Thor: Love And Thunder 'Here There Be Spoilers'

[Somecrazyaussie]

Then what is the formula? I’ve heard it mentioned a lot but no one has ever really explained what it is. What is it? How does it work? Why has no other studio been able to replicate it? Does Feige keep it locked in a vault beneath Marvel Studios?

I have questions.

It's locked in Feige's head.

As others have pointed out, it's similar to typical 80s films and most blockbuster films. Built upon the heroes journey. The difference is Marvel likes to have their characters be slightly light and alloof. Humour is also injected at regular intervals. The Russos themselves even said that Feige likes to hear the audience laugh every 5 minutes or so as that is an indicator to him they are enjoying the picture.

Ignore the different dressing, but the formula also incorporates the fact that the MCU (like the comics themselves) has a house style they follow in that most (Not all) often have similar colour palettes, edited in a similar way, similar choreography, same type of humour, characters often deliver one-liners.

The Netflix shows had a formula that you can see throughout each show regardless of how it's dressed. The films do too (with exceptions such as Raimi, Gunn, Coogler to a degree).

But if Marvel just followed similar film formulas, they'd look like every other film that used that formula. They don't. When you watch a Marvel film, you know you are watching a Marvel film without even seeing the logo due to how it looks and sounds.

[Somecrazyaussie]

So the question becomes, what do you consider a "serious" film? Because Infinity War and Endgame felt pretty serious. Like, epic and world ending-ly serious. Black Widow is a serious film. Shang-Chi is a serious film. Eternals was bad, but a serious film. Doctor Strange 2 is a frickin Greek tragedy in film form.

Infinity War is one of the few MCU films that actually knew when to pull it's punches and allowed the tension to build. When the climax hit, it hit hard because it wasn't undercut by mistimed jokes or gags. Even snarky characters like Tony Stark were straight laced.

Endgame didn't have that balance because it spent a good 1 hour and 40 minutes in the middle whereby it was one big run around that served nothing except to be an exercise in celebratory backslapping (which one can sort of give them since it was capping off 10 years worth of story).

The last 40 minutes of it though? I can't fault it. Its middle act I can. You can rescore that entire act with the time travelling to Benny Hill music and it would look just as ridiculous as Benny chasing the girls up and down the hills.

Just because a film has humor doesn't make it a comedy. Having laughs doesn't make a film "not serious." The only MCU films that are genuinely comedies are the two GotG films and Ragnarok. And, honestly, Ragnarok plays with the action comedy mold from the 80's. Nothing wrong with that at all.

And just because a film has moments of serious, dramatic tension doesn't mean it's a dour, soul crushing film that will leave it's audience depressed.

You sound like you want dour. Dour isn't fun, the world doesn't need dour right now. The Batman was dour. And boring AF.

Wrong. I want films that know how to strike a balance with its narrative. A film is very much like a piece of music. If the notes are off, and don't hit when they are supposed to, it throws the whole composition off. I want to laugh when I am supposed to. I want to fear for the heroes when it looks like they are on the edge of defeat. To cheer when they eventually rally and emerge victorious.

If the hero does nothing but quip and one-line their way through the entire film you don't get the feeling of concern. The hero is taking the absolute piss out of the situation, so why the hell should we, as the audience, take it seriously? You can't get emotionally invested that way. Storytelling is supposed to entertain, yes. But it also has to take you on an emotional journey as well.

Thor: The Dark World was devoid of humour. Ragnarok had too much of it. See what I mean? It needs a mixture of both in equal measure.

You say you want your hero to be taken seriously. But life doesn't always take people seriously. Sometimes even the most stoic and straight laced are in an elevator when someone farts. Not necessarily funny, but real. We all find ourselves out of our depth from time to time. And sometimes all you can do is laugh. Particularly when the alternative might be breaking under the stress.

A hero needs to be put under stress from time to time. That's how they are tested. Challenged. If they go through the entire thing being flippant, any challenge or threat is rendered mute.

[Panic]

Thor: The Dark World was devoid of humour.

It wasn't - I remember laughing through the first half. Most of it was confined to the Earth-bound supporting cast, though.

My issues with T:TDW were that I found the action and drama completely unengaging. Ragnarok had great fight sequences, but The Dark World... I can't remember any of the action.

[Somecrazyaussie]

It wasn't - I remember laughing through the first half. Most of it was confined to the Earth-bound supporting cast, though.

Loki, Darcy and Selvig. Apart from a few instances, it's a serious affair.

My with T:TDW were that I found the action and drama completely unengaging. Ragnarok had great fight sequences, but The Dark World... I can't remember any of the action.

When compared to Ragnarok it is night and day. Hence why Ragnarok seems like the Marvel took the criticisms levelled at TDW and did a total 180.

[Anthony W]

Maybe the problems with Thor:The Dark World wasn't the fact that it was "serous" maybe it was just a badly written movie from a bad director?

[phonogram12]

I honestly just don't think it leaned into the strengths and the kind of chemistry of the two lead actors enough.

[HollowSage]

It's locked in Feige's head.

As others have pointed out, it's similar to typical 80s films and most blockbuster films. Built upon the heroes journey. The difference is Marvel likes to have their characters be slightly light and alloof. Humour is also injected at regular intervals. The Russos themselves even said that Feige likes to hear the audience laugh every 5 minutes or so as that is an indicator to him they are enjoying the picture.

Ignore the different dressing, but the formula also incorporates the fact that the MCU (like the comics themselves) has a house style they follow in that most (Not all) often have similar colour palettes, edited in a similar way, similar choreography, same type of humour, characters often deliver one-liners.

The Netflix shows had a formula that you can see throughout each show regardless of how it's dressed. The films do too (with exceptions such as Raimi, Gunn, Coogler to a degree).

But if Marvel just followed similar film formulas, they'd look like every other film that used that formula. They don't. When you watch a Marvel film, you know you are watching a Marvel film without even seeing the logo due to how it looks and sounds.

So basically the “formula” is they make big budget action movies with a lot more colors and cgi because ya know, Superheroes. Is that it?

So what was the problem with that?

[Alan2099]

So the "Marvel formula" is "Make an action movie that's pretty to look at and has characters people like."

Again, I don't see how that's not almost every action movie ever.

If there's a difference it would seem to be that Marvel movies tend to have bigger budgets and better special effects, but that's hardly anything I would call a formula.

[Somecrazyaussie]

So basically the “formula” is they make big budget action movies with a lot more colors and cgi because ya know, Superheroes. Is that it?

So what was the problem with that?

The problem with which? Thor: Ragnarok or the "sameness" of the MCU films? I've gone over the former to death and the latter Marvel is now addressing themselves by having the films "break" from the sameness.

Ignoring all the criticisms of MoM (I.e treatment of Wanda and a few glaring plot choices), what was one of the common gripes? It supposedly didn't "look and feel" like an MCU film. For me, that was one of its strengths.

Actually, now that I think about it, phase 4 isn't going over well precisely for that reason. It's daring to be different. And, in all fairness, it needs to be if it wants to remain relevant.

[Anthony W]

Actually, now that I think about it, phase 4 isn't going over well precisely for that reason. It's daring to be different. And, in all fairness, it needs to be if it wants to remain relevant.

I think the reason why Phase 4 isn't going over very well is because Marvel is almost out of the good characters.

[Somecrazyaussie]

So the "Marvel formula" is "Make an action movie that's pretty to look at and has characters people like."

Again, I don't see how that's not almost every action movie ever.

If there's a difference it would seem to be that Marvel movies tend to have bigger budgets and better special effects, but that's hardly anything I would call a formula.

"Make a film that's pretty to look at and has characters people like WITH tired gags and one-liners that don't often flow from the narrative, feel shoehorned in, and comes close to undercutting said narrative."

You need a little substance to go with the flash.

[Somecrazyaussie]

I think the reason why Phase 4 isn't going over very well is because Marvel is almost out of the good characters.

They still have Spidey, Hulk, Thor, Doctor Strange, Black Panther (If they'd just recast), X-men are still to come, Fantastic Four...

They have plenty of good characters left.

[Jack The Tripper]

I think the reason why Phase 4 isn't going over very well is because Marvel is almost out of the good characters.

In my opinion the only reason it isn’t going over as well as previous phases is due to its quantity (11 projects in under a year) and its general quality being quite average in terms of excitement. It’s very much an introductory phase, coming off of the super fun that was phase 3.

I think new characters have been fairly well received apart from the Eternals - Shang Chi, Kate Bishop, Yelena Belova, Red Guardian and Moon Knight have all had good responses from the audience. And, really, the only characters that are gone are Tony and Steve and they weren’t the only worthwhile characters in the MCU.

And soon they’ll have the Fantastic 4 and X-Men who have better, and more stories/source material to draw on than most, if not all, of the characters currently in the MCU imo

[WebLurker]

So the "Marvel formula" is "Make an action movie that's pretty to look at and has characters people like."

Again, I don't see how that's not almost every action movie ever.

If there's a difference it would seem to be that Marvel movies tend to have bigger budgets and better special effects, but that's hardly anything I would call a formula.

Yeah, I've noticed that those who insist that the MCU uses some formula can never actually describe a specific formula and end up just either describing a vague three-act structure that fits everything and so is an anti-formula or just insist that they're right because, look comedy and colors equal mass-produced entertainment.

Course, as MCU movies become even more creative and experimental, those same people become even more vocal over their formula myth, so make of that what you will.

[Castle]

In my opinion the only reason it isn’t going over as well as previous phases is due to its quantity (11 projects in under a year) and its general quality being quite average in terms of excitement. It’s very much an introductory phase, coming off of the super fun that was phase 3.

I think new characters have been fairly well received apart from the Eternals - Shang Chi, Kate Bishop, Yelena Belova, Red Guardian and Moon Knight have all had good responses from the audience. And, really, the only characters that are gone are Tony and Steve and they weren’t the only worthwhile characters in the MCU.

And soon they’ll have the Fantastic 4 and X-Men who have better, and more stories/source material to draw on than most, if not all, of the characters currently in the MCU imo

They still have Spidey, Hulk, Thor, Doctor Strange, Black Panther (If they'd just recast), X-men are still to come, Fantastic Four...

They have plenty of good characters left.

I would have to disagree, also for the note that they have already used all those characters you mentioned.

-Spidey already has 3 films and has made appearance in other films like civil war and endgame
-you can say the same for dr strange and he has 2 solo outings
-black panther, I feel they should have recast
-X-MEN and F4 been judged by what we seen from dr strange 2, Marvel has nothing to showcase these characters especially with what fox already managed to cover in x-men.

And with F4, I think in that 2005-2007 era of comic films, the standard was just darm too high. Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, X-Men 2. The F4 films fell short, but when I look at those F4 films now in 2022. If those F4 films were to come out now, they will get dr strange and shang chi kind of reviews.

I cannot spoil much about multiverse of madness in terms of plot, but what I will say is that when you watch dr strange 2, the movies fails artistically using x-men on film in a quite fantastic juxtaposition of what made x-men 1 succeed in changing the genre for the better. what dr strange 2 has shown is that Feige's understanding of xmen may be very limited in knowing what made x-men a far different series than the rest of the marvel clan, to the extent that they have their own universe that can stand on their own without the rest of marvel.

There is also barley even any energy to spend or waste talking about what the blazes Patrick Stewart and John Krasinski was doing in dr strange 2. it felt like gaslighting of their characters and I am happy some critics were bold enough to call this out when they reviewed the movie. Yahoo review even saying, Stewart been in the film was disrespectful to the Logan movie.I think this is how disappointing dr strange 2 truly felt using the multiverse as a platform to twerk some xmen/f4 stuff unnecessary crossovers.

Watching dr strange 2 and NHW and their dependency of more crossovers as with love and thunder mixing up with GOTG. It already looks stuffy, because you have like 2 hours 20 minutes. this does not feel like enough time to squeeze in jane's story of becoming female thor which should be a big deal and a lot of Asgard stuff to then now make room for GOTG. So it feels like there are plenty of more characters to gaslight than actually use for long lasting remembrance.