• 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 .
Gaith said:
Voice of God said:
One thing I liked is that Thor actually had a character arc. Cap really didn't.
Click to expand...
It may not have been as pronounced as Thor's, but he did have a minor arc in coming to terms with his newfound sexual desirability...
Click to expand...

This gave the climax of Cap an extra emotional punch, beyond what I felt at the end of Thor.

I felt more loss for Steve for his personal sacrifice, in no small part for losing the only woman who ever fell for him, than for Thor at the loss of the Rainbow Bridge, which I knew was always only a temporary setback.

Steve's loss is permanent.

Moreover, manning up and making that sacrifice completes the arc of the growth from runt Steve Rogers to hero Captain America.
I agree with this spoilery discussion of the ending of Thor: http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/05/07/why-thor-has-the-wrong-ending
 
CarbonCopy said:
I agree with this spoilery discussion of the ending of Thor: http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/05/07/why-thor-has-the-wrong-ending
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have objected to that alternative ending, but I don't think it would have made THAT much of a difference to the movie. One way or the other, Thor is making a huge sacrifice by destroying the bridge.

Plus I think we kind of needed that final scene with his father to see just how radically more mature and adult he had become.
 
I think it was unnecessary for the Thor film to leave that dangling plot for Avengers to resolve before it can tell its story. I agree that the other suggested ending for Thor would have left the story in a better place for Avengers; Thor 2 could have then dealt with the more Thor specific elements that needed resolution.
 
Maybe the ending of Thor was necessitated by the story for The Avengers. Perhaps Whedon wanted Thor in Asgard at the beginning of his film.
 
The ending of "Thor" was also designed to provide an emotional stumbling block for Thor regarding going back to see Jane. Having the Bifrost destroyed served several possible story plots for both "Avengers" and "Thor 2". The most obvious one being how does Thor get back to Earth? I'm guessing that since Fury put Dr. Selving in charge of figuring out how to use it that it will be used somehow to bring Thor back to Earth and have a side consequence of bringing back Loki as well. Just a guess though.
 
^ I agree, but it has all the suspense of whether the Pope is really Catholic, if you know what I mean. Thor's going to get to Earth, no question.
 
What Jane was working on in Thor was wormhole research, I think the implication being that with SHIELD's help she might be able to make a gateway back to Asgard for Thor to come through.
 
Anwar said:
What Jane was working on in Thor was wormhole research, I think the implication being that with SHIELD's help she might be able to make a gateway back to Asgard for Thor to come through.
Click to expand...

That's part of what bothers me. So under that scenario, we open Avengers with Jane accomplishing something enormous, but we don't see Jane do it (given Natalie Portman isn't appearing to my knowledge). Comes off as cheap to me.
 
We assume she isn't appearing because we haven't heard anything about it. I'm sure we would have heard something if she was in the film, but there's always that possibility, I mean if it's just a short scene (or cameo) there's a chance it's not even filmed yet.
 
I'm pretty sure that it was acknowledged at the "Avengers" unveiling at comic con last year that Natalie Portman isn't part of the cast. She was at the "Thor" panel of course but not part of the "Avengers" cast reveal. This article is from April and contains a quote from Nat herself.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-avengers-wont-feature-natalie-portman

Gwyenth Paltrow has said "maybe, we'll see" about "Avengers". Which is switch from what she stated last winter when she said she wouldn't be.

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/gwyneth-paltrow-may-appear-in-the-avengers
 
Well, I might not be able to take the awesomeness of Paltrow, Portman, and Johansson sharing the same movie frame. If that were to happen, it would just be too awesome. So, it's probably a good thing anyway.
 
I'm just throwing this out there that South Park did a wonderful parody of Thor tonight. Apparently the Pilgrims and Indians are aliens who brought stuffing to us mortals during the first Thanksgiving.
 
We don't know if it is a good turn of events or not...the others that were on the final list before Jenkins was picked didn't exactly wow me.
 
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