• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***

What grade do you give THOR?

  • A+

    Votes: 25 12.2%

  • A

    Votes: 48 23.4%

  • A-

    Votes: 49 23.9%

  • B+

    Votes: 33 16.1%

  • B

    Votes: 24 11.7%

  • B-

    Votes: 9 4.4%

  • C+

    Votes: 5 2.4%

  • C

    Votes: 6 2.9%

  • C-

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • D+

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • D

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • D-

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • F

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Total voters
    205
  • Poll closed .
Well I started the Superman: Man of Steel one and X-Men: First Class one mainly to discuss the casting announcements (rumor or not), any chaos that ensues in the thread beyond that is out of my hands. Even if I hadn't started them, I'm pretty certain they would have been made anyways.
 
Dennis said:
The less important characters talking are to the narrative momentum, the better. This is why even Abrams's more kinetic version of Star Trek is box office-challenged overseas. :lol:
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I do think Trek '09 was a better film than Thor, but not by a whole lot, and not because characters talking were more important to the narrative. If anything, there was more of that in Thor.

More likely, Trek '09's low overseas numbers had to do with Trek never being big abroad to begin with, and J.J. Abrams not really being known as a hip producer over there as he is in the States, so other countries didn't get the memo that this was a new, rejuvenated version of the franchise. The sequel will doubtless do better.

With Thor, the success abroad is probably a combination of factors. The film has a bit of an international feel, for one thing: it's about Norse mythology, with a British director and an Australian star.
 
Captaindemotion said:
Captain Craig said:
That's basically been my starting point for a thread, cause till then it's usually just base internet speculation with nothing but rumors. And we know how pages of boring rumor can sidebar into zaniness(Superman:Man of Steel thread anyone?).
Click to expand...
^ Yeah, me and the good Admiral have been ribbing each other about the timing of some of these threads. FWIW, I think you usually get the timing right.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

ObiWanShinobi said:
Well I started the Superman: Man of Steel one and X-Men: First Class one mainly to discuss the casting announcements (rumor or not), any chaos that ensues in the thread beyond that is out of my hands. Even if I hadn't started them, I'm pretty certain they would have been made anyways.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to imply that the Superman thread was started too early. I was trying to speak to the zaniness at which a thread can get out of hand when there is no news (or several posters are bored, drinking and posting on a Saturday night) or little news or merit.

Yes casting announcements is a perfectly acceptable time to post an ongoing thread imo. No insult was intended Obi, hope none taken. Apology if necessary.
 
WHAT THE EFF MAN!?!?' HOW DARE YOU!!!! Surely you gest...

Just kidding...

Nah, none taken, I knew what you meant. It's cool.
 
flemm said:
Dennis said:
The less important characters talking are to the narrative momentum, the better. This is why even Abrams's more kinetic version of Star Trek is box office-challenged overseas. :lol:
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I do think Trek '09 was a better film than Thor, but not by a whole lot, and not because characters talking were more important to the narrative. If anything, there was more of that in Thor.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's got nothing to do with which is a "better" film - the Trek characters talk a great deal about all kinds of things, and it's harder to get the gist of who they are and what's happening without listening to them. You could eliminate most of the dialogue in Thor and aside from the dramatizing about Loki's motivation - which is murky and confused at best, shifting at least twice simply in service of moving the plot forward - still enjoy the movie just about as well.

I'd miss Denning's asides, though. :lol:
 
Dennis said:
the Trek characters talk a great deal about all kinds of things, and it's harder to get the gist of who they are and what's happening without listening to them.
Click to expand...

In Trek '09? I don't think so. There's plenty of talk, sure, but the film would be just as easy to follow as Thor if you removed the dialogue from both films. None of the characters are complex. Spock slightly moreso than Kirk, just like Loki has a few more layers than Thor.

The exception, I guess, might be the Old Spock material, but that doesn't make any sense even with the dialogue included.

That's not necessarily a knock on either movie. But there's no big distinction between how important the dialogue is in either film.
 
I just saw the movie, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I was a little disappointed at how "lightweight" it was though. This could have been a LOTR type epic played straight rather than so sci-fi-y. but it was still cool.

Agreed that Loki was well drawn. Heimsworth is really good as Thor. I think he'll be a great onscreen costar with Robert Downey Jr.
 
Agent Richard07 said:
^ I liked it when the Destroyer showed up and someone said... "One of Stark's?" That was a nice way of blending the mystical with the real world.
Click to expand...

And I love Coulson's exasperated reply, "I don't know. No one tells me anything." There's this fun everyman quality about Coulson that I always appreciate.

It's average as an action movie. I like it better as a fish out of water comedy. And D'arcy needed a bigger part. (Maybe she should get a job as one of Tony Stark's assistants.)
 
I saw Thor finally on Tuesday night. My overall reaction is that it was a good to very good movie. There were a few spots where it didn't work for me, but overall I was very happy with the results. Like most Superheroes, you can never find someone who looks 100% like the character and be a good actor. Chris Hemsworth was great a Thor, I believed instantly that he was the jovial, juvenile God of Thunder. He played him on the edge of being a parody, but was able to rein it in. I believe that has a lot to do with Kenneth Branagh direction. Tom Hiddleston was very good as Loki, not your standard bad guy. I liked that he didn't play him as the sniveling coward but more of just the weaker brother. I will only say that Anthony Hopkins was Anthony Hopkins, take that as you will. I thought Natalie Portman's Jane and Thor had real chemistry, it was nice to see "movie" instant romance develop and be palpable. The lone low point is Kat Dennings Darcy. I really didn't think her character added anything to the movie and felt shoehorned in to add additional comedy, which I don't think the movie needed.

My main complaint is the convoluted story. While many are quick to blame the writers, who maybe at fault. I'm not sure if this movie was hurt more in the editing bay then the word processor. I have a sneaking suspicion that a "directors cut" on blu ray will smooth some of the narrative problems out. Things seamed awfully rushed, logic jumps are made all in the name of moving the movie along. While I don't think the movie was epic, which I think it could have been. To me they though small, and made a more intimate movie.

I can't wait for this to hit Blu Ray, hopefully with a directors cut.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
I like it better as a fish out of water comedy. And D'arcy needed a bigger part. (Maybe she should get a job as one of Tony Stark's assistants.)
Click to expand...

Somewhat to my surprise, I had the same reaction - certainly to D'arcy, but particularly to Thor's responses to Earth.

BTW, was his "Oh no, this is Urth" line actually in the film? I remember laughing at it in the trailers, but I think I missed it when I saw the movie.
 
Sigh, I'm starting to like Marvel in movie form better than DC. I mean first Iron Man was good, then Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were alright, and now Thor is good.
 
Lt. Trull said:
Hartzilla2007 said:
Sigh, I'm starting to like Marvel in movie form better than DC. I mean first Iron Man was good, then Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were alright, and now Thor is good.
Click to expand...

you make it sound like that is a bad thing.....
Click to expand...

No just annoyed that outside of Batman films and possibgly Green lantern if it's good lately DC doesn't seem to have that much in good films.

Also I'm comming to realize that outside of Batman and maybe Greenlantern, there aren't really that many DC heros I really care about.
 
O'Dib said:
"Oh no, this is Urth", said Electric Ceiling Cat.
Click to expand...


5765196076_c3d81f2708_b.jpg
 
As of today THOR is an official $150m domestic film and for all intents a $400m ww film going into the Memorial Day weekend after 21 days in release.

The film has had good holds and if that continues should leapfrog into the $160m range after the long weekend before the next comic film hits. Which just happens to be X-Men: First Class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top