• 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!

Spoilers Thor: Ragnarok Grading and Discussion

How would you grade Thor: Ragnarok

  • A+

    Votes: 16 17.6%
  • A

    Votes: 39 42.9%
  • A-

    Votes: 12 13.2%
  • B+

    Votes: 8 8.8%
  • B

    Votes: 5 5.5%
  • B-

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • C+

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • C

    Votes: 3 3.3%
  • C-

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D+

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • D

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • D-

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • F

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    91
You're a Marvel fanboy, so you will never see the truth of a largely thin film series, or how most of the movies--none even a decade old--do not stand on their own as an independent story worth revisiting.

So yeah, you want every single MCU flick to have absolutely no connections to one another and each should pretend they exist in a vacuum. You want to waste the Shared Universe concept.

Its all hooking one film into the next, and into the next, usually leaving the previous film forgettable.

Says you. Because you're stuck in the 2000 mentality and haven't moved on.
 
Well, I really enjoyed Ragnarok, and I say that as someone who did think Dark World was somewhat unfairly maligned. I was deeply worried that the movie was essentially going to ignore the plot threads from DW, so it was a bit of a relief that that wasn't the case at all.

I find it interesting that some people would like the movies to be more standalone, when their source material was, I would say, at its finest when it wasn't standalone. The Dark Phoenix Saga most immediately comes to mind.
 
Some folks still think it's the year 2000 and that CBMs have to still be the way they were back then.
 
Sign me up!!

sY6WUlc.jpg
 
So yeah, you want every single MCU flick to have absolutely no connections to one another and each should pretend they exist in a vacuum. You want to waste the Shared Universe concept.

Resorting to lies in order to maintain your desperate, "on bended knee" position at the MCU shrine? No one said the films should have no connections at all. However, films should be able to stand on their own with a main story instead of the MCU formula (for most of its films) of meaningless, slapped together toy commer--er...scripts...which only exist to sell the next product. There's a difference. Familiarize yourself with it.
 
Resorting to lies

No, just making it clear what you're saying. You hate that the movies tie into one another instead of every one being wholly separate.

However, films should be able to stand on their own with a main story.

Which they all do, while still tying into a bigger overall plot. This isn't the year 2000. There's no need to be stuck in that backwards mentality.
 
Resorting to lies in order to maintain your desperate, "on bended knee" position at the MCU shrine? No one said the films should have no connections at all. However, films should be able to stand on their own with a main story instead of the MCU formula (for most of its films) of meaningless, slapped together toy commer--er...scripts...which only exist to sell the next product. There's a difference. Familiarize yourself with it.

How did Ragnorok not stand on its own with a main story? Thor had quite the character arc that, if we never saw him again after this, ended very satisfactorily.

The only obvious set-up for a future movie that wasn't part of the main narrative was after the credits and a single glance by Loki at the cube. Everything else was about tying up the threads of the first 2 movies and giving the audience a fun time while at it.
 
Ah, that's right. Thanks for the reminder.

But who knows...maybe escaped sometime before the destruction, either before or during the events.
 
Ah, that's right. Thanks for the reminder.

But who knows...maybe escaped sometime before the destruction, either before or during the events.

Maybe. Only way we'll know is if AOS brings her back and she explains what happened.
 
She was locked up in an Asgardian prison last we saw her.
I don't believe she was. My memory is that "Odin" (i.e., Loki) had requested she be returned to serve in Asgard, not to be locked up. Granted, this was Season One, so my memory might be failing me.
 
I suppose the entire movie should've been Thor standing around gazing at his navel giving operatic monologues on Asgard's sordid past.


It would have been more complex and challenging than what the movie offered. Especially a tale about the potential doom of Asgard.


I don't believe she was. My memory is that "Odin" (i.e., Loki) had requested she be returned to serve in Asgard, not to be locked up. Granted, this was Season One, so my memory might be failing me.


She still could have died.
 
It would have been more complex and challenging than what the movie offered. Especially a tale about the potential doom of Asgard.

What was complex and unexpected was Thor realizing that Asgard as it was had to die to make sure they could have any sort of future elsewhere. And then he had to make it happen.
 
Asgard isn't a place; it's a people.


"We, the people, are Attilan. Attilan will never die."
--Queen Medusa of Attilan, after leading her people to their new home on Earth.

This amusing parallel between two concurrent Marvel projects means that Earth is set to become home to two different sets of alien refugees.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top