Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 0:17:29 GMT
I'm completely fine with the first one, but yeah, the second one was a mess. So, post how you'd have preferred the first two Thor films thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 15, 2017 0:42:12 GMT
They were not bad movies. In fact, they're better than the average superhero movie. I liked Thor 1 better than the first Cap movie. And had TDW come out in phase 1 I bet people wouldn't have hated on it as much. Problem is the MCU raised the bar with Avengers and continuously maintained that high flight so that TDW (and Thor) looke pale in comparison.
But you compare those 2 movies to your average DC or fox movie and they'd actually be comparatively good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 1:11:27 GMT
They were not bad movies. In fact, they're better than the average superhero movie. I liked Thor 1 better than the first Cap movie. And had TDW come out in phase 1 I bet people wouldn't have hated on it as much. Problem is the MCU raised the bar with Avengers and continuously maintained that high flight so that TDW (and Thor) looke pale in comparison. But you compare those 2 movies to your average DC or fox movie and they'd actually be comparatively good. The behind-the scenes drama probably wasn't helping. Losing a well-liked director, and news of heavy reshooks to "Loki-it-up" really didn't sit well with some people. I enjoy Thor: The Dark World, myself, but I won't pretend there isn't a lot of room for improvement. Christopher Eccleston just feels... wrong, somehow. Its like they wrote the character for Clive Owen, couldn't get him, and then didn't adjust anything to accommodate for the actor they ended up getting. Eccleston is at his best when he gets to be emotional and boisterous. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 15, 2017 2:44:02 GMT
I have no problem with any of the Thor films. Hee hee hee... The first one was worthy, the second was a bit uninspired. I would have preferred to see us follow Thor and his family through the ages. It would have been interesting to see the Asgardian royal family insinuate themselves into the early viking period or some such. You know it's true. Hee hee hee...
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 15, 2017 3:30:33 GMT
I'm completely fine with the first one, but yeah, the second one was a mess. So, post how you'd have preferred the first two Thor films thus far. Both Thor movies were awful. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 15, 2017 3:35:43 GMT
I'm completely fine with the first one, but yeah, the second one was a mess. So, post how you'd have preferred the first two Thor films thus far. Both Thor movies were awful. This, from what I can tell. Hee hee hee!!!1 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 3:44:46 GMT
I'm completely fine with the first one, but yeah, the second one was a mess. So, post how you'd have preferred the first two Thor films thus far. Both Thor movies were awful. That doesn't answer the question I posed. Also, these forums are moderated now, remember? No more baiting posts and topics, remember? If you have nothing to add, get lost. |
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 15, 2017 4:12:35 GMT
Thor was good, not the best among MCU, but second tier. Thor 2 is third tier. It's okay, but one of the weaker installments. Iron Man 2 is my least favorite MCU movie though, but I'll take those 2 over DC's worst or X-Men's worst.
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
 
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Oct 15, 2017 8:42:48 GMT
Thor was good, not the best among MCU, but second tier. Thor 2 is third tier. It's okay, but one of the weaker installments. Iron Man 2 is my least favorite MCU movie though, but I'll take those 2 over DC's worst or X-Men's worst. ^this |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 19:19:32 GMT
The problem I have with Thor is the same problem I have with WW: the mythology is very hard to take seriously.
Not because it's fantastical- I mean, Middle Earth in LotR is a deep, charming, authentic world, but Thor and WW are loosely based on ancient mythology, which makes their mythos feel tacky and sort of lazy to me. They just don't have to work for their world building. All you get is lifeless exposition: "Before the universe there was darkness- and in that darkness were the Dark Elves." And "Zeus created the Amazons, and Ares was the God of War". It's all so generic and unearned.
Now, within their respective mythologies both Thor and WW (the movies) have good stories and characterization so you end up with good movies. But the mythos just feels horribly awkward to me.
Thor 2 on the other hand was an irredeemable mess.
Thor Ragnorak looks to have found the proper tone to actually infuse some much needed life into its mythos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 19:21:11 GMT
I have no problem with any of the Thor films. Hee hee hee... The first one was worthy, the second was a bit uninspired. I would have preferred to see us follow Thor and his family through the ages. It would have been interesting to see the Asgardian royal family insinuate themselves into the early viking period or some such. You know it's true. Hee hee hee... Exploring their history on Earth would've been great. I felt like there was none. I'm still not sure how Thor could be thousands of years old, but still hadn't matured beyond adolescence. |
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Oct 17, 2017 19:24:23 GMT
I loved the first one. Say what you want about that, but I enjoyed it and still do. The second one is probably the worst MCU film, but it is still decent I guess. Not sure if I would watch it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 17, 2017 19:26:50 GMT
I have no problem with any of the Thor films. Hee hee hee... The first one was worthy, the second was a bit uninspired. I would have preferred to see us follow Thor and his family through the ages. It would have been interesting to see the Asgardian royal family insinuate themselves into the early viking period or some such. You know it's true. Hee hee hee... Exploring their history on Earth would've been great. I felt like there was none. I'm still not sure how Thor could be thousands of years old, but still hadn't matured beyond adolescence. Could be time dilation. It may appear that thousands of years go by without them aging for humans but, in Asgard time is moving at a similar rate to our own... Hee hee hee... |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 17, 2017 19:30:40 GMT
The first one is fine, the second lowered the bar. but i can watch it, no problems with that. A lot less Kat Dennings and a different take on the villain would help. Frigga's funeral is my favorite scene from Phase 2, so there are good things about it
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 17, 2017 20:48:21 GMT
The First one is fine as an origin, just not very memorable. For TDW, just take out Darcy/Selvig nonsense on earth, give Malketh a little more screentime and its a pretty good film, not sure why it gets so much hate. Its better than Dr Strange/Antman/GotG 1. The best bits all take place on Asguard, they should have focused on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 17, 2017 21:26:54 GMT
I'm completely fine with the first one, but yeah, the second one was a mess. So, post how you'd have preferred the first two Thor films thus far. Ok I'll give a few thoughts: Thor 1: The biggest problem with this movie is that they didn't give enough time to showcase Thor's learning of humility. Considering that this is the main plot of the movie, they needed to flesh this out more. Some people may not have wanted more time on Earth, but it was definitely necessary. It didn't need to be overly long, but even just an extra 5-10 mins. would have gone a long way in establishing the movie's heart. Plus it gives Thor and Jane more time to develop a relationship so it would make more sense why he'd be so hung up on her. The 2nd problem is the fight scenes. The first fight scene was great, though it could have been brighter. But after that... the SHIELD fight was kind ok, but the Destroyer fight was a let down and the Loki fight was all over the place. When you have a movie about a viking god, you'd have expected better fight scenes. Thor TDW: The biggest problem with Thor in this (and pretty much every appearance he has had after his first movie) is that after he learned humility, they also took away his personality. For some reason, the writers equated being humble with being boring. So Thor becomes this wall flower in every movie after his first. A bit of arrogance would have gone a long way to making thsi movie better. They also kinda gimped Thor in this. He doesn't seem powerful at all. He gets completely beaten up by Kurse and he couldn't beat Malekith without help. So not only does he not have a personality, he ends up not being badass either. The 2nd issue is the villain. Malekith is just plain weak. I'm fine with the hero taking the spotlight from the villain but Malekith just doesn't drive the movie forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 22:03:29 GMT
Both 1/10, complete garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 17, 2017 22:08:16 GMT
The problem I have with Thor is the same problem I have with WW: the mythology is very hard to take seriously. Not because it's fantastical- I mean, Middle Earth in LotR is a deep, charming, authentic world, but Thor and WW are loosely based on ancient mythology, which makes their mythos feel tacky and sort of lazy to me. They just don't have to work for their world building. All you get is lifeless exposition: "Before the universe there was darkness- and in that darkness were the Dark Elves." And "Zeus created the Amazons, and Ares was the God of War". It's all so generic and unearned. Now, within their respective mythologies both Thor and WW (the movies) have good stories and characterization so you end up with good movies. But the mythos just feels horribly awkward to me. Thor 2 on the other hand was an irredeemable mess. Thor Ragnorak looks to have found the proper tone to actually infuse some much needed life into its mythos. I actually agree with this. For me, the moment Thor and Wonder Woman actually became good is when they left Asgard and Themyscira. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 22:57:57 GMT
The problem I have with Thor is the same problem I have with WW: the mythology is very hard to take seriously. Not because it's fantastical- I mean, Middle Earth in LotR is a deep, charming, authentic world, but Thor and WW are loosely based on ancient mythology, which makes their mythos feel tacky and sort of lazy to me. They just don't have to work for their world building. All you get is lifeless exposition: "Before the universe there was darkness- and in that darkness were the Dark Elves." And "Zeus created the Amazons, and Ares was the God of War". It's all so generic and unearned. Now, within their respective mythologies both Thor and WW (the movies) have good stories and characterization so you end up with good movies. But the mythos just feels horribly awkward to me. Thor 2 on the other hand was an irredeemable mess. Thor Ragnorak looks to have found the proper tone to actually infuse some much needed life into its mythos. I actually agree with this. For me, the moment Thor and Wonder Woman actually became good is when they left Asgard and Themyscira.Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 18, 2017 0:19:27 GMT
Both are like a 6.5 or a 7 for me. I liked the first film more for the character development Thor went through but at the same time, the second movie features more fantasy action and weird creatures. For whatever reason, they think Jane Foster is a big deal when she really isn't and big boobs aside, I cannot stand Kat Dennings' character. Both get more screentime than they deserve.
|
|
