Printable View
[QUOTE=HollowSage;6060221]I guess some people won’t be happy until Marvel does a super serious dark and depressing movie. Fun booo! Humor booo! Bright colors boooo![/QUOTE]
I don't mind Humor as long as it's good and not stupid like in some of the other MCU movies Thor: Ragnarok was at least 75-80% good humor.
[QUOTE=ZeroBG82;6060180]You complained about the humor. Waititi does humor, that's his thing.[/QUOTE]
You can do humor, but a good comedy writer knows when to rein it in and actually have the humor be an integral part of the narrative without derailing it. Thor: Ragnarok needed a balance and any dramatic tension that should have been maintained during, say, Asgards destruction was completely underscored by mistimed gags or one-liners.
[QUOTE=HollowSage;6060221]I guess some people won’t be happy until Marvel does a super serious dark and depressing movie. Fun booo! Humor booo! Bright colors boooo![/QUOTE]
Marvel needs a variety of films. Not just symphony of psychedelic colours and persistent need to have a gag every 2 minutes. That's what I loved about Doctor Strange 2. There was humor, but that humor was born from the narrative itself. At no point did the humor derail the story being told. It's one of the recent MCU films where I felt the balance was just right.
[QUOTE=Ravin' Ray;6060117][video=youtube;Go8nTmfrQd8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go8nTmfrQd8[/video][/QUOTE]
Thoughts:
- So who is the true main character and titular Thor in the movie?
- So when does Thor get the gold armor upgrade? It seems like he has the normal viking look and that armor in the same sequence where he gets to see Jane.
- I'm disappointed that Jane is just herself in her Thor form. They did the same thing in the Avengers Assemble cartoon but it feels like it's missing one of the key components of her Thor that her whole speech and diction changes. But here it's just basically Jane with muscles.
- Also she looks kind of weird in the helmet without the white eyes...
- Seems like they're keeping one thing of Jane's Thor tenure from the Jason Aaron run...that is she can do stuff with Mjolnir that Thor couldn't and the hammer might actually prefer her. Are those afterimages or were those pieces of it breaking apart to hit bad guys?
- Apex Lex...I mean, Gorr the God Butcher is here! I dunno, I'm kind of bummed he looks more like a pale-faced Christian Bale than his comic book self. I guess its' so he seems more human or...emotive, I guess? But the character seems stoic otherwise. It feels like they're trying to incorporate his comic motivation of turning against the Gods from the comics, as well as his interest in Thor as an individual, but I'm not sure if it'll all work in the end.
- So Thor has been counting the the exact time he and Jane have been separated. I guess they're really going to push that he never got over her now (sorry to anyone who thought Sif still had a shot at being the main love interest) even after all this time which...doesn't quite track with me, but whatever. Honestly I'd be more surprised if Jane still carried a torch after 8 years, although at least for Gods time probably moves differently. Now is Bruce Banner ever going to mention Betty Ross again?
- Looks like The Greek Gods take Thor captive thinking he's a threat and throwing him into a gladiatorial ring. Looks like Valkyrie gets to use Zeus' lightning bolt too.
- Ah yes, the classic scene of Thor being stripped nude! He and his brother get this a lot. Gotta get your classic MCU male fanservice in there.
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6060239]Marvel needs a variety of films. Not just symphony of psychedelic colours and persistent need to have a gag every 2 minutes. That's what I loved about Doctor Strange 2. There was humor, but that humor was born from the narrative itself. At no point did the humor derail the story being told. It's one of the recent MCU films where I felt the balance was just right.[/QUOTE]
They have a variety of films. Something like 23 or so movies. Some have more humor than others like GoG. At the end of the day it’s working for them and audiences keep showing up for more. It may not be to everyone’s taste but you can’t please everyone.
[QUOTE=HollowSage;6060260]They have a variety of films. Something like 23 or so movies. Some have more humor than others like GoG. At the end of the day it’s working for them and audiences keep showing up for more. It may not be to everyone’s taste but you can’t please everyone.[/QUOTE]
The humor worked in GoG. Not so much the second one (where they just decided to dialed up everything that worked in the first to 11 and ignored the pitfalls of what didn't).
Even Marvel Studios have realised they need to break from the mold. Something most are criticising them for with Doctor Strange 2. Having a slightly more serious film every now and then won't hurt them. Ragnarok almost seemed like an over-correction from The Dark World. Hopefully this one has a better balance.
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6060313]The humor worked in GoG. Not so much the second one (where they just decided to dialed up everything that worked in the first to 11 and ignored the pitfalls of what didn't).
Even Marvel Studios have realised they need to break from the mold. Something most are criticising them for with Doctor Strange 2. Having a slightly more serious film every now and then won't hurt them.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much agree with this 100%
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6060237]You can do humor, but a good comedy writer knows when to rein it in and actually have the humor be an integral part of the narrative without derailing it. Thor: Ragnarok needed a balance and any dramatic tension that should have been maintained during, say, Asgards destruction was completely underscored by mistimed gags or one-liners.[/QUOTE]
Personally I think Waititi has proven himself as a great comedy and drama writer - I think most people would agree Ragnarok is one of the funniest MCU movies; and outside of that he has great films like Boy, Jojo Rabbit, Hunt For The Wilderpeople that mix comedy and drama really well. I also think there’ll be a lot of emotional heft in this movie, as Waititi wrote it from the ground up, whereas with Ragnarok I think he just touched up the script that was already written and added his own bits during filming.
I’m glad they’ve angled in on Gorr’s creepiness - it makes a change from every other villain he’s faced
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6060313]The humor worked in GoG. Not so much the second one (where they just decided to dialed up everything that worked in the first to 11 and ignored the pitfalls of what didn't).
Even Marvel Studios have realised they need to break from the mold. Something most are criticising them for with Doctor Strange 2. Having a slightly more serious film every now and then won't hurt them. Ragnarok almost seemed like an over-correction from The Dark World. Hopefully this one has a better balance.[/QUOTE]
I don’t share the view that every Marvel movie is the same or follows some formula other than superhero fights supervillain. I think they are different in their own way. Winter Soldier is different than Ant-Man which is different than Ragnarok and Eternals. People acting like Marvel have made a big change by letting Raimi do his thing are only surprised because they have bought into the Marvel formula narrative.
They don’t need to go dark and serious just to prove something. It really only works for Batman anyway. Let him have it.
Overall I loved the trailer - exactly the vibe I wanted from another Waititi led Thor film: a lot of colours, a cool looking villain, some great fun action set pieces, some lovely looking shots, and Chris Hemsworth doing what he does best
[QUOTE=Jack The Tripper;6060350]Overall I loved the trailer - exactly the vibe I wanted from another Waititi led Thor film: a lot of colours, [B][COLOR="#0000FF"]a cool looking villain[/COLOR][/B], some great fun action set pieces, some lovely looking shots, and Chris Hemsworth doing what he does best[/QUOTE]
Gotta say...
Even accounting for that I already tried to lower expectations based on that no human being on the face of the planet was going to be able to match what Ribic put on the pages of [B][I]Thor: God Of Thunder[/I][/B]?
This was a legitimate disappointment.
Not really their fault, but the facts are the facts.
I just hope that they steer way clear of -
(Mild "Comics..." Spoilers...)
[SPOIL]Just the sequence of the various gods that Gorr has killed...
It will be completely pointless attempting to get anything like that onto the screen.[/SPOIL]
The Thor franchise, Infinity War and the first GOTG are about the only joy I get out of watching any movie in the mcu the rest are just obligatory viewing.
[QUOTE=HollowSage;6060349]I don’t share the view that every Marvel movie is the same or follows some formula other than superhero fights supervillain. I think they are different in their own way. Winter Soldier is different than Ant-Man which is different than Ragnarok and Eternals. People acting like Marvel have made a big change by letting Raimi do his thing are only surprised because they have bought into the Marvel formula narrative.
They don’t need to go dark and serious just to prove something. It really only works for Batman anyway. Let him have it.[/QUOTE]
Marvel have a formula and it is one that they've applied for most of their movies (you have to strip the films back to see it). The house remains the same, it's just that they've applied a different coat of paint each time you visit the house.
Raimi wasn't the first to bring a touch of their own style to the MCU. Gunn was. Gunn's style is so unique and distinctive you can see it a mile off.
Dark and serious aren't the same thing. That's misconception. Superman 1978 is an example of the seriousness I like in my comic book movies. That movie plays it's source material straight and... lo and behold... Not a shadow insight.
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;6060405]Marvel have a formula and it is one that they've applied for most of their movies (you have to strip the films back to see it). The house remains the same, it's just that they've applied a different coat of paint each time you visit the house.
Raimi wasn't the first to bring a touch of their own style to the MCU. Gunn was. Gunn's style is so unique and distinctive you can see it a mile off.
Dark and serious aren't the same thing. That's misconception. Superman 1978 is an example of the seriousness I like in my comic book movies. That movie plays it's source material straight and... lo and behold... Not a shadow insight.[/QUOTE]
It plays a lot of it for laughs. Luthor and his lackies in particular. It's much more jokey than the comics were.
[QUOTE=numberthirty;6060379]Gotta say...
Even accounting for that I already tried to lower expectations based on that no human being on the face of the planet was going to be able to match what Ribic put on the pages of [B][I]Thor: God Of Thunder[/I][/B]?
This was a legitimate disappointment.
Not really their fault, but the facts are the facts.
I just hope that they steer way clear of -
(Mild "Comics..." Spoilers...)
[SPOIL]Just the sequence of the various gods that Gorr has killed...
It will be completely pointless attempting to get anything like that onto the screen.[/SPOIL][/QUOTE]
Ribic is Ribic - nothing will surpass him imo
Having said that, I’ve made my peace that this iteration of Thor is entirely its own thing. It started out quite bland a decade ago, and they managed to make the character and his world more interesting to me with Ragnarok - with that change comes big differences to the source material both aesthetically and themes to ally BUT I can still enjoy it as its own separate thing
This isn’t the same Gorr as the comic version but at the same time, I already feel it’s going to be easier to “connect” with this version of the character than if they had gone full comic accurate. Better to let Christian Bale do his thing imo