|
|
Post by merh on Nov 23, 2017 14:52:01 GMT
Funny thing is even tho i enjoyed JL very much and didn't care at all for Ragnarok, i can't say JL is a better movie. All i can say is i enjoyed it way more I agree! I enjoyed watching JL more than Ragnarok. I even went to see it twice. I have no interest in seeing Ragnarok again. I saw Ragnarok 11/2 & 11/3 with 2 different people so I contributed. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 23, 2017 16:16:00 GMT
He beat the Hulk and beat Hela. Thor didn't beat Hela. Thor couldn't beat Hela. That's why he had to destroy Asgard. Because he was too weak to beat Hela and save Asgard. One of the best parts of Thor 3. Thor had to use his brain to "win" and it wasn't really a win. Hela wasn't beaten by any last minute "burst of strength" that is so common in adventure movies. Thor suffered great loss in the movie. He lost Odin, his hammer, his freaking eye, and his homeworld. Thor using his brain was one of my favorite things about it. He outsmarted Valkyrie and Loki as well. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 23, 2017 16:18:24 GMT
Well the critics don't think its a better movie, neither do most of the movie going public and it shows in box office figures - the movie is gonna cost Warner Bros. serious money and its gonna put a lot of upcoming DC film projects on ice. There is also a pretty good chance some actors from the DCEU( or DC Cinematic Universe, whichever you'd like to call it) will decidedly exit : many are expecting Ben Affleck to come out and announce "I'm done as Batman" to the public right now, few think he's gonna stay on board even for Matt Reeves' solo Batman trilogy( Heck, Reeves might even jump ship to another project if Warner won't let him have his way). Ezra Miller has been said to voice disappointment in Justice League and the handling of The Flash solo movie, so what's stopping him from saying "You know what guys? I'm done, find another Barry Allen"? Kiersey Clemons may end up getting recast as Iris as she is apparently not particularly happy she ended up on the cutting room floor. Henry Cavill has one more DC film in his contract, whichever that will be nobody knows. Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa are only guaranteed to play their parts for as long as possible because they don't really have another franchise to latch onto to that's gonna keep them on top of the Hollywood chain. If you're a DC fan, right now you should be worried about the future of the DCEU as opposed to trying to convince Justice League is a better movie than Thor: Ragnarok - Which is outperforming it and is delivering on all accounts to Disney stockholders. That would be awesome. I hated him as Barry Allen. I would hate it if Reeves left though. He might turn the whole thing around with one movie. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 23, 2017 19:49:05 GMT
Thor didn't beat Hela. Thor couldn't beat Hela. That's why he had to destroy Asgard. Because he was too weak to beat Hela and save Asgard. One of the best parts of Thor 3. Thor had to use his brain to "win" and it wasn't really a win. Hela wasn't beaten by any last minute "burst of strength" that is so common in adventure movies. Thor suffered great loss in the movie. He lost Odin, his hammer, his freaking eye, and his homeworld. Thor using his brain was one of my favorite things about it. He outsmarted Valkyrie and Loki as well. It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. |
|
|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on Nov 23, 2017 20:31:01 GMT
One of the best parts of Thor 3. Thor had to use his brain to "win" and it wasn't really a win. Hela wasn't beaten by any last minute "burst of strength" that is so common in adventure movies. Thor suffered great loss in the movie. He lost Odin, his hammer, his freaking eye, and his homeworld. Thor using his brain was one of my favorite things about it. He outsmarted Valkyrie and Loki as well. It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. True heroes don't destroy, huh? Then why aren't you complaining about the collateral damage Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have caused? Superman, for instance, is responsible for the destruction of Smallville in Man of Steel - Remember, Zod and his cronies never had any intention of going beyond the Kent farm while in town. He could've been smart about it and take the action to the stars or keep it contained at home, but instead he brought the fight to Smallville and turned it into a war zone. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 23, 2017 20:56:18 GMT
One of the best parts of Thor 3. Thor had to use his brain to "win" and it wasn't really a win. Hela wasn't beaten by any last minute "burst of strength" that is so common in adventure movies. Thor suffered great loss in the movie. He lost Odin, his hammer, his freaking eye, and his homeworld. Thor using his brain was one of my favorite things about it. He outsmarted Valkyrie and Loki as well. It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. There aren't actually any rules for what "true heroes" do. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice in order to "save". That's what Thor did. Your description of "destroy" isn't remotely accurate to what happened. Surtur did the destroying. Ripley is physically weak too but she is still a hero. (one of the best ever) She had to destroy her ship to win in Alien and had to destroy the eggs in Aliens and "nuke from orbit" was the goal there. You should watch more adventure movies before you make up some rigid rules for heroes. The Thor ending was the opposite of the lazy way in my mind. I saw every hero this year do the "reach deep down for hidden strength" thing. That's the cliche. Thor got the "hidden strength" and that wasn't enough to beat the villain. Pretty original. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 23, 2017 21:32:31 GMT
It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. True heroes don't destroy, huh? Then why aren't you complaining about the collateral damage Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have caused? Superman, for instance, is responsible for the destruction of Smallville in Man of Steel - Remember, Zod and his cronies never had any intention of going beyond the Kent farm while in town. He could've been smart about it and take the action to the stars or keep it contained at home, but instead he brought the fight to Smallville and turned it into a war zone. 1st, Superman wasn't responsible for the destruction of Smallville. Zod and the Kryptonians went to Smallville to find Kal-El's ship because they thought the code was there. And a lot of the damage occurred when the military engaged the Kryptonians in battle, which would've happened with or without Superman. So no, Superman isn't responsible for the destruction of Smallville.
2nd, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman didn't destroy an entire planet. The IHOP that was damaged and the gas station that was damaged are just property that's A) probably insured and B) can be rebuilt. Thor destroyed the Asgardians' home so the Asgardians have no home are now refugees without a home because of Thor.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 23, 2017 21:39:12 GMT
It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. There aren't actually any rules for what "true heroes" do. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice in order to "save". That's what Thor did. Your description of "destroy" isn't remotely accurate to what happened. Surtur did the destroying. Ripley is physically weak too but she is still a hero. (one of the best ever) She had to destroy her ship to win in Alien and had to destroy the eggs in Aliens and "nuke from orbit" was the goal there. You should watch more adventure movies before you make up some rigid rules for heroes. The Thor ending was the opposite of the lazy way in my mind. I saw every hero this year do the "reach deep down for hidden strength" thing. That's the cliche. Thor got the "hidden strength" and that wasn't enough to beat the villain. Pretty original. It isn't original at all. You even admitted that Ripley did the same thing in Aliens. And Captain Kirk did the same thing setting the Enterprise on self-destruct in The Search for Spock. But the Enterprise was just a ship and the Federation could and did build another Enterprise. Asgard was the home of the Asgardians and Thor (and the writers) took the lazy way out and destroyed the Asgardians' home and turned the Asgardians into refugees without a home. |
|
|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on Nov 23, 2017 23:01:15 GMT
True heroes don't destroy, huh? Then why aren't you complaining about the collateral damage Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have caused? Superman, for instance, is responsible for the destruction of Smallville in Man of Steel - Remember, Zod and his cronies never had any intention of going beyond the Kent farm while in town. He could've been smart about it and take the action to the stars or keep it contained at home, but instead he brought the fight to Smallville and turned it into a war zone. 1st, Superman wasn't responsible for the destruction of Smallville. Zod and the Kryptonians went to Smallville to find Kal-El's ship because they thought the code was there. And a lot of the damage occurred when the military engaged the Kryptonians in battle, which would've happened with or without Superman. So no, Superman isn't responsible for the destruction of Smallville.
2nd, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman didn't destroy an entire planet. The IHOP that was damaged and the gas station that was damaged are just property that's A) probably insured and B) can be rebuilt. Thor destroyed the Asgardians' home so the Asgardians have no home are now refugees without a home because of Thor.
If Superman hadn't swooped in and attacked Zod all the way into town he and the other Kryptonians wouldn't have bothered going there in the first place, they only wanted the codex - they didn't aspire to destroy an entire town, but Kal instigated them and brought their fight to a populated area. Therefore, it IS Superman's fault Smallville got turned to rubble. Hela's power came from Asgard, Surtur aspired to destroy it when reaching his max power. By bringing him into the picture in the final battle they'd kill two birds with one stone, basically - Surtur destroys Asgard, thus destroying Hela. Surtur also destroys himself, so no need to deal with him any further. It is also stated in the movie that Asgard doesn't need to be defined by its land but rather its community of people. The ship is heading off to Earth, but Thanos stands in their way and so we enter Infinity War. Asgard being reborn on Earth is not new, it happened with J. Michael Straczynski's run with the character some years ago. Finally, Asgard is not a planet. |
|
|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on Nov 23, 2017 23:04:03 GMT
There aren't actually any rules for what "true heroes" do. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice in order to "save". That's what Thor did. Your description of "destroy" isn't remotely accurate to what happened. Surtur did the destroying. Ripley is physically weak too but she is still a hero. (one of the best ever) She had to destroy her ship to win in Alien and had to destroy the eggs in Aliens and "nuke from orbit" was the goal there. You should watch more adventure movies before you make up some rigid rules for heroes. The Thor ending was the opposite of the lazy way in my mind. I saw every hero this year do the "reach deep down for hidden strength" thing. That's the cliche. Thor got the "hidden strength" and that wasn't enough to beat the villain. Pretty original. It isn't original at all. You even admitted that Ripley did the same thing in Aliens. And Captain Kirk did the same thing setting the Enterprise on self-destruct in The Search for Spock. But the Enterprise was just a ship and the Federation could and did build another Enterprise. Asgard was the home of the Asgardians and Thor (and the writers) took the lazy way out and destroyed the Asgardians' home and turned the Asgardians into refugees without a home. They had no other option - Hela was too powerful, her source of power came from the energy source for Asgard. By bringing back Surtur and allowing him to reach his maximum power they killed two birds with one stone - Asgard is no more so Hela has no power and is destroyed by Surtur. Surtur destroys Asgard and thus destroys himself. Neither are a problem anymore. It is said in the movie that they intend to bring Asgardians to Earth, Thanos stood in their way and that's where the movie ends - We don't know what leads Thor to the Milano as seen in the Infinity War footage. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 24, 2017 0:08:29 GMT
One of the best parts of Thor 3. Thor had to use his brain to "win" and it wasn't really a win. Hela wasn't beaten by any last minute "burst of strength" that is so common in adventure movies. Thor suffered great loss in the movie. He lost Odin, his hammer, his freaking eye, and his homeworld. Thor using his brain was one of my favorite things about it. He outsmarted Valkyrie and Loki as well. It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. True heroes save. Instead of digging deep and trying to find the courage and strength from within, Thor (and the writers) basically chose the lazy and cowards' way out by turning the Asgardians into refugees without a home. Isn't that the whole point of Ragnarok though? The destruction of Asgard? |
|
|
|
Post by raiderjedi on Nov 24, 2017 1:41:11 GMT
There is not one measurable metric that points to JL being a better movie than Ragnarok. Ragnarok had a bigger opening weekend. Ragnarok has a higher audience score AND critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. Ragnarok has a higher Cinemascore. Ragnarok will have a higher domestic AND worldwide gross. The DC version of the Avengers, with all their biggest, most popular and well known characters, lost to a Thor movie. No wonder you are so bitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 24, 2017 2:35:37 GMT
It just proves how weak Thor is. True heroes don't destroy. You're right, they sacrifice if they have to. And that's what Thor did. He did, he saved his people by giving up his glorious world. Stupid cliche. No, they chose the intelligent way by subverting usual cliches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2017 3:13:47 GMT
JL was surprisingly pretty good, 7.5-8/10. Ragnarok was better but JL was pretty close.
As someone who preferred MCU to DCEU JL really made me like the DCEU and confirmed that WW was no fluke. The critics were way too harsh this time around.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 24, 2017 3:30:37 GMT
There aren't actually any rules for what "true heroes" do. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice in order to "save". That's what Thor did. Your description of "destroy" isn't remotely accurate to what happened. Surtur did the destroying. Ripley is physically weak too but she is still a hero. (one of the best ever) She had to destroy her ship to win in Alien and had to destroy the eggs in Aliens and "nuke from orbit" was the goal there. You should watch more adventure movies before you make up some rigid rules for heroes. The Thor ending was the opposite of the lazy way in my mind. I saw every hero this year do the "reach deep down for hidden strength" thing. That's the cliche. Thor got the "hidden strength" and that wasn't enough to beat the villain. Pretty original. It isn't original at all. You even admitted that Ripley did the same thing in Aliens. And Captain Kirk did the same thing setting the Enterprise on self-destruct in The Search for Spock. But the Enterprise was just a ship and the Federation could and did build another Enterprise. Asgard was the home of the Asgardians and Thor (and the writers) took the lazy way out and destroyed the Asgardians' home and turned the Asgardians into refugees without a home. Are you pretending to not understand my post or do you really not understand it? I was talking about two distinctly different things there. 1-A hero destroying something is not against a phantom "rule" for heroes. That's not a real rule...you even pointed out another example. (thanks) 2-The "reach down deep for more strength" thing is a cliche used in Logan, GotG2, SM:H, and WW this year. Thor did something more original. If Thor followed the cliche, his "Odin inspiration" would have allowed him to defeat Hela. They didn't do that. Hela was still more powerful. They even pointed it out that Thor's increased power wasn't enough. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 24, 2017 3:33:39 GMT
Are you pretending to not understand my post or do you really not understand it? He's pretending not to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 14:12:16 GMT
So basically, Ragnarok was the better movie for putting Thor in real danger. Justice League was too afraid of putting their heroes in real danger, which is why once Superman was back the movie was basically over.
If JL was any good, it would've put Superman in real danger too.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Dec 8, 2017 13:08:16 GMT
Thor is better than Justice League in every way. There is no comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 8, 2017 15:53:15 GMT
Are you pretending to not understand my post or do you really not understand it? He's pretending not to understand. I think you're giving him too much credit. DC-Fanboy manages to get so much wrong, on nearly every topic, that one must conclude it's a permanent condition. Maybe a few too many blows to the head ... when he was attacked in a Hooters parking lot ... by angry Patriots fans ... brandishing a variety of weapons ... that changes every time he tells the story. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 8, 2017 17:15:23 GMT
He's pretending not to understand. I think you're giving him too much credit. DC-Fanboy manages to get so much wrong, on nearly every topic, that one must conclude it's a permanent condition. Maybe a few too many blows to the head ... when he was attacked in a Hooters parking lot ... by angry Patriots fans ... brandishing a variety of weapons ... that changes every time he tells the story. I found out his real name from a Facebook discussion between DC and Marvel Fans and found his FB Profile from there. He's actually an old dude. |
|
