'THOR' - any value to the film? *SPOILERS LIKELY*

[LucasM]

This has been moved here from the Funny Pictures thread because, well, it's not a funny picture.   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.
The Thor movie was an 'origin issue' basically: it had to do two things, and, agreed, it couldn't do either optimally in the time available (hence my putting it near the bottom of the The Avengers lead-in films).  The two things were: it had to show that the way things work in Asgard were different and 'bigger' than what happens on Earth (i.e. magic-is-science) via the inauguration through Frost Giants fight through banishment.  It also had to show Thor developing a personal connection and affection for Earth via his relationship with the spunky Jane Foster. [Yes, that last phrase was written with tongue firmly in cheek, as 'spunky ___' is so cliche'd and sexist, yet that's how her portrayal came across.]  From his comment on her being 'the smartest Earthling he'd met' (or however he put it) I believe it implied he remained rather distant and simply 'a god' when visiting the Vikings, so not the personal investment in humans he now had.

The lesson Thor learned is that his actions have consequences, and that he has to take ownership of those consequences.  In order for that to happen, he had to be humbled.  That happened with the loss of his powers and the loss of Mjolnir.  When one is a narcissist (as Thor was at the beginning of the film) they would neither recognize that their actions have consequences, nor would they take responsibility for those consequences.   That's just as he didn't take responsibility for the war he was causing at the start of the film with regards to the Frost Giants.

For that internal change to happen, it took 'moping' (basically short-term depression which - if not overwhelming - can open people up to new ways of thinking).  During which Loki actually inadvertantly helped Thor learn his lesson by amplifying the consequences (saying Odin was dead and Frigga forbid his return).  The only transitional step in behavior that I recall was his helping to prepare and serve breakfast to the little 'physics club' after his night drinking with Selvig.  But he also saw both Selvig's and Jane Foster's determination and unwillingness to quit despite the hopelessness of their situation, which gave him a different way of viewing possible behavior.  At which point he demonstrated that he'd learned about consequences and responsibility by first helping the Earthlings evacuate the town, but ultimately by realizing that it was his fault they were in danger in the first place, and the only way it would stop would be if he sacrificed himself to Loki in order to get the others free from attack when the Destroyer came in ernest.

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.

[Tripe]

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).

[Darth Geek]

I thought Hopkins was okay as Odin. But given that it was supposed to have been BRIAN BLESSED, needless to say I was bummed.

[losingmydignity]

Cliched, corny, badly written script....I thought the film was hilarious. Thank god for Rifftrax. (Such pap doesn't need a longer review.)

[LucasM]

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.

[Bob]

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]

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.

[RoninFox]

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.

[Tripe]

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?

[Bob]

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

[TheUnabeefer]

That shit was a movie?!?  I thought it was just a pilot for a TV show.

[Pak-Man]

Ghost Rider 2.

[Tripe]

You could also drop the 2.

[LucasM]

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.

[Darth Geek]

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.