Spoilers Thor: Love and Thunder grade and discussion thread

[matthunter]

I get free climbing but I've never understood how they get back down, I don't really get the "free descent", I think I'd need that helicopter to get me down if I could ever somehow manage to get up there lol.

If the cliff is right, they can base-jump back down with a parachute. Top Gear (prior to Clarkson and Co departing) showed this when Clarkson raced two free climbers up a cliff as he took a mountain road in an Audi TT. Then having lost, he foolishly challenged them to "double or quits" back down...

 

[Garak]

I'm not 100% sure what you're going for. Are you defending the film?

There's literally nothing to defend

Because a "dearth" of compelling characters is literally a "lack of."

I got auto corrected. Meant to type 'diverse stable'. GODDAMMIT

Which, honestly, would be my feeling. It's easily my least favorite of the franchise, from the style through the score. But everyone's mileage varies.

And not everyone has good taste, sadly

 

[Tuskin38]

This may have been mentioned, but the guy giving the tours at New Asgard, that's Darryl, Thor's Australian Roommate in those shorts they released before Ragnarök

And not everyone has good taste, sadly

Taste is subjective, what you consider good, others would consider bad and the reverse is true.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Thor: Love and Thunder is guilty of doubling down on what made Ragnorok successful. This is actually pretty typical in franchises when they hit on a successful formula. "Oh, wacky comedy worked? AMP IT UP!" "Oh, people love 80's easy listening hits on a walkman? AMP IT UP!"

GOTG2 and Love and Thunder are just the same as the previous films: ONLY MORE SO! This doesn't always work.

Star Trek IV anyone? "Jokes for the win!" gave us Scotty hitting his head on a beam.

SKYFALL was a huge smash, so they brought back the same director, writers and composer. The result was SPECTRE (although that one has grown on me for its style if not content).

MCU films have always walked the thin line between adventure and comedy. Some films go into sitcom (those I never seems to like). But the films that have a great balance of humor and drama work for me. And the film with MOSTLY drama are even better, IMO.

Thor, Ant-Man, She-Hulk, even Doctor Strange (who is a bigger wiseass than his comic counterpart ever was) are all comedies. Which, great, if that's what you like have a good time. I prefer Winter Soldier, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and the last two Avengers films. Primarily adventures with mostly well done comic bits to ease tension.

 

[Ssosmcin]

There's literally nothing to defend


I got auto corrected. Meant to type 'diverse stable'. GODDAMMIT


And not everyone has good taste, sadly

Hahaha that wasn't nice, man. I didn't insult your taste, just that I didn't share it. It's movies, friend.

 

[fireproof78]

I think this is called "Sequelitis."

That's a good term for it. I see it a lot with films that are successful. It's an attempt to continue that success and ensure that money continues to come flowing in.

Now, to the credit of Marvel, if Thor Love and Thunder doesn't work they will move on, while other franchises will keep holding on to those touchstones of success.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

GOTG2 and Love and Thunder are just the same as the previous films: ONLY MORE SO! This doesn't always work.

I've noticed where a director with a notable style is doing a second movie based on another work that their trademark stamps get more pronounced in that balance between IP and auteur.

Batman Returns is Tim Burton turned up to 11.
Batman and Robin is Joel Schumacher turned up to 11.
Halloween 2 is Rob Zombie turned up to 11.
GOTG2 and Love and Thunder similarly with Gunn and Taika.

Granted, there's a small sample size for directors who both have a recognizable style and who have done multiple movies within someone else's IP. I haven't gone back to see if this could be applied to Raimi and Spider-Man.

 

[Tuskin38]

Star Trek IV anyone? "Jokes for the win!" gave us Scotty hitting his head on a beam.

Star Trek V

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Star Trek IV anyone? "Jokes for the win!" gave us Scotty hitting his head on a beam.

Star Trek V

That joke fell pretty flat for me.

OK, I'll show myself out.


But really, it did.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Star Trek V

What I meant was Star Trek IV's success paved the way for the excessive humor in Star Trek V.

 

[Tuskin38]

What I meant was Star Trek IV's success paved the way for the excessive humor in Star Trek V.

Ahh ok

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I remember a time when people talked about Thor in this thread...

 

[eschaton]

GOTG2 is a lot better than GOTG though.

For me personally, it's the best MCU movie, hands down.

 

[Turtletrekker]

To each their own. Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 is a bit of a mess in my eyes. But then, seeing as the only James Gunn movies that I've ever wholeheartedly enjoyed without reservation were the first Guardians and Scooby-Doo, maybe it's that I'm just not a big James Gunn fan.

 

[fireproof78]

To each their own. Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 is a bit of a mess in my eyes.

Not only a mess but really dark and not very enjoyable. So, you're not alone on this one.

 

[eschaton]

To each their own. Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 is a bit of a mess in my eyes. But then, seeing as the only James Gunn movies that I've ever wholeheartedly enjoyed without reservation were the first Guardians and Scooby-Doo, maybe it's that I'm just not a big James Gunn fan.

In my mind, it was Marvel's greatest success because all of the subplots were tightly wound into the core theme of damaged family relationships. You had Peter/Ego, Gamora/Nebula, and Rocket/Yondu all working towards those themes. I was shocked at how the movie made Yondu so compelling as a character (with such deep pathos) given he was a shallow shitheel in the first movie. I honestly cry every time I get to the end, which is something that few other Marvel movies do.

In addition Ego is a much, much better villain than the awful, almost absent Ronan from the first movie, who is basically a non-character who just exists as an excuse for team-building. Plus baby Groot is much better than grown-up Groot.

Really, the only part of GOTG 2 I didn't like was the inclusion of Mantis, who basically seemed to exist just for jokes and for Drax to have something to do (mostly by being inadvertently mean to her).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The space funeral in GOTG2 was amazing.

 

[ichab]

IMO it was an average movie that could have been a great movie with a better director. Christian Bale knocked it out of the park and so did Natalie Portman. But Thor has gotten so silly that he's almost becoming a parody of himself. I like humor as much as the next guy. But this director likes it to the point that it ruins the drama. After Ragnarok I figured this was the direction they were going in so I'm glad I skipped it in the theater and waited for it to come on Disney Plus.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I watched it and enjoyed it well enough. Much like Deadpool 2 it suffers from attempting to present a greatest hits package of what worked in the previous movie to slightly diminishing returns, but it was fun.

Ragnarok still stands as my favourite MCU movie, but Love and Thunder was certainly decent. Christian Bale was a highlight I thought, but he usually is.

 

[Mage]

Could it be that the movie we ultimately got wasn't what Taika originally had in mind but the studio pushed for more shenanigans and silly/wacky Thor?
I mean, I love silly/wacky Thor, but the way we saw him in Ragnarok and Endgame. This was a level beyond. Maybe Taika got pushed into this version? Or scenes making it more serious were cut in the end?
It wouldn't be the first time Marvel changed what the director had in mind. Thor The Dark World comes to mind.