Thor: Dark World

[Ghambit]

Obviously I'm not complaining about Asgaard, nor am I saying the movie wasn't 'good.'  I could just do w/o the Disney camp vibe and Portman.  The more Asgard, the more Heimdahl, the more "Thor and Loki-ness," the better.

Matter of fact, had this been simply "The Continuing Adventures of Thor and Loki" or "Thor's campaign of the nine realms" I think it would've been better.

[K9]

I dont know what it is but Portman really just seems WAY out of place and a huge distraction in the movie; to the detriment of it.  And the interactions between her and Thor are ponderous at best; not well written at all. 

While I do love to see Natalie Portman on the screen, I do have to agree with this; her character is a lot less interesting in this film compared to the first, she lacks a lot of depth.

The best femme acting roles?  Obviously Rene Russo and Jaimie Alexander.

This I disagree with. While Renee Russo was good, and fit her part perfectly, Sif was one of the most dispensable, one-dimensional characters I have seen in any film in a long time. Take her out of the film and you would notice no difference. There was never any tension between her and Thor, there was never any suggestion that he had any interest in her. So she's reduced to this dubious amazon type who pouts a lot.

I think Kat Dennings did the most with her role in this film; which wasn't a whole lot anyway (none of the female roles were much really), but she did it well.

[Lakov_Sanite]

If you think about it, the cast was so big no single actor really got much time to give a full performance.  Not to say I didn't like it but it was much more of a fast paced thrill ride type movie than anything.  With how quickly the movie went and how many actors were splitting the pot, no one got time to shine.  It worked on an action movie level I think but they could have padded things a bit more.

[MediumHigh]

A few things that bother me I'll wrap in spoilers

[Khaldun]

Man, not even sure I want to go there on some of that. But ok.

[MediumHigh]

[Lakov_Sanite]

You realize medium trolls for fun on a near constant basis right? I keep forgetting that myself, just ignore him.

[MediumHigh]

A troll in f13 is someone who points out the reason they don't like something as much as they would like to in a movie thread. Gotcha.

[sickrubik]

Enjoyed the movie. Mid credits scene gets a thumb up from my nerd side, after credits scene was just dumb.

[jgsugden]

A troll in f13 is someone who points out the reason they don't like something as much as they would like to in a movie thread. Gotcha.

No.  It would benefit you to be able to identify the difference between what you're doing, and what you describe.

I enjoyed the film.  It had some flaws, but I think it was a good addition to the growing Marvel world.  And although the very last image may have fallen flat with some people, my wife absolutely adored it. 

[Sir T]

I have to say


Yeah, the Dark Elf attack on Asgard was one gigantic plot hole filled with plot holes, but it was fun to watch so I didn't mind it so much. Those Dark elf ships were way cool. But yeah. Sif was totally non existent as a character. Portman seems to be suffering from anorexia.

Interesting discussion on Loki. In many ways, in Norse myth, Loki was the problem solver of the Gods. Whenever there was some really vexing problem to be solved they always turned to the Lie-smith. So he had a very ambiguous position in the Norse pantheon as this guy who solved their problems was also going to be their enemy at Ragnerok, and he also spawned their greatest enemies.

[SurfD]

[MediumHigh]

You give this movie too much credit.

This movie is kinda like Iron Man 2 for me. Seriously punched a hole in my faith in Avengers 2 following up the first Avengers, much the same way Iron Man 2 deflated much of the excitement for more Marvel films. A lot of the things they expanded on fell flat. A lot of the action also fell flat and I was honestly hoping they expand Thor's abilities as oppose to cementing how utterly gimped he is. They got the comedy and the characterizations right, even brought the character to the somber reflective Thor of "God of Thunder". But I didn't walk out excited. Made me want to re-watch Spiderman 2  

[Velorath]

[Khaldun]

[Megrim]

A troll in f13 is someone who points out the reason they don't like something as much as they would like to in a movie thread. Gotcha.

No.  It would benefit you to be able to identify the difference between what you're doing, and what you describe.

I enjoyed the film.  It had some flaws, but I think it was a good addition to the growing Marvel world.  And although the very last image may have fallen flat with some people, my wife absolutely adored it. 

Well, he does have a point about the last battle sequence. I felt it was a bit average when compared to the rest of the movie. Needed the warriors three + Sif fighting the mooks to go along with Thor fighting the main guy.

[Mattemeo]

The last real helping we had of that was Chronicles of Riddick.  To be clear though, Riddick was a better film.

NO

[Khaldun]

Problem with the Warriors Three and Sif on Earth is always, "So what makes Thor special?" if they're overused or obligatory. If you look at the comics they're used pretty sparingly in a lot of Thor's adventures, especially on Earth, for precisely that reason.

Not to mention that Fandral is just Errol Flynn, Volstagg was a fat joke until Simonson saw something more interesting in the character, Hogun has always been a one-note Asian stoic, and Sif wasn't interesting at all until...Simonson again.

[murdoc]

I am tired of the bad guys wanting to throw the world(s) into darkness and decay and all that bullshit. Why would anyone want that? Let's destroy everything and then rule... no one? Baddies wanting to bring eternal darkness and shit is the worst motivation ever and really makes no sense.

This movie was funnier than I expected and that's about as much praise as I can give it. I am pretty Marveled out by this point though.

[Lakov_Sanite]

In movie lore the dark elves lived in the galaxy before light existed so supposedly they would continue to thrive without any stars.  Do not even get me started how on how dumb that sounds, I know.  Their plan was however internally consistent in the movie universe, as   as it may be scientifically.

[Khaldun]

Let's just say that somehow you were alive before the universe began (which, ok, you would not be a basically humanoid dude who hangs out with folks on a planet of humanoid dudes), I can see that you'd just as soon all those fuckers with the lights would go away. Of course, if you were used to time scales like "ten thousand years is just what happens when I take a crap" then just wait it out because it'll all be dark again eventually.

So yeah. As villains go, Malekith isn't much more than a screen saver. The real emotional action is between Thor and Loki.

[jgsugden]

I saw this a second time (not my first choice of how to spend the evening, but I was overruled). 

Things I noticed:

[Margalis]

Vaguely related piece I found interesting and agree with:

"Loki Is The Only Good Villain In Marvel Movies-- And That's A Big Problem"

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Loki-Good-Villain-Marvel-Movies-Big-Problem-40217.html

[jgsugden]

Loki is a part of the Thor mythos like Lex Luthor is a part of Superman and Joker is a part of Batman.  They're supporting characters as much as they are villians.  Few Marvel characters have a signature villian that is so tied to the hero.  Spiderman has dozens of signature foes (Doc Ock, Eletro, Rhino, Beetle, Blaster, Venom, Carnage, Green Goblin, Green Goblin II, Hobgoblin, Sandman, Hydroman, Kraven, Lizard, Kingpin, etc...) for example.  They each have villians they face more often (Iron Man has Mandarin, Cap has Skull/Zemo/other old world dominator, Hulk has Leader), but they spend less time with those villians and those villians do not define the hero in the same way.

I did think they wasted Stane, both in the comics and the movies.  Stark needs an indirect villian.  He needs a competitor that steals his tech, arms bad guys, and provides him with a rival he can't beat with weapons.  I loved Iron Man as a stand alone film, but it cut the cord on a number of really good long term possibilities.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I did like the twist on the mandarin originally in iron man three but the more I think about it they realllllly dropped the ball on having a stand out villain.  Most likely the iron man team knew they were done so didn't give a fuck about long lasting ramifications like "what about having the mandarin in avengers 2-3?"

[Trippy]

Vaguely related piece I found interesting and agree with:

"Loki Is The Only Good Villain In Marvel Movies-- And That's A Big Problem"

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Loki-Good-Villain-Marvel-Movies-Big-Problem-40217.html

Maybe this will get them to stop fucking killing off all the other villains in Marvel movies.

[jgsugden]

I did like the twist on the mandarin originally in iron man three but the more I think about it they realllllly dropped the ball on having a stand out villain.  Most likely the iron man team knew they were done so didn't give a fuck about long lasting ramifications like "what about having the mandarin in avengers 2-3?"

That was not ruined.  They specifically said that the Mandarin was a construct they built - which doesn't mean they didn't look to a showy figure that actually exists.  Given the reports of Kingsly filiming a short (likely to be packaged with Thor or to be shown before Cap II), I consider a 'real Mandarin' to be likely sometime in the next 18 months.  After all, they still need to reconcile the 10 Rings organization, the ring on the baddie in IM I, and the Mandarin.

[Father mike]

I did think they wasted Stane, both in the comics and the movies.  Stark needs an indirect villian.  He needs a competitor that steals his tech, arms bad guys, and provides him with a rival he can't beat with weapons.  I loved Iron Man as a stand alone film, but it cut the cord on a number of really good long term possibilities.

Even though they played him as a buffoon in IM2, Justin Hammer could fill that role without too much difficulty.  Especially if there was some sort of post-failure epiphany.  Or the ingestion of dangerous serums (since it's a comic book movie).

[jgsugden]

...Even though they played him as a buffoon in IM2, Justin Hammer could fill that role without too much difficulty.  Especially if there was some sort of post-failure epiphany.  Or the ingestion of dangerous serums (since it's a comic book movie).

Maybe, but I have a soft spot for Stane.  In retrosepct, I think they'd have been better served with:

IM I - Instead of fighting Stane at the end of the movie, have IM face off against the terrorists and the Mandarin (who we discover is a minion of Stane - although we get hints that there is a real bad-ass Mandarin out there).  Stane stealing Stark Enterprises from Tony.  Tony keeps the tech from Stane, but ends up pennyless and blamed for the destruction caused by the fights.

IM II - Demon in a Bottle, Stark International, and Rhodey taking up the suit to stop Stane's (Extremis?) soldiers from stealing Stark Tech while Tony is passed out- but failing.  The climax would be Stark versus Stane with the IM 200 ending (vastle superior ending to that battle).

Avengers - Same.

IM III - Armor Wars.  (Imagine if the ending battle was not 30+ suits of IM armor versus Extremis, but was IM versus 30+ armored villians).

[Margalis]

I do agree that some Marvel characters have a pretty weak assortment of villains, and I think that can work if the emphasis is more on situations and characters, but for the Marvel movies to be big action adventure faire better villains would be nice. Even if the character in the comics doesn't have a singular great villain there's no reason why the movies can't elevate one a little. Iron Man 2 didn't even really have a relevant villain at all - one of the problems with that movie is that the villain has no bearing on the protagonist for most of the movie.

I also think that an origin story or first movie can maybe skimp on the villain a little - the villain in IM1 is pretty lame but the movie has a lot of other stuff going on. However once the character is clearly established you lose a lot by not having a decent antagonist.

The key thing I agree with in that piece is that they are getting good actors to play the villains then not doing much with them. In a lot of the movies they feel completely disposable.

The caliber of the actors who have come and gone as Marvel villains is staggering-- Jeff Bridges won an Oscar after playing Obadiah Stane in Iron Man, Mickey Rourke nearly got one while shooting Iron Man 2, and Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, Tim Roth, Sam Rockwell and Ben mother-f'ing Kingsley (an Oscar winner too, of course) are all treasures in their own right. But every single one of them has gotten lost in the chaos of a movie that barely seemed like it needed them, the villains existing to wind up the action, pop up once in a while to provide a new threat, and get whaled on by the hero in the very end. You can make an argument for any of these actors in minor moments-- Sam Rockwell's suits as Justin Hammer, the phenomenal reveal of Kingsley's Mandarin-- but not a single one of them had motivations, or a story, that actually mattered to the plot. By the end of the movie all of them are sent on their way, either killed or out of power, and the deck is shuffled to allow the next Avenger to take on the next classy actor looking to build a vacation home.

[eldaec]

Armor vs armor leads you to the transformers problem. You stop caring who is on which side unless the film has decent characterisation and scripting. Since it apparently makes you a hipster around here if you expect those things from a marvel film, designing the premise to depend on them would be unwise.

[MediumHigh]

IronMan works because he plays up to Hollywood writes anyway. Smartest guy in the room assholes whose primary enemies are either dumb greedy assholes or smart greedy assholes. The last three IronMan movies is about a guy fighting an unethical evil corporation/ceo. Yeah the last 10 years of film and social commentary passing as science fiction wants its postcard.

They don't know what to do with Thor or the Hulk or in someways the Avengers. Yes the movie (the avengers) was awesome but if I didn't have a nerd boner for seeing shit like thor fighting iron, the hulk smash around loki, scarlet joe in anything, than the movie would have crumbled if it had to rely solely on the strength of its plot and consistency. And maybe I thought that that was a simple nitpick with the avenger and it didn't need to be "that" solid...but than Thor 2 came out and now I'm officially worried.

[jgsugden]

Armor vs armor leads you to the transformers problem. You stop caring who is on which side unless the film has decent characterisation and scripting. Since it apparently makes you a hipster around here if you expect those things from a marvel film, designing the premise to depend on them would be unwise.

You're assuming that you can't develop a story and designs that are evocative and distinct.  Transformers fails because all of the robots are essentially the same.  That does not need to be the case for a comic adaption as you can have 20 different beings in 20 different armors that are far more differentiated than what we saw at the end of IM III - all of those armors were intended to be versions of Iron Man.  You don't need that limiting factor when introducting Guardsmen Armors / Mandroids for SHIELD, Titanium Man, Crimson Dynamo, Beetle, Stingray, etc...  They can be more distinct and focus on their iconic natures. 

[Ironwood]

Quite.  Bear in mind that the new Transformers fails in that regard mostly because it ignores what came before.  Transformers was doing just fine in terms of characterisation and recognisablity until the enormous walking penis that is Bay got hold of them.

And that was Impressive for sooooo many transformers being in the mix.  Bay only had to get 8 or so to do it and failed fucking miserably.


Like the previous poster, I think making the 'suits' distinctive and have 'hooks' would make it perfectly acceptable.  After all, most of the Iron Man 3 armors were recognisable and 'different';  the only problem being they were in about five minutes and had no exposition.  The list in the previous post would make fine foes if handled correctly, which technically Crimson Dynamo wasn't really....

[Velorath]

I did like the twist on the mandarin originally in iron man three but the more I think about it they realllllly dropped the ball on having a stand out villain.  Most likely the iron man team knew they were done so didn't give a fuck about long lasting ramifications like "what about having the mandarin in avengers 2-3?"

I think it's partly a matter of how much can you bring a villain back without it feeling like a retread. There have been eight movies so far, and Loki has been in three of them. You start bringing back villains from all the other series and things start to feel a little stagnant. I do agree that it would be nice if at least one of Iron Man's villains had lived. As things stand right now, Hulk still has the Abomination (and the Leader), Thor has Loki, and Cap has the Red Skull (and Zola potentially). I guess depending on how they rework Ultron's origin, maybe could be Stark's ongoing villain. They could put together a decent Master's of Evil out of that roster if they wanted to do so for Avengers 4.