Thor: Love And Thunder 'Here There Be Spoilers'

[Frontier]

I think the simplest answer is that Waititi didn’t see those characters adding anything to what he was going for. Korg is a very different style of comedy to the Warrior’s Three we were introduced to in the previous films; more traditional type of comedy in contrast to his more modern style of comedy. Apart from Thor, he clearly wasn’t too interested in re-vitalising/changing characters we had already been introduced to - Heimdal, Hogun, and Loki were all pretty similar as to how we saw them previously - so I reckon he was just getting rid of the parts that fit in with his vision the least.

Both Fandral and Volstagg clash with Waititi’s sensibilities the most imo (again, probably due to their traditional Shakespearean characterisation) so I just think he thought they didn’t add a lot to what he was going for. I think he really looked at the first two films and just decided to nix whatever didn’t work for him - I doubt he thought many would miss them

Obviously, for story reasons, it makes sense to kill some known characters off - there’s not much point in a Ragnarok if no one of note dies

On top of that, the whole movie was basically a way to reset Thor and give him a new supporting cast - unfortunately they felt it necessary for the Warriors Three to bite the bullet!

Overall, although some may have found it disappointing, I don’t think Waititi was considering how well they’ve been utilised in the comics, but just saw them as waste of plot in the previous movies, and so saw them as canon fodder in order to bring in his rendition of Thor. Personally I think it’s a valid direction to go, and I’m happy we got Korg out of it

I can see why Waitiit, from his perspective, did it even though I feel like it was a big waste of characters but Waititi always struck me as someone who probably didn't read much older comics beyond aesthetics and visuals so he'd probably have a different view on Thors' supporting cast. And the fact that the deaths were so unceremonious and just...there, really didn't help. Not to mention Sif probably would've been gutted if she'd been in it.

I think Loki kind of got his teeth pulled out as a character and got played much more for comedy, so not exactly similar in my opinion.

Fandral and Volstagg's archetypes are still pretty common in the modern day, but I guess if you didn't really look that deeply into their characters they probably wouldn't strike you (but I prefer a more Shakespearian Thor myself).

Thors' current supporting cast in the MCU is pretty weak in my opinion. It's, like, three people now and one of which isn't even supposed to be part of his franchise. Although I feel like the only MCU franchise to really maximize the supporting cast was Black Panther (maybe too much so) and I guess Ant-Man. Like in an ideal world we'd get BP level Thor movies.

[Jack The Tripper]

I can see why Waitiit, from his perspective, did it even though I feel like it was a big waste of characters but Waititi always struck me as someone who probably didn't read much older comics beyond aesthetics and visuals so he'd probably have a different view on Thors' supporting cast. And the fact that the deaths were so unceremonious and just...there, really didn't help. Not to mention Sif probably would've been gutted if she'd been in it.

I think Loki kind of got his teeth pulled out as a character and got played much more for comedy, so not exactly similar in my opinion.

Fandral and Volstagg's archetypes are still pretty common in the modern day, but I guess if you didn't really look that deeply into their characters they probably wouldn't strike you (but I prefer a more Shakespearian Thor myself).

Thors' current supporting cast in the MCU is pretty weak in my opinion. It's, like, three people now and one of which isn't even supposed to be part of his franchise. Although I feel like the only MCU franchise to really maximize the supporting cast was Black Panther (maybe too much so) and I guess Ant-Man. Like in an ideal world we'd get BP level Thor movies.

Waititi and Hemsworth have both said recently that neither of them used the comics as much of a source because, yeah, they weren’t fans before the films, so they don’t have that same love for the supporting cast etc. to be fair, I though Hogun had quite a fine death - though from what I heard that was originally Sif until Jaime Alexander couldn’t make the shoot (I wonder if Waititi will get around to it in this movie haha)

I think he’s similar in that he’s still scheming, but they purposefully made Thor not as easy to fool; so yeah, Loki wasn’t as aggressive in his torment of Thor, but he was still attempting to play all sides for his own gain, but Thor just wasn’t falling for it. Tie that with the overall change in tone for Ragnarok, it didn’t feel particularly weird to me.

Oh theyre common for sure, but just don’t fit into what Waititi’s into as far as I can tell

I disagree - I think Valkyrie is a great addition, and though Korg hasn’t had a lot to do so far, I think he has a lot of potential. Re-introducing Jane should hopefully prove successful too, especially since Portman seems happy tp be back. The only real loss for me is Heimdall, who I think still had more story to give, but Elba didn’t seem too content with the role anymore so idk. And although I like Hiddleston’s Loki a lot, I’m glad we’re getting a Thor film without him, as I don’t think they should always be tied together, especially seeing as Hemsworth’s new take on the character has proven successful.

[Scott Taylor]

One of the more brilliant moves in Ragnarok was having one of the rock people from the very first issue of Thor be featured. Looking forward to more of that guy, him and Miek.

[Frontier]

Waititi and Hemsworth have both said recently that neither of them used the comics as much of a source because, yeah, they weren’t fans before the films, so they don’t have that same love for the supporting cast etc. to be fair, I though Hogun had quite a fine death - though from what I heard that was originally Sif until Jaime Alexander couldn’t make the shoot (I wonder if Waititi will get around to it in this movie haha)

And that would've been an even bigger waste.

I think he’s similar in that he’s still scheming, but they purposefully made Thor not as easy to fool; so yeah, Loki wasn’t as aggressive in his torment of Thor, but he was still attempting to play all sides for his own gain, but Thor just wasn’t falling for it. Tie that with the overall change in tone for Ragnarok, it didn’t feel particularly weird to me.

I mean, the way Loki was acting like Odin it would've taken probably the dumbest Thor ever to not realize what was going on. And it lead to a really wasted plot point of Loki finally in control of Asgard, and it was just hard to take him seriously in general in the movie.

Oh theyre common for sure, but just don’t fit into what Waititi’s into as far as I can tell

I don't think Fandral is that different from Valkyrie, maybe a little more whimsical.

I disagree - I think Valkyrie is a great addition, and though Korg hasn’t had a lot to do so far, I think he has a lot of potential. Re-introducing Jane should hopefully prove successful too, especially since Portman seems happy tp be back. The only real loss for me is Heimdall, who I think still had more story to give, but Elba didn’t seem too content with the role anymore so idk. And although I like Hiddleston’s Loki a lot, I’m glad we’re getting a Thor film without him, as I don’t think they should always be tied together, especially seeing as Hemsworth’s new take on the character has proven successful.

I mean, it's not that I dislike Valkyrie and Jane, but I like Thors' wider supporting cast more and feel like we could've done a lot more with them. But that ship has probably sailed. It just feels so small now other than Thor just becoming a cosmic adventurer, which I guess is fun but it feels limiting to his personal mythos.

[John Venus]

I love the Warriors 3 from the comics and I like their depiction in the first two movies (it was the human cast that brought them down, imo). I think the reason why they were killed off is not because Taika and co didn't get them or like them but because they wanted a clean break from the franchise. Ragnarok was a reboot for Thor.

But the MCU is ever evolving, Sif is still around, the Multiverse still exists and Marvel could always bring them back if they wanted to. "Oh yeah, Volstagg has a bunch of kids, that Frandal got around a lot and this is a friend of Hogun's from his home planet". Thor is thus far the only franchise that doesn't have a D+ show spin off or at least tied into one.

I think its one of those wait and see scenarios. If we get people coming in here once a day talking about the movie, no. Once every 1-2 hours, YES cause at that point its getting in the way of people who just want to talk about their thoughts about the movie/franchise until they can see it themselves.

I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal honestly. It’s not exactly difficult to make a new thread; release dates are different all around the world, people still want to talk about a movie before they see it, not everybody gets to see it at the same time etc etc.

We’re not in some Mad Max type scenario where it’s every man for himself or anything haha, a spoilers thread is just a bit of an easy way to make sure people are still able to talk about a big film without having it spoiled after being released for 2 hours in another country or time zone.

Maybe I should put a 'Spoilers Beware' warning on this thread and if anybody wants to create a spoiler free thread they can do so?

My personal thoughts on the matter is that any discussion thread about a show/movie is going to have spoilers in it anyway.

If it's a case of early premier then I think those who got to watch it early should use spoiler tags for a couple of days until the rest of the posters have seen it.

[Panic]

I'll just put it out there that the benefit of having a separate Spoiler thread for the film is that people who are unsure about seeing the film or unable to see it as early as they'd like can continue to come into this thread and check out the opinions of the regular posters without fear of being spoiled. Often I want to see the opinions of people I know from here rather than professionals.

[Jack The Tripper]

And that would've been an even bigger waste.

I mean, the way Loki was acting like Odin it would've taken probably the dumbest Thor ever to not realize what was going on. And it lead to a really wasted plot point of Loki finally in control of Asgard, and it was just hard to take him seriously in general in the movie.

I don't think Fandral is that different from Valkyrie, maybe a little more whimsical.

I mean, it's not that I dislike Valkyrie and Jane, but I like Thors' wider supporting cast more and feel like we could've done a lot more with them. But that ship has probably sailed. It just feels so small now other than Thor just becoming a cosmic adventurer, which I guess is fun but it feels limiting to his personal mythos.

Yeah I don’t think we were meant to take Loki seriously in Ragnarok, I think the idea was that Thor saw through the BS and so did we - I think Waititi clearly didn’t want to make him the villain either, which I understand. For me it gets a bit repetitive to have the same villain constantly returning, like Magneto in the Fox X men films

Valkyrie was characterised as more stubborn, aggressive, and obviously regretful/past caring, none of which I ever really got from Fandral - this could change in the new movie

I’ve said before that I feel the same way about Thor’s lore and mythology, but I think the ship sailed with Thor 2 honestly. I rewatched it recently, and I think it’s just one of the blandest films I’ve watched haha. There was a weird attempt to ground it by making it look darker and more akin to Game Of Thrones aesthetically (understandably given the director) but I think it really damaged the public’s perception of the character and his mythos

[Username taken]

I love the Warriors 3 from the comics and I like their depiction in the first two movies (it was the human cast that brought them down, imo). I think the reason why they were killed off is not because Taika and co didn't get them or like them but because they wanted a clean break from the franchise. Ragnarok was a reboot for Thor.

But the MCU is ever evolving, Sif is still around, the Multiverse still exists and Marvel could always bring them back if they wanted to. "Oh yeah, Volstagg has a bunch of kids, that Frandal got around a lot and this is a friend of Hogun's from his home planet". Thor is thus far the only franchise that doesn't have a D+ show spin off or at least tied into one.





Maybe I should put a 'Spoilers Beware' warning on this thread and if anybody wants to create a spoiler free thread they can do so?

My personal thoughts on the matter is that any discussion thread about a show/movie is going to have spoilers in it anyway.

If it's a case of early premier then I think those who got to watch it early should use spoiler tags for a couple of days until the rest of the posters have seen it.

Agreed.

Ragnarok was basically a soft re-boot for Thor.

Listening to Waititi and Hemsworth (especially Hemsworth) they really, REALLY wanted to break away from the previous movies. Hemsworth literally said he was bored with his performance and he was very careful with words but reading between the lines he didn't want to continue in the vein of Thor 1 and Thor 2.

I can't really say I blame him, Thor 2 was a very, very boring film.

[Jack The Tripper]

I'll just put it out there that the benefit of having a separate Spoiler thread for the film is that people who are unsure about seeing the film or unable to see it as early as they'd like can continue to come into this thread and check out the opinions of the regular posters without fear of being spoiled. Often I want to see the opinions of people I know from here rather than professionals.

I agree!!!

[phonogram12]

He was kind of sarcastic and sassy but I think it says a lot that Thor took it in good faith.

I don't know. In re to his intellect at the time, the Thor that Hemsworth portrayed in the first Thor movie reminded me a lot of the Thor in last year's What If? series. Like I said, he kinda just came off as oblivious until Loki spelled out how he felt and what he did.

I didn't get the sense that Loki had ever indicated the kind of stunts he pulled in the movies and beyond, which is why they were so shocked. Loki thought he was the black sheep but Thor and Odin genuinely loved him as family and he basically rejected it all until the very end of his life.

Like I said, I just didn't feel it. Their brotherly comradery really didn't come across to me until Ragnarok.

[John Venus]

I definitely felt the brotherly camaraderie through all 3 Thor movies plus the Avengers movies.

Only movie where I thought it was weak was in the first Avengers movie. The 'he's adopted' line felt like an instance of sacrificing character for quips. I think the first Thor movie is still the best when it came to capturing Loki's trickster side. Something that not even Loki's own show had trouble doing.

[Frobisher]

I definitely felt the brotherly camaraderie through all 3 Thor movies plus the Avengers movies.

Only movie where I thought it was weak was in the first Avengers movie. The 'he's adopted' line felt like an instance of sacrificing character for quips. I think the first Thor movie is still the best when it came to capturing Loki's trickster side. Something that not even Loki's own show had trouble doing.

Never been keen on the Joss Whedon school of quipping characters where it's just like they're speaking the director's lines for him.

[Scott Taylor]

Yah the "he's adopted" line has always been hurtful to me, as an adoptive parent and knowing many adopted kids. I look forward to the day when adoption isn't looked at as some kind of scary boogeyman

[John Venus]

Thor and Cap were very weak under Joss's direction. He had a stronger feel for Iron Man and Hulk.

Its weird looking back at Joss's two Avengers movies. It does feel like a nerdy fantasy movie. Tony is the guy whom a lot of tech geeks and programmers fantasize themselves to be; genius, billionaire and playboy. Banner is the shy, awkward geek, physically frail until he transforms into the Hulk. Natasha is the sexy spy/assassin who flirts with the geeky Bruce Banner. Meanwhile, Thor is treated like the dumb muscle, Steve is almost a stodgy conservative and Fury is the guy who brings them together.

[Nate Grey]

Lena Headey Sued for $1.5 Million Over Cut ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ Role and More

So whomever she was playing, whomever Peter Dinklage's character was (probably Eitri), and Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) were all cut from the final cut of Thor: Love and Thunder. If I had to guess I'd say Headey was playing Hera.