|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 31, 2019 16:37:33 GMT
Thanks for sharing. Hope you're managing your condition well enough to get the most that you can out of life. Putting aside the complexities of chronic mental illness for a moment, I want to say that I understand why many fans were upset with Thor's characterization in Endgame. His lack of fighting prowess and failure to maintain his body image must have seemed disrespectful to some fans. With characters who are as powerful as Thor, you eventually hit a wall in terms of what you can do with them without becoming repetitive. Thor suffered from this in the comic books under the tenure of several different writers. I, personally, don't mind Marvel breaking Thor down (although I do have minor issues with the comedic aspects of their approach). I personally have no issues with making Thor fat or depressed. My main gripe was to the degree that they debilitated him. It's like they got the worst stereotype and jacked it up to 200%.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2019 17:28:33 GMT
Thanks for sharing. Hope you're managing your condition well enough to get the most that you can out of life. Putting aside the complexities of chronic mental illness for a moment, I want to say that I understand why many fans were upset with Thor's characterization in Endgame. His lack of fighting prowess and failure to maintain his body image must have seemed disrespectful to some fans. With characters who are as powerful as Thor, you eventually hit a wall in terms of what you can do with them without becoming repetitive. Thor suffered from this in the comic books under the tenure of several different writers. I, personally, don't mind Marvel breaking Thor down (although I do have minor issues with the comedic aspects of their approach). I personally have no issues with making Thor fat or depressed. My main gripe was to the degree that they debilitated him. It's like they got the worst stereotype and jacked it up to 200%. I think we may all be in alignment here in that we don't dislike what was done to Thor so much as how it was done (one one level or another).
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 31, 2019 18:34:01 GMT
Thanks for sharing. Hope you're managing your condition well enough to get the most that you can out of life. Putting aside the complexities of chronic mental illness for a moment, I want to say that I understand why many fans were upset with Thor's characterization in Endgame. His lack of fighting prowess and failure to maintain his body image must have seemed disrespectful to some fans. With characters who are as powerful as Thor, you eventually hit a wall in terms of what you can do with them without becoming repetitive. Thor suffered from this in the comic books under the tenure of several different writers. I, personally, don't mind Marvel breaking Thor down (although I do have minor issues with the comedic aspects of their approach). Thanks, I concur on the comedy aspect. I think they may have gone a step or two over the line. I don't mind using comedy as a foil or for juxtaposition versus tragedy. In this case they should've reigned it in a tad. Thor kind of runs into the same wall as Superman. Their power set is so OP that the character or story cannot built around it. The story has to be in spite of his powers. The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that.
|
|
thenolan
Sophomore
@thenolan
Posts: 778
Likes: 162
|
Post by thenolan on Aug 1, 2019 5:14:57 GMT
Thanks, I concur on the comedy aspect. I think they may have gone a step or two over the line. I don't mind using comedy as a foil or for juxtaposition versus tragedy. In this case they should've reigned it in a tad. Thor kind of runs into the same wall as Superman. Their power set is so OP that the character or story cannot built around it. The story has to be in spite of his powers. The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. The comedy was not in line with his character. It was out of character. Thor was the least funny guy in the films, barely accustomed to earth humor. Stark stood a better chance of being the comedian. Shakespearean characters are not comedians, they fall under dark tragedy. The comedy was Marvel ruining things as usual, spinning depression into something silly. Why are people still defending this shit.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2019 9:42:52 GMT
Thanks, I concur on the comedy aspect. I think they may have gone a step or two over the line. I don't mind using comedy as a foil or for juxtaposition versus tragedy. In this case they should've reigned it in a tad. Thor kind of runs into the same wall as Superman. Their power set is so OP that the character or story cannot built around it. The story has to be in spite of his powers. The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. I think that they adapted the character to tap into one of Chris' talents. Hemsworth has always had charisma. You kind of have to if you are portraying Thor. Especially when first introducing him. The concept of Marvel's version of Thor takes quite a lot of suspension of disbelief. Being naturally charming helps with that. Thor started out as a loud mouth conceded dick, but still kind of lovable. To me that's the definition of charm. The ability to be a dick and people still like you. One of the things that was barely touched in the first 2 Thor movies was Chris' excellent comedic timing, self deprecating humor, and in general his ability to make people laugh. There is a bit of that in his performances in Thor, Thor Dark World, Avengers (Age of Ultron felt like they didn't know what to do with Thor), but they just scratched the surface. Some how I always seem to bring up Kevin Smith, but Hemsworth gives a little bit of the credit for the changes to Thor to Kevin. (Chris took Kevin to the premiere of Infinity War. And Chris has a cameo in Jay and Silent Bob Reboot.) comicbook.com/marvel/2017/11/05/chris-hemsworth-kevin-smith-thor-ragnarok/ Like Lord Death Man said we might all be describing the same thing with different pov. I didn't dislike the changes, use of humor, or in concept anything they did with the Character from Ragnok until the present. They have reinvigorated the character. I think with Fat Thor they hit on the comedic drum a couple times too many. They could've reigned it in a bit gotten the same results and a tighter performance.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Aug 1, 2019 10:16:19 GMT
Got to say dazz , ThatGuy , merh , Lord Death Man , Skaathar your debate in this thread was a good read. I don't know who I agree with, but an excellent debate. And by god no one got uber pissy and started throwing a tantrum. When it comes to the question of why Thor never broke down in previous movies like the did in Endgame I have a personal anecdote. I have Chronic Depression. I was jut born with it. It's called Dysthymia or mild, Chronic Depression. I've been taking meds for it since I was like 20. I look at it like having diabetes or high blood pressure. It's a disease. To be diagnosed you have to have symptoms last past 2 years. Think of Dysthymia as a marathon runner. It's in it for the long haul , luckily it's very mild symptoms over long period of time. . Now on top of that, every once in a while, I have a Episode of Major Depression Disorder on top of the Dysthymia. Major Depression Episode is an acute attack last weeks or months. It's a sprinter to Dysthymia's marathon. It's roots are in the same physiological and psychological pathways as Dysthymia but is usually triggered by outside stimuli. (loss of loved ones, job, stress etc) I think of Dysthymia as an engine and Major Depression as a turbo charger. The clinical name of having Dysthmyia and a episode of MDD is Double Depression. I'm getting long winded so I'll get to the point. I don't think Thor has Dysthymia, but he certainly has they symptoms of Major Depression Disorder. The triggering of MDD can be one big thing or an accumulation over time of psychological pressure. This is how they handled Thors depression. He survived and didn't get depressed when he lost his Mother, Brother's betrayal, break up with Jane, Asgaurd's destruction, etc etc. It was a build up and accumalation of life altering experiences. The failure to stop Thanos with a head shot was the last little push he needed. Now my experience is different because I have the underlining problem on top of Major Depression. MDD has to last 2 weeks to be diagnosed but there's no upper limit on how long it lasts. They portrayed Thor's depression accurately IMHO. Here are the symptoms of an Episode of Major Depression: Feelings of sadness, tearfulness, emptiness or hopelessness Angry outbursts, irritability or frustration, even over small matters
Loss of interest or pleasure in most or all normal activities, such as sex, hobbies or sports Sleep disturbances, including insomnia or sleeping too much Tiredness and lack of energy, so even small tasks take extra effort
Reduced appetite and weight loss or increased cravings for food and weight gainAnxiety, agitation or restlessness Slowed thinking, speaking or body movementsFeelings of worthlessness or guilt, fixating on past failures or self-blame Trouble thinking, concentrating, making decisions and remembering thingsFrequent or recurrent thoughts of death, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts or suicide Unexplained physical problems, such as back pain or headachesNow all the things bold are applicable to Thor's situation in EndGame and explain why he was out classed by everyone fighting. He may still have his instincts and training, but I can attest to the physical effect. You can't concentrate no matter how hard you try. You are foggy brained. You feel uncoordinated in your own body. It feels like it's not even your body. Almost like you are remotely controlling your movements but from a great distance. You are physically slower and things that you have done 1000 times feels alien to you. On top of that think of the most exhausted you've been in your life. During an episode of MDD you feel like you've ran a marathon just walking to the mailbox and back. And it's not just the your physical aptitude that is diminished greatly. It's mental also. It almost feels like Disassociate Dreaming. You are in a fog mentially, you can't concentrate no matter how hard you try. You forget things constantly. It feels like you are dreaming while you are awake. On top of not remembering anything sometimes you focus comes back with a vengeance randomly. So you go from walking around in a fog to hyper focused on 1 thing. So much so to the determent to yourself and people around you. So to me Thor's depression is valid. It took accumulating massive psyche trauma for Major Depression hit. Once it did hit the threshold it completely fucked his concentration, muscle memory, regular memory, executive function of the brain, and lots of physical attributes and functions. That's just my two cents. Thanks for sharing. Hope you're managing your condition well enough to get the most that you can out of life. Putting aside the complexities of chronic mental illness for a moment, I want to say that I understand why many fans were upset with Thor's characterization in Endgame. His lack of fighting prowess and failure to maintain his body image must have seemed disrespectful to some fans. With characters who are as powerful as Thor, you eventually hit a wall in terms of what you can do with them without becoming repetitive. Thor suffered from this in the comic books under the tenure of several different writers. I, personally, don't mind Marvel breaking Thor down (although I do have minor issues with the comedic aspects of their approach). My issue is the Russos didn't know the character & treated him as a characture. Because of his own issues, RDJ apparently did not want to do a full addiction plot on Stark so we got the "suit is killing Tony" story. So it's ok to switch it over to a different character? As was stated in Dark World-when Loki states "satisfaction is not in my nature" Thor responded "Surrender is not in mine" It was sloppy. A cheap joke. Thor is not that. That plot is Tony Stark. One could maybe see Bruce Banner there. Maybe Scott Lang, though he never went there before. Stephen Strange did the alcohol thing. Maybe Wanda would after Vision's death. These characters have personalities that shouldn't be overwritten Its what I hate about Christopher Nolan. He sets up his story & thinks nothing about changing the character to match his plot machinations
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Aug 1, 2019 10:27:34 GMT
The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. The comedy was not in line with his character. It was out of character. Thor was the least funny guy in the films, barely accustomed to earth humor. Stark stood a better chance of being the comedian. Shakespearean characters are not comedians, they fall under dark tragedy. The comedy was Marvel ruining things as usual, spinning depression into something silly. Why are people still defending this shit. Summers8 is that you? If it's not you then I apologize. It's just your posts read like Summers8 to a tee. (well minus all of Summers8's grammar and spelling mistakes) I think (and backed up by my other post above) they had to shake up the character a bit. After a few portrayals of Thor they ran into a wall. They felt the Character needed a shake up which started in Ragnarok. Fat Thor being the result of depressed Thor from Infinity War feels like a natural progression. Did they go a little over the top. I believe so, but I don't think they ruined the character or turned depression into something silly. Comedy is Tragedy plus Time. I feel they did the legwork to justify comedic shift. Without the uber brooding Thor the Comedic Fat Thor wouldn't have hit it's mark as well. As a person who suffers from Clinical Depression, I don't feel like they are making fun of the disease or turned Depression into something Silly. In fact I think them using Depression as part of the comedy in EG is quite empowering. Depression is just another attribute of a person. Endgame normalizes Depression in that it shows everyone even a god is susceptible to it from time to time. So much so that people relate to the basis of the comedy. Protecting depression's seriousness is pigeon holing people with it in a special snowflake box. Shielding people with Depression from a comedic point of view is saying these people are weak. Depression suffers can't deal looking at their disease through a comedic lens. I find that trying to protect us from humor or criticism insulting.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 1, 2019 18:14:57 GMT
Thanks for sharing. Hope you're managing your condition well enough to get the most that you can out of life. Putting aside the complexities of chronic mental illness for a moment, I want to say that I understand why many fans were upset with Thor's characterization in Endgame. His lack of fighting prowess and failure to maintain his body image must have seemed disrespectful to some fans. With characters who are as powerful as Thor, you eventually hit a wall in terms of what you can do with them without becoming repetitive. Thor suffered from this in the comic books under the tenure of several different writers. I, personally, don't mind Marvel breaking Thor down (although I do have minor issues with the comedic aspects of their approach). My issue is the Russos didn't know the character & treated him as a characture. Because of his own issues, RDJ apparently did not want to do a full addiction plot on Stark so we got the "suit is killing Tony" story. So it's ok to switch it over to a different character? As was stated in Dark World-when Loki states "satisfaction is not in my nature" Thor responded "Surrender is not in mine" It was sloppy. A cheap joke. Thor is not that. That plot is Tony Stark. One could maybe see Bruce Banner there. Maybe Scott Lang, though he never went there before. Stephen Strange did the alcohol thing. Maybe Wanda would after Vision's death. These characters have personalities that shouldn't be overwritten Its what I hate about Christopher Nolan. He sets up his story & thinks nothing about changing the character to match his plot machinations Developing a caricature of Thor would suggest that they took known traits of the character and exaggerated them for grotesque or comedic effect. Endgame Thor is funny. Thor of the source material is not a comedic character traditionally. Not to split hairs, but what the Russo brothers did feels more like a satire. They poked fun at some of the more stoic aspects of the character. Whedon and Waititi both did this to a more limited extent in their outings, and no one seemed to mind as much. Had Endgame been more accurate to the character from the comic books, I think Thor would have likely secluded himself and spend his time away sullen and brooding (albeit in a more dignified manner).
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 2, 2019 17:45:57 GMT
The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. I think that they adapted the character to tap into one of Chris' talents. Hemsworth has always had charisma. You kind of have to if you are portraying Thor. Especially when first introducing him. The concept of Marvel's version of Thor takes quite a lot of suspension of disbelief. Being naturally charming helps with that. Thor started out as a loud mouth conceded dick, but still kind of lovable. To me that's the definition of charm. The ability to be a dick and people still like you. One of the things that was barely touched in the first 2 Thor movies was Chris' excellent comedic timing, self deprecating humor, and in general his ability to make people laugh. There is a bit of that in his performances in Thor, Thor Dark World, Avengers (Age of Ultron felt like they didn't know what to do with Thor), but they just scratched the surface. Some how I always seem to bring up Kevin Smith, but Hemsworth gives a little bit of the credit for the changes to Thor to Kevin. (Chris took Kevin to the premiere of Infinity War. And Chris has a cameo in Jay and Silent Bob Reboot.) comicbook.com/marvel/2017/11/05/chris-hemsworth-kevin-smith-thor-ragnarok/ Like Lord Death Man said we might all be describing the same thing with different pov. I didn't dislike the changes, use of humor, or in concept anything they did with the Character from Ragnok until the present. They have reinvigorated the character. I think with Fat Thor they hit on the comedic drum a couple times too many. They could've reigned it in a bit gotten the same results and a tighter performance. I think the change that was made in Ragnarok was catch the world up to Thor. Thor is the same, it's the world around him that is different.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 2, 2019 17:54:49 GMT
The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. The comedy was not in line with his character. It was out of character. Thor was the least funny guy in the films, barely accustomed to earth humor. Stark stood a better chance of being the comedian. Shakespearean characters are not comedians, they fall under dark tragedy. The comedy was Marvel ruining things as usual, spinning depression into something silly. Why are people still defending this shit. They are comedy to us. If you have a person acting like that as their actual personality that would be hilarious. But Thor himself is a very tragic character that used humor to hide it. The best example was when he was talking to Rocket and you see him go dark then smile it away. Leaving Rocket alone in a dark place. When you get to Endgame, it is Thor acclimatized to Earth culture, but still being his Asgardian self. Which makes it even more funny than before.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Aug 3, 2019 21:15:53 GMT
My issue is the Russos didn't know the character & treated him as a characture. Because of his own issues, RDJ apparently did not want to do a full addiction plot on Stark so we got the "suit is killing Tony" story. So it's ok to switch it over to a different character? As was stated in Dark World-when Loki states "satisfaction is not in my nature" Thor responded "Surrender is not in mine" It was sloppy. A cheap joke. Thor is not that. That plot is Tony Stark. One could maybe see Bruce Banner there. Maybe Scott Lang, though he never went there before. Stephen Strange did the alcohol thing. Maybe Wanda would after Vision's death. These characters have personalities that shouldn't be overwritten Its what I hate about Christopher Nolan. He sets up his story & thinks nothing about changing the character to match his plot machinations Developing a caricature of Thor would suggest that they took known traits of the character and exaggerated them for grotesque or comedic effect. Endgame Thor is funny. Thor of the source material is not a comedic character traditionally. Not to split hairs, but what the Russo brothers did feels more like a satire. They poked fun at some of the more stoic aspects of the character. Whedon and Waititi both did this to a more limited extent in their outings, and no one seemed to mind as much. Had Endgame been more accurate to the character from the comic books, I think Thor would have likely secluded himself and spend his time away sullen and brooding (albeit in a more dignified manner). I was thinking like you go to a park & an artist draws a caricature of you. Doesn't know you from Adam. Thor was a surface sketch in Endgame A spoof of the handsome hunk. A Revenge of the Nerds geeks bringing him down to their level. Whedon said he loved knocking Asgardians off screen. Inferiority much? Kevin was a better example of the handsome dumb hunk in Ghostbusters 2016.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 4, 2019 8:41:49 GMT
The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. The comedy was not in line with his character. It was out of character. Thor was the least funny guy in the films, barely accustomed to earth humor. Stark stood a better chance of being the comedian. Shakespearean characters are not comedians, they fall under dark tragedy. The comedy was Marvel ruining things as usual, spinning depression into something silly. Why are people still defending this shit. Thor has been used for comedy in every film he's been in, Thor 1 had the fish out of water element, plus Thor not realising he didn't have his powers, he got hit twice by a van, tasered I believe, starts smashing cups and demands a dog big enough ride, Dark World had it a little less but still they had Thor turn into Sif for Loki's amusement, the point being in Dark World they were on Asguard where Thor is at home so he had less comedy moments, but then back on Earth he still had scenes of comedy such as hanging up the hammer or traveling via the tube, even his big return to Jane is undercut by her slapping him, and again he has moments of comedy in both Avengers films.
Ragnarok turned the comedy up a bit and IW continued on but in a more middle ground between Taika's Thor and the previous Thor, he was funny but serious and yet still clueless, but Thor's whole schtick works for comedy, he is an alien prince known to earth as a Norse god and yet he's pretty much a normal person just with a non-normal human lifespan, so he isn't a god in the MCU he's flawed, arrogant, reckless, immature and still charming, that works for comedy, especially when Hemsworth is so good at it.
As for why do people defend it? same reasons people tear it down, if you like it you like it, if you don't then you don't, why are some people too ignorant to understand that?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 5, 2019 17:25:15 GMT
The comedy was kinda in line with his character. He's a kind of Shakespearean character out of place. And no matter where he is he's a stranger in a strange land. The only other thing they could have done was keep him muscled up, but to show his depression they would have had to take him to a very dark place. It's like him at the beginning of the movie compounded and the movie did not need that. The comedy was not in line with his character. It was out of character. Thor was the least funny guy in the films, barely accustomed to earth humor. Stark stood a better chance of being the comedian. Shakespearean characters are not comedians, they fall under dark tragedy. The comedy was Marvel ruining things as usual, spinning depression into something silly. Why are people still defending this shit. I think the main difference was that the other movies made fun of Thor without him being in on the joke. He was funny without being intentionally so. This was changed somewhat in Ragnarok and IW where, although he maintained most of his previous humor, he also started making jokes on his own as well as exaggerating his antics to get a laugh. Most people where able to look past these in Ragnarok and IW because they weren't that many, and most of the laughs still came from Thor being unintentionally funny. However, this was changed in Endgame, where majority of the humor from Thor was made by intentionally making him silly and where you could tell he knew he was being funny.
|
|