMT -5
Saw it this afternoon... I concur with people being sad about the Warriors Three treatment, and the lack of Sif... she should have at least been mentioned. Valkyrie was pretty cool.. it worked well in the mish mash of comic plots they forged together to somehow make a story.
Honestly, I think this should have been 2 movies... the Grand Master stuff on Skaar could have been its own movie... call it Planet Hulk, or whatever, then do this movie.
Agree Hela was awesome, and the Loki-Thor scenes were fun. Thor cracking wise at the beginning was pretty weird, as were a few of the meta jokes (the hair thing).. it was a bit too much, but didn't ruin the movie or anything, it was still very amusing.
No one's mentioned it yet, but I loved what they did with Heimdall... fantastic use of the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Nov 25, 2017 11:45:25 GMT -5
Overall, this was a very enjoyable and fun film. The relationships have already been established so just have at it and they did and it was great. From Thor/Banner to Thor/Loki, the actors were comfortable in their roles and let some amount of good drama shine through the comedic moments. The addition of Valkyrie was even good, the moment of her flashback of fighting Hela being one of the strongest dramatic moments of the film. Speaking of Hela, Blanchett owned this role and the screen. Yes, they messed with the mythology and her motivations were rather simplistic but she was manipulative, seductive and confident. Loved how her helm fit into her narrative. My only qualm, why not say that Odin banished her to Hel? Skurge was cool but I don't see the need for the accent. The fate of the Warriors Three was ignominious but at least Hogun was able to get some hits in battle. The expansion of Elba's role was great and long overdue. The wife brought this up afterward and I tend to agree but I didn't catch his name in the credits. So... {Spoiler: Click to show}
was that Matt Damon playing Loki during the stage play when Thor first returned to Asgard? |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 25, 2017 12:02:26 GMT -5
Overall, this was a very enjoyable and fun film. The relationships have already been established so just have at it and they did and it was great. From Thor/Banner to Thor/Loki, the actors were comfortable in their roles and let some amount of good drama shine through the comedic moments. The addition of Valkyrie was even good, the moment of her flashback of fighting Hela being one of the strongest dramatic moments of the film. Speaking of Hela, Blanchett owned this role and the screen. Yes, they messed with the mythology and her motivations were rather simplistic but she was manipulative, seductive and confident. Loved how her helm fit into her narrative. My only qualm, why not say that Odin banished her to Hel? Skurge was cool but I don't see the need for the accent. The fate of the Warriors Three was ignominious but at least Hogun was able to get some hits in battle. The expansion of Elba's role was great and long overdue. The wife brought this up afterward and I tend to agree but I didn't catch his name in the credits. So... {Spoiler: Click to show}
was that Matt Damon playing Loki during the stage play when Thor first returned to Asgard? Yup, that cameo in the stage play was who you thought it was. That was really awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Dec 15, 2017 19:17:47 GMT -5
Went out in the snow today to see this, since it seems to be nearing the end of its run. Liked it a lot! I think the Thor and Iron Man films have been the most consistent in quality.
Does anybody know what the first post-credit scene was supposed to be showing us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 15, 2017 20:25:35 GMT -5
I was told it was {Spoiler: Click to show}
Thanos' ship |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Dec 16, 2017 12:55:07 GMT -5
Gotta be honest, I was disappointed. While it was enjoyable, which is more than I can say for the first 2 Thor movies, it felt more like a Mel Brooks parody a la Spaceballs and Robin Hood Men in Tights. I like those movies, but I go into them expecting and wanting that kind of movie. I didn't go into a movie called Ragnarok expecting or wanting a parody. I've never felt that a movie had too many jokes before, not even with Guardians of the Galaxy. I feel that they went so overboard here as to remove all tension, threat, and drama from the movie, and there needs to be some of that when the hero's home planet is destroyed. I felt there was more tension in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It's fun, but shouldn't the audience be given a reason to care that freaking [SPOIL]Asgard[/SPOIL] is destroyed? |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 17, 2017 8:28:55 GMT -5
WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS
I FINALLY saw it yesterday and while I was entertained, I was disappointed in a lot of ways.
1. Asgardian Powers: I've come to notice is how bland sorcerer gods like Loki and Hela are treated. They act more like ninja's than sorcerers. Why don't they fire magical blasts, fly, teleport, etc, like they do all the time in the comics? Has Loki done anything overtly magical (save for shape-changing) in any of these films without an Infinity Stone (I've only seen the Marvel films once each, so forgive me)? What was with the Hela-Daggers and her mastery of combat? It seems like a lack of imagination to me, which is baffling, given their access to CGI and years of comics to get inspiration from. Hela destroying Mjolnir was absurd. She has always been powerful, but she only trumps Thor in HER realm and has never displayed the power to perform such a feat. I will grant that since movie Hela is Odin's first-born and not Loki's daughter (which I must admit kinda works for me even though it goes against Norse myth) this could explain why she's more powerful than the comic version.
2. Comedic Tone: I like the fact that this movie attempted to capture some of the spirit of Stan Lee's 60's dialog, but it was woefully misplaced in certain scenes. The opening scene with Surtur was the most off-putting, and frankly, not very funny. What could have been an epic opening set of scenes was reduced to a farce. In general Thor was too wise-cracking and I think they could have made the movie humorous without writing him the way they did. I did like how they used the Hulk and thought this was proof positive as to why this version of the Hulk could still work in the comics.
3. Explanations: One thing I don't think the MCU is doing very well is explaining some of the more esoteric aspects of the Marvel Universe. The Grandmaster and The Collector come off as "just aliens" so far without any explanation that they're Elder's of the Universe, billions of years old and possess cosmic powers. Then again, for all we know the MCU versions don't have any of these traits.
4. Supporting Cast: I think they've done a terrible job characterizing Thor's supporting cast. The Warrior's Three being killed in such a casual manor was a disgrace. Sif MIA, no Enchantress at all, no build-up so we can really care about the Executioner (who comes off as an ineffectual clown for most of the movie), Odin coming off as a terrible father with dementia, boozing Valkyrie with that annoying PC mandated male personality, etc. And how in the hell do you get by without including Balder the Brave?! It's clear that the writers have fallen in love with the Thor/Loki dynamic they've created (which honestly was more interesting back during the Lee/Kirby and Simonson days...and less goofy) and couldn't care less about developing the supporting characters. Sad.
5. Surtur/Hela/Asgard: Amazingly, this film managed to treat Surtur, the most powerful Asgardian enemy, in a very casual manner, cramming Walt Simonson's classic Surtur saga (a tiny aspect of it at least) into a plot with Hela as the main villain. Neither satisfied me as a comics fan, the least of which the treatment Surtur. This is a Galactus-level threat yet...eh. You get no sense of how big Asgard is supposed to be. How many Asgardian's were there that they could all be rescued in a rather small spaceship? Is MCU Asgard simply a floating city in space and not a vast continent with other lands?
I've long since unclinched when it comes to all the liberties taken with these films, but some of the creative decisions baffle me. The movies have enough heart to keep me watching, but I'm frankly getting a little "meh" when it comes to my enthusiasm. It took me this long to see a new Thor movie (and the Hulk's in it!) so that's saying a lot given my love of the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 5, 2018 13:40:18 GMT -5
WILL CONTAIN SPOILERSI FINALLY saw it yesterday and while I was entertained, I was disappointed in a lot of ways. 1. Asgardian Powers: I've come to notice is how bland sorcerer gods like Loki and Hela are treated. They act more like ninja's than sorcerers. Why don't they fire magical blasts, fly, teleport, etc, like they do all the time in the comics? Has Loki done anything overtly magical (save for shape-changing) in any of these films without an Infinity Stone (I've only seen the Marvel films once each, so forgive me)? What was with the Hela-Daggers and her mastery of combat? It seems like a lack of imagination to me, which is baffling, given their access to CGI and years of comics to get inspiration from. Hela destroying Mjolnir was absurd. She has always been powerful, but she only trumps Thor in HER realm and has never displayed the power to perform such a feat. I will grant that since movie Hela is Odin's first-born and not Loki's daughter (which I must admit kinda works for me even though it goes against Norse myth) this could explain why she's more powerful than the comic version. One of the changes in the movie version is that Hela is not a Hades-like goddess of the underworld whose main job is to watch over the dead. She's an inhabitant of Asgard who wants to come back to it and rule after having been banished. Destroying Mjolnir was quite a stretch, but it did work storywise to send the plot on its way. Basically this third Thor movie, like "Iron Man 3," was about "Who is this hero when stripped of his usual powers? Thor in the movies has been way more of a cheerful frat boy than in the comics, because the comics version can be deadly dull and also too similar to Captain America if he's just a paladin and paragon of virtue. The third movie certainly doubled down on the humor, and I don't know that Surtur was the right villain to drop into a comedy scene; Thor clearly didn't take him seriously, so it's hard for the audience to do so either. It's similar to Poe Dameron pranking Hux in the opening scene of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I came late to Simonson's Thor run (just last year) and was struck by how much it was an ensemble book, with plenty of drama revolving around how the Enchantress, Karnilla queen of Norns, Loki, and the Frost Giants are perpetually stepping on each other's feet in their various ploys to weaken or subvert Asgard. There's just not enough time to fit them all into a movie, and the realities of casting mean that if Loki is the "personal conflict villain" in one film, he's probably going to return in the next film, rather than one Enchantress or Karnilla stepping in. Pity. It could work in a TV series, though the budget for Asgard makes that prohibitive, just as the Inhumans TV series won't be able to do Atilla (or most of the Inhumans, really) justice. See above discussion about Surtur; I agree. Asgard was established at the beginning of the first Thor movie as simply a floating city (apparently somewhere distant in our universe?) rather than part of a whole world like ours. One thing the movies get "right" from the comics is Kirby's dedication to a mishmash Asgard that's at least as SF as it is Nordic. And I totally geeked out on how the Grandmaster's stormtroopers wear garish armor Toltec-inspired right out of Kirby. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 5, 2018 15:40:22 GMT -5
WILL CONTAIN SPOILERSI FINALLY saw it yesterday and while I was entertained, I was disappointed in a lot of ways. 1. Asgardian Powers: I've come to notice is how bland sorcerer gods like Loki and Hela are treated. They act more like ninja's than sorcerers. Why don't they fire magical blasts, fly, teleport, etc, like they do all the time in the comics? Has Loki done anything overtly magical (save for shape-changing) in any of these films without an Infinity Stone (I've only seen the Marvel films once each, so forgive me)? What was with the Hela-Daggers and her mastery of combat? It seems like a lack of imagination to me, which is baffling, given their access to CGI and years of comics to get inspiration from. Hela destroying Mjolnir was absurd. She has always been powerful, but she only trumps Thor in HER realm and has never displayed the power to perform such a feat. I will grant that since movie Hela is Odin's first-born and not Loki's daughter (which I must admit kinda works for me even though it goes against Norse myth) this could explain why she's more powerful than the comic version. One of the changes in the movie version is that Hela is not a Hades-like goddess of the underworld whose main job is to watch over the dead. She's an inhabitant of Asgard who wants to come back to it and rule after having been banished. Destroying Mjolnir was quite a stretch, but it did work storywise to send the plot on its way. Basically this third Thor movie, like "Iron Man 3," was about "Who is this hero when stripped of his usual powers? Thor in the movies has been way more of a cheerful frat boy than in the comics, because the comics version can be deadly dull and also too similar to Captain America if he's just a paladin and paragon of virtue. The third movie certainly doubled down on the humor, and I don't know that Surtur was the right villain to drop into a comedy scene; Thor clearly didn't take him seriously, so it's hard for the audience to do so either. It's similar to Poe Dameron pranking Hux in the opening scene of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I came late to Simonson's Thor run (just last year) and was struck by how much it was an ensemble book, with plenty of drama revolving around how the Enchantress, Karnilla queen of Norns, Loki, and the Frost Giants are perpetually stepping on each other's feet in their various ploys to weaken or subvert Asgard. There's just not enough time to fit them all into a movie, and the realities of casting mean that if Loki is the "personal conflict villain" in one film, he's probably going to return in the next film, rather than one Enchantress or Karnilla stepping in. Pity. It could work in a TV series, though the budget for Asgard makes that prohibitive, just as the Inhumans TV series won't be able to do Atilla (or most of the Inhumans, really) justice. See above discussion about Surtur; I agree. Asgard was established at the beginning of the first Thor movie as simply a floating city (apparently somewhere distant in our universe?) rather than part of a whole world like ours. One thing the movies get "right" from the comics is Kirby's dedication to a mishmash Asgard that's at least as SF as it is Nordic. And I totally geeked out on how the Grandmaster's stormtroopers wear garish armor Toltec-inspired right out of Kirby. Good points all around. While I was in heavy nit-pick mode with my little review, I did really enjoy the movie and would watch it again. I think my favorite aspect is how they nailed my favorite version of the Hulk ("Hulk Smash!") and made him work in exactly the way that I feel Marvel Comics should have been doing for years now. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Feb 28, 2018 20:18:11 GMT -5
Very late to the party watching this but I did not love it. Seeing it try to be Guardians of the Galaxy-like with the humour did not work for me. Thor, for me, needs to have the elements of high fantasy. This came off as some weird fantasy sci-fi hybrid that I did not love. I get that it needed to be better than the previous, and it appears to have done so with most fans, but for me it almost was worse.
I agree that it needed to be two films: one focusing and developing Surtur and Hela more and the ideas to destroy Asgaard, the other to contain elements from Planet Hulk and the Grandmaster. The mashing of the two stunk for me. The characters all looked great but it seemed to crisp and clean at times. I feel it wasted the chance to really develop some key characters in the Thor mythology.
I don't need it to be super serious, because I like it in most Marvel movies. I just felt that the amount of silliness was more akin to Guardians and just made Thor seem like a joke. I officially put this as the third worst movie in the MCU franchise, ahead of only Iron Man 2 and Thor 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 3, 2018 17:10:18 GMT -5
. I officially put this as the third worst movie in the MCU franchise, ahead of only Iron Man 2 and Thor 2. I really must defend Thor 2, which I still see as one of the best five MCU movies. It treated the supporting cast as actual characters and not as cannon fodder sacrificed on the altar of the villain-du-jour badassness. They didn’t do much, but in the few moments they were on screen they showed how great their friendship was, and they had great chemistry together. The film also showed real pathos, not cheap sentimentality, in the reaction of Thor and Loki to their mother’s death. Tom Hiddleston, who is the best Marvel villain, got more exposure here than in Thor or in The Avengers. The banter between him and his brother went from very funny to very touching, because even the loss of a mother does not erase a lifetime of enmity. The film showed how much Thor had grown after the first movie, and finally made him sympathetic throughout the story. I was happy not to have to wonder why I should care about such a jerk, which was a problem with the first movie. Thor 2 even looked good. Freya’s funeral was lovely, Asgard’s CGI looked far more three-dimensional than in the first film and I loved how Malekith’s half-white, half-black face was explained by the script. That’s the only MCU film I watched twice at the cinema! Forsooth!!! |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Mar 4, 2018 20:30:11 GMT -5
^ You know what, I am going to re watch it then. Because it was 5 years ago for me and, at the time, I had not read much Thor so I found it slow. However, since then, I have read Simonsons run and some other stuff and I really appreciate and the more high fantasy aspect.
Sadly, these reasons are why Thor: Ragnarok failed epicly for me. I did not even find it funny. They threw Surtur in as an afterthought it seemed and while it looked okay visually, I was not a fan of the fantasy/sci- fi crossover. Has this ever happened in the pages of Thor? Certainly not the stuff I have enjoyed and for me, that is what I want from a Thor movie. Add in the fact that a planet Hulk adaptation has also been blown over with the brevity of this film and it just stunk. It felt like a Guardians movie, the characters were nothing like I expected (Valkyrie a drunk? Thor speaking cracking a ton of jokes? No thank you)
|
|
The Captain
CCF Mod Squad
Posts: 4,916 
Member is Online
|
Post by The Captain on Mar 4, 2018 20:50:36 GMT -5
^ You know what, I am going to re watch it then. Because it was 5 years ago for me and, at the time, I had not read much Thor so I found it slow. However, since then, I have read Simonsons run and some other stuff and I really appreciate and the more high fantasy aspect. Sadly, these reasons are why Thor: Ragnarok failed epicly for me. I did not even find it funny. They threw Surtur in as an afterthought it seemed and while it looked okay visually, I was not a fan of the fantasy/sci- fi crossover. Has this ever happened in the pages of Thor? Certainly not the stuff I have enjoyed and for me, that is what I want from a Thor movie. Add in the fact that a planet Hulk adaptation has also been blown over with the brevity of this film and it just stunk. It felt like a Guardians movie, the characters were nothing like I expected (Valkyrie a drunk? Thor speaking cracking a ton of jokes? No thank you) Absolutely it's been done in the comics. Two prominent runs were from issues #242 through 245 featured Zarrko the Tomorrow Man and saw Thor battle the Time-Twisters through time and space, and there was the Black Galaxy Saga that ran from #416 through #425. Beyond those, there were many instances where Thor battled against aliens, Firelord, Ego, and other forces not tied to Norse mythology or Earth-616 villains (such as the Wrecking Crew). It does work for him, albeit in small doses, but a break is needed every once in a while from Loki, Frost Giants. and Ulik and his troll buddies. As for your comments on the movie, yeah, they totally diminished Surtur by making his introduction scene into a comedy routine rather than something serious as befits an elemental power of his stature, then tried to sell him as a major threat later. Valkyrie sucked big time, and I constantly ask myself why they couldn't have just used the original Valkyrie in the film instead of this useless waste of a character. Thor joking constantly was annoying as well, as he doesn't have to be dry and spouting "forsooth this" and "vanquish that" in Olde English, but it went too far, as I agree that they tried to capitalize on the formula of the GotG movies with this one but failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 5, 2018 13:49:13 GMT -5
^ You know what, I am going to re watch it then. Because it was 5 years ago for me and, at the time, I had not read much Thor so I found it slow. However, since then, I have read Simonsons run and some other stuff and I really appreciate and the more high fantasy aspect. Sadly, these reasons are why Thor: Ragnarok failed epicly for me. I did not even find it funny. They threw Surtur in as an afterthought it seemed and while it looked okay visually, I was not a fan of the fantasy/sci- fi crossover. Has this ever happened in the pages of Thor? Certainly not the stuff I have enjoyed and for me, that is what I want from a Thor movie. Add in the fact that a planet Hulk adaptation has also been blown over with the brevity of this film and it just stunk. It felt like a Guardians movie, the characters were nothing like I expected (Valkyrie a drunk? Thor speaking cracking a ton of jokes? No thank you) Absolutely it's been done in the comics. Two prominent runs were from issues #242 through 245 featured Zarrko the Tomorrow Man and saw Thor battle the Time-Twisters through time and space, and there was the Black Galaxy Saga that ran from #416 through #425. Beyond those, there were many instances where Thor battled against aliens, Firelord, Ego, and other forces not tied to Norse mythology or Earth-616 villains (such as the Wrecking Crew). It does work for him, albeit in small doses, but a break is needed every once in a while from Loki, Frost Giants. and Ulik and his troll buddies. Thor was regularly about sci-fi from the beginning. Check out this Jack Kirby map of Asgard which looks like a cross between Disneyland and Legion of Super-Heroes with a tree and a giant statue for local color:  This Kirby shot of an Asgardian interior could easily be Attilan or some other equally high-tech palace:  John Buscema brought Thor into sci-fi settings:  Walt Simonson was well versed in Norse myth but also embraced space opera wholesale, bringing on Beta Ray Bill, an alien with a Robocop backstory similar to ROM, Spaceknight.  |
|
