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

[RAMA]

Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong -

Not according to our poll or nearly every other ranking system. Ebert appers quite wrong but he's allowed his opinion all the same.

Being of the minority opinion is not the same as being wrong - especially where fans around here are concerned.

What happens if he disses on Green Lantern?

You've got me - what happens if Ebert doesn't like it?

Is all of this some kind of personal competition? What do we win by dismissing the opinion of an intelligent and demonstrably thoughtful professional for who won't cosign our fannish enthusiasm for a mediocre movie?

If anything, Ebert is too kind to this movie by being brief about it.

The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets. In the arena of movies about comic book superheroes, it is a desolate vastation. Nothing exciting happens, nothing of interest is said, and the special effects evoke not a place or a time but simply...special effects.

You know, I agree that the movie is a superficial romp, without much substance but I still found it enjoyable, and I don't find all "popcorn movies" enjoyable...but nothing happens??? A huge battle within the first 15 min between Asgardians and Ice Giants, the requisite banishment and fish out of water story for Thor, Loki's machinations, setup after setup for The Avengers (the Shield agent, Hawkeye, Hulk mentioned, the epilogue, etc) wow...Ebert is really jaded these days isn't he? I also thought Asgard was a great design, something out of 50s epics...almost made a magical/mechanical wormhole generator believable. Hell I'll give the movie an extra half grade because Hemsworth was actually convincing as a superhero sans costume!

 

[Nowhere Man]

Finally saw it tonight I give it a solid B, not quite IronMan level, but more closely IronMan 2 level. Captain America is looking pretty good as well as X-Men and even Green Lantern. It should be a good summer. I really didn't know what to expect because I don't follow Thor, but it was definately pretty cool. I'm most certianly looking foward to The Avengers. I must say, there were a lot of good fighting scenes and I loved the stuff with Shield. I liked Natalie Portmans character, she seemed normal and not all Queenish or super heroish. The FX were pretty cool, I sort of wish I would have watched in 3D. There were maybe a few dull moments, but overall a pretty solid film. I think if I watch it again, I will like it even more. I just get tired origin stories, I know they are necessary, but I want to get beyond it. I liked the extra scene, but I'm not quite sure how it will fit The Avengers. I just don't know much about Thor.

 

[Guy Gardener]

My flatmate asked me which of the Watchmen will be in the Avengers.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm thinking that whether that is actually a good question depends in part upon whether your flatmate gets laid more often than the average comic book nerd.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A huge battle within the first 15 min between Asgardians and Ice Giants, the requisite banishment and fish out of water story for Thor, Loki's machinations, setup after setup for The Avengers (the Shield agent, Hawkeye, Hulk mentioned, the epilogue, etc).

Yes...it's very noisy, isn't it?

Thor, who seems a nice enough fellow at the beginning of the movie other than being a bit rash, at the end of the movie is a nice enough fellow who's somewhat less headstrong and has a crush on a girl.

"Set-ups" for other movies are, as Ebert acknowledges, a marketing trick rather than events of consequence. Whoever called Marvel's superhero movies "a big Ponzi scheme" wasn't entirely wrong either.

Ebert's also right that characters like the Norse gods are sufficiently archetypal that there's not much room for any of them to grow or change substantially as a result of events in a story.

The box office predictions for this weekend are for Thor to lead "even if it takes a tumble" because there's no strong competition. Next weekend, of course, is owned by Johnny Depp.

 

[Servo]

I'm curious about not knowing what Midgard is, not knowing what the threat of the Frost Giants is and not understanding Thor's character arc and where and how he came to learn his lessons.

It was all either explained or incredibly obvious in the film. Were people snoozing?

What's amazing is that the people here who are complaining that the information was delivered too subtly are likely the same people who like to complain about Hollywood dumbing down and treating the audience like idiots.

I'm starting to think Trekker wanted Thor to jump out of the screen in 3D and shout "MIDGARD IS EARTH, DUMMY!" at him.

I guess Branagh and the writers should apologise for assuming people would actually pay attention to what is being said in plain dialogue.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Speaking of Thor's "character growth," I was disappointed that the best the story could cough up for that was the idea of self sacrifice, especially the blatant self sacrifice that was the beginning and end of his secret brilliant plan to "save Townsville." I thought the story really hinged on what it was going to be that led Thor to enlightenment. I seem to have seen the idea of self sacrifice somewhere before, so that central element was rather underwhelming. Sacrificing himself impulsively and spontaneously, say by stepping in front of a disruptor beam to save one of his friends, might have been better than simply giving it up the way he did.

What redeemed the story for me was that the idea of sacrifice was extended to Thor's breaking of the Rainbow Bridge.

Question: In the film series are the Cosmic Cubes going to be fragments of the Rainbow Bridge?

 

[Servo]

Sacrificing himself impulsively and spontaneously, say by stepping in front of a disruptor beam to save one of his friends, might have been better than simply giving it up the way he did.

The point was that he had to be willing to sacrifice himself for something more than just a friend. Loki told the Destroyer to "destroy everything", so Thor laid down his life for the entire planet, rather than just a friend or a loved one. This is intrinsic to his growth as a character as he needed to realise that in order to be an effective king one day, he'd have to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good, rather than just for the sake of those close to him.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sacrificing himself impulsively and spontaneously, say by stepping in front of a disruptor beam to save one of his friends, might have been better than simply giving it up the way he did.

The point was that he had to be willing to sacrifice himself for something more than just a friend. Loki told the Destroyer to "destroy everything", so Thor laid down his life for the entire planet, rather than just a friend or a loved one. This is intrinsic to his growth as a character as he needed to realise that in order to be an effective king one day, he'd have to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good, rather than just for the sake of those close to him.

Breaking the Rainbow Bridge is a meaningful sacrifice for the greater good, but he needed his hammer to perform that sacrifice.

On the other hand, I fail to see how just walking into the maws of death furthered any greater good. It was only beating the viewer over the head with the trope of self sacrifice, rather than furthering any particular plan necessitating a loss of life.

 

[Servo]

Sacrificing himself impulsively and spontaneously, say by stepping in front of a disruptor beam to save one of his friends, might have been better than simply giving it up the way he did.

The point was that he had to be willing to sacrifice himself for something more than just a friend. Loki told the Destroyer to "destroy everything", so Thor laid down his life for the entire planet, rather than just a friend or a loved one. This is intrinsic to his growth as a character as he needed to realise that in order to be an effective king one day, he'd have to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good, rather than just for the sake of those close to him.

Breaking the Rainbow Bridge is a meaningful sacrifice for the greater good, but he needed his hammer to perform that sacrifice.

On the other hand, I fail to see how just walking into the maws of death furthered any greater good. It was only beating the viewer over the head with the trope of self sacrifice, rather than furthering any particular plan necessitating a loss of life.

Because he knew if he sacrificed himself to the Destroyer, it would leave, thus sparing Earth and the people he cared for (Jane, Sif, and the Warriors Three). If he'd tried to escape, the Destroyer would have pursued him and caused untold devastation in its attempt to kill him. So, he did the only thing he could to protect Earth and his friends, and gave the Destroyer what it wanted - him.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, no. The part where the destroyer was ordered to "destroy everything" doesn't convince me that the destroyer would just leave, even after killing Thor. Thor's plan to save Earth being successful depends on either of two things: Loki changing his mind about "destroying everything" once Thor is dead, or Thor's "sacrifice" pleasing Odin. Thor would be able to figure this out, I would think.

Since Loki was shown never to be trustworthy, I'm unwilling to place any money, so to speak, on Loki electing not to destroy the Earth, even once Thor is dead. In fact, if Loki was convinced that Thor wanted the Earth saved, I could easily imagine Loki destroying the Earth anyway. Given Loki's level of treachery, which Thor has largely been made aware of, I'm hard pressed to imagine that even Thor thinks he can reach Loki's heart at this point. Maybe so, though.

In any case, it was never revealed to my satisfaction precisely what Thor was expecting to occur when he did his suicide by destroyer routine, and nor was it revealed to my satisfaction precisely what pleased Odin about what he did. I intend to see it one more time, this time in 2D, so maybe all will be revealed. Or not.

As the viewer, I'm feeling like I'm being expected to fill in some blanks here.

 

[Anwar]

Well, keep in mind the whole movie happened over the course of 2-3 days. If he really changed THAT much then wouldn't the complaints just be that he changed too fast?

I mean, his basic personality didn't change. It's just that now he's less bloodthirsty and willing to consider other options than he did before, which is what Odin wanted. I mean, if he really was such a bad choice as a King and had no Kingly attributes Odin wouldn't have considered him to begin with. He WAS almost ready to be King, he just needed more restraint.

 

[Servo]

In any case, it was never revealed to my satisfaction precisely what Thor was expecting to occur when he did his suicide by destroyer routine...

Thor knew the Destroyer was sent there to kill him. It makes logical sense that Thor would assume his death would stop it - that his death would be the only thing that would stop it, since the attempts by SHIELD, Sif and the Warriors Three had failed. He was expecting that the Destroyer would bugger off back to Asgard once he was dead.

 

[Servo]

Yeah, no. The part where the destroyer was ordered to "destroy everything" doesn't convince me that the destroyer would just leave, even after killing Thor. Thor's plan to save Earth being successful depends on either of two things: Loki changing his mind about "destroying everything" once Thor is dead, or Thor's "sacrifice" pleasing Odin. Thor would be able to figure this out, I would think.

Since Loki was shown never to be trustworthy, I'm unwilling to place any money, so to speak, on Loki electing not to destroy the Earth, even once Thor is dead. In fact, if Loki was convinced that Thor wanted the Earth saved, I could easily imagine Loki destroying the Earth anyway. Given Loki's level of treachery, which Thor has largely been made aware of, I'm hard pressed to imagine that even Thor thinks he can reach Loki's heart at this point. Maybe so, though.

In any case, it was never revealed to my satisfaction precisely what Thor was expecting to occur when he did his suicide by destroyer routine, and nor was it revealed to my satisfaction precisely what pleased Odin about what he did. I intend to see it one more time, this time in 2D, so maybe all will be revealed. Or not.

As the viewer, I'm feeling like I'm being expected to fill in some blanks here.

Sorry for the double post, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced you're arguing from one or more false assumptions here.

Firstly, you can't expect Thor to make decisions based on information that we, the audience, have that he doesn't. Thor is unaware of the "destroy everything" command and thinks the Destroyer has been sent just to kill him. The destruction it's causing is, in his view, just because of its attempts to kill him. So therefore it is logical for him to think that offering his life to the Destroyer will cease the carnage and save the people around him.

Secondly, we don't know that the Destroyer was heading back to Asgard after it killed him. It only turned and walked away from his body, and didn't get very far before he was revived and it turned back to try and kill him again. For all we know, it was heading off to the nearest city or populated area to carry on its attack on Earth. So we can't assume that killing Thor negated the "destroy everything" order. It had fucked that little town up pretty thoroughly, so why stick around when it can move on and continue the devastation?

 

[Captain Craig]

Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong -

Not according to our poll or nearly every other ranking system. Ebert appers quite wrong but he's allowed his opinion all the same.

Being of the minority opinion is not the same as being wrong - especially where fans around here are concerned.

An opinion is still an opinion there is no "fact" concerning a films "worth" but Ebert isn't in good company with his opinion.

What happens if he disses on Green Lantern?

You've got me - what happens if Ebert doesn't like it?

If Ebert disses it is he still "an intelligent and demonstrably thoughtful professional..." or do you just enjoy Green Lantern and relish being in minority, again, that it's good. If it isn't. But hey, Ebert liked Mummy 3 and Tomb Raider 2 so he'll likely love Green Lantern.

Is all of this some kind of personal competition? What do we win by dismissing the opinion of an intelligent and demonstrably thoughtful professional for who won't cosign our fannish enthusiasm for a mediocre movie?

Personal, no.
Just calling you out on your misplaced glee in trying to tear down the movie. I want Green Lantern to be good, but it's likely going to have flaws(more than Thor) whereas you do seem very vested in it. So if Ebert doesn't like it....well.

Your next post about "Thor winning by default" is again another attempt at a slam on the movie. Still, it's summer season and every tentpole drops vs the competition a typical 55-65% drop. Fast Five, a movie I enjoyed dropped 62% vs Thor.
Regardless of Pirates:OST 2 weeks away Thor is likely to still see a drop of around 50-55% so your not going to "win" anything about it's quality perception when it drops accordingly as per the usual summer cycle.

 

[Gaith]

I'm not sure I could have remembered the name Midgard at the end of the movie - it wasn't that emphasized - but I still grokked the threat of the Frost Giants.

My flatmate asked me which of the Watchmen will be in the Avengers.

 

[Admiral2]

I'm curious about not knowing what Midgard is, not knowing what the threat of the Frost Giants is and not understanding Thor's character arc and where and how he came to learn his lessons.

It was all either explained or incredibly obvious in the film. Were people snoozing?

What's amazing is that the people here who are complaining that the information was delivered too subtly are likely the same people who like to complain about Hollywood dumbing down and treating the audience like idiots.

I'm starting to think Trekker wanted Thor to jump out of the screen in 3D and shout "MIDGARD IS EARTH, DUMMY!" at him.

I guess Branagh and the writers should apologise for assuming people would actually pay attention to what is being said in plain dialogue.

Here's what I've been wondering: why someone with a self-professed ignorance of and lack of interest in Norse Mythology would spend good money going to see a movie named after the Norse God of Thunder in the first place. What did he expect to see...Hogwarts students in Power Rangers armor?

 

[Noname Given]

What did he expect to see...Hogwarts students in Power Rangers armor?

"Go, go Potter Rangers....."

 

[RAMA]

A huge battle within the first 15 min between Asgardians and Ice Giants, the requisite banishment and fish out of water story for Thor, Loki's machinations, setup after setup for The Avengers (the Shield agent, Hawkeye, Hulk mentioned, the epilogue, etc).

Yes...it's very noisy, isn't it?

Thor, who seems a nice enough fellow at the beginning of the movie other than being a bit rash, at the end of the movie is a nice enough fellow who's somewhat less headstrong and has a crush on a girl.

"Set-ups" for other movies are, as Ebert acknowledges, a marketing trick rather than events of consequence. Whoever called Marvel's superhero movies "a big Ponzi scheme" wasn't entirely wrong either.

Ebert's also right that characters like the Norse gods are sufficiently archetypal that there's not much room for any of them to grow or change substantially as a result of events in a story.

The box office predictions for this weekend are for Thor to lead "even if it takes a tumble" because there's no strong competition. Next weekend, of course, is owned by Johnny Depp.

Um, did you expect a treatise on the lives of Asgardian mythological characters? Its a big brash movie based on a comic book where the hero bellows every other page...

Quite frankly one of the changes I did like was the metamorphosis of Thor from a arrogant loudmouth to a responsible and somewhat humbled superhero...not that it is Earth shattering, but hey I don't expect a movie where Thor goes on a heroin binge, learns the meaning of life on Midgard and is back in Asgard in time for tea after a thorough and violent 12 step program packed with emotional redemption..

RAMA

 

[timothy]

Spoiler: A QUESTION AT THE END OF THOR

when jane's uncle visits the shield facility to see nick. Nick show's him a device that has unlimmited power could this device be the comsic cube?