And as a bull and an eagle and a snake and an ant and...
Dude was really into bestiality.
Spoilers Thor: Love and Thunder grade and discussion thread
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Dude was really into bestiality.
Yep - Crowes performance as Zeus was relatively tame by comparison, IMO.
At one stage of the movie, Russel Crowe was going to play Satan instead of Zeus.
Is there a Satan in the comics? I was under the impression Mephisto was their Satan.
Is there a Satan in the comics? I was under the impression Mephisto was their Satan.
As a woman, I just don't see how a shower of gold would be very satisfying, let alone the rest of his forms. Most of it seems very rape-y, so Zeus in this movie was very tame (as well as lame).
Zeus was the embodiment of rape-y. One of the utmost toxic characters of all mythologies.
Easily the least interesting MCU movie so far, and that's putting it mildly.
The so called "humor" was cringeworthy and the actual story has been bloated up into a two hour movie, when it would easily have fitted into a 45 minute D+ episode. Had they put in some more serious character or story moments instead of those infantile jokes, maybe it would have justified the runtime.
The whole part with the Guardians shouldn't have even been there! I mean, I like them ... but what did they add to the movie besides some lame jokes? A complete waste of opportunity!
And why do they have to make Thor act like a complete idiot? Seriously, this guy is supposed to be one of the mighties heroes ever? He seemed more like a caricature of himself, and not even a good one! And even the more serious moments were not much better than the stageplay in New Asgard.
The only good thing about this movie was Guns N' Roses and the fact that I was alone in that theater, so I didn't have to endure all that noisy chattering and popcorn munching all around me.
The so called "humor" was cringeworthy and the actual story has been bloated up into a two hour movie, when it would easily have fitted into a 45 minute D+ episode. Had they put in some more serious character or story moments instead of those infantile jokes, maybe it would have justified the runtime.
The whole part with the Guardians shouldn't have even been there! I mean, I like them ... but what did they add to the movie besides some lame jokes? A complete waste of opportunity!
And why do they have to make Thor act like a complete idiot? Seriously, this guy is supposed to be one of the mighties heroes ever? He seemed more like a caricature of himself, and not even a good one! And even the more serious moments were not much better than the stageplay in New Asgard.
The only good thing about this movie was Guns N' Roses and the fact that I was alone in that theater, so I didn't have to endure all that noisy chattering and popcorn munching all around me.
It has competition in that franchise.
Thor has been reduced to comic relief of his own films, so if he--the alleged "lead" in Thor movies--is mishandled, then its all downhill for character moments, since he should be the developed focus, but that was never going to happen in any Thor film past the original.
The Guardians were meant to serve that purpose as part of the MCU's aggressive shift to comedic adventure (with overblown "end-all" events framing it). So, of the Guardians were going to appear at all, there was no way they were not going to deliver the equivalent of bad stand-up routines.
Remember, this was the result of Marvel/Disney responding to a whining faction of the fanbase who despised the serious Thor of his 1st film, complaining about his Asgardian "theatricality" (gee, he is from Asgard with a culture alien to that of...Los Angeles, so...) and the nature of his natural surroundings, so he was turned into the "Point Break" slur used by Stark, acting like some dimwitted, surfing earth native who just so happened to have superpowers. With each film (including Avengers movies), his ability to rationalize and not walk into walls (as a character) faded to the point he bears little resemblance of the greatest comic interpretation of the character from the Silver - Bronze Age (Lee, Kirby, Conway, et al.). He is only Thor in name only, and as the MCU dumps another 500 characters into the forthcoming "phases", he will remain a footnote to the universe, when he was supposed to be one of its standout beings.
Agreed. Thinking back it's amazing what they put in those comics considering how young some of the people including myself at the time) were.Did you ever see this Defenders issue?
Satan has a face the reader isn't allowed to see.
I was 10 when this came out. Looking back, I'm somewhat amazed they got away with it.
Essentially movie Thor turned into comic Hercules. He reminds me of the 80’s version popularized by one of the first mini-series where Herc travels with a Recorder.
Certainly not the epic techno-mythology character I grew up with. I started seriously collecting comics with Thor #293 which was a Marvelized retelling of The Nibelungen Saga. It was also my introduction to that tale as well. And a proper introduction to The Celestials and Eternals. Not a single quip in the entire tale and far more enjoyable than the MCU for me. But we live in the universe where Iron Man did better than The Hulk so non-stop quips-n-comedy it is.
Indeed. Comic Hercules was the not-so-bright, boastful "muscle" with barely a concern for the kind of serious cosmic and cultural concerns the comic book Thor had.
Agreed--MCU Thor (with the exception of his 1st film) is comic relief, and no different than the average human character in that regard.
Being inseminated by Zeus was probably an excuse for unwanted pregnancies at the time.
Saw it.
It was half good and half bad. So I guess that equals mediocre?
Hated the humour, which baffles me, Ragnarok is probably my favourite MCU movie and I've loved Waititi's other work from way back when he did Conchords. First miss for me. The humour ranged from flat to obnoxious. And the Guardians were completely unnecessary, wasted and, as mentioned, didn't bring the humour they're known for. Not even a little. I have no idea what happened to Waititi with this... guess everyone has an off day or project.
BUT I really like God Killer (genuinely creepy, where I thought Strange 2 was supposed to be the more "horror" movie, this did it so much better), the acting, the arcs, Jane, the stuff with the kids, the finale wasn't a spectacle but 2 people talking and one realizing the error of their ways, seeing Eternity!, and, okay, the one bit of humour I actually did find amusing though not funny was treating Mjolnir like an ex girlfriend. That amused me.
But when the characters were at their most serious and vulnerable, that's when it worked really well for me. Edit all the attempts at funny out and I think I have a really good hour of watching.
It was half good and half bad. So I guess that equals mediocre?
Hated the humour, which baffles me, Ragnarok is probably my favourite MCU movie and I've loved Waititi's other work from way back when he did Conchords. First miss for me. The humour ranged from flat to obnoxious. And the Guardians were completely unnecessary, wasted and, as mentioned, didn't bring the humour they're known for. Not even a little. I have no idea what happened to Waititi with this... guess everyone has an off day or project.
BUT I really like God Killer (genuinely creepy, where I thought Strange 2 was supposed to be the more "horror" movie, this did it so much better), the acting, the arcs, Jane, the stuff with the kids, the finale wasn't a spectacle but 2 people talking and one realizing the error of their ways, seeing Eternity!, and, okay, the one bit of humour I actually did find amusing though not funny was treating Mjolnir like an ex girlfriend. That amused me.
But when the characters were at their most serious and vulnerable, that's when it worked really well for me. Edit all the attempts at funny out and I think I have a really good hour of watching.
Satan is a fallen angel.
The most beautiful angel.
More beautiful than the morning star.
The most beautiful angel.
More beautiful than the morning star.
Last edited:
I've been saying, "Another classic Thor adventure!" following deeply mundane tasks since watching this. And I'm looking forward to it popping up on D+ in a few months.
Just my two cents but something that is half good is still better than nothing but mediocre.
When you think of the resources (actors,makeup,FX,etc.) involved it really does seem a waste for what we got. May have been better served keeping it more Thor's story than whatever crossover synergy is gained.
Whilst it wasn't as knock down drag out enjoyable as Ragnarok I enjoyed it a lot. Sure tonally it was a little all over the place, some of the cancer elements were ill judged and I'm really not ok with the child soldier elements, but Hemsworth was good as always, playing to his many strengths, Bale was good, and does way better with a relatively slight role than Eccleston did in the Dark world. Portman was just fantastic though, and I'm hoping the Valhalla scene means we will see The Mighty Thor again.
Thor has been on a journey and has changed from the person he was in the first movie. Being around humans has changed his mindset and he isn't the type of god that Zeus still is. Also being unable to stop the destruction of the original Asgard has affected him too. Thor could have continued to be a dour, depressing person but I prefer having the relief of humor. He has persevered through the situations such as losing family members and his girlfriend. Life is depressing enough. I go to movies for relief from every day stuff, so the humor was welcome.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
