Page 22 of 37 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 543
  1. #316

    Default

    I'm surprised that when Thor started channelling lightning during the arena fight against Hulk, that the electroshock device on his neck wasn't destroyed. That thing must have been insulated af.

    In light of the fact that Mjolnir wasn't the source of Thor's power, does that mean he should have remained powerful all along during Thor 1?

  2. #317
    New and Improved hulahulk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k von doom View Post
    I'm surprised that when Thor started channelling lightning during the arena fight against Hulk, that the electroshock device on his neck wasn't destroyed. That thing must have been insulated af.

    In light of the fact that Mjolnir wasn't the source of Thor's power, does that mean he should have remained powerful all along during Thor 1?
    2 very good points.

    The shock device thing didn't bother me as much as the point about Mjolnir. For that, I tried to come up with a good reason. I'm guessing that since Thor did not realize his potential, he couldn't tap into it.
    Last edited by hulahulk; 11-05-2017 at 03:49 PM.
    Original join date: sometime in 2002

  3. #318
    Spectacular Member OceanStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    196

    Default

    I'm glad I skipped this & waiting for JLA/Black Panther.

    BTW: Thank GOD I have my Thor comics

  4. #319
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k von doom View Post
    I'm surprised that when Thor started channelling lightning during the arena fight against Hulk, that the electroshock device on his neck wasn't destroyed. That thing must have been insulated af.

    In light of the fact that Mjolnir wasn't the source of Thor's power, does that mean he should have remained powerful all along during Thor 1?
    not really: Odin stripped Thor of his powers and banished him from Asgaard because he believed that Thor was no longer worthy of such gifts. once Thor proves himself worthy he gets them back quickly. the biggest difference would have been in how he manifested his power.

    (I dunno... maybe I am misremembering what happened in the first Thor film seeing as how I only saw it once when it first came out in theaters)

  5. #320
    Original CBR member Jabare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,251

    Default

    Finally a good Thor movie.

    the first one was awful. The second had promise but was overall just meh.


    This was a well paced enjoyable movie throughout. Granted they made some big changes to Thor's character. I'm honestly surprised
    The J-man

    I post via my phone a lot, therefore I make the occasional grammatical error. Not an excuse just forewarning you. Feel free to call me out I won't mind.

  6. #321
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,426

    Default

    Awesome movie. Hela destroying Mjolnir is definitely one of the shocking moments in the MCU movies no doubt.

  7. #322
    Mighty Member Panic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totoro Man View Post
    not really: Odin stripped Thor of his powers and banished him from Asgaard because he believed that Thor was no longer worthy of such gifts. once Thor proves himself worthy he gets them back quickly. the biggest difference would have been in how he manifested his power.

    (I dunno... maybe I am misremembering what happened in the first Thor film seeing as how I only saw it once when it first came out in theaters)
    No, you're pretty much right. Odin makes Thor mortal and powerless (and that includes no super-human physical attributes as well as lightning powers), but puts the key to regaining that power in the hammer. Thor's strength and durability was never supposed to come from the hammer - in the comics it simply switched Thor between the mortal body of Don Blake and his real Asgardian body, but the film makes it more difficult to understand by simply making Thor human and powerless rather than giving him a different body/identity; regardless, Thor's superhuman strength never came from the hammer, whilst the lightning powers the comics have always been a little confused over whether they were Mjolnir's enchantment or simply Thor's abilities focussed through the hammer.

  8. #323
    New and Improved hulahulk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totoro Man View Post
    not really: Odin stripped Thor of his powers and banished him from Asgaard because he believed that Thor was no longer worthy of such gifts. once Thor proves himself worthy he gets them back quickly. the biggest difference would have been in how he manifested his power.

    (I dunno... maybe I am misremembering what happened in the first Thor film seeing as how I only saw it once when it first came out in theaters)
    Yeah this is way better than what I said
    Original join date: sometime in 2002

  9. #324
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Well, one thing’s for sure. Comic fans have absolutely no clue about drama. All this nattering about action vs. comedy just proves that in spades.

    Story/character/arc. That’s it. Every good story has a mix of comedy and drama. Season to taste.

  10. #325
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OceanStar View Post
    I'm glad I skipped this & waiting for JLA/Black Panther.

    BTW: Thank GOD I have my Thor comics :)
    Im currently enjoying fan fiction believe it or not!

  11. #326
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Out of curiosity, regarding Surtur... if he is allowed to run free... what is the end game? melt all that he sees until nothing is left of the land but cosmic soup floating in space?

  12. #327
    Extraordinary Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    9,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    The climax of the film also fell victim to what I thought was one of the major failings of Wonder Woman. The hero didn't defeat the villain thanks to some plot development that had been foreshadowed earlier in the film, or e3ven thanks to a mistake of the villain's. The hero just got stronger for no discernible reason, and gained powers not previously hinted at. Instead of losing to a villain who clearly had dominating force over them, they just inexplicably started winning. It was emotionless and lazy. And uninspiring. Huge letdown. For me it was easily the worst Thor movie. Easily the worst Marvel movie. I'll never watch a Marvel flick from this director again, I think.
    Have you ever considered when you draw such conclusions you may have missed something? Like in this case a "plot development that had been foreshadowed earlier in the film" which was literally telegraphed at three points in the movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    The lasso is another good example, but in both cases they just started suddenly doing things that there was no previous indication they could do.
    In both cases you were clearly not paying attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    Yes, in the last 10 minutes
    Hang on I am begging to see a pattern. What are your attitudes to 'exposition'?

    Quote Originally Posted by AJBopp View Post
    I wouldn't have a problem with it if the script had hinted at it earlier, making it a natural plot progression. But they just sort of thrust it in there with no warning. It's bad storytelling.
    There we are. 'Bad storytelling.' Knew it was coming.

    Consider this - what would they have had to have done for you to consider it good storytelling? Would that have been 'make it clearer to the general aufpdience' or just 'make it clearer to you' in some way? In a way that you recognise as 'good storytelling'.

    I suspect what you actually want is for the storytelling to conform to your own notions of story and structure, with a specific set of literary devices you approve of personally. If you do this with stories, you will always be disappointed because what you are doing is undermining your own enjoyment based upon your own internal value system. You have a choice. Let go of these artificial constructs you have created, or find frustration in a huge proportion of art.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 11-06-2017 at 01:14 AM.

  13. #328
    Extraordinary Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    9,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwangung View Post
    Well, one thing’s for sure. Comic fans have absolutely no clue about drama. All this nattering about action vs. comedy just proves that in spades.

    Story/character/arc. That’s it. Every good story has a mix of comedy and drama. Season to taste.
    What we are discussing is not the definition of comedy on some rarified level, but how the movie would be categorised by most people in most circumstances. If we want to use the Greek definition then comedy is just having a happy resolution as opposed to a cathartic negative resolution. The more modern assumption has much more to do with the general intent of the work. Does the person making the work intend it to be funny or induce laughter.

    It is reasonably obvious the intent of the script is mostly dramatic, has a serious point and a dramatic through line. It is also very obvious that the intent of the director was to 'play it for laughs'. The whole approach, dictated by the director and the editing, was to make the audience laugh every few minutes. The method chosen was to allow improvisation and an exploration of each scene, to find humour in everything. That is a comedic instinct from a comedy director. He appears to have been chosen to do this, and the movie clearly satisfied the producers. So ultimately the person with the biggest influence on this movie changed the intent of the script and turned it from a structure designed to deliver dramatic beats into one primarily designed to deliver jokes.

    Take for example the final fate of Asgard. The moment was undercut by the director himself, playing Korg, making a joke that relied upon timing the dramatic beat in such a way that it allows a punchline. So one of the biggest dramatic beats of the movie became a comedic one instead. A line that was clearly not in the script. With a number of key instances like that, 'sprinkled' through the movie by the handful, is it any wonder that we end up discussing whether this is a comedy?
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 11-06-2017 at 01:35 AM.

  14. #329
    Mighty Member Darkseid Is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Spider-man and Ragnarok both felt like Guardians 3. Avengers had the perfect balance for me. Guardians did it's own thing. I just hope every marvel movie isn't Guardians knock off now.

  15. #330
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    5,505

    Default

    Spider-Man Homecoming felt like a Spider-Man film to me not GOTG 2 which I also enjoyed. As for Thor Ragnarok it felt like a Taika Waititi film which makes sense he made it. My only "complaint" would be I wish there had been one moment of serious reflection on all Thor lost but I cannot call that a complaint yet because Marvel has a habit of addressing things like that in future films like they're probably be a scene in Avengers Infinity War if not then I'll complain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •