|
tsob posted:Nor would I agree that he is "just telling them to fight and giving them weapons", since there were a bunch of murderous shadow monsters coming for them in that moment, and survival was their only way home. Was it though? They didn't really establish any reason that Thor couldn't just send them home at that point.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I dont like the way this was written and it further removes me from actually investing in any kind of, even if fleeting, consequences. Odfly enough, Thor has probably faced the most lasting consequences of any MCU character, even with the loss of his eye basically being ignored once he gets an artificial one and having regained Mjolnir instead of using Stormbreaker any further. His mother dies in Thor 2: The Dark World, his father dies in Thor: Ragnarok, his until then unknown sister helps destroy his planet/city in Thor: Ragnarok, his people are further devastated in Avengers: Infinity War and his brother is killed in Avengers: Infinity War. And even though Loki survived via time travel, Thor has no idea and the two haven't interacted since. And now, his one major love interest dies in Thor: Love & Thunder. He's lost almost everything at this point. All his family, his home, his sense of purpose, a lot of the friends he had on Earth and in Asgard and his lover. And he's had characterisation built on all of it. It's honestly no surprise he pines for a symbol of youth and better times in Mjolnir. AccountSupervisor posted:Please, Taika, just shut the gently caress up for two seconds and let the movie have an ounce of sincerity. I found the conversations with Jane on the boat over their relationship, in the hospital over her mortality and final moments with her along with Gorr to be good for that personally. A little humor, but given time to let them breath. The first was broken up by Valkyrie talking to Korg, but even that complimented the Thor/Jane discussion, and after a quick joke is, if anything, a bit too serious and straight forward, since Korg just lays Valkyrie's emotional conflict out in plain terms without her really engaging much in what it means. TIP posted:Was it though? They didn't really establish any reason that Thor couldn't just send them home at that point. And how was he supposed to do it? Using Zeus' thunderbolt appears to require you travel, given it wraps the bearer in lightning before moving. Which is assuming he can even carry anyone else with him like the Bifrost does. And he couldn't leave, since that'd mean Gorr had uncontested access to the gate of Eternity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Youre definitely right about Thor facing consequences and Im probably in the minority of MCU fans but Ragnarock is just ok for me and the only Thor movie I think even enters the realm of good even if its just breaking that barrier. I also never liked Lokis character until his TV show. The problem this has led to for me is I just do not care about Thor outside of his Avengers movies. I dont find the way theyve written all of these tragedies to be engaging in his solo films at all. The only time I started to get into this aspect of his character dealing with constant tragedies was IW and Endgame and it was because those movies treated these events with an actual sense of gravitas and sincerity it could hold for more than two seconds, even with fat Thor as a constant punchline in Endgame. Its the only time Ive ever felt like they earned my emotions. He has always functioned much better for me as something for the other Avengers to bounce off and vice-versa in the context of these wild God level cosmic conflicts. Theres a major disconnect for me when hes on his own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
I liked Ragnarok and I doubt I'm alone in that since it seems to have revitalised interest in the character. Comedy edged Thor can totally work, the problem is when it gets into late stage Homer Simpson territory where the character becomes shakey because he's used as a vehicle for jokes too much. One that bothered me was the "take my ship, please" "uhh its MY ship" joke with Starlord at the beginning. It almost landed, the dynamic of two wannabe alpha males both assuming theyre the leader is potentially funny, but its delivered like Thor genuinely is that dumb and obnoxious that he believes its his, the same joke of him behaving like its ship and annoying SL could have been delivered more subtly with a little workshopping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
There's a real nothing-extra edit on the film that spoils a few jokes, including that one. It flies by too fast to be funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Youre definitely right about Thor facing consequences and Im probably in the minority of MCU fans but Ragnarock is just ok for me and the only Thor movie I think even enters the realm of good even if its just breaking that barrier. I also never liked Lokis character until his TV show. It's four movies into the Thor franchise and you haven't liked any of them really? What are you doing with your time lol. See something you actually like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:The only time I started to get into this aspect of his character dealing with constant tragedies was IW and Endgame and it was because those movies treated these events with an actual sense of gravitas and sincerity it could hold for more than two seconds, even with fat Thor as a constant punchline in Endgame. I get that. I don't agree personally, but I can definitely understand that reaction. I would feel that there are a few scenes in both Ragnarok and Love & Thunder that work well for me despite the lighter tone though. In Ragnarok you have Odin's death, Thor's conversation with Loki in the elevator, laying out how he's always felt about Loki but how he's accepted that they're just too different and that it's probably for the best that they go a different path and the end of the film as the Asgardians leave the destroyed Asgard, particularly Thor saying throwing the rock or something at what he expects to be an illusion of Loki, only for it to be the real Loki. I don't think the events of Avengers: Infinity War that involve Thor would work as well if Ragnarok hadn't done the ground work to bridge Thor and Loki's relationship. I would agree that Love & Thunder's emotional moments don't work as well, but I still liked Thor's conversations with Jane in general, and I hope Love is allowed to stick around in a theoretical Thor 5 in order to build on that relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:It's four movies into the Thor franchise and you haven't liked any of them really? What are you doing with your time lol. See something you actually like. I did like Ragnarock if mostly for its spectacular set pieces and itd be rediculous of me to think that this movie had a zero sum chance of exceeding or at least meeting my expectations given in general I'm an MCU and Taika fan. Plus "its 4 movies into the franchise" your talking about over a decade of time, its been 5 years since the last one. Its not like a total of roughly 8 hours out of the last 11 years of my life is some waste of time by any metric. oh no where has the time gone watching all these thor movies tsob posted:I get that. I don't agree personally, but I can definitely understand that reaction. I would feel that there are a few scenes in both Ragnarok and Love & Thunder that work well for me despite the lighter tone though. In Ragnarok you have Odin's death, Thor's conversation with Loki in the elevator, laying out how he's always felt about Loki but how he's accepted that they're just too different and that it's probably for the best that they go a different path and the end of the film as the Asgardians leave the destroyed Asgard, particularly Thor saying throwing the rock or something at what he expects to be an illusion of Loki, only for it to be the real Loki. I don't think the events of Avengers: Infinity War that involve Thor would work as well if Ragnarok hadn't done the ground work to bridge Thor and Loki's relationship. Besides Odins death which was a bit flat for me, Id totally agree that those scenes in Ragnarock with Thor and Loki are good, they were the first moments that got me to start turning around on Loki as a character even if they probably didnt strike me as much as others and youre definitely right that without that those scenes the events of IW which I really love Thor in wouldnt have worked. I do like Ragnarock for building that groundwork for where everything goes with Thor and Loki after that. With L&T, I will give it that the moments with Jane were at least trying but it felt so burried in the rest of nonsense for me it didnt really hit me the way they wanted it to. They had me at the beginning with it but by the end it just felt like a cheap plot device and wasnt given the attention I would have preferred for some meatier dramatic hooks. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jul 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Why wasn’t this sentience of the hammer and ax seen at all in any of the previous movies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Yeah the sentience of the weapons was so bizzare by the end. It was funny at first, I definitely laughed at the first couple of gags with it but like every other joke Taika just couldnt help but pulverize it into oblivion by hour 2 because this is the Dane Cook of MCU movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
I believe Thor 1 was the horniest of the Thor movies and, therefore, the best of them
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
You saw full rear end here tho
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Rarity posted:You forgot Zemo and US Agent's Thunderbolts team Of all the random Marvel teams, this is the one I want to see the most because I want to see what kind of doofy poo poo they get julia louis-dreyfus to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 07:04
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You saw full rear end here tho But again it goes by so fast - I wouldn't be surprised if the editing on that was funnier in the trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2022 10:16
|
|
|
My only real gripe with the ending is basically with any wish based one; semicolons exist lol. Could've picked a few lovely gods to knock off too! Rest of it was funny and good and I figured the tonal whiplash with the cancer was the point RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jul 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:How are the politics of this movie better than ghostbusters? This film also doesn't paint one of the most important agencies of the very real government, tasked with protecting the planet from the business sector, as the bad guy. The politics of Ghostbusters are abhorrent. But that was Raegan's America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You saw full rear end here tho Should've had full dick too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:None of our heroes do anything on the level of the poo poo Peter Vekman does? The film begins with him, an older department head at a college, leveraging his position to gently caress a young, naive student. He's even willing to discard evidence that could've saved said department in the process. It’s way more a criticism power tripping government functionaries than the organization itself. And those absolutely exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
teagone posted:Should've had full dick too. "Zoom in on the cock" - Edward James Olmos
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:It’s way more a criticism power tripping government functionaries than the organization itself. And those absolutely exist. Yeah, describing it like the movie is anti-EPA makes it sound kinda wack but it's really more that specific dude who's a dick. If you're making a story about a business then having an rear end in a top hat bureaucrat who's loving with you is a pretty obvious direction. It's like saying Bob's Burgers is anti-public health, I mean the main antagonist is a health inspector! And he's shown to be unfair and mean! Clearly our takeaway should be that the creators are libertarians who want to end restaurant inspections!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
TIP posted:Yeah, describing it like the movie is anti-EPA makes it sound kinda wack but it's really more that specific dude who's a dick. If you're making a story about a business then having an rear end in a top hat bureaucrat who's loving with you is a pretty obvious direction. I’m not sure what to make of its politics, even today. Because at face value, the EPA poo poo is pretty odious. But Venkman is also an rear end in a top hat, not conventionally heroic or motivated by ethics in any way. He’s introduced as a scumbag, not just for trying to gently caress students, but exploiting his friend for a loan and harassing Dana nonstop. His grandstanding commentary about private industry or capitalist ambition is probably kind of tongue-in-cheek because he’s a bad person, with no real worldview but self-interest even at the end. Or that was heroic in the 80’s. I’m kind of 50/50 on that, 80’s protagonists are often sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Bill Murray is very funny as a creep
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I’m not sure what to make of its politics, even today. Because at face value, the EPA poo poo is pretty odious. But Venkman is also an rear end in a top hat, not conventionally heroic or motivated by ethics in any way. He’s heroic because he saves a city. Admittedly that city is New York but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I’m not sure what to make of its politics, even today. Because at face value, the EPA poo poo is pretty odious. But Venkman is also an rear end in a top hat, not conventionally heroic or motivated by ethics in any way. Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that Ghostbusters has good politics or anyone involved had good politics. Just saying that having a protagonist who's antagonist is a government functionary doesn't mean the movie is a libertarian screed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:It’s way more a criticism power tripping government functionaries than the organization itself. And those absolutely exist. BiggestBatman posted:Bill Murray is very funny as a creep Yeah. That's exactly my problem. We think charming is more important than rapey and horrible. TIP posted:Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that Ghostbusters has good politics or anyone involved had good politics. Just saying that having a protagonist who's antagonist is a government functionary doesn't mean the movie is a libertarian screed. The movie absolutely is a libertarian screed. It just is. It's gross, and you don't have to not love it. I certainly still do. But the only way we get to keep loving things like this is if we acknowledge poo poo like that instead of proclaiming that everything we like is cool and good as it pertains to social issues. LividLiquid fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Jul 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:The movie absolutely is a libertarian screed. It just is. It's gross, and you don't have to not love it. I certainly still do. But the only way we get to keep loving things like this is if we acknowledge poo poo like that instead of proclaiming that everything we like is cool and good as it pertains to social issues. Did you even read what I said? I literally said I'm not arguing that it has good politics, just that that one data point on its own doesn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 05:49
|
|
|
teagone posted:Should've had full dick too. Sadly, the Lord of Thunder is not Thundergun. He cannot hang dong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 06:52
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:"Zoom in on the cock" - Edward James Olmos He’s a national treasure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I'm not really interested in arguing about it. It's not a libertarian screed. It's a capitalist screed. It's three guys who see a situation and realize that they can sell a product/service in that situation. Venkman isn't "rapey" though he is manipulative. He isn't the ESP girl's professor. He paid her and the guy to take part in the experiment and the bad politics is that girl is presented as a literal dumb blonde for falling for Venkman's "you have a psychic gift" bullshit. The EPA isn't presented as evil. Walter Peck is just the kind of willfully ignorant petty tyrant that sometimes ends up in a position of power - especially in a regulatory agency allowing him to exercise that power. That main question was: Is the politics Thor: Love and Thunder better than that of Ghostbusters. Yes, it is, if only because 38 years have passed between the two films' release and Jesus gently caress I hope we've advanced a little politically in those 38 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
TIP posted:Did you even read what I said? I literally said I'm not arguing that it has good politics, just that that one data point on its own doesn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
I caught up with Thor last week, and I liked it substantially better than Multiverse of Madness, which is the inverse of how I felt about Thor 1/2 vs Dr Strange 1. Even so, the Marvel stuff is starting to wear thin for me, to the point where I'm only really interested in the big dumb comedy ones like this one. I think the next Guardians of the Galaxy will decide whether I still bother to go to the theater for Marvel movies or not. I was 50/50 on the screaming goats. The last time they got a laugh out of me was when they crashed into the Shadow Realm planetoid; after that, it just felt like Waititi thinking, "well, we committed to this bit, we gotta see it through!" One detail that stuck out to me was the makeup work on Portman, which I'm sure interacted with the lighting. It really sold the difference between superhero Thor-mode and the human truth that she was dying of cancer. I do wish we had gotten a lot more of Portman as solo-Thor. When she mentioned that she had just flown around the world twice looking for the abducted kids, I actually wanted to see that. The bits with Thor trying to talk to Stormbreaker about its apparent jealousy fell completely flat for me, and should have been excised in favor of more interaction between Portman and Hemsworth. I laughed pretty hard at the girl frying shadow monsters by shooting lightning out of a stuffed bunny, but the sequence as a whole definitely felt like it was shoehorned in specifically to appeal to the kids in the audience. There were a lot of moments like this that made me feel the overall structure and plotting of the movie was just as sloppy as any of the tentpole movies I've hated over the past few years, like the Star Wars sequels and JJ Abrams Star Trek, and the constant barrage of gags was all that was keeping me interested. The brief flashback to grimdark one-eyed Thor witnessing Loki's death in Infinity War stuck out to me, all the more by the end of the movie, partly because if they do another "serious weighty" capstone film that's as slapdash as this one, I know I won't enjoy it. If I do revisit this movie, it'll primarily be to rewatch Bale. He really seized the over-the-top nature of the material and gave it his all. I've seen him play pitiable and down-at-heel before in The Machinist and Out of the Furnace, but the grovelling supplicant he serves up at the beginning is way beyond any of that. Likewise, creepy storytime with the kids was a fantastic way to demonstrate that Gorr still has a heart in there someplace, buried under ten tons of villain bullshit. And the whispering insistence during the scene where he's trying to get Thor to hand over Stormbreaker was a great contrast with the bombast of most of the god characters. Going in, I caught myself thinking maybe he's just here because he wants a taste of the same kind of experience that Heath Ledger had playing the Joker, but Gorr is an entirely different (albeit just as committed) sort of performance. Overall, it was another steaming serving of Comic-Book Flavored Generic Entertainment Product. These Marvel flicks are, more than ever, like Taco Bell: Somewhat satisfying in the moment, but no long-term satiety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
I thought the MCU gods were supposed to be sufficiently advanced aliens whose myths were just history distorted over time, but this movie seemed to present them at times as actual spiritual creatures, with believers and domains and obligations? not that it matters, since however you slice the metaphor it is still failed by the narrative: if gods are just manipulative elites then Gorr was right and he failed at the last hurdle, and if gods are gods then it doesn't reflect any kind of religious practice at all (specifically thinking of historical Norse/Hellenic religions) some nice imagery, mainly later on. first half felt overstuffed and incoherent. never felt a sense of place at any point. most supporting characters provided nothing for the film
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I thought the MCU gods were supposed to be sufficiently advanced aliens whose myths were just history distorted over time, but this movie seemed to present them at times as actual spiritual creatures, with believers and domains and obligations? That was the explanation provided in the original Thor, but some Asgardians, specifically Thor and Hela, appeared to have actual supernatural control over their attributes in Thor: Ragnarok, and the Gods in Moonknight are outright divine, tied to their realm of worship and with afterlives and poo poo. Also, Gorr didn't fail at the last hurdle; he relented and decided that his goal was, if not wrong, at least not worth achieving over bringing his daughter back to life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
I don't strictly speaking object to the ending as is but the set-up is that every non-Asgardian god is selfish and cruel, abusing their spiritual-or-temporal power over their dependents. Gorr damns the universe to subjugation under monsters in order to save his daughter's life - which again is also an ending I don't object to, but it's also essentially a tragic ending with Gorr as the protagonist
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I don't strictly speaking object to the ending as is but the set-up is that every non-Asgardian god is selfish and cruel, abusing their spiritual-or-temporal power over their dependents. Gorr damns the universe to subjugation under monsters in order to save his daughter's life - which again is also an ending I don't object to, but it's also essentially a tragic ending with Gorr as the protagonist I'm not sure that's accurate, the setup specifically talks about gods doing good and shows harm being done by Gorr's deicide (during the Guardians sequence the crazy owl guys are attacking the blue guys specifically because their protector god got offed by Gorr.) Gorr's got a hell of an argument but he's not shown to be 100% correct. IMO the single biggest flaw in the movie is that it waits an hour and a half before giving Thor and Gorr a real chance to talk, mostly just having Gorr be a generic bogeyman until then. For starters, Christian Bale is on fire and any excuse to give him more lines and screentime would have been better than anything else the movie could be doing, but also specifically there's a lot of ground left uncovered there. Just by being there Thor has a good rebuttal to Gorr's thesis (in that Thor is a god who shows up and risks his neck to help people) that the movie doesn't really dig into, which means it doesn't cover any of the potential counter-rebuttals Gorr has either (Thor was a dick and did plenty of damage before Odin taught him a lesson, Thor ultimately failed his people, Thor is having fun playing hero now but given enough time he'll wind up like the rest of the gods, the good that Thor and other conscientious gods do does not outweigh the harm that abusive and neglectful gods do, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:I'm not sure that's accurate, the setup specifically talks about gods doing good and shows harm being done by Gorr's deicide (during the Guardians sequence the crazy owl guys are attacking the blue guys specifically because their protector god got offed by Gorr.) Gorr's got a hell of an argument but he's not shown to be 100% correct. Yes that scene where Thor, god of thunder, sits around doing nothing while they're being attacked and then lazily shows up, showboats, and destroys the thing he was supposed to protect definitely shows that gods are good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
The Gods in Omnipotent City (or whatever it's called) aren't all the other Gods; they're just the biggest collection of Gods Thor knows of; some of whom presumably fled there specifically because Gorr started killing Gods. Thor laments that the God whose corpse he finds Sif in front of was nice, along with all of it's brethren, and the guys he's saving at the start of the film seem to feel their God(s) had been keeping them safe before Gorr killed them. So the film says there are other nice Gods out there, but doesn't actually show them. We know from shows like Moonknight that at least some okay Gods exist outside the Asgardians though, even if they're only helping humanity in rather selfish ways at times. Still, some of the Egyptian Gods seem to be broadly good too. The point of the movie is that love conquers though, and love is what turned Thor from a selfish jerk-off Asgardian into a decent God, so killing all the Gods isn't really a solution; especially when killing them throws the societies they oversee into chaos that Gorr has no interest in helping abate. Or even awareness of. He doesn't care about the after effect; just revenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
TIP posted:Yes that scene where Thor, god of thunder, sits around doing nothing while they're being attacked and then lazily shows up, showboats, and destroys the thing he was supposed to protect definitely shows that gods are good. If Gorr hadn't killed the blue guys' god, the peril they were in would never had happened. If Gorr had killed Thor before the movie began, the crazy owl guys would still be terrorizing the blue guys. There appears to be a linear relationship between the number of gods killed and how bad the situation is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
blue guy peril is just standard power vacuum chaos. I'm not sure the argument that we need tyrants to safeguard civilisation from bandits is a strong or worthy one. someone like Gorr's daughter shouldn't have to die because otherwise a crazy owl man might kill her instead this is where the ambiguity of the metaphor kinda hurts, because bestowing a natural order and morality to existence is a feature of gods but not of sufficiently advanced aliens. but even if that were the case Gorr is right because (most of) the gods have reneged on that agreement already anyway just finding it hard connecting the premise to the conclusion
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
If Korg was born to and raised by his two dads, then how come in Ragnarok he had a mom with a new boyfriend, who he hates? I guess it must be some found family thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 00:44
|
|
