Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

well why not posted:

The character wasn't played quite as funny, but it had the similar style of humour - he doesn't really crack jokes, but he is prone to being excessive, bragging or cynical. He's not making puns and ""quips"" but he will pull off some comedic lines.

A lot of it's due to his background and mindset being different to those around him. Fish out of water stuff is the main focus in the first movie and parts of the second. The jokes are more about Thor responding to Loki being devious, or him not understanding earth. The character suffers from being written as the dumbest person in any scene.

I don't remember the second movie at all, outside of the spaceship flight and this part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmU2QUUdNEw&t=62s


Ragnarok has him come across a lot smarter and less serious. He's having a good time, it's actually swashbuckling time. The biggest difference seems to be that Taika Waititi is actually funny.

It's a shame that the movies never delivered on the Jane/Thor romance, esp since the comics are so good at it. In particular an 8 issue run called Thor the MIghty Avenger.

e:

Magic Hate Ball posted:

I don't think there's a real equivalency between glorifying gun violence and Chris Hemsworth taking his shirt off.

Yeah there is, they're both gun shows

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Nov 21, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Crab Dad
Dec 28, 2002

behold i have tempered and refined thee, but not as silver; as CRAB


Shageletic posted:



e:


Yeah there is, they're both gun shows

I can't believe that setup took so long.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Same and I generally love Waititi's stuff.

I was hoping for Eagle vs. Shark, and I got...I can't even say his Flight of the Conchords episodes because they genuinely let some of the drama ride, as well, even though it was silly/stupid drama.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

LingcodKilla posted:

I can't believe that setup took so long.

right?

e:

Darko posted:

I was hoping for Eagle vs. Shark, and I got...I can't even say his Flight of the Conchords episodes because they genuinely let some of the drama ride, as well, even though it was silly/stupid drama.

Thor 3 ran the drama/comedy divide as well as What We Do in the Shadows imo, had a larger post about it earlier.

Winifred Madgers
Feb 12, 2002

Darko posted:

Once someone pointed out that Disney-Marvel makes sure to undercut any scene that might be possibly taken emotionally/dramatic/seriously with a quip/joke, these movies have been really hard to watch for me, and this was perhaps the worst (as it was billed as straight comedy, they didn't even bother with much pathos).

Which was kind of a shame - I wanted to emotionally connect, and this was the first Marvel movie with scenes that were actually gorgeous, but every time I was drawn in, someone *in* the movie didn't take anything seriously, so I was drawn out.

I see this complaint all the time and it does not resonate with me at all. I think if these things took themselves seriously they'd just be unfun slogs. The very premise of everything, in every single one of these, is inherently ridiculous, and going whole hog and embracing that fact, with style and aplomb, is what makes them a blast to watch.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

turn left hillary!! noo posted:

I see this complaint all the time and it does not resonate with me at all. I think if these things took themselves seriously they'd just be unfun slogs. The very premise of everything, in every single one of these, is inherently ridiculous, and going whole hog and embracing that fact, with style and aplomb, is what makes them a blast to watch.

This isn't even 1/8th as ridiculous, as, say, something like JoJos Bizarre Adventure, and that contains just as much joking and silliness as it does playing things straight laced and not cutting away from drama, and that's also what makes it so great - as it embraces both aspects.

Vegetable
Oct 22, 2010

Undercutting drama with comedy is 100% Waititi’s modus operandi. Hunt for the Wilderpeople did the exact same thing, for better or worse. Calling out Disney for it is pretty dumb.

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007
Hunt for the Wilderpeople was good though.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Vegetable posted:

Undercutting drama with comedy is 100% Waititi’s modus operandi. Hunt for the Wilderpeople did the exact same thing, for better or worse. Calling out Disney for it is pretty dumb.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople generally waited more than 5 seconds to do it as well. There's a difference between letting a scene sit and resonate, and then add comedy (while letting some scenes stand without, especially containing death or pain), and having every single scene, including the destruction of your entire world purely exist as part of a punchline.

Captain_Person
Apr 7, 2013

WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?
Here's a really good article that delves a bit into what exactly the Kiwi humor in the film is about :

Thor and his magic patu: notes on a very Māori Marvel movie

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Darko posted:

Hunt for the Wilderpeople generally waited more than 5 seconds to do it as well. There's a difference between letting a scene sit and resonate, and then add comedy (while letting some scenes stand without, especially containing death or pain), and having every single scene, including the destruction of your entire world purely exist as part of a punchline.

That ending was sad and hopeful, AND funny. You don't need a sad horn to underline it.

Goffer
Apr 4, 2007
"..."
I think it's kind of funny that Waititi has written himself into the franchise via Korg - he might get to hang out on set with the rest of the cast for infinity war maybe some guardians of the galaxy.

LesterGroans
Jun 9, 2009

It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Goffer posted:

I think it's kind of funny that Waititi has written himself into the franchise via Korg - he might get to hang out on set with the rest of the cast for infinity war maybe some guardians of the galaxy.

It's called Pulling a Favreau.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

Shageletic posted:

That ending was sad and hopeful, AND funny. You don't need a sad horn to underline it.

They literally said over and over "this place doesn't matter, it's the people." Then they got the entire city on the ship with (IIRC) zero civilian casualties. Followed by a joke.

It's literally the most bloodless, low-stakes, consequence-free version of a "Ragnarok" possible. A little model city gets annihilated and we have a chuckle at the idea that any of it could be salvaged. You don't actually do that for things you care about (or are actually sad).

Snak
Oct 10, 2005

I myself will carry you to the Gates of Valhalla...
You will ride eternal,
shiny and chrome.
Grimey Drawer

turn left hillary!! noo posted:

I see this complaint all the time and it does not resonate with me at all. I think if these things took themselves seriously they'd just be unfun slogs. The very premise of everything, in every single one of these, is inherently ridiculous, and going whole hog and embracing that fact, with style and aplomb, is what makes them a blast to watch.

They would be DCU movies...

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

They literally said over and over "this place doesn't matter, it's the people." Then they got the entire city on the ship with (IIRC) zero civilian casualties. Followed by a joke.

It's literally the most bloodless, low-stakes, consequence-free version of a "Ragnarok" possible. A little model city gets annihilated and we have a chuckle at the idea that any of it could be salvaged. You don't actually do that for things you care about (or are actually sad).

Gonna have to disagree. They killed off a significant portion of the cast, and the entire setting of the trilogy. You can take as you want (I'm not gonna try to change how someone felt) but to me it was immensely exciting at how much of a change of a status quo the ending was, and even announced by the beginning of the first scene, a universe away from the humdrum other Thor movies (tho I did like the first one) and the other Marvel movies as well.

edit: within the frame of a blockbuster summer movie ofc. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
I'm saying the actual text of the movie is that it's not sad. The movie itself doesn't think it's sad and it "tells" you that by making a joke during and after the implosion. It doesn't make a joke about things that it thinks are legit sad, like Odin dying. One of the characters could easily have said "nice golden shower!" about Odin's sparkle-death-dust but they didn't, because that's actually a sad scene, and the movie wants you to feel something toward it (in fact, it was a reshoot that even further softened it up).

I'm not talking about the director, now, I'm talking about the actual text of the film. The movie treats the death of Asgard like the death of Doug, the gladiator who got beat to death by the Hulk. As a throwaway gag.

Darko
Dec 23, 2004

Shageletic posted:

Gonna have to disagree. They killed off a significant portion of the cast, and the entire setting of the trilogy. You can take as you want (I'm not gonna try to change how someone felt) but to me it was immensely exciting at how much of a change of a status quo the ending was, and even announced by the beginning of the first scene, a universe away from the humdrum other Thor movies (tho I did like the first one) and the other Marvel movies as well.

edit: within the frame of a blockbuster summer movie ofc. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Jaws was the original blockbuster summer movie.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
BTW I guess I should say that I liked this movie a lot, but the ending was just totally bloodless. Which I expected, being a Marvel film and all. Still, He-Man with Jokes ripping it up to Zeppelin ain't bad. Even got a touch of Chronicles of Riddick there, at the end.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I'm saying the actual text of the movie is that it's not sad. The movie itself doesn't think it's sad and it "tells" you that by making a joke during and after the implosion. It doesn't make a joke about things that it thinks are legit sad, like Odin dying. One of the characters could easily have said "nice golden shower!" about Odin's sparkle-death-dust but they didn't, because that's actually a sad scene, and the movie wants you to feel something toward it (in fact, it was a reshoot that even further softened it up).

I'm not talking about the director, now, I'm talking about the actual text of the film. The movie treats the death of Asgard like the death of Doug, the gladiator who got beat to death by the Hulk. As a throwaway gag.

The only joke here is Korg, acting characteristically motor mouthed. The other characters seem to be taking it seriously and bowed by what they just what they watched.

It's not sad. It's sad, hopeful, and funny. It's a melding of tones. Its a common approach to pretty horrible things, and one I've seen used a lot in the director's previous works.

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I'm saying the actual text of the movie is that it's not sad. The movie itself doesn't think it's sad and it "tells" you that by making a joke during and after the implosion. It doesn't make a joke about things that it thinks are legit sad, like Odin dying. One of the characters could easily have said "nice golden shower!" about Odin's sparkle-death-dust but they didn't, because that's actually a sad scene, and the movie wants you to feel something toward it (in fact, it was a reshoot that even further softened it up).

I'm not talking about the director, now, I'm talking about the actual text of the film. The movie treats the death of Asgard like the death of Doug, the gladiator who got beat to death by the Hulk. As a throwaway gag.
he spun away in golden fairy dust that WAS the joke!

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I'm saying the actual text of the movie is that it's not sad. The movie itself doesn't think it's sad and it "tells" you that by making a joke during and after the implosion. It doesn't make a joke about things that it thinks are legit sad, like Odin dying. One of the characters could easily have said "nice golden shower!" about Odin's sparkle-death-dust but they didn't, because that's actually a sad scene, and the movie wants you to feel something toward it (in fact, it was a reshoot that even further softened it up).

I'm not talking about the director, now, I'm talking about the actual text of the film. The movie treats the death of Asgard like the death of Doug, the gladiator who got beat to death by the Hulk. As a throwaway gag.

I don't think it is supposed to be a particularly sad scene though, in the same way a scene of survivors surveying the wreckage of a town that was destroyed in the process of killing/driving off a kaiju shouldn't come across as incredibly sad. The storm was weathered and people persist/survive through the efforts of our heroes, even if at a cost. This version of "Ragnarok" is itself a bit of a joke- instead of being an operatic tragedy, it's a triumph as Thor instrumentally manipulates prophecy to solve a major political crisis and save the remaining population of Asgard (and the rest of the realms) from tyrannical and bloody rule. I think it's intended to come across as bittersweet, especially given what we learn from Hela about how Asgard-as-we-knew-it was established.

That said, I do think that Korg (in character or no) steps on that scene's emotional impact more than he should and it was a moment I found a little off-putting myself, as it seems like it would have worked much better with a small pause to let it sink in before he opens his mouth.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003




Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

They literally said over and over "this place doesn't matter, it's the people." Then they got the entire city on the ship with (IIRC) zero civilian casualties.

The first row or two of them did get a bit killed by the skeleton army, as I recall.

And I mean yeah most of the civilians were saved, but the army was something like half of Asgard. Hela killed just as many people in her first scenes there as escaped.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
Yes but those were soldiers in a fight.

Killing soldiers in mortal combat is a lot different then butchering fleeing civilians, in terms of tone and tragedy.

I'll keep my eyes open next time I watch the movie for that first couple of rows of civilians getting killed. IIRC it's soldiers, but I freely admit I don't remember it clearly.

GORDON
Jan 1, 2006

by Fluffdaddy

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

BTW I guess I should say that I liked this movie a lot, but the ending was just totally bloodless. Which I expected, being a Marvel film and all. Still, He-Man with Jokes ripping it up to Zeppelin ain't bad. Even got a touch of Chronicles of Riddick there, at the end.

Urban being in both made me see the same comparison. He looked like a Necromonger.

MikeJF
Dec 20, 2003




Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Yes but those were soldiers in a fight.

Killing soldiers in mortal combat is a lot different then butchering fleeing civilians, in terms of tone and tragedy.

True, but it does still mean that more than half of their population died during the movie, it's still more than just losing their city.

Vegetable
Oct 22, 2010

The problem of Ragnarok the comedy is that it doesn’t slaughter enough — any! — unarmed civilians

CharlestonJew
Jul 7, 2011

Illegal Hen

Vegetable posted:

The problem of Ragnarok the comedy is that it doesn’t slaughter enough — any! — unarmed civilians

:yeah:

kanonvandekempen
Mar 14, 2009

Snak posted:

There's also nothing wrong with being turned off by the glamorization of violence for entertainment.

Interesting post/avatar combination :)

Avalerion
Oct 19, 2012

I felt that the movie established that actually Asgard sucks and deserves to burn.

well why not
Feb 10, 2009




bring on Thor, lord of space imo.

Snowglobe of Doom
Mar 30, 2012

sucks to be right

Avalerion posted:

I felt that the movie established that actually Asgard sucks and deserves to burn.

Well if you write a script about how Asgard was the Space Empire that conquered all the other realms by force of arms and stole all their material wealth (and lived in golden towers forged from those stolen riches!) and forced them to join the Space Commonwealth and then you get a Maori guy to direct it you're bound to get a few "gently caress England Asgard" moments in there.

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


Avalerion posted:

I felt that the movie established that actually Asgard sucks and deserves to burn.

Yeah, this is why its destruction is so comfortably played for laughs. By that point Thor gets that the Asgardians don't deserve their city built on stolen wealth.

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice

Sir Kodiak posted:

Yeah, this is why its destruction is so comfortably played for laughs. By that point Thor gets that the Asgardians don't deserve their city built on stolen wealth.

I think that’s a bit cynical. While Asgard was founded with misbegotten wealth, the people living there weren’t complicit in Odin and Hela’s crimes. I think Thor realizes that Asgard deserves better. They deserve a home free of the taint of those past crimes.

Vegetable
Oct 22, 2010

Phylodox posted:

I think that’s a bit cynical. While Asgard was founded with misbegotten wealth, the people living there weren’t complicit in Odin and Hela’s crimes. I think Thor realizes that Asgard deserves better. They deserve a home free of the taint of those past crimes.
There's a pretty good British Empire analogue to be brought in here...

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice

Vegetable posted:

There's a pretty good British Empire analogue to be brought in here...

What, brought in? The movie is already pretty clearly deals with themes of colonialism and exploitation.

Mars4523
Feb 17, 2014

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Yes but those were soldiers in a fight.

Killing soldiers in mortal combat is a lot different then butchering fleeing civilians, in terms of tone and tragedy.

I'll keep my eyes open next time I watch the movie for that first couple of rows of civilians getting killed. IIRC it's soldiers, but I freely admit I don't remember it clearly.

All of the professional soldiers were slaughtered by Hela. Those who fought on the bridge were militia, or civilians who took up arms. I imagine they might have weapons training if only thanks to Asgardian lifespans, but they’re still civilians.

I think a few of them were killed. It doesn’t help distinguishing them from Korg’s gladiators, since that one guy in leather armor and a face concealing helmet who gets wounded is a gladiator despite looking similar to the Asgardians.

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.
The three-headed gladiator died pretty quick too.

Slow News Day
Jul 4, 2007

Saw this today. Great movie overall. Loved the whimsical, off-the-cuff humor. Blanchett was a badass villain.

The only thing I didn't like was the whole dual AR scene. It was super weird, out of place and tone-deaf as gently caress.

Karl Urban's character was underdeveloped in general. He doesn't have much dialogue, and doesn't do much other than listen to Hela go on and on. Specifically, I didn't like that he didn't actually commit any heinous acts. So it made his whole "redemption" feel shallow and meaningless. They should have had him execute that civilian woman at least.

edit: it would also have been great to see some sort of magic duel between Loki and Dr. Strange, as Loki is supposed to be a powerful magician himself. Instead he gets totally clowned? It didn't make sense.

Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 24, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ubik_Lives
Nov 16, 2012

enraged_camel posted:

edit: it would also have been great to see some sort of magic duel between Loki and Dr. Strange, as Loki is supposed to be a powerful magician himself. Instead he gets totally clowned? It didn't make sense.

Because Loki is actually the god of small knives.

  • Locked thread