Thor: Ragnarok

[Reverend]

I don't know. The Sixties was when westerns hit their peak on TV, but they were a movie staple long before that. Just looking at John Ford alone, he started making westerns in the silent era and made many of his most famous westerns in the 30s, 40s, and 50s: Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Rio Grande, The Searchers, etc. (Yes, I watch way too much TCM.)

Westerns were no passing fad. Here's hoping comic-book movies prove equally durable.

Also consider that Westerns have an inherently narrow focus since they're all basically fictionalising a set time period and location aesthetic.

Comic books are an entire medium unto themselves and can tell every kind of story imaginable, from 'Road to Perdition' to 'Ghost World', 'The Walking Dead' and 'Valérian and Laureline: Empire of a Thousand Planets'. That is a creative resource several orders of magnitude richer and deeper than the Old West.

So if that genre managed to stick around so long, by rights comic books movies could potentially go the better part of a century...or be back to obscurity by the end of the next decade right before free thought and kite flying is outlawed.

 

[Kor]

There have also been movie adaptations of comic books set in the old west. Now that's breaking genre barriers!

Kor

 

[JD]

With that extent of future plans, have the studios ever contemplated a case where the comic book movie genre would prove a temporay phenomenom, like cowboy movies, for example? Without Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, who guarantees that the films of the Marvel universe will collect as much money as they do nowadays?

They've already done a whole bunch of MCU movies with out RDJ or Chris Evans and they've all been successful. While losing them might hurt the Avengers movies, I think the success of things like Guardians, Dr. Strange (which technically did have that other Chris guy in it), and Ant-Man prove that the movies can still make money with Iron Man or Captain America.

 

[Venardhi]

True, but the peak of success was in the 60s, with good presence in the 70s and particularly in the 50s. The superhero genre began having a remarkable presence during the 00s, and achieved throughout our current decade the highest peak of popularity (The Avengers being the most successful one in box office numbers back in 2012). Even so, no new movie in the genre managed to top The Avengers ever since, and the only one I see has a concrete possibility is Infinity War. In the next decade, will the audience level substantially drop? Nobody says that the genre will be extinguished by then, but who knows if it will maintain its popularity...

I think it'll last at least until politics shift and the zeitgeist moves towards a more hopeful and empowered mindset.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Also consider that Westerns have an inherently narrow focus since they're all basically fictionalising a set time period and location aesthetic.

Comic books are an entire medium unto themselves and can tell every kind of story imaginable, from 'Road to Perdition' to 'Ghost World', 'The Walking Dead' and 'Valérian and Laureline: Empire of a Thousand Planets'. That is a creative resource several orders of magnitude richer and deeper than the Old West.

So if that genre managed to stick around so long, by rights comic books movies could potentially go the better part of a century...or be back to obscurity by the end of the next decade right before free thought and kite flying is outlawed.

While Greg is using the term "comic book movies" I think he's referring to "super hero movies".

 

[Greg Cox]

While Greg is using the term "comic book movies" I think he's referring to "super hero movies".

Pretty much. Movies like "The Road to Perdition" or "A History of Violence" are not really what we're talking about here.

That being said, "superhero movies" is a broad category that can range from gritty urban vigilantes to cosmic space adventure to fantasy and magic, just like in the comics.

Of course, that applies to westerns as well, where you can get a wide variety of tones and approaches, from somber, elegiac dramas to rip-roaring high adventure in the Wild West. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE, for instance, is very different in tone from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN.

Just as THE DARK KNIGHT is very different in tone from ANT-MAN.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Pretty much. Movies like "The Road to Perdition" or "A History of Violence" are not really what we're talking about here.

That being said, "superhero movies" is a broad category that can range from gritty urban vigilantes to cosmic space adventure to fantasy and magic, just like in the comics.

Of course, that applies to westerns as well, where you can get a wide variety of tones and approaches, from somber, elegiac dramas to rip-roaring high adventure in the Wild West. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE, for instance, is very different in tone from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN.

Just as THE DARK KNIGHT is very different in tone from ANT-MAN.

While largely loathed, I find Kirk Douglas in 'The Villain' hilarious. It's a fun, silly crossover of Loony Toons physics into Westerns.

 

[Reverend]

While Greg is using the term "comic book movies" I think he's referring to "super hero movies".

Oh I get that, it's just in the moment I couldn't think of specific superhero centric examples of wildly different genres other than the likes of Constantine, GotG & Punisher and those have already been covered.

In hindsight I could have mentioned Man-Thing as a creature-feature horror, Starjammers for sci-fi adventure, Ambush Bug for zany comedy and of course there's Jonah Hex.
Can't believe I didn't think of that as it proves that comics have way more latitude than westerns because they actually include *the entirety of the western genre* as well.

Which is kind of the point. Comic books, even if you restrict it to just superheros can still be any genre. At this point it's less a genre and more of a resource for adaptation. No different than the fairy tales and classic children's literature that almost exclusively kept Disney in business for the first 30 years or so.

 

[Kemaiku]

So, I'm just wondering...

Spoiler

We see the Tesseract being shattered in Thor's vision of Ragnarok, in a sequence that correctly shows how the other current stones were removed from their casings.

Hela makes little effort of shattered Mjolnir one handed in the teaser, with Heimdall banished and the Tesseract free for anyone to lift it from the ashes of Asgard, does she crush the cosmic cube half of it and pluck the Space stone out for her own use?

She's on the order of creatures that can hold and use them, so I'd assume it poses no risk to her.

 

[Reverend]

I think it's a safe bet she already has an infinity stone. Hence the Myu-myu crushing and the fiery mowing down of Asgard. I'm guessing the Souls Stone since it's the only one unaccounted for and...well: Queen of Hel, Goddess of Lost Souls.

As for the tesseract: I note in several shots there are wormholes in the sky very similar to the one from 'Avengers', so I'm guessing Loki still has it and is lending it's use to the Grandmaster to gather his contenders for the games in exchange for...something? Also probably how he got Hulk off of Earth.

 

[theenglish]

Finally!

Damn, that was...FUN!

I was already more excited about this movie than the other two lukewarm entries in this series, but this teaser took it up a few notches.

I know I'm in the minority but I consider the original Thor one of the best Phase 1 movies. I also really enjoyed The Dark World. I am really excited for this movie, even though I know Zepplin won't be making a guest appearance.

 

[Greg Cox]

consider the original Thor one of the best Phase 1 movies. .

It's one of my favorites, too.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Me three.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Believe me, I wanted to enjoy the first two, and the first one has its strong moments, but I just found them lacking, especially in comparison to the other movies (even The First Avenger which I'm not a big fan of either).

I think it's a safe bet she already has an infinity stone. Hence the Myu-myu crushing and the fiery mowing down of Asgard. I'm guessing the Souls Stone since it's the only one unaccounted for and...well: Queen of Hel, Goddess of Lost Souls.

That does make a lot of sense and I had forgotten that the Soul Stone would most likely show up here unless they're holding it off for the Infinity War.

 

[DimesDan]

I know I'm in the minority but I consider the original Thor one of the best Phase 1 movies. I also really enjoyed The Dark World. I am really excited for this movie, even though I know Zepplin won't be making a guest appearance.

I enjoyed it too, more so than the Iron Man films.

As for the trailer for Ragnarok, it looks great, the eighties sci-fi-cheese feel and the general fun feeling of the film, it should be a blast and Mr Hemsworth with short hair looks a lot better than when he has his normally long Thor hair.

 

[Beagleman]

The first Thor is perhaps my favourite Phase 1 film, then again my least favourite of the whole MCU is probably The First Avenger, so what do I know.

 

[tenmei]

Having a similar debate with my bestmate a few days ago - would definitely put the first Thor, and the first Captain America in my Top 5 MCU films.

 

[Hugo Rune]

The first Thor is perhaps my favourite Phase 1 film, then again my least favourite of the whole MCU is probably The First Avenger, so what do I know.

Completely the opposite here

Who cares, right? They're just silly bundles of fun to digest and then move on from.

Or, you know, the complete opposite, depending on which thread you fall into in this place.

Hugo -

 

[Beagleman]

Who cares, right? They're just silly bundles of fun to digest and then move on from.

How dare you, this is Impotant Bizness!!!!! I believe how you personally rank comic book movies should determine your value to society and if you disagree with me you are wrong and a danger to everyone. #makenerdragegreatagain

 

[Turtletrekker]

#nerdragehasalwaysbeengreat