2

Author Topic: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*  (Read 4009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LucasM

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7551
  • Liked: 4649
'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« on: September 01, 2012, 03:09:22 AM »
This has been moved here from the Funny Pictures thread because, well, it's not a funny picture. ;D  My new thoughts on the subject are in the spoiler at the bottom of this post.

The relative merits (or lack thereof) for the film Thor was under discussion in the Funny Pictures thread sparked by a three-word phrase posted in a list comparing a few different films (one of which there was a funny picture about).

I'd initially said:
Actually, the first time I saw Thor I thought it was good; not exceptional, but good 'for a Marvel film' [because of most of what we had to compare it to by that point].  The second time I found some fault with it, esp. Anthony Hopkins rather uninspired portrayal of Odin (and yes, I do mean while he was awake); and, of course, the slapstick.  If Marvel wants their movie franchises to be taken seriously, they had pretty damn well get rid of the fucking slapstick! >:( It's not funny, and it dumbs down the films it appears in to fit the preconceived notion of the public about how childish 'comic book movies' are, instead of them being seen as serious S-F/Fantasy movies [Cap Am and The Avengers have been the best for that].

Back to Thor... the further times I've seen it I again thought it was good, possibly because by that time I'd been innoculated against the parts I felt were lacking and simply attended more to the rest.  Like DG, I think other Marvel films are better (for me, basically all those leading to The Avengers except the Incredible Hulk film, with possibly IM2 tied with Thor), but I still think it is enjoyable to watch.

Imrahil responded Coragale's and Darth Geek's comments on liking Thor, as well as that comment of mine:
My problems with Thor were basically that the plot was really paper thin, and not a whole lot happened for most of the movie regarding the central character. He didn't learn any kind of lesson that I could see, and mostly just moped around and grunted.

It wanted to be two movies, and in the end failed to be even one.  The South Park parody is better.

Response spoilered because there's TONS of major spoilers for the film Thor in my discussion.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Don't know if that'll help explain why I think it is a better film than you do, but it at least may show a bit more of what I see in it.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 10:33:07 AM by LucasM »
To dispel some of the misconceptions about head injuries you have developed from watching movies and TV, I wrote this: ...Some Information on Head Injury Effects


Offline Tripe

  • Stars in Musicals
  • *
  • Posts: 41553
  • Liked: 9932
  • Very dapper
    • Nick Rowley, Voice Artist
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2012, 11:30:11 AM »
I like Thor for the most part but the weakest part is Natalie Protman, she really is rubbish and I'm a bit mopey about the fact she'll be back. Now Kat Dennings on the other hand, I loved (if they could have a BD extra called Marvel's D'arcy  runs around, gets all sweaty and takes a really long shower, I'd be fairly happy about that).

I thought the parts of Asgard were mostly good, capturing some of Kirby in the design of the place and the casting was generally great (wish Rene Russo had more to do as Frigga though), the parts on earth were markedly weaker but not dreadfully so with the Portmanesque weakness already mentioned (honestly she's not really living up to the potential she seemed to have, which is a shame).


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27947
  • Liked: 5712
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2012, 12:01:33 PM »
I thought Hopkins was okay as Odin. But given that it was supposed to have been BRIAN BLESSED, needless to say I was bummed.



Offline losingmydignity

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked: 301
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2012, 01:19:52 PM »
Cliched, corny, badly written script....I thought the film was hilarious. Thank god for Rifftrax. (Such pap doesn't need a longer review.)


Offline LucasM

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7551
  • Liked: 4649
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2012, 01:20:53 PM »
Agreed on Natalie Portman being a weak link (e.g. my 'spunky ___' comment)... I think the problem with her was that she was told - either by the script or Branaugh - to act like a high school girl with a crush [or a nerd who'd never had sexual feelings... (though Blake's clothing in her place should have theoretically argued against that)], so she couldn't do much more with it.

I realized after sitting on this for a while that I think one of the reasons that Thor seems 'shallower' than most of the other The Avengers prequels ;) is that in all the other films you got a sense that the characters existed prior to the events of the films.  Not in Thor.  There was no sense that the characters had interacted with one another before [e.g. with the Warriors Three, they TALKED about many adventures they'd had, but their acting seemed to suggest they'd never seen one-another before].  Same on Earth: though supposedly Selvig and Foster had been working together for some time, you never got the feeling they had any idea how the other one thought about things.

To contrast: when - in the first Iron Man - Stark and Rhodey interacted for the first time it was clear from how they interacted that they'd known each other for years.

I don't think all of this was the actors.  I don't think it all was the director (though I don't think Branaugh 'believed' in the project, or it would have been more Shakespearean and not felt like 'a comic book movie').  I also don't think it was all the script (though, obviously, that's the starting point for it all).  I think it was a combination of all three just not quite being 'enough' to really turn it into a VERY good Marvel film instead of it being just a good Marvel film.
To dispel some of the misconceptions about head injuries you have developed from watching movies and TV, I wrote this: ...Some Information on Head Injury Effects


Offline Bob

  • Afraid of the Wind
  • Posts: 21333
  • Liked: 2405
  • Complete waste of time at www.robertpreed.com
    • My Stunning Home Page
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2012, 01:22:45 PM »
Okay, you all just send Natalie Portman over to my house and I will work with her and make you all happy.


* Ensures wine is chilled *


Coragale

  • Guest
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2012, 01:38:35 PM »
Thor is a simplistic movie, and I think that's what turns people off. It is the most kid accessible super hero movie since Spiderman. The plot revolves around Thor learning that being an asshole gets you no where, and his growth into a better person, which works. It follows this formula closely, and I think it works. I thought Anthony Hopkins was a great Odin, and I though all the characters worked well together. Aside from CapAm, I think this could be my favorite of the prequel movies.

Comic book enthusiasts have gotten it in their heads since The Dark Knight Returns that comics AREN'T kid things. Like I said, I think that is the biggest reason people don't seem to like Thor: if kids can enjoy it, it's not comic related.


Offline RoninFox

  • Gryffindork
  • ******
  • Posts: 14020
  • Liked: 2383
    • Ronin Fox Trax
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2012, 02:14:18 PM »
I like Thor, don't really love it, but I feel like its neccessary to the series as a whole.  If anything I think it sticks out because of how different a character Thor is.  Every other member of the Avengers is a normal person who gets to where they are though some combination of training and science.  Thor is "basically" a god, (or super-powerful extradimensional alien recognized as a god).  That's a hard thing to make mesh with the rest, and its a very different outlook for a character to have.  Together in the Avengers, he still sticks out.  In his own movie, it shifts the tone of the whole movie.
RoninFoxTrax Presents The Thing

gum.co/RFTthing


Offline Tripe

  • Stars in Musicals
  • *
  • Posts: 41553
  • Liked: 9932
  • Very dapper
    • Nick Rowley, Voice Artist
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2012, 03:59:34 PM »
Okay, you all just send Natalie Portman over to my house and I will work with her and make you all happy.


* Ensures wine is chilled *
Think you can keep her busy long enough that she misses filming the next movie?


Offline Bob

  • Afraid of the Wind
  • Posts: 21333
  • Liked: 2405
  • Complete waste of time at www.robertpreed.com
    • My Stunning Home Page
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2012, 04:51:28 PM »
Okay, you all just send Natalie Portman over to my house and I will work with her and make you all happy.


* Ensures wine is chilled *

.
Think you can keep her busy long enough that she misses filming the next movie?

I have about 40 bottles of wine at home.....so yes
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 05:03:54 PM by Bob »


Offline TheUnabeefer

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4211
  • Liked: 937
  • I am a flying cow... worship me or DIE!!!
    • The Unabeefer Beefs
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2012, 05:01:12 PM »
That shit was a movie?!?  I thought it was just a pilot for a TV show.
...and there he was, reigning supreme at number two.  The One... The Only... The Unabeefer.



Offline Pak-Man

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 17287
  • Liked: 3180
  • Insert $0.25 to Play!
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2012, 06:29:47 PM »
Ghost Rider 2.


Offline Tripe

  • Stars in Musicals
  • *
  • Posts: 41553
  • Liked: 9932
  • Very dapper
    • Nick Rowley, Voice Artist
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2012, 06:33:42 PM »
You could also drop the 2.


Offline LucasM

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7551
  • Liked: 4649
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2012, 07:21:55 PM »
If Thor was a 'good' Marvel movie, what's a 'bad' one look like?
The 2003 Hulk, Elektra, Daredevil, Spider-Man 3 (arguments could be given for the first one as well), the two Ghost Rider films already mentioned.

I suspect there's more, but that's what was off the top of my head, all of which seem to me to be lesser quality films than Thor.
To dispel some of the misconceptions about head injuries you have developed from watching movies and TV, I wrote this: ...Some Information on Head Injury Effects


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27947
  • Liked: 5712
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: 'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2012, 07:32:51 PM »
If Thor was a 'good' Marvel movie, what's a 'bad' one look like?
The 2003 Hulk, Elektra, Daredevil, Spider-Man 3 (arguments could be given for the first one as well), the two Ghost Rider films already mentioned.

I suspect there's more, but that's what was off the top of my head, all of which seem to me to be lesser quality films than Thor.
Yeah, all of those were far worse than Thor, for different reasons.