Thor Ragnarok is the Batman & Robin of the MCU

Thinking about it, those two films have quite a few points in common.

1) Surtur and Freeze appear at the beginning and they get defeated but then cause serious damage at the end. (Surtur destroying Asgard while Freeze freezes Gotham).


2) campy female main villain (Hela and Poison Ivy)

3) A stupid giant (Bane and Hulk)


4) Main character rescued by new female hero (Valkerye and Batgirl)

5) Father/father figure of the hero dying (Odin and Alfred)

6) Moronic supporting characters

7) Badass main character turned into a campy goofball. (Thor and Batman)

Basically makes me wonder why everyone hates B&R but loves Ragnarok. Also another reason why i'm not a fan of the MCU version of Thor, while being a big fan of his 616 counterpart.

[QUOTE=CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree;4511305]
Basically makes me wonder why everyone hates B&R but loves Ragnarok. [/QUOTE]

Because there's more to a movie than just plot?

Seriously, the acting of Batman and Robin is phoned in from its leads, the cinematography didn't capture the scope of anything properly, and the character designs were a massive downgrade from previous movies (Bat nipples? WTF).

Because the skill with which those pieces are assembled counts for a lot. It's not that people like Ragnarok and hate Batman and Robin because of the general story beats they hit, it's how they are actually brought to screen, the strength of the performances, the directing, the dialogue, etc.

[QUOTE=CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree;4511305]

Basically makes me wonder why everyone hates B&R but loves Ragnarok.[/QUOTE]

Three words: Bat-credit card.

[IMG]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/d/d3/GothCard.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20170606085039[/IMG]

[QUOTE=CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree;4511305]Thinking about it, those two films have quite a few points in common.

1) Surtur and Freeze appear at the beginning and they get defeated but then cause serious damage at the end. (Surtur destroying Asgard while Freeze freezes Gotham).


2) campy female main villain (Hela and Poison Ivy)

3) A stupid giant (Bane and Hulk)


4) Main character rescued by new female hero (Valkerye and Batgirl)

5) Father/father figure of the hero dying (Odin and Alfred)

6) Moronic supporting characters

7) Badass main character turned into a campy goofball. (Thor and Batman)

Basically makes me wonder why everyone hates B&R but loves Ragnarok. Also another reason why i'm not a fan of the MCU version of Thor, while being a big fan of his 616 counterpart.[/QUOTE]

Ha, point 4 along with point 7, sounds really sus i.e. "my male fantasy is ruined by strong female representation"

I didn't like Thor: Ragnarok for the same reasons (also: massive amounts of exposition all the time) but I do think it was a better-executed campy goofball take than B&R was.

The reason for the campy turn is that Chris Hemsworth turned out to be a good comedic actor and he wasn't very popular playing the more serious character Thor was originally intended to be (or at least [I]Thor: The Dark World [/I]and his part in [i]Avengers: Age of Ultron[/i] weren't very popular), so they decided to throw out the idea of a serious Ragnarok movie and make it a showcase for Hemsworth's goofy comedy talent. So I don't think a good movie but it is at least showing the star doing what he enjoys doing, while George Clooney was completely wasted in B&R.

People really loved the Tim Burton Batman movies, so a drastic departure from that was bad.

People were lukewarm on the first two Thor movies so a drastic departure was a necessary gamble.

Also Thor Ragnarok had better acting, comedy, effects, music etc etc.

The only thing they have in common is being satirical/campy/comedic takes on superhero films. All these things you mentioned can be found in other films.

Ragnarok is a far better written, directed and acted film. Yes, I said acted, because a good onscreen performance can also be comedic and doesn't always have to be serious and dramatic. It takes a lot of skill and natural talent to actually be funny onscreen, and that was pulled of a lot better in Ragnarok than in Batman & Robin. None of those actors in that film had good comedic timing, which is why the film is unintentionally funny.

Never understood baseless comparisons like these.

[IMG]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/582/861/e26.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=gurkle;4511633]
The reason for the campy turn is that Chris Hemsworth turned out to be a good comedic actor and he wasn't very popular playing the more serious character Thor was originally intended to be (or at least [I]Thor: The Dark World [/I]and his part in [i]Avengers: Age of Ultron[/i] weren't very popular), so they decided to throw out the idea of a serious Ragnarok movie and make it a showcase for Hemsworth's goofy comedy talent. So I don't think a good movie but it is at least showing the star doing what he enjoys doing, while George Clooney was completely wasted in B&R.[/QUOTE]
When I remember the criticisms for those movies I never see Hemsworth's performance cited as one of them, just the poor plotting ([I]Dark World[/I]) or how his subplot in AoU felt so divorced from everything else.

But judging by what he has said, it seems like the role did bore him by that point.

They really should have just cast him as Hercules...

[QUOTE=Frontier;4511775]When I remember the criticisms for those movies I never see Hemsworth's performance cited as one of them, just the poor plotting ([I]Dark World[/I]) or how his subplot in AoU felt so divorced from everything else.

But judging by what he has said, it seems like the role did bore him by that point.

They really should have just cast him as Hercules...[/QUOTE]

Why, must you say something that will haunt my mind forever. Hemsworth as Herc would have been glorious!

As others have said, it's in the execution. Thor always had some comedy (Jane hitting him with the car - twice) in both films and Avengers. And while people might have hated B&R for the shift in tone (because penguins with rockets, a giant duck and Christopher Walken were totally serious?), people tend to rank "Star Trek: The Voyage Home" as one of the best and that was a goofy comedy that was a total shift in tone from the previous three movies.

I agree with you. It is not the popular opinion but after seeing it I felt the same way.