Why is Thor: The Dark World universally considered to be the worst MCU film?

[Jokerz79]

IMO the worst MCU film is like the worst James Bond movie still a fun watch at the end of the day.

[Castle]

Thor 2 is not the worst film, Thor 3 should be at least called the worst of the Thor films. Ragnarok was a far more problematic movie than Thor 2. The worst film I have watched so far in the series is Age of Ultron.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

For me, all 3 Thor movies were disappointing.

I'm more of a DC fan, but Thor is my favorite Marvel character, and I thought that the grandiose, epic nature of the best of Thor comics was completely lacking in the first 2 -- at best they were Game of Thrones cutscenes -- while the comedic tone of the 3rd was such a major turnoff that I didn't bother to see it at the theaters.

[kingaliencracker]

I didn't think of it as the worst until it showed up on all the rankings as the worst.

I really don't remember much of it I guess to make an honest assessment of its quality. A lot of the earlier Marvel films fall into this category for me (IM 2, Thor, CA:TFA). I liked it at the time, as I have with every MCU film. Really for me the most problematic MCU film so far is Iron Man 3, and that's mostly because of the terrible mishandling of the Mandarin and the fact it really contributes nothing to the greater MCU mythos. It's almost like they lowered the stakes for that movie despite the fact it was pretty much known it was going to be the last standalone IM film. Then all its events are pretty much ignored by the time AOU rolls around.

[C_Miller]

The last time I rewatched the entire MCU was right before Infinity War and it was in the span of about three weeks. I say this because The last time I watched these movies was effectively three years ago and all at roughly the same time. I do not recall a single thing about Malekith's personality or motivation. I just know that he was attempting to destroy reality and I think he may have been mad at Odin. However, I can tell you the exact motivation and personality of Yellowjacket including some backstory. Is Yellowjacket the most interesting villain in the world? No, absolutely not. But he fits the movie he's in perfectly. The reason I can recall his motivation, personality and backstory is because they are seamlessly tied to the story of movie that they're in.

At best, Malekith on the other hand is just an obstacle for Thor to get past to justify the movie's existence. At worst, he's just there to add another Infinity Gem to the mix. There's nothing about him that makes him unique. In fact, he could have been Ronan the Accuser without any major changes.

[KabutoRyder]

I felt it was the worst after I saw it. As time has gone on its a tie for me between IM3 and TDW as the worst. Malekith was a crap villain, I've never been a Portman fan so her amped up involvement did nothing for me, Darcy...god....don't get me started....

It's just all around a very bad movie IMHO

[BeastieRunner]

Thor 2 has very skippable stakes and outcomes. Same with TIH.

Really only finding out the Ether is an Infinity Stone is new compared to going from other MCU films after this.

Loki and Thor really don't change much than what we already saw.

Jane is swept out after this.

Etc.

[Noodle]

Loki and Thor really don't change much than what we already saw.

I'd argue against this. Both Endgame and the first episode of Loki highlighted how big of a deal their mother was to them. Seeing her in Endgame made Thor feel worthy again and brought the fight back to him, and seeing her dead due to his actions pretty much broke Loki in his series. Her death in The Dark World has had some decent impacts on other MCU projects.

[BeastieRunner]

I'd argue against this. Both Endgame and the first episode of Loki highlighted how big of a deal their mother was to them. Seeing her in Endgame made Thor feel worthy again and brought the fight back to him, and seeing her dead due to his actions pretty much broke Loki in his series. Her death in The Dark World has had some decent impacts on other MCU projects.

Did it really change him during the course of the movie? Because his agency was still self-serving. I'd argue Loki didn't really feel the impact of his mom's death till the show.

Now on Thor, same thing.

After the movie ... yes ... but nothing of note really grew them. It was after the events of the movie. Which was such a waste, IMHO. You had a movie in which Loki killed his mom with his jealous brother routine. And then end up working together to take down the big bad so Loki could escape later. That was not much different than what we got before in Thor.

I just see it more of a wasted opportunity. This movie had so much open to it ...

[Noodle]

Did it really change him during the course of the movie? Because his agency was still self-serving. I'd argue Loki didn't really feel the impact of his mom's death till the show.

Now on Thor, same thing.

After the movie ... yes ... but nothing of note really grew them. It was after the events of the movie. Which was such a waste, IMHO. You had a movie in which Loki killed his mom with his jealous brother routine. And then end up working together to take down the big bad so Loki could escape later[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[. That was not much different than what we got before in Thor.

I just see it more of a wasted opportunity. This movie had so much open to it ...

I thought you were talking more of character growth post-movie, not in the movie itself. My mistake. I'd agree that the movie itself did not show much growth of either character, but they grew after it due to the events of the movie.

[sunofdarkchild]

Boring plot, lame villain. The only good parts were the Loki/Thor scenes.

Thor 1 is mostly an average movie, but the fantasy aspect of Asgard is well handled. Ragnarok has some serious tonal problems, but when it's fun it's really fun. It works whenever it's not taking itself seriously.

[BeastieRunner]

I thought you were talking more of character growth post-movie, not in the movie itself. My mistake. I'd agree that the movie itself did not show much growth of either character, but they grew after it due to the events of the movie.

No worries!

Of course in a connected franchise, characters should change after a movie. But if you skip this movie, those changes happen more as a result of Ragnarok and IW/Endgame than The Dark World. I would argue a new person to the MCU could skip TIH, IM3, and TDW and still have a great understanding of those arcs. All 3 of those movies either have a) virtually no character work like TDW and/or b) abandon said character work like IM3.

I wanted to see HOW they get Tony back, not just have him suddenly unretire.

Same for TDW, I wanted to see the fallout of Loki killing his mom and the effect of the Thor relationship ... and they just ended up working together. I was expecting Loki to soften and be heroic (which we kind of got) and Thor to harden and get mean but he just saved the day again. During the movie, mind you. Does Thor at the end of TDW really look like somebody who last his centering person? Hence why I think it is skippable.

[Cyke]

The main problem with the MCU Thor is that he really isn't comic Thor. He is comic Hercules. Seriously you look at every Thor appearance and sub in comic Herc and it all plays so much better.

I very much enjoyed Thor 3 (not the Dark World, so hey, here's this thread), but yeah, now your point has shifted my lens of Thor.

[Scott Taylor]

Well I liked it better than Thor 1, which was really tedious and unwatchable for me. But Ragnarok, as silly and completely off the wall as it is, was better than both of them.

Seems like of the three character franchises - Captain America, Iron Man and Thor - Thor has been the weakest and CA has been the strongest. And I think it has to do with relevance to the greater MCU. You can completely remove the Thor movies and Iron Man II and III and it makes no difference to the MCU. Can't really do that with any of the Cap films.

[BeastieRunner]

Well I liked it better than Thor 1, which was really tedious and unwatchable for me. But Ragnarok, as silly and completely off the wall as it is, was better than both of them.

Seems like of the three character franchises - Captain America, Iron Man and Thor - Thor has been the weakest and CA has been the strongest. And I think it has to do with relevance to the greater MCU. You can completely remove the Thor movies and Iron Man II and III and it makes no difference to the MCU. Can't really do that with any of the Cap films.

That is because it is America's ass.