Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Apr 17, 2011.
Yeah, the relationship between Thor and Loki (and Odin) was much more nuanced than I expected it to be and was a highlight. Loki Liesmith sure, but also sympathetic.
Really enjoyed the movie, hope to see it again.
Just saw the movie and gave a "B". I'll echo others comments about Thor's conversion happening too fast. I also didn't quite buy the romance, it happened too quickly as well. I would really like to see that extra footage that was talked about. I think it would fill in a lot of holes.
I thought the Asgard visuals were nothing short of amazing. They created an amazing world and characters, that alone is worth the cost of admission.
I've tried thinking since I've seen the film(twice) if Loki has ever been portrayed as nuanced, sympathetic and relatable as he was written and directed in the movie. I can't come up with a story but I don't claim to have read every Thor story either. I read Thor in the 80's, left his title in the 90's and only came back with MJS's run 6yrs ago.
The thing though is that all the pieces are there in the comic for the narrative arc they presented. It's all Marvel comic gospel if you will, it's just never been laid out(that I know of) so excellently.
I'm saving a third viewing for the weekend before or day of my Captain America viewing in about 7 weeks.
^ The Loki in "Thor Vs Hulk" was voiced excellently by Graham McTavish but yeah Tom Hiddleston was well cast in the role and after reading interviews with him post-release he seems to really understand the character and his motivations very well, indeed. I look forward to seeing him again in "Avengers".
Apparently gods have an easier time picking up chicks.
You guys read Walter Simonson's Thor? Loki's a villain, but is a complex character - definitely not a cartoonish bad guy.
My favorite comic-book portrayals of the Norse pantheon are from Sandman. Thor is a hulking buffoon who just wants to eat and fuck.
Nothing wrong with that.
Saw it this weekend ( in 2D) and was pleasantly surprised. Branagh actually made a watchable, fun film out of source material with a high potential for silliness.
So, is Portman signed for The Avengers, or do we wait for Thor 2 to continue their story?
Tom Hiddleston played a supporting role in Wallander, the BBC adaptation of the acclaimed Swedish detective novels, in which Branagh played the title role. I guess he was impressed with him there.
As has been observed before, it's interesting how Scandinavians - Hamlet, Wallander and now Thor - have played such large roles in Branagh's career. Okay, so this Thor isn't technically Scandinavian, but he's a Norse god.
she's not in Avengers.
Which is presumably why the Stellan Sarsgaard character exists, to be Loki's pawn/the guy near the cosmic cube in the Avengers movie.
If it wasn't for Loki I would have dismissed this film as an enjoyable yet forgettable summer popcorn film. Loki almost single-handedly makes this film a must see movie of the year.
^ I don't know if I would go that far of praise for Hiddleston...he's not the be all and end of all the film but yes he does have a very strong presence in the movie. I watched "Thor" a second time and still have the same problems with it that I did my first view. There are pacing problems and I just can't stand Darcy (Kat Dennings). Chris Hemsworth is no slouch as Thor though and I don't know if he's getting enough credit for his performance. While I don't buy the forced romance between him and Jane, I do admire his acting and charisma in the film. It's going to be fun to see him work with RDJ. I think Tony and Thor will have some amusing comedic scenes together.
Exactly. Loki/Hiddleston was one of my favorite parts of the movie - actually, the best thing about it - but his admirable performance doesn't bring this piece of fluff anywhere near being a "must-see" of any kind.
One of the other best things to come of this film: Roger Ebert's not-mea culpa after being attacked by horsed of outraged fans over his negative review of Thor.
Rest of it is here.
Roger is awesome.
I think Ebert's lazy review can be summed up with what he says right here:
For whatever reason,during or prior to going into the film, he lost interest. Upfront bias or not he "just didn't give a damn". He tuned out of the movie. Ergo, when it came time to write his review he chose to speculate on things not directly connected with the movie itself in order to tear it down.
His next paragraph to mock the fans further shows he didn't pay attention to the movie, which he "didn't give a damn", which does explain where Asgard is in relation to Jotunheim and Earth.
Well, Roger, if you had given a damn to pay attention THOR explains it IN THE MOVIE by sketching it in that pad of Jane's the NINE REALMS. Which are represented as planets in Jane's notepad. It has nothing to do with "not citing holy writ" it's just paying attention during the second act and not citing that.
Ebert confuses why he's being blasted. Not cause the source material plugs in any holes but because your complaints are addressed IN THE MOVIE...you know, the one you didn't give enough of a damn to fully pay attention to.
Yeah "Thor" pretty much explains it's self. It's not a complicated film to understand.
What's a realm? Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?
As far as I could fathom, the movie doesn't really say.
The visuals of Asgard on the flip side of the galaxy, coupled with the vague, general, and flowery description Thor gave, suggested to me parallel dimensional planes.
But I'll forgive someone who doesn't understand, because I don't fully get it. It's neato though.
Now call me a fucking idiot. Slug me right on the chin.
Separate names with a comma.