Did Odin fuck as a Swan?
Spoilers Thor: Love and Thunder grade and discussion thread
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Did Odin fuck as a Swan?
I'm guessing you've never seen how Zeus is portrayed in the comics?
To each their own regarding Waititi's style of directing and humor. I think both of his films are terrific but I understand why others don't enjoy them.
But I disagree on the depiction of Zeus. Like I earlier in the thread, he's a flaming asshole dating all the way back to the original Greek myths. I don't hold him with the same level of reverence as I would Odin (but to be fair, Odin was a bastard in the original Norse myths too...). I grew up with Greek and Norse mythology and I never cared for Zeus, so I have no issue with his depiction in this film and I loved Crowe's over-the-top performance.
Last edited:
Every version of Zeus I've ever seen was an utterly ridiculous and completely unlikable jackass. Especially the mythological Zeus. Crowe played him perfectly.
And even if that wasn't the case, I'd still be happy that Zeus is played as a very different god from Odin because just having them be different versions of the same concept would be very boring. And to be honest, Odin's gravitas didn't exactly make for amazing storytelling anyway. The only truly great scene he ever got was his death scene.
And even if that wasn't the case, I'd still be happy that Zeus is played as a very different god from Odin because just having them be different versions of the same concept would be very boring. And to be honest, Odin's gravitas didn't exactly make for amazing storytelling anyway. The only truly great scene he ever got was his death scene.
Last edited:
According to the Australians on the Weekly Planet (starting at 28:26 if the embedded timecode doesn't work), Zeus's portrayal seems to be evoking a particular stock character from Australian ethnic humor of the '80s and '90s. They point to the character Con the Fruiterer and actual human person Franco Cozzo as among his likely inspirations.
I quite enjoyed most of it except the unnecessary need to portray Thor as a complete moron and comic relief fodder. Don’t understand why that decision was made in Endgame and has gotten progressively worse (in my opinion)
I think there’s an unmistakable trend in the Disney brand whether it be Star Wars or Marvel that the classic heroes be portrayed as buffoonish to elevate the new characters.
It’s frankly not needed. If a new character is good they will elevate themselves and stand on their own.
If they didn’t follow this same trope with Thor I would have loved the film instead of finding it an enjoyable but forgettable weekend diversion
I think there’s an unmistakable trend in the Disney brand whether it be Star Wars or Marvel that the classic heroes be portrayed as buffoonish to elevate the new characters.
It’s frankly not needed. If a new character is good they will elevate themselves and stand on their own.
If they didn’t follow this same trope with Thor I would have loved the film instead of finding it an enjoyable but forgettable weekend diversion
The Olympian gods were petty philanderers who went around impregnating women under false pretenses without consent and punishing humans for the most mundane offences. They were hedonistic and self-absorbed. Zeus was the worst of them. There was no gravitas or dignity there, only power and the desire to lord that power over humans.
I don't get this interpretation. It seems that this movie was a course correction from how Thor was portrayed in Ragnarok and, to a lesser extent, Endgame. The humour didn't come from Thor's buffoonery but from circumstance and to a certain extant his ego, but that was also part of his character journey in this film.
The only real scene where Thor is portrayed like you are implying was at the very beginning of the film which was Korg's interpretation of events and the character--and as such, was meant to be humourous in its exaggeration.
Last edited:
It is told from Korg's perspective, but there is a distinctive tone shift after Thor's wins the initial battle on the planet (the whole seen is very Rashomon-like because Korg worships Thor so much)--- after that we kind of get the story unfiltered through Korg until the end.
Thor is a shell of the more comic-accurate version from the 1st film, and as you so accurately point out, he was steadily turned into a thick-skulled moron and the butt of too many jokes. That downward slide is set in stone, so the MCU Thor is the least compelling of the bigger name characters.
Agreed. but that's not the ideological road taken by many in charge of legacy IPs, but in the specific case of Thor, it was more about Disney/Marvel responding to a certain faction of MCU fandom that cried about Thor being "boring", so buying into that empty charge, Disney/Marvel transformed Thor into a walking, comedy relief dimwit, and no, scenes of his drawing lightning & fighting could not offset the rest of the character--his behavior & what's coming out of his mouth.
Zeus was a serious douchebag and hedonist in Greek Mythology.
Zeus is a dick, petty and arrogant, prone to tantrums and such. There's no gravitas there.
Saw this last night. It was a fun 2 hours, and I'll definitely watch it again when it comes to Disney+. Not every movie needs to be a masterpiece, they exist to entertain. And this did.
But... ummm... wasn't Thor's hammer already resurrected in Endgame via time travel? And then after
But... ummm... wasn't Thor's hammer already resurrected in Endgame via time travel? And then after
Jane smashes it at the end of this to foil the God Butcher fellow, why is it in one piece again at the end??
The hammer in endgame was a different Mjolnir taken from an alternate timeline just like the infinity stones. Cap returned it to its home reality when he returned the stones to theirs.
This movie's hammer is the same Mjolnir we'd always seen prior to endgame, ie, the one that Hela crushed in Ragnarok. Exactly how its able to reform again isn't entirely clear, but because its still technically shattered (as you can see by the glowing lines spread over the hammer) it now has the ability to break apart and reform again at will with each individual piece following its own flight path in between. This happened for the first time during Gorr's first attack on Asgard and was repeated a couple times over the film, so it wasn't just at the end.
Ahhhh, that explains the hammer in Endgame, thank you. But it breaking earlier in the film was an attack, wheras at the end it depowered Jane. Did not seem the same to me.
No, Jane was already dying and coming back to save the day as mighty thor just used the last bit of energy her body had left. Her death was a result of the decision to pick up the hammer again but it had nothing to do with the specific way she used it, only with the fact that she was using it at all.
Fair enough
Watched it last night. Disappointed with this film. I won't say I hate it but it's probably my least favorite marvel movie since Thor Dark World. Felt like they reset the character again to be a dope after all the development they gave him between 'Thor Ragnarok' and 'Avengers Endgame'. Feel they really missed the opportunity to explore Thor with the Guardians of the Galaxy as that was what I was most excited to see after Endgame. If only GOTG 3 had come first....
Anyway, Phase 4 is kinda meh.
Anyway, Phase 4 is kinda meh.
In the comics, the explanation was that using her powers reversed any progress done by her chemo.
Also as a shower of gold, which begot Perseus. Zeus sprinkled lots of demigods around.
Similar threads
- Poll
