THOR - Movie

[gameplan.exe]

Saw the midnight release last night. No spoilers, but it exceeded my expectations and launched itself near the top of my favorite Comic book movies. 

[Nostalgic]

Looking forward to it. I played an Avengers Homebase deck, using Thor of course, in honor of the movie last night. 

[metaphist]

I concur with ncannelora on it being in the top comic book movies so far. I had no idea it was in 3d still I got there though, I don't remember them advertising that at all :p

[Palatinus]

I am very much hoping to see this movie this weekend.

[Nostalgic]

Yep it was awsome. 

[Nate Grey]

Thor was spectacular!! Everything I hoped it would be! Saw it in both 3D and 2D. 

[Kyle]

I give Thor a wholehearted MEH. *spoilers*

There's only so much suspension of disbelief my mind will allow... this movie surpassed that threshold in the first 15 minutes. Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy. I mean... Frost giants...? Really? And he suffers from "Superman Syndrome", meaning he's so tough, no one really worries about whether he can be defeated... so really, the suspense is just gone. And really, is the "love story" necessary. Thor spends a day on earth and is in love with some woman he's spent maybe 12 hours with. Right.

However, all the actors were well selected, and all did a good job in their roles. I thought Loki was a real scene stealer, the actor nailed him perfectly.

Now Captain America, on the other hands, looks awesome. Can't wait!

[Palatinus]

I give Thor a wholehearted MEH. *spoilers*

There's only so much suspension of disbelief my mind will allow... this movie surpassed that threshold in the first 15 minutes. Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy. I mean... Frost giants...? Really? And he suffers from "Superman Syndrome", meaning he's so tough, no one really worries about whether he can be defeated... so really, the suspense is just gone. And really, is the "love story" necessary. Thor spends a day on earth and is in love with some woman he's spent maybe 12 hours with. Right.

However, all the actors were well selected, and all did a good job in their roles. I thought Loki was a real scene stealer, the actor nailed him perfectly.

Now Captain America, on the other hands, looks awesome. Can't wait!

I agree with some of your points but I still feel it was a very good and fun movie.  Also, Loki was really good.  The whole relationship between Thor, Loki, and Odin in this movie was better done than I have seen it anywhere else in Marvel.  I see the "Superman Syndrome" you mention as part of the problem with the last several Marvel movies.  The problem that I see is that we now have all these really powerful heroes and we have no worthy villains.  In Iron Man 1 and 2 he fought two old men.  Hulk fought humans the whole movie until the very end and that battle didn't last very long.  Thor fought . . . everyone, but none of them really were a challenge.  We need good villains at this point.  I really hope that the Avengers movie gives us some really good bad guys.

As for the love story . . . was it necessary?  For the plot, no.  For the character development, not really.  Because it is a hollywood movie and they believe that the only thing people really care about is whether or not the guy and girl get together . . . unfortunately, yes.  If you go see a hollywood movie, you will get a love story somewhere in there.  So we have to accept that and move on.

[BigBadHarve]

I also liked it, but I didn't love it.

They hit all the beats that needed to be hit, but didn't go any further.

The 'Superman' thing didn't bother me at all. In fact, I'm glad they kept it. I loved the fact that he was unstoppable for a number of reasons. First, it means something when he gets his power stripped away from him. Dramatically, they didn't capitalize on it as much as I would have hoped for, though. Second - odds are that Thor will have to go toe-to-toe with the Hulk in the Avengers - and we need to believe that he can. Third -most of these superhero characters have an 'implied' invincibility anyway. Even though they aren't all truly invincible, they might as well be, because we know they won't die. We know that whatever the odds, they will triumph. The real tension doesn't come from the physical threat, it comes from the dilemmas and choices they have to make while dealing with the threat. What does the hero need to sacrifice in order to triumph? That's what keeps us watching.

The effects were decent. The Acting was good. The romantic subplot was weak. I didn't mind them including something, but at least develop it. He's a God, immortal, powerful. I don't get what it is that he saw in Jane Foster. Also, in an effort to be PC about it and making her an astrophysicist (because making her a nurse as per the original comics would be degrading to women somehow) cost them a great opportunity to explore Thor's humbling. Imagine some scenes where Jane is tending to injured people in a triage, injured people pouring in left, right and centre because of some natural disaster (possibly caused by Thor's careless use of his power?) Here we have an opportunity to explore her compassionate nature, which is something that could attract Thor. Thor's guilt and regret as the suffering he may have caused would be a major step to finding his humility and being worthy to wield Mjolnir again.

That's one idea off the top of my head. As I say, I enjoyed it as far as it went, but there were more than a few missed opportunities.

Still, the lead up to the Avengers has been good so far. I liked the Two Iron Man films, didn't mind Hulk and Thor, eagerly awaiting Captain America.... let's see what the Avengers has for us! One year away!

-BBH

[Palatinus]

That's some good analysis from BBH.  They just shoehorned in that love story instead of using it to further the character development and plot.  I feel like the problem with some of the stuff in these movies is that origin stories kill the pace.  Batman Begins suffered from this, the first Spider-man, while Iron Man I felt handled it a little better.  On the other hand, I felt The Hulk was a better paced movie because we didn't get an origin story, we got a superhero story.  Captain America, I feel, is a little different because in a large way everything we need to know about him is in his origin story.  It impacts not just his powers and abilities, but his behavior and interactions with others.

[gameplan.exe]

The 'Superman' thing didn't bother me at all. In fact, I'm glad they kept it. I loved the fact that he was unstoppable for a number of reasons. First, it means something when he gets his power stripped away from him. Dramatically, they didn't capitalize on it as much as I would have hoped for, though. Second - odds are that Thor will have to go toe-to-toe with the Hulk in the Avengers - and we need to believe that he can. Third -most of these superhero characters have an 'implied' invincibility anyway. Even though they aren't all truly invincible, they might as well be, because we know they won't die. We know that whatever the odds, they will triumph. The real tension doesn't come from the physical threat, it comes from the dilemmas and choices they have to make while dealing with the threat. What does the hero need to sacrifice in order to triumph? That's what keeps us watching....

-BBH

I agree with this, for all of the individual-type heroes. However, that's what first drew me to the X-men. Because they're a team, they can suffer actual deaths. And while Jean Grey continues to be revived over and over, Doug Ramsey is still dead is dead ( ). While we all know that Wolverine will never be killed, other good characters like Colossus, Iceman, Mystique... who knows? I mean, it'd be a huge upset, but they killed Jean Grey while she was quite popular.

Along the same lines, though, as BBH said, I don't mind the Superman-esque invincibility for a character who is supposed to be a god. It's his other dilemmas along the way that I find so intriguing. For this movie, in particular, I thought his fighting without Mjolnir was good. I'm a hopeless romantic, so I found the story with Jane to be good, despite its shallow nature, and his having to leave her behind was good bitterness to add to the sweetness of victory.

Going along with these movies, what would really help them is a villain that lasts throughout a trilogy. Empire Strikes Back was good because Vader "won" during that movie. Honestly, I think that Rise Of The Silver Surfer would have been really good had Dr.Doom struck the FF down at the end, after ending the threat of Galactus (and, had Galactus been a real character, instead of the Smoke Monster from LOST).

Having the villain strike a serious blow to the hero, then ending the movie, is a great way to get people to watch a third movie.

[metaphist]

Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy.

I'd say that's more a problem with the lore than with the movie adaptation. Not something you can really change, as opposed to Jane Foster's occupation. At least they didn't pull another Deadpool on us, though.

[Kyle]

Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy.

I'd say that's more a problem with the lore than with the movie adaptation. Not something you can really change, as opposed to Jane Foster's occupation. At least they didn't pull another Deadpool on us, though.

Yes, it is very much a problem with the lore, which affects my views of how good the movie is. As far as I could tell, the adaptation was fairly accurate... no "Deadpools" to be found, which I'm sure makes Thor fans happy.

[Palatinus]

Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy.

I'd say that's more a problem with the lore than with the movie adaptation. Not something you can really change, as opposed to Jane Foster's occupation. At least they didn't pull another Deadpool on us, though.

Yes, it is very much a problem with the lore, which affects my views of how good the movie is. As far as I could tell, the adaptation was fairly accurate... no "Deadpools" to be found, which I'm sure makes Thor fans happy.

Does Thor have a strong following by comic book fans?  I've always viewed him as a fringe character.  He has some interesting stories but not exactly an A-Rank character.

[Kyle]

Plus, I admit to finding the whole Thor/Asgard/Nine Realms stuff just a little too cheesy.

I'd say that's more a problem with the lore than with the movie adaptation. Not something you can really change, as opposed to Jane Foster's occupation. At least they didn't pull another Deadpool on us, though.

Yes, it is very much a problem with the lore, which affects my views of how good the movie is. As far as I could tell, the adaptation was fairly accurate... no "Deadpools" to be found, which I'm sure makes Thor fans happy.

Does Thor have a strong following by comic book fans?  I've always viewed him as a fringe character.  He has some interesting stories but not exactly an A-Rank character.

Well, he's a part of the Avenger's, and he's got his solo title, both of which have always done reasonably well... so I'm pretty sure he has his fair share of fans. Not at the Spidey/Batman popularity level, but more fans than, say, Ghost Rider.