Originally Posted by cherokeesam
I certainly agree that Alice Krige might be playing Hela, and your story about her finding Algrim in the underworld and powering him up is certainly plausible. Like others, though, I wonder about Krige's comment about being "unrecognizable" --- for Hela? Really? Hela doesn't require a ton of makeup/prosthetics. She's a typical hot villainess in a creepy mask.
But here's my question to you, and all of you, who say "save Surtur for Thor 3": why? I see Thor 3 returning almost exclusively to Earth, showing Thor as a superhero, as Stan Lee intended, not a god wandering distant worlds. That's what Thor 2 is for --- to establish who Thor is and where he comes from. After that, he needs to start acting more like the earthly defender that he is in the comic books. There's still tons of earth-based iconic villains he still has to face....you want to wait until Thor 4, Thor 5 or later for that? There's no promise that the franchise will even last that long, especially if the setting remains too far detached from Midgard.
And why do you (all of you, in general) think that Surtur requires a whole 'nother movie for setup and resolution of conflict? Surtur is one of Thor's greatest bad guys, but hey, so is Joker for Batman, and he's never required more than 2 movies per reboot. Fire giant demon lord of Muspellheim, fated to slay Odin and destroy Asgard: got it. That does *not* require more than a few minutes of exposition and backstory. All it requires is a *****in' boss battle, the best one Thor ever faces.
Well a couple things here Sam. Some of us feel it may be doing Surtur injustice for having him just be a boss battle. It would be cool to tell a whole story about surtur. However, its not just that, given circumstance, yeah, him as a boss battle would be cool.
But we aren't hung up on the fact that he needs a whole movie to be set up.
Its the fact that there are already two villains, possibly three in this movie.
As I said, Surtur can carry a movie by himself. So with These three villains, the desire for surtur, and IF he appears in this movie, it just seems likely, that given the circumstance, it will be setting him up.
I don't think he NEEDS to be set up. I think he can be introduced, covered, and defeated in one movie. It's just there is already so much going on.
Originally Posted by Chewy
Thor exclusively defending Earth, whether that was Stan Lee's original intent or not, is boring. That's every superhero movie. They've spent two movies setting him up as a protector of both worlds, and we're already getting Thor based on Earth in the Avengers movies. Spending time on Asgard is what separates the Thor movies from the other movies, and it's what the general public associates with the character now. Besides, who are the "iconic" Earth-based villains? Absorbing Man? Already bastardized into the 03 Hulk movie. The Wrecking Crew? lol
The impending destruction of all of Asgard, the death of Odin, the unleashing of a feared ancient monster from Asgardian myth, the Ragnarok, Loki's "redemption" at long last, there's a Thor 3 in there. A good one. Thor flies to Earth, punches Mr. Hyde in the face, and poses for pictures? Not really.
Thor's budding relationship with Jane, Jane's visit to Asgard, Odin's disapproval of Thor's love for Earth and Jane, Loki's punishment and weaseling out of it, Malekith kidnapping Jane and betraying his soldier, Kurse's resurrection and lust for revenge, and Kurse realizing he was betrayed and getting his peace. That's dense. It's an entire movie. It's not the throwaway set-up for a third act doomsday scenario.
Basically I want Thor 3 to be a Ragnarok thing. That could also explain the lack of Balder